Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Jaded

MSNBC: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Vaulted)

Recommended Posts

 

I didn't know he was wearing his preppy tie. Blech.

Oh, I was just speaking figuratively, but with him, who knows, he probably has.  I would occasionally check his Twitter to see what spin Boehner's office was trying to sell (he would just parrot whatever his "source" there said) and was taken aback by how much an alleged adult was mentioning his high school in his Twitter. He is *very* proud of that inside-the-Beltway pedigree, which in turn has made him very deferential to people in power (i.e. his classmates' dads) - a very bad trait in an alleged journalist.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Little Luke beyond being such a representative of nepotism just isn't very good, nay, is very annoying in his presentation.  Beyond reeking of entitlement, he just asks stupid questions and emphasizes stupid crap.  And his clear imitation and reverence of Chuck Todd drips off of him.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't necessarily call Andrea Mitchell a journalist but she called out Trump's ignorance:

As Mitchell pointed out, Trump indicated in a recent New York Times interview that he would cancel defense treaties with Japan and South Korea, and that he would allow the countries to obtain nuclear weapons.

“American policy for decades since World War II has been trying to keep nukes out of that arena,” she observed. “He would stop importing oil from Saudi Arabia if they don’t pay more for their defense.”

“We need oil. We are not energy independent. We rely on oil still for our daily needs,” Mitchell continued. “He is completely all over the lot. On Iran, he complains that Iran isn’t buying our planes. It had to be pointed out to him that Iran is still under sanctions and cannot buy American planes. He thinks North Korea and Iran are the biggest trading partners, when North Korea’s biggest trading partner is China.”

“He is completely uneducated about any part of the world,” the MSNBC host lamented.

Edited by Rhetorica
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Andrea usually is restrained in her opinions, I think. I was surprised she said that about Trump--particularly the last sentence--on MTP. But that interview, and the one Todd quoted from with the WaPo, should be making a lot more news--and causing a lot more concern--than they apparently are, so I was glad to see both of them calling him out on it.  (His page-long rant to the Washington Post editorial board about his hands and how important it was for the public to know they really are normal ("I even wear a just slightly less than large size glove") is, as Gene Robinson said on one of the MSNBC shows last week, something that Americans really have to hear or read--then try to imagine this man as president.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Feeling sorry for Joe this morning.  He's so annoyed that all people seem to want to talk about is Trump's campaign manager being charged with misdemeanor assault of a female reporter down in Florida and how Trump denied it happened and said the woman was lying.  Joe just can't believe they're 11 minutes into the second hour of the show and still talking about how Trump lied.  Poor Joe.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Feeling sorry for Joe this morning.  He's so annoyed that all people seem to want to talk about is Trump's campaign manager being charged with misdemeanor assault of a female reporter down in Florida and how Trump denied it happened and said the woman was lying.  Joe just can't believe they're 11 minutes into the second hour of the show and still talking about how Trump lied.  Poor Joe.  

Yes, poor guy. Luckily he and Mark Halperin can get together and talk about how unfair the media is to keep picking on poor Donald Trump. I couldn't believe on the Bloomberg show yesterday how he kept defending Trump's point of view. They even managed to find a Florida defense lawyer--a young woman--and pressed her to make a case for Lewandowski's innocence, which she did with gusto. Then they replayed Trump's defense of him a few times, sympathetically. I'm sure Halperin and Joe could have many congenial conversations about how Trump is so misunderstood.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Trump's campaign song should be Linda Ronstadt singing "Poor poor pitiful me" although she'd probably sue him posthaste for using it. Everybody's picking on him...

 

I actually think that people calling Trump out on his ignorance is close to counterproductive, as his supporters just get more fanatic. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Chris Matthews had Ann Coulter on again yesterday (who thought that Trump should sue the reporter because he and campaign manager are the victims here).  Why does he give these people a platform to spout this nonsense?  We already know she likes to make outrageous statements to stay in the news (gee, just like Trump, what a coincidence).

 

And while I'm on the subject of outrageous statements, I think Susan Sarandon was ridiculous on Chris Hayes.  I don't think she said she'd vote for Trump (as some people thought) but she pretty much implied she might not be voting for Hillary, if Hillary is the nominee.  And then on Lawrence's show, Nina Turner wouldn't answer the question directly about whether or not she would vote for Hillary if the Hillary is the nominee.  I'm sick of these people.  I like Bernie, but I'm beginning to hate his supporters (they are fanatics).  So letting the republicans win is a better outcome! 

 

Why doesn't Lawrence (The Last Word) have a forum?  I just saw that Chris Hayes has a forum and I know Rachel does, but not Lawrence, why?  I think he's one of the best people they have on MSNBC.

Edited by SierraMist
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

MSNBC seems to be doing anything they think will get them better ratings including having people as commentators, guests and etc. that in the past a lot of us didn't think we'd see. I know it's been said before who knows what they will do with themselves after the election is over and they don't have the presidential race to cover anymore.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I've given up on this channel and their constant stream of Trump coverage. I can't believe how quickly they've wrecked it all in the name of getting election ratings.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I wanted to throw things at my computer screen during Rachel's town hall with Hillary, but I am enjoying every second of Rachel's town hall with Bernie.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I loved Rachel's town hall with Hillary.  Bernie is good, too.  I love them both, but Hillary gets my vote.

 

I thought Chris Matthews did a good job with Donald Drumpf, too.  Showed how ill prepared Drumpf is for public office.

Edited by SierraMist
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

I thought Chris Matthews did a good job with Donald Drumpf, too.  Showed how ill prepared Drumpf is for public office.

I think he did a great job. I think my favorite Chris line was, "You might use it [nuclear weapons] in Europe?" It was his incredulity, like - you really are a fanatic.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I wish some questions had been asked that weren't (also some of the audience ones were so easy--and ones that weren't, Trump just did his usual "Let me ramble on about something completely different ad nauseum and then we'll move to something else."

 

This was a time when I wish Chris was just interviewing him without the audience (and also, that was quite a friendly audience. Were they Trump-selected, I wonder? They really should tell us. Same with Cooper last night. Every questioner was "a supporter" or "considering you and one other".)

 

I loved--loved!--how Chris had obviously studied Trump's tactics elsewhere and came prepared not to be charmed or distracted (as much as possible, that is. Trump is a master of both, when he chooses to be). I liked when Trump started bonding about the interview they did years ago together and Chris shut it down, "That won't work here".

 

He hardly cracked a smile through the whole thing, despite DT's efforts several times to be personable with him. And when Trump found he couldn't change the subject from abortion, he tried to focus the questions on Chris instead. That's the first time I've seen Trump resort to grilling the moderator as a way to get out of it. And then Chris threw it back, "Let's not talk about my religion" and "I'm not running for president". Loved it!

 

That was the first time I've seen that technique of Trump's be so obviously exposed as an intentional effort at deflection. But Chris was like a dog with a bone on that topic--and a few others--to excellent effect, I think.

 

I'd love to see him have another go at it, but I'm sure Trump won't give him the chance. Next time--if there IS a next time--he'll probably want Joe and Mika again, second choice Halperin and Heilmann...and if MSNBC stays firm...possibly might settle for Rachel.  But I don't expect him ever letting any of the other hosts, including Chris, within ten feet of him again.  That was a good one though.

Edited by Padma
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Nina Turner's surrogacy of Bernie Sanders reminds me of Debbie Wasserman Schulz's of Clinton in 2008, rabid.  She came around in 2008, I'm sure that Turner will again (she was a Clinton supporter initially) should Clinton win the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post

Loved, loved, loved seeing tRump put his foot in it with Chris Matthews re: women have to be punished if they get abortions.  Morning Joe is using this as their first segment.  Wow.  I love the smell of misogyny first thing in the morning.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Kudos to Chris for finally being the person to stand up to Trump and make him accountable for his complete and utter ignorance on everything.

When Trump wouldn't absolutely say he would never drop a nuke on a European city, it was astounding and ignorant.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

There have been many reports going around about how the press is responsible for Trump's rise. Tweety was on a mission.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

There have been many reports going around about how the press is responsible for Trump's rise. Tweety was on a mission.

 

Indeed, and there have been reports that MSNBC in particular have been soft on Trump:

 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oops-msnbc-reporter-admits-to-networks-softball-questions-to-keep-relationship-with-trump/

 

I lose track of Tweety's feuds (I do recall that it came up in the Scooter Libby trial that he did not like Russert and vice versa, something that makes me like Tweety) but if I didn't at some point learn that he contemns Joe Scarborough, my guess is that he would. They seem like chalk and cheese.

Share this post


Link to post

One morning last week the question of the media being partially responsible for the Trump-rise was posed to the MJ table and there were mea culpas pretty much all around. Laughing mea culpas but it was something.

Joe defended all of the Trump coverage by saying that he has invited all of the candidates to call in but Trump's the only one who will.

Joe, here's an idea, Don't pick up!!! Ass. es.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I love that Rachel often starts with something totally different than covering what ever stupid thing Trump said last.   Her lead in with the Dead Man's Switch story was riveting.  I never know where she's going with the story right away.  I can't wait to see if what (if anything) happens with the DC Madam's lawyer.  And she was the only one covering that gross Governor story.  If it weren't for Rachel and Lawrence I would be really unhappy with most of the coverage that MSNBC provides these days. 

 

I also love how Rachel took apart the media's gasping at Donald Trumps gaffes regarding abortion.  She was one of the few who pointed out that this is really the republican position.  They just know better than to say it so blatantly.  They have their standard talking points (and Donald didn't bother to read the memo).  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

It really annoys me that some anchors are saying "allegedly grabbed" when discussing the allegations surrounding Lewandowski (and by connection, Trump). The video clearly shows that Lewandowski grabbed Fields. There is no "allegedly" about it. And using that term puts it into that same "some people say" kind of false equivalency that is used by climate change deniers.

 

("Allegedly committed battery" is a phrase I wouldn't have a problem with, because that's a legal allegation that is to be determined in court.)

Edited by xaxat
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I love that Rachel often starts with something totally different than covering what ever stupid thing Trump said last.   Her lead in with the Dead Man's Switch story was riveting.  I never know where she's going with the story right away.  I can't wait to see if what (if anything) happens with the DC Madam's lawyer.

 

I like Rachel, but I didn't really like this story, because, even as she broke it down:  (a) at the end of the day, there may not be a story; (b) implying a need for a dead man's switch gave this more of a hook than it otherwise would get; and © she acknowledged that she doesn't know what the story will be, or even if there will be a story, but someone said there would be, and she doesn't really get into the lawyer's history beyond defending the Madam, and she just decides to go with it, even not knowing what "it" is or if even "it" actually is. I felt like there was a thin hook to actual news.  It felt like a cheap way to do a segment on sex and corruption and intrigue.

 

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but this felt like a build up to an "October Surprise!" that we always hear about and that generally never develops.

Edited by pennben
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Meet the Press's Chuck Todd is such toad.  He might not be as pretty as David Gregory was, but he's still a waste or air time.  

 

Edited by 33kaitykaity
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Geebus, why does Andrea Mitchell keep asking stupid questions of high level folks in the Administration that needle for answers to tRump's ridiculous foreign policy assertions.  She looks ignorantly and needlessly provocative - I can't remember who she did this to yesterday on her show, but she did it this morning to Secretary Kerry.

 

eta: lovely to see Savannah with Chuck this morning, I don't know why but as insufferable as I find Todd 99.999% of the time, I love the chemistry between the two of them and I find him tolerable when he's with her.  Also, Sanders supporters warning, (I actually am and caucused for him) but I find Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine greasy and skeevy - am I alone in this?

Edited by NextIteration
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Geebus, why does Andrea Mitchell keep asking stupid questions of high level folks in the Administration that needle for answers to tRump's ridiculous foreign policy assertions.  She looks ignorantly and needlessly provocative - I can't remember who she did this to yesterday on her show, but she did it this morning to Secretary Kerry.

 

I can't stand Andrea Mitchell so I didn't see what you're referring to.  I can't stand to watch her.   I think she's way past asking anything intelligent these days.  I guess she's still revered for her past journalism skill, but I sure don't see it anymore.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Geebus, why does Andrea Mitchell keep asking stupid questions of high level folks in the Administration that needle for answers to tRump's ridiculous foreign policy assertions.  She looks ignorantly and needlessly provocative - I can't remember who she did this to yesterday on her show, but she did it this morning to Secretary Kerry.

 

eta: lovely to see Savannah with Chuck this morning, I don't know why but as insufferable as I find Todd 99.999% of the time, I love the chemistry between the two of them and I find him tolerable when he's with her.  Also, Sanders supporters warning, (I actually am and caucused for him) but I find Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine greasy and skeevy - am I alone in this?

As a women, I find it hard to say that I've had a snoot full of Andrea (& her neck veins) & I don't think she contributes anything that I want to hear.  Just sayin'.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Though not her fault, I can't watch Mitchell without remembering that she's married to that toad Greenspan.

And she spent way too much time this am intoning dramatically....about Cruz's refusal to put a cheesehead hat on in Wisconsin. These Beltway twits really don't get what people are focusing on.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I couldn't believe (but, well, I could) that Hannity had the nerve to mock Chris Matthews' questioning of Trump in Hannity's "town hall" (hahaha) last night. They must have handpicked and vetted that LOUDLY pro-Trump audience well in advance, and probably Trump's campaign handed Hannity the questions ahead of time, too. What a disgrace.

 

At least Chris restored some of MSNBC's lost reputation during this campaign. (I saw this morning that Joe and Mika are still helping their good buddy Donald by mocking all things Cruz--while ignoring the latest shockers coming from DT. Some things never change.)

 

And judging from their conversation this morning, Joe apparently now has added "great impressionist" to his list of imagined talents. Apparently the other day he unflatteringly imitated Chris Matthews (he and Hannity sharing writers?) and this morning he tried to entertain the group with his "impression" of Ted Cruz. No one laughed (it was terrible). Mika thought she could really do one well herself, but fortunately didn't demonstrate it.

 

Then, lo and behold, in the afternoon it was Joe and Mika anchoring the Wisconsin primary coverage. Why these ignoramuses, MSNBC? The only thing was one of the writers gave Mika a "joke" to read about mid-morning Joe or something--I wasn't listening--and Joe ripped into the writers, then insisted the cameraman show Eric, their exec producer (a guy who didn't even look 30, just saying.)  Why, MSNBC, why? Hopefully, I turned it off in time to avoid them hauling out Brian Williams although he actually would have been preferable to M&J, that's how awful they are, especially after 8 a.m. when one is actually alert and listening.

Edited by Padma
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Bolding mine

Though not her fault, I can't watch Mitchell without remembering that she's married to that toad Greenspan.

And she spent way too much time this am intoning dramatically....about Cruz's refusal to put a cheesehead hat on in Wisconsin. These Beltway twits really don't get what people are focusing on.

Mika did the same thing this morning on MJ!

I guess Cruz's daughter asked him to wear one and his refusal, in MikaWorld, constituted really bad parenting. And she wouldn't let it go even though all around her said Cruz did the right thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Andrea used to drive my Mom so crazy that she came up with the nickname "Arms" for her due to her wearing sleeveless tops all the time. I can't remember the last time I watched her show or the last time I saw her on MSNBC so I have no idea if she's still baring her arms no matter what time of year it is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

She is.  Isn't there an age limit for that even though we've ditched the season/weather rule for it?

 

;)

There absolutely should be a rule, especially with respect to HER!!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

So sick of turning on MSNBC and seeing the likes of Ben Ginsberg, Nicole Wallace, and Hugh Hewitt, as I did tonight. These are not journalists, or political commentators. They are bought and paid for advocates for a particular ideological wing of a particular party. These people and others of their ilk have constant exposure on Fox News and various other right wing media outlets. But then, that's the direction that MSNBC has drifting towards.

 

I'm also sick of the consistent pro-Hillary, anti-Bernie spin. For the past couple of weeks MSNBC has been telling us that Wisconsin is Bernie's last stand. If he doesn't win he should pack it in. So he wins Wisconsin, and Rachel Maddow is talking about how much he spent, and that he didn't win by enough to show that his candidacy is viable. (MSNBC also dismissed his winning 74% of the vote in Washington State as not significant. What does he need to do to impress MSNBC? Get 90%?)

 

And then Jacob Sobaroff is asked by Chris Matthews if there's a political revolution going on, and he smugly says, maybe in Silver Lake (a hipster neighborhood in LA) and Williamsburg. This just after Bernie won Wisconsin, which the last time I looked at a map, was squarely in the Midwest. Bernie also won overwhelmingly in Utah and Alaska, hardly known as hipster meccas.

 

And MSNBC is what passes in this country for a progressive, liberal network. What a joke.

 

Edited to add that Rick Tyler, ex-Newt Gingrich operative, the guy who has the distinction of being fired by Ted Cruz (!) for being too sleazy, is now on MSNBC's primary coverage panel of "political experts." Who's next, Karl Rove?

Edited by bluepiano
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

At least we won't have to see Charlie Sykes, the right-wing Wisconsin talk radio host who hates Trump, on any of the MSNBC shows any more.  He seemed to have a segment on every single show every single day saying the same goddamn thing in every interview.  I liked him the first four or five times I saw him, but after that it was like hey, why don't you interview Thom Hartmann, a liberal with both a TV and a radio show who for the last six or seven years has been doing "Brunch with Bernie" every Friday?  Wouldn't that be a refreshing change.  /sarcasm

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

So sick of turning on MSNBC and seeing the likes of Ben Ginsberg, Nicole Wallace, and Hugh Hewitt, as I did tonight.

 

 

Me too! MSNBC has more RWNJs on that Fox these days. There's a reason I don't watch Fox and it's now becoming the reason I seldom watch MSNBC anymore too.

 

 

I'm also sick of the consistent pro-Hillary, anti-Bernie spin. For the past couple of weeks MSNBC has been telling us that Wisconsin is Bernie's last stand. If he doesn't win he should pack it in. So he wins Wisconsin, and Rachel Maddow is talking about how much he spent, and that he didn't win by enough to show that his candidacy is viable.

 

Funny how we hear what we want to hear. I get righteously pissed off because it sounds to me like it's totally pro-Bernie, anti-Hillary. Hey did you know that Bernie won five out of the last six contests? Did you hear it mentioned oh, about 100 times a day? But did they ever say who won the previous seven? And who won as many delegates in the one state of Florida as Bernie won in those five victories? And Rachel is right - he only gained about 10 delegates tonight with his win and there aren't enough states left for him to overcome her 200+ delegate lead.

 

It seems to me they're still treating Bernie with kid gloves. My god, if Hillary had given an interview to the NY Daily Post like Bernie did, they'd be ripping her to shreds and quoting her misstatements and 'I don't knows' a dozen times an hour. If it was Hillary who hadn't released her full tax returns, they'd be kicking her ass. As it is, they're so wrapped up in their incessant Trumpalooza they haven't had much time for either Bernie or Hillary but in doing so, they're really letting Bernie skate and haven't done any responsible vetting of him. There's lots out there, on both him and Jane, and they're lucky the media can't be bothered.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

I have really big reasons to despise Ben Ginsberg more than most, not only was he Bush's attorney in the 2000 debacle, he was Coleman's attorney in 2008 for the Coleman/Franken recount and even I appreciate his encyclopedic knowledge of the GOP bound and unbound delegates and convention rules as it appears we could very well see a contested GOP convention.  And I'm also pleasantly surprised and appreciative that though they have more GOP analysts now, they are not allowed to spew the bullshit and lies about Democrats that they do on Fox and CNN.  They are made to stick to what they know - at least Rick Tyler has insight since Cruz is one of the GOP left standing.

Share this post


Link to post

Late last night there was an interesting conversation between Chris Hayes and Chris Matthews. Basically, Hayes tried to explain to Matthews that questions like "Is Sanders ready to be the next Commander in Chief?" and all the implications of the question -- the way "Commander in Chief" has become a shorthand for following a certain foreign policy view -- illustrate the kind of Beltway insider thinking that explains why people like Matthews have such a hard time understanding Sanders' supporters. To some degree, Hayes was finding nice ways to tell Matthews to get his head out of his own ass and it struck me as a much milder version of the on-air interventions Rachel gave Matthews back in 2008.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Joe just tried to excuse the over abundance of Trump coverage by telling us that when this topic is studied he's sure that the majority of Trump coverage will be shown to have been negative!

I guess ol' Joe is not familiar with the oft quoted phrase, There's no such thing as bad publicity.

Nice try, Joe, but you can't back away from your TrumpTime.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

@Wax Lion, wow, that wasn't what I took away from that conversation at all.  Perception really is something that varies widely I guess.  I thoroughly enjoyed that whole recap hour with Matthews and the insights of everyone there.  I like it when they gather up everyone that has been reporting from the field and and de-brief.  I chuckled to myself a little when I realized that despite everything there were two journalists from The Nation there (Hayes and Nichols) and hope that we continue to see them on the changing MSNBC.  Once again, Chris Jansing was phenomenal in reporting the Wisconsin primaries, she really is one of their shining stars.

 

@NewDigs - there is a Morning Joe forum - feel free to join the snark there!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Grrr! I have to watch primary coverage on CNN instead of MSNBC with Rachel because they have to make her sit there and play second fiddle to BW. :(

Share this post


Link to post

I am really an advocate of non violence, so I don't understand my irrational impulse to punch Nicolle Wallace's smirking face every time I see her.  I don't like Ben Ginsburg, but I agree he at least has something relevant to say.  I have no idea what Nicolle Wallace adds to these panel discussions.  Isn't she just famous for unleashing the incoherent Sarah Palin on the world? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I am really an advocate of non violence, so I don't understand my irrational impulse to punch Nicolle Wallace's smirking face every time I see her.  I don't like Ben Ginsburg, but I agree he at least has something relevant to say.  I have no idea what Nicolle Wallace adds to these panel discussions.  Isn't she just famous for unleashing the incoherent Sarah Palin on the world? 

 

My understanding is that it was Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager, that came up with the idea of Palin and sold it to McCain. That's one huge black mark against Steve, although I have generally liked him as a commentator. He makes no secret of his personal political leanings, but tries to be fair-minded in his analysis. Same with Michael Steele, who for a long time has kind of been the MSNBC house Republican.

 

However, it seems that now that they've brought in the likes of Wallace and Ginsberg, we're seeing less of Schmidt and Steele, and to me, that's a bad decision. My issue with Rick Tyler, in addition to the fact that he doesn't seem very bright, is that he's presented as an "MSNBC policial analyst" when he's so obviously an advocate for Cruz. Yes, he's no longer employed by the campaign, but he doesn't even try to hid his partisanship. And Ben Ginsberg is largely responsible for giving us the Bush Jr. presidency, so I want him off my TV.

 

There was a great exchange between Chris Matthews and Rick Tyler last night. Matthews brought up prayer in schools as an example of the kind of cultural war issue that Cruz type Republicans focus on. When Tyler said that he was in favor of prayer in schools, Matthews said, "what kind of prayer that would be?" He tried to make the point that people who want prayer in schools think it's going to roll back the clock to their fantasy nostalgia version of America, when everyone was white and Christian, but that's just not going to happen. The point went totally over Tyler's head.

 

I read where Glen Beck is saying that God literally anointed Cruz at birth to be President and save America. I wonder why God would annoint someone born in Canada to save America, but who am I to question The Almighty?

 

How long will it be before Glen Beck is an "MSNBC political analyst?"

 

Edited by bluepiano
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

My understanding is that it was Steve Schmidt, McCain's campaign manager, that came up with the idea of Palin and sold it to McCain.

 

It was actually Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes.

 

Schmidt and Steele were on pretty equal footing in punditry on election nights, but it does seem like Wallace is on more now that she's been completely released from her ABC News division deal after her departure from The View.  We're getting a lot of Elise Jordan for coverage as well, who is a previous staffer of Rand Paul's.

Share this post


Link to post

Can't stand Cruz, but he was correct in not putting on that cheese hat. That picture would follow him to his dying day. (See Michael Dukakis in helmet)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

At least we won't have to see Charlie Sykes, the right-wing Wisconsin talk radio host who hates Trump, on any of the MSNBC shows any more.  He seemed to have a segment on every single show every single day saying the same goddamn thing in every interview.  

 

I saw him last night for the first time, and had no idea who he was. He was blathering about how Trump's values (xenophobia, racism, sexism) did not reflect the values of the Republican Party he loves so much. Really?? This kind of talk, which I hear all the time, just kills me. A substantial portion of every Republican debate this year was spent competing to show who would be toughest on immigration. Cruz, who Sykes supports, agrees with Trump on the Muslim immigration ban, and even upped the ante with his armed patrols of Muslim neighborhoods. (And Cruz has the support of Steve King, who was talking about Mexican migrants with cantaloupe calves long before Trump ever mentioned The Wall).

 

As for women, every Republican candidate wants to defund Planned Parenthood (Kasich's done it in Ohio) and outlaw abortion. When was the last time the Republican Party ever took a pro-women position, even on equal pay?

 

The truth is that the Republican Party has been winning elections for years based on inciting fear among voters that "they" are coming to get you. (Remember the Willie Horton ads?) Trump is actually helping the Republicans by allowing them to act like before he came along they were all singing Kumbaya. But though his language may be more inflammatory, his positions are solidly mainstream Republican.

 

Edited by bluepiano
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
There's lots out there, on both him and Jane, and they're lucky the media can't be bothered.

 

Like what?  I have a feeling that if whatever is "out there" was important enough, the media would be all over it, and Clinton's staff would have leaked it by now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 Cruz, who Sykes support

 

Sykes doesn't support Cruz, that was all about stopping tRump.  Seriously, don't read anything more into that, then they want a busted convention where Ryan is the come-back kid.

Like what?  I have a feeling that if whatever is "out there" was important enough, the media would be all over it, and Clinton's staff would have leaked it by now.

 

Everyone, both the GOP and Clinton are holding their powder, a lot. Google is your friend. because this is not the forum to cover this.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Is there anyone else at all troubled. about the way the embedded campaign reporters come off very biased and protective of the candidate that they are embedded with?  Just one more insight of the problems with corporate media I guess.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size