-
Peter Wehner Responds
June 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation
June 19, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd
June 18, 2013 | 17 comments
-
Hannity: Secure the Border First
June 17, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Charles Krauthammer and The Limbaugh Theorem
June 14, 2013 | 27 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Amazing.
NBC’s Chuck Todd has this very revealing bit in Politico today.
Targeting, among others, Glenn Beck (by name) and, not by name, Roger Ailes and Arianna Huffington.
Dissing Beck as a “radio DJ” using “crazy language” to deliver “outrageous rants,” for which he should be taken off the air, Todd goes on to foam that “actual journalists” may be headed toward a Beckian world of Howard Beales, the unhinged TV star from the film Network.
“It’s getting nuts that the folks who are creating the perception of an ideological/polarized media world are people who have never really spent their lives being journalists. Whether it’s former political consultants-turned-TV execs or former radio DJs, or former California socialites, the folks helping to accelerate the public’s perception of the media off a cliff made their livings trying to do other things.”
Hmm… News flash for Chuck. Here’s a list of liberals/progressives who “never really spent their lives being journalists.” I don’t recall a word about them from you.
Tim Russert — the onetime aide to Democratic New York Governor Mario Cuomo and Democratic New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was made the host of Meet the Press by NBC. That would be Chuck’s network. Where Russert was also the Washington bureau chief for NBC News.
Bill Moyers — the onetime ordained minister from Texas began his career in the mailroom of Democratic Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. From the mailroom Moyers worked his way to being a senior political aide to Senator Johnson, the liaison between 1960 Democratic candidates JFK and his running mate LBJ. Next he was a Kennedy appointee as Deputy Director of the Peace Corps. When LBJ became president, Moyers went along as a special assistant and then White House press secretary, the Robert Gibbs of his day. He is now the host of his own TV show on PBS, has been an editor and commentator at CBS News and the editor of Newsday.
Chris Matthews — former aide to Democratic U.S. Senators Frank Moss (Utah) and Edmund Muskie (Maine). Next there was time as a speechwriter for Democratic President Jimmy Carter and senior aide to Democratic House Speaker Thomas “Tip” O’Neill. In case you’ve missed this, Chuck, Chris is the host of a television show called Hardball on, well, MSNBC.
George Stephanopoulos — former aide to Democratic Congressman Ed Feighan (Ohio), Democratic Presidential nominee and Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, Democratic House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt (Missouri) and, last but not least, a senior aide to President Bill Clinton. George is now both the host of ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos and the Chief Washington correspondent for ABC News.
Paul Begala — Ex-Clinton White House aide became a co-host of CNN’s Crossfire and is now a network commentator.
One could go on — and on — here. This list also contains names like MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough (ex-Florida Republican Congressman), ABC’s Diane Sawyer (ex-White House aide to P resident Nixon), MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan (who actually began his career as a newspaper journalist before becoming famous as an aide to President Nixon).
For the record, as someone who is listed as a contributing editor to The American Spectator and writes a column — I too worked for a U.S. Congressman (Bud Shuster, R-PA), U.S. Senator (John Heinz, R-PA), a President ( Ronald Reagan) and a Cabinet Secretary (Jack Kemp.)
Oh. Let’s not forget that billboard salesman named…Ted Turner.
Truth, Chuck? If all you people who spent a life in journalism hadn’t turned journalism into a codeword for liberal political activism, maybe Roger Ailes and Glenn Beck and all the rest of us would be doing something else.
Come to think of it, if you believe this strongly about this, will you be quitting journalism when your network hires Robert Gibbs?
View all comments (63) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/29/what-ailes-chuck-todd
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Thatcher Legacy
- Way Beyond the Lemonade Stand
- The Lehrman Standard
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Joseph Brown| 7.29.09 @ 4:19PM
Since I don't watch the alphabet networks, please enlighten me as to who-sorry, whom- this guy Todd is. I'm not familiar with him.
Should I add, thankfully?
Jeffrey Lord| 7.29.09 @ 4:29PM
Joseph...
Chuck Todd is the White House correspondent for NBC News.
Bob| 7.29.09 @ 4:31PM
Then, Jeffrey, there are the big ones like Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, Bob Schieffer and Katie Couric. But you know, the most trusted newscaster by far is Jon Stewart:
http://www.timepolls.com/hppolls/archive/poll_results_417.html
Did any of them come from politics? And yes, Fox has more uneducated crazies than anyone -- but that matches their viewership. And before you say it, Matthews and Olbermann are out of the park as well. But everyone you name with the exception of Russert is a "commentator". Beck has made it clear (he did it on The View) that he is a commentator not a journalist. Therefore, he doesn't need facts and sources to back him up. (He actually said that).
Do any of you consider yourselves to be journalists? Really?
Missy| 7.29.09 @ 4:36PM
Funny question coming from a faux republican. Moron.
Missy| 7.29.09 @ 4:38PM
Chuck Todd has a terminal case of sour grapes. MSNBC belongs in the toilet with its ratings.
Liberal Reader| 7.29.09 @ 4:49PM
Mr Lord --
It's interesting that the people you choose to cite as evidence for what I guess must be your claim that the media is hopelessly liberal (and so on) are none of them reporters, and none of them really pretend to be reporters.
Glenn Beck is an ass, there's no question. He is just the last and worst of a general trend of debasing political discourse in this country.
Most reporters probably are liberal, but I think there are lots of good ones who manage to report as best they can what seems to be the truth of a situation.
Joseph Brown| 7.29.09 @ 4:50PM
Remind me next time to turn my sarcasm off. My post was meant to show, basically, that I don't watch the alphabets and really don't care what their "news readers" say.
Liberal Reader| 7.29.09 @ 4:51PM
...Also
I notice you don't mention Lehrer, the best in TV news, or Ted Koppel, or even Brian Williams.
I wouldn't argue if you wanted to call them "liberal," but it's not really the same as talking about someone like Moyers.
Jeffrey Lord| 7.29.09 @ 4:59PM
Bob...
Brian Williams spent time in the Carter White House. George Stephanopoulos is the Washington Bureau Chief of ABC News, hosting the show once hosted by David Brinkley and Sam Donaldson.
Remember, this is not my complaint, it's Chuck Todd's. This problem began decades ago - a revolving door of media and politics. It tilted heavily left because there was no right to speak of in the media. Now there is, and for that matter "the media" has exploded in size because of the technology. Everybody is a "journalist" in a way that simply was never possible before.
I'm only saying to Chuck, Fox News, (since he complained of Beck and Ailes) exists in part because millions of people became correctly convinced that "journalists" were really liberal political activists. Of the mainstream media of yore when there were only three networks, I liked, for example, Tom Brokaw. But there is no doubt that environmental news on NBC News when he was in charge tilted left because he did as a liberal environmentalist himself.
It's way too late to shut the barn door. And here at TAS, Bob Tyrrell and Wlady Pleszczynski are two of the finest ink-stained wretches you will ever find. Journalists with a capital "J".
Jeffrey Lord| 7.29.09 @ 5:21PM
And while I didn't mention their names...JFK press secretary and one US Senator from California went on to be the ABC foreign correspondent. NBC's John Chancellor left NBC to work for LBJ, as did Edward R. Murrow himself work for LBJ. Not exactly "impartial journalism" at work.
Jeffrey Lord| 7.29.09 @ 5:22PM
Sorry...JFK's press secretary and the Senator from California was Pierre Salinger.
Nobama| 7.29.09 @ 6:03PM
90% of the media are liberal, so it's no big surprise. The "Unbiased Media," was always a joke.
Liberal Reader| 7.29.09 @ 6:05PM
Mr Tyrrell did a great job this week on Chris Matthews, by the way, debunking and dismissing the Bunko Birtherites.
Ben Bradlee urged his reporters not to join any organization -- even the PTA. But it seems to me he and others of his generation are just the sort of capital J journalists that "conservative" populists like Limbaugh (who is great at what he does) and Beck (who is a fool) despise.
In what passes for "media criticism" on the right, ANY sober reflection, any civil conversation or debate, and prolonged exploration of the facts, is by definition liberal.
Ted Koppel was prevented by a Reactionary Firestorm from reading the names of dead soldiers -- with no editorial comment. The information itself -- ! -- was considered to be an editorial comment.
The anti-establishmentarians, now having their tea parties on the Right, just don't like it when the grown-ups try to talk, so they make a fuss until attention is paid them. But that constant interruption is ruining our public discourse. Children should be seen and not heard.
Jeffrey Lord| 7.29.09 @ 6:14PM
LR..
"Children should be seen and not heard. "
This was the conservative response to protesting college kids in the 1960's. Heads up: it didn't work. Conservatives have learned a thing or two since then.
Bob| 7.29.09 @ 7:23PM
Jeffrey -- you didn't respond to the most trusted newscaster -- Jon Stewart!!!!!
What we are missing in today's blogging environment, is true investigative, fair minded research. The thing that differentiates a commentator from a journalist is that a commentator takes sides and a journalist tries to report the facts and equalizes the strength of the argument on both sides so citizens can make an informed decision. I haven't seen Bob or Wlady do that these days. They have morphed into commentators.
From a political standpoint, it is a shame because if the conservative position were treated with more intellect and less belief it would be a winning position. I came to my fiscal conservative position because I got into the underlying economics and the facts convinced me -- not an ideology based on tax cuts with no supporting data. My position on health care, similarly, is based on facts rather than ideology.
The fundamentals of social conservatism, however, cannot be based on factual content because social conservatism is built upon a Christian religious base. You cannot argue religion with fundamentalists.
The right wing press could build a winning case based on strong intellectual analysis and in depth research, but unfortunately, you'd lose the base. That's why conservatism today is a losing proposition -- you depend on ideological arguments rather than intellectual ones. And the left could be made much weaker through the use of data and analysis and sometimes admitting that the facts don't always support the ideology.
Jeffrey, I'm sure you know that my prior response was tongue in cheek. I just wanted to needle you a bit and mention Jon Stewart. (If you notice, no one from Fox is seen as "trusted").
Missy| 7.29.09 @ 8:33PM
Jeremiah/LibReader: Those "children" can and will vote, and they'll have plenty to say in 2010. Let's see if your snotty, smug attitude is still intact after that election cycle is over.
Also, Jeremiah; those "children" are absolutely cleaning your fascist liberal clock on the health care debate. Ha ha!
Fox's ratings have skyrocketed through the roof the last 6 months (kind of like Obama's unemployment numbers), leaving many liberal loser pundits in the dust. Obviously, somebody must trust the professionals at Fox. Only a dolt would state otherwise. But I'm used to that kind of gibberish from "RINO" Bob the republican poseur.
Interested Conservative| 7.29.09 @ 9:59PM
LR - curious you mention Ben Bradlee and an incident of, I guess, independent objectivity. Ben had a history with JFK, as I recall.
The only remaining objective journalist I'm aware of is Brian Lamb. I've never heard anyone with any reasonable guess as to his inclinations, political or even philosophical.
I'm still waiting for to learn how he votes/donates/leans.
Jeffrey Lord | 7.29.09 @ 10:02PM
"What we are missing in today's blogging environment, is true investigative, fair minded research. The thing that differentiates a commentator from a journalist is that a commentator takes sides and a journalist tries to report the facts and equalizes the strength of the argument on both sides so citizens can make an informed decision. I haven't seen Bob or Wlady do that these days. They have morphed into commentators."
Bob! The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media abandoned objective, fair mindedness a lonnnnnnnnnnnng, lonnnnnnnnng time ago. Which in turn led to the birth of TAS and before that Bill Buckley's National Review. as journals of conservative opinion. These days TAS makes news from investigative reporting as well. It was in the pages of TAS I believe (long pre-dating me as anything other than a reader") that the name "Paula" surfaced during the Clinton era. So investigation does happen here.
Certainly we have been down the road of discussing positions with intellect. It isn't possible to pick up a TAS and not get that. People like Art Laffer, Steve Moore, Roger Scruton, etc etc etc...the list is long of people who right superb pieces here that appeal to the intellect.
Social conservatism is based certainly on more than religious faith...wow, there's a stereotype...but conservatism is about more than that. Heavens. Long discussions about liberty, free markets, national security, education, health care, the environment and lots more proceed without a mention of religion. Truly, you've got to get out of stereotype heaven there Bob. I've spent lots and lots of time in these kind of discussions in Washington/White House/Capitol Hill/GOP circles and it just doesn't work that way. If anything I might argue things like morality and faith should get more representation, not less. But to say they somehow dominate everything is, well, nuts. Ain't so.
"you depend on ideological arguments rather than intellectual ones. " ..huh? Catch that fiirst syllable. "Idea" is at the root of ideologogy. You may not like the ideas, but there is nothing but ideas and intellectual content in these discussions. In fact, if we could have rationally discussed national security and economics the last eight years rather than dealing with foaming crazies obsessed with Bush hatred the country would have been a whole lot better off.
As to Jon Stewart - hey, Lewis Black needled me on the Jon Stewart Show. I love Jon Stewart! I trust him to pick his targets appropriately and I've never, ever been disappointed!
tonypal| 7.29.09 @ 10:12PM
You know, it's been almost a week since I was last reminded by Bob just how smart Bob is. Thanks Bob.
Liberal Reader| 7.29.09 @ 10:22PM
Interested Conservative --
Brian Lamb's a fine journalist.
If you have any accurate information about what's going on outside your town or state, it's because some reporter somewhere got it for you.
It seems crazy that this has to be pointed out, but it does.
Reporters may often be liberals, but I don't think that necessarily changes what they do most of the time. Reporting is a skill; newspapers and wire services depend upon their reporters getting at least most of what they report at least somewhat right. The worst thing in journalism is not having some moaning radio disc jockey criticize you; it's have some other reporter scoop you or prove your were wrong. In that sense, competition keeps journalists at least somewhat honest.
CBS would like to "beat" the New York Times much, much more than it would like to harm -- say -- George W Bush or Sarah Palin.
I know that's not the narrative favored by the know-nothing "conservative" union of proud anti-elitists these days, but if you really are "interested," you should look into it.
I think the current number of journalists killed in Iraq is over 80. There was Daniel Pearl too. What liberal conspiracy were they dying for? I think journalists are pretty admirable, myself.
Liberal Reader| 7.29.09 @ 10:31PM
One last thing:
Watch two or three broadcasts of Lehrer's News Hour, then go back to a reliably "conservative" news broadcast of your choosing. Fox if you insist.
I think you'll find the News Hour, while probably somewhat liberal, has given you a solid hour each night with three or four longish stories with tons of actual information. The stories are more in depth, and they cover a greater range of topics.
Jeffrey Lord| 7.29.09 @ 10:33PM
Why, I even have friends who are journalists! Shocker! One covers the WH for a major publication, just the fact's m'am style. The profession is indeed an honorable one.
Interested Conservative| 7.29.09 @ 10:45PM
LR - perhaps you missed my point. 120 years ago, the press was incredibly raucous, and very "right-wing", or more simply, conservative. It took a good 80 years or so, but by the 1970s, particularly Watergate, it had swung all the way to the left.
We've slowly been moving back, very slowly, until Rupert, and talk radio began to speed things up in the late 1980s, and then, of course, the web. The only advantage the "right-wing" media had was that given their initial small scale, it was easy for them to broadcast their personal leanings for all to hear. The MSM, contrarywise, clung to "objectivity" through years of bias, slanted coverage, publication of campaign donations, voting record surveys, job-hopping back and forth from the media to policy positions, and so on and so on.
Today we look back and can get a sense of how far left it had gotten. I remember Ron Nessen as Ford's press secretary, and always wondered what Edwin Newman's political leanings were, but from Mencken to Tony Snow, it was a long stretch for the right wing without much press.
It's still not really "fair and balanced" but at least its opened up quite a bit.
All of which gets me back to Brian Lamb, still the only "journalist" of national note, that I've never heard any partisan peep about.
The point being how truly rare is "objectivity" or impartiality.
It's not a "conspiracy" given how obvious it is, it's simply the groupthink and shared denial that shows so glaringly. "Gravitas" anyone?
Smitty| 7.29.09 @ 10:48PM
'RINO' Bob's a bigot--everyone knows that, and LibReader/Jeremiah is a dumb boob troll.
Interested Conservative| 7.29.09 @ 10:57PM
One more ironic point of the Todd comments, which I suspect Mr. Lord knows.
Roger Ailes, of course is not a "former political consultants-turned-TV exec", he's actually a former TV exec turned political consultant returned to TV exec. He started out as a (the?) producer for the Mike Douglas Show, handled an appearence by Richard Nixon, and apparently impressed him so much, the rest, of course, is history. I think this was mid-60s, during his "out years" before the 68 race/election. Ailes/Safire/Buchanan - RMN could spot talent.
Nobama| 7.29.09 @ 11:03PM
It's kind of hard to poison public discourse that's already been putrefied by 7 years of fascist liberal shrieks of "BUSHITLER!" I think you liberal morons already did that--we're just returning the favor with bells on.
And we're not going to stop until we exact our pound of flesh from you democrats, Jeremiah. Bet on it.
Jeffrey Lord| 7.29.09 @ 11:23PM
Interested Conservative...
"Roger Ailes, of course is not a "former political consultants-turned-TV exec", he's actually a former TV exec turned political consultant returned to TV exec. "
Bingo.
Brian72| 7.30.09 @ 12:42AM
For all the slagging on Fox News, there were objective surveys after the 2008 election that showed Fox was the most balanced coverage going.
Just about perfectly balanced between positive and negative stories on all four candidates.
The rest were slanted toward Obama and Biden heavily. Look it up, or don't. It's just the truth.
Believe what you want, it's a free country, and you are free to be as wrong as you want!
Roscoe| 7.30.09 @ 8:48AM
Jeffrey Lord...
Masterful! I haven't seen such a perfect retort, that will so effectively leave them sputtering, since.... well... Oh yes, yesterday! ... when Ms. Malkin took some skin off of Lauer (who also hangs out over at Chuck's place). Geez... talk about "ideological media people who have never really spent their lives being journalists...."
Bob| 7.30.09 @ 8:49AM
Jeffrey -- you, Klein, Antle are the ones I happen to like here at TAS (that is your kiss of death), but you really don't think your response to my retort is a strong one, do you? Let me take your quotes:
"These days TAS makes news from investigative reporting as well. It was in the pages of TAS I believe (long pre-dating me as anything other than a reader") that the name "Paula" surfaced during the Clinton era."
We have massive fraud in Medicare, defense spending, the stimulus plan, etc., and the best you can do is come up with "Paula"? Your priorities are clearly screwed up. My point was that you only present one side of the story -- especially in the area of economics. There is another side. A good journalist would present opposing views and argue the case. Your writers don't even bring up problems with your argument or opposing views.
Regarding Art Laffer, mainstream economist think he is a joke. His "Laffer Curve" makes good politics but he has never found the data to prove the case. Here is like from his wiki:
"On August 28, 2006, Art Laffer appeared on Kudlow & Company[4] to debate Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital. Laffer made a bet with Schiff that there wouldn't be a recession, and that the housing bubble wouldn't burst in the next year or two."
Yeah, Laffer is really good at understanding economics. Steve Moore is another political hack and is certainly not an intellectual not having seen fit to get a PhD. You can do better than this, Jeffrey.
"Social conservatism is based certainly on more than religious faith...wow, there's a stereotype...but conservatism is about more than that. Heavens. Long discussions about liberty, free markets, national security, education, health care, the environment and lots more proceed without a mention of religion."
Wow, I didn't know that national security and education were issues in the "social" conservative group. Yes, they are "conservative", but not "social" conservative. "Social" is a MODIFIER of conservative. You don't have to be a SOCIAL conservative to hold fiscal conservative views. Social conservatism is more related to, wait... let's see.... ahhh... SOCIAL issues like abortion and gay marriage and being a "Christian" country. Here is the wiki on social conservatism -- I'm sure you know better...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism
"In fact, if we could have rationally discussed national security and economics the last eight years rather than dealing with foaming crazies obsessed with Bush hatred the country would have been a whole lot better off."
I agree -- it is a two way street. That's why I wouldn't call the Huffington Post the centerpiece of investigative journalism either. TAS has turned into a forum of left wing hit pieces -- not good journalism. That's fine for what it is.
Lastly, your spell checker can't check things like this:
"...the list is long of people who right superb pieces here that appeal to the intellect."
"Right"????? Just kidding.... Unfortunately I make some of the same kinds of mistakes. Welcome to the club.
G. A. Kevis| 7.30.09 @ 9:11AM
LMSM Journalism - Incest on display.
So what else is new ?
Pot smoking veggie-tard| 7.30.09 @ 9:11AM
See, here's the deal: Katie, Brian, Charlie, Tom, Dan, Old Gingerballs himself Chuck Todd, would all SWEAR UP AND DOWN their objective. That's the difference between them and say a Bill O'Reilly, which makes them intellectually dishonest, both with themselves and their audience. At least with conservative media they ARE up front and honest about it; you know what you're getting into when you read American Spectator for instance. And as Bernie Goldberg said, these people know no other reality; a fish doesn't know its wet. Oh, and na na na na na naaaaa! Katie's ratings are in the toilet!
Jeffrey Lord| 7.30.09 @ 10:04AM
Bob...
I keep concluding you don't read the TAS magazine.
Articles like "Wrestling with Capitalist Pigs" by Phil Klein, examining the flaws and mistakes of capitalists in the economic mess. To say "My point was that you only present one side of the story -- especially in the area of economics. " is just factually not so.
"Downgrading American Medical Care" by Betsy McCaughey, the health care expert who played a key role in blocking the Clintons health care proposals by systematicaly analyzing and presenting her findings to the public. This, BTW, is in the current issue.
"The Fate of Individual Liberty in Post-Communist Europe" by Anne Applebaum, a columnist for - brace yourself - The Washington Post.
One of the last pieces he wrote before being stricken with a brain tumor was Bob Novak's detailed analysis of a subject close to your heart" the role of evangelical Christians in the GOP (April of 2008)
I could go on and on and on but your criticism just doesn't hold water. Do you have a subscription to the magazine? Buy it on the newsstand? By the way, Matthew Vadum has been scrutinizing the machinations of ACORN and his findings have very much put ACORN in a seriously bad spotlight. I just mentioned Paula because that will stand, perhaps with Watergate, as one of the most result-heavy pieces of investigative journal in the 20th century. When one sets a president on the road to impeachment, you must admit it to be a rather stunning thing.
As to your, well, obsession with "social conservatism" you keep missing the link here with the Supreme Court. Had the Court stayed out of abortion and let the states decide as they were actually doing, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. You are "pro-choice" (which, as you know, I believe to be disingenuous because the whole point of the pro-choice movement is to deny the rest of us a vote - a choice - on the issue.) yet seem to recoil from letting your fellow citizens decide how they want the laws to be structured on this. This the problem with Sonia Sotomayor. It was the problem with Roger Taney. With the Plessy Justices. Social policy is best decided by those concerned, thru ballot initiatives, state legislatures, Congress or Constitutional amendments. You insist on denying people this choice - thus creating the issue you say shouldn't be an issue. After almost 40 years of turmoil you should catch on here. We've done it your way - and it has failed to resolve the problem, miserably so. Not to mention poison everything from judicial confirmations to presidential elections. And there are those determined to repeat this mistake with gay marriage. Let the people choose for themselves. This just isn't hard.
Spell-check? You mean I'm supposed to use that? Actually, I am less than the best of typists, and in today's e-mail world the fingers fly (such as that is) and in my haste to dispatch missives such as this (as opposed to my copy) I don't always double check. But fear not. Spelling was one of my better subjects! I do know write from rong.
Nick| 7.30.09 @ 10:27AM
3/5 Bob,
Why are you commenting on anything, especially on someone's intellect?
For those who don't know, Bob, until recently, thought blacks had 3/5 of a vote under the U.S. Constitution, as originally written.
I suggest you get a Ph.D. from a proper university. Like Franciscan U. of Steubenville, Ave Maria, or Hillsdale.
And, by the way, Chris Matth-spews constantly calls himself a journalist.
Bob| 7.30.09 @ 10:46AM
Jeffrey -- I agree there are SOME articles where you find good journalism. I think Phil Klein is extremely good and on target (again, the kiss of death for Phil). However, these are the few exceptions to the rule.
"You are "pro-choice" (which, as you know, I believe to be disingenuous because the whole point of the pro-choice movement is to deny the rest of us a vote - a choice - on the issue.)"
Actually, I am pro-choice on virtually all issues -- not just abortion -- that is one of the precepts in believing in limited government. The obtuse logic of claiming that choice denies you a vote because of the courts is ludicrous. The ISSUE is not the courts to social conservatives, but abortion itself. If the courts used their power to outlaw abortions, I'm sure we wouldn't hear from them berating the court. I think the decision on Roe was wrong -- but I am still pro-choice on libertarian grounds. You don't seem to understand the difference. Furthermore, legislation (which can be construed to be a form of mob rule), often, in our history, has passed laws that denied minority rights. You certainly must understand that. Do you think it is right for, let's say, Alabama to vote slavery as legal? After all, it would be the legislature that passed that law. (I know, we have an intervening Constitutional amendment but you get my point). You don't argue with the recent court's overruling of previous precedent to completely disregard the "militia" portion and say there is an individual right. Your logic is backwards, i.e., you look at the result and see what is wrong in the process to get there.
Furthermore, on gay marriage, whether this is the purview of the courts relies on whether you believe that being gay is nature or nurture. If you believe that being gay for the vast majority of people is genetic (something we could not have known even a few decades ago), then denying gay marriage is denying their individual rights. I'd certainly rather have laws passed than this issue settled by the courts, but how do you protect minorities from mob rule? This is not an easy subject with an easy answer. If it were, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court.
Regarding typing, I actually am an excellent typist but moving fast on these blogs my muscle memory (in my fingers) sometimes writes (rights?) words in the wrong form.
Don't get me wrong, Jeffrey, I happen to believe you are one of the few people here who actually thinks about some level of fairness and responds to alternative arguments with some level of respect instead of using ideological blinders.
Basil Plumley| 7.30.09 @ 11:08AM
Mr Lord
Normally, when I read a response like yours, I can envision a normal person skulking away with their tail between their legs.
Unfortunately for us, Bob is not normal. He is a glutton for punishment. It won't be long before he attempts to dazzle us with his adolescent intelligence and his narcissist personality.
There is not a nickel's worth of difference between Bob and Obama. Perhaps, his new handle should be Bobama.
Grzmlyk| 7.30.09 @ 12:19PM
Journalists are some of the laziest, most entitlement-minded people on the planet. And objectivity is a great goal; virtually no one achieves it.
Which, as an aside, is what worries me about Sotomayor. Her track record of rather moderate rulings is belied by her history of ideologically slanted affiliations and utterances. She will rule as a liberal activist judge. I don't think even Lindsey Graham believes otherwise.
And, when she takes her place on the court, she'll suck up the adoration as a darling of the fashionable white salons practicing fashionable white guilt, which will only encourage her to solidify her leftward leanings. Obama was no fool in choosing her, and he didn't choose her because she'll make every effort to be an objective jurist.
But back to journalists: What makes a degree in journalism a sanctification? Journalists love to see themselves as a pristine priesthood of truth-seekers who are polluted by the likes of the unwashed. As I say, they are generally lazy schlubs. I've worked with them in a professional capacity. Generally bright, nice folks, but vigilant seekers of truth they are not, as a rule.
As for Fox News, anyone who thinks the network's straight news show with Shepard Smith is conservative has never watched it; it's as sensationalist and silly as anything else (if not mores0), and Shep is an incompetent, babbling fool who can barely read a prompter.
I'm not a fan of any of Fox's bright lights, but that doesn't mean they don't have valid things to say on occasion. Glenn Beck may in fact be the most annoying and grating person on the face of the earth (just edging out O'Reilly and Limbaugh).
But he does tackle things others won't touch, like ACORN - which deserves the disinfectant of sunlight shone on it.
And although I find Limbaugh PAINFULLY obnoxious, yes, I believe he's right on most (not all) of the big issues - and has unusually keen insight into the strategy behind a lot of the political machinations.
O'Reilly is probably the luckiest idiot on the planet.
Bob| 7.30.09 @ 1:18PM
Grzmlyk, when you are right, as in your last post, I must give you kudos. You are right about Sotomayor, but that doesn't bother me because I'm pro-choice. And most journalists are lazy -- which was exactly my initial point. You're also right about Shep Smith -- he has one of the fairest newscasts on the cable news channels today -- in fact, in my opinion, he is fairer than anyone on CNN or MSNBC. I never miss his newscast. I agree with you on Beck and O'Reilly as well. I also agree that Limbaugh is good at dissecting political strategy, but I don't think he's right on about half of the issues.
Watch yourself, with me as a friend, you might not need any enemies....
Grzmlyk| 7.30.09 @ 1:31PM
Well, thanks, Bob:
However, with respect to Sotomayor, of course, there will be other issues before the court than Roe v. Wade (which will not be overturned in our lifetime in any case). I do question the quality of her mind.
I wish Shep could read. And, for my money, you've seen one car chase, you've seen them all.
I also think he embarrassed himself during his Katrina coverage; crying on camera and reporting wild rumors was an embarrassment not just to journalism, but to adulthood.
Yeah, I figured laziness was your initial point. Of course as journalists get higher up the food chain, they tend to be more ambitious (and concomitantly ethically ruthless), but rank-and-file journalists really don't care about fact checking or getting two corroborating sources, as used to be de rigeur in the profession. Those days are over.
These rank-and-file journalists - many of whom are future would-be news anchors - tend to be young ideologues, and ideology tends to be the mortar by which they select and assemble the bricks of factoids into a wall of misinformation.
And when it's technology reporters, they just want to have a product fact sheet boiled down to three bullet points faxed to them - then they copy it into their bylines, write some airy prose around it, file it and go out and talk about saving the world.
Like blacksmithing, journalism is a craft from a bygone era.
oy.
Bob| 7.30.09 @ 1:56PM
Grzmlyk,
With regard to Sotomayor, there are many types of successful people. There are the "writers", like Obama, who must compose paragraphs in their minds and then rewrite them upon review. In my studies, I've know a number of people like that who could not speak extemporaneously but who were exceptionally bright. You cannot be a perfectionist and speak extemporaneously.
Then there are people like Sotomayor whose strength is study and research. With English as a second language, she doesn't write as much as she should, and I doubt she has the intellect of a Scalia, but she is certainly the intellectual match of an Alito, Thomas, and Souter. Throughout her life she has studied her way to the top -- and succeeded. I admire people who work hard to achieve even though they may not have the genius to do it in other ways.
And yes, like blacksmithing, we no longer see true journalists. I believe that most of this has to do with making a living. With the thrust of entertainment on the news function, we see segmentation into two sided argumentation. The people that are paid well are commentators on the extremes because they garner large audiences. The people who actually do investigative reporting no longer receive high salaries because they are investigators, not entertainers. It could well be that the definition of journalism is being morphed into blog writers.
There are a number of things I'd like to know about the large expenditures of funds we have in our federal government, and the economics behind them, but these types of studies just do not exist. Show me a detailed analysis of single payer countries that is not written to bolster one side or another. Show me a detailed analysis of Medicare spending with the costs broken down in terms of policy issues rather than accounting breakouts.
I guess my question is how we can make good decisions as a country without the objective and detailed analyses that used to come from journalists. For example, the Heritage Foundation has some great economics charts, but the leave out the ones that disprove some of their ideology. For example, they don't show any graphs of nominal and real GDP because that undermines their argument that tax cuts are stimulative. They are making arguments, not analysis.
Part of the problem is being old enough to be in a generation where the hard work of analysis and truth finding was important. Now it is just ideology and support for certain positions.
Nobama| 7.30.09 @ 2:01PM
I like Rush--he makes me laugh all of the time.
More importantly, he's taken many painful hits from the left on behalf of our freedom. Democrat big guns, Billy Clinton, Harry Reid and the DNC have tried to destroy him for a long time.
Because of Rush I found TAS, The Conservative Chronicle and other conservative publications that have helped me hone and clarify my own personal and political philosophy.
Say what you will about Rush, (Sometimes he's over the top), but underneath that jocular persona lies the dead serious, patriotic heart of an American hero. I thank God for him.
Grzmlyk| 7.30.09 @ 2:41PM
First, Nobama, on the whole I agree with you - I think Rush is a great voice for individual liberty and conservative values and I think that's sincere and in, in that regard, he is not the buffoon many make him out to be.
However, while I think Paul Shanklin (Rush's sometime contributor) is hilarious, I do not find Rush amusing or even entertaining. I listen to him off and on because he is pretty much what you say he is, and is indeed the de facto poster child for what the left hates. I kinda like it that he's the eternal pebble in the liberal shoe.
But the very timber of his voice sets my teeth on edge. His mispronunciations and misuse of words (only some of which is deliberate), his constant self-aggrandizing grandiosity, his sniffing, his rattling of papers and pounding the desk nonstop, his rather puerile forays into sexual humor, etc. - these things really grate on my nerves.
I understand most of his listeners enjoy that stuff, and it's worked for him, but my personal preference for all of these guys is less schtick. Glenn Beck is 100 percent schtick; yes, he makes some good points, and I do admire his taking on some of the topics others won't. But it's ALL with a "Look at me! Look at me!" callowness. And every day the sky is falling according to Beck. The man cannot speak in anything less than a shout.
Guys like Mark Belling and Roger Hedgecock are more my speed in terms of style. And I miss WFB; he came by his affectation honestly, and had just a huge brain.
I think Rush is a savant - he has a great mind for the mechanics of politics that is a natural gift. But I think a lot of that is wrapped into the psyche of someone who is still a 13 year-old socially inept and unpopular kid.
Bob:
I'm not so sure about Sotomayor's intellect. Maybe. I honestly haven't studied her intellectual provenance that much. I do think she's got the whole racial chip on her shoulder thing going on and that's what worries me. I think as a result her definition of justice is probably very different from mine. I do not believe we should view human interaction, and the boundaries we put on it, through the prism of race. Period. I believe it is the most corrosive acid you can throw on human relations, this fetish for balkanizing us into different victim groups; whatever short-term political gain is achieved is more than offset by the trouble we're just kicking down the road (which is why O'Connor's views so disappointed me).
And your point, if you've hung on this long, about the lack of reliably objective statistics is my very problem with learning economics - I don't trust anything I see. Is there objective reality, or is economics like the humble electron? Defined in part by the very act of observing it?
That's exacerbated by the fact that I do not have a particularly high IQ when it comes to numbers; it's a deficiency I wish I didn't have, but there you are. But everybody's got an axe to grind when it comes to reading economic tea leaves, and when it comes to a naif like myself in the realm of economics, I trust no one. It doesn't make it easy to emerge from the tall grass.
But I do agree we've devolved into a manichean view of the world with essentially diametrically opposite, mirror-image factions. I think part of the problem you describe - and which with I generally agree - is that technology has rendered the measured analysis of events an anachronism. It used to be that a weekly news magazine kept you abreast of current events; now, if you're not on the Web every hour, you're behind the times. We live in the now almost exclusively. We've become an instant-gratification world in all ways - not just news analysis - and, while in many ways this is a wonder, it is also likely to be our downfall as we balkanize further. I, for one, miss "e pluribus unum" both culturally and politically. despite it's constraints and oppressions, it is a sane way of keeping a society from shattering.
And, while I am not particularly religious, I do believe armageddon is our fate; that we will manage to destroy ourselves by the very gifts that also make us the "beauty of the world, the paragon of animals."
I say if we're gonna do it, let's do it before my car gets repossessed. :-)
Bob| 7.30.09 @ 2:58PM
I don't think you can get away from racial bias either from blacks or whites. Whether it is overt or subvert, we all have it. Perhaps I am more sensitive to it because I grew up in a black neighborhood as one of the few white guys and then spent most of my career in the company of WASP's. I experienced Antisemitism in the Army and in some parts of the south years ago. Most people I know don't think they have strong racial views, but since I've seen it from both sides, I recognize it. I think the solution is that we all need to realize that our own backgrounds and experiences cause bias. My black friends thing that Gates was the subject of racial preferences and there is no doubt in their minds. Most of my white friends, who are law and order conservatives, think that the policeman was totally in the right and there is no doubt in their minds. I have no clue how to fix this, but I've seen it in my life for over 60 years and it is just a fact.
I'm more positive about our future than you. I'm the eternal optimist. Cycles occur in nature and the ebb and flow of life continues like a sin curve. My biggest fear is the lack of education of our children -- and most of the population of the world. They are buried in religious beliefs and don't reason. Our strength as a country has been the use of reason and associated creativity. With the rise of ideologues, and the demonization of education we are losing some of this. Longer term, this will make us a less effective competitor in the world, but the world will be just fine as other countries begin to educate more and learn creative skills.
This is one place where I happen to agree with Rush, our environment will continue to survive just fine -- it is stronger than we give it credit for.
Missy| 7.30.09 @ 3:25PM
Bobama--LOL! Basil, you crack me up.
Jeffrey Lord| 7.30.09 @ 3:36PM
Bob...
"The ISSUE is not the courts to social conservatives, but abortion itself. "
Well of course! Abortion is a big deal to them. Bob, any issue - any kind of issue at all, not just abortion - is in a sense about the issue itself. You don't like fundamentalist Christians (by the way, I'm your basic Congregationalist - the Pilgrims and all that) and I understand that. While I don't mean to say that's fine, that's fine in terms of our discussion. What I'm trying to get across to you is that the Founding Fathers provided for these kinds of differences by very carefully laying out a Constitution with a separation of powers.
You say: "If the courts used their power to outlaw abortions, I'm sure we wouldn't hear from them berating the court. " But you would hear from me, and for exactly the same reason. It is not the business of the Court to make up laws that are not provided for in the Constitution. The slavery issue that you touch on goes straight to the point.
The Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision tried to do exactly what Roe v. Wade did. It tried to insert into the Constitution a perpetual right to own slaves. A right which did not exist. No such right existed. Lincoln was fierce in his denunciation of this kind of thing, sounding exactly like Robert Bork or Scalia on abortion over 100 years later. In 1896 the Court tried the same thing with segregation - and the results were disasterous. A complete violation of the 14th and 15th amendments, not to mention the clearly stated intent of the amendments and the civil rights laws of 1866 and 1875.
Slavery was outlawed by the 13th amendment to the Constitution. Democrats voted against, by the way, Northern Democrats included. As provided for the Amendment was ratified by a vote of the states. This is also the way women got the right to vote. This is not some abstruse formulation. It is done precisely so that whatever is at issue - slavery, women voting etc etc - is shown to have the approval of a majority of the American people. You protect minority rights by convincing the majority that they need to be protected, which is one of the reasons the Constitution structures the government the way it does.
Your "libertarian" views on abortion are, respectfully, not libertarian at all. You would deny to others what you claim for yourself. You want your view to reign because you deem it morally superior - as do the folks on the other side. The Constitution was constructed with the understanding that all kinds of issues would surface with people believing fervently in their cause. And a specific process was carefully crafted to ensure that controversial issues would become the law of the land or not because they had majority support.
You also say:
"Furthermore, legislation (which can be construed to be a form of mob rule), often, in our history, has passed laws that denied minority rights. " Absolutely true. Which is why the Constitution is so utterly fundamental. Both a too-powerful central government and the lynch mob mentality you cite are threats to liberty. The balance between the two is critical. If you believe abortion (or a whole host of things from abortion to pot smoking to gay marriage to polygamy to drinking beer upside down) should be legalized - you have to convince a majority. This is a democracy. Just because you or I or anyone else claims moral superiorit to their view on X doesn't mean a thing, and shouldn't. It is always interesting to hear liberals warn that if the Court undid Roe the GOP would pay a heavy political price - yet they are terrified of letting people vote on abortion policy because they think they will lose.
You keep consfusing subatsance (abortion) with constitutional process. They are not the same thing. At all. The first (abortion or any other issue) is about the issue itself. The second is always about the way the issue gets decided -which is supposed to be the same for all. When you monkey with that formula, trouble ensues. And it has.
I'll make sure to tell Phil Klein and Jim Antle that you are ruining our reputations! Thanks, though!
Grzmlyk| 7.30.09 @ 4:38PM
Bob:
I am in 100% agreement with you on the fact that racial bias is in all of us and is inescapable; I also think it's a subset of us-and-them tribalism, which is actually the same root of so much ideological animosity.
None of us can escape it as, IMHO, it is a vestige of our origins, like an appendix. I had a conversation on this very topic, involving anti-semitism and blacks, just last night.
I don't think there is a clear way out, but I think nurturing it by creating a balkanized tapestry (to mix metaphors) of victim groups salves the surface wound but inded encourages the infection to fester.
I think we all have to give up the ghost and admit we are human, and knee-jerk racism (and other -isms) are innate to the human animal and that, instead of bending over backward to show everyone we're not bigots, we should just admit we have this tendency, experience it and then get the hell over it and meet in the color-blind middle, in the realm of common values.
I've lived near other whites whom I have feared, and I've lived among blacks with whom I felt utterly safe. This didn't nullify the racial issue psychology 100%, but in practice, commonality of values pretty successfully neutralizes it.
I admit myself that I have this kneejerk response - The OTHER is always fecund ground for focusing our feelings of alienation and fear. But the "gorgeous mosaic" David Dinkins touted upon his election as NYC mayor is not the way forward; the great melting pot remains the only way out, imperfect as it is.
gotta run, again.
Grzmlyk| 7.30.09 @ 4:46PM
BTW, I know Rush is an eternal optimist. I admire that about him, actually. I think he's turned an incredible inferority complex into a fairly impervious kevlar vest.
As for optimism about the human race, I hope you are right, but I believe we will become victims of that which makes us great - our technology. I also believe entropy is inescapable.
Bob| 7.30.09 @ 5:41PM
Jeffrey, you know we violently agree on the courts and the Constitution. However, I believe conservative jurists also "make law". I am against the process on either side. And yes, you may well be different and principled. But the majority of people who inhabit these blogs are not -- and you know it.
As for my libertarian views on abortion -- I am in no way forcing my view on others. They can run their lives the way they wish. The only way your position makes sense is if you say the unborn, starting at the time of conception, and full and complete human beings. If that were true, we should have "conception certificates" rather than "birth certificates". From a civil perspective, we don't make people citizens until they are born so I'm not making decisions for them. You want to take away the freedom of pregnant women to make their own decisions. Therefore, I believe it is you that is restricting the rights of others. And by the way, I don't consider my views to be "morally superior". I just believe they are right for me. It is consistent with my views that each of us should make our own moral decisions. But that gives me insight into your beliefs since you've now indicated that you believe your views are "morally superior".
And I do not confuse substance with the constitutional process -- that is something I was claiming that YOU do in the name of ideology. So, since you believe so strongly in the constitutional process, please tell me when the court ruled for an ideology which you believed but was not constitutional. You can certainly make a link to the column you wrote about that, right?
While I'm sure you will argue the case, the Heller decision expanded the definition of the right to bear arms and thus was not originalist in nature. In that respect, it was an activist position. The proper way to establish that type of position is with an amendment -- not the courts. But again, this was a 5-4 decision on ideological, not really legal, grounds. Now I do agree with the outcome, but I admit it was an activist decision that should have been made through law -- not the courts.
That said, you make good points -- we just have definitional disagreements.
Smitty| 7.30.09 @ 6:46PM
No one has the 'right' to kill another human being, including a pregnant woman. Once the life of the unborn is devalued, all life is devalued--including old people under Obama's health care plans.
Everyone's freedom is restricted when it comes to killing another person. That's equality.
Jeffrey Lord| 7.30.09 @ 9:16PM
Bob...
"So, since you believe so strongly in the constitutional process, please tell me when the court ruled for an ideology which you believed but was not constitutional."
Sure. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). The decision supported the idea of a colorblind society. I agree.
It supported the University of Michigan using racial quotas to get there - which I think is watered down Plessy. Ergo, right goal, wrong process.
Brian Williams| 8.2.09 @ 12:39AM
Jeffrey,
You mention that I "spent time in the Carter White House," and while technically true, it carries the whiff of partisanship -- which, while it may have been your goal -- isn't quite fair.
I was a 20-year-old student intern. I had just transferred to Catholic University after two years at a Community College in New Jersey. In my experience, when students apply for White House internships, they do so for the prestige of the highly competitive position, regardless of who the President happens to be when students reach application age. When I applied and interviewed for the position in 1979, Jimmy Carter was President. Had I applied a bit later, Ronald Reagan would have been President during my internship term. While I suppose some applicants are driven by political party affiliation, I was not. I considered it the thrill of a lifetime to go to work via the Northwest Gate each day. I had no way of knowing that someday (three Presidents later) I would return as NBC's White House correspondent.
My job in 1979 was to make copies, open the mail and order office supplies. That's what interns do. My experience hardly belongs alongside your mention of the "liberal political activists" in media, or the "revolving door of media and politics." For the record, my internship later became a mere resume curiosity, when I could no longer afford college and dropped out to start my career as a reporter. I would only ask that you choose your words more carefully (or better yet, call me for comment) especially when reporting on journalism itself.
Brian Williams
Pingback| 8.3.09 @ 9:00AM
Chuck Todd | Jamming Online links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 8.3.09 @ 9:45AM
Chuck Todd News | Hot Web Trends links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
zloigad | 8.3.09 @ 9:54AM
Chuck Todd seems to have become awfully defensive about any suggestion that traditional media don't have the influence they once had.
Just do your job and let the work speak for itself.
Pingback| 8.3.09 @ 10:06AM
Chuck Todd links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 8.3.09 @ 10:20AM
What Up with NBCs Chuck Todd? « POLITISITE: Politics from the RIGHT Side of the WEB links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 8.3.09 @ 7:02PM
Chuck Todd | FTP2FTP News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 8.11.09 @ 5:10AM
Chuck Todd links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 8.13.09 @ 3:32PM
paul shanklin old people | Random Hot News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
The Right Squad | 8.22.09 @ 6:09AM
The problem with Brian Williams comment above is that though it rightly shows that he started out as a low level White House employee under a democrat his point is that that should not matter. If it doesn't then why do liberals constantly site Diane Sawyer as someone from a Republican administation? She is obviously left wing. Yet they site her as balance because she worked for Nixon. If it is fair for them to site her it is fair for us to site Brian.
So he needs to be honest...in total. Or get over it.