As Steve Benen says, Steven Hayes is clearly insane. That said, is Hayes more insane or less insane than Tim Russert, who decided that Bob Woodward, David Brooks, and Steve Hayes would be a good balanced panel to discuss the news? What kind of stupid stuff do I need to write before I get to go on Meet The Press to promote my book?
« Good Chart | Main | The Broadband Gap »
Meet The Panel
22 Jul 2007 10:57 pm
Comments (37)
You have to swallow whole a big pill of ConventionalWisdom (TM Pfizer) in which any liberal ideas are beyond the pale. That way when you're invited on Tim Russert's show, he can yell, "See? See? I didn't invite on a bunch of stinkin' hippies. I'm not part of the effete liberal media. Now call me a man and invite me to your parties." Reinforcing the egos of the big guys in the MSM is more important than being right.
Jeez, Matt, Woodward is the liberal, Brooks the moderate, and Hayes the conservative. It's the very definition of balance.
I don't post here often so I should clarify:
I was kidding.
"What kind of stupid stuff do I need to write before I get to go on Meet The Press to promote my book?"
Well, probably NOT that sentence.
It should be noted that Woodward acquitted himself quite well.
Woodward acquitted himself quite well.
He better acquit himself, as no impartial jury will.
Perhaps Hayes meant to say that critics of the war did not think Al Qaeda had a presence in Iraq at the time of the invasion. He's taking issue with that rather than saying critics of the war feel Al Qaeda isn't a threat, period.
That's the only way I can make sense of what he's saying. He's still dumb as a rock but then, y'all already knew that.
Woodword was the sane one because he was the only representative of the vast majority of us who think the war's gotta stop. That said, he did not (nor did anyone) challenge the assertion Brooks made that *Reid* has made the debate partisan, and the pity poor Republican Moderates who want the democrats to let them have "breathing room" from the President (except, of course, vote for cloture.) Being a "centrist" means never having to say you're sorry.
"Centrism" has become a real problem for this country. "Centrism" has come to mean incredibly beligerent foreign policy, fealty to corporatism, and some sort of loyalty to social liberalism.
That's a school of thought, but it's not "centrism". Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich would never be described as "centrist" although both have unorthodox views about foreign policy vs. domestic policy. This isn't an endorsement of either of them, but theoretically a media embattled by "partisans" would think they were a breath of fresh air instead of acting like someone farted whenever they showed up.
TV is an interesting problem for people like Ezra or MY. It may be the post-TV age (thank god), but all the more reason guys like you actually should be on MTP, etc. - not that you really care. But the question about what kind of piece of shit book or article MY would have to write to be on MTP is an interesting one in the grotesque-abstract.
I'd recommend a viewing of the canonical pwning of Stephen Hayes by Jon Stewart when Hayes was shilling his bullshit 'Connection' book.
My guess is that Hayes went in for a colonoscopy, they'd find Cheney's wristwatch.
Send Russert a canned ham every day with a sweet note. You'll be on by August.
"You have to swallow whole a big pill of ConventionalWisdom (TM Pfizer)"
If only Pfizer had that pill to make up for the big drop in Lipitor sales. Anyhow, let this be a tip for you: buy PFE while everyone hates the stock because of Pfizer's weak pipeline, etc. Pfizer is still profitable, and with $20 billion in net cash, it isn't in any danger of going out of business, and it can afford to buy a start-up or two if its own R&D doesn't deliver profitable new drugs. Buy now, and you'll be getting paid 4.5% (Pfizer's ridiculously high dividend yield) to wait.
Feel free to disregard this if you are completely broke or if you are a Kennedy or heir to another large liberal fortune.
Matt - Send Timmy a Lynch jersey and 100 wings from Duffs with a note that says how moving you found "Big Russ & Me."
Howard Dean Success in Iraq is inevitable.
I have to wonder what the ratings are these days for Meet The Press and way Russert has turned the show into a complete crap-shoot.
Russert really must of had to work to turn his show into Sunday's hour long political rubbish bin. Why willingly turn yourself into an unrespectable Rush Limbaugh? Russert is no Bob Schieffer, no Jim Lehrer and even Phil Donahue commands respect but Russert has become talk radio on TV and Meet the Press has the become the Sunday news joke that is second only to FOX daily partisan hack TV.
The problem isn't with Russert, the problem is with the US itself - in most of Europe Kucinich would be a perfectly well electable candidate, while most Democrats would be considered center-right.
They should rename Meet The Press, Meet The Fascists. Russert should also change his name to Mussolini. He's certainly fat and fascist enough.
Russert: can't even watch him anymore. can't watch the nightly news, can't watch softball, just too ridiculous. Good of everyone to tell me Russert's still has the political IQ of a pumpkin.
What SHOULD be getting more attention is Brooks admiting his "10,000" dead number was "pulled out of the air". Here is a New York Times columnist a regular, a member of the pundit class admiting he made-up a figure (and initially lied about the sourcing). Why should we (or his employer) then trust anything he says.
By the way, why did it take Woodward to correct him? Where was Tim and his much vaunted prep?
I see Matt's descent into what passes for liberal reasonableness is now complete - the other side can't simply be wrong, they have to be insane and/or evil.
Have you forgotten Edwards' comment that the war is "just a bumper sticker"? Seems to me that a Presidential aspirant who previously ran for the VP slot counts as an administration critic.
In Matt-world, that kind of thing doesn't count though. It's kind of like suicide bombings in Pakistan, or Thailand: better not to bring it up at all, since it might not fit the pre-assigned narrative.
Have you forgotten Edwards' comment that the war is "just a bumper sticker"?
You obviously think we have, since otherwise you wouldn't lie so blatantly about what he actually said.
"I see Matt's descent into what passes for liberal reasonableness is now complete - the other side can't simply be wrong, they have to be insane and/or evil."
Your team has been accusing my team of treason since we were first right 5 years ago. At least admit that the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have made career$ of doing exactly what you accuse us of.
By the way, why did it take Woodward to correct him? Where was Tim and his much vaunted prep?
Is that anything like Russert's vaunted investigative method he discussed in the Moyers documentary? The method where if a favored guest says something blatantly false on his show, he is ready and willing to listen on the phone if anyone wants to call and tell him different?
"What kind of stupid stuff do I need to write before I get to go on Meet The Press to promote my book?" - M. Yglesias
Extreme Right Wing stupid stuff.
Thus ends today's session of simple answers.
And it is also the reason that the "Traditional" MSM (SCLM?) is hurting so badly. The lies & bias are too easy to debunk via the web.
>What kind of stupid stuff do I need to write before I get to go on Meet The Press to promote my book?
Try this: "Pardon Scooter."
This has been another edition of simple answers to rhetorical questions.
I thought yesterday's MTP was fascinating. David Brooks kind of melts down into the puddle of his own contradictions and ends up saying that the senator he most agrees with on Iraq these days is Joe Biden! And all three -- Hayden, Woodward and Brooks -- seemed to agree that everybody in Washington (including "30 republican senators") knows the Maliki government isn't viable.
I had the same reaction as Yglesias when I heard the line-up -- oooh, what a broad political spectrum we have here! -- but it did give the opportunity to see that even the center right (averaging out the three) agrees that Iraq is "lost".
I'd rather listen to the reanimated corpse of Rutherford Hayes.
Thanks, pseudonymous in nc!
"is Hayes more insane or less insane than Tim Russert, who decided that Bob Woodward, David Brooks, and Steve Hayes would be a good balanced panel to discuss the news?"
This is the corporate media template. They pair two foaming at the mouth right wing partisans with a journalist like Woodward and call it "balance". It's been like this for as long as I can remember.
They might as well call it Meet the Rich White Conservative Men.
"What kind of stupid stuff do I need to write before I get to go on Meet The Press to promote my book?"
You have two choices;
1) Become a Kristol Meth type neocon with a long record of being consistently wrong.
2) Become a "concern troll liberal". You know, the kind who is always trashing Dems, praising the GOP. Complain about how the liberal bloggers have hijacked "my party", how the Democrats are not "serious" about national security, except Joe Lieberman, who is your idea of a good Democrat.
yeah, never once for some reason, would Tim Russert call anyone out as a liar for making blatantly false statements. why can any republican at any time simply say that to believe al-qaeda in iraq is not a large, worldwide problem which requires the sacrifice of american lives and billions of dollars per month means there is to believe there is no "problems" with violent, radical jihadists. why can they say this over and over, without someone like Tim Russert asking "could you please site one specific person who has ever, ever said such a thing?"
why????
"Your team has been accusing my team of treason since we were first right 5 years ago. At least admit that the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have made career$ of doing exactly what you accuse us of. "
Hmm. First, I made no such accusation, but thanks for playing. Second, neither Ann Coulter nor Limbaugh are (or have been) candidates for the Republican party. Third, is it your assertion then that since some of your opponents have acted in bad faith, it frees you to do the same?
Why don't you, and Matt, try arguing with the substance of Hayes' comments instead of engaging in name calling?
Oh, wait - I know why. You can't. It's so, so much easier to just throw rocks and call names.
Robertson, try following the link in Matt's post for a debunking of the "substance" (what substance?) of Hayes' comments.
Truth is, though, we liberals have gotten so used to being right about everything for so long, we no longer bother to check in much with the vacuous propaganda spouted by conservatives on Iraq. Please wake me when someone on your side says something true about the war on terror, then I'll pay attention.
"Hmm. First, I made no such accusation, but thanks for playing."
That's why I said your team, not you.
"Second, neither Ann Coulter nor Limbaugh are (or have been) candidates for the Republican party. "
No, but the poiticians on your team sure seem to love and support them. I just wanted to point out that your side has done what you accuse us liberals of doing. More often, and more incorrectly than us.
"Third, is it your assertion then that since some of your opponents have acted in bad faith, it frees you to do the same?"
No, as I said above, it's my assertion that your team has been using that tactic for years with the blessing of the people at the very top of your party. That's why I asserted it.
You call us out for supposedly assigning evil motives to your actions (BOMBING PEOPLE WHO DID NOT ATTACK US) which in fact have been proven to be the wrong thing to do. I just wanted to point out a couple out of hundreds of examples of your side accusing us of evil intent, when what we wanted to do (NOT BOMB PEOPLE WHO DID NOT ATTACK US) is now considered the proper approach by 70% of Americans and 90% of the rest of the world.
I just reread your original post. Is it really 3 completely unrelated points or am I missing something?
"Truth is, though, we liberals have gotten so used to being right about everything for so long, we no longer bother to check in much with the vacuous propaganda spouted by conservatives on Iraq. Please wake me when someone on your side says something true about the war on terror, then I'll pay attention."
Yeah, that monolithic group-think thing will take you a long way. It certainly worked for Republicans in 2006, didn't it?
Comments closed August 05, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Just start sucking up to power...
Posted by Rich | July 22, 2007 11:23 PM