Countdown with Keith Olbermann is probably my least favorite MSNBC evening show, though Hardball with Chris Matthews and his obsession with the pronunciation of former VP Dick Cheney’s last name (pronounced chee-knee, according to Matthews) comes close.
As far as morning/early afternoon personalities I dislike, number one is David Shuster. I hate his know-it-all smugness, and inability to keep his blatant biases out of his “reporting” segments. Maybe MSNBC never told him 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was canceled and Shuster is under the impression he is filming the show in short pieces.
Tonight Shuster is filling in for Olbermann, and Arianna Huffington is a guest.
Could it get any worse?
Only if Dr. Nancy comes on next with another prescription for boredom.
Filed under Media, Politics
The evening opiners on MSNBC are aggravating me with their devout coverage of all things Michele Bachmann. I agree with Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann; Bachmann makes maniacal statements on a regular basis. But the constant coverage only serves to elevate her name recognition on the national level, essentially increasing her influence, at least within the GOP.
I am not the only person noticing the MSNBC hatefest of Bachmann. She’s noticed too. Wednesday, while I was busy watching Olbermann’s wide-eyed call for health-care reform, Bachmann was on The O’Reilly Factor. Bill called out MSNBC on the excessive attention the network has been paying Bachmann, who then compared unnamed hosts on the network to stalkers.
Rep. Bachmann has no reason to complain about the attention. If the left-wing media hadn’t picked up on and attacked her crazed statements on anti-Americanism in Congress, she wouldn’t be the darling of right-wing media she is today. She has Olbermann and company to thank for her many cable news appearances.
The left would be better served by dropping the constant coverage of every dumb statement Bachmann makes, that puts her in the spotlight at least once a week. The pundits cover her so heavily because she’s an easy target and they’ve got time to burn. I’m guilty of the same thing, and I guarantee this won’t be my last post with a Michele Bachmann tag.
“That’s hypocrisy, and it’s wrong” -David Shuster
I hate that guy.
The LA Times is reporting President Obama’s Afghanistrategy looks to be, contrary to the principle of change he campaigned on, the status quo;
Obama told congressional leaders Tuesday that he does not plan to dramatically reduce the American troop level or switch to a strictly counter-terrorism mission.
I appreciate Obama keeping options open, and looking at the issue from all sides;
“The president reiterated that we need this debate to be honest and dispense with the straw man argument that this is about either doubling down or leaving Afghanistan,” one senior administration official said after the meeting ended.
At least the war is getting an open-minded examination, more than the previous administration would have ever given.
Taliban officials claimed Monday they are only a threat to the West when Western nations are occupying Afghanistan. I don’t completely buy this, but the statement is useful when examining the Obama administration allowing the question “Does a return of the Taliban necessarily mean a return of Al-Qaeda?” I don’t want to sound like Hardball or The Ed Show, but the Bush administration would not have considered that line of questioning.
An increase in American troops is not what Afghanistan needs. It will lead to more casualties among our soldiers, without any increase in stability. I’m afraid more soldiers only means more targets for the enemy. We do not want that.