Sunday, December 31, 2006
Sunday Talk Shows Scoreboard - Dec. 31, 2006
Notes on the Shows
The year 2006 could not end soon enough for viewers seeking substance. For the second week in a row, the network talk shows were less relevant than policy addicts would appreciate.
NBC's Meet the Press in particular has mailed in their last two shows, this week focusing on a rehash of the Ford-Nixon relationship with Tom Brokaw and Bob Woodward and devoting the latter half of the show to a year in review panel of journalists. The show did not even offer a guest worthy of a rating.
Over on FOX, at least the fair and balanced network offered balance, with guests Senator Richard Lugar (R) and Iowa Governor (and presidential hopeful) Tom Vilsack (D).
ABC, which has turned in the best effort of navigating the holiday season, delivered an exclusive interview with John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth, marking the high point of the morning.
CBS managed to out-do NBC on the bore-o-meter with reflections on Gerald Ford by former General Alexander Haig, Ben Bradlee, James Cannon and Tom DeFrank, scoring a big fat zero on all counts, since we don't count panelists as guests.
I would be remiss if I did not at least mention the triumvirate of larger-than-life figures who shuffled off their mortal coils this week. James Brown, the Godfather of Soul was certainly the least political figure of them, though his music - and that of musical artists who followed his lead - will likely outlive the legacy of the other two.
Gerald Ford lived to the ripe age of 93, and was best remembered for replacing first VP Spiro Agnew and then Richard Nixon as president... and later pardoning Nixon. But Ford represents the last Republican of a generation of politicians, WWII veterans who actually embodied the values of which they preached.
Gerald Ford was not remarkable for his honesty, forthrightness, and down-to-earth approach. There were many who shared his views of doing right for our nation. His passing reminds us of from where we came and to where we are going.
And what can one say about the planned and executed demise of Saddam Hussein except that maybe he deserved it? His hastened hanging seemed fashioned to fit the cliched maxim that deaths of major figures always happen in threes.
So long for 2006.
Dec. 31 Sunday Talk Shows Scorecard
Week 8 - December 31
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
How well are the Sunday News Talk shows presenting the progressive/Democratic point-of-view?
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
The year 2006 could not end soon enough for viewers seeking substance. For the second week in a row, the network talk shows were less relevant than policy addicts would appreciate.
NBC's Meet the Press in particular has mailed in their last two shows, this week focusing on a rehash of the Ford-Nixon relationship with Tom Brokaw and Bob Woodward and devoting the latter half of the show to a year in review panel of journalists. The show did not even offer a guest worthy of a rating.
Over on FOX, at least the fair and balanced network offered balance, with guests Senator Richard Lugar (R) and Iowa Governor (and presidential hopeful) Tom Vilsack (D).
ABC, which has turned in the best effort of navigating the holiday season, delivered an exclusive interview with John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth, marking the high point of the morning.
CBS managed to out-do NBC on the bore-o-meter with reflections on Gerald Ford by former General Alexander Haig, Ben Bradlee, James Cannon and Tom DeFrank, scoring a big fat zero on all counts, since we don't count panelists as guests.
I would be remiss if I did not at least mention the triumvirate of larger-than-life figures who shuffled off their mortal coils this week. James Brown, the Godfather of Soul was certainly the least political figure of them, though his music - and that of musical artists who followed his lead - will likely outlive the legacy of the other two.
Gerald Ford lived to the ripe age of 93, and was best remembered for replacing first VP Spiro Agnew and then Richard Nixon as president... and later pardoning Nixon. But Ford represents the last Republican of a generation of politicians, WWII veterans who actually embodied the values of which they preached.
Gerald Ford was not remarkable for his honesty, forthrightness, and down-to-earth approach. There were many who shared his views of doing right for our nation. His passing reminds us of from where we came and to where we are going.
And what can one say about the planned and executed demise of Saddam Hussein except that maybe he deserved it? His hastened hanging seemed fashioned to fit the cliched maxim that deaths of major figures always happen in threes.
So long for 2006.
Dec. 31 Sunday Talk Shows Scorecard
Week 8 - December 31
| Show | Guests | Score | WeeKTotal | Cum. Total* | Cum. %** |
| Meet the Press (NBC) | Tom Brokaw and Bob Woodward | 0 | 0-2 | 5-20 | 25.00 |
| Fox News Sunday (FOX) | Senator Richard Lugar (R), Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack (D) | 1 | 1-2 | 10-24 | 41.67 |
| This Week (ABC) | John and Elizabeth Edwards | 2 | 2-2 | 11-22 | 50.00 |
| Face the Nation (CBS) | None rankable | 0 | 0-0 | 6-17 | 35.29 |
| Total for week, all shows (4 weeks) | all guests | 3 | 3-6 | 32-83 | 38.55 |
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
How well are the Sunday News Talk shows presenting the progressive/Democratic point-of-view?
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
Labels: James Brown, John Edwards, Sunday talk shows
Thursday, December 28, 2006
The President's Poor Choices
Sometimes you just have to sit back and smell the roses. And from where I'm sitting, the roses couldn't smell any sweeter for Democrats - and any more putrid for Republicans - in 2007.
Despite protestations from the war party, a new era of governing from a progressive agenda begins in just one week as the candidates elected in November are officially sworn in on January 4. In the House of Representatives, Democrats will hold a hefty advantage of 233-202 over their Republican counterparts, while the Senate will also swing marginally to the Dems, 51-49, though the accurate count is 49-49-2. Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont are technically Independents, though both have said publicly that they will caucus and vote with the Democrats.
When the 110th Congress convenes, on one side of the aisle you will have embattled Republicans, ostensibly tied to their most visible leader, President George W. Bush, and Democrats committed to restoring respectability and responsibility after 12 years of Republican rule.
What Bush decides about the War in Iraq and how he will handle bills that reach his desk - notably a minimum wage increase and a rollback of the tax breaks doled out to major oil companies in 2005 - will weigh heavily on the Republicans.
If, as he has hinted recently, the president decides to send more troops to Iraq, the fallout could be severe and lead to impeachment. Equally certain in that scenario is that some Republican lawmakers will take pains to distance themselves from Mr. Bush as the mood of the people is for a reduction in troop levels leading to eventual disengagement.
If the president does an about-face and actually begins to draw down troop levels (unlikely), this will be seen as a preemptive win for the Democrats and set the Republicans back on their heels.
Bush has shown that he is neither a man of high principles nor deep convictions, but more of a political animal than any president since... well, since Bill Clinton. With his options constrained, the troop level choices for Bush range from bad to worse.
Either way, the Democrats win. Many on the left hope that Bush will suddenly see the light and begin backing out of Iraq while others hope he digs in his heels and fights on, ordering more troops into the fray, because that will accelerate the Democrats' agenda and sink Bush into a precarious position, teetering on forced removal from office by impeachment.
If Bush announces that his new plan calls for a "surge" in troops to secure Baghdad, the opposition will be swift and loud. A recent AP-Ipsos poll found that only 27% approve of Bush's handling of Iraq - a new low. With those kinds of numbers staring him in the face, Bush might as well throw political expediency out the window and do either what he likes or what will actually improve the situation in Iraq.
Sadly, the president doesn't listen to critics, nor does he accept cogent advice, as evidenced by his light handling of the ISG report released earlier this month which called for eventual troop redeployment, engagement with Syria and Iran in seeking a solution and offered the Bush administration somewhat of an easy way out.
As much as I hate to see it, I'm hoping that the president announces his "new way forward" as the "surge" strategy, because committing more troops to Iraq will anger the American people, amplify the debate and hasten his - and VP Dick Cheney's - removal from office.
Critics of the impeachment push will argue that it's wrong for America, that we've been through enough already and that we need to move on, but they fail to see the value of restoring the values and principles of our Constitution and that begins with investigating and trying those who failed to uphold it - the Bush administration.
That Bush, Cheney, et. al. broke the law is not a matter for debate. On which charges they will be tried, is. Bush, Cheney and their lackeys have committed a myriad of unlawful acts, told a boatload of lies and have squandered and/or stolen the nation's treasure. Impeachment is not a means of reprisal; it is the only just resolution to this administration's high crimes and misdemeanors.
Despite protestations from the war party, a new era of governing from a progressive agenda begins in just one week as the candidates elected in November are officially sworn in on January 4. In the House of Representatives, Democrats will hold a hefty advantage of 233-202 over their Republican counterparts, while the Senate will also swing marginally to the Dems, 51-49, though the accurate count is 49-49-2. Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont are technically Independents, though both have said publicly that they will caucus and vote with the Democrats.
When the 110th Congress convenes, on one side of the aisle you will have embattled Republicans, ostensibly tied to their most visible leader, President George W. Bush, and Democrats committed to restoring respectability and responsibility after 12 years of Republican rule.
What Bush decides about the War in Iraq and how he will handle bills that reach his desk - notably a minimum wage increase and a rollback of the tax breaks doled out to major oil companies in 2005 - will weigh heavily on the Republicans.
If, as he has hinted recently, the president decides to send more troops to Iraq, the fallout could be severe and lead to impeachment. Equally certain in that scenario is that some Republican lawmakers will take pains to distance themselves from Mr. Bush as the mood of the people is for a reduction in troop levels leading to eventual disengagement.
If the president does an about-face and actually begins to draw down troop levels (unlikely), this will be seen as a preemptive win for the Democrats and set the Republicans back on their heels.
Bush has shown that he is neither a man of high principles nor deep convictions, but more of a political animal than any president since... well, since Bill Clinton. With his options constrained, the troop level choices for Bush range from bad to worse.
Either way, the Democrats win. Many on the left hope that Bush will suddenly see the light and begin backing out of Iraq while others hope he digs in his heels and fights on, ordering more troops into the fray, because that will accelerate the Democrats' agenda and sink Bush into a precarious position, teetering on forced removal from office by impeachment.
If Bush announces that his new plan calls for a "surge" in troops to secure Baghdad, the opposition will be swift and loud. A recent AP-Ipsos poll found that only 27% approve of Bush's handling of Iraq - a new low. With those kinds of numbers staring him in the face, Bush might as well throw political expediency out the window and do either what he likes or what will actually improve the situation in Iraq.
Sadly, the president doesn't listen to critics, nor does he accept cogent advice, as evidenced by his light handling of the ISG report released earlier this month which called for eventual troop redeployment, engagement with Syria and Iran in seeking a solution and offered the Bush administration somewhat of an easy way out.
As much as I hate to see it, I'm hoping that the president announces his "new way forward" as the "surge" strategy, because committing more troops to Iraq will anger the American people, amplify the debate and hasten his - and VP Dick Cheney's - removal from office.
Critics of the impeachment push will argue that it's wrong for America, that we've been through enough already and that we need to move on, but they fail to see the value of restoring the values and principles of our Constitution and that begins with investigating and trying those who failed to uphold it - the Bush administration.
That Bush, Cheney, et. al. broke the law is not a matter for debate. On which charges they will be tried, is. Bush, Cheney and their lackeys have committed a myriad of unlawful acts, told a boatload of lies and have squandered and/or stolen the nation's treasure. Impeachment is not a means of reprisal; it is the only just resolution to this administration's high crimes and misdemeanors.
Labels: Bush, congress, Iraq, politics
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Dec. 24 Sunday News Shows Scorecard
Three of the four networks pretty much mailed it in this week, as they went with the religion in America theme. ABC was the notable exception.
Meet the Press wasn't even worth watching, but Fox News Sunday managed to lure Lynne Cheney, wife of the VP, for a pre-holiday neocon boost. Mrs. Cheney was on message, mentioning 9/11, and citing the Patriot Act, the "terrorist surveillance program" and "detainee policy" as important elements in keeping the nation safe. Mrs. Cheney had little notable to say, except for her view of Scooter Libby being on trial as "bizarre" and that his upcoming trial, "does not reflect well on our judicial system." Maybe Mrs. Cheney would like to see perjury crossed off the list of criminal offenses. Yes, "bizarre" is the operative term.
Face the Nation one-upped Fox by having Laura Bush in an "exclusive" interview. This is the equivalent of punting on second down for CBS.
ABC's This Week was the only network actually providing any substance with Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) discussing their recent trip to the Middle East and the situation in Iraq. ABC also managed to get an interview with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Kudos to them for getting it partially right despite the lure of going easy during the holidays. The Dodd-Graham didn't really break much new ground as the Senators exchanged ideas for and against the President's policy favoring a "surge" or increase of troops. Dodd was against it; Graham favored it. The two also differed on diplomatic approaches to Syria and Iran, with Dodd having been to Syria and in favor of more dialogue. Not surprisingly, Graham was opposed to any further diplomatic overtures to either nation.
Collectively, the shows registered only 1 progressive out of 7 guests, a new low.
Week 7 - December 24
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
How well are the Sunday News Talk shows presenting the progressive/Democratic point-of-view?
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
Meet the Press wasn't even worth watching, but Fox News Sunday managed to lure Lynne Cheney, wife of the VP, for a pre-holiday neocon boost. Mrs. Cheney was on message, mentioning 9/11, and citing the Patriot Act, the "terrorist surveillance program" and "detainee policy" as important elements in keeping the nation safe. Mrs. Cheney had little notable to say, except for her view of Scooter Libby being on trial as "bizarre" and that his upcoming trial, "does not reflect well on our judicial system." Maybe Mrs. Cheney would like to see perjury crossed off the list of criminal offenses. Yes, "bizarre" is the operative term.
Face the Nation one-upped Fox by having Laura Bush in an "exclusive" interview. This is the equivalent of punting on second down for CBS.
ABC's This Week was the only network actually providing any substance with Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) discussing their recent trip to the Middle East and the situation in Iraq. ABC also managed to get an interview with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Kudos to them for getting it partially right despite the lure of going easy during the holidays. The Dodd-Graham didn't really break much new ground as the Senators exchanged ideas for and against the President's policy favoring a "surge" or increase of troops. Dodd was against it; Graham favored it. The two also differed on diplomatic approaches to Syria and Iran, with Dodd having been to Syria and in favor of more dialogue. Not surprisingly, Graham was opposed to any further diplomatic overtures to either nation.
Collectively, the shows registered only 1 progressive out of 7 guests, a new low.
Week 7 - December 24
| Show | Guests | Score | WeeKTotal | Cum. Total* | Cum. %** |
| Meet the Press (NBC) | Authors Dr. Rick Warren and Jon Meacham | 0 | 0-2 | 5-18 | 27.78 |
| Fox News Sunday (FOX) | Lynne Cheney, Archbishop of Washington Donald Wuerl, Anne Graham Lotz (Billy Graham's daughter). | 0 | 0-3 | 9-22 | 40.91 |
| This Week (ABC) | Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. | 1 | 1-3 | 9-20 | 45.00 |
| Face the Nation (CBS) | First Lady Laua Bush | 0 | 0-1 | 6-17 | 35.29 |
| Total for week, all shows (4 weeks) | all guests | 1 | 1-7 | 29-74 | 39.19 |
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
How well are the Sunday News Talk shows presenting the progressive/Democratic point-of-view?
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
Labels: media, politics, Sunday talk shows
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Dec. 17 Sunday News Shows Scorecard
How well are the Sunday News Talk shows presenting the progressive/Democratic point-of-view?
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
Week 6 - December 17
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
Notes on the Shows:
Meet the Press: NBC went 0-1 this week, headlined by Newt Gingrich, who was followed by two NY Times pundits. Gingrich, while he thinks he's bright, is really in a sort of no man's land. His conservatism was noticeably absent and his rhetoric suffered. He made himself even more irrelevant to any important political discussion - if that's even possible. His appearance was nothing more than a feeling out for him. After all, he's a political animal and he's wading into the water espousing non-partisanship. Overall, he was particularly insincere. As for Friedman and Brooks, nothing new there: they act more as mouthpieces for staying the course rather than real change. As guests, we don't count journalists, or even people impersonating them.
FOX News Sunday: OK, we're all familiar with Ted Kennedy and he's not changing his stripes. His opposition to the war in Iraq was refreshing, but the interview was really softball.
ABC: Stephanopolous' interview with Harry Reid was unremarkable. Nothing new was revealed. However, the talk with retired General. Jack Keane and Congressman Joe Sestak was noteworthy.
First off, Keane is calling for a two-phase military buildup with correlating economic packages. In simple terms, Keane wants 35-40,000 more troops in Baghdad and Anbar province and more money spent on reconstruction.
Keane is significantly off his rocker and right out of Dr. Strangelove. He's proposing around-the-clock, 24/7 US patrols and sentries in Baghdad and a renewed military assault in Anbar. It's pure lunacy.
Sestak's response was refreshingly on the other side, his points being that the US needs to redeploy, thus enhancing our security posture outside of Iraq. He cited the failure in Afghanistan, threats from Korea and elsewhere and a view of the the Middle East as a regional situation, best handled by those in the region. In total, Sestak is simply opposed to sending more troops to Iraq, a position strongly supported not only by the American public, but the Iraqi population as well.
CBS: Face the Nation featured Colin Powell, and it was a fitting finale to the Sunday smorgasbord. Powell put some real teeth and definition into the debate over putting more troops into Iraq, pointing out that the US military isn't capable of policing Baghdad and clarifying the troop "surge" as nothing more than extending deployments. In the end, though he never said it in so many words, Powell sees Iraq as nearly lost, still workable, but mostly a problem best handled by Iraqis.
Bob Schieffer's interview with Powell was the most enlightening and heartening piece offered this week. Powell's unbiased comments were refreshing and dare I say, progressive. CBS scored a +1 with Colin Powell.
What is the most outstanding feature of all the Sunday shows - and this continues week in and week out - that the discussions following the guests focus more on the 2008 presidential election rather than the war in Iraq. Every one of these shows is guilty of avoiding the obvious big issue of the day - Iraq - and maybe that's the most damning indictment against the fuliginous nature of these shows.
ABC did debate the rather dubious choice for Time magazine's Person of the Year, a cheesy mirror and the word "You", denoting that people made the biggest difference in 2006. George Will suggested that the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have made a good choice. I humbly submit to Wills' rationale and add that either Hugo Chavez or (my choice) Nancy Pelosi would have been equally reasonable choices. Apparently, the editors or Time want neither to offend nor commend anyone. Ultimately, their choice of everybody - actually nobody - is one of the most completely derelict actions in journalistic history.
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
Week 6 - December 17
| Show | Guests | Score | WeeKTotal | Cum. Total* | Cum. %** |
| Meet the Press (NBC) | Newt Gingrich | 0 | 0-1 | 5-16 | 31.25 |
| Fox News Sunday (FOX) | Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Frederick W. Smith, chairman and president of FedEx Corp., retired General. P.X. Kelley | 1 | 1-3 | 9-19 | 47.37 |
| This Week (ABC) | Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), General. Jack Keane, former Army Vice Chief of Staff, Congressman-elect Joe Sestak (D-PA) | 2 | 2-3 | 8-17 | 47.06 |
| Face the Nation (CBS) | Colin Powell | 1 | 1-1 | 6-15 | 40.00 |
| Total for week, all shows (4 weeks) | all guests | 4 | 4-8 | 28-67 | 41.79 |
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
Notes on the Shows:
Meet the Press: NBC went 0-1 this week, headlined by Newt Gingrich, who was followed by two NY Times pundits. Gingrich, while he thinks he's bright, is really in a sort of no man's land. His conservatism was noticeably absent and his rhetoric suffered. He made himself even more irrelevant to any important political discussion - if that's even possible. His appearance was nothing more than a feeling out for him. After all, he's a political animal and he's wading into the water espousing non-partisanship. Overall, he was particularly insincere. As for Friedman and Brooks, nothing new there: they act more as mouthpieces for staying the course rather than real change. As guests, we don't count journalists, or even people impersonating them.
FOX News Sunday: OK, we're all familiar with Ted Kennedy and he's not changing his stripes. His opposition to the war in Iraq was refreshing, but the interview was really softball.
ABC: Stephanopolous' interview with Harry Reid was unremarkable. Nothing new was revealed. However, the talk with retired General. Jack Keane and Congressman Joe Sestak was noteworthy.
First off, Keane is calling for a two-phase military buildup with correlating economic packages. In simple terms, Keane wants 35-40,000 more troops in Baghdad and Anbar province and more money spent on reconstruction.
Keane is significantly off his rocker and right out of Dr. Strangelove. He's proposing around-the-clock, 24/7 US patrols and sentries in Baghdad and a renewed military assault in Anbar. It's pure lunacy.
Sestak's response was refreshingly on the other side, his points being that the US needs to redeploy, thus enhancing our security posture outside of Iraq. He cited the failure in Afghanistan, threats from Korea and elsewhere and a view of the the Middle East as a regional situation, best handled by those in the region. In total, Sestak is simply opposed to sending more troops to Iraq, a position strongly supported not only by the American public, but the Iraqi population as well.
CBS: Face the Nation featured Colin Powell, and it was a fitting finale to the Sunday smorgasbord. Powell put some real teeth and definition into the debate over putting more troops into Iraq, pointing out that the US military isn't capable of policing Baghdad and clarifying the troop "surge" as nothing more than extending deployments. In the end, though he never said it in so many words, Powell sees Iraq as nearly lost, still workable, but mostly a problem best handled by Iraqis.
Bob Schieffer's interview with Powell was the most enlightening and heartening piece offered this week. Powell's unbiased comments were refreshing and dare I say, progressive. CBS scored a +1 with Colin Powell.
What is the most outstanding feature of all the Sunday shows - and this continues week in and week out - that the discussions following the guests focus more on the 2008 presidential election rather than the war in Iraq. Every one of these shows is guilty of avoiding the obvious big issue of the day - Iraq - and maybe that's the most damning indictment against the fuliginous nature of these shows.
ABC did debate the rather dubious choice for Time magazine's Person of the Year, a cheesy mirror and the word "You", denoting that people made the biggest difference in 2006. George Will suggested that the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have made a good choice. I humbly submit to Wills' rationale and add that either Hugo Chavez or (my choice) Nancy Pelosi would have been equally reasonable choices. Apparently, the editors or Time want neither to offend nor commend anyone. Ultimately, their choice of everybody - actually nobody - is one of the most completely derelict actions in journalistic history.
NBC's very own Grinch on Meet The Press
After hearing that Meet the Press was having Newt Gingrich on as their "exclusive" guest this week, I couldn't wait to see the show before firing off another note to the redoubtable Mr. Russert and the show's producers. Following is the unedited (and unvarnished) email to the show:
Dear Mr. Russert, executive producer Betsy Fischer and producers Michelle Jaconi and Rebecca Samuels:
Are you really as out-of-touch as you seem or are you just jealous that you don't have your own Grinch and needed Gingrich to take up your air and scare the little kids that may be watching?
Is Mr. Gingrich, who resembles the famous Dr. Seuss character, the "Grinch" in ways that cannot be measured by appearance alone, really the best guest you could find this week?
While it may be the case that Mr. Gingrich suffers - like the Grinch - from having too small a heart (the size comparison usually reserved for other Republican bodily parts such as the brain or certain "unmentionables"), those of us on the progressive front have noted a certain lack of relevance in the former Speaker's message and some distance and departure from the reality-based community.
It is noticeable (and ironic) that Mr. Gingrich has not held public office since 1998, but still thinks he's a viable voice for conservative politics. The notion that he's entertaining a run for the presidency would be humorous if it were not the case that he's taking it so seriously. There's a reason he's been out of public office for 8 years - he can't get enough people vote for him to win even a local election.
The problem with Newt may be that his heart is not too small, but that his head is too big - inflated, as the case may be, with the tantalizing notion of possibly becoming the most powerful man in the world. Yes, he's scary all right, but we're not living in Whoville, or Kansas, for that matter.
Maybe all other suitable politicians were out of town, too busy preparing for the upcoming 110th Congress, or had made holiday plans with their families, like most normal people. If that's the case, Newt Gingrich could be considered a solid choice, since he's not much of a "real" family man, having already been married three times (I can't wait to hear him fulminate over values and morals).
Speaking of available guests, Condi Rice (single) was probably looking for something to do this weekend. Why not her? She's proven to be completely ineffective in every office to which she's been appointed. As National Security Advisor she watched and did nothing on 9/11/2001 and as Secretary of State she's overseen the unending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the horror of Darfur and the Israeli bombing of Lebanon just this year. In keeping with your mantra of irrelevance, she seems the perfect pre-holiday guest.
Maybe you and your bosses at NBC just want to continue down the path of becoming less and less relevant to your dwindling viewership. If that's the case, you're doing a bang up job. Mr. Gingrich provides just the kind of peripheral doddering that makes your show so singularly nauseating.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and Happy New Year!
Rick Gagliano
Publisher, Downtown Magazine
Thought Puh-leeze
http://thoughtpuh-leeze.blogspot.com
Dear Mr. Russert, executive producer Betsy Fischer and producers Michelle Jaconi and Rebecca Samuels:
Are you really as out-of-touch as you seem or are you just jealous that you don't have your own Grinch and needed Gingrich to take up your air and scare the little kids that may be watching?
Is Mr. Gingrich, who resembles the famous Dr. Seuss character, the "Grinch" in ways that cannot be measured by appearance alone, really the best guest you could find this week?
While it may be the case that Mr. Gingrich suffers - like the Grinch - from having too small a heart (the size comparison usually reserved for other Republican bodily parts such as the brain or certain "unmentionables"), those of us on the progressive front have noted a certain lack of relevance in the former Speaker's message and some distance and departure from the reality-based community.
It is noticeable (and ironic) that Mr. Gingrich has not held public office since 1998, but still thinks he's a viable voice for conservative politics. The notion that he's entertaining a run for the presidency would be humorous if it were not the case that he's taking it so seriously. There's a reason he's been out of public office for 8 years - he can't get enough people vote for him to win even a local election.
The problem with Newt may be that his heart is not too small, but that his head is too big - inflated, as the case may be, with the tantalizing notion of possibly becoming the most powerful man in the world. Yes, he's scary all right, but we're not living in Whoville, or Kansas, for that matter.
Maybe all other suitable politicians were out of town, too busy preparing for the upcoming 110th Congress, or had made holiday plans with their families, like most normal people. If that's the case, Newt Gingrich could be considered a solid choice, since he's not much of a "real" family man, having already been married three times (I can't wait to hear him fulminate over values and morals).
Speaking of available guests, Condi Rice (single) was probably looking for something to do this weekend. Why not her? She's proven to be completely ineffective in every office to which she's been appointed. As National Security Advisor she watched and did nothing on 9/11/2001 and as Secretary of State she's overseen the unending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the horror of Darfur and the Israeli bombing of Lebanon just this year. In keeping with your mantra of irrelevance, she seems the perfect pre-holiday guest.
Maybe you and your bosses at NBC just want to continue down the path of becoming less and less relevant to your dwindling viewership. If that's the case, you're doing a bang up job. Mr. Gingrich provides just the kind of peripheral doddering that makes your show so singularly nauseating.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and Happy New Year!
Rick Gagliano
Publisher, Downtown Magazine
Thought Puh-leeze
http://thoughtpuh-leeze.blogspot.com
Labels: Christmas, Grinch, media, Meet the Press, Newt Gingrich, presidential politics
Thursday, December 14, 2006
On the Table with Congressman John Conyers Jr.
Just minutes ago I received an email from Congressman John Conyers Jr. informing me (and doubtless thousands of other rapt and impatient subscribers) that he has officially been named Chairman-designate of the House Judiciary Committee in the 110th Congress.
The news was expected, but what Conyers said in the missive points to more... maybe much more. Quoting Conyers:
The key phrase is ...these -- and other -- areas will now be subject to greater scrutiny and examination... which may signal that Conyers will indeed reopen these investigations.
The first two, the Downing Street Minutes and warrantless wiretapping, if properly investigated, will lead to subpoenas, claims of Presidential privilege and eventually a showdown between President Bush and the 110th Congress.
Should the president decide to resist, as he is currently in delaying any movement on the Iraq issue, talk of special prosecutors, select committees and impeachment will surely follow. My personal view on the president is that his days in office are numbered and that he and Cheney will both resign before the year 2007 is out. This follows the Watergate pattern, in which President Nixon eventually stepped down rather than face impeachment in the House.
While Bush has proven to be at least as stubborn as Nixon - probably moreso - he's not immune from loud, raucous, public protests nor the underside of Republican politics. Just as Nixon was advised by party loyalists to resign, so too will the heavy hands of Republican leadership fall hard upon the head and shoulders of George W. Bush. The likely leaders of the insurrection from the right would be Senators Trent Lott, Elizabeth Dole, Orrin Hatch, Mitch McConnell and John McCain, who rightly could see his chances at being elected president in 2008 significantly compromised by a recalcitrant, unpopular president.
As in 1974, when Nixon resigned, the best friends of the Democrats who seek the removal of the president and vice president are likely to be found on the other side of the aisle.
Conyers' investigations will get the ball rolling early in 2007 and the natural process of political survival will carry Bush and Cheney beyond the Beltway before the primaries begin in 2008.
The news was expected, but what Conyers said in the missive points to more... maybe much more. Quoting Conyers:
"...we helped bring public attention to the Downing Street Minutes, warrantless wiretapping, and the disenfranchisement of Ohio voters and on many, many other fronts. While the public has expressed its concern about these issues, the Republican Congress was largely derelict in looking at any of the Bush administration's excesses. Thankfully, these -- and other -- areas will now be subject to greater scrutiny and examination, and the lack of oversight of the last six years will finally yield to checks and balances.
For my part, I believe this election was very much about restoring transparency and accountability to Washington and I will seek to do that as Chairman. I think the Judiciary Committee should become a place where we tackle important legislative issues, like lobbying reform and election reform, and where we ascertain the truth for the American people. I hope I will be the kind of Chairman you can be proud of.
It won't happen overnight. There is the inevitable lag between the election, the lame duck session of Congress, and the transition to the Majority. And there is so much left undone over the last six years."
The key phrase is ...these -- and other -- areas will now be subject to greater scrutiny and examination... which may signal that Conyers will indeed reopen these investigations.
The first two, the Downing Street Minutes and warrantless wiretapping, if properly investigated, will lead to subpoenas, claims of Presidential privilege and eventually a showdown between President Bush and the 110th Congress.
Should the president decide to resist, as he is currently in delaying any movement on the Iraq issue, talk of special prosecutors, select committees and impeachment will surely follow. My personal view on the president is that his days in office are numbered and that he and Cheney will both resign before the year 2007 is out. This follows the Watergate pattern, in which President Nixon eventually stepped down rather than face impeachment in the House.
While Bush has proven to be at least as stubborn as Nixon - probably moreso - he's not immune from loud, raucous, public protests nor the underside of Republican politics. Just as Nixon was advised by party loyalists to resign, so too will the heavy hands of Republican leadership fall hard upon the head and shoulders of George W. Bush. The likely leaders of the insurrection from the right would be Senators Trent Lott, Elizabeth Dole, Orrin Hatch, Mitch McConnell and John McCain, who rightly could see his chances at being elected president in 2008 significantly compromised by a recalcitrant, unpopular president.
As in 1974, when Nixon resigned, the best friends of the Democrats who seek the removal of the president and vice president are likely to be found on the other side of the aisle.
Conyers' investigations will get the ball rolling early in 2007 and the natural process of political survival will carry Bush and Cheney beyond the Beltway before the primaries begin in 2008.
Labels: congress, impeachment, politics, president
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Sunday News Shows Scorecard
How well are the Sunday News Talk shows presenting the progressive/Democratic point-of-view?
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
This week, the co-chairmen of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) made the rounds to three of the four shows. Though the ISG was a non-partisan commission, the group's propositions were amounted to nothing more than talking points for an extended stay for our military in Iraq. The closest the study came to calling for withdrawal was a carefully-crafted statement saying that "most" of the American combat forces "could" be out of Iraq as early as early 2008.
Since the ISG is non-binding and reactive, there's little reason to believe that it has produced a progressive document. While some of the suggestions are laudatory, such as engaging Iran and Syria in diplomacy, the report offers little more than a laundry list of possible corrective measures for a situation that has grown increasingly violent and uncontrollable. Baker and Hamilton are no more progressive than Laurel and Hardy, and they are not even close to being as funny.
Week 5 - December 10
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
We look at the guests each show offers and award them a point for every one that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic party guests get a 1; Republicans and all others, a zero.
This week, the co-chairmen of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) made the rounds to three of the four shows. Though the ISG was a non-partisan commission, the group's propositions were amounted to nothing more than talking points for an extended stay for our military in Iraq. The closest the study came to calling for withdrawal was a carefully-crafted statement saying that "most" of the American combat forces "could" be out of Iraq as early as early 2008.
Since the ISG is non-binding and reactive, there's little reason to believe that it has produced a progressive document. While some of the suggestions are laudatory, such as engaging Iran and Syria in diplomacy, the report offers little more than a laundry list of possible corrective measures for a situation that has grown increasingly violent and uncontrollable. Baker and Hamilton are no more progressive than Laurel and Hardy, and they are not even close to being as funny.
Week 5 - December 10
| Show | Guests | Score | WeeKTotal | Cum. Total* | Cum. %** |
| Meet the Press (NBC) | James Baker, Lee Hamilton | 0 | 0-2 | 5-15 | 33.33 |
| Fox News Sunday (FOX) | James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Senator Chris Dodd (D) and Senator Sam Brownback (R) | 1 | 1-4 | 8-16 | 50.00 |
| This Week (ABC) | Tony Blair, Senators Joe Biden (D) and Gordon Smith (R) | 1 | 1-3 | 6-14 | 42.86 |
| Face the Nation (CBS) | James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Senators Carl Levin (D), Trent Lott (R) | 1 | 1-4 | 5-14 | 35.71 |
| Total for week, all shows (5 weeks) | all guests | 3 | 3-13 | 24-59 | 40.68 |
*Total of progressive/Democrat guests to total # of guests.
**Total percentage of shows beginning with Sunday, November 12.
Chart updated weekly each Sunday.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Sunday News Shows Scorecard: Hadley goes 3 for 4
It took less than a month, but the major news media has managed to shift the focus back to the right, falling under 50% in progressive guests on Sunday talk shows for the first four-week period. This week was particularly dull and biased as National Security Advisor to President Bush, Stephen Hadley, appeared on three of the four shows. How Fox News Sunday failed to give Hadley a perfect 4-4 is somewhat beyond comprehension.
Sorry this edition of the scorecard is a little late, but it was a particularly boring weekend of news shows and I nearly gave up on the concept of watching them at all. At least Russert gave Jimmy Carter some air time. Carter is the only person in the American media who speaks openly of the apartheid in the Palestinian settlements, but oddly, nobody calls him a Jew hater. Maybe he should give Mel Gibson lessons.
Sunday News Shows Scorecard
How in or out of touch are the Sunday morning shows following the message of the midterm elections?
We look at the guests each show has and award them a point for every guest that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic Party guests get a 1, Republicans and others a zero.
Week 4 - December 3
Sorry this edition of the scorecard is a little late, but it was a particularly boring weekend of news shows and I nearly gave up on the concept of watching them at all. At least Russert gave Jimmy Carter some air time. Carter is the only person in the American media who speaks openly of the apartheid in the Palestinian settlements, but oddly, nobody calls him a Jew hater. Maybe he should give Mel Gibson lessons.
Sunday News Shows Scorecard
How in or out of touch are the Sunday morning shows following the message of the midterm elections?
We look at the guests each show has and award them a point for every guest that is either an elected Democrat or shares the values of the progressive left and a zero for every one that does not. Generally, Democratic Party guests get a 1, Republicans and others a zero.
Week 4 - December 3
| Show | Guests | Score | WeeKTotal | Cum. Total* | Cum. %** |
| Meet the Press (NBC) | Stephen Hadley, Carl Levin, John Warner, Jimmy Carter | 2 | 2-4 | 5-13 | 38.46 |
| Fox News Sunday (FOX) | Senators Joe Biden (D-DE) and Lindsay Graham (R-GA), Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer; Incoming District of Columbia police chief, Cathy Lanier | 2 | 2-4 | 7-12 | 58.33 |
| This Week (ABC) | Stephen Hadley (National Security Advisor), Senator Evan Byah (D-IN), Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack (R-IA) | 1 | 1-3 | 5-11 | 45.45 |
| Face the Nation (CBS) | Stephen Hadley, Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) | 0 | 0-3 | 4-10 | 40.00 |
| Total for week, all shows (4 weeks) | all guests | 5 | 5-14 | 21-46 | 45.65 |
Labels: media, news, politics, Sunday
Deja Vu 43 Years and Counting...
When this blog was started as a project to air some views and maybe make a little money on the side, the name, Thought Puh-leeze was not my invention, but that of my then-partner who has recently become a non-partner, due mostly to being a non-participant and soon, in my mind, a non-entity.
It's difficult when one realizes that bonds formed years ago still have the same petty strings attached and that those fragile things we call egos can still be damaged and hurt by blunt talk. What's particularly discouraging, though, is that one's feelings would rank above and beyond the purpose of informed dissent and minor matters such as free speech, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus.
But that is as it is, and so shall it remain.
Getting back to the name of this blog, and the photo I chose as its signature image, the infamous picture of Lee Harvey Oswald being shot by Jack Ruby in a Texas courthouse basement. For years - actually all 43 of them - I've wondered about who that surprised lawman in the hat might be. His identity seemed as much a mystery as the intrigue surrounding the death of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, but today, there he was, as large as life on the NBC Nightly News, one Jim Levealle, a Pearl Harbor survivor and in 1963, a homicide detective in Dallas. Levealle is the man on Oswald's right in the photo, the man in the Stetson hat.
So, now I know all of the people in the photo, but why do I not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, that he alone, a madman with a rifle six stories above and half a block away - and no apparent reason, would kill a president?
The question haunts our generation and peers into our collective psyche. Who killed Kennedy? And why? In days that seem all too familiar, our current president resists good advice, our Congress fails to act and the same players from 43 years ago reappear as chimeras and nymphs with lutes, singing songs and carrying signs. We cannot forget, nor should we fail to ask until we are answered.
It's difficult when one realizes that bonds formed years ago still have the same petty strings attached and that those fragile things we call egos can still be damaged and hurt by blunt talk. What's particularly discouraging, though, is that one's feelings would rank above and beyond the purpose of informed dissent and minor matters such as free speech, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus.
But that is as it is, and so shall it remain.
Getting back to the name of this blog, and the photo I chose as its signature image, the infamous picture of Lee Harvey Oswald being shot by Jack Ruby in a Texas courthouse basement. For years - actually all 43 of them - I've wondered about who that surprised lawman in the hat might be. His identity seemed as much a mystery as the intrigue surrounding the death of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, but today, there he was, as large as life on the NBC Nightly News, one Jim Levealle, a Pearl Harbor survivor and in 1963, a homicide detective in Dallas. Levealle is the man on Oswald's right in the photo, the man in the Stetson hat.
So, now I know all of the people in the photo, but why do I not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, that he alone, a madman with a rifle six stories above and half a block away - and no apparent reason, would kill a president?
The question haunts our generation and peers into our collective psyche. Who killed Kennedy? And why? In days that seem all too familiar, our current president resists good advice, our Congress fails to act and the same players from 43 years ago reappear as chimeras and nymphs with lutes, singing songs and carrying signs. We cannot forget, nor should we fail to ask until we are answered.
