The Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show 12/13/12

Posted on December 13, 2012 at 9:22 pm by Bob Cesca

The American Gun Fetish; Susan Rice Withdraws From Consideration; Why John Kerry is a Bad Choice; Speculating About the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations; Reactions to Last Week’s Show; Ted Nugent; The Oregon Shooting; Jovan Belcher; Mark Halperin and the Sequel to Game change; and much more. Brought to you by Bubble Genius!

There’s more political talk in this week’s After Party — Friday at Noon eastern time. If you’re not a member, subscribe already. Only $6/month, cancel any time.

Listen and subscribe on iTunes (it’s FREE!)
Download the mp3 (55 minutes, 23mb)
RSS Feed
Listen on your smartphone via Stitcher.com

Bubble Genius

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Bob and Chez Show and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • muselet

    (I swore I wasn’t going to mention this, ever. But no, you had to go and lead with it …) Bob, last week you two did not discuss media bias. You bickered about whether MSNBC displayed pro-Obama bias. If you had taken on the larger question of media bias, it could (and probably would) have been an interesting discussion. And as a bonus, you wouldn’t have taken nearly as much flak.

    I’m not convinced Susan Rice taking her name out of consideration for Secretary of State does take wind out of the Rs’ sails. I think they learned they can lie with impunity about a member of the Obama administration and have their lie taken seriously by our glorious news media. No matter who the administration nominates for SoS, the same thing will happen yet again. I agree that John Kerry should not be nominated, partly because it takes him out of the Senate, mostly because it would hand the Rs what they’ve been transparently maneuvering for. Nominating a career diplomat (which Susan Rice is) instead of a politician would be a terrific two-finger gesture toward the Rs.

    I expect video of your exploits in Johnson City, guys, and I know I’m not the only one.

    $5.3 million to be wrong. Again. Nice work if you can get it. (I have nothing bad to say about the HBO movie, because (a) I wouldn’t watch it if you paid me, and (b) I’m a fan of Danny Strong.)

    Bob, I know you’re being mischievous, but your bumpers were horrific this week. Keep it up and you’ll drive me to drink.

    Ted Nugent arguing against Bob Costas. Now there’s an unfair fight. (Ted Nugent versus a small lump of clay is an unfair fight.)

    I’ve long said that I’ll concede that guns are the same as any other weapon—or potential weapon—right after I read about a drive-by stabbing.

    If I were Ted Nugent’s FedEx guy, I’d lob the package over the gate and skedaddle, then forge his signature back in the truck (after all, how hard is it to make an “X”?).

    –alopecia

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      >>Bob, last week you two did not discuss media bias.

      We absolutely did. Pro-Obama bias is to MSNBC as pro-liberal bias is to the broader news media. Both are a myth.

      • muselet

        It is an article of faith on the Right that The Media demonstrate a systematic liberal bias. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence to support this contention. Personally, I agree with you that systematic liberal bias does not exist (and a pro-Obama bias is a nonsense).

        It is an article of faith on the Left that The Media demonstrate a systematic pro-corporate bias. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence to support this contention, either. Me, I see something that looks an awful lot like pro-corporate bias in the broadcast networks’ evening news shows, but I suspect that’s because it’s often difficult to distinguish between bias and lousy reporting (“BP says the Macondo well blowout is under control. Environmentalists disagree. Back to you in the studio.”).

        I’d argue that what I persist in calling our glorious news media does demonstrate a systematic bias toward the political status quo: whatever the political situation of the moment, that is as it has always been and only crazy people would want something different. I suspect that’s actually institutional amnesia and not bias, but it sure looks like bias to me.

        That’s the larger question I refer to: are there any systematic biases in the media; and if there are, to what degree do they color news coverage?

        –alopecia

  • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

    Sorry Bob, I have been a loyal podcast follower and Bubble Genius customer for years going back to the Elvis days. Last week was the first time I turned it off part way through. When you think about it however, that’s a pretty damn good record and I just didn’t want to pile on last week.
    Good show this week!

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      That’s an amazing record. Thanks, KABoink.

  • Gary Clement

    I don’t think that you should close comments for prior shows. I just listened to the show about MSNBC bias. I didn’t mind at all continuing the discussion through the entire show. I did mind, however, that you both called Martin Bashir a “hack.” I don’t agree. He’s not a hack. I like his show a lot. He’s a solid liberal, and I appreciate that. His show is fun. It’s mostly just entertainment, much like Hardball, and his and Matthews’ shows are the only ones that I can bear to watch consistently on MSNBC. Even Rachel’s show can get ponderous and there are way too many commercials. So, no… Bashir is not a “hack.”

  • Victor_the_Crab

    I just listened to the podcast tonight, and to the conversation about guns in America. The day of the horrific events in Conneticuit.

    Fuck!

  • Sophia Komor

    I just listened to this free show in which you talked about getting a lot of crap from listeners about last week’s free show on a possible liberal bias at MSNBC. I felt it should be said that I thoroughly enjoyed the long and, yes, at times repetitive debate for several reasons (although I could have done without the meta-debate). First of all, when and where do we get a discussion like this about one topic, from two basically friendly parties, who happen to completely disagree about one thing, in this depth and length? Who try to develop their argument as the debate goes on and who don’t just fire off talking points or clever one-liners without following up on the other debater’s counterpoint? I enjoyed following your trains of thought, your logics, and your convictions. Secondly, I wasn’t sure what I thought about this topic, so listening to the two of you trying to hash it out meant I could test arguments, hypotheses etc. which would help me make up my mind. Thirdly, I think your debate was a lesson in rhetorics for every listener in that both of you tried to stay on point, boil down the other’s statements to the gist of it and react to that, without trying to frame the other person, without purposefully misunderstanding or misrepresenting what they said and without other low blows like that. So thank you very much for last week’s show. I thought it was one of your best.