Bill Ayers, Chris Matthews, and American Redemption

Here.

I agree and am most grateful that you pointed this out. It is a nice rebuke to all the Matthews haters who continue to repeat untruths about how he is a misogynist and homophobe. My only regret is that the interview was cheapened by the insipid comments of Joan Walsh who said he wasn;t contrite enough and Michelle Bernard who criticized his earrings and his scruffy look, ignoring what he had to say about America as a land of justice.

Check out the piece that Ayers wrote after the election entitled "What a Long Strange Trip It's Been." Very cool.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4028/what_a_long_strange_trip_its_be...

I've heard Ayers interveiwed several times since the election.  His talking points are strong and consistant.

What I REALLY agree with what Ayers has to say (all of it, basically) is that we need a truth and reconciliation effort having to do with the Vietnam War.  This is not likely to happen--and because of this fact, the possiblity of future illegal invasion and mass murder is increased.

I understand the toxic politics surrounding Bill Ayers--the disease is not in Ayers, or his wife, but it exists in the dominant mentality of the US political elites.   Insane jackels run the show here.

In short, I like Bill Ayers becasue he is circumspect, humble, and sincere--and he gives a damn about justice.

Matthews kind of surprised me in this interview.  I have seen evidence in the past of the guy being a bandwagon, bullying corporate apologist and propagandist.  Not to say he is ALL bad--but he is something of an opprotunists.  Sometimes clarity and truth get shit upon--more often than not this is the case with the MSM.   Thankfully Matthews let Ayers say his piece is a respectful, authentic journalist fashion.   This is the Chris Matthews that I can grow to respect (somewhat).

Al and company:  I really don't like the way TPM appears to slime JJ, Jr. with the Blogo crap.  Sure, Jackson is a climber--but smearing hiim and not giving the guy the benefit of the doubt is totally weak.  There is absolutely no evidence of any Jackson pay for play.  None.   I think that folks at that web site dropped the ball on this one.   Just my opinion, of course.   They have done very good work in the past, but now is not the time to be weak in the face of what is very clearly a rightwing attack on Obama and the progressive flank of the Democrat Party.

Lastly, Catherine Austin Fitts on the program Flashpoints hints that part of the impetus that brought Blogo down when it did was his threat to cease state government's largess toward Bank of America.  This could be lame speculation, but it appears that the financial capital/Wall Street house of cards is crumbling down.  Fitts claims that the plan is to immiserate a huge segment of the US population.

I don't know about you folks, but the reporting on this financial crisis is vertigenous and fragmented.  Power skews discourse, and it is not surprising that coverage of the collpase is pretty bad here in the US.

Just some thoughts.  The jackels are on the loose.

 

 

I missed Hardball last night. The conversation between Matthews and Ayes was refreshing. How nice to have fair and balanced dialogue in context. Not only for the words, but also for the life story which demonstrated how life flows on and it is possible to admit choices made at one point can be seen in a different light as one matures.

Polarization of opinions has always been with us - and probably always will be. Yet, for me, a key value is to listen to one another with an open mind. It is the demonization of the differences in opinion that is such a downer in our society. How to get beyond the propaganda to expore facts is, in my opinion, a challenge as great as solving any specific problem.

I'll always remember what PE Obama stated the night of our victory on Nov. 4th..."Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."

This is the third time I have heard Ayers interviewed since early November.  The first time I heard him was on Fresh Air, being interviewed by Terry Gross (November 18th).   Hopefully, this link will work.

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=97112600&m=97136797

Second time he was being interviewed on WNYC by Brian Lehrer.  Both times I sat fascinated.

the American people buying the "homeland security, weapons of mass destruction" thinking was spot on. Good to see him raise it. Equally good to hear Ayers reply that there was opposition and questioning, even at the time. Paying tribute to the millions who questioned and protested even as the MSM did not. I remember that March day in 2003 in San Francisco. The biggest crowds I'd seen since the Gulf invasion in '91, and '91 saw about 500,000 people on Market Street. What was new in '03 was the emailing, the reporting on the Internet of the millions around the globe protesting and marching on the same day. Feeling part of something massive and worldwide. Whose America? Our America. Whose flag? Our flag. A nation among nations. I'll push that meme.

for appointing A REAL LIVE SCIENTIST to his cabinet for energy secretary(the guy also has admin experience)!

This hasn't happened in... um... well, I don't know when the last time was, but it's so refreshing getting experts on board instead of political hacks("Brownie incompetence", anyone?) 

 

 

I did notice after the interview that one of the talking heads [actually both of them] bashed Ayers as being essentially an unapologetic "terrorist." I guess that's to be expected from talking heads.

But what was curious is that one of them went to great pains to demean how Ayers was dressed and how he looked [two earrings, unkempt and hippie-like]. That talking head of course looked like a barbie doll -- if it had been a male, it would have been a Ken doll.

It was telling to me, even poetic, since it's not really the substance of things these pundits are interested in, many in the media, but rather the image, and the fact that they can control and manipulate the image to their ends.

Substance is to be feared. A scraggly, beared, middle-aged man with earrings can be dealt with -- as can a "terrorist" or "drug cartel." The complexity of reality, though, well that has no place in most spaces in the two dimensions of mainstream media.

So it's important, I think, to never fall into the trap of letting the media mediate our social conversations. Amplify yes, if we control the image, but advance or enlighten, rarely, very rarely. 

That hard work has to happen one on one, neighborhood by neighborhood, until you have real neighborhoods in America once again.

I don't normally watch Hardball but happened to turn the TV on right as the interview started.  I really appreciated the calm nature of the discussion.  It really seemed to be productive and it was one of my good Tweety moments.  The man, to me, is totally unpredictable.  I kinda like that.  There are times when he drives me crazy and times I love him to death.  To wit, Lisa brings up the runnup to the war.  Chris Matthews has delivered some real diatribes against the MSM  and the administration in that regard.  He is clearly mad at himself for not having pushed back and is trying to make amends.

Steven Hunt, I have to disagree a bit about the JJ Jr thing.  First off, Josh posted something the other day bemoaning that JJ was clearly going to take a lot of collateral damage from all of this.  I remember because my reaction has been a bit different.  There is no hard evidence yet that JJ really did offer up the "bribes."  But that certainly is what comes across in the dialogue between Blogo and Harris.  Now whether it's true or not, I don't know.  But I'm certainly not going to fall on my sword saying the man is innocent.  I will withhold judgement.

...looks like the auto bailout bill is dead.  Thanks to McConnell, Corker and Shelby.  The UAW has refused their call to lower wages to match those of the Japanese workers in those southern states.  It's hard to even know where to start.  Congress throws $700B at the financial services industry without demanding any concessions with regard to those employees yet they see fit to demand blue collar workers take a wage hit.  And the fact that it benefits their home state is just a coincidence, right?  Besides, I thought Republicans believed in the free market to set wages...

 

Wonder what will happen next.  It's hard to fathom that Congress will just let GM go under.  Here's a question.  When is the last time we had a real fillisbuster?  I mean one of the things I've been thinking for quite a while now is why couldn't the Dems just make the Repubs really, truly fillisbuster?  Why does there really HAVE to be 60 votes to get anything done?  Why not force them to really get up and start reading cookbooks?  Would that not be a good PR move?

Thanks for this thoughtful analysis. Like many who've posted earlier, I rarely watch Hardball -- just clips on C&L. This one was really fascinating and well worth the viewing. Who knew Chris was a police office on the Hill? Fascinating. I really liked how they both were very respectful toward each other without being fake about it. Refreshing indeed.

which is why we can be certain Reid won't do it.

According to this, Bush and Paulson may use some of the bank bailout funds for this. The only reason the current situation came to pass is that whenever any bank or financial services CEO comes to Bush and Paulson asking for money, they get it, but Bush and Paulson refused to take any action to save the automakers. They let things get right to the brink of disaster when they could have acted. I feel sick thinking about what would happen if GM and Chrysler and their suppliers went under. P.S. Does the Republican party want to never win a state-wide race in the Rust Belt again? What are they thinking?

I was thinking along the same lines as you.  As someone who tends to be rather conservative on fiscal issues, I agree with several of the points they've been making about ensuring the automakers reform the companies into a viable business model.  The same thing should be done on the financial bailout.

But the GOP made it clear that this wasn't about lending to a viable or non-viable business.  It was about busting the UAW.  The UAW has many faults, but they aren't the only ones to blame here.

So, in the name of busting the union, we have an increasingly regional party (to which I once belonged) that has told yet another region of the country to kiss off.  I don't get it.  There just aren't enough votes left for them to win the White House with this model, and redistricting will also start going heavily against them.

Since the inception of the GOP, how many Presidential races has the Republican won without winning Ohio?  Zero.  I just don't get it.  But I guess when you're always right, you don't think about future consequences.

Voinovich and Specter are up in 2010.  Regardless of their level of support for the bailout, they are now endangered species simply because of the (R) next to their names.

If the Senate wants to legislate the pay and benefits of union workers, then it follows that union workers should demand parity with the pay and benefits of the Senate.  Senators, the choice is yours.  Raise their pay, health coverage and PENSIONS to match yours, or cut yours to match theirs.  Ball's in your court.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

I am hoping that several moves by the Obama administration will enable us to get around the media filter to an even greater degree (in particular I'm thinking about the "Your seat at the table" publishing all documents of meetings being held with the transition team and outside groups - http://change.gov/open_government/yourseatatthetable)

I am also pysched by the likely appointment of Chu as energy secretary (a rocket scientist in the cabinet! - and someone who gets energy efficiency).

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/10/12127/542

And I'm pleased about Daschle and Jeanne Lambrew for health, and also Carol Browner (see grist on the "green dream team")

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/11/152330/07

and Klein on the health choices:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=12&year=2008&...

Obama should use the Blago cover to sneak in all these great progressive choices :) without the scandal-obsessed press corps even noticing.

 

KD

Thanks for running the clip, and for your analysis of the interview. As a former member of SDS with friends who took the Weather Underground path it was refreshing to watch the Hardball/Ayers interview. In the last 9 months I have had many frustrating conversations - even with liberal friends - trying to get them to understand "terrorism" within the context of the politics of the late 60's/early 70's. Ayers did a much better job of it than I was ever able to do.

It was a fairly high-minded exchange. Then Chris Matthews and Joan Walsh got the last word, like the establishment closing over a moment of light, the judgement that Ayers wasn't contrite enough.

Progressive Katha Politt (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/anotherthing/388681/bill_ayers_whitewashe...)  agreed, writing in The Nation that the Weather Underground's violence turned moderates away from what should have been a mainstream movement against the war.

I feel that Ayers is wiser and more experienced than most of his critics. I sure don't feel qualified to judge him. But I completely agree with him, and this post about national reconciliation. We had the blanket pardons for draft dodgers, but that only deepened the right wing grudge.

I guess Obama's bipartisanship is in the spirit of National Reconciliation. Moderates are coming around. Are there professional, highly-paid grudge-nursers, like Limbaugh and O'Reilly in Latin America?

 

 

 

Hilzoy wants Bill Ayers to "just go away", based upon neat little historical rear view mirror moral boxes neatly tied up with absolute moral judgement.  Me, I'm not so sure.