| |||
|
Showing posts with label Talk/Talk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Talk/Talk. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Talk Talk: You Can't Get There From Here
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Talk Talk: Doing Nothing
| |||||
|
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Talk Talk: Paradigm or Pause
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Every weekend CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, January 4, 2009 after watching selections from "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," "Hardball with Chris Matthews" and "The McLaughlin Group."
Salit: When I first posed Chris Matthews' question to you – is this a paradigm shift or just a pause? – you said that the paradigm shift has already happened.
Newman: Yes.
Salit: So, what are the characteristics of that paradigm shift?
Newman: The world is not uni-polar or even bi-polar. It's multi-polar. There are a lot of powerful countries – China, India, Brazil, etc. And they're starting to relate differently. They're not relating to one common center or to a bi-polar power dynamic, like the U.S./Soviet Union. They're relating more directly to each other. In that kind of world, there's a pressing need to discover what shape things are going to take…economically, socially, politically, diplomatically. Countries all over the world are struggling with that, to figure out what they would like to see emerge and whether they can effect it. And, if they can't effect their ultimate design, then what can they effect? That's what's going on in the world.
Continue reading Talk Talk here.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Talk Talk: Tragic Figures
Salit: And the Detroit bailout. The Senate failed to reach an agreement, so the deal fell apart in Congress. The White House is going to make some kind of move. On the Lehrer NewsHour, David Brooks and Mark Shields got into a more heated fight than they typically do.
Newman: The class war. (Talk Talk)
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Talk Talk: Bail Out Philanthropy
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, Bail Out Philanthropy. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, December 7, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show", Meet the Press and several Charlie Rose Interviews.
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, Bail Out Philanthropy. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, December 7, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show", Meet the Press and several Charlie Rose Interviews.
Newman: I think Obama believes that the relevant mindset here is the mindset of the American people, and that he won dramatically enough to have that be the determining mindset. And so his appointees will be taking on the positions of the American people. That is how he succeeds, it's how he pulls all of this off.
Salit: In a sense, that's what Chris Matthews was asking his panelists. What kind of room does he have to maneuver? John Heilemann says there are big problems to deal with but he had a big win. That gives him room.
Newman: Yes. And the assumption built in there is that his election represents more than just a normal election.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Talk Talk: Team of Obamaists
Newman: I don't think Obama's going to fall into that trap. He's looking to do things that the American people think are working. He's considering some different kinds of things, and that's fine, because he just got elected president.
Salit: As you said, George Bush and the neo-cons were highly ideological. They developed policy approaches that reflected an ideology, not a pragmatic framework for dealing with the situation in the Middle East, responding to terrorism, etc. So, the American people say Well, we reject ideology in favor of pragmatism. We think Obama can deliver that. And, we'd like to see pragmatism delivered by somebody with a progressive world view.
Newman: Well, I don't know if I agree with that formulation. I don't know that the American people are making that kind of inference.
Salit: OK.
Newman: I think they're saying something closer to wanting the American Idea to be more palatable. They'd rather we're not just the place where all the troops come from. We'd be better off having other ways to assert our leadership internationally.....
From IndependentVoting.org TEAM OF OBAMAISTS
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, November 23, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Talk/Talk: The Fly Bottle
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, November 16, 2008 The Fly Bottle after watching "The McLaughlin Group," "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
Salit: Yikes, what a mess. There are a lot of things that aren't working...... Do you think the American people voted for change with a capital "C"?
Newman: You might say that or you might say they voted, at least in substantial measure, to get rid of the people and/or the approach which got us into this disaster. Which is not necessarily the same thing as voting for change with a capital "C."
Salit: OK.
Newman: The American people are saying, if you listen to them carefully: We've gotten into this trouble before. And we've gotten out of it.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: After all, there's something potentially conservative in the vote for Obama. It could be interpreted to mean that many Americans think we've been excessive in the way we have characteristically dealt with economic crises, as in extreme deregulation vs. dramatic welfare statism, and that what we really have to do is something more ordinary, rather than excessive. Some people might argue there's a third camp.
Salit: A third camp?
Newman: The third camp being to find a clear workable, pragmatic distinction between a conservative and a much more liberal approach. Is there one? It's not clear that there is....
Read more of Talk Talk here.
Also read Jacqueline Salit's Barack Obama: The Real Deal, or Just Another Democrat? in the Neo-Independent Magazine
Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, November 16, 2008 The Fly Bottle after watching "The McLaughlin Group," "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
Salit: Yikes, what a mess. There are a lot of things that aren't working...... Do you think the American people voted for change with a capital "C"?
Newman: You might say that or you might say they voted, at least in substantial measure, to get rid of the people and/or the approach which got us into this disaster. Which is not necessarily the same thing as voting for change with a capital "C."
Salit: OK.
Newman: The American people are saying, if you listen to them carefully: We've gotten into this trouble before. And we've gotten out of it.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: After all, there's something potentially conservative in the vote for Obama. It could be interpreted to mean that many Americans think we've been excessive in the way we have characteristically dealt with economic crises, as in extreme deregulation vs. dramatic welfare statism, and that what we really have to do is something more ordinary, rather than excessive. Some people might argue there's a third camp.
Salit: A third camp?
Newman: The third camp being to find a clear workable, pragmatic distinction between a conservative and a much more liberal approach. Is there one? It's not clear that there is....
Read more of Talk Talk here.
Also read Jacqueline Salit's Barack Obama: The Real Deal, or Just Another Democrat? in the Neo-Independent Magazine
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Talk/Talk: No Drama Obama
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, No Drama Obama. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, November 9, 2008 after watching "The McLaughlin Group", "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
Newman: If I'm going to try to take that question seriously, I'd have to say that the American people weren't "saying" anything.
Salit: They weren't saying anything. What were they doing?
Newman: They were voting for Barack Obama, very passionately, and in such a way that translated into an electoral college victory. That's what the American people do in any presidential election. That will have to be enough.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, No Drama Obama. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, November 9, 2008 after watching "The McLaughlin Group", "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
Newman: If I'm going to try to take that question seriously, I'd have to say that the American people weren't "saying" anything.
Salit: They weren't saying anything. What were they doing?
Newman: They were voting for Barack Obama, very passionately, and in such a way that translated into an electoral college victory. That's what the American people do in any presidential election. That will have to be enough.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Talk/Talk: What Crashed?
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, What Crashed?. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, October 12, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show", "The McLaughlin Group" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
Salit: So, what "crashed" - on this view - is the relationship between the activity of the financial markets and the "real" growth of the economy.
Newman: That gap just got stretched out too far. This is perhaps a simple-minded characterization, but it seems to me that Wall Street is supposed to maintain some degree of balance or concern, even in a self-regulatory way, between how it's creating wealth and how the society overall is creating value.
Salit: But they didn't.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, What Crashed?. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, October 12, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show", "The McLaughlin Group" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
Salit: So, what "crashed" - on this view - is the relationship between the activity of the financial markets and the "real" growth of the economy.
Newman: That gap just got stretched out too far. This is perhaps a simple-minded characterization, but it seems to me that Wall Street is supposed to maintain some degree of balance or concern, even in a self-regulatory way, between how it's creating wealth and how the society overall is creating value.
Salit: But they didn't.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Talk/Talk: Socialism! Help Me!
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, Socialism! Help Me! Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, September 28, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show," "Meet the Press", "The McLaughlin Group" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Salit: Since we're talking about introducing the word "socialism" into the public lexicon, I was struck by the range of reactions on The McLaughlin Group. McLaughlin asks Monica Crowley, the Wall Street conservative, about the bailout. 'Is this socialism?' he says. She's for it and she responds. But she doesn't use the word "socialism." Instead, she gives a description of the intervention. Then, a few minutes later, McLaughlin asks Mort Zuckerman, 'Is this socialism?' Zuckerman won't use the word either. He gives another description of the intervention. Finally, Rich Lowry of The National Review says, 'Hey, it's a socialistic style intervention to save capitalism.'
Newman: I'm always cautious about agreeing with something in which the key phrase to characterize the something is a "style." I don't think it's a style. And it's not as if the U.S. government hasn't been a major financial player in other situations, not to mention the extent to which that's true internationally. Socialism is a real thing. So, of course, is capitalism. The problem, from my point of view, lies in the fact that most everybody insists that those two things have to be understood as virtual opposites. And they're not, given the size of the world, the nature of the world, the shape of the world.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, Socialism! Help Me! Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, September 28, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show," "Meet the Press", "The McLaughlin Group" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Salit: Since we're talking about introducing the word "socialism" into the public lexicon, I was struck by the range of reactions on The McLaughlin Group. McLaughlin asks Monica Crowley, the Wall Street conservative, about the bailout. 'Is this socialism?' he says. She's for it and she responds. But she doesn't use the word "socialism." Instead, she gives a description of the intervention. Then, a few minutes later, McLaughlin asks Mort Zuckerman, 'Is this socialism?' Zuckerman won't use the word either. He gives another description of the intervention. Finally, Rich Lowry of The National Review says, 'Hey, it's a socialistic style intervention to save capitalism.'
Newman: I'm always cautious about agreeing with something in which the key phrase to characterize the something is a "style." I don't think it's a style. And it's not as if the U.S. government hasn't been a major financial player in other situations, not to mention the extent to which that's true internationally. Socialism is a real thing. So, of course, is capitalism. The problem, from my point of view, lies in the fact that most everybody insists that those two things have to be understood as virtual opposites. And they're not, given the size of the world, the nature of the world, the shape of the world.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Talk/Talk: The (Real) Bloomberg Story
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, THE (REAL) BLOOMBERG STORY. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, September 21, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show," "Meet the Press" and "The McLaughlin Group."
Newman: OK. But everybody knows that. The issue is how you get there. How? With more democracy. By bringing more people into the process. You see, that's actually the Mike Bloomberg story. Unfortunately, he doesn't tell it.
Salit: Nobody does. Except us.
Newman: That's right. Now, what is that story? It's the story of how 59,000 votes on the Independence Party line in 2001 made him mayor of New York City.
Salit: It's the story of how he had to turn to the independents to give him his margin of victory.
Newman: A new political force, brought in by an expansion of democracy, put him in office. And that's the very point. When you bring the people in, when you expand democracy, they make the right choice. In a very partisan town, we elected a nonpartisan mayor. And he's been a very good mayor, because he's not a partisan. But today Bloomberg won't tell the story of how he got elected.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
And catch a glimpse of the independent Mike Bloomberg at the top of The Hankster -- Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Keynote speech at the New York City Independence Party's 2004 Anti-Corruption Award dinner.
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, THE (REAL) BLOOMBERG STORY. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, September 21, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show," "Meet the Press" and "The McLaughlin Group."
Newman: OK. But everybody knows that. The issue is how you get there. How? With more democracy. By bringing more people into the process. You see, that's actually the Mike Bloomberg story. Unfortunately, he doesn't tell it.
Salit: Nobody does. Except us.
Newman: That's right. Now, what is that story? It's the story of how 59,000 votes on the Independence Party line in 2001 made him mayor of New York City.
Salit: It's the story of how he had to turn to the independents to give him his margin of victory.
Newman: A new political force, brought in by an expansion of democracy, put him in office. And that's the very point. When you bring the people in, when you expand democracy, they make the right choice. In a very partisan town, we elected a nonpartisan mayor. And he's been a very good mayor, because he's not a partisan. But today Bloomberg won't tell the story of how he got elected.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
And catch a glimpse of the independent Mike Bloomberg at the top of The Hankster -- Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Keynote speech at the New York City Independence Party's 2004 Anti-Corruption Award dinner.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Talk/Talk: What Obama Should Do Now
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, September 14, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." Due to technical difficulties, the entire Talk Talk is printed below and is not available on www.independentvoting.org at this time.
Salit: Suppose we take a stab at unpackaging a question that everybody was talking about on the talk shows this morning. Is the Obama camp having trouble handling Sarah Palin?
Newman: Sarah Palin is not running for President of the United States, but for vice president. Does her selection have to be "handled?" Yes. It was a historic event. The Republicans put a woman on the ticket. If I were Obama's advisor I would say make the response tedious. Say Congratulations to the Republican Party for being the second major political party to nominate a woman as vice president.
Salit: And ...
Newman: And that's the end of it. It reminds the public that the Democratic Party nominated the first African American and that's a good thing. Now, says Obama, Let's talk about the American people and our policies. Let's talk about John McCain and our two parties. As I've said for a long time, the Democrats win if they can make this into a party election. The Republican Party has been in power for the last eight years and the American people don't like what they've done with it. End of story. You have to reduce Sarah Palin to the insignificance of the vice presidency.
Salit: Alright. So, how close to that did they get?
Newman: Oh, I don't know what the measure is. It's hard to say. That's going to be decided by what happens in the next few weeks.
Salit: When Chris Matthews asked the Matthews Meter question, "Who won the week - Obama or McCain?" they said McCain, 11-1. I would have answered "Obama." And the reason I would have answered Obama is that, in large measure, all you could do this week was let the Palin thing play out. It was going to be the headliner no matter what. It's the week after the Republican Convention, and she is a woman and she is a new face. Sometimes you just have to let the other side make their play.
Newman: I think who won the week was Palin.
Salit: OK. How did you react to the Charlie Gibson interview with Palin?
Newman: As an interview. It was just another interview of a newcomer onto the national stage.
Salit: On "The Chris Matthews Show" it was reported, not a big revelation here, that numbers of people in the Democratic Party, meaning within the political class in the Democratic Party ...
Newman: Yes...
Salit: ...are concerned that Obama has "lost some of his fire." They say he had his voice when he was running against the Clintons. He had a passion. He was on message. He was sharp. He had a drive that matched the moment. Now, having won that, having beaten the Clintons, having gotten the nomination, and now being up against McCain, he doesn't seem to have that same passion or that precision of message. Is that a fair characterization? Or is it just the anxieties of the Democrats as we move into the final seven weeks of the campaign for the presidency?
Newman: I'd approach this as a psychotherapist for a moment. Who are you ultimately going to be more passionately fired up in opposition to - if you're in opposition at all? Your family? Your mother who raised you? Or someone you've been dating for a week and a half?
Salit: Your family.
Newman: Of course. And, it's a good thing that he's more passionate in his opposition to the Democratic Party. The corruption that you have to defeat first has to be the corruption of your own party. That's what really shows some courage. Running against Clinton was enormously courageous.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: Running against McCain inspires less passion. McCain isn't Bush. He's just an extension of Bush.
Salit: Right.
Newman: Palin isn't on her own. She's just an extension of McCain.
Salit: Right.
Newman: So, there's going to be a difference, not only in the degree of passion, but in the kind of passion. Real courage was required in taking on the Clintons and the entire Democratic machine. Obama passed that test. It's relatively easy to criticize the Republican Party, as even McCain is trying to project. The whole of the American people are against the Republican machine. Now, have McCain and Palin gone up against the Republican Party? No. In fact, McCain has totally tailored his positions, totally remade himself to be more of a regular Republican.
Salit: That's the 2008 John McCain.
Newman: That's where he's caved. That's what he's caved on. In 2000, he ran against Bush and said I'm not a regular Republican. He lost that fight. Now, he's a regular Republican, with an occasional maverick sound bite. And for all of her outsider gloss, Palin is following his lead. She is a regular Republican, too.
Salit: That's not what you'd call a profile in courage.
Newman: No, that's a profile, somewhere between changing your mind and rank opportunism.
Salit: OK.
Newman: If that were properly presented, Obama would diminish McCain's maverick appeal. Now, the reason Obama's hesitant to take that on, of course, is he doesn't want to offend the regular Democrats who make up a portion of his base.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: But, I still think there's a way of doing that.
Salit: Break it down for me.
Newman: There's a way of saying this which glorifies the Democrats. Obama says, Look, our party knew that we had to go through a very difficult but clarifying process if we were going to be prepared to take on the presidency. We did that. It was very difficult. And I know some people felt their toes were stepped on. But we took that on and thanks to the independents who backed us, and thanks to our ranks, and thanks the younger generation, we cleaned up our house.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: And we will finish that job. The Republicans never cleaned house. They're not willing to step out and say, in general, we've done a disastrous job, although it's apparent that they have done a disastrous job. The American people know that. So, if you want to consider who has genuinely taken on their party, look at that. That's my record, says Barack. I led the way in that. John McCain tried to take on his own party in 2000 and he failed. I tried in 2008 and I succeeded.
Salit: I think it works. And my prediction is that McCain's going to try to make that a topic in the first debate coming up in two weeks.
Newman: How?
Salit: Because his only hope of winning is to claim the mantle of the insurgent. That's why his convention speech was 'I've stood up to the Republican Party. The Republican Party lost the trust of the American people. I've stood up to the anti-change forces.'
Newman: Well, if I were Obama, I'd say John, that's what you did in 2000 and you got beaten. Now you've remade yourself. You're a regular Republican who supports the policies of George W. Bush. You didn't change your party, your party changed you. I changed my party. I succeeded where you failed. And that's why I'm more qualified to be president. Because the American people want change. And I have a record of change.
Salit: Here's how I would characterize the debate within the Democratic Party about how to handle this very dynamic. I think there is a strong constituency inside the Democratic Party for Obama to simply hammer at what you might call "the issues." John McCain is tied to George Bush. George Bush ran the war. George Bush ran the economy into the ground. Ordinary Americans are suffering for lack of health care, for lack of jobs, from poor education, from a lack of affordable housing, and so forth. We're not competitive in the world. The Democratic Party is going to change that. In effect, Fred, I would say, their argument is to skip over the point that you're making here about Obama having taken on his party, taken on the establishment, taken a risk and gone through that process, and having the party come together around that. This other strategy that I'm describing, the traditional Democratic strategy, is what the Democrats go to, and what they've gone to. It was the Kerry strategy. It was the Gore strategy. You go to the American people on the basis of what's in their economic interests and what's in their social policy interests and you draw those distinctions and that's how you win the election. There's only one problem. They lost both of those elections with that strategy.
Newman: But the American people have already spoken on the issues. They don't like the way things are being run, they don't like the foreign policy, they don't like the domestic policy, they don't like the educational policy.
Salit: Right.
Newman: They don't like the current healthcare policy. The American people have spoken on that. So who do they think they're talking to?
Salit: Well, they're talking to the "undecideds."
Newman: The undecideds, though, as I understand it, are undecided because they aren't yet clear on who is the best person to do something about the things that they're concerned about.
Salit: Not on the question about what needs to be done.
Newman: Yes.
Salit: OK. So the question is who is the best person to do it. The Democrats' argument is the person who's the best person is the one who has the right policies. That's a different way to approach the issue than what you're describing. I feel close to what you're saying, but that's how the traditional Democrats package it. That's their argument. The way you sell the person is you sell the policies. Meanwhile, at the moment, what the Republicans are doing is selling the person. They're not selling the policies. They can't. The policies are a disaster. Just pick up a newspaper. Still, there is close to half the country, in spite of the failed policies of the Bush administration, who consider themselves conservatives. And McCain has put together a package that appeals to them. I'm not Bush, so you're not going to get the problems from Bush. But I am a conservative, and so you don't have to fear that I'm going to change things in a way that violates that.
Newman: So, I still don't get it.
Salit: You don't get the old strategic thinking from the Democrats?
Newman: No, because the issue is whose policy is preferred at this point in time. Well, nobody quite knows because the choice is about who to trust on the articulation of what they're going to do.
Salit: Right.
Newman: So, defining policies doesn't make a difference, if I understand that reasoning.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: So, why would the Democrats who, as you correctly point out, have been defeated by George Bush twice - why would they go back to that? I don't understand the reasoning.
Salit: Ultimately their reasoning, the old guard's reasoning, is party-based in the following sense. The Democrats' registration has grown. Their numbers have grown on the ground.
Newman: Right.
Salit: The Obama campaign put together a superb grassroots infrastructure. You couple that with the Democratic Party's machine and they think - this is what I expect their reasoning is - they can just simply pull it off on the ground. I'm not saying that they think they don't have to do stuff and that he doesn't have to articulate stuff in the debates and in their commercials and so forth. But, ultimately, the thing turns on their capacity to put it together on the ground.
Newman: But that's a separate question. You just changed the topic in the middle of the discussion. Because one has to do with what you have to do to get elected and the other has to do with what you have to do to effect change that the American people want. And they're two totally separate questions.
Salit: Yes. But you have to sell to the American people that you can effect a change that the American people want. Presumably, that's the issue that's on the table now.
Newman: Yes.
Salit: OK.
Newman: I think Obama is most effective when he says I have some experience, but I also have a connection to a new wave of Americans, young Americans, Americans who want to see political change. They don't care what party you're in and I have a connection to them. I've worked with them. I'm a community organizer.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: And people say to Obama, how can you prove that? And, he could say I just ran a campaign against the hardcore establishment of one of the two major parties and I won. John McCain ran that kind of campaign eight years ago. And he lost. He lost the Republican primary in 2000 for a reason. It wasn't a popularity contest. He lost because the kind of party the Republicans were looking for was expressed by George Bush, not by John McCain.
Salit: OK.
Newman: Everybody knows that John McCain went to the right wing of his party this time because that was the way to win. I'm not condemning that. But that doesn't produce change.
Salit: Correct.
Newman: It might produce victory but it doesn't produce change. Obama has to make his appeal to the new generation. That's not taking McCain on for his age, because the age that we're talking about is not his. It's the age of the new electorate that's relevant.
Salit: Let me shift gears to Alan Greenspan's comments about the state of the U.S. economy. He says we've never seen the degree of connectedness on a global scale as we have today, and that's why the current level of government intervention into the markets is necessary.
Newman: Yes.
Salit: And, he adds, the very factors of globalization which have been so beneficial and have taken millions of people out of poverty around the world are the same factors that make it the case that there needs to be a market correction. Put in the most positive light, from his standpoint, that's what we're seeing now. Globalization produced huge levels of growth which benefited millions and millions of ordinary people around the world. Now we're seeing a correction and a reorganization going on.
Newman: OK.
Salit: Is that an accurate framing? Is there anything left out, in your view, of that account?
Newman: Well, Greenspan's a very smart man. But is he really saying, Alright children, let me teach you a basic law of physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? Now, what is it he wants to do about it? I didn't hear him say.
Salit: Nor did I. All he says is that the main thing that the American government should do is take whatever steps it needs to take in order to stabilize the price of housing. Once the price of housing is stabilized, and that's what all the intervention is about, then things will settle out and the market will take care of the rest.
Newman: What if that doesn't happen? What if the correction for globalization turns out to be so vast that it undermines the very stability of the world economic system?
Salit: Then it wouldn't be a correction, it would be a destruction.
Newman: I didn't hear him reassuring us with specificity that this whole globalization thing was so well thought through that destruction couldn't possibly happen. And I don't think it was. I think there was a huge amount of money to be made. And, as always, when finance capitalists see huge money to be made, they go ahead and make it - without much thought about what the consequences might be. So, for example, at the risk of oversimplification, people who are saying that it's alright to bail out the finance industry because it's a worldwide system and that's different than bailing out the automotive industry...
Salit: Yes...
Newman: ...I would say there's a sleight of hand in there. It's alright if that represents your going-forward values.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: If you want to make sure the banks and financial system get bolstered on the grounds that that has to do with everybody and the automotive industry doesn't get protected in the same way because that that doesn't involve everybody in the same way...
Salit: Right...
Newman: Well, that seems a little tricky to me, because it depends on who you mean by "everybody" and how you relate to "everybody." It's not that I can't see the sense of the argument. The financial markets do have applicability to everyone, but not everyone in the same way. So, I'd say Greenspan tells less than the whole story. I almost agree with him. But it's less than the whole story.
Salit: A good way to put it. Thanks, Fred.
Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, September 14, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." Due to technical difficulties, the entire Talk Talk is printed below and is not available on www.independentvoting.org at this time.
Salit: Suppose we take a stab at unpackaging a question that everybody was talking about on the talk shows this morning. Is the Obama camp having trouble handling Sarah Palin?
Newman: Sarah Palin is not running for President of the United States, but for vice president. Does her selection have to be "handled?" Yes. It was a historic event. The Republicans put a woman on the ticket. If I were Obama's advisor I would say make the response tedious. Say Congratulations to the Republican Party for being the second major political party to nominate a woman as vice president.
Salit: And ...
Newman: And that's the end of it. It reminds the public that the Democratic Party nominated the first African American and that's a good thing. Now, says Obama, Let's talk about the American people and our policies. Let's talk about John McCain and our two parties. As I've said for a long time, the Democrats win if they can make this into a party election. The Republican Party has been in power for the last eight years and the American people don't like what they've done with it. End of story. You have to reduce Sarah Palin to the insignificance of the vice presidency.
Salit: Alright. So, how close to that did they get?
Newman: Oh, I don't know what the measure is. It's hard to say. That's going to be decided by what happens in the next few weeks.
Salit: When Chris Matthews asked the Matthews Meter question, "Who won the week - Obama or McCain?" they said McCain, 11-1. I would have answered "Obama." And the reason I would have answered Obama is that, in large measure, all you could do this week was let the Palin thing play out. It was going to be the headliner no matter what. It's the week after the Republican Convention, and she is a woman and she is a new face. Sometimes you just have to let the other side make their play.
Newman: I think who won the week was Palin.
Salit: OK. How did you react to the Charlie Gibson interview with Palin?
Newman: As an interview. It was just another interview of a newcomer onto the national stage.
Salit: On "The Chris Matthews Show" it was reported, not a big revelation here, that numbers of people in the Democratic Party, meaning within the political class in the Democratic Party ...
Newman: Yes...
Salit: ...are concerned that Obama has "lost some of his fire." They say he had his voice when he was running against the Clintons. He had a passion. He was on message. He was sharp. He had a drive that matched the moment. Now, having won that, having beaten the Clintons, having gotten the nomination, and now being up against McCain, he doesn't seem to have that same passion or that precision of message. Is that a fair characterization? Or is it just the anxieties of the Democrats as we move into the final seven weeks of the campaign for the presidency?
Newman: I'd approach this as a psychotherapist for a moment. Who are you ultimately going to be more passionately fired up in opposition to - if you're in opposition at all? Your family? Your mother who raised you? Or someone you've been dating for a week and a half?
Salit: Your family.
Newman: Of course. And, it's a good thing that he's more passionate in his opposition to the Democratic Party. The corruption that you have to defeat first has to be the corruption of your own party. That's what really shows some courage. Running against Clinton was enormously courageous.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: Running against McCain inspires less passion. McCain isn't Bush. He's just an extension of Bush.
Salit: Right.
Newman: Palin isn't on her own. She's just an extension of McCain.
Salit: Right.
Newman: So, there's going to be a difference, not only in the degree of passion, but in the kind of passion. Real courage was required in taking on the Clintons and the entire Democratic machine. Obama passed that test. It's relatively easy to criticize the Republican Party, as even McCain is trying to project. The whole of the American people are against the Republican machine. Now, have McCain and Palin gone up against the Republican Party? No. In fact, McCain has totally tailored his positions, totally remade himself to be more of a regular Republican.
Salit: That's the 2008 John McCain.
Newman: That's where he's caved. That's what he's caved on. In 2000, he ran against Bush and said I'm not a regular Republican. He lost that fight. Now, he's a regular Republican, with an occasional maverick sound bite. And for all of her outsider gloss, Palin is following his lead. She is a regular Republican, too.
Salit: That's not what you'd call a profile in courage.
Newman: No, that's a profile, somewhere between changing your mind and rank opportunism.
Salit: OK.
Newman: If that were properly presented, Obama would diminish McCain's maverick appeal. Now, the reason Obama's hesitant to take that on, of course, is he doesn't want to offend the regular Democrats who make up a portion of his base.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: But, I still think there's a way of doing that.
Salit: Break it down for me.
Newman: There's a way of saying this which glorifies the Democrats. Obama says, Look, our party knew that we had to go through a very difficult but clarifying process if we were going to be prepared to take on the presidency. We did that. It was very difficult. And I know some people felt their toes were stepped on. But we took that on and thanks to the independents who backed us, and thanks to our ranks, and thanks the younger generation, we cleaned up our house.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: And we will finish that job. The Republicans never cleaned house. They're not willing to step out and say, in general, we've done a disastrous job, although it's apparent that they have done a disastrous job. The American people know that. So, if you want to consider who has genuinely taken on their party, look at that. That's my record, says Barack. I led the way in that. John McCain tried to take on his own party in 2000 and he failed. I tried in 2008 and I succeeded.
Salit: I think it works. And my prediction is that McCain's going to try to make that a topic in the first debate coming up in two weeks.
Newman: How?
Salit: Because his only hope of winning is to claim the mantle of the insurgent. That's why his convention speech was 'I've stood up to the Republican Party. The Republican Party lost the trust of the American people. I've stood up to the anti-change forces.'
Newman: Well, if I were Obama, I'd say John, that's what you did in 2000 and you got beaten. Now you've remade yourself. You're a regular Republican who supports the policies of George W. Bush. You didn't change your party, your party changed you. I changed my party. I succeeded where you failed. And that's why I'm more qualified to be president. Because the American people want change. And I have a record of change.
Salit: Here's how I would characterize the debate within the Democratic Party about how to handle this very dynamic. I think there is a strong constituency inside the Democratic Party for Obama to simply hammer at what you might call "the issues." John McCain is tied to George Bush. George Bush ran the war. George Bush ran the economy into the ground. Ordinary Americans are suffering for lack of health care, for lack of jobs, from poor education, from a lack of affordable housing, and so forth. We're not competitive in the world. The Democratic Party is going to change that. In effect, Fred, I would say, their argument is to skip over the point that you're making here about Obama having taken on his party, taken on the establishment, taken a risk and gone through that process, and having the party come together around that. This other strategy that I'm describing, the traditional Democratic strategy, is what the Democrats go to, and what they've gone to. It was the Kerry strategy. It was the Gore strategy. You go to the American people on the basis of what's in their economic interests and what's in their social policy interests and you draw those distinctions and that's how you win the election. There's only one problem. They lost both of those elections with that strategy.
Newman: But the American people have already spoken on the issues. They don't like the way things are being run, they don't like the foreign policy, they don't like the domestic policy, they don't like the educational policy.
Salit: Right.
Newman: They don't like the current healthcare policy. The American people have spoken on that. So who do they think they're talking to?
Salit: Well, they're talking to the "undecideds."
Newman: The undecideds, though, as I understand it, are undecided because they aren't yet clear on who is the best person to do something about the things that they're concerned about.
Salit: Not on the question about what needs to be done.
Newman: Yes.
Salit: OK. So the question is who is the best person to do it. The Democrats' argument is the person who's the best person is the one who has the right policies. That's a different way to approach the issue than what you're describing. I feel close to what you're saying, but that's how the traditional Democrats package it. That's their argument. The way you sell the person is you sell the policies. Meanwhile, at the moment, what the Republicans are doing is selling the person. They're not selling the policies. They can't. The policies are a disaster. Just pick up a newspaper. Still, there is close to half the country, in spite of the failed policies of the Bush administration, who consider themselves conservatives. And McCain has put together a package that appeals to them. I'm not Bush, so you're not going to get the problems from Bush. But I am a conservative, and so you don't have to fear that I'm going to change things in a way that violates that.
Newman: So, I still don't get it.
Salit: You don't get the old strategic thinking from the Democrats?
Newman: No, because the issue is whose policy is preferred at this point in time. Well, nobody quite knows because the choice is about who to trust on the articulation of what they're going to do.
Salit: Right.
Newman: So, defining policies doesn't make a difference, if I understand that reasoning.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: So, why would the Democrats who, as you correctly point out, have been defeated by George Bush twice - why would they go back to that? I don't understand the reasoning.
Salit: Ultimately their reasoning, the old guard's reasoning, is party-based in the following sense. The Democrats' registration has grown. Their numbers have grown on the ground.
Newman: Right.
Salit: The Obama campaign put together a superb grassroots infrastructure. You couple that with the Democratic Party's machine and they think - this is what I expect their reasoning is - they can just simply pull it off on the ground. I'm not saying that they think they don't have to do stuff and that he doesn't have to articulate stuff in the debates and in their commercials and so forth. But, ultimately, the thing turns on their capacity to put it together on the ground.
Newman: But that's a separate question. You just changed the topic in the middle of the discussion. Because one has to do with what you have to do to get elected and the other has to do with what you have to do to effect change that the American people want. And they're two totally separate questions.
Salit: Yes. But you have to sell to the American people that you can effect a change that the American people want. Presumably, that's the issue that's on the table now.
Newman: Yes.
Salit: OK.
Newman: I think Obama is most effective when he says I have some experience, but I also have a connection to a new wave of Americans, young Americans, Americans who want to see political change. They don't care what party you're in and I have a connection to them. I've worked with them. I'm a community organizer.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: And people say to Obama, how can you prove that? And, he could say I just ran a campaign against the hardcore establishment of one of the two major parties and I won. John McCain ran that kind of campaign eight years ago. And he lost. He lost the Republican primary in 2000 for a reason. It wasn't a popularity contest. He lost because the kind of party the Republicans were looking for was expressed by George Bush, not by John McCain.
Salit: OK.
Newman: Everybody knows that John McCain went to the right wing of his party this time because that was the way to win. I'm not condemning that. But that doesn't produce change.
Salit: Correct.
Newman: It might produce victory but it doesn't produce change. Obama has to make his appeal to the new generation. That's not taking McCain on for his age, because the age that we're talking about is not his. It's the age of the new electorate that's relevant.
Salit: Let me shift gears to Alan Greenspan's comments about the state of the U.S. economy. He says we've never seen the degree of connectedness on a global scale as we have today, and that's why the current level of government intervention into the markets is necessary.
Newman: Yes.
Salit: And, he adds, the very factors of globalization which have been so beneficial and have taken millions of people out of poverty around the world are the same factors that make it the case that there needs to be a market correction. Put in the most positive light, from his standpoint, that's what we're seeing now. Globalization produced huge levels of growth which benefited millions and millions of ordinary people around the world. Now we're seeing a correction and a reorganization going on.
Newman: OK.
Salit: Is that an accurate framing? Is there anything left out, in your view, of that account?
Newman: Well, Greenspan's a very smart man. But is he really saying, Alright children, let me teach you a basic law of physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? Now, what is it he wants to do about it? I didn't hear him say.
Salit: Nor did I. All he says is that the main thing that the American government should do is take whatever steps it needs to take in order to stabilize the price of housing. Once the price of housing is stabilized, and that's what all the intervention is about, then things will settle out and the market will take care of the rest.
Newman: What if that doesn't happen? What if the correction for globalization turns out to be so vast that it undermines the very stability of the world economic system?
Salit: Then it wouldn't be a correction, it would be a destruction.
Newman: I didn't hear him reassuring us with specificity that this whole globalization thing was so well thought through that destruction couldn't possibly happen. And I don't think it was. I think there was a huge amount of money to be made. And, as always, when finance capitalists see huge money to be made, they go ahead and make it - without much thought about what the consequences might be. So, for example, at the risk of oversimplification, people who are saying that it's alright to bail out the finance industry because it's a worldwide system and that's different than bailing out the automotive industry...
Salit: Yes...
Newman: ...I would say there's a sleight of hand in there. It's alright if that represents your going-forward values.
Salit: Yes.
Newman: If you want to make sure the banks and financial system get bolstered on the grounds that that has to do with everybody and the automotive industry doesn't get protected in the same way because that that doesn't involve everybody in the same way...
Salit: Right...
Newman: Well, that seems a little tricky to me, because it depends on who you mean by "everybody" and how you relate to "everybody." It's not that I can't see the sense of the argument. The financial markets do have applicability to everyone, but not everyone in the same way. So, I'd say Greenspan tells less than the whole story. I almost agree with him. But it's less than the whole story.
Salit: A good way to put it. Thanks, Fred.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Talk/Talk: It Won't Be Hillary
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, It Won't Be Hillary. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, August 24, 2008 after watching "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" and "The McLaughlin Group".
Newman: The choice of Joe Biden resembles John Kennedy's choice of Lyndon Johnson. And that's a key thing with Obama trying to project a Kennedy image, which would be a big plus.
Salit: Not to mention that Caroline Kennedy was on Obama's VP search committee. OK, here's the counter attack: Yes, Biden brings all those things, but the choice highlights Obama's weaknesses. He had to go to somebody like Biden, a six-term senator who's experienced in foreign affairs, etc. and while he brings those plusses to the ticket, the minus is that it shines a light on Obama's weakness in that area. So, effectively, it's a negative for Obama.
Newman: Obama's going to have the light shone on his weaknesses in any event. Another spotlight isn't going to add a whole lot more light. If you're lit, you're lit.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, It Won't Be Hillary. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, August 24, 2008 after watching "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" and "The McLaughlin Group".
Newman: The choice of Joe Biden resembles John Kennedy's choice of Lyndon Johnson. And that's a key thing with Obama trying to project a Kennedy image, which would be a big plus.
Salit: Not to mention that Caroline Kennedy was on Obama's VP search committee. OK, here's the counter attack: Yes, Biden brings all those things, but the choice highlights Obama's weaknesses. He had to go to somebody like Biden, a six-term senator who's experienced in foreign affairs, etc. and while he brings those plusses to the ticket, the minus is that it shines a light on Obama's weakness in that area. So, effectively, it's a negative for Obama.
Newman: Obama's going to have the light shone on his weaknesses in any event. Another spotlight isn't going to add a whole lot more light. If you're lit, you're lit.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Talk/Talk: Tough Guys?
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, Tough Guys?. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, August 17, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show", "Meet the Press" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Newman: OK. And back to McCain. The thing about McCain that is interesting and curious is that McCain did not make his national reputation as a tough guy. That's a part of his appeal. Actually, though, he made his national reputation as being something other than a tough guy. He was for cooperation across the aisle. He was open. He was for hearing what's best from the other side. Those aren't tough things to do. Some people might even perceive them as wishy-washy things to do. So, that's who he is. But now they're trying to transform him into a tough guy. Why? Because now he wants to court the Republican right. He wants to maximize the value of his relationship to Bush. So they've got a contradiction on their hands.
Salit: In other words, McCain's the guy who sat down with Ted Kennedy on immigration, the guy who got with Russ Feingold and does the McCain-Feingold bill...
Newman: George Bush is a tough guy. Not John McCain. McCain's a straight shooter, that was his whole image. And arguably, that's the opposite of being a tough guy.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, Tough Guys?. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, August 17, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show", "Meet the Press" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Newman: OK. And back to McCain. The thing about McCain that is interesting and curious is that McCain did not make his national reputation as a tough guy. That's a part of his appeal. Actually, though, he made his national reputation as being something other than a tough guy. He was for cooperation across the aisle. He was open. He was for hearing what's best from the other side. Those aren't tough things to do. Some people might even perceive them as wishy-washy things to do. So, that's who he is. But now they're trying to transform him into a tough guy. Why? Because now he wants to court the Republican right. He wants to maximize the value of his relationship to Bush. So they've got a contradiction on their hands.
Salit: In other words, McCain's the guy who sat down with Ted Kennedy on immigration, the guy who got with Russ Feingold and does the McCain-Feingold bill...
Newman: George Bush is a tough guy. Not John McCain. McCain's a straight shooter, that was his whole image. And arguably, that's the opposite of being a tough guy.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Talk/Talk: Georgia on Their Mind(less)
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, GEORGIA ON THEIR MIND(LESS). Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, August 10, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Salit: I'll bring in another George Will remark. They're talking about the fighting that broke out between Russia and Georgia at the end of last week. Putin and Bush are both in Beijing for the opening of the Olympics. Will says, 'Putin goes home to deal with the situation. Bush stays in Beijing for the Olympics.' And Will says, 'Bush should have gone home and run the West's response.' A strange remark because it ignored the diminishment of the U.S. position in the world. Not to deny that the U.S. is a huge power, a huge military power, a huge economic power, even a huge swimming power. And, as was pointed out in the discussion today, the back story is all about the issue of oil and the proposed building of a pipeline through Georgia, which Putin is presumably trying to jettison. It's not clear what kind of operation Bush would go home to run.
Newman: Is Will suggesting that Bush and the White House haven't been aware of the tensions leading up to this? And that they haven't made whatever moves they could? What does it mean to go home and run things...independent of the degree of influence? I don't think the conflict is unimportant. But I don't have any reason to believe that's it's the start of World War III. So to compare South Ossetia to Sarajevo at the start of World War I, as Will did, is far-fetched. What that does is make me certain that we should never elect George Will president of the United States. Salit: OK Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Watch the Salit Video at the top of The Hankster! CUIP president Jackie Salit has a video message for independent leaders and activists in the national IndependentVoting.org networks about the August state caucuses and what's next for indies in the post-primary season.
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, GEORGIA ON THEIR MIND(LESS). Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, August 10, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Salit: I'll bring in another George Will remark. They're talking about the fighting that broke out between Russia and Georgia at the end of last week. Putin and Bush are both in Beijing for the opening of the Olympics. Will says, 'Putin goes home to deal with the situation. Bush stays in Beijing for the Olympics.' And Will says, 'Bush should have gone home and run the West's response.' A strange remark because it ignored the diminishment of the U.S. position in the world. Not to deny that the U.S. is a huge power, a huge military power, a huge economic power, even a huge swimming power. And, as was pointed out in the discussion today, the back story is all about the issue of oil and the proposed building of a pipeline through Georgia, which Putin is presumably trying to jettison. It's not clear what kind of operation Bush would go home to run.
Newman: Is Will suggesting that Bush and the White House haven't been aware of the tensions leading up to this? And that they haven't made whatever moves they could? What does it mean to go home and run things...independent of the degree of influence? I don't think the conflict is unimportant. But I don't have any reason to believe that's it's the start of World War III. So to compare South Ossetia to Sarajevo at the start of World War I, as Will did, is far-fetched. What that does is make me certain that we should never elect George Will president of the United States. Salit: OK Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Watch the Salit Video at the top of The Hankster! CUIP president Jackie Salit has a video message for independent leaders and activists in the national IndependentVoting.org networks about the August state caucuses and what's next for indies in the post-primary season.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Talk/Talk: A Commentary on a Commentary on a Commentary on a Commentary.....
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, A Commentary on a Commentary on a Commentary on a Commentary ... Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, August 3, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Newman: Yes. But there's nothing in that characterization. It's empty. It's like reciting the alphabet. What's the alternative?
Salit: An alternative would be that the American people have already decided that they want change and Obama and the Democratic Party offer that, consequently, the question of Obama's "acceptability" is already resolved.
Newman: Nothing's resolved. The election's not until November. It gets determined when it gets determined.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, A Commentary on a Commentary on a Commentary on a Commentary ... Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, August 3, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Newman: Yes. But there's nothing in that characterization. It's empty. It's like reciting the alphabet. What's the alternative?
Salit: An alternative would be that the American people have already decided that they want change and Obama and the Democratic Party offer that, consequently, the question of Obama's "acceptability" is already resolved.
Newman: Nothing's resolved. The election's not until November. It gets determined when it gets determined.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Talk/Talk: The Surge Trap
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, THE SURGE TRAP. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, July 27, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Newman: It takes you into the particularities of this war and how this administration conducted this war. The people who support this administration are stuck with that, even if they say, Well, I didn't like Donald Rumsfeld. Fine. But you supported a presidency which carried out this war in a way which is antithetical to the interests of the American people and the United States of America. You have to take responsibility for that. And you can't say, Well, it's all right now because we're having a surge. You're having a surge because the way in which you carried out this war was a failure.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, THE SURGE TRAP. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, July 27, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Newman: It takes you into the particularities of this war and how this administration conducted this war. The people who support this administration are stuck with that, even if they say, Well, I didn't like Donald Rumsfeld. Fine. But you supported a presidency which carried out this war in a way which is antithetical to the interests of the American people and the United States of America. You have to take responsibility for that. And you can't say, Well, it's all right now because we're having a surge. You're having a surge because the way in which you carried out this war was a failure.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Talk/Talk: Arnold and Donna
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, Arnold and Donna. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, July 13, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Salit: Something else that I liked about Schwarzenegger was his commentary on flip-flopping. He said he was pro-flip-flop. Part of the story here is that more traditional progressives are saying that Obama's flip-flopping on the issues is going to undermine his base. They're really talking more about themselves than they are talking about Obama, it seems to me, meaning that Obama's changes undermine their position. In any event, Schwarzenegger says, 'I love flip-flopping. Flip-flopping is a good thing. You're allowed to change your mind.' It was a welcome change from the usual.
Newman: The last thing the Democratic Party gets upset about is its left wing being upset about flip-flopping. The Democratic Party left has never displayed that it has the courage to vote for what it says it stands for anyhow. They're strategic flip-floppers, so to speak
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, Arnold and Donna. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, July 13, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Salit: Something else that I liked about Schwarzenegger was his commentary on flip-flopping. He said he was pro-flip-flop. Part of the story here is that more traditional progressives are saying that Obama's flip-flopping on the issues is going to undermine his base. They're really talking more about themselves than they are talking about Obama, it seems to me, meaning that Obama's changes undermine their position. In any event, Schwarzenegger says, 'I love flip-flopping. Flip-flopping is a good thing. You're allowed to change your mind.' It was a welcome change from the usual.
Newman: The last thing the Democratic Party gets upset about is its left wing being upset about flip-flopping. The Democratic Party left has never displayed that it has the courage to vote for what it says it stands for anyhow. They're strategic flip-floppers, so to speak
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Talk/Talk: Slick About Oil?
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, Slick About Oil?. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, July 6, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Newman: OK, let's take one soldier. He or she is over there, and they are fixing a bayonet and heading towards a building to go kill someone. Now, if you take that same soldier, have her or him over there standing in front of an oil refinery to make sure that someone from Al Qaeda doesn't come and blow up the oil refinery, that's still having an American troop there. It's the same soldier. But it's a different mission and it means something different. I really don't understand what it is that McCain is saying. He seems to be saying that the surge worked because fewer American troops are being killed.
Salit: They're trying to make the point, I guess, that this reflects well on the underlying mission.
Newman: How does it reflect well on the underlying mission? Was the mission to have fewer American troops killed? If that was the mission, why go in at all? You'll have no casualties. I don't get the logic. What if we had 10 times as many troops killed in the most recent period of the surge, but they captured or killed Osama bin Laden? Is that a success or a failure by virtue of the current McCain argument?
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, Slick About Oil?. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, July 6, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Newman: OK, let's take one soldier. He or she is over there, and they are fixing a bayonet and heading towards a building to go kill someone. Now, if you take that same soldier, have her or him over there standing in front of an oil refinery to make sure that someone from Al Qaeda doesn't come and blow up the oil refinery, that's still having an American troop there. It's the same soldier. But it's a different mission and it means something different. I really don't understand what it is that McCain is saying. He seems to be saying that the surge worked because fewer American troops are being killed.
Salit: They're trying to make the point, I guess, that this reflects well on the underlying mission.
Newman: How does it reflect well on the underlying mission? Was the mission to have fewer American troops killed? If that was the mission, why go in at all? You'll have no casualties. I don't get the logic. What if we had 10 times as many troops killed in the most recent period of the surge, but they captured or killed Osama bin Laden? Is that a success or a failure by virtue of the current McCain argument?
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Talk/Talk: I Like the Mashed Potatoes
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, I Like the Mashed Potatoes. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, June 29, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Salit: Going back to the Left. The Nation has to sell magazines and The Huffington Post has to keep people coming to its website and Nader has to run because he thinks he's the only pure person in America. There's a certain notion of purity operative here, that there are certain hard and fast definitions of what it means to be progressive and if you don't stick by those things no matter what, then that says something about your integrity.
Newman: That sounds like a comic book version of American politics. Nobody really believes that. Nobody really acts that way. It's funny. The critics say, often with a lot of attitude, 'You know how the game is played. Everyone just puts out what's most expedient.' And then these same critics say, 'A terrible thing happened. Obama put out something that was expedient.' Well, wait a second. There's a disconnect there. If you acknowledge that's what people do in these situations, then all you're pointing to is people doing it in these situations.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Below are excerpts from this week's Talk Talk, I Like the Mashed Potatoes. Every Sunday CUIP's president Jacqueline Salit and strategist and philosopher Fred Newman watch the political talk shows and discuss them. Here are excerpts from their dialogue on Sunday, June 29, 2008 after watching "The Chris Matthews Show" and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".
Salit: Going back to the Left. The Nation has to sell magazines and The Huffington Post has to keep people coming to its website and Nader has to run because he thinks he's the only pure person in America. There's a certain notion of purity operative here, that there are certain hard and fast definitions of what it means to be progressive and if you don't stick by those things no matter what, then that says something about your integrity.
Newman: That sounds like a comic book version of American politics. Nobody really believes that. Nobody really acts that way. It's funny. The critics say, often with a lot of attitude, 'You know how the game is played. Everyone just puts out what's most expedient.' And then these same critics say, 'A terrible thing happened. Obama put out something that was expedient.' Well, wait a second. There's a disconnect there. If you acknowledge that's what people do in these situations, then all you're pointing to is people doing it in these situations.
Read Talk Talk in its entirety here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)