This time, concerning Thursday’s debate: The new Salon seems to have an unending supply of delusional ranking professors.
Yesterday, Professor Richardson spoke up concerning this Thursday night’s debate. She’s a history professor at Boston College.
Below, you see the way she started and ended her piece:
PROFESSOR RICHARDSON (8/2/15): Fox News will air the first Republican presidential debates this week, choosing 10 out of 17 current candidates according to unspecified polls and permitting each candidate just one minute to answer questions. Donald Trump will hold center stage. This scenario, where a TV network calls the shots in a presidential debate and a consummate brand maker is the leading candidate, is the culmination of Movement Conservatism. Politics is no longer about policy or nuance, or even reality. It is simply a storyline designed to appeal to voters’ emotions.Damn that Fox News! Thanks to Fox and Movement Conservatism, “we have reached a point where the first Republican presidential debate will allow only a minute for responses to how a candidate would deal with the most pressing questions in the world.”
In their attempt to honor the American tradition of impartial and fair media, mainstream news channels have worked to give more and more airtime to the Movement Conservative worldview, until we have reached a point where the first Republican presidential debate will allow only a minute for responses to how a candidate would deal with the most pressing questions in the world, and where the leading candidate for the Republican Party’s nomination for president—for the most powerful office in the world—is the ultimate salesman.
Cracker, please! We reached that point a long time ago. It wasn’t the doing of Fox.
Do our scholars ever actually watch our presidential debates? Increasingly, we find ourselves forced to wonder.
Let's start with a bit of background:
Within our varied American history, “minutemen” have been hailed on the battlefield. Then again, they’ve been deplored in the bedroom.
On Thursday night, at least ten candidates will be reduced to “minute men” for the course of two hours. But the practice hardly started with Fox or with Movement Conservatism.
Here’s Chris Matthews, stating the ground rules for an early Republican debate in the Campaign 2008 cycle. MSNBC was in charge:
MATTHEWS (5/3/07): We have a few ground rules to go through. Our debate will last ninety minutes with no commercial breaks.Ten candidates stood on the stage that night. Under MSNBC’s ground rules, they would only get thirty seconds for some of their deathless replies!
I’ll be the official moderator and decide the subjects and order of the questions. John Harris, the editor in chief of Politico.com, also will ask questions.
Also tonight, you the viewer can visit Politico.com and vote for questions to be asked of the candidates. Jim Vandehei, executive editor of Politico.com, will coordinate and ask your questions
On the questions John and I ask, the candidates will have sixty seconds to respond. A yellow light will warn them when they have fifteen seconds left.
When time is up, the light will flash red.
If I determine that a rebuttal is necessary, that candidate will have thirty seconds.
For the on-line questions that Jim asks, answers are thirty seconds, with 30-second rebuttals if necessary.
To watch that debate, click this. Without question, C-Span rules!
In fairness, Matthews and MSNBC didn’t invent this “minute person” approach. Here’s CNN’s Judy Woodruff, reading the rules before a Republican debate in December 1999, part of the Campaign 2000 cycle:
WOODRUFF (12/6/99): My CNN colleagues and I will focus our questions on three issues which are important to the public and the presidency: raising and educating children; taxes and government spending; and international affairs and national security.Candidate Bauer took less than a minute for that first response! To watch that debate, click here.
Now the candidates did not know until just now which issues would be addressed. They will be questioned individually on each of those topics and have one minute to respond.
Now, Candy Crowley has the first question for Gary Bauer on the subject of raising and educating children.
CROWLEY: Good evening, Mr. Bauer.
BAUER: Hi, Candy.
To the professor, it may seem silly to turn the candidates into modern-day minute men. That said, if she’d ever watched a primary presidential debate, she might know her history better.
At the new Salon, they seem to have these fiery professors up the proverbial yin-yang. This was once the way “movement conservatives” worked.
Now, we play this way too.
Recalling Doris Kearns Goodwin: Remember when Doris Kearns Goodwin spoke with Imus, the morning after, to analyze one of the Bush-Kerry debates in 2004?
She admitted that she hadn't exactly watched the debate. She said she had been having a party to watch the Red Sox in the World Series, so she hadn't exactly watched the event on which she commented anyhoo.
If memory serves, she rattled some rather Bush-friendly points that day. The game was still being played that way at the time.
The whole fine mess can be found within our incomparable archives. Does anyone in our finer classes actually watch these events?
DKG admitted she hadn't actually written "The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys" as she was too busy plagiarizing the work of Lynne McTaggart.ReplyDelete
cicero was alive when he got his trophies for participating in kiddie sports. They were copies of original trophies given out in a more competitive time, probably made of plastic, and in a substandard wage nation other than the U.S.Delete
Like Donald Trump's clothing line, they may have been made in China.
HRC presented one of those made in China Trump trophies to Chelsea for being the ultimate Tiger Mom daughter.Delete
I am glad Blogger Somerby misrepresented what Professor (few have first names) Richardson said.ReplyDelete
"Thanks to Fox and Movement Conservatism, “we have reached a point where the first Republican presidential debate will allow only a minute for responses to how a candidate would deal with the most pressing questions in the world.”
Cracker, please! We reached that point a long time ago. It wasn’t the doing of Fox."
Except Heather Cox Richardson did not blame Fox for the one minute rule, nor did she suggest it was a recent phenomenon.
Blogger Somerby. A Real Piece of Work.
First she says:Delete
"This scenario, where a TV network calls the shots in a presidential debate and a consummate brand maker is the leading candidate, is the culmination of Movement Conservatism. "
Then she says:
"In their attempt to honor the American tradition of impartial and fair media, mainstream news channels have worked to give more and more airtime to the Movement Conservative worldview, until we have reached a point where the first Republican presidential debate will allow only a minute for responses to how a candidate would deal with the most pressing questions in the world"
She says that because the mainstream media has worked to give more airtime to movement conservatism, candidates now get 1 minute to explain their views. She mentions Fox explicitly in her first sentence, as the perpetrators of the 1 minute rule in the upcoming debate.
Unless you do not consider Fox part of the mainstream media and do not consider that Fox has been trying to further movement conservatism, Somerby is correct in his paraphrase of what Richardson said.
You are the main piece of work here. You quibble over a small point and seem unable to follow the chain of logic in a series of statements and somehow think that because all the words don't appear in a single sentence, exactly as Richardson said them, Somerby has misquoted her. Language doesn't work like that. Most people can follow ideas -- you cannot. If you weren't obviously brain damaged, I would use harsher words to condemn your constant attacks on Somerby, utterly devoid of content and an impediment to thoughtful discussion.
Correction -- the last paragraph should say "Somerby has incorrectly paraphrased her" not "misquoted her".Delete
[QUOTE] [my emphasis] Fox News will air the first Republican presidential debates this week, choosing 10 out of 17 current candidates according to unspecified polls and permitting each candidate just one minute to answer questions. Donald Trump will hold center stage....
In their attempt to honor the American tradition of impartial and fair media, mainstream news channels have worked to give more and more airtime to the Movement Conservative worldview, until we have reached a point where the first Republican presidential debate will allow only a minute for responses to how a candidate would deal with the most pressing questions in the world, and where the leading candidate for the Republican Party’s nomination for president—for the most powerful office in the world—is the ultimate salesman. [END QUOTE]
2:05 PM you're right to say she did not suggest it was a recent phenomenon, Richardson is suggesting it will be an upcoming phenomenon.
"If you weren't obviously brain damaged, I would use harsher words to condemn your constant attacks on Somerby, utterly devoid of content and an impediment to thoughtful discussion."Delete
Always great to read a Bobfan so desperately searching for "thoughtful discussion."
KZ writes these endless attacks and he is literally impaired. He needs to find some other form of occupational therapy.Delete
My, what an interesting set of Bob defenses from people who clearly cannot see Mr. Somerby does exactly what he claims the mainstream media does to dumb lazy liberals.Delete
Somerby uses exactly two paragraphs from Richardson's article. The first, and the last, then he disappears the rest.
In the opening paragraph Richardson mentions Fox in the first sentence in which she makes a factual statement. Any Bob reader wish to challenge the accuracy of that sentence or somehow say it implies any blame for anything? It states a fact. The second sentence is a fact. The third and forth sentences set forth the premise of her article which Somerby deletes. Anyone see Fox mentioned?
In the body of her article she goes back to the 1950's and moves forward over a 65 year span.
The final paragraph, after the case she makes (or in my opinion doesn't make credibly), she closes with again a statement of fact. She doesn't mention Fox at all or suggest getting one minute bites of a candidate's views is something new. It is the culmination of a point she says we have reached over the long period she described.
The blame of Fox comes from the mind of Bob Somerby. Its repetition in the comment box proves the accuracy of one assertion Somerby makes. If his readers are representative of liberals they are indeed dumb and lazy and tribal in defense of he who leads them.
Meanwhile our "he of the multiple names and no name" is in the habit of quoting part of an Al Gore sentence claiming the segment provides all the necessary context to explain why George W. Bush was the people's choice in 2000 and why the Howler doesn't get as many clicks as RedState.Delete
This was quite a two-fer for Bob. He got to take shots at two women professors, one of whom has not even authored as many books as Somerby has written chapters.ReplyDelete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
I can't speak for all women, but I prefer a minuteman. As long as it is preceded by a long amount of foreplay. Then a short pounding is perfect. Many of us do not enjoy an endless invasion of our queendom, especially since we are well aware that often our partner is just struggling with finding the right fantasy to put him over the edge.ReplyDelete
If you're female, I'm an aardvark.Delete
Men just want to feel the Bern.Delete
I've long suspected aardvarks were commenting hereunder.Delete
The disbelief in female commenters on the Somerby site continues. (Female speaking.)
Spoken like a real live Gone-Girl style "cool" girl, or a guy with an obvious fantasy.Delete
Recalling Bob Somerby: Remember when Bob Somerby felt it appropriate to take a cheap shot at someone with enough connection to a post to get a false dig in?ReplyDelete
Let's see. Doris Kearns Goodwin.
Presidential Debates. Check
Lazy liberal readers Won't Really Check the Archives: Oops!
Today: "She admitted that she hadn't exactly watched the debate."
" she said she had only watched parts of last night’s debate because she was watching the Red Sox instead." 10/14/04
"But what was the essential fact about her performance on Imus? Simple! She hadn’t actually watched the debate! 10/15/04
"Goodwin hadn’t quite watched the debate" 2/12/09
See the memory of Bob at work? She hadn't quite watched, only watched parts, hadn't actually watched, hadn't exactly watched the debate.
Goodwin, for the record, said she watched most of the debate. What she actually did was say something bad on Imus about Gore.
Please quote from the Imus transcript where Goodwin says she watched most of the debate. Somerby provides wuotes and links. If you are going to challenge him, you need to provide evidence. If you cannot do that, shut up.Delete
How to respond to a rude commenter who tells you to "shut up" if you can't "please quote" from the Imus transcript, and provide links like "Somerby provides."Delete
1) Somerby has no links in the section of this post referencing Goodwin on Imus. I had to do the work myself. I at least gave you have the dates. Do the rest of the work yourself.
2) None of the quotes in my comment come from Goodwin because quotes of her are not linked by Bob Somerby to an Imus transcript. Since he characterized her comments on this and other matters so many different ways in the posts I read I do not trust his supposed direct quotes as accurate.
3) I wrote my comment exactly as Somerby seems to have written his posts on the topic. I went to the source material, selected that which seems to make my point and then expressed my opinion. In fact, that is what Goodwin was doing on Imus. If you would like to go review the sources and come back and express a different opinion, please feel free to do so.
Unlike many Somerby fans do when encountering an opinion different than theirs, or which might cast a leader/member of their tribe in a bad light, I don't tell others to shut up. I encourage further dialogue. As Somerby always sounds like he might be suggesting.
Literal as always. Most of the terms used by Somerby are synonyms or closely similar in meaning. Only you would think that because he used slightly different language each time, he was saying something entirely different each time.Delete
You admit that you don't know how much of the debates Goodwin watched and you cannot support your claim that she watched most of the debate.
So, shut up. You don't have any support for your criticism. Plus, you are annoying other people here with your repetitious garbage -- which is always similarly lacking in any substance except your subtext of "Somerby is a doo-doo head." You aren't expressing an opinion -- you are making shit up and that is not something that deserves to be treated politely.
Plagiarist. Check please.Delete
What a lazy response @ 1:26.Delete
Oh, but you did mention synonyms. Here are a couple to help you in further fights against literalism.
From Thesaurus.com Create: initiate, invent
gerund or present participle: inventing
create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of.
"he invented an improved form of the steam engine"
synonyms: originate, create, design, devise, contrive, develop, innovate; More
make up (an idea, name, story, etc.), especially so as to deceive. "I did not have to invent any tales about my past"
That final sentence was highlighted in case future Presidential candidates are reading and can see what happens when someone other than a literalist gets to playing with synonyms.
We're not a member of the finer classes, but we did watch the Republican candidates forum (not a debate) in New Hampshire on Cspan tonight. In his last segment, Lindsey Graham seemed drunk, unable to form coherent sentences. He finally gave up on arranging prepositions and verbs properly and said something different.ReplyDelete
The candidate who seemed most impressive to us was John Kasich; still, we wouldn't vote for him, being Democrats ourselves. Kasich was the only one who made reference to the poor and mentally ill being segments of the population that shouldn't be overlooked. Again, we wouldn't vote for him. But we agreed with his point, a point of view also shared by Jesus.
Cet article semble être en négligeant le fait que l'information est un produit vendable et l'altruisme est un mauvais deuxième au commerce, en particulier dans le domaine de la santé. La recherche génétique peut être un exercice totalement fascinant pour ceux qui sont impliqués, mais il va vraiment fournir des avantages réalistes?ReplyDelete
tai anh dep Kizi200 game hay game vui game moi nhat
Ceci est un espace de charme incroyable. Magnifiquement fait. Je eu l'occasion de faire un stage avec Liz et elle est absolument incroyable! Je vous aime tous de son travail!
holbrook oakley oakley sunglasses sale oakley sale oakleys cheap cheap oakleys sunglasses fake oakleys buy cheap oakleys cheap oakleys glasses fake oakley sunglasses http://www.oakleysunglassesoh.com discount oakley sunglasses cheap oakley sunglasses cheap oakleys oakleys cheap buy cheap oakleys cheap oakleys glasses fake oakley sunglasses cheap oakleys sunglasses oakley outlet oakley store ray ban sunglasses ray ban wayfarer ray ban glasses ray ban aviators ray ban clubmaster ray ban eyeglasses ray ban outlet ray bans sunglassesReplyDelete
Are you in need of Loan? Here all problem regarding Loans is solve between a short period of time what are you waiting for apply now and solve your problem or start a business with funds Contact us now. many more 2% interest rate.(Whats App) number +919394133968 email@example.comReplyDelete