Evan Gahr, who wrote the Human Events piece I quoted above, wrote me with a rebuttal (he said he had difficulty posting it as a comment). My response follows.
FROM EVAN GAHR:
So I'm a racist because I criticized black rappers. What about when Stanley Crouch and Al Sharpton criticize rappers? Are they racist also?
You object that I omitted Kid Rock and Lynard Skynard performing at the 2004 GOP convention. The piece was about Obama, not Bush. For whatever it's worth I don't think, if what you say about them is accurate, either should have been allowed to perform at the GOP convention. (Although Kid Rock would make an ideal NEA grantee.) And John McCain should renounce support from John Hagee.
You object to my guilt by association with Obama and rappers. When liberals attacked George Bush for speaking at Bob Jones University that was guilt by association. Do you object to that also?
Finally, it's rather curious that you accuse me of singling out blacks for criticism when any cursory Google search would have revealed that I was fired by one conservative institution and blacklisted by two others for breaking with the neo-cons and being the only one to have ever criticized a white Christian Right leader for anti-Semitic remarks. http://www.chimpstein.com/2004/09-26-whois.php
RJ REPLIES:
My response is here -
http://nightlight.typepad.com/nightlight/2008/04/bush-supporter.html
What Everybody -- Pro and Con -- Missed About the Debates (Plus, a Fun Pop Quiz!)
A day has passed since the ABC Democratic debate. The hosts have taken their well-deserved knocks, and George Stephanopoulos has lamely tried to defend them. But there are still a few things I haven't heard anybody say, and the right is already cuing up ABC's next line of questioning.
First, though, take a look at these two pictures from recent news stories and consider: What's significant about them? (answer is below)
Here's the gist of the Stephanopoulos defense, especially of that wacky William Ayers question suggested to him by right-wing radicals like Sean Hannity: "What finally tipped the balance on whether to ask it or not was that as far as we could tell, Obama had never answered the question."
But that rationale can be used to justify repeating (and thereby promoting) any vile smear. Extremists on both sides pose "questions" that are nothing more than wild conspiracy theories, innuendos, or outright hate. You could just as easily justify asking President Bush if he really did blow up the Twin Towers, or pressing Sen. Clinton on whether she didn't really murder Vince Foster.
Because, as far as we know, they never have answered the questions ...
Stephanopoulos also argued that people care about "experience, character [and] credibility." These are these issues people care about, we're told. But why do they care about them? Because the press hammers them morning, noon, and night.
Stephanopoulos is like the kid who murders his parents and then asks for mercy because he's an orphan. As veteran pollster Daniel Yankelovich has observed, the press may not be able to decide what people think ... but they can certainly decide what they think about. (Here's a great list of topics that weren't covered by ABC.)
And, with so many questions about Jeremiah Wright and "bitterness," why wasn't Sen. Clinton asked about her remark - now confirmed by three observers, one of whom was taking detailed notes - that she said "screw 'em" of Southern working class voters? And why wasn't she asked whether she "repudiated and denounced" spiritual advisor Billy Graham's anti-Semitism? Doesn't that speak to "experience, character, and credibility"?
That said, Sen. Obama should have known that the questions were coming. It's a rigged game, and the sooner he understands that the better. The gist of his response was the right one, which was to challenge the validity of the questions. But he'll have to do it more forcefully than he did on Wednesday night if he is going to defeat the Republicans and the media - and that's looking more and more like an uphill challenge.
(By the way, did you know that Obama's not a bad bowler? I didn't either. The press told me otherwise, and I believed them.)
For a sneak preview of the radical right's next line of attack against this uppity showboat, read this piece in Human Events. Obama's upbraided for his scandalous rap supporters, his meeting with thugz like Ludacris, and his refusal to return Jay-Z's campaign contributions. You know what that means, don't you? Despite his condemnation of rap's lyrical content, Obama's actually a gangsta. Because they're all, you know ... black.
How long will it be before George Stephanopoulos is asking Barack Obama whether "you stole your flow from the East Coast school or the West Coast school"?
Absent from Human Events was any condemnation of George W. Bush for accepting concert services and campaign support from Kid Rock, who notably advertised himself on MTV on the toilet defecating. Or Lynyrd Skynyrd - a great band - who boasted (in "What's Your Name") of seducing underage girls. But then, those artists aren't ... you know ... black.
Stephanopoulos and Gibson also clearly bought into the Bush/McCain dodge that a President must "defer to his commanders in the field," and therefore bears no responsibility for decisions of war and peace. Neither Democrat pointed to the Cuban missile crisis, where a young President overruled his commanders and all the other "experienced" experts - and by so doing prevented World War III.
Petraeus says he won't run for President. Why should he? Under Bush and McCain he's already President - and without undergoing the humiliating ritual of being upbraided and scolded by mediocre human beings like Charles Gibson, who felt free to mock his distinguished guests with comments like "don't all answer at once."
ABC will consider this debate a success, of course, because ratings were great and controversy sells. They don't care that this kind of course may well result in a Republican victory come November, despite the fact that Americans yearn for Democratic policies.
My spiritual challenge in the upcoming days is to remain compassionate toward Stephanopoulos and Gibson, who don't appear to understand the damage they're causing. But it's tough not to give in to anger. Wrong as it is, I find myself hoping their nights will be haunted by those who will die if they - and others like them - engineer another GOP victory.
_____________________
And now for the answer to the McCain and Clinton photo question:
Neither of them is wearing a flag pin.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Bob Schieffer had a good commentary on the flag pin flap this morning on Face the Nation. If anyone has access to a transcript would be a good thing to post. I thought his comments were right on, in the vein of "if I wear a flag tie on the 4th of July and then not on other days does that make me less patriotic?". Or if I wear a Nationals baseball cap at the ballpark but not to work does that mean I'm no longer a fan? The whole flag pin thing is ridiculous, amazing that it has had such staying power.
I have yet to hear any questions about upholding the right to Freedom as outlined in the Constitution.
About the Soviet Style Real ID act which goes into effect soon
How about rolling back the illegal power Bush, Cheney have declared for the Executive Branch.
The new electronic world have opened up a host of questions about Freedom in America.
Big Brother has been creeping up and soon we will be no better than China as regards Freedom if the American people don't stand up.
The old media is a disgrace. They wonder why people are no longer reading newspapaers or watching TV news...its because they are no longer reporting news.
And since the debate was held in Constitutional Hall wouldn't it have been nice to ask questions about the Constitution.
I guess there was millions of us sitting and waiting for the event to end and the debate to start on ABC, Some bailed during the first half as it was a trashed up version of lets play pile on and you are it Barack!! I swear Hillary had all of the questions before hand but the laughter began for me when she the queen of prevaricators, had to say, spit out kind of sorta, Barack is capable of being elected! And just what did that take out of her to do? Though she might hurl as her biggest fight has been endorsing Mac and giving republican sound bites for the next part. Now she's a wlaking talking fool machine trying to tell why she said that. But the biggest gaff came after. When she said supportive things about Moveon, my favorite organization to belong to, then she trashed us bad inside another meeting. said some really bad crap and shameful she still is as the group actually got together for Bill and the Impeachments. Sounds like a group Huh? He can always do that next. But he's too busy out selling our companies and jobs to those very coutries Hillary is shrilling about. sad. they should go home and try another kind of job.
RJ: do you agree with me--yet--that John Edwards would have been our strongest candidate this awful year? because neither of the other two really were prepared...both had baggage...I won't belabor the obvious. But those of us who tried to speak up for Edwards in the blogosphere were shamed, ridiculed, and downright disrespected. I'd like to see someone acknowledge what we were predicting, and desperately trying to prevent.
John Edwards was great on Colbert the other night. He was relaxed and there was none of that anger he had expressed at times. I would have voted for him that night. We'll, see. His campaign was suspended I believe not ended.
Important lessons learned from the 21st Democratic Presidential debate
Charlie Gibson is an effete preening sissy
George Stephenopolous is a flaming douchebag who wants to be Hillary's cabana boy
Nash McCabe is a knuckle dragging neanderthal and a drooling idiot
Hillary Clinton is a lying sack of excrement who will say anything to deceive or hoodwink voters and will try to destroy the Democratic party if she becomes convinced that she can't succeed in stealing the nomination away from Obama
Wrong....Nash McCabe is one of those PA persons that Obama was talking about. She may not be as smart as you but she is a voter...and she has a life. Actually, when I saw the first picture on HuffPo, I thought it was Lynne Cheney, and, you know, this is something that Lynne would think is important.
Listening to Hillary speak about building an umbrella around Islamic nations who forswear nuclear power is a bit scary to me. One reason is cost, which would probably be paid for by US taxdollars, and the other is the message it sends. 'We consider you potential allies but because you"re Muslim, we simply can"t trust you with technology that you might at some future date, convert into military capability.'
If we want to stop nuclear proliferation there are better ways to do it.
I would suggest sponsoring joint development with Israel and other middle east nations to build significant solar capacity. This would create jobs in America and the middle east, combat climate change, and give people something to work towards other than war. Clean, affordable energy would help lift people out of poverty. It would increase the profits for oil producing nations so they can invest in the future now rather than waiting until the oil runs out. These are the types of carrots we should be offering. Offering to spend US taxdollars in ways that will probably yeild nothing but waste down the line makes no sense. It's time to start investing in the future rather than wasting money on short sighted, short-term solutions.
Who would we be protecting these countries from?
I can understand why so many Obama supporters and HuffPo are so upset about the ABC debate. It was not the best a network could offer, but I imagine the reaction on the Obama side of things would be quite different if he had not gotten his ass kicked in the debate.
This was a debate?
BubbaC33
What you don't get is that the "debate" was a set-up by ABC to elicit a cat fight between Hillary and Obama. Hillary bit the bait and excoriated Obama while Obama caught on to what ABC was doing and remained cool. Hillary looked petty and Obama, who did very well, looked presidential.
And the polls show that when Hillary goes negative on Obama, her favorability ratings in national polls plummet.
Presidential? Oh, no...Obama looked uncomfortable, lacking in confidence, and like someone who couldn't understand why he was being questioned. If Stephanoupolis can make him this nervous, I hate to think what McCain might do. Not to mention what Iraq, or Iran, or Korea or anyone else.
Obama's a wonderful young man. And he might have what it takes to run the country in ten or twenty years. But Hillary's got it now.
They "tried to kick his ass".
Obama did quite well for the three prong attack, and it shows in his poll numbers, which went up. And check out how he filled a stadium in PA with 35,000 people that wanted to hear him speak. Clinton has a hard time getting 10 thousand in an auditorium.
Charles Gibson looked more uncomfortable than George S.-- George S.-- the more rehearsed of the two-- looked like he was auditioning for a more conservative cable venue than his Sunday morning gig......
Hope he leaves soon. As for Chick, he needs to go back to a morning show. But look at what ABC did to their last female anchor.
"How long will it be before George Stephanopoulos is asking Barack Obama whether "you stole your flow from the East Coast school or the West Coast school"? He's already asked a strikingly similar question, equally repulsive:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You have a very cool style when you're doing those town meetings where you're out on the campaign trail, and I wonder, how much of that is tied to your race?
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: That's interesting.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: One of your friends told "The New Yorker" magazine that the mainstream is just not ready for a fire-breathing black man so do you turn down the temperature on purpose?
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05182007/transcript1.html
Hey George, that's why people don't flash at an initial job interview; even Monica knows that.
Depending on what part of America you come from there"s a certain lilt to how you speak. Most of us have been taught to speak the Queens English where appropriate and speak a bit more loosely when it"s ok to do so. It"s universal. So is slang.
I don't know how much of Baracks so-called 'church voice' is normal for him, but its kindof insulting to ask such questions.
"Stephanopoulos and Gibson also clearly bought into the Bush/McCain dodge that a President must "defer to his commanders in the field," and therefore bears no responsibility for decisions of war and peace. Neither Democrat pointed to the Cuban missile crisis, where a young President overruled his commanders and all the other "experienced" experts - and by so doing prevented World War III."
No, the real response should've been - "Yeah, and in Iraq, all the generals who spoke truth were replaced".
It's okay, we're outsourcing the military anyway...........
ABC has lost me as a viewer.....I'll watch paint dry before I watch any of their programs.As far as George and Charles are concerned,didn't care about them before the debate,but now I absolutely despise them.
Haven't looked at that channel since the debate---and it was my news source before then.
Timma is no better....guess it's the web from now on.....or, maybe, the Washington Post.
Thanks for putting all the crap in one pile. It's easier to get perspective on it.
I've got a bit of a different take on the 'half-debate' on ABC. First, let's look at it as half-interview, half-debate. The question keeps getting asked, "were the questions in the interview-half valid? Yes, they were. The real question should be: Were they appropriate?
For a debate, they were not. The idea of a debate is to see the candidates, (especially 1.on.1), present their position on an ISSUE, and defend it. Just by the nature of the questions, it should be blatantly obvious, even to high-priced cue-card readers like Steph. & Gibson., that the questions were not appropriate for a presidential debate.
But here's what I saw: Neither Gibson or Steph. are known as brave and daring journalists. If they were to setup a 1.on.1 interview with Obama or Clinton for ABC Nightly News or This Week and then asked the questions, they would be valid AND appropriate. The problem would be in a 1.on.1, it might well be the last interview with Obama or Clinton.
These cowards used the American voters and candidates to 'look' like 'real' journalists, well, it made Gibson look like Chris Wallace and Steph like Russert, now that I think about it.
I've got a view of the half-debate, as well, but 250 words don't g
ABC might consider the "debate" a success but Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous lost their credibility. That renders their "success" rather hollow.
On the subject of Obama's bowling skills, David Brooks, in one of the dumbest columns I've ever read in The New York Times, said that working-class voters won't support Obama when they find out "he bowls a 37 for crying out loud." Brooks wasn't joking - he was serious.
Did Brroks publish his bowling score? Now I know why I didn't renew my subscription to the NYT.
Is it just me, or does David Brooks remind you of Smithers on The Simpsons?
He does!
Mr Eskow. Not much news from you here that we should know about. So, Barack Obama is into rappers? Just doing what comes naturally, I guess. And, oh, dear, Hillary has made an anti-semitic remark? Hm. Who has not? What I would like to know from you, now, Mr. Eskow, is do you know that there is at least one jewish rapper, Matisyahu? I dig him. In fact, there are a number of rappers I like, and all sorts of other black cultural expressions as well. Learned to dance to South American music from some people from Surinam and South America, Brazil a.o. In my time, and that is long, long, ago, Brazilians were the best dancers. And you were saying, Mr. Eskow, again, about Mr. Obama's missed chances? Lookie here, Mr. Eskow, one thing that serves a President well, aside from prepared and rehearsed oratory, is being able to turn a phrase, use a word, or a little aside, to get the conversation going where YOU want it to go. Politely, and smiling all the way, of course. They used to call that diplomacy.
I think Obama was given a chance on a golden platter to shine and get outside of the box. After all these *questions* and allegations had been going around and around for weeks. Obama dear had plenty of time to prepare for them before the *debate*. He was just flat and uninspiring. The day after he was dusting off his shoulders, but that was too late. Now, but I have seen a photo just a week or so ago of Obama, pasted next to a photo of Ahmadinejad, face to face, so to speak, and it appears there are resemblances!! Yes! So, the next question to come up, and Obama better be prepared, could well be, Mr. Obama, are you really of African descent of are you, rather, of Arab descent? I think we are seeing lead ins to that right now, with ties being imagined between Hamas and Obama. Of course, that is not true, Ahmadinejad is NOT Hamas.Did moveon.org ask you for money too to defeat Hillary? How much money can the media, Huffingtonpost included, really make if they played their cards just right. If Hillary quits, what WILL they be talking about to get viewers and readers (plus advertising)? A gypsy in Europe told me once that anything is fair game and if you wish to be conned, you will be. Do not let your laundry lay out to dry overnight. Property rights are not respected by just everyone.
You said:
Stephanopoulos also argued that people care about "experience, character [and] credibility." These are these issues people care about, we're told. But why do they care about them? Because the press hammers them morning, noon, and night.
Do you really believe the reason voters care about these qualifications is because the press asks about it?
If you really do, you're beyond all hope in the intelligence department.
Indeed, the flag pin was off the mark.
U.S. Flag Code (4 US Code 1)
(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
I'm not only bored with the media, I'm bored with the controversy over the media. And I'd say turn off the TV, but the people seem to like it, or at least love to hate it. Personally, I prefer to read the news. In this way I can skip over Brittney altogether and remain proud that I have never watched a single reality program. Well, not since "What's My Line?".
No progress can be made in mass media until or if we understand what it is that offends us about it. The First Amendment has become problematic. What distinguishes freedom of speech from propaganda? Is a monopoly to be trusted to inform the public when the conduct of monopolies is so suspect that they are bound by law not to act like monopolies? Literally, you can be a monopoly, but you can't act like one. Which kind of begs the question of who decides whether or not you are acting like one. My suspicion is that media monopolies exist in order to convince the public that they are not acting like monopolies. Tidy.
Firebrand journalists still exist and the interest in them is on the rise. Olbermann is a kind of strange example, hot pistol slant surrounded by circus sideshow stories. A stealth project, that seems to be catching on. The question is how willing the execs will be to sell what you really want as opposed to suppressing what is dangerous to them.
I should think NOT wearing a flag lapel pin would be a point in your favor ... after all, it would probably be stamped "Made in China" on the back.
Posted April 18, 2008 | 12:50 PM (EST)