October 28, 2006

Anchor Rising on 10 News Conference this Sunday

Carroll Andrew Morse

I will be appearing on WJAR-TV's (NBC 10) 10 News Conference program this Sunday at 6:30 AM along with panelists Matthew Jerzyk of RI Future and Dan Yorke of WPRO-AM radio, along with hosts Jim Taricani and Bill Rappelye giving the alternative media's perspective on the current Rhode Island political scene.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

A fine performance, Andrew.

It's always interesting to note the different personalities, as well as the different approaches in such things. Yorke, of course, has been successful at keeping himself informed and forming opinions. (It is, after all, his job.) Jerzyk, on the other hand, clearly has the differing goal of, rather than cutting through to truth and/or providing insightful analysis, moving the political landscape in his direction. And for that sort of activity, a script and series of talking points is readily available.

Posted by: Justin Katz at October 29, 2006 10:55 AM

Changing the political landscape? Like convincing the American people that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11? You conservatives have no shame. Absolutely no shame.

Posted by: Matt Jerzyk at October 29, 2006 11:20 AM


Rhetoric is fine during a campaign. But the chickens are coming home to roost with next year's budget deficit, and the even bigger ones coming after that. Unfortunately, your favorite (only?) solution -- let's raise taxes on the evil rich and immoral corporations -- isn't going to be enough to save the state. At that point, I'll be looking forward to what, if anything, you have to say.

Posted by: John at October 29, 2006 12:13 PM

I trust a generous appearance fee was involved, Andrew.

Posted by: SusanD at October 29, 2006 4:32 PM

I was making an activist/intellectual distinction, Matt, not a liberal/conservative one. (It certainly serves my argument that you would read it as the latter.)

You're an activist, and you certainly have counterparts on the Right. Andrew, however, is not one of them. You go onto a show such as News Conference with a different objective than does Andrew. I'm not making a moral judgment, here; I'm just making an observation.

Posted by: Justin Katz at October 29, 2006 5:20 PM

I was very disappointed with the program's unfair attacks on Bill Harsch who was branded "incompetent" without an explanation or opportunity for rebuttal. It seems to me that actually Bill was an effective first Director of the DEM, professionalizing the previously very political Dept of Natural Resources; as PUC Commissioner he properly and effectively protected consumer interests; as private attorney he led successful fights against an inappropriate solid waste incinerator proposal and high-tension power lines in residential neighborhoods, and more.
In contrast Pat Lynch seems to have gotten the AG job thru family connections; he blew the station fire case; is nowhere on investigating insider corruption, we have to depend on the Feds; and he apparently let DuPont off the hook in the lead paint case while accepting their campaign contribution. It seems to me a no-brainer to back Bill Harsch.
By the way, I posted this on RIFuture also since both blogs were involved in the program, and on the whole, both spokesmen did well (except for the Bill Harsch segment!)

Posted by: Barry Schiller at October 29, 2006 5:38 PM

agreed, barry.

lynch has been a disaster as AG, and yorke's attack on Harsch was totally uncalled for and unfair to a candidate that has more experience on both the national and federal level than ANY candidate for office on the ballot, including sheldon and chafee.

personally, though, i wasn't surprised by yorke's attack. lynch and his camp (yorke included) are forced to support one of the most inept AGs we've ever had against someone who brings immense experience on both sides of the aisle and a harvard law degree to boot. what else are they going to do except try to portray harsch as imcompetent and/or "mean"?

to be honest, i don't know where yorke's paychecks are coming from these days: wpro or billy lynch.

and mr. yorke, if you happen to be catching up on AR and are reading this, your silence re: the lynch brothers and the mess patrick the younger has made of the ag's office is deafening. quit trying to deflect criticism away from lynch and be consistent.

Posted by: johnb at October 29, 2006 6:40 PM

I enjoyed the dialogue -- and this might be a very small point -- but bloggers like Andrew and Matt represent 'new media,' not alternative media, while talk radio seems an adjunct of the MSM.

Posted by: Ian Donnis at October 29, 2006 9:08 PM

I think it goes without saying that the approaches that Andrew and Matt use (and used) are, shall we say, different. Andrew, as most conservatives do, tried to be persuasive by using more logic and analytical reasoning, and to downplay the need to use emotion to back up his points. He didn't say, if Democrats take one or both houses of Congress, we're all doomed. It's an election -- however it goes, that's how it goes, and then we start work on the 2008 elections. In democracies, that's how it works, and I'm willing to accept the terms because of it.

On the other hand, Matt tended to strike a more stridently partisan tone (he is afterall, a paid partisan, so I'm certainly not blaming him) -- essentially the "Arrrgh, the sky is falling, it's all Bush's fault" approach. I suppose that works for some people who are swayed easily by emotion -- if you throw enough mud long enough, it will generally stick somewhere. I'm not sure that he gets that Bush's poll numbers could drop to 0%, and he'd still be doing what he's doing, because he believes he's doing the right thing. I also believe that he's doing the right thing, just not necessarily, in the exact right way at present.

Not quite sure how Saddam got inserted in here, but there was never a direct relationship claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11. Yes, there was the claim that he had some previous dealings with Al Queda, incuding housing certain key members of that and other terrorist organizations, which is true, but that was not the main rationale for the war. The WMD's or lack thereof, is certainly one of the reasons that we got involved in Iraq, but not the main one. The main reason was Saddam was deemed by us, to be a danger to the security of the region and had to be dealt with. One could say that about Israel's security, dependence on Mideast oil, defending against Islamofascism, and countering influence by Iran and Syria, and other reasons.

That being said, I haven't been a huge fan of how the war's aftermath has been handled. We've been far too soft in our approach, especially as it relates to handling the Iraqi government, and the insurgency. I'm already on record being for firing Rumsfeld, and replacing him with a more effective leader. I would be for making future aid contigent upon their willingness to quell their internal security problems first. Carrot and stick -- and withhold carrots if necessary. Let them know who's in charge. However, since we are there, and will be there in some form for many decades (in bases), I want us to accomplish our current mission, not cave into pressure from the liberal media, for the sake of saving our collective rears in elections in the shortterm, in exchange for our longterm security.

Posted by: Will at October 30, 2006 1:18 AM

I'm not so much angry as puzzled by Yorke's favoratism of Lynch.

Yorke used to be an insightful, credible observer of Rhode Island politics. Somehow, this one got by him. Now he supports - was it Anthony who said that Lynch would go down as the worst AG in RI history? - certainly, an AG who has deliberately mishandled some important cases (see Barry S's list above) for some very bad reasons.

I don't even think Yorke is getting paid by the Lynch's. I think he's just had the wool pulled over his eyes. But if he fell for the Lynch's, who will he fall for next?

Posted by: SusanD at October 30, 2006 10:56 AM

FYI, Darrell West has posted a summary of the roundtable.

Posted by: Marc Comtois at October 30, 2006 1:37 PM

I think the negative focus on Bill Harsch by Dan Yorke was at minimum predictable, but has also been getting increasingly dishonest. I don't know if Yorke has a man-crush or something for the Lynch bro's, but there's just something weird going on between the Lynch's (Bill and Pat) and Dan Yorke. Maybe it's a deal with the devil -- perhaps the Dems are blackmailing him. Don't know -- not sure I want to know. I don't think Dan's been bought off in the traditional Rhode Island "cash in plain envelope" way, but he far too frequently gives the Lynch's the benefit of the doubt when it is not deserved, especially in Pat's case.

It's almost as bad as the Kennedy/Camelot lie, that because JFK was a reasonably good leader and managed to get shot -- he ended up helping the rest of his family's political fortunes with the thin sheen of his family's name, instead of any focus on all the tarnish -- things like drugs, drinking, hookers, and murder.

Anyway, Andrew well represented the conservative cause with his calm and thoughtful approach, instead of pretending to be on Crossfire, before it got cancelled.

Posted by: Will at October 31, 2006 1:51 AM

Thanx for the positive comments. However, I don’t think I’m putting myself down overly much if I compare my appearance on Sunday to that of a rookie quarterback, who needs to learn to unload just a little bit quicker to be more effective (I think Darrell West agrees with me on this).

Reflecting on the final exchange on Bill Harsch, since the term incompetent was being thrown around rather loosely (as is the fashion right now in politics), I would have liked to ask the other panelists if a) Patrick Lynch’s reaching a $10 million understanding/or was it $12.5 million understanding/ I guess we can’t really be sure because there was no written agreement with DuPont and b) current handling of tracking sexual offenders also rose to the level of “incompetence”. (Again, however, I readily acknowledge that me saying this now is a bit like Drew Bledsoe saying “I wish I had thrown the ball downfield rather than holding on to it and taking that sack at the end of the game”).

I like Ian Donnis’ new versus alternative distinction. It conveys the sense that “new media” is truly new media – a way of conveying information that what is different from older media. Just like radio is more effective for certain kinds of coverage than TV is, and TV is more effective for certain kinds of coverage than newspapers are, etc., blogs are better at certain kinds of coverage than all of the above!

Posted by: Andrew at October 31, 2006 9:30 AM

Didn't catch the show Sunday morning, but listened to Yorke talking about it last Thursday during his show, and I got the impression he feels bloggers are beneath him.
Hey, bloggers took down Dan Rather and gave Joe Lieberman a shock. If Yorke dismisses bloggers of either side, he does so at his own peril.

Posted by: Rhody at October 31, 2006 11:17 AM