My beef is simple--We need actual liberals to represent the liberal perspective. I think part of the problem may be that our most effective defenders are no long in the MSM, but here online. You can pull yours truly out of that convo. On budgetary policy, I would have gotten stomped by Murphy and Scarborough, and I've got the sense to know it. But give me Ezra, or Matt. Give me someone from the Obsidian Wings crew. We have people who know this stuff. God bless Krugman, but we have a deeper bench than that.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
yeah, i'd love to see hilzoy on teevee kicking ass and taking names. does no one book true liberals? and if they do it's no where NEAR proportionate.
I don't get Harold Ford anyway. He's one of the first politicians that will be helped if Obama's a complete game-changer, so you'd think he'd get Big O's back a little more. But he really only puts up limited defense of the guy.
The other big problem is, when they want a "Democratic Strategist", they always go for someone from the Clinton era. Why not Plouffe? Hell, even Shrum, or the guy who ran Dean's campaign, would make more sense, at least they've been in the arena in this decade.
Harold Ford Jr is President of the DLC ie the Blue Dogs ie Republican with a D in front of their names for the most part. Which is precisely why he was invited on the show because they knew he would give a half hearted defense of President Obama's budget while Scarborough and Murphy would trash it with David Gregory throwing them as many alley oops as possible. Now ask yourself why they can't get Digby or Hilzoy or Steve Benen or Just about anybody from ThinkProgress. The Center for American Progress has all kinds of alumni working in the Obama administration but do you ever see Matt Y on Tee Vee? As soon as I saw the line up I knew it was a total set up because Dee Dee Myers is not anybody's liberal and Harold always bows down to Scarborough on Morning Joe. And yet supposedly the media is in the tank for Obama. Only in bizarro world. For that matter go and check out Gregroy's questions to Bob Gates. He tried like hell to get Gates to say that Obama wouldn't really get the troops out in 2011 and parsed words like a muthafucka.
Liberal economists come on--Krugman, Robert Reich, both of whom can regularly chew these guys up. I wouldn't mind Jeffrey Sachs appearing on more lowbrow shows than Zakaria's.
Perhaps we'll get real liberals off the web, but they tend to be left of Obama. Personally, I think moving the whole discussion to the left and hearing its critique of the Obama budget would be more interesting and entertaining for America than whatever the right has to say currently because we have been listening to the right's tired arguments for forty years now, and here we are. If the best the right can do is pony up Bobby Jindal to tell America we shouldn't trust government to help out people in crisis because of the right's let them eat cake (Bush playing guitar while New Orleans drwoned), style of governance, Mitch McConnel's idea of the GOP being America's fun bunch and Michael Steele's being da man, notwithstanding, the right's response is like watching reruns of Death Valley Days on some non digital local channel.
Well Katrina Vanden Heuvel was beside Karl Rove with George Steph this morning, and the debate as you might guess was pretty polarized and.....ended up nowhere. The problem with the liberal vs conservative debate (on tv) is there's no time for the nitty gritty details....everyone ends up arguing ideology. Besides, I thought we were supposed to be moving closer to the center. Oh well.
I remember I saw Thom Hartmann on an MSNBC show one day in the past month or so. They need to get that guy on. He can be a star for the liberals (he is on the radio).
Actually, Hartmann has brought this point up a long time ago. He also exposed (for me) Michelle Bernard. Exposed...that sounds bad. I didn't realize how conservative she is. I like that MSNBC has conservatives on though. She just said she favors a flat tax the other day.
This is my beef with the MSM...economic issues are framed as political contests with conservatives vs liberals. C'mon, MSM, we're smarter than that. Give us real debate with economists not party leaders. Everything is not a horse race.
Your argument assumes programs like this are designed to enlighten. The vast majority of them substitute heat for light -- including Meet The Press, which long ago abdicated its role as a serious news show.
I suspect the point of cycling through the same cast of talking heads has to do with their predictability.
Give anyone who has seen these characters before a list of who's going to appear and what topics they'll be discussing and I'll bet most of us could write the dialog in advance.
Look up Overton window. The whole point is to marginalize anything to the left of dear Harold. The way to stop this crap is to work the refs, e.g. NBC, Gregory and Co. Write. If you see them, give them crap. Make it clear there is a price for their actions. Don't complement them on anything.
It was a cringeworthy MTP for sure.
David Gregory is just not the right guy for the job, Gates pretty much owned him the entire interview and the panel was a total mess.
Russert could certainly put together lopsided panels, but he was at least able to hold court a bit.
My mental image of Gregory is of him dancing to himself, unaware the camera was on him, as Chris Brown performed on the Today Show. Unfortunate.
Well, for heaven's sake. And how about an actual leftist, once in a blue moon? And I don't mean good old Bernie Sanders, although he'll do. Just match every raving right-winger with a raving left-winger. Is that so hard?
So what *is* the liberal perspective in this discussion? That deficits don't matter? I thought that was Dick Chaney's perspective?
What portion of the country should pay no income tax? What's the liberal perspective on that? 30%? 40%? 50%? 60%? What's the liberal number?
How about the other end? How much should the top 20% pay? 30%? 40%? 50%? 60%? Again, what's the liberal number? What would an actual leftist say?
And just so you know where I'm coming, based on what I can infer from his writing, there's at least a 50/50 chance that me and my wife pull down less money that TNC and Kenyata, and I pay rent on the same overprice island as they do.
Apparently both the Comstock household and the TNC/Kenyata household are going to get a tax break. I don't know about them, but Casa Comstock doesn't need a tax break (if need is defined as having to choose between heat and food in the Winter,) but we're getting one.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of more money in my pocket. But for the life of me, I can't see any ideology in any of the arguments around the administration's financial plan, liberal or conservative. I see a bunch of people arguing their own self interest or the interest of their constituents.
Well, unfortunately David Gregory is a terrible moderator, and usually takes the majority opinion when face with a group of people - from back when he was host of "Race to the White House" to now as moderator of MTP. It's a consistent flaw in his performance, and indicates his low confidence in his own ideas and his own impartiality.
There are several progressive hosts, most on MSNBC. Rachel Maddow stands out to me as one that is exceptionally respectful and regularly wins against some of the best conservative commentators on television, but is also gracious in defeat. Olbermann is crazier than a muthafucker but also makes some very good arguments.
"And just so you know where I'm coming, based on what I can infer from his writing, there's at least a 50/50 chance that me and my wife pull down less money that TNC and Kenyata, and I pay rent on the same overprice island as they do."
Uhh...This household includes a freelance writer, and someone who's about to be a student again. I wouldn't bet on that.
I'm not an econ guy. I don't know what the liberal perspective is. But I'd like to hear the case made for Obama's plan by more effective surrogates.
I'll take the bet. If I'm wrong, I'll pay for your Makers, or Kettle One or whatever else you wanna drink in/when we have a chance to meet in person.
Oh TNC, the MSM doesn't want liberals and defenders of progressive policies on tv. Don't you know that by now? You can't just walk onto these shows, you have to be invited. Liberals and progressives don't get the invitations and that's not accidental. They know full well that there are more effective surrogates who can articulate the left's perspective and that's why they are kept off. It's like when something happens in a black neighborhood and the media walks past everyone until they find some inarticulate fool with gold teeth and a Jheri curl to ask what happened. Coincidence? I think not.
TonyC
I think Sachs lays out the liberal econ argument best:
we need stimulus and investment in infrastructure, health, green energy now, and we need, once we've hit a reasonable equilibrium, which we have not so far, to grow up, ie. get over the tax holiday, end the wild west-robber baron era financial market atmosphere, and become wiser in our investments. This is Obama's basic idea, though Sachs would like to raise taxes, especially on upper income folks, who have by and large whether intentionally or inadvertantly run off with 90% of our national wealth, more (as Sachs is not a politician, merely an accomplished economic trouble shooter) and sooner.
This is what conservatives call socialism and guys like Sullivan call punishing the wealthy; Sachs argues it's sound financial policy--bang for the buck pure and simple. So does Obama.
Conservatives have buzz words: they like to use the word spending or entitlement instead of investment. Liberal economists do often get into a similar, albeit more moralizing, form of philosophizing, but what Americans should want from the left is nuts and bolts will it benefit more of our citizenry analysis.
Why does "serious" always equal "unwilling to concede compassion as a moral value?" (I did a brief turn w/this stuff in the late 1990s, but didn't pass the bluster test...)
KVH has a terrific pedigree and solid ideas, but she can't do it all. I agree re Rachel, and wd add Melissa Harris-Lacewell in a minute.
If you think it's hard being a liberal on tax policy, try it on military issues.
Dee-Dee Meyers was a press secretary, what do expect her to know about the budget process? The reason that she's just doing "colour commentary" is because that is all her intellectual tools let her do.
@ Tony Comstock
The central problem with your questions/argument is you're oversimplifying. Trying to tack down specific numbers like that isn't realistic. But I think that's part of T-NC's point. We need someone to talk about the liberal side of these policy discussions with some depth.
If the argument is we can't spend money we don't have, I'm all for that, and that's certainly *not* a conservative argument, or at the very least, it's not a GOP argument.
And if the argument is we need to invest against an uncertain future, I'm all for that too. We are constantly re-investing in our business, and the lion's share of our household income goes for house payment, health insurance, and savings.
And if the argument is for a progressive tax structure, I'm there too. Not out of any feeling that there's something inherently moral or liberal about a progressive tax structure, I just don't see any other way that we pay for everything we want government to do.
But I still don't see anyone planting a philosophical flag on my basic question.
My personal feeling is that I would have liked better if Obama had said, 'Hey guess what, we're all going to have to pay a little more. If you don't make that much, you're not going to have to pay that much more. If you're doing better, then the rest of the nation is going to ask you to dig a little deeper." But I don't see how that flies, certainly not politically and probably not economically either.
I'm not sure where that puts me on the political spectrum.
"Dee-Dee Meyers was a press secretary, what do expect her to know about the budget process?"
Well, Murphy's just a strategist, and Scarbrough an all-purpose idiot, so it's not like she's really out-gunned economically.
"Trying to tack down specific numbers like that isn't realistic."
I agree. For the life of me, I can't figure out what the CONSERVATIVE numbers would be, assuming that "0" is unrealistic. Ideology really isn't about numerical specifics. For that matter, Obama would probably be happy to hear that his economic plan doesn't seem to be guided by a particular ideology.
"But I still don't see anyone planting a philosophical flag on my basic question."
I really don't get what you're saying. The Republicans ARE making the "we can't spend what we don't have" argument (though I'll concede that that's an idea that transcends parties, or at least should). Democrats ARE talking about reinvestment and progressive tax structure. And Obama HAS said that everyone will have to sacrifice, and that if you have a little more to give, you're going to have to give it. (though honestly, I wonder why you want him to advocate a position that you don't think will fly economically).
So, I dunno, I think you're just missing some of the debate. All of this is out there and has been said.
I'm getting a tax cut. What are you sacrificing?
What I should have said is this is an argument the GOP cannot make without getting laughed out of the room. Let them flap their jaws. The GOP has less than zero credibility on this.
"I'm getting a tax cut. What are you sacrificing?"
That's funny, but it would only really be a useful part of the discussion (Whatever this discussion is at this point) if taxes were the only way in which one could "sacrifice". Hell, you could make the argument that since taxes are compulsory, they're not "sacrifices" at all...
Anyway, all you said is that you would've preferred if Obama said something along the lines of "Everyone has to pitch in, but the ones with more have to pitch in more"...and he did.
"The GOP has less than zero credibility on this."
Oh, I totally agree on that. I'm just not sure what your point is.
Are you saying that you agree with a little bit of what everyone's saying, so you don't think YOUR ideology is represented in this debate? 'Cause I can see that, I agree with all three of those things, too (but the way I prioritize them determines where I come down on the debate).
Like I said, I don't really understand what you're trying to say. But the line-by-line snark as I explain my confusion, that's helpful, thanks.
Okay, so what are you sacrificing?
BTW, I figured out what I'm sacrificing. I'm giving up the opportunity to help my sister buy a house, because we're going to prop up housing prices, because apparently that's what's best for the country.
So I'll ask again: What are you sacrificing? How are you pitching in? How are you doing your part?
This is exactly what I was complaining about to my mother as we watched the morning talk shows today (and I'll add that David Gregory is incredibly rude to women -- interrupting them when they talk or ignoring them altogether). Now if it was the MSM's belief that they should always overrepresent the opposition to the current president, I'd even be ok with that, but during the Bush years, people representing the right's view were out-represented by those representing the left, and now that we have a democratic president it's the same dynamic. We still have more republican opinions requested and represented on these talk shows, even on liberal stations. And on FOX, there's barely any representation of liberals at all when it comes to interviews.
Another irony is that most of the black commentators they have are republican. Why is that, when only 2% of the black vote went to republicans? Are republican minorities some how more credible than democratic minorities?
oops I meant "out-represented those on the left" NOT
"were out-represented by those on the left."
"Okay, so what are you sacrificing?"'
Well, for one thing, I'm suffering through some dude on the internet asking prying questions and shifting the goalposts on me. ;) What I'm doing isn't at all relevant to liberals being represented on MTP, what the liberal orthodoxy is for specific numbers in tax policy, or whether or not anyone's planted the "philosophical flag" on your "basic question".
That being said, I volunteer at a legal aide clinic designed to help people find new housing. But I still don't understand your point...
Lemmee correct myself- maybe it IS relevant, but since I still don't quite know what you're trying to say, I don't see how.
I'm just trying to figure out what the liberal perspective is, and what we have so far is:
1) I get a tax break.
2) My sister, who prudently didn't take an exploding mortgage and instead sat on the sidelines of an obviously overheated housing market will now see herself priced out, not by speculators, but by the government borrowing money from our children and pumping it into the housing market.
3) You're helping Obama balance our national books by volunteering at a legal aide clinic.
Like I said, as far as the whole investing in the future thing, I get it. I live it. And I actually here it when David Ford says "everyone one the right did the same sort of hand wringing before Clinton raised taxed on top earners, and it turned out fine."
But for christsake, that was 15+ years ago and we hadn't gone through an national orgy of consumption, and I'm just not convinced we can say "Don't worry. If you don't make $250K you'll get a tax cut and we'll prop up your the value of your house too." I mean never mind whether or not that sounds liberal, does that sound reasonable? Does it sound like shared sacrifice? Not to me.
I've never seen the point of these shows. Two liberals and two conservatives arguing their talking points over issues on which they have little or no expertise.
Further, these are some of the lowest rated shows on the lowest rated networks on television. They simply have no impact on policy or public opinion. They exist only for people - liberals and conservatives - with rigid opinions and ideology to get pissed off at their tv sets.
In short, these shows are the least entertaining form of entertainment mankind has ever devised. They're as much fun to watch and as mentally stimulating as watching snails fuck.
Tony C, once again, I think that in regard to economics, we have to look at things practically rather than philosophically. I would not want this kind of deficit spending to go on after our current crisis is past, and what's more although I think there are not all that much savings to be found, I believe wasteful programs, not the least of which in our military, should be excised where and whenever it is possible. Like you and like Jeffrey Sachs, sooner or later, I believe Americans will have to confront the fact that we have a big government and that whining about it is not nearly so effective as paying for it. What's more I believe we need to create real product and have a middle and lower class that earns enough to buy the products that keep the economy afloat--that is equitable tax, trade, and wage policies that move the economy from the bottom up. I believe that is pretty much in line with the left of America right now. I can't think of a single person who knows me who would consider my philosophy anything other than leftist.
However, it's all subject to real change on the ground. We talk football a lot on this post--ok, the Pittsburgh Steelers are a team that wins with a defensive philosophy. But with the game on the line, they have to win with inspired offensive play. The great foolishness of the right is that they have a philosphy rooted in the 19th century--free markets blah blah blah, which is why they paint Obama has having an equally 19th century--socialism blah blah blah--perspective.
"I'm just trying to figure out what the liberal perspective is"
The liberal perspective on what? The budget? It seems pretty clear that the perspective is, "A balanced budget is important, but other things are MORE important (the stimulus, health care, etc.)" That's really been the liberal view for decades.
Or are you looking for the liberal perspective on shared sacrifice? 'Cause there, the perspective is also pretty obvious- "Everyone's going to have to pitch in, but raising taxes on the middle class or letting a lot of people lose houses will do more harm then good."
Of course, my activities DON'T actually have anything to do with what the liberal perspective might be, so I'm still confused as to why it's stuck in your teeth. But nevertheless, these have been pretty consistent, clearly stated liberal perspectives for a long time now. Which is not to say they're RIGHT, but that's not what you asked...
See?!? Y'all got me so upset I can't even close my goddam blockquote tag!
"but spending EVEN MORE money we don't have does not feel like change "
Well, to be fair, MORE is, by definition, change. ;)
But I understand what you're saying, his plan seems counterinuitive. But macroeconomics often ARE counterintuitive. Moreover, at this point, all we can do is hope he's right...
"that was 15+ years ago and we hadn't gone through an national orgy of consumption"--
Yes, that's the conservative meme often backed by anecdotal evidence such as your own experiences. However, the fact is in the last 8 years 90% of the wealth our whole nation generated wound up in the hands of 10% of our populace. And our so called spending orgy, not the least of which being the housing boom, kept the economy with its nose above water during that time. Rather than irresponsible poor and middle class people causing our economic meltdown, we have had tax, wage, and trade policies that have literally made working for a living a losing money proposition. That is the upshot of conservative fiscal policy; even as it has bled over into Democratic party economic philosophies as well. That is, "I don wanna pay taxes" is our national mantra. There would have been a filibuster if Obama had raised taxes on people down to $100,000/year incomes. That's just the way things are.
But one thing is clear, if one wants to look at merely government deficits, then while one can see that the Reagan trickle down and deregunomic perspective have been the co2 emissions of global economic meltdowns, not the poor person who was told by an unregulated real estate and banking industry that for no money down she could move her kids into a neighborhood with good schools, and like all good American dreaming families be participating in an ownership society from which the whole economy would benefit and she would be making an excellent investment that might, if played correctly, indeed catapult her out of financial difficulty.
You mean like lowering top income tax rates and rates on capital gains generates more revenue?"
Sure- or spending your way out of a depression.
One last for Tony C. I am frightened to death that Obama's policies won't work, though for different reasons than you. I think the hole we're in is one people of my generation have known was coming since the days of Jimmy Carter--think little, think globally, act locally. A hole which has been forestalled by huge investments in military adventurism, class warfare economic policies, an an incredibly costly anti-environmental, anti-scientific stubborness, a short sighted lobbying interest view on the cost of health care for our entire society. How we don't enact a pay as you go for all wars in which we have not been invaded admendment to the Constitution amazes me for the pure criminality of our mission in Iraq.
I seriously fear that no matter how much we throw in the hole, we may never be able to keep up with what right now at least seems to be an ever increasingly bottomless pit. And like you, I think Shit Creek Without a Paddle--my own version of the Golden Years--with perhaps my kids--probably just a little younger than you--bearing the weight may not provide the opportunity to invest in said paddle.
However, what else is there to do? I do think that for the most part Obama's economic plan is better than the alternative, and that I hear him when he says we should not throw out the good for the perfect.
I live in California; there isn't much in any state budget that is wasteful--our educational system that once was the flower of the world, let alone the nation and is the basis for any sound modern economy is not a luxury. I live in a state where Republicans have for years held that educational system hostage to cut taxes and devil take the hindmost. That's the alternative out there right now.
I'm sorry Citizen E, but you push me too far.
The whole "the irresponsible poor (brown) people and the government bureaucrats who made us lend money to them did this to us" is bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.
But in the last 15 years my work has taken me all over this country, into all different sorts of communities and into the lives of all sorts of different people.
And one of the biggest impressions I had from my travels and work was "Where the fuck are all these people getting all the money to pay for the shit they buy? Where do they get the money for these giant TVs, or these giant SUVs? Or these giant houses?"
Can you imagine how different our world might be if the rescue mission had been a success? Did you read Bowden's article in the Atlantic a few years back?
@elizabeth | March 1, 2009 4:27 PM
You said:
The View From Here - David Gregory's Blog
Here's his blog. He takes comments.
And one of the biggest impressions I had from my travels and work was "Where the fuck are all these people getting all the money to pay for the shit they buy? Where do they get the money for these giant TVs, or these giant SUVs? Or these giant houses?"
They borrowed for it, and the worst of it happened when the Republicans were in firm control of Congress and the Presidency. We were screwed by 2006 and the only thing left at that point was the pain. You can't act like the Republicans weren't in control and had every opportunity to stop this. Instead, we had Alan Greenspan on TV telling everyone that borrowing this money is fine, go ahead and grab that ARM and the housing market isn't completely overpriced. Then we had George Bush going on TV telling everyone to spend because that's the patriotic thing to do. The result was heavy debt spending, people were just doing as they were told.
In a moment of great national unity and patriotism, people wanted to know what they could and should do to help the country. President Bush told people that the best way they could help the country was to go shopping. And the people listened and did as they were asked. It was an insane response from the President. And people were stupid to follow his request. But people wanted to help, so they did.
Now is that the whole reason the whole financial system has gone to hell in a handbasket? No, of course not. But it kind of sums up the attitude of the previous administration. They sort of told people, "Y'all don't worry your pretty little heads about this economy thing. Just keep spending. We want you to own a house. Or two. And a couple of cars. Or better yet, big SUVs. And what house is complete without a big screen TV? Go ahead. It's okay. The market always goes up. Housing values always go up. Don't worry." And people listened and did as they were essentially told to do.
Should they have been more frugal? Sure. But everyone was doing it. It even seemed like the government was encouraging it. And housing values always go up, right? So off to the races they went....
But back to TNC's original post about the lack of progressives on TV political yak-fests. I think another element is that the MSM has heard the conservative description of them as "librul media" for a long time, and thus work hard so as not to appear "librul." When in doubt, invite a conservative onto the show rather than one of those scary leftists who might say something that Rush will get upset about on Monday.
I think they err on the side of the right, and after so many years of behaving this way it's become habit. I think it'll take a bit of shoving, shouting, cajoling and working the refs to get more and more people on the left side of the spectrum invited on the show.
Eventually someone will dip their toe in the water and invite two or three left-leaning folks onto a roundtable. If it goes well they might remember that for the next week. And after several times of doing that they might realize they can invite people from the left onto the show without the sky falling. But for now, they're timid and cowed.
We watched "This Week" on ABC... and while it's not often the case, this week I can recommend it wholeheartedly... Peter Orzak is particularly impressive - he almost had Stephanopolus in rethorical knots - if not tears - as George basically begged and badgered him for a scoop or sound bite to spin into the synthesis of the interview. The panel was also "interesting", especially when Katrina Van De Heuvel referred to Karl Rove as "Mister Rove" and the other three-quarters of W's brain meekly responded "call me Karl". The substance, of course, was fairly standard except for the fact that the tag team confrontation between Past and Present was fairly positive for the future, in my opinion... the chasm to be traversed notwithstanding.
Harold Ford, Jr. is NO friend to this administration. He hated on Obama until the night of the election. Anyone believing that he'd put out an all out defense of this White House is deluding themselves.
Coates, I feel ya. You want liberals on economics, I want Black folk like Ron Daniels, Ron Walters, Marian Wright Edelman, Julianna Malveaux - There is someone you could get on an Economics panel. I believe her PhD in Econ from MIT qualifies her far more than anyone on that panel today at Meet The Press. These shows are done in Washington, DC, and as I've said before, you can find a qualified Black in ANY subject area you want within an hour of D.C. They aren't even looking.
I get your point, TNC, but this also sounds like what I'm hearing from the Republicans, with purity tests, and the ever-shrinking tent.
Maybe it's because I'm an Obama supporter who's NOT a lockstep liberal, so I'm a little sensitive to turning my government/President/"side" over to the likes of Kos.
Does anyone actually watch these shows except you politics geeks? I never watch them, and I don't know anyone who does. No one of my acquaintance or that I have run into on a Monday at a client or a meeting or anywhere has ever started a conversation about one of them.
Link to HuffPo article on MTP ratings, with Face the Nation ratings info as well: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/05/meet-the-press-ratings-lo_n_164375.html. Looks like the viewership is in the 3-4 million range. Is that all political geeks? I don't know how one defines a political geek.
But as for not hearing anyone talking about what happened on Sunday political shows when you show up at work on Monday doesn't surprise me. Many people don't want to bring political discussions into the workplace. That way be dragons.
sometimes liberals just need better flacks. Take it from a former GOP flack. Cable and broadcast "news" shows are the "mighty maw" and must be continually fed. To avoid palette fatigue, new delicacies are always sought. KVH and Joan Walsh are great, and so was Julianne until she snapped so bad and imho gratuitously, with Tavis, on POTUS' nom. accept speech. That said, I'd love to see her back. As for Black (and sometimes Hispanic) conservatives getting so much air time that's just "man bites dog" which is usually at least attention getting, hence Michael Steele.
BTW, Stevie Wonder in Performance at the WH (he received the second Library of Congress Gershwin prize for popular song) finally aired tonight on a PBS station out here in the Bay Area, but guess what--little or no promotion (including relatively cheap web site adv.) Its an abfab show, catch it if you can.
DB,
No disrespect to Kos, but I didn't mention him.
I was pretty frustrated watching this display on Sunday morning.
When I first heard Scarborough would be on, I was excited because it always warms my heart to see him not be the alpha dog like he is on Morning Joe. But the opposition defintely was weak -- even Ford Jr. played it politically -- "well if it does not work, Obama will be in trouble at the polls". Come on Harold stand up for what you "believe" in! But maybe that's the problem Harold and other Dems are too worried that what they believe in today may not be what they "believe" in to get elected again down the road.
I like Dee Dee but not to defend or debate on econmic theory. I am sure Joe S. and Mike M. were back stage before the show just giddy about the draw of the panel.
"I get your point, TNC, but this also sounds like what I'm hearing from the Republicans, with purity tests, and the ever-shrinking tent."
It doesn't sound anything like that, actually- there's no one saying Meyers, Ford, etc. can't be in the party or hold office or whatever- in fact, this isn't about them at all. It's about NBC, who tries to put together a panel where the two major ideologies can debate, and then invites people who DON'T adhere to one of the ideology and aren't willing to debate it to represent it. That's not saying they should be drummed out of the party or anything, it's just saying they're not the right people in this role.
Overall.. I agree with TNC here.. only possibilities that are taken seriously in MSM today are Rachel Maddow and Olbermann.. and they cannot be everywhere...
Of course, the MSM is in decline methinks.. so this complete inability to present real news only tends to drive more and more people to the blogosphere... (especially younger generations..)
TNC,
I used Kos' name because he put himself out this week as online guardian of the movement, or whatever. I was going to go with a caveat that it wasn't exactly your point, but rushed the comment.
I think colby begs the question: Why do shows HAVE to identify, categorize, and then equally represent each ideology?
Can't we just live with the fact that a general left/right balance may not accurately show the full spectrum of (reasonable-ish) views on a given subject?
Murphy and Scarborough may have lined up as to this budget, but differ on 100 other topics. And should Grover Norquist be pissed because his views got short shrift?
I'm just having a hard time seeing the problem. It's not like Obama's views lack an effective, high profile advocate.