Drums along the NewsHour!


Kevin Drum gets it right: Darlings, it simply isn’t done. But so what? Kevin Drum did it!

Breaking every rule in the book, Drum criticized a ranking player by name. The name was “Judy Woodruff.”

What Drum did was very simple and very basic. You’d think it would occur all the time. But career liberal players just love kissing keister. They put their own career interests light-years ahead of your interests.

Our side doesn’t name-call big names when they make mistakes.

The background:

Woodruff failed to challenge Herman Cain during a recent interview—and in fact, she should have done so. No, it wasn’t the end of the world. But so what? Drum challenged her by name in this post—put her name right in his headline, in fact. And then, omigod! A day or do later, he name-called Woodruff again!

Go ahead—click those links. Your side never does this.

Everyone understands the problem which arises because our side doesn’t do this. People like Woodruff are constantly yelled at by various kooks on the right. But they never heard a word from our side. Our comity-obsessed careerists are too busy trying to score a guest spot on the career-building NewsHour.

We all know how that game turns out. But go ahead—just click those links and read what Drum wrote.

Your side simply never does this. It’s amazing how rare it is to read posts like the posts Drum wrote.

A paid career player drummed on the NewsHour. This is never done!


  1. You keep using the phrase, "our side", and I think I'm supposed to be on that side, but I don't want Kevin Drum to be on my team.

    Drum may be willing to name a paid career payer by name . . . when he's defending the Democratic party. I'm all for pushing back against lies and calling people out. But I simply don't trust partisan players and Drum cares more about protecting the Democratic party than he cares about pursuing truth and justice.

    So no. I won't click the links. I'm sure it's a well-written take down (Drum was the first political blogger I was interested in about 10 years ago). But I've moved on and have no patience for "liberals" that blindly serve a conservative neoliberal party.--no matter the cost

  2. Isn't it at least a possibility that Judy didn't "know" the facts herself?

    That when Cain blundered, Judy was thinking "They DO have nukes! Don't they?? Oh god, I can't seem an idiot! Moving on..."

  3. Walter Mitt Man is confusing the actual Kevin Drum with somebody he made up to fit some pleasing narrative.

    And really, Bob, if Drum is a "career liberal player," the phrase has no meaning.

    He's a guy of more or less center-left instincts who's been hanging out in his home in SoCal for many years now reading and writing and trying to make sense of how the world works. As far as I'm aware, he's been on the TV exactly once and does not write op-eds and guest columns and all the rest, just his blog and the occasional long feature piece for the magazine.

  4. gyrfalcon,

    I said Drum is naming "paid career players" by name, not that he's a liberal career player (but he is somewhat of a player). He's calling the players out. I borrowed the phrase "paid career players" from Bob. That's his formulation. And I agree with him that Drum did a good thing here by calling these big time players, like Woodruff, out.

    But Drum does have a relatively big soap box. He's not in the big leagues . . . but he's probably triple A and influential with a critical section of liberals.

    Like I said. I used to read him and think he's a good writer and I do agree he's trying to "make sense of how the world works." But I can't stand to read him now because there is a fundamental flaw in his worldview--his support and allegiance to the Democratic party. It blinds him from the truth--no matter how clearly he sees other things. Krugman suffers the same problem. These are not impartial analysts--these are Democratic partisans--and as such their writing is nonsensical because they promote liberal ideas yet support a conservative neoliberal party.

  5. To be fair, Jim Lehrer would not have caught that either.

  6. I wonder why the players here, big and small, bother with Judy Woodruff at all, or anyone on the NewsHour for that matter. It's one of the few places to go for a serious treatment of the news. Attacking their flaws seems niggling to me. Even if you detect ideological confusion there, it seems a more concerning matter that you would ban them from your world, thus denying yourself the copious amounts of information they offer. Surely, bright as you all are, you can disentangle their motives from their product and enrich yourself with the latter. Now someone like Chris Matthews - all motives, all self-directed, and no substance. A worthy target.


  7. Or more likely, Woodruff was just making sure her next question was ready and that her "I'm listening" face was correct.

    Sure, it's possible she didn't know. In which case, maybe she shouldn't be asking presidential candidates their views on matters she doesn't even have basic familiarity with.

  8. Very witty, Mr. Blaze. No doubt you would make a wonderful newsperson. Try it.


  9. The trouble here is that a "trouble-making" reporter -- i.e., an investigative reporter,concerned with truth -- would never ascend to the Judy Woodruff position. Woodruff is considered a "host", not a reporter, and the flakes and the pols are, in turn, her guests. They go on the show on the expectation that they won't face "hostile" (read: skeptical) questions and they're never disappointed.

    Yeah, Cain is running for president, and if he's unaware that China has had the Bomb for many years, it should be newsworthy, but there's such a thing as decorum! This is what passes for civility and balance on PBS.