In the interests of "fair and balanced" and false equivalences that cable news, especially CNN loves, you often get these bizarre interviews where the host parrots what one side said against their political opponent. In this case you get venerable CNN host Wolf Blitzer ("venerable" meaning he's been there so long, not for the quality of his work) playing the role of devil's advocate for Joe Walsh.
Blitzer starts the interview out ok, correctly attributing the comments to Walsh himself, and then asking Duckworth if she'd care to respond to his nonsense, which she does. But midway through Blitzer lapses into this equivalence crap, and lets fly with some doozies:
BLITZER: Do you have a problem that he never served in the military?
BLITZER: Do you have a problem -- he says that you send -- you and your campaign I assume he means, someone to videotape all of his speaking engagements to watch him wherever he goes. Is that an issue as far as you're concerned?
BLITZER: Are you willing, Tammy, to come on our show and debate him directly?
BLITZER: We would love to invite you and Mr. Walsh to come on and do a good serious substantive debate, no name-calling, no nasty words on either sides. Just the substantive important issues I think that our viewers would be very happy to see that.
And so on. This is the part I found most annoying though.
BLITZER: I agree that the differences on substantive policy issues are what the two of you should be debating about. He's used some nasty words. But you've also suggested among other things that Walsh is an extremist loud mouth for the Tea Party.
Back in April, you said there's not a crack pot Tea Party idea that he hasn't embraced. Is that appropriate to use that kind of language against the sitting United States congressman?
What does the fact that he's a "sitting congressmen" have to do with the repulsive charges he made against Duckworth? If Joe Walsh is being a jackass, Duckworth can say so, and does, whatever his job description.
DUCKWORTH: I think it's appropriate against a gentleman who says that he wants to be the poster child for the Tea Party. He actually gave that quote to "Time" magazine.
He's told the people in the district you're not going to get squat from me, his words. And that he is going to Washington to shout from the mountain tops and he's not going to compromise.
He's not going to work with anyone. He is there it to be a poster child for the Tea Party. Well, if he's proud of that, then he needs to embrace that because the people in the district are sick and tired of what's going on in Washington.
