Who’s your pundit?
January 18, 2008
Okay, let’s be serious here. We all know their voices, faces, books and persuasions. They have enormous followings via all sorts of media–radio, television, literature, speaking tours. They exert an enviable amount of influence on public opinion and elections that politicians and professors just don’t hold. Coulter, Hannity, Ingram, Frankin, O’Reilly…they are the political pundits.
I admit, I like talking heads. I’m curious to know from our readers and contributors: Which political pundits, if any, do you particularly enjoy and respect?
I enjoy Keith Olbermann, Joe Scarborough and Al Franken. Lou Dobbs could be the worst, in my arrogant opinion…maybe Glenn Beck.
How about you? Why?
60 Comments
Comments are closed.
I don’t watch much TV news anymore, outside of special events. I listen to Dennis Prager on talk radio when I get a chance. I also like some of the web-based talking heads shows (e.g. Bloggingheads, What’s Your Problem). In general I like stuff that’s longer format with less shouting, and I tend to like people who use humor to make their points and/or don’t take themselves too seriously (which seems to be an occupational hazard in T.V.)
I like Jonah Goldberg, Christoper Hitchens, William F. Buckley, and George Will. I respect Newt G. – he’s very, very, very bright – but find him annoying also.
My favorite on the American left is probably Jon Stewart – he’s talented, even when serious, although the editing / hatched job he did recently with Goldberg’s new book was really dumb. The full video will be on the internet within a week.
I think Olbermann is derganged.
Oh, and bloggingheads is excellent. Check out Ross Douthat. He’s the sharpest pundit around who is our age (20s).
I’d imagine that Pat Buchanan would be popular here (apart from his views on immigration). He’s the only one I can really tolerate unless you count Stewart and Colbert.
I like G.K. Chesterton. He’s just as relevant for 21st century America as he was for 19th and 20th century England.
;)
Me. :-)
Humbly submitted,
Moi.
M.Z. Forrest? That guy is crazy! :)
On a slightly less tongue in cheek note, there are more writers that I respect on given topics than follow. Most of the commentators mentioned I don’t respect or have been mailing it in for about a decade now. There are very few in the professional commentariot that actually know more than the average Joe on a given topic. They are just paid entertainers. I’m hardly eschewing expert opinion, but a significant part of discernment is figuring out who is really an expert. It can refer to almost any commentator but I’ve heard it about Rush Limbaugh in particular that the common lamment is I thought Rush was smart until he talked about my particular topic of expertise, usually work related. There are very few renaissance men, and I’m not sure any of them are in the media.
Bill Kristol, Britt Hume, Robert Novak and Charlie Cook.
I like Rush when he’s slamming libs, and I’m smart enough to filter the nonsense. I’ve learned a lot from Rod Dreher @ CrunchyCon, who’s changed my thinking on some things.
Keith Olbermann by a mile. Of course, Stewart and Colbert. Soon-to-be Senator Al Franken! Paul Krugman who has been telling the truth before it became fashionable. On the blogs, I enjoy reading Andrew Sullivan, Josh Marshall, and Kevin Drum.
Don’t most of those folks support abortion-on-demand (with the exception of Colbert)?
I like Krugman, can’t stand Oldbermann.
I like the What’s Your Problem segment. Usually like Jonah Goldberg even when disagreeing (which is routine). I like the ideas and the engagement of Goldberg, he at least is usually following an argument and attending to it, less likely to be pursuing propaganda.
No to Rush, O’Reilly, Hannity, Colmes (all distorted propagandists).
Al Franken-not that funny.
I like Colbert and Stewart.
Stewart and Colbert, no doubt.
Keith Olberman is a whining twit. Facts never get in his way. Franken was only worth watching when he was on SNL. Maybe our differences extend beyond this blog? :-)
I like Dr. Bill Bennett, Mike Reagan to listen to, and Ann Coulter is entertaining if a bit inflammatory to read.
I’m currently reading Pat Buchanan’s “Death of the West”.
Hitchens, although a Catholic hater par excellence, is to me what a pundit should be: widely read, quick witted, interesting, well traveled, and formidable in debate. And he’s interesting even when he’s dead wrong, as in this column claiming that race doesn’t exist (there is not a single professional scientist of human genetics who would make that claim that I am aware of):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120062413171299477.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Still, when he spouts off, he does it in a style very few can match. Consistently good writing, even when near-drunk. This, I think, is admirable (not the drunk part).
For the same reasons, I also like John Derbyshire and Steve Sailer quite a lot. Agree or disagree, they know more (about a lot of topics) than most us have forgotten, and write very well.
Keith Olberman is a whining twit. Facts never get in his way. Franken was only worth watching when he was on SNL. Maybe our differences extend beyond this blog?
Aw, take it easy now. I enjoy Olbermann’s wit and analysis, even though I don’t always agree. I think he is brilliant, especially in delivery. Franken is not very intellectual, but I find him quite amusing. I enjoy hearing him talk politics.
Who are the worst? Obvious really: O’Reilly is number one, Limbaugh, Hannity, everybody else on Fox, Dobbs, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Dick Morris, Larry King, Nancy Grace (I know she’s not a political commentator, but she simply makes my skin crawl…ugh!). On the left, I really can’t stand Bill Maher. (I don’t mention Coulter as she is an act, not a real commentator). Same for Marty Peretz.
My Pundits?
I don’t really listen to pundits of the traditional media (e.g. Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews).
In terms of blogistan commentators who carry some weight with me: I read Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo, Digby’s Hullabaloo, and Dave Niewert’s Orcinus regularly – and, of course, Vox Nova :)
Is Bill Maher really “left?”
Olberman is generally good, but he’s a little too “Mr. Bush you are destroying what makes America great.” America isn’t great. (Sounds like a good book title.)
Of course I like Colbert & Stewart.
Is Amy Goodman a “pundit?” If so, I like her.
I agree, Bill Maher isn’t really a leftist. He is just evil.
Hitchens and Maher. One’s conservative, the other’s liberal and both of them bash away without trying to hide behind christianity or uber patriotism.
Television: John Stewart, Stephen Colbert; Bill Kristol, William Bennett; the McLaughlin Group (just to see Pat Buchanan and the others attempt to talk over each other).
Bill Maher’s animus against religion gets tiring; the only time I find him amusing is when he has Ann Coulter on because he so clearly has a thing for her. =)
I used to find Bill O’Reilly entertaining but then I found Lou Dobbs even more smug and obnoxious (a clear example of CNN trying to ‘out-Fox’ Fox News: you can probably make up a wicked drinking game based on how many times he rants on illegal immigrants. =)
Online: Ross Douhat; George Weigel; Victor Davis Hanson; I loved Fr. James V. Schall as a columnist for Crisis but he doesn’t contribute that much anymore since it “online-only” — also Fr. Rutler (@ InsideCatholic.com).
Daily haunts on the ‘net: First Things, RedState.com and Vox Nova.
Bill Maher’s animus against religion gets tiring; the only time I find him amusing is when he has Ann Coulter on because he so clearly has a thing for her.
Maher and Coulter used to date.
A real case of ‘opposites attract.’
“Aw, take it easy now. I enjoy Olbermann’s wit and analysis, even though I don’t always agree. I think he is brilliant, especially in delivery. Franken is not very intellectual, but I find him quite amusing. I enjoy hearing him talk politics.”
I actually liked Olberman on ESPN. I just don’t think his style is suited to serious discussion and he tends to overdo the same topics.
I think it’s kind of funny that you can almost guess who people like by the way they comment here.
Oh, and Mr. Iafrate. America is Great.
I actually liked Olberman on ESPN. I just don’t think his style is suited to serious discussion and he tends to overdo the same topics.
How do you overdo criticizing the Bush administration or making fun of Bill O’Reilly?
I am sickened to see so many fans of Bill Kristol on this site. Sick to my stomach. Maybe we can talk about his Project for a New American Century’s imperial document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” which saod in 2000:
“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor.”
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Your buddy, Bill Kristol got his wish. And Christopher wants to admonish Leonardo Boff for “relishing” what happened on 9/11? That’s sick, man.
Oh, and Mr. Iafrate. America is Great.
Make it a mantra:
Lamb of God you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Lamb of God you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Lamb of God you take away the sins of the world, America is great.
Michael – You’re so lame.
Make it a mantra:
Lamb of God you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Lamb of God you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Lamb of God you take away the sins of the world, America is not great.
That any better for you?
That any better for you?
Pardon? Maybe it’s just because I’m “lame” (good one, Tim), but does Tim’s latest defensive comment make sense to anyone else?
OK, let’s see. I copied and pasted your response and changed one word. How is that defensive?
It is pretty lame to go so far off topic just because you can’t resist a shot at the U.S.
My comment about America not being great was directly related to my point about Keith Olberman. You seemingly could not resist getting us off topic by rushing to your country’s defense.
Your comment had nothing to do with Olberman since he thinks America is great but that Bush is ruining it. That was all you.
Anyway, to not further sidetrack this post, let’s move this discussion into your other (surprise!)anti-U.S. post
Which “anti”-U.S. post? It’s really troubling when you (or anyone else here) seem to regard any criticism of the United States of America as being “anti-American.” You have fallen for a dangerous, propagandistic lie, my friend.
and you’ve fallen for the dangerous propagandistic inverse.
No, because propaganda must have a source. Criticism of the United States and its role in the world has no solitary source but irrupts from all the corners of the earth and has no need for propaganda.
Yup. Nothing like tinpot dictators, repressive regimes, and jealous has-been countries to wield valid criticism of the country that does more for good causes and people who need help than any other country on the planet.
Maybe we can talk about his Project for a New American Century’s imperial document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” which saod in 2000
Well, considering I like George Weigel as well, that makes TWO members of the Grand Global Zionist-Neocon Conspiracy. ;-)
“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Use the quote in context:
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. . . .
They’re actually talking about transformation of the military and bringing it up to speed in anticipation of new threats to America following the collapse of the Soviet Union. But trying to argue the merits of various strategies of national defense with a pacifist is rather pointless, wouldn’t you agree?
Actually, I’ll tell you why I appreciate Bill Kristol, and it isn’t necessarily for his unwavering support of the American Military Death Machine [tm]. I respect him for being one of the few secular neocons to take an interest in and sounding the alarm regarding ESCR. See The Future is Now Weekly Standard February 12, 2001; and The Politics of Bioethics: Playing Defense is Not Enough, by Eric Cohen, William Kristol The Weekly Standard, Volume 009, Issue 33; – the latter directly criticizing the morally-ambiguous strategy of President Bush on this issue). They also do regular stories on adult stem cell research that the mainstream press generally doesn’t cover in its haste to promote ESCR.
Under his editorship, the Weekly Standard (flagship publication of the neocons) has also published articles against rendition and against torture, upholding a uniform standard prohibiting detainee abuse. IMHO while I don’t always agree, I generally find the Weekly Standard more invigorating reading than the National Review.
That’s not to say I don’t appreciate his writing on U.S. foreign policy or politics in general, but there are a couple things about Kristol that I imagine even you would appreciate.
Anyhoo — carry on.
Michael: I agree with you on Bill Kristol. He’s the ultimate card-carrier for war, imperialism, and death.
“Michael: I agree with you on Bill Kristol. He’s the ultimate card-carrier for war, imperialism, and death.”
Rubbish on stilts! It does delight me that for the next year, at least, people with your type of mindset Tony will see the columns of Mr. Kristol gracing the pages of the New York Times, which for leftist true believers is rather akin to Moslems finding that an edition of the Koran is being issued with a foreword by Pope Benedict!
… will see the columns of Mr. Kristol gracing the pages of the New York Times,
I forgot about that, Donald. Great, isn’t it?
Well, considering I like George Weigel as well, that makes TWO members of the Grand Global Zionist-Neocon Conspiracy. ;-)
Bill Kristol is one of the chief intellectuals behind American empire. Weigel has nothing on him in that regard; he merely remains the empire’ chief apologists among vulnerable Catholics. Weigel at least has some kind of dubious allegiance to the Church, unlike Kristol.
And there is nothing “conspiratorial” about these people — they are quite out in the open and obvious about their goals.
Use the quote in context… They’re actually talking about transformation of the military and bringing it up to speed in anticipation of new threats to America following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I’m quite aware of the context and have read the entire document a couple times. They are talking about the transformation of the military, yes, but in service to the global domination of the United States. (Context, Christoper. Read it in context.) They got what they wanted on 9/11 and have exploited it.
But trying to argue the merits of various strategies of national defense with a pacifist is rather pointless, wouldn’t you agree?
Not at all.
It does delight me that for the next year, at least, people with your type of mindset Tony will see the columns of Mr. Kristol gracing the pages of the New York Times, which for leftist true believers is rather akin to Moslems finding that an edition of the Koran is being issued with a foreword by Pope Benedict!
Donald’s perception of “leftists” contines to amuse. The New York Times is not “leftist,” it’s as mainstream as you can get.
It’s a bad mental habit to watch political TV at all, ever.
Steve Colbert shoud be beatified immediately upon his death, if only for his having been the first personally to give Mr. Bush a little bit of what he for so long deserved . November 2006 would have been quite different–without Colbert the Great.
Perhaps, if you named women among your list you might aquire a more balanced world view. Even your pictures exclude the gender of female presence. Do you respect your mother?
My mistake. You pictured 2 out of 36 women.
3 women are pictured, but I wholeheartedly agree with you!
Michael,
What is the name of the third woman?
Signed,
A student for Life
Bill Kristol is one of the chief intellectuals behind American empire. Weigel has nothing on him in that regard; he merely remains the empire’ chief apologists among vulnerable Catholics. Weigel at least has some kind of dubious allegiance to the Church, unlike Kristol.
I rest my case.
Dorothy Day, Mother Theresa, and Hannah Arendt are featured in the banner.
I rest my case.
I think I missed what your “case” was exactly.
They’re all idiots, and they’re all what’s wrong with modern socio-political discourse. I don’t need a favorite pundit to reassure me in my viewpoints. I don’t need some blowhard to give me my talking points. Their opinions are no more important than mine or yours, and they generally offer them with less thought and less intellectual rigor.
I’d rather listen to my own children scream for 3 hours than listen to a pundit from either the left or the right for 30 seconds.
Wait a minute … I generally do come home from work to listen to my children scream for 3 hours, which is why I don’t have time for the self-important idiots called pundits.
I still find the term “pundit” ambiguous. Jay, are you saying that you don’t rely at all on folks like Neuhaus and Weigel? Are they not “pundits?”
“Jay, are you saying that you don’t rely at all on folks like Neuhaus and Weigel? Are they not ‘pundits’?”
I read what they have to say. But I wouldn’t call them “my pundits”. If they have something interesting to say, I link to it and comment on it.
I should probably clarify my remarks above by noting that the pundits I referred to as “idiots” are the ones – both on the right and the left – who appear on radio and TV, and who I believe have lowered the level of discourse. TV and radio programs and personalities that pass themselves off as newsmakers but who are, in reality, in the entertainment business. They do “soundbites” and “segments” and pretend to be fully informing the public discourse.
Now, here’s an honest person (Jay, Jan 19, 2008 at 1158 p m)!
Jay chooses to ENGAGE with his home life vs. political pundits. The very fact that Jay is aware (more than others) to prioritized his time with people of which whom he is directly responsible for may offer a roadmap HOW TO MAKE GOOD CHOICES while keeping abrest and alert of the world around him.
Those being paid to thwart our attention, time and eventual tax dollar makes WHO? the fool? Pretty soon we will all be waving palm leaves as the ‘experts’ (NOT!) as they hearld, “Make way for the emporer with no clothes!”.
How’ bout it, America? Turn off the tube and turn back to those you have the greatest influence in which to nurture, coach and be proud of. What a living legacy to embark upon. Maybe we can learn more about community by exampling it to those we love as well . . .
Jay’s got it. If you’re going to watch TV at all, watch Lost or Heroes or something about the travails of Britney Spears — then at least you won’t be confused into thinking that you’re watching anything other than entertainment.
I should probably clarify my remarks above by noting that the pundits I referred to as “idiots” are the ones – both on the right and the left – who appear on radio and TV, and who I believe have lowered the level of discourse. TV and radio programs and personalities that pass themselves off as newsmakers but who are, in reality, in the entertainment business.
Of course this is also due to the very nature of television as a medium in general (see Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business), such that even those with something to say and a capacity for rational debate are hampered by what they can convey in two minutes or less. (Picture a Catholic priest trying to convey the meaning of John Paul II’s “theology of the body” on Chris Matthews).
I find Charlie Rose on PBS and some of the other interview programs on public television (also C-Span’s BookNotes) tend to be the exception because, unconstrained by commercials, they provide more room for human conversation.
Of course this is also due to the very nature of television as a medium in general (see Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business), such that even those with something to say and a capacity for rational debate are hampered by what they can convey in two minutes or less.
Man, you sound like Noam Chomsky. (That’s a good thing.)
“Michael: I agree with you on Bill Kristol. He’s the ultimate card-carrier for war, imperialism, and death.”
Rubbish on stilts! It does delight me that for the next year, at least, people with your type of mindset Tony will see the columns of Mr. Kristol gracing the pages of the New York Times, which for leftist true believers is rather akin to Moslems finding that an edition of the Koran is being issued with a foreword by Pope Benedict!
Donald, if you think that’s rubbish, your understanding of anything having to do with the real world is not to be trusted under any circumstances. Simply put, you are delusional.