MSNBC trio flopped
Based on their performance at the first Republican presidential debate May 3, MSNBC’s Three Stooges — Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermman and Joe Scarborough — should really be hosts on Comedy Central.
Matthews showed favoritism to Sen. John McCain many times in letting him go past the time limit, but he twice cut off Rep. Tom Tancredo and asked him silly questions. MSNBC should be called on it.
For Matthews and Co. to moderate a GOP debate is laughable. It was a waste of time and money for MSNBC. Hopefully, future debates by CNN and Fox News will do a much better job.
Jan Herron, Evergreen
Fox news do better? Are pigs growing wings now?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 12, 2007 06:14 AMI thought the same thing Jan. Why on earth the powers that be would choose Matthews to moderate a rupublican presidential debate I'll never know. He was brash, rude and asked the most idiotic questions I've ever heard. The one about having a Clinton in the White House again being good for America made me gag!
Posted by Ann on May 12, 2007 07:04 AMFox is the only reliable news source that's why the liberals hate it,cnn is garbage.
Posted by Keith on May 12, 2007 07:22 AMFox is the only reliable news source that's why the liberals hate it,cnn is garbage.
Posted by Keith on May 12, 2007 07:22 AMJan, I agree.
Posted by on May 12, 2007 08:14 AMThe Republicans never make a mistake when it comes to propaganda. From holding the debate in the Reagan library to have Matthews moderate it was all carefully scripted. Even though Matthews is widely perceived as a softball thrower of the highest order his selection was precisely for the purposes of allowing Herron's of the world to say that the Republicans were "once again" victims of the "liberal bias". Unfortunately for the poor little victimized Republicans, their little sham looks old worn and threadbare.
Keith is always good for a chuckle and his reliable Fox News helped me start me day. I really liked it when "reliable" Fox News KEPT captioning Tom Foley as a Democrat from Florida. Keith knows it is reliable because it is the only thing he watches.
Posted by Wes on May 12, 2007 08:54 AMMSNBC is a total waste of time. Fox asks the hard questions and that is why the Dems avoid it like the plague. Chris Matthews and Olbermann are the worst of the worst. CNN has a little more class at least.
Sharon obviously gets her news from MSNBC and that is why she thinks the way she does.
Posted by troll on May 12, 2007 09:54 AMKeith Olberman is right on. One of a few in the conservatively dominated media that stands up to the debacle of this administration.
Fox Noise, hard questions? Only to Democrats.
Posted by conservative media on May 12, 2007 10:13 AMJan is wrong stating ,"It was a waste of time and money for MSNBC.". Their anti repub agenda was more than served via the silly questions posed designed to promote dem talking points.
Ann- Repubs were all concerned about the appearance of the "friendly" fox news hosting it so they went with msnbc hoping for a fair shake.Right,you saw what happened.
Compare that to the recent dems REFUSAL to debate on fox for fear of what I think would have been tough but FAIR questions, and they go with CNN, where they know they will get more than their share of softballs thrown , and of course they did.
Posted by GET REAL on May 12, 2007 10:25 AMJan is correct about there being a flop. She just has the floppers wrong. It was the candidates who flopped, not the media.
The truth for me is that both party's debates flopped because they were only given time for sound bytes, not views.
Posted by Truth on May 12, 2007 10:34 AMCM-
Keith Olbermann is a rabid,bombthrowing moonbat that serious thinking people rightfully dismiss.
The letter writer, of course, supports Tancredo over any of the other candidates.
Others find this an opportunity to lash out at the opposition (liberal or conservative, take your choice--excuse me, I mean, that's your *only* choice-- cause there are two, and only two, types of people in this world)
But Truth gets to an important question. Why are we having and trumpeting a debate which consists essentially of one or two minute soundbites? Should we elect the best soundbiter?
Who do you suppose this format benefits more, MSNBC (or Fox or CNN) or the people of the United States? God forbid any of the networks would give even a 30 minute interview with each of the candidates in prime-time. After all, we don't want to miss our real American Idols, do we?
Posted by anderson on May 12, 2007 11:28 AManderson,
Take a look at all the current candidates - BOTH SIDES - and tell me which of them is worth a 30 minute interview, in or out of prime time.
And then, listen to the rest of the pack, and their followers, rant, scream, and holler about who did get picked.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 12, 2007 01:07 PMWell, they're all engaged in this game of marketing themselves to us. And so far it's all we have to choose from. I say a lengthier interview would give us a better picture of the candidates, warts and all. Otherwise, it's like that speed dating game where you have only two minutes or whatever to make an assessment of a potential mate. Imagine if GW Bush had been forced to expound at length before the public eye in 1999, instead of in the soundbite format. Would he still have been elected?
Posted by anderson on May 12, 2007 01:36 PMI will throw in with Old Grouch on this one.
We don't have much to choose from in either party. I guess we will end up with the "best of the worse" Maybe!!!!
Bush has been a great president,all the down falls have been caused by the lying democrats.Causing harm to our troops and the american people.To bad for us there is uneducated people out there that can't and won't understand it.
Posted by Keith on May 13, 2007 08:13 AManderson,
Perhaps, when all the nits and "no-see-ums" have been sorted out, and crawled back into the woodwork , the remaining candidates will do better, or show up better - if only by way of contrast to their own opposition.
One can hope, anyway.
Unfortunately, the current situation is very much too much like a "flea market" - and the reader may interpret that one any way you like - with too many "junk" vendors overshadowing the few who might poaaibly have something of worth to offer. Which of course, does work to favor the lowest common denominator, as it did before.
One must say the junk vendors' shills tend to get very tiresome; but that's politics.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 13, 2007 08:42 AMKeith, you are a perfect example of what you hate.
Posted by Hank on May 14, 2007 11:58 AM[ ]
Posted by Keith on May 14, 2007 12:15 PM[ ]
Posted by Keith on May 14, 2007 12:15 PMCMoron writes: "Keith Olberman is right on. One of a few in the conservatively dominated media that stands up to the debacle of this administration."
If the media is "conservatively dominated" as you claim, why is it you never bash NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, LA Times, WaPo, Boston Globe, etc...
I guess another liberal keep on repeating the lie until it's accpeted as truth operating proceudre has been debunked.
Now try posting something with at least a hint of obejective perpective next time, ok?
Posted by KW on May 14, 2007 02:15 PM