Aka, slutty, scumsucking, bottom-feeding guttersnipes (oh yeah, and that guy on Fox who race-baited President Obama, then said he meant the President had a drinking problem for sharing a pint of Guinness with some Irish bar patrons in his Olde Ancestral Home) ...
This song is for you, ladies:
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Busted: The Best REPUBLICAN President We've Ever Had
Or why Bill Clinton is still known in authentic Democratic and progressive circles as 'Slick Willie':
Here's what Clinton should have said:
Here's what Clinton should have said:
That's what a REAL Democrat would have said."I'm glad we won NY-26. I hope you've learned your lesson and cooperate with Democrats to revert the tax rates to what they were during my presidency. Make the rich pay their fair share. Repeal subsidies for Big Oil. Strengthen the Affordable Health Care Act, which already contains BIG SAVINGS from Medicare without cutting services or quality of care. Negotiate in bulk for lower medication costs, just like we do for veterans' healthcare.
AND LEAVE SOCIAL SECURIY AND MEDICARE/MEDICAID ALONE."
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Spoiler Alert: Michael Steele Debuts As CNNBC "Analyst," Craps All Over The Joint
It's begun. Just as predicted.
First, this partisan hack is brought in to spin the GOP line after the most significant electoral victory for Democrats this entire year. A muzzled Big Eddie is reduced to playing on Steele's turf of half-truths, spin, talking points, absolute repulsive Republican BULLSHIT on the night of a Democratic turning point of momentous consequence for the 2012 election. And Big Eddie, because this HYPER-PARTISAN spinmeister is now "on the team," is restrained from ripping him a new one, as he did on Maher's show.
Get out your cell phones, folks: "Who would you rather watch discussing the stunning and momentous Democratic victory in NY-26, and what it means for the future of the country?"
(A) Democratic Party Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schulz or (B) GOP political hack and CNNBC "analyst" MICHAEL STEELE?!?
THE RESULTS ARE IN! — DEBBIE, 100000000 % ~ STEELE, A BIG FAT FUCKING ZERO!
Next, the tendentious, contentious, argumentative, OBNOXIOUS GOP partisan hack and spinmeister makes his appearance on Hardball and immediately gets into an argument with Matthews and David Corn. But now he's in CNNBC's employ instead of Corn. UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE!
What, are you bringing back Firing Line now?
Paging Ed Rollins for some SANE, HONEST, OBJECTIVE Republican perspective.
What's really aggravating to no end is that YOU insiders do this crap for a living: You scour and research the crazies, the wingnuts, the fascists, the racists, the hypocrites, the liars, the sexual deviants — Everyone and EVERYTHING from that repugnant, repulsive Dark Side. You may be inured to it, but the viewers aren't. We'll take the filtered stuff.
And you bring Michael Steele in to defend the INDEFENSIBLE?! How do you think he's going to react, Einsteins? (See adjectives above to BUY A FUCKING CLUE! Better yet, watch a replay of his shouting match with Big Eddie on the Maher show, and watch CAREFULLY the audience GROAN every time the guy opens his mouth. Then extrapolate that reaction to YOUR AUDIENCE.)
If we wanted to watch Republican spin and BULLSHIT rather than incisive commentary and a progressive perspective on the political news, we'd be watching Fox.
Go ahead, SPIT ON YOUR AUDIENCE. Bastards.
What a TRAIN WRECK.
First, this partisan hack is brought in to spin the GOP line after the most significant electoral victory for Democrats this entire year. A muzzled Big Eddie is reduced to playing on Steele's turf of half-truths, spin, talking points, absolute repulsive Republican BULLSHIT on the night of a Democratic turning point of momentous consequence for the 2012 election. And Big Eddie, because this HYPER-PARTISAN spinmeister is now "on the team," is restrained from ripping him a new one, as he did on Maher's show.
Get out your cell phones, folks: "Who would you rather watch discussing the stunning and momentous Democratic victory in NY-26, and what it means for the future of the country?"
(A) Democratic Party Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schulz or (B) GOP political hack and CNNBC "analyst" MICHAEL STEELE?!?
THE RESULTS ARE IN! — DEBBIE, 100000000 % ~ STEELE, A BIG FAT FUCKING ZERO!
Next, the tendentious, contentious, argumentative, OBNOXIOUS GOP partisan hack and spinmeister makes his appearance on Hardball and immediately gets into an argument with Matthews and David Corn. But now he's in CNNBC's employ instead of Corn. UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE!
What, are you bringing back Firing Line now?
Paging Ed Rollins for some SANE, HONEST, OBJECTIVE Republican perspective.
What's really aggravating to no end is that YOU insiders do this crap for a living: You scour and research the crazies, the wingnuts, the fascists, the racists, the hypocrites, the liars, the sexual deviants — Everyone and EVERYTHING from that repugnant, repulsive Dark Side. You may be inured to it, but the viewers aren't. We'll take the filtered stuff.
And you bring Michael Steele in to defend the INDEFENSIBLE?! How do you think he's going to react, Einsteins? (See adjectives above to BUY A FUCKING CLUE! Better yet, watch a replay of his shouting match with Big Eddie on the Maher show, and watch CAREFULLY the audience GROAN every time the guy opens his mouth. Then extrapolate that reaction to YOUR AUDIENCE.)
If we wanted to watch Republican spin and BULLSHIT rather than incisive commentary and a progressive perspective on the political news, we'd be watching Fox.
Go ahead, SPIT ON YOUR AUDIENCE. Bastards.
What a TRAIN WRECK.
JUDGMENT DAY HAS COME! DEMOCRATS CAPTURE NY-26! WOOHOO!!!
This is a turning point, the pushback we've all been waiting for against the overreach and extremism of the Republican/Tea Party, whose hubris in interpreting control of one of three branches of government as license to thrust radical right wing policies on the American people was finally, at long last, since the mid-term elections of 2010, chastened by the voice of the people in the deepest of deep purple Republican districts, New York's 26th. The election of Kathy Hogul, Democrat, by a solid plurality of five percentage points in a Republican district that had not gone Democratic in more than a century has sent an unmistakable message to the arrogant Tea Party Napoleons and extremists, within and without the House and Senate, that the American people reject the shredding of our traditional social safety net erected on the pillars of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — the right wing "social engineering" that, at its core, is alien to the values of our Founding Fathers and deeply un-American.
The message from the voters of NY-26 was loud and clear: Hands off our Medicare. And to underscore this message, Michael Moore forcefully reminded Democrats that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are "off the table." The American people have always been there, by overwhelming numbers in every poll, upwards of 80 percent who say NO to cuts in these vastly popular programs. It is the Democratic Party that strayed from its traditional message, that has been playing catch-up to the people. Somehow Democrats had lost their voice in Washington, drowned out by the misplaced priorities of the narrative drivers in the Beltway Media.
No more excuses. The Democratic Party must step up to the plate and proudly lead the way on an issue that it owns by birthright, commitment, and authorship. Democrats should be singing to the heavens and the earth, into the winds of change, that we are the party and the guardians of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Do not be fooled by the forked tongue speech of Republicans, who have always hated these government programs and now aim to destroy them. The Democratic Party will always stand in opposition to these craven, anti-American schemes, because protecting the three pillars of our social safety net is our solemn compact with the American people — one that gave witness to succeeding generations lifted from poverty, sheltered from illness, and retiring in dignity. And also, because it's in our blood, in our DNA, in the grand tradition of the greatest political party on the face of the earth for whom the Common Good & General Welfare aren't merely words written in parchment. They are enshrined in our Constitution. They are the living, breathing embodiment of everything the Democratic Party stands for.
No more excuses. No more backing down to the forces of reaction and extremism. It's time to stand up and be counted as proud Democrats, and to remember why we became Democrats in the first place. Kathy Hogul said in her victory speech last night that public service is an honor and a privilege; that she will never forget the people she represents, and will not, ever, balance any budget "on the backs of our seniors."
Kathy Hogul is an authentic Democrat. Harry Truman would have been proud.
The message from the voters of NY-26 was loud and clear: Hands off our Medicare. And to underscore this message, Michael Moore forcefully reminded Democrats that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are "off the table." The American people have always been there, by overwhelming numbers in every poll, upwards of 80 percent who say NO to cuts in these vastly popular programs. It is the Democratic Party that strayed from its traditional message, that has been playing catch-up to the people. Somehow Democrats had lost their voice in Washington, drowned out by the misplaced priorities of the narrative drivers in the Beltway Media.
No more excuses. The Democratic Party must step up to the plate and proudly lead the way on an issue that it owns by birthright, commitment, and authorship. Democrats should be singing to the heavens and the earth, into the winds of change, that we are the party and the guardians of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Do not be fooled by the forked tongue speech of Republicans, who have always hated these government programs and now aim to destroy them. The Democratic Party will always stand in opposition to these craven, anti-American schemes, because protecting the three pillars of our social safety net is our solemn compact with the American people — one that gave witness to succeeding generations lifted from poverty, sheltered from illness, and retiring in dignity. And also, because it's in our blood, in our DNA, in the grand tradition of the greatest political party on the face of the earth for whom the Common Good & General Welfare aren't merely words written in parchment. They are enshrined in our Constitution. They are the living, breathing embodiment of everything the Democratic Party stands for.
No more excuses. No more backing down to the forces of reaction and extremism. It's time to stand up and be counted as proud Democrats, and to remember why we became Democrats in the first place. Kathy Hogul said in her victory speech last night that public service is an honor and a privilege; that she will never forget the people she represents, and will not, ever, balance any budget "on the backs of our seniors."
Kathy Hogul is an authentic Democrat. Harry Truman would have been proud.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
IP WATCH: Gingrich Exposes Gregory; Halperin Reveals IP's Candidate, Makes Hopeful Prediction
The D.C.-ubiquitous Idiot Punditocracy (IP) is making its presence felt on NBC-MSNBC, which is its network of choice, not Fox. On Cenk's show, for example, a dude from POLITICO said Paul Ryan is "a serious person." Really? Perhaps ... if the POLITICOs consider Newt Gingrich a "serious" politician, if that's their standard, then maybe. At least Gingrich is published — albeit as writer of shitty pulp fiction — and his enduring campaign legacy is to have coined the spot-on-target description of Ryan's Medicare-killing plan: "radical right wing social engineering." The TRUTH will out, even when it comes from a most unlikely source. (Sidebar: POLITICO is like Pravda — the old Soviet Communist Party organ — of the Idiot Punditocracy. When GOP Senator Scott Brown and IP darling wanted to distance himself from the GOP plan to kill Medicare, he did it in an Op-Ed on POLITICO.)
One-Man Wrecking Crew Newt Gingrich Exposes David Gregory's Bias
But what the POLITICO dude said to Cenk The Meek is illustrative of the IP's elitist herd thinking. Paul Ryan is in. Unbelievably, these ratbastards are still perpetuating the myth they created that Paul Ryan is the serious go-to guy for negotiations between the GOP and the White House. "Why," harrumphs the Idiot Punditocrat, "President Obama said so himself."
Morons. IDIOTS. Don't you get it? The President's been playing you like a Stradivarius violin. THINK. Why do you think (I know, it's hard, but try) the President would slip this into your bogus narrative? Because he was eager to contrast his pragmatic centrism with Ryan's ideological extremism. Only inside the Beltway could an extremist such as Paul Ryan, who distributed copies of Atlas Shrugged to his staff as required reading and crafted a budget-cause based on the neurotic Russian emigré's imbecilic and thoroughly discredited economic prescriptions, be considered a serious person. (Ayn Rand was no economist, much less a top-tier philosopher — just ask Alan Greenspan who, I must reiterate, would have done the nation a favor had he stuck to the Jazz clarinet.)
Where did this "serious person" end up? Okay, Cenk, here's your cue. One, two, three: OF COOOUUURRSE ... On Meet The Press! Exactly one week after the KING of BLING, Newt the GRINCH, made his record guest appearance on MTP, Paul Ryan took his turn. By this time, Republican schemes to kill Medicare were unraveling. Despite accounts to the contrary, the fact is David Gregory gave Gingrich every opportunity to flesh out the Right's talking points, specifically to reassure worried MTP viewers the GOP isn't out to destroy Medicare; when any rational person knows that's exactly what they intend to do.
Gregory tossed out right wing propaganda worthy of George Orwell and Frank Luntz — "Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare, turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors some premium support so that they can go out and buy private insurance" — but it wasn't enough to stop Gingrich from having a mind-melt and regurgitating the TRUTH.
Gregory tried. He used all the right language: "change Medicare" (even the Wall Street Journal said Ryan's plan will "END MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT"), "voucher program" and "premium support" (!?), as if these GOP talking points have any basis in reality. What "PREMIUM SUPPORT" is Gregory talking about? Either seniors will have the financial means to purchase private insurance, or they won't. That is, except wealthy individuals like David Gregory, when he retires. Most seniors, MILLIONS OF THEM, will not be as fortunate. Some "premium support." David Gregory, like his comrades in the Idiot Punditocracy elites, is propagandist first and journalist (loosely defined) a distant second.
Thanks, Newt, ya right wing mole.
MSNBC Political "Analyst" Mark Halperin Comes Out As A Right Wing Tool On Hardball
Not that Halperin's political leanings are that much of a mystery. This dude has always been phobic about distancing himself from the so-called "Liberal Media" because, well, it's not about reporting FACTS and the TRUTH; it's about self-promotion and writing another kiss-and-tell gossipy political bestseller. You can read all about Halperin's anti-liberal bias here and here and here and here and here.
So why does Mark Halperin land a gig as MSNBC "political analyst"? GOOD QUESTION. It'd be quite the spin if the suits said he was to be the counterpoint to Michael Steele.
Although Chris Matthews, host of Hardball, is known in these parts as Dean of the Idiot Punditocracy, I tend to give him a HUGE pass. Lately, he's tried to be a good liberal. He's even had Eric Boehlert on his show, years after being skewered on Media Matters as one of the worst purveyors of false information. That's progress, or maybe he just wants to deflect further criticism. Still, I'm genuinely baffled at how clueless Matthews appears to be in sizing up his colleagues' political leanings. In truth, given his love of the movies, he just might be a really good amateur actor on the set of his show. But, as noted before, Chris has a good heart, which is his saving grace. He reminds me of Michael Corleone in the Godfather III: "Just when I thought I was out ... They pull me back in."
Here's what objective MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin said on Hardball yesterday, assessing the Republican presidential field:
Indeed, any responsible journalist would know that to make such a bold prediction at this early date is tantamount to engaging in fictionalized wishful thinking. Not only is President Obama in a commanding position to win re-election — (a) no wartime president has ever been defeated; (b) he has all the advantages of incumbency; (c) he will most likely outspend and outorganize any Republican nominee, who will spend lots of money just getting past the primaries and gaining the nomination — but John Huntsman faces an uphill battle against the other two contenders (at least), Mitt Romney who's sitting on a healthy war chest, and Tim Pawlenty who is the not very credible apple of Lawrence O'Donnell's eye; but who can knock off Huntsman if he finishes ahead in the primaries. Finally, there's no way to predict so early in the game what conditions on the ground (the economy, unemployment, the wars, Medicare and Social Security) will be, come election day.
So what gives? Halperin wasn't speaking to us, the viewers. He was directly addressing the Huntsman campaign. There's no question but that the Idiot Punditocracy have chosen their next president, the Great White Hope of the Beltway Media — and his name is John Huntsman. Contrast them to Larry-O. Lawrence's obsessive promotion of Tim Pawlenty has a purpose, too. He knows, as well as we do, that Pawlenty has an ice cube's chance in Hell of beating President Obama. But if he becomes the GOP's default choice, the President cruises to victory. I can dig it. Larry-O is a good lib and he's firmly ensconced in the Obama camp.
The Idiot Punditocracy represented here by Halperin has made its choice of the anti-Obama candidate. John Huntsman has the "cosmetics" and the "optics" to be the next president. All he needs now is the narrative, the media build-up and hype for why Huntsman should be our next president. Halperin's absurd "analysis" of Huntsman's prospects is a start. There's nothing like a little over-the-top flattery to get the inside track on the Huntsman campaign. Maybe there's a feeling of power for the raconteur of the election of 2008 to select the next president. That's what these people do: They set the terms of the political debate, they believe they have the power to shift public opinion, and now evidently, to select the "next president of the United States."
Interestingly, it seems Halperin and the Idiot Punditocracy have rejected Jeb Bush, perhaps because that's who the Fox-Limbaugh-National Review axis is pining for. As long as it's (a) a white guy; and (b) a Republican non-Tea Party type, the right wing intelligentsia will be happy.
So the question remains: Why is Mark Halperin an MSNBC "analyst"? Have any NBC-MSNBC execs been over for dinner at the Roger Ailes compound recently? As for MSNBC viewers, maybe it's time to tune out. Have you checked your cable bills lately? We pay part of their salaries with our patronage. And I'm kind of pissed to see a self-promoting poseur playing fake "political analyst" on my dime.
This is for Mark Halperin and his new-found love John Huntsman (with apologies to Bryan Adams):
One-Man Wrecking Crew Newt Gingrich Exposes David Gregory's Bias
But what the POLITICO dude said to Cenk The Meek is illustrative of the IP's elitist herd thinking. Paul Ryan is in. Unbelievably, these ratbastards are still perpetuating the myth they created that Paul Ryan is the serious go-to guy for negotiations between the GOP and the White House. "Why," harrumphs the Idiot Punditocrat, "President Obama said so himself."
Morons. IDIOTS. Don't you get it? The President's been playing you like a Stradivarius violin. THINK. Why do you think (I know, it's hard, but try) the President would slip this into your bogus narrative? Because he was eager to contrast his pragmatic centrism with Ryan's ideological extremism. Only inside the Beltway could an extremist such as Paul Ryan, who distributed copies of Atlas Shrugged to his staff as required reading and crafted a budget-cause based on the neurotic Russian emigré's imbecilic and thoroughly discredited economic prescriptions, be considered a serious person. (Ayn Rand was no economist, much less a top-tier philosopher — just ask Alan Greenspan who, I must reiterate, would have done the nation a favor had he stuck to the Jazz clarinet.)
Where did this "serious person" end up? Okay, Cenk, here's your cue. One, two, three: OF COOOUUURRSE ... On Meet The Press! Exactly one week after the KING of BLING, Newt the GRINCH, made his record guest appearance on MTP, Paul Ryan took his turn. By this time, Republican schemes to kill Medicare were unraveling. Despite accounts to the contrary, the fact is David Gregory gave Gingrich every opportunity to flesh out the Right's talking points, specifically to reassure worried MTP viewers the GOP isn't out to destroy Medicare; when any rational person knows that's exactly what they intend to do.
Gregory tossed out right wing propaganda worthy of George Orwell and Frank Luntz — "Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare, turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors some premium support so that they can go out and buy private insurance" — but it wasn't enough to stop Gingrich from having a mind-melt and regurgitating the TRUTH.
Gregory tried. He used all the right language: "change Medicare" (even the Wall Street Journal said Ryan's plan will "END MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT"), "voucher program" and "premium support" (!?), as if these GOP talking points have any basis in reality. What "PREMIUM SUPPORT" is Gregory talking about? Either seniors will have the financial means to purchase private insurance, or they won't. That is, except wealthy individuals like David Gregory, when he retires. Most seniors, MILLIONS OF THEM, will not be as fortunate. Some "premium support." David Gregory, like his comrades in the Idiot Punditocracy elites, is propagandist first and journalist (loosely defined) a distant second.
Thanks, Newt, ya right wing mole.
MSNBC Political "Analyst" Mark Halperin Comes Out As A Right Wing Tool On Hardball
Not that Halperin's political leanings are that much of a mystery. This dude has always been phobic about distancing himself from the so-called "Liberal Media" because, well, it's not about reporting FACTS and the TRUTH; it's about self-promotion and writing another kiss-and-tell gossipy political bestseller. You can read all about Halperin's anti-liberal bias here and here and here and here and here.
So why does Mark Halperin land a gig as MSNBC "political analyst"? GOOD QUESTION. It'd be quite the spin if the suits said he was to be the counterpoint to Michael Steele.
Although Chris Matthews, host of Hardball, is known in these parts as Dean of the Idiot Punditocracy, I tend to give him a HUGE pass. Lately, he's tried to be a good liberal. He's even had Eric Boehlert on his show, years after being skewered on Media Matters as one of the worst purveyors of false information. That's progress, or maybe he just wants to deflect further criticism. Still, I'm genuinely baffled at how clueless Matthews appears to be in sizing up his colleagues' political leanings. In truth, given his love of the movies, he just might be a really good amateur actor on the set of his show. But, as noted before, Chris has a good heart, which is his saving grace. He reminds me of Michael Corleone in the Godfather III: "Just when I thought I was out ... They pull me back in."
Here's what objective MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin said on Hardball yesterday, assessing the Republican presidential field:
Wow. Is this an overstatement or what, even for a "political analyst" on MSNBC, ya think? Any responsible journalist would qualify such a statement greatly. Let's analyze it, because, what Halperin says, how he uses his free and open platform on MSNBC, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IMPARTING INFORMATION AND OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS TO THE VIEWERS. Let's get one thing straight, in case you haven't figured this out yet: The Idiot Punditocracy has absolute contempt for MSNBC viewers in general, and liberals and progressives in particular."Chris, I spent Saturday and Sunday covering (John) Huntsman up in New Hampshire, and I will say on that issue (working for President Obama) and on his general discussion of China, I don't think there's any doubt on both the merits and the politics that those will be pluses for him in this contest.
He has the ability to talk about one of our greatest challenges, currently and for the next hundred years, unlike any presidential candidate I've heard, with the exception maybe of a Bill Clinton. And he showed potential this weekend on a range of issues, that if he lives up to it, I think he'll be the next president of the United States."
Indeed, any responsible journalist would know that to make such a bold prediction at this early date is tantamount to engaging in fictionalized wishful thinking. Not only is President Obama in a commanding position to win re-election — (a) no wartime president has ever been defeated; (b) he has all the advantages of incumbency; (c) he will most likely outspend and outorganize any Republican nominee, who will spend lots of money just getting past the primaries and gaining the nomination — but John Huntsman faces an uphill battle against the other two contenders (at least), Mitt Romney who's sitting on a healthy war chest, and Tim Pawlenty who is the not very credible apple of Lawrence O'Donnell's eye; but who can knock off Huntsman if he finishes ahead in the primaries. Finally, there's no way to predict so early in the game what conditions on the ground (the economy, unemployment, the wars, Medicare and Social Security) will be, come election day.
So what gives? Halperin wasn't speaking to us, the viewers. He was directly addressing the Huntsman campaign. There's no question but that the Idiot Punditocracy have chosen their next president, the Great White Hope of the Beltway Media — and his name is John Huntsman. Contrast them to Larry-O. Lawrence's obsessive promotion of Tim Pawlenty has a purpose, too. He knows, as well as we do, that Pawlenty has an ice cube's chance in Hell of beating President Obama. But if he becomes the GOP's default choice, the President cruises to victory. I can dig it. Larry-O is a good lib and he's firmly ensconced in the Obama camp.
The Idiot Punditocracy represented here by Halperin has made its choice of the anti-Obama candidate. John Huntsman has the "cosmetics" and the "optics" to be the next president. All he needs now is the narrative, the media build-up and hype for why Huntsman should be our next president. Halperin's absurd "analysis" of Huntsman's prospects is a start. There's nothing like a little over-the-top flattery to get the inside track on the Huntsman campaign. Maybe there's a feeling of power for the raconteur of the election of 2008 to select the next president. That's what these people do: They set the terms of the political debate, they believe they have the power to shift public opinion, and now evidently, to select the "next president of the United States."
Interestingly, it seems Halperin and the Idiot Punditocracy have rejected Jeb Bush, perhaps because that's who the Fox-Limbaugh-National Review axis is pining for. As long as it's (a) a white guy; and (b) a Republican non-Tea Party type, the right wing intelligentsia will be happy.
So the question remains: Why is Mark Halperin an MSNBC "analyst"? Have any NBC-MSNBC execs been over for dinner at the Roger Ailes compound recently? As for MSNBC viewers, maybe it's time to tune out. Have you checked your cable bills lately? We pay part of their salaries with our patronage. And I'm kind of pissed to see a self-promoting poseur playing fake "political analyst" on my dime.
This is for Mark Halperin and his new-found love John Huntsman (with apologies to Bryan Adams):
Monday, May 23, 2011
Michael Steele, MSNBC Political Analyst?!?
I don't understand what Rachel's so excited about. I think hiring this GOP political hack as an "analyst" is a really reaLLY REALLY BAD MOVE for MSNBC. Having him show up at TRMS — speaking of "dynamic"— has been a mini-train wreck, and I've not said anything about it because of Rachel's well-publicized troubles booking people from the Dark Side to speak to related issues. You've got to be a GOP ass-kissing show like MTP to bring them on. As a liberal, it's a trade-off I'm willing to accept for good progressive (rare and getting rarer) programming.
Michael Steele is a turn-off for this liberal. Nothing personal. I sort of like him, really. It's just that he's got nothing interesting to say. To this typical TRMS viewer, Mr. Steele represents DEAD AIR TIME because I can anticipate EVERYTHING he's going to say. And no matter how cheery and giggly Rachel gets, she can't get that elephant airborne. The "analysts" I listen to, because they impart real information, insight, and expertise, are regulars like Chris Hayes and Ezra Klein, as well as other interesting outside-the-Beltway guests Rachel brings on. Michael Steele represents a distressing trend at MSNBC to creep in the direction of corporatism and embrace everything that is extreme and despicable about Republican politics (you know my term for it; it's historically and definitionally accurate) which Mr. Steele must defend, quite ably and nauseatingly so, now on a regular basis at MSNBC!
Imagine how the suits who decide these things think: The vaunted shouting match between Steele and Ed Schulz on the Bill Maher show made for "good" and "compelling" television. But the fact is, Steele QUICKLY overstayed his welcome with the liberal, hip Maher audience — RACHEL'S AUDIENCE, DAMMIT! — simply by being who he is: an exceedingly annoying political hack. Big Eddie took him to task for his bullshit. But Rachel won't. Inexplicably, she giggles a lot around him. Now that Steele is part of the "team," or should we say, "the best political team on television," I predict MSNBC's ratings among liberals and progressives (us folks who love Bill Maher and have a REALLY LOW TOLERANCE FOR BULLSHIT) will decline. But you'll get a lot of wingnuts to make up the difference, I'm sure.
Michael Steele brings very little to the political conversation on the positive side, and something very unseemly on the negative side: the homogeneization and validation of extremist right wing politics. I do not care to listen to Mr. Steele's skillfull rationalizations and Rachel's giggly retorts. TRMS meet MTP; it's like oil and water, it don't mix. I don't watch MTP, and to the extent MSNBC tries to be more like CNN they will be down the road to perdition. There's always John King on CNN and that weasely Brit as counterpoints to Dana Milbank on Cenk and Michael Steele on Rachel.
As Harry Truman famously said, "Given the choice between a real Republican and a fake Democrat, the people will choose the real thing every time." The same goes for homogenized CNN-style political analysis and fake, creepy, corporatist progressive analysis. Given the choice, progressive viewers might as well tune in to CNN. Better yet, pick up a good book and get off the damned GE-COMCAST-AOL creepy crawly fake progressive news grid once and for all.
Michael Steele is a turn-off for this liberal. Nothing personal. I sort of like him, really. It's just that he's got nothing interesting to say. To this typical TRMS viewer, Mr. Steele represents DEAD AIR TIME because I can anticipate EVERYTHING he's going to say. And no matter how cheery and giggly Rachel gets, she can't get that elephant airborne. The "analysts" I listen to, because they impart real information, insight, and expertise, are regulars like Chris Hayes and Ezra Klein, as well as other interesting outside-the-Beltway guests Rachel brings on. Michael Steele represents a distressing trend at MSNBC to creep in the direction of corporatism and embrace everything that is extreme and despicable about Republican politics (you know my term for it; it's historically and definitionally accurate) which Mr. Steele must defend, quite ably and nauseatingly so, now on a regular basis at MSNBC!
Imagine how the suits who decide these things think: The vaunted shouting match between Steele and Ed Schulz on the Bill Maher show made for "good" and "compelling" television. But the fact is, Steele QUICKLY overstayed his welcome with the liberal, hip Maher audience — RACHEL'S AUDIENCE, DAMMIT! — simply by being who he is: an exceedingly annoying political hack. Big Eddie took him to task for his bullshit. But Rachel won't. Inexplicably, she giggles a lot around him. Now that Steele is part of the "team," or should we say, "the best political team on television," I predict MSNBC's ratings among liberals and progressives (us folks who love Bill Maher and have a REALLY LOW TOLERANCE FOR BULLSHIT) will decline. But you'll get a lot of wingnuts to make up the difference, I'm sure.
Michael Steele brings very little to the political conversation on the positive side, and something very unseemly on the negative side: the homogeneization and validation of extremist right wing politics. I do not care to listen to Mr. Steele's skillfull rationalizations and Rachel's giggly retorts. TRMS meet MTP; it's like oil and water, it don't mix. I don't watch MTP, and to the extent MSNBC tries to be more like CNN they will be down the road to perdition. There's always John King on CNN and that weasely Brit as counterpoints to Dana Milbank on Cenk and Michael Steele on Rachel.
As Harry Truman famously said, "Given the choice between a real Republican and a fake Democrat, the people will choose the real thing every time." The same goes for homogenized CNN-style political analysis and fake, creepy, corporatist progressive analysis. Given the choice, progressive viewers might as well tune in to CNN. Better yet, pick up a good book and get off the damned GE-COMCAST-AOL creepy crawly fake progressive news grid once and for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
of you have sat, and perhaps thought, with us!
