David Gregory Out as Host of Meet the Press

Image from source, Politics USA

I started watching Meet the Press (and often one or two of the other Sunday shows, Face the Nation, This Week and FOX "News" Sunday) some time during the George W. Bush administration. Oh, I'd caught it a few times in my life, but not regularly. I thoroughly despised the entire Dubya cabal, and will even cop to having a moderate case of Bush Derangement Syndrome for a little while. So, I was more politically plugged in, and this is one way to do that.

Unfortunately, these shows are also really horrible, in many ways. Awful. Almost every guest (with rare exceptions) is thoroughly rehearsed in their side's talking points, and will steer the argument back to them at all costs. In fact, they'll often go to talking points that don't even relate to the question. Which side is worse about distortion, spinning and even lying probably depends upon your political leanings. But there is no doubt who gets more coverage: Republicans. In study after study, the GOP gets more guests by a mile, regardless of who holds the White House or Congress.

Distressingly, it's the old, (pasty) white, male variety of Republican that gets the most opportunity to

Good luck, dude. You're going to need it

sling their spin, notably John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who appear to be joined at the hip. If the green room had a bridal suite, it would be occupied by those two. If it's Sunday, it's the John and Lindsey Show. It's tired, oh so tired.

David Gregory is not the worst host of this type of show. Chris Wallace is worse. But David Gregory is an odd figure, as these things go: nobody seems to like him. Conservatives think Gregory is a liberal hack. Liberals, conversely think, Are you freaking insane? He's a conservative hack! They may be both right. But I'd rather just say, "hack." His questioning style is very surfacy, and geared toward making his own news, with "gotcha" questions. He very often seemingly frames his questions from the perspective of the opposition's talking points. He's smug. He's smarmy. And I'm not sorry to see him go. As I'm sure everyone is saying about this story, he's no Tim Russert.

You know who else isn't Tim Russert? Chuck Todd. His interviewing style may prove to be better than Gregory's. But otherwise, he seems to be almost exactly the same sort of figure: not liked very well by either side. I suppose an argument could be made that such a quality is a good thing, but probably not if you're looking for ratings.

[Excerpt]
 
David Gregory Is Officially Fired as Chuck Todd Takes Over NBC’s Meet The Press

The axe finally fell today as David Gregory confirmed that he is out at Meet The Press, and is leaving NBC. Chuck Todd will be the new host of the Sunday morning staple.

David Gregory got the boot fast. This was a literal don’t let the door hit you on the butt on the way out. According to CNN, “The sources confirmed widespread speculation that David Gregory, the moderator of the iconic Sunday morning public affairs program for the past six years, will be replaced by Todd. One of the sources said the transition will be swift — so swift that Gregory will not even host “Meet the Press” this weekend. . .”

 

Read more at: Politics USA

CBO Report on ObamaCare Continues to be Misconstrued

Over the last couple of weeks, I'll admit to being a little less engaged than usual. I have paid a little less attention to the changing of the news cycle, having my attention pulled in other directions here at home. Even so, I caught that the CBO report on ObamaCare was initially (gleefully) reported by conservatives as a JOB KILLER!!! And almost immediately, the author of the thing said, no, Right Wing World had gotten it wrong. Again.

But here we were on Sunday morning, with the political shows all acting like the original storyline was the correct one. David Gregory used it in one of his "balanced" setups, as though the wrong conclusion was as equally likely as the real, intended one. Chris Wallace on FOX "News" Sunday lead with it, painting it as conclusively true, by the way he phrased it. I didn't have the stomach for the other networks' offerings.

But it looks like CNN may have gotten it right.

[Excerpt]

CNN breaks mold and tells truth about CBO report


 
It is a forgone conclusion that Fox News would misrepresent the latest CBO report. Sadly even Chuck Todd at MSNBC was less than clear in interpreting the report. He was more concerned with how it would be interpreted. He should have been more concerned with his free press journalistic duty. Inform the population objectively. . .

Read more at: DailyKos

Hillary Clinton Rocks Congress, Part 1: Doesn't Like Sunday Shows

Clinton, in one of her feistier moments. Image from
Huffington Post.

I call this Part 1 because I'm pretty sure I'll have more later. What I'll have to say about this part is that I can certainly understand not liking to do the Sunday shows. What I don't understand, is why the Republicans made so much of Susan Rice's appearance on the Sunday shows in Hillary Clinton's stead. Whether Rice was dissembling, in the dark, mistaken, or 100% correct with what she knew at the time is rather immaterial. That was five days after the Benghazi attack. It's not like the story wasn't clarified, hashed and re-hashed. It isn't still five days later. The laser-like focus on that detail is just bizarre. I really, really don't get it, unless it was just a craven attempt to throw a stick in President Obama's spokes during the run-up to election.

[Excerpt]

Hillary Clinton: 'Going On The Sunday Shows Is Not My Favorite Thing To Do' 

 Hillary Clinton told a House committee on Wednesday that she avoided going on Sunday talk shows in the wake of the attack in Benghazi in part because she just doesn't like them that much. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Cenk Uygur: "CNN -- Change Everything"

Image found at GoHarrison.com

I've been a fan of Cenk Uygur ever since the first time I saw a Young Turks clip. Unfortunately, with no liberal radio in Las Vegas, no Current TV on Cox Cable, and a day job when he was on MSNBC, I've always had to seek out clips, or online streams. So my fandom has been tempered by practicality. Still, it has been rare when I've seen anything by Uygar that I didn't agree with. This critique of CNN is no exception.

I'd extend the critique to Face the Nation, This Week, FOX "News" Sunday (which barely counts) and especially Meet the Press. David Gregory in particular is guilty of doing the "he said, she said," "two equal sides to every story" simplistic interviews and reporting. It's all horse race and controversy. Rarely if ever do the Sunday political shows do anything more than that. The round-table discussion groups occasionally have someone burst through with a concise truth, but it is almost always met with a counterpoint that dilutes it

[Excerpt]


Friendly Advice to CNN -- Change Everything 

CNN just had their lowest ratings in a decade. They are in disastrous shape. When I was on MSNBC, we would beat them with a stick. Even after "pro-CNN" stories like revolutions in Egypt and Libya, Japanese nuclear meltdowns and the killing of Osama bin Laden (CNN does much better when major news or international stories break out), we still beat them. Now they're doing so poorly I might even catch them on Current. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

FOX "News" Sunday Promotes O'Keefe as "Power Player"

FOX "News" Sunday with Chris Wallace is easily the least in every category for the Sunday morning political shows. It is also the easiest one to breeze through on the DVR, since it has the most commercials. The always vaguely creepy host is the most likely of the bunch to lob softballs at guests, and to set up perfect hits to his ludicrously named "Power Panel" of pundits (nearly always one-half of the show's running time). I always stop the DVR and erase right after the last of those segments, skipping the last segment.

At the end of each show, Wallace has a segment titled Power Player of the Week. I don't know who that title is supposed to impress, and I can't imagine ever anticipating with excitement just who it's going to be this week.  So I skip it. But not this week. This week, FOX inexplicably picked James O'Keefe, video hoaxster. O'Keefe is the one who "punks" organizations and individuals who are on the far right's hit list. O'Keefe's videos are nearly always creatively edited to make them far more incendiary than they otherwise would be.

The weird part of this is, even though these "exposés" are 95% hokum, they have an effect anyway. ACORN--which did nothing wrong--is now gone. NPR, another target, is shedding personnel and is in danger of losing funding, even though the "punk'd" executive merely told the truth. This punk's dodgy antics are effective, often even when he really doesn't expose anything. Wallace and FOX are apparently awarding this creep with their alleged weekly honor, and for what? Being a partisan asshole? 

FOX "News" is extremely good at injecting false or distorted narratives into political discourse. Do "death panels" ring a bell? ACORN itself would probably still be around were it not for the grossly inflated and embellished claims about them getting air on FOX. So I guess it makes sense after all that O'Keefe be given their big "honor." He's doing exactly what the network as a whole does. Fair and balanced, my ass. 

[Excerpt]



Chris Wallace Ignores James O’Keefe’s Dodgy Past While Promoting Him As The ‘Power Player Of The Week’



Right-wing activist James O’Keefe recently released a video showing how he deceived NPR fundraisers into thinking they were having a discussion with members of a Muslim non-profit organization. One of the fundraisers was caught criticizing Republicans and the Tea Party and NPR CEO Vivian Schiller subsequently resigned. . .
 
Read more at: ThinkProgress

Captain Obvious: It Does Not Matter When FOX "News" Played Tape

I'm catching up on the Sunday morning political shows on the DVR, and am presently in the middle of FOX "News" Sunday, the lowest-rated (for a network that constantly touts ratings, this is noteworthy) and lowest quality of the group.  Newt Gingrich, with his Kermit the Frog voice (seriously, look away and listen) was up first, with Howard Dean. Jesse Jackson was next, and then the famous--and ridiculously named--"Power Panel."  By far, the biggest issue was the Shirley Sherrod/Andrew Breitbart faux racism story.

Notably, the host, Chris Wallace, was very prickly about exactly when FOX "News" actually aired the notoriously out-of-context video from the NAACP.  Wallace claims that FOX never aired the clip before Sherrod resigned.  This is only partially true, and a very disingenuous point.  Bill O'Reilly, who tapes his program, The O'Reilly Factor rather than airing it live, was on the air saying that Sherrod "must resign" before the announcement was made, by bare minutes. But this means he had recorded it hours earlier. Also, FOXNews.com had already reported on the issue, with absolutely wrong information, such as stating that Sherrod was a government employee at the time of her story (which was really 24 years ago).  FOX Nation (the extremely far right blog site) was also discussing the story in an unfavorable light.  I have no doubt that Sean Hannity's and Glenn Beck's radio shows (which air earlier than their FOX shows) were already on this issue as well.  So Wallace's "FOX never aired" the clip is a slice-and-dice of the facts, at best.

All of this points to the fact that FOX was running with this story. If Sherrod's resignation had come six hours later--or not at all--there can be no doubt that this would have been the 24/7 number one story on FOX. . .which it became anyway.  What the White House was trying to prevent--in a regrettable, stupid fashion, I'm not afraid to note--is exactly what did happen.  They wanted to squash a bad news cycle in the midst of a pretty good policy week, and they failed. Exactly when FOX aired the clip,  is a bit of false framing, as though their journalistic integrity was the reason for holding back. BULL PUCKY. Clearly, this thing was a go, and all of Wallace's protestations can't make that go away.

ABC News Chooses Christiane Amanpour for This Week

Image from source, TVSquad

Now this is a good choice! A super-newsy, not notoriously partisan journalist on a Sunday morning political talk show.  If she does as well as I think she will, Amanpour's This Week will likely supplant Meet the Press with David Gregory as the "go-to" or at least "must watch" shows for political junkies on Sunday Morning.  That show has not been the same since the loss of Tim Russert, and Gregory is a poor substitute.

[Excerpt]

Christiane Amanpour's 'This Week' to Debut Aug. 1 on ABC

Christiane Amanpour's long-awaited arrival at ABC has finally been nailed down: According to Variety, 'This Week with Christiane Amanpour' will officially debut Sun., Aug. 1. . .

Read more at: TVSquad

Rachel Maddow on Meet the Press with David Gregory

Round tables on Sunday morning political talk shows can be tedious and frustrating. Basically, you gather an even number of pundits/politicians/political operatives--ideally ideologically balanced, but not always--and fire the week's hot political topics at them one-by-one.  Unfortunately, the political knowledge that can be gained by this format is outweighed by politics-as-usual.

Most of the guests on shows like this have a political agenda, and to various degrees have their talking points, hyper-partisan points of view, and focus-tested (thanks, Frank Luntz) verbiage usage.  I'll give you an example.

Republicans are married to a fiscal policy of tax cuts, and reductions in spending. That's their rhetoric, and whether it matches up to political reality or not, they have not shown that this recipe works.  EVER.  "Trickle Down" economics was ridiculed in the waning days of the Reagan Administration, but it is being embraced with gusto by Republicans these days.  On the other hand, economic stimulus (minus the watering down and tax cuts thrown to gain dubious Republican support) does boost the economy.  Unemployment insurance and other "entitlements" as Republicans call them, are some of the best stimulus the economy can get.  People who get these benefits tend to spend them right away, stimulating the economy immediately.

In that example, the second theory can be shown to work in practice, and by logical thinking. The first one (trickle down) can't be shown to work as far as I know. It's wishful thinking.  What do corporations making huge profits really do when they get tax cuts, and thus more profits? Why, they do anything they can to make their profits even bigger, they don't just start hiring tons of new people with all that extra money.  If there's one thing the BP disaster shows us, it is what the culmination of laissez-faire capitalism leads to: Profits above all else, no contingency plans for accidents, no spending on hypothetical future disasters, bogus response plans, shortcuts, dirty deals with government regulators, registering wells in foreign countries for additional tax breaks, more lobbying for further reduced regulations.

But on these Sunday shows, you'll hear the same failed policy ideas trotted out by Ed Gillespie. And David Gregory (or one of the other hosts) set them up, using their own verbiage, and presenting every issue as though both sides are equally weighted.  That's why I love Rachel Maddow.  Sure, you might find her as partisan as Gillespie, and she is. But unlike him, Rachel is not afraid to point out Democrats' failures. She doesn't wear kid gloves around the foibles of the left, and she has a great way of framing an issue that isn't chock-full of "Words that Work" or scripted talking points.  I loved when she said that the Republican mantra of fiscal responsibility was historically "nifty but novel."  In other words, Republicans haven't shown that they deliver what they promise in this area. Brava, Rachel!  Now, if she could just replace Gregory.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sunday Morning Update

Well, it's been a lazy weekend for me, on the blog at least. Real life has been a bit more active.  So, I figured I'd put something up for Sunday morning. But I don't really know what's going on yet, I just got up!  I did find out that Meet the Press with David Gregory isn't on this morning. No big loss. I'm suffering through FOX "News" Sunday as it airs, so I can't zip through the squicky parts with the DVR remote.

FNS is nominally a political news show, but usually the politics far overtakes the news, and with no sort of balance. Living up to its parent network's reputation, host Chris Wallace does his level best to chose subjects, story lines, guests and the wording of his questions to tear down the left and pump up the right. Not much has changed. As I watch this, Wallace is pumping up Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.), while tearing down the Obama Administration. Typical.

Now, I'm watching Haley Barbour, who is still sounding like the mayor of Amity Island in Jaws. There's no awl here, jus' tar bawls. And they're natchrul. Bring the kiddies down to the beach!  The tar jus' makes them sand castles hold t'gether! 

I hate to make fun of a person's accent, but Barbour's sounds particularly moronic.  Did you hear him last week, when he said there wasn't enough oil on Mississippi's beaches to fill up a "milk juuuuuug?"  The GOP putting Barbour on a national or global stage mystifies me. 

FNS allots half its time every week for its ludicrously named "Power Panel," their collection of far-right and very moderate pundits to present "balance." The first topic--naturally--how the oil spill is all President Obama's fault.  Interwoven with that is FOX "News"'s favorite topic: the fact that two potential Democratic candidates (Sestak and Romanoff)  for office may have been offered administration positions in order not to run, because the White House had favored candidates for the offices those guys were running for. Did you nod off during that explanation? Well FOX is pushing this like the President got a blow job or something. Snooze. Sorry folks, this hour was a waste of my time, and probably wasn't too fun to read about either!

I'll try to come up with something more entertaining for the rest of the day!

Sigh. . .Sunday Political Babble, Again

I started my Sunday as I do most weeks. I woke up a little later than I meant to, got up, put on coffee, and then started the DVR recording of Meet the Press with David Gregory. His first interview was with General David Petraeus, and it didn't bother me too much. My coffee hadn't kicked in yet, and Petraeus' waffling on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" seemed a little tortured, but whatever.

Then, 2012 Presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty, who is probably happy that President Obama broke the "weird name" barrier in 2008. Pawlenty is more pleasant than a lot of prominent Republicans, but he's also like Chatty Kathy talking points doll. And he sticks to them pretty hard. He lost what few points he had with me when he said that our rights as Americans come from God, not the government. I know that is a loose paraphrase of the Declaration of Independence (not a legally binding document, btw), but it skeeves me out in 2010.

Next up was a he said/he said panel of partisans mixed with a couple of journalist-pundits. Their names (except for sing-songy Peggy Noonan) are unimportant. But their babble was aggravating, to be sure. Here are the things that bugged me:

1) Right-wing partisan saying that there was no effort at "real" bipartisanship from Democrats.
- Bull pucky. The health care bills have been watered down and conservatived up the hoo-ha to try and get Republican votes. Nada. This talking point is BS.

2) President Obama is far-left, and governs as an ultra-liberal.
- Hahaha! MOUNTAINS of bull pucky! This is where my understanding of the tea baggers breaks down too. Obama isn't a communist, marxist, socialist, radical! He's upset liberals and progressives because he's been to milquetoasty.

3) Obama should have come in--with a rather large win in the 2008 election--by governing from the middle, even if it did irritate his "base."
- He did! Haven't you been paying attention, Miss Noonan???

4) To be bipartisan, Obama should scrap health care reform, and start again.
- Sure! That's exactly what Bush would do in the same position, right? Cave, and let the other guys have a shot? Riiiggght.

It went on like that. Me yelling at the teevee, and host David Gregory frickin' refusing to ask follow-ups or correct the record. It was ridiculous. And the thing I followed it up with? FOX "News" Sunday with Chris Wallace, with the lead interview being with Senate Minority Leader Mitch (Shelley the Constipated Turtle) McConnell. He's a deck of talking points cards, shuffled in a different order each week--and he does seem to turn up every week somewhere. And McConnell's denial of obstructionism with an all-time record of filibusters is flat-out dishonesty. You lie, Mitch McConnell!

Sunday Update, Part II: Repetition and Talking Points

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tx.) is on my DVR at the moment from FOX "News" Sunday. He's repeating a couple of phrases that I just heard Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell say on Meet the Press. If you pay attention--and believe me, that can be difficult on these cerebrally numbing shows--you can catch what the new talking points are.

A "step-by-step" reworking of health care reform, after "starting over" from scratch. Those two phrases were worked in by Cornyn in exactly the same fashion as McChinless. Several other things he said were nearly verbatim as well, along with conclusions drawn about Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts this week. And of course, the fictional assertion that Republicans are ready to work with Democrats if they're only "given a seat at the table." They've been sitting at the table! They've just been saying "no!"

Sunday Update: Politics, Politics, Politics

Here I sit again. . .I said I wouldn't do it. . .but here I am. Watching Meet the Press with David Gregory. First up, Valerie Jarrett for the President's team. Milquetoasty, whisper-voiced, jacked up with political jargon: ineffective. Next was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Shelley the Turtle). He's so annoying. Very repetitive, though he's working in a new response to replace or supplement his claim that the American people are saying "please don't pass this bill." Now he's adding, "let's start over, start from scratch, step by step." He won't answer a direct question--even if it is posed three times (Gregory's limit)--but he will pretend that a) Republicans haven't merely opposed everything from Democrats, and that b) Republicans will work "in a bipartisan" manner if only the President would move to the center, and not from the "far-left."

This is such a load of hooey. There is no "far-left" in this country. There is far-right, right, right-center, center, left-center and left. There is quite simply no counter-balance--at least no vocal one--to far-right voices. I'd love to see a list of "far-left" voices. Rachel Maddow? Nope, fairly straight-down-the-line liberal. Olbermann? Same thing. The political spectrum is so skewed due to the fact that far-right voices like Rush Limbaugh have been proclaimed to be mainstream.

And this President has moved to the center. His approval rating is low because liberals are pissed that he's drifting rightward. I got into a brief argument with my mother the other day, saying my problem with Obama is not that he's done too much, it is that he hasn't done enough. She was incredulous. Because she watches FOX "News" and thinks Obama is far-left. Horse pucky.

I may be back with a part II if I don't throw something through the screen.

Sunday Politics. And Mitch McConnell. Ugh.

Image from IndieDesign

Here I sit, yet another Sunday, watching the political yak-fests. Why do I do it? I don't know. I got into the habit several years ago, and can't seem to shake it. Meet the Press with David Gregory is a dim shadow of the program the late Tim Russert hosted (and it wasn't terrific then). Gregory seems to be asking questions only to hopefully inject himself into the news cycle by asking (or being answered) with a zinger. His problem--and frankly the problem with the whole format on any channel--is the fact that uber-partisans are slated to be interviewed, and then spew talking points, regardless of the question. A follow-up from the host is rare, and even then an actual answer is rarer. It is most frustrating as a viewer. I suppose this is the reason for the "panel" segments featured on most shows, but the results can be much the same.

FOX "News" Sunday airs in Las Vegas at the same time as MTP, so I watch it on the DVR. It is the easiest show to zip through, with the most commercials. Today, the host is Brit Hume, who usually plays the part of lead conservative on their ludicrously named "Power Panel." F"N"S--like MTP--started with the political odd couple of Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and their alliance for help in Haiti. This is the second go-around I've watched (and I assume they've done all of the programs this morning), and it produced little that was newsworthy besides the alliance itself. W managed to not embarrass himself unduly, but I still can barely tolerate the guy.

I haven't gotten to This Week or Face the Nation yet, and I may skip them. My big irritation came from FOX's interview of Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell. He looks like a constipated turtle, and his personality is no better. He pretends that Republicans are only looking out for the best interests of America, rather than merely voting "NO!" to absolutely everything proposed by Democrats. And, of course, he's a talking points machine, sure to work in whatever is on this weeks GOP handout. What was the big talking point this week? My guess is that Americans are supposedly saying (or as McConnell says, "literally screaming") "Please don't pass" health care reform. How do I know it's a talking point? Because he said it at least four times. Repetition may work, but it's annoying as hell.

And looky here. McConnell's misuse of "literally screaming" must be part of the talking point, because he also used it on CNN's State of the Union. . .in freakin' November!

Update: Upon further study, it appears this might be more a Mitch McConnell talking point than a GOP one, though it's difficult to be sure. If you Google "please don't pass" along with "health care" you'll find countless examples of its use. . .almost exclusively by McChinless himself. Which kind of proves my point about these guys on the politics shows: talking points and repetition. What is the point?

Endings and Beginnings

Christmas (and all its attendant festivities, not to mention competing festivals) has come and gone. The week of holiday limbo that follows has likewise been crossed off the calendars. New Year's Day marked the end and beginning of a year and (kinda) a decade. And now most of us have seen an unusual new year's treat--not having to go back to work until the fourth of the month--sneak up on us, even if we've had the previous 8-11 days off.

Personally, I've been off work since Christmas Eve. I've managed to accomplish at least as much as my cat in that time, and in fact have picked up a habit or two from her. Sunbeams do make fun napping places! But there is a counter-inutuitive bit of time perception that happens on stay-at-home weeks of from work. Usually, if you waste time by doing nothing, time crawls. Actually trying to waste time seems to make it go on and on. But when you do this at home--rather than at your desk at work--time actually seems to accelerate. Here I am on day 11 of my break, staring at returning to work tomorrow morning, and I'm thinking, "already?!?"

So, I'm making my last leisurely brunch/late breakfast. I'm on the last day of my waist-expanding project. I'll resume my low-carb diet tomorrow, along with a slightly-better-than-halfhearted attempt at regular exercise. And, I'll try to return the blog to more than a post a day. But that project could be difficult if this morning's Sunday political yack-fests are any indication.

I actually had to check my DVR to make sure that I wasn't watching last week's Meet the Press with David Gregory. Seriously, did nothing happen in the past week? Nearly the entire program was taken up with the Christmas Day attempted underwear bombing. There was absolutely nothing new to be heard, with Gregory (who is turning out to be a piss-poor substitute for Tim Russert) asking the same batch of loaded questions he asked last week. Pathetic.

FOX "News" Sunday with Chris Wallace was no better (as though it ever is). The vaguely creepy host continued to embarass his father by dragging the allegedly "hard news" segment of FOX "News" into the partisan gutter as he does every other week. Wallace also seems to think it is last week, with--as I watch this--nothing that would let you know an entire week has gone by since they talked about the exact same thing. That's 9 days since the non-event "happened."

I may have to zip through the rest of the program with the remote, especially when they haul out the ludicrously named "Power Panel," the rag-tag (surely skeleton crew) group of arch-conservatives and milquetoasty moderates that constitute "fair and balanced" on this stupid program. Then, unless it is preempted by tennis or golf or girls' field hockey, it'll be time for This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Unless they've replaced him. At least he has the "Sunday Funnies" segment, which usually proves amusing. Except all the comics have been on vacation, so good luck with that, George. Maybe my New Year's resolution should be to stop watching these increasingly lame shows? Maybe. But habits are hard to break.

Rachel Maddow on Meet the Press

Meet the Press hasn't been the same since Tim Russert died. How could it be? David Gregory is way too easy on his guests, and also too willing to drop an issue rather than forcing answers. This week, the saving grace for the show was the appearance of Greenlee Gazette fave, Rachel Maddow at the pundit's table.

Someone put together a Rachel-only clip, and really, that's all that mattered, so here she is!

"Balloon Boy" Story a Hoax, Dad to be Investigated

Well, I haven't had much to say today, between poking around on the internet, watching the Sunday political chat shows with one eye, and running errands. So that balloon boy thing seems to have actually been a hoax. . .surprise. And it's still getting too much coverage on the cable news channels. I'll admit to getting caught up in it when it was still happening live (and we thought the kid was in the thing). But my interest--beyond seeing Balloon Daddy getting fined and or jailed--has waned considerably since. This is what they've been saying. . .





That should be my last word on the subject. I think. I'm off to dinner with friends, so any more posting today is unlikely at best. See you Monday morning!

Meet the Press Frustrates Rachel Maddow

Image from LATimes

And it was frustrating to watch too. I have watched Meet the Press with David Gregory each week with increasing reluctance. Gregory is simply not the moderator that Tim Russert was. This morning was different, because for the first time, Rachel Maddow--of whom I'm a huge fan--was on as a panelist. The discussion was on health care reform, and the other panelists were former Senator Tom Daschle (not a fave), Sen. Tom Coburn, and former Rep. Dick Armey (aptly named).

Wow, was this a bad forum for getting at the truth. I know it is a regular occurrence to have someone for a given cause appear on these shows, and stick as hard as they can to their talking points (on both sides). It's also tradition that each panelist get their say, with little interruption, while it is their turn to speak. This prevents loud, raucous cross-talk, but it also shuts down rebuttal when a dozen or so points are made by one person. I could feel Rachel Maddow's frustration both with where we are in this discussion, and where she was in this obnoxious panel.

Armey--who is up to his armpits in the whole "rile up the angry mobs" strategy--sat there and said things I knew not to be true, so it had to be driving Rachel crazy. It didn't help that early on, she tried to shut down one of Armey's lies and was chastised for it, and then seemed to get a frog in her throat. I was actually clenching my fists in frustration for her.

I think that Rachel's intelligence and grasp of the facts came through, though. And I think of the four people on the panel she came off best. And certainly, Armey came off badly. I hope that isn't just a partisan opinion. Because I can't imagine watching Armey's performance and both agreeing with it, and liking him. Shudder. . . .

Disinformation: Liberals & Obama Love Fest?

One of the most common things you'll read about the "liberal media" is that they have a slavish devotion to "The One," "The Messiah," "The Savior," (terms used nearly exclusively by conservatives) President Barack Obama. The love is said to go both ways, and to hold sway with all of the "Obots" who voted for him too. But like many things coming from conservatives these days, it bears little relationship to the truth.

MSNBC has been christened by conservatives as the liberal propaganda arm of the White House, much as FOX "News" was over the previous eight years. It is true that MSNBC's prime-time lineup features a liberal perspective. But calling them the flip-side of FOX isn't exactly accurate. There is no equal to Rachel Maddow in demeanor, nor in presentation on FOX, for example. But that is, I'm aware, a subjective opinion. What is not subjective, is that both Maddow and Keith Olbermann have been known to criticize the President, his policies, and the Democratic-lead Congress rather frequently. On many issues. To say otherwise would be dishonest, or merely presumed by people who do not watch either program.

Here on this blog, I have been outspoken, and at the very least skeptical about several of the policies of the Obama Administration, particularly on gay rights issues. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm still much happier with the current occupant of the Oval Office than I would have been with John McCain. But the perception of an adoring constituency and a likewise reciprocating President is the stuff of fiction.

[Excerpt]



Sunday Show Panelists Claim That Obama Has Never ‘Opposed His Liberals’

Yesterday, panelists on both ABC’s This Week and Fox News Sunday uniformly asserted that President Obama never does anything to upset “his liberals.” (Amusingly, ABC and Fox both forgot to include an actual liberal on their panels.) ThinkProgress has compiled a brief montage of their claims. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Sunday Blogging

I could only suffer through two of the Sunday political chat-fests today, Meet the Press with David Gregory (which suffers greatly from the loss of Tim Russert), and FOX "News" Sunday, with the vaguely creepy Chris Wallace. I absolutely could not get interested in either program. It's worse than back when I was a kid, desperately searching for something to watch on a Sunday, and finding only religion, golf, tennis or politics. Bleccch.

Basically, it goes like this:

Host: "The President's policy on ______ has people talking this week. Do you think it's a success?"

Democrat X: "Undoubtedly. It's still early, but I think it's going very well, and the American people seem to like it. And the President has been clear: this is a program the people want."

Republican X: "Absolutely not. It's socialism, pure and simple. The American people are beginning to realize that the President does not have their interests at heart, and they don't want to be like a third-world country. I mean, Hitler or Stalin did the same thing. . .etc. . .etc."

Host: "Well, there you have it. Some say the program is working. Others say the President is the anti-Christ, and wants to eat your young. We'll just have to agree to disagree."

Harumph.

Yet Another Lazy Sunday (And Saturday, And Friday)

Image from MyCatHatesYou

Wow, what a wasted weekend! I almost feel guilty for what little I've accomplished. Almost. But while The Other Half's been away, I've enjoyed a little alone time. Besides a little computing time and a few errands, all I have accomplished is to watch a boatload of Angel episodes on DVD. It's the easiest weekend project I've worked on, really. Lazy, lazy, lazy. Haven't even gotten the Jeep top off yet, and didn't really care.

I did manage to squeeze in the Sunday morning political yak-fests, but they were all even less interesting than usual. More of the Sotomayer blabber we've been hearing all week. Nothing new there either, with the same single quote from 2001 being lobbed into the air as "proof" that she's a horrible, unstoppable racist. Or something.

Anyway, no matter how you slice it, I've been spending waaaayyyyy too much time in front of one type of screen or another. So before I actually develop a wave of guilt, I suppose I should accomplish something. I may be back later.