Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Jon Keller is repulsive and the Warren campaign should never have allowed him to moderate.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-12 12:09 AM
Original message
Why Jon Keller is repulsive and the Warren campaign should never have allowed him to moderate.
I mentioned local Boston political commentator Jon Keller in connection with his being the moderator of the first Warren-Brown debate.

Thanks to the reddening of PBS during the Bush years, the late Andy Rooney's daughter, Emily Rooney, has at least two shows on WGBH, our main public broadcasting channel. One of them involves a panel discussion to which Jon Keller was added in recent years.

The panel was discussing the charges about the host of a children's show on BBC having allegedly molesting hundreds of children during his career on the BBC.

Here was Keller's first comment. (Italics indicate where he lowered his voice to a barely audible level and spoke very quickly and bold indicates where he raised his voice to a near shout.)

"The Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, the BBC, some of our (in the case of the BBC) most progressive institutions.

First of all, what makes the BBC a progressive organization in the context of England as a whole? If anything, it's probably relative conservative.

Second, the BBC was only one of the three organizations he named. The majority of the three are decidedly conservative, at least in the U.S.

He does craven, dishonest things like that all the time.

As you may recall, I reported that his very first question in this important first debate was about Warren's alleged Native American heritage, which he framed in terms of a character issue. And then let Scott Brown pound that issue, which had at that point, been Brown's biggest charge against Warren, until the first break.

Had I been in the Warren campaign, I would never have agreed to him as a moderator, certainly not of the first debate.

Contrast that with the Brown campaign, which flatly turned down the Kennedy Senate Center as a debate venue unless Vicki Kennedy would agree not to endorse Warren.

Democrats always congratulate themselves on being so much smarter than Republicans. I certainly believe that Warren is smarter than Brown. But, when it comes to organization building and strategy, I have to hand it to Republicans. Sadly, I also have to hand it to Republicans when it comes to "the Southern strategy" and dirty tricks.

I guess forty years of Democratic control of Congress (thank you Franklin, Eleanor, Jack, Lyndon, New Deal, New Frontier and Great Society)made them desperate. And spiritually downright ugly.
Refresh | +1 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-12 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. yes, I concur
the Dems have the intellect, but the GOP has a lot of directness in their campaign style. I think maybe it's just because being cold hearted and ruthless is just so easy.... just like putdowns!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-12 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. I don't know what it is, DD, I really don't.
I don't find being cold and ruthless easier at all.

It's always been much easier for me to hand a beggar a dollar than to pass him or her by.

I have no idea what could bring me to the point where I would applaud and cheer the idea of letting someone die if he or she had no money for treatment.

Sometimes, I think it could be hard wiring.

Some study did show that conservatives and liberals do seem to have some differences in common. Not that you are born to be a political conservative. But maybe you are born to, or trained to, have a certain resistance to change, which can be a very good thing in some circumstances and a very bad thing in others. So, someone with that resistance might be more likely to be attracted to conservative politics. (Typed the woman who cannot abide change and is to the left of Obama.)

Anyway, I am back to I just don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-12 02:33 AM
Response to Original message
2. I think you have it nailed
especially on this: "I guess forty years of Democratic control of Congress (thank you Franklin, Eleanor, Jack, Lyndon, New Deal, New Frontier and Great Society)made them desperate. And spiritually downright ugly."

Keller acts like an extension of Fox "News". There is no lie they won't promote. I don't think it's much of a stretch to think, if they are willing to lie on such a scale, they will do worse, they will do anything. The future looks bleak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-12 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Keller is more cagey. Because you see, he didn't lie. Nothing you could point at and then disprove.
He merely got a little selective and, in spots, a little too loud or a little too soft-spoken (inaudible.

Colbert could do him to a T. Fortunately for the U.S. and unfortunately for New England, though, Jon Keller is not sufficiently important to warrant a Colbert send up.

But, I will not do the "those WeePublicans are always victimizing us poor, helpless Democrats" victim mentality here.

If I were Scott Brown, I would have chosen Jon Keller for the debate, just as I would go on Leno rather than Letterman or, heaven forbid, Conan.

So, I am sticking to: Why did the Warren campaign allow this? Especially with the example of Brown turning down the Kennedy venue unless Vicki promised not to endorse Warren? (And btw, where is all the news about the Vicki Kennedy endorsement anyway?)

Oh, look. I just googled for news about the endorsement and I found this article. http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/06/20/...

Sure do look like her campaign peeps let her down big time, repeatedly, on the debate venue/moderator issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 20th 2017, 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC