I admittedly don’t know anything about this organization, but I can understand that they might react aggressively to condemn any who repeat anti-semtic rumors. However they they clearly don’t know anything about Diane Rehm. I suppose if all you knew about her was this quote and you didn’t listen to the rest of the interview, it might look bad. In context, entire interview was nothing but softballs, all in the same tone of voice as this exchange. I have no doubt that question too was meant as a softball.
Its possible, I guess, that she has been hiding her antisemitism for the past 42 years of broadcasting, only to choose to reveal her true face for 5 seconds in the Sanders interview, but far more likely this was really just an issue of extremely poor fact checking.
As for her apology, it came immediately after she was corrected “Forgive me if…” but was cut off with cross talk.
Birtherism is a clear racist attack. A repeated attempt to question Sanders’s loyalty by claiming, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that he is a dual citizen with Israel would be a racist attack. It’s not clear that a single mistake by Rehm, which she quickly has backed away from, is a racist attack.
That said, it’s very embarrassing for her. I would hope she generally does better fact checking with this. I’ve never enjoyed Diane Rehm, because her voice and speaking tempo is like dragging nails down a chalkboard to me, but she has enough credibility to dismiss this as an error, and not an anti-semitic plot, histrionics from NJDC aside…
So - repeating anti-semitic rumors on a nationally-broadcast show (and in the form of a statement, not even “just asking questions”) is not anti-semitic? Pull another one.
She’s supposedly a journalist. Can you imagine a journalist in an interview with Obama saying “Mr. President, you were born in Kenya.”?
A journalist asking Obama that question now would be very different than a hypothetical journalist having asked Obama that question in 2005, and then immediately apologizing after being corrected.
Why is it anti-semitic? Bernie is Jewish, most of his family was killed during the Holocaust, and he spent several months on an Israeli kibbutz. There’s nothing wrong at all with him being a dual citizen, hell, I’d be proud of it in his shoes.
Being born in Kenya would automatically disqualify Obama from being president, while dual citizenship would not.
Obama being born in Kenya has such a high profile that anyone who knows anything knows its false. While I had never heard Sander’s rumor discussed one way or the other, and until Sanders corrected it had no reason to believe was false.
However if say Walter Cronkite and Obama had the following exchange, early in 2007.
Cronkite: I understand you went to school in a few a few years Madrassa as a child.
Obama: No that is totally incorrect. I went to a school in Indonesia but it was not a Madrassa
Cronkite:Forgive me, I read that somewhere, I must have been misinformed. So probably everything else on that page may have been incorrect as well?
Obama: I don’t know about what else was on the page but I definitely didn’t attend a Madrassa.
Cronkite: Very well. Moving on, what do you view as this nation’s greatest challenge.
Then I wouldn’t think he had suddenly became a racist. Although I would seriously question his support staff.
Also I must say that for a raving anti-semite, she sure made an unusual choice for her Decmber 4th show.
ETA:
She was cutoff by cross talk over Sanders. If you listen to her show you will note that this is the response she uses anytime she is corrected by a guest and defers to his statement.
Okay, I did a little googling and found pretty convincing evidence that “say, aren’t you Israeli?” is often an anti-Semitic dogwhistle. I’m happy to give Rehm the benefit of the doubt, though.
It’s hard for me to understand in what world this isn’t an apology for making a factual error during the flow of a conversation. This isn’t like she said some horrible egregious thing, and offered “I’m sorry if I offended you” two days later.
By the way, I would distinguish this from “Just asking questions”. That requires that the offended party not be allowed to respond. You would never see the following exchange:
Glen Beck: Could Obama be trying to secretly sell our country to the Muslims?
Obama: No I’m not.
Glen Beck: OK then, sorry, I thought you were. My mistake.
In any case, even it this short exchange and immediate retraction reveals Rehm to be a secret deep cover Neo-Nazi or not, it still doesn’t support Terr assertion that there is a vast anti-semite conspiracy within the Liberals that will be the primary downfall of Sander’s candidacy.
Yeah. Not only have I read it, I quoted the part that you just quoted in my initial response to this, and again in my second response, and then again, when I apologized for bungling the 45 part.
And he’s answering a hypothetical which starts from the position that his (Bernie’s) plans have all worked and overall economic prosperity has increased for the lower and middle classes.
The question Bernie was asked was, “if your plans work out and economic prosperity increases for Americans in the middle and lower classes, would it bother you if economic prosperity slowed a bit for the upper class?”
And Bernie replied that it wouldn’t bother him because the upper classes are still going to be rich as pharaohs, so they’re not actually being armed by this, even if maybe now they could only buy twenty different brands of shoes instead of twenty-one.
Well, he’s not wrong.
The real world truth is that the economy is not providing for the majority of its citizens. For the majority of our citizens, the American Dream - that we all have equal economic opportunities - is a bad joke. Bernie’s point, and I believe he’s correct, is that only people experiencing dynamic economic growth are the people who already have dynamic economic power.
It’s not a matter of “doing more” for the disadvantaged. Bernie wants to change the rules so that the disadvantaged can do more for themselves.
And yes, the economy is already being slowed because the fleet moves at the speed of the slowest boat. That’s the whole point of the metaphor. It doesn’t matter how fast the few ships out front are going if the rest of the fleet doesn’t have enough gas to even clear the harbor. Likewise, it doesn’t matter how many prancing, bareassed, billionaires we produce if our children have unsafe water, decaying schools, crumbling roads, poor nutrition and life-altering debt.
That’s what Bernie’s saying. Framing this in terms of “He’s a Socialist and he’s coming to take your toilet paper!!” is the strawman.
I’ve been saying all along that I don’t think Bernie really has a chance (and I’m not really convinced by Clinton, either,) but yes, it’s interesting to hear someone actually making real arguments about economic choices in a presidential race. That doesn’t happen often enough.
If it’s not obvious to you, you will not be convinced anyway. It’s the old anti-Semitic dual loyalty canard. Ask Really Not All That Bright about it - he was convinced after googling it.
I doubt she’s an anti-Semite, but she certainly made herself look really stupid.
I also find it absurd that people are insisting she “immediately apologized” when she certainly didn’t apologize until well after the interview and did so claerly for damage control reasons.
What I’d love to know is where she got this “list”.
I know I should drop this, but today Rehm gave further insight into how this happened.
Facebook is one of four ways listeners can ask questions for the Diane Rehm show in real time. So it looks like rather than even being a failure of fact checking prior to the show, it was just a very clumsy way of handling a listener’s question she got on the fly, in that she asserted the premise of the question rather than checking first with Sanders that the premise was even correct.
You’re a pretty reasonable guy, so if you’re getting on this train, I’ll ask you. How is the “Forgive me if…” statement not an immediate apology in flow of a conversation? Imagine:
Me: Hey, Warraq, how’s your sister?
You: What are you talking about? I don’t have a sister.
Me: What? Shodan told me you did…
You: Nope, sorry, you’re misinformed.
Me: Oh. Forgive me if [cut off]
You: Gotta run, see ya…
Me: A’ight, later…
Wouldn’t that constitute a minor apology for a minor factual error? Unless you think Rehm was dog-whistling, isn’t that analogous here?
To follow up my previous post, I expect something like this happened
Facebook post onto the Diane Rehm show page from Anti-semetic listener: I saw Sander’s name on this list of members of congress who hold dual Israeli citizenship, ask him how he will represent US interests when they conflict with Israel.
What Diane expected would happen:
Diane: Senator, you have dual citizenship with Israel,
Sanders: Yes I do.
Diane: One of our listeners wants to know how you will represent US interests when they conflict with Israel.
Sanders: I am first and foremost an American and plan to renounce my dual citizenship prior to the election.
What she got instead:
Rehm: Senator, you have dual citizenship with Israel
Sanders: Well, no I do not have dual citizenship with Israel etc.
Had Sanders ended the conversation and walked away your analogy would be appropriate, but he didn’t so it’s not.
Now, as I said, I don’t thinks she’s anti-Semitic, but she clearly was dumb and asked a question without doing any research.
By her own admission she seemed it because of a rumor going around Facebook which should have set off her bullshit detector and one thing every reporter should have is a built in, shock proof, shit detector.
For the record, I don’t think it’s a big deal just a lesson she should have already known.
Wait, I don’t understand that at all. Are you saying she should have articulated a more thorough apology afterwards, even though the conversation had moved on?
She should have apologized immediately once Sanders corrected her. “Immediately” meaning the next words out of her mouth, not “But you’re on some random list somewhere that must be accurate!”.
And the anti-Semitism in the statement seems pretty clear to me. The implication of “You’re an Israeli citizen…” is “…and you are therefore on the side of the Evil Jews”. There’s a reason that the list-maker only included politicians they don’t like, and why they picked Israel as the nation to have the dual citizenship.