| NY Mag. | 0 | |
| Wash Wire | 0 | |
| NYT | 0 | |
| WaPo | Calif. insurer’s rate increases draw attention of federal government |
0 |
| Red State | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Spinsational:
"We were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values."
-Obama, explaining recent Democrat losses, 1/20/10
Velvet Lair- The sexiness of winning the battle of good versus evil January 26, 2010
- Ever wonder why? January 12, 2010
- The decision to bench Peyton Manning: Right or wrong? December 28, 2009
- Is my dad turning into a metrosexual? November 24, 2009
- My “Things To Do For Christmas” list November 23, 2009
Novak suspended after walking off set
Wow … this is interesting. Seems Novak and Carville got into an argument on the set of CNN’s "Inside Politics." The Associated Press reports:
CNN suspended commentator Robert Novak indefinitely after he swore and walked off the set Thursday during a debate with Democratic operative James Carville.
The live exchange during CNN’s "Inside Politics" came during a discussion of Florida’s Senate campaign. CNN correspondent Ed Henry noted when it was over that he had been about to ask Novak about his role in the investigation of the leak of a CIA officer’s identity.
A CNN spokeswoman, Edie Emery, called Novak’s behavior "inexcusable and unacceptable." Novak apologized to CNN, and CNN was apologizing to viewers, she said.
"We’ve asked Mr. Novak to take some time off," she said.
A telephone message at Novak’s office was not immediately returned Thursday.
Carville and Novak were both trying to speak while they were handicapping the GOP candidacy of Katherine Harris. Novak said the opposition of the Republican establishment in Florida might not be fatal for her.
"Let me just finish, James, please," Novak continued. "I know you hate to hear me, but you have to."
Carville, addressing the camera, said: "He’s got to show these right wingers that he’s got a backbone, you know. It’s why the Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show ‘em that you’re tough."
"Well, I think that’s bull—- and I hate that," Novak replied. "Just let it go."
As moderator Henry stepped in to ask Carville a question, Novak walked off the set.
Political Teen has the video.
So Carville was being even more of a jerk than usual and Novak could have handled himself better. What’s your take?
More from around the blogosphere: Wizbang, Captain Ed, Michelle Malkin, La Shawn Barber, Ed Driscoll
Personally, this rates somewhere between Janet Jackson’s nipple and shark attacks on my indifference-o-meter. Novak is probably in a downtown hotel bar swilling single malt scotch, smoking an expensive cigar, and telling old stories, [...]
Heh.
8/5/05 3:12 pm update: Novak apologizes. As he should have. (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
9 Responses to “Novak suspended after walking off set”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Carville was a jerk, Novak overreacted and cursed, then, realizing he’d crossed the line anyway, he stormed off.
Makes for exciting tv.
He might could have shown more reserve but Carville would have induced Mohandas Gandhi to violence.
Jeff: Absolutely! After hearing about this, I was thinking it could be used as a springboard for a discussion on whether liberals and conservatives can stand to be in the same room with each other anymore – I may blog about that tomorrow.
Jimbob: LOL – I have to admit I’d be hardpressed to maintain my composure around Carville, too
These are not serious people; they are showmen, and showmen of a particularly obnoxious type.
One of the great things about the blogosphere is the opportunity to hear political discussion by people who are actually interested in the issues, rather than just in the mechanics of politics and the win/loss factors.
- No real secret that both Carville and Novak make their livings acting as front men attack dogs for their respective parties so the Rep and Dem leadership can remain respectibly above the fray, (although lately the desperation of the liberals has reached such a fevor pitch even the uppercrust are losing it in public appearences). Novak, for his part, is a arrogant, insufferable twit, who does his job well. Carville, if he didn’t have his “hit man” gig with the Washington crowd, would be selling hot dogs on some NY street corner. CNN is showing the PC face in their reaction, but privately they eat this sort of thing up since its gets them media attention, something they need badly since they tied their future to the wrong kite. No big.
David: I do think they are showmen to a certain extent. I think the biggest showman of them all on CNN, though, was/is Paul Begala. His whole mission on the show isn’t to debate anyone seriously but to make fun of someone so the audience will laugh.
Bang: Out of curiosity, do you think Novak should/will apologize?
I think Novaks smart enough to know he jumped the shark. He gets paid for being thicked skinned and trading barbs with the opposition. What he did is a bit like a lifeguard complaining that he gets sand in his shorts. I expect he’ll think about it for awhile and decide to eat a little crow for his viewership in a more private venue than the “Inside Politics” setting, and all will be forgiven. Arrogance has its limits. Besides, being unpredictable and/or contraversial, within FCC limits, just adds to your on-air “face value”, a common theme among all the media whores.
Bang, not long after I wrote that question, I saw that he had apologized
Where radicals cannot win they sow discord, mistrust and confusion in their wake. Eventually all people of goodwill disengage and move away from them. Ultimately, they are often left standing on the stage alone victorious by default. This polemical form of radical debate is on the move everywhere to the cost of conservative ethics and behavioral norms.