If she's not the dumbest and most unprofessional, she's certainly in the top ten.
Most of the rest are at MSNBC too, of course.
Today she put her hoof squarely into her big mouth by trying to dress down Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) after he disagreed with one of her screeds on how Obama saved us from an economic depression. Brooks said that he didn't think so, and Brewer snarkily popped back: "Well do you have a degree in Economics?"
Turns out that the Congressman does. With honors. In addition to his Political Science degree and his Law degree.
You know who doesn't have a degree in Economics? That's right. Contessa Brewer. Just a little B.S. in Broadcast Journalism, per her Wikipedia page. Apparently she slept through the class where they taught that it's not your job to advance your own opinions and then try to belittle the subject of your interview when he responds. There is a reason why he's the one being interviewed and you're the one reading questions.
Contessa Brewer. Catty, mean, openly biased, politically slanted and too stupid for prime time. But just right for MSNBC, though.
Showing posts with label MSNBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSNBC. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
More Liberal Civility on Display.
MSNBC's Ed Schultz on Tuesday called Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut" for daring to criticize Barack Obama's decision to go party in Ireland as hundreds of Americans lay dead, injured or missing following the devastating tornado that struck Joplin, Missouri on Sunday.
This must be what the Dems mean by "a new kind of civility"
Personally, I was surprised to hear that "Special Ed" still even has a show. My guess is that he's just jealous because Laura Ingraham has millions of listeners and he has...I'm guessing about a dozen. I suspect that the only reason that he's still even on the air is because he still has pictures of someone high up at MSNBC naked with a goat or something.
This must be what the Dems mean by "a new kind of civility"
Personally, I was surprised to hear that "Special Ed" still even has a show. My guess is that he's just jealous because Laura Ingraham has millions of listeners and he has...I'm guessing about a dozen. I suspect that the only reason that he's still even on the air is because he still has pictures of someone high up at MSNBC naked with a goat or something.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Obama's useful idiots are worried now that they're no longer useful
The media sycophants that got Obama elected after spending eight years undermining the last President are now worried--and angry--because Obama is bypassing them and going directly to the people, according to a recent Daily Beast article.
This article, which is lengthy enough that I won't reprint it all here, begins with an explanation of how Obama is bypassing (and disrespecting) the mainstream media tools who were his staunchest allies and supporters right up until the point when he no longer needed them and they began to question his policies and direction. Obama is now shutting them out and going around them, and they don't like it.
First, they worry that they may wind up on the scrap heap of obsolescence (and have to go out and get real jobs) now that they're finding themselves supplanted by the young college kids that Obama is hiring to reach out on Twitter and facebook and all of the other "idiot" networks. But then they make the claim that America will somehow be worse off without them because they provide an essential serviced by "filtering" the news--deciding what you and I get to se and hear--and that without them to make those decisions, we'll all somehow become poorer and stupider.
CBS senior White House correspondent Bill Plante isn't shy about his belief that they're smart enough (and trustworthy enough) to decide what information reaches you and I. “In the end, who gets the decent information? The people who rely on trusted filters, whether they’re online or on the air,” Plante replied. “If you do it all yourself, you’re gonna get a load of crap!”
Because you and I...we're not smart enough to figure out what's crap and what's not. We need the media talking heads to tell us, specifically the media talking heads who have consistently demonstrated an open bias towards all things Democrat and against anything conservative or Republican. Yeah...we need that, because we're stupid, right? we need to be told what and how to think and have our information flow restricted to just that which reinforces what the Bill Plantes and the Chris Matthewses want us to think.
The redoubtable (and undeniably leftist) Helen Thomas—who started at the White House covering JFK for United Press International, and still has a front-row seat in the briefing room—is worried that all the downsizing at media outlets will result in less-reliable coverage of the president.
“It’s a tragedy in my book—it means less accountability,” Thomas said. “We certainly haven’t had any news conferences in a long time, which reminds me of Watergate in the sense of a long time of not having press conferences. Obama has given a lot of interviews, but that doesn’t reveal the whole picture at all.”
Thomas, at 89, might have slowed down a bit since her wire-service days, but she’s still combat-ready with a sharply honed question. “The difference between a news conference and interviews is that the questions from the ‘rabble’ will come from left field,” she said, “and they will ask something that will really startle him” and push the president off his talking points.
And that would have been fine if people like Thomas had ever tried to really grill Obama with tough, probing question and throw him off his message. But they didn't, because they were his fans and supporters. In fact, Chris Matthews of MSNBC, one of President Bush's most vitriolic critics, openly admitted that his job was to make the Obama Presidency a success.
That's the kind of "filtering" that we need? I don't think so.
BUt we get still more elitism from Thomas, who decries the fact that people are now directly disseminating information without going through her and her comrades.
“There’s no accountability for a blogger,” she scoffed. “They can ruin lives, reputations, and once you send something into the air, it’s going to land, and there’s nothing that can curb them from saying anything they want. Everybody with a laptop thinks they’re a journalist, and everybody with a cellphone thinks they’re a photographer.”
But what of the media's long history of ruining lives and reputations? Dan Quayle come to mind? Sarah Palin? President Bush and Vice-President Cheney? Was there anything too salacious to refrain from printing about any of these people, or countless others on the political right? I suspect that what she means is that now it'll be that much harder to protect those wrongdoers on the left--like the media tried so hard to do in the case of John "who's-you-daddy?" Edwards. Remember how the media collectively refused to report on that one until the National Enquirer and the bloggers broke it wide open? That kind of selective filtering we can all do well without, thank you very much.
You media folks used to be objective and you scrutinized government with a probing eye on behalf of the public without regard for partisanship. In that regard, you provided America with a valuable service. But then you decided to cash it all in and started using your hard-won credibility to affect and shape public opinion instead of just reporting fairly. The result: Now one side has no use for you, and the team that you chose to support now treats you like a shopworn hooker. The public doesn't trust you any more and there's no way to unring the bell and get your reputation back. Obama will be gone eventually but you'll still stained and mistrusted. So bring on the death of the mainstream media, or at least it's demise as an agenda-driven combine. It can't come too soon in my books.
This article, which is lengthy enough that I won't reprint it all here, begins with an explanation of how Obama is bypassing (and disrespecting) the mainstream media tools who were his staunchest allies and supporters right up until the point when he no longer needed them and they began to question his policies and direction. Obama is now shutting them out and going around them, and they don't like it.
First, they worry that they may wind up on the scrap heap of obsolescence (and have to go out and get real jobs) now that they're finding themselves supplanted by the young college kids that Obama is hiring to reach out on Twitter and facebook and all of the other "idiot" networks. But then they make the claim that America will somehow be worse off without them because they provide an essential serviced by "filtering" the news--deciding what you and I get to se and hear--and that without them to make those decisions, we'll all somehow become poorer and stupider.
CBS senior White House correspondent Bill Plante isn't shy about his belief that they're smart enough (and trustworthy enough) to decide what information reaches you and I. “In the end, who gets the decent information? The people who rely on trusted filters, whether they’re online or on the air,” Plante replied. “If you do it all yourself, you’re gonna get a load of crap!”
Because you and I...we're not smart enough to figure out what's crap and what's not. We need the media talking heads to tell us, specifically the media talking heads who have consistently demonstrated an open bias towards all things Democrat and against anything conservative or Republican. Yeah...we need that, because we're stupid, right? we need to be told what and how to think and have our information flow restricted to just that which reinforces what the Bill Plantes and the Chris Matthewses want us to think.
The redoubtable (and undeniably leftist) Helen Thomas—who started at the White House covering JFK for United Press International, and still has a front-row seat in the briefing room—is worried that all the downsizing at media outlets will result in less-reliable coverage of the president.
“It’s a tragedy in my book—it means less accountability,” Thomas said. “We certainly haven’t had any news conferences in a long time, which reminds me of Watergate in the sense of a long time of not having press conferences. Obama has given a lot of interviews, but that doesn’t reveal the whole picture at all.”
Thomas, at 89, might have slowed down a bit since her wire-service days, but she’s still combat-ready with a sharply honed question. “The difference between a news conference and interviews is that the questions from the ‘rabble’ will come from left field,” she said, “and they will ask something that will really startle him” and push the president off his talking points.
And that would have been fine if people like Thomas had ever tried to really grill Obama with tough, probing question and throw him off his message. But they didn't, because they were his fans and supporters. In fact, Chris Matthews of MSNBC, one of President Bush's most vitriolic critics, openly admitted that his job was to make the Obama Presidency a success.
That's the kind of "filtering" that we need? I don't think so.
BUt we get still more elitism from Thomas, who decries the fact that people are now directly disseminating information without going through her and her comrades.
“There’s no accountability for a blogger,” she scoffed. “They can ruin lives, reputations, and once you send something into the air, it’s going to land, and there’s nothing that can curb them from saying anything they want. Everybody with a laptop thinks they’re a journalist, and everybody with a cellphone thinks they’re a photographer.”
But what of the media's long history of ruining lives and reputations? Dan Quayle come to mind? Sarah Palin? President Bush and Vice-President Cheney? Was there anything too salacious to refrain from printing about any of these people, or countless others on the political right? I suspect that what she means is that now it'll be that much harder to protect those wrongdoers on the left--like the media tried so hard to do in the case of John "who's-you-daddy?" Edwards. Remember how the media collectively refused to report on that one until the National Enquirer and the bloggers broke it wide open? That kind of selective filtering we can all do well without, thank you very much.
You media folks used to be objective and you scrutinized government with a probing eye on behalf of the public without regard for partisanship. In that regard, you provided America with a valuable service. But then you decided to cash it all in and started using your hard-won credibility to affect and shape public opinion instead of just reporting fairly. The result: Now one side has no use for you, and the team that you chose to support now treats you like a shopworn hooker. The public doesn't trust you any more and there's no way to unring the bell and get your reputation back. Obama will be gone eventually but you'll still stained and mistrusted. So bring on the death of the mainstream media, or at least it's demise as an agenda-driven combine. It can't come too soon in my books.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Massachusetts senate race close...And voting fraud already being discovered
As usual, since it appears that the far left "progressives" might not be able to win honestly, they're doing what Ed Schultz suggested and cheating. Michelle Malkin, Michael Graham and others watching are circulating a video of a known democrat activist named Isabel Martinez handing out blank absentee ballots and instructing people to mark off Democrat Martha Coakley's name. Other shenanigans are reportedly going on as well, all aimed at defeating Republican Scott Brown and helping Coakley win. Do we really need another fraudulently-elected senator in Washington? Isn't Al Franken enough?
We'll see what we'll see when the polls close. And of course the Dems are already talking about slowing the official count down to keep Brown from taking the seat if it appears that he won.
Be ashamed, Dems... Be ashamed.
Oh--and MSNBC's Ed Schultz is now saying that not only is he not sorry that he advocated voter fraud in this race, but he'd actually cheat twice as much and vote twenty times if he could...and of course he calls anyone who disagrees with him more nasty names. How can any of you Democrats let this guy stand next to you and claim to be one of you? Surely there must be at least one of you who has some honor?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Anyone?
We'll see what we'll see when the polls close. And of course the Dems are already talking about slowing the official count down to keep Brown from taking the seat if it appears that he won.
Be ashamed, Dems... Be ashamed.
Oh--and MSNBC's Ed Schultz is now saying that not only is he not sorry that he advocated voter fraud in this race, but he'd actually cheat twice as much and vote twenty times if he could...and of course he calls anyone who disagrees with him more nasty names. How can any of you Democrats let this guy stand next to you and claim to be one of you? Surely there must be at least one of you who has some honor?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Anyone?
Monday, January 18, 2010
Why Scott Brown needs to win in Massachusetts tomorrow.
Reason #632... Because those who are the most opposed to him are the worst sort of hateful scumbags.
And as exhibit #1, I give you left-wing hate-monger Ed Schultz of MSNBC, who declares that he'd subvert democracy and cheat if he thought it would keep Brown from being elected...and urges his listeners (all three or four dozen of them) to give it a try.
I'm waiting for some Democrat to denounce Ed Schultz, but I suspect that I'll be waiting a long, long time.
Scott Brown needs to win tomorrow if for no other reason than because this is the face of the opposition--the liberal elitists who despise Democracy if it means that they don't get their way.
Go Scott, Go!
And as exhibit #1, I give you left-wing hate-monger Ed Schultz of MSNBC, who declares that he'd subvert democracy and cheat if he thought it would keep Brown from being elected...and urges his listeners (all three or four dozen of them) to give it a try.
Radio Equalizer's Brian Maloney captured MSNBC's Ed Schultz making a startling remark on his radio show yesterday about supporting voter fraud in Massachusetts, so Scott Brown would lose. The audio is below along with the transcript.
SCHULTZ (23:02): I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.
I'm waiting for some Democrat to denounce Ed Schultz, but I suspect that I'll be waiting a long, long time.
Scott Brown needs to win tomorrow if for no other reason than because this is the face of the opposition--the liberal elitists who despise Democracy if it means that they don't get their way.
Go Scott, Go!
Friday, November 30, 2007
Join with me to call for Erin Burnett's ouster from MSNBC
Can you imagine a CBS reporter calling President Franklin Delano Roosevelt a "pathetic little cripple" during World War Two? How about a reporter from ABC referring to John F. Kennedy as a twit and a daddy's boy at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Unthinkable, right? After all, it's impermissibly unpatriotic for a news reporter to attack and mock an American elected president during wartime, right? It always has been before, but MSNBC--known to many as the American Al Qeada channel--has now sunk to a new low--lower than even partisan hater and unbalanced commentator Keith Olbermann could take them. Now MSNBC's Business News anchor has called our President a monkey--not once but several times--during this broadcast in which she was supposed to be talking about business issues.
Watch the broadcast here.
As a patriotic American, I've had it with the smug and immature leftists, who, because they didn't get their way in either of the last two public presidential elections, have decided that they owe the president absolutely no respect at all. Not on an official level or on a personal level. And because they're so invested in themselves and because they care not a whit for an America that didn't give them their way, they think that they can use any means or venue to display their personal dislike for this man. Like little kids throwing tantrums, they don't care how stupid it makes them look or how much it embarrasses and disrespects this country.
Now the American Left has had every opportunity to convince the rest of us that they're right. But they lose every election when the issue is their politics versus conservatism and morality, and when they try to go on radio or TV to compete with the likes of award-winning, top-rated hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck or Michelle Malkin, their shows crash and burn because no one but a few fringe haters wants to hear it. If you doubt this, just ask Rosie O'Donnell, Whoopi Goldberg, or anyone on air America about their ratings. (Oh that right...you can't. Most of them have already been canceled for lack of said ratings.)
So in lieu of honest competition in the arena of ideas and discussion, they just sit around every day and call names and hurl vicious personal insults like a bunch of grade-school bullies. And while it's objectionable--and during a time of war, arguably seditious--it's still their right. However, using the facilities of supposedly mainstream news outlets as their personal attack venues isn't appropriate and shouldn't be tolerated, and since MSNBC's on-air "talent" unquestionably leads the way due to their editors grinning and winking and pretending not to see, it's up to the rest of us to get the message out. Please join with me in e-mailing MSNBC and demanding that they officially repudiate Erin Burnett's comments and dismiss her immediately. anything less on their part makes them part and parcel to our enemies who are trying from abroad to destroy our nation. It puts them in the cockpit right along with the 9/11 hijackers and on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan opposite US troops.
There was a time when we could disagree amongst ourselves yet band together against a common enemy when we needed to. No matter what our disagreements were about, there was once a time when they were transcended by the fact that we're all Americans--united as a nation.
Sadly the Liberals don't see it that way any more. If America doesn't follow their lead, then screw America. That's unfortunately the mantra of the modern Liberal. And it's one of the main reasons why Liberalism is failing.
But as to this most recent broadcast outrage, you can write MSNBC at this address: letters@msnbc.com
Clog their servers and show them that America is sick of being sniped in the back by a handful of sore losers with ideas that no one but them agrees with. let them know that if they fail to repudiate Erin Burnett's childish and petty comments, then they adopt them as a network position. Perhaps they and Al Jazeera can share a booth at the upcoming Democratic National Convention.
Watch the broadcast here.
As a patriotic American, I've had it with the smug and immature leftists, who, because they didn't get their way in either of the last two public presidential elections, have decided that they owe the president absolutely no respect at all. Not on an official level or on a personal level. And because they're so invested in themselves and because they care not a whit for an America that didn't give them their way, they think that they can use any means or venue to display their personal dislike for this man. Like little kids throwing tantrums, they don't care how stupid it makes them look or how much it embarrasses and disrespects this country.
Now the American Left has had every opportunity to convince the rest of us that they're right. But they lose every election when the issue is their politics versus conservatism and morality, and when they try to go on radio or TV to compete with the likes of award-winning, top-rated hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck or Michelle Malkin, their shows crash and burn because no one but a few fringe haters wants to hear it. If you doubt this, just ask Rosie O'Donnell, Whoopi Goldberg, or anyone on air America about their ratings. (Oh that right...you can't. Most of them have already been canceled for lack of said ratings.)
So in lieu of honest competition in the arena of ideas and discussion, they just sit around every day and call names and hurl vicious personal insults like a bunch of grade-school bullies. And while it's objectionable--and during a time of war, arguably seditious--it's still their right. However, using the facilities of supposedly mainstream news outlets as their personal attack venues isn't appropriate and shouldn't be tolerated, and since MSNBC's on-air "talent" unquestionably leads the way due to their editors grinning and winking and pretending not to see, it's up to the rest of us to get the message out. Please join with me in e-mailing MSNBC and demanding that they officially repudiate Erin Burnett's comments and dismiss her immediately. anything less on their part makes them part and parcel to our enemies who are trying from abroad to destroy our nation. It puts them in the cockpit right along with the 9/11 hijackers and on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan opposite US troops.
There was a time when we could disagree amongst ourselves yet band together against a common enemy when we needed to. No matter what our disagreements were about, there was once a time when they were transcended by the fact that we're all Americans--united as a nation.
Sadly the Liberals don't see it that way any more. If America doesn't follow their lead, then screw America. That's unfortunately the mantra of the modern Liberal. And it's one of the main reasons why Liberalism is failing.
But as to this most recent broadcast outrage, you can write MSNBC at this address: letters@msnbc.com
Clog their servers and show them that America is sick of being sniped in the back by a handful of sore losers with ideas that no one but them agrees with. let them know that if they fail to repudiate Erin Burnett's childish and petty comments, then they adopt them as a network position. Perhaps they and Al Jazeera can share a booth at the upcoming Democratic National Convention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)