If you believe that the media is following the people, when the previous post in this very blog reports that less than 10 percent of the public can name Kucinich, then I'd think twice about telling other people to get serious if I were you.

Give it a minute's thought, if you can. If people can not identify the guy, what interest does the news media have in covering him? He is, then, by definition, not news.

Have you ever worked in media?

Didn't think so...

I can tell you this with certainty: If there is no interest on the part of the public in something (or someone) there will be no coverage. Why are we drowning in Britney Spears? Because when shows put her on, and magazines and tabloids put her on the cover, people tune in, and buy the publications.

Did you know that it's possible to monitor news viewership down to the program "block"?

Didn't think so...

What that means is that any news director who hears from the ad sales folks (and trust me, they do) will know at what point in the 'cast people change the channel. More often than not, it's when the "serious" stuff - especially the foreign stuff - comes on, possibly excepting the "those crazy foreigners" kickers at the end of the show.

What that means, to recap, is that when there is no public interest in something or someone, there will be no coverage.

Q.E.D.

Does anyone think Willard (Mittens) Romney draws an unscripted breath, even during his deepest sleep?

There has been too much Obama/Osama nonsense emanating from the Republicans and their adherents to even think about this being "unintentional" in any way. Willard Romney simply went about it, as is his nature, in a very clumsy and transparent way.

The man is possibly the only more calculating simulation of a human being in public life than the reptilian Norman (Quimby) Coleman, who oozed into the Senate on the occasion of the tragic death - five years ago today - of the great Paul Wellstone.

What we know about both is that first, no memorials will be built to Norman Coleman. No camps, no schools, no community centers will ever be named for him. His name will, in future years, be an embarrassing afterthought for the state of Minnesota. And the robotic Willard Romney will soon be a footnote in his own right in American history. In the unlikely event there would ever be a Willard Romney memorial, I might suggest the ideal material - Plexiglas. Easily seen through, 100% synthetic, and because it does not wear or age well, not nearly as useful as the genuine article.

Reading the already-posted LTEs, I am struck by the fact that there are finally a few agreeing that we, as Democrats, have generally been pretty lousy communicators. We tend to be so persuaded by our own "rightness" that we forget that the general public (aka "voters") does not particularly care to listen to, let alone absorb, lengthy discourses on the finely nuanced, cross-referenced facts behind our carefully reasoned positions. They don't, and they won't. Horses to water, folks...

Make it a simple, straightforward narrative, preferably one with a memorable "hook" (for all his other worthlessness, Reagan and his writers had this one down cold) and it's money in the bank.

We, on the other hand, are still, as a group, subscribing to the "one more fact" fallacy. Repeat after me: There is no one additional fact that will change the mind of the public.

The only way we're going to get veto-proof numbers is if voters turn up the heat on some of the Republicans. Voters from their districts. Until that happens, they feel no need to change their votes, and we simply don't have 2/3 of the House - or Senate. Until we do, this is going to be the nature of things in Congress.

Make the narrative immediately accessible and understandable to the average voter and we win. Right now, we tend to bore them to tears.

Disagree all you want, you know this is the truth.

It's all the same - the difference is between varieties of fecal matter. (Hey - it's a family forum...)

The one thing that discomfits me is that the "conservatives" are seemingly the only side willing to accept short-term losses for long-term gains, and to consolidate incremental gains and move forward from there. Far too many "liberals", on the other hand, seem to want all or nothing, right now.

Does anyone think this Bush monstrosity was built overnight, "on the sneak"? No. The roots go back to Red-baiting Richard Nixon running for Congress, and then to his time in the Oval Office. When conditions did not favor their agenda, they bided their time. They plant their operatives within the bureaucracy, and look from within for cracks.

Well-meaning liberals that many of us are, we seem to want the sheer rightness of our principles to carry the day. They do not. We don't build the kind of foundational structures the right wing does, and are the poorer for it.

That changing is what might doom "conservatism". Otherwise, they'll go spend their time in the wilderness again, and be back once short-term memories have faded.