The minute I read this over at Crooks & Liars (and as backed up by a CNN Money article..link below), two thoughts came running through my mind…on the one hand, I doubt anything will change; moving Douchebag Todd into Dancin’ Dave’s host position is akin to removing dog poop from your neighbor and replacing it with your neighbor’s dog poop. Then again, most Sundays, I usually watch either MSNBC in the mornings or Premier League soccer, so this change of hosts really doesn’t do anything positive…oh, well.
note: here’s the CNN Money article…
CNN Money: “Meet the Press” – Gregory out, Todd in
God, I wish this were satire…unfortunately, its’ not:
The Sarah Palin Channel, which costs $9.95 per month or $99.95 for a one-year subscription, will feature her commentary on “important issues facing the nation,” as well as behind-the-scenes looks into her personal life as “mother, grandmother, wife and neighbor.” Palin serves as executive editor, overseeing all content posted to the channel.
“I want to talk directly to you on our channel, on my terms — and no need to please the powers that be,” Palin, who is also a Fox News contributor, said in a video announcing the channel. “Together, we’ll go beyond the sound bites and cut through the media’s politically correct filter.”(Variety via. Crooks & Liars)
What’s that saying again…“a fool and his money are soon parted”? Well, wouldn’t this be another of that saying at work? For that matter, come to think of it, why in the hell do we still take Sarah Palin seriously?
Just watch…trust me, just watch Keith Olbermann’s monologue above, where he uses the NFL’s insultingly pathetic two-game suspension of Baltimore Ravens’ star Ray Rice for violating the league’s personal-conduct policy as an informative segue into how the media (and society in general) continue their double-standard in regards to women.
All I can say is: well said, sir! Well said.
You know, the more I think about the possibility of NBC replacing current Meet the Press host David Gregory with the current co-hosts from MSNBC’s Morning Joe, the more I agree with Booman Tribune about everything it would say about America on the whole. For what its’ worth, you could even bring some of the
television hosts blonde talking-heads from over at Fox News Fixed Noise to host MTP and you’d get roughly the same result…at the very least, the collective IQ of the show would go up what, five points or so? Maybe 10 – if they were lucky enough to get one of the few intelligent hosts from over there (Megyn Kelly comes to mind on this one)…the end project might be the same but at least the IQs would go up.
Someone needs to tell Dana Milbank to stop hitting the mescaline so damn hard when he’s writing for WaPo…
The prevailing view is that a Republican Senate would only compound Obama’s woes by bottling up confirmations, doubling the number of investigations and chipping away at Obamacare and other legislative achievements.
Yet there’s a chance that having an all-Republican Congress would help Obama — and even some White House officials have wondered privately whether a unified Republican Congress would be better than the current environment. Republicans, without Harry Reid to blame, would own Congress — a body that inspires a high level of confidence in just 7 percent of Americans, according to a Gallup survey last month finding Congress at a new low and at the bottom of all institutions tested.(Washington Post)
Sure, a Republican-controlled Senate will give Obama an out if nothing else moves forward, Dana…and I’m also going to be able to someday score a date with U.S. Women’s soccer star Alex Morgan, aren’t I? Continuing on…
There would be no more excuses for Republicans’ failure to put forward their own health-care plan, immigration proposals, specific cuts to popular government programs, and pet causes involving abortion, birth control and gay rights. This would set up real clashes with Obama — who could employ the veto pen he hasn’t used a single time since Republicans gained control of the House in 2010 — and sharp contrasts that would put him on the winning side of public opinion.
It is not hard to imagine a Republican takeover of the Senate causing conservatives in both chambers to overreach. House Republicans would get more pressure from their base to take a swing at impeachment, because the odds of convicting Obama in the Senate would be better (if still prohibitive). Alternatively, Republican leaders, recognizing that the public will hold them responsible now that they have complete control of Congress, might try to compromise with Obama.(Washington Post)
If your brain hasn’t yet dissolved into congealed mash yet, Milbank continues…
Alternatively, Republican leaders, recognizing that the public will hold them responsible now that they have complete control of Congress, might try to compromise with Obama…
…I hold out hope that a Congress under unified Republican control might react the way it did during Bill Clinton’s presidency, producing a balanced budget and welfare reform.(Washington Post)
The more I read Dana Milbank’s analysis here, the more its’ like having Tim Conway as your dentist; the process might be funny to watch but the end result would royally suck. Put simply, this is not the same GOP that Bill Clinton worked with during his presidency; four+ years of Tea Party poison have forever altered the Republican Party into something that is nigh-impossible to understand, let alone reason with.
And Dana Milbank thinks letting them run both ends of Congress might make things better? Forget the mescaline; me thinks Milbank’s been drinking from a vat of Moloko Plus.
You know, Mr. Toobin, if there was any justice in this world, Dick Cheney and every person involved in getting us into the Iraq War would be at the dock in the Hague for numerous war crimes…but if that happened, we wouldn’t have their advice to listen to once more, would we?
Who needs Fox News when you’ve got Republican fluffers’ such as ABC News’ Jonathan Karl to push every tinpot theory around?
ABC’s Jonathan Karl, who was previously burned when he pushed falsehoods about CIA talking points generated in the wake of the 2012 Benghazi attacks, is now adopting the conservative distortion of a separate set of talking points authored by the White House for media appearances by then U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.
On September 16, 2012, Rice appeared on the Sunday political talk shows and suggested that the Benghazi terror attacks had grown out of spontaneous protests like those that were occurring worldwide in response to an anti-Muslim video. Conservatives have claimed that Rice’s comments on the Sunday shows were part of a deliberate effort to deceive the American people about the cause of the terror attacks, to bolster President Obama’s re-election campaign. This effort has often involved distorting the CIA-approved talking points that Rice used to prepare for the interviews.
Karl came under fire in May 2013 after reporting that the network had “reviewed” emails from administration officials regarding the creation and editing of those CIA-generated talking points. While nothing Karl reported undermined assertions from the CIA that the intelligence community had approved those talking points, Karl suggested that the emails bolstered the conservative critique of the administration’s response.
In fact, Karl had never seen the emails in question — his story was based on “summaries” of the emails and “detailed notes” from a source who, it turned out, had misrepresented what the documents actually said. After media observers slammed Karl’s “sloppy” reporting, ABC News issued a statement saying that the network “should have been more precise in its sourcing of those quotes, attributing them to handwritten copies of the emails taken by a Congressional source. We regret that error.” Karl himself apologized in a statement to CNN.
Now Karl is returning to the subject of talking points used to prepare Rice for those September 16, 2012, interviews, seizing on a separate email authored by Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes that was released yesterday. The email details “Goals” and “Top-lines” for Rice’s interviews and provides sample questions and answers. […]
In what Mediaite described as a “heated back and forth” during the April 30 White House Press Briefing, Karl hyped this false attack, repeatedly challenging White House Press Secretary Jay Carney over the Rhodes email and Rice’s interviews.
During their exchange, Carney sought to make clear that the Rhodes email was not just about the Benghazi attacks but was a more extensive document detailing the situation in the Middle East more broadly, and thus that the comment that “these protests are rooted in an internet video” was not about Benghazi specifically. According to Carney, Rice depended on the CIA talking points for information on Benghazi and the White House talking points for other topics.
Conservative media have been quick to use the exchange to attack Carney and the White House. But the White House documents upon which Karl based his misleading questions support Carney’s argument.(Media Matters via. Crooks & Liars)
You know, if all Jonathan Karl’s going to do is peddle every tinpot conspiracy theory concerning Benghazi around instead of actually being a journalist, why doesn’t he just go ahead and move to Fox News? And you wonder why no one respects the chattering classes in Washington anymore…