Free for All: 01/05/12

What’s on your mind?


63 Responses to “Free for All: 01/05/12”

  1. At Witt’s end?

  2. TV Newser says that Alex witt will be on from Saturdays 7-8AMET and saturdays and sundays from 12-2pmet and UP is being cut to 8-9AMET both days

  3. oops meant UP is moved to 8-10AMET

  4. MSNBC ought to start Sunday programming at the same time as Saturday. Seems stupid to me that Witt will anchor an hour in the morning on Saturday but not on Sunday. It also makes more sense to me to Have MHP anchor her show from noon-2 and have Witt on from 10-noon. Four hours in a row of progressive opinion could get boring.

  5. Wow, that’s not at all confusing. Let’s see if I can transpose this for Pacific Time without my head exploding.

    Alex, 4-5
    UP, 5-7
    Melissa, 7-9
    Alex, 9-11

    UP, 5-7
    Melissa, 7-9
    Alex, 9-11

    Is that right?

  6. It was telegraphed from Tuesday night Iowa coverage that all angles were coordinated to a single goal: MSNBC will go full force as activists to tarnish Mitt Romney and re-elect Barack Obama.

    No one can even pretend MSNBC is a cable “news” organization anymore and keep a straight face. Pretty bad when Current is more fair and balanced. MSNBC pooped in the pie.

  7. As a boy I watched Heckel & Jeckel, Mighty Mouse, and Looney Toons on Saturday morning TV. No matter how things change, they always stay the same.

  8. Melissa Harris Perry is a very intelligent, very serious person.

  9. and just to the left of Eugene B. Debs.

  10. The idea that Joe Scarbourgh thinks Rick Santorum could possibly beat Barack Obama shows what a light-weight thinker he really is. Hell, I would vote for Obama over Santorum. Romney with a chance. Nobody else.

  11. A person with different views than you (or I) does not disqualify them as intelligent or serious. Complaining about a lefty hosting an opinion show on MSNBC is silly.

    Santorum beating Obama is a longshot, but if he can bury some of his more bizarre tendencies under a barrage of “working man, grandpa’s big hands” rhetoric, he has a better chance than many think. He “connects” in a simple, “I love my country” way that resonates similar to Ronald Reagan. Ask Jimmy Carter how many people discounted Reagan during a lousy economy, while the public felt that the current President was isolated in the White House..

  12. I’d rather watch a dude than Alex Witt. Besides, she’s had years on MSNBC and has failed to create much if any buzz.

    Why not just cut her ‘high’ salary out? I’m sure she’s making a pretty penny after being there for so long.

  13. I’d rather watch a dude than Alex Witt.

    Then watch a dude. What does her “lack of dudeness” have to do anything? Wait..I’m sure I don’t want to know..

  14. I don’t want to know either. Terence is as creepy as Joe used to say I was.

    I’m sure Melissa Harris Perry is very Intellegent. People with three names often are. I just like Alex and her news show. It was my Saturday morning choice for some time.

  15. The Left is building Santorum up because they know he will be easy to tear down. The liberal brain is oh so obvious. I still have my liberal brain detector I got by sending in a SASE and three Ovaltine labels.

  16. The liberal brain is a byproduct of Teflon coating of frypans.

  17. Better Living Through Chemistry, or so they said.

  18. imnotblue Says:

    joeremi Says:
    January 5, 2012 at 10:49 am

    A person with different views than you (or I) does not disqualify them as intelligent or serious.

    Apparently, someone has hacked Joe’s account.

  19. savefarris Says:

    Ed Schultz: “I went to Iowa as an objective reporter“.

  20. missy5537 Says:

    I love Cavuto, O’Reilly and Hannity, but do they ever interrupt their guests! So many times a guest will try to make a point, and they interrupt, thereby causing the point to be lost.

    Very frustrating.

  21. ^Missy. Yeah, I’d like to slap O’Reilly, sometimes. Especially when he has Miller on, and he steps on a joke. Um, are you aware of what Dennis does for a living?

  22. Imus Guest this morning, Jake Tapper ABC News “The Democrats Want Mitt Romney To Be The Republican Nominee”

    Mr Vanilla apparently the Democrat’s favorite flavor.

    28,000 Independents participated out of 122,255 republican caucus goers, that puts republican participation in their own caucus under 100,000.00 Ron Paul came in 3rd with 21% his 3rd place win was made up of 44% Independents. The GOP really has a big problem with their base.
    They can’t see the big picture they need an excited base to vote in the General and Ron Paul’s voters are committed they will write Paul’s name in -in the general.

    Mitt Romney’s strategy of last man standing – surviving the primary by dividing the conservative base is hurting the GOP’s voter enthusiasm quotient. Barack Obama isn’t going to have a problem ginning up his base against the evil 1% that Mitt Romney will be representing. Talk about made to order political punching bag. Yes I can see why the Democrats want Romney to be the nominee.

  23. missy5537 Says:

    Laura, you’re right. O’Reilly NEVER lets Miller finish a punch line. Too bad; as you say, the guy’s a comedian!

    Laree, “Mr. Vanilla” certainly describes Romney, and Santorum as well. We need SOMEONE with a very forceful personality in there. Rush would be an obvious choice, but even Curtis Sliwa would be welcome. And entertaining!

  24. Eugene Robinson weighs in on the propriety of Rick Santorum’s personal life.

  25. Ed Schultz: “I went to Iowa as an objective reporter“.

    He did a nice job of it, too. His praise for Rick Santorum’s skills had Lawrence apoplectic.

    I don’t know why people think it’s impossible for a commentator to do objective analysis from time to time. Goldie Taylor did it last week, too: a clear-eyed analysis of who was up, who was down, and how it affected Republicans in Iowa. Anyone with a decent immersion in Presidential politics can analyze the field without throwing personal opinion into it.

  26. Eugene Robinson? Unbelievable..I thought he was better than that.

  27. Anyone who thinks the Dems want Romney as the nominee could take a lesson from Ed Schultz and Goldie Taylor about objective analysis.

  28. Wow with that we should be seeing Eugene Robinson getting a weekend show on MSNBC any time now.

  29. Nice meaningless and disconnected shot, J$. Moody today?

  30. I thought that liberals weren’t supposed to judge people’s personal lives, eh?

  31. I think that only applies to “liberals who know when to shut the hell up”..

  32. A rare and diminishing quantity. 😉

  33. “Nice meaningless and disconnected shot, J$. Moody today?”

    He MADE those statements on MSNBC. He wasn’t challenged. No sort of disagreement was expressed, not even in the mildest form. He was thanked for his comments by a gleeful, grinning Rachel Maddow.

    Do you not get my point, made apparently too subtly thru humor, about MSNBC’s welcoming of this sort of stuff. It’s coin of the realm there.

  34. I don’t think you can extrapolate one guest’s comments – and how they are received by one host – across the entire network, then jump to the conclusion that MSNBC will hire him for their next show.

  35. mlong5000 Says:

    Well as we learn with Sara Palin and her kids when the Left and the MSM hates someone they’ll lash out and everyone related to them be it Palin’s son with Downs or Sanatorum still born child…meanwhile Obama’s kids are off limits and anyone that would say anything about them will be torn to shreds.

  36. Geez, Mlong..2008 called. It wants its ridiculous sweeping generalizations back.

  37. Unimpeachable sources tell me that even Olbermann hasn’t gone there. That’s a bad sign.

  38. savefarris Says:

    joe, Robinson isn’t a guest persay. He’s an “MSNBC Contributor”, which means that until they apoligize with the “The views expressed…” disclaimer, those views represent MSNBC, Manangement, and Comcast.

  39. Oh bull. Eugene doesn’t “represent” MSNBC any more than Michael Steele or Pat Buchanan does. He owes the apology, not the network.

  40. Does Maddow, chuckling and grinning ear to ear about a dead baby, get off Scott free?

  41. -“represent” MSNBC-

    A paid contributor sort of does represent the employer if the remarks bad enough. If they are then the offender is usually given the choice of either apologising or being escorted out the door.

  42. That’s not gonna happen. I don’t think it’s a firing offense, but it’s an apology-worthy one, for both Robinson and Maddow. But my fearless forecast is: neither will apologize and no action will be taken. Unless it’s to give them both a better parking spot.

  43. Which is what happened in the case of Pat Buchanan. MSNBC didn’t come out and say “His book’s a bit much”, they just took him off the air. If MSNBC has to start hyper-checking every controversial thing said by contributors on their air, they’ll never have time for anything else.

    This one simply doesn’t qualify for a major kerfuffle. Robinson didn’t make cracks about “playing with the baby” like Colmes did, which was clearly egregious and offensive. He said the story was “very weird”, which, like it or not, is a common reaction to it. I personally think it was in poor taste and he should have left it alone, but the fact that it’s a story the Santorums put in the public domain leaves it open for some reaction, and Robinson’s doesn’t qualify as company-wide actionable.

    I think he shouldn’t have used it in his example, and should apologize. I don’t think the network needs to be involved.

  44. lonestar77 Says:

    It’s cool how people on the left, like Matthews, have an amazing ability to not be able to hear what people say. He played the clip, then summarized it by saying Santorum said the opposite of what he actually said.

  45. A few comments on above comments:

    Eugene Robinson said the Santorums took the baby home “to sleep with it” not “just weird”. That is offensive. I wish everyone would just shut up about this situation and discuss whether they like/dislike his policy stands. Please see Real Clear Politics for both video and transcript.

    There are real, true shortages of drugs out there for both patients and practitioners. My husband does anesthesia and we get constant emails from his place of work, from suppliers and from manufacturers about shortages of many of the drugs he uses and what drugs are good substitutes, how long certain shortages will last, how to use less of a drug during a surgery, etc. Unless you live this situation on daily basis as he does I think it is intemperate to say complaints about this issue are “irrational”.

  46. Sorry. My reference was to certain people around here who, every time the subject of government regulation comes up, act as though there’s some mysterious reason why Republicans are opposed. We’re either shilling for Big Business, or we’re just irrational. That story shows exactly what the problem is, and will continue to be. And that’s just one area of business. I guarantee that Mr Cordray, when all is said and done, will have amassed a whole lot of power and bureaucrats, with no noticeable improvement in consumer ‘protection’.

  47. lonestar77 Says:

    ^ agreed. So much of what the left wants/believes in is based on emotion. It will make them feel good that some panel in Washington is “looking out for them”. In reality, they aren’t.

  48. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has nothing to do with medical. If you don’t think the financial industry – which is heavily represented by lobbyists – needs some oversight and regulation, I don’t know what country you’ve been living in the last few years.

  49. Good God. If you can’t see the connection between the failure of one government intervention and another, then it’s useless. You demand one government control after another, and when they don’t work – as with the “last few years” – you just demand more. That is why this country is screwed.

  50. Sorry, I’m not a conservative. I don’t believe in the glorius power of less regulation and free markets. The little guy ( short jokes, please) always gets screwed. We are not going to agree on this, and I am not going to spend the day debating with the half dozen conservatives who are bound to pile on to show me the error of my ways. Why is Herman Cain on my television?

  51. We don’t have “less government” and we don’t have “free markets” and that is why the “little guy” is getting screwed. We also don’t have Republicans with the balls to actually change things, so you shall have more of what you want. And things will get worse.

  52. lonestar77 Says:

    “The little guy ( short jokes, please) always gets screwed.”

    Life’s not fair. The government screws more people than any evil rich guy.

    It’s ironic how liberals hate “big business” but love even bigger & more powerful “big government”. You can pick and choose which business you work for or your free to start your own. You can’t exactly do that with government. It’s sad how little liberals think of their fellow man that they need some ivory tower yahoos centered in Washington D.C. to make their decisions for them.

  53. Wow. Huntsman’s wife is on NOW. She looks just like him.

  54. Wow, same earrings.

  55. joe at 10:18am: “The little guy ( short jokes, please) always gets screwed.”

    Please explain how you always get screwed. This sounds like something someone says when they can not give concrete examples about how exactly they got screwed. Is it the federal government, the state government, your local government – who exactly is always screwing you? and what exactly are they “doing to you”?

    I think you have said you are from California, right? Well, who the hell has been running your state for years and years? And don’t even think to mention Arnold since he wasn’t able to work with the legislature which was held by democrats for years and years. And now, you have what you wished for a democrat governor or is he screwing you, too?

    It’s too easy to say “I’m getting screwed” but it is very hard to pinpoint exactly how you are getting screwed. Or are you worried about all those “other people” that are getting screwed and you just want to jump in with them into their pot of complaining?

  56. These ideological arguments are endless and boring, Pam. I’ve had my say, now I’m gonna go see my kid for lunch.

  57. They’ll never admit it and will invariably be offended when told, but those who believe over-regulation to be a good thing for protecting people are simply lazy and searching for life’s “easy” button. There isn’t one.

    I get screwed all the time and whose fault is it? Mine, and I pay for it. Federal regulations may fool your sense of security but if you really believe they’re what keeps the beef on your plate from killing you then you’re not the brightest bulb.

    Regulations are good when they serve only to set the competitive playing field. Competition and tort action are the barriers of abuse and, for those who grossly disregard fairness and safety, there’s already fraud and other criminal laws to cover them. And that article is dead-on, as unintended consequences of federal regulation was the primary cause of both the drug shortages and the real estate/financial markets meltdown.

  58. You forgot “and they know it”.

  59. ^ Didn’t see the need to give them that much credit.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: