Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Zeitgeistial Straws in the Wind (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=1762)

bjkeefe 04-17-2008 12:59 PM

Re: Zeitgeistial Straws in the Wind
 
AemJeff:

Quote:

Republicans are still the absolute masters of heads we win, tails you lose politics. I start wishing every campaign season for signs of life among the Democrats, but every time it seems somebody might get it, something meaningless ("Dean-Scream") decaptitates them. In objective terms I have to acknowledge the Republicans' tactical mastery.
You're right about that.

I can never decide whether I should grudgingly admire the GOP for this and be annoyed at the Democrats for dithering, or continue to be glad that the Democrats just won't go there as wholeheartedly. In the end, such tactics hurt the country, and I wonder if both sides were equally skilled and equally prone to such tactics, whether we'd, in effect, be a one-party state.

Pardon my elitism, but I don't think everyone living in the gutter is the way to go. I sometimes think one side trying to stay on the higher road is better in the long run. I grant that it means losing in the short term, but I have hopes that the electorate will someday realize how bad off they are as a result of buying into the GOP's tactics and having gotten their policies, cronyism, and incompetence in the bargain. Maybe, at that point, they'll recognize that it doesn't have to be this way, and they'll be glad to have a choice.

Dreaming, probably.

bjkeefe 04-17-2008 01:06 PM

Re: How soon they forget
 
Twin:

Quote:

I'm repeating myself, but the Pinkertons of the world place their role as foot soldiers in the conservative movement before their professional obligations as members of the press.
It's okay to repeat. It needs to be said early and often.

I wonder how much of this is ideological commitment, and how much is love for the money. Keep in mind that Jim worked for the Huckabee campaign, which I expect was mostly out of ideology, but has since had to look for a new gig. I have dark visions of the induction ceremony in the basement of the Fox News building.

Paranoia aside, I also wonder what it does to a guy like Jim to be surrounded with people who agree with him, and who have a long history of being completely one-sided about issues. Maybe he's the one who needs to be deprogrammed, as opposed to our friend visiting Saudi Arabia.

TwinSwords 04-17-2008 01:06 PM

Re: Pinkerton Lies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 74234)
That seems a lot more like a mistake than a lie.

You may be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think he's smart enough and dishonest enough to have known exactly what he was doing. I'll grant there is a degree of uncertainty, but combined with the rest of his bald-faced lies, I think it's fairly clear he was being purposefully deceitful.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 74234)
A "lie" is a purposeful misstatement to deceive another. Do you really think Pinkerton is trying to trick David Corn, or the vast bloggingheads viewing audience?

Absolutely! I think he's going to take every stolen base he can. This is about damaging Obama and "Saving America" from the catastrophe of a Democratic president. I'm sure he thinks he's doing patriotic duty by lying to you.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 74234)
Isn't it more reasonable to assume that Pinkerton is bad at math, and, like virtually everyone, emphasizes those facts and polls that reinforce his existing beliefs?

All I know is that he misrepresented the truth, and that he's a very smart guy with an extremely well-rehearsed presentation. If "errors" and "mistakes" creep into that presentation, it's funny how they do more damage to Obama than the truth. I think he knew exactly what he was doing, and he will do this kind of thing often in the months ahead.

Hopefully we will have more Pinkercorn episodes before November, so any doubt you might have about his veracity can be extinguished.

Note: He cares far less about his standing as a "journalist" than he does about his standing as a member of the conservative movement. He's perfectly willing to damage his professional reputation to advance the McCain candidacy. However I must note that he cannot damage his professional standing by lying about Obama or Clinton; instead, lying will enhance his professional standing. The more and better he lies, the more valuable an asset he will be to Fox News and other right-wing media outlets.

look 04-17-2008 01:07 PM

Re: How soon they forget
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 74239)
look:
Still, though, he seemed quite different in overall affect for most of this diavlog. In the past, he'd go on for a bit with some idea, but he'd also lighten up quickly. In addition, he seemed more prone to acknowledging other sides to his point of view in the past. This time, he seemed as humorless and bullheaded as Sean Hannity...

It's strange how we all see things differently. I thought he more or less lightened up during the diavlog. During the Schmitt diavlog he stayed pretty upset, so as soon as he said the Sharpton comment, with that defiant set to his expression and tone, I thought it was going to go south. But Corn maintained his good humor and Jim ended up doing his charming giggle-laugh a few times.

Thus Spoke Elvis 04-17-2008 01:14 PM

Re: Zeitgeistial Straws in the Wind
 
Brendan:

Several points in reply:

1. As I said in my original post, I thought Jim came off overly partisan and rabid, but I think his transformation is symptomatic of the change that occurs in many polical junkies, on the right and the left, during a presidential campaign (Jim's recent participation in the presidential campaign as an advisor for Huckabee has probably been a contributing factor to his greater adversarial posture of late). You seem to be arguing that I can't analogize Jim's behavior with that of certain left-wing bloggers, because David Corn didn't seem as unhinged as Jim during this diavlog. If only all pundits were as consistent as David! But many of them, on all sides of the spectrum, are not.

2. You argue that the left side of the blogosphere's change in attitude towards McCain is justified, because he's no longer a "maverick," etc. However, most of the examples you mention are positions that McCain has long held (when hasn't McCain boasted of his participation in the Reagan Revolution or supported an increase in troops in Iraq?), or "flip-flops" like his wooing of evangelicals that (1) are done by every single politician and (2) occurred well before liberal attitude towards McCain began to change. Well into the Republican campaign, when McCain seemed like a much better alternative to many liberals than Giuliani or Romney, you would read left-wing bloggers praising McCain's integrity and hear Democratic presidential candidates say "I agree with John McCain that..." But only now, in the spring of 2008, with McCain the Republican nominee, is he labelled a war-monger or a hypocrite? Come on.

3. I agree that the recent news coverage of McCain has been more positive than the two Democratic candidates (though they have covered his gaffes for a day or two, and we shouldn't forget the unsourced "McCain is screwing a lobbyist" story that the New York Times inexplicably ran). But that's mainly because he has the nomination wrapped up while the Democrats are in a dogfight, so the media is going to pay a lot more attention to Hillary and Obama's gaffes than those McCain makes. That will surely change in the general election.

4. I think you're getting way too worked up about the injustice of the recent negative media coverage of Obama. Let's not forget that less than two months ago the media pundits were arguably his biggest supporters, comparing his speeches to those of MLK and RFK, portraying the Clintons' campaign in South Carolina as quasi-racist, and generally treating Hillary as a cold and out-of-touch bitch. He's getting a bit rougher treatment now, when he has no chance of losing the Democratic nomination, but do you really think the media isn't going to start covering him more favorably in the general election? Yeah, McCain may be more willing to talk to the media, but Obama's young and hip!

bjkeefe 04-17-2008 01:20 PM

Re: How soon they forget
 
look:

Quote:

I thought he more or less lightened up during the diavlog.
I agree, somewhat. He was a little less strident once he got all of his Obama talking points out of his system. And yes, later on, he even let loose that wonderful laugh.

But then he finished up with a truly wacky take on the dancers at the Jefferson Memorial story. Not only did that pretty much wipe out what little good feeling I had managed to regain; its extreme tone reminded me of how appalled I was at his race-based Obama-bashing.

Sorry that I don't remember anything about his diavlog with Mark Schmitt, so I can't make that comparison. I'll take your word for it. That said, I think my sense of him from remembering other PinkerCorns has merit.

Thus Spoke Elvis 04-17-2008 01:37 PM

Re: Pinkerton Lies
 
No offense, TwinSwords, but to me your comments seem emblematic of the hyperpartisan attitudes people begin adopting as the campaign season wears on. As I've said, I agree with you that this wasn't Jim's best performance, as it seemed that emotion was driving his perception to a greater degree than normal, and he was imputing motivations on his political opponents that reinforced his own worldview.

But in my view, you seem to be doing much the same thing. There was nothing about Jim's stammering argument that struck me as "an extremely well-rehearsed presentation." Likewise, I think it's much more reasonable to think that Jim misunderstood the polling data than to believe he's intentionally trying to deceive David Corn and the 500 or so bloggingheads viewers. I just disagree with your contention that he thinks the more he lies "the more valuable an asset he will be to Fox News and other right-wing media outlets."

I don't know Jim Pinkerton personally, but I've seen him about 40 or so times on bloggingheads. Based on my observations, it seems to me much more likely that he's a friendly guy who occassionally gets overly worked up about goofy things (Obama's pastor, space exploration), than a secret emissary of some right-wing cabal who has been sent to bloggingheads to destroy it from within.

TwinSwords 04-17-2008 01:40 PM

Re: Zeitgeistial Straws in the Wind
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 74233)
I think your post indicates how bias is in the eye of the beholder. It's interesting, for example, that you consider Andrea Mitchell to be a "below the radar...wingnut." I always thought she supported Kerry over Bush, and supports Hillary in the current campaign.

Andrea Mitchell was like a lot of other cable news journalists: Until 2004, I had no idea she was a conservative Republican. She always refrained from open partisanship and dishonesty, and gave fairly balanced reports and commentary. But in the six months or so before the 2004 election, her "true colors" came out, with openly partisan attacks on Kerry, Dean, the Democrats, etc. After the election, she reverted back to neutral journalist form.

I haven't seen it yet in 2008, but I expect her Republican tendencies will surface in the near future.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 74233)
I think you're correct that people become more strongly partisan as an election gets closer

That's a true statement, but it's not precisely what I said. I wasn't saying people become more partisan, but that their mode of operation changes -- precisely as Brendan originally observed.

Jim, who is normally fair and honest while still being extremely conservative, is now a baldfaced liar. And he will remain a baldfaced liar until Obama is destroyed and McCain wins the election.

Becoming a baldfaced liar is different from becoming more partisan. We all become more partisan, but there are a distressing number of conservatives in the media who are willing to repeat the fact-free right-wing talking points of the day.

This is all about the election: Jim is a movement conservative who has devoted his life to advancing The Cause. And he is going to use his platform to do as much damage to Obama as he can -- fairly or unfairly, honestly or dishonestly. Whatever it takes.

George Stephanopoulos, on the other hand, isn't like that. He's not determined to use his platform to damage Republicans regardless of the cost to his professional reputation. Like most "liberals" or Democrats in the media, what few their are, Stephanopoulos clearly places his professional reputation and standing as a journalist waaaay before his "duties" as a liberal Democrat.

The one person in the MSM who I think DOES place his partisan loyalties ahead of his professional standing is Keith Olbermann, but he doesn't lie in the service of his agenda, and won't do anything dishonest or disreputable to help the Democrats.

I also disagree that this is an "eye of the beholder" thing. I don't know of any Democrats who do what Jim and other conservatives do, i.e., lie professionally. There probably is one dishonest Democrat somewhere you could cite, but the general tendencies are crystal clear. If you have any doubts about this, I will point out that we are only now beginning to get into the "general" election season when these tendencies will become most appallingly apparent.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 74233)
I'd disagree with your characterization of Joe Scarborough. I watch Morning Joe on a regular basis, and find Joe to be one of the most fair-minded pundits out there. Sure, you can take a snippet from his show and say that it seems grossly unfair, but if you watch the show for a reasonable and regular duration, he's reliably even-handed.

That's exactly why I cited Scarborough. I, too, watch him almost every morning (and have since he started his morning gig), and I catch him many evenings on MSNBC. I have always found him to be exactly as you describe: reliably even-handed, fair, basically honest, etc.

But that has changed in the last 2-3 weeks. He is now doing exactly what Jim was doing. These are just two people who characterize and typify the right wingers in the MSM.

If you have any doubts, we'll see a lot more of this dishonorable (but profitable) behavior from them in the months ahead.

bjkeefe 04-17-2008 01:48 PM

Re: Zeitgeistial Straws in the Wind
 
Elvis:

Many good points, and I agree with your overall take. A few quibbles:

Quote:

You seem to be arguing that I can't analogize Jim's behavior with that of certain left-wing bloggers, because David Corn didn't seem as unhinged as Jim during this diavlog. If only all pundits were as consistent as David! But many of them, on all sides of the spectrum, are not.
You're right that many others have become as unhinged as Jim seemed in this latest diavlog, but I still maintain that the comparison is less than sound. Given a whole universe of fruit, there are a lot of non-apples that one could pick.

(I am going to let that strained metaphor stand as punishment to self.)

I just think it made more sense to compare Jim to David, that's all.

Most of your point #2, where you argue that McCain has become more of a target now that his even more unsavory challengers for the nomination have been disposed of, is correct. I agree that he's been consistently pro-war, in particular. Still, I maintain that McCain continues to dine out on erstwhile positions. His former attitude about evangelicals, for example, tends to give the MSM an excuse to imply that they don't really think his new embrace of them is meaningful. Another example is his flip-flop on torture. This anti-Bush stance gained him a respect from a lot of people on the left, including me, and rightfully so. But he no longer stands up against torture nearly as unambiguously. Same for his previous stance against Bush's tax policy, and his new position of supporting it. There really is something to the charge of hypocrisy, and it's doubly worth making, since the MSM tends to cling to his past maverickiness as though it still exists.

Your point #3 is right, especially the part about the Dems still being in a nomination battle, while McCain has won his. I do want to point out that as much as I hate the overuse of this expression, that one NYT story about McCain and the lobbyist is the exception that proves the rule. That is, he got one piece of critical news coverage (as opposed to opinionating), and the uproar was deafening. I don't want to argue the merits of that article. My sense is that it went through too many lawyers, and the editors should have cut the sex scandal part out once they saw what was left. My point is, it was one story, and the backlash lasted a week. We have not seen any other major news stories examining McCain in a critical way since.

By contrast, the MSM has long had a pattern of covering some triviality regarding Obama, and then keeping it alive with endless thumbsuckers having to do with "does this latest controversy mean the end of the Obama campaign?" Additionally, outcries from the left never make the MSM back off the way they do when the right makes a stink.

Which leads me to your point #4. I agree that some in the punditocracy were enthralled with Obama early on. However, I'd say that most of these people took criticism of this leaning far too much to heart. As is all too often the case, the pattern reappeared: the right criticizes the MSM for "liberal bias" and the MSM overcompensates in reaction.

I've gone on longer than "a few quibbles" justified. Let me repeat that I agree with your larger view on the whole situation.

look 04-17-2008 01:51 PM

Re: How soon they forget
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 74246)
look:

But then he finished up with a truly wacky take on the dancers at the Jefferson Memorial story. Not only did that pretty much wipe out what little good feeling I had managed to regain; its extreme tone reminded me of how appalled I was at his race-based Obama-bashing.

Well, I'm cursed with the burden of contrarianism, but I don't think it's out of the realm of expectation that uptight, true-blue cops would be unlikely to put up with kids silently dancing in the mall area. I expect their first concern would be that these kids were meth-heads who could possibly fly into a rage, etc.

Quote:

Sorry that I don't remember anything about his diavlog with Mark Schmitt, so I can't make that comparison. I'll take your word for it. That said, I think my sense of him from remembering other PinkerCorns has merit.
Well, I should have been more clear. My meaning was that, now and then, Jim expresses his right-wing views prominently, but over-all is a great guy.

TwinSwords 04-17-2008 01:52 PM

Re: Pinkerton Lies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 74247)
No offense, TwinSwords, but to me your comments seem emblematic of the hyperpartisan attitudes people begin adopting as the campaign season wears on. As I've said, I agree with you that this wasn't Jim's best performance, as it seemed that emotion was driving his perception to a greater degree than normal, and he was imputing motivations on his political opponents that reinforced his own worldview.

But in my view, you seem to be doing much the same thing. There was nothing about Jim's stammering argument that struck me as "an extremely well-rehearsed presentation." Likewise, I think it's much more reasonable to think that Jim misunderstood the polling data than to believe he's intentionally trying to deceive David Corn and the 500 or so bloggingheads viewers. I just disagree with your contention that he thinks the more he lies "the more valuable an asset he will be to Fox News and other right-wing media outlets."

I don't know Jim Pinkerton personally, but I've seen him about 40 or so times on bloggingheads. Based on my observations, it seems to me much more likely that he's a friendly guy who occassionally gets overly worked up about goofy things (Obama's pastor, space exploration), than a secret emissary of some right-wing cabal who has been sent to bloggingheads to destroy it from within.

Okay, fair enough; it's a reasonable disagreement. Let's agree to disagree, while waiting for Pinkerton's next performance. The next time he appears, will he reinforce my assumptions, or yours? If this was a one off, I'll happily concede the point. If he keeps lying/getting it wrong, I hope you will acknowledge that it might be deliberate.

To respond to a couple of your other points:

(1) Yes, I am hyper-partisan, and it doesn't take an election season to make me so. ;-) I acknowledge this is probably a weakness on my part.

(2) Yes, I've seen all of Pinkerton's past shows, too, and that's the whole point I picked up on from Brendon: This episode was such a departure from his past appearances, in which he was basically honest. I'm simply explaining it based on lots of observed data: Jim and many other conservatives become liars before presidential elections. If this wasn't part of a much larger pattern, I would never have made the charges against Pinkerton that I have.

What about Jim's completely distortion of the "bitter" remarks? There is no way to characterize that as anything but a package of lies, is there? In that single segment I quoted above, he told 3 or 4 lies.

(3) BHTV has far more than 500 viewers. I don't know a precise total, but as of six-nine months ago, BHTV had between 15-20,000 unique visitors per month. (A stray fact I read somewhere; can't find the source now.) I think there has probably been considerable growth since then.

bjkeefe 04-17-2008 01:57 PM

Re: How soon they forget
 
look:

Quote:

Well, I'm cursed with the burden of contrarianism ...
Nice to know I'm not alone in this suffering. ;^)

I won't debate the cops on dancers story. I looked followed it a bit on Julian Sanchez's blog and found it uninteresting. I agree that it's tough being a cop.

I also agree with this:

Quote:

My meaning was that, now and then, Jim expresses his right-wing views prominently, but over-all is a great guy.
That's why I spent so much time registering my dismay. As with Mickey, it hurts more to hear wingnuttiness coming from someone I generally and genuinely like than it does to hear it from someone like Michael Goldfarb, Ann Althouse, or Erick Erickson.

Thus Spoke Elvis 04-17-2008 02:12 PM

Re: Zeitgeistial Straws in the Wind
 
TwinSwords,

I think I'll keep my comments brief, because I've spent too much of my time today posting (it's a sunny day outside, what am I doing on a messageboard?!!).

First, that really surprises me that the 2004 election coverage convinced you that Mitchell was a Republican, because it made me believe she was a Democrat (or at least someone who strongly preferred Kerry to Bush). I can't remember the exact details, but I remember once on Hardball when she characterized a claim made by Bush about Kerry as "ridiculous," and Chris Matthews rightly pointed out that it was a perfectly fair argument. (EDIT: It was actually about a Bush ad regarding Kerry's comment that he "voted for it before he voted against it.") I remember thinking at the time that she was definitely for Kerry, and since that time I've thought she's generally taken an anti-Bush and pro-Hillary stance. Perception is clearly in the eye of the beholder.

Secondly, while I agree with you that Olbermann is clearly partisan, I disagree with your claim that he won't do anything "dishonest or disreputable to help the Democrats." I suppose it depends on how one defines the terms, but it seems to me that he clearly distorts claims made by conservatives all the time to portray them in the worst light possible. I won't speculate as to how much of this distortion is intentional.

Thus Spoke Elvis 04-17-2008 02:21 PM

Re: Zeitgeistial Straws in the Wind
 
We've moved close enough to consensus that I think we can move on, recognizing that we both have made some fair points.

That said, I did want to disagree with you that McCain "flip-flopped" on torture. I assume this is because he voted against a bill that would have clearly banned waterboarding. But media coverage of that bill was extremely simplistic. The bill would have barred the CIA from using any technique not authorized in the Army Field Manual. That Manual is several hundred pages long, and bans or limits the use of numerous techniques besides waterboarding, including the use of standard good cop/bad cop interrogation methods without specific approval. One can be opposed to waterboarding while also thinking that the CIA should be allowed greater discretion in interrogation than the Army. McCain has said repeatedly that he thinks waterboarding is torture and illegal under existing law, and I don't think his vote on the legislation you elude to constitutes a "flip-flop."

TwinSwords 04-17-2008 02:23 PM

Re: Zeitgeistial Straws in the Wind
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 74253)
I think I'll keep my comments brief, because I've spent to much of my time today posting (it's a sunny day outside, what am I doing on a messageboard?!!).

LOL, good point! :-)



Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 74253)
First, that really surprises me that the 2004 election coverage convinced you that Mitchell was a Republican, because it made me believe she was a Democrat (or at least someone who strongly preferred Kerry to Bush).

That is interesting, and I agree that there is a general human tendency to see reinforcing trends more than any other. I guess we will be able to see what she does this time around. Maybe you're right about her true tendencies.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 74253)
I can't remember the exact details, but I remember once on Hardball when she characterized a claim made by Bush about Kerry as "ridiculous," and Chris Matthews rightly pointed out that it was a perfectly fair argument. (EDIT: It was actually about a Bush ad regarding Kerry's comment that he "voted for it before he voted against it.") I remember thinking at the time that she was definitely for Kerry, and since that time I've thought she's generally taken an anti-Bush and pro-Hillary stance. Perception is clearly in the eye of the beholder.

Interesting discussion you linked to; thanks for digging that up. I won't counter with a link of my own, but I recall her "helping Bush" on many occasions, including by advancing the Swift Boat Vets smear campaign.

That's enough for now. Go enjoy the sun! :-)

bjkeefe 04-17-2008 03:22 PM

Re: Zeitgeistial Straws in the Wind
 
Elvis:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 74254)
We've moved close enough to consensus that I think we can move on, recognizing that we both have made some fair points.

Yes, I agree.

I'll note this for the record, though: You can make a case that McCain is still anti-torture in some senses, certainly by comparison to much of the rest of his party. You can also say that the media's coverage of his vote on the latest relevant bill was oversimplified, and I won't disagree with that much, either.

Still, it is my sense that he was once so clearly anti-torture that I could rally behind him, but now has become awfully dodgy on the issue. I don't want to reopen the torture debate; I imagine you know where I stand on that issue. I just want to say that I lost respect for McCain on this one, and I don't think my understanding of his change in stance is overly simplified.

I guess that's one point that we're not going to approach consensus on.

AemJeff 04-17-2008 03:25 PM

Re: These are My Boys!!!!
 
jh, Bob seems to be completely on-board with your understanding of this controversy.

jh in sd 04-17-2008 05:27 PM

Re: These are My Boys!!!!
 
Wow! It's fascinating seeing so many pots calling the kettles black. Evidently, disagreeing with the left-leaning bloggers here turns one into a wingnut and a liar. As I have stated before, character assisination is historically a common tactic of the far-left. (Unfortunately, this tactic is becoming far too common on both sides of the aisle). Would it suprise you left-leaners that people on the right percieve you in the same unflattering way?

Thus Spoke Elvis-Thank you for your objectivitely.

I find it enjoyable to listen to the views of those I disagree with. Why else would I, one of the few conservative bloggers here, listen to Bloggingheads? If we could take the rancor down a few notchs, it might make these conversations more valuable. I honestly listen to Bloggingheads to come to a better understanding of the other point of view. When one jumps the hurdles of reasonable discussion directly to the point of inflammatory rhetoric, it all becomes just partisan politics as usual.

My final thought on Obama and his "bitter" remark-We'll see what the school of hard knocks teaches him. Too many mistakes like that will cost him big time down the road.

Baltimoron 04-17-2008 06:04 PM

Re: Pinkerton Lies
 
I think TwinSwords is healthily skeptical and brings up a pertinent observation worthy of future scrutiny. Thus Spoke Elvis seems naive. Thinking of the pundit class a just another bunch of people on the street is a mistake. The pundit class is arguably part of the problem in this hyperpartisan election campaign season, and that's the reason why bhTv is so important. These pundits, who would spin the lie for why they didn't call home to Mom to their moms, and then syndicate the pat responses for other deadbeat children, should not be taken at face value. bhTV at least inflicts upon each some measure of competition.

Go talk to your hair stylist! Or, talk to Mom and Dad, if you want honesty, Elvis!

cragger 04-17-2008 07:12 PM

Re: Zeitgeistial Straws in the Wind
 
Regarding a few of the points made in this thread -

Jim has always had a Nixonian belief that the "silent majority" always agrees with him, and is politically right of center, just as I suspect he actually believes that a majority is all for "winning" in Iraq. (I wouldn't be at all surprised if you could actually find a majority that would be perfectly happy if both parties went off somewhere and died and left them the hell alone, and it seems clear that a majority wish we had never gotten into this stinking morass.)

He is obviously reasonably intelligent, can come across as charming, and he and David have a rapport in these diavlogs that can make it easy to forget, but he has never been an honest non-partisan commentator. He is professionally partisan, working for and campaigning in an offical capacity for a particular party.

He has also been demonstrably dishonest in persuing his agenda in the past - recall his claim when on an anti-immigrant kick, about the urban legend chestnut listed on snopes concerning a woman who couldn't get emergency room help because she spoke English and preferrential treatment of Hispanics trumped both time of arrival and medical condition? According to Jim on BHTV, this was an event of his personal knowledge that happened to a good friend.

So don't get too disappointed when he spins away. Like the woman who took in the pretty and freezing snake only to be bitten, you have to remember the nature of the beast you are dealing with.

As for the national debt not mattering, maybe Jim can just make money faster than it devalues, unlike many of us. I note from my recent pleasures with the 1040 that interest payments alone on the debt, 70-some percent of which was run up under the last three "conservative" Republican presidents, currently run at least 200 billion a year. Better than 500 million a day sucked out of the taxpayers pockets. Since there are roughly 130 millon folks paying income taxes, thats about three bucks a day (which will monotonically increase forever) for the rest of my life paid to the government to get exactly nothing in return, just to pay the vig.

Before the usual suspects chime in about how unimportant that is, I suggest they each sign a legally binding contract to send either me, or say UNICEF, $3 a day for the rest of their lives. If enough wingnuts go with the former maybe I can join Jim in the "who cares" economic realm, and I could live with the latter as well.

AemJeff 04-17-2008 10:51 PM

Re: These are My Boys!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jh in sd (Post 74283)
I find it enjoyable to listen to the views of those I disagree with. Why else would I, one of the few conservative bloggers here, listen to Bloggingheads? If we could take the rancor down a few notchs, it might make these conversations more valuable. I honestly listen to Bloggingheads to come to a better understanding of the other point of view. When one jumps the hurdles of reasonable discussion directly to the point of inflammatory rhetoric, it all becomes just partisan politics as usual.

I don't really see a lot of "partisan rancor" here among the commenters at BHTV. There's definitely some rancor, if you like, but there are plenty of people from all sides who manage to have civil discussions despite disagreeing. When the liberals do get testy here, it seems to me - others can speak for themselves if they like - it's often not about what someone believes, but whether or not they seem to be making an honest argument. It would be easy to rattle off the handles of a fair number of conservatives among the local commentariat who are pretty well respected and who are obviously taken seriously. It's not hard to name a few about whom that isn't the case. I'd argue there's a reason for that. You're free to draw your own conclusions.

I'd go so far as to argue that if you were to do a tally, the liberals would be only slightly more numerous among the more productive posters, though the raw number of posts by liberals might be a clearer majority. So I say welcome to the fray - your side needs you.

jh in sd 04-18-2008 12:13 AM

Re: These are My Boys!!!!
 
aemjeff, Thanks for your comments. Maybe this particular diavlog has gotten a bit too contentious. I do feel people are making unfair comments about Jim Pinkerton.

TwinSwords 04-18-2008 01:32 AM

Re: Zeitgeistial Straws in the Wind
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cragger (Post 74290)
He has also been demonstrably dishonest in persuing his agenda in the past - recall his claim when on an anti-immigrant kick, about the urban legend chestnut listed on snopes concerning a woman who couldn't get emergency room help because she spoke English and preferrential treatment of Hispanics trumped both time of arrival and medical condition? According to Jim on BHTV, this was an event of his personal knowledge that happened to a good friend.

Good post, cragger. And, I didn't remember the episode you describe above, but it's disturbing, especially given that he claimed this was a personal relation despite the fact that it was basically wingnut spam he was regurgitating.

I don't suppose you have a link to the episode in question?

bjkeefe 04-18-2008 02:57 AM

Re: These are My Boys!!!!
 
You're repeating yourself, Davey. But I guess it's making you into a blogospheric celebrity.

The above link via James Wolcott, who also had this to say:

Quote:

Unintentional humor is supplied by chronic commenter David Thomson, whose mini-diatribes always read as if they were written with a bayonet clenched between the teeth. It doesn't take much to set him off, the three bees in his bonnet--"Barry Obama;" white liberal guilt; and Harvard--creating a din in his head that can only be relieved with dark prophecies such as: "An Obama presidency will relentlessly 'stick it to whitey.'"

There's a lot of whitey to stick it to over at Commentary, which may explain why they're so nervous and twitchy.
I'm thinking about calling you Ol' CTRL-c CTRL-v from now on, but I don't want you to choke on your bayonet.

johnmarzan 04-18-2008 04:21 AM

Re: These are My Boys!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bham (Post 74194)
Who else likes these two more than Bob and Mickey?

bob and mickey
corn and pinkerton
scher and carroll

are all good pairs.

johnmarzan 04-18-2008 04:25 AM

Re: These are My Boys!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jh in sd (Post 74200)
David Corn seems to sincerely believe it when he says Obama is being misrepresented but also seems to be too honest to relish the role of spin-meister, and it will become increasingly difficult for him as more and more indications of Obama's leftist ideology come out.

that's why jim said in jest there's a great future for david corn in the obama administration.

johnmarzan 04-18-2008 05:19 AM

Re: Zeitgeistial Straws in the Wind
 
Quote:

"innocuous and basically accurate characterization"
agree. bitter people do tend to cling to guns and religion for security.

i disagree with david corn about reverend wright. if he can't control himself and shut up, it'll only hurt obama even more.

Quote:

Now he's returning to the Fox News attempt to keep the Rev. Wright thing alive. O. M. G.
rev. wright isn't helping matters for obama by not shutting up on foxnews, bill oreilly and sean hannity, and attacking thomas jefferson, labeling him a pedophile. saying he was one founding fathers that "planted slavery and white supremacy in the DNA of this republic."

jeremiah wright:
Quote:

“Fox News can’t understand that. [Bill] O’Reilly will never get that. Sean Hannity’s stupid fantasy will keep him forever stuck on stupid when it comes to comprehending how you can love a brother who does not believe what you believe. [Pincham’s] faith was a faith in a God who loved the whole world not just one country or one creed.”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...tml.guest.html
jeremiah wright:
Quote:

The intelligent men who put together the founding documents which gave birth to this nation planted slavery and white supremacy in the DNA of this republic. Thomas Jefferson in his notes on Virginia, write it down, number 18, said that God would punish America for the sin of slavery. I guess that makes Thomas Jefferson unpatriotic. If they had Fix News back then -- they call it Fox, I call it Fix -- they would have called him a wackadoodle. Jefferson had intelligence, but he also had babies by a 15 year-old slave girl. I think the judges call that pedophilia.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...news-covers-it

thanks reverend.

audio of the latest wright sermon here:

URL http://www.suntimes.com/images/cds/MP3/041208wright.mp3

the pedophile comment is at the 9:30 mark

johnmarzan 04-18-2008 05:27 AM

Re: Zeitgeistial Straws in the Wind
 
i disagree with jim re putting cops on mosques (for their own protection?) and about obama being a skinny al sharpton.

TwinSwords 04-18-2008 07:02 AM

Re: These are My Boys!!!!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 74320)
I'm thinking about calling you Ol' CTRL-c CTRL-v from now on, but I don't want you to choke on your bayonet.

ROFL!

Nice catch. Good to start the day with a laugh... :-)

Thus Spoke Elvis 04-18-2008 09:10 AM

Re: Pinkerton Lies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Baltimoron (Post 74284)
I think TwinSwords is healthily skeptical and brings up a pertinent observation worthy of future scrutiny. Thus Spoke Elvis seems naive. Thinking of the pundit class a just another bunch of people on the street is a mistake. The pundit class is arguably part of the problem in this hyperpartisan election campaign season, and that's the reason why bhTv is so important. These pundits, who would spin the lie for why they didn't call home to Mom to their moms, and then syndicate the pat responses for other deadbeat children, should not be taken at face value. bhTV at least inflicts upon each some measure of competition.

There's a difference between healthy skepticsm and paranoia. There are different categories of pundits, and they don't all have the same level of intellectual dishonesty. Ann Coulter and Robert Wright are both members of the punditocracy, but I'd be a lot less likely to conclude that Wright's misstatements were intentionally deceptive than I would in the case of Coulter, even though I presume that my voting patterns more closely resemble hers. I'm not going to debate where Pinkerton falls within the range of pundits, though I would say he'd probably have a more lucrative career if he was a bit more of a fire-breather and took stances on major issues like Iraq that were closer to the Republican orthodoxy.

jh in sd 04-18-2008 12:41 PM

Re: Pinkerton Lies
 
Re; Blogginghead Partners

How about a "Battle of Babyfaced Bloggingheads"-Will Wilkinson and Matthew Continetti?

Baltimoron 04-18-2008 05:03 PM

Re: Pinkerton Lies
 
I think someone has cast voodoo on you. There are preferences, to be sure, for one 'head over another, or one pundit over another. But, I'd never call them honest. Of course, quality is another matter! it's a trade-off!

Bloggin' Noggin 04-18-2008 05:44 PM

Re: Zeitgeistial Straws in the Wind
 
Shouldn't that be "Zeitgeistly" (since I presume the German would be "Zeitgeistlich")?

look 04-18-2008 10:39 PM

Re: Pinkerton Lies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jh in sd (Post 74338)
Re; Blogginghead Partners

How about a "Battle of Babyfaced Bloggingheads"-Will Wilkinson and Matthew Continetti?

That would be very nice, but as I like Continetti a lot, I'd like to see him put to better use entertaining me. For example I think it might be interesting to see what he would make of McArdle, and how that would go. Or, perhaps it would interesting to see how a Heather H. interaction with him would compare to her interactions with Eli. Also, I think he and Jonah Goldberg might have an interesting righty-righty chat.

johnatthebar 04-19-2008 06:17 PM

...and Jim Pinkerton as Charles Laughton...

lowellfield 04-20-2008 12:05 PM

Pinkerton is a whack job
 
Is it intolerant of me to wish this racist freak had one fewer platform?

jh in sd 04-20-2008 06:36 PM

Re: Pinkerton is a whack job
 
A question for David Corn-If you believe Fox News is terrible, but you'll be on it if they pay you enough, isn't that even worse than appearing on Fox? But, I guess when you don't believe in God, you can't sell your soul to the Devil.

AemJeff 04-20-2008 06:54 PM

Re: Pinkerton is a whack job
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jh in sd (Post 74528)
But, I guess when you don't believe in God, you can't sell your soul to the Devil.

That's not quite true, but the darn quotes run so low that it hardly seems worth going to the trouble.

jh in sd 04-20-2008 07:22 PM

Re: Pinkerton is a whack job
 
aemjeff-Good one!

pod2 04-20-2008 09:32 PM

Re: Zeitgeistial Straws in the Wind
 
I have to agree with bjkeefe's characterization. It seems that Jim has made a willful trip to damn the facts mindless talking points pundit. When David actually quoted Obama's remarks and interpreted the plain text in a way consistent with Obama's views that have been expressed on CHarlie Rose, or in Indiana, Jim, instead of engaging this interpretation and disputing it by pointing to the quote or citing which part of the argument was mistaken, just threw out a dismissive, 'well, if you are a literary critic at some ivy league elitist institution, blah blah.' This approach is completely dishonest. How can you have a conversation with someone when, if you attempt to make a point, the other guy simply refuses to address any of your points, but just dismisses you as an elitist. This knee-jerk resort to 'elitist' as an all purpose contentless epithet reminds me of the cultural revolution in China, where class background trumps all discussions over whether something works or is true. slapping the elitist label on someone as a way to end discussion is vulgarly marxist leninist in the worst sense.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.