Chris Hayes– who broke barrier on Palestinian guests– gets primetime slot at MSNBC

Israel/Palestine
on 54 Comments

This is great news. Chris Hayes is taking over the 8 PM slot at MSNBC, right after Chris Matthews. Hayes actually believes in human rights for Palestinians, and has not been afraid to host actual Palestinian-Americans who believe that too, notably Yousef Munayyer and Noura Erakat (check out that astonishing panel from last November). Yes, Hayes has had to do the balancing act with the usual pomaded neocons, but he obviously does not feel intimidated and the network’s move is another sign that the lib-left has to make room for this discourse.

(P.S. I think Francis’s election yesterday was also good for Palestine, though it’s not quite as clear.)

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

54 Responses

  1. David Samel
    March 14, 2013, 10:13 am

    This is indeed great news. Ever since I discovered Hayes a few months ago, I’ve watched his show with great interest. He is a brilliant host, and thrives on the back-and-forth of multiple viewpoints on a very wide variety of topics. With the two-hour format, he always has lengthy analysis of each issue. My guess is that his format will change a good deal in prime time and I hope it does not reduce his effectiveness. He does not often discuss Middle East issues, but does not seem afraid to do so, and his instincts appear quite good. He recently had an excellent monologue on the Brooklyn College BDS flap.

  2. Donald
    March 14, 2013, 10:22 am

    I’m not sure if this is good news or not–I sometimes wondered if Hayes was allowed free rein on Saturday/Sunday because only the wonkiest sorts of lefties would be watching then. Now that he’s primetime, I suspect the quality of the program will go down. I don’t mean that he’ll change his views on the I/P conflict, but that there may be pressure to dumb the show down for the primetime audience. Will there really be an hour of mostly thoughtful discussion among talking heads? I’ll be pleasantly amazed if the format stays the same.

    On the plus side, there will be absolutely no temptation whatsoever to stay inside and watch TV on Saturday mornings if Big Ed is taking over that time slot.

    • German Lefty
      March 14, 2013, 12:42 pm

      I sometimes wondered if Hayes was allowed free rein on Saturday/Sunday because only the wonkiest sorts of lefties would be watching then. Now that he’s primetime, I suspect the quality of the program will go down. I don’t mean that he’ll change his views on the I/P conflict, but that there may be pressure to dumb the show down for the primetime audience.

      I totally agree with you. I have the same suspicion. Would be really bad if that actually happens. UP is the only watchable show on MSNBC.

    • Ellen
      March 14, 2013, 12:49 pm

      Agree that is it quite possible, even probable, that the quality and level of the program will go down as Hayes is put under pressure to increase ratings.

      Ironically, it might reduce the show to yet another irrelevant panel of the same ole’ talking heads blather — reducing the ratings and the tide of success he has enjoyed.

      Perhaps it is a generational thing, or a cultural thing, but Hayes tends to talk too much, interject his own monologues for much of the show and have too many guests for meaningful discussion. It is a difficult format.

      Thinking about media in the USA, I noticed that Al Jazeera is now available in central Missouri and I hear more and more there turn to it for information and discussion.

      In a way ironic as that state has had recent burnings and repeated destruction of a Mosque.

      link to aljazeera.com

      Imagine if something terrible like that ever happened to a Synagogue in the country. It would be covered by all the talking heads for months and months. Homeland security would be sent out. Which may be ok.

      But the repeated razing of a Mosque in Missouri was hardly covered in the US news. Little to no public reflection on the event. Telling and really not ok.

      Would Hayes ever go THERE?

      • Donald
        March 14, 2013, 1:03 pm

        “Perhaps it is a generational thing, or a cultural thing, but Hayes tends to talk too much, interject his own monologues for much of the show and have too many guests for meaningful discussion. It is a difficult format.”

        He sometimes does talk too much, but that’s true of almost every talk show host I’ve ever seen, and at least Hayes usually has intelligent things to say (as opposed to, say, Charlie Rose.) Bill Moyers is probably the only one who doesn’t talk too much, or the only one I can think of offhand. (And Moyers is the only one who is as good or maybe better than Hayes.)

        I think the number of guests he has on (usually four) is fine, because they are on long enough that they all get their chance to say something interesting. It’s very different from the widely overpraised Rachel Maddow, who will have one guest on at a time and often nothing is said that is of any interest. Part of the reason for that is that there are multiple segments in one hour and so topics are covered in a very superficial way. I hope the new Hayes show doesn’t shift towards that format.

      • goldmarx
        March 14, 2013, 1:59 pm

        Chris is still a newbie in the talk show format, so he’ll eventually find his natural rhythm – he’s still a bit nervous, coming across like Damian Spinelli from “General Hospital”.

        I still like Maddow, but she seems fiercely afraid of touching the Middle East, and that’s disappointing.

      • Ellen
        March 14, 2013, 2:22 pm

        Donald, Yes, Rose is rather blah….when I think about it there is not one interview I can remember. It is all really about nothing. And Maddow…..revolting. I know a strong word, but her opinionated and snarky ignorance is unbearable. Not to mention the superficial format.

        That Hayes delves into real subjects sets him and his format apart. I hope he can continue his success. Now if he could only talk a little less, ask and listen more…..;)

      • German Lefty
        March 14, 2013, 3:40 pm

        I still like Maddow, but she seems fiercely afraid of touching the Middle East, and that’s disappointing.

        There was an interview with Rachel Maddow on Citizen Radio, in which she talks about covering the I/P conflict:
        link to wearecitizenradio.com
        (minute 47)

      • German Lefty
        March 14, 2013, 3:50 pm

        And Maddow…..revolting.

        Thank you for expanding my vocabulary. I now know that there’s a difference between rebelling and revolting.

      • Ellen
        March 15, 2013, 4:51 am

        German Lefty, in that context revolting is a polite way of saying zum kotzen.

    • German Lefty
      March 15, 2013, 6:20 am

      “Hayes has long been seen as a primetime host-in-waiting at MSNBC, given his rapid success, though in Nov. 2012 he told POLITICO he’d be ‘reluctant’ to give up the freedom and autonomy that comes with hosting a two-hour weekend show.”
      link to politico.com

  3. American
    March 14, 2013, 10:28 am

    “(P.S. I think Francis’s election yesterday was also good for Palestine, though it’s not quite as clear.)”..Phil

    I thought about that too. Francis is a Jesuit, the first Pope elected from the Society of the Jesuits I believe.
    The Jesuits are a whole different group in their training and philosophy than the other priest of the Church. They were always more the ‘political arm” and intelligentsia of the Church. …… and…er…sometimes ‘provocateurs’ …as in the Boer Wars in China.
    According to reports Francis is very dedicated to the poor and oppressed and didn’t exactly stay out of ‘politics’ in Argentina.
    I think his first priority is probably to get the Church back on track and clean it up, but if he does weigh in on I/P the 1.3 billion Catholics around the world would be quite a force.

    • Sycamores
      March 14, 2013, 2:04 pm

      firstly congradutions to Pope Francis the frist.

      Jorge Bergoglio has a few skeletons in his closet that will need be aired. Catholics like other religious groups are diverse and pragmatic. i know plenty of Catholics that would see the pope as a religous leader but that’s it nothing else, church and state (or anything political) is a big no no. Ireland is a good example to the demise of Catholicism and their control just visit a church on sunday in Ireland and see the empty pews. there are probably more agnostic Catholics than any other group in the world. come to think about it some of the most devout zionist in the US are Catholics like Newt Gingrich, Rich Santorum and Joe Biden.

      in other words don’t expect the Catholics to move en masse on anything.

      i don’t know what influence the Pope will have on Palestine and israel besides the usual words of peace etc.

  4. American
    March 14, 2013, 10:36 am

    Hayes getting a prime time slot is great…..I just hope it doesn ‘t come with ‘restrictions” and taboos.

  5. Chespirito
    March 14, 2013, 10:44 am

    “Pomaded neocons”–nice.

  6. Chu
    March 14, 2013, 11:03 am

    ‘a protégé of Rachel Maddow’ the article says. Hayes is more tactful on his Saturday morning show getting out of the spotlight and allowing the issue to be discussed with a seemingly better panel, where Maddow tends to linger within it and invites the tired old guests. I prefer Hayes approach and no doubt he will be a better host than Ed Shultz or Maddow.

    • German Lefty
      March 14, 2013, 12:45 pm

      I prefer Hayes approach and no doubt he will be a better host than Ed Shultz or Maddow.

      Yes. Obama could commit genocide and Shouter Ed would still defend him.

      • Chu
        March 14, 2013, 1:48 pm

        Maddow’s not much better than Shultz. Most of the hosts of this network really only serve to perpetuate the never-ending political campaign. They are enamored by their own voices and thoughts (i.e. chris matthews) than saying anything important. I think Hayes seems to bring something new.

        But I would be wary of success on MSNBC. Phil Donahue in 2002 had the highest ratings of any show on the network, but it was cancelled because of his vociferous opposition to the US Iraq Invasion.

        And check this about Chris Matthews:
        ‘Matthews was a big proponent of the Iraq invasion and he cultivated a good relationship with MSNBC’s management before Donahue came to the network. He played a crucial role in procuring the firing of Donahue and “saw himself as MSNBC’s biggest star, and he was upset that the network was pumping significant resources into Donahue’s show.” ‘

  7. just
    March 14, 2013, 11:14 am

    The Pope’s election also made me hopeful– something “stirred” in me. We’ll have to wait and see…………..

    As for Chris Hayes– go get ‘em, sir. Tell the truth to the snoozing and complicit Americans, and be a force for justice.

  8. yourstruly
    March 14, 2013, 12:12 pm

    feeling bad?

    thinking about what sort of world?

    we’ll be leaving?

    for the how many generations yet to come?

    so then what?

    leaving a letter to one’s loved ones that says sorry, i did my best?

    some consolation prize?

    yet with justice for palestine?

    dawn?

  9. ritzl
    March 14, 2013, 12:40 pm

    Great news. Hope his “freshness” is what brought him to the table and he keeps it that way in prime time.

    Maybe OT… Phil, is there a thematic connection to this and the next MW post (on some fundamental common sense seeping into the discussion on drones)? Are you seeing some meaningful cracks in the manipulated and stale discourse; media, political, or otherwise.

    Somebody said in comments the other day that Limbaugh was lauding Paul at the expense of the “neocons.” With Limbaugh it may just be a cynical ploy, but who knows. Hell, with any of them it could just be a cynical ploy. But it does seem that Rand Paul gets 13 unfettered populist(±) hours and suddenly we see cracks in the info/opinion dam. Was/is it just that “easy?” Are people that hungry for some leadership (and sadly, too scared to voice sensible opinion without it)? Is the deferred anger that close to the surface that it is now starting to peck through?

    Anyway, something seems to be happening, and Hayes may be part of what’s happening. Thanks for both articles.

    • American
      March 14, 2013, 1:10 pm

      @ritzl

      Yes there are cracks occuring everywhere….except the one place that needs cracking, the US congress.
      Doing surveys of the news on Israel I am seeing more, more, more cracks. Catholic Bishops in Africa refuse Isr sponsored trip to Israel, head of British football League say don’t play in Israel, ..here, there, everywhere little cracks like these….even Ben and Jerry’s, the I/P peace advocate is being boycotted because they make and sell ice creme in the settlements.
      The criminal state of Isr is making more people blow their tops, like this:

      link to theaustralian.com.au

      Uproar as pollie accuses Israel of war crimes
      by: christian kerr
      From: The Australian
      March 15, 2013 12:00AM

      THE NSW parliament erupted in fury after Labor Legislative Councillor Shaoquett Moselmane slammed Gaza as “the world’s largest open-air prison camp” and compared resistance to the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon with that against Nazi Germany.
      Debate on a motion reporting on a study trip to Israel by a delegation of NSW parliamentarians, organised by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, was hijacked as the state’s upper house degenerated into acrimony.
      In unprecedented scenes, Labor powerbroker Walt Secord called points of order on his party colleague, accusing him of irrelevance and steering away from the motion. Liberal Matthew Mason-Cox, in another point of order, accused Mr Moselmane of speaking “garbage”.
      In a fiery speech, Mr Moselmane described the creation of Israel as a “corruption of justice”.
      “Ever since 1948, the Israeli Zionist plan has been to acquire land to expand the borders of the Jewish Zionist state,” he said.

      Mr Moselmane said Palestinians had been denied the right to a homeland and he accused Israel of “massive violations of human rights” in Gaza. “If there was ever a group in need of protection from war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, it is the Palestinians,” he said.
      Mr Moselmane accused Israel of running “torture camps” in its occupation of southern Lebanon. “I resent members here accusing the resistance of (being) terrorist groups,” he said. “I salute the resistance. Imagine if — in 1941, in 1942 — we had condemned . . . resistance against Nazi Germany.
      “In Lebanon, the resistance was able to force the Israelis out.”
      His comments were supported by Greens MLC Cate Faehrmann, who tweeted, “Go Shaoquett Moselmane”.
      Mr Moselmane later told The Australian the motion had been “100 per cent unbalanced”.
      “It was organised by the Jewish Board of Deputies and they projected their views and obviously they arranged meetings with people who would project a particular view,” he said.
      Mr Secord said as a life-long supporter of Israel and the Jewish community he made no apologies for taking a stand.
      NSW Jewish Board of Deputies chief Vic Alhadeff condemned Mr Moselmane’s remarks as “extreme and baseless”.

      • ritzl
        March 14, 2013, 2:09 pm

        @American I was going to reply that Congress is probably the last institution to get it, but then I read Greenwald’s article today:

        link to guardian.co.uk

        He refers to a John Podesta WaPo Op-Ed about transparency on drones: link to washingtonpost.com

        and an “acrimonious” meeting between Sen Dems led by Rockefeller on the same issue reported in Politico and HuffPo:
        link to politico.com
        link to huffingtonpost.com

        I realize it’s not I/P transparency their so “agitated” about, but it is a step in the right generic process/temerity direction. Perhaps that questioning process will trickle out into other issues. Hope so, and I think it does directly relate to Paul’s filibuster.

        Peace.

      • ivri
        March 14, 2013, 3:15 pm

        This is no cracks – just cherry-picking. If you scan the entire world in such a way you can see “signs” for, or against, any cause you want to support, or oppose. There is apparently no limit to where people can go with wishful thinking…

      • seafoid
        March 14, 2013, 4:34 pm

        Great stuff by Moselmane. Thanks for the link. Of course the local JBoD paint everyone who is sickened by apartheid as extremist.

        When did the JBoD worldwide network get taken over by Wayne LaPierre clones?

  10. gingershot
    March 14, 2013, 12:50 pm

    great news – it reminds me of when Hillary said that Al Jazeera was winning the PR war – now we have a Chris Hayes up against the rest of the Scott Pelleys, Andrea Mitchells and the rest of our saboteur media

    American news as co-opted by the Israeli Lobby and big business is basically infotainment and most people get their real news – particularly foreign policy/international news from the internet because the US MSM has been rigged every bit as badly as the Middle East Peace Process under a Hillary buddy like Dennis Ross

    Chris Hayes reminds me more of smart international news than the US – pathetic as that is

    Go get ‘em Chris – show us what we’ve been missing with Rachel ‘What’s a Neocon?’ Maddow and the rest

    • seafoid
      March 14, 2013, 5:17 pm

      “American news as co-opted by the Israeli Lobby and big business is basically infotainment”

      link to ft.com

      “In the liberal tradition there are broadly three reputable lines of argument for press freedom. The oldest of these arguments is that freedom of the press allows us to discover and test truth and to detect and reject falsehood. This cornerstone of liberal thought was central to John Milton’s argument for freedom of the press. In Areopagitica (1644) he asserts that “though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”

      The rhetoric soars but unfortunately Milton’s claim is neither broad enough nor convincing. His argument is too narrow because it is silent about speech that does not aim at truth. It is unconvincing because freedom is not enough for speech that aims at truth. Truth is often put to the worse in “free and open encounters”; this is why we restrict and regulate freedom of speech with some care when we aim at truth. As Bernard Williams acidly reminded us in Truth and Truthfulness (2002), “in institutions dedicated to finding out the truth, such as universities, research institutes, and courts of law, speech is not at all unregulated”.

      Nor are free and open encounters enough where the media aim at truth. Reporting news or football results is different from publishing horoscopes or short stories. Seeking and reporting the truth is not best achieved in free and open encounters but through honest communication that is both intelligible to and assessable by readers, listeners or viewers. When truth claims are at stake, the open question is not whether the media need to respect these and other standards, but how they are to be secured.

      John Stuart Mill joined Milton in arguing that our grasp of truth improves when ideas are contested. In On Liberty (1859) he maintained that “the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

      But the old guys could never have predicted US plutocracy and what it does to media in the US.

  11. American
    March 14, 2013, 12:57 pm

    Hayes could start off any Israel discussion with legitimate issues/views such as:……it would be hard to call discussion of * US Security interest* re Israel and the position of the US Military Command on I/P “taboo” or anti semitic..although I am sure some would try. ..the last thing I-Firstdom wants is the ‘security minded’ dumb downed public masses thinking is that Israel and it’s actions in the ME are a US security problem.

    link to worldtribune.com

    Pentagon advances Obama trip to Israel with push for peace process
    Special to WorldTribune.com

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. military, on the eve of a visit by President
    Barack Obama, has urged an initiative for an Arab-Israeli settlement.
    The military’s Central Command said the establishment of a Palestinian
    state in the West Bank would be required for Middle East stability. Centcom
    said a U.S.-led peace process could also neutralize Al Qaida and its allies
    in the region.

    Gen. James Mattis testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 5. /AP/Evan Vucci

    “We are now at a point where a re-energized Middle East peace effort
    could pay significant dividends in terms of regional security since the
    status quo benefits no one and violent extremists use the issue for their
    own purposes,” Centcom chief Gen. James Mattis said.
    In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 5, Mattis said the failure of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement was contributing to turmoil in the Middle East. The general also warned that stability depended on a viable Palestinian Authority and its transformation into an independent state.
    “It is essential that we maintain the viability of the Palestinian
    Authority as a partner for peace and security, and preserve the two-state
    solution,” Mattis said.
    The testimony was submitted as Obama prepared his first visit to
    Israel as president. Officials said the president would press Israel and the
    PA to reach an agreement to facilitate a Palestinian state in 2014.
    Centcom has assessed that U.S. policy in the Middle East must focus on
    the relationship with Israel and other allies as well as Gulf energy
    supplies and counter-insurgency. In his last appearance to the Senate panel,
    Mattis said Centcom was working with the State Department and other civilian
    agencies in an effort to maintain influence with a smaller military
    presence.
    “U.S. Central Command’s approach — working in tandem with the State
    Department and other agencies through a whole of government approach — is
    to protect our interests using fewer military resources in an era of fiscal
    restraint and political change,” Mattis said”

    P.S.
    But don’t take what the Military is telling congress as any hopeful sign of changing congress on Israel…..the high command has been telling congress this for decades…and they haven’t changed their I Firstdom yet. Congress doesn’t represent America, it represents ‘The Lobby’…remember that every time you go to vote in an election.

  12. yourstruly
    March 14, 2013, 1:34 pm

    israel’s apologists claim that the palestinians are to blame

    since they started it

    don’t we have a right to defend ourselves

    except the palestinians didn’t start it

    jewish settlers did

    their arrival

    their land grab

    that’s what ignited the conflict

    fans the flames

    justice for palestine

    fire extinguisher?

  13. giladg
    March 14, 2013, 1:58 pm

    400,000 odd thousand Americans watch MSNBC during prime time.
    Which translates to 7.5% of the American people. Talk about going nowhere fast.

    • yourstruly
      March 14, 2013, 2:58 pm

      overnight from near 0% to 7.5%

      yes indeedy, that’s going somewhere fast

    • Kathleen
      March 15, 2013, 11:42 am

      What MSNBC’s Hayes has been willing to focus on in the middle east has been the exception rather than the rule on MSNBC and anywhere else in the MSM. Will sure give you that. Pathetic is so many ways they we celebrate like crazy when a crack has been put into the media’s wall of silence that has been so carefully and thoroughly constructed over the last six decades. But many of us have celebrated and pushed for this crack. My bets are on this move by Hayes over to prime time will seal up that crack. He is more than likely getting way more money, and will feel more pressure to shut his mouth on this critical issue. Sad to say my bets will be that Chris Hayes will go along with being silenced on this issue. Hope I am wrong but that is where I am placing my bet. He will shut up.

      Where else it there a crack like this on T.V. news? A bit on Washington Journal but where else?

  14. joemowrey
    March 14, 2013, 2:25 pm

    link to dissidentvoice.org

    For anyone thinking the new Pope is going to be good for anyone but the corrupt church hierarchy, check out this video. Also, tune in to Democracy Now today.

    • Kathleen
      March 15, 2013, 11:54 am

      With a Jesuit upbringing and given his lifestyle and work bets are on that there will be a much bigger focus on the poor, the way that Capitalism has raked over the poor and working class, and wondering if he will refuse to wear all of that fancy garb that cost big bucks? On Chris Matthews last night they reported that he refused to ride in the Pope mobile…not sure about that choice with those who are mentally ill and all accessing high capacity military weapons and all.

      When I sit with my WWII Catholic father at the nursing home and his Catholic WWII buddies all in their mid 80’s to late 9o’s we talk about their war experiences etc in front of a TV. Whenever the Pope has come on or Archbishops in all of their shiny fancy clothes and expensive shoes come on the screen I say the same thing “those guys should take those fancy dancy clothes off and give that money to the poor. Who ever that guy Jesus was he sure would not approve” They howl as if I have not said this 50 times around them. I giggle. We all laugh some more together and then go back to talking war stories, sports (I just listen) stories about when they were younger and what the weather is like outside. Give that money back to the poor that is what most think Pope Francis will focus on. And some say criticize capitalism gone wild. Allegedly this is a simple yet brilliant man dedicated to the deepest teachings of the mystical Jesus Christ. If he actually does that all hell would break out in the church. But maybe he will give it a shot

  15. DICKERSON3870
    March 14, 2013, 3:20 pm

    RE: “This is great news. Chris Hayes is taking over the 8 PM slot at MSNBC, right after Chris Matthews. Hayes actually believes in human rights for Palestinians . . .” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: Perhaps Chris Hayes will be the new Ed Murrow (or another I.F. Stone).

    SEE: “The New McCarthyism of Jewish Organizations: Where Is Our Murrow?”, by Bernard Avishai, bernardavishai.blogspot.com, 12/26/12

    [EXCERPT] I am just old enough to remember grown-up disquiet when speaking of McCarthyism—the first thick book I read was Louis Nizer’s My Life in Court, which was largely about the libel case of Quentin Reynolds against Westbrook Pegler, the impresario of the scurrilous Red Channels—and I remember feeling a certain pride in the very large number of Jewish liberals who, like Nizer, helped bring America back to its senses.
    Let the galoots disgrace themselves attacking war-heroes like General Marshall. Let weird groups like the John Birchers and Daughters of the American Revolution and Republican Tafters impugn a man’s integrity, then repeat each others’ insinuations, then spread them to widening circles in captive media (where sympathetic pens were waiting). Let them point to the public doubts they themselves manufactured “out of whole cloth,” as my father used to say. Jews, and Jewish organizations, knew where they stood in the face of such smears. They stood for fairness, patience, sanity. We knew for whom an unfair, impatient, insane America would not “be good for.”
    There was Fred Friendly, who collaborated with Edward R. Murrow in challenging McCarthy on CBS. There was Arthur Miller, whose 1953 play, “The Crucible,” about the Salem witch trials, was a thinly veiled attack on the House Un-American Activities Committee. There was I.F. Stone who, forced to strike out on his own, proved the grandeur of the first amendment. There was Commentary Magazine before Norman Podhoretz lost his mind. In the America I knew, which only grew more so during the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, American Jews—with their worldly souls and experience of the social margins—were the natural opponents (because potential victims) of the fear, flocking, and fanaticism that produced political libels.
    Which brings me to Sen. Hagel. I think it is time to acknowledge, bluntly, that certain major Jewish organizations, indeed, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations—also, the ADL, AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, political groups like the Republican Jewish Coalition, along with their various columnists, pundits, and list-serves—are among the most consistent purveyors of McCarthyite-style outrages in America today. Are there greater serial defamers of public officials in fake campaigns against defamation? Starting with Andrew Young and the late Charles Percy, and on to Chas Freeman and (now) Chuck Hagel, the game has been to keep Congresspeople and civil servants who might be skeptical of Israel’s occupation and apologetics in a posture that can only be called exaggerated tact.
    Fault Israel and you are accused of faulting Jews in our collective state, or, the same thing, overlooking the venality of our enemies—things only an anti-Semite would do and, of all times, in the wake of the Holocaust. This is not a charge anyone in public life wants to suffer or try to deny. My Israeli friends love that old Borsch-belt joke, that anti-Semitism means disliking Jews more than necessary. For American Jewish organizations, the very idea that dislike is ever warranted is proof of bigotry, like Philip Roth’s early novels were proof of “self-hatred.” . . .

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to bernardavishai.blogspot.com

  16. American
    March 14, 2013, 5:42 pm

    Should have anticipated this…the knives are out already for the new Pope.

    I added Desert Peace to my news list after seeing that Fran used it so visited at today and wow!
    link to desertpeace.wordpress.com
    NEW POPE SILENT SUPPORTER OF FASCISM
    March 14, 2013 at 14:35

    (Complete with pictures of Pope Francis wearing a Nazi insignia

    Well goodbye Desert Peace..a lib zip is still a zio, shoulda known. Then googling around I see MJ is promoting the torching also.

    MJ Rosenberg ‏@MJayRosenberg
    Look for renewed attention to crimes of Argentina’s fascist, Jew (and non-Jew) killing junta (which US & Israel both backed).

    Embed Tweet
    21 hrs MJ Rosenberg ‏@MJayRosenberg
    Even right-wing Washington Times slams Pope Francis junta ties. Washington Times: link to wtim.es via @washtimes

    Embed Tweet
    22 hrs MJ Rosenberg ‏@MJayRosenberg
    Pope Francis Complicity in Argentine Junta’s Crimes link to reason.com … via @reason247

    Embed Tweet
    22 hrs MJ Rosenberg ‏@MJayRosenberg
    Breaking the silence: the Catholic Church in Argentina and the ‘dirty war’ link to opendemocracy.net

    Embed Tweet
    22 hrs MJ Rosenberg ‏@MJayRosenberg
    This Pope is toast. Fascist toady.

    Most of this is being pushed in the press by Horacio Verbitsky, a Jewish centric and leftist in Argentina, based on a book he wrote called ‘The Silence’…the same old axe grind about Nazi Popes. But the usual loony bin of gays, progressives and etc have joined in Fascist accusations also.

    Pope Francis: questions remain over his role during Argentina’s dictatorship

    by News Sources on March 14, 2013

    The Guardian reports: As head of the Jesuit order from 1973 to 1979, Jorge Bergoglio – as the new pope was known until yesterday – was a member of the hierarchy during the period when the wider Catholic church backed the military government and called for their followers to be patriotic.

    Bergoglio twice refused to testify in court about his role as head of the Jesuit order. When he eventually appeared in front of a judge in 2010, he was accused by lawyers of being evasive.

    The main charge against Bergoglio involves the kidnapping of two Jesuit priests, Orland Yorio and Francisco Jalics, who were taken by Navy officers in May 1976 and held under inhumane conditions for the missionary work they conducted in the country’s slums, a politically risky activity at the time.

    His chief accuser is journalist Horacio Verbitsky, the author of a book on the church called “El Silencio” (“The Silence”), which claims that Bergoglio withdrew his order’s protection from the two priests, effectively giving the military a green light for their abduction.

    Verbitsky claims are based on conversations with Jalics, who was released after his ordeal and later moved to a German monastery.

    Bergoglio has called the allegations “slander” and holds that, on the contrary, he moved behind the scenes to save the lives of the two priests and others that he secretly hid from the death squads. In one case, he claims he even gave his identity papers to one dissident who looked like him so that he could flee the country.’’

    I tend to dismiss Francis gave any fellow Jesuits over to the junta. However it is totally in keeping for the church, particularly the Jesuit wing , to conduct itself
    ‘ as a quasi- neutral’ body to maintain some influence and entrée with a hostile government in order to make deals or operate behind the scenes and/ or in the Church’s and it’s members own interest.
    While the Mossad only thinks it operates by way of deception…the Vatican actually does.

    But really, this every Pope is a nazi fascist piece of shit stuff is getting old. However I’m guessing this Pope is not going to roll over and lay down for that tactic.

    • Donald
      March 14, 2013, 11:45 pm

      I don’t know about Bergoglio–I leafed through a book I have on the Argentinian dictatorship and it doesn’t mention him. He was evidently a minor figure whatever role he played. But unfortunately much of the Catholic Church played a rather nasty role during the Argentinian dictatorship and from what I can tell, they haven’t come clean. It’s the same old crap they pulled for decades with the sex abusers among the clergy. I don’t say that as someone who enjoys Catholic-bashing, but I remember the debates about the roles of Christians ( Catholic and evangelical and mainline Protestant) in Latin America during the dirty wars of the 70’s and 80’s and some of the conservatives (both Catholic and evangelical) really dishonored themselves by siding with the fascist death squad right. And yes, the Argentinian dictatorship was anti-semitic, among other things.

      The irony is that the neocons supported them. I remember how upset some on the right were by Jacobo Timmerman when he came out and said there was an anti-semitic element in the Argentinian dictatorship’s ideology. It was a real problem for these nitwits when Argentina got into a war with Thatcher’s Britain (Maggie herself was fond of another Latin fascist–Pinochet).

      • American
        March 15, 2013, 2:52 pm

        @ Donald

        Let’s do an exercise on the bashing of the Church as Nazis, as Fascist, and so forth.
        First, some background on exactly who was who and what was what during that period in Argentina, the various and many coups, guerrilla groups, governments, etc…….quite a can of worms.

        History of Argentina

        “In 1955, after two failed attempts earlier in the year and in 1951, a successful coup d’état against Juan Perón’s government took place, leading to the proscription of Peronism by the armed forces. Peronist resistance began organizing soon after the coup in workplaces and trade unions. Over time, as democratic rule was partially restored but promises of legalizing the expression and political liberties for Peronism were not respected, guerrilla groups started to appear in the 1960s, namely the Peronist Uturuncu and the Guevarist People’s Guerrilla Army (EGP), although both relatively small and quickly defeated.

        Jorge Ricardo Masetti, leader of the EGP that had infiltrated into Salta province from Bolivia in 1964, is considered by some as Argentina’s first disappeared after the party’s defeat in clashes with the Argentine gendarmerie. Prior to 1973 the major revolutionary groups were the Peronist Armed Forces (Fuerzas Armadas Peronistas, FAP), the Marxist-Leninist-Peronist[18] The Revolutionary Armed Forces (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias or FAR) and the Marxist-Leninist[18] Armed Forces of Liberation (Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación or FAL).[19] The FAL guerrillas made their mark in a raid at Campo de Mayo in April 1969 where they stole 100 assault rifles from the elite 1st Infantry Regiment “Patricios”

        In time these armed groups were consolidated, with the FAR joining the Montoneros and the FAP and FAL being absorbed into the ERP. In 1970, one of the leaders of the 1955 coup, Pedro Eugenio Aramburu was kidnapped and killed by the Peronist guerilla Montoneros, in its first claimed military action.[21] In 1970, the Marxist People’s Revolutionary Army (ERP) was founded. By the early 1970s, high-ranking military and police officers were kidnapped and assassinated in ultra-leftist actions almost weekly.[22]

        The extreme left was also involved in the bombing and destruction of a number of buildings in the 1970s. These mainly belonged to military and police hierarchies. But a number of civilian and non-governmental buildings were targeted as well, such as the Sheraton Hotel in Buenos Aires and a crowded theater in downtown Buenos Aires was bombed in 1975.

        In 1978, a powerful bomb meant to kill an Argentine admiral ripped through a nine-story apartment building, killing three civilians and trapping others beneath the debris. According to the International Congress for Victims of Terrorism, there were 16,000 victims of left-wing terrorism (killings, woundings and abductions) in Argentina, including civilians and military personnel. Argentine intelligence officers claim that the ERP guerrillas alone were responsible for the deaths of at least 700 people in addition to scores of attacks on police and military units as well as kidnappings and robberies.

        In 1973, as Juan Perón returned from exile, the Ezeiza massacre marked the end of the alliance between left- and right-wing factions of Peronism. In 1974, Perón withdrew his support of Montoneros shortly before his death, and the far-right paramilitary death squad Argentine Anticommunist Alliance emerged during his widow’s presidency. Armed struggle increased, and in 1975 Isabel Martínez designed a number of decrees empowering the military and the police to “annihilate” left-wing subversion, most prominently the People’s Revolutionary Army (ERP) armed activity in the province of Tucumán.

        Martínez de Perón was ousted in 1976. Starting that year, the juntas led by Jorge Rafael Videla until 1981, and then by Roberto Viola and Leopoldo Galtieri, were responsible for the illegal arrests, tortures, killings and/or forced disappearances of thousands, primarily armed combatants of the ERP and Montoneros guerrillas, but also trade-unionists, students and left-wing activists, even after they internally acknowledged that armed subversion. Videla’s dictatorship referred to its systematized persecution of the Argentine citizenry as the “National Reorganization Process”. Argentine security forces and death squads worked hand in hand with other South American dictatorships in the frame of Operation Condor.[citation needed]

        The democratic government of Raúl Alfonsín which took office in 1983 investigated these crimes through the CONADEP commission and prosecuted the responsible parties and made the unprecedented (and only Latin American example) Trial of the Juntas. In 2006 an Argentine court condemned the 1970s government’s crimes as crimes against humanity and “genocide”.[30] But the courts refused to prosecute the crimes of the left-wing guerrilla groups that according to Argentina’s Center for the Legal Study of Terrorism and its Victims killed or maimed some 13,000 Argentines”
        link to books.google.ca

        Is it undeniably true that The Church has always ‘been present” where many wars, coups etc took place—-by virtue of the fact that the Church is actually in every country in the world and always has been. It is also true it operates or did operate or ‘had’ to operate as a sometimes semi -political entity in many countries and conflicts—-because—-it represented a large amount of various countries population—in the case of Argentina…70 to 89% of it’s population was Catholic.
        It is also true that within the Church, as with all other religions/churches, there are fractions that have different political views. I think it’s safe to say that within the Catholic ranks in Argentina there were individuals who saw the ‘military government” as restoration of order for the country and others who were ‘leftist guerrilla’ supporters.

        Now look at the all the elements above in that period, several guerrilla movements, the military government—-all of them, including the ‘leftist” groups were guilty of extreme violence, terrorism and murders.
        Compare Argentina to Syria right now…where you have both government violence and coup and guerrilla groups…..with the guerrilla groups committing just as much civilian murder as the government….and pretend the country’s majority is Catholic, not Shitte, …….so if you were the Catholic church exactly how would you navigate the two forces in that situation and still be able to maintain a presence in the country for the church and for protection of your Catholic members? And remember, the Church can’t raise an army, what it does it has to do through influence as world-wide religious body. “If” the Church ever did ‘raise a army’ or or took a overt stand of supporting one side or another it would lose it’s particular standing as as ‘stand alone” religious body and therefore it’s influence.

        You can apply this same ‘rock and hard place’ to the Jewish complaints about the Vatican and Nazi Germany, the Argentina Leftist Coups and the Catholic hierarchy and on and on. This why I consider the bashing to be knee jerk 90% of the time. It’s popular to bash Catholic Church like it’s popular to bash whites these days for all of mankind’s evils.
        If you’re Jewish you read or write about the Jewish account of the Vatican and Nazi Germany , if you’re a leftist you read the Leftist account of what happened in Argentina and Catholic involvement in Argentina. I’ve said this same thing many times about people’s various accounts of the Civil War and the American Revolution and other conflicts that they get from authors writing from ‘whatever their” dog in the hunt is….be it religion or race or whatever.
        The real story is always in the actual historical ‘facts’, not in how someone sees it or wants to see it because of their own ideology or religion or race.
        Just like in the case of Argentina….there was no good side….there was only navigating between the two bads.
        That has basically been the method of operation of the Vatican in modern history. And the Church doesn’t write books or reveal what the Church may have done influence wise or covertly in any situation, ever…to do that would also cause a lose of influence and destroy a certain degree of protection for itself as a world religious leader. The Church does not and has not ever taken up and announced a ‘Political cause”….their statements and positions are always anounced as “humantarian causes’ because of this.

        So the only accurate way to even guess at much less pass judgement on Argentina vr the Guerrillas and any Church involvement is to look at the all the dirty details.

      • Ellen
        March 16, 2013, 8:18 am

        American, thanks for your patience and reply on this involved subject.

        All we can do is explore the facts, best as possible. Absolute Judgement from our safe perches is not possible.

        I was surprised by MJ Rosenberg’s knee jerk adoption of the usual superficially informed bandwagon of bashing.

      • Donald
        March 16, 2013, 9:47 am

        There’s a simple answer to all that–I’m somewhat familiar with the history of violence in Latin America on both left and right and wasn’t defending the violence of the left. And in no way whatsoever does the violence of the left justify the death squads or people who supported them.

        In Argentina as in almost all Latin American countries where there was massive political violence (Peru is one exception), the far right was responsible for the vast majority of the killing and torturing. That doesn’t justify the killing by the left, but anyone who doesn’t admit this up front is being disingenuous. As for the Church, it was split. There were literally hundreds of priests and nuns who were murdered by the far right because they sided with the poor–four American women were raped and murdered in El Salvador in 1980, Archbishop Romero was martyred, and over 100 were murdered in Argentina. Now some of these left-leaning priests went too far IMO and identified with the political left, like the priest (I forgot his name) who actually joined the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. But many or most were simply obeying the dictates of conscience, standing up for human rights and they were killed for it.

        Unfortunately there were also members of the hierarchy who sided with the traditional elites and with the murderous right. I don’t mean that some tried to navigate a difficult situation, though some did. (As I said above, I don’t know which group the new Pope falls in.) I mean some collaborated or sided with the killers As for this claim–

        “The Church does not and has not ever taken up and announced a ‘Political cause”….their statements and positions are always anounced as “humantarian causes’ because of this.”

        Not on this planet. The official Church came out forthrightly against Marxism in Eastern Europe and in most places, except for some dissident priests like the guy I mentioned in Nicaragua. In Latin America the official church did not. The official Church has often shown this double standard when it comes to condemning dictatorships of the left and right. They oppose the lefty ones without reservation, because they are Marxist and so tend to be officially atheist and materialist (Nicaragua was an exception, but if anything that made it worse, because then there was the problem of heresy.
        The official Church isn’t friendly to dissidents within its ranks.) Their record with respect to rightwing dictatorships is much more complex, in part because in many cases the Church is linked socially and politically with the right. That’s an association that goes back to the French Revolution (and arguably before, though the further back in history one goes the less relevant current political analogies become.)

        I agree that there are some on the left who are kneejerk in their denunciations of the Church, but your source, whoever it is (I didn’t google for it) is clearly an apologist of some sort. The Church’s history is complicated because there have always been heroes within it who really did stand up for the oppressed, but it’s also always had people in it who were comfortable supporting the powerful (unless they were identified with Marxism). And both groups have been rather prominent in Latin America, the former mainly as tortured and murdered victims of the latter.

        I’m not going to get into the Syria analogy because I don’t know enough about Syria–except to agree that there are no good guys with guns in that situation. For the most part I’d say the same about armed groups in Argentina. But does that keep me from despising those within the Church who collaborated with the fascists (and yes, anti-semites too) in Argentina? Hell no.

      • American
        March 16, 2013, 9:59 am

        @ Ellen

        You’re welcome. I guess I should add I’m not Catholic, I’m a very lackadaisical Episcopalian. But I had an Uncle who was a Jesuit and because of his influence on my Mother I was educated in Jesuit schools most of my life so know a bit about the history of the Vatican and the Jesuit Society. I really became fascinated with the Jesuits and have a whole bookshelf on the Society and the Church. I think my Uncle hoped I’d convert and maybe follow in his footsteps but that wasn’t for me……..:)

      • Donald
        March 16, 2013, 10:00 am

        Ellen, I don’t know how old you are. Do you remember anything about the Argentinian dirty war? Do you know that the very same people we condemn here (like the neocons at COMMENTARY) would have argued just like American’s source? They supported the Argentinian regime because it cracked down on the violent left and not just the terrorist left, but anyone even remotely associated with the left. And some in the Church sided with them. Not just “navigated between the two sides”. Some collaborated. The Argentinian military itself claimed to be fighting for Western Christian values as it tortured and “disappeared” people. What is so complicated about that? The only question here is whether the new Pope collaborated or not, and I can’t take a position on that because I don’t know.

        What I don’t get is this–if the Argentinian dirty war was so complex we can’t condemn those who collaborated with the government, then why is the Israel situation different? It’s complicated too–violence against civilians on both sides. Yet I don’t find it difficult to condemn Israel’s actions and the actions of those who support it, for the same reason I don’t find it difficult to condemn the Argentinian fascists and those who supported them. Absolute judgement against collaborators with torturers or ethnic cleansing seems perfectly possible from my safe perch.

      • Donald
        March 16, 2013, 11:16 am

        A couple of interesting links–

        link

        In this next one, notice that someone with neocon sympathies in 2009 is still defending the Argentinian regime

        link

        I think, American, you’re reacting in a kneejerk way to the kneejerk way that liberals criticize Catholics. The fact is that the political fight over what was happening in Argentina during the dirty war was one where there was a weird alliance between Israel-supporters and neo-Nazis and traditional Christian rightwingers who were otherwise anti-semitic (which, of course, also describes some of Israel’s current Christian allies, though to be fair not all). It’s what I think people don’t get when they bash Chomsky in favor of the idea that the Israel Lobby dominates foreign policy. Chomsky understates the role of the Lobby, but he is absolutely right that during the Cold War days there was a much bigger picture and you had rightwingers including neocons supporting both Israel and Latin American fascists who were actual genuine Jew hating troglodytes. The common theme was this–oppose anything that smacked of the “left”. Israel was portrayed as our faithful ally because they were fighting the Soviet supported Arab hordes. Argentina was our faithful ally because they were fighting the commie terrorists at home–at one point the Argentinian military was used to train the Nicaraguan contras. (Of course Israel also had some deep ties with the rightwing death squad killers in Latin America.) There were occasional spats between rightwingers back in those days (late 70’s through the early 80’s) about Israel when someone like Patrick Buchanan said something, but mostly they were all one big happy family, united in their support for murderous rightwing governments around the globe.

        Unfortunately for themselves, the Argentinian military thugs were dimwits who took themselves and their Christian war to save civilization so seriously they thought the US would side with them when they tried to take the Falklands/Malvinas from Maggie Thatcher (who was also a friend to fascists so long as they didn’t pick a fight with what was left of the British Empire). That turned out not to be the case. They discredited themselves as a military when they lost that war, (they were better at torturing than at fighting) and their downfall occurred not long after.

      • Donald
        March 16, 2013, 3:27 pm

        I’d actually prefer that the above comments come out of moderation before the others I’ve typed today, because I think the old conflicts between neocons defending the anti-semitic and murderous Argentinian military regime and lefties who condemned it make for interesting reading.

      • Madam Defarge
        March 16, 2013, 7:54 pm

        American, thank you for the history lesson on Argentina. Things aren’t always black and white, and in every war, the first casualty is Truth. Pope Francis is a good and holy man. The long knives are out for him. I pray that he will be the peacemaker that St. Francis of Assisi was.

      • Donald
        March 17, 2013, 2:00 pm

        “American, thank you for the history lesson on Argentina. Things aren’t always black and white, and in every war, the first casualty is Truth. Pope Francis is a good and holy man. ”

        I think I’m just going to shoot myself. But before I do it, a few points–

        1. Actually, when it comes to torture, disappearances, and priests who actively collaborate with people who do such things, it very much is black and white. Yes, the left also practiced terrorism. But good God, you’re reading a website about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Does it really come as some sort of revelation that both sides in a conflict might practice atrocities? Does that make the government side less evil when it tortures people to death? Really?

        2. On Pope Francis, how do you know he is a good and holy man? He might be, and then again he might not. In a country where the government is committing mass murder against innocent people, wouldn’t a good and holy man speak out openly, especially when the government claims to be doing this in the name of Christianity and civilization? And when some Catholic officials BEYOND ANY FREAKING SHADOW OF A DOUBT, collaborated with the regime? Some genuinely good and holy men do speak out under such circumstances, both inside and outside the Church. They risk their lives. Some die excruciating deaths. I think I’d save my praise for them.

        If I’m getting a little excited it’s because we are talking about a government that really was a bunch of pipsqueak neo-Nazis, supported by the neoconservatives in the United States, and yet you guys are simply ignoring this and making exactly the same arguments that the neocons made then. Pope Francis didn’t speak out in public. Fine, he wasn’t a hero. I doubt I would be either. But he does get excited over massive human rights violations like giving two people of the same gender the right to marry. Yeah, he really stands up when it counts.

        I guess then that if American or Israeli rabbis don’t speak out against Israeli crimes then that’s okay too. Maybe they’re good and holy men.

        I should therefore assume that Israel’s crimes are uniquely evil and demand that people speak out against them, while Argentina’s fight against terrorism (see, they and their supporters, which again include neocons, talked just the way Israel talks) was, well, complicated and so we have to be understanding of their problems. Including the problem of where to bury the bodies, and who gets the children they took from the mothers they murdered after giving birth. Very complicated.

      • Donald
        March 17, 2013, 2:17 pm

        ” Some genuinely good and holy men do speak out under such circumstances, ”

        I meant to say “good and holy people”. Some of the greatest heroes then were the Mothers of the Disappeared. Who were critical of how the official Church behaved then.

      • American
        March 18, 2013, 12:13 am

        “If I’m getting a little excited it’s because we are talking about a government that really was a bunch of pipsqueak neo-Nazis, supported by the neoconservatives in the United States, and yet you guys are simply ignoring this and making exactly the same arguments that the neocons made then”…Donald

        Wrong.
        But I’m not gonna get into a long conversation with you about it…cause you’re thrown everything but the kitchen sink into your rant and it would take too long to sort it all out.

      • Donald
        March 18, 2013, 12:32 pm

        “But I’m not gonna get into a long conversation with you about it…cause you’re thrown everything but the kitchen sink into your rant and it would take too long to sort it all out.”

        There were a fair number of kitchen appliances in that one-sided summary you pasted, none of which were relevant to the question at hand–should people be asking what role the current Pope played during the dirty war? Obviously they should. A person regarded as a moral leader by at least hundreds of millions had a position of authority during the rule of some totalitarian thugs–some in his church supported the thugs and others died. What role did he play? I get that there were lefty terrorists and Argentina is Catholic and I still want to know what role he played. And if he will apologize for the disgraceful behavior of many in the Church during that period, or is this another example where they hem and haw and try to sweep things under the carpet?

      • American
        March 18, 2013, 1:59 pm

        Donald,

        I didnt try to give a one sided account….quite the opposite I presented the ‘complete picture” of the mess that was Argentina at that time and even allowed that some in the Church in Argentina might have different sympathies for one side(s) or another.
        But Donald I have been back and forth with you enough times on subjects like the civil war to know that you have personal and firmly held ideas/judgements on who is and were devils and who wasn’t and you like to preach and pronounce your judgements as the only true ‘gospel”.
        Well some times things are black and white and sometimes they aren’t.
        I get that you despise the Catholic Church –but as I said I’m not Catholic and don’t have a dog in this hunt so it’s not worth it to me to get into a long draw out discussion of it. As I also said my interest in the Church is historical and intellectual just because I happened to go to Jesuit schools and know a bit about the Church, the Jesuit history and how they operate.
        But carry on…..the fire and brimstone pulpit is yours…..smite all those devils according to the gospel of Donald..:)

  17. Kathleen
    March 14, 2013, 10:48 pm

    Is it really a great sign or will Hayes have to give up his willingness to push the envelope on the I/P issue. Will he be shut up because he is on prime time. I am actually so sad. Up with Chris Hayes was the best thing going on MSNBC. Two hours of in depth discussions about issues. Great guest. I thought they would try Joy Reid somewhere. She is brilliant, charismatic and sharp as a tack. One of the fastest, sharpest minds on air these days. In my opinion boot Maddow. All of the antics I have not been able to watch her in forever. Boot Maddow and put in Reid. But Maddow has I believe good ratings because she gives the appearance of being a liberal when she has been one of the worst offenders on MSNBC for repeating the Israeli talking points on Iran

  18. Kathleen
    March 14, 2013, 11:36 pm

    I’m betting that Hayes starts to fold on being cutting edge on the middle east issues. He was the only THE ONLY crack in the cable mainstream wall, Again my bet is that that crack will be sealed. No facts will make it through about the Israeli Palestinian conflict again on MSNBC,

    I have seen the Ed show live in Columbus Ohio several times. He is a huge magnet for the working class, unions..they flock to him and he supports them and focused on working class issues. So does Hayes but not in the tough guy kind of way Ed does it. Cops, fireman, teachers etc love Ed. Chris does not has a very different appeal. When you go through the line up on MSNBC Martin Bashir, Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, Ed, Rachel, Lawrence O’Donnell who has the working class vibe, language, touch…ED, Dylan Ratigan, Cenk Uygar had that appeal to some degree. In that line up with the addition of Chris Hayes who pulls in the working class?

    No one can replace Chris on Up. He is the best for that two hour program. Wonder how much the paycheck went up?

  19. Blank State
    March 15, 2013, 2:08 pm

    Kathleen, when you climb the ladder, you hafta shed the weight of truth, or you’ll never get to the top. Just look at how Clemons changed as he ascended to his current position. Or how Hagel morphed into a worm. Hayes, undoubtedly, knows the dance. The fact that he took this new position tells us all we need to know, because you can bet it didn’t come sans stipulations.

  20. IL1948
    March 15, 2013, 8:47 pm

    Aside from the 14 of you, who actually watches MSNBC?

    Also, before you get too excited about this “news,” keep in mind that U.S. support for Israelis over “Palestinians” is at an all time high.

    link to jpost.com

Leave a Reply