The media’s love for Paul Ryan (via) really does have a strange sexual/romantic tinge:
At the end of the show, Scarborough said the executive producer of the program, Chris Licht, said in Scarborough’s earpiece of Ryan, “I’m in love.”
Reader Interactions
90Comments
Comments are closed.
Ash Can
Oh, come on. I just ate lunch. Have a heart, willya?
Tom Q
You do realize you’re talking about MSNBC, the liberal equivalent of Fox?
Bruce S
My favorite in the annals of ringing endorsements of Paul Ryan is Andrew Sullivan’s today:
“What I admire is Ryan’s willingness to cop to the suffering and sacrifice that the Bush years made inevitable in its fiscal irresponsibility.”
With friends like Sully, Ryanesque conservatards don’t need enemies…
Joel
Maybe they can go the way of Big Punisher, as well.
The Political Nihilist Formerly Known As Kryptik
@Tom Q:
So when even MSNBC has hours long gushing over the latest Republican wunderkinder, what does that tell you?
Ronc99
The Republicans are such closeted HOMOSEXUALS. It’s called VALUE$! Screwing Main Street for Wall Street gives them all erections. Well it’s better than Viagra so says Joe of the Morning Breakfast Club!
Observer
Okay fine, but can you name *any* Democrat with a big & bold idea and a plan and is willing to put it out there and defend it publicly and attack its opponents? Without first sending it to a committee?
No? Didn’t think so.
What do you think is going to happen when there’s nobody competing for the media’s love of “ideas”? Just like this blog, they need content and the Repubs are willing to provide content. And not just any content. they provide big bold content they’re willing to back up with a torrent of words, charm, media pressers, and angry accusations and denounciations of their critics.
Did you expect the media to fall for Harry Reid instead?
JGabriel
I’ve never understood the media’s (and GOP’s) love for people who come across to me as the most insincere used car salesmen imaginable — like Reagan and now Ryan. I am utterly bewildered by this phenomena.
What am I missing that gets people so het up over these obvious mediocrities?
.
Mark S.
@Bruce S:
Geez, does Sully realize the top 2% would pay significantly lower taxes under the Ryan plan than they ever did under Bush?
The Beltway media seriously makes me sick.
kindness
I can’t even make fun of this post without sounding like a worse douche than the repubs sound like.
That’s OK. It’s just another example of IOKIYAAR.
Tony J
I read that as “They crush a lot” and thought it was a lovely little Faith No More reference, flowing naturally as it does into “About the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines!”, which touched me ‘down there’ with chuckle-fingers.
But then I realised it wasn’t, and I got a sad.
curious
so the john thune thing is over?
Poopyman
@The Political Nihilist Formerly Known As Kryptik:
That Scarborough is who we always knew he was.
I can’t believe people take that idiot seriously, and it doesn’t help that he has that Count Floyd hair thing going.
Actually, of course he’s taken seriously. He embodies the “serious” attributes of folks like Friedman, Broder, et al.
4tehlulz
Shorter Max Baucus: “LOL NO“
Bruce S
“So when even MSNBC has hours long gushing over the latest Republican wunderkinder, what does that tell you?”
That MSNBC isn’t a partisan, ideological network like FOX – it’s a business operation that features throughout the day a political spectrum from relatively sane conservatives to moderates to pragmatic liberals, including its share of hacks but not veering off into pathological ravers. Sort of what one would expect from cable news, but FOX has tilted so far to the Right and is so virulent and toxic in its partisanship, that MSNBC seems like a “liberal” planet to random obervers. It’s not – or is just barely if you focus primarily on the evening hours.
scav
Starburst Redux. Because when there’s no intellectually justified reason to support someone, go for the gonads. Makes you wonder if they were hoping for some GHB in that beer they would share with GWB.
Poopyman
@JGabriel:
That the Villagers are unbelievably shallow. I really think that’s all there is to it. There’s not one logical thinker in the lot.
Culture of Truth
He did put out a plan, I’ll give him that.
matryoshka
@JGabriel:
I don’t think you’re missing anything. People like shiny objects and simple thoughts, that’s all, and many like to believe that if one mediocrity can make it, then they might, too. In the case of Republicans, there’s also a whole homoerotic undertow that shows its face more frequently in gay-bashing.
Sentient Puddle
@Observer:
I don’t know if anyone else noticed it, but the White House released a budget proposal a few months back. I’d think that would count as putting something out there.
JGabriel
Poopyman:
That’s not enough. It explains their agreement with Ryan. It doesn’t explain their passion (“I’m in love!”) for Ryan, Reagan, and other puzzlingly successful blank slate hucksters.
.
Poopyman
Over at the Kaplan Test Prep Daily, Jonathan Bernstein states the obvious. Which, sadly, needed to be stated and, sadly, will fall on deaf ears:
Failure, Inc.
Palin Mark II.
The first version had some serious problems with its vocal unit and had to be scrapped (the infamous “Word Salad” bug).
We’ve fixed that in this version.
Elizabelle
Paul Ryan looks like Mr. Smith went to Washington.
Only he’s not.
People who use their brains instead of their eyes can tell that.
It’s charming that Ryan believes in his plan.
That doesn’t make it a good one.
Rock
I don’t think I can pay attention to political media anymore. I can’t tell if they are actually idiots or if it’s all just Kabuki. I guess it’s a mix of both, but it certainly is not informative or honest in any meaningful way.
As second point, who the hell is Andrew Sullivan to say that the Bush spending made suffering inevitable? First of all, he’s self-admittedly innumerate and the idea that he knows how to best run a massive economy like the US is simply stupid. I could go on (he offers no empirical reasons for cutting during a recession, he heaps suffering on the poor while the rich do fine under the Ryan plan, etc.) but it’s clear after just those three things that his opinion is either stupid or disingenuous. It is an exemplar of how all the media machinery in this country is simple a rather sick waste of time.
Failure, Inc.
@Sentient Puddle: Yeah, but that was the work of an uppity black man. It doesn’t count.
Got anything that was put together by a white guy? A conservative white guy would be great. Thanks so much.
WereBear
What is missing is the quarter mil or more a year you get for the ass kissing.
jibeaux
@Poopyman:
Just why do you find a 2.8% unemployment rate unrealistic, oh ye who obviously hates America?
Roger Moore
@Mark S.:
Yes. Why do you think he likes it so much?
jibeaux
Also, too, do you know what Bush spent tons and tons of money on? Unpaid-for tax cuts. I think it’s time we keep pointing out that tax cuts without corresponding and equivalent spending cuts are the same goddam thing as spending.
Poopyman
@jibeaux: Yep. I hates me some Amerka.
What are the odds any of the major network talking heads are going to point this smoke & mirrors stuff out?
Anyone?
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
The telling first cut on Joe’s “Paul Ryan” playlist.
kay
I really loathe these people.
Judas Escargot
@Bruce S:
OT but re: MSNBC: Is anyone else missing Olbermann more than they thought they would?
Blowhard? Yes, sometimes. Shrill? Sometimes smug and condescending? Absolutely.
But his anger, at least, was reality-based, and sincere. Since they pulled him off the air, I’ve found myself getting angrier and angrier myself, instead.
I’m wondering if Olbermann was “being angry for us” in a way (well, some of us). My psychological substrate seems to be missing that.
eemom
@kay:
me too, with the fierce fury of a thousand suns.
And I wish somebody would deport that asshole Sullivan back across the pond where he belongs. WTF is he, payback for the Revolutionary War?
stuckinred
Mika was the worst this morning, I posted right after she finished fellating him for all thew MJ fans!
Elizabelle
@eemom:
I really think he has gone back to his Republican roots, and was practicing that during his recent recovery from illness. His new bosses will prefer that.
Hope he likes the trolls that infest the Daily Beast site.
I shall not be reading him for a long while. (Sadly, because he’s often a voice of reason. But not now.)
Quicksand
@Culture of Truth: You know who else put out a plan? Huh?
stuckinred
@Judas Escargot: I KNEW I’d miss him but Lawrence goes for the throat too. I don’t know how many of these idiots will keep going on his show after things like his annihilation of my congressman Broun the other night.
Comrade Javamanphil
@Observer:
Bernie Sanders. But then, he’s not a Democrat and the corporate overlords of MSNABCBSFOX have decided he’s an unserious dirty hippy so “No airtime for you!”
Patty K
Paul Ryan is without a doubt one of the most physically repulsive men ever to creep around the face of the earth! That dyed hair! Those srange features! Is Chris L. a fellow rodent to be “in love” with him?
Bob
Ugh. Sully is falling into the same 2003 Iraq War trap with this one (in that he has no clue what he’s talking about), and that he’s claiming other pundits’ only option is to say they’re going to raise taxes.
TheStone
All the youngsters working on Morning Joe, from Willie Geist to the bag o’ douche Chris Licht in the production room are completely insufferable. They make me glad I don’t live in DC cause I swear I could kill entire weekends at the hotspots in town looking for their ilk to kick the shit out of.
FlipYrWhig
@Observer:
“Green Jobs” is the big bold Democratic idea. It got some play.
The media loves contrarians, basically. They’re going to gush over someone who is willing to gore the ox on the third rail while paying the piper and all that. So Paul Ryan is a darling because he’s willing to do what the conventional wisdom says he’s not supposed to do. Don’t forget, the media’s biggest crush for a decade was cranky old coot John McCain. And on the D side, they sort of like people like Harold Ford.
In essence, I think it comes down to this. They lionize Democrats who show they aren’t bleeding-hearts and they lionize Republicans who show they aren’t Bible-bangers.
Observer
@Sentient Puddle:
Ahhh, the soft bigotry of low expectations.
There are no Democrats with anything interesting or exciting to say regarding gov’t finances. I know, you know, the media knows it.
’nuff said.
PurpleGirl
@Judas Escargot: Have you looked FOKNews yet? (Friends of Keith Olbermann).
http://foknewschannel.com/
stuckinred
@TheStone: Geist always talkin about the hoop, at 62 I’d love to get his narrow ass under the bucket.
Observer
@FlipYrWhig:
C’mon Flipper, is it that hard to understand what I’m getting at?
“Green Jobs” is *exactly* the sort of piffle you get from a bunch of people scared of their own shadow who need to run in a herd in order to avoid being noticed.
Who is “Green Jobs”? Everyone knows who Paul Ryan is, they can just turn on their TV and there he is defending his “idea” and attacking his opponents directly. A “man of action” he is you know, yes he is.
What has this “Green Jobs” person done for you lately?
NonyNony
@FlipYrWhig:
I used to think so, not anymore.
The “media” (and by this I mean the talking heads who populate the opinion pages and have shows on the teevee) love people who tell them what they want to hear.
And what they want to hear is “You’re paying too much in taxes, here’s how we can fix that”.
Remember – the guys who write for the opinion pages of the major papers and who are the talking heads on the teevee are not poor. They are not middle class. They are at worst uppper-middle class. They probably think they will never need to rely on Medicare or Social Security or anything like that and that anyone who does is living outside their means and should have saved more when they were younger. They also have a vested interest in believing that they got their jobs purely through merit and that the US is a glorious meritocracy where the cream truly does rise to the top.
So they exalt politicians whose version of reality is the same as theirs and denigrate or ignore those who present a different picture. And how do people like that get their jobs? Well, who the fuck do you think is doing the hiring? You think the head of MSNBC or CNN is cut from a different mold? You think Sullenberger over at the NYT is any different from that? What kind of people are they going to be hiring – folks who challenge their worldview, or folks who agree with them? I’ve watched enough hiring processes to know the answer to that question.
I used to believe that it was all about narrative – not anymore. It’s all about world view. The guys who give us our news are in an entirely different social class than most of us, and they are consciously or unconsciously putting THEIR interests first. Always.
Sentient Puddle
@Observer:
Well gee, if that’s your starting point, of course you’re going to be disappointed by whatever Democrats propose! Might as well have just said that to begin with so that I could mock you outright and save that 15 seconds of my life Googling the White House budget for someone who actually cares about policy.
Tom Q
@The Political Nihilist Formerly Known As Kryptik: Pretty much my point. Maybe my sarcasm meter wasn’t set high enough.
Silver Owl
It never takes much to get the villagers to pop a boner.
Observer
@FlipYrWhig:
No. People like other people who do stuff, act decisively and take a stand.
Nobody likes a wuss.
FlipYrWhig
@Observer: Is your point that there are no liberal big ideas, or that there are no spokesmodels for those big ideas? Because the latter may be true, but the former is not.
Observer
@FlipYrWhig: No spokemodels *and* no ideas.
Ask yourself this long winded question: at the *state* level over the past 2 years and *not including your own state*, can you name any Democratic governor’s initiative that was aimed at fundamentally changing something?
We know about Wisconsin. We know about Michigan. Maine too. Ohio as well. Arizona yep. Big and bold. Bad ideas all.
Anything on the Dem side that wasn’t some mealy mouthed committee decision?
Can you point to any story in the NYT featuring some Dem state governor doing *anything* bold, pissing anybody off and standing behind it? I mean policy not scandal.
Illinois raised state taxes; that made the news. Did you notice the new governor taking charge of that story and defending it and attacking his opponents?
Nope, nope and nope.
Republicans court the press and publicity and controversy. Dems are afraid of it.
kay
@eemom:
I started to drop him after this:
Napolitano was a successful AG and then a successful governor. Andrew Sullivan watches a CNN clip and demands her resignation.
“On my DESK!”
Okay, Andrew. Maybe you should slow down and read the transcript before “firing” her? I think you got it all wrong.
shortstop
@NonyNony:
This. And they don’t even have to be wealthy. They just have to have an extreme distaste for vegetables and a gargantuan love of dessert. The GOP tells them, “You can have whatever you want and you don’t have to pay for it. In fact, you deserve not to have to pay for it.”
Elizabelle
@Observer:
We are looking at a possible double dip recession.
We have two Americas, with a Wall Street Economy and a Main Street Economy.
The stimulus was not enough, although it staved off disaster.
Agree that long-term debt is a cancer, but it’s not the biggest issue facing us at present.
Also agree that it would be refreshing to see some intelligent Democrats taking the lead on creating a more sustainable budget.
Although that plan will get nowhere, if the GOP twigs that it might (1) work and (2) the Dems might get credit for it.
Observer: have you read Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine”?
Judas Escargot
@eemom:
I first read this as “fierce fury of a thousand nuns”.
(Which, actually, would be the perfect force to sic on Mssrs. Sullivan and Ryan).
Elizabelle
@kay:
Sullivan is an excitable lad.
You can already cue the “OK, I was wrong” blogposts 18 months from now on his manlove of Ryan and Daniels.
But why live through them in realtime?
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Observer:
Compared to audacity for audacity’s sake? Damn straight.
You know who else had bold, audacious plans for his country, don’t you? Central European dude, little moustache, invaded the USSR? How’d that audacity work out?
Tom Q
@Judas Escargot: And, for those of us raised in the Sister Mary Discipline era of Catholic schools, more terrifying than most anything else.
shortstop
@Observer:
That’s the only thing you’ve said, as opposed to mimed, that makes sense.
But it doesn’t mean these GOP ideas are “big and bold.” It means they’re melodramatic. Sound bitable. Colorful. Mostly crazy. And they’re all about having two desserts, and nothing about eating your vegetables.
kay
@Elizabelle:
I loved that particular episode because for all of his nonsense about “security theatre” and the “security state” his whining was basically: “Janet! Keep me saaaafe!”
He flies! Frequently! He could have been on that plane.
He’s all for a less intrusive state unless some lunatic slips through and boards an airplane. Then that delicate balance between civil liberties and security swings WILDLY to “security!”.
Observer
@Sentient Puddle:
I’m explaining something in my first post. I’m just performing a service. Perhaps you should reread it.
The “White House” isn’t a person. It’s budget is neither a big idea nor a bold one. No one has “defended” the budget or the philosophy behind them and the White House has attacked exactly none of its opponents of the budget. In contrast, it’s worked to set up a bunch of committees.
in short: there’s no one’s face to this White House budget.
Compare the White House proposals for Social Security back in 2005. When Bush proposed it, he made himself the face, went on a road tour, took an argument to the public and attacked his Dem opponents. He still lost that argument but there was no doubt who was the face of that campaign.
I hope that I don’t have to explain this again to you in such great detail the differences. Yes I am also showing an opinion, but I’m also explaining a dynamic.
Dems run away from controversy, Republicans seek it out. Dems do faceless committees, Republicans make “stars” for each of their jihads.
Don’t complain about the media if your party is made up of sheep.
Judas Escargot
@stuckinred:
I KNEW I’d miss him but Lawrence goes for the throat too.
Lawrence is a little too aligned with the Huff-Po crowd for my taste (“Hello, I’m Lawrence O’Donnell. Did you know, not only am I devilishly handsome– but I once worked in the Senate! And on The West Wing, too!”).
But yes, credit where credit is due: between his law background and Senate experience, he does know how to draw out and then eviscerate the occasional winger with cold precision. Considering that the 8pm slot could have gone to any number of morons, it could have been much much worse.
Still not the same, though.
master c
It’s cuz he’s so tiny, we all just wanna cuddle with him.
Observer
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): I could give you a hundred big and bold ideas that Dems should take up but they’re too scared of their own shadow to do anything. Dems sit on their thumbs. There’s lot of reasons why, all of them bad ones. It’s unfair to contrast Ryan with the USSR as if that will somehow make congenital thumbsitters stand up straight.
dj spellchecka
shocking i know, but i heard fauxnews mara on npr this morning being all impressed with republican ryan: “But the big point is that he takes on entitlements.”
no, the big point is this plan is utterly unserious, a rip-off, and a non-starter, but that goes unmentioned.
i have to wonder, if he had suggested that as a part of fixing medicare we will start hooking large helium ballons to our hospitals and float them to brazil to acheive cost savings, would she still sigh “But the big point is that he takes on entitlements?”
no need to answer
Observer
@Elizabelle: No I haven’t read the Shock Doctrine. Only read the reviews. But the issue is that in the smoke filled backrooms of Dem candidates they strategize on how to make money selling out quietly rather than on how to make money by doing something progressive.
Judas Escargot
@PurpleGirl:
Yes, but it’s just not the same.
He’s apparently supposed to start a primetime show on CurrentTV “sometime this Spring”. I plan to be among the few hundreds to tune in.
FlipYrWhig
@Observer:
If only there was something comparable that Obama had done, involving making a controversial Big Proposal and then giving speeches and hosting rallies about it across the country for months on end. I can’t believe he hasn’t done such a thing. It’s almost incomprehensible.
Linnaeus
I think what the Democrats need as well is a better message with respect to their overall vision of what they’d like American society to be like. Specific proposals – big or small – are necessary, but they need to go hand in hand with a broader vision.
We see what that vision is with the Republicans, as much as I find that vision objectionable. The Democratic Party, as an institution, is confused about its identity and hence its vision is less coherent. Part of that, to be fair, is due to the fact that the Democratic Party encompasses a more diverse coalition of Americans that does the Republican Party, and that creates an inherent structural challenge. But the Democrats have also made some poor choices over the past 30-40 years and the consequences of those choices are still being felt today.
agrippa
I do not understand this interest in Sullivan.
I am not impressed with him at all. he is quite silly.
Observer
@FlipYrWhig: I surely hope you’re not talking about the health care reform fiasco wherein the White House studiously avoided putting out an actual specific legislative proposal even while Dem supporters were asking for Obama to “take the lead” and rather instead the POTUS let the Senate committee be front and center on the “reform” and let them twist in the wind for several months and then watched and did nothing as idiot yahoos screamed and disrupted town halls over during the summer recess and then finally after 10 months of grunting and squirming the Senate pushed out a turd of a bill.
I hope *that’s* not what you’re referring to.
Because that’s exactly 100% the opposite of what Ryan’s doing here and is exactly and 100% what the problem is.
Obama method: committees, no proposals for months, “bipartisanship”, compromise deals, no owner.
Ryan method: no committees, proposals out quickly, slams opponents, campaigns for specific proposal,Ryan is the owner.
Bush on SS 2005: no committees, proposals out quickly, slams opponents, campaigns for specific proposal, Bush is the owner.
Can you see the differences? If you don’t get that, you won’t get anything on this topic.
FlipYrWhig
@Observer: I don’t share your view of the compelling nature of Paul Ryan’s media strategy, or your reading of how HCR was handled, but it’s not going to be worthwhile to hash out two years’ worth of tactics-talk here and now.
cckids
@Observer: So, what seems to float your boat is:
NO COMMITTEES!!! My God, man, make up your own mind! Why get other people’s opinions? Experts!!? WTF?? Who needs them, if you have a spine?
It’s more important to GET IT OUT FAST than to do it well.
NO COMPROMISE! No surrender!! Die on that wall!
Own your proposals. I’ll give you that one, that is a good idea.
FlipYrWhig
@cckids:
Steve King and Peter King also own their proposals. Plenty of Congresspeople propose things. I don’t know why Paul Ryan’s latest bullshit is such a magical model of how to propose things that it so clearly demonstrates everything Obama and co. so miserably lack.
Elizabelle
@Observer:
Yes, I think that does happen way too often.
We get stuck with worst of the worst vs. mendacious and self-serving in some matchups, and that’s not a great choice.
I wish we would see public financing of campaigns in my lifetime.
Which might be the only way we see universal healthcare.
Elizabelle
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the new DNC chair.
Wunderbar!
DonkeyKong
Paul Ryan and the Villagers are gonna groove on the rubble ya dig!
les
@Observer:
Jebus, Dude. There is a plan: let the Bush tax cuts expire; stop spending more than the rest of the world on defense; and get healthcare costs under control. Hey presto–no deficit. First and last have already been subject to big fights, baby steps on two.
We don’t need a fucking circus of bullshit like Ryan, we need fucking adults in charge.
Redwood Rhiadra
Seriously, is this any different than the way Chris Matthews gushed over how manly Bush looked in his flight suit?
les
@Observer:
Which, of course, is why you’ve presented none. Unfortunately, there appears to be an army of vapid ignorant unthinking toads like you, who need bread and circuses so you don’t have to think.
What was Clinton’s BIG BOLD BUDGET CIRCUS that produced surpluses? Were you just as whiny and unhappy back then?
Calouste
@Observer:
Remind me again about the success of Bush’s Social Security proposals. I seem to have forgotten.
You can also remind me again later in the year about the success of Ryan’s proposal.
urbanmeemaw
@kay: Kay, you’re being much too nice. I don’t think the English language has the verb to describe my feelings for these vile wretches.
OzoneR
@Observer:
I can name five;
Anthony Weiner
Alan Grayson
Bernie Sanders
Sherrod Brown
Peter Shumlin.
OzoneR
@Observer:
I’ll be sure to let Anthony Weiner know you said that. He’ll be surprised to hear it.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Observer:
Like health care reform?
Big difference there being, of course being that the health care reform numbers were crunched, and that will work, and to the benefit of the majority of Americans. Ryan’s budget? Not so much.
You seem to believe the old saw that fortune favors the bold, but I can give you any number of examples where, in fact, the opposite is true, and there are many more examples supporting me than supporting you.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Remember that.
pattonbt
The problem is Democrats, at least in my opinion, want to talk about making things better and finding solutions to problems. Which means “policy” discussions. And they aren’t too beholden to doing things one specific way, so that means debate. On the other hand, Republicans pretty much just “throw stones” and sit there and smile. They state problems (real or imaginary) and use fear for support. Money, blood and fear sell, debate does not.
The media, if it is for profit, is going to lose viewers/subscribers if they cover booooooooring policy debates (how many people watch C-Span?) versus some huckster “common sense” used car salesman who will tell you with complete earnestness (whether they believe it or not) that you abso-fucking-lutely can have your cake, eat it, not have to pay for it and lose weight! On top of that, they will make sure the scary “other” gets nothing! It’s obvious why Democratic policy/ideas never get a fair shake in this media culture – they aren’t sexy, snooooooze. It really is that simple, boring versus sizzle, which do you think people want to see/hear?
Why would any for profit news outlet give airtime to Democrats when it’s a guaranteed money loser?