Jeffrey Sachs’ Vicious Attack on Victor Davis Hanson Goes on “Morning Joe” Without Condemnation. Joe and MSNBC Must Apologize!
The answer: absolutely nothing, but move on to the next point as if Sachs had never spoken these words. Sachs has accused the estimable historian of causing us to get into more wars than anybody else in America, and of being an extremist, and all Scarborough could come up with is a lame joke about Hanson not being on his Christmas card list.
Sachs’ over the top and vicious comment about Victor Davis Hanson should not be left to something that just happened. Protests should be lodged with MSNBC’s “looking forward” management, and Hanson should immediately be invited on to talk about politics and history in the near future. And Scarborough and MSNBC should be asked to publicly apologize to both Hanson and to Morning Joe’s viewers.
UPDATE:
To post a complaint on the program’s website, please go to this link and present your comment. If enough people do this, our voices might actually be heard. Thanks. Ron
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339
Scroll through the choices box and pick “Morning Joe.” If you do not do this it will not work.
I’m glad you did this. Notice how Sachs has no intellectual argument and only one aim — to obliterate Hanson. That’s why I think the appropriate term for these people is neo-Communists (though I feel like Marty Sklar in insisting on terminology no one is going to use). Maybe “scum” will work better.
I agree. To complain to MSNBC about this egregious affront, go to
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339
and then select MORNING JOE from the list of
programs and then let them have it. Demand an apology to Victor Davis Hanson and to his millions of admirers, including yours truly.
That is exactly what I did (although I have never once in my life watched / viewed the “Joe Morning Show” (Joe Scarborough) — and only just heard of him through this article from Ron Radosh. In any case, I know a good cause when I see one, and this is what I submitted to them:
——————————————————–
Dear Sir or Madam,
Mt Scarborough should never have allowed Professor Jeffry Sachs to make that ridiculous statement regarding Professor Victor Davis Hanson — a statement straight out of the Twilight Zone in its implications — to have stood. Mr Scarborough, who prides himself on the need for civility in public discourse should have been the first person to uphold his *own* views and at the very minimum, stopped Professor Sachs from any further character-assassinating comments. This could have been done in a polite but firm way. For example [Joe]: “Professor Sachs, you certainly are entitled to your opinions, but as we do not have Professor Hanson on today to defend himself and rebut your points, I would ask you kindly to refrain from any further comments of the sort you just made. Thanks very much!
Moving right along…”
And that would have been that. At the very least now, Mr Scarborough owes Professor Hanson, a highly esteemed historian, a chance to appear on the show, perhaps even for just a limited amount of time, in order to rebut the slander — as that is what Professors Sachs’ comments were — to rebut the slander leveled against him.
Thank you kindly for taking the time to read my comment. I hope you consider my opinion in a future installment of the Morning Joe show.
Sincerely,
Daniel L Remler
Williamsburg, VA
December 25, 2010
You know how they call conservatives neo-cons?? Well, we can start the movement of calling them neo-coms….
Words have jobs too. Polite drawing room terminology merely legitimizes the opposition. The job of words is clarity, and furthering the isolation of nihilist and suicidal views from the adult conversation. “Scum” is a good first step on that trail. GBUSA
It’s MSNBC; who cares what they say there? This unit of Progressive frothing didn’t even include crude sexual innuendo.
If you get upset everytime someone on MSNBC insults a Conservative or the USA, you will shorten your life by many years. Watch something of a higher intellectual level in the morning like Barney or MTV.
Mr Hanson obviously hurt Mr Sachs’ feelings. I suspect the reason is that Mr Hanson’s commentary and writing is way more incisive and more literate than anything Mr Sachs could produce.
A lefty with hurt feelings is a lefty hurling insults. It’s their way of giving a compliment. Pretty mild compliment though – Sachs only got to “extremist war monger”. He left the rest of the robo-insults in his Muppetts lunch box.
Jeffrey Sachs is a Harvard University graduate—and we should hold that against him. It is overwhelming evidence that he is likely an intellectual whore. Ivy league graduates who have their acts together are the exceptions. They are normally unable to think and follow a logical argument. Their parents spend an estimated $200,000 to pay for an Ivy League credential for their darling son or daughter. These students are to behave themselves and focus on this most important existential question: What will look good on my resume? Indeed, we are talking about big time intellectual prostitution. Sachs merely needs to place his wet finger into the air to see which way the winds of the zeitgeist are blowing. He has learned his lessons well.
I read all the comments below, David, and as usual, yours gets to the fundamentals of the brouhaha — and in a way that reveals the larger societal ills behind it all.
TS Elliot: “Half the harm in the world is caused by people who don’t meand to do harm, but do so in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.” [i.e., modern pseudo liberal]
I am not attacking Jeffrey Sach’s native intelligence. It is a matter of him going with the flow and not making waves over a long period of time. The rewards are fantastic—but one eventually becomes intellectually lazy. Please note that Sach’s over the top criticism of Victor Davis Hanson sounds similar to the utterances of a Daily Kos blogger who is still in their late teens or early twenties. Once again, I am not engaging in hyperbole. Read the stuff again—and see if you agree with me.
Sachs should show his honors, Doctorate Degree, and awards and really put Dr. Victor Davis Hanson in his place!
What? He doesn’t have any?
Haaaahaaaaahaaaahaaaa!
What a bloody pissant.
Doctorate degrees? Funny how conservatives laud academia when it’s one of their own, but insult it when it’s somebody else. Talk about a pissant. You don’t even know when you’re being a raging hypocrite. Then again, that is the very foundation of the Tea Party, of which you serve as an able representative.
The foundation of the Tea Party is American nationalism. Considered passe’ by the chattering classes, but then I can’t help but notice:
no more war protests now that Your Boy is in charge
no outrage at the endemic corruption of Karzai (“Diem” ring any bells with you)
no outrage (secret glee?) at the spectacle of our troops being ordered to train the enemy and then let them shoot you in the back. Oh, Obama’s contribution to national security is they pin a medal on the coffin for “showing restraint”. And you people call the right “Orwellian”?!
Talk about lacking self-awareness…
I was stunned. This raw personal attack was left unchallenged. The least Scarborough could have done was to call Sachs out for his personal attack and let him know that unless he could offer some counter argument to any of VDH’s points Sachs should have his mouth washed out with soap and let him know he won’t be let back on in the future. Refusing to challenge people like Sachs means MSNBC is simply getting worse, not better.
Well said!
There we go agaon-I thought Scarborough belongs to the ‘NO LABELS’ group? What a hueyyy.
Scarborough is nothing more than a middle-of-the-roader, and is part of the MSNBC herd of sheep of which the Democratic Party is the shepherd.
Professor Hanson is winning.
Sachs would ignore him altogether if he could.
That’s a pretty bold claim; that VDH led the United States into war. I don’t seem to recall him being that influential. Is there a conspiracy theory that I missed?
Both wars? Actually, it was reading Sully & Hitch that provided the pretexts, to my mind: what ever happened to “Bomb them out of the Stone Age”? Taliban tribal and Saddam headed a crime family. I believe even Kaus later wrote he felt Sully was being a bully.
AS far as I am concerned, if it wasn’t for the Iraqi war, we would be worried about two nations in the Middle East with nuclear weapons – Iran AND Iraq. Who would allow a psychopath that already lost one war to father Bush to have nuclear weapons? The second Iraqi war was inevitable.
Vermin reveal themselves with every word they speak and require no rebuttal.
I good guess would be that this Sachs thug once was on a show with vdh, who probably had the audacity to introduce facts into the discussion. Or perhaps our doctor asked whether Sachs had ever used a hammer.
And it’s a good point that snork makes about the wars the doctor led us into. How exactly did a raisin farmer in Mexifornia do that? Perhaps the vermin made a slip of the tongue, eager as he was to flash his progressive creds for potential patrons.
I would rush to defend VDH from yet another leftist hit job, but considering the parties involved, it would feel as if a pawn was defending a king on the chessboard from a an attack by a dust mite.
Suffice it to say, there are too many sad Sachs and not enough Victors in this nation today.
VDH doesn’t need the likes of me to stand between him and the rabid extremists, but, I will…any time, anyway.
Superb retort! This guy is, indeed, a fool.
Love the analogy! lol!
“Too many sad Sachs and not enough Victors”
That could be the title of this piece… nice
Wrong approach. There’s no need to defend VDH, as his writing and astute observations already do that. He’s a man amongst the boys in academia. Complaining will only feed the beast at MSNBC and give them relevancy they don’t deserve. They want you to be upset.
This Sachs is a limp noodle that undoubtedly, one time Dr. Hanson must have shredded in debate. Let’s bloody Sach’s nose some more and twist his head for good measure.
And the best way to fight with a liberal punk is to point fingers and laugh at their idiocy.
And he shall be known by his enemies.
“We love him for the enemies he has made!”
MERRY CHRISTMAS! YES, MERRY CHRISTMAS, to all my Conservative fellows, and fellowess’s, at Pajamas Media.
Merry Christmas to you and yours too, CG!
Let’s hope 2011 brings some sanity back…
((HUG))
It’s pretty desperate and pathetic when a man who has not made a name for himself attacks a man who has.
Jealous much, Saggy Sachs?
Mr. Radosh, I’m in accord with the other posters.. Sachs’s ‘accomplishments’ and intelligence in comparison to the Doc’s doesn’t even register a shaking of my head (man.. it’s as if poster ‘BC’ was channeling, right? hahaha).
It goes without saying also that- YOU’RE WATCHING MSNBC for chrissakes! Honestly Mr. Radosh. Put on reruns of Gilligan’s Island, the game show network, watch ‘MXC’ on YouTube.. ANY of the discussed is more ‘meaningful American politics’ than Joe and his co-host who might I add has the WORST frosted hair and man-face of any of the alphabet network females.
The host’s, guests on those shows are knee-jerk reactionists to the core. The moment they discuss or see ANY subject matter thoroughly is the day Obama will be teleprompter free before a crowd greater than 20 people. Not gonna happen.
If anything, this blowhard just increased curiosity amongst MSNBC’s listeners about that ‘Hanson fellow’ who brought Sachs’s blood pressure to a boil!
I hope Hanson’s site, book sales greatly increase for his sake..
Excuse me, Mr. Sachs-your immaturity is showing….
Sounds delusional, or very confused about who Victor Davis Hanson is; maybe Sachs confused him will Paul Wolfowitz or Doug Feith or some other bugbear of the Left? VDH is a commentator who writes great articles about California. Unless he simultaneously holds some high secret position with the Elders of Zion (in which case I must have missed the meeting when he was appointed) he is not in a position to lead anyone into any war.
The first time I heard of Victor Davis Hanson was in a Pat Buchanan column in which Buchanan referred to Hanson as the neo-con’s favorite historian, so I guess Hanson was one of those clamoring for the invasion of Iraq. The Iraq war must have really irked Sachs, that and Hanson’s tracking of Obama’s flaws, foibles and malefeasance. It is amazing the spell that Obama has put on these lefties.
Those who advised Yeltsin, Sachs most prominently, on economic matters had a direct hand in the economic disasters that followed in Yeltsin’s wake; which led to the rise of the oligarchs, and ultimately to Putin. Yes, Sachs is internationally known: for his catastrophically bad advice.
It is typical of a liberal “intellectual” to rebut a rational argument with a personal attack that has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument itself. I would encourage all of my fellow readers to try to find the video of Professor Hanson’s “debate” with mental midget Arianna Huffington, who makes a bigger fool out of herself than usual. In this case, while I am not a libel lawyer, what this Sachs said might actually be libelous. Prof. Hanson is perfectly capable of defending himself with logic, but this is one instance where MSNBC’s lawyers might have to order their “talent” to apologize.
Oh I need to see that, Arianna swimming around Hanson like a little pilot fish. This I gotta see.
Sachs too is just another little pilot fish. Hanson is a giant among the intellectuals, and the handsomest by far.
Even Arnold made her look bad during the recall election.
Tex Taylor wrote, “This Sachs is a limp noodle….” Actually, Jeffrey Sachs is quite the intellectual. He writes a monthly column in Scientific American that always seems to make some sense. In the May, 2010 edition he was quite critical of the Obama administration and its approach to healthcare legislation, climate change and the war in Afghanistan. His criticism noted that opposing positions were left with no outlet except the Tea Parties and blogs.
Unfortunately, I believe that Prof. Sachs has his expertise in economics, a field noted for its pomposity more than its insights. He seems to believe that careful thought and planning will solve problems, when in fact it is accident that solves problems. People are simply not suited for long-term planning since they are in general not prophets. “Careful planning” is an oxymoron and gets people into trouble unto death (sometimes) through the mechanism of unintended consequences. That is why I support decentralized government so that there are more opportunities for fortuitous positive accidents, as well as failures that can be discarded.
Thus, Prof. Sachs owes Prof. Hanson an apology because Prof. Sachs so fundamentally misunderstands the world in spite of truly superior intelligence, very advanced degrees and a professional lifetime full of well-intentioned commendations.
In reading through Sachs’ biography, it appears those who define Sachs as “intellectual” have one thing in common – they are all liberal.
Intellectual is an overused descriptor in today’s world, generally reserved for Ivy League by Ivy League. When you are an economist and your primary influence is defined as John Maynard Keynes, that’s not intellectual. When you’re a guest columnist for the Huffington Post, that is not intellectual. When your conclusion is the problem with Africa is a dearth of foreign aid money, that is not intellectual.
I’ll reserve “intellectual” for men like Enrico Fermi, Robert Oppenheimer, Linus Pauling, perhaps even VDH.
Sach’s SciAm column was dropped a couple of months ago, along with that of fellow smarmy leftist Lawrence Krauss. I suspect too many readers had gotten sick of their sophomoric commentary.
Sachs! Isn’t he the Columbia prof who jumped his daughter? Never mind.
Sachs is clearly intimidated by Hanson and that’s what caused the infantile outburst. But Jeffrey Sachs is just one of many outrageously outraged smack talkers on MSDNC. Is he more of a whacko than Crazy Ed Schultz or Scary Larry O’Donnell or Bathtub Boy Olbermann? At least he doesn’t have his own time slot…yet. And way to take him on, Joe! /sarc
And what did Joe “Mr. No Labels” movement Scarborough, who talks every day about the need for civility, camaraderie and dialogue between folks of different opinions, have to say to Jeffrey Sachs after this most vile outburst?
The answer: absolutely nothing,
Typical Scarborough. If he’s not getting a piece of Mika on a regular basis, he’s a 0 for.
My own take on this incident was that Sachs felt stung enough by the truth to lose his ability to reason. I don’t take Scarborough’s reaction as a bad one since how is one to counter what is a line of thought so obviously bankrupt; Sachs disagrees with Hanson about government policy and so even the truth is to be ignored in the future if it comes from Hanson’s mind. Scarborough’s reaction was rather like a parent who hears his 5 yr. old say something obviously stupid.
Scarborough himself had just said that the Obama admin was looking a lot like Bush these days and so set himself up in Hanson’s corner but not in front of Sach’s vitriol so this sounds like something rather personal. By rules of debate, Sach’s had left himself open to some pretty hard blows so rather than a sense of outrage I felt that the Left is probably regretting Obama’s moves towards Bush policies more than they’re letting on and are in somewhat of a panic over it. This move will be further complimented by MSNBC’s Comcast takeover which could in the long run banish Maddow and Olbermann to the radio; they won’t change their spots for ratings so it may be heighty ho and away they go for the Disingenuous Duo.
If Sach’s cannot rebut Hanson’s claims but wants to anyway it’s more or less intellectual bankruptcy at work and the muslim-like propensity to believe that one is right when one is right and right when one is wrong; my party right or wrong, even when their President now presents himself in the same light that caused so many liberals to paint Hitler mustaches on Bush. No harm done here, just a sorry liberal who backhandedly acknowledged that his own President agrees with Hanson more than Sach’s wants to swallow. Obama might look rather dashing in a nice mustache.
VDH did lead us into wars. Through his brilliant writing. He is writer of military history and more. He leads us there with historical insight and plain good writing that is just awesome reading. VDH for president. I look forward to his posts.
Watching too while getting ready for work, if only to remind that unlike Mika, not born to silk. No Labels = No Balls. Hell, this is Olby’s MSNBS and Sharpton a frequent guest. MJ show now kow tows to the Lean Forward motto such that the show ought to be re-named Ben Dover. Thought: here comes VDH’s next column on PJM because his first principle is to never let a slander slide! Early Christmas!
SACHS: That guy got us into more wars, and more militarism, than anybody.
Wow! Hanson must be celebrating, Imagine being singled out and elevated to such neocon prominence. I predict he’ll get plenty of mileage out of it, although he could never become as tedious as Daniel I-was-on-Nixon’s-enemies-list Schorr.
Scarborough is an idiot and a fraud! Sachs was spot on. You teabagging wingnuts can’t handle facts. As Newsday’s Les Payne says “Tell the truth and duck”!
Was that satire?
If not, one is rather at a loss to understand how Victor Davis Hanson led the United States into a pillow fight, never mind a war or two.
VDH is a classical historian, not an elected representative. I recall many names cited as “warmongers”, including writers like Fred Barnes and William Kristol, but I do not recall VDH among the boogeymen of the left between 2001 and 2008.
Interesting that he now – and only now! – is being cited by poor Professor Sachs (whose notions about Eastern Europe and Russia do not seem to have worked out as hoped) as some sort of secret dictator.
So it can only be hoped that your hyperbolic comment was satire, and I, simple soul that I am, simply was unable to catch it.
I assume you know that “teabagging” is a crude slur. Typical of bysterical leftists who cannot construct a logical argument and so resort to name-calling.
Facts? Obama is a liar and a fraud, maintaining only a veneer of credibility or legitimacy by way of the full force of the left-leaning “mainstream” (I like lamestream) media. This is well-documented in Charles Gasparino’s “Bought and Paid For” (The Unholy Alliance between Barack Obama and Wall Street). Obama should have had to testify in Gov. Blagojevich’s trial and face exposure of his criminality.
The Tea Party activists exhibit real courage in trying to provide an alternative to the Frankenstate monster delivered by the likes of the Clintons and the Bushes. (The last alternative was the prophet Perot, viciously smeared by the leftist media and unacknowledged for his prescience.) What alternative does the left provide? They fight anything outside of open-ended parasitism (tenured radicals like Angela Davis openly celebrate this and lust for the day when the socialist parasite kills the remnants of the capitalist host). You probably have a government job yourself (if you’re not on SSI for mental disability).
I think it’s a lack of facts we can’t handle.
The only thing Joe cares about is his pay check. He’s not about to go against management directives.
Does it make him a bad person — or just a social outcast? ; )
“MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” … the only early morning show that sometimes has serious and meaningful discussions about American politics” Surely you can’t be serious?
And then to top it off, you’re surprised when a Morning Joe guest blames Victor Davis Hanson for America’s wars?
I’m thinking you need to get out more. A lot more.
Six panelists talking over each other…Switch over to CNBC and follow how the economic continues to crater.
Does anyone really watch MSNBC? This is as pathetic as that old radio corporation “Airhead America” that went bankrupt a couple of years ago. Nobody listens to these morons. Joe likes to pretend he’s a moderate (maybe he even can spell the word conservative). He is the token fake non-flaming liberal on the worst cable “talk” network in the business. Yawn, where’s my Fox news where the big leaguers work.
Ron – here was your first mistake, watching MSNBC because:
“sometimes has serious and meaningful discussions about American politics.”
Are you kidding? “Serious and meaningful.” The only “meaningful” discussions are ones people are watching. If no one is watching (See, MSNBC) then they aren’t meaningful. And “serious.” By what standard? Some pinhead academic approach? Flip the channel. MSNBC is neither serious nor meaningful.
Mr. Sachs, would you please be so kind as to show us your work that lead you to your conclusion?
Doc has already posted his rebuttal on PJM. Blow the bugle!
To be charitable, I suspect that Mr Sachs’ reasoning may go like this:
a) all writers of Sachs’ acquaintance are partisan, prejudiced promoters; and
b) all writers of Sachs’ acquaintance constantly write about favoured subjects which they endlessly promote—whether it be the excellencies of Health Care Reform, the benefits of Spreading the Wealth, or the glorious virtues of Obama the Wonderman.
c) Prof. Hanson constantly writes about wars. QED.
“JEFFREY SACHS: Anything that Hanson says I’m likely to disagree with, cause no commentator has done more harm to the American people actually than that guy who led us into all these disastrous wars.”
I doubt if any rational person would claim that Vic Hanson has led us into any disastrous wars. Now, if you were talking about liberal Democrat presidents, like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson who between them led us into a series of REALLY disastrous wars that cost the lives of over 600,000 Americans not to mention hundreds of thousand of Filipinos in the case of Roosevelt, then you would have a legitimate (and rational) point.
But, Sachs strikes me as being pretty much of a liberal himself, so expecting him to say anything that’s rational, or true, is like expecting the sun to rise in the west.
The notion that any mere “commentator” could lead us into wars says it all. Jeffrey Sachs’s wildly inflated opinion of Hanson’s influence is intellectually on par with the view that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were mere putty in the hands of the “neocons”. No propagandist (let’s call a spade a spade) has had that kind of influence since William Randolph Hearst.
My suspicion is that Sachs is projecting fanciful assumptions of his own influence on world affairs onto Hanson. Sachs needs to count all the money he’s earned from publishing his opinions and advising bankrupt Russian and cynical UN bureaucrats and thank God he hasn’t been arrested for fraud.
VDH has responded to Sach’s hissy fit. Surgically.
Jeffrey Sachs may be of high intellect and a Keynesian economist, but VDH is of at least equal intellect, a remarkable scholar, an outstanding historian AND a truly great communicator with the “common man”. He’s mensch, not a geek.
I look forward with delight to Professor Hanson’s evisceration a Sad Sachs, who – if he is as smart as some here believe – should have known better than bait a smarter.
Profesor
Sachs is a twisted and retarded dwarf compared to an intellectual and moral giant like Victor Davis Hansen. Sachs has only shown how much of a midget he is by his negative and abusive comments about Dr. Hansen.
In fact, my hope is that by this clown Sachs attacking Dr. Hansen he will have unwittingly created a situation whereby MSNBC viewers who are unaware of who Dr. Hansen is will be curious to read Dr. Hansen’s writings and thus edify themselves.
What amazes me is these “liberal progressives” can’t understand why mainstream America gives them no credence. But as they say ignorance is bliss and they seem to reek of it…bliss that is. Ego is another forte from the left. They all know more than us peones and are here to tell us how we should be living.
“and well known as the man who gave the Yeltsin government advice on privatization after the collapse of the Soviet Union”
That’s not the same thing as yeltsin having taken it.
Yeltsin’s approach to carving up state goodies was once reasonable compared with fuedalism. He created little fiefdoms and demanded loyalty in return. I don’t think that was the advice he was given. He might have THOUGHT it was, but he was too drunk to know anyway.
We can probably agree that sachs’ (et al) prescription of “shock therapy” was a disaster. That’s what sachs really god wrong in russia. It goes to show that there’s no difference between theory and practice … in theory.
… Columbia University’s prominent professor, the internationally known Jeffrey Sachs, head of its Earth Institute ….
Oh, their expert in sticking his head into the ground and growing onions.
To communicate directly with the MORNING JOE producer, Ann Endelberg, who stood by silently in the studio when all she had to do was say into Joe’s earphone, “APOLOGIZE IMMEDIATELY for this breach in civility and accuracy” and didn’t bother to do her job, write to:
ann.edelberg@nbcuni.com
My comment was supposed to be linked to Belladonna’s reply under David Horowitz’s comment. Also, I misspelled Ann Edelberg’s name in the text of my comment, but her email address is accurate:
‘ann.edelberg@nbcuni.com
The great leaders of the second world war alliance, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, understood the twin sides of destruction and salvation. Their war aims were not only to defeat fascism, but to create a world of shared prosperity.
-Jeffrey Sachs
Neoconservatives are characteristically better versed in reading and writing about battles than actually fighting them..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/neocon-ancient-history_b_63065.html
“The great leaders of the second world war alliance, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, understood the twin sides of destruction and salvation. Their war aims were not only to defeat fascism, but to create a world of shared prosperity.”
-Jeffrey Sachs
Did Jeffrey Sachs actually say something this absurd with a straight face? Winston Churchill did not advocate share the wealth schemes. As matter of fact, this was the number one reason for his political defeat before the end of the war. The Majority of British voters opted for socialist economic remedies.
The fact Ron finds meaningful discussions on any MSNBC program towers above whatever insult Hansen received. Is the word “lemming” too extreme to describe a “conservative” who watches the Democrat version of Goebbel’s television station, and finds it compelling enough to see it longer than 20 seconds?
Victor Davis Hanson should sue the MSNBC staff and the participants, in that exchange published here, for Gross Libel.
Maybe that will get the attention of those true, shameless, idiots.
I doubt that anything less will cross the awareness level of such as MSNBC staff and editors.
Back in the good ol’ pre-Tailhook Navy, when hilarious politically incorrect call-signs were the rule and not the exception, my husband had a squadron-mate whose last name was Sachs. His call-sign was “Scrotum”. This was even stenciled on the side of the jet in the usual style : LT Ernie “Scrotum” Sachs.
I move that henecforth, we refer to Prof. Sachs by this same apt moniker.
Live by the ad hominem, die by the ad hominem.
Even though I believe comments such as the one made by Jeffery Sachs are just rhetoric and show only they are made in an uninformed and even ‘sour grapes’ manner, and that MSNBC programming is totally biased, I also believe in letting the perpetrators know we are listening.
I agree with steveb and others here that MSNBC is not even worth 20 seconds of my time. I also believe that if I let the left continue to spew their BS without at least telling them their emperor is naked, I imply consent.
At least take a minute and register a protest. They’ll ignore it but I just couldn’t help myself…
This is in Mr. Radosh’s article and appears several times in these comments:
To complain to MSNBC about this egregious affront, go to
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339 and then select MORNING JOE from the list of programs and then let them have it. Demand an apology to Victor Davis Hanson. I did.
If you’re so frustrated you don’t know what to say, and most likely everyone commenting here already knows, here’s my sample:
********************************
Sirs,
The following statement was made by Jeffrey Sachs on Joe Scarborough’s ‘Morning Joe’ broadcast:
SACHS: “That guy got us into more wars, and more militarism, than anybody.”
Mr. Sachs made this statement about Victor Davis Hanson. MSN, Joe Scarborough and Jeffrey Sachs owe Mr. Hanson a hasty apology.
To distort the facts about Mr. Hanson, who in my opinion is a great historian, in such a frivolous and untoward manner is absurd and distasteful.
I am outraged, insulted and dissappointed in Mr. Scarborough and believe Mr. Hanson ought to have equal time to defend himself.
Mr. Sachs has so distorted the true picture of Mr. Hanson, his statement is an outright lie.
So much for Mr. ‘No Labels’ Scarborough. You will find me watching your programming far less in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my feelings.
********************************
There, now you’ll only have to cut, click and paste. As if I would waste my time watching those losers…
Merry Christmas Dr. Hanson!
@Tex Taylor (in #10), you’re probably right. I have taken a deep breath and calmed down. Rather than telling MSN off, which may only bring them glee, let’s just point our fingers and laugh hysterically.
In the words of the famous Bob Thompson, “Drinking with Bob,” Are You Kidding Me???? What’s next, what’s next, what’s next…
Merry Christmas to ALL and to all a Good Night!
Ronnie: a comment on a side issue: many pro Obama people (I count myself as one)
are sticking with him, because of all the cliches: ‘politics is the art of the
possible’, ‘politics makes strange bedfellows.’ etc. etc.
Just emailed morning JOE.. What a hypocrite they all are, they bemoan this kind of thing, but it’s OK when their side does it.. Pathetic.
Mr. Sachs cannot distinguish between what counts as pure verbiage and an argument. He calls Mr. Hanson an extremist. Because he went to Harvard he eschews the word bigot. But either way can an extremist or a bigot ever be right. We should do a test and ask Mr. Hanson how much is 1+1=? Once we establish whether or not Mr. Hanson can pass that test we can then decide if he can get anything else right. Pure verbiage are words that have no reference to anything in the real world. It would be like calling Mr. Sachs a shmuck. Now who would want to do that?
Joe has the contagious virus going around MSNBC called the “Olbermann Syndrome.” Joe’s so called “moring show” routine never included a smidgeon of intelligence but now it’s even worse, he now sounds like a cross between Mel Gibson and Keith Olbermann. As the syndrome progresses it will cause Joe to fall into the “Chris Matthews phase.” This will lead Joe to start spitting when he pronounces certain words, it’s similar to Sylvester the Cat’s lisp. Sylvester’s lisp of course was much worse but at least the people he talked to stayed dry. The next phase is the Dylan Rattigan phase and he will find himself starting to spend time in Hugh Hefner’s grotto and believing the women when they tell him “you were great” or he will start believing the info coming out of MSNBC. The last stage of the syndrome is called the Lawrence O’Donnell psycho phase. This phase will start with an eye “tremor” or eye itch, similar to the one that Inspector Dryfus had (Inspector Clouseau’s enemy) in the Pink Panther movies. The angrier you get, the more it twitches. The more it twitches the angrier you get. And of course with this last phase, he will start believing the notes the Progressives have him reading.
Mr. Robinson, why do you appear on “The Morning Joe” program on MSNBC? As you know Eugene, the Morning Joe show has become nothing but a ‘blame America first’ headquarters for the dying liberal press. Morning Joe is actually a terrible show for information and news. Joe is a hypocrite of the highest sort who cherry picks what he needs to support his ideological views, who has a very selective memory, who is rude and obnoxious, who comes across as an arrogant know-it-all, who is too sarcastic in a nasty way, and who is too often proven stupid by guests on his show. Scarborough is in love with his own voice to the point that no guest has ever been allowed to finish an entire thought–even an entire sentence. MSNBC is clearly going further downhill. Scarbrough is an obnoxious self centered boor who keeps telling the world – what little of it is watching this program- what an important man he was in Congress. So this brings up the question, Mr Robinson? Why would you appear on this show almost everyday? Oh, wait, I know. you have the same Progressive opinions and you want to be one of Barry Hussein Obama’s “Anointed Ones”? Could it be both?
By the way, Eugene, Morning Joe has one-third to one-half the viewers that Fox and Friends has. Your on a losing team.
Done. MSNBC is nothing more than a network of liberal baseless ad hominem attacks of conservatives in an echo chamber. Even if i disagreed with them there was a point i could watch some of their shows. now if i happen to catch something its such a barrage of nonsensical, hate filled unsubstantiated attacks that its a joke. and the punchline is always the same. ‘we are right or you are racist’ every show is like that now.
I missed that section of the Constitution that empowers a college professor to take the nation to war
I think the over-the-top reaction from Sachs has it’s roots in large part due to the “Emperor has no clothes” syndrome, except that in this case it’s the “Liberals have no princples” equation that set Jeffrey off.
All but the True Believer far left section of the Democratic Party knows there isn’t going to be a serious primary challenge to Obama, and they know that no matter how much he triangulates to the middle and cuts deals with the House Republican leadership over the next two years, they’re still going to have to go along to rebuilding his reputation back toasted the “New Messiah” levels of 2008 if they want to keep the White House out of GOP hands in 2012. What they don’t want is to be called on their lack of principles over a naked lust to retain power, and that’s what Victor David Hanson’s piece got at, prompting Sachs’ tirade.
As for Scarborough, I think Joe isn’t exactly the fastest thinker on his feet, and was going on what he thought would be a standard mild back-and-forth argument. He had no mental talking points prepared for Jeffrey to go full Olbermann on Hanson, and wanted to get out of the discussion as soon as possible.
So Mr Radosh, are you really claiming to be one of Morning Joe’s seven regular viewers?
I will contact MSMBC to suggest they invite VDH on (without Jeff) to rebut the earlier comments. It would give the leftist viewers a glimpse of a actual intellectual mind, something they have apparently never experienced.
Vitriol. Feministic, hypocritical hypersensitivity. Look out for his swinging purse, VDH! Sachs is also complaining that you not only probably use a skintightener; but possibly have dust balls under your bed. And you’re sure not a size eight anymore! So there, you witch! You think we can’t spot a pushup bra when we see one? Swisssssh!
The blessing is that such so deploy that reproduction is a physical impossibility. When they finally die; we’re finally rid of them. Hyperbolic caterwauling is a function of excessive progesterone levels. If Sachs isn’t careful he may leave home before removing his stiletto heels.
Why was Jeffery Sachs looking off to his right while talking? It seemed like he was expecting someone
near him to approve of everything he was saying. Frankly I couldn’t believe how smog he seemed. If I were Joe I would not want this vicious person on my show. Victor David Hanson really puts him to shame.
I think all presidents operate within far narrower limits than their supporters would like or their detractors will admit. What stings Jeffrey Sachs is that Hanson is telling the truth. And the truth is that Obama made these moves not for reasons of politics but for reasons of policy. And if the most ideologically left president in American history is continuing the Bush policies, then Bush was probably doing the right things all along. That is a message that is difficult for a leftwing person to swallow.
I don’t see anything wrong with Scarborough’s reaction. He was clearly allied with Hanson’s view and he was probably somewhat stunned by the intemperance of Sach’s insistence that Hanson led us into war. While I believe that Hanson was an articulate advocate for the war, I think more influential had to be the support from three fourths of Congress, the book of Ken Pollock, the support of Hilary Clinton, the Senate’s vote for regime change in Iraq during the Clinton administration, the support of Tony Blair, the widespread belief that Saddam had WMDs or at least was in pursuit of them, the fact that Saddam was violating all the terms under which hostilities had stopped in Gulf War I and the increasing difficulties surrounding the sanctions regime including the failure to prevent contreband reaching Iraq and the hardships the sanctions had imposed on the Iraqi people.
The problem the left has is not that some nasty conservatives or neocons tricked the US into two wars but that the arguments for the war were so much more persuasive than those against. And what is more to the point, the necessity of continuing the policy is obvious to the current occupant of the White House even if his most ardent supporters and admirers have yet to figure that out.
Misses this but added my two cents just now.