Fox News spreading misinformation again (4.00 / 1)

Gotta love that Fox News bimbo, trying to make it sound like McCain did nothing wrong in the Keating S&L scandal.

---

by: Cello @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:06:53 AM CDT

Bimbo (4.00 / 4)

I really wish liberals would avoid the sexism.  If we don't, who will?

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:37:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gotta love Sirota much, much more (4.00 / 4)

Gotta love Sirota much, much more, for breaking through the Fox framing and gatekeeping. It's political judo - I suspect real judo masters would smile.

Nice job, Mr. Sirota. (Haven't actually watched the video - I'm taking your word on things. :-) ) And thank-you also for "taking a sober look at the bipartisan nature of Wall Street deregulation". Being blatantly partisan is a huge turn off not only for partisans of the opposite stripe, but for more open-minded independents and disillusioned ex-partisans. So besides the ethical aspects of telling the simple truth, doing so will be generally be more efficacious ito reaching out to the public, at large.


435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

---

by: metamars @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:55:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Again? Have they ever not? (0.00 / 0)

Spreading (RW) misinformation is their one and only raison d'etre.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 04:24:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Idea (4.00 / 5)

Let's impose conditions on Wall Street as stated in Senator Dodd's proposal but not give Wall Street any of the money.  

---

by: Airpower @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:31:09 AM CDT

Funny (4.00 / 2)

They were actually off message.  McCain himself claims that Keating was one of his worst mistakes.  (Which, come to think of it, he claims for lots of things, but I digress...)

The official storyline is McCain learned how corrupting Washington can be and from that point on became the greatest reformer in U.S. history (or, something like that).

One of the great advantages of bring up Keating now, instead of earlier, is it doesn't give them much time to try to spin that storyline.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:35:59 AM CDT

Now that... (4.00 / 5)

was a really great appearance by you, David.  :-)

Sometimes the Fox News host won't let you get your point in before they cut you off, but this time you did great in really throwing them off and making them flail incoherently.

More please.  :-)

---

by: BruinKid @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 02:39:23 AM CDT

You Go David (0.00 / 0)

You used their own lowly verbal tactics and outshouted two Republicans and won, big time.  Think they'll have you back?

---

by: steve katz @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 05:38:51 AM CDT

Good job David (0.00 / 0)

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 05:43:14 AM CDT

Great job David (4.00 / 1)

you really fought through the screaming match and made them say things that don't make sense.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 06:38:15 AM CDT

Why? (0.00 / 0)

1) You stand out on Fox news because you don't look like a little penis in a suit as the GOP guy does (and the host to an extent except she has a blond wig)...

2) Why even GO on that crap...  they don't give a damn about the truth and they double teamed you (although I thought you did better)... hell they had the GOP douche talking over you half the time.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:27:36 AM CDT

FWIW (4.00 / 2)

I really abhor these "journalistic" formats that pit two know partisans against each other for the purpose of creating incendiary argument, while a supposedly "fair and balanced" moderator cuts people off, abandons context, and inserts his/her own bias to add flame to the fire. One wonders when, if ever, the MSM will take Jon Stewart's advice and "stop hurting America." Nevertheless, since this is the only game in town, I'm glad that there's a David Sirota to represent a progressive POV in this charade. He's as capable, or more so, as anyone else at doing this.

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:44:10 AM CDT

SOOOO (0.00 / 0)

much better than your last performance on Fox. I do wish you'd said something about Obama having a plan though... I think thats probably more important than the Keating 5 stuff.  

---

by: Jack @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:36:32 AM CDT

Good job, but... (0.00 / 0)

a couple of points:

1) regulation vs deregulation is not value neutral. They reflect different values, at the core, which is why the right-wing pinhead could smirk "This is America".

2) it is not true, as the host of the show suggested that this is an issue of enforcing current regulation rather than one of requiring more regulation. In response, you offered that the laws were weakened, including by ClintonCo. But a more trivial counterpoint should have been made: CDOs, one of the roots of the current problem, are unregulated (which is the implication of your point about weakening of regulatory law, but I don't expect a lot of FoxNews viewers to understand such complexities as implication).

I think you did a good job on bringing up the Keating 7 (er 5 ;-)), but the right-winger managed to change the coversation to Obama v McCain. It should have stayed focused on the issue of the current financial crisis and who is to blame. If ever we on the left have been in a situation where "staying on message" (to use that somewhat silly meta-edict) is critical, it is now. In another OpenLeft post, Chris Bowers (I think it was him) exhorts us to carpe diem and prove the validity of the left worldview. That can happen only if we (such as "we" are) do not let the attention shift for a minute from the fact that the US economy is in utter meltdown after 8 years of BushCo extreme right administration, and before that 8 years of a Clinton right-lite government.

---

by: ravi @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:55:58 AM CDT

Regulation (0.00 / 0)

regulation vs deregulation is not value neutral.

Of course it is.  We could regulate that every CEO must be paid at least 100x the pay of the least paid employee.  We could regulate that toxins must be dumped into our water.

Ok, those are stupid examples, but it does show that regulation itself is just a tool, thus value neutral.  Value comes from the specifics.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 11:07:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Regulation and value (0.00 / 0)

What I am speaking of is the ideas of regulation (and deregulation), which is the context of the Fox News discussion. Unlike a natural process like evolution, which can be justly called value neutral, regulation (or refusing to do so) is a human action in service of a goal. So, yes, I would agree that specific acts of regulation are tools, but the debate between regulation and deregulation arises from some value system and is justified using that system.

I would agree that this is contentious. It hinges on whether the left vs right difference stems from whether we disagree on the goal (i.e., common good vs individual rights) or the method (i.e., we agree on the goal, say "common good", but disagree on whether regulation is the way to get there). But even Adam Smith offered regulation as a [cure] value call between  competing moral sentiments ("natural liberty" vs "security of the whole society"):

Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed.

---

by: ravi @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 11:49:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]