Bill Scher FTW!!!

Could we get Eli Lake and David Frum discussing the Sarah Palin nomination ?

I was kidding, but I was also prescient in the notion that having serious neo-con foreign policy guys discussing Palin would be lots of fun for those of us who think the McCain campaign is going to Twin Cities in a caravan of clown cars. Frum here: http://www.nationalpost.com/national...html?id=756704 I Love Palin. McCain has destroyed any vestiges of credibility. But I'm an unpatriotic prick for stating the obvious because....drum roll....John McCain was a POW! Time for the Question of Questions - Why do rank liberals such as myself "hate America" ? Maybe because of the fatuousness of so many of it's alleged "serious men" and "heroes" - like John McCain. All kidding aside, I sure as hell hate this Republican Party.

Quoting brucds: All kidding aside, I sure as hell hate this Republican Party.

We never could have guessed.

Even given all I know about Conn, I still cannot believe he can sit their with a straight face, complaining about MSNBC's bias and Keith Olbermann's manners. I don't care that he claims never to watch Fox News. There on his team, they are for more dishonest in their bias, and as far as manners go, I believe Bill O'Reilly owns the copyright on the phrase, "Cut his mike." At least they recorded this before Obama's speech, so I don't have to listen to Conn tell me what a disaster it was.

Congrats Bill on realizing Olbermann is a 'blast of propaganda'. What you call 'close to the edge' is really just shameless disinformation, bile and delusion. Conn's great point on the difference between KO and Chris Wallace should not go unnoticed (he could very easily have tossed in Chris Matthews and Dan Abrams too - too soon to judge the far-left yet polite Maddow). MSNBC's claim as being anything other than Obama Central is a hoot. The absolute funniest aspect is that they've adopted the view of the Clintons that they used to ridicule as FauxNews. Happy to expose the corrupt couple but only when a new liberal star needs help. Wonder who they'll be pushing when they start admitting Obama is an empty suit.

Conn is wrong most of the time, but other than the MSNBC politics, he had Bill on the back foot in this dvlog. My perspective was that Conn nailed the problem with Cap'n Trade. I can't imagine how this country would support a government program that increases the cost of energy at the point of sale.

I was ready for MittMania - even a HuckaBoom, but I'm a bit blindsided by PalinPhilia: http://www.vpilf.com/

Quoting themightypuck: Conn is wrong most of the time, but other than the MSNBC politics, he had Bill on the back foot in this dvlog. My perspective was that Conn nailed the problem with Cap'n Trade. I can't imagine how this country would support a government program that increases the cost of energy at the point of sale.

Haven't gotten there yet. Thanks for letting me know there something else coming up.

harkin: Why do you even bother, when you've got the RNC-TV (aka Fox News) albatross around your neck? Do you really think anyone's is going to take you seriously when you complain about a news station being biased? And don't try to hold up Chris Wallace like he's at all representative. It won't wash. He's the outlier in that outfit. The bulk of the people who like Fox News like it for BillO and Hannity and Fox & Friends and the regular rotation of guys like Kristol, Krauthammer, and Novak. Payback is coming, at long last. Deal with it.

Now Conn is being a concern troll about NBC's brand. This is hilarious. Or painful. Maybe both.

Quoting bjkeefe: Now Conn is being a concern troll about NBC's brand. This is hilarious. Or painful. Maybe both.

There has been a concerted effort afoot to undermine KO and MSNBC in general. Page six of the Murdoch owned NY Post is pushing blind items to stir the pot.
Conn has been dropinging the NBC should be ashamed meme for a few months as I recall. Faux concern if ever. Can't blame them for trying to keep the deck stacked. But as you gleefully reminded harkin... They better get used to the push-back.
I do see the potential for a backlash against MSNBC by the suits at the parent NBC, but not if the demand continues. M$M has money as its middle name after all.

You want to see (well, hear -- he's off-camera for this one) someone who deserves a shot on TV? Check out this interview. I didn't realize until recently that Cenk Uygur (Young Turks) did more than riff on the news. This might be the best pressure I've seen put on a campaign spokesperson this century. And it was a guy ostensibly on his own side. I wouldn't at all mind having him on BH.tv, either. Could be a good new media discussion with, say, someone from TPMtv. Or Bill himself.

I want a Bloggingheads between the dumbest person at NRO, Kathryn Jean Lopez who is gaga over Palin - or the second dumbest, Goldberg who's also gushing at the VPILF, although that wouldn't be nearly as much fun - and one of the best that NRO has to offer, Bloggingheads regular Ramesh Ponnuru. Here's Ponnuru on the awesome Palin pick:

(Palin) may strike people as a reckless choice; it strikes me that way. And McCain's age raised the stakes on this issue.

As a political matter, it undercuts the case against Obama. Conservatives are pointing out that it is tricky for the Obama campaign to raise the issue of her inexperience given his own, and note that the presidency matters more than the vice-presidency. But that gets things backward. To the extent the experience, qualifications, and national-security arguments are taken off the table, Obama wins.

And it’s not just foreign policy. Palin has no experience dealing with national domestic issues, either. (On the other hand, as Kate O’Beirne just told me, we know that Palin will be ready for that 3 a.m. phone call: She’ll already be up with her baby.)

(I'm glad Kate O'Beirne said that and not Joe Biden.)

Quoting themightypuck: Conn is wrong most of the time, but other than the MSNBC politics, he had Bill on the back foot in this dvlog. My perspective was that Conn nailed the problem with Cap'n Trade.

Now that I've had a chance to listen, I don't at all agree with your perspective. I don't know enough about Cap and Trade to be able to fully evaluate the worth of the points raised, but listening to these two, I did not at all sense that Conn "had Bill on the back foot" or "nailed" anything. It sounded like Bill was trying to explain a new program while not being sure of how wonky he should be, given the audience, and Conn had a set of simplistic objections that he's well-rehearsed at delivering. Conn, as usual, also did his trick of slipping in half-truths everywhere along the way, which obviously annoys and frustrates Bill, which is just as obviously Conn's intent. You can tell by the smirk. This diavlog was the same as it always is whenever these two talk about big policy ideas -- Bill tries to talk about the big idea, Conn tries to win peripheral arguments, and often

Quoting graz: I do see the potential for a backlash against MSNBC by the suits at the parent NBC, but not if the demand continues. M$M has money as its middle name after all.

Yes. Ultimately, I think that's what it will come down to, too. If MSNBC can make money while offering a clear liberal perspective, GE is not going to be unhappy. It'd be pretty funny if they did so well that they started burying Fox News, and all of the sudden, Roger Ailes started lobbying for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Dreams.

Conn gets the best of the argument about MSNBC.

I'm just speaking about my view of political reality. If a program increases POS prices, I have little faith that it has a chance of getting enacted. I could be wrong. I'm not necessarily against a carbon tax, I just don't see how you manage a meaningful one politically.

Quoting brucds: Here's Ponnuru on the awesome Palin pick:

Here's the link to the Ramesh's article. It's pretty good. Here's another BH.tv regular, David Frum: also not happy. As to Jonah, this was my favorite line from him:

... she's an exciting, exotic (yet heartlandish) female pick.

The poor guy. So many competing narratives to spin simultaneously, like a clown trying to keep all the plates in the air. Alaska: heartland! Hawaii: still exotic! By the way, John McCain is 23 years older than the state of Alaska. But he doesn't own any houses there. I think. I'll have to check with my staff and get back to you on that.

I'm not really in a position to argue the details of card check. I've never worked in a union and don't really have a lot of perspective here. My view on unions is mostly positive and historical, but I can't see why union elections shouldn't run by rules similar to federal, state, and local elections. I admit that my knowledge of the nuances here is weak.

If he were to rename his organization I think you’d hear a lot more from and about him.

Quoting JIM3CH: If he were to rename his organization I think you’d hear a lot more from and about him.

What's wrong with Young Turks? You mean the Armenian connection?

Yes. I could never figure out what benefit he gets from that name that would outweigh the down side. I agree with you he is a savvy and interesting commentator and does a good interview.

Okay I've got it - Best Bloggingheads ever. Since it's come out that Sarah Palin and her husband were fundraisers and supporters of Pat Buchanan in '96 and '00, I'd love to see a Buchanan/Frum BH on Neo-Conservatism and the McCain campaign/Palin. The Varieties of Conservative Experience haven't proved good for much else in recent incarnations, so it's up to Bob to mine them for entertainment value.

Good points by Conn. Nothing shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the left more than their support of KO. The man's a former sportscaster who can't speak without a script. His childish battles with Scarborough and Matthews show he's incapable of working with others. All the important interviews are shunted off to Matthews or someone else since he doesn't have the political knowledge. He never interviews anyone who disagrees with him. The excuse is, he doesn't want to do "cross-fire" - the fact is he's too dimwitted and slow to effectively counter any opposing argument on a real time basis. Even if you agree that MSNBC needs a liberal anchor, KO is simply inadequate. He makes Chris Matthews look like Edward R. Murrow.

Quoting rcocean: Good points by Conn.

Nothing shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the left more than their support of KO. The man's a former sportscaster who can't speak without a script. His childish battles with Scarborough and Matthews show he's incapable of working with others. All the important interviews are shunted off to Matthews or someone else since he doesn't have the political knowledge. He never interviews anyone who disagrees with him. The excuse is, he doesn't want to do "cross-fire" - the fact is he's too dimwitted and slow to effectively counter any opposing argument on a real time basis.

Even if you agree that MSNBC needs a liberal anchor, KO is simply inadequate. He makes Chris Matthews look like Edward R. Murrow.

Thanks for your unbiased expertise. You must be a regular watcher?
It must rankle you that your ideological opponents can be more effective and wittier and smarter than your one-note wonders on Fox.
KO is besides the point. The result of the counter spin and reality assessment are a net positive for the viewers. I think they (MSNBC), for the most part, offer an intelligent if biased perspective that allows the audience to

Quoting JIM3CH: Yes. I could never figure out what benefit he gets from that name that would outweigh the down side. I agree with you he is a savvy and interesting commentator and does a good interview.

I'm not sure how good a measure I am, but the truth is, I was only able to say "the Armenian connection?" after Googling. I was previously aware that there is a long-standing sense of hostility between Turks and Armenians, one that still presents in some Americans who are generations removed from either of those countries, but I did not know the phrase "young turks" had anything to do with this. Until yesterday, the only thing "young turks" meant to me was something like a group of brash upstarts, people looking to break free of constrictions. Which, obviously, is part of why Cenk Uygur and his friends chose that name. Glancing at their site, I see they have the following at the top of their "About the show" page:

Young Turk (n), 1. Young progressive or insurgent member of an institution, movement, or political party.
2. Young person who rebels against authority or societal expectations. (American Heritage Dictionary)

One could read this as them being defensive, I suppose, but my guess is that it's

Quoting rcocean: [...] Nothing shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the left more than their support of KO. [...]

I happened across this post by John Cole of Balloon Juice yesterday. If you don't know he is, he's an erstwhile Republican (note that he's part of Pajamas Media) who has recently changed sides. He could not have expressed how I feel any better, and I suspect that goes for a large number of us.

This Editor and Publisher piece about Olbermann calling out the AP for their ridiculous hit piece really is a perfect example of what I consider to be the Olbermann conundrum. While Olbermann is a an obnoxious, overbearing, over-the-top, irritating, pompous, smug and self-referential fathead who is difficult to watch, the reason he gets away with it is because HE IS THE ONLY ONE SAYING THINGS THAT NEED TO BE SAID.

Olbermann and Matthews really disgraced themselves with their schoolgirl gushing last night, but Olbermann was exactly right about the AP piece- it was shit. And just as it was the case with many things over the past few years (torture, the failure of this administration, domestic surveillance), Olbermann is the only one to bluntly and explicitly say so.

On behalf of "the left," I don't accept the charge of intellectual bankruptcy. There's a

Quoting themightypuck: I'm just speaking about my view of political reality. If a program increases POS prices, I have little faith that it has a chance of getting enacted. I could be wrong. I'm not necessarily against a carbon tax, I just don't see how you manage a meaningful one politically.

That's a reasonable point of view. Clearly, the plan will need some selling. People will have to understand why they're being asked to fork over their money, if indeed they are. It will have to be explained how much they're really going to have to pay out, what they're going to get in return, and how they might find offsets to the POS pain. Really, the only thing I'm asking here (and sorry it took me so long to say so last time) is for an honest discussion of the pros and cons. I just don't get the sense that Conn plays fair in these discussions, or that Conn and Bill together are a good way of laying out what's really involved.

However arcane it may be, to a subset of the US population no doubt including some influential members, it would emote the same as "Hitler Youth", which you have to admit is every bit as offensive as the deutsch Hitler Jungend. It is also inflammatory in a meta sense because those with Turkish sentiments are offended by anyone who is offended. I am not Armenian, nor am I particularly close to any. This issue received some prominence a few months back when congress passed a resolution (to Turkey’s displeasure) recognizing the Armenian genocide. I guess I just happened to hear about it. As to the name, I just remain puzzled as to what benefit Cenk Uygur sees in it. I can’t help but believe that it provides nothing but a negative connotation. He, never-the-less, is able to attract quite a few mainstream politicians to his radio program; I can only assume that he would become even more well known if he adopted a name other than Young Turks, even if it were more conventional. I suppose you are aware that he posts a lot on Huffpo. I do find him worth a read now and then.

Jim:

However arcane it may be, to a subset of the US population no doubt including some influential members, it would emote the same as "Hitler Youth", which you have to admit is every bit as offensive as the deutsch Hitler Jungend. It is also inflammatory in a meta sense because those with Turkish sentiments are offended by anyone who is offended.

I am not Armenian, nor am I particularly close to any. This issue received some prominence a few months back when congress passed a resolution (to Turkey’s displeasure) recognizing the Armenian genocide. I guess I just happened to hear about it.

Yes, I do remember that resolution business, and as I said, I did know about the ongoing sensitivities between Turks and Armenians.

As to the name, I just remain puzzled as to what benefit Cenk Uygur sees in it. I can’t help but believe that it provides nothing but a negative connotation. He, never-the-less, is able to attract quite a few mainstream politicians to his radio program; I can only assume that he would become even more well known if he adopted a name other than Young Turks, even if it were more conventional.

Nothing to say except to repeat that

http://youtube.com/user/heathr456 Real Time with Bill Maher is here.

I think Conn is playing more fair than Bill with his "it burns...IT BURNS" response to Conn's true point that a cap and trade program is a carbon tax and that tax will be felt at the pump or in people's monthly electric and heating bills. Do you really think the polis has no preference between (a) paying now and getting a rebate later and (b) not paying now?

Quoting themightypuck: I think Conn is playing more fair than Bill with his "it burns...IT BURNS" response to Conn's true point that a cap and trade program is a carbon tax and that tax will be felt at the pump or in people's monthly electric and heating bills. Do you really think the polis has no preference between (a) paying now and getting a rebate later and (b) not paying now?

To your question: No. Of course they have a preference. But I don't think it's that simple. Couple of minor points: I'm not even sure what you mean by choice (b) -- sounds like a free lunch -- and I am unwilling to accept at face value your assertion that Conn is making a "true point." I am suspicious that Conn is making things sound worse than they would be, and in any case, I don't think we have any choice but to start making major changes in our energy policies. So, I really don't have much patience for a point of view that essentially argues for doing nothing different. Here's an analogy: I don't have any patience for yet another debate about whether humans significantly contribute to global

If the Left is willing to settle for KO as "their" TV anchor and defend him - OK with me. Myself, I dislike pompous/stupid TV talking heads of any political stripe. That includes Cal Thomas, Sean Hannity, Fred Barnes, and Bill Kristol.

Quoting rcocean: If the Left is willing to settle for KO as "their" TV anchor and defend him - OK with me. Myself, I dislike pompous/stupid TV talking heads of any political stripe. That includes Cal Thomas, Sean Hannity, Fred Barnes, and Bill Kristol.

Glad to hear the second part. As to the first part, you missed the point in graz's, John Cole's, and my remarks. To be clear: we aren't "willing to settle for KO as [our] anchor." I know I wouldn't say okay, now that we have Olbermann, we're all set, and I doubt graz or John would either. All three of us acknowledged his personality flaws. All three of us characterized him as being a counterweight to the right wing noise machine, and an antidote to the fetish-for-"balance" MSM, that dominates TV. He is a useful voice, and a good first step, and his affect may be a necessary evil, but he's hardly the be all and end all for those of us who would like TV to rise out of the sewer where it usually resides. I don't think of Olbermann as an anchor, certainly not in the classic Cronkite sense. I think of him as a vlogger with a bigger budget and platform. He is not at all a news source for

For inexplicable reasons, I never before now so clearly saw the reflexive emotional/perceptual valence of the word ‘tax’ for committed conservatives. This, from one who canvassed for Goldwater (memorably in a black neighborhood in Alexandria VA) and was crushed and despondent when he lost; whose best friend’s mother was a Bircher; and remembers when Norquist and Reed and the rest were first teething in public.
So ‘tax=evil’ is no novelty. But Conn’s no doubt expert and intelligent and informed response to and use of the word ‘tax’ surprised me.
I had never seen so clearly that road maintenance might be seen as ‘redistribution’ or that to tax an enterprise is to tax its clients and consumers. The logic is both plain and perverse. Conn sees the word as a self-evident signifier of evil; reflexively, conclusively, securely, yet with the ironic knowledge that neither Bill nor the liberal viewers grasp his simple truth.
He does this without the devious bluster or cynical manipulation I associate with such assertions. Natural as breathing, no trace of malice. Perfectly sane, to all appearances. Bizarre and scary. Thank Heaven the majority sees through the scam— transparently wrong-headed as it is.

Quoting bjkeefe: Glad to hear the second part.

As to the first part, you missed the point in graz's, John Cole's, and my remarks... All three of us characterized him as being a counterweight to the right wing noise machine, and an antidote to the fetish-for-"balance" MSM, that dominates TV. He is a useful voice, and a good first step, and his affect may be a necessary evil...

I don't think of Olbermann as an anchor

Yes, yes and exactly.
His role is critical because anchors exist more in concept than reality.
If an anchor were to be defined as a delivery vehicle for unvarnished facts, I would say that I have rarely witnessed such a performance by a so called anchor. It's hard to disprove that bias enters into the equation once a speaker mediates events or "facts." But what Fox created, demands a counter measure.
The AP controversy is a telling example of what happens when the delivery of news has crossed over into the shaping of opinion (now if I were to cite Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, rcocean might tune out). But this is why Olbermann's affect is required. One result being that it challenges the acceptance of the

Quoting ed fielding: The logic is both plain and perverse. Conn sees the word as a self-evident signifier of evil; reflexively, conclusively, securely, yet with the ironic knowledge that neither Bill nor the liberal viewers grasp his simple truth.
He does this without the devious bluster or cynical manipulation I associate with such assertions. Natural as breathing, no trace of malice. Perfectly sane, to all appearances.

Bizarre and scary. Thank Heaven the majority sees through the scam— transparently wrong-headed as it is.

Well said. It is scary. The blind, unchallenged acceptance of self-serving "values" (that's how interpret what lies behind the attitude you describe) is puzzling. It goes along with the demonization of the word "liberal". I'm hoping that we can bring the ideas of liberalism back to the table and return to them the honor they have always deserved.
Proud to be liberal!

Quoting Ocean: Well said.

Second that.