This entry was posted on April 21, 2012 at 2:03 pm and is filed under CNN . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
21 Responses to “What’s Hot/What’s Not: Submissions…”
Cha-Ching HOT: FNC spends the bucks to keep O’Reilly & Hannity.
Not: Keith Olbermann to ABC’s This Week…. where there’s a Will in his way.
Hot: US Secret Service bothered by that nagging drip, drip, drip of their un-secret servicing details. All. Week. Long.
Hot: Republican primary noise lowered to level of “merely annoying” now that Romney has it in the bag. Even in this 21st century it takes a while for information to get to the moon and back, but eventually Newt will get the memo.
Hot – Rachel Maddow’s new book ‘Drift’ is #1 on NYT best seller list. Most of the reviews I’ve seen rate the book as a serious work of scholarship and not the usual self-serving ideological screed that cable news hosts usually write – if they write it themselves at all. Congratulations!
Wow – the NYT gives a rave review to a work of Rachel Maddow. Shocker!
A tad different treatment than they often do to conservaties, like not reviewing their works or, like recently, reclassifying them as “self-help” books.
Any dirty parts in the Maddow book?
Not: THE TRAYON PICTURE BIAS TEST
CBS NEWS – still using the smiling Trayvon middle-school pic
ABC NEWS – High-school aged Trayvon outdoors, no expression
FNC NEWS – B&W ghostly Trayvon in grey hoodie or snarling gold-toothedTrayvon.
A tad different treatment than they often do to conservatives, like not reviewing their works or, like recently, reclassifying them as “self-help” books.
That’s because they are ‘self-serving ideological screeds’
NOT YET HOT, but on back burner:
In a letter to Mr Sullivan and the inspector general at the Homeland Security Department, Mr Grassley asked whether hotel records for the White House staffers had been pulled as part of the investigations.
He wrote: ‘Have records for overnight guests for those entities been pulled as part of the investigation? If not, why not?’
Additionally Mr Grassley, top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked whether rooms were shared by Secret Service, the communications agency and the presidential advance staff.
VIA MAIL ONLINE
Not: Maddow is against attacking candidate families “unless hypocrisy an issue”, meaning of course that Repulican kids are fair game.
“Not: Maddow is against attacking candidate families “unless hypocrisy an issue”, meaning of course that Repulican kids are fair game.”
^^ So your saying Republican kids are hypocrites? Last time I checked “kids” were part of the family.
Let me help you “3″, Maddow and her ilk, can always find something about a Republican “hypocritical”, therefore…
What were your ACT scores?
“Maddow and her ilk, can always find something about a Republican “hypocritical”, therefore”
^^ So your making stuff up. OK I get it now. Thanks.
It snowed somewhere in January. That’s enough rationale for Maddow et al to go after Republican familes.
Hot: Beagles on Bagels
Not: All the usual suspects bemoaning the triviality of campaigns … when 3 months ago it was All Seamus, All the Time.
I shouldn’t have been mean to Fritz, I’m sure his ACT scores were just fine. Not a problem for me. Weren’t invented in time.
Of all the sins in the world, the worst to Maddow seems to be hypocrisy. As Republicans aspire to “family values” they are open to constant sin scrutiny for that. During the Anthony Weiner scandal, all Maddow cared about was comparison to some old Republican sex scandals. She never did think Weiner should have resigned even when an underaged girl entered the picture. For Obama, that was the final straw. He sees other sins than hypocrisy.
Not: Using a comment about Rachel’s book to crank up Conservative Victimization Syndrome. You realize this “answer” isn’t an actual answer to anything, right?
I thought it was the answer to everything
@larrykelly, no the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42, i thought everybody knew that.
Damn, I didn’t.
Maddow’s book, and Maddow’s comment on hypocrisy are two different things, but both relevant. Mediaite recently did stories on both.
As for the ol’ “Conservative Victimization Syndrome” nonsense… it’s, well, nonsense. A fun way for the ideologically bankrup to dismiss anything they dislike, but not exactly hohonest. But I guess that’s what you get when you entrust the blue-blogs to do your thinking for you.
I’m sorry. I know you’re just in another bad mood. My mistake in taking you seriously again.
Missy responded to the Rachel comment by boo hooing about all the suffering you poor righties endure. I was responding to THAT, genius.
Hot-ish: Olbermann on This Week. I have to wonder what meds were required to make that work.