(When are they going to let Craig Silverman in on the not-so-secret that he’s the Alan Colmes punching bag of Denver talk radio? Salzman is too nice to say it. – promoted by Colorado Pols)
Radio Hosts Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman were mum yesterday as Denish D’Souza told them that “Obama views not Iran, not North Korea, but America as the bad guy.”
At the same time, Caplis eagerly promoted D’Souza’s appearance today at a GOP fundraiser at Magianno’s at the Denver Pavilions, posting a flyer about the event on the show’s KHOW web page.
Caplis and Silverman could at least have discussed whether it’s intelligent, much less appropriate, for the Colorado GOP to give a microphone to D’Souza who says that the President of the United States thinks our country is worse than Iran or North Korea.
I know the Colorado GOP has to be thick-skinned to hold up its tent, and I’m not saying D’Souza should be censored, but is this the right platform for him?
Asked about his questioning of D’Souza today, Silverman told me:
“There are time constraints in that I have a co-host. In an ideal world, I could have spent three hours individually interrogating Denish D’Souza because I listened to his book cover-to-cover. I don’t agree with his one-size-fits-all theory of Barack Obama, but I do find it interesting…
I didn’t have anything to do with putting up that promo for the luncheon, but I don’t have a big problem with it either. If I had time, I might go see him today. I don’t have to agree with a book to find it interesting…
Denish D’Souza is probably far right, and definitely conservative. I think he’s entitled to his point of view just as Jason Salzman is entitled to your far-left view. I don’t think either of you should be censored. And if the Colorado Democratic Party wants to have a problem with you, I have no problem with it. And if we cover it on KHOW, I would have no problem if we decided to post a promotion for your event.”
D’Souza’s thinking is reminiscent of Tom Tancredo’s comment last year at an appearance with U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck:
“The greatest threat to the United States today, the greatest threat to our liberty, the greatest threat to the Constitution of the United States, the greatest threat to our way of life, everything we believe in, the greatest threat to the country that was put together by the Founding Fathers is the guy who is in the White House today,” Tancredo said.
Buck felt the need to put some space between him and Tancredo, saying at the time:
“I don’t agree,” [Buck] said. “I think there are a lot of threats to the White House and I don’t think the man in the White House is the greatest threat to this country at all. I am concerned about the direction of the country, but — I love Tom, but I don’t always agree with him.”
But later, you recall, after Jane Norton, gently embraced Tancredo’s comment, Buck also warmed up to Tancredo’s position a bit.
In any case, I think Caplis and Silverman should have called out D’Souza’s extremism more forcibly and questioned its place in the political debate here in Colorado. Silverman isn’t scared to do this, but he missed an opportunity yesterday.
You have more stomach than I do to listen to their crap. And of course this Republican clown provides not one shred of evidence to back up his his assertion that Obama views America as “The Bad Guys”.
Listened to the presidents speech on the Middle East this morning and it was another chance for him to promote hope over hate. It is a message that will resonate with the young in Cairo.
Self-important people like D’Souza delude themselves by thinking that by spouting propaganda they will make him less likable. It is action that counts and this president is starting to act with the kind of clarity and force of purpose that we voted for. D’Souze’s comments are nothing more than a fart in the wind. Nothing more.
I suppose they also believe that Obama didn’t think Bin Laden was a “bad guy” when he ordered the operation that killed him. Like Stephen Colbert recently said: “It’s so hard to call Obama a Muslim extremist when he is killing Muslim extremists.”
It’s all part of Obama’s clever attempt to hide his Muslim extremist bent – according to still too many people in the right-wing blogosphere.
Obama will always be seen as un-American until he somehow changes his color to white and his name to John Smith.
I thought that was David Sirota.
Damn, I’m on fire today!
yeah, you’re toast
Loved it when Ed Schultz told Sirota to go to hell though. Can’t get no respect, can’t close Gitmo either. Poor schlep, should have never trusted that hopey changey dude.
His job description is to attack Democratic politicians and make it look like the left has abandoned them. He gets paid by the corporate spin machine to push the narrative that nobody likes Democratic politicians. The poor schlep gets paid a lot of money to pretend that he represents progressives. I hate the mother fucker almost as much as I think you’re a fool.
Sirota’s always been a rebel bomb-throwing lefty who engages his lips before his brain. His job, as he sees it, is to take down whoever he sees as being in power, and for the most part his criteria for determining that seems to be which party controls the Oval Office.
He doesn’t want “better” or “pragmatic”; he’s an ideologue just as rigid as the Tea Party fanatics, just on the other side of the political aisle.
Not to parse here but there ain’t much daylight between your two opinions of Sirota and I agree with both of you, btw.
and a paid corporate spin doctor. I don’t.
He said he’s the right wing’s bitch and frankly, I agree with him. Sirota is being paid to be a shill and it’s the one thing he seems to do well–shill. Well that, and tear down the Democratic Party because they cannot live up to his rigid ideology that sounds great on paper but accomplishes absolutely fuck all in real life.
He’d rather bitch than govern.
I know lots of people like that.
this country is chock-a-block full of Republicans . . . (and sometimes it seems like no less than half of them have slots on FOX, or on the radio).
that you have to put GOP after the Arapa. In the old days they would have been one and the same. Now the tide is turning.
How dare you question the sackless shill Silverman. With your credible journalistic resume being all judgey about the hackery of talk radio.
How dare you indeed, sir.
I know he’s centrist while Caplis is far right, and this creates the illusion a left-right political debate that isn’t.
But Silverman asks tough questions of Dem and GOP guests. You recall last election cycle, while the major Dem candidates did not appear on the show, Silverman’s questioning of the candidates moved info into the debate that might never have gotten out there otherwise, including the previously unreported tidbit that McInnis wrote “water articles” for his Hasan fellowship. Unfortunately, Silverman didn’t follow up :).
He also questioned Buck diligently, as he did here on abortion: http://bigmedia.org/2010/08/18…
After first thinking otherwise, I now don’t think the show would work with a real Sirota-type lefty and Caplis. It would just be shouting. As it is, Silverman’s centrism, and ability to change his mind, underscores the absurdity of Caplis’ consistent hard-line stance.
As it is, this show makes a contribution to Denver politics.
He sits there like lukewarm oatmeal while the rabid Caplis hogs the entire show.
His response to ColoradoPols is just plain ridiculous. He equates “censoring” to being asked to have enough spine not to PROMOTE a vile scumbag like D’Souza on HIS OWN SHOW.
Unless … maybe the wonderful lawyer Silverman got hoodwinked by Caplis into ceding control over who their show gets to promote.
When was the last time you saw Caplis & Silverman promoting anything remotely centrist let alone left-wing? Ain’t gonna happen.
And then Caplis has the nerve to pimp his own law firm on KHOW – talk about a conflict of interest.
I don’t know if you are related to Silverman or what. But this is like when you championed boyles for being “principled”…when what you meant was that he consistently supports gay rights. One position.
Silverman doesn’t “change his mind” Silverman asks “tough question?” NO, he doesn’t.
Silverman has been anti-Obama ever since the administration tried to put a terrorist on trial in New York in the criminal justice system instead of using the military tribunals on military posts. Silverman is honest that his first priority is Israel.
He is pissed at Obama because he doesn’t like the administration’s policy towards Israel in particular and “radical Muslims” in general.
Democrats did not go on the show because they did not get a fair shake. Silverman was a closet birther…”What is Obama trying to hide? Did his birth certificate say he was born a Muslim?” Silverman supported Tancredo. Silverman a centralist? Are you crazy?
Both caplis and silverman are lawyers and they prosecute the president every day, all day. ….there is no defense counsel, no judge and no rules.
I don’t know Jason what it is you are trying to do. It is not straight reporting and it is not objective analysis of local media. I am really disappointed.
Maybe compared to Caplis, Limbaugh, Boyles and Cheney . . . but, damn Jason, in what right wing utopia (Somalia Springs perhaps?) does one find themselves living in that they can use “centrist” to describe the collective postions of Mr. Craig Silverman?
Silverman’s centrism is pretty damn close to George W. Bush’s centrism, the main difference being that Bush is cuter and has a better speaking voice.
He used to be more of a centrist. I guess he could possibly be center-right, but he’s been moving more and more rightward.
He’s been endorsing Republicans, like Buck, because the Dems refuse to go on his show. At least it seems that’s partially why he endorses them. But it goes beyond this. Can’t call him centrist anymore.
So next year Silverman will endorse an R in the primary – he leans to Romney now.
Then he will endorse the R in the general, citing his original support of Obama, but overall disappointment.
But I got to wonder –
does S agree with C that we should have invaded Iran? McCain would have.
Does Mr S agree with Mr C that we should have participated with Israel in their military actions of Dec 08 – Jan 09?
Would S agree that we should have invaded Egypt when Mubarak was wobbling?
…invade North Korea to take away the nukes? to free the 200, 000 slaves?
,,, foreign rendition to move suspects, without due process, to foreign prisons where they may be held indefinitely without access to counsel ot judge?
BTW- I’ve both Silverman agree with Caplis that while they believe Obama was vorn in Hawaii, he should have produced the same thing every kid who plays Little League has to produce: long form birth certificate. I played Little League for 5 years, coached for 7 (so far) – Little League would have accepted President Obama’s Certification of Live Birth. They don’t insist on the “long form”. (You know why? Because LL, like almost everyone else, knows it can be difficult, illegal or even impossible for kids to get it.)
Silverman sits there with his head in the sand while another KHOW idiot, Peter Boyles, goes on and on and on – and STILL goes on! – about Obama’s birth certificate.
Now Boyles is claiming that the LONG-FORM birth certificate was faked. Oh, excuse me, he doesn’t come right out and say it was faked, he SUGGESTS it MAY have been faked. That’s how the great right-wing de-legitimizing machine works.
That link is broken above. Here it is.
here’s the link with the Silverman interview of Buck. HERE
It’s worth taking a moment to read the transcript of Silverman’s interview with Buck below:
Craig: You’re saying even in the cases of rape or incest, you’re not for abortion?
Buck: That’s correct. You know, Craig, if you believe that life begins at conception, which I do, then with the exception of rape and incest, you’re taking a life as a result of the crime of the father. And even though I recognize that the terrible misery that that life was conceived under, it is still taking a life in my view, and that’s wrong.
Craig: Right. And I believe life begins at conception. I think that’s a matter of science. To me the question is, when does somebody become a human being and entitled to the same rights and protections that any human being in America deserves, or frankly around the world. To me, that’s the debate. How did you come to your position? Is it informed by your religion?
Buck: It’s my upbringing. It’s my faith. It’s my life experiences, the three things that have brought me to that position.
Craig: And have you always been there, or is this something that you’ve evolved to.
Buck: No, I think it’s something I’ve evolved to. It’s something that I realized in my mid-twenties. I certainly as a teenager hadn’t thought through the positions. As I got out of school and was observing things and growing in my faith I came to that position.
Craig: And would it transfer into the legal world. You’re going to be a legislator if you’re voted into the United States Senate. Would you create a law that would prohibit abortion in the cases of rape or incest?
Buck: I would favor that position in law, yes.
Let’s say, god forbid, that a 13year-old boy impregnates his 14-year-old sister and does it by forced rape. You’re saying that the 14-year-old and anybody involved in the abortion should be prosecuted, if they choose to terminate the pregnancy, either through surgical abortion or a morning after pill?
Buck: I think it is wrong, Craig. I think it is morally wrong. And you are taking a very small group of cases and making a point about abortion. We have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of abortions in this country every year. And the example that you give is a very poignant one but an extremely rare occurrence.
Craig: Incest happens. I’m sure your office prosecutes it. And we know rape and sexual assault happen all the time, and your office prosecutes it. So it’s not completely rare. I agree that most abortions have nothing to do with that. I don’t know if I’d go with rare.
And you say nothing. You were clinging to boyles as your talk show buddy until….well you tell the story of what happened to your relationship with boyles….
now, you have a crush on Silverman…with the same blind eye.
This is all very sad and a waste of web space.
Congress does not have the ability to legislate to outlaw abortion, period. Both Buck and Silverman are lawyers, took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and know damm well that Congress is restricted in its ability to legislate on abortion by Roe v. Wade.
Now, if Silverman would have asked Buck if he would either vote, sponsor or introduce a Constitutional Amendment, if elected to Congress, to outlaw abortion, that would have been real and courageous.
The point I was making was that Silverman is not consistent. He did not ask Tancredo about his “life” position and yet supported him for governor.
Finally, if you listen to Silverman/caplis at all, you must be aware of what is, IMHO, one of there many little tricks. They introduce topics, such as incest – a teenage boy making his sister pregnant – and then talk about “how awful it is:”…..only they have sparked the audience’s interest. They do it a lot.
I’ll acknowledge that your suggested line of questioning about abortion and the Constitution would be good.
But Silverman’s questions are also in the public interest.
See, Jason. Abortion allows the discussion to reel off into the topic of sex, always titillating. Also the question of when does a “person” begin has been legally defined by the Court. So, this discussion goes nowhere…it just allows everyone to play to their base and to their religion and toss in sex. It does not enlighten. It does not even inform. It continues to create a lot of ambiquity and public confusion about the legal framework for this discussion.
Other pertinent questions would have been: Buck, if elected, would you vote to defund Planned Parenthood? Would you vote to prohibit any insurance company that covers abortion to participate in the federal mandated insurance exchanges?
But, see, no sex in these topics.
Finally, I am guessing that Roe v. Wade was passed before you were born. This particular kind of discussion has been going on in this country for almost forty years. It does not result in resolution, because it is not designed to result in resolution. It is designed to keep the country divided on the issue because it is a real money maker for both sides.
Trust me, son, this does not make me rigid.
He was born in India, of weathy upper class parents..educated by the Jesuits, for god’s sakes. You think maybe he is “pro-life?” You think that Silverman might have interrogated him about his beliefs? I didn’t think so.
D’Souza joins a whole list of non-americans who attack and attempt to destroy the credibility, validity and dignity of our PResident….Talz (Soviet born), the Washington Times (owned by the Rev. Moon..out of Korea )Murdock (Australia)…who all enjoy a wonderful welcome on our talk radio.
But Obama, born and bred in the good ole US of A….and your buddies go after him…
D’Souza is good at promoting himself to the GOP right-wing.
He makes up good stories for them. Hints of reality with huge gaps in logic. Fiction.