Fox Democrats: Scary Losers, or Enablers?

The quotes in the headline are from "The Real Fox News Democrats", the top feature story in today's Salon, by Alex Koppelman--and while I don't agree with everything he wrote, Koppelman got me thinking.

Koppelman has attacked many of the Democrats who appear on Fox--the paid commentators, the "regulars"--as belonging to one of three types:

It sounds harsh, but think of most of the Fox Democrats, at least those who appear on the opinion shows, which take up half the network's airtime, as one of three types. They are either scary liberals, losers or enablers.

Harsh, but fair and balanced.

Koppelman continues:

...Fox also has a stable of regular commentators, some under contract to the network, who pop up frequently as representatives of the Democratic or progressive viewpoint. They do not appear to know what they have gotten into. Though these Democrats tell Salon they are doing their best to reach out and sway potential voters, they often seem to be used to further a conservative political agenda, fulfilling one of several roles that ultimately just helps the network's right-of-center hosts make their arguments against liberals.

Oh, let's just say it: Alan Colmes is a wimp, and Sean Hannity beats the guy to a pulp on a regular basis. I'm surprised Fox doesn't make Colmes wear a "Dukakis '88" t-shirt and fake devil horns.

Koppelman is not arguing that Democrats should not appear on Fox; he is only pointing out that those people Fox News has chosen to represent the Democratic point of view, such as Alan Colmes, Patrick Caddell, Susan Estrich, and Bob Beckel, are simply not effective in doing so.

Gee, you'd think that was deliberate on the part of Fox or something.

What I find most interesting about Koppelman's article in today's Salon is that Fox News hires Democrats who are "enablers" of the Republicans. For example, Fox recently hired two failed senate candidates, Harold Ford, a Tennessee Democrat, and former Republican Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

"Fair and balanced", right?

But as Koppelman points out:

this case is actually just another example of how Fox's choices of Democrats help to skew the very terms of discourse in favor of conservatives; Ford's politics are just left of George Will's, while Santorum lists slightly to the right of Attila the Hun."

In other words, the person "on the left" would comfortably fit into Reagan's Republican Party, circa 1988, and the person "on the right" would fit in with--well, best not think about Rick "Man On Dog" Santorum any more than you have to (especially if you haven't had your breakfast yet).

Democratic and liberal bloggers have already successfully lobbied for Democrats to boycott Fox for a presidential candidate debate that was to have taken place in Nevada this August, and MLWer Field Negro has written a passionate diary denouncing the efforts of the Congressional Black Caucus to have Fox sponsor Democratic presidential debates Oh No They Didn't! Our own Maryscott O'Connor has appeared on Fox television and radio programmes.

And now the question: Is it time for Democrats in particular, and for liberals and progressives in general, to boycott Fox altogether? Is it hopeless to try and get the progressive point of view across on a network that is so obviously, deliberately skewed?