Catch Noah Kristula-Green on ‘Up With Chris Hayes’

December 31st, 2011 at 2:30 pm | 18 Comments |

| Print

Don’t sleep in once you are done with your New Year’s Eve party. Instead, make sure to check out MSNBC’s Up With Chris Hayes at 8am (EST) on New Year’s Day. FrumForum’s Managing Editor Noah Kristula-Green will be on the show’s panel.

Also on the panel for the January 1st show will be Errol Lewis, Political Editor of New York 1; Amanda Marcotte, a Contributor to Slate & The Guardian, and Michael Brendan Dougherty, Political Editor of Business Insider (formerly a Contributor to The American Conservative).

The featured guests on the show will be: Nate Silver of; Dave Weigel reporting from Des Moines, Iowa; and Corey Robin, Author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin.

The show will run from 8am till 10am. The topic of discussion with the upcoming Iowa caucuses and the 2012 election.

Recent Posts by FrumForum Editors

18 Comments so far ↓

  • LauraNo

    Sounds like a terrific show. But I’m going to have to record it. :)

  • Reflection Ephemeral

    Congrats, Noah. Enjoy yourself!

    Will try to remember to turn it on if I’m still up. The odds aren’t too good, to be honest.

  • Kane

    As everyone knows, or perhaps they don’t, today is the last day of the Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Iraq. Appropriately, Up With Chris Hayes devoted the entire show on Saturday morning to a broad discussion of the Iraq war and its lasting impact. It was riveting television if you enjoy thoughtful and intelligent discussions without the name-calling, mindless debates and predictable Beltway narratives and talking-points.

    It is remarkable that these couple of hours of discussion of the Iraq war is probably more than I have seen discussed on the subject on television in the entire year combined. Everyone seems to want to tune it out and move on. I understand that some are burned out on all-things Iraq, but if we fail to discuss the lessons of Iraq, it will only make it easier for those seeking to make Iran our next adventure.

    • Oldskool

      Ditto, he kicked some ass. It was a lot to absorb at that hour. Once upon a time, broadcast tv would devote an hour of prime time for a show like the one he did this morning that a few thousand people probably saw.

    • Ludwig von Mises

      Today, to mark the New Year, the Iraqi Prime Minister describes the end of US military presence in the country a great success, designating December 31 as the ‘National Day of Iraq.’

      The Army and Marines lost 4,500 as dead, more than 30,000 wounded (many of them amputees) and countless others with mental and emotional problems which will haunt both them and their families for the rest of their lives. Many of these vets will end up on the street squatting with other vets from past wars. Yet, what was accomplished? Did anybody of significance cheer amerikans as they left Iraqi? Where were the parades for our troops who liberated Iraqi? The only thing I saw was groups of people burning amerikan flags as the troops departed the country. Does any critical thinker out there in La La Land really believe that amerika won the hearts and minds of the Iraqis?

      The Neocons, the presstitutes and shills like Frum are abject failures in all of the long term objectives, including a viable long-term plan of action.

      Remember, by invading Iraq amerika solved none of any of the long-term problems in the region or our oil dependency—-NONE. All the money spent and blood spilled to subsidize the highly profitable transnationals was it really worth it? Was it worth all the hate that amerika has to now bear for decades to come? It’s been just weeks since the troops had left Iraq and the country is already on the verge of a civil war.

      Currently, it seems that the ignorant masses and their provocative, war-mongering leaders want to wage war on Iran, a country three times the size of Iraq.

      Does endlessly waging war in the Middle East really sound like a viable, long-term plan? Or does this sound like a guaranteed method to implode what is left of the amerikan economy?

      Conclusion: amerika needs leadership that can achieve “peace, commerce, & honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” ……

      End the Fed! End The Militarism! End Crony Capitalism! End The Fear!

      Ron Paul 2012 Happy New Year!

      • indy

        You are viewed slightly more positively than ‘socialism’ so that’s good news I guess, but I’m not sure your references to ‘amerika’ is really going to help improve the image that much. Public relations ain’t really your thing. Perhaps you can help in the back office somewhere?

        • Ludwig von Mises


          1) Those terms by the Pew are only labels and a one word reaction to a stigma/non-stigma: The truth is different than the label, by far, i.e. amerikans love socialism, e.g. Social Security, GSEs, public schools, et al. They’ve been conned into loving socialism as the disguised, packaged and labeled “compassionate conservatism” of the Neo(cons).

          2) What I’m concerned with is reality, viz. truth— not front or back room propaganda—because that’s your job, you Neocon: Truth and only truth is my chief concern; Which is: America has become amerika, no: super amerika, a super welfare-warfare state. Tip of the hat to the Progressives and the Neocons who destroyed America, we know whom you are. Yes, the libertarians and the classical liberals know whom you are; And those pew-label percentages are going to change as the ignorant masses suffer the future pain of failed leadership and the economic scams—- like the current borrow-to-spend on socialism scam— embraced by the leadership of both parties. The leadership of both the Progressives and Neocons are a disgrace to past America, and they both are directly and indirectly responsible as the architects and builders of the present super amerika and future super-duper-america.

          When super-duper amerika unravels, I sure wouldn’t want to be labeled a Neo(con).

        • indy

          The truth is different than the label, by far, i.e. amerikans love socialism, e.g. Social Security, GSEs, public schools, et al.

          So your thesis, as far as I can determine, is that given a failure of the current system, the ‘ignorant masses’ will suddenly see the ‘truth’, stop being ‘sheep’, turn from all that you claim they ‘love’, and embrace a libertarian political philosophy that is currently viewed so unfavorably? And Ron and Rand Paul are the magnetic personalities that will inspire this awakening?

          Now I feel foolish for having doubted you.

        • Ludwig von Mises

          “So your thesis, as far as I can determine, is”………….

          Let me bottom line it for you indy: When super-duper amerika—which is the sole creation of Neocon/ Progressive fascism/socialism—- unravels, then all bets are off; Anything can happen. Personally, I just want to see the political football move in the right direction for Rand, and that’s it.

          It would rise to the level of what F.A. Hayek termed as “fatal conceit” to think that any of us know absolutely and precisely how the future will turn out. Men like Hayek used terms such as possible, probable, likely and very likely when forecasting the future. As far as I can see, Ron Paul falls in the range of impossible to barley possible in his bid for the White House. If the economy tanks very, very badly in the next few months, then maybe Ron Paul has a very long-shot chance of winning. The best Ron Paul can do in my opinion is move the political football past the 50 yard line for Rand Paul to run with it later on. As far as Rand can go, I’m not really sure, yet, if he can score. Rand, in my opinion, has the potential to go all the way to the White House and really shake things up, IF, and it’s a big if, many, many hurtles are overcome between now and 2016 or 2020…..

          On the other hand, Sh*tt Romney, who is going to be the nominee in all likelihood, isn’t going to reverse the transmogrification of America to amerika to super amerika to super-duper amerika. RINO Romney will slow it down, maybe, if we are lucky. If Obama wins, then run out and buy a gun, extra food, water and get ready to defend yourself from public turmoil (think: OWSx100). In fact, gun sales are already setting all time records. Maybe the masses aren’t so ignorant after all. Maybe they viscerally feel something is very wrong with amerika, and that’s why so many are hesitating to support a hollowed-out-soulless-corporate-insider ghoul like Romney.

          Finally, Ron Paul has a good chance to win Iowa because the polls didn’t include the independents and the Democrats who are going to support him, so he’s likely leading right now despite what the presstitute polls indicate: A victory or near victory in Iowa will move the football in the right direction for Rand. That, in a nutshell, is my “theses,” and my hope, i.e. move the football for Rand, fight like hell and then see what happens… How’s that for straight up no BS honesty?

          Ron Paul 2012! End The Fed! End The Wars! End Crony Capitalism! End Washington BS!

          Support Ron Paul by making a donation. We are only a little short of achieving the 6 million dollar goal set for over the weekend!!!

    • Houndentenor

      The only people who want to discuss Iraq are the people who always thought it was a bad idea to invade, or at least had doubts about it. (I belonged to the second category.) Everyone else was on board and that includes large numbers of Democrats and pretty much the entire media. It’s why the people who distorted the wmd threat to make the case for war have never been held accountable. Going back over that just shows that almost the entire political and media leadership were complicit. They’d rather we forget.

  • Clayman

    Hope you save a few words to comment on soccer. Enjoyed your piece below:

  • AnyOne4Discourse

    Quietly and subtly, Noah employs the same tired old Rovian tactics. In the “Up” forum, he attempts to appeal to us Independents with the old soft sell. Know this, Noah: Karl loves you.

    • ConnerMcMaub

      Your personal attack is based on guilt by association with Karl Rove who probably doesn’t know who Noah is. Give the man the respect of allowing him his opinions. There was a respectful way to make your point, but you chose to be a bully.

  • NRA Liberal

    I want to catch this because Corey Robin’s book is the awesome.

  • nhthinker

    Libertarian politicians have backbone and do not run away from the word.
    Democrats typically won’t wear the liberal label with pride…To chicken of the consequences…

    Dems wary of ‘liberal’ label; GOP embraces ‘conservative’

    By David Paul Kuhn, The Politico
    Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked this summer if she would describe herself as a “liberal.”

    The Democratic front-runner shied away, saying the “word” — noticeably not using the word — has taken on a connotation that “describes big government.
    “I prefer the word ‘progressive,’” she said. It has a “real American meaning.”

    Then she expanded the term to “modern progressive,” and, finally, clarified that she was a “modern American progressive.”

    These are heady days for Democrats. The party is favored by almost all measures in the coming presidential contest.

    But while Democrats are emboldened, they remain wary of the term “liberal.”

    Republicans, by contrast, are as unpopular in the polls as they have been for at least 15 years.

    Nonetheless, the label “conservative” remains in vogue.

    At a recent Republican debate, Rudy Giuliani referred to himself as a “conservative” four times in roughly the same time span — a minute or so — it took Clinton to reject the word “liberal” and embrace “progressive.”

    In seven Republican debates this year the word “conservative” was used 100 times.

    In the seven Democratic debates the word “liberal” was used four times — not once by a candidate.

    “Conservative is identified with a sensibility,” Stanford University linguist Geoffrey Nunberg said. “The rejection of the Bush-Cheney policy is very clear. But I don’t think the public identifies it with conservatism.

    “You can be as liberal as much as you like, if you are a Democrat, as long as you don’t call yourself a liberal,” Nunberg quipped.

    To Nunberg and his fellow liberal — or progressive — Berkeley linguist George Lakoff, the presidential election of 2008 may mark the ascension of the Democratic Party, but not of “liberalism.”

    “They are running from the word liberal as fast as they can because it has been tainted. It’s ‘bleeding-heart liberal,’ ‘tax-and-spend liberal,’ ‘liberal elite,’ ‘liberal media,’” Lakoff said, who has been a rhetorical consultant for Democrats in the past decade.

    The Republican debates bear Lakoff out. Most of the 18 uses of liberal in the GOP forums have been in pejorative terms: Liberal media? Check. Tax-and-spend liberal? Check.

    Republicans have been successful as painting “liberal” as a pejorative with the exception of Hispanic adults. For some reason, likely from language and politics, Hispanics tend to like the word.

    • COProgressive

      “The Republican debates bear Lakoff out. Most of the 18 uses of liberal in the GOP forums have been in pejorative terms: Liberal media? Check. Tax-and-spend liberal? Check.”

      The sad thing about it is the Republicans can take pretty much of any positive word(s) and use turn them around in an Orwellian fashion to create their own perverse separate reality. “Healthy Forrests” to open up Federal lands for logging, “The Clean Air Act” to reduce or eliminate air polution controls, etc..

      But “Liberal”, as a pejoritive, takes the cake…..

      From Roget’s Thesaurus…….

      Main Entry: liberal  [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]

      Part of Speech: adjective

      Definition: progressive

      advanced, avant-garde, broad, broad-minded, catholic, enlightened, flexible, free, general, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, indulgent, intelligent, interested, latitudinarian, left, lenient, libertarian, loose, magnanimous, permissive, radical, rational, reasonable, receiving, receptive, reformist, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, unconventional, understanding, unorthodox, unprejudiced

      conservative, narrow, narrow-minded

      Main Entry: conservative  [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv]

      Part of Speech: adjective

      Definition: cautious, moderate, tending to preserve the status quo

      Tory, bourgeois, constant, controlled, conventional, die-hard, fearful, firm, fogyish, fuddy-duddy, guarded, hard hat, hidebound, holding to, illiberal, in a rut, inflexible, middle-of-the-road, not extreme, obstinate, old guard, old line, orthodox, quiet, reactionary, redneck, right, right of center, right-wing, sober, stable, steady, timid, traditional, traditionalistic, unchangeable, unchanging, uncreative, undaring, unimaginative, unprogressive, white bread

      exaggerated, incautious, left-wing, liberal, progressive, radical

      The question becomes, do you want to associate with one who is advanced, broad-minded, enlightened, humanitarian, intelligent, interested, magnanimous, rational, reasonable, receptive, unbiased, unbigoted, understanding, and unprejudiced, or do you want to associate yourself with one who is Tory, bourgeois, fearful, firm, fogyish, fuddy-duddy, in a rut, inflexible, reactionary, redneck, timid, unchanging, uncreative, undaring, unimaginative, unprogressive, white bread?

      Enlighten or fuddy-duddy? Your choice.

      “Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great.” – William F. Buckley

      • nhthinker

        Enlighten or fuddy-duddy? Your choice.

        Republicans (with the help of plenty of Democrat anecdotes as ammunition) have painted the perceived choice as “Radical or sober”- that is why Democrats run from the liberal label.

        I would bet “Progressive” ends up as a slur once enough failed Democrat policies get associated with it. Give it a decade or two. ;)

  • ConnerMcMaub

    Noah was great. His points about the GOP elites not knowing how to explain the recession and the party’s inevitable modernization were very thoughtful. His defense of conservatism was compelling, I’m extremely skeptical of simple memes to describe vast segments of society spanning decades or centuries.