Watched Morning Joe this morning during the morning workout, and Joe is gone and Mika B. was filling in as host, and boy is she weak as a host. No flow, no control, and Pat Buchanan is the de facto host. He is walking all over her in the sense that his viewpoint on every issue rapidly becomes hers, and he is just shaping and framing the entire debate. the weird thing is that although Buchanan hates this administration and can not stand McCain, he seems to be wholly in the tank for yet another Republican administration. For someone who has previously alluded to “holding his nose and voting for McCain,” he sure is tanking for them.
I don’t get it. If you hate the Bush administration, why on earth would you support McCain. As we saw yesterday, even his campaign team will be the same.
Pretty lame performance overall.
That’s because you spotted Mr. Hyde Buchanan not Dr. Jekyll Buchanan. Dr. Jekyll Buchanan rails against George Bush and the excesses of the Republican party in print format. Whenever he goes on TV though he turns into Mr. Hyde Buchanan who is indistinguishable from any other wingnut on Fox. I think his TV transformation is a comfort crush, kind of like Coulter and the ever present black dresses on TV.
I don’t get it. If you hate the Bush administration, why on earth would you support McCain.
because he hates the democrats even more.
i agree. mika is pathetic. i used to tune in for the first half-hour and listen to her be bullied by joescar while she giggles in the background. her commentary is nothing more than recitation of the rnc talking points.
a couple of other recent hires and frequent guests are andy card and stephen hayes — both hugely discredited. fer chrissakes, hayes still pimps the saddam/al qaeda connection; not to mention his laughable hagiography, er, biography of president cheney.
I was going to say the same thing, but Thepanzer took care of it. I’ve noticed that behaviour also. I read his articles on AmCon and Antiwar.com, and think, yeah, he makes sense. Then he gets on TV and becomes a brainless Republican stooge that you can’t tell apart from Hannity.
The sad thing is that Mika appears to be liberal leaning herself, but bends far too much over to the other side to appear balanced. The vapors she got over Gen. Clark’s perfectly reasonable comments on Sunday were just pathetic.
Did you see Carl Cannon on the show too? He said Reagan had the highest end-of-term approval ratings for any modern president. Uh, no. Fourth highest end-of-term approval ratings since WWII. If he had a shorter sense of “modern,” Clinton still edges him out.
This morning when I turned it on (self punishment) and heard Pat blathering about “why is Obama not enjoying more of a bounce by now?” blah blah blah, I quickly switched over to CNN and went to brush teeth. While brushing I wondered: “Is there EVER one hour on MSNBC wherein Pat is not present, repeating the same 3 points he repeated in all previous days/hours?”
I long ago lost any interest in Joe the Pompous Bully (did you catch him last night trying to shame Harwood as he covered for Gregory on Race?) and find Mika embarrassing to watch. Bad enough when she “supports” Joe…”mmmmmm…….yeah……..right…….oh?……you think?……” by uttering mono-syllabic grunts every 7 seconds to remind us she’s there, but 3 hours of repetitive talking points, Pat B. screaming at me, and Mika’s coquettish behavior is unbearable over my coffee. I need to listen to more relaxing adult music. Love your blog!
For the same reason David Brooks is in the tank for McCain after a spring replete with columns extolling Obama. In the words of Rev. Wright: “The chickens ALWAYS come home to roost.”
I hate that program and refuse to watch it. I can understand that they would play the whole horserace/inside baseball game during the primaries, but there is four months until the convention and they seem to show no indication of letting up. It is completely disinteresting to me and make no mistake John, Mika is in love with McCain. Her brother even works for him on a day to day basis.
Dennis - SGMM
Pat Buchanan is what he’s always been; a hard core right winger. Some quotes:
Since this is an OT: As we prepare to celebrate Independence Day we should remember this.
Mika is horrendous and weak, always. That’s why they have her paired with Joe.
This is a bit past its sell-by date, but… This. Is. SPARTA!
PB is just being a media whore and saying what is needed to be a token Winger. Like others say, his print material is truer to his core beliefs. But then there is the bizarre love affair between PB and Justin Raimondo.
Regarding Obama and FISA, I thought this made some good points from a conservative’s viewpoint. It was linked on Greenwald’s post yesterday.
Doug Feith explains it all:
It was door number 3, then. Damn.
behold the radical left wing New Republic !
He’s really working to keep the “F-ing Stupidest guy on the face of the Earth” title. Kristal is giving him some competition, though.
Joe Scarborough is the kind of guy I’d like to swiftly kick in the junk.
Since this is an open thread, I’d like to make fun of people who double post.
The Thinking Man's Mel Torme
Imus replaced by Ham-faced Joe. That 6:00AM MSNBC slot just goes from strength to strength. It’s the Algonquin Roundtable of our times.
As to kicking him in the groinal-crotchal region, I suspect, since J.S. had his own Cap’n Flightsuit moment, that he still wears the inflatable knickers for a vicarious thrill, and would thus quite effectively scotch your well-aimed foot.
its funny (and when i say funny, i mean sad) watching Mika try to host the show, because she’s a real intellectual lightweight.
but when she’s trying to make a serious point, her face gets all scrunchy and you can practically see her put on her “i’m a serious journalist!” persona, which seems to consist of asking ridiculous, gossip-y questions of whatever democrat and/or liberal they have on at the moment.
we used to watch Morning Joe, but we’ve given up watching any news in the morning now.
Joe Scarborough is a patronizing douche. Poor Mika, putting up with that for so long has to break a person’s spirit.
I was glad to see Mika ‘come out’ when Joe was gone cuz I always felt like she didn’t ever get a chance to finish a sentence when he was around. Compared to his snarly-faced cheesehead, I thought she was a breath of fresh air, especially when she wasn’t chained to the anchor of having to placate Blow Joe’s ego which turns rude when he thinks he is not being given proper attention or adulation.
Sigh, I admit, it’s a letdown. With or without Joe, it’s become unwatchable.
Kirchick is such a knob. He makes their blog unreadable.
That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen a government official say/write.
Rush Limbaugh just signed a $400 MILLION dollar contract, with a….wait for it….$100 MILLION dollar bonus.
That’s a lot of oxycotin.
PS, I think I sympathized with Mika for a long time because I felt she was there to be his cutsey, ultra-supportive female sidekick. She bucked him up pretty good. It was very ‘Yas suh, dat’s right, suh’ kinda thing. I felt sorry for her. I guess it was misplaced. She has now shored up a fair amount of cheese for herself. But Joe wouldn’t allow it otherwise.
Comment from another blog:
The best idea so far.
Dennis - SGMM
McCain has shown himself to be the least charismatic, most pathetically inept campaigner in recent memory. That he needs Lieberman at one elbow and Huckleberry Graham at the other to correct him over and over again on the same facts is a devastating critique of McCain’s faculties. So why not hire the Rovians? McCain may not be able to remember what he said a day ago but, he’s capable enough of being a poo-flinging monkey while his surrogates spin every criticism of him into an attack on his age and/or his military record. Meanwhile the 527’s, ratfuckers, astro turf groups and the anonymous e-mailers will be working overtime. Having squandered a three month head start, McCain was given The Word by those high up in the Republican Party: “The only principles you have are the ones we say you have.” I doubt that he needed to be reminded.
Battered Spouse Syndrome
It has been a little disconcerting to watch Mika and realize that Willy Geist (whom I once described as a useless turd) is in fact the high point of the show.
When I look at Geist all I see is a pampered frat boy who is just CERTAIN that since his life has been easy and comfortable everybody else’s must be that easy too. If anybody bitches or complains it can only be because they just like to bitch.
Mika though, ouch. She really has become almost a parody of every blow dried journo that Bob Somerby loses his mind over every single day. As soon as her higher priced and louder voiced colleauges tell her what the narrative is, she is right there to trumpet it.
I watched a re-run of Entourage On Demand this morning instead–I just couldn’t take the pain.
Just Some Fuckhead
I think if someone white and traditionally predictable like HRC or Biden had gotten the nomination, PB would appear to be playing it closer down the middle. But “the kids” propelling a brown person espousing nebulous “change” to the Presidency has gotta be giving an old-school neo-racist paleo-con like Pat the night terrors.
The assertion that McCain will be the same as Bush is really stupid. McCain is more similar to Obama in many positions than he is to Bush. Heck Obama might be more similar to Bush but it’s hard to tell what Obama really believes…
Punchy – I thought you were joking about the Limbaugh contract
QuickRob- Please read this list and get back to me.
OMG! You just described Katie Couric to a T.
Buchanan is paid to represent one side of the question. That’s how he makes his living.
He is basically being a lawyer for the right.
It’s a show, they are playing their roles.
Not that bizarre. Buchanan wrote and spoke critically of the Iraq war policy from the get go, and he is a contributor to Raimondo’s http://www.antiwar.com site. His articles in that context have often been pretty good.
Over at the Atlantic blogs, Jeffrey Goldberg notes that at a panel at the conference in Aspen, the consensus was that there is a fair likelihood that NYC or DC will be nuked within ten years. One participant apparently put the odds at 50-50.
Sadly, nobody thought to ask if the panel members have moved away from the areas.
Alarmist talk is cheap. I want to see it backed up by the rational self-interested action that follows if they really believe what they’re saying.
I’m sure if you’d told the panel that each person’s home had a 50% chance of being swallowed by a vast sinkhole within 10 years, that every one of them would be on the phone to a real estate agent.
The Moar You Know
Are you allowed out in public without a crash helmet?
There are no serious journalists on tv any more that I can find. Just actors who occasionally repeat the “serious questions” that they are getting in their earpieces.
Hm. Maybe so. Our system has proven incapable of dealing with wide-ranging governmental criminality. Maybe it’s naive to think any system can. A TRC would at least allow for a public accounting of everything that happened. It’s not clear to me that it would make it less likely to recur in the future.
As a follow to the post I made a few mins ago, this link to Buchanan’s material at antiwar.com.
If you want to know what Pat really thinks, you have to read his written stuff. His tv performances are all theatrical nowadays.
Punchy wrote: “Rush Limbaugh just signed a $400 MILLION dollar contract, with a….wait for it….$100 MILLION dollar bonus”
Of course. An Obama administration is bound to be a enormous boon to Limbaugh’s ratings.
Look at it as Clear Channel’s way of short-selling McCain stock.
“I’m starting to think we might need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (a la South Africa) following the Bush administration.”
The problem with this is that such commissions generally forego any penalties, in the interest of just getting the truth out.
I’d want there to at least be a penalty such that the people involved are banned from public office, but even then they could squat at think tanks and push their vile agendas from those safe and comfy perches.
Also, the value of TRC’s is kinda iffy nowadays given the existence of the International Criminal Court, which could potentially use the evidence generated at the TRC against the perps who had been given immunity from prosecution.
Buchanan, from the page I linked above. It occurs to me that folks really have no idea what Buchanan’s positions really are, or how vociferously he has been arguing against our stated policies in the Middle East lo these many years.
Buchanan is a lifeling pundit by trade and can fashion a good argument from almost any point of view. That doesn’t mean he holds that point of view.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
You don’t move away from areas likely to be nuked, you move to the epicenter.
Uh… The nuke is going to be buried underground?
Dennis - SGMM
Somebody’s gonna’ get fired:
Military Chief warns against striking Iran
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
Has anybody seen The Downfall?
I was reading Roger Ebert’s blog and he was writing about reviewing Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl and the note at the bottom recommended The Downfall.
You move to the epicenter so that it’s over quickly, instead of dying a lingering death puking your guts out because the radiation took out your intestinal lining. Duh.
Of the paleoconservatives who are associated with or published by antiwar.com, Buchanan seems the least sincere and consistent. The others can be pretty decent, though.
“You don’t move away from areas likely to be nuked, you move to the epicenter.”
I think you mean ‘ground zero’.
Seeking guaranteed vaporization makes sense in the case of all-out nuclear war. It doesn’t make sense in the case of a terrorist nuke, where most of the rest of the country will be unaffected. (Especially when the target cities are on the east coast.)
If DC or NYC are likely targets, then Columbus or Louisville or Kansas City ought to be pretty safe.
Dennis - SGMM
During the Seventies, there was a very popular poster. Topped with the Civil Defense trefoil, it provided instructions for civilians caught in a nuclear attack:
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
“The epicenter or epicentre is the point on the Earth’s surface that is directly above the hypocenter or focus, the point where an earthquake or underground explosion originates.”
The epicenter for an earthquake is on the surface, above the earthquake. The epicenter for a nuclear explosion is on the surface beaneath the explosion. A nuclear weapon is not designed to hit the surface and then explode, it is designed to explode in the space above the target.
Really? Is that because he’s a Republican who has been an outspoken critic of the Bush Iraq policy since 2002?
Or because he’s maintained his positions and represented them assidulously even as a paid mouthpiece for the right in places like The McLuaghlin Group?
Obligatory New York Review of Books link on this topic. Thomas Powers:
–Yes. Well done.
Unaffected by the blast, anyway. No part of the country (and not much of the rest of the world) would be safe from the government’s response.
Yes, agree completely. BUT he still voted for Bush in 2004. That’s when I decided to listen to his arguments, which are often thoughtful, but not take him seriously at all. He’s just another Arlen Specter, all jaw jaw and no spine spine. PB has said that McCain is “Bush on steroids” when it comes to war, but I guarantee it (channeling Justin Wilson) that he will vote for McCain.
I read antiwar.com almost every day, and give them a chunk of change every quarter. One thing I like is the ecumenical aspect, in terms of ideology.
However, while I like some of Buchanan’s writings there, the real test is this: who did he support in 2004? One of the astute writers over at antiwar.com (forget who it was, but I think it was a staffer) pointed out in the lead-up to the election that while Kerry left a lot to be desired (especially to those of us against the war), the only way for the populace to register disapproval of the war at election time was to vote for Kerry.
AFAICT Buchanan ultimately endorsed Bush in 2004, though I could be wrong about that. IMHO, when he did that his antiwar bona fides expired.
There are other conservatives published there who I have a lot more respect for: Raimondo (though perhaps he’s more of a libertarian), Paul Craig Roberts, …
I thoroughly agree.
TZ – I was referring to Buchanan’s homophobic views and his using of Raimondo in his POTUS bids. From Wiki:
Fixed for the bitter.
Gee, that’s great if you’re worried about some (batshit insane) rogue nation launching a nuclear missile at the U.S., but it is an utterly pointless argument if you’re worried about a terrorist organization that somehow gets hold of a nuke. The idea of a guided missile from such a group is laughable. The scenario that is vastly more likely (although still unlikely IMHO) is a van-based delivery system. Rent a cargo van, drive it into the city, detonate by timer or fanatical follower, remember to not ask for deposit refund from rental company.
Or to make it shorter, it’s much more likely that any such event will be at ground level.
I’m with you. I cannot watch any pundit shows anymore. It is self-referential political kabuki.
Also, one of the revelations of the Scott McClellan book is discounted by everyone, i.e., the degree to which the Bush Administration (and the opposition) relies on plying pundits and commentators with talking points, with gutless editors confusing this with “sources.”
This kind of shit is the journalistic equivalent of steroid use among athletes. Everybody has to do it in order to stay on top, but the end result trivializes the entire enterprise of journalism. It’s one thing to spout an opinion, another altogether to spout an opinion which even isn’t your own.
Also, contrast Rush Limbaugh’s big $400 million payday with the latest in the slow, inevitable decline of The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles Times to cut 250 jobs, including 150 from news staff)
And in another corner of California, there is this (Richtel gives reading outside shuttered Cody’s)
Ultimately, some change in the way we get news and information is inevitable. But the sting is the degree to which infotainment, shallow navel-gazing puffery, and outright propaganda displaces anything that is even remotely informed. And note here that I don’t care about bias. Even informed bias has its virtues.
And the irony is that one of the most potentially interesting election seasons in recent years will be presided over by journalistic circus clowns and intellectual whores desperate to prop up their political sugar daddies so that they can remain in the spotlight.
I don’t think PB is homophobic, I think he is an able lawyer for the idea that there is nothing wrong with institutionalizing opposition to GL-friendly politics, for example, via such things as DOMA.
As for Raimondo, I think they get along because Pat’s an interesting character, a good antiwar writer, and maybe because Pat is a closet gay himself, who the hell knows? Fine with me if he is. I operate from the viewpoint that other peoples’ sexuality is none of my business. Behavior is only my business if it (a) affects me or (b) produces abuse or criminal acts. So I don’t give the matter much space in my thinking.
I’ve never seen a website that crashes as much as this one. Seriously, your host is a piece of shit.
Because people vote for letters. I’m voting for D this year. Others are voting for R. (Actually they’re voting for not-D which they think is a vote for R but then they are stupid as we know).
If the Swift-boat Veterans were telling the truth, then why are the right wingers so upset that Wes Clark is “Swift-boating” McCain?
Wow, those four steps seem eerily similar to Dem SOP when told to rubberstamp the Bush legacy.
Way off topic, but this may be the best blog post title ever. I love the Poorman!
No, the real problem with this is that you would have someone quasi Arlen Specter-esque running the TRC. They would have no interest in getting the truth out but rather finding their own version of the “magic bullet” to paper over the depths of the last 8 years.
There is simply no way the Village would allow a truthful account to be published and propagated. For one thing the MSM’s complicity would be too glaring to deny. Anyone think the ego’s and business interests of the MSM would enjoy reporting the *actual* truth?
ISTM we need to revamp the old saying to now read something like – “First thing we do is kill all the pundits/talking heads/personalities”
Then maybe we could get some actual reporting done.
Yeah, I don’t think I buy this argument. As bad as MSM, modern punditry, infojournalism, and the endless nonsensiness of the blogosphere are, and they are, all very very bad, you cannot look back at any previous time and declare that citizens were better “informed” than they are now. In fact, I would argue that the opposite is true.
We are in a transition state in this context, of course. Modern info streams create new and high tech ways to dispense bad information, and of course, the purveyors of bad information will make the best of the new tools. But at the same time, the availability of nontoxic information is now almost ubiquitous, easy, cheap, and fast, for those who want to avail themselves of it.
Over time, I think this plays out into a better situation, but that change is godawful slow and nerve-wracking.
Somebody gave me an idea for a bumpersticker:
I’m worried someones head might explode though.
Via the Carpetbagger, Faux News alters photos of 2 NYT reporters. Un-freakin’-believable.
“$4 Gas: Because Freedom Isn’t Free”
Does it come with extra stickers to later cover up the “4”? Like a 5, 6, and maybe a 7 for November 5th?
“Does it come with extra stickers to later cover up the “4”? Like a 5, 6, and maybe a 7 for November 5th?”
Make it a LED sign and it can be updated every week.
At least we would get to the truth about Spygate.
at this rate it needs it’s own debt counter like the one they have for the national debt.
I like it. How about calling it Freedom Gas:
Don’t Pass this Gas
Kiss my Gas
Look! Another military dick move.
Hmmmm…..(adjusts foil hat)…what do you think could unravel in October overseas that some wouldn’t want to, since it could deleteriously affect a party’s chances in the elections?
These military heros are being played like fucking chumps. What a bunch of shit.
Anyone see the rawstory headline about McCain revealing his “Jobs First” plan in, of all places, Mexico? Nothing but a headline yet but the irony…oh the irony.
It’s not necessarily just about whether people were “better informed.” But I am not aware of a recent time in which pundits were not simply partisan, but willing propagandists for the party in power, and in which even bland but accurate journalism was derided, mocked and put out of business by the more shallow aspects of journalism, or of a period in which the news divisions were either threatened with extinction or by the total usurpation by the entertainment end of their corporate masters.
And I am not aware of a time when so many people had available a wide access to information and yet deliberately choose to be uninformed.
I have no idea what “nontoxic information” is. There is, between the net and mainstream media, an exponential increase in opinion. But there is a decrease in original reporting and in the number of independent news sources.
Quick Southern Cal example. The most listened to radio stations are KFI (the local Limbaugh outlet), KTLK (progressive talk) and KLAC (sports). All are Clear Channel stations and all use the same small news organization for local news. On television, Channels 9, 2 and one of the local Spanish language stations all have the same corporate master, and has been caught on at least one occasion downplaying an important news story because an editor did not want to embarrass the mayor. No matter how you slice it, this is a net decrease in the variety of news and opinion.
All over the place, pundits and commentators depend on talking points from the Democrats or Republicans (this includes Elisabeth Hasselbeck on The View). But no one ever has to acknowledge their dependence on these guideposts and even when Scott McClellan hints that there was an organized campaign on the part of the Bush Administration to feed information to friendly pundits, no one follows up on this and demands a list of who these people were. Everyone assumes that they know the score, but nothing is ever on the record.
Meanwhile, in Oakland, California, De Lauer’s newsstand closes after 101 years. Here is a hint of what they were like at their peak.
Free news sites really aren’t free (the buy-in is at least a computer and an Internet service provider). And while there is a lot of good stuff, there is a huge amount of repetition. And shrinking physical news organizations are also, ultimately, shrinking news sites on the net.
Oh brother. All I can say is, you are exactly 180 degrees wrong on this. You might want to start here.
That’s a flagrant, but not even close to being unique, example. I don’t have time to give you a history of American propaganda, that is something maybe John Cole can help you with.
Really? Well then I am sorry to have wasted my time.
Honestly, these remarks of yours are beyond the pale in terms of ignorance and denial of history and reality. I don’t even know where to start.
You don’t know what “nontoxic information” is? Well, it’s the opposite of “toxic information.” Like, “Obama is a Muslim.” That’s toxic, because it is not true, but can be represented as true to people who can’t tell toxic from nontoxic. Whereas, “Obama is not a Muslim and here are the facts ….” is nontoxic.
Your entire post is just silly. Any kid with a computer and an Internet connection has more information at his fingertips today than I could have expected to have in my lifetime just a few decades ago. And in case you haven’t figured this out yet, the ability to tell toxic from nontoxic information is the key to understanding what reality is in an information blizzard. Otherwise, it’s all just noise. You and you alone are responsible for the signal to noise ratio in your bubble of existence, and it behooves you to get the strongest grip on that you can get.
The media is not reponsible, the pundits are not responsible, the blogs are not responsible, the website owners are not responsible, the publishers are not responsible. You are responsible, and I sincerely wish you the greatest of luck, because something tells me that you are going to need it.
so John, back in the day when you were a Bush voting conservative, did you ever stumble across this article?
Our Long National Nightmare of Prosperity is Over
from January, 2001:
Scary, those prescient Onion types.
Yeah, I could easily compare William Randolph Hearst to Rupert Murdoch. But that wasn’t my point. Publishers ain’t pundits.
Ah. OK. I got it. Seems to me that you and some other folks don’t really care about “news” or “reporting.” There is just information out there, and you go out and get it. So it doesn’t matter whether reporters, Fox News, etc., actually report facts. Of course, the problem here is that some people go out and get information that is false and are totally happy with the result. So there really isn’t anything which is toxic or nontoxic, just shit that you believe whether or not a neutral observer could declare it true or false.
You’re confusing data with information, and information with knowledge.
So, for example, you can point me to the Wikipedia article on Hearst. But can you point me to the meetings that Hearst and LA Times publisher Norman Chandler had to violate anti-trust laws and carve up Los Angeles newspaper readership in the 1950s? No. Because you know far less than you imagine about news monopolies, and sometimes if you don’t have a clue, you don’t even know where to begin the search.
This sounds like Ayn Rand meets Citizen Kane, only twice as loony.
I don’t know what “nontoxic information” is either. In fact, it sounds like blog bullshit to me.
“Nontoxic information” and “toxic information” are meaningless, unnecessary terms. What makes information toxic? It’s lack of veracity? Toxic to whom? One thing that might be harmful to someone’s interests and well being (toxic) may be harmless or even beneficial to someone else’s (nontoxic). So toxic/nontoxic is useless.
Why invent your own jargon when “truth” and “falsehood” already exist and do an admirable job?
Billy Bob Neck
If he didn’t look like a girl, that would be the best dang video ever
“I don’t get it. If you hate the Bush administration, why on earth would you support McCain.”
Because at bottom Buchanan is just a racist. Racism informs everything he does, thinks or says.
1. Get airplane.
2. Load nuke onto airplane.
3. Fly to insertion point near target city.
4. Follow pre-computed 50-degree flight path in a generally downward direction.
5. When nuke’s homebrewed barometric altimeter decides it’s at the optimal altitude, a relay closes and kaboom.
The Bush Doctrine: if you stay stupid indefinitely, so will the enemy. Because they ride camels and sleep in tents, and have no concept of physics or math, and their ingenuity is permanently stuck somewhere between a bamboo stake smeared with shit and the Anarchist’s Cookbook.