Bob Shrum was just on Hardball with Chris Matthews, and to be fair, I should point out I don’t know what he was talking about. I just saw him on the screen as I walked into the kitchen to make some jello and a cup of tea (water was boiling).
At any rate, with all due respect to Jim Lampley and the other six Americans who honestly think the 2004 election was stolen, let me ask this:
“Why is Bob Shrum STILL speaking for Democrats?”
If I were a Democrat, I would be pissed.
In other news about Democratic pundits on tv, there was this from last night from The Situation:
MADDOW: They happen to have all been white guys. It is better for the country to think that we have a representative court.
CARLSON: Right.
But the idea
jim dandy
Trust me, John, we’re plenty pissed.
The Disenfranchised Voter
As much as I don’t like Tucker, me and him do agree on some issues, this being one of them.
The Disenfranchised Voter
That probably should be “him and I”, I’m not sure though.
Darrell
Oh I don’t know about that John. The Dems really are, by and large, a party of race baiters. It’s how they stay in office. Google yourself, Dems say stuff like that all the time. Nothing particularly unusual from their normal talking points: “Repubs want to turn back the clock on race relations”, etc..
BTW, your link for ‘the Situation’ is not working
Darrell
the link is working fine now. Not sure if you fixed something or if I had a computer glitch.
Bernard Yomtov
Yes. I’m pissed. We shouldn’t let Shrum work in the copy room.
Mike S
Mike S
Did you catch Rep. Peter King on Scarborough country last night.
And Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a free ride and all the media, they’re the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove. Listen, maybe Karl Rove was not perfect. We live in an imperfect world. And I give him credit for having the guts.
John S
Yeah, this is the rare moment where Tucker Carlson comes out looking pretty sensible.
Darrell, one man’s “race-baiting” is another man’s “pointing out examples of racism”.
Note the quotes around both – it’s a bit simple to accuse one side and not the other.
jim dandy
Mike, couple that with him flipping out on a constituent, and I’m wondering if he went to Rick Santorum Campaign School.
Nikki
It should be “he and I.” An easy way to figure out which to use is to substitute:
(him) or (he) agree(s) on some issues
(me) or (I) agree on some issues
If you can learn to do it quickly in your head, it will always help you use the proper grammar.
BTW, it’s not like Democrats can call up Matthews and tell him who he can and cannot have on his show.
Does Michael Savage speak for all Republicans?
Al Maviva
The begged questions here, that Carlson completely missed apparently:
Carlson: Okay, so you think race matters – that it determines who we should trust and not trust, that it influences outlook. Right?
Maddow: Yes, of course. That’s what I just said.
Carlson: And we should take action on that, to assure the country?
Maddow: Yes. Did you not hear me?
Carlson: Then you’re in favor of racially profiling arabs & muslims at airports?
Gasparino: Um, erm, um…
If you think race matters in judicial picks, school admissions and job hiring, then it sure as hell should matter in terrorism prevention.
I’m willing to go race and color blind, even if it means fighting terrorism is tougher, because I think race consciousness and doling out social goods based on race, is a cancer on the country. Anybody else share this approach?
Demdude
I don’t know who the hell decides is a democratic spokesman anymore. I watched Jack Valenti versus Bay Buchanan on CNN yesterday. (He worked for LBJ a hundred years ago (Motion Picture mouthpiece until a short time ago)). He agreed with just about everything Bay said.
Jeez Louise, that was revolting.
And as far as Shrum goes, how many campaigns must this guy F*%k up before he is banished forever?
1.) Reagan during one of his campaigns using the code word “states rights” in Mississippi.
2.) Willie Horton during Daddy Bush’s campaign.
Jess
Racism is still a real problem in this country despite the “content of our characters” ideal. It will be a long time, if ever, before people are consistently judged independently of their ethnic background. Most non-caucasian people believe, rightly or wrongly, that white America doesn’t understand that, or is unwilling to understand that, and for this reason non-caucasians would have less faith in a government that was all white, no matter how good the ideas were. It’s hard to understand the impact of racism if you don’t experience it on a day-to-day basis yourself. I don’t like that reality any better than you do, John, but for pragmatic reasons we have to find an intelligent way to deal with it. I don’t think tokenism or heavy-handed affirmative action is the best solution, but ignoring the problem isn’t going to get us anywhere good either. A justice system only works when people have faith in it.
By the way, what do you guys think of the Draft Pardo movement?
Darrell
He shoots.. he scores! Of course the race baiters in the Dem party want to have it both ways. Racial preferences in hiring and appointments, but not in protecting us from terrorism. It’s not honest, it’s not consistent, but it’s who they are
Mike S
Racial preferences in hiring and appointments, but not in protecting us from terrorism. It’s not honest, it’s not consistent, but it’s who they are
As opposed to leaking a CIA name involved in WMD intelligence. Not consistant with protecting us from terrorists. But it’s who you are.
John S
Darrell’s party: Cynical racial tokenism in hiring and appointments, and racial profiling in protecting us from terrorism.
Wow, sounds awesome. Sign me up for some of that color-blindnon-racist goodness.
p.lukasiak
Re: Shrum….its really annoying to see him on TV, when given his record his only job in the Democratic Party would be in the steno pool…
re: “color consciousness” (or gender consciousness, or ethnic consciousness, or religious consciousness)….
its nice to know that there is someone who understands your perspective from the inside within the justice system, and who understands that there are certain “self-evident truths” about being a minority. It should not have taken 80 years for this country to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson — and one suspects that if there had been a black judge on the Supreme Court before Thurgood Marshall who could have explained the day to day reality of “separate but equal” to the other eight justices, Plessy would have been overturned earlier.
But of course the mere fact that someone shares your experiences as a minority is no guarantee that they will ignore what they know in order to advance their own personal agenda (e.g. Clarence Thomas). Nothing is more destructive to the cause of justice than tokenism for the sake of tokenism on the bench.
Personally, I think that what the court needs right now is a Muslim-America Supreme Court Judge — we need someone who has a “there-but-for-the-grace-of-Allah-go-I” perspective to deal with the numerous issues that will be raised by various provisions of the Patriot Act, etc…
Demdude
Maybe we can get all the Republican African Amercian Members of Congress together to discuss race baiting.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Most certainly not. But I would willing to bet he speaks for a majority of registered Republicans.
The radical authoritarian right have taken over the Republican party. The Schiavo case was a prime example.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I would be*
J. Michael Neal
The folks who select Bob Shrum as a Democratic spokesman are the TV show producers.
Doug
Shrum is a loser. I think non-beltway Dems are anxious to kick him to the door. Inside the Beltway? I don’t know. TV producers? Probably not.
On the “color consciousness” thing, I’m not sure what Maddow is trying to say exactly, but I think there are a couple of things going on. First, there is the issue of whether the individual deserves the job on the court. That has nothing to do with race. Second, there is the issue of whether the person will do a good job once on the court. That also has nothing to do with race. Third, however, there is the issue of perception. It’s important not only that the court be just. It must also be perceived to do so. Rightly or wrongly, people who aren’t white and who strongly identify with their race are not likely to perceive an all-white court as providing justice for non-whites.
Of course, a lot more than race goes into whether most Americans ultimately perceive the court as being just. Race should be a consideration in this perception, but I don’t think it should be overemphasized because the overemphasis will also create perception problems.
Geek, Esq.
Shrum’s a tomato can. This Democrat IS pissed.
Why not give media slots to McAwful while they’re at it.
Zifnab
The 2000 election really was stolen. When you’ve got the popular vote in your back pocket and the Supreme Court is deciding who exactly won the election… Gore should have been President in ’00 and no one can say there isn’t an arguement to be had.
That said, it was Kerry’s election to lose in ’04 and he lost it. Was there voter fraud and disenfranchisement in Florida and Ohio (and presumably any number of other states – God knows it was happening in Texas)? Probably. Voter fraud has been a problem on both sides of the aisle for a while now. Did the exit polls like a bit suspicious when compared to the final data? Yeah, they kinda did. Did we somehow misplace five million votes to close the Kerry-Bush gap? I seriously doubt it. For whatever reasons, good or bad, Bush won in ’04 and while the nation definately would have been a better place with Gore and might be better off today with Kerry, we’ve got Big B as our leader now so there’s no point in whining about it.
I’d like to see the political process in our country overhauled. The electoral college needs to go as the brute force of a two-party system makes it irrelevant as a defense measure. We need to deal with voter fraud, but we also need to recognize it will never go away completely. We need to deal with voter disenfranchisement and recognize this is a problem that really does need to be eliminated completely. And then we need to move on and deal with elections of the future, not elections of the past. No amount of voting can turn back time.
Jack (CommonSenseDesk)
Shrum is a jackass.
p.lukasiak
That said, it was Kerry’s election to lose in ’04 and he lost it.
I have to take exception to that. The nation was at war, and Bush was a war-time president who was still riding high on his (undeserved) reputation for leadership post 9-11. Regardless of who the Democratic candidate was, they faced an uphill climb (albeit, given Bush’s vulnerabilities, the slope was far from insurmountable.)
Which allows me to seque into commenting on one of my pet peeves…
The fact is that we no longer elect leaders, we elect “candidates” and expect them to act like leaders. Bush is the quintessential example of this — he was chosen by the GOP establishment solely because of his “electability” (lord knows his actual resume wasn’t exactly what one would look for in someone who you wanted to be the Leader of the Free World.) Kerry, who would have made a fine leader, was a lousy “candidate.”
albedo
“The fact is that we no longer elect leaders, we elect “candidates” and expect them to act like leaders.”
It seems that republicans have figured out that it helps a candidate win if they have some measure of personal charisma. And yes, Bush does have charisma, albeit of a smarmy frat-boy variety.
The Dems have an almost preternatural knack for always nominating a stiff, pedantic robot that Joe Six-Pack will find singularly unappealing. Clinton being the instructive counter-example.
It’s too bad that candidates need to be telegenic and likeable, but I don’t see it changing any time soon. Hope the Dems nominate someone with a snowball’s chance in ’08.
Stormy70
What the hell? John, jello is for age 60 and up, and unless you are in the hospital, this will not do.
You should be eating pudding (now with splenda and sunday-style topping). Sheesh!
Zifnab – No chance the Electoral College will ever be abolished. 3/4 of the states would definitely vote that kind of amendment down. After laughing their butts off first.
John Cole
I happen to like jello. Lots. Lime and peach are my two favorites.
Mr Furious
“1.) Reagan during one of his campaigns using the code word “states rights” in Mississippi.”
Philadelphia, Mississippi to be precise. He kicked off his campaign there. No, no race baiting going on there at all…he might’as well’ve worn a hood.
JG
Now I want jell-o.
Jess
“First, there is the issue of whether the individual deserves the job on the court. That has nothing to do with race. Second, there is the issue of whether the person will do a good job once on the court. That also has nothing to do with race. Third, however, there is the issue of perception. It’s important not only that the court be just. It must also be perceived to do so.”
Excellent summary, Doug. I was trying to say something similar to that, but my brain is dead.
Anybody have an opinion on the Draft Pardo thing?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Care to explain why we still need the electoral college?
Stormy70
Then you are truly lost. (Get it? You better, or your geek credentials will be revoked).
Jello makes a good smoothie cup, too. It’s in the refrigerated section, next to the PUDDING.
Stormy70
I don’t have to since it will not be abolished. You think Wyoming or all the other little states will give up their power to states like California, Texas, or New York. Never happen. This compromise helped unite the states in the first place. This was set up to protect the less populated states from being run over by the highly populated states. The Founders were smart that way.
eileen from OH
As others have noted, Shrum is the poster child for what is wrong with the Dem political “machine” (if in fact, we even HAVE one.) He’s Mr. DLC (as opposed to DNC) and has overseen more losing campaigns than I can count. (In certain lights you can even see the big “L” branded on his forehead.) Yet he STILL gets hired. And he STILL shows up on tv as the a “spokesman”. Go figure. It’s like Biden showing up on the Sunday shows. I don’t know if he pushes himself on or if they know they can count on him to show up, or if he waits outside with a sign that says “will opine for food” but hot DAMN but I’m sick of him “representing” the Dem side. He, and Shrum The Loser are NOT what I want to see. (Probably akin to the right being damn tired of Hagel and McCain pontificating instead of being in church on Sunday morning where they belong like good Christian Republicans.)
eileen from OH
Sojourner
Yeh, we certainly wouldn’t want people elected on the basis of actual votes when they can be elected on the basis of land mass.
JG
Sounds like Stormy is describing senate representation rather than the electoral college IMO.
stickler
Jell-O aside, (thank heaven it wasn’t Kool-Ade) I have to say just this one thing to add:
Shrum’s record speaks for itself.
Oliver
I don’t like Shrum. But in many cases, it’s a matter of who the MSM will allow on for us. Most often they’ll allow no better than a patsy like Alan Colmes to represent Dems. Can’t be too effective, you know, might upset the White House.
Hector
Racial profiling as an anti-terrorism device is one of the most stupid, ineffective ideas ever. The first thing it does is make people of the targetted group feel like the government is out to get them, generating ill will. The second thing it does is give the terrorists a free pass to beat the system. All they have to do is send someone through who doesn’t fit the profile, and they suffer little to no risk of detection. So basically you get no added protection from profiling, and you help the terrorists with their goal of generating ill will towards the government they’re attacking.
rilkefan
Lime Jell-o is ok if there’s enough tequila in it.
Demdude
RNC Chief to Say It Was ‘Wrong’ to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes
Here.
Marcus Wellby
Shrum is a frigging idiot. But I guarentee he will get good money to run the Dem’s campaign in 2008. Can’t be the Washington Generals without your coach!
Doug
Well, as long as we know that it is o.k. to protect minority populations from the tyranny of the majority, presumably we’ll no longer hear the Republicans whining about the filibuster.
Mike
“Does Michael Savage speak for all Republicans?
Most certainly not. But I would willing to bet he speaks for a majority of registered Republicans.
The radical authoritarian right have taken over the Republican party. The Schiavo case was a prime example.”
Savage is a talk show host, but the Democrats HIRED Shrum to win elections. BIG difference. Citing Michael Savage as “speaking for Repubulicans” is no different than citing Michael Moore as “speaking for Democrats” or Jeanne Garafalo, or Randy Rhoades,etc., etc. Both sides have nut cases and both sides have been taken over by the more radical elements of their base. The Democrats are NO different, other than the fact that people aren’t voting for them due to the fact that people like the Far Left even less than they like the Far Right.
Stormy70
I don’t whine about the filibuster, it can be broken by the majority if they become so inclined. I know it sucks to be in the minority, Republicans were for quite a number of years. There are Senate rules in place to protect the minority party’s rights.
Defense Guy
I love the claim that the Right is inherently racist, it really helps to move us forward on this issue. That the right is not the party with an actual quota system in it’s hiring rules, should be disregarded. Nothing to see here, move along.
neil
The kossacks tend to agree, it seems.
Jeff
To the two jackasses up above bringing up the “Reagan in Mississippi” talking point, he was speaking at a state fair that was popular with all sorts of politicos.
You know who spoke at the same place eight years later? Michael Fucking Dukakis. It’s hard to believe now, but Mississippi was considered a toss-up until very recently. And “states rights” wasn’t the only friggin thing he talked about for Christ’s sake.
Kos and Atrios and Fat Ollie always leave that part out, don’t they?