I'll be on the "Week in Review" show on Wisconsin Public Radio at 8 AM Central Time this morning. That's 9 AM in the Eastern Time zone where I'll be on the phone.
Go here to listen on-line live. You can call in.
You'll be able to listen to the archived show here, later.
The other guest — on the left — is Ed Garvey.
AFTER-SHOW UPDATE: Ed makes no bones about his lefty politics, and it's fun sparring with him. Here's his blog, Fighting Bob. And I've got the archive link fixed, so go listen if you want.
१८ जानेवारी, २००८
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२१ टिप्पण्या:
Is this the first time you've been on the show that you've not been physically in the studio.
[Sorry, punctuation error, obviously should have been a question mark at the end]
Ah, Garvey, not Garvin. Too bad, Fred Garvin would probably be more entertaining.
Your interest in the subject is evident by your tone and inflection and that is gratifying - you are not simply pontificating/blathering...
I'm not sure that there are many American People who want Bill Clinton in power today, which you've seemed to imply on the radio, but I thought your riff on the Bill/Hillary dynamic was pretty spot on.
I have completely missed the kerfuffle on the culinary workers in Nevada and voting in casinos. Oh well.
Why does Garvey keep saying CNBC? Finally Joy says MSNBC. But Garvey goes right back to saying CNBC.
Gosh, I'd forgotten what a total tool and a bully Garvey is. His behavior during the section about Kucinich was reprehensible.
I gotta say, Ann, you come off as pretty rude. Constantly interrupting and then talking on and on. Garvey was too gen
And this attitude on economic measures, that people who have actual positions and views are ideological and their arguments must be dismissed without thought or consideration is s special type of know-nothingism.
So, if the Wisconsin tax burden has been shifted from business to individuals, we can't talk about that because this separates the competing faction. The "moderate" way is to duck those hard issues and just pooh pooh the sides for having positions. Quite mindless.
simon, I missed that part but expect Ed was tired of getting interrupted by Althouse.
Oh, pish. It's not interrupting. It's normal conversational back and forth. I'll bet you're the type who holds the floor and pontificates, Alpha, and feels threatened by anyone who interleaves comments. I'm sure Ed didn't mind at all. He doesn't require deference and, I'm sure, appreciates having a vigorous sparring partner.
Alpha, it's funny because the show I heard saw matters entirely backwards, with Garvey (as, to my recollection, was the case the last time they were both on) blustering, making repeated catty remarks and, yes, interrupting. Worse yet, interrupting with nothing of substance, just snide little faux-witticisms. It'll be archived on their website by this afternoon - listen again.
The one thing Ed said which I thought made sense: Why is the Democratic Party allowing MSNBC to dictate who gets to appear and who doesn't? And where is Howard Dean in all of this? Why didn't he tell Hillary and Barack Obama to deep six the race baiting long before it went through more than one news cycle?
I like listening to both of them, because you can tell they both enjoy it. And I don't think Ed was rude at all -- if Ann asked to let herself finish, Ed did. Interruption in a debate is not rude if you stop interrupting when asked. I will agree though that some of Ed's comments fell flat, but he's always had a tin ear, IMO, which is one of the many reasons he didn't become governor.
MM, that made no sense to me at all. What does it have to do with the Democratic Party who a private company invites or does not invite to speak to their audience? It's none of the party's business. If a party wants to provide their own fora and allow the media to cover them, or if they want to adopt rules that tell candidates which private fora they can appear in and under what circumstances, for example, more power to them. But having failed to do so, they can't then complain when third parties fill the gap, and have to live with whatever restrictions the third party forum imposes if the candidates can and do choose to attend. The long and short of it is, this wasn't a Democratic Party debate, it was a debate between invited candidates hosted by a private media company that has every right to choose who to invite and how to structure the debate. And don't you think it's profoundly dangerous -- I think this is one of the points Ann was making -- to say that political parties (even assuming they have the right to do so) are going to start dictating to the media who they do and don't have on their shows, what stories they will or will not cover, and so forth?
"Interruption in a debate is not rude if you stop interrupting when asked."
Interrupting with an interrogatory, or to make a substantive point, or completing a thought even though the other person has started speaking during a pause - these may all be acceptable. That's one thing. Interruping to make catty little comments and hackneyed pro forma scoffs of disgust, as Ed often did, particularly during the section aforementioned, is quite another.
"I'll bet you're the type who holds the floor and pontificates, Alpha, and feels threatened by anyone who interleaves comments."
You'd lose the bet (you sure do make a lot of foolish assumptions!) I let people finish what they're saying before speaking. And I don't cut in when they pause for a breath.
Garvey didn't get to finish making several points. This is empirical, not a matter of opinion.
I'm not talking deference, but respect. You say your piece, then he says his.
I'll bet a word count would have you about 9:1. Whatever happened to that textual minimalism, Ann?
MM, I agree that the Dem Party should not cede to the broadcast corporations control over the Democratic nominating process.
Others prefer to have the corporations get even more power than they have now...
Garvey didn't become Governor because he had an uphill fight against an entrenched incumbent, a media that refused to look at (corrupt) Tommy Thompson critically, and many hostile (and, frankly, corrupt) state Democratic leaders.
I remember how Clinton's sex life was all over the papers but Tommy Thompson's well-known philandering was, for some reason, off limits in the media.
Odd, that.
Alpha said...
"MM, I agree that the Dem Party should not cede to the broadcast corporations control over the Democratic nominating process."
Fine: so the question becomes, why have they? You glibly contrast your own position with those who "prefer to have the corporations get even more power than they have now," but in reality, it's the Democratic party that has preferred a situation that inserts "the corporations" into a position where their debates or the rules thereof are relevant. What you're moaning about is a result of the failure of the Democratic party to meet the demand for candidate debates by providing their own fora, fora whose ground rules the party can control. Private third parties have stepped in to meet demand, and they can and will bring their own interests, agendas, choices and rules.
If you don't want corporations to have that sort of power, don't give it to them. Don't make it necessary that the only way the public can see the candidates debate is in privately-hosted debates - provide your own! The media will cover it, live, just as happily as they'll cover their own debates, and you'll even create a multinetwork market competition situation. If you don't like what happened with Kucinich, blame Howard Dean and the DNC not MSNBC.
Wow, Althouse you were really feisty.
I liked it. Must be the NY influence.
And you actually made sense when talking about the Republicans. Pretty good for a Liberal.
"Pretty good for a Liberal."
I was supposed to be the conservative.
"I was supposed to be the conservative."
To WRC you're a conservative. Which is OK by me.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा