When good TV networks go bad- the demise of MSNBC
Image via Wikipedia
It has long been my habit to have a television on in the background as I go through my day. For reasons that escape me, the background noise has always helped me to better concentrate.
In the old days, it was CNN that provided my daily soundtrack – until I grew tired of 45 minutes of every hour being dedicated to Michael Jackson and whatever problem was vexing the singing star while endlessly titillating the viewing public.
A change was required and I struggled over where to go next. Were I to designate FOX as the voice in the background, I feared my blood pressure would reach unsustainable levels, particularly when combined with whatever client was making me nuts as my day wore on.
Thus, MSNBC seemed the likely choice. Given my left leaning soul, I found that the tone of the network provided the comfort required to serve as the elevator music during my working hours while allowing me to more consciously ‘tune in’ as the day progressed and the ‘meat’ of the network’s line up began to show up.
Besides, I like starting my days with “Morning Joe” so I’m already tuned in by the time my phone begins ringing and my fingers get busy typing.
Sadly, that may all be changing.
Last week, guest host Donny Deutsch was presenting a series of shows on MSNBC entitled “America the Angry”. In an early episode of what was scheduled to be a weeklong broadcast, Deutsch was showing a series of clips containing media figures going a little mad with anger while on the air. One of those media figures was MSNBC’s own Keith Olbermann.
After the offending show, Deutsch was pulled off the air and his producer sent home. “America the Angry” had been short-circuited by the anger of Phil Griffin, president of MSNBC, and quite possibly – and with no shortage of irony – Keith Olbermann himself.
The reason? MSNBC has a policy of MSNBC anchors refraining from attacking other MSNBC anchors on the air – a policy that grew out of the pissing match that unfolded before the cameras between Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann during the 2008 presidential election.
While some sources indicate that Keith Olbermann was the man behind the curtain wielding the executioner’s blade, the official network position is that the cancellation was solely the decision of Mr. Griffin.
When contacted by the New York Times, Olbermann said,
What I know of what happened is this: Phil Griffin phoned me yesterday enraged at what was on that show and I didn’t disagree with him.
Via The New York Times
Not exactly a sterling example of Olbermann standing up for the right of MSNBC journalists, talkers or however you care to describe the on-air personalities, to call things as they see it. While Olbermann may or may not have been responsible for Deutsch getting the hook, his statement to the New York Times makes clear that he certainly wasn’t going to lift a finger to come to Duetsch’s aid.
Whomever was responsible, the matter is made all the more unseemly when considering that this is precisely the sort of thing Olbermann would quickly take others to task for had it happened on FOX or another competitor.
This is really not the sort of behavior I would have expected from MSNBC – and it troubled me.
Still, a guy needs his background noise, so my digital receiver remained tuned to MSNBC.
Last night, I was watching Olbermann as I often do. While there is no denying his occasional never-ending tendency to bloviate, I am, nevertheless, frequently entertained by the guy and at least get the progressive point of view on the day’s news when watching his show.
He’s also the lead-in for the true gem of the MSNBC line-up, Rachel Maddow, so I usually have the TV tuned to his show.
During last night’s show, Olbermann began picking on Laura Bush and her new book. It bothered me. Was this really necessary? Despite how poorly many of us feel about the era of W, I hardly think any of us are prepared to lay the blame at the feet of President Bush’s wife.
I particularly disliked Olbermann making light reference – and inserting a small dig – when discussing an event Mrs. Bush reveals in the book involving a terrible accident when she was a teenager that resulted in the death of her friend. Apparently, Mrs. Bush ran a stop sign and produced the terrible result.
That’s not an easy thing for anyone to live with and hardly something that deserves scorn on the part of Mr. Olbermann or anyone else.
I have to admit that I have become increasingly sensitive to the fact that Olbermann can’t seem to let go of a president who is now a part of history. Indeed, he still ends each and every show with a reference to Bush’s hapless ‘mission accomplished’ speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln back in 2003 despite the fact that well over a year has passed since the man exited the public stage.
Enough already. Isn’t it time that we all move on and focus on what’s happening today and the days to come? Bush happened. Deal with it. His time in office is over. We have a new president – one I not only happen to like but someone whose presidency could never have happened but for the existence of George W. Bush.
It is also hard to escape an increasingly megalomaniacal streak in Olbermann’s behavior. MSNBC insiders suggest that there are times that Olbermann refuses to appear on his show because he is angry with MSNBC management. I don’t know if it’s true – but the very suggestion is kind of stomach turning in that it suggests that the man’s dedication to his job ends where the cry baby within begins.
Even more disturbing are indications that MSNBC employees fear reprisal should they dare to openly criticize the network.
Some of the people said the decision suggests that criticism of MSNBC is not allowed on MSNBC, potentially a troubling development. Both CNN and the Fox News Channel show media criticism programs each weekend.
Via the New York Times
MSNBC is the network of progressives and for progressives. Yet, there is nothing progressive about the network’s employees being terrified to speak up for fear of losing their jobs. Progressives also like to think of themselves as the people who ‘have a heart.’ Thus, there is nothing progressive about making fun of a difficult and terrible experience of youth acknowledged by one who has suffered from the event, even if she happens to be the wife of a former president you don’t like. It’s mean – and it contributes absolutely nothing to the political dialogue.
I don’t like ‘mean’. And I don’t like any company that puts its employees in fear for expressing their thoughts and opinions, on-air or off.
As it becomes more and more difficult to avoid the fact that MSNBC now stands for nothing beyond entertaining enough viewers to improve their ratings, while failing the walk the walk as they constantly attack others for similar failures, I find myself again on the search for a new, 24 hour news network.
Anyone have any suggestions?
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
I don’t know anything about the Donny Duetsh issue you bring up (I’m not really a fan of his) but I do agree with you about Keith’s comments regarding Mrs. Bush. I thought they were a bit out of line and keep in mind I’m an Olberman fan.
Keith Olbermann is very difficult to watch because he comes off as mentally unstable, especially on the recurring subject of G.W. Bush. There is a deep seated hatred that seems to tip the scale towards pychotic. Based on the story concerning Danny Duetsch I feel that Olbermann may be suffering from delusions of granduer and MSNBC seems to be the enabler. Once a person develops this sense of entitlement they become unmanageable and a threat to all those he comes in contact.
I’m not suggesting that Mr Olbermann be terminated but MSNBC needs to try to get this man help before he gets completely out of control. (i.e. Dan Rather)
If KO gets crazy enough, he can always get a job at Fox, where they’ve been vey kind to, and supportive of, a genuinely mentally ill person, Glenn Beck. Seriously, what are you talking about? KO can be a hothead bloviator, like Bill O’Reilly, but that doesn’t make either of them crazy, it just makes them hothead bloviators. Only crazy people believe that everybody who disagrees with them are crazy.
As far as the hatred thing, the reasons why ones hates someone matter. As far as I can tell, Conservatives hated Bill Clinton because he was president and not a Republican; Liberals hated Junior Bush because he was president and a lying, incompetent, corrupt sack of bloviation; and Conservatives hate Barack Obama because he’s president,black, and not Republican- but, hey, that’s just my opinion.
In response to another comment. See in context »Nicely said nc
In response to another comment. See in context »I’ve been waiting for someone to play the “race card”, and your agreeing with ncfrommke simply says it all. If someone doesn’t agree or dislikes Obama’s politics their a racists? But when Kanye West goes on TV and says “G.W. Bush hates white people” no one called him a racists. Give me a break, the “race card” is the cheeseiest of all the comments someone can make toward another human being. I’m sure President Obama would agree with me.
In response to another comment. See in context »Keith already got fired once by Fox for being a tyrannical prima donna. I seriously doubt they would ever hire him back.
In response to another comment. See in context »Geez. I hope this comment was a joke. If not, well…
Republicans disliked Clinton because he wasn’t a Republican? Yeah, forget the fact that he was weak on terrorism, soft on targeting bin laden, and that teensy tiny issue with sexual harassment, bimbo eruptions, lying to the nation on national TV (then later apologizing for lying to us), cigars, getting BJs in the Oval Office (way to respect the office!), lying to investigators (perjury=no big deal), a possible rape, travelgate, whitewater, and on and on. That couldn’t have anything to do with it.
Liberals disliked Bush because he was a liar? What did he lie about?
Conservatives dislike Obama because he’s black. Couldn’t be because he’s one of the most liberal presidents in the nation’s history, came from a racist anti-american church he attended for 20 yrs, kicked off his political career in the home of a domestic terrorist, hired nutty truthers like Van Jones, rammed healthcare reform down (promising it brought down the deficit while padding the numbers, and ignoring the doc fix that made the numbers explode the other way), etc. You’re probably right tho, it’s probably racism.
Seriously, this was a joke comment, yeah?
In response to another comment. See in context »Nope. Sorry. i could, I suppose, answer your points 1) & 3) ’cause they’re kinda weak, but I’m not gonna bother because of point #2. What part of there. were. no. weapons. of. mass. destruction. don’t you understand? If you can’t wrap your head around that one, well…
In response to another comment. See in context »Bush lied about WMD’s. Unless of course you think that manufacturing WMD intelligence, suppressing conflicting reports and even outing a CIA agent is honest.
In response to another comment. See in context »Kenneth Starr spent 50 million bucks to investigate Clinton. The results of which the President was impeached for lying about a sexual tryst with some loonie tune. Hell, If I was banging a fat chick I would lie about it too.
I have the same problem with Beck and Limbaugh. I was commenting on the post which dealt primarily with Olbermann. The biggest problem with having a political discussion about one side or the other is you will invariably hear “what about those jerks in the other party”, which is the equivalent to “I know you are but what am I”. Jerks are jerks no matter which political side their on.
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh yea, you forgot to mention Anne Coulter, the democratic equivalent to Jeanne Garafalo. They all need pychiatric help.
Yeah. The trouble with engaging political opponents, or even listening to opposing political opinions, is that kind of cognitive dissonance you get when you- wherever you stand- hear values you hold deeply challenged, or even maligned- ya get that shrieky feedback angst sensation, don’t know about you, but it drives me crazy, limits my exposure to reasonable conservative thinkers. Try E. D. Kain here at True/Slant- I read him, I mostly disagree, but I don’t feel insulted, or deliberately misunderstood after I’m done hearing his views. If you’d like to hear a full-blooded liberal bashing Barack Obama as hard as Junior Bush (or if you’re operating under the mis-assumption that BO is all that Liberal), try Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com. If you want to hear a Liberal who hates the banks more than any tea-partier, try Taibbi.
Me, for the sake of my own mental health, I mostly avoid cable TV (tho I’m fond of Rachel)- I’d rather read “The Atlantic” than watch Ed Shultz OR Sheperd Smith.
(Word to the wise- if you’re a Republican, dump those American Enterprise Institute neo-conservatives FAST. Right now the Republican Party has a way too agressive foreign policy- it ticks off our Allies badly, and we’re already militarily over-extended.)
In response to another comment. See in context »There are those of us who would suggest that Mr. Olbermann is already “out of control,” and has been for some time.
In response to another comment. See in context »I still like Keith- definitely not as much as Rachel- but not as much as I used to. For me, the tipping point came as I watched Keith INSIST, waving his arms around like he was looking for a stack of Bibles to swear on, that Phil Donohue had been canceled for business reasons, and not because of his inconvenient opposition to the Iraq war. It’s not like I’m shocked to see anybody on TV lie without blinking, but that one rankled a bit.
Fact is, MSNBC is progressive only in that, after a long struggle to get a piece of the conservative demographic, it’s executives came to the belated realization that, hey, liberals are a sizable demographic, too. A real progressive network wouldn’t give it’s AM flagship over to a shallow Village Aristocrat, and a Contract On America Class of ‘94 Republican. (I like the way that Joe quit in the middle of a term in order to cash in- jeez, when else did that happen? As for Mika, her job is to gabble on about her weekend with Daddy at Uncle Henry’s, and make Joe look like a regular guy- better stop, I’m getting bitter here.)
As for Donny Deutsch, his real offense was disloyalty to the team, rather than drawing left/right false equivalencies- MSNBC was fine with that part. Mr. Deutsch could have come out of this a lot worse- just ask Ashleigh Banfield.
I gave up on watching 24hr US TV news networks a bit back. Depending on your TV service maybe try some of the international networks – France24, BBC, RT, Al Jazeera, EuroNews, etc. I usually rotate between them.
Absolutely. That’s the way to (1) actually get news, and (2) not lose one’s mind.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by cf bateman, rickungar. rickungar said: RT @trueslant When good TV networks go bad- the demise of MSNBC – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – T.. http://bit.ly/dioEhb [...]
I didn’t realize they had such big stars over there, ha! That is no way to treat people, your right.
1. the true gem of the MSNBC line-up, Rachel Maddow
!!
Oh.My.Goddess. — if I wasn’t already married I would ask you to marry me
2. While I find it rather put-offish that Mrs. Bush would share such a private, devastating thing with millions of strangers, I find it even more put-offish/disgusting/just plain wrong for a well-known media personality to take pot-shots at her for ‘going public.’
3. I would say all of us ‘progressive lefties’ should start our own news program, except that I’m afraid as time passed we would become what CNN and MSNBC are devolving into so I won’t go forward with that idea.
Rick,
Where you gonna go???
I too like the TV white sound…but where to go for that liberal bias, that is the question. So we are down to two hours or is that up to two hours.
CNN is still trying to figure out what to do without Ted. Fox is bull. NBC, ABC and CBS want out of the news business. Current? Where to find it?
Keith is insane because he just can’t let go of his crazy thought that Bush screwed the nation, just like he couldn’t stand being made to constantly report on Clinton’s Monica problem night after night. Keith is a megalomaniacal TV personality, now there is a rarity. News personalities are to the East Coast what Hollywood stars are to the West. Surely Rick you must have met one or two suffering the problem.
Often my reaction to Keith is “enough already” but he does something the left shuns from: He rants, he expresses the frustration and anger progressives feel everyday. He is not always reasonable. He is impolite in pointing out the brain dead positions that come from the right and ridicules the authors. Who else on the left does that?
I will continue with Kieth, when he is there, it is my only hour of fun at the expense of the crazy right.
The executives at MSNBC have been getting testy lately…throwing people off for pilots at other networks and now this Danny Duetsch dust up. Perhaps they are a bit panicked about the Comcast take over…because when that happens the last liberal network will be transformed into another bland and nebulous CNN without Kieth or Rachael.
Rick,
Put the screen saver on your PC and listen to NPR. There is no reason to be beholden to cable news.
noe there’s a though.
In response to another comment. See in context »I second this.
In response to another comment. See in context »I am a Repubicana and Tea Party member. Olbermann is a pompous azz who actually thinks he’s a celebrity.
News is news and editorial is opinion. Opinions are like butt holes: everyone has one and most stink.
Why is anyone surprised that a “progressive” trys to surpress others opinions? Obama is shutting out the media who worship him and punishes those who disagree.But, hey, in the case of MSNBC, it’s their network and they can run it as they see fit. Olberman has the right to his “never-ending tendency to bloviate”
And the public has the right not to watch Him. MSNBC has been slipping in the ratings for some time and likely because of Olberman and his ilk.
I would not like him to go off the air. At times Conseravatives need to be reminded of why we’re right.
Thanks, Kieth.
I wouldn’t get too carried away here. You could have just as easily written the identical comment about a number of folks over at FOX, starting with Glenn Beck.
In response to another comment. See in context »I agree, to a point. I like Beck but he is not a particular favorite of mine, neither is O’Reilly. I can’t watch Beck. He annoys me for some reason, but I like his books and agree with him most of the time. I haven’t read O’Reilly’s. I am more a George Will, Chris Wallace fan.
While I am a Republican/Tea Party Conservative, I am more Pro Choice than Pro Life and I am not religious. Read my blog. I also, by no means am blind to the Republican foibles and politicking.
It boils down to the Constitution and while there is controversy over its interpretation, we all agree on the basics.
For example, no one’s human rights are violated by our immigration laws, including Arizona’s. Because you are human doesn’t mean you get to walk into our country. The founders wanted to create an atmosphere where civil discussion could take place without fear of government reprisal and where a person could pursue his “dreams” if you will, without government, or minimal government interference.
Am I a racist? If I do not want Mexicans here illegally, but have no problems with illegal Polish immigrants (I’m Polish) then I’m racist. I don’t want anyone here illegally. The Mexicans are, for the most part a noble people with a rich heritage and good work ethic. Their culture already has influenced ours greatly, and I think positively. Just play by the rules. There is a right way to become an American and I personally welcome anyone who wants to become a citizen.
Some idiot, like Olbermann, screeching about this being racist is damaging, doesn’t contribute to constructive dialog and in fact hinders and muddles the process. And yes, he has counterparts at Fox. We need to watch all these guys with a jaded eye.
Less government, less taxes, less government and social engineering. The government’s main job is to keep order and enforce the law.
Speaking of banks, when did they become businesses in the entrepreneurial sense? Were not they at one time “institutions”? What happened? Deregulation. Gee, who did that? Mostly Republicans. In my view regulating the entities who handle our money is part of the Govt’s job.
However, to all you “progressives”, read about Clinton’s “Community Reinvestment Act” and watch this you tube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Who is reposible for the housing crises?
In response to another comment. See in context »Isnr-
You’re the kind of conservative we like showing up here as you do a good job representing your point of view. I hope you’ll check in here more often.
I don’t have an allergic reaction to the Tea Party – but I do have an allergic reaction to Tea Party members who claim to be happy with their taxes and enjoy Social Security and Medicare. It leaves me unclear as to why they are there. I do also think that there are facets of the Tea Party who are more about disliking the president because of race -although I absolutely do not believe that this goes for all who identify with the Tea Party.
As for some of your points-
1. I, for one, don’t think that wanting immigration laws enforced makes you a racist. And I recognize that the majority of citizens of Arizona favor the new law and are feeling fed up with the federal government’s failure to properly police the border.
I think the problem comes in how the law was constructed. There is enough opportunity for racial profiling built into the law that I think it runs afoul of the constitution – which, as you point out, is a pretty important thing.
On less taxes- I am dubious of the level of understanding when it comes to this issue. I don’t like paying taxes anymore than the next guy. However, I know that there have been times in our countries history when the progresive tax rate was as high as 92% (when Eisenhower was president) and, as recently as the beginning of the Reagan term, topped out at 74%. Our current rates are the second lowest in 50 years. Further, if you take the ‘political’ nonsense out of it and just look at the facts, most folks who identify with the Tea Party actually received a tax cut under Obama -and yet they don’t seem to know it. It’s not that Obama is the ‘great tax cutter’ – it was simply the product of the Stimulus Act which, whether it worked or not, was largely comprised of tax cuts to the very people who are complaining about taxes.
What I would love to see is an informed Tea Party. I would have lots of time for that. However, too many are too interested in carrying their guns around and screaming and shouting and too few are interested in learning. If they have the facts and still feel as they do, I can respect that.
In response to another comment. See in context »It isn’t the tax cuts now that have Tea Party folks wary – it is the tax issue in the future with the looming debt. While the mainstream media focuses on the tax issue a lot of those in the Tea Party have expressed concerns on government spending. The last Party I went to the issue discussed was out of control spending – both Bush and Obama were targets of criticism.
In response to another comment. See in context »As for the race issue – there is very few that don’t like Obama for his race. That is a media creation fueled by popular entertainment like Jon Stewart. There is probably the same number of racist democrats as there are racist Tea Partiers.
I just found this site and loved your story. Had to bookmark it and look forward to reading more.
First, you misunderstand the Tea Party. It’s not about tax cuts. You have to look at what led up to the first protests. There was TARP. Then came the stimulus plan—a massive porker, the first auto company “loans”, huge increases in the federal budget. The kindling was laid. Then came the spark: they began talking about bailing out mortgage delinquents. That was a bridge too far. We all know people who bought the McMansion they couldn’t afford or who pulled all the bubble equity out of their homes to fund excessive consumption. Like me, most of the Tea Partiers I’ve met are the folks who lived within their means, perhaps with a smaller house and fewer goodies, but still able to pay their own way. They saved for this rainy day, but were now being told to bail out their less responsible neighbors—AND the banks and auto companies and unions and… Consider, too, that talk had begun about increasing gov’t role in health care and cap n trade (higher energy rates). So it’s not just about taxes.
Second, why would anyone be surprised at progressives stifling free expression and/or creating an intimidating atmosphere where other feel less than free to speak out? Pie throwing, demonstrations against even the appearance of a conservative speaker, disruptions to the point of cancelling a speaker. Have you not been paying attention?
In response to another comment. See in context »“Tea Party members who claim to be happy with their taxes and enjoy Social Security and Medicare. It leaves me unclear as to why they are there”
This comment is unclear but a criticism which has been leveled is that they are UNhappy with their taxes but enjoy SS and Medicare. This is easily explained. These are programs into which they have put 15% of THEIR earnings for decades and been promised the benefits would be there. So it’s not exactly a government handout.
In response to another comment. See in context »But only if we begin with Chris “tingle” Matthews.
In response to another comment. See in context »As a conservative, I can not find a reason to be challenged by Olbermann’s method of sledgehammer delivery or Maddow’s opinion over fact style, MSNBC is an agenda driven network, but I would like the footnotes and the research presented in a scholarly way rather than as a continuous loop of boilerplate polemics.
Attacking Laura Bush is not the point. Attacking for the sake of attacking is the point. The fact that a few MSNBC viewers have finally reached the tipping point says much more about the viewers than it does about the stars who provide the red meat.
The fault, dear offended viewer, lies not in the stars but within yourself. (Or words to that effect.)
This comment makes no sense whatsoever.
In response to another comment. See in context »Sounds like it is time to turn on Fox.
How is that not the epitome of jumping out of the fire and into the frying pan?
In response to another comment. See in context »Tou gotta be kidding me. You listen to this clown and Maddow, have you ever looked at anything in reality. Both of these clowns don’t know what reality is, obviously you don’t either.
Sorry I don’t believe we should give everything away in the name of being a do-gooder. My guess the work you do is probably lawyer work to screw good citizens of the good ol USA. Thanks for listening to a guy that has no respect for the good ol USA, its funny that now the USA is evenly divided on who they would rather have as Prez Odummy or Bush(or whatever slur your type have for him).
Bush will go down as one of the best prez’s in history while odummy will go down as Carter. Odummy was elected the same way Carter was elected the media fawned and didn’t report or ask any questions as they have been doing for the last 16 months. He will get his during the first crisis/scandal period.
Why is it that the most intolerant people – like yourself- are always the first to assume that the other guy is up to no good?
In response to another comment. See in context »You have no idea what kind of law I practice. And I think I can say without a moment of hesitation that what I do is a very far cry from ’screwing the good citizens of the good ol’ USA.” You should do a little homework before you flap your gums and idiotic sounds come out.
Good guess wasn’t it. I have not looked any profile of you either. So I am idiotic.
You take your Odummy and head to the greatest bankruptcy of the most powerful society this world has ever known.
The things that were said by KO about a sitting prez were way out of line. I would never had called a sitting prez Odummy if it weren’t for the terible thing that KO said about the previous admin.
It is kindof funny that Obamea was going to get rid of those stupid anti-terror laws until the public nearly turned completely against him on the underwear bomber.
Also, if you like him so much would have him chill out a bit and get off the air ways for a day or two!!! I am kindof sick of seeing him on the tube every 10 to 15 minutes does he ever work or does he just want to nail law abiding citizens like the Cambridge Police officer and all the law enforcement folks in AZ all the time. My guess is he is a bit thin skinned and if the media goes after him like they did Bush it will be quite amuzing, but they won’t because they love him..
Above all I am an idiot just like your man likes to call any one that disagrees with him. Are you gonna sick Rahm on me.
In response to another comment. See in context »“The things that were said by KO about a sitting prez were way out of line. I would never had called a sitting prez Odummy if it weren’t for the terible thing that KO said about the previous admin.”
So you’re reason for calling the current sitting president “Odummy” is because Keith Olberman was equally as rude to the previous president? And yet, you think doing so is way out of line? Interesting. Sorry- but you are an idiot.
In response to another comment. See in context »Thank you for the compliment again. White noise of KO WOW. I agree to wrongs don’t make a right but man the way the MSM handled Bush and the thin skin of this admin if anyone says anything about them other than glowing – send out the SWAT team.
If you don’t see that then you are a true believer. They have been doing things to the media that no other WH has ever dreamed of and if Bush done 1 of the multiple things this guy has done the MSM would be putting this place on Fire.
I guess if Bush would have said “I have been to 56 states” the media would have just blown it off like they did for Obama. Should I go on because he has done 10-50 more things that the MSM dogs would have dug their teeth into if that dummy Bush would have said it.
And you have the guts to call me an idiot!!!! Idoit!!!
In response to another comment. See in context »Thank you for the compliment!!! Anyone that thinks Odummy is great policy guy, you are an Idiot!!
We got a true intellectual now in the guy call Odummy. What were his grades at Colombia because noone in his class ever remember see odummy in class. Gentlemen’s C is what I heard it referred to.
What is with his birth certificate, I am by now way a birther, but what is the big deal. Just show the damn thing so we can call this finished or is there more to it. Does that make sense or am I so kinda idiot for trying to resolve a stupid issue.
You are still an idiot.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think andylevinson must have sent his verbose cousin here.
In response to another comment. See in context »Bush will go down as one of the best prez’s in history … have you ever looked at anything in reality. ???? — question marks are mine; I can’t really pay attention to anything someone writes if he can’t even tell the difference between a declaration and a question.
1. He (the shrub) wasn’t even as good a president as that idiot actor in the 80s.
In response to another comment. See in context »2. The shrub was nothing more than a figurehead — the real power was the Angler; and he was every bit as much a megalomaniac as Hitler … and possibly Olbermann. The difference between Olbermann’s megalomania and Hitler’s is the venue they practice[d] it in — Cheney was in a position to do much more damage, and did. The fact that the figurehead did nothing to stop him for more than 6 years of the 8 proves what a poor president he was.
Annlindenmuth
True lib. it will just like your true lib Truman that was hated just about as bad as bush or Shrub as you call it don’t use the C word though.
We got a true intellectual now in the guy call Odummy. What were his grades at Colombia because noone in his class ever remember see odummy in class. Gentlemen’s C is what I heard it referred to.
What is with his birth certificate, I am by now way a birther, but what is the big deal. Just show the damn thing so we can call this finished or is there more to it. Does that make sense or am I so kinda idiot for trying to resolve a stupid issue.
In response to another comment. See in context »Godwin’s Law is in effect! Someone used a Nazis/Hitler comparison! Your post is pure blither and rant like the post you are responding to. Perhaps both of you should have a blithering contest to see you can sound like the bigger idiot.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m a Republican, Conservative and Tea Party Memeber. I don’t think Bush did very well as President, as far as sticking to Conservative values.
He’ll be luck to go down in history as an average President. I do agree with you on Obama.
It will be interesting to see how history defines his failure. I think it’s great that we can actually have a black President to bad it’s Obama.
In response to another comment. See in context »KO is a ex-sportscaster- Olbermann was fired.
“Chairman Rupert Murdoch of Fox News once said of his former sportscaster Keith Olbermann, “I fired him. He’s crazy.” And when MSNBC’s Senior Vice President Phil Griffin hired Olbermann for his new “Countdown” show in 2003 he agreed “The guy is crazy” but “he is made for this.”-
According to Peter Boyer in New Yorker mag: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/23/080623fa_fact_boyer
MSNBC liked the “short cut” idea that people many people in politics use moral self-licensing- they have convinced themselves that they have the high road and they get a “short cut” to validation by having KO types spouting exclusively their talking points rather then a balanced review of facts. MSNBC and Phil Griffin encouraged the O’Reily Olberman feud-they’ve turned it into a sporting event- like the electoral process- Good vs. evil.
Scary world for all of us- no matter which side of the aisle you sit.
FYI- Ed Schultz, also a twice fired sportscaster-
I think you would be very hard pressed to find a sportscaster – or any other sort of on-air newser – who has made it through their career without being fired. By that way, that includes both Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, each fired from radio jobs. With respect to KO, he is still a sportscaster for NBC Sunday Night Football and, in my opinion, one of the best in the business.
In response to another comment. See in context »As a non sports person I appreciate the info-still doesn’t negate
In response to another comment. See in context »the “politics as sport” danger. Oh that it were merely a game
and not my childrens future. Of course I realize Beck and Limbaugh
are also entertainers. My views are very progressives on
most issues and except for Morning Joe and some writers like
Glen Greenwald very limited access to truth. I’ll say it again-
scary times.
I’ve never thought of Progressives as having a heart.
Perhaps that’s from my time in school, where the Democrat kids mocked everything and everyone, and the Christian kids sat at the lunch table with the kids who were handicapped or who were minorities.
Many Christians are progressives. Many Conservatives are fine people who have a heart – as do many who identify as progressives.. The fact that you had a bunch of kids in school who behaved like…well, kids in school…should not color your perspective towards all people.
In response to another comment. See in context »Are you sure about that, jane? I’m not going to ask what you find heartless about, say, the idea that good health care is a right for all, rather than a privilege for the ones who can afford it- but, that’s not what I remember from school. I remember that every clique had it’s own set of jerks and saints- the evangelical Christian types at my school were as much a mix as any other crew- there were some that I still remember fondly; there were some that were beer-drinking, pot-smoking, sex-having hypocrites. I remember that while many were kind and decent, they didn’t have anything like a monopoly on kindness and decency. There were three wheel-chair bound kids in my graduating class, and I know for a fact that two of them were Liberals. I sure seem to remember that the Libkids were in fact less racist than others, but at a suburban school with few minorities to interact with, it’s hard to tell. So, your argument rings kind of false to me. Several million of your fellow American citizens are Progressives/Liberals label them how you will), and you’ve never even CONSIDERED that some of them might not be heartless and inhuman? It’s always a bad idea to make suppositions about people one interacts with on the internet, but I remember some of those Evangelical kids who were very smug about their peers who were damned to eternal hellfire because those kid’s parents went to a Lutheran Church, rather than a “Christian” one. Were you one of those kids?
“I’ve never thought of Progressives as having a heart.” In it’s own calm, quiet, bland way, that’s one of the nastiest, meanest, most inhuman, most utterly heartless comments I’ve seen on the True/Slant comments board yet. It’s likely that you have a heart, but you sure weren’t using it when you made that remark, and you’re not using it when you look at us and see- whatever kind of monsters you see.
FYI- this post was about Keith Olberman. While there are points of comparison between KO, and say, Billo, there is nothing- NOTHING- on “the left” (define the left as Lindsey Graham, and anybody to the left of that) that compares to Glenn Beck. I bring him up because he’s the one who’s been point-man for this Progressives-as-Eternal-Traitors meme that’s been tossed around so much lately. Glenn Beck is either insane, a con-man, or both- there are no other options. My God, the man’s worldview is built around the writings of Cleon Skousen, a man who was judged to be too extreme by The John Birch Society, J. Edgar Hoover, and the Elders of the Mormon Church (a real nest of progressives there.) libjane, no matter how sane you are in your personal life, if you let a crazy person set your political agenda, you’re crazy too. You deny my humanity, and then wonder why I don’t like you. Jesus.
(Rick- sorry about the rant- couldn’t let that one slide by- didn’t mean to go all andylevenson on you- apologies.)
In response to another comment. See in context »OK by me…love the andylevinson reference!
In response to another comment. See in context »Perhaps you missed the news recently, but in Italy a 22-week-old lived on his own for 24 hours after a botched abortion. No mother gave him food or love or held him after he was born, he just lay there, forgotten.
He was discovered alive the following day – some 20 hours after the operation – by Father Antonio Martello, the hospital chaplain, who had gone to pray beside his body.
He died later after a rescue attempt.
His fatal flaw, in his mother’s eyes, was that he had a cleft lip and palate. He was imperfect, you see.
I’m not calling Progressives out on abortion alone, but this is just one example of where their heartlessness lies.
And yes, Mr. Ungar, you might be right about how kids in school behave. That’s another reason I find Progressivism lacking in heart or logic. There isn’t school choice for the poorest and most needy. They are shuffled off to failing kiddie prisons, in my opinion. Have you seen the tears of the children in Harlem who don’t get into charter schools? Conservatives like the idea of charter schools, but “Progressives” find them distasteful. “Progressives” seem to be more for the status quo these days. It’s heartless when you ignore the tears.
In response to another comment. See in context »“I’m not calling Progressives out on abortion alone, but this is just one example of where their heartlessness lies.”
You know, I get lots of comments and disagreements. Some are intentionally insulting..some are intelligent…some crazy…that’s how this goes.
But I must tell you that of the thousands I see, this comment may be one of the most insulting I’ve ever received – and I know that you did not intend it to be.
1. The Italian story, while certainly tragic, is completely irrelevant to your point. For starters, the woman who did this was, as you note, Italian. So, I’m thinking she is not an “american progressive” which is the point of your conversation. Secondly, how do you know she is a progressive?
I suspect your point is that you imagine this awful thing is, somehow, okay with progressives because they tend to believe in a woman’s right to choose. I suspect you will not understand it but that is a terrible thing to say and, frankly, tells us a whole lot more about you than it does any ideological bend people may have.
YOu do understand that this woman was a nutjob? Abortion is legal in Italy. If she wanted to abort her child, she only had to go to a physician and have it done – not do it herself. \
How could you possibly tie this horrible act to your sentence “I’m not calling Progressives out on abortion alone, but this is just one example of where their heartlessness lies.”
Shame on you. This is not a matter of political ideology. While my own believes often tend towards progressive, the idea that you would think this horrible thing is somehow okay with me is, very possibly, the most offensive thing ever said here – and believe me, that’s saying something.
You are entitled to whatever believes you wish. But you have a problem – and it has nothing to do with politics. Anyone who would ascribe the brutal and sad act of one woman to an entire political philosophy should not be reading blogs – they should be getting help.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Anyone have any suggestions?”
Yep. This is just a case of partially awakening to a reality that has been thus for quite some time now.
Welcome! The light may seem bright out here, but just keep remembering those dark shadows!
Now, you may also experience brief periods of denial, but not to worry!
They will pass.
For example, you may experience a short but inexplicable longing — from time to time — for the smug, self-righteous rantings of Keith Obermann; or the smug, whiny rantings of Chris Matthews; or the blank, speechless stares of Mika Brzezinski, as she seems to silently wonder whether it is her turn to speak or not; or perhaps even the non-stop bilious rantings of Ed what’s-his-name — Shultz, that’s it. (By the way, since you were playing it as background, you may have missed Mika’s blank stares. They are only mildly entertaining.)
The final bridge will appear on the horizon when it suddenly dawns on you that the “progressive” point of view, so devoutly to be wished (by you), is not all that it is cracked up to be.
It isn’t.
And, you may even begin to believe that those people on MSNBC are ALL at least a little nuts!
They are.
Consider the intolerant Mr. Olbermann, and the fawning, furrowing-legged Mr. Matthews. I rest my case. Shultz, on the other hand, is completely nuts.
Troch-
In response to another comment. See in context »While I suspect we disagree on politics and broadcasters (I appreciate your not suggesting I tune into Fox News), at least I enjoyed your comment and it was clever. Seriously. I notice that when one of my pieces gets picked up by conservative publications, I get a flood of angry, nonsensical rants. It’s too bad as try very hard to see all sides of an issue and respect all rational opinion. And then I get these whackjobs. Accordingly, if I get a clever note from someone like you it is much appreciated. Hope you’ll come back here from time to time to debate. Intelligent conservatives are always welcomed and very much valued.
Keep writing good articles and we intelligent conservatives will come back. Like I said earlier – I just found this site and have been very impressed! I will look forward to your articles. You do seem fair while expressing your opinion – I respect that. It is a shame that today the crazies on both side seem to have the loudest voice and the most airtime!
In response to another comment. See in context »Cool. That’s what we try and do here.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick – For your background news chatter, I’d like to suggest AlJazeera English, BBC, or ITN. I don’t have paid TV pumped into my house but I have found articles and video clips from these sources to be informative about both global and local issues. When I listen to background chatter it is typically conservative talk radio because of my political leanings. I don’t understand why Keith Olbermann listens to conservative talk so much. Anyone in the world can listen to our country’s news 24 hours a day. If they tuned in to Keith or Rush they would only hear a bickering schizophrenic nation. I access the chatter for pure entertainment purposes, then I Google for the details. It takes you to interesting places, like True Slant.
Thanks for that. I have DISH TV and I don’t know if I get al Jazeera English or ITN. I do get BBC America- but most of it is entertainment programming except for the evening newscast which I often watch.
This has been an interesting response to this post. Typically, if one of my posts is picked up by conservative media, I get a bunch of whack-job comments, some of which we are seeing here. But this post seems to have attracted some bright and informed people with a conservative bend – such as yourself. I really like when people of this perspective visit this post as I love the debate. We are not anti-conservative here. I recognize all too well that an informed conservative has as much chance of being correct on an issue as an informed progressive.
In response to another comment. See in context »I do hope you’ll come back from time to time and participate.
Hey Rick – If you have DISH Network, you probably have Free Speech TV, or LINK. You can replace KO with a dose of Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!
In response to another comment. See in context »Okay, I won’t suggest that you watch FoxNews, out of respect for your obstinacy – er, “political leanings” – but I do find the whole bash-FoxNews-thing (which you tastefully avoided) fascinating. As your political polar opposite, my blood pressure goes out of control when tuned to MSNBC (I sometimes make an effort to know the enemy, for as long as I can stand it). I know what it is like to be barraged with opposing political opinions as if no others exist. But FoxNews at least makes the effort to acknowledge both sides. Sure, the opinion guys are sometimes obnoxious, but at least they don’t pretend to be impartial analysts. And as far as I am concerned, Olbermann tops the Obnoxious While Broadcasting crime list, with Sean Hannity a distant second. Heck, if we broaden the list to include talk radio, even Rush Limbaugh comes in a distant second to Olbermann. How do people watch him? Oh, that’s right, not many do.
One Life to Live? As the World Turns? Are those still on?
cwalters-
A very reasonable response.
To be fair, I do think Chris Matthews often does a descent job of highlighting both sides of an issue just as I think Sheppard Smith does on Fox.
They really are – by design- the same network on opposite sides of the coin. Both, from time to time, cross lines that are inappropriate.
As for the soaps, some are still on, but they’re fading fast!
In response to another comment. See in context »I have occasionally heard Chris Matthews say something insightful and fair; but just as often, the “thrill up his leg” is showing.
As for Shep Smith, it figures you’d name Fox’s closet Lefty!
Oops. I guess if their Lefty has to be in the closet, maybe they’re not that Fair ‘n’ Balanced, after all! Damn!
Excuse me, I have to try to get through on Ann Coulter’s site, to see what she has to say about this personal revelation…
In response to another comment. See in context »
In response to another comment. See in context »Uh, this is an example of what I was talking about, with Chris “The Thrill” Matthews:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/05/06/matthews-republican-why-do-you-keep-bitching
In response to another comment. See in context »Okay, so you said that CNN is out and you won’t consider FNC. That doesn’t leave very much to choose from, now does it?
Why don’t you take the Rush Challenge, though, and see if you can tune in to Limbaugh’s show for five consecutive days…all three hours each day. Think of it as an experiment in being open-minded and fair. You don’t have to tell any of your friends and colleagues and I won’t say anything.
You could even write a column about the experience. I, for one, would most definitely read what you had to say about the experience if you gave it an honest effort to complete the challenge.
Too late! I’ve already done the Rush experiment.
In response to another comment. See in context »Actually, I still listen to him from time to time. Having come from the broadcasting business, I enjoy his broadcasting skills – he’s really good. But, I also think Regis Philbin is a superb broadcaster but I’m not particularly interested in his politics!
I don’t mind politics as entertainment – to a point. I think the line can be crossed (as I think Olbermann is guilty of from time to time) and I find that unfortunate. Rush says some pretty awful things that people believe- often to their own detriment. I think he could be just as controversial and entertaining without having to cross that line. But is certainly works for him.
And, to be honest, I get far angrier at Sean Hannity – who just out and out lies and scams to make a buck – than Limbaugh or even Beck.
You might also want to consider the role you and other editorialists have played in spreading the pernicious “Mission Accomplished” lie. It is well documented that banner had nothing to do with winning the Iraq war.
First of all, I’ve never written a word about the subject so I’m not quite sure of why you would accuse me of playing any role in spreading the “pernicious” lie.
Secondly, all due respect, you’re wrong. This really does not require alot of documenting. Just read the speech which you can do at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml
Just to quote the opening of the speech-
“Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.”
In fact, major combat operations had not ended as it turned out – unless you would argue that the successful surge that followed much later was something other than a major combat operation.
I would not be at all surprised if President Bush acknowledges that this was not handled particularly well when we see his book later this year. You can’t hang a “mission accomplished’ banner and expect people to think it means something other than victory – whatever the White House’s intention may have been.
Gotta tell you – revisionist history- on either side of the political spectrum – is never very useful. Why take a position like this when it is clearly wrong? So, maybe Bush made a mistake. Obama has made his share of mistakes as has every other president in US history. But for you to argue that it was, somehow, something else, is just counter-productive to a meaningful and sensible political debate in this country.
In response to another comment. See in context »The White House did not hang that banner. The officers and crew of the Abraham Lincoln had accomplished a ship specific goal which had nothing to do with the President’s visit. If your arguing that the WH PR flaks should have ordered the Captain to take down the banner..fine. But the banner had nothing to do with the announcement – properly made at the time – that major combat operations had ended. They had, indeed, ended because the US military command ended them. It’s really not that difficult to understand.
In response to another comment. See in context »Honestly, I have no big axe to grind on this – but you’re really kidding yourself, which you are certainly free to do if it is important to you to do so.
No president arrives anywhere without a lot of advance work being done. This is particularly true when the president is going to make a major address. Thus, if what you are suggesting is true -that the banner just happened to be there, don’t you have to ask -
a. Why didn’t the White House state the speech at a location on the ship where the banner would not have been in the background?
b. Why didn’t the White House ask it to come down for the duration of the visit so as not to endanger or confuse the national support for the mission?
If, in fact, that banner just happened to be there, can you seriously make a rational argument that it wasn’t an error to keep it in the picture?
To argue that, at that time, major combat operations had ended is just silly because they didn’t end! Maybe the White House belived that they had ended…and that is precisely the point. They were wrong!!!!!
I never quite understand the need to hold onto arguments like this. As i say, watch President Bush acknowledge this as a mistake in his presidency. I don’t condemn him for it. Mistakes happen. But to foolishly hang onto an argument that it was all fine is of little value.
But, if that’s what you need to do, go for it.
In response to another comment. See in context »To reiterate:
That banner referred to the mission of the crew of the ship USS Abraham Lincoln, on which Bush spoke that day. The ship was about to return home after combat operations in the Gulf, its mission accomplished.
On that occasion, Bush declared “major combat operations” over (that is, the official war against Sadaam’s forces.)
HE WENT ON TO SAY: “We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous…Our mission continues…”
Now this is from an officer aboard the Lincoln. . Perhaps he’s an idiot who simply doesn’t understand but this is what he has to say about this matter. I trust his word an experience as an USN officer and Bush’s own words that day trump your selective memory.
———————————
I thought you might like to hear the rest of the story that the media misinformed the nation about on what “Mission Accomplished” was all about.
My name is Paul Updike and I served aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln during the Iraq War. I would like to comment specifically about the controversy that surrounds the displaying of the “Mission Accomplished” banner during the time of the President’s visit aboard my ship. It is my sincere hope that I will be able to clear up what appears to be a great misunderstanding about the true meaning behind the banner.
The “Mission Accomplished” banner was created to celebrate the return of the USS Abraham Lincoln to her home port in Everett, WA after an extended 11 month cruise. We were happy and proud to return to our families after such a long time away. The average cruise length for a naval vessel at that time was normally around 6 months. Our mission during Operation Iraqi freedom was accomplished with overwhelming success and thus this banner was created and proudly displayed to represent the USS Abraham Lincoln’s individual accomplishments during the war. It certainly did not mean that the American mission as a whole had been accomplished in Iraq.
The media stationed aboard our vessel clearly understood the truth behind the banner yet fed the public a twisted version of this truth. I honestly believe that those opposed to the war saw an opportunity to spin the truth about the banner in order to attack the President. As an officer aboard the ship at that time, I found it to be hurtful and insulting that the media would use our specific accomplishments as a platform to attack our Commander-in-Chief. The President’s visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln was a great honor to those of us serving aboard her at the time. It is shameful and reprehensible to see the tremendous spin that has been placed on this great event. I was proud to serve my country and I will always support my Commander-in-Chief. God bless America.
Yours very respectfully,
Paul Updike
In response to another comment. See in context »By the way, the White House approved the banner in advance. Nobody is quite sure who paid for it. Further,
“White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said on Wednesday, “President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said ‘mission accomplished’ for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission. And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year.”
If the Bush White House could acknowledge that maybe it was handled not quite as well as it could have been, why can’t you?
In response to another comment. See in context »Every network is going to have some kind of agenda beyond (or instead of) just providing the news. It’s almost always going to have something to do with money. Either getting it through viewers via ad dollars, or maintaining it through subsidies & grants. I don’t have a problem with any of that, we all gotta make a living
Since that’s the case, stuff like this is going to occur on any network, I don’t think any of them are more principled or ethical than any other.
My suggestion would be to choose the specific blocks you like in each network, and set a timer on your tv to change channels at the appropriate time for each one. Doing so has made it easy for me to rotate through my local news, Megyn Kelly, Shepard Smith, Rachel Maddow and bits and pieces of CNBC without having to deal with the embarrassment of throwing random objects at the tv should I catch a brief segment with Olbermann or Beck.
Good idea!
In response to another comment. See in context »Again, you make good points. The vast and I mean vast, as in 90% plus, of the Tea Party members, are ordinary citizens, not gun totin’ crazies.
I am a professional and have two degrees. I live in Florida and have a concealed weapons permit. I’m not crazy.I carry a revolver, a Smith and Wesson 357 magnum or a Browning, low profile 380. I carry a gun every where that it is lawfull to do so. I have never pulled my weapon in any situation in the last 20 years. I am very experienced with firearms and do not leave home without it.
I do know people who have pulled their weapon and used it and who have saved a life or lives as a result. There are crazies with guns, most of whom have no interest in politics. The guys openly carrying guns at Tea Party Demonstrations are idiots and hurt the cause, as they deflect attention from the real points.
You make a real good point about Medicare, etc. Try taking that away from any one, Democrat or Republican. It still does not make it a wise system and something we should not revise or eliminate. It just makes it political suicide to even talk that way. Once you give people something, you ain’t taking it away.
I am very astute financially and frankly am confused about all the “bail out” stuff, etc. As I previously mentioned, banks should be banks and not “financial vehicle dealerships”. I am not sure anyone benfited from Obama’s “tax cuts” or “stimulous”.
However, I am sure Obama’s philosophy is skewed toward socialism, he is potentially dangerous and he is the worst President we’ve ever had. I was not a big fan of W, but O surrounds himself with a unsavory cast of characters, Bill Ayers (sp?) the Rev. J. Wright etc. I really don’t care what color he is.
One of my choices for President would be Thomas Sowell. He’s black and brilliant. I left him off my list of favorite conservatives.
I guess we are way off the subject of Oblbermann, which is fine with me. I can’t stand watching him, but thats the price we pay for free speech.
Well, while I strongly disagree with some of your assertions and beliefs, I do not disagree with your right to those opinions and appreciate the manner in which you state them.
In response to another comment. See in context »This probably isn’t the forum to get into all of our political disagreements, but I hope you’ll be a frequent visitor and will disagree on subjects where you see fit. That will be a better opportunity to debate.
I do have one question I’d like to ask you. Today, a committee of the Louisiana legislature is voting out a bill for debate on the floor which will revoke a law that prohibits guns in churches. I don’t know your religious affiliations – or if you have any at all – but I’m curious if you think this a good thing or way out of line? And I’m not arguing the constitutional right for people to do so, I’m just wondering what you think it says about our society when even a house of worship is not free of violent weapons. Is this not letting the bad guys have the ultimate victory?
I think that you should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon anywhere, IF you have a permit and have gone through training. As matter of fact, the percentage of gun crimes perpetrated by licensed people is far below the average of such crime committed by unlicensed people.
I don’t see it as letting the bad guys win. They carry and use guns, no matter what the law says. If they are out to do you harm, and they think you are armed, they’ll avoid you, like the burglar who avoids the house with the barking dog.
Wasn’t there an incident recently when some lunatic went into a church to shoot it up and he was shot by a female police officer or security guard? In fact, churches have been the target of several of these types of shooting. If you’re this guy, intent on shooting up a church would you shoot up the one that prohibits guns or the one that allows them? The answer is pretty clear.
Carry your gun everywhere. That’s when the bad guys really lose.
In response to another comment. See in context »“I’m just wondering what you think it says about our society when even a house of worship is not free of violent weapons. Is this not letting the bad guys have the ultimate victory?”
Trust me on this one…if the bad guys have the ultimate victory it’s because the good guys couldn’t return fire and the good guys have now assumed room temperature.
In response to another comment. See in context »But in church? Doesn’t that kind of beg the point of going to church in the first place?
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m not trying to speak for trapeze, but the way I see it, whether or not guns are allowed in a church/retail establishment/office/etc., is a decision best left up to the people in charge of the property itself as opposed to a governing power (city/state/fed/whatever).
I’ve carried daily for about 10 years either for work or on my personal time. But I don’t attend any church, and only find myself in one during weddings/funerals and the occasional Christmas mass when the Catholic guilt I got stuck with wells up enough, so I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I’d sooner protect a right that I don’t exercise than destroy or forbid one for someone else though.
I’m not gay, and I’ve been working hard for 6+ years at not marrying my girlfriend (I think I’m losing that battle), but also think gay couples should be able to get married if they’re dumb enough to fall into that trap. I know the two examples aren’t the same, but it’s a similar enough and consistent as far as I’m concerned.
As far as whether or not a gun is appropriate or fitting to have in church? Maybe phrasing the question differently would answer that. Considering the current social and political climate of today, would it be appropriate for a governing body to forbid people that choose to arm themselves lawfully from entering their church/mosque/synagogue/temple/…?
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m the wrong guy to comment on church, but I suppose people do view it as a sanctuary.
If it becomes a dangerous place, that is no the fault of the church goers, but the bad guys. When gun advocates speak of gun rights the most used word is “defense”. If I felt that no one would try to harm em or my family, I would not have guns.
But, as you say, isn’t that “the point of going to church in the first place”? If God cared, wouldn’t he protect you in church?
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick,
I feel your pain and honestly am faced with the same conundrum. I as well as my immediate family are as opposite to the progressive platform as you can get. We are independent conservatives who fall more along the lines of Constitutional Federalism rather than align ourselves with either party or their obtuse agendas.
We can hardly watch any news at all anymore. Although we do watch Fox for about a half hour in the morning and admittedly watch Beck daily. Yes I know he is the bane of progressives but that is why we like him. Is he always right? No. Does he incite hatred or violence? No. Is he over the top and a bit melodramatic at times? Most definitely yes. Additionally he does plug is wares a lot.
I am in no way trying to get you to watch Fox so please do not take my summation as an intent to do so.
Now to the point of your article. I find it nigh impossible to find an objective source of news from the plethora of options available (no I do not count opinion as news). It seems that every outlet be it print or video has an agenda and most always it is apparent to anyone who is at least paying attention in the slightest. But as for opinion goes there are very few who are actually rooted in objectivity. As we all know opinion may be formed from objective analysis but once it becomes opinion and is opined it has become a subjective object. This opinion of course is formed by ones agenda be it personal or political.
There are many opinion jocks that I cannot stomach for more than a few minutes. On the top of the list is Keith Olbermann. The way he condescends and belittles anyone who disagrees with him is nauseating to me. I am sorry but I do not care how much more intelligent he thinks he is than everyone else his tactless insulting rhetoric is plainly limaceous and hateful. Hannity is another that I cannot stand to watch for a few minutes being the opposite twin to Keith. Maddow, Levin, and Matthews all make the list for me as well.
What I would recommend is what I listen to for background noise for the day and at our table every evening. Try some entertainment instead of opinion. I may just lower your stress levels and who knows you may even find time to enjoy chortle or two. I recommend http://www.radio.macinmind.com it has everything from drama to comedy to music. Who knows you make even like it.
Best Wishes.
Vince-
Thanks for the nice note.
I actually do, from time to time, tune into Fox. Admittedly, I used to do so more often when Brit Hume was still on the air. While I am, politically, a distance away from Hume, I always thought him to be a capable and high quality journalist. I wish Fox would bring more like him on-board.
I have to say that I’ve been fascinated by the nature of commentary to this post coming from many of you who identify as conservatives. Most conservatives who read this post are convinced that I am far more of a ‘liberal’ that I am and tend to rant, insult, etc. It’s rarely particularly useful.
I’m noticing that with this post, I’m seeing much more considered, nuanced and, well, let me just say it, ‘intelligent’ commentary from those conservatives who may be visiting for the first time. I believe that most of you are coming from the link over at Hot Air – which speaks very well of that site and the quality of its readers.
I hope you’ll come back here more often. I typically don’t get as many informed and clever conservatives and they are very much welcomed. That’s what makes for an interesting debate. And I promise that you will find things to debate about!
In response to another comment. See in context »Sorry, to post a second response, but I wanted to address the religious question.
I despise organized religion. I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness and realized they were a crock early on. In fact, I think all organized religions are. I am a Deist. Jefferson and Thomas Paine were Deists. I have concluded that intelligent “design” exists, God if you will, but I don’t know what He/She/It or Them want from us or why we are here and no one else knows either.
I say “concluded”, not believe, as belief implies religious faith, which I do not possess.
Religion needs faith because it has no facts. But, I would take my gun into a church to protect anyone’s right to worship as they please.
Freedom of Religion is precious and the privilege of all Americans.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick: I’m a newcomer to this site (or your portion of it, anyway) and I have to say I do appreciate your effort to at least understand opposing views. As a longtimer in the computer industry I’ve been active in online discussions since before the Web even existed (anyone remember Compuserve? Usenet?). But starting around 1999 or 2000 — about the time of the rise of the extreme in-your-face politics of MoveOn and such — it became no fun to take part in online discussions. It all became so extreme and vitriolic that it seemed impossible to have an intelligent discussion.
I agree that hucksters like Glen Beck and bloviators like Bill O’Reilly (whom I do find entertaining and even insightful sometimes, but omigod the amazing ego of the man) have helped polarize many on the right, but I also have to say that they are paragons of thoughtful civility compared with Olbermann. I liked Olbermann when he was at ESPN — I thought he was both intelligent and funny. But in the years since I really fear he’s going insane. It’s like he’s lost his capacity for introspection and self-restraint, leaving him exposed and out out of control.
I think something happened to him during the Bush years. Yes, he could always work up a blather, but he didn’t go off on totally irrational rants like he often does now. If I had to guess I’d say when he and MSNBC found that his vitriolic rants — about Bush, Republicans, white men, Wall Street, whatever — drew a certain kind of audience that enjoyed a vicarious atavistic release through his hateful spewing, they encouraged him to do more and more of it. But of course, in the manner of showbiz, they didn’t say, “Great act, Keith, work it in more,” but probably more like, “Man, you nailed it, Keith! You got it righteously right! Tell it, tell it!” And thus his prejudices and extremes were both fanned and rewarded for years on end until now I think he really believes the stuff he spouts is not only objective truth but not at all extreme.
Of course that’s just me theorizing from afar and I don’t even know the man. But I do know that what I see from him on MSNBC is often the rantings of a mind no longer in full contact with reality. I can’t get angry at him, I just feel sad.
That said, I hope you’ll forgive me for commenting on a couple of other things that have come up in this fascinating comment list. Three things come to mind:
- You asked if carrying a concealed weapon in church: “Doesn’t that kind of beg the point of going to church in the first place?” That question, honestly, doesn’t make sense to me. I think I know what you mean by it, but it really seems illogical to me. Here’s why:
- One can enter a church for many reasons, I suppose (including, perhaps, stealing Bibles — who knows). But the typical purpose is to enjoy communal worship and fellowship with other believers. Other than that, a church is no different than any other building — it’s made of no special materials, it has windows and doors like any other building, it can be blown up or burned down like any other building, and through those doors may walk a madman just like any other building. In fact, perhaps more so, because there seem to be a disproportionate number of people who have curious hatreds against the Christians who are in those churches. So if it’s lawful and useful to be armed for protection against dangerous criminals and madmen outside a church, it makes no sense not to be likewise armed inside the church. The ban guns in churches would serve only to make a church a place where people are guaranteed to be helpless, which would only serve to invite those who would perpetrate some massive evil (as some people with strange hatreds have often done in the past). That makes no sense to me.
- I found it very honest and positive of you to say that you were pleasantly surprised to be reading much intelligent conservative commentary in this comment list. But that’s also rather revealing, no? I’m sure you’ve seen lots of ill-written or ill-informed ramblings from inarticulate conservatives here, but did you really think that was representative? Given that those who respond to opinion blogs are inherently self-selected, did you really judge the many form the self-selected few? If no, why the surprise?
- I can’t resist one comment about the Arizona immigration law, if only to counter the way some of the commenters have stereotyped conservatives, minorities, etc.: I’m a foreign-born Latino, came to the U.S. (legally) quite some years ago. I also live in Arizona, and I and my whole Latino family — aunt, mother, wife, two adult children — are 100 percent in support of the new Arizona law.
Does that amaze some people? It shouldn’t. Truth is that there’s really nothing new in this law other than the newfound willingness to enforce it, which I support. Over the last few days I’ve heard lots of white people, a few of what I’ll call Latino political pimps, and a lot of ignorant celebrities decry the need to “show your papers” like it makes Arizona the equivalent of Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia. Might as well add Fidel’s Cuba, of which I have some experience because I lived there for a few years before coming to the U.S. Now those countries were/are truly oppressive, and to those of us who have experienced the real thing it’s laughable — cruel but laughable — to compare anywhere in the U.S. with such situations.
What all the self-righteous commentators apparently don’t know is that *all* foreign legal residents of the U.S. have *always* (well, since 1946, anyway) had to carry with them proof of legal residency. I should know: For the first 5 years in the U.S. I carried my immigration papers, for the next 19 — until I became a U.S. citizen — I always had to carry my green card. And now I carry a driver’s license that states that I am foreign-born, but also a U.S. citizen. And when I was naturalized 20 years ago I was told that, even as a naturalized citizen, if I leave the country I should take with me proof of citizenship in case it was required of me at the port of re-entry. *THIS IS NOT ANYTHING NEW.* I did it, thought it was a reasonable request, and so did the tens of millions of immigrants before me. In fact, one requirement my family and I had was that every year we each had to go file a form at the Post Office reporting where we were living. (That requirement has since been rescinded, I believe.)
I, of course, am not at all opposed to legal immigration. And I would hardly be prejudiced, racially or otherwise, against other immigrants and particularly not Latinos. Like the great majority of immigrants and former immigrants, we support legal immigration, but are very opposed to unlawful immigration, the flouting of the laws that define our borders. And I am glad to see that someone — the state of Arizona, in this case — is finally stepping up to the plate to do what the Federal government has for years refused to do, which is to defend our very borders.
Something else you might think about, or even check yourself: If you go down to the Arizona border (or any part of the border with Mexico) and meet the Border Patrol agents there, you’ll find that — to the surprise of many urban liberals (I mean that literally, not disparagingly) and uninformed celebrities — that a very large proportion of Border Patrol agents are Latinos. You’ll find many, many agents and commanders named Garcia, Martinez, Camacho — you’ll think you stumbled into a Cinco de Mayo celebration. Border enforcement is not a business of cruel, stern-faced white people oppressing innocent minorities, but of Americans, including a disproportionate number of Americans of Latino extraction, defending the American border from illegal entrance into the country, but also from drug traffickers, people traffickers, and worse.
Sorry to go on so long, but I wanted to get that last point out. When immigration issues are being debated in the media, it seems that everyone gives credence to the Latino equivalents of Al Sharpton and nobody asks those of us everyday Latinos and immigrants what *we* think. We make up a third of Arizona and not all of us support this bill, but most of us do, just as most other people in Arizona do. We came here to work hard and be Americans, not to undermine the country, and we don’t want anyone else doing it either.
Hmmm… reading the above I realize I’ve come across as more conservative than I really am. I’m not a hard-core conservative, but more of a political eclectic. I agree with conservatives on abortion, with liberals on the death penalty, with conservatives on the 2nd and 10th Amendments, with liberals on the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th. And yeah, I’m very, very disappointed with Obama — such great potential, such a great opportunity, but it was all clever tricks to get elected. I *so* wish it hadn’t turned out that way. But feeling that way about Obama puts me alongside lots of liberals these days.
In response to another comment. See in context »1. conservative commenters — You misinterpret me a bit. No, I don’t think the whack-jobs are representative of all conservatives, nor all conservative bloggers. Prior to writing for True Slant, I blogged for Culture11, Bill Bennett’s online web mag. As you might imagine, it was a conservative leaning platform and I was their ‘token’ lefty. The readership, while pretty much all conservative, was very intelligent and the typical comment was just that. However, most of what I get here are the over-the-top angry people responding to a post they feel is too liberal. So, I knew you were out there – I’m just pleased that this post has brought some of you here.
2. guns in church. I’m writing a piece on this that will go up today or tomorrow. If you get a moment, take a look. It will be a point of debate. I’m not a church or synagogue ‘goer’, but, while I do agree that you likely have a consttutional right to carry the gun into a church, I also think it completely moots the point of being there. If there is a security concern, why not post a guard outside the building to protect it and keep the inside one of the few places left that is free of violent weapons?
In response to another comment. See in context »Thank you for taking time to read and reply to my post Rick. The biggest problem I think we face today is the horrible polarization of our society and the refusal by either side to find a common bond that would assure constructive dialogue. The media is greatly to blame for this but (some) bloggers also share a great deal responsibility also. They provide the topics and the slant and let the readers kindle, stoke and bellow the flames into conflagration. The outcome is generally a one of vitriol and contempt instead of debate and growth.
After all if one has ever looked into the debates surrounding the founding of this country one would see great disagreement and debate from all ends of the spectrum. The end result was one of the greatest accomplishments of mankind. I fear though in today’s age we will not see the boons of our disagreements that we enjoy from the ones our fore fathers had.
Oh I will stop back by from time to time as your arguments are reasoned and polite for the most part.
TY
P.S. Yes most of us did come from Hot Air. And really if you have time check out the link I posted. No politics at all I promise. Just nostalgia.
I should have added.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
— Aristotle
Speaking of Olbermann, I just listened to him reading James Thurber for the last 5 minutes of his show, because that’s what he used to read to his dad in the hospital. WTF??? Seriously, does anyone listen to that?
I also used to be a fan. But more and more he just seems to be background noise in between Hardball and Maddow. I still like to see the Worst Person. But his comments the other day about Laura Bush were over the top.
Trouble is, if he were to be cancelled,imagine the jubilation in the right-wing media!! Imagine O’Reilly’s head growing two sizes (and I’m not talking about anything having to do with loofahs)!! That’s why it CAN’T happen! He must stay on the air!
Anyway, good article! I’ve bookmarked this site.
Thanks. And I agree with your assessment.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick, As conservative, I am heartened that there is a TV station that is left slanted and idiotic (MSNBS). It tends to balance the right wing idiotic station (Fox). But the parity is not precise. MSNBC has two people incapable of objectivity. Fox has an entire platoon of water carriers. I am not a high thinker. But this stuff is really of low quality. It is extremely disheartening to see so much hatred and intolerance is spewed on both sides.
Hey Rick,
For two days in a row, we’re going to disagree – shocking statistics, since we normally agree completely!
I don’t think Olbermann is perfect, but I think he’s mostly what is needed in the era of FOX “News”: not a counterpoint, but a legitimate journalist on a legitimate network calling out politicians (of all strips, if you pay close attention) on their bullshit. He may get carried away sometimes, but that’s often when he’s at his best – there’s a reason his Special Comments are massively popular and famous, not to mention often powerful and heart wrenching.
I stopped watching TV long ago, and have given up hope for it as CNN hired their own version of Glenn Beck, but I like Olbermann because of who he is and what he stands for. Unlike his conservative counterparts, however, he doesn’t fabricate lies for attention – he uses himself as the vehicle for attention to the stories he finds worthy of it.
–Kyle
It wasn’t just Olbermann going over the top last night as I was far more troubled by MSNBC yanking Duetsch because he dared to include Olbermann in a piece in any way that displeased the network and Olbermann. That kind of censorship is not what I would have expected from MSNBC and I was genuinely disappointed that they would act in such a way.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ok, well, MSNBC isn’t exactly unbiased in that, as Olbermann pulls in some of their most regular viewers, but that’s not an excuse.
I don’t watch MSNBC, not even Rachel Maddow, because I’d rather have the more unbiased news like NPR delivers. You can bet this is going to come up in the future the next time one of the Fab Four want to blame Olbermann for all their FOX-based troubles.
–Kyle
In response to another comment. See in context »paulmartin-
Because you seem like a good guy, let’s skip right to the important stuff.
Six years???? So marry the girl already!!! It’s not bad..really. I stayed a bachelor for 36 years and enjoyed every minute of it. I’ve now been married going on 24 years and that’s been great too. They are different, but both good.
Stop being a chicken—- and go for it already!
Your prompt response just killed my weekend. My girlfriend was reading the page at the same time…
I’ll keep checking in here though. I like what I’ve read in this thread as well as the previous posts I clicked through.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ha!
In response to another comment. See in context »Tell her I’m with her all the way.
You should turn off the liberal rant and concentrate on your job. Both your serenity and work would probably benefit.
I’ve somehow managed to do rather well at my job(s) over the years even with my TV in the background. If I can be slightly rude – and only because I find it a bit inappropriate that you would chose to instruct me in this fashion, as some of my readers who know my history know, I’ve manged to get by very well indeed.
In response to another comment. See in context »So, I’ll tell you what, I won’t tell you how best to your job and maybe you could refrain from telling me how to do mine.
[...] When good TV networks go bad- the demise of MSNBC – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – True/Slant [...]
Progressives are flawed like all humans and degenerate into the worst caricatures. That is why we conservatives don’t want them running our lives via the government.
Wow – so you want conservatives to run your lives via the government because they are NOT human and therefore they don’t degenerate into caricatures?
In response to another comment. See in context »Sorry, but gotta say it –Donna’s comment was really funny..and good!
In response to another comment. See in context »So I suppose i should respond that conservatives are flawed like all humans and degenerate into thei worst caricatures. That is why we progressives don’t want them running our lives via the government.
You want to tell me how your statement or mine does anyone any good? Silly. Closed minded. Not the way this country was created but the way it is going to find it’s end.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hi Rick. I was pointed here by Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds. (he’s a libertarian former Gore volunteer who moved somewhat to the right after 9/11)
I’m a bit of a righty, but am lukewarm as a fan of Fox News. It has some very good points in genuinely trying to have some interesting (and inflammatory) contributors (Susan Estrich through Sarah Palin /boggle).
I love them as a counterpoint to the seemingly monolithic propaganda line peddled by the oldschool networks. But… some of what they say is incorrect, and bits of it are really bad journalism. (I’m too much of a libertarian to be a true conservative I guess, though I still aspire).
You’ve said above you sometimes listen to/watch Fox. Good. Seek out the best on that. Find something you can tune in for an hour a day. But the rest of the day?
I’ll suggest (as some have above) some radio/streaming alternatives. After all, you don’t have to pull video/audio off a cable or satellite in the modern age.
As others have said, definitely NPR. They are a bit lefty for my taste, but I like them, and they are decent people.
CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) streamed over the net, probably their Radio 1 would entertain you during some of the day. They are reliably lefty, and ideologically to me as dull as dishwater, but they sometimes cover some entertaining stories (especially around 4-5pm PST). Their TV streams are useless for your needs. (Not a political issue, just they sold off their US all-news network to Al Gore some years back).
Others have suggested BBC International. Very cloyingly left, but you perhaps might like them. I don’t know. I find them too much apologetic post-colonial whinging propagandists, but their depth of coverage of global events is very tough to beat for any single news organization.
Other comments?
Love your response to the chap who complained of KO’s incivility and referred to the President as Odummy. Think you were a bit defensive with Carp. He has a point; to the outside observer you might be MORE effective by not having a TV blaring away. Your response seemed to indicate you felt he was saying you were at the very least markedly less effective, even ineffective. My own view? Whatever works for you is great, and I wouldn’t presume to suggest what’s best for you.
-Holmwood
Hi Holm
Thanks for the suggestions. I think you’re right about streaming radio more often.
As for ‘carp’, yeah, he did bug me. He doesn’t even know me and he presumes to know how I should work more effectively. I thought that was silly, personal and out of line. And, as it turns out, apparently wrong. Sometimes folks say some pretty silly things.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m pleased you read the post and hope to see you back here.
Your request for a reasonable 24 hour news network is a bad premise. Let’s face it, cable news is about selling advertising. You mentioned that CNN couldn’t quit talking about entertainment news so you switched to MSNBC. MSNBC has had as much coverage of Michael Jackson and Tiger Woods as any of the other networks as far as I can tell.
If you want real news, read newspapers and watch the BBC. But you won’t see it 24 hours a day. If you want to feel good, watch Rachel Maddow and if Keith Olbermann bothers you, don’t watch his show.
Like you, I thought it was a mistake for him to criticize Laura Bush even if her comments about being poisoned deserved a mention.
But I spend an awful lot of time listening to ignorant sods who think Obama is a socialist and that if I like him, I hate America and should move so at the end of the day, I can handle a little bloviating by Olbermann to counteract the bible thumping folks I run into every day living in deep south.
Yeah…you pretty well summed up my feelings on the subject.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m noticing that with this post, I’m seeing much more considered, nuanced and, well, let me just say it, ‘intelligent’ commentary from those conservatives who may be visiting for the first time. I believe that most of you are coming from the link over at Hot Air – which speaks very well of that site and the quality of its readers.
I find the above sentiment somewhat patronizing. I came from Instapundit, btw… does that speak to the “quality” of the site or its readers ?
Please visit HotAir regularly before making your mind up. Read their posts and the people who comment about those posts-There are all kinds of people who visit a blog. just like any other.
Also, such sentiments reveal why conservatives dont bother to debate with liberals any more.Its amazingly rare to find such intelligent conservatives,dontchaknow?
As for the topic of the day, you remind me of the time I used to be a leftie and looked up to Chris Mathhews and Keith Olbermann for “impartial” commentary. I stopped following MSNBC in 2005 and sure enough, within the next two years was on my way to becoming a conservative.
Here’s a tip – check out this AllahPundit guy at HotAir…and Ed Morrisey as well. You would be surprised to see how fair and well balanced they attempt to be inspite of their libertarian and conservative leanings.
Rick Moran at RightWingNuthouse is great too.And yeah, iam not surprised that the “modern day avatar of Ed Murrow” would effectively silence ANY criticism of himself.
It can happen when you can delude yourself into believing that you are pure as white snow and every one else who does not agree with you 100% must be inherently wrong.
Seriously? This is what troubled you?
At the time this comment was written, they were all coming from Hot Air. In fact, the link had not yet been put up on Instapundit- which, by the way, I read often.
Read my comment above on this topic. While there may be all kinds of people who visit a blog – I was reacting to who has been visiting this blog. And I was pleased to find that this article was attracting comments much like the intelligent comments I would get when I was writing for Bill Bennett’s Culture11 – a conservative webmag.
So, if you want to feel patronized, knock yourself. It was neither patronizing in the intent nor in the execution -but some folks juts gotta be angry even when there isn’t anything there to be angry about.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick- I really appreciate the intellectual honesty you show here. I’m a libertarian and a Tea Party member myself, but I went through a similar problem with Fox News. While I generally agreed with many of the hosts on the network, the tone and bitterness of the hosts became too much for me.
Perhaps entertainment and enlightenment are not compatible.
ncfrommke says
“Progressives-as-Eternal-Traitors”
Brilliant! Thank you, I have been looking for something catchy and short to describe progessives. I’m going to use that.
Now Rick, perhaps consider NPR radio as another commenter has suggested. I myself listen to them as I go about my business.
If your able to handle their themes, i.e., “the poor, defenseless Palestinians are suffering at the hands of the juice simply because they won’t stop trying to randomly murder the juice”, they can be pretty good.
They have a cadre of measured, hypnotic personalities that drone soothingly all day long.
They often cover interesting and controversial subjects.
Take Diane Rehm in the morning slot; generally her guests are all of a liberal bent and you should find yourself in familiar company.
Diane herself has this interesting inflection and sort of sing-song-seesaw lilt to her verbal delivery that I understand comes from a medical condition.
Diane seldom has a conservative on that would disturb her audience, but I do recall Paul Bremer on as a guest a few years ago, right after he had returned from a Iraq as administrator.
Diane started to criticise and it was obvious she knew nothing about which she spoke. Bremer subsequently administered such a schooling that Diane didn’t know which way her wig was turned. I haven’t heard such a beatdown before or since.
But that instance on NPR sort of hooked me.
Make no mistake, NPR is designed as, or perhaps has evolved into, a liberal radio broadcast. They regularly solicit their listeners for money, as they don’t have commercials per se, just announcements stating that support comes from various liberal mega-foundations.
Whereas NPR can find a way to inject politics into any topic, sometimes they are almost just apolitical.
Give it a try. I listen to them in the kitchen and in the car. I can usually put up with their soft, incessantly liberal theme, as long as the subject being discussed has sufficiently caught my interest.
Unlike TV, you can take NPR with you where you go.
Thanks. My wife listens to NPR. I do find that my mind does get pulled towards what they are talking about when it is on – and that disrupts my concentration with respect to the work at hand. But I think I’ll give it a try and see if it can become white noise.
In response to another comment. See in context »Feel free- I kinda stole it from Ann Coulter. By the by, I’m an honorably discharged vet- six years Navy, served my country, and the GI Bill paid for school. My opposition to Iraq wasn’t based on any kind of “America=BAD!” belief- rather, I thought that it was bad for America, and I’m sorry, but I was right. My opposition to Iraq was and is based on my belief that it was and is a geo-strategic idiocy; if that makes you see me as a born traitor- well, I hope not, you seem more reasonable than that.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t agree very often with Keith but I occasionally watch him and think he’s hysterical. Especially “his worst person in the world” bit I love when he beats up my side as it keeps them honest and me diligently skeptical.
He might be the closest thing on the left to Rush Limbaugh.
Enjoyed your posting, very thoughtful. I actually like it here, even though we most likely would find ourselves, over a nice glass of wine, in hearty disagreement concerning our core political beliefs.
Having said that, I like the fact that it seems we might disagree and still retain our civility. I find that my desire to absorb a point being made, in a thoughtful manner, is inversely proportional to the stridency in which that point is being made. Thus, I do not have much time for the likes of Olbermann, or Beck, or Limbaugh, or, even Maddow.
I used to have a deep interest in the politics of the day, but I spent a year overseas in Belgium, and found that when I came back, I just could not seem to care as much as I might have before I left. I still read blogs, though, and enjoy those that remember a very simple thing: though we disagree, we need not be enemies.
We might all be happier, say, if we would concede that maybe, perhaps, those of a different political stripe are not, gasp, inherently evil. I know, a fairly radical statement, but I tend towards being a dreamer. Dream or not, my feeling is that if we were to agree on this single point, we might all come to view the toxicity of our current discourse (and discourse may be too strong a word for what we do have) as a, oh, I don’t know, *bad* thing.
Because, it is a bad thing. And disheartening to boot.
“Having said that, I like the fact that it seems we might disagree and still retain our civility. I find that my desire to absorb a point being made, in a thoughtful manner, is inversely proportional to the stridency in which that point is being made.”
What a great comment! I hope others read this. And i hope I return to it from time to time. You are absolutely right. The more strident the point is made, the more the recipient is turned off.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick- good thread, I’m enjoying it- smart people to listen to, learn from, sometimes to disagree with, but hey, Democracy in action. As for the imbeciles, well, chasing them is good sport and clean fun as far as I’m concerned- I’ll play Chase-The-Troll with andy l sometimes, but that’s mostly because it seems to amuse Roston. (Yes, there are liberals who, if you convinced them that tofu feels pain, would stop eating- no ideology has a monopoly on idiocy.) As far as our issue with libjane (lib= liberty? must be) the driver there seems to be abortion, the one perfectly divisive issue. Most, if not all of the other lib/con issues have a lot more gray area and potential for agreement than that- guns are one. The idea that guns are a strictly lib/con issue is wrong- that issue seems to split along more rural/urban and male/female lines. (Conservatives: want to spot the Liberal at the gun show? We’re the ones who will never, ever talk politics- the new .327 Ruger? Till the cows come home, but we have learned to never ever let anyone pin us down on our political beliefs.) What I’m saying is, most of our extreme divergerncies come from false framing, rather than, say love or the lack thereof of our country. Cui bono from that?
Hi Rick,
I’ve really enjoyed reading several of your blogs lately. It’s only been in the last month that I’ve stumbled upon true/slant. I now have t/s as one of my “left-leaning” sources for commentary and analysis of what’s happening in the world. I enjoy the logical analysis that you bring to the table. Your left-leanings don’t always show. This is something I greatly admire. It seems like most people are most comfortable being hyper partisans today.
Speaking of hyper-partisans, the media is certainly guilty of this in their news and opinion programs. It is unfortunate that they can’t have a bigger wall of separation between their news reporting and opinion programs. I love opinion programs. But, when someone twists a story and leaves our important facts (contrary to their standpoint), I usually can only listen for so long.
I try to get my news from multiple sources, as it sounds like many people are increasingly doing. (Yeah!) If someone wants to claim that MSNBC or Fox or CNN doesn’t have bias, they are ignorant or blind to their own partisanship.
One thing I’ve increasingly dislike is the demeaning, belittling and patronizing treatment of others who disagree with them. And, I very much dislike that any criticism of Obama is instantly labeled as racism or anti-American, etc. People need to talk about the issues, the decisions, the policies, etc. Let’s stop bashing the competition, the opposite party, those who disagree with us, etc. (I say this to everyone, including myself).
One thing I don’t like about KO and RM: a constant assault on their competitor: Fox. It comes across as whining, attacking, belittling, etc. And, isn’t there real NEWS to be reporting? Always attacking Fox gets so very old. It’s like a cat fight between competitors. Where is the real news?
As I said, I like my news from a variety of sources. I can only handle any news station for a few minutes at times. That’s in all honesty. Sometimes the bias is just too much for me. This partisanship and constant fighting is getting to me.
I REALLY APPRECIATE news sources that communicate a balanced perspective from both sides without attacking the other view. This “all Republicans are _____” or “all democrats are _____” is stupid. Let’s face it, Republicans and Democrats are more similar that we’d care to admit. Scandals, goods, bads, whatever. There may be viewpoints that we agree (or disagree with), but neither side is perfect or is free from problems.
Thanks for your left-leaning and balanced thoughts, Rick. LIke I said, I enjoy t/s when I want to get some left-leaning perspective. All the bloggers here, you actually carefully think through your arguments (and look at both sides) before you say anything. I appreciate that.
Core 2010
In response to another comment. See in context »Thanks very much for the nice words. They are much appreciated. I’ll keep trying to keep it balanced and, hopefully, you’ll keep coming back to read the posts.
Have a great weekend.
[...] the question is certainly worth posing, and here’s a guy named Rick Ungar posing it: Last week, guest host Donny Duetsch was presenting a series of shows on MSNBC entitled “America [...]
Maybe KO should stay out of politics and keep to sports, sorta like Rush in reverse?
So, if you want to feel patronized, knock yourself. It was neither patronizing in the intent nor in the execution -but some folks juts gotta be angry even when there isn’t anything there to be angry about.
Jeebus…all that i asked you to do was to rate a blog based on what its contents are.. not just who visits it.Is that really too much to ask for?
Have you actually visited HA and read its posts? Do you even know who AP is? How could any one make a judgement of a blog -ANY blog, based merely on a section of the people who visit it and then judge it to be of good quality?
I see that you didnt address these questions at all.Trust me, if I was angry, I would not try to engage with you.
I’ve read them both. My point was that you’re kind of missing the point of post, aren’t you. Because I complimented the people who came here from HA, this seems to cause you a problem. I can’t imagine why, but if it bothers you , such is life. If you’d like to engage, maybe you’ll want to comment on the actual post rather than get all shook up because I said something nice to a group of readers.
In response to another comment. See in context »I agree. I’ve given up on any insightful commentary on cable news. I watch Bloomberg. I’ve found that if you follow the money the rest makes much more sense.
I don’t know if anyone already mentioned this, but for three hours a day (uninterrupted by commercials), you can’t go wrong with C-Span’s Washington Journal. Great, unfiltered calls from regular citizens all over America. The best part is you can get replays on the Internet only a few hours after the show ends. Meaning you can watch it instead of O’Reilly or Olbermann in the evenings if you wish. And skip through segments in which you are not interested.
About Olbermann, I was a huge fan back in 2008. He was such a breath of fresh air in a world that only had right wing “bash” TV and radio. (I live in a conservative area where Air America never had a chance and I don’t think was even tried.) Olbermann was giving those a guys a taste of their own medicine and I found that highly refreshing and entertaining. Until one day I found I was tired of it. I realized it was just a reverse image of what Rush and Beck and Hannity were doing. I figured I didn’t have the capacity for repetition that some people have — I moved on and now seldom see Olbermann (or Maddow, for that matter) at all.
Anyway, go with Washington Journal. There are a lot of nuts that call in, true, but there are also a lot of people who bring up points too indelicate for new networks. The callers don’t have to stick to party talking points (though, alas, too many do repeat those) or worry about alienating viewers.
I’m new to this blog and to Rick’s writings, but I don’t think he has written a thing I would call a rant of any slant. (pun intentional)
To disagree is the essance of progress, because, from civil debate comes understanding and thus progress.
If you come into any discussion predisposed, you waste your time.
I am a Tea Party, Republican, Conservative. Can I change my views? Yes I can. Can I be persuaded to embrace a “liberal” view? If it’s reasonable and liberal/progressive ideas are not all stupid, wrong and dangerous. In fact, I am centrist on many issues.
What I can never stop being is an American. I believe the right Homosexual, Black, Woman could make a fine President. Let’s hear what she has to say on the issues.
I don’t know if you saw the Black guy at the Tea Party who said “These are my people. They’re Americans” He is my “people”
Let finish my rant. I am proud that we could elect a Black President. I think thats tremendous progress. It’s just the wrong guy.
[...] I find myself again on the search for a new, 24 hour news network. Anyone have any suggestions? When good TV networks go bad- the demise of MSNBC – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – True/Slant __________________ Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel [...]
No argument from me on what you say as they are absolutely entitled to their benefits. I also agree that this is not a government handout —but the Tea Party specfically does not! Don’t take my word for it. Do a quick google search and I think you’ll have to agree that the various Tea Party leaders and commenters very much attack Medicare. Further, with SS and Medicare comprising over half of the government budget, if you reduce taxes, shut down the federal gov’t because it is too large, etc., how are these people going to get these benefits they paid for? Based on your comment, which makes a lot of sense to me, why would you identify with the Tea Party?
The Tea Party is a lot of things, but basically it is about the Constitution.
And yes, it is hypocritical for one to object to the “new” government handout while accepting the old one, Medicare etc. It’s all wrong, but you’ll have a heck of a time stopping it now.
There also is a certain logic that says “OK, we have “entitlemets now, but we can’t afford anymore” I don’t think we can afford what we have but we can’t pu the toothpaste back in the Medicare tube.
You are exhibiting a little tunnel vision when you dwell on the subject of Medicare.
Actually, I’m not quite sure how this comment of mine got here as it has nothing to do with this post. I suspect something went wrong and it belongs elsewhere. That said, the comment spoke to the many in the Tea Party who can’t seem to figure out why they are members. If it is about the Constitution, then that makes it even more confusing as so many of the issues espoused by the The Tea Party are, in fact, completely unconstititional and would take serious amendments to the same for them to get what they want.
As for tunnel vision when ‘dwelling’ on the subject of Medicare, not sure how that is possible when Medicare and Soc. Sec. represent over half of the federal budget and given that Medicare was at the very heart of the health care reforms that so angered the Tea Party.