Watch Up w/ Chris Hayes, Sunday, Oct. 2, 2011.
Sunday's show
Sun Oct 2, 2011 2:27 PM EDT
Discuss this post
Leave a Comment:You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Chris Hayes' new book
Over the past decade, Americans watched in bafflement and rage as one institution after another – from Wall Street to Congress, the Catholic Church to corporate America, even Major League Baseball – imploded under the weight of corruption and incompetence. In the wake of the Fail Decade, Americans have historically low levels of trust in their institutions; the social contract between ordinary citizens and elites lies in tatters.
How did we get here? With "Twilight of the Elites," Christopher Hayes offers a radically novel answer. Since the 1960s, as the meritocracy elevated a more diverse group of men and women into power, they learned to embrace the accelerating inequality that had placed them near the very top. Their ascension heightened social distance and spawned a new American elite--one more prone to failure and corruption than any that came before it.
- Facebook: On Facebook
- Twitter: @upwithchris
- Twitter: @chrislhayes
Great show Chris! I particularly enjoyed Mr. Cohan's comments.
I BEG YOU to invite David Simon the creator of the Wire. Speaking of your guests, where's Glenn Greenwald? where's professor Cornel West?
The one thing that bothers me about the MSNBC shows is the incestuous nature of the guest list. Ed interviews Rachel, who interviews Lawrence, who interviews Chris Matthews ... surely, there is someone on the outside who wants a little bit of television face-time. Keith Olbermann interviewed two organizers of OWS (no, I don't usually bother with O'Donnell); I'd like to give the guy who dressed down the Faux News reporter a segment.
Thank you for calling out the fat jokes about Christie, and for apologizing when it appeared on your show.
Also, thank you for having such a diverse group of guests since the show started. I love seeing so many women and people of colour getting air time.
When you are a public figure, you invite them. As Anthony Weiner said before he showed the world his, you own it. As Bill Maher put it, "Do I look like I am ready to run?" Another wag: "Herman Cain is the only pizza guy who doesn't like Chris Christie." CC takes them with good humor, which he should.
Besides, if we do away with the Christie fat jokes, we'll have to do away with the Sarah Palin stupid jokes. And I, for one, am not prepared to go that far.
1. Sarah Palin is manifestly not stupid, she is just deeply unqualified to hold public office, in part because she's ignorant on a number of important topics. This is a legitimate thing to criticize her about. She insults our intelligence by expecting us to believe that she could or would govern, and we are right to call her out on it. Christie's weight is not actually relevant to his ability to hold office, so it's not a legitimate criticism.
2. My dislike of the fat jokes is not actually motivated by concern about Christie's feelings. I'm sure he deals with it as part of the life of a public figure. But the jokes don't just hurt Christie, they hurt all fat people because they normalize the demonization of fat people. That is what's unacceptable about them.
Thanks for a terrific show (knew it would be; been hoping Chris would get his own for ages). And thanks for the easy, complete videos, for those of us whose hours make early morning pretty much impossible. Now, if you can give us an audio podcast...
Commentators from both the left and the right would benefit if they considered their roles in literary journalism. The intellectual laziness is stunning in its arrogance, as we hear speaker after speaker trot out the identical themes with minor variations.
Ok Ok. We heard the theme that progressives are disappointed in the president's"failure" with [fill in the blank issue]. How does the drama play out? Insurrection against the once popular leader from his enemies and impatient supporters alike is a timeless drama. One might think that astute politicos would have sufficient access to history to avoid this cycle. Both right and left are united in casting the leader as a failure. It is unclear to me whether any but a handful of commentators are even conscious that they are story tellers and their choice of story has any relation to the story made real in elections and legislation. If the fingers are ever pointed in their directions, they absolve themselves of any responsibility. Oh No- they were not engaging in pro-cyclical mindless parroting of a narrative that gained currency in the 24/7 news cycle- They were simply reporting the facts that happened to be inconvenient for the leader. Donning the Lilly white garments of empiricist journalism, the commentator engages in the farcical pretension of floating above the fray, angelic, representing all sides with third person omniscient detachment.
At the entry of the Sunday show we hear an echo chamber effect from 3 commentators. We hear the Poltician generating cover for a failure theme, the Politician diverting attention from what the LGBT community really want theme, and the Why is the poltician taking so long theme. This sort of crap narrative is replayed both by the right to Tea party faithful about Sell out republicans and by the left in near perfect replication to the various interest groups under the big tent of the democrats. The public gets a shiny new toy for a leader, and when it fails to deliver whatever golden egg they were expecting, they systematically take their frustrations out on the toy finally destroying and discarding it in favor of the next new toy. In many respects, this is what the excellent Vanity Fair article about California's relationship with its action hero governor was about.
Accusing the president of being hesitant to spend political capital is incomprehensible- was the president unwilling to spend capital on health care reform (something that has been in the democratic platform for 30 years but not delivered on until Obama)- was he unwilling to spend it to gain passage of the enormous stimulus bill that halted the economy's free fall in 2008? I don't mean to pick on Cohan- he wanted Obama to have spent the capital instead on the radical steps Cohan says should have been taken during the financial crisis (He makes a very good point, and his analysis of Goldman is important for everyone to understand). Regarding the other two commentators, I also assume good faith- I think they had the overt intention of doing something positive- of pointing out how much more there was to be done, and want to encourage him to use confrontation more.
What should not be overlooked was that the three were resonating a particular theme dominant in the right wing echo chamber, and that's why viewers on twitter commented on the low quality of the Sunday show. I don't think folks were looking for a cheering section for the President- they wanted to hear insightful commentary, not the echo chamber pap common on weekend talk shows. For this first segment it was ironic that the only original statement made by the guest commentators was from conservative Reihan Salam. He reminded the panel of Frank Rich's excellent point that the polling numbers have shifted dramatically on LGBT issues so Fox and other politicians were virtually silent, realizing that spewing homophobic rhetoric offers only political disadvantages. The narrative Salam is offering is that Obama is opportunistically picking low hanging fruit, and the other groups like Latinos with more difficult goals will be left to feel like "their back is not getting scratched". It is a phrasing that corrupts the public's attitudes towards public servants, but at least it is not in the tired narrative of the loser action hero who is discovered to be a phony.
I'm not sure which is worse. The cynical politician who only does the easy reforms first, or the superhero politician who is discovered to be an incompetent charlatan.
Fortunately, Hayes provides a positive narrative of how what he called "Obamaism" is actually a triumph over the devisive partisan warfare advocated by both ends of the political spectrum. He points out that the DADT repeal was a process victory, and how radical this shift in process was from Bush-Cheney political cudgel techniques. Cohan finds this process contradictory, using the terms of Pledges and so on as if Obama was playing by Norquist rules. Hayes's writes a new narrative of the slow walk consensus building that produces overwhelming political force around an issue to gain passage without resort to divisive partisan rhetoric. It is heroic, triumphal, hope filled and gives the public heart rather than contributing to the corruption of the public's attitudes towards governance.
Journalists have a choice... They can continue to be the willing participants in the normal cycle that demands nothing of the electorate. We want services but no new taxes. We want aggressive change but want it for free- as if all that is required is a trip to the polling booth to eliminate entrenched sets of laws and regulations supported by vast networks of vested interests.
We believe Morph "Yes We can" into Yes He Can", then turn on the leader when he doesn't instantly save the day single handed with his superhuman oratory but no ruling majorities in either house of congress. Journalists are in a codependent relationship with a public unwilling to maintain an attention span longer than the tail end of an election campaign. Journalists who buck the ordinary narratives are tuned out- their producers become concerned about their sagging ratings.
That is until we run across Journalists of the caliber of Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow.
Please give us back segments, instead of 40" pieces. so watching this great show is easier. thx
I would tend to agree -- the full-show (or half-show) clips would be awesome if they were downloadable as a podcast (technically, you can download the .FLV files if you know how) just like TRMS does, but the shorter clips are better for watching online.
This is a wonderful show: fresh and scintillating! It is such a relief to hear some new opinions from really smart young people, rather than the tired pundits' replay aired on the other weekend shows. Kudos to Chris Hayes and to MSNBC for recognizing real journalistic talent.
I can't agree more that Chris Hayes is an amazing young, talented journalist and a real asset to MSNBC, but I'm a little unclear about which 'tired pundits' you're referring to. I certainly hope you're not referring to the other MSNBC hosts, because MSNBC has an incredible lineup of 'pundits' whose hard work and dedication to progressive principles has not only laid the groundwork for, but built a platform strong enough to showcase and sustain a talent like Chris Hayes. Kudos to them all.
Hopefully, you're referring to Morning Joe - possibly the one glaring exception, though even he does a fairly good job of having opposing views presented; actaully, he's probably the best example of a relatively open-minde right-winger, and a great example of MSNBC's more 'fair and balanced' approach.
I have a real problem with the constant comparison with Obama and campaign promises made in 2008. I would much rather see a comparison of the past 3 presidents, their campaign promises and what they accomplished...THEN you can jump up and down on Obama.
It would still be interesting to compare the Congresses under Bush and under Obama. What it presented, what is passed and what is signed.
That would be a series in and of itself. My displeasure with Barry the Wall Street Water-Boy has to do with the absence of war crimes prosecutions (this is an affirmative duty under the Convention Against Torture), the failure to abandon Afghanistan (it is where empires go to die) and Iraq (granted, the military-industrial complex owns an awful lot of Congresscritters), the absence of criminal prosecutions of the banksters for fraud, the absence of action on China (granted, the globalist plutocrats own all the relevant Congresscritters), enforcement of our laws on illegal immigration (see below; we need the jobs they are stealing), refusal to prosecute criminal acts by high government officials (like one federal judge who took bribes to pay for high-class hookers), abandonment of single-payer health care, et al., ad nauseum. But my global gripe is that ZeroBama is a ZERO as a leader.
If I had acquired the Oval Office, the first thing I would have done is call all the players into a meeting in Camp David, with no lobbyists in sight, and had them explain why, for example, the people in New Zealand pay a third of what we do for health-care, but achieve the same outcomes (based on life expectancy figures). Confronting these people with the C-SPAN cameras on and no place for them to hide would have put their feet to the fire. The Presidency is the most powerful bully pulpit in the world; instead of playing golf, he should have spent more time doing the people's work.
Obama doesn't care about OUR jobs; all he cares about is HIS job. When Jon Alter tried to make the case for him in correspondence, the best argument he had was that Obama wasn't Rick Perry.
Hey, how about re-running the show later in the day? It airs at 4AM on the west coast!
I think you could bump a few prison shows in the afternoon and nobody would even notice they were gone.
Concur. Frankly, dead air would be preferable to prison shows.
Although I am hopelessly addicted to MSNBC, as a Canadian I have generally refrained from commenting on most issues because it could be construed as outside interference. However, recently I cannot help but shake my head at some of the criticisms that I have heard about President Obama has or has not achieved.
I think that many of the comments are extremely unfair given the context in which he was working. He is not a miracle worker. They would be more understandable if thingswere occurring in a system like ours up here in Canada where a Prime Minister with a majority has almost dictatorial powers given the almost absolute party discipline (you may not get your nomination papers signed next time around if you do not sty in line). However, President Obama does not have the benefit of such a system. He is faced with a united opposition determined to defeat almost anything construed as being part of the liberal agenda and a Democratic caucus that appears to be as hard to discipline as group of cats. People speak of the Democratic majority in the Senate when Obama was first elected but that was to put it charitablyan illusion. Some of the Democrats in both houses appear to have a voting record that is as conservative as many of their Republican colleagues. I have heard many of them being referred to as Democrats in Name Only, or DINOs, a characterization which I think is apt.
The other obvious, and related problem, is the fact that a majority vote in the Senate must now, for all intents and purposes, be 60%+. This is very puzzling to outsiders.
A further complicating factor is the loss of political capital due to economic conditions that are largely beyond his control.
I think that, given the circumstances, President Obama has done a remarkable job in his first term. The desire to have him accomplish his entire agenda, most of which I agree with, is understandable but I think people should be more realistic and cut him some slack,
wow, the whole show with one click. very nice.
Chris, you have a great show. I'm going to set my clock so I don't miss your program. Thanks for keeping us informed.
Why do you hate the working man, Mr. Hayes?
Illegal immigration degrades the wage base, further exacerbating the divide between our plutocrats and the 99%, just as it did during the First Gilded Age. It places enormous strains on our social services, with public schools, prisons, and hospitals affected most dramatically. Illegals take jobs that Americans could do, especially in the once-lucrative construction trade. And in case you hadn't noticed, they have no right to be here.
Are laws only for Wall Streeters? You can't cry about the refusal to prosecute the banksters if you give illegals a pass.
Am I supposed to cry for the 10-year-old Mexican girl? My friends moved away all the time. I say, good riddance! We aren't in a position to accommodate them, and they were not invited.
Watching this morning for the first time. Great show! Informative, interesting, and love the panel perspective. The show does a fabulous job of educating without preaching. Chris is a great communicator. Five star rating for "UP with Chris Hayes."
I start my weekend with your show now. Love it. Keep up the great show.
What a terrific show on Sat. the 8th!! Two whole hours of really intelligent serious discussion about real issues and fun poking at the distracting non-issues of every other station's coverage. Please! Please, please, please....don't ever get rid of Chris Hayes' show "Up". Or Rachel, or Ed or Lawrence for that matter. So refreshing to hear good old fashioned facts. The guest line-up today with Naomi Klein and Van Jones and Hinohosa (sp?) and Mahoney and even the Washington Examiner guy. Just a pleasure to listen to. Thank you a million times over. I do have one complaint though ...why have such enlightening shows all week and then the totally moronic "Lockup" baloney all weekend long? What a waste a brain cells and time. MSNBC you are better than that.
Great show. Can we replace Morning Joe with this and have them on the weekends. I am tired of Joe's constant talking over everybody, he could work for FOX as that is how they do it. This show has a great pace and content and I am glad MSNBC has added it to the lineup. I am also for less prison shows and more investigative programming.
I love your show. What a pleasure to have a show moderated by a smart person. I'm thrilled MSNBC has added your show to it's lineup. If only it were on a little later. Keep up the great work.
Great show Chris! Congratulations. One quick criticism - please lose the breakfast pastries as a centerpiece. Nobody will eat them on air - so it just looks like you're wasting food. I know they probably go into an NBC break room and get gobbled up after the show - but that smacks too much of a Marie Antionette "let them eat leftover cake" type policy. But scone concerns aside - big thanks to MSNBC, Chris and your guests for adding some intelligence to the nations conversations.
False slanders against the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators left UNCORRECTED?
Prof Hunter saying it's good they finally 'got up off their parents' couch? what bull. There are doctors, teachers, union workers, small business owners, AND college grads unable to FIND a job and reduced to living with their parents, all together. Hunters' students apparently were not taught to find those people. Well professor, go look on FB and Youtube to see who is really there because you and Carney were dismissive, unfair and WRONG.
Leaving these FALSE characterizations and having jerks like Hunter and Carney, and, frankly, the uninformed and unfunny commenter Winstead, will not keep me coming back. Not edifying.
Chris Hayes is great, but this Sunday discussion panel was VERY disappointing and does not bode well for the future of the show.
When the Tea Party first appeared on the scene, all anyone knew was that these people were ANGRY at government for what they perceived to be wasteful spending; though in the beginning there were dozens of divergent opionions being espoused by the Tea Party marchers, including many anti-Obama fueled views, birthers etc. It's interesting that their anger was actually 'heralded' by the press, as a sign of growing discontent by 'ordinary Americans'. As they began marching around the country, screaming, yelling, cursing and verbally assaulting people, no one (including the press) questioned or demanded that they have homogenous views. Judging by, and perhaps as a result of the complete absence of any early criticism (no one called them 'mobs' as they bullied their way through public town hall meetings; no one denigrated their lack of a specific agenda etc.), they were simply allowed to grow and evolve into what they have become - a very powerful right-wing political movement, or I daresay, party.
Now that people have taken to the street, peacefully protesting against the corporate greed that literally caused the problems the entire country has suffered from, they are being assailed as mobs and bums. Anyone remember the 60's?
their anger was referred to and reported as some natural outgrowth of the nation's growing discontent. Judging by the dearth of criticism in the beginning, their
Where is my post?
When I make it to "Occupy Wall Street" my poster will read:
THANK YOU KOCH BROTHERS - "YOU SHOULD FEAR ALL YOU HAVE DONE IS TO AWAKEN A SLEEPING GIANT".
I also happen think this stirs the pot between the Karl Rove wing and the Koch brothers wing of the Republican party on who which candidates they should support with all their criminal Pac money imho. This would be a cool segment on your show.
Anyway, great show as I told you in a earlier email. Based on the number of comments folks seem to enjoy the "Occupy" stories most. Seems to be trending well on Google and Twitter as well. I have not been this energized this much in years. This feels like we may be heading for the second Declaration of Independence. Also really enjoy Van Jones as a guest.
Hi, Chris
Why isn't your show available online in the same format as Rachel's? Why doesn't it appear in a timely manner? Ed, Rachel, and Lawrence's shows all air while topics are still topical. Can you get the president in a round table discussion? What about Senator Snowe?