After 10 days of no progressives or Democrats on CBS' "Free Speech," segment featured the Wash. Post's Eugene Robinson
In its 11th broadcast, the "Free Speech" segment of the September 19 edition of the CBS Evening News featured Washington Post associate editor and liberal columnist Eugene Robinson, who spoke about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Robinson denounced those who would judge Rice based not on "foreign policy" but "on whether or not she thinks like most African-Americans."
He went on to say: "I think the war in Iraq is a disaster. I think this administration has created more anti-American feeling in the world than we've seen in my lifetime, and I look forward to the day when they have to pack up and go home -- and that certainly includes Condoleezza Rice."
Media Matters for America has monitored the Evening News' "Free Speech" segment, and, for the past week, regularly noted CBS' failure, through its 10th broadcast, to include any progressive pundits or Democrats, despite featuring conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and former Bush aide and speechwriter Michael Gerson.
From the September 19 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
KATIE COURIC (host): Among the dignitaries at the U.N. today for the opening of the General Assembly was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She spent some of her time here in New York defending President Bush's policies on everything from Iran to the treatment of terror suspects. Rice has her supporters and her critics; and in "Free Speech" tonight, you'll hear from someone who has decidedly mixed feelings. He's Eugene Robinson, associate editor and columnist for The Washington Post.
ROBINSON: It's safe to say that Condi Rice provokes passionate feelings among black Americans, both pro and con -- mostly con, in my case. But not always.
I've tried to get over the fact that a woman who grew up in Jim Crow Alabama is so loyal to a president for whom black America has so little love. I realize that black conservatives have the same right to be wrong as any other conservatives. She should be judged on foreign policy, not on whether or not she thinks like most African-Americans.
OK, fine. I think the war in Iraq is a disaster. I think this administration has created more anti-American feeling in the world than we've seen in my lifetime, and I look forward to the day when they have to pack up and go home -- and that certainly includes Condoleezza Rice.
That's the way I feel -- until I hear some commentator describe her as, quote, "articulate," which is code for a black person who speaks standard English. Excuse me? You were expecting the Secretary of State to be inarticulate?
That's when I get this involuntary twitch and I want to defend Condoleezza Rice -- when she's patronized, the way black pioneers in all walks of life have been patronized. Look, Condoleezza Rice is a major, major player in this administration. So, call her whatever you want, but don't call her a token or a puppet, and please, don't call her "articulate."
COURIC: Eugene Robinson.
Mixed feelings (according to Ms. Couric), can't count him as a counterbalance to RashL. Still need a pure "progressive" voice. 11 & counting.
...DECIDEDLY mixed feelings.
uh...that's pretty partisan. Right?
Now that CBS put a progressive on their freeSpeech segment , it ruins the "Worst Person in the World" segment (CBS Execs) for Olbermann and MMFA's subsequent thread reporting on Olbermann's "Worst Person" award to the CBS execs. Darn it all.
Well it sure as hell is about time. I wonder what the next ten days will bring. Will it be another three conservatives before we have a progressive again?
Think about it. If our theory of Rightwing control and ownership of the Media is correct -- and it IS -- then their PLAN is to saturate the airwaves with ONLY the rightwing "message".
CBS has demonstrated a perfect "proof" to the theory, by having a "FREE SPEECH" segment which features PREDOMINATELY people with the rightwing message.
Take heart, though. EVEN when shamed into bringing just a little "balance" into the segment, the rightwingers at CBS still realize that in a mental/policy battle with the Left, they STILL need a ten-to-one advantage. Bullies always attack in packs, you know, because they know that individually, they are worthless.
Tex- Think about it. If our theory of Rightwing control and ownership of the Media is correct -- and it IS -- then their PLAN is to saturate the airwaves with ONLY the rightwing "message".
Response: You say this despite the fact that a progressive was just on the segment. So much for our "plan".
Tex - CBS has demonstrated a perfect "proof" to the theory, by having a "FREE SPEECH" segment which features PREDOMINATELY people with the rightwing message.
Response: So far, 3 out of 11 people on the freeSpeech segment were labeled conservative by MMFA, 1 progressive, and 7 neutral. That is hardly "predominantly rightwing".
Tex - Take heart, though. EVEN when shamed into bringing just a little "balance" into the segment, the rightwingers at CBS still realize that in a mental/policy battle with the Left, they STILL need a ten-to-one advantage. Bullies always attack in packs, you know, because they know that individually, they are worthless.
Response: Again the ratio is 3 to 1 so far, not 10 to 1. MMFA is definitely keeping score on this one.
Thanks for the in-depth response. Based on everything said, I respond by saying everything I said stands.
Hint; a 'rebuttal' should actually attempt to REFUTE the major points made, not underscore them.
Here is what CBS says about the segment despite your claim that they only want to represent one side:
Some of the early criticism of the segment is that it hasn’t been balanced enough in terms of political persuasion. “I’m completely mindful of balance,” said Rosenwasser. “On any given night, there is one point of view, but over time it will be seen as balanced.”
He explained that in developing the segment, it was decided early on that “we were not going to have a t*t for tat” in which opposing opinions a given issue would be presented side-by-side, “but that over time we would accomplish that.”
I already corrected your 10 to 1 ratio error despite the fact that you are sticking with your analysis.
>>"a progressive was just on the segment. So much for our "plan"."<<
Yes, Tex, Bruce is so right. Don't be gloomy--rise up and cheer (but wait for your turn, please): Sing Hallelujah, they gave us one!! Smile as you think about this: in just 20 more days, we will have had a grand total of THREE progressives!!!
3 to 1 isnt predominant? Sounds like fuzzy math
Well, finally CBS allows a "Liberal" on their "free" speech segment and what does he do? Rush to the defense of Rice and attack a Liberal straw man. Since when is calling someone "articulate" code for a black person who speaks standard english? Oh those terrible Liberals, in and outside the media, showing their internalized rascism. Mr. Robinson would have us believe that for Liberals to criticise Rice is inherently rascist. Rather it is Liberals who judge Rice by her actions and and opinions do not absolve her based on her race, they hold her to the same standards as anyone else. To withold criticism based on race would be tokenism and this seems to be the position of Mr. Robinson. I'm not familiar with Mr. Robinson but based on this, he appears to be a typical faux Liberal corporate media hack whose job is to shoot down Democrats and give cover to the Republicans.
I hate this.
You should NOT make a charge like this without at least ONE specific example. Who, Mr. Robinson, is being condescending to Rice?
I browsed around and only found two recent references using the condescending term. One was from the conservative, Murdoch-owned London Times on Sept. 14, where Secretary Rice was described as "attractive, articulate, female -- and single." To be fair, I'm not sure if "articulate" is understood on the east side of the pond to be condescending, and the rest of the story is clearly flattering.
Apart from that the most recent description I could find was in June, where Bobby Welch, the president of the conservative Southern Baptist Convention, said: "We are grateful that we can hear personally from such an articulate spokesperson for our nation. Not only will messengers receive a first-hand report on our nation, but undoubtedly they will be encouraged by Secretary of State Rice's personal journey of faith."
There are earlier references I could easily find but none in 2006.
So apparently it is commentary from conservatives that drives this progressive to, in retaliation, back a conservative political figure.
As a black man, I know exactly what Robinson is talking about. I witnessed this just right before Colin Powell became Secretary of State. Hell, even Chris Rock made a joke about it. From several whites of different political points of view, you would hear "he is so articulate" or "he speaks so well". The same thing happen with Condi Rice and Barack Obama. I have never heard of a white politician being spoke of in this manner.
I have a stronger beef with some Liberal whites. I have been to several liberal blogs (not Media Matters) where they display some of the most racially charge language when they speak of Colin Powell and Condi Rice. It is like since they are Conservatives, they are free to express their racist at full blast. If what I witness was done by Conservatives, it would have been used as an usual to show how racist Conservatives are.
I also have a beef with some Liberal blacks andLiberal whites. I keep hearing this crap about Colin Powell and Condi Rice being put in those positions as tokens to steal the black vote. I don't know about you, but I seriously doubt the President would make Condi the most powerful woman in the world for the sole purpose of pandering to a group of people who are only 12% of the US population. Anyone who believes Colin and Condi are tokens are out of their mind.
I am in complete awe at your apparent selective observational skill. You seem to think that white liberal racism is even comparable to white conservative racism.
Mind-numbingly clueless.
I come to realize a long time ago that there are going to be racist on both sides of the sprectrum. I don't vote based on the ideal that I think one party has less racist than the other. I don't always agree with Republicans, but I think they are the lesser of two evils when it comes to my financial bottom line.
It wasn't fair of me to go ad hominem like I did. I am sorry for that. I should have explained myself much better. I am often frustrated at what appears to me the false equivalency of all racism.
Maybe because I am a white liberal, I was being too sensitive to charges of racism. I do not believe some suggested white liberal racism is as worthy of a "stronger beef" than what I would consider other more dangerous and obvious forms of apparent white conservative racism (e.g. James Earl Ray, black church bombings, etc.).
We can disagree on that.
As for the financial bottom line, my stocks did enormously better under a mixed government headed by Bill Clinton. I suppose that is why I like that form of government best. The stock market under President Bush and near complete Republican control has not done nearly as well to put it mildly.
or white for that matter. because bush has done nothing but cater to the wealthy.
I think that osiris2k5 hit the nail right on the head, and you call him "clueless". What part of "open_mind" did you miss when you chose your handle? Are you trying to tell him that liberals are NOT racist and that because he states "they are" then he is clueless to reality? Wow, no wonder he looks at it from a "bottom line" perspective. He seems to be catching racism at it's worst right here (even though he specifically said he didn't at MMFA).
I deserved much of that. I do agree with much of Osiris's post and should have stated so. I should have also demonstrated where I thought he was being clueless. You are right about that as well.
Although I believe everyone is racist at some level, some forms of racism are more blaring than others:
Lynching was often (if not always) the result of racism. So is calling Condi or Colin Powell a "token" IMO. That doesn't make the racism equal in both cases nor does it constitute reasoning for a "stronger beef with some Liberal whites" for that matter.
That is what I think is clueless about Osiris's post. It struck me as amazing that white liberal racism even compares to the old-timey white conservative racism. We may disagree.
liberals are not racist. many conservatives are. whatever he perceives, if he is who he claims to be, i know what i hear from other whites like me when there are no blacks around. there's a reason ronald reagan made the first campaign stop of his 80 race in philadelphia, mississippi, and called for "states rights". that's where three civil rights workers were killed by the klan in 1964, and the federal government broke the case.
Yes there are some racist white conservatives, but to say that there are no racist liberals is a bold face lie.
to every rule. but liberals support blacks far more than conservatives. it's a fact. you coming on here with some unsubstantiated claims about what you've seen on other websites means nothing. almost every bigoted remark, not just disagreeing politically on something, i have ever heard from people i know, comes from a conservative. the liberals just don't think that way.
...anyone might provide would be anecdotal. Within my own circle of friends, phrases such as "some of my best friends are *insert minority here*, or "there's a difference between blacks and *insert N word* sometimes have been heard. These phrases betray latent racism or prejudice. Even my sister, who is about as liberal as they come (she's a little radical for me, even), has been known to utter the dreaded "N" word, prompting shocked gasps from the rest of us - and she's a social worker helping disadvantaged minority families!!
Are these people bad people for this? Not in general, but to say that they don't have some latent racism or prejudice buried somewhere in their subconscious strains even the most ardent apologist.
Prejudice and racism come from ignorance, which is neither a conservative nor liberal problem. Personally, I agree with Osiris that "articulate" is a seemingly innocuous word used to describe those minority personalities that gain acceptance among the 'majority,' and betrays underlying prejudicial attitudes. Have you ever heard anyone publicly describe any white public figure as 'articulate?'
is the big liberal you claim, if she throws around the n-word.
None of what I said should be construed to say that liberals are just as racist as conservatives, or that 'articulate' is necessarily a racist descriptor when applied to minority personalities. All I'm saying is that my experience is a little different. Plus, I'm a cynic when it comes to racist tendencies among humans in general.
political meetings. I NEVER hear any racist comments and do not believe they would be tolerated. Are there white liberal racists? I am sure there are but have not MET any. By my anecdotal experience I have seen many more racist conservatives than racist liberals, which as yet I have not run across. Perhaps a few I knew were racists in their hearts but they certainly kept it there.
If the intent of your post was to convince, then I suggest a more effective argument would be one that isn't simply demeaning.
I will admit I really didn't make an argument there at all. Just venting. I should have taken the time to expand. I was too hasty.
Although I do agree largely with Osiris's main points, I find it interesting that Osiris has a "stronger beef with some Liberal whites". There is a problem with anecdotes used to support an argument as Osiris uses them. They are often selective and apparently ignore conflicting information, are easily twisted and focus almost entirely on "evidence" that seems to support a particular position. They are also nearly impossible for anyone to verify or refute.
I believe that Osiris's apparent outrage is selective and ignores much of the historical anecdotal evidence of some apparently Conservative whites (e.g. slavery, forced segregation, lynching, Jim Crow, anti-miscegenation laws, etc.) that suggests Osiris's beef is deeply misplaced.
It's no secret that racist White Democratic Southern Conservatives became racist White Republican Conservatives when The Democratic Party became an advocate for EQUAL rights for Blacks back in the sixties. The Republican Party actively recruited these racists, so it's understandable that they would have MORE racists in their party ranks. A few of my fellow AAs don't seem to have an issue with this especially those that are color blind to every color other than the green of money. I guess this is understandable as well if money is the primary motivator in their life. That said I assume that the vast majority of Conservatives are not racist but I sincerely believe that racists feel more comfortable and welcomed in the Pub party, and I would venture to guess that when racists do vote it’s very seldom for the candidate with the D behind his name.
Honestly I've never heard that "they speak so well" line when referring to any black politician. Although I would not doubt it's true.
Also I'm perhaps more critical of black politicians that just want to play the blame game. Or do nothing to help poor, disenfranchised citizens. It's kind of one of those things like, "You were there before, why aren't you stepping up for those who need you now?"
You make a fair point worthy of a fair response. I don't doubt that some use "articulate" as a pejorative term. However, to suggest that all uses of the term with respect to african-american politicians is an undue generalization.
When I speak of Barak Obama as being articulate, I mean that he is articulate. That is, according to Webster,
1c : expressing oneself readily, clearly, or effectively
Some other current articulate politicians that come to mind are Dennis Kucinich and Hillary Clinton. I believe both have been described as articulate.
On the other hand, do I find Ms Rice to be articulate? No, at least not as Secretary of State. While I believe she has the intelligence and education to be articulate, Ms Rice obfuscates far too much in her present job.
One could argue that a greater percentage of black politicians are described as articulate. In addition to Robinson's suggestion, another possibility is that, these individuals do represent the best of the best. They achieved their position as a result of their abililty and effort, not simply as a result of whose son they are, e.g., Bush.
As a final example, I'll mention the late Barbara Jordan. I don't think anyone could argue that she was anything but articulate. In fact, I believe she was perhaps the most articulate politician of her lifetime, and one of the greatest speakers of the 20th Century.
A white politician called articulate???? You MUST be kidding
I personally didn't interpret Robinson's comments the way you did at all. In fact, I thought Robinson made good points, and after all, it was just his opinion based on his feelings and experiences.
"Since when is calling someone 'articulate' code for a black person who speaks standard english?"
In the South at least, since always. One more often hears "he/she speaks so well," but "articulate" is often used too. I've never agreed with him before but Osiris is absolutely right about this. I am a white male who grew up and continues to live in the South and I've heard some formulation of that left-handed compliment more times than I can count. I still hear it regularly, usually applied to a student athlete being interviewed on TV. If he can form a coherent sentence someone has to comment that "he speaks so well." The unspoken second half of that thought is "not like the rest of them." One simply does not hear this applied to whites.
I am actually surprised when ANY student-athlete (notably football players) can form a coherent sentence, White, Black, or other. Don't know if you know this, but their not generally noted for their high-intellect and command of the English language. ;-) Kidding aside...
And I don't really think it's an insult (to her or Blacks in general) to say Rice is articulate... she is! Same with Tony Snow. Same with John Kerry. Same with Tony Blair. Same with Bill Clinton. And many others. All much more so than Bush (whom no one in their right mind would label "articulate"). It is a very accurate word to describe someone who can speak well, and can use language to effectively express his or her points. Rice should just handle all the press conferences.
But hey, it's been awhile since I've been called a racist, so have at it...
I'm just saying that sometimes when an articulate black person is called "articulate," which on its surface is a compliment, it serves to reinforce the notion that blacks in general are not articulate. This may not be the case EVERY time the term is used, but it certainly is the case often. Usually, the signal is that little tone of surprise in the speaker's voice - "she's so articulate!" Or "he speaks so well!"
That's the situation I was referring to, and in my opinion that's what Robinson meant as well.
Yes, it does often appear to be a remark against the rest of the [fill in the blank] community. But often, sometimes it might not be a conscious racist remark. Sometimes when someone you might not think would speak well (like a White redneck hick from Kentucky) is articulate, it just kind of makes you think, "wow, he speaks well." Race isn't the major factor. Oh well... gotta run.
But often, sometimes it might not be a conscious racist remark. Sometimes when someone you might not think would speak well (like a White redneck hick from Kentucky) is articulate, it just kind of makes you think, "wow, he speaks well."
Exactly. And in the situation I'm talking about, and which I believe Robinson is talking about, that "someone you might not think would speak well" is a black person. I note that your equivalent white person example required substantial qualification; just "white person" would be inadequate, so it had to be a "redneck hick from Kentucky." Probably because when a "normal" white person speaks well, it does not bear special notice. Yet for many, when a black person speaks well, it does.
I'm not calling you a racist or trying to start a fight. I do these same things myself sometimes. I agree that it is probably not usually conscious, which I think means it is all the more important to think about and deal with.
I just mean that in reference to the student athletes, not Black people in general. I should have qualified. I expect Black people to speak just as well as Whites. I should have clarified my position from the start. Thanks for pointing out my error.
I was a student athelte, and a good one, and also the editor of our school newspaper
I just meant that that's the situation in which I usually hear the "articulate" description used. I didn't mean to imply that I personally think student athletes are generally inarticulate.
Unbeknownst to you, there are a number of so-called "code words" used in this society to describe certain minorities....should I digress...."a credit to his race, doesn't sound like a black person, sure is athletic"(as opposed to thinking/smart on the field of play)....it could be that you don't encounter these references on a daily basis, but trust me, black folks as well as Hispanics, Asians and by now, I'm sure Arabics endure these descriptions on a regular basis.
So check yourself, my brother.
Gee, I think Robinson is a wishy washy moderate. The streak continues for CBS.
It just show that these networks dont even care about the ratings anymore, its about getting the talking points of the corporate right over the air waves.
Is it really bad to call Condi Rice "Articulate"? I mean, its not a given that because your in the White House you can speak standard English. Look at GWB. We wouldn't call him articulate. We wouldn't say he speaks "standard english" If you work in the White House, don't take it for granted that its patronizing to be called "Articulate". This is not like the coded phrase in football wherein the black quaterback is called a "good athlete" (meaning too dumb to read defenses).
By the way, who are the people that called Condi "Articulate". I have no recollection of any public comment by anyone of importance referring to her as "Articulate" Is Robinson doing one of these Fox News straw man tactics wherein the news readers like Brit Hume and Mike Wallace interject their opinio by covering it up and saying "Some people say..." "There are those that say..."
This was the lamest so-called progressive post on that stupid segment.
A progressive, sure. But look at what he's commenting on. A total nonissue.
Republicans say they are good guys. Let’s examine this admittedly biased, self-serving statement.
Let’s put aside all the Americans who have died in Iraq, Katrina and 9/11. And let’s also continue to forget about the bottom half of this Nation who has not shared in the economic expansion or their productivity increases under W. but instead are beset with daunting healthcare costs and gas prices and minimum wages which haven’t been raised in over a decade thank you very much. Let’s put all those annoying facts out of our heads or better yet blame someone else for all the failures which occurred under their watch – the media, liberals, gays, terrorists etc.
Let’s continue to explain away all that stuff. Let's look instead at something kind of objective. The number of crooks in Republican Administrations versus Democratic Administrations. Let’s review again for our Republican friends how incredibly dishonest Republican Administrations have been starting with Nixon. And we're not just talking lies, we're talking felonies. Lot's of them. In my book, a crooked politician is not a “good guy.” But please feel free to explain how you disagree my Republican friends. Please explain to me how crooked felon politicians are just misunderstood good guys who need to be loved. Anyway, here's the Republican rap sheet, followed by the record of Democratic Administrations (hint- not one conviction since Nixon despite Republican witch hunts):
Nixon was the epitome of a crook caught red handed (please try to deny it, please do my good Republican friends), followed by his VP crony Ford who amazingly gave Nixon a complete free pass to America’s great dismay, followed by a record busting 29 convicted criminals in the Reagan Administration, followed by Bush I giving the Secretary of Defense under Reagan and no less than five other Reagan officials ensnared in the arms to Iran scandal another complete free pass to avoid getting caught himself (sworn testimony from Cap and crew shows that despite bogus denials Bush I knew all about Iran-Contra), followed by W. whose White House Procurement Officer has already gone from the White House to the Big House due to getting wrapped up with none other than Abramoff - the biggest scandal guy since Nixon.
And let’s look at Republicans in Congress today. It’s a veritable “Modern Times” comedy of crimes. Republican leader and Speaker of the House none other than Tom "The Hammer" Delay is on trial for his political life claiming the prosecutor is partisan against him even though the prosecutor has gone after more Democrats than Republicans (something’s not clicking here . . .) Top Republican Bob "The Velvet Hammer" Ney (notice the pattern of criminal gangster names – would be funny if it weren’t so apt) -- another Abramoff pal -- admits to being a dirty guilty felon politician and that all his prior bogus denials and blaming liberals and the media and blah blah blah for his own big “persecution” were just that. The Republican Senate Majority Leader and multi-multi millionaire Bill Frist is under investigation by the SEC and other authorities for insider trading in dumping his family stock to get even more money right before bad insider news broke and otherwise has a terrible record for honesty (happy to get into it if you want to). And that's just the start. To avoid a bad sentence, Republican ringleader of the massive K-Street scandal (yup, it takes a whole block of Republican lobbyists), Abramoff is ratting out lots more Republican pols. And this is not to mention "Scooter" Libby who has been indicted and will stand trial for obstructing justice. Or the illegal wiretapping or torture which is also so misunderstood.
In the meantime, say what you want about the man's effectiveness, but Carter was, is and always will be . . . well let me say something understated that even the extremist Bush Republicans will have a hard time arguing with . . . not a President who broke the law. Clinton was persecuted to the point of impeachment by a Republican controlled House of Representatives over blow jobs -- only to be . . . again let me say something understated even the Bush Republicans will have a hard time arguing with . . . surprise! . . . not convicted. Yes it's innocent until proven guilty for the Republicans of course, if you're innocent like Karl "The Architect" Rove.
You want more criminals in office? Vote Republican. It’s in the bag.
make Rice out to be the victim here?
Starts out with criticism of the Bush administration, until he hears a "racist code word", then wants to defend Rice.
I won't argue either way as to "articulate" being a code word, that's known only to those saying it, and subjective for the rest of us.
I'm pretty entertained by people who have had plenty of PC training, but don't seem to understand racism.Even most old Republicans have learned to say "African-American" ,and "Asian" instead of Oriental, but there seems to be something missing, like somebody who's a really good musician technically, but just doesn't have their heart in it.
These are the people I could imagine saying somebody is articulate, when what they really mean is relatively articulate compared to what their expectations were about that person.
What I hear pretty often on righty radio( Rush is big on this one) are hilarious demonstrations of tokenism,while trying to prove that conservatives can't possibly be racist by running down the list(Rice, Powell, etc.).
It's like they can't even grasp that to the millions of people in the country who are having a rough time of life, pointing out a handful of wealthy, well-connected, powerful people who aren't white men doesn't prove evrything's okie dokie.
I listen to a Christian call-in radio show on my way home from work sometimes, and just today the topic was immigration. A Hispanic caller came on and questioned the host (was he really against Mexican's?)
The host went into a forced- laughing defense that included the old "you can ask friends I've known for 30 years, and they'll tell you I'm not racist", as well as telling the caller that he often preached with a Spanish interpreter, which, he asserted "proved" he wasn't racist.
People are always trying to accuse Conservatives as being racist because they want to put the brakes on loose illegal alien migration. So they flip the script and ask stupid questions like "Do you hate Mexicans?" At that point, the Conservative is accused of being a racist or a possible racist. So what is left to do. The Conservative is on the defensive wasting time trying to prove that they are not racist when the original issue at hand (ILLEGAL immigration) is ignored.
the caller was asking in earnest if he was anti-Mexican.I never implied that the host was, I didn't think he was until he went on the defensive, and "proved" he wasn't.In the "protesting too much" department.
A more reasonable response to the caller would have been "I'm only talking about illegal immigration, not about any particular race".
No need for references or proof.
Starts out as a great Bush bashing piece and then drops the ball on a matter of race. Talk about blowing it.
BUT at least it's a start in the right direction. Glad MMFA is watching CBS as I won't get near that grinning idiot. Ratings in the tank as well. Welcome BACK to third place.
...whether or not Rice is black or female or articulate or likes her drinks shaken rather than stirred. She's an accomplice in what imo is a criminal organization.
" I have been to several liberal blogs (not Media Matters) where they display some of the most racially charge language when they speak of Colin Powell and Condi Rice."
It happens on this very site. I've read things that Michael Savage has said, and then you have liberals come on here and say things that are almost as bad.
I think it's a problem that the left has. Unfortunately, there are people on the left who alienate a lot of people, and it hurts us.
One can go ahead and call someone like Armstrong Williams (using him as an example since he is a conservative) a "house Negro" and "traitor". But then what is a blue-collar, heterosexual, Catholic (non-practicing), white guy like me called who voted for John Kerry? If you really want to get down to it, the red-stater who lives in a trailer and and votes Republican is a traitor. He's a traitor to people of his economic class because he's voting against his self-interests. Hell, he's disenfranchised too, whether he knows it or not.
Guess what people? Whites aren't inherently conservative, and non-whites aren't inherently progressive. I've known a lot of non-whites who were highly religious, racist, sexist, homophobic, materialistic, anti-semitic, and loved their big cars and guns too. They weren't a whole lot different from the "redneck" a lot of people love to hate.
My second year of college, I knew a kid who was an unabashed Republican. He was black. He also came from a much more affluent backgroundf than mine. Was he a traitor because he went against those who shared his shade of pigment, or was he looking out for the interests of his economic class?
...who didn't know that this nightly segment was going to be a waste of time? Did anyone honestly think that CBS was going to have a fair and balanced mix of commentators. Did anyone truly think that this segment was going to feature anything truly provocative?
I mean, don't hold your bowel movement waiting for Arundhati Roy or Noam Chomsky to appear on this show. And I call it a "show" because this 7 P.M. claptrap CBS is putting out isn't the news, and it hasn't been for a long time.
Cogent points. In fact other than the tactics we should use against rightwing hate radio and attacks I usuall agree with you.
It may be that the reason that progressives haven't been on with Katie yet is because it really isn't "Free Speech". According to Bill Maher, Ms. Couric contacted him personally (as I suspect she has everyone who has appeared or will appear in the near future) and asked him if he would like to come on and do this segment. He was delighted until he found out that he couldn't actually talk about what he wanted to talk about, but would have to choose from a list of pre-approved topics that would be vetted and sent to him.
I've been wondering since I heard this if this was just for progressives, for those who might "cause trouble", or for everyone, and what else might be required. Would they have to submit their copy for approval? Would there be edits made by the network? This is my first time here, so I may be telling everyone what they already know.....
If what Bill Maher say is true. I was amazed when they showed Rush Limbaugh. I under the impression that this was going to be a segment I looked forward to. Then when I heard that Bill Maher could not speak about religion, I was disappointed with CBS. As long as any speaker is not using derogatory language, they should be aloud to speak in my opinion.
Agree or disagree, that is what real Free Speech is all about.
I wonder if CBS gave Rush Limbaugh the same deal as Bill Maher. Did CBS give the great Rush "suggested" topics on which to speak or was he given a green light to speak about whatever he wanted? I still think the whole Free Speech segment was nothing more than appeasement of the right wing as part of CBS's attempted "rehabilitation".
what you mean by 'derogatory language'.
I would think that limits their 'free speech'.
I say... Let 'me say what they want. If it is derogatory, they'll be called on it.
I wouldn't want to your average "Crooks and Liars" blogger doing a free speech segment. Have you seen the language on that site?????
Regardless of some of the speech on that particular website, the point of free speech is to not have any restrictions on speech (hence the word "free"). The moment you start deciding what other people should hear in any way, you are censoring that speech.
The supposed point of having free speech is for people to evaluate the points being made (in their totality) on their own merrit.
If someone wants to make a fool of themself, why stop them? That is part of the risk one takes in that enterprise.
I agree. Any conditions on speech is not really "free speech".
Good post.
Finally putting on a Progressive.
Eugene Robinson said it exactly the way it is.
Now they need to put on 9 more. If they dont, get rid of the segment or change the title.
I have always taken the comments about Secretary Rice's ability to articulate a policy or goal for her administration as a back handed slap at the principal spokespersons for the President, and at Bush himself.
This smells like a deliberate move on the part of CBS. The Tiffany network saw a win-win situation here. They could quell the criticism of not having a "progressive" on and at the same time the "progressive" that they have on wouldn't even be that forceful or argue progressive positions with nearly the same force that Limbaugh argues conservative positions. What a joke. 11 days and counting.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
CBS doesn't need to bring on somebody as forceful as say, Mike Malloy or Randi Rhodes, but a firm 'articulate' (pun, my apologies) speaker like Thom Hartman would be ideal. Jim Hightower, Peter Werbe, Rachael Maddow, Chuck D., Steve Earl, Bruce Burch are a few that come to mind as possible guests with strong progressive voices. Outstanding reasonable progressives are abundant and have earned the 'privilege' to speak on the segment.
I don't think it counts to have a liberal whose main message isn't liberal. In the same vein, the non-Limbaugh conservatives fit that category.
This is still the "no speech" segment.
Congratulations, your persistent criticisms of CBS's "Free Speech" program have finally paid off! Up until Robinson's interview, the CBS program was blatantly biased towards the right and gave teh impression of being anything but"free".
Bill Maher was told by CBS what he could and could not say on the Free Speech segment. Rush Limbaugh basically told CBS what he was going to say on the Free Speech segment. Somebody stop this liberal media.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
Rice's "major major" play was in the summer of 2001 when she ignored Richard Clarke and that famous PDB so that her president could enjoy his vacation. Since then her key has been minor minor.