Did the Democrats over focus on the Russia the last few years?

[Varysblackfyre321]

The discussion started in a previous thread but it’s closed now. I’ll first reply to the two replies I got on the topic(if I miss someone I apologize).

@DanteGabriel

What "moderate" level of coverage is appropriate to the fact that an unfit, brazenly corrupt, and hopelessly incompetent racist, grifting, serial sexual assaulter got installed as President, while the Senate Majority Leader spiked any chance of a bipartisan condemnation of Russian election meddling?

I’d figure around it making up 10% on most days, excluding groundbreaking developments of course. It’s not particularly insane suggest perhaps some left-leaning media outlets like Rachel Maddow spending over 50% of their time covering this one issue is maybe a bit much. 

I like how you try to minimize the "tiniest bit of evidence" of there being collusion. Firing the FBI Director after asking him to go easy on your soon-to-be-convicted National Security Adviser is just a tiny bit of evidence?

I’ve already pointed out Russia/Trump colluding is a real issue. Truth be told, I think any real debate over collusion having taken place ended with the Trump Tower meeting between Junior and Kushner and Russian lawyer offering dirt on Clinton. If you’re seeing my complaint as indicating I just don’t want any coverage ever of this issue, you’re mistaken. I’m simply deriding the high level of coverage everything that could possibly be linked to the investigation gets no matter how small by many left-leaning media outlets.  My main point isn’t to argue it’s not, my point is that many democrats used it as as an excuse to not look at what errors they made during the election. 

Next, is this a complaint about media, or Democratic politicians? Sure, lots of media has been covering the collusion angle regularly, because... there's a goddamn special counsel investigation. There are new developments on a regular basis.

Some left leaning  media outlets and establishment  democrats . And to an extent some regular democrats.  And there’s a special investigation sure, let it proceed, I’m not even saying give discussion on new details, but keep in perspective rather than go crazy in its coverage even if it really doesn’t tell us much more than what we already knew.

But "democrats have chosen to use this story as most of their basis for pushing back against Trump" is vague and useless, and also wrong. Democrats have pushed back against Trump because his policies are racist, envicornmentally disastrous, exacerbate inequality, damage our international standing and alliances, or obviously intended for personal enrichment. There have been a thousand reasons Democrats have pushed back against Trump. "Because Russia!" is hardly ever mentioned in actual policy debates, except to point out that Trump's foreign policy is giving Putin exactly what he wants.

I probably should have put the qualifier of *establishment* before democrats here.  There is whole list to oppose Trump, and plenty democrats and liberals have done so, but plenty of democrats have taken to pushing the issue of Russia as being the biggest,  deserving of most of their attention. 

@larrytheimp

Uh... This is an interesting take. 

Not really. There have been  Liberals complaining about the amount coverage of the Russia/collusion story for years. 

It just seems completely out of touch with reality.  You implying Democrats have chosen to use their time during Trump's first term mostly pushing back on the Russia issue.  First off, the Dems were a minortiy in the House and Senate.  Secondly, they've pushed back against Trump on a host of issues ranging from Supreme Court picks, immigration policy, adhering to the Paris climate accords, and maintaining good relations with our allies.  

Key word here is mostly. I never claimed they only ever covered the Russia collusion scandal and never railed against anything else. Y

Look back at the campaigns that picked up seats in the house.  They didn't just run on Russia.  They ran on health care, immigration, responsible tax policy, climate change, LGBTQ rights, and functional government.  

Yes. Showing media outlets constant bombardment of Russia/Trump isn’t really the thing that’s pressing on most people’s minds and it’d probably had been wiser for large left-leaning media out lets like MSNBC to have devoted a lot more times on those issues. 

You're hearing about Russia all the time because there's an ongoing investigation that keeps turning up more involvement from Trump's staff in working with Russia to get Trump elected.  And if you haven't been hearing Dems talking about the other stuff you haven't been paying attention.

If I said I’ve never heard of Dems talking about other stuff, you’d have a point. I simply did not do that. 

 

“But Greenwald is going nuts on the "no smoking gun yet" notion with Russia.  Yes, we realize that Trump hasn't been caught chopping up and cannibalizing US school children with Putin“

Yeah, and he’s wrong to do that. I’m just saying one could empathize with him on this. He sees the the level of coverage that this issue has been given  as an attempt excuse establishment democrats from their own failures and wrongdoings. And he’s not wrong. Former members of the Clinton campaign cited the reason she lost is Russia. Greenwald isn’t dismissing the collusion issue because it would make him popular or because he’s on the Russian pay roll. His reasons are plain; it detracts a lot of needed attention from a whole short of important issues, and functions as an excuse the Democratic Party as a whole not to do some introspection on what’s wrong with it.

ETA: you also seem to be conflating "the media" with Democrats and the left in general.

Never once used phrase “the media” in my post. I was very deliberate in saying “many left leaning media outlets” notice I didn’t say all or even most. I will apologize for saying  “The democrats” as it’s generalizing. There are plenty democrats who’ve expressed discontent with the level of coverage this issue has been given. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The discussion started in a previous thread but it’s closed now. I’ll first reply to the two replies I got on the topic(if I miss someone I apologize).

@DanteGabriel

What "moderate" level of coverage is appropriate to the fact that an unfit, brazenly corrupt, and hopelessly incompetent racist, grifting, serial sexual assaulter got installed as President, while the Senate Majority Leader spiked any chance of a bipartisan condemnation of Russian election meddling?

I’d figure around it making up 10% on most days, excluding groundbreaking developments of course. It’s not particularly insane suggest perhaps some left-leaning media outlets like Rachel Maddow spending over 50% of their time covering this one issue is maybe a bit much. 

I like how you try to minimize the "tiniest bit of evidence" of there being collusion. Firing the FBI Director after asking him to go easy on your soon-to-be-convicted National Security Adviser is just a tiny bit of evidence?

I’ve already pointed out Russia/Trump colluding is a real issue. Truth be told, I think any real debate over collusion having taken place ended with the Trump Tower meeting between Junior and Kushner and Russian lawyer offering dirt on Clinton. If you’re seeing my complaint as indicating I just don’t want any coverage ever of this issue, you’re mistaken. I’m simply deriding the high level of coverage everything that could possibly be linked to the investigation gets no matter how small by many left-leaning media outlets.  My main point isn’t to argue it’s not, my point is that many democrats used it as as an excuse to not look at what errors they made during the election. 

Next, is this a complaint about media, or Democratic politicians? Sure, lots of media has been covering the collusion angle regularly, because... there's a goddamn special counsel investigation. There are new developments on a regular basis.

Some left leaning  media outlets and establishment  democrats . And to an extent some regular democrats.  And there’s a special investigation sure, let it proceed, I’m not even saying give discussion on new details, but keep in perspective rather than go crazy in its coverage even if it really doesn’t tell us much more than what we already knew.

But "democrats have chosen to use this story as most of their basis for pushing back against Trump" is vague and useless, and also wrong. Democrats have pushed back against Trump because his policies are racist, envicornmentally disastrous, exacerbate inequality, damage our international standing and alliances, or obviously intended for personal enrichment. There have been a thousand reasons Democrats have pushed back against Trump. "Because Russia!" is hardly ever mentioned in actual policy debates, except to point out that Trump's foreign policy is giving Putin exactly what he wants.

I probably should have put the qualifier of *establishment* before democrats here.  There is whole list to oppose Trump, and plenty democrats and liberals have done so, but plenty of democrats have taken to pushing the issue of Russia as being the biggest,  deserving of most of their attention. 

@larrytheimp

Uh... This is an interesting take. 

Not really. There have been  Liberals complaining about the amount coverage of the Russia/collusion story for years. 

It just seems completely out of touch with reality.  You implying Democrats have chosen to use their time during Trump's first term mostly pushing back on the Russia issue.  First off, the Dems were a minortiy in the House and Senate.  Secondly, they've pushed back against Trump on a host of issues ranging from Supreme Court picks, immigration policy, adhering to the Paris climate accords, and maintaining good relations with our allies.  

Key word here is mostly. I never claimed they only ever covered the Russia collusion scandal and never railed against anything else. Y

Look back at the campaigns that picked up seats in the house.  They didn't just run on Russia.  They ran on health care, immigration, responsible tax policy, climate change, LGBTQ rights, and functional government.  

Yes. Showing media outlets constant bombardment of Russia/Trump isn’t really the thing that’s pressing on most people’s minds and it’d probably had been wiser for large left-leaning media out lets like MSNBC to have devoted a lot more times on those issues. 

You're hearing about Russia all the time because there's an ongoing investigation that keeps turning up more involvement from Trump's staff in working with Russia to get Trump elected.  And if you haven't been hearing Dems talking about the other stuff you haven't been paying attention.

If I said I’ve never heard of Dems talking about other stuff, you’d have a point. I simply did not do that. 

 

“But Greenwald is going nuts on the "no smoking gun yet" notion with Russia.  Yes, we realize that Trump hasn't been caught chopping up and cannibalizing US school children with Putin“

Yeah, and he’s wrong to do that. I’m just saying one could empathize with him on this. He sees the the level of coverage that this issue has been given  as an attempt excuse establishment democrats from their own failures and wrongdoings. And he’s not wrong. Former members of the Clinton campaign cited the reason she lost is Russia. Greenwald isn’t dismissing the collusion issue because it would make him popular or because he’s on the Russian pay roll. His reasons are plain; it detracts a lot of needed attention from a whole short of important issues, and functions as an excuse the Democratic Party as a whole not to do some introspection on what’s wrong with it.

ETA: you also seem to be conflating "the media" with Democrats and the left in general.

Never once used phrase “the media” in my post. I was very deliberate in saying “many left leaning media outlets” notice I didn’t say all or even most. I will apologize for saying  “The democrats” as it’s generalizing. There are plenty democrats who’ve expressed discontent with the level of coverage this issue has been given. 

This is a bunch of pedantic mealy-mouthed nothing.  So your point is that some Democrats and left-leaning media outlets talk about Russia a lot?  Big fucking deal.  

I bet in 2003-4 you were saying "jeez would you guys talk about something other than the Iraq War?".  There's plenty of room for all sorts of political discussion.  

[DanteGabriel]

Which specific Democratic politicians are overworking the Russia angle?

[Relic]

1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said:

Which specific Democratic politicians are overworking the Russia angle?

He means CNN/MSNBC. 

[DanteGabriel]

Oh Jesus, I didn't realize you'd started a separate topic for your handwringing/concern trolling about whether or not Democrats are too focused on fucking treason in the White House, but I should have known that you would think your tertiary navel gazing deserves yet another fucking topic.

[Gertrude]

The media is gonna media. They are driven by ratings and if they think Russia coverage is gonna pull in eyes, they do it. Maddow, being a big proponent of the Russia angle, is enjoying really fucking good ratings numbers.

I do hear concerns from actual elected officials, but mostly it's because they are calling for impeachment now. Others are saying, yes - there is a reason to be concerned but let's wait for Mueller to finish. That seems to be the largest portion of congress, honestly.

[Varysblackfyre321]

47 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This is a bunch of pedantic mealy-mouthed nothing.  So your point is that some Democrats and left-leaning media outlets talk about Russia a lot?  Big fucking deal.  

I bet in 2003-4 you were saying "jeez would you guys talk about something other than the Iraq War?".  There's plenty of room for all sorts of political discussion.  

 My main complaints are that it’s been given too much attention by many left-leaning media outlets, as well function as an excuse for Clinton why she isn’t really responsible for losing and an excuse for the Democratic Party not to do some introspection.  It’s not merely talking about Russia a lot. That’s not wrong in it of itself. There is however such a thing as too much coverage. Seriously, do you find nothing wrong with Maddow spending over 50% of her time on this issue?  There are not other issues that need nearly as much time as has been given attention as the Russian/Trump collusion issue? 

[Larry of the Lawn]

8 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 My main complaints are that it’s been given too much attention by many left-leaning media outlets, as well function as an excuse for Clinton why she isn’t really responsible for losing and an excuse for the Democratic Party not to do some introspection.  It’s not merely talking about Russia a lot. That’s not wrong in it of itself. There is however such a thing as too much coverage. Seriously, do you find nothing wrong with Maddow spending over 50% of her time on this issue?  There are not other issues that need nearly as much time as has been given attention as the Russian/Trump collusion issue? 

Has Maddow been spending over half of her air time on this?  I don't watch TV.  And if if she did, I don't think it's that unreasonable, given the potential weight of the Russia investigation.  Should Woodward and Bernstein have spent less time on Watergate?

The Dems seem to be doing a lot of introspection.  Sure during 2017 there was a lot of relitigating the election, but that's part and parcel with figuring out how the Sanders and Clinton camps fit in with the party in the future.  The party is still the mess you'd expect in a two party system.

There are plenty of valid complaints about how the media covers US politics.  But why of all things is this the hill you and Greenwald want to die on?  I'd say most elected Dems have held the "wait and see what Mueller finds, protect the investigation" line.  If you want to complain about Maddow's coverage go ahead. 

  

[Zorral]

Treason by the person sitting in the White House, against the nation he's supposedly protecting is getting TOO MUCH ATTENTION?

Ah, troll and bot, lives in troll bot world.  

[Kalbear]

I personally like the idea that using Glenn Greenwald as any kind of gauge on liberals or democrats or, well, anything other than a captive Fox News talking head is somehow actually meaningful. Might as well be asking Jill Stein if they're covering Russia too much. 

Another way to put it is this (and why this isn't in the US politics thread, well, you should figure out): the President of the United States is under multiple criminal investigations by a special counsel, the FBI and the New York State attorney general's office. This investigation has already resulted in over 12 arrests, 30 indictments, 100m in fines and penalties, censure of some of the biggest companies in the world, and the revelation that an adversarial country has been attempting and succeeding in manipulation of Democratic elections.

What other topic should take more precedence than this, especially in the US? 

[aceluby]

You guys, it's just a bit of treason by the guy running the military.  What's the big deal?

[Gertrude]

BTW, Clinton can go fuck herself. All she's done since the election is play that blame game and pop up to say 'told you so'. She's done nothing to lead or help the Democratic party. I'd be ok with her just fading away to a private life - she's earned it, but the occasional appearance to gloat about calling Trump a Putin puppet is really irritating. If you want to be involved in politics, then do something productive with your voice - pick a cause to champion, stop the unproductive sniping.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Gertrude said:

BTW, Clinton can go fuck herself. All she's done since the election is play that blame game and pop up to say 'told you so'. She's done nothing to lead or help the Democratic party. I'd be ok with her just fading away to a private life - she's earned it, but the occasional appearance to gloat about calling Trump a Putin puppet is really irritating. If you want to be involved in politics, then do something productive with your voice - pick a cause to champion, stop the unproductive sniping.

Awesome! It's almost as if you don't listen to her and listen to what her opponents say!

Clinton has been doing a lot of closed-door fundraisers for people. She's asked if they want her help, and largely they've shied away from her being open. She ran fundraisers for Gillum, Beto, and a few others. 

Mostly, she's been doing tours, talking overseas, and doing what failed POTUS candidates tend to do - help their party as they're desired, do speaking tours, and largely is out of life. She's tweeted a few times about how right she was (which, ya know, is entirely accurate), but it's not like others didn't point this out too. 

Also, how the fuck is calling Trump a Putin puppet 'unproductive sniping'? 

[Gertrude]

OK, perhaps I'm wrong. I don't follow her and I see what the media wants me to see on that front. I don't like the sniping and blame game because it makes her look petty. This is also probably an unfair point, but it gives her opposition ammunition. I know they are never going to not hate her, but it's feeding the trolls.Tthat particular comment about Putin puppet wouldn't be so egregious if she hadn't used her spotlight to whine about how unfair shit is.

She lost for a lot of reasons, focusing on one of those that was out of her control seems pretty fucking entitled to me. And while I know fundraising is an important - perhaps THE most important skill a politician can have, it disgusts me that it has to be that way. I'd rather have politicians win on their ideas and capability rather than their connections. Like I said, I know this isn't the world we live in but it's the world I'd rather fight for. 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Tthat particular comment about Putin puppet wouldn't be so egregious if she hadn't used her spotlight to whine about how unfair shit is.

She used her spotlight to point out that everything she said was right, and that we're in danger. That you characterize it as whining is your deal. 

3 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

 She lost for a lot of reasons, focusing on one of those that was out of her control seems pretty fucking entitled to me.

Again, she didn't focus on this because she lost; she focused on this because Trump is a Russian puppet, and in her words she doesn't want to run, but she does care about the country and thinks we are in a crisis. 

3 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

And while I know fundraising is an important - perhaps THE most important skill a politician can have, it disgusts me that it has to be that way. I'd rather have politicians win on their ideas and capability rather than their connections. Like I said, I know this isn't the world we live in but it's the world I'd rather fight for. 

Ideas make money. Honestly, if you wanted someone who ran on ideas and capability Clinton was about as good as anyone - especially at getting people who have great ideas but not necessarily connections into the spotlight. What I suspect you DO want isn't any of those things, and you care a lot more about how charismatic and popular someone is. That's what most people are about. 

[Gertrude]

Nope, not really. I didn't like Clinton because she was the definition of establishment. She was the wrong candidate for that cycle and she had it locked down before there was even really a fight.

[Varysblackfyre321]

16 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Has Maddow been spending over half of her air time on this?  I don't watch TV.  And if if she did, I don't think it's that unreasonable, given the potential weight of the Russia investigation.  Should Woodward and Bernstein have spent less time on Watergate?

 

She is. While ignoring other really important issues to a laughable extent. Greenwald actually measured her coverage of a wide range of issues throughout a six-week span. And he’s found this:”Maddow’s Russia coverage has dwarfed the time devoted to other top issues, including Trump’s escalating crackdown on undocumented immigrants (1.3 percent of coverage); Obamacare repeal (3.8 percent); the legal battle over Trump’s Muslim ban (5.6 percent), a surge of anti-GOP activism and town halls since Trump took office (5.8 percent), and Trump administration scandals and stumbles (11 percent)” https://www.google.com/amp/s/static.theintercept.com/amp/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner.html

Can you honestly say this is totally fine? This is the type of coverage I and greenwald see as a problem for many left-leaning Media outlets. However I am not contending it is a non-issue, or even that it shouldn’t be given a significant bit of coverage. It just readily apparent that it’s problematic when other really important issues are neglected.

23 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 The Dems seem to be doing a lot of introspection.  Sure during 2017 there was a lot of relitigating the election, but that's part and parcel with figuring out how the Sanders and Clinton camps fit in with the party in the future.  The party is still the mess you'd expect in a two party system.

A lot of dems seem to place their loss in the 2016 election on this one issue with no discussion on how to adapt to again fit the tastes of voters who’d previously voted for them in 2008, and 2012.