In the 1990s, I was a pretty loyal viewer of This Morning with David Brinkley, but basically stopped watching it after he left. The replacements (like that George S. guy) simply did not have the same weight. Generally, I also do not watch Sunday talk shows, or others of that sort actually. Again, I used to somewhat consistently watch the News Hour once upon a time. Not any more. It's such a tedious practice, and I get my commentary from the blogs. [Admittedly, I do not directly read many conservative points of view.] This is not really a thing to be that proud of, since there is some value in watching some of them.
For instance, now and again, I take a glance at Democracy Now!, and it's worthwhile. Also, there are a couple things on Link TV worth watching, including a show that provides clips from Middle Eastern news programs (a wonderful resource actually -- various people note, btw, that CNN International provides a fuller and more critical look our leaders than domestic news programs). And, Liberty News, a once a month (apparently, though they keep on repeating the same episodes) program on Link is also often a good way to get alternative commentary. And, more mainstream programs have some useful material, especially to get a look at the other side.
I was flipping through the channels and caught a bit of Meet the Press. Sort of underlines why I don't want to watch these things. Tim Russert (who, I'm sorry, is a bit of a fathead) is the pretentious host, who seems a bit too full of himself. Lawrence O'Donnell on Al Franken once actually said Russert's job is basically to be a transcriber, which L. said was really a good thing, since it gives liberals a chance to hang conservatives on their own petard. Thus, Cheney says something outrageous, Russert doesn't really call him on it, but hey, it's on the record. [See, Media Matters for various examples.] This seems like making lemonade from lemons without adding enough sugar -- the press doesn't really do its job, but hey, it still has some derivative use, so to speak.
Sunday Talk Shows basically supply a chance for the usual suspects to shop around their talking points. Since the shows are at most an hour long, and in some cases include commentary by George Will types, so there seems to be only time for the people to make their points on the record. One might wish there was some back and forth, cross-examination, to clarify things. But, this is not really done too much, is it? Now, to be fair, it doesn't seem to be done a lot on Air America either. There too we have guests providing the expected commentary and talking points, and not really challenged too much. This sort of thing makes the network a tad bit boring. It is a threat even without the upcoming move (in NY) to 1600AM to a station that will retain the conservative Armstrong Williams show. Liberal talk network, huh?
Anyway, talking heads were on discussing the Connecticut race. TR brought out a graphic showing that Lieberman voted with the Democrats 90% of the time. So, he asked Howard Dean's brother (oh look, one of Lamont's liberal cronies, like Jesse Jackson ... D.C. delegate Rep. Norton is on Lieberman's side, part of the establishment liberal brigade for Lieberman), why are people so upset? In some fashion, it's a fair question, since it allows one to point out that Lieberman is a problem in various ways when it matters. So, JL says he is against the bankruptcy bill, but people in the know note he voted for cloture. He voted for stem cell research funding (as did many [other] conservatives), but has been vocal in support (things that often don't show up in votes, putting aside things like Terri Schiavo) of social conservative causes overall.
And, overall, neoconservative foreign policy stands out. The idea we should consider this a "single issue" matter, putting aside his fifth columnist support of Republicans in other matters that should not be a litmus test of some sort is outrageous. Glenn Greenwald notes how JL is the neoconservatives favorite Democrat senator, supporting him in ways that they don't even respecting other conservative Democrats [it should be noted that he is from a blue state, making him different from people like the gentle lady from Louisiana]. Foreign policy is THE issue for the President and Karl Rove's predominant issue again for the fall elections. Clearly, it is what stands out over the last few years, so belittling it as a single issue is like saying WWII was but one issue in 1944.
Thus, aside from the fact it is a lie that the campaign is but based on a single issue (unless it is that JL is a wanker), it is outrageous to allege that that "single issue" isn't worth being concerned about. Simply put, if you want to vote against JL simply because of his stance on Iraq and the Middle East as a whole (we see, yet again, the complexity of even this "one" issue), you have every right to do so. Tens of thousands of people died, thousands of our men and women died and were injured. [No rush on the Lebanon situation, btw, just hundreds of more dead daily.] This is a trivial issue? This is not something to focus upon? Are you out of your mind?
Dean's brother started into something about Lieberman not serving the interests of the state, including respecting spending in the state. I shut it off at that point, but that was stupid. It simply was not responsive to the misleading visual. It's like the comment by Timmy that there was no opposition in the Senate of the Defend Terri Schiavo's Parents Act (legislation sometimes are named after individuals for symbolic effect, but here we had a situation where legislation actually benefited a single couple ... though in the long run, it really didn't), so how could Lamont really be upset Joe supporting the move?
One would never know from the question that it was a voice vote to a mostly empty chamber. It's not like all the Democrats wanted the bill ... it just was seemed as a narrow way to dispose of a troublesome issue. JL, however, went out of his way to voice support. Again, a bit different. Dean noted that Lamont was against it, which is good, but some more background would have been helpful. Talking about helpful, Lamont winning will be. Some talking heads are trying to make us believe that such "anti-war" (being against war in Iraq, or even misguided occupation, makes you a pacifist) "single issue" (the issue being against JL) "radicals" (who support what a majority of the public, surely in Connecticut, believe) will cause trouble. One can be forgiven for thinking such commentators are drooling at the prospect.
It was sadly not too hard to spin a dry sounding moderate (fiscal conservative) governor as a raving liberal nut, so why not try the same for a quiet businessman like Ned Lamont (how can someone named "Ned" be radical?). After all, both were supported by those crazy bloggers ... not the ones giving the home address of photographers of puff pieces done with the approval of their conservative public official subjects ... but you know who. Hopefully, so the polls seem to suggest, he also has support of a majority of the state's voters. We shall see ... August 8, a perfect time for an election, huh?
---
To toss it in, Carried Away was on late last night, and it was a rare movie -- a movie with fairly regular American actors that seriously attempted to examine sexual themes. Dennis Hopper is a 47 year old farmer/teacher (his teaching job is in jeopardy, since he never obtained proper credentials) in a small farm community with a dying mother and a long if somewhat unfulfilling relationship with his fellow teacher, a widow (Amy Irving) with a teenage son. So, he does not resist too much when a seventeen year old new student (Amy Locane) -- from a troubled home with an alcoholic mother -- seduces him. Hal Halbrook, as a local doctor, provides his usual congenial senior sage role.
The movie is notable for its maturity and free use of nudity (the three leads, Locane not surprisingly shown the most ... not that one complaining). I don't recall the ending (I saw the movie already some years back ... it was made in 1996), but it leads one to wish there were more movies that seriously examined sexual themes, obviously not necessarily of this sort. [The movie is mainly sympathetic with Hopper, a controversial thing given the age/status difference.] But, it is hard even to find a good romance these days. Oh well.