It's not just time for a boycott of the RW

[ck4829]

Remember when we all decided to boycott Sinclair Broadcasting?

Those were good times, it was interesting to watch RW'ers have a temper tantrum and it was almost funny when Hyman said he was going to sue Media Matters for something that was actually legal.

The RW is all about money, power, etc. and we need to attack them on that.

That is why we need to make an action against the RW in general, we need to destroy it to save America and quite possibly the world.

What I am proposing is not a simple boycott, but an embargo against the RW in general.

Who wants to help America fight these Criminals?

[ananda]

1. embargo?

What do you have in mind? I'm already boycotting as much as I can.

Sue

[ck4829]

2. A super boycott

It seems as though you are already doing it, if only there were more people like you.

What we need to do is an organized and near total boycott of all RW funders and linked groups.

[FreedomAngel82]

3. Same here

I try but it's hard when all these major companies are rightwing donaters.

[ck4829]

5. What we need to do is educate people about it

You are also doing what I proposed it seems, what we need to do is spread it and enable more people to participate in the general boycott of the RW.

[Protagoras]

4. I'd like to see a Liberal SPEAKER bocyott of Fox

and real enforcement of it. Any Dem that sits down on Hannity etc should have a massive cut in donations and massive negative feedback.

Until we stop feeding ourselves to the lions there we'll have little hope of achieving fair and balanced anything.

Just think what would happen if there were no strawmen voices on O'Rielly and Hannity...

Imagine if Colmes walked off and called it for the sham it was.

Oh well nevermind I'm dreaming.

[ck4829]

6. That's good

We need actions like this. We need to tell them we will not deal with Liars abd Thieves.

[AntiCoup2K4]

7. How often do Liberals speak on FAUX anyway?

Colmes? Yeah right.
Susan Ostrich? Spare me. (and no, that wasn't a typo)

Granted, they love the DLC'ers, and the feeling appears to be mutual (Holy Joe, Richardson, Biden, etc) but then they aren't liberals.

Even Juan Williams, who seemed to pass for a Liberal at least enough to piss off Twit Hume, now appears to be gone from FAUX Sunday, with some neocon shill from the Boston Globe taking his place.

[Protagoras]

8. Ok perhaps we should say "democrats"

...yank all support from all Democrats who pander to Fox's propaganda effort. And I agree with your distinction. But perhaps if we hurt them all enough it'll be harder for the DLCers to keep pretending they are part of our camp.

[noamnety]

9. circular firing squad again?

The point is to fight against the RW, not against the dems.

[ck4829]

10. I think we should go to the point of censure for Democrats who

do the things the posters above me have suggested and go no higher than that.

You are right, we need to fight the Right, but we need to make sure that our side is not empowering them at the same time.

[Protagoras]

12. No not at all, though if you perceive any criticism of

people who wear the mantle of Democrat while advancing RW or NEOCON agendas as such well then...that's your choice.

I'm all for promoting the hell out of democrats and liberals who work for us. But I'm also for recognizing that even a BIG TENT has walls. And people who stand on the outside but try and claim membership need to be shown the boundaries.

All I'm saying is that FOX Propaganda Network may be one of those boundaries that is necessary to define clearly.

My claim is democrats who appear on FOX are strenghtening their cause and weakening ours in a substantial way...and I further claim that most of them must be aware of that. If you wish to disagree with either of those two positions that's cool. Be happy to read your thoughts on the matter. But it's hardly a circular firing squad to hold either position.

[noamnety]

14. I'm not a one issue voter

And I'm certainly not in favor of what I view as a reactionary stance here - creating arbitrary lines in the sand that are folks can never cross, or else they lose all support. Yes, Fox is bad. But so are the majority of all network news stations, no? And the written press?

It's the equivalent of the fundies voting against their own interest on the economy, health care, the federal budget, and so forth because of a politician's opinion on gay marriage. It's foolhardy.

None of us will have a politician we agree with 100% on every particular vote or issue. We can't go around withholding support for each congressman who does an individual act that we disagree with.

He voted for Real ID. No support for him.
This one voted to accept the electoral results. No support for him.
This one here supports civil unions, but not gay marriage. No support for her.
This one said abortions should be legal but rare. No support for him.
This one went on Fox News. No support for her.


When we start acting that way, it most certainly IS a circular firing squad. We attack our own enough as it is. The last thing we need is more rules mandating that we step up the attacks.

[Protagoras]

16. Of course there are issues that are more important than others

and one does not have to be a SINGLE issue voter in order to draw lines. In fact I think the hesitancy to draw some lines is every bit as dangerous as drawing too many. When you call something "reactionary" do you mean acting in response to someone else's behavior? Then OF COURSE WE DO.

Nothing arbitrary about it. We draw lines all the times in all aspects of our lives. Should they be supported by facts and reason? Of course. But they still need to be drawn. That's how we get laws. That's why we vote in the first place. That's why we buy what we buy, donate when we donate, withold donations when we withold, etc. Because we have discretion. We weigh the relative risks and rewards.

I'd say clearly sending them a message before hand that we expect them to defend our causes (en mass) by refraining from supporting FOX is a prime example of a pro-active position. It is a response to a situation and need...not a kneejerk reaction to random acts. We tell them our expectations..i.e. define the rules of the game. It would be reactive if it were unstructured, unannouned, unexpected. But that isn't what is being discussed here. Reactivity and response are entirely different approaches. One is forward looking, the other is backward looking.

You seem ready to attack a position because it holds a line YOU don't agree with...but I suspect there are plenty of places a politician could go that would have you drawing lines.

Or are you saying as long as they call themselves a Democrat we should place no limits on their behavior before we withdraw support?
Just curious. Aside from naysaying...what positions or actions do you think are serious enough to respond to with a boycott or withdrawl of support?

Maybe we're not so far apart but speaking different languages...sometimes that happens here I notice.

[noamnety]

20. I'm saying you weigh the good vs. the bad

Support the politicians that do more good than bad. The amount of support they get is determined by the ratio of good vs. bad.

And likewise, the amount of effort we spend opposing politicans should be related to how much good vs. bad they do. We should be spending our efforts fighting against those who do the most damage - which I believe would be republicans who are gutting the budget and the environment; not a democrat who is fighting the good fight, but given a choice between boycotting corporate media or fighting to get liberal voices more air time on conservative media, opts for the second choice. It may go against your preference, and I can certainly understand why, but it's not an unfathomable position.

[Zorra]

21. Almost every republican politician always votes against America's

best interests unless their vote means absolutely nothing at the time.

And even then it is a very rare occasion.

The RW is destroying America. They deserve no quarter.

[leftofthedial]

11. I'm in

but since I have no money, I'm not likely to have much of an effect.

[ck4829]

13. That's OK

Find people, I am going to keep kicking this thread for a while if it becomes inactive.

This is the Way to fight the Right, IMO.

I am probably going to create some sort of Group, probably a Yaho Group, where we can begin to draft the plans of the Embargo if we get enough support.

One person can do something, many people can do many things. Let's try to remember that.

[ck4829]

15. Recent events and posts on DU...

have made me decide to go ahead with the Embargo.

A Yahoo Group will be made soon.

It's time to attack the RW.

[ck4829]

17. The Group has been created. Check it out.

"This Group seeks to make a massive and very organized boycott of the Right Wing. The goal is to make it so massive it would not be considered to be a boycott but rather an Embargo of the Groups and Criminals that have taken over the United States of America."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Embargo_of_the_RW/

[Zorra]

18. I signed up in November, 2000.

Buy blue. Better off dead than red. Friends don't let friends support fascism.

DU Economic Activism Forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=255

[ck4829]

19. Excellent

The thing is that this needs to become a concerted effort, we can damage the RW quite severely if we work together.