Jon Ralston on the negative effects that bloggers’ bickering could have on the long-term goals of the Democratic Party

Sunday, Feb. 25, 2007 | 7:24 a.m.

"This is more great news for Nevada. I'm happy Fox News will be a partner for the August presidential debate."

- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Feb. 16

"Everybody supports reaching out to new people. But Fox is giving Democrats one day of news coverage specifically so they'll have legitimacy while smearing Democrats and spreading lies the other 364 days this year."

- MoveOn.Org spokesman Adam Green, Feb. 23

A momentous week in Nevada political history began with Reid's dramatic announcement, crested with the Carson City forum that transformed the state's capital into the nation's political capital and ended with the loony MoveOn/blogger Fox hunt.

Seems as if some Democrats, who should be basking in the success of the presidential candidate invasion and the spotlight it afforded Nevada, are not merely looking a gift Fox in the mouth, they are insisting it be shot before it gets on site.

This pointless petulance can lead nowhere productive for the Democrats and tellingly illustrates how in the modern, cyberspace-affected political game that anger often masquerades as principle. Passion does not equate to substance, screaming does not signal righteousness. These are the same Deaniacs who care more about purity - as they define it - and think winning is secondary to making a point.

Let me be clear: I come not to praise Fox News, but neither do I want to bury the network. It's simple, as Reid and rational Democrats understand: Fox is the most-watched cable network, the debate will be great national exposure (again) for Nevada and also will give the candidates a chance to appeal to conservatives and moderates who might be looking for alternatives.

Here's a news flash: People can watch Fox, believe Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are pompous jackasses and still get something out of their programs. I would guess there might be some viewers (very, very few) who might occasionally think I am a pompous jackass but still get something out of "Face to Face."

MoveOn and others have used Fox's recent smearing of Barack Obama as a case in point. But this is not about some lofty principle or they would carry it over to other media outlets.

Why don't local Democrats boycott the Review-Journal because it is so conservative and deifies state Sen. Bob Beers? Why don't local Republicans snub the Sun because it is not conservative and has been hard on Gov. Jim Gibbons?

Do these activists honestly think all the journalists at Fox are Rupert Murdoch puppets? Is Air America fair and balanced? Should Republicans tune out CBS News because of the George W. Bush/National Guard report that was widely seen as costing Dan Rather his anchor's chair?

Those opposed to Fox co-sponsoring the debate possess a fundamental condescension toward voters they believe can't tell the difference between facts and spin, between a group of presidential hopefuls debating and talking heads pontificating. Too often, I think, most people are blissfully ignorant of what's happening. But people are not this stupid.

This is an argument without a meaningful purpose, with a national political group seizing an opportunity and piggybacking onto bloggers to stir up the Nevada faithful and terrorize the local Democratic elite. This is not about moving on; it is about moving backward. This is more about bloggers and their ability to generate a cacophony among malcontents, many who just like to make noise without purpose, to fill their empty lives with words in the giant chat room that is cyberspace.

I thought the goal of elections was to win. And I thought one of the goals of this caucus in Nevada was to broaden the national Democratic Party's appeal.

How do you win without compromising your principles? Don't engage in mindless causes such as tearing down the Fox/Nevada combine or setting litmus tests such as who was most right or most contrite about Iraq. That might be a good start. What is it these Democrats will have achieved if they manage to oust Fox from this debate or pressure Hillary Clinton to deliver an Iraq war apologia ?

Those victories would seem at best Pyrrhic and at worst destructive to the putative cause of electing a Democratic president. As this inane fight intensifies inside the state Democratic ranks, Reid and other leaders will have an analogous problem to Sen. Clinton's. Let me put it in terms that O'Reilly and Hannity might like:

If they back down now, the terrorists will have won.