Center of Attention
Extra attention to a few Centrist blogs.
The Gun Toting Liberal congratulates “the democrats for (almost) keeping their promise to the American people.” He adds, though that he is far from willing to endorse the Democratic party because it has committed “too much collective treason in this country”. If the Democrats think that they can now relax… they are mistaken.
Dick Polman on the White House’s decision to “voluntarily submit their surveillance requests to the special court, as mandated by federal law”… and Bush’s credibility.
Andrew Sullivan has part one up of “a debate from 1969… with themes directly relevant for today” between William F. Buckley and Noam Chomsky. He also links to the second part. Because I recommend it so highly I will publish the first video here as well:
Jeremy Dibbell writes that Rice ‘told the New York Times on Friday that recent actions against Iranian operatives in Iraq were authorized by a presidential order issued “several months ago.”‘ He calls this development “troubling in the extreme”.
Jeff Jarvis wonders whether there should be limits to whom ‘we’ make fun of. Triggered by American Idol.
Sean Aqui on the ethics bill. There is – thus writes Sean – still a lot of work to be done, but it’s a good sign “that lobbyists worked so hard to derail the bill. It’s not a solution, but it’s a step forward.”
16 Responses to “Center of Attention”
Wow, the Buckley interview is a great find. And as Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Buckley was pretty good.
Now we have Plame.
He’s dead now, right?
C.S.: yes I agree, the debate is truly great. Both parts, obviously.
We still have some tv like it here. Is that entirely banned from US television? Just reasonable debates?
I do wish Buckley had interrupted him a little less… but I do enjoy watching those two duke it out.
Great clip, Michael!
Now, if you REALLY want to impress us, you got to dig up a clip of the 1968 debate between Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal. Now THAT’s entertainment.
it is truely interesting to see how discourse has deteriorated in our media since this debate.
and it is sad.
now we are left watching great minds like coulter and o’reiley going at opponents like debate is another round in the wwe
we have stopped evolving
nic – I remember in 1968 watching my first political convention. Vidal and Buckley were the commentators- they were on opposite ends of the political spectrum and were needling each other endlessly. It was much more entertaining than the convention, or any of today’s pundits going at it. What a great memory between two perfectly matched intellectual giants!
[...] ***** Our friends from The Moderate Voice have linked to this post with their Center Of Attention feature Technorati Tags:Â 100 Hour Agenda, 2006, 2008, Bush, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservatives, Contract with America, Current Events, Democrats, Elections, Headline News, Headlines, Liberals, Nancy Pelosi, News, News and Politics, Politics, Populists, Republicans, Senate, Six For 06 [...]
[…] ***** What are you trying to say? […] Your posts don’t seem to add anything to discussions.
[…] ***** Why post using different ‘ID’s'? […]
Steve K.: it’s called a TrackBack.
Not banned, but voted off the island. The public doesn’t have an appetite for anything intellectual.
Thanks Michael…
To quote Dorothy Parker:
Not banned entirely but PBS, one of the last bastions of intelligent debate and discussion on TV, has been under attack by the radical right with Kenneth Y. Tomlinson acting as their lead censor.
Bill Moyers removal from “NOW” is a perfect example of the current fear the radical right has of open, reasonable, respectable debate. Had Mr. Tomlinson been in charge of PBS when Bill Buckley hosted ‘Firing Line’ (one of my all time favorite programs) it’s unlikely that we’d have the above clip to discuss.
Yeah, Steve, but never fear: the Dems are bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.
Well, its either that, CS , get into the gutter with the GOP, or lose elections until eternity. Because we both know that the general public makes decisions based on negative ads, not civilized debate. I see no reason not to support such a move. Unless the Republicans don’t think they can win when they have to play fairly????
Kim,
What’s fair or constitutional about saying that speech is only allowed if it is ‘balanced’ with an equal amount of time for an opposing viewpoint? As long as no one is preventing the opposing side from presenting it’s view as a rebuttal, then the Constitution is being upheld. But preventing the first utterance unless it has a matched opposing utterance, is blocking First Amendment rights.