Today, there were two substitutes in KUOW's Gang of Four. KUOW's Marcie Sillman was filling in for host Steve Scher, who is ill, and Naomi Ishisaka of Colors Northwest was filling in for Danny Westneat of the Seattle Times. The result, partly thanks to Sillman, was one of the most entertaining Weekday programs I have ever heard, entertaining because the bias was so complete as to be amusing. It was as if the gang had decided to do a self parody.
Consider, for example, the news story that Sillman chose to begin the program. Showing a sure instinct for the capillary, Sillman began with the kerfuffle over the Republican caucus. (As you may know, Mike Huckabee became angry with the state Republican party after the chairman projected, correctly, that John McCain would win the count of preferences in the caucuses. Those who want to know more can find a full explanation here.) Knute Berger was delighted by this opening and declared that this trivial controversy destroyed the moral advantage Republicans had gained in the botched 2004 governor's election. (Luckily, I had already finished my coffee, so I did not spill anything on my computer keyboard as I heard that.) Amazingly, none of the other three laughed, none of them even chuckled, after Berger said that. They seemed to think Berger had said something serious. Really.
Most of the program was taken up with Obamania. All four thought that the junior senator was really wonderful, as did almost all of the callers to the program during this time period. Why do all these folks think that Obama is wonderful? It isn't because all of them share his taste for arugula. (Or his ignorance about farm problems.) Nor is it because of anything he has achieved. No one mentioned any Obama achievements. Nor is it because he has an intelligent set of plans for the future of our country. No one mentioned any of his plans, either. It was not even because he made a beautiful speech.
So what did cause all this Obamania? They had trouble putting it in words, but both the gang and the callers appear to have Obamania because they went to meetings where other people had Obamania. And there were a lot of them! And the people were diverse! I know that sounds like I am joking, but that really is pretty much what they said. And I did warn you that the program sounded like a self parody.
The gang also discussed whether or not the party "bubble" had to be checked for a ballot to be counted in the primary, subtracting from the sum of human knowledge as they did so. Subtracting because they gave time to both yes and no answers to that question, which must have confused some who knew the answer before. (None of the four thought to do the obvious thing, which would be to call Secretary of State Sam Reed for an official answer.)
At about 10:37, Sillman, realizing that the program had been a trifle one-sided, suggested that supporters of other candidates might want to call, too, just for a little balance. One supporter of Hillary Clinton did call — but she thought Obama was pretty wonderful, too.
Mixed in with the Obamania was a confused discussion of caucuses versus primaries. None of the four made the point that I did in this post, a point which is essential to understanding how the two different systems affect the results. (Berger probably understands that point; I'm not sure about the other three.)
The last quarter or so of the program was taken up with a discussion of the sad killings at Northern Illinois. The four agreed that guns are bad, though none of the four seems to know much about guns. They disagreed over whether psychotropic drugs might have led to the murders. (A caller and Berger each took the opportunity to plug web sites attacking these drugs. I won't link to the sites because I don't know what the facts are. And, unlike the four, I understand that this is a difficult statistical question.)
All of this was, as I said, wonderfully entertaining. But less so when I realized that this absurd show was being paid for, in part, by our tax dollars, and that the four are all supposed to be serious journalists.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(I did not notice any factual errors in today's program, perhaps because the program was almost fact free. The grade today was a rare, but not unprecedented, 0.0. None of the four made a moderate, conservative, independent, or Republican point. And neither did any caller or emailer. The show's commitment to diversity is, as you may have noticed, somewhat limited, and does not include party or ideology. (Or even competence, I am inclined to add, after listening to today's show.)
I listened to the ten minutes before the program started just to see if the host would commit journalism with atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass. Sillman had an obvious question to ask him: A few years ago, when we got much less snow, many were saying that was evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Is this year's heavy snow pack evidence of the opposite? (For the record, I don't think that either, by itself, is evidence of much of anything.) But she missed her chance, though he did say some interesting things about the area's February weather patterns.
And I did learn one interesting fact. Knute Berger's wife is a "mental health professional". I won't make any of the obvious jokes, and you shouldn't either. But you can chuckle to yourself, especially if you are familiar with his work.
Posted by Jim Miller at February 15, 2008 01:54 PM | Email ThisAs I have said on another thread, I pretty much agree with you about the superdelegates. Some have FBI files and others are receiving cash. Old age and treachery overcome youth and skill. Here is where I disagree with you. I think the republicans will win if Mc Cain nominates a substantial person of color who is acceptable to conservatives. Here is why:
Obama is Black, but his experience is not that of the typical Black which is both good and bad. In my opinion, many will view him as a sell-out or a "House N*****" if he accepts the Veep spot. Many would prefer that he wait it out. The analagus situation is let's elect Dino all over again. Dems cannot afford to have any voters of color sitting out this election. In fact, many young idealistic voters might sit this one out if Obama wins the popular vote and majority of states and the election is decided by superdelegates. The dems really are in unchartered waters now. It is fitting that they have used the politics of race for so long, that the politics of race may bite them back. As a poster said at Politico, Bubba would rather have his legacy be that of a racist instead of a rapist. A lot of Black folk have had their hopes raised on this one and may sit it out.
I do agree with you that by hook and crook Billary will probably get the nomination. But if they are counting on Black folk and many of the young and idealistic they may be surprised. If you live by race politics, you die by race politics.
Posted by: WVH on February 15, 2008 03:01 PMMay he fainted like everyone else...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110011130
http://orbusmax.com/
Posted by: Glenno on February 15, 2008 03:48 PMAnd that's why I hate the Democrap party with great intensity. Race politics is the most evil thing.
Posted by: FreedomLover on February 15, 2008 04:48 PMI do not advocate hating anything or anybody. That is a toxic emotion, it will destroy you. Now, I believe there are messages that appeal to a wide crossection of people:
1. Policies that produce a stonger economy like lowering deficits, reducing, pork and emarks.
2. Policies that support family creation and support. Elimination of the marriage penalty. Tax deducation or rebates for families who adopt children.
3. Support for creation and tax support for samll businesses. Small businesses are huge job creators. The best guarantee for elimination of poverty and support for families is a job.
4. A competitive education system. Some of the biggest supporters of this are Black families in DC and Florida, before their program was ended, who received vouchers. We need competition in education.
5. I know that many here will go nuts claiming socialism, communism or whatever, but a natioanl candidate will have to address the health insurance crisis for many who are uninsured.
I don't particularly like Dr. Paul, but I don't hate him or his followers. I simply think they are a crazy cult. I suspect you don't hate dems, but probably, in your mind think they are a crazy cult as well. In order to have an effective government on many issues, both parties will have to work together.
Posted by: WVH on February 15, 2008 05:17 PM"...declared that this trivial controversy destroyed the moral advantage Republicans had gained in the botched 2004 governor's election. (Luckily, I had already finished my coffee, so I did not spill anything on my computer keyboard as I heard that.) Amazingly, none of the other three laughed, none of them even chuckled, after Berger said that. They seemed to think Berger had said something serious. Really.
Sigh
As much as it pains me to say so, there can be ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT THIS CONCLUSION IS CORRECT.
Why would they laugh at the truth? Exactly what do you think the reaction will be if we try and assert irregularities in the next count?
I share in your "coffee on the keyboard" reaction when I read YOUR conclusion, but only because I'd set my cup down before I read your comment.
Esser's idiocy has and will cost the GOP in this state huge.
My shock and dismay is that you seem unable to grasp that, much like Esser seemed unable to grasp the stupidity of HIS actions.
We are going to hear about this unnecessary crap for a decade. The only question to consider is this: did his actions make the party stronger.... or weaker?
Blowing it off shows a frightening lack of awareness... boith on Esser's part.... and yours.
Posted by: Hinton on February 15, 2008 05:22 PMI think too that a majority of our fellow citizens would support them.
If there were only a political party that did too...and could demonstrate effective implementation of any of these policies on their watch...
Posted by: BA on February 15, 2008 05:35 PMJim, I don't know how you stomach the show. Thanks for providing this service do I don't have to watch.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 15, 2008 07:36 PM"We Shall Be Overcome".
Almost as good as that long ago sports headline when the Sonics were hammered at a home game by the Spurs scoring machine George Gervin, who was known as the "Iceman" The headline: "The Iceman cometh, Sonics goeth"
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 16, 2008 01:31 PMThe first thing leftist candidates always do is paint a picture of America as a land of eternal suffering. Edwards tried to tell us that war veterans live under bridges. He couldn't exactly name any of those bridges.
Then they go into their "we're for change" mode. Oh gosh and golly aren't these wonderful, caring people? Thousands of young people, brainwashed by liberalism since they began attending daycare apparently think so.
At least Hillary as she sees her chance for the Presidency slipping away has begun expose herself as the socialist she is. In Ohio this week she railed against oil companies, credit card companies and apparently, capitalism in general. http://www.gazette.com/news/clinton_33178___article.html/obama_nuclear.html
At least it's refreshing to see one of them begin to admit what we've known about them all along.
Obama can ride the wave of emotionalism for a while longer, but in the end he's actually going to have to talk about what he will do in substantive terms. Maybe he'll just hand everyone a bottle of water and summon the EMT's.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 16, 2008 02:31 PMNew beginning, Yes We Can, Change..blah, blah, blah just a jackin' my jaws with one meaningless platitude after another.
White folks are mighty gullible.
