Rank Punditry Edition

[Bloggingheads]

[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.

[claymisher]

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

[claymisher]

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

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by claymisher

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

I do get that sense.

[rgajria]

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

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by rgajria

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

A great suggestion.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by 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.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by 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 Alan Colmes seem like a rabid partisan dog. There's no mystery why Jonah likes having him around as a sparring partner.

For what it's worth, I'll go second your request that Bob bring on someone who can actually stand up to the pantload.

[Bobby G]

Originally Posted by 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.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by 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 statements as at least partly worthy when not all of them are. He tries too hard to interpret even the most egregious of them to find and recast what may be the plausible parts. So, he's basically a quisling -- he's doing a lot of work on behalf of Jonah's point of view.

[claymisher]

There have been a lot of great episodes lately.

I guess that couldn't last forever.

[BeachFrontView]

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

[violetcrown]

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 Cheney is on my then-youth, but fool me once, you can't get fooled again.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by 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.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by 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.

[John M]

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

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by 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

[benjy]

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.

[bramble]

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.

[bookofdisquiet]

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.

[Eastwest]

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

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by 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...

[harkin]

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by 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 howlers in real time.

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. This has nothing to do with seeking to maintain your standards here, this is just an attempt to dilute Jonah's effectiveness, in essence contradicting the complaints coming from the very same person.

Originally Posted by Benjy

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.................

............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.

You don't really need to defend the participants, you're just seeing the normal amount of hate and dismissal by the regs here for any discussion that contains points they disagree with (or worse, bits of truth that crack the meme). A good indicator of a conservative making a thoughtful, salient point is the amount of appeals to Bob to ban the person from the site (or the new tact, pair them someone different). I think only one person actually complained about Peter, one of their own, for participating in a polite, respectful give-and-take instead of talking over Jonah (getting in one's face I think Obama calls it). Notice how he earns the Scarlet C (for centrist) just by being forced to concede some alternative points, something you don't see very often when Peter is on TV.

Originally Posted by 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.

Did you pick up on that Bob? You're not worse than FOX News, you're not worse than the WSJ.........you're worse than NPR.

I guess that means that if your habit of offering moderates and conservatives a place to hold a civil discussion with a liberal continues unabated, you risk being branded worse than Democracy Now!.

[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.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by 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...

[bookofdisquiet]

Originally Posted by 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.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by 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...

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by 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 someone just because he's on your team.

[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.

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?

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by 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.

[bookofdisquiet]

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

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by 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...

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by 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.

[bookofdisquiet]

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

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet

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

You have a mastery of protocol!

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by 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 having said diavloggers on is a waste of time, nor does it mean I shouldn't register my wish that the slots be given to people of greater worth.

Your dismissal of Goldberg/ Beinhart was based for partisan reasons ..

No, it wasn't. I dismiss this pair as individuals because Jonah is a vacuous parroter of talking points who will never admit one bad thing about his side or one good thing about the other, and because Peter lets him get away with spewing nonsense. I dismiss the pair as a pairing because it's emblematic of the way the MSM arranges things -- a rightwing blowhard paired with a timid centrist.

... the diavlog was a civil discussion ...

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

... -- much appreciated by the less inflamed on this site.

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.

[bookofdisquiet]

Originally Posted by 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:

Originally Posted by 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 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.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by 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?

[bookofdisquiet]

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.