Joe Scarborough is an ASS! So's racist Pat Buchanan! About Barack Obama's Speech and the Chattering ClassesSomervell County Salon-Glen Rose, Rainbow, Nemo, Glass....Texas
Joe Scarborough is an ASS! So's racist Pat Buchanan! About Barack Obama's Speech and the Chattering Classes
18 March 2008 at 12:22:24 PM
salon
We were transfixed in front of the teevee watching Obama give what certainly has to be one of the best speeches ever, by anyone. I love that he talked about race issues and laid them out on the table. It's funny because last night I watched the first two episodes of the HBO show "John Adams" and, in the segment about the Declaration of Independence, he and Ben Franklin talked about what to do with the issue of slavery.. and passed over on it. That, of course, took place in Philadelphia at the First and Second Continental Congresses. The show was taken from David McCullough's book about John Adams; here's a blog that talks about that piece on slavery.
One of my notes to myself was about Adams’ profound dislike of slavery, and his initial attempts to address it within the Declaration of Independece. I wrote:
Adams had no use for slavery but knew he could not allow the Declaration to sink or swim on the issue. He chose to first get the independence, get the nation together, and then come back and deal with slavery later…rather reminds me of Reagan’s remarks that you take your 75% and come back to fight another day for the rest, an idea that neither the right nor left extremists in instant-gratification America seem willing to entertain, which is perhaps why so little gets done, anymore.
What I'm saying is that, in the enjoyment of watching this show, which scenes take place not only in Boston, but also Philadelphia, it was a treat to see Barack Obama the very next day giving a speech on race in Philadelphia. Here's the transcript of what he said. By talking about race, and its origins and then exhorting us to move beyond it to what actually is a part of our heritage, the forming of a *more perfect union", Obama elevates and reaches what is noble within me. And what is part of my own Judeo-Christian heritage, that wants to live according to Christian principles.
So, why in the world do people like Joe Scarborough want to come along afterwards and root around in the sewer and actually FIND reasons to try to be divisive? Watch this.
Wasn't Scarborough even LISTENING to this speech? He completely missed the idea that Obama put forth about the news media fixating on a small piece and playing it over and over.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way ...
Some commentators... like Joe Scarborough. Or MSNBC that has put those tiny snippets in a neverending loop all week without any context. And besides looking for more issues to be divisive about, his comments put him on the shady side of being a Debbie Downer, doesn't it? Not to mention that it appears this is the tactic that MSNBC intends to highlight all week, guess I'll have to make sure I have the mute button handy when Scarborough comes on.
As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
And I won't even clip any part of what Pat Buchanan says, but please can MSNBC QUIT putting him on ALL the time to offer comments? It's particularly bad when Buchanan is a known racist for him to be spewing out ANY opinion on Obama's speech.
I (keep in mind, I am an Obama supporter) don't actually believe that Scarborough was being divisive. He seemed to actually (surprisingly enough) have been complimenting him. He seemed to actually be impressed with the way Barack was able to bring up both sides of the issue. He, in the same respect, was bringing up the point of just as unprivileged white children also having to deal with unfortunate situations...He also seems toward the end of the video to bring up a valid point. It is the racially mixed communities that have the "collisions" we seem to be facing in this election. (Also keep in mind I am not, in the least bit, a Scarborough fan.)
In fact, crazy enough, there a quite a few videos of him fawning over Obama...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw8Vktrd3GQ
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOMR3PEavwo
And even when he admits he probably won't vote for him, he is still inspired by him.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p21sZuK-LCM
I think, even a guy who is an admitted Conservative, (and me being a die-dard liberal) who, under the pressure of the media to continue supporting conservative candidates, would even consider voting for the other side...I think, that is a step in the right direction...(pun definitely not intended...)
Be careful when throwing around the word "divisive" before looking at oneself.
I'm not speaking of Scarborough as merely some public citizen who may or may not decide to vote for any particular candidate. What scotches me is the way any segment that actually makes it into what passes for news must be framed up quickly into continued issue talking points. For example, I agree with you that his initial comments were favorable to Obama, in fact, he seemed to sputter a bit in recapping the moments, which made me suspect he was attempting to find controversy in what Obama said. And his very points about the speech only served to illustrate what Obama had said regarding endless loops of snippets, and then, back into the horse race questions of whether race would continue to be a factor... by the news media. His comments cast a sour, telling note on what ought to have been, if strictly recounted as *news*, a speech that could be examined on its own merits-of course that's the nature of the cable news beast.
On divisiveness. I may write more on this later, but essentially, why I want Obama for president is that he will be a president for ALL the people, in the most idealistic sense. I compare that to George the Lesser Bush who has made it clear through his entire presidency that his constituents are only those who agree or are Republicans. Does this mean, first, that every plan or action he takes will be agreeable to every person? Of course not. But there's a difference in trying to foment division when one has one of the top reins of power and standing for a principle. Second, it's the nature of being for a candidate and against another in an election season to be divisive, on an individual level. How could it otherwise be, if one wants to see one person and not another be president?
You hit the nail on the head of what I would like to have, people conversing around a table and genuinely discussing issues, not already predetermined to fit according to some model of *sides*. There's no way that will happen in today's media-I was reading again the other day Noam Chomsky's *Manufacturing Consent* book and considering how it is that television, in particular, does a disservice to those who actually want information on a variety of subjects. However, that won't get the ratings going the same way showing inflammatory, sensational, mostly taken out of context clips over and over do.
More and more, I think my mode of getting news is going to continue to change away, for the most part, from television to online media. The advent of Youtube and related in recapping news as it occurs, including showing entire speeches within their contexts (or, hearing the entire speech or event) continues to not only make watching television for those events irrelevant but it alters the patterns of having to be available in front of a teevee in order to see an event.
Luckily for me, I don't have cable...but cable news channels can not be avoided...every bank, post office, doctor's office, gas station, even bathroom stall has a TV blaring CNN or (God forbid) Fox News. Most of the information nowadays IS easily accessible online. Of course, the problem there lies in the inability to be 1 to oneself and try to seek both sides of any given issue. I think as the online news culture grows (already booming, of course) people will continue to be more irresponsible in the way they look up there news, only sticking to drudge report or washington post if conservative, or common dreams and the new york times if liberal. What I do enjoy, however, about online news is that we are able to see what other countries are saying about us and the rest of the world. Even though bbc could be considered more liberal leaning than others, it definitely has a less skewed view of US culture and news than many other sources.
I would like to see more responsibility and self control amongst news readers.
What I do like about the advent of the youtube generation is that it allows for a certain checks and balances of our government. People can no longer say "I didn't say that" or "I never did that" because the proof is right there, haunting them at every step...More people are held responsible for there actions...(but of course Spitzer is gone, but a certain Craig from Idaho continues his Senatorial duties...)
In reference to the comment about Chomsky's words...it is all very 1 and stems from around the late seventies, maybe early eighties when people realized "hey, we can make money off of this? (Dan Rather mentions this point...)
But don't forget, we on the left are just as willing to harp on clips played over and over again when it is "the other guy" (one example that comes to mind is of McCain's infamous trip to Iraq, helicopters a-hovering and donning bullet-proof vests. Look at where he is now.) Obama has proven time and time again that he'll overcome the ridiculousness of the media.
But both sides should stop this clip loop barraging.
The difference, to me, in clip barraging, is in the way the media acts, Marshall McLuen style. Television is a serial, synchronous medium, in which one has to be watching in order to not miss something of value (even if one records the show, you still have to watch the whole thing in order to cut out the dross). The internet, on the other hand, is asynchronous and interactive and allows for watching or hearing something at the point one searches for it. I don't usually watch a clip more than one time (unless I'm the one making it and that's because, of course, I'm the editor) and I can decide to go on and augment what I see with related articles... or something entirely different. That's a different model than television, which demands that you watch what someone else has arranged for you, and how many times they've decided you should watch a clip, versus a discussion of something else important (like tne FISA stuff). Saying that it isn't the clip itself, it's WHERE and in what medium and how passive or interactive one can be in response to it.
