Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-06-10/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
Budget talks led by Vice President Biden continued on Capitol Hill. Both sides are focused on avoiding what the Obama administration warned would be a first-ever default on U. S. debt. Newt Gingrich said he’s still in the 2012 presidential race after an exodus of his top campaign aides. Mitt Romney’s staff said the former Massachusetts’s governor will skip the Ames, Iowa straw poll. Leon Panetta’s appointment as the new Secretary of Defense appeared on track after his confirmation hearing. And a massive Arizona wildfire continues to blaze. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
David Corn
Washington bureau chief, "Mother Jones" magazine; author of several books, most recently, "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War."
Karen Tumulty
national political reporter, The Washington Post.
Mark Tapscott
editorial page editor, The Washington Examiner.
Friday News Roundup Extra
The panelists talk about whether or not Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY, 9th District) can survive the scandal surrounding lewd pictures of himself that he sent to women via Twitter. "Any time sex enters the public discourse, hypocrisy is about a nano-second behind," said Mother Jones Washington bureau chief David Corn, referring to Congressional Republicans involved in recent similar scandals who are still in office. But The Washington Post's Karen Tumulty said the fact that former Rep. Chris Lee, a Republican from New York, resigned immediately after shirtless photos of him surfaced on the web back in February makes it more difficult for Rep. Weiner to keep his seat:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
cicero on June 10, 2011 @ 7:59 pm wrote: "But that is exactly why Rehm has David 'Creamed ' Corn on. He expresses Rehm's far left views while Rehm can continue the charade that she doesn't have an ideological bias."
The only charade, sir, is your constant (and pathetic) attempts to convince everyone you are a fair, impartial, and accurate critic. As anyone who reviews your diatribes over the months (years) will quickly realize, the ideological bias is entirely yours. Thus, in your view, anyone who doesn't toe your ideological "party line" must be a "lefist".
But let's ask a simple question: if that's the reason Corn makes his (far from frequent) appearances on this show, pray explain why Mr. Tapscott is here too? After that, explain the appearances of various other conservatives over the years.
The difference between us? I welcome guests of both persuasions, for while I don't want screaming matches, I do want thoughtful discussion of all sides of the issues, and that's what public broadcasting usually provides.
If you want media where the hard-right point of view always prevails, go back to Fox!
cicero on June 10, 2011 @ 8:01 pm wrote: “Do SP a favor; stop defending her. The lame stream media, . . . .”
PART ONE
Do us a favor, and post your replies, or critiques to Comments other people have made, on the webpage of the show they originally appeared on!
At least, you could bother to include a link to the show in question (http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-06-03/friday-news-roundup-hour-1). Your link was to a show from May 27th, not June 3rd where my Comment actually appeared!
But then, like your heroine (and Ms. Bachmann too, I wonder?) you can’t be bothered with a little thing like facts, when it’s so much easier to engage in an ideological rant, complete with parroting of the “talking points” lingo about the media! I trust anyone who checks my actual Comment to the June 3rd show, will note that you re-wrote it, and didn’t bother to indicate the changes and omissions you made. That’s dishonest! But to be expected from a “devoted fan” of Palin, Breitbart, and O’Keefe.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
As for Mr. Rehm and Mr. Williams, I’ve addressed your obsession with that already. He appeared on the Diane Rehm show almost immediately after he was fired to give his side of the story. I note that you constantly pooh-pooh this fact (as you did in your Comments to that May 27th show, the one you did include a link to), and do your best to declare it of no consequence. Funny, Mr. Williams had a different perspective in the October show he appeared on (http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-10-26/juan-williams/transcript):
"MR. JUAN WILLIAMS: Diane, you've been a friend to me, so thanks for inviting me on the show in this moment of turmoil." [11:08:08]
I suppose we have to forgive you for overlooking that obscure statement, after all it was “hidden away”, right at the start of the program! Clearly, though, Mr. Williams recognized that being given this opportunity to tell his side of the story was a show of support by Diane! Furthermore, later in the transcript (which is too long to quote here) she gave him the chance to show that the remark which got him fired actually was not a racist comment, as he had been falsely accused of making. But, again, I guess giving someone the opportunity to defend themselves and tell the truth is of no importance to you!
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
On the other hand, you selectively quoted from the transcript (as you did when misquoting me), you jump from a question Diane asked at 11:29:28, to an entirely different question she asked 25 minutes later leaving out everything in between, including this very interesting statement (at 11:40:14):
"WILLIAMS: I think that NPR should have money. I think that people at NPR have to be held accountable for their words and actions. I'm -- to repeat, Diane, I'm a big fan of radio and I think especially the whole notion of public radio and good reporting, so this is not an attempt to wipe out anybody, but it's so important to me, you know. I feared that this would become an issue for right wing versus left wing. But instead, what I have experienced is that people on the left and the right have been supportive of me at this time."
Somehow, I doubt the people he mentioned included someone like you, who obviously only regards Mr. Williams as a tool he can use to bash Diane Rehm and NPR! Too bad Williams refused to “play along”, even going so far (after enduring a particularly vitriolic call from one viewer) to declare:
“but I'm a -- not only a fan of Diane's show, but I have appeared regularly on Diane's show and I was, you know, honored that Diane asked me on this morning,. . . .”
I’d say any fair, reasonable minded person reviewing that transcript will conclude that my description of that particular program fits far better than yours. But then, “fair” and “reasonable minded” are hardly words I’d use to describe you!
monte on June 10, 2011 @ 9:34 pm wrote: "Etaoin Shrdlu Your like a nut case running around the titanic with a bag of corks."
Well, sir, since you retreat to ad hominem attacks without bothering to provide either fact or reason, I suppose I should return the favor and ask:
Since you are obviously deaf, dumb, and blind, how could you possibly know what I'm like?
cicero on June 11, 2011 @ 11:46 am wrote: “You have got to be kidding. When has Rehm ever been a "neutral moderator?" NPR doesn't employ neutral moderators. She is a bona fide liberal. Her bias is no more a secret than Sean Hannity's bias.”
This from the man who’s the model of objective, rational, and unbiased commentary - NOT!
thrashertm on June 12, 2011 @ 6:58 pm wrote: “I wish the show would talk about Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and other candidates that aren't being fawned over by the media as much. Candidates like these tend to be supported by the grassroots, while being shunned by corporate special interests. They advocate for real change.”
I don’t know enough (yet) about Mr. Johnson to comment, but I should point out that (as conservatives never tire of saying) not all “change” is good. Ron Paul is an adherent of the nonsense spewed by Ayn Rand. Like far too many on the hard right, he parades himself as a scholar of the Constitution, while demonstrating he knows little about it. I find very little in his proposals to support.
Nor is “grassroots” support necessarily a sign of either virtue or wisdom. George Wallace (the man who proclaimed “segregation forever”) had a great grassroots following. Al Sharpton’s following is almost entirely “grassroots”.
Nor is corporate support necessarily a bad thing. Though, obviously, we must be on guard about politicians who put corporate interests above the voters’ interests.
Still, thanks to “conservative” Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, we can expect that corporate influence to only grow. Consider that, and who put them on the bench, when voting in 2012.
cicero on June 12, 2011 @ 8:37 pm wrote: “smcjoy wrote: ‘I personally thought Mark Tapscott's comments were pointless and ridiculous, ...I gather from the comments that others thought the same of David Corn.’ Yes, Corn's comments were pointless and ridiculous. That is Corn's raison d'être .”
And here we see your sophistry in action again. Selectively quote from another so you can distort what they say, and then throw in your own jaundiced perspective. Let’s review what you left out from your quote, shall we? Here’s what smcjoy actually wrote (with emphasis to the parts you omitted):
“I thought this show had potential for a good debate. I personally thought Mark Tapscott's comments were pointless and ridiculous, but I was interested in hearing a real discussion, no matter how 'contentious,' if each panelist was drawn out on the issues, and the conversation allowed to go someplace perhaps new and interesting. I gather from the comments that others thought the same of David Corn.”
In other words, he was making the point that even though he didn’t like what Tapscott said, he (like me) appreciated the opportunity to hear what Tapscott had to say, and to have a debate about it!
You, of course, wanting NPR to become a “liberal-free” zone can only respond with infantile snide remarks, based on completely distorting what smcjoy said!
I sometimes wonder if I need to expend energy discrediting you. You do such a grand job of it all by yourself!
I agree. I thought David Corn was reasonable in his counters to the conservative, who actually finally got around to saying something more nuanced when challenged by Corn. I thought Diane was a bit rude to Corn and it made me uncomfortable. Then apologizing for their interaction afterward-- that was a bit too genteel for me.. Another stab at Corn, and not really deserved it seemed to me. I was wondering if she was mad at him for something that had happened off air..
I was thrilled that David Corn was a guest. The media is so overwhelmed by voices from the right on so many subjects that his presence was really refreshing. There can be no real discernment of the best way forward unless we have a full spectrum of ideas.
,N41134 6311,Louis Vuitton M40354 7167,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,