I was watching the news today and "Keller at Large" hit the airwaves. Let's just say, I hope today wasn't a sign of what's to come. Deval Patrick isn't even governor yet, but Keller was talking about Deval's legacy. His legacy? He's not even Governor yet - and Keller's doing his best to set up Deval for failure.
I'm all for lots of media scrutiny - and I intend to do some serious scrutinizing myself. However, let's let the guy get in office first. When he makes his first mistake - and he will make mistakes - then let's report the news and hold him accountable. However, it's going to do no one in this Commonwealth any good if we pounce on Deval and he's not even in office yet. It's not going to do any good to stir up controversy for the sake of stirring up controversy. No one benefits from that - not the voters, not the people who are depending on progress, not anyone. Except, maybe, Jon Keller.
Posts
19 comments:
I don't know who Keller is, but it would make more sense for him to be examining the lagacy, if there will even be one, of the current governor. You know, that guy called Mitt that we see on t.v. from such remote locations as SC and MI?
I agree with Laurel, sort of...it would of course make more sense to talk about Governor Romney's legacy, but that's not what people want to hear about right now, nobody cares about Romney in Mass. right now, they want to hear about Patrick.
Ryan, "Setting him up for failure?" Might you be overreacting a bit?
That's what pundits do, he's doing his job.
Keller is a complete tool, it's a good day for him when he's not asking Deval if he's friends with Willie Horton or calling him the quota king or something. If you don't want to listen to him embarass himself, you need to switch channels.
Pundits shouldn't have a job. We need thoughtful analysts. Unless you think James Carville types improve the airwaves?
I prefer Keller to David from BMG. He's far less pedantic.
Hell, I almost prefer Cynthia Stead to David.. Cynthia/Peter Porcupine is a Republican flack doing her job.
David is an insensitive whack job obsessed with procedural points while ignoring the impact on people's lives.
At some point all these pundits are just tools. Keller has just been around longer and is more professional.
Well, Ryan, I get it too. I see the same thing nationally. Folk are looking at over a decade of failure and waste around and locally. They are taking the newly elected -- but uninstalled -- officials to task for not being able to fix everything from our bridges to the Iraq debacle.
Yeah, it will take time. I don't envy Deval the mountain of broken things to fix. Let's all keep our running tallies. I'm betting we start looking better in months.
I agree. The funny thing is, I think once Deval's in office, he's going to keep a relatively low profile and just get things done. (As opposed to grandstanding like Mitt Romney for photo ops and Iowa audiences.)
I'm waiting to see when they'll
"break ground" on the windfarms. Energy independence is one of the most vital problems facing this country.
"I prefer Keller to David from BMG. He's far less pedantic." - Anonymous
Nice to see a person take responsibility for attacking another person. Honestly, do you want some cheese with your whine? My god.
I assume your ranting and raving has to do with David's stand on the ConCon recess. I know it's a passionate issue for people, but grow up. No really. You aren't helping anyone, least of all yourself.
I know David, and I've talked with him about the ConCon issue. He's taken a wacking for what is a debate on the TECHNICAL aspect of whether or not a vote is required or morally obligated in a ConCon. He's a fraking LAWYER for frak's sake. He knows constitutional law, more than you, I'd wager. On that technical level, he's absolutely right.
You can disagree with someone and still be civil. David is as committed as anyone I know to gay rights and protecting gay marriage. I suggest you know what the f you are talking about before maligning someone's character. For heaven's sake, calling Keller "better" than David. Are you nuts???
And next time, at least come up with a nickname, you coward. Anonymity is supposed to be something to protect you when you say actual brave things; it's corwardly to hide behind the grand tradition of being anonymous to attack someone.
I have to agree with Lynne's main point: as much as I wished David hadn't gone on and on about it - just made his point and went on with things - he isn't a bad person at all. He favors equality.
Like I said in one of my blogs (or maybe a bmg comment) - David's a legalist. It shouldn't be surprising he wanted what he views as the letter of the law followed and not bent.
I was actually thinking about making a blog about this myself... David was wrong to keep bringing it up, but that doesn't make him anti-gay or a bad person. Ultimately, I decided against making a new blog because I don't want to drag this issue out any further than it already has been, but it is important to at least make a reply.
Pundits shouldn't have a job? We shouldn't have people on the airwaves commenting on the political landscape?
Lynn and Ryan,
Just because David, or anyone, is a constitutional lawyer does not ever mean that their opinion on constitutional interpretation is correct. Const. scholars can and do disagree when reading the same text. That's why ther are 9 of the on the US Supremes, and 7 on the MA Supremes. SO never bow down to his hallowed lawyerly feet for the mere fact that he is a lawyer.
Not only do I agree with you laural, but I also think David is wrong. That's the biggest reason why I was so wordy on BMG througout that weekend (I must have written dozens of comments and 2 diaries, never mind my own blog). The legislature is obeying the law by having another ConCon before the next set of officials are sworn in, which satisfies the requirements. Furthermore, the SJC can't compel them to vote... like the Wicked Witch of the West, they have no power there in Munchkinland. Lastly, even if they could, the legislature can simply debate the issue till the clock rings 9 - which means the ConCon is over since that deadline actually is in the Constitution
The only reason why I made the comment was that I thought people were going a *little* hard on David. I don't want them thinking he's homophobic, when he isn't.
Aaron,
There's a difference between punditry and thoughtful analysis. Do I really need to explain the sublties?
Yeah, I know...and I'll pass on the explanation. But should he not be on the airwaves just b/c he doesn't fit your standards of thoughtfulness? Contesting his view is one thing, but you said that pundits shouldn't have a job. That's crazy.
One good thing about this thread is the nearly universal bashing of Keller. I hope young children aren't allowd to watch his work. He leaves me begging for a commercial - if I can't find the remote!
I'm sorry. Who gives a flying fuck about the technical aspects of the concon?
David's whacking is more than deserved. He's done more to advance homophobia this week than all the posters on HubPolitics combined.
Maybe next week we can debate the technical merits of slavery.
Frankly, Keller is a better writer, better speaker, and more balanced commentator than David. Hand's down.
And Lynne, take a look in the mirror.
I'll note that Lynne actually agrees with us - that the legislature should block the anti-gay amendment at all costs.
David's position alienated a lot of people - and I can understand why. This summer I was very, very harsh with him with his position on the amendment process in a blog I wrote... so I can understand the frustration. But Lynne's always been on our side with this issue, she's just friendly with David.
Aaron, I believe in the promotion of good journalism. You're darn right I don't think pundits should have a job - on TV. You think the likes of Robert Novak, James Carville, Paul Begala and Ann Coulter add anything to network TV? No, they're there simply to either trash the other party (or trash their own party, in the case of Carville - if it suits his own personal agenda, which it does)... or they're there to get in a two way talking-point tussle.
If the media wants some two-way debate on the issues, that's fine, but I don't want Al Sharpton talking to me about President Bush's position on Iran is wrong... I'd much prefer, you know, an expert on Iran - who's indepedent of either the Democratic or Republican operations.
More importantly, I'd rather see an independent analysis of *the truth* done by a reporter.
Ryan,
One of the weirder changes over the last few years is presenting talking heads in the name of balance. So news is no longer about presenting the facts, but about presenting both "sides" even when there is none. An example of this is the Globe contacting Brian Camenker every time they talk about gay rights (this seems to have stopped, thankfully).
I actually think the situation on the Web is worse. The Mass. GOP has an open strategy of sock puppeting. Think about the number of posts in the Globe discussion forum saying things like "as a lesbian I oppose gay marriage."
And then there's the queen of lies herself: Peter Porcupine.
I totally agree with you, Bostonph. The news has given up on reporting truth in favor of having two sides for every issue. What about the issues with one side? Or three or four?
Post a Comment