There have been a lot of great episodes lately. I guess that couldn't last forever.

Naw, Rosa Brooks is too good for him. There's only one person who Goldberg deserves: Matt Stoller.

Goldberg's too chicken for a legitimate sparring partner though.

Quoting claymisher: Goldberg's too chicken for a legitimate sparring partner though.

I do get that sense.

How about Jane Hamsher with Jonah Goldberg? That could be fun. In the rank punditry sense.

Quoting rgajria: How about Jane Hamsher with Jonah Goldberg? That could be fun. In the rank punditry sense.

A great suggestion.

Quoting bjkeefe: This diavlog started right off epitomizing why I can't stand Jonah -- given the opportunity to be a little self-deprecating (about not understanding the topic they agreed not discuss), he showed once again that he's either unbearably full of himself, or too insecure, or both, and insisted that lack of knowledge had nothing to do with why he didn't want to discuss it.

Sadly, yes.

Jonah using his new Macbook? I thought only east coast liberals had macs. As far as Jonah's remarks about sarah palin, he has apparently bought into the conservative paranoia about how the media is out to get them. You sound whiney. whine whine whine whine

Jonah seems to suggest that since the power and the influence of the vice-president has only been so big in the last 16 years, that anyone who fears that Palin will maintain that level of influence is overreacting. To me it seems like a trend that's very unlikely to be reversed. Is there any reason to believe that the role would shrink again? It doesn't seem like any vice president would want to shrink their own potential responsibilities. The role is very poorly defined constitutionally and as evidenced by Cheney's claim that he's not part of the executive branch, it seems like a person can do what they want with it. The Palin pick struck me as another surprisingly un-McCain choice in a series of them, as his campaign advisers and tone has shifted. John McCain could very well be a healing, moderate, effective bipartisan president, but I think Palin and the people who go nuts for her see an opportunity here, and I don't really see any 21st century VP fading into the woodwork unless they deliberately wanted to. I blame my late realization of how scary Dick

Quoting violetcrown: I blame my late realization of how scary Dick Cheney is on my then-youth, but fool me once, you can't get fooled again.

Rarely is the question asked: is our commenters learning? Glad to see we misunderestimated you.

Quoting violetcrown: John McCain could very well be a healing, moderate, effective bipartisan president,

I think that after you scratch the surface of charming bipartisanism, you are left with someone who is rigidly stuck in a world view limited to "To war or not to war." He has no substance, no policy and no ideology. He is a politician by accident. And now, on top of that he is demented. Not much anyone can expect from him, not from the Democratic side nor the Republican. So, yes, we are talking Palin now.

but I think Palin and the people who go nuts for her see an opportunity here, and I don't really see any 21st century VP fading into the woodwork unless they deliberately wanted to.

Palin wouldn't fade since McCain won't last. But, whether some go nuts for her or not, she is no political leader. She would be a puppet like other Republican presidents of recent times have been.

I blame my late realization of how scary Dick Cheney is on my then-youth, but fool me once, you can't get fooled again.

I hope you are right. Don't get fooled. Vote Obama.

Hello My Friend Muffin,

He has no substance, no policy and no ideology. He is a politician by accident. And now, on top of that he is demented.

I am not demented. I get a little confused and forgetful sometimes, but if I'm lost at an airport, a lot of people recognize me and help me get my bearings. I wear a bracelet with my name and address on it. Let's call a spade a spade. You'd be demented too, if you spent 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton, while B. Hussein Obama was studying the Koran in a Syrian Madrassa. I may not know who the King of Spain is or the difference between a shoeshine and a Shia, but my fundamentals are as sound as the American economy. That's why I said, "Thanks but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere." Here's some straight talk: I don't need a big old fat resume with stuff I can't even remember. Here's all a president needs to know: America the beautiful is the greatest country in the history of mankind.
We are good guys.
Ruskies and Islamofascists are bad guys. Up is down and War is Peace,
John M

I defend these two! Way above the level of cable news! No shouting and no interrupting! Seriously, this isn't as bad as you're all saying, they both make a number of well thought-out and argued points, which one may or may not agree with, but certainly nothing approaching that exasperating hack financial analyst guy a while back who offered no coherent defense or evidence for anything he was saying with his sidekick interviewer (some kind of Greek name) who nodded along with the guy's Laffable alternate universe.... Peter does differ with Jonah many times, he just doesn't get hot and bothered about it. I actually really like these two--they're both very smart and use language well in service of their ideas, although of course I agree with Peter more being a good liberal BhTVer. Jonah's certainly not as crazy as I figured he'd be when his book came out, in which I'll guess there was some level of provocation for publicity/sales effect.

Quoting John M: That's why I said, "Thanks but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere."

America the beautiful is the greatest country in the history of mankind.
We are good guys.

Up is down and War is Peace,
John M

My dear John, Yes, I know that you are a good guy, somehow, somewhere. You just keep forgetting about people, and presidents and kings and queens! And bridges! By the time you were done crossing that bridge you wouldn't remember where you were going... So you'd think it's nowhere... Good night. Get your sleep. Wake up America (the Beautiful)! Up is down as War is Peace. But not if you look from above... Ocean

Quoting bjkeefe: Why oh why do we keep having this pair on? This is a caricature of cable TV talk shows -- Jonah the rightwinger comes on and spews a non-stop stream of "everything about my side is perfect, and all liberals are bad," and Peter the centrist (but plays a "liberal" on TV) murmurs, "You may have a point there."

This diavlog started right off epitomizing why I can't stand Jonah -- given the opportunity to be a little self-deprecating (about not understanding the topic they agreed not discuss), he showed once again that he's either unbearably full of himself, or too insecure, or both, and insisted that lack of knowledge had nothing to do with why he didn't want to discuss it.

I gave this diavlog five minutes. That was four more than it deserved.

Bob, if you insist on having Jonah on to build your cred with conservative viewers, please pair him with someone who is as nakedly partisan as he is. Let's have Rosa Brooks back, for example. This pairing is boring beyond belief, and Peter is too much of a wimp to call Jonah on his howlers in real time.

Peter Beinart makes

Life is too short for an hour plus of B&G. I didn't get through even the 1st topic. But give the devil his due. JG is correct to say that the william jennings bryant skit is not going to work for McCain. Obama is going flay him alive in the coming debates for the flip-flops McCain has made this week. McCain should have instead tried to muddy the waters about exactly who is to blame for the crisis, as Bush did with the intelligence failures after 9/11. And as D. Gross pointed out in the diavlog before, the Dems do bare some of the blame for this mess.

to suggest that this economic crisis is not an advantage for Obama. McCain has been preaching less government, less regulation, government get out of the way, and this crisis is a product of a lack of government oversite. Obama is way out ahead on this issue, with a two minute commercial and solid regulatory plan laid out on his web site. Democrats have an advantage when the free market system breaks down as it occasionally does sometimes and they have a tradition of filling the gap. Free markets aren't always the answer and if this economic crisis continues Obama will win in November. Wake up Johah.

Gad. Conn Carroll, Ross Douthat, James Pinkerton. These are folks I'm OK listening to on Bhtv. But Jonah Goldberg? No. Bhtv is getting worse than NPR. This sense that it's necessary to bring every right-wing idiot personality on as "balance" to mainstream reasonable discourse is just idiocy. When I saw Richard Land showing up, I knew this place was doomed. Gosh, Bob, can't you uphold even the most minimal standards of selectivity? EW

Quoting Eastwest: Bhtv is getting worse than NPR. This sense that it's necessary to bring every right-wing idiot personality on as "balance" to mainstream reasonable discourse is just idiocy. When I saw Richard Land showing up, I knew this place was doomed.

Gosh, Bob, can't you uphold even the most minimal standards of selectivity?

EW

You could say this is BhTV's way of teaching creationism. Just to balance things, you know...

Quoting bjkeefe: Why oh why do we keep having this pair on? This is a caricature of cable TV talk shows -- Jonah the rightwinger comes on and spews a non-stop stream of "everything about my side is perfect, and all liberals are bad," and Peter the centrist (but plays a "liberal" on TV) murmurs, "You may have a point there."

Actually, this discussion illustrates the stark difference between TV talk shows and BhTV. Peter is much more interesting when he has someone who actually counters his points and provides enough facts to get him to approach common ground. The alternative is Peter providing campaign talking points and Stephanopolis' head bobbing up and down like one of the dogs that people used to stick in their car's rear window

Quoting bjkeefe: I gave this diavlog five minutes. That was four more than it deserved.

Bob, if you insist on having Jonah on to build your cred with conservative viewers, please pair him with someone who is as nakedly partisan as he is. Let's have Rosa Brooks back, for example. This pairing is boring beyond belief, and Peter is too much of a wimp to call Jonah on his

I second benjy's comments and am surprised at the negative reaction to this diavlog. I thought Beinhart was impressive precisely because he didn't get hot and bothered. Isn't that what bh.tv is about? Rational ideas not emotionally driven ones? As for bjkeefe's comment about Goldberg not answering because he didn't have a good answer...I sensed that too. That said, I'd like to put my counter vote to Bob to keep Goldberg and even this pairing. I think bh.tv benefits from multiple views. I thought that was the whole point of this enterprise.

Jonah needs to travel the countryside before he defines "mainstream" media. There is no comparison between the "attacks" on Palin by the NYT, MSNBC, ABC, etc. and the attacks on Obama heard everyday on talk radio in my city, Nashville, TN. Beginning at 6:00 a.m. and running throughout the day on two major talk radio stations all you hear are attacks on Obama. Some are local hosts and some are national (Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage).
I listened to a couple of local hosts talk about Obama's tax plan for 2 hours on Tuesday of this week and didn't hear one truthful statement about his plan. Hannity and Limbaugh do about the same thing. I heard that he would raise the average tax rate on middle income earners, he would double the capital gains tax rate, he would raise the tax rate on small business' to 60 percent, he would double the average tax rate middle income and upper income taxpayers. There's still strong support for the idea that he may be Muslum, he dissed the troops in Iraq, he supports Hamas, he isn't qualified to be Pres. because he wasn't born in the U.S., he hates Israel, he wants to teach about condoms in

This pairing is of course different from a McWhorter-Lowry session, but has some of the same virtues. They know the issues and each other well enough not to waste much time on exposition, or in talking past each other. Their best discussions, such as the What's Your Problem episode on the causes of WWI, are on subjects they don't particularly disagree on. A certain intimacy may be required before a discussion can move toward a deeper intellectual level.

Amen. Thank you for highlighting these partisan hacks in this forum-- it would take a full time job to expose most of the propaganda they spew. I'm convinced they suffer from blogginghead's envy--they're jealous and angry because they think they could advance their points better in a head to head with Johah or some other conservative. The truth is, they'd just come off like the irrational, frothing at the mouth, Daily Kos type,--the type that compensates for their lack of argument with smug and snarky insults. I've been arguing with some of them here for a couple weeks now and find myself devolving into insults as well-- be careful--their contagious.

Quoting glh17: Beginning at 6:00 a.m. and running throughout the day on two major talk radio stations all you hear are attacks on Obama.

I listened to a couple of local hosts talk about Obama's tax plan for 2 hours on Tuesday of this week and didn't hear one truthful statement about his plan. I heard that he would raise the average tax rate on middle income earners, he would double the capital gains tax rate, he would raise the tax rate on small business' to 60 percent, he would double the average tax rate middle income and upper income taxpayers. There's still strong support for the idea that he may be Muslum, he dissed the troops in Iraq, he supports Hamas, he isn't qualified to be Pres. because he wasn't born in the U.S., he hates Israel, he wants to teach about condoms in Kindergarten, etc.

Thank you, glh17, for describing an unfortunate reality that pervades many areas in our country. You depict really well what so many Americans are exposed to day after day. This is all they hear. Lies and fear are the game. No wonder they vote Republican! What I quite can't understand is how the Republican

As one who is on the social democratic Left (regular reader of Dissent magazine, The American Prospect) but, also of NRO and The Weekly Standard, I appreciate these dialogues between Beinart (whose book on Cold War Liberalism made some useful points vs. 60's New Left "anti-imperialism" his detractors here should consider, btw) and Goldberg. Far better than than extremely demogogic Jane Hamsher...who struck me as a hip version of my old Stalinist relatives who mutter that Trotsky was a Fascist.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: Amen. Thank you for highlighting these partisan hacks in this forum-- it would take a full time job to expose most of the propaganda they spew. I'm convinced they suffer from blogginghead's envy--they're jealous and angry because they think they could advance their points better in a head to head with Johah or some other conservative. The truth is, they'd just come off like the irrational, frothing at the mouth, Daily Kos type,--the type that compensates for their lack of argument with smug and snarky insults. I've been arguing with some of them here for a couple weeks now and find myself devolving into insults as well-- be careful--their contagious.

It may be contagious. You do sound envious and angry. I think that it would be more productive for you and harkin to comment on ideas and arguments instead of attacking the commenters. We will continue to express our opinions as we please, regardless of your whining. Are you frothing at the mouth? I can't tell from your font...

I too am a fan of this pairing. While it certainly does qualify as "rank punditry," they go about it in a knowledgable and respectful manner that frequently draws upon historical trends and adds a sense of perspective. As such, their diavlogs are infinitely more valuable then simply listening to two hacks (like, I don't know... Carroll and Scher) argue about the merits of the latest garbage circulating around the blogosphere. Goldberg certainly has the tendency to come of as a jackass when he's parroting talking points on FOX News or in other forums (or defending his absurd book for that matter) and I think that a explains a lot of the contempt for him in this forum. But as a BHTV persona, I thinks he's perfectly fine and actually contributes a lot, especially when paired with Beinart.

Haven't even heard this one yet--some guys work for a living--but thanks on at least three grounds for keeping Goldberg coming back: 1. He's plenty good; 2. Telling the protesters against him implicitly to stuff it where the moon don't shine; and 3. He also counter balances that screaming, shreiking excuse for a thinking person--Jane Hamsher, who I don't tell you not to have on here. Itzik Basman

Quoting Ocean: Thank you, glh17, for describing an unfortunate reality that pervades many areas in our country. You depict really well what so many Americans are exposed to day after day. This is all they hear. Lies and fear are the game. No wonder they vote Republican!

What I quite can't understand is how the Republican party and their media allies have managed to dominate this sector. Is it the Democrats' laziness or neglect of this population? Why don't Dems have a voice in rural America?

Regardless of the results of this election, the democratic party has to take this more seriously and try to develop a strategy to reach everybody. People are voting delusions. We can't afford that.

Unfortunately the Democrats haven't figured out how to reach out to the insecure white chip-on-his-shoulder-and-wants-to-blame-someone-for-his-problems segment. They've masterfully manipulated this demographic on the Republican side.

Nice mug.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/144...6:07&out=16:22 Peter and Jonah, thanks for a thoughtful and nuanced discussion.

Quoting AemJeff: Unfortunately the Democrats haven't figured out how to reach out to the insecure white chip-on-his-shoulder-and-wants-to-blame-someone-for-his-problems segment. They've masterfully manipulated this demographic on the Republican side.

Unfortunately, while the Democrats can't figure this one out, we continue to lose huge segments of our population to the propaganda of lies. Where is the activism in this country? Civil responsibility. Education. Come on! I pitch in at work, but there I'm preaching to the choir. Movilize the masses! Oh, well, deep breath... I feel better now.

Quoting harkin: Did you get that Bob? Someone who listened to less than 10% of the entire dialogue is telling you a better way of presenting the participants.

I have given Jonah more than enough attention to have formed a legitimate opinion of him. I'm sure you feel the same way about the choices you make about how to spend your time, too.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: Amen. Thank you for highlighting these partisan hacks in this forum-- it would take a full time job to expose most of the propaganda they spew. I'm convinced they suffer from blogginghead's envy--they're jealous and angry because they think they could advance their points better in a head to head with Johah or some other conservative. The truth is, they'd just come off like the irrational, frothing at the mouth, Daily Kos type,--the type that compensates for their lack of argument with smug and snarky insults. I've been arguing with some of them here for a couple weeks now and find myself devolving into insults as well-- be careful--their contagious.

You're dead wrong about that. I have listed on numerous occasions conservative diavloggers who I do enjoy, whose opinions I do respect, and whose arguments I do engage. The same goes for any number of other liberal commenters here. What I, and others, are complaining about is the time given to a particular person who offers nothing of substance, who has no intellectual chops or honesty, and who never has anything interesting to say. What you are doing is being a kneejerk reactionary -- defending

Quoting sam: I second benjy's comments and am surprised at the negative reaction to this diavlog. I thought Beinhart was impressive precisely because he didn't get hot and bothered. Isn't that what bh.tv is about? Rational ideas not emotionally driven ones? As for bjkeefe's comment about Goldberg not answering because he didn't have a good answer...I sensed that too. That said, I'd like to put my counter vote to Bob to keep Goldberg and even this pairing. I think bh.tv benefits from multiple views. I thought that was the whole point of this enterprise.

I'm as big a fan of hearing multiple views as anybody. All I am asking is to hear them from someone who can say something I haven't heard a thousand times before.

Quoting Ocean: What I quite can't understand is how the Republican party and their media allies have managed to dominate this sector. Is it the Democrats' laziness or neglect of this population? Why don't Dems have a voice in rural America?

Because fear and hate are the easiest messages to sell, and the rightwing noise machine has no compunctions about doing this.

Quoting bjkeefe: Because fear and hate are the easiest messages to sell, and the rightwing noise machine has no compunctions about doing this.

Yes, I understand that. I guess my comment is more for the long term. Again, wouldn't it make sense to start building some balanced opinion in the areas that seem to be so massively dominated by Republican propaganda? I just see an ever widening gap, and it isn't even about difference of opinions. It's about having opinions on different realities. And theirs is a one-sided reality.

"massive movement to McCain as a reaction to the MSM attacks on Palin"???? Really? haven't McCain's numbers gone DOWN since the peak that was shortly after her nomination- i.e., before most of the attacks took place? Good on Jonah to acknowledge the right's corruption of elite, but his read on the polls strikes as extremely wishful thinking/seeing what he wants to see. Palin's personal approval ratings have also tanked. Whether the various attacks on her were fair or not, they haven't exactly strengthened her, except with the conservative base who were already with her. Jonah is a very nice man, but he has a habit of basically ignoring the facts that don't suit him.

Whatever-- you're openly partisan in this forum. You've already declared your support for Obama and called McCain a warmonger, so don't feign offense when someone points out your partiality. If you don't like a diavloger, don't watch them-- it's a free world. Your dismissal of Goldberg/ Beinhart was based for partisan reasons-- the diavlog was a civil discussion-- much appreciated by the less inflamed on this site. Teams???? You seem to be the only one with teams on here -- Gang of 12?

Quoting Ocean: Yes, I understand that. I guess my comment is more for the long term. Again, wouldn't it make sense to start building some balanced opinion in the areas that seem to be so massively dominated by Republican propaganda?

Yes. And I don't think the Dems/libs are without blame for the one-sided-ness of the message that a lot of people hear, especially on AM radio. They haven't done nearly enough in the way of educating voters and building from the bottom up. It is to the credit of the Reps/cons that they took the long view here. There are some signs of hope. I think Howard Dean's 50-state strategy was a good first step, and I think Obama's campaign builds on that by not going the usual DLC route of writing off a whole bunch of states as unwinnable. I can only hope this organizational structure continues to grow. The Dems/libs have to pay more attention to things like elections for school boards and other offices at the local level. As far as directly competing on AM radio, though, I have no ideas. I had hopes for Air America, but so far, it doesn't seem to be paying off much. Maybe this is

Quoting Ocean: We will continue to express our opinions as we please, regardless of your whining. Are you frothing at the mouth? I can't tell from your font...

FROTHING AT THE MOUTH FONT IS ALLCAPS, and the 1st Amendment is in fact your right. No one's whining-- just pointing out your partisanship and utter inability to be objective.

Quoting bjkeefe: Then don't read this. It probably won't help your mood.

Too late. I read it already. Perhaps that's causing the mood... or should I say the curiosity?

Quoting bookofdisquiet: Teams???? You seem to be the only one with teams on here -- Gang of 12?

I will appreciate that when you refer to our group, you refer to it as "The Highly Honorable Gang of 12+". That's proper protocol for outsiders.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: FROTHING AT THE MOUTH FONT IS ALLCAPS, and the 1st Amendment is in fact your right. No one's whining-- just pointing out your partisanship and utter inability to be objective.

Yes, it's part of our infamous human condition...

my apologies-- i was unaware of the proper diplomatic etiquette. Also, when spoken, is there a curtsy involved or a full out kowtow?

Quoting bookofdisquiet: Whatever-- you're openly partisan in this forum. You've already declared your support for Obama and called McCain a warmonger, so don't feign offense when someone points out your partiality.

I am not taking, or feigning, offense at being called a partisan. It's a waste of time for you to try to use this as an insult. I am proud of my political beliefs and I am proud to be open about them. Unlike you, evidently. What I am objecting to is your characterization of me as having no tolerance for any conservative diavloggers. You're new to this board, so I would suggest that you resist the temptation to cement your impressions of me and others based on reactions to someone like Jonah. And, the fact that you could say this:

Teams???? You seem to be the only one with teams on here -- Gang of 12?

really illustrates how unfamiliar you are with the history of this forum. Or perhaps you just don't get irony.

If you don't like a diavloger, don't watch them-- it's a free world.

That is exactly what I did with this one, and what I do with a few others. That doesn't mean I shouldn't express my opinion that

Quoting bookofdisquiet: my apologies-- i was unaware of the proper diplomatic etiquette. Also, when spoken, is there a curtsy involved or a full out kowtow?

Those are optional. It depends on the effect you want to create...

Quoting bookofdisquiet: my apologies-- i was unaware of the proper diplomatic etiquette. Also, when spoken, is there a curtsy involved or a full out kowtow?

A proper religious obeisance will do. I suggest Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves or, if one is in a hurry, bbhhh.

Quoting bjkeefe: IYou think it was a "civil discussion" because your prejudices, to which Jonah preaches, were not challenged by Peter.

So, anyone who disagrees with your taste is "inflamed," is that it?

I can see why you like Jonah. You both have the same sort of pseudo-intellectual air that fails to cover a deep intolerance for anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Your anger betrays you. Wow. Really. My prejudices to which Jonah preaches? Pseudo-intellectual air?-- I call that objectivity and impartiality. Your insult implies you view yourself an "intellectual" -- hardly-- more like a regurgitater of tired talking points in a humorously self-absorbed vain kind of way. Funny, here's a "biased", "right-wing prejudiced" comment I posted about Jonah and this diavlog yesterday:

Quoting bookofdisquiet: Jonah is delusional to suggest that this economic crisis is not an advantage for Obama. McCain has been preaching less government, less regulation, government get out of the way, and this crisis is a product of a lack of government oversite. Obama is way out ahead on this issue, with a two minute commercial and solid regulatory plan laid out on his web site. Democrats have an advantage when the free market system breaks down as it occasionally does sometimes and

bbhhh when written, blessed be her holy hooves when spoken.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: bbhhh when written, blessed be her holy hooves when spoken.

You have a mastery of protocol!

Hey Goldberg fans! Look, he's a comedian! If you're taking him seriously, then the joke is on you.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: Your anger betrays you.

Again, you completely misread me. I'm not angry. I began my registering my displeasure with Bob's insistence on booking Jonah. I have responded to you out of some faint hope of correcting your misapprehensions about me and other long-time commenters, but mostly I am amused at how sensitive you are on Jonah's behalf. I find it telling that, once again, you interpret someone disagreeing with you only as exhibiting a less than desirable emotion. Only your opinion can be reasoned, is that it?

i noticed you ignored my post yesterday about Jonah-- which makes your accusation that I'm "ideologically" linked to his "psuedo-intellectual air" rather flaccid. It's curious how you ignored that fact because it discredits your accusation. my opinion may not always be "reasoned", but I'm openly willing to admit when I'm wrong-- And I don't make outlandish statements or caricatures of either candidate without considering both sides of an issue. Calling McCain a warmonger is akin to calling Obama elitist, both are equally silly after an open consideration of the facts. My judgments on the reliability of your commentary are well-founded on this point alone-- anyone who would childishly label these candidates either of these things is a partisan hack.

The desire for additional regulation of the financial business is understandable, but a sound argument can be raised that it is not the only effective approach to modifying future behavior in these markets. If nothing else, keep in mind that the primary cause of the losses that world is trying to deal with has already been substantially eliminated. The crisis stems in very large part from the collapse of lending standards in the US mortgage markets. This problem has been solved pretty comprehensively. Go get credit today and you will understand that it isn't 2006 anymore So the crisis today is almost entirely about how the system deals with the real losses that the sloppy lending standards resulted in. Today it is becoming much more obvious that the preferred mechanism is for the US taxpayer to purchase, or accept as collateral against large public loans, debt instruments at prices or values well above fair market. The unmistakeable action is very bold: our elected government will use its coercive powers to oblige the citizenry to transfer its legally held property (our money) to institutions, and the individuals that

Quoting Gravy: Anyway, a highly effective non-regulatory response would be to let the losses occur where they would naturally occur without government intervention. AIG, no money for you. Fannie and your bondholders, no money for you. And so on. This would certainly be just as effective a way to impress upon the financial community that prudence isn't just for Grandma.

Sure, sounds good in theory, but what would those losses mean for jobs, growth, and the operation of our financial system??-- not to mention the flight of foreign investment that is propping up our economy. What you are advocating is another great depression.

Quoting Gravy: The desire for additional regulation of the financial business is understandable, but a sound argument can be raised that it is not the only effective approach to modifying future behavior in these markets. If nothing else, keep in mind that the primary cause of the losses that world is trying to deal with has already been substantially eliminated. The crisis stems in very large part from the collapse of lending standards in the US mortgage markets. This problem has been solved pretty comprehensively. Go get credit today and you will understand that it isn't 2006 anymore

So the crisis today is almost entirely about how the system deals with the real losses that the sloppy lending standards resulted in. Today it is becoming much more obvious that the preferred mechanism is for the US taxpayer to purchase, or accept as collateral against large public loans, debt instruments at prices or values well above fair market. The unmistakeable action is very bold: our elected government will use its coercive powers to oblige the citizenry to transfer its legally held property (our money) to institutions, and the individuals that

Quoting bookofdisquiet: i noticed you ignored my post yesterday about Jonah ...

Yup. One contradictory datum does not a rebuttal make. You might as weakly say that John McCain is not a liar because he once confessed to cheating on his first wife. Trumpet your open-mindedness all you like; I evaluate you by how you present yourself, not by how you label yourself. I have seen some evidence that you're not a zealot, so I will reserve final judgment, but so far, the majority of your comments suggest a strong unwillingness to accept that others might be reasonable when they disagree with your views. Instead, we're "partisan hacks" and "inflamed" and "angry" and "outlandish" and "childish" and "self-absorbed" and "vain."

you forgot psuedo intellectual and warmonger

Quoting bookofdisquiet: you forgot psuedo intellectual and warmonger

I'll take that as a statement of surrender. Thanks.

Aptly titled. Grumble, grumble...
...what's with Jonah and smiley faces?

more like boredom

Quoting AemJeff: Regulations favoring disclosure and discouraging arbitrary complexity (deliberate opacity) are, I think, an unmitigated good. Coercion, insofar as it's used to enforce discipline is a good thing. The allergy the financial sector seems to have regarding industry regulation strikes me as a means to ensure that they can operate with as little scrutiny as possible. Why should the rest of us assume they're going to behave like adults, particularly when experience shows time and time again that many are not going to do so?

Very true. I feel, however, that our political class - both parties - want to associate tighter regulation with a transfer of the the losses from the private sector to the public. It definitely feels as if the reigning idea is that in exchange for assumming these massive losses, the public should be satisfied with tighter regulations. Let's regulate where it makes sense, but the clearest discipline to these private parties would be to deny them public relief. Right now I feel that our leaders would like us to view this as an exchange: public funding of private losses in exchange for some regulations. I'd rather just not assume the

Quoting Gravy: Very true. I feel, however, that our political class - both parties - want to associate tighter regulation with a transfer of the the losses from the private sector to the public. It definitely feels as if the reigning idea is that in exchange for assumming these massive losses, the public should be satisfied with tighter regulations. Let's regulate where it makes sense, but the clearest discipline to these private parties would be to deny them public relief. Right now I feel that our leaders would like us to view this as an exchange: public funding of private losses in exchange for some regulations. I'd rather just not assume the private losses.

I have no coherent opinion on the merits of these bailouts. As a general rule, I think the trade-off between tighter regulation and disclosure is pretty obviously necessary. It's also obvious (and generally true) that regulation ought to be well crafted. What I do know is that at the end of this, I'd like my IRAs to be more or less intact. Whether the public assumes the burden is less important than the degree to which the burden is mitigated by the process. I guess

Quoting Ocean: Thank you, glh17, for describing an unfortunate reality that pervades many areas in our country. You depict really well what so many Americans are exposed to day after day. This is all they hear. Lies and fear are the game. No wonder they vote Republican!

What I quite can't understand is how the Republican party and their media allies have managed to dominate this sector. Is it the Democrats' laziness or neglect of this population? Why don't Dems have a voice in rural America?

Regardless of the results of this election, the democratic party has to take this more seriously and try to develop a strategy to reach everybody. People are voting delusions. We can't afford that.

You're right, the dems don't have a strategy that has broad appeal in rural areas, particularly in the south. The social issues (abortion, gay rights, gun laws, school prayer, immigration, etc) are a major part of the problem. Nevertheless, the dems should be able to appeal to the economic interests of low and middle income folks. For the past twenty years or so, these folks have voted against their economic interests. This fact could not be clearer than in this election.
The problem is

Quoting glh17: For the past twenty years or so, these folks have voted against their economic interests. This fact could not be clearer than in this election.

Related to this, I came across an interesting tidbit the other day. From Thomas Frank's fine op-ed of last week, The GOP Loves the Heartland To Death:

A few days ago I talked politics with Donn Teske, the president of the Kansas Farmers Union and a former Republican. Barack Obama may come from a big city, he admits, but the Farmers Union gives him a 100% rating for his votes in Congress. John McCain gets a 0%. "If any farmer in the Plains States looked at McCain's voting record on ag issues," Mr. Teske says, "no one would vote for him."

Says a lot about who's controlling the message, doesn't it? I do take some small comfort from "former Republican" and the rest of Frank's piece -- the utter contradiction between what the GOP says and what the GOP does for small town and rural America may finally be coming to light.

Quoting glh17: You're right, the dems don't have a strategy that has broad appeal in rural areas, particularly in the south. The social issues (abortion, gay rights, gun laws, school prayer, immigration, etc) are a major part of the problem. Nevertheless, the dems should be able to appeal to the economic interests of low and middle income folks. For the past twenty years or so, these folks have voted against their economic interests. This fact could not be clearer than in this election.

In reading your post, I realize that there is so much talk about the above issues that define some of the disagreement between the two parties, that the socioeconomic issues that affect rural areas get lost. This is also the problem with defensive campaigning. Instead of getting lost in responding to attacks, the Democrats should dismiss that quickly and get to the platform. Talk directly to the interest of that section of the population. But, local supporters would have to be involved in disseminating accurate information and dispelling myths. I do wonder how much effort is really being directed to this task.

I agree that Beinart seems insufficiently combative. On the other hand, I reacted very unfavorably to the Pinkerton-Hamsher pairing, which was unenlightening in the extreme. I don’t understand how one can discuss the Palin nomination, and the alleged overwrought condescension of the liberal media and of many Democrats, without focusing upon McCain’s age on the one hand and Palin’s inexperience on the other. But Palin’s “inexperience” is also a code word for her faith on the one hand and lack of curiosity, which is a form of stupidity, on the other. I think David Brooks’s point about Palin is that she and George W. Bush appear to have some of the same strengths, in terms of their symbolic appeal to the Republican base, and their ability to tap into this symbolic appeal, but also share some of the same temperamental and intellectual weaknesses. Goldberg seems to have trouble summarizing this point. What's up with that? My wife thinks that Goldberg is fundamentally dishonest, which is certainly possible. His harping on the oozing condescension of Palin’s detractors, in all their guises, seems disingenuous. It might be genuine, but how could one know? What seems very difficult to credit is that

You guys are being way too hard on Goldberg. Yeah he's a a conservative but he's not a hack like some of those over at National Review like Hanson (I think K Lo is too dumb to even realize she's a hack). Plus he gets his arguments across quite effectively.

Quoting banco: You guys are being way too hard on Goldberg. Yeah he's a a conservative but he's not a hack like some of those over at National Review like Hanson (I think K Lo is too dumb to even realize she's a hack). Plus he gets his arguments across quite effectively.

I think the question if whether Jonah's is degree of intellectual honesty is a fair topic. I also think it underlies most of the criticism he's been subject to. It gets too personal at times, IMHO, but he certainly makes himself an easy target in this regard.

Good points, a problem is in disseminating the message. I don't see how the dems message can reach a large number of folks because it is filtered through lenses of the local opinionated media, which is overwhelmingly talk radio and Fox News. A good example is global warming. People hear about it, but are constantly told that it's either grossly exaggerated or is a hoax. Now, I believe there is some exaggeration, but I would not call it gross and the downside risks are high. The misinformation is sufficient to rule out carbon taxes or cap and trade as viable options Mandated mileage requirements and lower speed limits are about as unpopular. Right now, the only acceptable option is reflected in Aaron Tippin's new hit, Drill Here, Drill Now.

Two issues here. How to get a voice in a Republican dominated media is one. We can all grasp the difficulty faced here. But, as everything else that's very complex and seems insurmountable, you have to start somewhere. Every community has some access point. It may be a church, school, a community center, town's council, a worker's association or some other, where there may be an opportunity for an opening. It would require a lot of individual effort. In terms of the media, there would have to be some incentive for people to want to listen or read a new source. Creativity should abound. But the point here, isn't about coming up with some genius idea, but rather, point out that we can't shrug our shoulders and abandon this group of people. Something has to be done. The second issue is about global warming. This has been hidden from American people for so long that there's an attitude of skepticism from the more recalcitrant sectors of the population. I don't know how pervasive this is, but a friend of mine was telling me that in some areas people are interpreting the climate changes, hurricanes, droughts, etc, as the unequivocal signs

Quoting AemJeff: I have no coherent opinion on the merits of these bailouts. As a general rule, I think the trade-off between tighter regulation and disclosure is pretty obviously necessary. It's also obvious (and generally true) that regulation ought to be well crafted. What I do know is that at the end of this, I'd like my IRAs to be more or less intact. Whether the public assumes the burden is less important than the degree to which the burden is mitigated by the process. I guess we'll see soon enough.

Mitigate is a poor choice of words here. The losses are real and cannot be mitigated in aggregate. They can redistributed and for those that end up with fewer losses than they otherwise would have had, you can say that their burden has been mitigated. But for this to happen, you must have a counterparty to shoulder a higher share of the burden....there is no other way for it to work. And in aggregate, well-connected financial industry concerns and their shareholders and debt holders will bear a lower burden and taxpayers will bear a higher burden. Mitigation for the largest political contributors

Quoting bjkeefe: Why oh why do we keep having this pair on? This is a caricature of cable TV talk shows -- Jonah the rightwinger comes on and spews a non-stop stream of "everything about my side is perfect, and all liberals are bad," and Peter the centrist (but plays a "liberal" on TV) murmurs, "You may have a point there." ... This pairing is boring beyond belief, and Peter is too much of a wimp to call Jonah on his howlers in real time.

That's funny, because whenever I watched Jonah debate Peter on "What's Your Problem" (and I think I saw every "What's Your Problem?"), Jonah always struck me as saying, "yeah, that's true" or "fair enough", while Peter only rarely had to say any such thing. I didn't watch much of this diavlog, but I got that sense when I watched previous diavlogs with these two on bhtv. I think your sense that Peter's a wimp comes from the fact that you're more liberal than he, and you want him to really tear into Jonah, a la Hamsher into Pinkerton, or Stoller into likeability.

Yes, I definitely agree that there is a moral obligation to expose the lies. Unfortunately, when facts are denounced as lies, facts become meaningless. The far-right are expert at this. If the facts don't fit Sean, Rush, Bill, Ann, Laura, or Fox's world, then they're all lies. Obama's tax cuts for the low and middle classes become tax increases. A Census Bureau report of a drop in real, median income becomes part of a liberal agenda. Warnings of global warming become a great hoax whose real intent is to destroy the market system. It's difficult to expose lies when the other guys have the biggest mic. In the long run the truth will win out, but we'll probably have to put up with a lot of foolishness in the mean time. Right now misinformation is a real problem in the media. It's not all on the right, but the right's misinformation strategy is certainly having a greater effect.

Quoting Bobby G: I didn't watch much of this diavlog ...

Interesting. Why not?

I think your sense that Peter's a wimp comes from the fact that you're more liberal than he, and you want him to really tear into Jonah, a la Hamsher into Pinkerton, or Stoller into likeability.

LOL @ the latter. Recall, if you read that thread, that I registered dislike with the Jane and Jim diavlog and turned it off early, even though I agreed with EW's sentiments about her on later reflection. I'm glad you acknowledge Peter being less liberal than I. This supports my earlier point about this pairing being too much like the MSM's notion of "balance" on talk shows -- someone from the far right paired with a centrist. It's not so much that I want Peter to "tear into" Jonah. It's more that I wish he wouldn't let pass unchallenged Jonah's blatant partisan spin and his frequent habit of making sweeping statements about "[all] liberals." There are also specific points that Jonah is allowed to slip in that are either distorted or flat-out untrue, some of which I think I've noted in past diavlog threads. Peter has a tendency to treat every one of Jonah's

Ocean,
I found something you might find interesting. I found this link by following links on Jennifer O's (on Science Saturday today) blog site.
http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/09/...-intelligence/

Quoting glh17: Ocean,
I found something you might find interesting. I found this link by following links on Jennifer O's (on Science Saturday today) blog site.
http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/09/...-intelligence/

Thank you so much for the link! I'm starting to think that there is a topic much needed, or I should say, much wanted to be discussed in depth. It has to do with the polarization that we're seeing across the board in political arena, science, religion, morality, economics and the overall understanding of the world. We are splitting into two camps and it's well beyond the political parties. I wonder what other people think.

Quoting Gravy: Mitigate is a poor choice of words here. The losses are real and cannot be mitigated in aggregate. They can redistributed and for those that end up with fewer losses than they otherwise would have had, you can say that their burden has been mitigated. But for this to happen, you must have a counterparty to shoulder a higher share of the burden....there is no other way for it to work. And in aggregate, well-connected financial industry concerns and their shareholders and debt holders will bear a lower burden and taxpayers will bear a higher burden. Mitigation for the largest political contributors would be an accurate summary. While both parties are ready to do this, I find the Democrats more distasteful since they so vocally pretend to represent the less well-connected, but in a pinch never do it.

I dunno. "Losses" is ambiguous in some ways. If you're talking strictly about things like mortgages, then there's some justice to what you say. But globally there's plenty of fungible assets at risk here. Stock, eg, took a huge hit midweek. On the order of 900 points off the DOW in two days? But half that recovered on

The Palin nomination, which is discussed in the article, has certainly led people to scrutinize presidential qualifications, given her skimpy resume. The Democrats would like to portray Palin as a backwoods ignoramus, unfit to be president. She is supposedly incurious, inexperienced, unsophisticated and holds primitive religious views. She clings to guns, religion, etc. I'm not persuaded that any of that is particularly significant. True, her pro-war foreign policy positions are especially disturbing in that they echo the despicable views and policies of McCain and Bush, but I don't really see how such views are related to her degree of culture, experience or curiosity. It's awfully hard to sell the Democratic Party as the epitome of civilized, cosmopolitan and scientific values. Its leaders express similarly primitive religious and chauvinistic views. For example, Obama claims to be personally saved by Jesus, and he has claimed that "America" is the greatest country in the history of the world. Of the four national candidates, all are monolingual, and none has any background in science. So at the end of the day, I think it's best to stay focused on policy and ignore all the noise about experience, culture and religious beliefs.

Quoting Wonderment: So at the end of the day, I think it's best to stay focused on policy and ignore all the noise about experience, culture and religious beliefs.

There are two aspects being discussed. One is about the candidates. I wouldn't place them in the same bag. I weigh how much each of the characteristics that they may appear to share affects their role as political leaders, and there they depart from each other. The implications of Palin's religious background are much heavier in her view of political discourse than Obama's. Palin has made clear dismissive statements about any culture that isn't her small town working class conservative religious type. And I could go on and on. We can't be dismissive of those differences between the candidates. It wouldn't be responsible to say that because they are all are religious, they are all the same. They are not. And we need to be clear about that. But the topic that was being discussed in this thread had to do with the American people. More specifically, about rural, conservative, Republican America. After several posts discussing how the Republican party has dominated public opinion by having control of

Here's an example of the consequences of conditioning the electorate to embrace ignorance, from Frank Rich's latest column (on the McCain campaign of lies):

If you doubt that the big lies are sticking, look at the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll. Half of voters now believe in the daily McCain refrain that Obama will raise their taxes. In fact, Obama proposes raising taxes only on the 1.9 percent of households that make more than $250,000 a year and cutting them for nearly everyone else.

Here's another, from Nicholas Kristof's latest, "The Push to 'Otherize' Obama:"

Here’s a sad monument to the sleaziness of this presidential campaign: Almost one-third of voters “know” that Barack Obama is a Muslim or believe that he could be.

In short, the political campaign to transform Mr. Obama into a Muslim is succeeding. The real loser as that happens isn’t just Mr. Obama, but our entire political process.

A Pew Research Center survey released a few days ago found that only half of Americans correctly know that Mr. Obama is a Christian. Meanwhile, 13 percent of registered voters say that he is a Muslim, compared with 12 percent in June and 10 percent in March.

More ominously, a rising

Even weirder and scarier is the observation from Kristof in the same edition of the NYT that the percentage of registered voters who think Obama is a Muslim is rising!

Meanwhile, 13 percent of registered voters say that he [Obama] is a Muslim, compared with 12 percent in June and 10 percent in March.

Quoting Wonderment: Even weirder and scarier is the observation from Kristof in the same edition of the NYT that the percentage of registered voters who think Obama is a Muslim is rising!

I guess the implication is that the increase is due to more people being exposed to the lies!

Thank you, Brendan. My ignorance about Law leaves me perplexed. I would have expected that the media would have some responsibility if they air or publish a lie.

It's not like we haven't seen this act before. Despite the Bush Administration's denial of promoting a misinformation campaign, for some strange reason over one-half the nation still believed Iraq had nuclear capability and that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11 well after both of these claims were discredited. Now, how on earth do you think U.S. citizens came to these beliefs? Misinformation is a strategy and the ground troops are on talk radio and Fox News.

Quoting Wonderment: Even weirder and scarier is the observation from Kristof in the same edition of the NYT that the percentage of registered voters who think Obama is a Muslim is rising!

Sorry I missed this before editing my previous post to include the same thing. Glad we're on the same page, though.

Quoting Ocean: My ignorance about Law leaves me perplexed. I would have expected that the media would have some responsibility if they air or publish a lie.

You'd think, wouldn't you? Not to mention the candidate himself. However, it's really hard to win a slander or libel case in this country. On balance, I think that's a good thing, because harsher laws make it too easy for the powerful to suppress things that should be said -- you can squelch the truth just by tying somebody up in court. But at moments like these, it's hard not to wish we could bring the hammer down, isn't it?

Quoting bjkeefe: You'd think, wouldn't you? Not to mention the candidate himself.

However, it's really hard to win a slander or libel case in this country. On balance, I think that's a good thing, because harsher laws make it too easy for the powerful to suppress things that should be said -- you can squelch the truth just by tying somebody up in court. But at moments like these, it's hard not to wish we could bring the hammer down, isn't it?

Yes, and I would make the case there is a conspiracy of lies.

Picking a VP for a man who is 72 with a history of cancer is only of novel concern to Johah. That's a rational take on this issue. So what she's not ready, Jonah thinks it won't matter anyway. Mccain you garnered another vote this morning thanks to the straight forward and totally not intellectually dishonest Jonah Goldberg.

Peter's book "The good fight" though good has one of the worst book covers i have ever seen.

jonah what happened to "whats your problem"? i like it when you guys talk about stuff like D.C. vs. New York.