Posts Tagged ‘morning joe’

…then to watch Morning Joe talk about where LeBron James goes.

That being said Donny Deutsch has a point that the better the team he goes to the more pressure on him.

And Pat brings up the Tax issue.

My thought; Who cares!

I saw the clip today on Morning Joe where Chris Matthews declares that Palin will win the nomination in 2012 if she runs, Newsbusters was surprised:

An unexpected prediction, and an even more surprising admission from Chris Matthews this morning . . .

Appearing on Morning Joe, the Hardball host predicted that Sarah Palin would seek the Republican presidential nomination, and painted a path to victory for her. In a moment of candor, Matthews admitted that “the media will try to destroy her, of course.”

Matthews made his comments in the course of a pre-taped Mojo Midterm Exam segment that aired on today’s Morning Joe.

Newsbusters is shocked SHOCKED that Matthews would say what he says. They should not be. If they paid attention to what followed they would understand.

Barnicle maintained that if Palin is the nominee that Obama wins re-election automatically. Matthews believes this too.

Matthews is a hyperpatrisian but he is no fool. He knows what both 2010 & 2012 have in store for Democrats in general and this administration in particular. He wants Palin running not because he thinks she can win, but because he thinks she can not.

Newsbusters is reading Matthews wrong but Matthews is reading Palin wrong and Joe Scarborough God bless him hits the nail on the head. When Scarborough points out that Matthews claims concerning Palin’s ignorance are the same thing that was said about Reagan, Matthews declares Reagan well read and substantive.

Unfortunately for Chris like myself Joe read Tip O’Neill’s Autobiography and reminded Chris what his old boss said about Reagan. It was the liberal line for decades until he died. I remember the arguments, I believed them at the time, the difference was when the facts didn’t support those beliefs I changed my opinion, they haven’t.

Here Joe was able to see what Chris Matthews had wrong. Matthews and Barnicle are assuming that the nation won’t accept a Sarah Palin, they assume she is some kind of dunce that people will see right through. However what people see right through are the media types who think this.

2010 may be 2004 redux but 2012 has the potential to be 1980 all over again. A Carter like president facing crises that he can’t cope with, a republican field with one or more established faces (Romney, Huck) and an outsider, a former governor who is considered by the intelligentsia just a lightweight celeb. The left was delighted when Reagan was the front runner, convinced that he couldn’t win, remember how that turned out?

Will the left learn from history? I see no reason why they would start doing so now.

Update: Captain Ed’s take, he notices something too.

Notice that no one objects to this characterization of the media on this panel of, er, media personalities. No one questions whether that is actually the media’s job, to intentionally try to destroy political candidates. It’s all just a given. Palin runs, media will attempt to destroy her — and it serves as an implicit admission that the media did exactly that in 2008.

Solid point.

…he is capable of making an interesting argument and is not afraid of making them.

Today on Morning Joe he has teamed with Ron Paul and now Pat Buchanan and is making the argument on base cutbacks in Europe and elsewhere.

The question he and Ron Paul (and now Pat) make is an interesting one: At what point do we let Europe defend itself?

It’s a fair conversation to have. He talked about the financial costs for us and the subsidy that it , but he actually neglected one of the more important arguments in his favor.

Culturally you have a change in Europe where you have nations that have forgotten how to defend themselves. Recall the famous line from Oscar van den Boogaard quoted in this column and Mark Steyn’s America Alone:

“I am not a warrior, but who is?” he shrugged. “I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”

and to show that the attitute is not just owned by Dutch gay humanists here is a doozy:

Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. “The dominant ethos,” he told De Volkskrant, “is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death.”

Why would we expect a culture that doesn’t have to defend itself to do so? If we want this to change we would have to take the hand away. The question becomes are they too far gone already? Would Europe change or fold if our defensive blanket was removed? This is the true cost of American defense.

And then comes the other end of the coin. The benefits of our forward bases. Can a re-armed Europe be able to defend against a newly re-aggressive Russia? Would a re-armed Europe decide to go back to fighting among themselves? Would a Newly re-armed Europe’s military infrastructure become an Islamic military infrastructure in a generation?

Even more important are all of those problems not taking place simply because US troops are there? There were no US bases in Serbia when the war took place, is that a coincidence?

Or put another way: Will US troops and treasure in even greater quantities have to be spent to re-impose peace and re-take territory once we leave?

Or to put it another way, everything costs something. Both positions carry price and risks. Which price and which risk do we as a nation want to incur?

the MSM story of the week…

Posted: July 6, 2010 by datechguy in media, opinion/news
Tags: , , , ,

Rush just said on the air that Obama would not have been elected if he wasn’t black.

Watch MSNBC go with this all week.

“If Obama wasn’t black he would be a tour guide in Honolulu”

There is something liberating in saying something everyone knows but doesn’t want to admit.

If this isn’t the main story on Morning Joe tomorrow then it’s only because it was canceled overnight.

Update: Yes I know there was a time where because of his race he might not have had any chance for election to anything. But come on, Obama over Harold Ford? Obama over John Lewis? Cripes ethics issues aside Charlie Rangel is so much more qualified than President Obama that it isn’t funny. Look at the membership of the Congressional Black Caucus and tell me you can’t six people who were more qualified in 2008?