My Bloggingheads debut with Mark Goldberg
posted at 3:45 pm on March 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
On Thursday, I did my first Bloggingheads TV debate with American Prospect’s Mark Leon Goldberg. Mark appeared for an interview on my daily Internet radio show not long ago to promote On Day One, and we had such a great conversation that we decided to do a Bloggingheads episode together. My interview was lighter than the debate Mark and I had over the UN and its shortcomings that you’ll see here, but you will also see that Mark and I keep it very polite and collegial.
Now that I’ve done one, I’d be interested in doing more, although I think Mark and I exhausted the UN topic in the 45-minute conversation. Maybe next time I can debate someone on pork. I’ll take either John Murtha or Ted Stevens, whichever is available.
Who had the better points? Let me know in the comments.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Dude…… 45:27 min , Don’t you know NASCAR is about to start?
Seven Percent Solution on March 2, 2008 at 3:56 PM
When is Allahpundit going to start this kind of thing?
Calling AP, calling AP! I think I could guarantee maybe….100 hits for an AP bloggingheads. Maybe.
Nessuno on March 2, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Watch it at 1.4 speed. It’s only 32 minutes long then. Doesn’t really interfere with the talking too much either.
lorien1973 on March 2, 2008 at 4:02 PM
I think this is like one of Allahpundits in depth posts on the ever shifting political situation in Iraq. It appeals to a handfull of commenters. I’ll listen after I get off of work.
Theworldisnotenough on March 2, 2008 at 4:02 PM
“The idea that you need to get Russia and China to sign off on our foreign policy …”
Bingo. And his point about “right to self-defense” is less relevant in light of a world where flattening technological hierarchies in WMD can make self defense necessarily preemptive.
BillINDC on March 2, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Cap’n, you look a bit young to be a Grandpappy.
what gives???
:–)
Mike D. on March 2, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Don’t forget about the UN court which is trying to tell Texas who it can and cannot execute… with the help of Jorge Bush.
BadBrad on March 2, 2008 at 4:26 PM
It seems to boil down to Mark believes that the good outweighs the bad in the U.N.
He is way too eager to take the word of the IAEA, seems to think Oil for Food was no such a big deal, and thinks the rape and sex rings run by the blue helmets is bad, but, hey, you can always send them home (where they may or may not be prosecuted).
I think you took the show, Ed, but you had a tendency to do most of the talking/interrupting (maybe that is a function of you being the guest? I don’t know blogginheads format so..)
Mark seems to hold too dearly to the idealism of the U.N. and not enough to the actual practice. Maybe it can be as useful as he bleives it to be, but I haven’t seen such evidence (nor did he provide any other then the incursion of a slum town in Haiti.) He never properly address your concern that there is no accountability in the U.N. which I beleive was your major critique.
To close, Mark Steyn has a great quote on this. It goes something like “If you mix 3/4 of a quart of ice cream with 1/4 a quart of dog excrement, the resulting concoction will inevitably end up tasting more like the latter than the former.” This is true of dog poo and ice cream, and it is also true of democracies and dictatorships. I shudder to think what the concoton taste like when the amounts are reverse, as in the U.N.
VolMagic on March 2, 2008 at 4:42 PM
I can’t listen for 45 minutes. I made it to to the 15 minute mark and found it all interesting. I think you made the best points, but you did the most talking. He seemed to be a very patient guy, and genuinely listening. He seemed to internally accept your points more than he was willingt to admit in the sake of debate…or at least genuinely respected them with an understanding of your how you could see things that way. He didn’t do very much talking…at least up to the 15 minute point. I’d suggest reducing the time on it. Summarize shorter somehow like we all have to do with posts.
Jay on March 2, 2008 at 4:44 PM
You did alright Ed. Not the most glamorous subject but you really had your facts and talking points in order, much better then Goldberg.
I think that’s only the second blogginghead I’ve watched, the first was when Althouse went off on someone.
lowandslow on March 2, 2008 at 4:48 PM
I am not able to watch it yet but this comment is endemic in the lefts thinking in this argument. This argument has no consistency and basic fact that the UN exists to create peace by transferring power and authority to the rest of the world. Cut the legs out from underneath the US and Israel and the all will be right in the world.
So when the UN makes countries like Iran and Lybia heads of the human rights commissions, they tend to lose credibility about their true mandate and if the UN heads happen to line their pockets with the worlds currency. So much for the better.
broker1 on March 2, 2008 at 4:55 PM
What about the UN’s global warming policy? – It’s the UN’s way or the highway. Seems like we’re getting sucked in on Al Gore’s revenge (global warming).
Travis1 on March 2, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Great stuff, Ed. I listened to the whole thing. The “sort-of” sad thing is that Mark “sort-of” honestly believes that the “sort-of” UN truly is a good thing that the world “sort-of”needs.
infidelesto on March 2, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Yes, we’re all eager to see the cars going around in circles.
jgapinoy on March 2, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Great job Ed! You represented my feelings about the UN perfectly.
FloatingRock on March 2, 2008 at 5:39 PM
how come i was passes over micheal im smart FREDO
rico101 on March 2, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Ed – you are much younger than I imagined. You did an excellent job, it was very interesting and you had a plethora of facts to counter his it’s all good theory so therefore it is.
AprilOrit on March 2, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Ed, you owned!
It was great to see a congenial debate, too… but even better because you so clearly won.
joewm315 on March 2, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Goldberg……ah gezz… the only thing he was missing was a turtleneck sweater. I wonder if that jacket had patches on the elbows. he had no substance, although is was amusing when he got giddy 23 or so min into it. Over all, good job Ed.
jerrytbg on March 2, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Ed, (shameless plug here), I’ve got a kick-ass guest tonight on my Blog Talk show – “Libertarian Politics Live.”
Lt. Col. Allen West, African American Republican candidate for Congress in South Florida. He’s the one who caused a whirlwind of controversy back in 2004 for tough interrogation techniqes on an Al Qaeda suspect. Shot over his head to get intel to save his men.
7:00 pm cst http://www.blogtalkradio.com/libertarian
Call-in # is 646-915-9887
ericdondero on March 2, 2008 at 7:08 PM
Hi Ed,
I didn’t watch the entire thing. I confess. Those discussions tend to make me fall asleep.
Here’s my take on the U.N. thing, okay?
We’ve been in the U.N. for so long now, if we pulled out, it would cause us some serious problems, diplomatically, I mean.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not fan of the U.N., but we’re too far into it now. Pulling out, in the short term would be good, but in the LOOOOONG run, it would hurt us.
Hopefully, you understand what I mean.
-WFC
WayWard Fundamentalist Christian on March 2, 2008 at 7:21 PM
What’s wrong with that, hippy?
WayWard Fundamentalist Christian on March 2, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Thanks for a milestone new dimension to HA posts, Capt. Ed!
If there’s front we conservatives can undoubedly win against the new left, the emotional bomb throwers, it’s the rational/intellectual side of the debate. They may still kill us overall with Orwellian/emotional discourse, but the rational/intellectual part of debate is our strength.
petefrt on March 2, 2008 at 7:35 PM
I had a hard time seeing this as a debate, but more so an interview that was quite informative. I really enjoyed it. You should continue doing these. Mark may have been corrected by you a time or two, but he was knowledgable of the subject matter and both of you were polite even while disagreeing with each other.
Great job by both of you!
I must say that I am not used to seeing people drink out of Ball jars while on camera. You did the majority of the talking yet he kept swigging from the jar! It was a distraction for me..
Pam on March 2, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Ed, yer much younger than I’d imagined also. Good for you. Means that while you’re an intellectual leader now, you have planety time to grow.
At the start of your debate with Mark, I was thinking you were too easy on him. But as the debate progressed, you were gaining and he was losing, in terms of facts and logic.
What distinguishes this from most of the left-right UN discussions is the debate was kept on a rational plane.
Good work, Mark. Good work, Captain Ed!
petefrt on March 2, 2008 at 7:58 PM
Ed,
Excellent “discussion”, and more so, an insight into your intellect. Well done, sir, well done.
Money quote for the 45:27 :
As for Mark Leon Goldberg……. (nice bookshelf by the way), it was interesting to hear him split hairs for and against the UN when he was trying to make his point.
For instance, he argues that the UN as a whole is good, but the Security Council when voting for the US is bad. By the way, what does he have against Texas?
The UN is the biggest bureaucracy of bureaucracies run by and infested with bureaucrats.
Can Mr. Mark Leon Goldberg name one bureacracy, including local, state, federal, national, or global that is not filled with waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, and non-accountability?
Just one will do…….? (*crickets*)
I think Mr. Mark Leon Goldberg needs to do just a little research before the next “discussion”.
First, read the UN Charter then match that to what is happening today.
Second, follow up on why UN Peace Keeper continue to rape women and children, and still, nothing is done (goes back to the money question).
Third,
oh, really?
Finally, I believe Mr. Mark Leon Goldberg didn’t vote for the most recent guy that actually has called for reform in the UN.
Other than that, I think your next “discussion” should be with Ted Kennedy and water safety.
By the way, decent race, Congratulations Cousin Carl, and NASCAR fans do vote.
Seven Percent Solution on March 2, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Perhaps your next debate can regard US defense contracts, providing rationale for our military subsidizing the French instead of maintaining US jobs.
March 1, Breitbart @ Drudge
Since it will cost more getting Northrop Grumman/EADS to fill the contract, follow the money and explain who paid whom.
maverick muse on March 2, 2008 at 8:24 PM
I know it is late Sunday night, but someone go wake-up Ed. Gloria Steinam just knocked off Hillary.
JonRoss on March 2, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Just stopped in for a sec. I missed the last 15 minutes of the debate, but what I did hear, I agreed with Ed. I thought he did a nice job.
My own opinion is that the United Nations is a corrupt, anti-American, anti-Semitic organization of terrorist sympathizers. The way they are vilifying Jews is impossible. It’s been said that over the past 40 years, almost 30 percent of the resolutions passed by the UN Commission on Human Rights to condemn specific states have been directed at Israel. Watch Banned UN Speech: “Human Rights Nightmare”
It’s mind-boggling that the U.S. continues funding a group of nations (U.N.) who use those very same funds to destroy them. The United Nations is corrupt, ineffective, and dangerous! Pull America, Canada, and the West out immediately, and start a new organization with pro-West nations before it’s too late.
Actually, I think it is already too late.
apacalyps on March 2, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Comment pages: