Thursday, November 05, 2009

Inskeep Works Hard for the Money


On Thursday morning, Inskeep interviews Mike Murphy (the classy Republican strategist) about the huge, massive, overwhelming Democratic gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia on Tuesday evening - oops, that was in 2001 - I meant the similar 2009 Republican triumphs in those states that are a "slap in the face" to Obama and the Democrats.

For those of us living in the reality-based sphere, we recall that Obama and Democrats made all kinds of concessions for the stimulus bill - only to get NO Republican votes in the House. We remember that team Obama squelched single payer and backed corporate insurance "reform" only to have the Republican nihlists savage these timid reforms. And any of us who give a crap about the Constitution, are seriously disturbed by the extremist Bush-Obama efforts to enshrine the absolutism of the security state.

Keeping these troublesome facts in mind, consider the statements that were made by Mike Murphy as Steve Inskeep interviewed him this morning:
"...hopefully to have some Democrats now start thinking about a bipartisan approach, where they can sit down with Republicans and actually compromise, rather than asking Republicans to vote 99 percent Democrat and call that compromise."
Inskeep's challenge to this nonsense: "We'll talk about that a little bit, but I want to ask a little more about these elections...." When that "later" roles around, here's his big confrontation,"Why do you think, as you suggest, that these election results would cause Democrats in Washington and Congress to work a little more collaboratively with Republicans?" Yes, Inskeep just rolls over, and accepts the lie that Democrats have been obstructing bipartisanship and running roughshod over Republicans.

Seeing that Inskeep knows how to "work collaboratively" with him, Murphy states,
"Because I think the great mistake of the Obama presidency...is they were elected as a bipartisan problem solver, almost a post-partisan politician. But from the day they've been in, they got a little drunk on the power and they've governed as a one-party liberal party....the Democrats, in my view, are governing too far to the left. They're losing the middle of the country...."
Drunk on power? One-party liberal party? Too far to the left? Seriously, did I miss the Democrats pushing for a Roosevelt-style jobs program? Was I sleeping when the Democrats insisted on pursuing single-payer health insurance, or a full public option open to all with no "triggers" or provisos attached? Are the Democrats seeking to have the Bush torture architects and practitioners investigated and tried? Did the banks get nationalized? Did the Pentagon budget get slashed?

And Inskeep's rejoinder? - "Now, when you say the Democrats should learn a lesson of not being too focused on health care, I mean, they're in it. I mean, they're going to try to pass a bill. How should this affect the health care debate for them?" In other words, NOTHING - no challenge, no fact check, no mention of the recent past. I guess that's how Inskeep earns that whopping $353,390 a year salary (+ $38,698 to "employee benefit plans") *[from page 57 of the NPR FY 2008 IRS 990 filing.]

*Or simply click on graphic at the top of this post to see the 5 highest paid NPR employees in 2008 - how Alex Chadwick fits in there is anybody's guess.

12 comments:

gopolganger said...

A thought experiment for you. Imagine you are being paid at this rate. This means you're getting something like
$360000/yr/((40hr/wk)(40wk/yr) = $225/hr so with a very basic education you're being paid like a top notch lawyer or a mediocre doctor. This oddly incommensurate remuneration leads to contorted orations of "yes I believe" and intonations of all sorts of nonsense whose orators hardly understand nor care about what really means what.

biggerbox said...

Inskeep makes so much more than Simon? Does Scott know? Must be awkward around the water-cooler, eh?

In fact, the difference between what Inskeep makes and what Scott Simon makes is more than my yearly take-home, and Simon's not hurting a bit. Well, except for being denied an expense account.

Suddenly I think I understand where all that Republican bias is coming from.

Seriously, where does NPR get off paying those kinds of salaries?

Anonymous said...

In other words, NOTHING - no challenge, no fact check, no mention of the recent past. I guess that's how Inskeep earns that whopping $353,390 a year salary"

That's how ALL these people earn their high salaries (including Nancy Pelosi, harry Reid and Barak Obama, by the way).

People do not like "confrontational".

Ralph Nader is confrontational -- usually right on the money, too but that does not seem to be the least bit important to people -- and look where that gets HIM. Nowhere. he is shunned by the very people who have benefited from all that he has done for this country.

As Nader commented last year at this time, Obama has a "conciliatory" personality, which is why he will NEVER change policies by more than tiny incremental amounts.

Anyone who thinks the Health care bill (eg, proposed by the House) is proof otherwise has not read it. It's a joke. It locks in new customers for the insurance companies while including a token "public option" that will actually cost people MORE than private insurance! The idea that it will introduce "competition" to bring down costs is a cruel joke.

but hey, it's conciliatory.

Conciliatory to insurance companies.

Conciliatory to big Pharma.

Conciliatory to blue dogs.

Conciliatory to one or two "moderate" Republicans.

Conciliatory to pretty much everyone EXCEPT the American public.

Why people continue to vote for politicians who make concession afetr concession (give away the farm (OUR farm)) is a mystery I will never understand (but they do)

Anonymous said...

contorted orations of "yes I believe" and intonations of all sorts of nonsense whose orators hardly understand nor care about what really means what."

Having been trained as a scientist, nothing bothers me more than the "absurdity of it all."

But apparently, gopolganger, you and I and the others who comment here are all alone in the wilderness in finding this the least bit unsettling.

I just read a very well written article today that pretty well sums up the Inskeep mentality that also prevails at the highest levels of our government:

Afghanistan: Obama's Fantasy Island

The "best" part of the piece is this:
According to Brenner:
"Richard Holbrooke was queried at the Center for American Progress back in August how specifically he would define success. His response:

The specific goal ... is really hard for me to address in specific terms. But I would say this about defining success in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the simplest sense, the Supreme Court test for another issue, we'll know it when we see it.

end of Quote

So, the guy who is Obama's "point man" on Afghanistan can not define "success" in the war in Afghanistan other than to say that "we will know it when we see it".

To get a handle on just HOW absurd that is, suppose you were the chief engineer working on a commercial airliner (at Boeing, for example). And suppose a potential customer asked you for the design specifications on the aircraft and you told him/her (with a straight face, of course) "I can't give you any specifics, but we'll know success when we see it".

How many aircraft do you suppose that potential customer would buy?

Incidentally, when I see remarks like Holbrooke's, my reaction is essentially "There is no hope. If idiots and kooks are running the show (as appears to be the case), we're all f...ed"

Anonymous said...

Incidentally, if our government were the least bit rational, remarks like Holbrooke's would get one fired.

but of course, he is merely the messenger.

The message is essentially Obama's.

Anonymous said...

Obama is supposed to be one our smartest Presidents (ever0 according to some.

How such a "genius" can entertain the "We'll know success when we see it" attitude toward a war in a country that (in the past) has eaten superpowers for lunch is something I will never understand.

It's not smart from the standpoint of American security (our own generals say that Afghanistan is no longer home to al Qaida)

It's certainly not smart from the standpoint of preventing the death and injury of American troops (which has spiked)

And it's not even smart from a political standpoint.

The funny thing (if there is anything funny about this) is that most Americans are smart enough to see that the emperor has no clothes in this case.

Anon said...

And of course, they had to shut down some of the better news programs (Day to Day, I'm looking at you) because of "financial difficulties"

Feh. Never donating to them again.

Anonymous said...

Amazing about Chadwick is that according to wikipedia he was laid off in January. Cutting the fat over at NPR. Who will be in the top five now?

boog!poonk!fizzy!binny! said...

Watta transcript by a coupla absolute hax.

krameroneill said...

Wait...$353,390/year? No. Surely you jest? Please?

That is absolutely insane.

bpfb!!!! said...

sloppy grammar correction:

"transcript OF" would've read better than "transcript BY"

my bunny bad

Anonymous said...

$353,390/year is equal to 7068 donations of $50 apiece.

$50 is probably somewhere around 3-4 hour's work for most people (more when you figure taxes taken out)

Isn't it nice to know that when you donate to an NPR member station, you are working about half a day so Inskeep can live high on the hog and cavort with all the big wigs in Washington.

By the way. NPR CEO Vivian Schiller gets even more than Inskeep and we all know what she does: makes up policies regarding NPR's use of the word "torture" (oh, and "designs" websites so you can't find anything)