I don't think I would enjoy having a beer with any of the D.C. pundits.  I might have to waste it by dumping it on their pointy little heads.  Then I'd have to take out my six shooter, & make 'em crawl around on the barroom floor looking for WMDs & see if they chuckle.

Mama's got a sixshooter? Take cover Chris Matthews and you other MSM bastards!!

Let's make 'em take the SCTV broadcasting oath, jj...the one where they promise to offer programming in the public interest.

Please check your spelling...

Jamison, when you described these pundits' pontifications as:

 "...the ultimate in pointless horserace journalism. ",

 I'm pretty sure what you really meant was:

 "...the ultimate in pointless horsesass journalism. "

Please concentrate on accuracy next time. 

 

Good point, Drafted!!!

"Like a middle school cafeteria, the assessments tend to be based on superficialities."

Exactly. These guys use the fact that they are on TV every night to apply "peer pressure" to America. No one wants to back a loser. It's the "Ann Coutlerizing" of media. Just keep calling the Democrats faggots and marxist and whatever else they can pull out of their asses.

This article shouldn't be necessary. It's the equivalent of teaching pro basketball players how to dribble. Which put the image in my head of NBA teams bouncing the ball off their own feet, throwing passes that sail out of bounds 10 feet over the recipients' heads, and shooting 70% of their free throws over the backboard.

That image is exactly what the media is.

i've noticed that a lot of the "news" seems to consist of running some tape of mccain bashing obama and then some reporter saying obama is campaigning in some bumfork town.  as if that's equal treatment.

I think that after a decade in the DC media envirenment, you should be required to spend an equal amount of time somewhere that the closest population center within 50 miles tops 50,000 people. It might help them retain some perspective. 

Fortunately, nobody in America likes the news, or respects these people. The same way Americans actually hate celebrities-- no one gushes over celebrities the way other celebrities do. But you'd never know that watching TV.

These people are diseased, as well as bigots-- talking about what regular Americans want as if they were bumpkins and Lil' Abner types. They really do hate most people, and have contempt for them, to come up with these stupid, hackneyed stereotypes. 

Good news-- Obama's kicking McCain's ass in California, big time. And it was a Hillary state. 

So many of these "pundits" complain that the 24 hour news cycle dictates their senseless babble.  Why don't any of them go out and find an actual story?  You know, like reporters used to do.  Wouldn't that be a far better use of the 24 hours news than simply repeating the same stories over and over?

Amen. I've often thought that the 24 news cycle could certainly do with a lot more stories about labour (the work force); interviewing workers at various jobs, more "person on the street" type interviews, instead of the same tired old pundits. Plus getting feeds from the European press and other international news sources.

One of the best articles I've seen on the media's love for John McCain. If McCain is elected President, it will be a tremendous setback for this country.

Tell me about it Jamison.....

Just yesterday I was listening to the first hour of the Rachel Maddow show being simulcasted on the local radio and David Gregory kept insisting on asking questions that had very little if any relevance to Barack Obama's ability to be president.....

I don't remember the exact way the questions were asked, I seem to recall that they were about his going to Iraq and whether it was more a photo-op than anything else?  With all the drivel out there thanks to our 'media' its hard to remember some things.

But I'm quite sure that someone can and will find a link to the audio of these lame and useless questions and post them? Perhaps I will, if I can find the time to find them.

Air America does have a web site, it should have the show.

I goota go play comunity volunteer trail clearer today.

Conservative "humor" is indeed painful to endure. And much like that middle school cafeteria, the alleged humor is more often than not rooted in cruelty, bigotry and/or violence. And on those rare occasions when it isn't utterly mean-spirited, it's just Jib Jab level idiocy. And when confronted with this, the conservative comedian will just accuse the liberal of being humorless. "McCain was just joking about a woman who enjoys being raped! Don't you get it?"

Wow.  Spot on. 

Thanks, Jamison.

One of the many ironic aspects of US culture is its love/hate relationship with Hollywood.  I cannot think of any other country in the world whose image, both at home and abroad, manifests itself so much in popular film culture.  (Music, particularly "country" music plays a role too.)  I think this whole idea that "average" Americans want a candidate they can enjoy a beer with can be traced back to one towering figure: John Wayne.  He was the prototype for this macho, pulling-one-up-by-one's-own-bootstraps, gun-totin', wipe-out-the-commies/injuns, down-to-earth, hard-living-man-turned-earnest-father-figure projection.  Yet in the past several years, if not decades, Hollywood continues to be a whipping boy for reactionary representatives and pundits (and some armchair policy makers).  (But forget about the millions and millions of dollars in movie ticket sales every weekend.) 

 

Chris Matthews' comments about Fred Thompson's sex appeal around this time last year spring to mind:

"Does [Fred Thompson] have sex appeal? … Gene, do you think there’s a sex appeal for this guy, this sort of mature, older man, you know? … Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man’s shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of — a little bit of cigar smoke? You know, whatever."

[Do] you think there’s a sex appeal for this guy, this sort of mature, older man, you know? … Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man’s shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of — a little bit of cigar smoke?

No.  That's just creeeepy.  Esp coming from the likes of Mathews.  (Just what I need - an image of Chris Mathews getting turned on by some old man's after-shave!)  Bleee-aaack!

Andlest we forget they have done this to Hillary clinton since the nineties with the neocon talking points of being too polarizing, the highest negatives, unlikable etc.

 

When Charlie Gibson asked that at a DEBATE for Crying out loud it made my blood boil. As if "unlikable" is some material, actual, objective reality like blonde hair and blue eyes. 

 

No one in and of themselves is unlikable. as you said, people choose, decide, have their own feelings- yet the media and what I have termed the ObamaCon faction has run with it and pushed it. This meme has been extremely destructive to Hillary Clinton and to the Primary itself with the ObamaCons alienating so many of her supporters with their hatefulness and neocon tactics (Vince Foster was brought up for pity sakes.) that there is a split (something else quite possibly created by the media) and now they don't want to vote for him

I really think the whole PUMA thing is based more on the disrespect and hatefulness toward them and Hillary than on the irregularities at the caucuses and undemocratic process. Obama himself used these talking points when he said "she's too polarizing" (to win) and suggesting he could get her supporters but she couldn't get his.

 

And yet she still got half the votes (more cast votes even if not the one's that mattered.) but that is another story.

 

This is not a push PUMA post but just an added point to your excellent article. 

No one in and of themselves is unlikable.

You make excellent points througout, but I think unlikeability may just be an inherent trait of Ann Coulter and Mike Savage.  (Could you imagine if those two had and raised kids?!)

Thanks, great assetment.

You are a hack organization. About Savage you are full of...

Savage is right. He obviously exaggerated the 99% figure, but it is certainly true that it's also a racket, led by parents who get doctors to label their children as autistic in order that they should qualify for social benefits such as social security at age 3 etc.

My nephew has autism, so I have 100% compassion to the genuine cases (which there are plenty). Michael Savage had an older brother who had autism, and died as a child, and he has great loving words when he occasionally describes the affection he had for him, and how he was so protective over him. He relentlessly attacked Howard Stern for his satire of autistic children, and went as far as saying that he should be fired just because of his exploitation of the autistic population (pointing out that they can not defend themselves).

For your liberal hack organization to use such a personal issue of his life against him is disgusting. He more then anybody has earned the right to be irked when he sees cases of "autism fraud" when as a child he had to deal with a real case (his brother was an autistic paraplegic). He wrote a book titled Healing Children Naturally, which further illustrates his affection for children.

Anybody has the right to disagree with his opinions, he's merely one man's opinion, and it's America, but this character assassination is un-American especially in light of what I pointed out earlier.

Wrong thread, moron. Take your BS over to the Savage thread.

I've asked this question from people like you before, and now I'll ask it again.

How is repeating someone's words, verbatim and in context, character assassination again?

When you find a real answer, please let us know.