Cenk Uygur at “The Young Turks” on the “pathetic attempts to defend Israel in flotilla attack”, specifically by Chris Matthews at MSNBC and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). Mr. Uygur now “has no respect for Chris Matthews or Barney Frank”, he says, but we’ll see how long that lasts. My guess: somewhere between now and the party pre-midterm election conventions, Mr. Uygur could very well act “pragmatically”. Hopefully not, but either way, this is a great comment (12:02):

(h/t: Sliqa)

RELATED:

Comments
  1. What do you mean by “acting very pragmatically”? Do you think Cenk Uygur will start supporting Chris Matthews or Barney Frank again for some reason?

    • Little Alex says:

      I think he’s implying that Uygur will walk in-line with the Arianna Moulitsas line, staying away from deeper issues around election time and fixating on the narrow pre-packaged discourse.

  2. Oh I see. Well I doubt he will, they don’t do “talking points”.

    I think that Cenk Uygur and the Young Turks in general have what the HuffPost mostly lacks, which is a critical view of the Democratic Party. Unless you have specific examples in mind, of course.

    And in the case of this specific story, TYT has devoted countless segments to explaining how the media and the government got it wrong when covering the Flotilla and the facts attached to it.

  3. Little Alex says:

    These talking points rubbed me the wrong way:

    That ‘Bush didn’t do enough in Afghanistan, they were the ones who attacked us’ line is disgusting. The people who ‘attacked us’ (whatever that means) died that day. If significant coordinators were in Afghanistan and even if that justifies the invasion (which it wouldn’t), the Bush Admin could’ve just handed over the evidence requested by the then-rulling Taliban, as they requested as a condition for handing said ‘people who attacked us’ over to the US.

    What made his little rant so disgusting is that he has been critical of Obama’s escalation is Afghanistan, but when there was an opening to criticize Bush, it wasn’t invading Afghanistan or setting up a long term occupation there, it was that he ‘bungled’ the invasion and occupation.

  4. Yeah, I see your point. I guess that one isn’t defensible. I still think though that he wasn’t so much saying that Bush should have gone harder on Afghanistan as that he shouldn’t have gone to Iraq at all. Personally, I think both wars were pointless.

    However, I don’t see how those qualify as “partisan talking points” since your initial argument was that Cenk Uygur falls into the party line when there’s a deadline. What’s shown in the video you linked is Cenk blaming Obama just as much as Bush (for mostly valid reasons).

  5. Oh sorry I’d forgotten to check back. Well, I honestly can’t hold him accountable for this, I naively thought things would change too at that point. Now I hardly notice America has a new President (Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan, DADT, DOMA, no real financial reform, no universal single payer health care, the list goes on and on)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2zhZAM68gE& At 1:38 and 4:50 Cenk addresses what you said. Here too : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-washington-is-more-ri_b_627357.html I’m not representing him in any way, I just think it’s unfortunate that one of the only, truly unbiased programs out there would be accused of dealing in talking points and promoting a party over another. I that actually were the case, I’d certainly stop watching. Kay, I’m done bothering you now, I swear.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s