What maroons…

Oh, so Chris “I never met a Republican I didn’t worship” Matthews is simply someone who is unafraid to say what he thinks. It doesn’t say whether or not what he thinks is grounded in reality or not. There is no mystery about what Chris Matthews does in a voting booth: straight Republican ticket is his choice.

BTW Keith Olbermann is not an idealogue, as defined by Webster’s:

I*de”a*logue (?), n. [Idea + -logue, as in theologue: cf. F. id'eologue.]

One given to fanciful ideas or theories; a theorist; a spectator.

He is someone who serves as a fact-checker for those who *are* given to “fanciful ideas” in the media, in politics, and in our government.

Having Olbermann anchor _ as he will continue, with Matthews, for big political nights throughout the campaign _ is the MSNBC equivalent of Fox News Channel assigning the same duties to O’Reilly.
Fox has never done that, perhaps mindful of the immediate controversy that would result. Fox has tried to differentiate between its news operation and its prime-time opinion shows, even as its critics believe strongly that’s bunk. In this case, MSNBC doesn’t try to separate news and opinion people, even as it tries to separate news and opinion.

Matthews asked such stupid questions. When he asked if they wanted to see Clinton in the White House again. The repug monkey’s laughter was not of riducule, but FEAR. Fear because Prez Clinton is a better human being then all 10 repugs put together.

K.O would have followed up Guiliani’s mastication for Reagan by reminding Guiliani that he was a democrat when Reagan was in office. Guiliani is a mafia crook.

Comment by Reality — May 6, 2007

that has to be the funniest thing i have read in a long time. actually, “the left” finds it rather humorous that the front runner in the neoclowns bid for the presidency in 2008 is a thumbsucker

Pointing out that someone is a lying shit is exactly the same as being scared of said person.

Why is the “Right” so scared of Keith Olbermann? A question we don’t really have to ask, and you don’t really have to answer. Honest, decent people already know why the “Right” is scared of Keith Olbermann.

Only Democrats can flip-flop! By definition and usage!

So there!

Liberals! Hmf.

Are you talking about AP or TP ?

AP is faulted for supposedly airing GOP complaints about Olberman without context. Adding that context would (one assumes) be pointing out that Olberman is a biased partisan pundit.

No word yet on how that would be a better outcome, but supposedly that shows AP’s bias for not doing to Olberman’s MSNBC at the Republican debate what TP did to O’Reilly’s Fox over the Democrat debate.

Perhaps you just got the word ‘bias’ confused with ‘hypocrisy’. Sure, the bias is built right in there but it’s the phony suggestion of standards that’s what sticks out the most.

Lora — 1
Zoo — 0

*hanging head in shame**

:-D

Wow. I must be really special in your life, Haggie. Two responses since I was dubbed unimportant. You really can’t help yourself, can you? :D
Zoo — 975
Hag — 0
Comment by Zooey

“loosing”
Comment by valiant venus

L-O-S-I-N-G
I know you like to imagine that you are accurate.
Comment by Zooey

While I haven’t kept count of the precise numbers here, Zooey is probably correct, for VileVenus/Mighty Hypocrite certainly hasn’t won any (that means ZERO) arguments here.
On the second point, Zooey, you only corrected Vile’s (mis)spelling of losing. VV also wrote “a loosing propositions.” “Propositions” is plural; using the singular “a” before it is all wrong.

I’m not saying she’s not right, I’m asking for a link to back up her statement.

KO has stated in publication interviews several times that he doesn’t vote because he doesn’t want to appear partial to any candidate.

He also goes after Dems just as he goes after Repubs — it’s just been Repubs controlling the WH and Congress for the last six disasterous years.

And, Matthews is not impartial. He clearly hates the Clintons and has publicly stated his support for several Repub candidates.

It shouldn’t be too hard for you to find a link to back up this statement — since it’s “on record.”

That comment is so beyond the pale that the question should really be: why aren’t more “journalists” criticizing Guiliani for saying that?”

The answer is that there is a huge difference between being a news reporter and being a news journalist. The former merely writes what he/she heard or saw, and the latter actually analyzes it fairly and places it into context with prior events or circumstances. Unfortunately, there are more and more reporters and fewer true journalists. Additionally, with more and more newspapers owned by just a few mega-corps (e.g. Rupert Murdoch, for one), don’t you think that monopolization is affecting the quality and accuracy of the news you are reading or hearing? As a few huge corporations monopolize the news media, there is no longer a true “market place of ideas,” but rather a “market place of agendas.” At some point, the concept of gurananteeing Freedom of the Press will become moot because of the domination of just a few huge corporations controlling the news papers and TV news shows.