What is wrong with Mark Shields and other "liberal" pundits?

[beachmom]

I was watching Lehrer on Friday night, and Brooks and Shields were on to talk about 2005. Shields did not say ONE NICE THING about Democrats. Brooks was better!! He at least complimented Barak Obama. I mean is this some kind of conspiracy or what? Even among non-hack pundits, it goes like this: Pundit on the right defends Iraq War but admits that Bush made a lot of mistakes and also criticizes Republican corruption. But Mr. Right ends by saying that the Dems are lousy, too, and weak on national security. Pundit on the Left agrees with everything Mr. Right said -- Bush sucks, the Republicans are corrupt, and the Democrats have no ideas. Then Mr. Left goes on for a precious 3 minutes raving about Senator McCain, and says nothing at all nice about Democrats. Essentially, he has the same position as Mr. Right as far as Democrats are concerned. No Democratic successes are mentioned, no individual Democrats praised. Instead, it's just "The Democrats blew it this year". Ugh. We definitely have a media problem, people. Oh, and Jim Lehrer needs to have Oliphant on more often.

[ProSense]

1. Yeah, that's right Shields

Bush's agenda is going nowhere because of Republican opposition.

:sarcasm:


What a tool!

[WildEyedLiberal]

2. Shields is also the one who wrote this nice column about John Kerry

.... a month AFTER the election. He wrote a column about how Kerry had this kid with disabilities intern for him because the kid really liked him, and so he let him intern and do all this cool stuff for him, without any fanfare. It was a really sweet story, but apparently Shields didn't want to disturb the popular idea of Kerry being aloof and unemotional before the actual election took place. :puke:

[ProSense]

3. I remember that.

This reinforces my belief that they're all are connected by their purse strings and are protecting their little slice of the corporate pie.

[karynnj]

7. I may be wrong, but I thought he only met the guy after the election

The gist of the article was that he was very surprised to learn about this young man and was very surprised to see the very genuine relationship that Kerry had with him and others in the office. It was a really sweet story.

I think these year end things always lose the detail and only the big things show. I am amazed by how many liberal commentators are in love with McCain. He probably was the only one who could get a terror bill through - a Democrat would likely be demonized and the Republicans would likely not have joined in - so it's great McCain pushed a bill that basically says its illegal to do things that have been illegal for years. (I still think that Kerry's courage in criticizing American actions that violated the Geneva convention give him at least as much standing of being anti-torture than McCain has because he was tortured.) I think Kerry's clandestaine prison amendment is that bill's counterpart - and it is rarely mentioned and when it is it is associated with nobody.

[beachmom]

8. You are so right: when it was the torture amendment, it was called

the "McCain Amendment", but both when the CIA amendment was added, and also when drilling ANWR was blocked, it was "the Democrats" who did that. I don't mean to sound like a baby, but it just isn't fair!!! What are the newspapers paid NOT to print his name if it's for successful legislation or filibustering? And then if there is some pointless '08 speculation or let's snark last year's candidate, THAT'S when they print his name?

On that Shields article, I also loved it, too, and I think that Mark Shields seems to be a nice man. But I wasn't even complaining about him not mentioning Kerry; I meant that he didn't say anything nice about ANY Democrat, and that struck me as odd.

[ProSense]

9. I put Shield's article in league

with the jury piece. It's funny how many took the time to write articles about Bush's charm, whether or not they knew him personally. I'm sure they could have found many examples similar to this about both JK and THK. If Bush had given a person fired simple for supporting him a job (as JK did), it would have been deemed Godly.

[ginnyinWI]

4. well, before you write him off...

I know he didn't say much good about the Dems on Friday, but he has at other times. Plus he's a regular Bush-basher; watch him for a few weeks.

The other week he was saying that the Dems in Congress are now unified while the Repubs are falling apart--he's really negative on Congressional Repubs. He's a long-time watcher of Washington politics--knows how it all works.

Still, I like Tom Oliphant better--love his wit and charm.

[beachmom]

6. True, Shields has had his moments, but this was a 2005 recap

THAT'S what bugged me. How about a mention of Harry Reid's united front against private accounts in social security? How about Jack Murtha and his statement causing Bush to actually go out there and to defend and to define in more detail what he's doing in Iraq (no, it wasn't enough for me, but we have to admit that it showed some improvement, and he can thank Murtha for that). What about Feingold saying "give me liberty or give me death" on the Senate floor, and the successful defeat of a flawed Patriot bill, to be debated in more detail later? What about John Kerry's and Joe Biden's Iraq plans -- lots of great ideas that can be used by the administration. What about Barak Obama's status (for me, anyway) of statesman of the blogosphere for his excellent diary on Kos calling the lefty freepers out for their dogmatism? What about the successful blocking of drilling in ANWR by Senators Cantwell and Kerry? There WERE successes, and inspiration throughout this dreadful year. But if nobody says it, how are people going to remember it?

Yeah, I completely agree distinguishing Democrats from Leftists. I never have been nor will I ever be a leftist. I am mostly moderate on the big issues of the day, and that puts me squarely in the Democratic party. I am a liberal in the spirit of FDR, JFK, and JK, and I would appreciate if we had liberal pundits out there who reflected that!!

[ginnyinWI]

11. yeah not much of a recap, I agree

It was more of a "what is happening now" comment.

I've seen several of these end of the year things, and what really burns me up is how JK has become the "invisible man". They mention everybody else, but JK and anything he does is just invisible. They talk about Feingold, Murtha, Reid, even Obama, but it's like there is no John Kerry. It's like he's been erased from anything that's happened since the end of 2004. :cry:

[sandnsea]

5. Leftards

The agenda of the Greens and lefties IS NOT to benefit Democrats. They don't like the Democratic agenda, they prefer something much closer to socialism, some prefer out and out socialism. While I hate to attack them the way the DLC does, and don't think the DLC has it right either, I do think it's important to distinguish the left from Democrats. Lots of those Republicans voting against their best interests are actually voting against socialist leftards that they think make up the Democratic Party.

[ginnyinWI]

12. you've hit on a key problem

When average folks think that the Democratic party is full of Michael Moores and Whoopi Goldbergs, they run screaming back toward the GOP where they think all the normal people are. You can hear this from some of the, shall we say, "less informed" callers to Cspan in the mornings. They think Dems have no concerns about national security, or families, or anything, that we are completely amoral, and that our Dem leaders are out to destroy America. (They are a chicken-hearted bunch too, willing to give up our basic liberties to feel a bit more secure from outside threats. Never mind that it's only an illusion that the party in power has made us any safer--quite the contrary!)

If there were a distinct Green party, the Dems could be free of this problem. If a Green candidate were included in the presidential debates, for example, we'd be able to differentiate. The problem is that there is a lot of overlap between Greens and Dems, so it might be creating more problems.
On the right they have their moderates and extreme factions, too. But they let the moderates speak for all, especially during their convention, and shove the others into the background. Maybe that's what we need to do more often! They never discredit their extreme wing, just put them out of sight while they have elections.

[Mass]

10. I dont like Mark Shields at all, not because he is a lefty (that is fine

for me), but because he is totally ineffectual, as you could see Friday.

However, for once, he was partially right. It is a shame that nobody in the Senate decided to co-sponsor the Frank, Obey, ... 's bill against corrupted lobbyists. I am getting extremely frustrated by the Senate and his silence on issues that matter and temper tantrums on the rest (when are Boxer, Reid, ... going to act on something significant and not sending emails that lead nowhere and mean nothing).

Obviously, the Dems did more than Shields said, but they dont seem to care about real people and to care too much about process. People who suffer do not care about process. They care about what is going to happen to them (Katrina's victims do not care about whether Bush needs to be impeached - this is a luxury for those who have enough to live - , they care about where they will live tomorrow. Why was no Democrats talking about that rather than sending emails about impeachment).

[beachmom]

13. Yeah, but . . .

Why didn't Shields praise that bill, and talk about how there are some good Democratic ideas out there, instead of presenting it as a negative? He stated it like nothing was going to happen instead of PUSHING for it to happen. I have to admit that it is rather disheartening to learn that Harry Reid took money from Jack Abramoff, and doesn't Pelosi have some questionable stuff (or was that simply RW crap?)? I guess I'm somebody who goes by individuals -- My favorite Democrats are Kerry, Obama, and my governor, Mark Warner. They're the optimists who have ideas and can invigorate the Party. They also aren't corrupt. The Leadership in Congress don't really impress me much -- you're right, that they're good with process, but they lack a vision. On the other hand, you do need to master process once you have a vision in place to implement.

Of course, I will always admire Bill Clinton, although his wife at the moment leaves me cold. Did anyone see him on 60 Minutes last night? He didn't look good -- I'm worried that a year after bypass surgery he still hasn't completely bounced back. And then he talked about how he needs to work hard (fighting AIDS worldwide) because he doesn't know how much time he has left. Plus I had read in People magazine, that he was eating McDonalds while travelling -- personal self discipline was never his strong suit, but geez, we're talking about his life!! Anyway, with all this '08 talk, nobody is talking about Bill's health, which is a huge factor. Gosh, I want him to live at least another 20 years or more, but he did seem to be in a hurry with his good works, like he didn't think he would be around that long . . .

[globalvillage]

14. I doubt there's anything untoward in what Reid did.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/18/95749/712

I think the investigation will bear that out. I believe Harry Reid's involvement is completely legit. JMHO. I trust him.
What I do fear is that Abramoff's 'deal' is going to be a coverup. He'll 'dime' on the legit recipients like Reid, and the real story will be swept under the rug. I hope I'm wrong.

[TayTay]

15. It's the Rethug attempt to confuse, confuse, confuse

The real problem is whether or not there were favors exchanged. Follow the money and then follow the votes.

They have Cong. Ney of Ohio on his involvment with Jack Abramoff. This is because Ney did something in exchange for the money. He was 'bribed' and that affected his actions in Congress. This is why this is a Republican scandal. There was a 'quid pro quo' thing in place.

The Rethugs are throwing up their standard smokescreen in order to get people to think that it's just about the money. It's not. It's about the actions that resulted from the money. This is not the Rep Cunningham case in which the corruption was so blatant, but it is still about money and corruption. Don't let the smokescreen obscure that.

Who got the money and then did something that resulted in favors being sent back to clients of Abramoff. (Or since Abramoff double-crossed his own clients, who did something that just benefitted Abramoff and his partners. These people were out to screw everyone over and just pocket the money. Why were they so brazen about it? Why did they think they could get away with this? Who was protecting them? It sure as hell was the Dems.)