...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

December 11, 2005

Mike Wallace

An interesting interview with the one-time legend, now cranky drooler, Mike Wallace appeared in Thursday's Boston Globe. The irony of Wallace's answers to the first couple of questions was funny.

Q. President George W. Bush has declined to be interviewed by you. What would you ask him if you had the chance?

A. What in the world prepared you to be the commander in chief of the largest superpower in the world? In your background, Mr. President, you apparently were incurious. You didn't want to travel. You knew very little about the military. . . . The governor of Texas doesn't have the kind of power that some governors have. . . . Why do you think they nominated you? . . . Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that the country is so [expletive] up?

Gee, i wonder why the President turned down an interview.

My first thought was that most of these questions could have been more appropriately directed to President Clinton, or President Carter while they were busy [expletive]-ing up the country in ways that our current President is now trying to fix.

And then, after showing what a blatantly biased hack he is, Wallace had the nerve to wonder why nobody cares about tv news anymore.

The days of Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley are gone. People still do watch, but it doesn't have the clout that it used to have. I don't know what's going to happen or if there will be an evening news 10 years from now.
Totally clueless.

Then Wallace is asked who he admired the most, out of all the people he's ever interviewed.

Martin Luther King. . . . Despite the gratitude he felt for what Lyndon Johnson did about relations between the races, Martin had the guts during the Vietnam War to say this is the wrong war, the wrong time, the wrong place.
That's unbelievable. Read it again, because the quote really gives us an insight into Wallace's mind.

Look at the choice of words: "gratitude" and "what Lyndon Johnson did." Wallace doesn't admire Martin Luther King for King's Civil Rights accomplishments. He clearly thinks those were gifts from the "great white father," LBJ.

Wallace thinks the most admirable thing about King was his opposition to the Vietnam War!

i don't know how anyone can gloss over King's great achievements, what he did to bring real voting rights, end segregation and Jim Crow, and change the way Americans think about themselves, and then say duhh, I liked him cuz he was anti-war.

Go away Mike Wallace, you had your day. Now you're just irritating.

Posted by annika, Dec. 11, 2005 | TrackBack (0)
Rubric: annikapunditry


Graditude? LBJ's Great Society destroyed black families, destroyed our cities, and brought nothing but despair, deprivation and death to black people.

LBJ has gone to Hell because of the Great Society. Bill Moyers and Ramsey Clark will be there when they die for being a part of it. You can be sure that Martin Luther King himself blocked the gates of heaven when LBJ showed up.

Posted by: Jake on Dec. 11, 2005

He's still alive?

I hope his son hasn't inherited all of his views.

Posted by: reagan80 on Dec. 11, 2005

And yet he, and the other clueless old crustaceans like Dan Rather, still insist that there is no bias, even when he blatantly displays it in this interview.
The good thing is, in the words of Billy Bob Thorton, "I reckon the world will be soon quit of ya anyhow, uhhh huhhh."

Posted by: Kyle N on Dec. 12, 2005

Ah yes, the second most famous of my fellow Brookline High School alumni (class of 18what?); it's rather an understatement to say I like Conan O'Brien better.

Posted by: Dave J on Dec. 12, 2005

Wallace's son has come out and said his dad is "losing it" and that there will be a competency hearing in the near future. LOL

Posted by: Ted on Dec. 12, 2005

Here's the Newsmax blurb:

Breaking from NewsMax.com

Chris Wallace: Mike Wallace Has 'Lost It'

"Fox News Sunday" anchorman Chris Wallace says father Mike Wallace has "lost it" - after the legendary CBS newsman told the Boston Globe last week that the fact George Bush had been elected president shows America is "[expletive]-up."

"He's lost it. The man has lost it. What can I say," the younger Wallace lamented to WRKO Boston radio host Howie Carr on Friday.

"He's 87-years old and things have set in," the Fox anchor continued. "I mean, we're going to have a competence hearing pretty soon."

Posted by: shelly on Dec. 12, 2005

I seriously admire MLK for risking his life. MLK said the most scared he ever was was during a protest march in a town just outside Chicago(can't remember the town name). I've seen video of this march, and you can see the fear on MLK's face, and in his body language.

MLK went from that fearful experience, and pressed forward anyway - to a point where he knew the odds of his death were huge - Saddam judge odds. The night before he died, MLK basically predicted his own death, saying(paraphrasing from memory): "I may not get there(to the mountaintop) with you, but I'm not afraid to die." MLK was a giant.

Its instructive that MLK's private life betrayed human frailty in several areas. We can see that no man is perfect, and man achieves greatness despite his imperfections. A useful lesson. I also think of it when I hear black "leaders" disparage America's founders as "slave owners", amongst other things.

Posted by: gcotharn on Dec. 12, 2005


I think your fears of Chris Wallace inheriting his father’s views are misplaced. Clearly Chris hasn't inherited his father’s basic decency. I find it abhorrent that he would denigrate his dad on the air, true or not, such talk about ones parents should remain private. That his politics led him to these filial transgressions tells us a great deal about young Wallace. Ray, could you imagine yourself humiliating your dad on TV because he is getting old and posits views you disagree with? What must be wrong with this kid? I have never seen him but given that rage passes for intellect on his network it is not surprising he found a job there.

Posted by: strawman on Dec. 13, 2005


Did you extend the same courtesies to Mel Gibson while his father was in the news?

Posted by: reagan80 on Dec. 13, 2005


I answered this but our host thought to excericse her high moral standards and delete it. She is very sensitive about certain things:not the deaths of innocents and our GI's when she thinks it will protect her sorry ass but insult her religious beliefs and she rips the page out of the book and burns it. I think she might do well in the new Iraq where it looks as if there will be some serious thought control concerning things religious. Ah, freedom, somtimes you die for it, sometimes it dies for you.

Posted by: strawman on Dec. 16, 2005


You expect the "freedom" to come on someone's blog and insult their religion? I'm glad annika saw fit to exercise her freedom and delete your post. Maybe you will learn how to properly communicate with an equal. Your previous commentt about Chris Wallace was dead on the money about his unfortunate disrespect for his father, although I'm not sure why you think that pit bull Mike Wallace was a paragon of basic decency.

CBS hired Mike for his aggressiveness. I'm sure he has displayed basic decency often, but given the typical simplistic 60 Minutes good vs evil story lines he favored, I'd say his professional "standards" required him to allow his aggressiveness to override his basic decency on a regular basis. Basic decency would have required many more nuanced grey vs grey stories, rather than the pre-chewed yet hard-hitting habanero pablum 60 Minutes serves.

Maybe Chris Wallace inherited a lot more than you think.


Posted by: Wince and Nod on Dec. 16, 2005


MAybe he did.
Like I said, I have never heard the younger Wallace say a word let alone report a story. My response was simply to a son's bad behavior. AS you have agreed it is/was deplorable.

As for the elder, I watched my share of 60 min. episodes and like most people liked the black and white "expose the bad guys" premise. I don't have strong feeling about Mike one way or the other and what you say about his decisions to leave out the gray is most likely true. Gray does not make great TV. Producers are slaves to ratings points and not necessarily to truth.

As for my supposed insults of my hosts religion. I don't in fact know anything about Annika's religion other than she seems to believe in god but I don't think she has expressed any opinion about Jesus.

I think god was cleary left out of my post and Jesus was used more to skewer Mel than to defame the man himself. Not that defaming religious figures is a bad thing but it was not what occured in my post. Nor do I expect any "freedoms" here other than those extended by our host.

Religions don't belong to people, people belong to them and do it by choice and therefore may, from time to time, be asked to defend that choice or listen to satire about it. Religion is not an inherited immutable trait. It is a choice-some make it some don't, some think it is precious some think it ridiculous.

Posted by: strawman on Dec. 16, 2005

"I have never seen him but given that rage passes for intellect on his network it is not surprising he found a job there."

Fox News has never had to retract a major story. You silly libs can try to bad mouth Fox all you want, but it doesn't work. Fox's ratings continue to soar because people recognize even-handed journalism when they see it. After all, they have been forced to watch the blatantly left-wing blather since the days of that true American idiot, Walter Cronkite. The biggest distinction between Fox and its competitors is that when Fox programming is opinion-based, Fox doesn't try to hide the fact or pretend that they are being "neutral"----unlike say ABC, NBC, CNBC, CBS, PBS, NY Times, LA Times, etc, etc, etc.

Anyway, Strawman, keep up the inane posts. And, please do continue to disregard fact and careful analysis.

p.s It must have broken your socialist heart to see 11 million people experiencing freedom courtesey of George W. Bush. But then again your crew didn't want to fight the Nazis or the communists either. Why is it that the Left is constantly on the side of the enemy or waving a white flag?

Posted by: Blu on Dec. 16, 2005

Hey Blu,

Is that the same kind of freedom they experience in Texas where your freedom loving criminal, DeLAy gerrymandered the vote to disenfranchise thousands of people and win 6 R seats? Why did ALL the lawyers in Justice vote to have TEx ass repeal the redistricting? They said it violated the voting rights act in a state that has it's voting procedures monitored since it was a constant violator of voting rights and yet the political ass lickers that mr iraqi freedom appointed ruled in favor of the redistricting? Is that the kind of freedom the Iraqi's have in their future? The Republican kind? I pity their sorry asses if they do.

I look forward to your evasion and obscuration you dumb fuck.

America's democracy would dissapear if left in the hands of the bush team. But schmucks like you would revel in the outcome because it would mean your side won and the constitution be damned.

And by the way, it was american communists who were the first Americans to fight Hitler:in Spain in 1936 you ignorant slug. Look it up - Lincoln Brigrade. The American communist party was always in the forefront of fighting fascism and the errosion of freedom in america. BTW, who was it that broke the back of the German army?

Posted by: strawman on Dec. 16, 2005

Bush = Hitler?

Neo-Cons = Nazis?

Hitler was part of the Right-wing of the Far Left.....


Communists and Nazis are both Leftist groups. It isn't uncommon for Leftists to kill each other en masse over their minor differences: China vs. USSR, China vs. Vietnam, etc.

Churchill was the only WW2 leader truly representative of the Right side of the political spectrum.

NOTE: Remove the * and close the gap in "netfirms".

Posted by: reagan80 on Dec. 16, 2005


I think you have lost your mind! Incoherent babel. Nazi's leftests? Bush=Chimp not nazi

Get a grip and call me in the morning.

Posted by: strawman on Dec. 16, 2005

Communists fighting the erosion of freedom? How absolutely fucking Orwellian. Are you kidding me? Communists and communisim are responsible for the death of more human beings that any idealogy in human history.

Hey, Strawman, maybe if you can get enough people into reeducation camps, your side might have a chance of winning an ideological battle. Your brothers in arms, the Khmer Rouge, loved this tactic. Hey, they were just fighting the erosion of freedom in Cambodia...right?

Posted by: blu on Dec. 16, 2005


LAst chance. Read a book.

What would you call the American COmmunists leadership in begining the fight to crush the spector of Nazi world domination?

Simple question.

Not to put too fine a point on terrible comparisons like most deaths cause in history, but I think if you look at all the carnage of WWII you might rethink your statement. Although nothing excuses any amounts of killing for any ideology and this makes the invasion of Iraq, the support of murderous dictators in South and Central America, the Spanish-American war, the invasion of Grenada, the invasion of Panama, the Dominican Invasion, and of course Vietnam look very similar to any number of occupations and supressions enacted by the Soviets. The only difference is we think we are justified and we thought the Soviets were not. Go figure. Capitalism's aggressive stance has, as long as you are keeping score, resulted in millions of deaths as well. Not numbers comprable to the Staninist era but plenty high and enough for you to keep your ignorant mouth closed since America is not a saintly presence on this planet. Just less black than others.

Posted by: strawman on Dec. 17, 2005

There is not currently nor has there ever been a specific Capitalist ideology that has as a matter of both principal and policy advocated the slaughter of innocents. The same cannot be said for Communism (see Lenin). Capitalism has led to the freedom of millions while simultaneously leading to a progressively higher standard of living, quality of life, and significantly longer life span.

And are you kidding me about WWII? The Nazi's pale in comparison to the Communists of the 20th century. The numbers are not even close---even if you take the death count of both sides of WWII into account. The Communists spent an entire century murdering people by the millions all over the globe. It took the courage of liberal Capitalists to stop them. (I use "liberal" in its true form.) Regardless, the Nazi and the Communists are cut from the same cloth. Both ideologies lead to the same end: Totalitarianism. (See Hayek "The Road to Serfdom" or any of a number of economic and political historians.)

A bit a trivia for ya, Strawman: The term "Nazi" is Bavarian slang for simpleton. Apropos when trying to have a factual dialogue with a Leftist.

Posted by: Blu on Dec. 17, 2005

p.s. I should have noted that along with liberal Capitalists, Christianity also played a vital roll in wiping out the evil that is Communism. You ever wonder why Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan are heroes to the people of Eastern Europe?
Meanwhile, you're crew celebrates and makes heroes out of murderers like Castro, Ortega, and Gorbachev.

Our heroes say a lot about us: mine are Reagan, Churchill, and Pope John II (and I'm not even Catholic.) Liberators and lovers of freedom.

Posted by: Blu on Dec. 17, 2005


Once again you don't answer the question but ramble on

Posted by: strawman on Dec. 17, 2005


Actually, I don't ramble. My writing is fairly succinct.

Your side may have disdain for the National Socialists, but the Left's tactics would make Goebbles proud. In fact, I often think that Michael Moore is Goebbles reincarnated. Both filthy, disgusting pigs filled with hate who artfully spread deception.

But to your point: the American Communists fought against Fascism/Nazism not for any love of country or for Western values. Indeed, many were traitors and it's a shame that many, many more didnt' meet the fate of the Rosenberg's. As you well know--- because you are, after all, not dumb just willfully ignorant---the Nazi's/Fascists were killing Communists as fast as they could get their hands on them. Ironic that evil was killinig evil.

So, I guess that I am forced to admit that it is in some ways heroric that they were willing to stand-up for what they believed in despite the fact that what they were standing up for was/is the most evil and deadly ideology the world has ever known.

Posted by: Blu on Dec. 17, 2005