Papantonio Hammers Stuart Varney

Run time: 05:59 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW7P_PZbN6Q   Posted on YouTube: September 08, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: September 08, 2009 By DU Member: GoLeft TV Views on DU: 1964

 
With the appointment of Ron Bloom as President Obama's new manufacturing czar, the GOP has once again ramped up their attacks on America's labor class and unions. Mike Papantonio takes on Fox News and Stuart Varney to defend America's working class.

is what he is...

I sure hope so, b/c he and I will never get that time back. Sacre merde. What an absolute waste of time. That pompous jackass of a Brit needs to get cancer of the AIDS of the eye. Seriously. What an asshole. That being said, Pap isn't convincing anyone with his "grey poupon" schtick. People that are convinced will remain convinced and people that ignore this will continue to ignore it. Oy.

I dont know why he is not a regular contributor on MSBNC.

hell of a nice guy - knows his stuff inside and out

A true gent.

Invite someone on and then, if they're not a rabid right-wing nut case, shout them down during the whole time allotted
to them, and don't let them get a word in. I wouldn't go on Varney's show for all the tea in China, because he just says
hi, states what he perceives to be your position (invariably distorted), and then talks over you telling why you're wrong.
There's also another little subtle device Fox uses when interviewing Democrats: the volume of the Fox announcer is higher
than the volume of the Democrat being interviewed, so if the Democratic guest can't shout twice as loud as the Fox clown,
you get a right-wing voice-over as long as the Fox clown has breath left in him. Pap can handle it, but Varney controls the
volume switch, so the minute he comes up against someone who can match him in volume and longevity of wind, his volume goes
up as the "guest's" volume goes down. Did anyone else notice that?

Varney makes repeated broad-brush anti-union statements, but when Pap counters about free trade and off-shoring Varney suddenly demands specifics ("When did I say that? Give me a specific instance").

I do think Pap was right to just keep talking when Varney talked over him, so that he wouldn't be shut down completely, but I also think he overdid it a bit with the "silk-stocking, grey poupon" business. You saw how that became the focus, and Fox turning it into a set piece: "liberal rants about class warfare because he can't back anything up with facts"

Pap should know that already: any appearance on Fox is a rigged game.

Am I the only one that finds it a strange title? Is that really his title, or are they using some type of slang?

At the same time, I am thinking it might be cool to adopt for myself. Maybe I will change the title on my business card to read "Programming Czar"?

Is it the right and the media that calls them "czars"? I've heard them called by the Obama White House as "advisers" which is a much less menacing and more accurate term. Czar implies wide ranging undemocratic powers. I'd like an answer to this since in politics the language we use can make such a difference in things are perceived by the public.

When did this start? who started it? why? the first instance i can recall was the "drug war czar" Bill Bennett. So the pukes used it first? deliberately. Very interesting question.

Obama uses the terms "Senior Advisor" and "Senior Counselor"- the media and pukes call them czars- to rile up their base i'm sure.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/019811.php

Take this passage, for example:

---
"So, is Bloom the new "manufacturing czar" (a position created by George W. Bush)? Only if we choose to use the phrase. The alternative is to say that Ron Bloom will be advising the president on manufacturing policy. The "c" word has been deemed scary, but the job description is innocuous."
---

So in this example, what is Ron Bloom's actual title? If he has business cards does it say "Guy who is advising the President on Manufacturing Policy"? It would make more sense to call him "Manufacturing Advisor", but why isn't that title used in the op ed? It is certainly easier to say than "the guy who is advising the President on Manufacturing Policy". So I still don't understand even after reading the article. If anything, I get the impression that their official title really is "czar", but he is saying that it is better not to use "an alternative" now has a bad connotation in this Republican MacCarthyism era.

So..... What is Ron Bloom's actual title? I read the article referenced in the op-ed and another one just like it on abcnews.com. Obama does talk about his position and what he is supposed to do, but never gives him an official title. Each article does give him a title of czar, though. I can stick with the ones used by the media, which are always "czar", but I am still wondering if the administration uses the same official "czar" title. Below is the one I was refering to:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/president-obama-to-appoint-ron-bloom-manufacturing-czar.html

According to the Obama admin. statement. Clear, but long.

In Cincinnati tomorrow, President Obama will announce that he's appointing Ron Bloom his "Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy", White House sources tell ABC News

The Media's use of Czar is perhaps left over from the Republican admin's that seems to have started the trend and also more economical in the sense of space. BUT they could have more accurately and with less controversy titled the article:

"President Obama to Appoint Ron Bloom Manufacturing Adviser"

Isn't it interesting that it wasn't controversial in the Republican admins to call them Czars? I still don't know if the term came from the media or was coined by the Republican administrations.

According to the article the Obama team doesn't like or want the term used- but the economy of the word and the history of its use keeps it in the media headlines. Now the right is hypocritically utilizing the term as a propaganda tool that fits their painting of Obama as a Hitler/Stalin like socialist.

http://www.slate.com/id/2207055 /

excerpt:
"When Nixon offered him the job, Simon would later recall, the president himself used the term energy czar and discomfitingly likened the role to that of Hitler's minister of armaments, Albert Speer. Subsequent presidents, however, have shied away from the C-word and its domineering, anti-democratic connotations. Most recently, President Bush has been careful not to call Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute his "war czar," even though he's universally labeled that in the press. It's sure a lot easier than saying his official title: assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now we hear that the Obama team doesn't like czar either. No wonder: Even now, the word evokes either old-fashioned despotism or latter-day caricatures of tin-pot tyrants. But it's safe to say it's not going anywhere, as long as that compact word keeps doing its job, glibly condensing bureaucratic mouthfuls."

I also just watched Rachel Maddow's piece on it so, between everything, I now finally understand how everything fits into place. Thanks for the info. I was also just watching the news and it was pointed out that all of the policies (auto and financial) that were put into place were started with Bush and no word of socialism there. I wonder if this is what the McCarthyism period was like?

Ya didn't mention that.

The whole "the jobs for America are high tech nonunionized jobs, manufacturing is looking backward, etc.

Yeah, welcome to 1990, Stuart. Thanks for joining us. Let me introduce you to your new friends "offshoring" and "work visa abuse".


I think Start needs to have his pay cut 90% (and paid out in rupees or yuan) to buy him a clue.

"This interview is over. In fact it never began because you won't shut up. Don't call again. I'm out of here."

more cheap, immigrant labor from Mexico.