Juan Williams drives me nuts

[bagnana]

Why does NPR insist on broadcasting the commentary of people like Cokie Roberts and Juan Williams? This morning in particular, Williams' commentary on election 2004 was incredibly one sided. Talking about the Republican's likely platform for the election, he left out any plausible Democratic counter: i.e. Bush as the steady war president who got "crazy" information re: WMD's. "Crazy" information? Not even the repubs are making this stupid claim.

[tom_paine]

1. Juan Williams is a sellout whore.

Such people are NOT who you go to for truth or clarity or ANYTHING except Pravda.

Juan Williams would have been equally as comfortable on his kness performing the same service for Soviet Commies or Adolf Hitler, though those organizations aren;t as "inclusive" as the Busheviks and probably wouldn;t take him.

Yes, when stacked against Hitler and Stalin, Emperor Bunnypants looks sorta ok.

Like when I stand next to grotesquely overweight people I look skinny.

[RichardRay]

2. I wondered who would jump on that one....

Juan Williams was explicitly reporting on what the Republicans were going to say in the upcoming first part of the race. It was a segment on that topic. There was no particular place in the piece for what we're likely to say in response. It was followed (at least in my broadcast area) with a piece about the likely Democratic campaign in this upcoming first part of the race.

I listened to it and took a bet with myself that somebody would get all outraged about it here on DU before noon. Looks like a owe myself a buck.

[lancdem]

4. Hey, it's past noon

on the East Coast, at least. :)

[RichardRay]

5. The advantage of betting with myself

is that no matter WHAT happens I owe myself a buck :-).

[trotsky]

6. I didn't see the segment in question, but it doesn't change the fact that

Juan Williams is a sellout whore. ;-)

[bagnana]

7. Juan Williams still drives me nuts.

I have probably developed hypersensitivy to him since election 2000. However, I still think his bias was evident even considering his limited context: he was talking about what to expect in the upcoming months. He said that Bush would be focusing on the war, on Kerry's alleged liberal agenda, about Kerry's alleged inability to lead on foreign policy issues. But then he noted that Kerry was going to try to turn the focus back to the domestic agenda. This bugged me, because the last few months have demonstrated that Kerry doesn't even have to turn the focus back to the domestic agenda to answer Bush's claims on "the war." Right now the Iraq war is a real question mark for the admnistration: people dying, no WMD, hyping the non-threat, etc. -- Dean proved these are real issues to the voting public, and Kerry has been talking about this as well.

[lancdem]

3. Actually, that hardly makes Bush look good

the fact that he acted on "crazy" information.