In just two days, Fox News’ house liberal Alan Colmes’ new book, “Red, White and Liberal” will be released. Fanatical Apathy got an advance look at this important tome…
________________________________
On the War in Iraq:
“Genius, scholar, and war hero though he is, you have to admit - or maybe you should think about admitting - that George Bush might have rushed things a little in invading Iraq. Now, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the evidence of Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction - oh, he had ‘em, no doubt, even we liberals agree on that, he had ‘em - but the actual evidence might not have been as totally and completely accurate as we’ve come to expect from this, the greatest of all American presidents.”
On the Economy:
“There are some who say that cutting taxes so hugely and with such a bias towards the rich at a time when the economy was sputtering and the budget was out of whack… well, there are some who say that this was a tad irresponsible. Now I’m not one of those dirty, vegan, bra-burning liberals who’s going to come out and say something like this while our nation’s at war. Nope. But it is a responsible liberal’s duty to politely request that someone takes a look at that, you know, just to be sure that it’s the very best thing for the American people. Which it probably is, no doubt. But that’s a liberal’s job - to ask the hard questions. Politely, quietly, and at the appropriate time, of course, but you gotta ask ‘em.”
On Sean Hannity:
“Sean takes a lot of guff for being brusque with me on-air, but it’s all in good fun. Off-camera, he’s my staunchest defender. In early 2002 there was a memo circulating around Fox suggesting that the show’s title be changed to “Hannity and the Sad, Wimpy Little Traitor.” I can tell you, that hurt a little. But Sean rushed to my defense. He said, and I quote, “No way. That doesn’t tell viewers anything they don’t already know.” That’s the kind of guy Sean is. I’d trust him with my life. In fact, I regularly trust him to safeguard my lunch money, which he collects from me for safekeeping (it can get pretty rough around here!) when I come in each day.”
Fanny Roborat
41 comments
Bob
October 19, 2003 at 4:27 pm
1And be sure to look for the exciting sequel, “Thoughts I Had While Parking Hannity’s Car.”
Eva
October 19, 2003 at 6:12 pm
2I thought this book was called, “Red, Whimpy and Liberal”,
I don’t know how that guy can live with himself- let alone go on a book tour. I wonder how he feels about Al Franken always putting his name in a smaller font?
Dee
October 19, 2003 at 6:38 pm
3There’s a house liberal at Fox? Man — I gotta get cable.
Murray
October 19, 2003 at 6:44 pm
4You know, if I had my own network, I’d get Mario Cuomo (sp?)to argue the liberal side and then either get some right wing lunatic numbskull (triple redundancy) to spar with, or a good actor who can play a conservative stupid enough to make even Delay wince.
Oh, and I’d swear that it was fair and balanced.
John Isbell
October 19, 2003 at 9:39 pm
5Holmes is too depressing for me to be funny about: he reminds me of Great Leap Forward show trials. But I do like the way Franken writes the show’s name.
I once caught about a minute of Hannity at work and it left me furious and nauseated for about a half-hour before I could shake it off. A mean-minded snake.
Norbizness
October 20, 2003 at 9:10 am
6Alternate titles for his book: “Is It Safe to Timidly Voice a Few Mild Criticisms of the Administration?– No, Not the President, I Know He’s Still Off Limits— I Meant… Oh, Forget It” or “Not In The Face, Sean!”
Chicory
October 20, 2003 at 9:54 am
7In a way, you have to pity Colmes. Can you imagine working with the likes of Hannity and O’Rielly? Only a wimp could survive. The rest of us would go out flaming. (We really need a Rambo liberal. “Take that, Bill-boy!”)
RW
October 20, 2003 at 9:58 am
8Ahem…’scuse me for interrupting the brigade of criticism, but doesn’t Holmes reside on the #1 debate show? The one whose ratings are more than triple those of the “great” Carvill/Begala team (which got demoted to 4:00)?
Maybe the screaming radicalism of Franken & Krugman just doesn’t play with the American viewers and Colmes’ calm *intellectual* approach resonates (and causes people to reconsider their own preconceived positions)?
Bob
October 20, 2003 at 11:15 am
9I’m sure that Colmes’s cerebral approach is very satisfying to all those Mensa Society members watching Fox News.
Excuse me, but I have to go laugh myself into a hernia.
jerry
October 20, 2003 at 2:50 pm
10okay now dont kill me but I think I remember Colmes was kind of tough when I used to listen to him on talk radio (back before my local station got 2 complaints and changed the format and put Hannity on) but what the hell happened to him? I think that was colmes who was tough….or was it Liddy?
"Fair and Balanced" Dave
October 20, 2003 at 3:06 pm
11I think I remember Colmes was kind of tough when I used to listen to him on talk radio
Yeah and I’m sure members of the Washington Generals weren’t total pushovers when they played college ball. If Colmes was ever tough at all, he got over it when he sold his soul to Rupert Murdoch.
michael (in DC)
October 20, 2003 at 4:39 pm
12RW…you might want to look back for Adam’s entry on “Crossfire’s” demotion…one of the funnier FA posts ever.
Thad
October 20, 2003 at 6:22 pm
13Claiming that people are drawn to “Hannity & Colmes” because of Colmes’s calm, intellectual approach is like claiming that people are drawn to Maxim because of the hard-hitting investigative journalism.
Paul
October 20, 2003 at 7:16 pm
14If FOX really wanted a killer show, they’d team Colmes with Ann Coulter or Pat Robertson. Then Alan could politely and intellectually demur when Ann suggested executing liberals or Pat threatened nuclear terrorism against the United States government. Now that would be fair and balanced.
John Isbell
October 20, 2003 at 7:26 pm
15Adam, Oliver Willis just linked to this post. Don’t be surprised to find some unusually dumb right-wingers showing up, he gets a fair number, I’m afraid.
Randy
October 20, 2003 at 8:14 pm
16Well, I guess you can find Alan’s brains right there next to his balls - in a silk pouch in Hannity’s pocket.
I am glad that he has decided that it is o.k. to “…ask the hard questions. Politely, quietly, and at the appropriate time…”.
What a puss-bag! As long as that Fox check keeps cashing every week, I guess you can feel comfortable on your intellectual knees.
Randy
October 20, 2003 at 8:20 pm
17RW has a great post - describing Paul Krugman as a radical is certainly worth trying - even though he speaks of the tremendous disservice being done by the current Repubs in the WH to the average American. I guess this complete BS sales job done by the Right (that somehow millionaire executives are “little guys” and “average Americans”) are looking out for YOU, then you will believe anything. Ask yourself, how have YOU PERSONALLY BENEFITED from anything Bush has done? I assume that if you have time to f%$k around posting crap on a website you are NOT making $300k/year (if you were, you would be too busy counting your extra cash thanks to George, as your country sails into bankruptcy, instead of deriding the few people who are actually doing something to expose the sham of our current govt).
Jon
October 20, 2003 at 8:59 pm
18I found this via Tom Tomorrow’s Web site. It’s a Hannity/Colmes debate over whether or not Bush should be impeached, as a panelist claims, over lying about Iraq. Notice that Hannity is so outraged on having the guest that he says the guy is only on because Colmes wanted it.
Watch as Hannity debates the guy with the usual incisive intellectual skills.
Thrill to Anne Coulter’s amazing ability to pull stuff out of her ass so ludicrous that it makes you wonder if she should be on meds.
And read as Colmes quietly disappears through most of the debate even though he supposedly asked for the guy to be on.
It’s funny cause it’s true.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100013,00.html
bill
October 20, 2003 at 10:13 pm
19I’d try catching the little worm and neutering him…..but I’m sure someone’s already beat me to it. I qwonder if hannity has ‘em hanging in his dressing room?
Anonymous
October 21, 2003 at 1:16 am
20Lassie wrote a book? he’s seans bitch, that’s for sure.
Terresa
October 21, 2003 at 5:12 am
21Excuse me, but I’m seeing this from a differnt perspective. It seems to me that this guy is playing up to his reputation for being a whimp. This all read to me like he is being very tongue in cheek and sarcastic. In fact it reminds me of the tone of Al Franken’s book. And concider this. In these hard economic times, if a guy wants to keep his job, at a radical right wing station like Fox, the last thing he wants to do is get up on a soap box and rant. Take his line about the lunch money thing. The guy is saying that Hannity is a bully, without coming out and actually saying it in a whiney sort of poor me way. I think it is funny. There is going to be a lot of reading between the line in this book. I can’t wait to read it all.
Moe
October 21, 2003 at 9:18 am
22Poor Alan Colmes, he can’t get a break. What can you expect from a guy who Sean Hannity personally picked to be his Liberal counterpart when their show got started? That’s like asking Michael Tyson to pick his opponent for his next multi-million dollar fight. Obviously he’s going to go with the guy with the glasses, the lazy eye and “HIT ME” printed across his forehead. And like Tyson, Hannity is a low life scumbag dirty fighter and a punk who will gladly bully his weaker opponent.
Christopher Howard
October 21, 2003 at 9:49 am
23“Once a fiery liberal spirit,
but now when he speaks he must clear it.
Second fiddle’s a hard part I know,
when they don’t even give you a bow.”
– Tom Lehrer
Pity Alan Colmes.
I remember when he was the second banana on Pat Buchanan’s radio show. He seems to have a history of attaching himself to loud and aggressive conservative voices. At the risk of engaging in dime store psychoanalysis, this behavior has always struck me as some variant of battered wife syndrome.
“Take that, you liberal traitor! Smack! Aw, Sean didn’t mean it. Sean loves you, baby…”
But hey, it’s a living.
And it’s not just Sean. I recall O’Reilly flashing a photo of Colmes, digitally altered so that he appeared to be wearing makeup and women’s clothing. This is the way that the Fox frat-boy conservatives treat their pet liberal, and the poor neutered Colmes can’t muster the self respect to publicly defend himself. I guess that would make him look like a bad sport and it would be bye-bye fat paycheck. I’d feel sorry for Colmes and the degradations he must suffer at Fox, if only his presence there wasn’t so destructive to the causes he purports to serve. As it stands, he is little more than window dressing for Fox’s laughable assertions of balance.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Colmes is paid to take a dive every night, but his show’s format almost always guarantees that this is the case.
In fairness, I’ll reserve final judgment on his book until it actually comes out, but from the above exerts — and his usual performance on television — I’ll bet that he felt compelled to be deferential to the sensibilities of the Fox audience even while writing his book (an exercise during which he should be able to say what he “really thinks”). Maybe this book will be a subtly devastating critique from within the belly of the Fox beast, but I doubt it.
Mr. Colmes: If you are a genuine liberal, instead of the crass opportunist I suspect you to be, I hope that someday you will find your real voice.
David Krebs
October 21, 2003 at 10:23 pm
24Holmes cannot/will not ever be as aggressive as Hannity, and try to interrupt and shout over his opponents views. Holmes, is a nice guy, who really, basically represents the characteristics of the liberals or democrats. The only democrat who can be as mean spirited, as rude and as ridiculous as Hannity, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage and Boortz, is James Carvell, and he could, one on one, give them competition. They really show how most republicans, act and think. Mean spirited, one sided views. Keep up the good work Allan, but become just a little more aggressive when inserting your open minded opinions.
Micheal
October 21, 2003 at 10:50 pm
25Alan Colmes is one of the few liberals I still respect.
He thinks rationally, and he doesn’t throw mud. It’s a sharp contrast with most of the left, who prefer to title their books with names like “Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.”
I applaud you Mr. Colmes, and though I disagree with most everything you say, I plan on buying your book…… just don’t plan on convincing me.
ScottMcW
October 21, 2003 at 11:50 pm
26“Micheal” says that Alan thinks rationally. But, of course he disagrees with everything Colmes says.
Hmmm…I’m guessing Micheal is more on the Conservative end of the spectrum? Disagrees with anything rational. Thanks for putting it so succinctly.
RW
October 22, 2003 at 9:36 am
27It is rational for Howard Dean to love his wife.
It is rational for me to disagree with Howard Dean’s choice in a spouse, as I think I made the better choice and thus think that my wife walks on the ground that I worship.
It’s usually best not to play the “gee, he’s so stupid” game when you haven’t thought things out…
Rational people can disagree, Scott. That you need this explained…..
lovable liberal
October 22, 2003 at 1:09 pm
28my wife walks on the ground that I worship
“Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, uh, won’t get fooled again…”
Mr. pResident, don’t you have something more important to do than post here?
adam
October 22, 2003 at 2:06 pm
29By my thinking, the left NEEDS books with titles like “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.” Those books have finally emerged to offer a counterpoint to the Coulters of the world. [And, unlike Coulter’s work, there’s a lot of laughs to be found in Franken’s books.] The left has taken a stomping from the right in recent years, as the rational right allows its Krazy brethren to rampage around, making wild claims and tarring the left with every available brush, meanwhile criticizing the left in more conventional, measured terms. It’s a devastating one-two punch, and to many people (me included) it seems well-coordinated.
If only the more responsible righties would really renounce their irresponsible brethren (I still can’t believe that book with the thesis of “Treason” hasn’t completely marginalized its author…), public discourse could return to something a little more civil. But instead the lunatics seem to be ascendant, and there’s nothing to do at this point but respond.
So the left, at long last, is hitting back with people like Franken. But there’s still a place for more rational souls like Eric Alterman and yes - even Alan Colmes. But Colmes’ place is NOT next to frothing ideologues like Sean Hannity, and not just because of Colmes’ personality. Colmes regularly ignores blatant and broad factual errors from Hannity and conservative guests, thereby ceding both the rational AND the sensational fronts of the battle, leaving… nothing.
So: RW - I see your point. But the respect that conservatives like Michael have for Alan Colmes is nothing for us liberals to be proud of - his demonstrably losing tactics are exactly why Democrats have the policies that Americans prefer while the Republicans keep winning elections.
To me, the proof’s in the “biased media” controversy. Watch the three news networks on any given night and you’ll see 1) MANY conservative references to the “liberal-biased” media, and 2) an overwhelming majority of conservative opinions (when opinions are expressed). It’s absurd but true, and it’s probably what’s at the root of Scott’s frustration.
Just a thought.
RW
October 22, 2003 at 4:52 pm
301. I have a hard time digesting the presumption that Democrats like Walter Mondale, Carl McCall, Bill McBride, Gray Davis, Mark Green, Janet Reno, Robert Reich, Jean Shaheen & Max Cleland (to list but a few) can’t get elected because a few people on the right respect Alan Colmes’ debating techniques.
2. Eric “I hope Rush Limbaugh goes deaf” Alterman is rational? The guy who said that there was more diversity of opinion in Stalinist Europe than talk radio? The guy who can’t complete a sentence without the obligatory ad hominem attack, launched from the luxury of his personal PC?? Is there a different Eric Alterman?
3. Coulter doesn’t speak at dinners in DC where Bush is on the dais. Coulter doesn’t work in the white house, like Begala & Carville did. And if you haven’t seen Coulter being criticized from the right….surf the blogosphere.
Lastly, if you honestly feel that what is needed is for the left to get NASTIER……well, have at it. See you next November.
Murray
October 22, 2003 at 5:19 pm
31Adam I agree with you.
Dukakis did us a great disfavor by ignoring the stupid attacks of Bush I.
Of course he wasn’t unpatriotic because he felt that people had a right to express their religeon and not make their children pledge allegence. Of course he didn’t send Willie Horton out to rape, the law was installed by his republican predicessor. Of course there is nothing wrong with being a liberal or even belonging to the ACLU (they don’t issue cards to carry, unlike the Communists they were supposed to be confused with).
But by not responding strongly and swiftly, in the minds of (stupid) Americans he was guilty of the charges. Politely ignoring absurd allagations only proved that they were true.
Yes we need the cerebrial calm liberals to argue our side. But damnit, we also need attack dogs to
keep from losing by default.
adam
October 22, 2003 at 5:21 pm
32Good points, RW. In response:
1. That’s your choice of candidates, and your choice of reasoning. I don’t call the right’s respect for Colmes the REASON for Democrats failing to win the elections. I just think that a lot of the right’s “respect” is damnably faint praise - Colmes is a non-threatening liberal voice. It’s easy to respect polite losers when you win.
2. No argument here, just a qualification - Alterman has some extremely reasonable, rational arguments. “What Liberal Media?” is a great example of that. But yes, especially given some of his TV appearances, he’s not the best example of a quietly rational liberal. I concede the point.
3. I don’t think “nastier” is what the left needs, that’s your word choice. “More aggressive,” though, certainly. Also: they’re fun to compare, but I don’t think there’s a 1 to 1 mapping of Coulter to Franken, though. In fact, I’m doing Franken a disservice by allowing the comparison to go too far: Franken’s a comedian. Coulter’s not. Franken deals in satire (albeit increasingly peppered with facts and honest opinions); Coulter deals in political commentary (albeit often peppered with remarks she calls “jokes” when pressed).
Nobody on the left thinks Limbaugh is actually, literally an “idiot,” nor does Franken seriously argue this. Many on the right think that Democrats are actually, literally “traitors,” partly because Coulter DOES seriously argue this. I think that’s a distinction worth noting when comparing the two, and it’s a good reason why Franken belongs at the dais and Coulter does not.
ScottMcW
October 22, 2003 at 6:13 pm
33Wait a second Adam…are you saying that there might be a right-leaning bias to network news? Yeah…that could be the root of things for me. But I think it’s just a molecule of the straw that’s breaking the camel’s back.
And RW, wait…is Howard Dean’s wife hot? I didn’t know that…I’m going to have to go Google her now. Thanks for the lead!
Ricky
October 22, 2003 at 6:45 pm
34I’m enjoying this, adam. I would say that you’re a Colmes-esque debater, but I don’t think you’d take that as complimentary as I’d mean it.
Colmes is a non-threatening liberal voice.
Anyone speaking who has no ‘power’ is non-threatening. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are not threatening, either…..unless, they have influence over those who can threaten. I would think that logical debates would have more influence than bomb-throwing a-la Crossfire (IMO), and Hannity certainly throws bombs. Politicians can be swayed by public opinion (let’s not forget that they’re all political whores) and I can tell you that folks like Colmes have made ME change my opinion on more than one occasion, while the Joe Conason types have done nothing but fire up their base.
It’s easy to respect polite losers when you win.
I respected Colmes while Clinton was kicking the dog-piss outta the GOP. Honest and intellectually consistend debate is just that - party line rhetoric (Coulter/Carville) is just deplorable. And, I think Colmes has won quite a few battles (I thought he ripped Coulter a new one when she came on the show to pitch her book).
“More aggressive,” though, certainly
Very plausible. Of course, the target has a lot to do with it (I recall Lazio getting slammed for being too ‘aggressive’ towards Hillary, while the attempts to do the same against Mitt Romney failed). One risks the possibility of being TOO aggressive (read: Republicans in 1996) and turning off the electorate.
Nobody on the left thinks Limbaugh is actually, literally an “idiot,” nor does Franken seriously argue this.
No, but the MO is usually that those on the right are ’stupid’ because of their beliefs. I needn’t bring up Bush, Clinton ran on ‘it’s the economy, stupid (43), Reagan was portrayed as a meandering doofus…you get the gist.
Many on the right think that Democrats are actually, literally “traitors,” partly because Coulter DOES seriously argue this.
Sure….they’re the fringe. Just as the fringe on the left thinks that Bush is trying to launch an empire & institute a Christian/fascist state.
I think Franken - when not doing politics - is funny. Deadpan humor is hilarious to me. However, he’s thrown around a few too many untruths (saying that the concert for NY was a memorial?) lately (but that’s just me). BTW, I don’t think Franken is as far left as Coulter is right.
I’m a registered Republican who left the party in ‘98 but returned in ‘00 to vote for Bush, but I vote for the 3rd party whenever they’re present in my local elections & the breakdown (lifetime) is probably around 70% GOP, 20% 3rd party & 10% DNC. If Bush were to resign from office & move to Georgia to run for the senate & Zell Miller were running for re-election, I’d crawl across broken glass to vote for Zell, and I can tell you that the party stalwarts who have nothing but derision for Colmes are only preaching to the converted.
If you’re looking to change the mind of folks who vote against you right now (me) but who are open minded about the possibilities that you can improve a bill/debate/candidate, sending out Bob Mullholland will get you what it just got Gray Davis. IMO (worth what you paid for it) a logical approach that is designed to PERSUADE will go much further than trying to score more scream points so that the party lapdogs are pleased with how many attacks you could launch & how many talking points you could spout. And I say this as someone who has had their views on various issues changed by introspection and logical debate with folks who have influenced me. Al Franken wouldn’t convince me of anything. Pat Moynihan, Bill Bradley & Harold Ford could.
Scott, good idea!!!!!
Murray
October 23, 2003 at 12:44 pm
35Different audiences need different approaches.
There actually are people who are swayed by arguments of logic but the majority grasp the emotional and will cling to it no matter how wrong the facts or faulty the reasoning.
If only elections were won by an impartial judge (God?) who could look at the debate and pronounce the winner on fairness, internal consistency, and what is best for the country.
Instead we have a population who vote mostly for the wrong reasons and elect buffoons (Arnold, Jesse V, Sonny Bono, etc) because they don’t take government seriously and are swayed by meaningless issues.
If the Democrats are to mean anything they can’t seed the majority of average intelligence, willfully ignorant voters who trust their gut (emotion) over all else. If Dems choose to not get into the mud, the Republicans will take over absolutely everything, (they aren’t there yet).
News shows that discuss issues with both sides should be evenly matched.
I myself listen to NPR and the Dianne Rheem show where on Friday at 10:00 there is a news roundup and representatives of both sides discuss the issues. It has different guest each week but they cover the whole gamut from Bill Kristol and Krauthammer, to Juan Williams. There is never any yelling or attacks and the issues are discussed rationally. It even allows me to see that some of the beliefs held by the conservatives are honest, even when it doesn’t look that way on the other shows.
Parisians calmly discussing the issues? Not trying to destroy the other just stating their views, no fireworks.
That’s why no one listens to it.
If you want to have rational discussions, they exist, but the public wants its circus, and the Democrats are not well served if they meet Republican lions with Democratic sheep.
Dukakis proved that not fighting fire with fire is defeat.
Democrats must meet every venue with equal fire power.
MA
October 29, 2003 at 4:26 am
36Very educated and well thought out comments by almost everyone.
Anonymous
November 10, 2003 at 11:46 pm
37Your guy, Alan Colmes, is so disgusting to watch. The look on his face when someone challenges him shows he knows nothing about what he is trying to argue - like DUHHHH. Sean is good but he needs a better partner…..Alan is disgusting and if he wanted to GIVE me one of his books, I would simply say “keep it”. I hope noone buys his book. Sad we have to put up with him so we can just get a look at that “hottie” Sean.
Helen Scallly
December 2, 2003 at 5:16 pm
38For the love of humanity, get rid of James Carville. He should be locked up before he hurts someone. He reminds me of a snake spitting venom when he speaks. He gives no one a chance to speak but ignorantly talks over everyone. Another reason for dropping CNN from my agenda.
Jason Yepma
December 8, 2003 at 12:43 pm
39I consider Alan Colmes to be one of the most intelligent, dedicated, and brave host on television - for him to consistently attempt to defend the indefensible - that morally and ideologically bankrupt thing that we call liberalism - and still show up day after day! Now that takes someone special!
Vietnam Vet
December 11, 2003 at 3:23 pm
40COLMES IS HANNITY’S BITCH. How can he live with himself.
shawn
January 6, 2004 at 10:04 pm
41I am three quarters finished with Alan Colmes book. I have to say I find Alan very intelligent.
He sheeds light on liberal myths and at the
same time shines the light on Conservative
double standards. He must have inhaled on the
first part of the OJ chapter but other than that
the book is a breath of fresh air, he’s right on
in my opinion about Clinton, Bush 41 and 43, Reagen, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Hillary, Watergate and Iran Contra. I sort of wish there was a loud outspoken talk show host on the left to counter Rush, Hanitty, Reagan, Savage and Drudge. I wish it not for myself but for the right wing sheep that listen to and are recruited by the like.
By sheep I do not imply that they are stupid
rather if they listen to talk radio they are
actually more than likely intelligent after
all they aren’t listning to music - they choose to be informed politically. The “like” spin
it only one way, there is no liberal voice!
Alan Colmes is great on TV and I wish
he would be syndicated all over the states
to counter the “like”
Although he is not loud and outspoken, that may
work to his advantage.
DO NOT MINIMIZE COLMES JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE!