Olbermann: More Write Ups…
The Washington Post’s Paul Farhi peels back another layer of the Keith Olbermann/MSNBC onion…
One person intimate with MSNBC’s management, however, said there were strong indications that the timing wasn’t coincidental. With Olbermann’s patron, NBC chief executive Jeff Zucker, no longer part of the company’s leadership, “the timing was right” to seek the removal of the successful but difficult host and anchor, said one person familiar with the principal players who spoke on the condition of anonymity to maintain a relationship with the company.
Farhi also has Phil Griffin on the record…
“We’re in great shape,” Griffin said. “. . . I don’t think we’ll lose a beat.” He added: “I love what we’re doing, and I love what we’ve achieved as a network. I’m confident about our future.”
January 23, 2011 at 8:12 am
Just one more take on the Olbermann story …not any really new facts here, but the opinion and conjecture is kind of interesting.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/did-comcast-force-olbermann-out-of-course-2011-01-22
January 23, 2011 at 8:28 am
One question that I haven’t seen discussed yet is what happens to KO’s staff especially his EP and other line producers. The obvious place for them to land is with Cenk Uygur but that would be a big step down for many of them. My guess is some will migrate to other shows especially Ed’s.
January 23, 2011 at 10:26 am
David Shuster had some interesting incites into the Olbermann story on Reliable Sources today.
I wonder if he hasn’t been briefed by KO? He certainly seems to know what happened and why.
His thoughts on the producers and how the show worked were particularly interesting.
If I were Howie I’d be doing a long interview today with Shuster for tomorrows Daily Beast column
January 23, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Breaking – Fox News hires Olbermann:
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/breaking-fox-news-hires-olbermann/
January 23, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Well Shuster was KO little lapdog so no surprise he would know or atleast thinks he knows what happen…..think he’ll try to hook his wagon to wherever KO is heading?
January 23, 2011 at 7:57 pm
It’s pretty obvious that Shuster is auditioning for a top role in Olby’s new “media empire” when he takes over the world or something. He’s performing his role as head cheerleader and FNC basher. Of course, bashing FNC is oxygen for those in the left media.
January 23, 2011 at 8:07 pm
I guess this fits here as well as anywhere. Late and unlamented.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/22/stanage_olbermann&source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily Newsletter (Not Premium)_7_30_110
January 23, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Shuster was an obnoxious Fox-basher long before this. Not that there’s anything wrong with that..
January 23, 2011 at 8:32 pm
- Salon article -
Exactly. I could have written that, word for word. The predictability had become nauseating. I wrote here a long time ago that you didn’t really have to watch Countdown; you could get the topics and guest list, and write it in your head. Just like Hannity.
January 23, 2011 at 9:38 pm
You know I can’t help but laugh(again)but here we go with O’Reilly about to interview the President and KO about to interview his mirror…though that might have done higher in the ratings.
January 23, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Anyone know Howard Kurtz’s e-mail address? I want to write to him about something on Reliable Sources, and that site doesn’t seem to have any contact info. Nor does his new site, the Daily Beast.
I’m too old to “twitter” or whatever, so just an e-mail address please, if anyone has it.
January 24, 2011 at 3:06 am
You know I just thought about something why didn’t they give the 8pm spot to Maddow?..she had a show before O’Donnell why was the new guy given what was the number one show at MSNBC?
January 24, 2011 at 3:34 am
It’s a good question, Mlong, and I have a good answer. Rachel does ok against weaker competition, CNN and Hannity, but would be a hard sell against O’Reilly. O’Donnell has immediately shown strong numbers, and the ability to be the liberal counterpart to Bill: Tough but fair, and not always willing to preach the party line.
January 24, 2011 at 6:22 am
^I think it may have less to do with Maddow’s competition but rather not disrupting the schedule more than necessary. If RM had moves to eight then LOD moves to nine and ES to ten. That affects the entire primetime lineup. Better to leave Maddow in place and still get the extra day (Friday) from O’Donnell.
Personally I would have put Cenk at ten but I can see why they chose to go with Ed; his ratings have been good and Cenk is still an unproven talent. That may also play into why he was not guaranteed Ed’s old slot. MSNBC wants to see how. a show hosted by Uygur will do in the ratings over a few months run.
January 24, 2011 at 7:01 am
TMZ is reporting Olbermann is getting ‘much more than $7 million for leaving MSNBC. He apparently was owed $17 million over next two years. That’s about what I predicted in an earlier post.
As well TMZ (via EW) says he will be sidelined for less than 5 months and is working on a new Aaron Sorkin series based on a behind the scenes look at a cable news network. Wow, that should be interesting.
Lastly they report that attorney Patty Glaser; who negotiated the Conan O’Brien deal; also worked out the KO/MSNBC separation over the last seven weeks.
I’m not going to attempt the link so just google TMZ Olbermann to find it online
January 24, 2011 at 11:10 am
Oh Aaron … we’ve already seen a behind the scenes look at a cable sports network and a behind the scenes look at a network sketch comedy show.
How many more behind the scenes anecdotes are there left in your quiver and are there enough to spread out among multiple episodes, much less seasons?
January 24, 2011 at 11:53 am
Tonight will be a huge test for Piers, and I predict he will fail. He’s been promoting an hour-long interview with Giuliani, and if that runs in its entirety, it means his show won’t feature a word on the Moscow bombing, State of the Union, Rahm Emmanuel’s court defeat and Olbermann’s firing.
If you want to do a nightly show on CNN, you better be prepared to handle yourself beyond a pre-taped interview.
January 24, 2011 at 12:25 pm
So KO is going to join a fictional behind the scenes look at a cable news network?…any chance it’ll be about a blowhard who none of his co-workers can stand and burns bridges everywhere he gose?…if so he’d be perfect…well I guess now he can live in a fictional world where he’s a number one rated Newsman…kinda sad if that’s where he truly going with his career.
January 24, 2011 at 12:27 pm
“Tonight will be a huge test for Piers”
I agree. Giuliani will be his first real political interview. I don’t count Condi Rice as she isn’t in the current political races.
If he can draw Rudy into discussing his personal life, family problems & former indiscretions the interview might prove watchable but if Rudy is allowed to filibuster with Republican talking points and self serving 9/11 stories it could be a disaster, as you say.
This will be his first test against a real politician and if he can’t handle Rudy then dealing with really tough interview subjects will be a challenge.
I could see Palin choosing Piers as her first non FNC interview as he would be very easy for someone like her to manipulate. Lots of questions on her personal tribulations none on her policy positions.
January 24, 2011 at 1:48 pm
I’ve left jobs where I didn’t exactly agree with management, and didn’t get $7, let alone $7 million (or more!). How does THIS pond scum fare so well?
January 24, 2011 at 2:11 pm
He’s got a contract that says he’s owed $17 million over the next two years. $7 million+ is just the cost for him to give up the $17 million. Happens all the time in entertainment and sports.
And thanks to the Republicans he won’t even have to pay taxes on much of it.
January 24, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Bill carter & Brian Stelter have yet more details on the KO/MSNBC split.
The most interesting tidbit; a story about a recent spat between Olbermann & Lawrence O’Donnell over LOD’s praise of Obama for agreeing to the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
The best quote is from an anonymous NBC executive ;
“Give us a bit of credit for getting eight years out of him. That’s more than anyone else.”
Funny but true.
January 24, 2011 at 4:12 pm
I’m thinking he may have gotten more work-free cash out of them than any other employer as well..
January 24, 2011 at 7:14 pm
“I’m disappointed that Keith Olbermann has gone, as I’d hoped to eventually be named worst person in the universe, which I assume he’d eventually get to. On the other hand, if they’d just run his show at night now with his empty chair, MSNBC would finally have a non-white face hosting a show. They’d still not be as diverse as the tea party, but it’d be a step in the right direction.” -Erick Erickson-
Oh Lawd, that’s funny.
January 24, 2011 at 7:31 pm
FWIW, O’Reilly addressed the situation but didn’t mention Olbermann by name. Did LOD have anything to say?
January 24, 2011 at 7:48 pm
“MSNBC would finally have a non-white face hosting a show.”
Last time I checked Tamron Hall was a non white. But that would spoil the joke.
LOD did a very well written and delivered tribute to Kieth at the end of his show.
January 24, 2011 at 7:49 pm
^Kieth. Keith Sorry
January 24, 2011 at 8:05 pm
The new kids on the block are gonna be fine. Knowing I’m watching nice people who probably like each other is a big relief. I’m all in.
January 24, 2011 at 8:06 pm
I felt that both LOD and Rachel did outstanding programs. The energy into the changed environment seems exceptionally strong. Very good.
January 24, 2011 at 8:21 pm
Did anyone check out Cenk Uygur tonight? The program content was first rate and Cenk seems to be gaining that “conducting” skill to move the subject forward. I do like the way that he expresses passion even without saying a word. Great potential.
January 24, 2011 at 8:27 pm
I still haven’t heard what happens with KO’s producers & staff. LOD was particularly gracious to these employees tonight and thanked many by name.
In a similar vane who’s producing Cenk Uygur’s show at 6 PM? I assume Ed took his producers and staff with him to his new time-slot.
I watched 5 minutes of Ed and switched to AC360. He still does nothing to make me want to be a regular viewer..
January 24, 2011 at 8:45 pm
I think you’re correct, Joe. I would imagine LOD puts on just as lefty of a show as Olbermann but in a more grown up way. I don’t see him losing viewers over what Olbermann drew. But, it’s not like I’m a big fan of either one so what the hell do I know? I can’t imagine them sticking with Ed though. The guy seems like he’s one shot of whiskey away from causing a major clusterfark. But, Olby lasted for 8 years so again, what do I know?
January 24, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Oh, and who’s gonna be anchoring for those guys tomorrow? Please, oh please, tell me it’s Chris, Ed & Rachel.
January 24, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Friday’s numbers are in and Piers Morgan dropped to 718 in TV & 121 in the demo. Maddow’s numbers were: 1075 in TV & 355 in the demo. At this rate Morgan will be in Larry King territory by next week. So much for the honeymoon.
Even worse for CNN P/S’s did: 397 in TV & 70 in the demo and JK-USA 327 in TV & 75 in the demo. Both shows finished 4th.
Cooper just did another segment on KO leaving with Bill Carter (NYT) & Colby Hall (Mediate). Nothing new revealed but it was interesting that it was Hall and not Dan Abrams that did the spot. Heck, if Spud lived on the east coast he could be doing these interviews instead of Hall.
As well Eliot Spitzer did a really good segment with Michael Steele on P/S tonight. There was real chemistry and great banter; just whats missing from P/S now. Dump Parker and hire Steele.
January 24, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Tonight O’Reilly and Bernie Goldberg spent an entire segment addressing the line-up changes on MSNBC but went out of their way to avoid mentioning Olbermann by name. I’d love to know the rationale to that because it makes no sense to avoid it now (didn’t want to draw attention to him while he was on the air….understandable).
January 24, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Well, I for one prefer to give Ed Schultz for staying disciplined and on message tonight. Still a few rough edges, but, I believe that Ed will be just fine in this time slot.
I know, always the positive guy. Hey, it’s Monday and time to lean forward!
January 24, 2011 at 9:16 pm
^Throw in “credit above, between Schultz and for. %*%%#$*!!@@%@&*%^$#@#$%^%
January 24, 2011 at 9:38 pm
I appreciate Ed’s willingness to go Full Left – without pulling punches – and fighting for the working man, but it’s gonna be a hard sell. His show is basically “watching a radio shouter on TV”, much like Glenn Beck’s is. And Beck’s numbers are dropping like a stone.
January 24, 2011 at 9:50 pm
^Joe, I respect your opinion and you clearly make a good point here. I would like to see how all of this runs for awhile. I, for one, have been impressed with the evolution at MSNBC.
January 24, 2011 at 10:19 pm
It’ll be interesting to watch, Fred. I was a regular listener of Ed on the radio a few years ago, and never imagined he would become a TV guy. He’s not built for it, and I’m amazed that he’s done as well as he has. He has two things on his side: 1. He’s supremely confidant in himself, without being a self-centered jerk, and, 2. He’s great at subjucating his politics when news breaks and it’s time to deal with the matter at hand without histrionics.
Ed Schultz has done an amazing job of rising to the occasion when said occasion presents itself, and knowing when to moderate his excesses at those times that the occasion requires it. That’s not a little thing.
January 24, 2011 at 10:53 pm
“dropping like a stone” – well, he had ridiculous numbers for a 5:00 show & still does. His numbers still destroy what Olby got in primetime.
John Avlon, of CNN, basically said the same thing you did without mentioning the fact that Beck’s still dominates…especially over what CNN puts out. Methinks it’s a bit of wishful thinking by the Beck haters.
January 24, 2011 at 10:58 pm
It’s relative, LS. Fox kills the competition, no matter who is on. That doesn’t change the fact that Beck’s numbers are sinking, compared to a year ago. He’s Morton Downey: A big splash, followed by a rapid decline.
January 25, 2011 at 6:14 am
Beck’s numbers will be OK for Ailes until he drops below whomever had that time-slot before him; and I don’t remember who that was.
LS: Rachael Maddow will be the SOTU host tonight along with LOD, Ed, Chris & Eugene. I don’t expect too many problems as RM is nothing if not polite and they will not want to have a repeat of the election night reaction. The only one who worries me is Ed who sometimes has a problem controlling his emotions.
January 25, 2011 at 10:12 am
I just watched the Goldberg/Billo segment on KO leaving. 7minutes & 14 seconds of whining. Billo at his best.
January 25, 2011 at 1:07 pm
“LS: Rachael Maddow will be the SOTU host tonight along with LOD, Ed, Chris & Eugene.”
Wow. I guess they’ll never learn. But, in fairness, the slogan is “the place for politics”. It’s not “the place for news”.
January 25, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Off topic and random but can anybody believe just how bat shiite crazy Jesse Ventura is? Furthermore, this whackjob was once elected Governor…of an actual state. That blows my mind.
January 25, 2011 at 1:15 pm
– Ventura –
And as I recall, that was the high-point of the election results on that particular year.
January 25, 2011 at 1:38 pm
”Michelle Bachmann: She’s out there where the trains don’t run..” Gotta love Shep.
January 25, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Item:
“From a White House pool report, on the day of his State of the Union President Obama was seen heading for a lunch with TV anchors and pundits, including Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer, Diane Sawyer, Brian Williams, and George Stephanopoulos. ”
It’s reported that on the drive to the lunch that they passed a dishelved gray-haired man with glasses on the side of the road holding a sign that read:
“Will Smear for Lunch”
The motorcade slowed briefly but then continued on.
That hasn’t been verified however.
January 25, 2011 at 2:05 pm
“Will Smear for Lunch”
^Steve I’m sure there is a joke at Obama’s expense in your comment somewhere but I can’t decipher it. Care to enlighten?
January 25, 2011 at 2:08 pm
It’s Olbermann holding the sign.
Okay, I’ll leave it to Stewart from now on.
January 25, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Back away from the whoopee cushion.
January 25, 2011 at 2:12 pm
^It was real funny when it left here.
Something got messed up along the way.
Those darn internet tubes.
January 25, 2011 at 2:15 pm
^ Been there. ”But I swear..it was funny inside my head..” Some places you just don’t want to go for a laugh.
January 25, 2011 at 2:19 pm
^Mental picture of a disheveled and desperate Olbermann standing by the road holding a “Will Smear for Lunch” sign as Obama drives by with Matthews in the car still seems funny to me.
And I only tried illegal drugs a couple of times in college.
Have to look elsewhere.
January 25, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Matthews would be laughing his tail off were it not for that whole $17 million-thing. Might still be.
January 25, 2011 at 2:27 pm
I got the joke ’cause I’m, like, smart and stuff. Spelling it out takes the funny out of it. Your original version was hysterical.
January 25, 2011 at 2:29 pm
I didn’t see Matthews outlasting KO at MSNBC. I’ll bet they didn’t, either..
January 25, 2011 at 2:33 pm
CM probably has enough going on to be getting a pretty good chuckle out of it. People like him. People would miss him. That’s worth fewer bucks.
January 25, 2011 at 3:19 pm
“I just watched the Goldberg/Billo segment on KO leaving. 7minutes & 14 seconds of whining. Billo at his best.” – fritz
I don’t think they were whining. They, especially Goldberg, were making the point that the media for the past several days has been treating the Olby story as if his show and MSNBC in general were ratings bonanzas.
January 25, 2011 at 3:38 pm
^They were whining because nobody was mentioning Fox News. The story was all about KO & MSNBC and Bill kept ranting about FNC’s ratings being higher than MSNBC’s. Everyone knows that but it had nothing to do with Olbermann leaving MSNBC except in Billo’s brain where it’s always about him all the time. LOL funny.
January 25, 2011 at 5:07 pm
fritz, that’s not the impression I got from O’Reilly. He just couldn’t understand why the entire media was fixated on someone whose show had fairly poor ratings.
January 25, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Early release of the SOTU address here: Obama’s SOTU Address.
Real thing, it’s from the National Journal.
January 25, 2011 at 6:27 pm
He just couldn’t understand why the entire media was fixated on someone whose show had fairly poor ratings.
Which is asinine. It’s a big media story, and Fox’s ratings and programs are discussed constantly in that same media.
January 25, 2011 at 6:42 pm
“fritz, that’s not the impression I got from O’Reilly. He just couldn’t understand why the entire media was fixated on someone whose show had fairly poor ratings.
carolmr: I don’t expect you to understand why others would find this a big story. No one except fervent FNC viewers would say they “couldn’t understand why the entire media was fixated on someone who had fairly poor ratings.”
No one: except BO cares about KO’s ratings vs O’Reilly. Olbermann was as big a personality as Billo, despite the ratings, and his leaving is probably going to be the cable news story of the year.
January 25, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Olbermann may have been as big a personality as Billo (although I don’t agree) but the media should have included how rude and uncivil he has been, especially to Repubs. He actually told President Bush to shut the hell up. But Chris Matthews laments the “fire on the right.”
January 25, 2011 at 8:13 pm
^carolmr: It’s called free speech. It applies to everyone not just conservitives, Republicans and FNC hosts.
Beck called Obama a racist and that’s OK, but KO and liberals have to play by different rules I guess.
“but the media should have included how rude and uncivil he has been, especially to Repubs.”
^Sounds like something Billo or his fans would whine about.
January 25, 2011 at 8:15 pm
^conservitives > conservatives Sorry
January 25, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Mosr coverage I saw reflected on KO’s bombastic style, and the difficulties others had working with him. I think you’re complaining about media coverage you didn’t see.
January 25, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Beck called Obama a racist and that’s OK, but KO and liberals have to play by different rules I guess
Beck was hammered for it. Rightly so.
And he’s apologized for it several times. Rightly so.
Olbermann, meanwhile, called lots of people racists. Scott Brown anyone? And fascists. Bush, Cheney et al. And terrorists. The entire Republican party.
And every other name in the book.
And never once – not one time – apologized for it.
Your double standard claim has no basis at all.
January 25, 2011 at 9:11 pm
“And never once – not one time – apologized for it.”
Steve: I’m not saying whether he should have said it or not, whether it was a good or bad thing to say, Whether it was right or wrong, whether he got called out on it or not or whether he apologized or not. It’s still free speech. Apologizing for it doesn’t matter.
January 25, 2011 at 9:16 pm
I know Joe hates this game but I think we all know that had Beck or Hannity or O’Reilly got fired/quit, the rest of the media would have placed an endless loop of the worst things they’ve ever said. We hardly heard any of that in the coverage of Olbermann. The coverage would note that he’s ruffled feathers or occassionally gone too far but I didn’t see any actual video clips played.
As to the comment above regarding Beck calling the Pres. racist, good Lord how many times does the guy have to apologize? He’s apologized over & over and not with the typical, “sorry if I offended anyone” but with sincere apologies actually explaining why what he said was wrong & stupid. It should be noted that Bush was often called a racist and hardly anyone on the left, especially in the media, batted an eye.
January 25, 2011 at 9:17 pm
played, not placed. I’m sure there are more mistakes. deal with it!
January 25, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Actually, Beck has explained that ‘racist’ was a bad word that unfortunately (for Beck) fit what he believes about the President. “I’m sorry I was honest about my contention that Obama has a problem with white people” is a BS apology.
January 25, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Joe, that’s not anywhere close to what he said. You might want it to be but it’s just not.
January 25, 2011 at 9:57 pm
It bears no resemblance to what he said, but as far as libs are concerned, whatever.
January 25, 2011 at 10:00 pm
It’s quite funny that one guy calls the President a “racist” and the entire media landscape & the left in general goes bonkers. The guy apologizes, admits he was wrong, & goes on to explain his actual beliefs and the left continues to go bonkers. However, rarely did a day pass during the Bush years without some prominent lefty either directly calling him a racist or insinuating it yet we heard nothing of it from the media…other than, “well, does he have a point”? The hypocrisy is astounding. Nevermind the fact that Obama has said things that had they come from a conservative about any other group, that persons career would have been over because he would have been labeled a Klan member.
January 25, 2011 at 10:03 pm
It’s the same mentality that calls Rush a ‘drug addict’, eight years after the fact. Tiresome.
January 25, 2011 at 10:08 pm
I’ve heard the little quack on The Factor. He says “racist was a bad choice”, then defends his “larger point”. That’s not an apology.
January 26, 2011 at 8:56 am
“^carolmr: It’s called free speech. It applies to everyone not just conservitives, Republicans and FNC hosts.” – fritz3
So what’s all this nonsense, especially on MSNBC, about how uncivil conservative talk is? How dangerous it is? How it must be stopped? In the past couple of weeks, since the tragic shooting in Tucson, I have not heard one person in the media utter the phrase “free speech” when it comes to Republicans or conservatives.
January 26, 2011 at 9:08 am
Free speech and inflammatory speech are different things.
No one says conservatives/Republicans can’t say the inflammatory things they say; it’s their free speech right and goes without saying.
Saying their talk it’s uncivil, dangerous, crazy talk, etc. is not only fair comment it’s correct.
January 26, 2011 at 10:19 am
Saying their talk it’s uncivil, dangerous, crazy talk, etc. is not only fair comment it’s correct.
Fritz…your statement can also be applied to Democrats as well…aka Congressman Cohen’s recent Na$i analogy.
Recent uncivil, crazy talk, & etc… examples include posters on Daily Kos & Mother Jones.
January 26, 2011 at 10:45 am
Recent uncivil, crazy talk, & etc… examples include posters on Daily Kos & Mother Jones.
…which are not mainstream media. If we’re going to include every blog and comment section in a discussion like this, let’s bring in the screeching right-wing douchebags at TVNewser and Mediaite. Hang on, lemme get down to the corner bar where I can find some drunk howling at the government while we’re at it..
January 26, 2011 at 10:51 am
That’s true Chip but conservitive/Republicans are much much better at it. For every nutty statement by a Democrat like Cohen there are dozens by crazies ones from Virgina Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Christine O’Donnell, Tom Tancredo etc. etc.etc.
January 26, 2011 at 10:52 am
^crazies> crazy – Sorry
January 26, 2011 at 10:56 am
Or it could just be that you agree with the ‘crazy’, so it passes notice.
January 26, 2011 at 10:59 am
Or to put it another way, how long did y’all watch Olbermann before you figured out that the trolley was missing a few cars?
January 26, 2011 at 11:07 am
KO was right about the Bush administration, but that was a long time ago. The constant attacks on BOR – especially the reference to his childhood – got old fast, as did just about everything else after the ’08 election. The show was on 8 years, and for a good chunk of it, he wasn’t completely insane. It’s hard to remember now, but Countdown used to be a slightly irreverant – and often funny – news roundup.
January 26, 2011 at 11:11 am
You know how it is Laura. The left picks a theme and beats it to death. Forgive the “violent rhetoric”. Right now they’re playing the “Republicans/conservatives are violent, dangerous radicals”. It’s incredibly stupid and polls show that people don’t buy it. Hell, after the shootings in Arizona, the left immediately begin hoping that the shooter was a tea party person. That’s how they operate. When it turned out not to be a tea-party person, the tune changed to well, he coulda been inspired by a tea-party person.
The level of rhetoric hasn’t changed. The left just suddenly cares about it because their guy is in charge.
January 26, 2011 at 11:12 am
“KO was right about the Bush administration,”
Glenn Beck is right about the Obama administration.
January 26, 2011 at 11:16 am
Glenn Beck was on the radio last week claiming some imagined enemy is coming to shoot us in the head. I have no idea what his problem is, but ‘right’ he is not.
January 26, 2011 at 11:18 am
Laura was right: when Olbermann et al. were calling Bush a fascist murderer and the Republicans terrorists, that was just peachy keen.
Which is why most – not all but most – of this hand wringing today over the harsh rhetoric is so much baloney partisanship talk.
Three years ago? It was “truth to power” and all that horse hockey.
Today? It’s dangerous and inflammatory.
Hooey and phooey.
January 26, 2011 at 11:27 am
^Let me be clear (as Presidents like to say): the vast majority of ugly language over the past two years has come from the right. It’s probably 10-to-1, maybe 25 to 1. Not even close.
And the more extreme parts of it are probably – if we could somehow measure them – worse than the left’s extreme parts during the Bush years.
But the differences are so insignificant that it’s worthless debating.
You really do sound very partisan in complaining today about things that you were silent on – if not celebrating – three years ago.
January 26, 2011 at 11:31 am
Did you actually hear Beck on the radio or did you just listent to Chris Mathews? Because it was last week, it was last June and it wasn’t on the radio, it was on TV. And, he wasn’t saying that someone was actually going to shoot him in the head.
January 26, 2011 at 11:33 am
listen, not listent. It wasn’t last week, .. M@&$#($ F*(*&
January 26, 2011 at 11:36 am
^ We call it ‘Al syndrome’.
January 26, 2011 at 11:39 am
“And the more extreme parts of it are probably – if we could somehow measure them – worse than the left’s extreme parts during the Bush years.”
I don’t think so & I don’t think it’s even close. I still haven’t seen anyone advocating assassination like I’ve seen from protestors at the 2004 Republican convention and from that stupid movie that was made. The media goes ape-shiite when they find one negative sign at a rally. Remember the anti-war whackjobs? A Bush-Hitler sign was time for those crowds. Bush was burned & hung in effigy. The level of hate out there in those days is unmatched. I travel across the country for work and the bumper stickers I’d see in some parts of the country, the pins & patches on people’s backpacks in airports. I haven’t seen anything like it from the right.
January 26, 2011 at 11:50 am
MSNBC’s addiction to Sarah Palin:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/msnbcs-sarah-palin-sickness-75184
Probably the most revealing (and disgusting) paragraph:
“Indeed, four days after the shooting, the day Obama cautioned the nation to discuss the issue “with a good dose of humility rather than pointing fingers,” MSNBC over the course of five hours mentioned Palin in connection with the massacre 166 times while mentioning the alleged killer, Jared Loughner, only 18 times.”
January 26, 2011 at 11:58 am
“Republicans/conservatives are violent, dangerous radicals”.
I never said that LS. I just said the Republicans have a lot of people who make crazy/nutty statements.
Gohmert condemned the building of ‘illegal Palestinian settlements’ on the west bank
Foxx said of Obamacare ‘ we have more to fear from it than any terrorist now in the country’
These aren’t dangerous radical statements (there too nutty) but rather comments from two congressmen/women a few bricks short of a load.
The Republican have dozens of these nutty people in congress.
January 26, 2011 at 12:00 pm
They see it differently at least in part because of an assumption that conservatives are racists. Spoken or otherwise, that is the thread that pulls it all together. Such media figures either secretly are racists, or they ever-so-subtly appeal to their legion of followers who are of an inferior mind, and will respond to such things as ‘dog whistles’ and ‘code words’.
January 26, 2011 at 7:06 pm
If an alien came down from outerspace and watched MSNBC, they’d think Michelle Bachman was the greatest threat the world faces. Mathews devoted about half of his show to her. I just checked in with LOD and apparently he devoted about half his show to her. Maybe they’re moving on from Palin? Bachman is the new evil in their world? At any rate, what they do couldn’t be remotely confused with “news”.
January 26, 2011 at 7:29 pm
^ O’Donnell did a segment at the end, plus a couple minutes on Bachmann with Meghan McCain. If you can’t see how a major Tea Party player – one hinting at running for President – trying to upstage the official Republican response is news, I can’t help you.
In the last few days, Michelle Bachmann has invented a new reality for immigrants at the formation of the Republic; turned the Founding Fathers into Civil War heroes; upstaged the GOP’s SOTU response with a hilariously bad response of her own; and CNN made the bizarre decision to air it live, with the almost as bizarre decision to go to Piers Morgan first for reaction.
All of that qualifies as NEWS.
January 26, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Ex-FNCer E.D. Hill and National Review’s Will Cain are the Conservative Tag Team on Parker Spitzer. This is the second time I’ve seen them on with Spitzer and the segment was pretty interesting. Kathleen Parker was on assignment interviewing Speaker Boehner and that was pretty good, too.
January 26, 2011 at 7:49 pm
^ Carol watches Parker/Spitzer so we don’t have to. God’s work, it is.
January 26, 2011 at 8:02 pm
Wow. Um…WOW. During a segment about changing the filibuster rule, Rachel had a title card a up the entire time with a modified graphic from the movie “Kill Bill”, with a big blood splatter through it. Um, isn’t MSNBC the network that shouted the loudest about “rhetoric”, and the Republicans using the word “killing” in the title of their health care repeal vote? I cannot comprehend how no one on that set didn’t realize “kill” and “blood” were a really bad idea at this moment. Rachel and Bill Wolff are both way too smart to get away with being this stupid.
January 26, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Maybe Rachel is smart enough to know that her own rhetoric & that of her peers towards Republicans use of “violent imagery” was nothing more than a stupid political act.
January 26, 2011 at 8:42 pm
If it was just a political act on her part, she’s an idiot. My problem with it was real.
January 26, 2011 at 8:54 pm
I know you’re problem with it is real. But, I don’t think very many of the blowhards in the media who suddenly found Jesus over political rhetoric were being “real”.
January 26, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Damn. YOUR.
January 26, 2011 at 9:05 pm
^ You may be right, and a pox on them if you are. Chris Matthews yelled long and loud – as is his want – about it, so I know his concern was as real as mine. I can’t vouch for the rest of them, especially Rachel. That was an astonishingly tone deaf stunt tonight, and I told her so.
January 26, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Wait..WHAT? Sarah Palin said this about the President’s SOTU “Sputnik” comment, on Greta:
“He needs to remember what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory in that race to space. Yup, they won, but they also incurred so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union.”
That’s a great line!
January 26, 2011 at 9:13 pm
So then, is she crediting JFK with the collapse of the Soviet Union?
January 26, 2011 at 9:17 pm
^ OK, I’m not saying the line made any sense, but it was pretty slick. At least she found the camera..
January 26, 2011 at 9:20 pm
She drew a line from Sputnik to Gorbachev. That takes talent.
January 26, 2011 at 9:22 pm
That takes talent.
Doesn’t it? Sit on the porch looking at Russia long enough, and ya start thinking..
January 26, 2011 at 9:27 pm
For anyone who can’t be bothered with Newser.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fox-news-greg-gutfeld-takes-a-moment-to-appreciate-the-beauty-that-is-keith-olbermann_b50114
January 26, 2011 at 9:55 pm
- Gutfeld -
Ya can’t beat a good Dunkleman reference.
January 26, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Speaking of Red Eye, why did Greg Gutfeld introduce Andy Levy a couple of weeks ago as “TV’s Katharine Hepburn”? Because he was wearing a turtleneck that night? Did Hepburn wear a lot of turtlenecks? Yeah, I guess she did as she got older. Never mind. And speaking of turtlenecks, Gutfeld made fun of Brokaw wearing one while Brokaw was talking about the Tucson shootings, saying Brokaw was trying to look like Matt Helm. I hope I’m not the only one here old enough to remember Matt Helm/Dino. Greg also referred to the stupidity of Brokaw saying he would be afraid to go into a bar in Arizona because of their lax gun laws. Greg pointed out that Brokaw’s home state of South Dakota has the same “lax” gun laws and wondered if Brokaw was afraid to go to a bar in his own home state.
January 26, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Brokaw drinks red wine in a mansion. He hasn’t been in a bar since he worked in local news.
Yeah, I got the Matt Helm reference. Monday it was Glenda Jackson. Gutfeld is not old enough to know either one of those. He has a massive memory for ’70s pop culture that he must have picked up in reruns. I doubt most of his viewers have any idea what he’s talking about.
January 27, 2011 at 1:44 am
Well ok then. I read the article earlier, with Palin’s ‘Sputnik’ line. Not so funny when you watch the clip. That extra glass of wine before talking to Greta did nothing for her voice. The high pitched whine was at 11, and she managed to find another problem with the response to the Giffords shooting. The decision by Congress to mix up the seating as a sign of unity and civility was “odd”.
Of course it’s odd, Sarah. “Attack” is your only mode. That party is over.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sarah-palin-calls-obamas-sputnik-mention-a-wtf-moment/comment-page-2/#comments
January 27, 2011 at 6:57 am
laura: thanks for the link – what a great way to wake up in the morning! Gotta love Greg!
joe: of course “attack” is her only mode – she hates where the country is going so she speak out against it. You know that if she actually proposed any solutions for any issue she would be raked over the coals so why should she?
I personally think that the “WTF” thing is absolutely hilarious. As one article I read said for Obama to use the phrase is a hilarious, too. For an administration that is so tied into the internet and has such a close relationship with google you could find out pretty quickly that WTF was the title to a book written by Newt Gingrich and also that the domain name is held by a Republican. So my guess is that Obama and his gang will be moving forward from WTF pretty quickly!
January 27, 2011 at 8:31 am
“I doubt most of his viewers have any idea what he’s talking about.” – joeremi
True. But you’d be surprised how many Dino fans there are; ergo, they would know who Matt Helm was. Steve Jobs has a picture of Dino as his screen saver and Jobs is probably the same age as Gutfeld. Hope Jobs is OK; I heard he’s taking a medical leave of absence. I’ll be praying for him.
January 27, 2011 at 9:06 am
WTF is the initials for the SOTU “Win The Future” slogan. I didn’t pick that bit of cleverness up from Palin’s segment. Well played
I loved the look on Greta’s face after the first bit of rambling about “Spudnut”. It reminded me of the moment during the Stevie Nicks/Talor Swift duet at the Grammys when Stevie realized little girl couldn’t sing a lick.
The whole drunken segment made no sense at all, and we need to stop listening to this blithering idiot. She’s not a serious politician or pundit. She’s just some chick making money.
January 27, 2011 at 10:43 am
The seating arrangement at the SOTU was stupid. These little games they play after some tragedy are annoying. Nothing is going to change, nor should it. They think that if they put on an act for a few weeks, they’ll fool the public into believing whatever it is they want us to believe. It’s just an act. Pretty much everything that has happened since the shooting is just an act.
If you don’t like Palin, don’t watch. I had no idea she was even on Greta. Granted, it’s hard to stay away from Palin, especially if you’re a regular MSNBC watcher but I bet you can do it. Yes We Can! Yes We Can!
January 27, 2011 at 10:56 am
Why is Rachel Maddow so obsessed with CNN’s airing of the Tea Party response? What’s the big deal? I think all the networks should have carried it. It’s news. What’s wrong with covering a 5 minute speech during hours & hours of SOTU coverage? Also, she seriously tried to question the journalistic integrity of CNN? Maddow did? Bahaha. When she first started at MSNBC, I liked her. That gave way to simply respecting her. Now, I think she’s nothing more than a giggling wingnut who has a tough time getting her “facts” straight.
January 27, 2011 at 11:17 am
LS: Since you obviously didn’t watch Maddow’s argument against showing the Bachmann/ Tea Party Express screed I’ll summarize it for you.
The Tea Party Express is a for profit corporate front used to raise money for it’s owner and more lately a few selected Republican candidates who support them in raising yet more money for the organization.
It has nothing to do with the Tea Party movement per see other than it has tea party in the name. The TPE has been condemned by many local tea party groups across the country.
In short it’s an astroturf group.
CNN knew this and failed to alert it’s viewers of these facts when it broadcast the chat. In fact it said Bachmann would be giving the Tea Party SOTU response which was obviously untrue as the Tea Party has no official organization.
This was a gimmick to raise the profile of Bachmann & the Tea Party Express so they could raise more money.
January 27, 2011 at 11:19 am
I came across the Palin segment via Mediaite. I wasn’t gonna bother witrh the clip, but the Sputnik line was good, then the commentors started saying she was tipsy, so…
Rachel is right. Wolf Blitzer played up the Bachmann speech as an official response. He even called it “the official Tea Party response”. There is no official Tea Party, and no one has been labeled the leader of it. “Grasroots movement” tends to belie notions of “party” and “leader”. Michelle Bachmann was speaking for the Tea Party Express, which – as far as I can tell – is a website that raises money for itself, and is joining with CNN to put on a debate. That..is “created news”. They blew it.
January 27, 2011 at 11:45 am
– Palin segment –
That one gets better the more you think about it. She tracked the collapse of the Soviet Union back to the Kennedy Administration! ‘WTF’ doesn’t even begin to encompass it. Peggy Noonan must have spit her Chablis across the room when she heard that.
January 27, 2011 at 11:46 am
Under the circumstances, I thought the SOTU seating arrangement was pretty cool, kinda like when they all sang God Bless America together after 9/11. One of their members was shot in the head, for God’s sake. Calling it “odd” is offensive. So is running a Tea Party version of a SOTU response with no mention of Gabby Giffords. One reason the Tea Party should eschew leaders is that the chicks attempting to assume the mantle are useless.
January 27, 2011 at 12:02 pm
That one gets better the more you think about it.
At least Bachmann changes history in favor of her party, eh? Devalueing Reagan’s part in ending the Cold War in any way can’t be sitting too well with many conservatives. Or “Reagan Democrats” for that matter. Honestly, I just thought it was a clever line. I didn’t get the historical gaffe until later. That woman..is an IDIOT.
January 27, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Seeing as how you didn’t have a Republican Party at the time of the Founding, I’m not sure how Bachmann ‘changed history’ in order to favor them. Just sayin’..
January 27, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Yeah, I should have said “in favor of her side”, which is the “Founding Fathers our ours personally for our use only, and they were perfect in every way” party.
January 27, 2011 at 12:29 pm
The only reason I kinda like Palin and Bachmann is because they drive Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz crazy. As long as they stay out of real positions of power.
January 27, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Pedantic history time: It seems to me that one can trace the start of the fall of the Soviets to JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The perception at that time was the Soviets and Khrushchev were forced to back down by Kennedy.
From my understanding, the Soviets themselves thought they had lost the gambit. It’s why, in part, Khrushchev was replaced two years later.
After that, the Soviets started on a massive nuclear weapons program to compensate for the defeat and that spending contributed to their later economic collapse.
Maybe. I guess.
Perhaps Palin was thinking of this.
And perhaps humans are made of pecan pie.
January 27, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Mmm, pie.
January 27, 2011 at 12:39 pm
And then there was Afghanistan, and SDI, and perstroika.. I kinda doubt Palin was thinking much beyond the “clever line” I thought it was. It was a quick dig at Obama. Period. The rest of the interview was more troubling than that line, in my opinion. “Odd” and “Spudnut” and random variations of the words “jobs” and “America” while talking like she’s been mainlining Starbucks were…interesting.
January 27, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Well, JFK was willing to more openly challenge the Soviets and not simply contain them. That inaugural address about “paying any price in the cause of liberty” was positively neoconservative in its approach.
Or more pie.
January 27, 2011 at 12:54 pm
For good or bad and everything in between, the Tea Party has been a major player in American politics over the past year or two.
To not cover a major speech by one of their representatives would have been short-sighted.
Whether you like them or not, they’ve got influence over our public policy. And will over the next two years at least.
Rachel Maddow needs to be kept a thousand miles from a newsroom.
Make it, two thousand miles.
January 27, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Palin’s interviewing-style has a certain ‘Mad Libs’-quality to it. It sounds strangely ‘programmed’ with certain stock words and phrases, and an occasional ‘thought’ as filler. It’s the ‘thoughts’ that threaten to send her off-the-rails at any moment. To me she sounds like a high-schooler trying to BS her way past an essay question. She has to talk a certain amount in order to fill the space on the paper.
January 27, 2011 at 1:05 pm
The correct way to cover her speech would have been to tell people it was on the website, then play parts of it later as a separate story about the rift in the Republican party, noting that an “unofficial” response was recorded by a Tea Party faction. This is exactly what Fox and MSNBC did.
CNN labeled it as “official”, and treated it with the same gravity as the SOTU and the GOP reply. That was distorted journalism.
January 27, 2011 at 1:15 pm
First, Rachel Maddow was opposed to the coverage for, in my view, strictly ideological reasons. Not because Bachmann was the “official” representative or not. Maddow wants either completely critical coverage or none.
Her news judgment is about as reliable as Sean Hannity’s.
CNN played the ~5 minute address and then, from my understanding (I was flipping back-and-forth), had commentators opine on it as part of their overall coverage of the night.
Moreover, they’ve been as critical of that movement as any network outside of MSNBC. And they’ve pointed to the split within the GOP as well.
Everything you complain about they’ve done. And probably – again I was going back-and-forth – did Monday night.
January 27, 2011 at 1:18 pm
“To not cover a major speech by one of their representatives would have been short-sighted.”
Steve; This wasn’t “major speech by one of their representatives”; it was a self aggrandizing publicity stunt by a narcissistic congresswomen backed by a privately owned fake tea party organization to facilitate its ability to make money for its owner.
Even FNC knew enough to stay away from these con artists. CNN is in bed with the Tea Party Express because they got conned into co-hosting a debate with them and now they must figure out a way to get out from under the agreement before their own talent, like Anderson Cooper, take them to task for their hypocrisy.
January 27, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Didn’t FNC show it? I remember Baier going to Bachmann’s response or was I just dreaming that?
January 27, 2011 at 1:36 pm
I think FNC aired it after the fact, during Greta’s program, but I could be wrong.
People shouldn’t be freaking out about CNN airing Bachmann’s speech. Its not like she got anyone to support her. If anything, her speech made her the butt of many jokes.
January 27, 2011 at 1:41 pm
As far as I know they did like MSNBC and showed portions and didn’t call it the official Tea Party response.
I assume they wanted to give the official Republican response the major role as they are, as we all know, the propaganda arm of the Republican Party.
January 27, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Josh; the problem is not Bachmann giving a speech; it’s CNN calling it the official Tea Party response. They have a direct conflict of interest because they are working with the TPE on a debate. They were promoting a private business as a grassroots political organization.
January 27, 2011 at 1:56 pm
“Under the circumstances, I thought the SOTU seating arrangement was pretty cool, kinda like when they all sang God Bless America together after 9/11. One of their members was shot in the head, for God’s sake. Calling it “odd” is offensive.”
Sitting next to each other has nothing to do with one of their members being “shot in the head”. She was shot by a nut with a grudge not by a political assassin. If she had simply had a heart attack, would you have wanted them to sit together?
“Calling it odd is offensvie”. In fairness, you take offense to just about everything.
“The correct way to cover her speech would have been to tell people it was on the website, then play parts of it later as a separate story about the rift in the Republican party”
Why? So that the message would have gone out through the filter of what Maddow saw as opposed to what Bachman actually said? As to the rift, the speech was basically the same message Ryan gave. The so called rift seems to be nonexistent. The tea party is a movement with a lot of influence. The 2010 elections proved that. People like Maddow are scared of the Tea Party so the only tea party message she wants out there is her own spin on the message.
January 27, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Yeah, the CNN-TP Express team-up and CNN airing the speech is definitely a conflict of interest, but I still don’t think its a big deal since the speech made the tea party look bad. Maddow didn’t need to make such a big deal about it, but I can understand where she’s coming from. CNN’s airing the speech wasn’t a big deal and either was RM’s response. We can move on now and talk about more important things, like what the heck is a spudnut coffee shop? Apparently there is a such thing!
January 27, 2011 at 2:07 pm
And here’s the link to the spudnuts website:
http://spudnutshop.com/
January 27, 2011 at 2:38 pm
LS, I’ve tried, but you’re an idiot. The seating arrangement was a direct response for unity and civility in the aftermath of the horror of Jan. 8, and generalizing anything I’m offended by as “well, everything offends you” is contemptuous. You don’t debate, you just say stuff, and don’t give a damn what anybody who disagrees with you has to say.
January 27, 2011 at 3:19 pm
The seating arrangement was a symbolic gesture, and the angry response to it is symbolic as well.
Symbolic of how some people do nothing but complain about the most petty things. I agree that the seating arrangement was cheesy and pointless, but it’s no reason to get your undies in a bunch.
January 27, 2011 at 3:26 pm
I am reacting to the seating comment in relation to her similar comment about the memorial. The woman has decided that the attack on her after the Giffords shooting is the only part she will ever focus on, and has been willing to use the morning of the memorial to defend herself; criticize Arizona’s manner of grieving; and now attack the Congress for a sincere gesture towards a Representative with a hole in her head. Sarah Palin is a low class b***h.
January 27, 2011 at 3:38 pm
“You don’t debate, you just say stuff, and don’t give a damn what anybody who disagrees with you has to say.”
That’s offensive & I do care…lots. Okay, I’m not offended but I do care what you have to say.
I just don’t think everybody sitting together will have any effect on anything. It’s typical Washington nothingness. Business as usual will continue & no one will remember that a few members of Congress sat next to each other. It’s just a show & I’m not buying it. These people insult our intelligence if they think we’re gonna believe it’s all one big happy family up there and they’re all working together to make our lives better. Spare me the drama. Words, holding hands, sitting next to each other ,it all means absolutely nothing to me. Actually doing something positive, working together, not worrying about the next election is all I care about. If you can do that AND hold hands and sing kumbaya, go for it.
January 27, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Off topic (is there a topic), anyway, I just took an online poll and one anwer that’s always bothered me is “not sure/no opinion”. Ok, then why even answer the stupid poll? Why not just ignore the poll as opposed to answering “not sure/no opinion”? It’s a pet peeve and I just had to get it off my chest.
January 27, 2011 at 4:05 pm
You can think whatever you want about the seating arrangement. My problem is with dumbass calling it “odd”. After her stunt on the day of the memorial, and the crack about the memorial audience later, she is the LAST person to be saying ANYTHING negative in relation to ANY reaction to the Giffords shooting.
January 27, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Her stunt? Face it, no matter when she said something or if she never said anything you’d have found a problem with it. Because it was on a particular day, it fits your anti-Palin narrative. If she had spoken the day before, the day after or not at all, you’d still be calling her names. Speaking of which, for someone who takes offense to particular people being called particular names you sure do a lot of name calling.
January 27, 2011 at 5:01 pm
I don’t take offense to name-calling. Doesn’t mean shyte to me. I take offense to endless reams of generalized BS from conservatives, like “it wouldn’t matter what she said, when”. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve waited years for a better Sarah Palin to show up, and I’ve mentioned the times that I’ve seen a glimpse. i was on her side that Saturday when she gave the simple statement about Giffords, and I was expecting her to apologize for the stupid “crosshairs” map, admitting that under the current circimstances, it was probably wasn’t such a good idea.
I would have been behind her all the way if she had risen to the occasion. But she couldn’t do it, because she’s a low class idiot.
January 27, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Apologize for the “crosshairs” map. For what purpose? To make you feel better? Her map had as much to do with Giffords getting shot as the fact that Palin lives in Alaska does or the fact that Obama’s hair is turning grey does. Just because the media wanted that to be the cause doesn’t mean Palin should apologize for it. What your asking is for someone who is a victim of a smear campaign, someone who has been falsely linked to a murder & a murder attempt, to come out and apologize for the sake of apologizing. All that would do is lend credibility to the nutty lefties who are attempting to link her to the shooting. They would then say, “well, she must have felt some culpability, she apologized”. It’s absolutely asinine. BTW, spud has the various media networks listed in his crosshairs. Does that bother you? Do you think someone is going to read this blog and go shoot up FNC, MSNBC, etc.? If someone does, are you going to blame this blog? Are you going to take personal responsibility? You’re one of the main contributors. Are you going to apologize?
January 27, 2011 at 6:08 pm
It’s a radar screen. Ya know, “cable news on the radar”? Look at the green hue.
Yes, she should have apologized at the first mention of the unfortunate coincidence. I’ve explained this a million times, which is one of the things that makes talking to you such an exercise in futility. You not only disregard my logic, you forget I even explained it.
Her thing was guns, her map was gunsights, and she made no effort to hide it before the shooting. It was part of her image, and she was proud of it. I thought it was dangerous, but she didn’t.
After the shooting, video of Giffords complaining about the map showed up. The decent thing to do would have been to say, “I obviously didn’t mean any harm by it, and I don’t think it contributed to this madness, but it has a sad connotation to it it now, and I regret ever using that imagery.”
Simple; graceful; hello President Palin. She couldn’t do it. She hunkered down, sent out feelers that it was “surveyor marks”, then started a b!tch and moan campaign about what a victim she was, culminating with “blood libel” and “the memorial was bizarre”.
The left screwed up, too, but that doesn’t change how stupidly Palin handled this. I’VE SAID ALL OF THIS BEFORE. YOU’RE NOT LISTENING.
January 27, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Looks like a night-vision scope to me.
I’m listening, I just think you’re being ridiculous. If she used automobile metaphors (cars kill more people than guns) and Giffords was in a tragic automobile accident, would you blame Palin & ask her to apologize? You simply won’t give up on trying to link her to what happened. One had absolutely zero to do with the other. Therefore, asking her to apologize is ridiculous. The only people I’ve seen asking her to apologize are the one’s who tried to link her to the shootings from the beginning. It’s their way of providing cover for the absolutely shameful way in which they attempted to exploit this tragedy. She owes those wingnuts nada.
January 27, 2011 at 6:25 pm
She owes “those wingnuts’ less than nothing. She’s doing swimmingly in my eyes. My political advice would have sent her straight to the White House. She doesn’t listen to people like me, and she’s not gonna get there.
January 27, 2011 at 6:33 pm
She’s never had a chance at the White House.
January 27, 2011 at 6:46 pm
She did Jan. 8. How a political person handles tragedy has a huge impact on their careers. A few simple moves would have drastically altered the perception of her by independents and moderate Dems, while retaining – and strengthening – her base. She completely missed it on a common decency level, AND a cynically political one. That takes talent.
January 27, 2011 at 7:00 pm
– Palin segment –
My son informs me that Sputnik occurred during the Eisenhower Administration. I deeply and sincerely apologize to any and all whom I may have offended with my thoughtless error. She’s still a twit, regardless.
January 27, 2011 at 7:17 pm
– Palin segment –
Why does the 16-year-old have to tell us that?
- Lonestar -
Sorry about “idiot”. YOU GET ON MY NERVES, MAN!
January 27, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Maddow/Steele is the best show on cable news. MSNBC needs to hire him fast. He kills every time he is on with her.
January 27, 2011 at 7:34 pm
I don’t think she has a chance at the Republican nomination much less the presidency. She’s the type of candidate people get all excited about early on but who ends up flaming out…like Fred Thompson or Wesley Clark.
“idiot” – You prolly know that that stuff doesn’t bother me.
January 27, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Remember when Hillary couldn’t lose?
January 27, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Remember when McCain couldn’t win the nomination?
January 27, 2011 at 7:42 pm
– McCain –
Like to say I’m too young to remember that…
January 27, 2011 at 7:45 pm
We’ll see. For one, I don’t think she’ll even run. But, if she does, I don’t think she has a chance of winning. And, I’ve thought both these for a long time.
January 27, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Well I don’t want to get back into a fight with Joe because we shook hands and made up….so I’ll try this in a more civil way…..
Palin screwed up her response to the Gifford shooting no doubt about it She made it about her too much and not enough about the real victims She should of just taken the map pic down and expressed her sympathy to the victims and just kept her mouth shut about what was being said by others….however she was right to be a little upset that certain members of the MSM and the Dem party tried to use this terrible event to blame her Chris Mathews for one has just been a class one A-hole…..
Next some of these cries of civility are so dishonest by those calling for it you just can’t take them seriously that apology on CNN just took the cake.
As for the seating arraignment at the SOTU on the one hand it made sence to send a message of unity after the shooting however it also could have been viewed as an attempt by the Dems to manipulate the event for Obama to look like he’s getting standing Os by everyone when he wasn’t it would just look that way….but once again it was just one of those things it’s best just to let it go.
January 27, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Sorry to jump in here, but I see we’re still talking about Sarah and her speech?
As was discussed WAY last week, she was damned if she did and damned if she didn’t. And as some pundit stated, if she didn’t use the term “blood libel”, they would have gone after her for punctuation or something (yes, I know it was spoken and not written, but…).
She was criticized for her timing – she should have said something earlier, she shouldn’t have spoken at all, she should have waited until later, etc. And of course she shouldn’t have mentioned herself. Really? How would any of US like to be accused, by the entire corrupt MSM, of complicity to murder? I think she held back!
And how do you like this tramp Meghan McCain going after Michelle Bachman – stating that Michelle is the “poor man’s Sarah Palin”? Of course she didn’t dispute any of Bachman’s comments; Meghan just had to open her large mouth and voice her ridiculous vitriol.
But Laura Ingraham had the quote of the night – that McCain is the “poor man’s Ron Reagan”. Perfect!
January 27, 2011 at 8:11 pm
^ last sentence – of course I was referring to Meghan Mc Cain.
January 27, 2011 at 8:11 pm
– tramp Meghan McCain –
I prefer ‘trollop’, but that’s just me.
January 27, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Both sides screwed up. Period.
January 27, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Picky picky time. One side screwed-up, and Palin…did what Palin does. That does not constitute ‘both sides’.
January 27, 2011 at 8:34 pm
But you’re wrong, Missy, about Palin. It’s way too easy to say she would have gotten the samecreaction no matter what. If she had done what Mlong and I outlined, it would have been very different, including the critizm she got. She would have shut the left down immediately. She missed it.
January 27, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Leaving aside, of course, the Rush/Beck-contingent who can never admit a single misstep when it comes to certain people.
January 27, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Picky picky time.
Bite me. I meant Palin vs. The Left, which is what we were discussing.
January 27, 2011 at 8:52 pm
“Maddow/Steele is the best show on cable news. MSNBC needs to hire him fast. He kills every time he is on with her.”
I gotta agree; although I think replacing Parker on Parker/Spitzer is the better fit. He needs someone to play off of and Spitzer & he had great chemistry on his recent P/S appearance.
He seems so much more relaxed since he lost his RNC job. No more people checking his every comment and tonight he held his own with Rachael and that’s no easy thing.
January 27, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Aren’t you sick of Michelle Bachmann yelping to Sean Hannity and her Twitter followers how unfair it is that she’s being teased about her camera problem, and that the behavior of the lamestream media around this is a ‘WTF moment’ Constitution the military freedom? Oh, wait..
January 27, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Cuz, ya know, the conservative media would never make fun of Obama or Biden or any prominent figure on the Left for a screwup like that.
January 27, 2011 at 9:39 pm
I’m tired of Sean Hannity period. He’s boring and incredibly predictable. They need Colmes back or someone else to pair with him because alone he is excruciating. I am also starting to sour on Bachmann because want I find annoying in Palin I find even more annoying in her.
January 27, 2011 at 9:39 pm
“…If she had done what Mlong and I outlined, it would have been very different, including the critizm she got…”
Joe, could you point me to that post? I don’t know exactly which tactic you’re talking about, and will probably fall asleep reading through this all.
BTW, shock of all shocks, the Illinois Supreme Court is putting Rahmbo, Dead Fish back on the ballot.
January 27, 2011 at 9:54 pm
It should be “what” instead of “want” my bad.
January 27, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Here, Missy. This is an abridged version of two posts, with some silly back-and-forth between Lonestar and I deep-sixed:
She should have apologized at the first mention of the unfortunate coincidence. Her thing was guns, her map was gunsights, and she made no effort to hide it before the shooting. It was part of her image, and she was proud of it. I thought it was dangerous, but she didn’t.
After the shooting, video of Giffords complaining about the map showed up. The decent thing to do would have been to say, “I obviously didn’t mean any harm by it, and I don’t think it contributed to this madness, but it has a sad connotation to it now, and I regret ever using that imagery.”
Simple; graceful; hello President Palin. She couldn’t do it. She hunkered down, sent out feelers that it was “surveyor marks”, then started a b!tch and moan campaign about what a victim she was, culminating with “blood libel” and “the memorial was bizarre”.
The left screwed up, too, but that doesn’t change how stupidly Palin handled this. How a political person handles tragedy has a huge impact on their career. A few simple moves would have drastically altered the perception of her by independents and moderate Dems, while retaining – and strengthening – her base. She completely missed it on a common decency level, AND a cynically political one. That takes talent.
January 27, 2011 at 10:31 pm
This is Mlong’s version:
Palin screwed up her response to the Gifford shooting no doubt about it. She made it about her too much and not enough about the real victims. She should of just taken the map pic down and expressed her sympathy to the victims and just kept her mouth shut about what was being said by others….however she was right to be a little upset that certain members of the MSM and the Dem party tried to use this terrible event to blame her Chris Matthews for one has just been a class one A-hole……
January 27, 2011 at 10:45 pm
I DVR’ed Hardball & just now sat down to attempt to watch. However, it was unwatchable. He should rename the entire program “Sideshow”. Is he trying to replace Olbermann? Is he attempting to be the new King for the most crazed of the lefties? Nevermind the fact that his obsessions with Palin & Bachman exceed creepy, he’s become an angry, hateful bomb-thrower. I don’t know what happened to the guy but he’s become borderline crazy. I hope it’s all just an act to attract the KO fan base. If it is he deserves an Oscar nomination.
January 27, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Joe there is no doubt the Tuscon Tragedy was another misstep in the story that is Palin but this not the end all for her. It would have helped her immensely she did not make the response video about her but that means she is just going to have to do it the hard way. She is running out of time and there isn’t much improvement from her but I am still keeping hope.
I would seriously do back flips if she would stop saying “lamestream media”. That’s just childish.
January 27, 2011 at 11:09 pm
I agree that Matthews is overdoing it, but I understand his frustration. When you’ve worked with Tip O’Neill, it’s hard to accept such dunderheads as major voices of a political movement. Chris has a massive political memory, and doesn’t take historical idiocy lightly.
He’s making a mistake with Bachmann. He’s treating her exactly like Palin, and it doesn’t work. Bachman can hold a job; finish a sentence; stick to the point without whining about herself; and even when she’s attacking the Dems, somehow she isn’t such a JERK about it. Bachmann doesn’t present the innate narcissism that Palin does, and it makes Matthews derision come off more unseemly.
Jacky, everything I just said about Bachmann is the end of Palin. There isn’t room enough for both of them, and when Michelle Bachmann can make you seem like an airhead pretty-girl with a bad attitude..you’ve got problems..
January 27, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Saying it’s the end is a little premature. The problem with Palin is not that she quit her job or she is not smartest politican in the world. America as a country has had much worse.
The problem with Palin is that she has been in Alaska her whole life where she knows the rules and she was queen and she is trying to apply that same tactic to the rest of the country. To her supporters it shows she is an average person, to her critics it shows a lack of political intelligence.
And to make things worse, she is VERY confident in herself, to the point to where she is arrogant and as of now she is very resistant to change. So she is stuck in this rut of misstep after misstep and people are liking her less and less. What she has not gotten yet is that she cannot pick a fight with every person who has a problem with her. It is physically draining and looks petty. Also, as much as any party establishment may suck, they do win elections so it wouldn’t hurt to take a note or two from their playbook.
But aside from all this, this is far from a political death sentence. To think she does not have the capacity to turn the tables around in her favor is quite naive. For a lot of politicians they would have not survived a week let alone two years with her faults, yet people are still talking about her like crazy. The left wants her gone the right wants her in charge.
Is she inexperienced when it comes to the national stage? Yessir she is. Is she reluctant to change and get better? I think so. But whatever becomes of Palin she is a very interesting person and her rise to national publicity is a monumental one, regardless of what you think about her. It aint over for her yet, not even close.
January 28, 2011 at 12:04 am
You are severely misguided about your girl. She is popular with the right because she is a hot conservative they love to look at and praise. She is popular with the left because she is a hot conservative they love to look at and ridicule. She’s the Fox News Babe as national political celebrity. That’s it. She has nothing else to offer, and she’ll be gone just like E.D. Hill soon enough.
The woman doesn’t have an ounce of political curiosity or intelligence in her head, and shows no interest in acquiring it. On top of that..she’s mean. When you’re that good looking, you have to pick one, or people will hate you: you can’t be mean AND stupid. It’s leaves the impression that God gave you the looks, and you’re gonna run with it without an ounce of effort on your part. That kind of “pretty” gets ugly soon enough.
January 28, 2011 at 12:54 am
I don’t think she is mean just to be mean, that’s silly. And on top of that, she isn’t even mean. She is extremely hard headed and head strong and when attacked attacks back. Stop trying to paint her as some kind of mean girl bullying every single person out of submission because as a whole that is not the case (it happens sometimes but not enough that I would call it a character trait).
Also, yes she does not have much national political experience but you are acting like you fail one test then that’s it, your stupid and you can never succeed. Like I said, there is still time to prove herself and we will see how that goes. Who knows, next week we could see a entirely different Palin. All I am trying to say is that the potential is there for something good. I am not saying I like Palin in her current form because I don’t, very few people do.
I want her to be better too, but I am also still keeping hope that she will rise to the occasion. Apparently she is a failure in your book but that’s fine, it’s her life and her future and we will see what she does.
January 28, 2011 at 1:19 am
I won’t mind being wrong..but I’m not. That personality doesn’t suddenly change. The woman is in her mid-40s. She’s been a self-centered Queen Bee for a long time, and she has a whole nation of syncophants who keep feeding it. She’s a celebrity. Period.
January 28, 2011 at 1:29 am
I don’t mind being wrong either, but if is serious about holding a national office she might just push that aside for the sake of winning, I don’t know for sure but she can change if she wants to. Only time will tell. This is the year the Republican candidates launch their campaigns, if Palin is one of them we will she how differently she handles herself.
January 28, 2011 at 2:06 am
Oh snap! Red Eye did a thing about Meghan McCain calling Bachmann “a poor man’s Sarah Palin”, and Huckabee defended by saying MB was intelligent, well-spoken and “had accomplished things”. Well ok then.
January 28, 2011 at 7:44 am
Mean? Palin isn’t remotely “mean”. I can’t imagine you ever calling a male politician mean.
January 28, 2011 at 7:47 am
“She is popular with the right because she is a hot conservative they love to look at and praise. She is popular with the left because she is a hot conservative they love to look at and ridicule. She’s the Fox News Babe as national political celebrity.”
You may be right Joe. Virginia Foxx makes just as many nutty remarks as Palin and Bachmann but hardly anyone knows her name.
January 28, 2011 at 8:36 am
“She’s a celebrity. Period.” – joeremi
And Obama wasn’t? As soon as he became a senator, he started running for president. I wouldn’t want to see Palin become president, but at least she ran things: she was a mayor and a governor. Obama never ran so much as a lemonade stand. And he had a fawning press who treated him like a celebrity.
January 28, 2011 at 8:52 am
Obama isn’t an idiot, and I wasn’t talking about him.
I can name dozens of mean men. I wasn’t talking about them.
What is it with you guys that you always want me to talk about something different than what I’m talking about? If y’all get to talking about Jim Thune, and I have an opinion of him, I’ll give it.
January 28, 2011 at 9:06 am
jacky, I agree w/you statement about Palin being from Alaska…
It’s like she was a big fish in a little pond (excuse the puns, etc.), and her tactics are a little different than what is required on the national stage. I still think the MSM goes after her too much, but I guess her actions just give them fodder. And I don’t think she’s a good candidate for POTUS (nor are MOST of the politicians out there, including the current occupant of the White House).
Too bad Pence is out of the race. I’m hoping DeMint will enter.
January 28, 2011 at 9:18 am
…but I guess her actions just give them fodder.
Ya think? I hear this crap all the time that “they would hate her no matter what she did”. It’s ridiculous. Lefties would disagree with her plenty, but it’s the constant barrage of idiotic, self-serving bile she spews that generates the level of scorn she receives, including from the right. The woman didn’t just show and magically create antipathy..she earned it.
She’s a contributor for Fox News. Let’s see her do one normal panel where she coherently gives a right-wing POV without turning it back on herself in some odd, newsmaking way. Just one. Play Mike Huckabee for a day..
January 28, 2011 at 9:19 am
Good grief!
Since this post is now being used as “free for all” in Spud’s absence, aren’t there more interesting topics than Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman. Frankly they both bore me to tears. I find them to be opportunists with nothing much to offer (although I’ll agree with whomever said that at least MB can form a complete sentence.. ). I cannot imagine voting for either of them in a national election.
You all KNOW that reading your posts is an absolutely essential part of my getting through the day, and you all are saying the same things over and over. Please! Entertain me!
Changing the subject:
I love Dennis Miller. Regardless of what he says, it is hilarious and mostly true. I don’t always watch O’Reilly, but Wednesday nights, “Miller Time” is must-see for me.
P.S. Missy, just saw your post. I don’t think DeMint can win, although the people in SC love him! I’m sure he has some skeletons somewhere…
January 28, 2011 at 9:23 am
joe, you said Palin was nothing more than a celebrity. At one time, so was Obama and that’s why I mentioned him. The difference between Obama then and Palin now is that the press treated Obama like not only a celebrity but like some kind of second coming.
January 28, 2011 at 9:30 am
“Obama isn’t an idiot” – your opinion joe – not mine. This is a guy that in the first two years of his administration did not MEET or PHONE CALL six (6) of his cabinet heads (read the New Yorker – John Heilemann also attached link). The article also states Obama never had a 9-5 job in his life. Yea – this is the guy I want running my country. NOW, of course we are going to be busy changing the regulations on saccharine and salmon and spending MORE $ that we don’t. I could go on and on why I think this guy is like Goofus in the old Highlights Magazine you used to look at in the dentists office.
I think the media fixates on SP because they want their audience to believe she is the face of the Republican Party and this is why you folks out there should think Obama is your man.
http://video.tvguide.com/Mitchell+Reports/White+House+regroups+after+midterm+shellacking/6931120?autoplay=true
January 28, 2011 at 9:34 am
I think the media fixates on SP because they want their audience to believe she is the face of the Republican Party and this is why you folks out there should think Obama is your man.
You overestimate the largely male-dominated media. They fixate on her because she’s hot, and keeps saying nutty things. There isn’t an easier ratings grab for cable news in the universe.
January 28, 2011 at 9:41 am
You all KNOW that reading your posts is an absolutely essential part of my getting through the day, and you all are saying the same things over and over. Please! Entertain me!
Changing the subject:
I love Dennis Miller. Regardless of what he says, it is hilarious and mostly true. I don’t always watch O’Reilly, but Wednesday nights, “Miller Time” is must-see for me.
Sorry, Meggie. I’m bored, too, but there isn’t much else going on in cable news right now. The only interesting developments from another predictably dull SOTU address (they all are) was Bachmann’s “looking over my shoulder” and Palin’s WTF. KO is history and I’m over it, so this is all I got. Ya know, you could start your own topic. Such as..
..I rarely agree with Miller, but he’s awesome.
January 28, 2011 at 9:46 am
The difference between Obama then and Palin now is that the press treated Obama like not only a celebrity but like some kind of second coming.
That’s a conservative myth. The press was attending massive rallies where this guy nobody had heard of was giving amazing speeches and enthralling the crowd, in the process overcoming the mighty Clinton Machine that had been practically preordained to get the nomination. You guys refuse to accept that the press has a duty to report the facts on the ground. Obama was killing while McCain was sputtering.
January 28, 2011 at 9:49 am
The press gave Obama a pass and a boost at every opportunity, but that doesn’t mean McCain wouldn’t have lost anyway. No ‘myths’ here.
January 28, 2011 at 10:06 am
^ totally agree Laura. There are still many in the press who give Obama a pass and then you have a “moronic” Rep. who stills says when folks don’t like Obama they are “racists”. When we will get past that crap!
January 28, 2011 at 10:11 am
Oh there is no doubt McCain would have lost no matter how much the media coddled Obama. Obama was just better in his campaign, it hasn’t translated into this magical presidency but still his campaign was pretty much ideal.
In regards to Palin no matter how much Obama sucks right now, he can still convey his point much more eloquently and coherently than Palin at the moment. The thing is Palin will never match Obama’s oratory skills, but she doesn’t need to. She just needs to be able to (like joe said) to convey a point without having it blow up in her face. When she gets there (hopefully) people will start to see her differently (hopefully).
January 28, 2011 at 10:11 am
Myth? The press didn’t just give him a pass, they supported, protected and fawned over him. It was absolutely disgusting. And, it wasn’t just in the general election. Once they discovered The One, they kicked Hillary to the curb. In the past, I didn’t like anything about Hillary. But, after she went through an election cycle being treated by the press like a Republican, I began to feel sorry for her. It actually changed my views on her. Plus, it was a dems year to win and Hillary would have been a much more effective leader than the American Idol-In-Chief we’re currently stuck with. The One has as much business leading the free world as Tony Robbins does.
January 28, 2011 at 10:21 am
“I’m bored, too, but there isn’t much else going on in cable news right now.”
Eh Joe, you might want to turn on your TV; there’s a revolution going on in the middle east. Egypt is in full revolt Syria has reportedly turned off its Internet. There are protests in Yemen, Jordan, Algeria & Mauritania. I realize what’s going on in the warped world of Palin & Bachmann are interesting topics but back in the real world news is happening.
January 28, 2011 at 10:24 am
You guys are delusional. Which ‘press’ are you talking about? KO, Chris Matthews, and Daily Kos, who express liberal opinions? How about the mighty Fox News, which tore Obama to shreds in primetime AND dayside? You don’t know what you’re talking about, because you consider everything – including blogs – that isn’t Fox to be ‘press’..and completely discount FNC as a player. Hopeless, with yous.
January 28, 2011 at 10:27 am
And you’re hopeless if you don’t recognize that the vast majority of the press was on it’s knees for the first real contender of a darker hue. It’s not arguable.
January 28, 2011 at 10:28 am
I realize what’s going on in the warped world of Palin & Bachmann are interesting topics but back in the real world news is happening.
I can’t get you guys to follow a specific sentence to save my life. I said there isn’t much to discuss in cable news. I’m watching the Egypt coverage, but there isn’t a helluva lot to say about it. “People blowing things up, Hillary requests calm.” That’s all I got.
January 28, 2011 at 10:31 am
Believe it or not, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann are much less scary than feckless foreign policy.
January 28, 2011 at 10:32 am
And you’re hopeless if you don’t recognize that the vast majority of the press was on it’s knees for the first real contender of a darker hue. It’s not arguable.
You’re wrong. It was a fascinating political story, with an obscenely disciplined campaign staff who had no business being that good at it. You can’t ignore the facts on the ground if you’re a true journalist. Obama overcame massive obstacles to get that nomination, including Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, both of whom were expected to wipe the floor with him. I know a good campaign story when I see one, and the press cannot be expected to skip it.
January 28, 2011 at 10:36 am
Uh, I don’t think anyone said that it wasn’t a ”fascinating political story”. No one is saying that they shouldn’t have covered it. On the other hand, it’s pointless to argue press bias with someone who refuses to recognize it when someone other than Fox does it. Carry on.
January 28, 2011 at 10:36 am
“I’m watching the Egypt coverage, but there isn’t a helluva lot to say about it.”
The thing that keeps running through my head is that isn’t this what Paul Wolfowitz & the neocons predicted would happen after they got rid of Saddam? I wonder if they will try and take credit for these uprisings even though they are 6 years after Saddam was overthrown.
January 28, 2011 at 10:36 am
Wow, Challenger was 25 years ago today. I remember it like it was yesterday.
January 28, 2011 at 10:38 am
“This is a guy that in the first two years of his administration did not MEET or PHONE CALL six (6) of his cabinet heads (read the New Yorker – John Heilemann also attached link).” – pam
And yet all I ever read or hear is how “intellectually curious” Obama is about all and sundry.
January 28, 2011 at 10:43 am
On the other hand, it’s pointless to argue press bias with someone who refuses to recognize it when someone other than Fox does it. Carry on.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. It was a presidential race, everyone talked about his qualities, pro and con, and he won against bad campaigns. It’s how it’s always works. John Edwards was a distracted mess for reasons we learned later; Hillary’s camp was bogged down in infighting; then McCain sputtered with a conservative base that didn’t trust him, before grabbing a VP candidate that sucked all the air out of the room.
Most Presidents win against bad campaigns, and the press reports it that way. We went through Obama’s lack of experience, Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, a constant onslaught from “the most powerful name in news”, and he still held the imagination of the public. They were ready for this moment, he took advantage of it, and the press reported it. It’s that simple.
January 28, 2011 at 10:49 am
And as I already said, McCain would have probably lost anyway. If you don’t accept the basic premise that the vast majority of the press is liberal, and shades their coverage accordingly, then it’s a pointless argument. You choose not to recognize it because it favors you. Been there.
January 28, 2011 at 10:51 am
And you choose to assign more power to Fox than they actually possess, because it allows you to ignore the obvious imbalance in other areas. Quite convenient.
January 28, 2011 at 10:55 am
I think we have a basic disagreement about what constitutes “the press”, and being that I am in ‘busy’ mode, I’ll leave you all to pile on and prove me wrong while I’m gone. Debating “in the bag for Obama” with a bunch of conservatives 2-and-some years after the election is an exercise in futility.
For the record, dear readers, “you don’t know what you’re talking about” is not the kind of thing I would normally say to my friend, Laura. Bad choice, I apologize.
January 28, 2011 at 11:00 am
I would apologize for some of my bad word choices, but it would take too damn long.
January 28, 2011 at 11:08 am
Just because this is a cable news blog does not mean when we talk about the press we are only talking about cable news. We are talking ABC, NBC & CBS, too. If you don’t call them biased then you really don’t have a clue. And as far as real numbers of watchers they still have more folks that watch them than cable news. So, for me, that’s where I get the MSM media being biased and there being more of them. Also, for me the press has expanded since the MSM, cable news now all quote places like Salon, Huffington Post, Slate, Daily Kos, etc as sources as well as the Times, the Post, Newsweek, Time, etc. I mean after all, numerous stars of the prior mentioned sources have moved onto the web as their primary job – so yes, those new sources are considered the press now.
January 28, 2011 at 11:16 am
I never watch network news, so I’ll have to take your word for it. What I vehemently reject is the notion that editorials on Slate or HuffPo constitute “liberal bias”. There is much more opinion on cable news and the internet than straight reporting, and I’m not willing to conjoin them into one “press”. I’m old, and I’m sticking to it. Probably the next generation will see it differently. I don’t care about them punk kids.
January 28, 2011 at 11:56 am
Challenger… I remember distinctly exactly where I was and what I was doing when “it” happened. An acquaintance of mine had been one of the finalists as the “first school teacher in space”. He was crushed when he was not selected … and then we were all devastated when the whole thing blew up. What a horrible day.
January 28, 2011 at 12:14 pm
The three nets seem to be doing a pretty good job of covering the Egyptian revolution. I’ve watched mostly MSNBC and Richard Engel has been the go to guy on the story. CNN has switched to CCNI and is doing a very good job as well. I haven’t watched much FNC (Megyn Kelly makes my head hurt) but I’m sure they are figuring out a way to blame it all on Obama.
The most interesting part of the coverage so far has been the emergence of al jazeera as a top notch news organization.
I realize no one on this blog seems to care much about this story has the potential to be as big as the fall of the Berlin wall. I’m just sayin’.
January 28, 2011 at 12:17 pm
No Obama-blame over there. They did mention rare agreement between The White House and John Bolton about holding-back on involvement.
January 28, 2011 at 12:25 pm
^I care about this story – I was in Egypt 4 months ago and saw places we had been filled with protesters. It was interesting since we had a private guide for our time there and when we talked about politics in our country and in theirs our guide was somewhat informative but our driver was very anxious about our conversation. It appeared at times they shared strong words with each other as we were getting out of our vehicle.
After a time our guide said it might be best if we kept our conversation on other things. At the time we moved on because we did not want to create any animosity for the rest of our time with them.
We, of course, had no idea there was this much tension nor at any time did we feel uncomfortable/scared either int he cities or in the countryside. Though, we did take a small plane from Alexandria to Luxor and we did have a military escort on the plane with us.
January 28, 2011 at 1:39 pm
FNC’s Greg Palkot is doing an exceptional job in Cairo. I have always been impressed with his reporting.
January 28, 2011 at 1:48 pm
I realize no one on this blog seems to care much about this story
That’s a bit presumptuous. Some of “us on this blog” don’t know enough about the political situation in Egypt to start babbling about it. I watch a lot of cable news, and haven’t heard bupkus about Egypt until a couple days ago.
January 28, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Can I say I think it is interesting that Gibbs said that it is a “right” to have access to the internet?
January 28, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Pam, I’m running around, heading out the door, but I picked that up, too. Is that the same as a right to a free press? Is access to cable news a right? Hmm..
January 28, 2011 at 1:58 pm
“Some of “us on this blog” don’t know enough about the political situation in Egypt to start babbling about it.”
That’s never stopped us before.
January 28, 2011 at 2:04 pm
That’s never stopped us before.
Point taken. Chechnya. Discuss..
January 28, 2011 at 2:04 pm
This Egypt story has really come out of nowhere and like Joe says it’s hard to start talking about something if you don’t know what the hells going on…guess that’s what happens when you waste time worrying about Sara Palin or Keith Olbermann.
January 28, 2011 at 2:06 pm
This just in from Sarah Palin: The unrest in Egypt..Sputnik’s fault.
January 28, 2011 at 2:29 pm
This just in from Pres. Obama: The unrest in Egypt…uhm, uh, hmm, I’ll get back to ya. For now, I’ll just vote present.
January 28, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Cable news ratings related. I’m impressed with how MSNBC’s ratings have seemingly held up despite the loss of Olby.
January 28, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Wow, looks like Matthews is going to be especially crazy today. His first words were about Bush being a liar, then the next segments are about (of course) “looney tunes” Palin & Bachman, Glen Beck, John Boehner & Glen Beck again. Folks, meet the new and unimproved, Olbermann!
January 28, 2011 at 3:27 pm
LS – I saw that, too on Hardball. Looks like Bush is going to blamed for what is happening in Egypt.
On another note : Fox needs to get a better translator for Mubarak’s statement.
On another note: according to Richard Engle (MSNBC) this started out with the poor and jobless and once it kept going the Islamic Jihad got involved (as they are always wont to do). He said if Islamic Jihad takes control one of the very first things they will do is invalidate the Peace Accord with Israel. So – things will get very dicey on the Middle East.
January 28, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Can y’all clarify the Bush thing for me please? Earlier Fritz mentioned that this was supposed to be part of the neo-con plan for Middle East governments to fall. I think that’s what Matthews is referencing, but I don’t know much about it.
I heard Engel’s report, too. This is the nasty thing that happens every time “democracy” breaks out in that area. That “democracy” becomes Sharia Law. Awesome.
January 28, 2011 at 3:54 pm
I think Fritz was referencing the hope from those evil “neo-cons” that citizens in place like Iran would rise up & overthrow their governments.
Who knows what Matthews was talking about. He’ll use any opportunity to play the “Bush lied” card. It’s porn for his fans.
January 28, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Matthews said “Bush lied about WMD’s”. Yes, today. I’m not talking about some crazy rant from a couple years ago.
January 28, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Yes< I'm aware that's what he said. I believe it was an allusion to the fact that the neo-can hope for democracy in the Middle East was the real goal of toppling Saddam, and WMD was a the smokescreen they used to get it done. It's true. The WMD threat was vague and doctored, but they new Americans weren't gonna support a crusade to domocratize the area, so they came up with mushroom clouds over New York City.
It's all crap. There was no mushroom cloud, and every country that undergoes revolution over there ends a bigger enemy of the US than the one before.
January 28, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Man, typo-land. That’s what I get for trying to spit out a comment when I’m too busy to be messing with this place. Carry on, comrades.
January 28, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Joe, I’m ignoring your rant because it’s I’ve heard it before from the wingnut gallery.
FNC at 5 est had Shep anchoring. At 6 est they have normal programming which is Bret Baier.
MSNBC at these same times goes with Chris Matthews & the young turk guy.
If they have the slightest concern about being taken seriously as as any sort of news organization, they can’t go with those two to cover something like this. It’s absurd.
January 28, 2011 at 4:14 pm
I don’t agree. Once it became clear that Matthews had to abandon his planned show, he dropped the rhetoric and focused on the history there. Cenk is doing the same. They’re fine.
January 28, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Once it became clear? Matthews’ intro to the show was mostly about Bachman, Palin & Beck. Somehow, FNC figured it out & put Shep on.
They may be doing fine for the few people that like them but they’re not going to attract an audience outside of their narrow base. Do you think anybody other than someone on the pretty far left is going to watch Matthews & Cenk somethingorother? Or, are they going to watch Shep & Bret or whatever CNN has going on. It’s international news & MSNBC has a couple of lefty wingnuts hosting.
January 28, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Whatever happened to Lester Holt? I have a vague recollection of them having actual newspeople over there.
January 28, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Will MSNBC air the doc-block tonight, or will they actually have news-related programming?
January 28, 2011 at 4:33 pm
I am so sick of Obama saying that the people who oppose his healthcare plan just don’t get it. He says that the Dept of HHS says premiums will lower by 7-10%. Yea, it does in one section of the report he’s referring too but it says in another section of the report that premiums will rise 20-30%. Does the guy not know math? Obviously not! Oh yeah, if this is such a great idea how come they have had to grant waivers to over 700 employers/unions so that their employees won’t lose their health care? They did that because the plan is so fabulous, right?
Also, for such a great communicator it’s been said that if Obama has submitted his State of the Union address to the plagiarizing websites that students have to submit their papers to these days his SOTU would have come back as a plagiarized paper. So now the guy who was such a wonderful speaker has to take others words to make a speech. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic!
January 28, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Once it became clear? Matthews’ intro to the show was mostly about Bachman, Palin & Beck. Somehow, FNC figured it out & put Shep on.
Well, yeah..I’m not gonna argue that. FNC was headed into two hours of straight news programming, and had people around. MSNBC is all opinion after 5, and no, nobody but MSNBCers are gonna watch breaking news from them. They’re gonna let their standard crew run with it, and I’m tired of caring.
Clearly, Matthews was prepared to do a show that quickly got yanked. From that point on, MSNBC has been doing serviceable Egypt coverage for the folks like us that have that channel on anyway. Everyone else can watch Fox or CNN if they want. It’s not a big deal.
January 28, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Be happy, LS. Hardball is live again, and the rhetoric has been ditched.
January 28, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Cenk took a nice shot at Obama playing both sides, and the reporting looked acceptable, for the three minutes that I tuned in.
January 28, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Joe; As you say I was referring to the neo-con idea that once people in other middle east regimes saw how wonderful life was in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown they would rise up and overthrow their own dictators & monarchs. It doesn’t make much sense in hindsight.
Tomorrow we may see a repeat of Tiananmen Square confrontation as the Egyptian military will have to decide whether or not to fire on it’s own citizens to defend the Mubarak regime.
I wonder if this is what the Tea Party movement has in mind for the USA when they talk of second amendment solutions. They look at Obama administration as a more evil version of Mubarak regime.
January 28, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Thing is, it’s become an accepted thing to not look to MSNBC for breaking news. My view of that is horribly biased, but I think not far off.
January 28, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Thing is, it’s become an accepted thing to not look to MSNBC for breaking news.
Or Friday night news. Or weekend news. It’s a part-time network. If FNC and CNN weren’t so good at this stuff, I would care more. As it is, I care not a wit.
January 28, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Do we really need three cable news networks?
January 28, 2011 at 5:18 pm
^ You take a hint well, grasshopper. I have my part-time liberal corner of the world, and I’m happy with it. Three whole 24-hour cable news networks is at least one too many. There simply aren’t enough eggheads like us out there to support them.
January 28, 2011 at 5:20 pm
They should just call it Air America TV and be done with it.
January 28, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Makes more sense than “MSNBC”. Mocrosoft isn’t involved anymore, so the letters are meaningless, and were always hard to say.
January 28, 2011 at 5:30 pm
laura: what did happen to Lester Holt – he’s a good reporter, good anchor and pretty level headed. Did he get consigned to the corner because he doesn’t take sides?
January 28, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Oh! Oh! Slightly medicated idea. A merger. You take CNN’s news capability and combine it with MSNBC’s canned tuna. Call it CNNBC. Give Piers a midnight show, since no one cares anyway, and you’ve got prime-time covered. As it is you have Fox and two others splitting the difference. They can never individually catch up. A merger. Gotta do it.
January 28, 2011 at 5:37 pm
I think Holt is strictly an NBC News guy now. If MSNBC was going to bother to bring the network in, I suppose he would be there, but that’s not what MSNBC does anymore. They run what’s left of that hollowed out hull on a shoestring, and whoever’s on set at the time stays. Hopefully they’ll stick live coverage out long enough for Ed’s shift. He’s good at this stuff. Rachel will be good with Richard Engel, too.
January 28, 2011 at 5:39 pm
CNNBC!? I’ll have what she’s having..
January 28, 2011 at 5:43 pm
And I bet they’d do a tad better job separating news from ‘opinion’ than Fox has lately.
January 28, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Shepard Smith just had a good final comment at the end of the Fox Report, including a statement that “we’ll be here” for any breaking news on the situation in Egypt.
I’m not in the room, but it sounds like O’Reilly is talking about it right from the start on his program.
It will be interesting – and scary – to see how it all unfolds. Sometimes it seems that the world is really going to h… in a handbasket, and there’s not a thing we can do about it.
January 28, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Here on the 25th anniversary of the Challenger disaster, we remember Christa McAuliffe and a bunch of other people who were killed who were basically ignored.
Twenty-five years from now, people will commemorate the anniversary of when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot, and a bunch of unknown others were killed and maimed.
The overemphasis on McAuliffe bothered me at the time, and the media continues on their ways to this day. I know I’ve whined about this before, but it is still wrong. It is sad that these two women were victims, but what about the others? Where was/is the outpouring of love and support for the other families?
January 28, 2011 at 6:17 pm
I’m sorry, but I recall hearing much about the other astronauts. I think you’re presenting an ideal that is unfair to the realities the media faces.
Here’s my complaint: I can’t find a Challenger special anywhere..not even The History Channel.
January 28, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Lestor Holt anchors the weekend editions of Today and Nightly News. He probably wouldn’t be caught dead on MSNBC.
Piers Morgan’s show took a ratings nose dive. No surprises there!
As for the whole Fox News and seperating opinion, I think the only real offenders are Megyn Kelly and Shep Smith, and it’s fair to say that neither are overly partisan, although Megyn is more so than Shep. I still like them both better than anyone on MSNBC or CNN.
January 28, 2011 at 7:00 pm
I guess I’m the only one who thinks Piers Morgan could be a pretty big success if they do things correctly. Cut the interview time down to half the show & focus on current events/politics the other half. The guy has talent.
“I wonder if this is what the Tea Party movement has in mind for the USA when they talk of second amendment solutions. They look at Obama administration as a more evil version of Mubarak regime.”
That’s exactly what the tea party has in mind. How’d you know? I guess you’ve been attending the super secret meetings. If you have, write back in super secret tea party code so I’ll know your legit.
January 28, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Piers is live tonight covering the Egypt story
January 28, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Challenger acknowledgement… Joe, there was a huge article about the Challenger on the front page of the newspaper here today, and Missy, it was primarily about the two astronauts who were sort-of from this area… interesting article about how their families have managed to go on without them. Of course, who reads the newspaper anymore, so there you go.
LS, you’re a hoot. Have you been getting witty comeback tips from Laura?
January 28, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Sorry LS; I lost my decoder ring, Can I borrow yours?
January 28, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Have you been getting witty comeback tips from Laura?
She’s contagious: I’ve been hi-lari-ous lately. Ask anyone.
January 28, 2011 at 8:01 pm
There he is. Ed started at 10.
January 28, 2011 at 8:03 pm
MSNBC may be using commentators as hosts, but Richard Engel has been running this thing all day. The hosts basically bring him on and lert ‘im roll. It’s working very well.
January 28, 2011 at 8:22 pm
I was lying, I haven’t actually been to a tea party meeting, secret or otherwise. My 70-something year-old in-laws have though. Or, as we like to call them, elderly violent revolutionaries in the making. I’ll try to steal the decoder ring when we meet for the early bird special at Denny’s tomorrow.
I’ve given up on the news for the night. I’ve had all the Egyptian news I can stand for the day. It prolly doesn’t help that I’ve that stupid “Walk Like an Egyptian” song stuck in my head.
January 28, 2011 at 8:26 pm
You’ve got Susanna Hoffs eyes.
January 28, 2011 at 8:27 pm
The Thursday numbers have a couple of interesting tidbits; Piers Morgan continues to slide with under 500,000 TV and Ed had 850,00 TV which is a good portion of the LOD audience. I don’t expect his show to break the 1 million mark as it’s nowhere near as good as O’Donnells.
January 29, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Ed has held up ratings-wise pretty well, as has the rest of the line-up. I’m surprised how well both airings of Hardball do. I would think, with the shows only an hour apart, that one would cannibalize the other.
January 29, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Poor old Jeanine doesn’t have a chance. Damn breaking news.
January 29, 2011 at 7:37 pm
That would really suck to tape a show and then not have it air. But, then again, as long as I’m getting paid it doesn’t matter.
January 29, 2011 at 7:52 pm
No way, Josh. TV people are air-time whores. She canNOT be happy. I, on the other hand, hope there’s breaking news EVERY weekend..
January 29, 2011 at 8:55 pm
^I dunno. Two hours of Geraldo is a little much.
On another FNC programming note, Julie Banderas is doing a really good job reporting on the weekends. I don’t know why they can’t have her report for the earlier shows and host the Fox Report.
January 29, 2011 at 9:04 pm
I want to know what sin JB committed to get replaced by Heather No Name Blond. Julie’s a bit dim, but real. Miss Heather has a creepy ‘Stepford’-quality that makes one long for the unpredictable excitement of Ainsley Earhart.
January 29, 2011 at 9:13 pm
I wonder if there’s a medical issue with JB. She struck me as barely holding on quite a few times.
January 29, 2011 at 9:45 pm
I hear ya about “two hours of Geraldo”. That’s why God made live auto racing on Speed Channel tonight..
January 30, 2011 at 11:36 am
Ugh. There’s no way I could have taken two hours of Geraldo last night – glad I had a good book to read!
When is Heather Childers on in place of Julie Banderas? On the afternoon show? With Greg Jarret? (Needless to say, I haven’t watched…) I did see that Harris Faulkner was doing the Fox Report again last night (briefly). She’s ok, but I still miss Rick Folbaum.
I don’t think installing the military guy as VP in Egypt is going to do the trick, and I am very concerned about the eventual outcome. Some of the pundits I’ve heard seem to be downplaying the possibilities.
January 30, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Yes, Heather is on with Greg on America’s News HQ of America in America.
January 30, 2011 at 2:10 pm
You got a problem with America? I might have known.
January 30, 2011 at 2:21 pm
I love America. FNC’s constant use of it in show titles and segments, not so much..
January 30, 2011 at 3:26 pm
John Boehnor on Fox News Sunday, courtesy of Mediate:
– Boehner stressed that he came to Washington “to do something on behalf of the American people” and despite Wallace warning him that some of his supporters think the crying makes him look “strange” or “weird,” Boehner confidently stated “I’m not going to apologize for being emotionally attached to the things I feel most strongly about in this town.” The conversation became more humorous when the topic turned towards smoking, to which Boehner admitted “listen it’s a bad habit, but I have it. It’s a legal product, I choose to smoke, leave me alone.” -
I hate liking this guy, but that was great.
January 30, 2011 at 3:38 pm
What about ABC News and its two shows Good Morning America and America This Morning? I know its not cable news related but still, other networks use the “America” thing.
And at least Happening Now isn’t called Happening Now in America.
January 30, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Yeah, Joe, what about that? You got a problem widdat, or are you just a weenie Fox-hater? HUH?
January 30, 2011 at 3:42 pm
It’s Spring-like and the Prozac is in bloom. Deal widdit.
January 30, 2011 at 3:51 pm
You guys know I’m not serious, right? The ‘America’ thing gets a little out of hand over there, but I don’t actually CARE.
There’s a reason MSNBC avoids it: 10-or-so years ago they had a meaningless lower third-right that said America’s News Channel. I still don’t know what that means. Neither do they.
January 30, 2011 at 3:57 pm
If I cared any less, my ‘care meter’ would sink to a permanent ‘not care’-status, and then I’d have to buy a new one. If I cared enough.
January 30, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Joe, I know you’re not serious.
I was going to bring up the “America’s News Channel” thing too. Oh, the good ole days, when Alan Keyes was making sense and Michael Savage was yelling at everybody.
Looking back at that era, it’s crazy how many waving flags cable news tried to fit on the screen.
January 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Alan Keyes, panning his head from side to side as if he was reading telepromptors to a crowd. “Alan, the camera is straight ahead. You’re alone.”
January 30, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Alan would make you feel very intelligent, if you could follow what he was saying. Like a bipolar college-instructor.
January 30, 2011 at 4:50 pm
I remember a debate with Keyes, McCain and Bush. The two frontrunners for the nomination..and this crazy guy who refused to drop out of the race. “Why is he sitting at that table? Why does he keep talking?”
January 30, 2011 at 4:57 pm
I used to be a sort-of fan of Alan Keyes, you know, before his craziness surfaced…
re: John Boehner – I know what you mean, Joe – I have never really liked him, but his “cry-baby stuff” (for lack of a better phrase) makes me believe that he is very passionate about his beliefs and about what he considers to be service to his country (notice I’m not using the word “America or anything…). I certainly don’t see eye-to-eye with him on many issues, but I don’t think he’s faking the emotion.
Smoking is a horrible habit and I hope that he (and anyone else who smokes) gets motivated to quit, but I thought his comeback was a good one.
Saw Heather Childress this afternoon – very briefly. Painful.
January 30, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Saw Heather Childress this afternoon – very briefly. Painful.
Look, I get that TV requires a reasonable level of attractiveness – and that Fox seems to require a significantly unreasonable level – but this is ridiculous. The woman offers exactly two things: ‘T’. And ‘A’.
January 30, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Of course, I am no expert on the subject of “T & A” (!), but I think you are being very generous, even on that topic.
January 30, 2011 at 6:22 pm
But she’s behind a desk the whole time! If Fox hired her for that, at least have her on the side of the desk (as they did Sunday mornings when Eric Shawn would be behind the desk and Jamie Colby sitting on the side of the desk and wearing a short shirt).
I miss Julie B. Ms. Childers appears to have a very tight face. She shows about as much emotion as Nancy Pelosi.
January 30, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Although, to be fair, I think Ms. Childers is a pretty good anchor. But her face still looks like its been pulled very tight.
January 30, 2011 at 7:42 pm
I think she makes a pretty good Miss America.
January 30, 2011 at 7:44 pm
She has really fluffy hair. Harry Reasoner would be proud.