We have no media voice? Some on our side do. Why him?

I'm talking here about John Murtha.

He seems to have found a way to have his voice heard. He is, very simply, pissed off. He's the Angry Man.

And the Angry Man is getting heard.

They tried to slap down the Angry Man. But they failed.

And the Angry Man is getting heard.

News cycle after news cycle, they prefer not to hear him, but they can't seem to stay away from him ... with their cameras and their microphones.

And the Angry Man is getting heard.

He will be awarded the Profiles in Courage Award today. At the JFK library. By the daughter of an American Democratic President.

And the Angry Man is getting heard.

He holds no obvious aspirations for higher office. His constituency seems to be, very simply, the 'what is right and fair and just' crowd.

And the Angry Man is getting heard.

His message is both narrow and incredibly broad. His focus would seem to be the Iraq War. But by shining the light of truth on the myth 'they' would want out there, he is shining that same light on all that they've done. When he says they lied about the war, he says they lie about everything else. When he says they had no plan, he is saying they have no plan for anyting else, either.

And the Angry Man is getting heard.

He's not an arm flapper. His deep baritone voice precludes the need to shout. His craggy visage precludes the need to puff up his chest. His record precludes the need to do stunts. His is a righteous anger that will not be silenced.

And the Angry Man is getting heard.

We need more Angry Men.

Righteously Angry Men.

(DU Dislaimer - 'Man' and 'Men' should be considered a device for literary simplicity and not gender specific.)

Sunday. His absence was conspicuous. I guess no one wants to give too much air time to an Angry Man.

Like news shows and talk shows. Stories about him.

Is there anyone in America who doesn't know his name or his message?

I have to mention his plan every time some vacuous, apathetic American says "but the Democrats don't have a plan for Iraq".

Randi had to deal with that accusation when she appeared on Lou Dobbs, as well.

But Murtha has not quit, and your opening post is well-taken. Anger, defiance, and conviction WILL be heard more clearly than mewling and cooing.

Any Democrat that has not signed on to Murtha's plan (or offered a more peaceful plan) is a coward and a worm, by my estimation. Those are the ones that get a lot of face time on television these days (to agree with a Republican).

Even with the facetime, his message still gets passed through the filter that works to confuse the American public.

I do give credit that Murtha and Kerry keeping the pressure on BushInc PUBLICLY on Iraq has forced Bush into the position of at least APPEARING to pull out earlier.

I just don't trust that Bush will actually go very far with it and that his overtures to pull out will be all for show before the election in November.

... I think he gets through clearer and clear each time he speaks.

But I agree with your other point about Bush ...... he has, indeed, started to talk about pulling out.

I wish his Dad would have, but that would be a sex thread. :)

so it always has been clear to us. The corporate media machine is not paid to repeat his words accurately - they get paid to distort his position as per their BushInc contracts.

(Thank you for the kind words, btw)

..... what makes this such a good example of the success of the "Angry Man' is that this is a man who has, for virtually all his life in government service, shunned the spotlight, prefering to work in the background. His was a name I dare say none but his district's voters knew. I know I never heard of him before.

And the Angry Man thing cuts both ways. He is now geting through to the nation at large. but he is also very much the darling of the left side of left. The left seems to be consciously avoiding discussion of the guy's voting record. He's pretty damned conservative by anyone's standards, and surely among the most conservative of lifelong Democrats.

And yet, he's celebrated.

The Angry Man.

.

There was another guy with credibility largely because he had a conservative record. What they used to call a "strict constructionist", he had opposed civil rights laws. But he took no crap from Nixon's shady legal representatives. He thought what Nixon was doing was unconstitutional and wrong, and he was prepared, and unafraid, to challenge it directly. Sometimes the cliche is true, that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Watching the Watergate hearings, I was sure he and I agreed on almost nothing except that Nixon was out of control and needed to be stopped. Maybe the handshake on the Elbe is a good metaphor.

..... yup, he became the darling of the media back then. And the Dem every repub loved to hate.

I'm not sure I agree he was popular *because* he had a conservative record. I think he was a conservative who became popular because he stood up and stood for something. In his own way, he was the Angry Man of that time.

The media has quoted him in the past as a 'good Democrat' who understood the military. (Not like those soft lefties who wanted to betray us all.) When Cong. Murtha spoke out, the media was forced to report that someone they thought, in print, was a 'sane Democrat' was in fact in favor of withdrawing from Iraq. This belief in withdraw came from his talking to ties with people in the military.

Cong. Murtha's courageous opposition to the war is based on his strong belief in and love of the American military. He has been to Walter Reed and other hospitals and seen the American troops who are wounded and dying from this war and he wants to know why they are doing so. He wants to know why the Powers That Be in the Bush Admin won't listen to their own military commanders on the ground in Iraq.

Cong. Murtha is effective because the media assumed that he was 'one of them,' a conservative Democrat. Turns out he was his own man and a truth-teller.

.... you both address what to me seems similar issues, so I'll put in my comments in one place ..... :) cuz I'm a lazy typist.

Remember when Max Cleland went in his wheelchair to Crawford? He got coverage. Remember when John Conyers went to the WH gate with papers to deliver? He got coverage.

Political theater works, when done properly. And I don't mean stilt walkers and drummers and Mother Earth lookalikes. If Democrats would only follow the example of the civil rights marchers, who dressed in suits and ties and dresses and hats and simply made their presence known and their demands public, perhaps we'd get some traction now.

Murtha's making news. He needs a hundred others to stand with him, unafraid.

TayTay says the coverage of Murtha is because he is a conservative Dem, a sort of 'one of them' type.

I took your comment to mean you look at it kinda the same way, but with lefties as the examples.

And I think you're both kinda right.

Your comment about 'political theater' is sorta right too, but it is much more than that. And I think you know that and implied it in your post.

What Murtha has that is common with all your examples is that he is mightily pissed. The reason a (**righteously**) pissed off person will get coverage is because they **are** pissed off. The fact that they're either conservative or liberal will come into play as a secondary issue. In today's climate, the outraged conservative will get coverage for the 'coginitive dissonace', if you will, of it all. The liberal will get covered (a la Max At The Gates) because of the David and Goliath aspects of it.

But the common thread is .... anger.

My 'Angry Man' posit.