"Disgraceful" x 3
What a bizarre couple a' days! Democrats hold their second, even more banal of a debate. What a bunch of socialists! Baby communists! There was absolutely nothing of substance in that debate. The Hill showed her true colors on immigration... English as the "Official" language would disenfranchise millions of potential voters. Right, choosing to allow citizenship without requiring immigrants acquire a working knowledge of English will keep them away from the polls. All these socialists care about is increasing their voter base. Is this all the Hill and other Dems care about? That these amnesty recipients be allowed to vote? and vote Democrat?
This morning William J. Jefferson, Democrat from Louisiana, is finally indicted. The Bush White House, after several huge missteps finally gets something right. Pelosi, claiming she'd fix the culture of corruption in Congress once elected Speaker, has since refused to do anything about Jefferson. Dems, is seems, are all for rooting out corruption so long as it's not from among their own ranks. Jefferson should resign immediately. He should be MADE to resign. But Dems needn't fear that they'd lost a seat in Congress, Democratic Governor of Louisiana, Ms. Kathleen Blanco, will surely appoint an interim Democrat until a special election can be called.
And finally...John Murtha blames the JFK terrorist plot on... drumroll please..... U.S. Troops! From NewsBusters....
Will the citizens of Pennsylvania please put this old fart in an old folks home!? Personally, I don't know what's worse, a democratic crook indicted on bribery charges or a democrat 'hero' who blames everything the terrorists try to do to us on the troops. What a disgrace. Put that man on a boat and allow no mention or news of the United States to ever reach his ears or eyes!
This morning William J. Jefferson, Democrat from Louisiana, is finally indicted. The Bush White House, after several huge missteps finally gets something right. Pelosi, claiming she'd fix the culture of corruption in Congress once elected Speaker, has since refused to do anything about Jefferson. Dems, is seems, are all for rooting out corruption so long as it's not from among their own ranks. Jefferson should resign immediately. He should be MADE to resign. But Dems needn't fear that they'd lost a seat in Congress, Democratic Governor of Louisiana, Ms. Kathleen Blanco, will surely appoint an interim Democrat until a special election can be called.
And finally...John Murtha blames the JFK terrorist plot on... drumroll please..... U.S. Troops! From NewsBusters....
ABCNews.com: "Murtha Ties Foiled JFK Plot to U.S. in Iraq"There's more here
Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 3, 2007 - 13:21.
On Saturday, a NewsBusters headline asked the following question: “JFK Terror Plot: How Soon Before Media Blame Bush For Timing of Arrests?”
Well, Sunday morning, ABCNews.com actually went one better by using a statement made by John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) on "This Week" as the headline for the video of George Stephanopoulos’ interview with the Congressman: "Murtha Ties Foiled JFK Plot to U.S. in Iraq."
In reality, Murtha was brought on to counter the “things are getting better” in Iraq after the surge viewpoint expressed by the previous guest, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.
Yet, about one minute into Stephanopoulos’ interview with Murtha, the Congressman said:You heard earlier where he said this incident in the United States is being driven by al Qaeda, is being inspired by al Qaeda. This is the kind of thing that is happening because of our troops in Iraq.
Amazing. So, the planned attack on New York’s JFK airport is all because America is in Iraq. And, that’s how ABCNews.com chose to advertise this ten-minute video at its website, even though the bulk of the segment was a discussion specifically about what’s going on in Iraq, and what the Democrat plans are to get troops out.
How disgraceful.
Will the citizens of Pennsylvania please put this old fart in an old folks home!? Personally, I don't know what's worse, a democratic crook indicted on bribery charges or a democrat 'hero' who blames everything the terrorists try to do to us on the troops. What a disgrace. Put that man on a boat and allow no mention or news of the United States to ever reach his ears or eyes!
from the mind of... Eric | 2:34 PM
40 Comments:
Saudis with ties to Taliban in Afghanistan attack U.S.
U.S. attacks Saddam regime in Iraq.
Al Quaida is emboldened by U.S. attack in Iraq.
Muslims the world over are radicalized by war in Iraq, which is seen not as legitimate defense but as renewed imperialism.
Radicalized Muslims vow to do harm to U.S. in any way they can.
It doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch to me. Unless I'm missing something.
I mean, if I were an ignorant Muslim, weeping for the seventh century to return, and I believed (rightly or wrongly) that the U.S. was trying to colonize my part of the world, I'm pretty sure I might act similarly.
Murtha was asking for it to say it out loud, though.
I dunno, ER. Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq that Iran seized control of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979? Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq that the Marine Barracks in Beirut were bombed in 1983? Was it the fault of U.S. Troops in Iraq for the felling of Pan Am 103? Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq that Saddam invaded Kuwait prompting the West to force him back into his hole? Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq that prompted terrorists to attack the World Trade Center in '93? How about the USS Cole? The American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq that hijackers used planes to bring down the World Trade Center, strike the Pentagon, and attempt another unidentified target? Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq for the terrorist bombing of the nightclub in Bali? Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq for the beheading of three Christian school girls in Indonesia? For the killing of Daniel Pearl? The beheading of Nick Berg? Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq for the killing of Theo Van Gogh? Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq for the Muslim youth uprising in France the last couple of summers? There's a pattern here, ER. Can you see it? Can you see that this pattern has nothing to do with U.S. troops being in Iraq and EVERYTHING to do with who and what these Muslim terrorists are? What they believe? Is it the fault of U.S. troops that Muslims are the way they are?
Of course not. So stop defending the indefensible.
Murtha is an idiot; as is anyone else who thinks to blame U.S. troops in Iraq for Godless terrorists seeking to destroy JFK. Blaming the troops for all the Muslim-spawned ills in this country and elsewhere is the blood-and-hair matted club of weak-minded, self-loathing cowards.
I don't care HOW many years Murtha spent in the Marine RESERVES. He is a disgrace to the uniform he wore, and a disgrace to the all the men and women who died so he could sit his fat backside in a plush office and malign their good names.
YEAH DAMNIT!!!
Ya know, it's pretty sad that anyone would blame us for what these savages do. They do it in a way that makes me think of the old saying as a child, "Nobody makes anybody do anything!" We're supposed to respond to such savagery in a diplomatic and political way, yet they respond to the slightest action in the most over-the-top and barabaric manner they can pull off. We're supposed to understand the "roots" of their emotions. Screw that. If they want understanding, they need to stop murdering people. Otherwise, in order to protect people and prevent further murders and maiming, they have to be eliminated.
Murtha is a traitor...a supporter of the Islamic cause.
He is certainly a traitor to the uniform he once wore.
Were this an Islamic country he'd be executed or assassinated by now.
To be fair, Murtha said:
"This is the kind of thing that is happening because of our troops in Iraq."
In so doing, he is blaming the policy, not the troops. Am I right?
Just wouldn't want to misrepresent what was being said. We wouldn't want to do anything crazy like demonize ALL LIBERALS because THEY HATE THE TROOPS and WANT THE US TO COLLAPSE.
As I say way too often, we have enough problems with our disagreements between fellow citizens without misrepresenting what the other fella is saying.
Yes, Dan, that sounds reasonable, but it's a liberal smokescreen erected for the sole purpose of deflating the issue from 'Shameful' to 'Aw, shucks, he didn't really mean that'.
It would be reasonable were it not for the fact that this is simply another note in his lengthy "Symphony of Disgrace"... it's part of a pattern of disgraceful comments about our troops. Remember Haditha? Remember this Jerk accusing Marines of being murderers without the benefit of due process? Said Murtha: "...they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Last time I checked, killing ANYONE in 'cold blood' makes one a 'Murderer'.
The same thing here. Spin it however you like, but what Murtha SAID was, as you so kindly pointed out: "This is the kind of thing that is happening because of our troops in Iraq."
That's right, BECAUSE of our TROOPS IN IRAQ... not because of our POLICY. Not because of the murderous ideology of Islamofascists. It's undeniably true that our policy has put those troops in harm's way, IN Iraq. But that's not what Murtha said. Murtha consistently maligns our men and women in uniform. If it's merely because, like Joe Biden, his mouth utters things on its own without the benefit of forethought, then like Biden, he should be marginalized and brushed off with a, 'Oh, that crazy crazy Murtha! God love him, but he sure knows how to put a foot in his mouth!' But this man wore the uniform, and claimed kinship with centuries of Marines that came before him. He's a law-maker for crying out loud! Has he not sense enough to keep his blasted mouth shut and give his brothers in arms the benefit of due process before convicting them in the Courts of Public Opinion!!?? If he's so all-fired patriotic, and himself a genuine patriot, why does he consistently malign our troops? He's smart enough to have gotten his sorry butt elected who know how many times, why isn't he smart enough to attack 'The Policy' by name, and the 'Policy Makers' --including himself?
He's done this often enough to have telegraphed his real thought this time around. We are being attacked because of our troops in Iraq, irrespective of the policy that sent them there. Besides which, and again I ask:
"Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq that Iran seized control of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979? Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq that the Marine Barracks in Beirut were bombed in 1983? Was it the fault of U.S. Troops in Iraq for the felling of Pan Am 103? Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq that Saddam invaded Kuwait prompting the West to force him back into his hole? Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq that prompted terrorists to attack the World Trade Center in '93? How about the USS Cole? The American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq that hijackers used planes to bring down the World Trade Center, strike the Pentagon, and attempt another unidentified target? Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq for the terrorist bombing of the nightclub in Bali? Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq for the beheading of three Christian school girls in Indonesia? For the killing of Daniel Pearl? The beheading of Nick Berg? Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq for the killing of Theo Van Gogh? Was it the fault of U.S. troops in Iraq for the Muslim youth uprising in France the last couple of summers? There's a pattern here, ER. Can you see it? Can you see that this pattern has nothing to do with U.S. troops being in Iraq and EVERYTHING to do with who and what these Muslim terrorists are? What they believe? Is it the fault of U.S. troops that Muslims are the way they are?
"Of course not. So stop defending the indefensible."
Can't answer that, can you? That's why you resort to Sleight-of-Hand Rhetoric.
STOP DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE!"
I beg your pardon if I have a different opinion than you do.
Reasonably speaking, do you REALLY think we all (those of us who disagree with you) are hellbent on destroying the US? Does that not sound just a little paranoid and crazy to you?
That is, do you really think that it's not a matter of me disagreeing with you and honestly thinking Murtha has a point (and that point being that our policies have been bad), but rather that I specifically am deliberately engaging in "sleight of hand rhetoric"?
And what would the purpose of this Christian being deliberately deceitful? Because I want to see our nation overthrown? Because I hate US soldiers?
Do you not think it even slightly possible that some of us who love our God and country merely disagree with you and Bush on policy matters and that we think these current policies are undoing our country - making us less safe and less ethical?
You, and your beliefs are not at issue here, Dan. If you choose to believe all this is the fault of U.S. Troops in Iraq... go for it! Continue suffering the delusions of the politically deranged. I don't care anymore.
What is at issue, however, is Murtha and his consistent castigation of the U.S. Military.
But if I take issue with you on ANYTHING, it is YOUR consistent defense of all the stupid things that come out of DEMOCRAT mouths. Even I'M not so silly as that!
Okay, brother then, setting aside my beliefs, do you not think it possible that Murtha or others who disagree with you do so not because they wish to see the US destroyed but out of love for the US?
Is that not a possibility?
As to the suggestion that I'm a defense spokesperson for the Dems, you must not be paying close enough attention. I criticize them frequently. How many times have you heard me describe them as only marginally less-bad than the Republicans?
Believe as you wish, Eric, but in reality, the vast majority of Republicans AND Democrats - both elected and rank and file - love our nation. Love our fellow citizens (including our brothers and sisters in the military).
We're all in this thing together.
Walking the line between faith and fear
This life won't last forever
And when you cry I taste the salt in your tears...
-Old Crow Medicine Show
Again... Dan. This is not about you or any number of other patriotic Americans.
It's about Congressman Murtha.
I will not address any question about how others feel about America. They're not on international television giving the terrorists a "Hear, Hear!!"
Nor is Murtha.
I'll ask yet again, do you seriously think that Murtha loves the terrorists and hates US soldiers?
I never said he did love the terrorists... but he certainly isn't showing any love for our troops.
EL has labeled Sen Murtha as his personal demon for Dem positions on Iraq. It's an irrational fixation. I'm just not patient enough to deal with it. So I want to address EL's second topic: William Jefferson (D-LA).
"Pelosi, claiming she'd fix the culture of corruption in Congress once elected Speaker, has since refused to do anything about Jefferson."
This statement is factually wrong. When the home and offices of Sen. Jefferson were raided, the senator was removed from the powerful Ways and Means Committee he had resided on for many yeanrs and was instead placed on the much less distinguished Small Businesses Committee. Now that he has been indicted, the man himself has resigned from that position. If the Dem. party didn't do anything to speed the senator on his way from congress neither did they do anything to delay said parting either. No legislation or congressional rule changes to protect him if he was indicted (Delay, R-TX). No leaving him in a senior position on a powerful committee even after having his offices raided (Stevens, R-AK). The party leadership gave the man "the benefit of due process before convicting [him] in the Courts of Public Opinion".
Oh I just can't help one dig ...
Isn't that what you're trying to do to John Murtha -- convince the public of charges of treason, that would have no chance at all in a legal setting?
Personal Demon? Hardly. I could point to equally atrocious and appalling 'positions on Iraq' held by other Democrats.
Pelosi, though, promised a higher standard against congressional corruption. Oh yes, Jefferson was booted from Ways & Means. He says he'll take a temporary leave of absence from his seat on the obscure Small Business Committee. But he still sits on the Homeland Security Committee. What will Pelosi do? My guess is: Nothing.
Pelosi & Co. (including members of the media) are all insisting we should view the "good" Congressman as "Innocent Until..." that we should wait and see. But they didn't afford the same courtesy to Libby and DeLay.
So it's hypocritical of them, and all of you who so vocally called for DeLay and Libby to resign immediately... even calling for Bush and Cheney to be impeached... Hypocritical in the extreme.
Truth is, Democrats hold a different standard of conduct for their membership than they do for their Opposition's. With Democrats we are asked to await the outcome, but with Republicans we hear demands that they be "frog marched" out in handcuffs, tossed out on their ears, calling for impeachment... and the headsman.
Point being, Pelosi promised to change the 'culture of corruption', yet one of the first things she did upon ascending the throne was to grant Jefferson a seat on the Homeland Security Committee. She promised change... but none has been forthcoming.
As to your dig: How many people read this blog? Whose minds am I sculpting? How many mind-numbed robots are getting their marching orders from me? "The Public" isn't listening to me-- doesn't even know I exist. But I sincerely appreciate you thinking me capable of such power.
1. Don't pretend that your voice doesn't count. It does, and it echos. If not, why bother, EL?
2. I'm not sure that Murtha's answers would be to the questions you pose. Someone should ask him. Most of them, though, are ptrobably along the lines of "the U.S. was on our soil, harming us, or we thought so anyway." Why did the Indians attack wagon trains? Because the Indians they carried invaders.
Oh I have to go with ER on #1 of his last. It echoes, it ripples, it makes it's way, perhaps not as quickly as some dude on TV during prime time, but it does. Case in point, I'm the public, too. (Of course I agree with you already)
As for #2, ER, I have but two words: "proof read" Words we can all live by.
But I stand with EL's point and re-assert my own in that I don't see that even our policies beg for a response as heinous as those doled out by the savage Islamists. They just plain don't, whether it's their way or not. Frankly, our response to such should be based on OUR beliefs, values, traditions, all of which find such behavior to be beneath contempt and worthy of fierce retribution for the sake of justice for the slain and protection for the living. The thing is, I don't recall any public request to discuss their disagreements with our policies, only violence. In fact, I believe their main disagreement is that we aren't Muslim, or we are who we are. Nothing I've read or studied suggests it's anymore complex than that. So where our troops might be is irrelevant, and they shouldn't be used as an excuse by either the Islamists or their enablers like Murtha.
Sorry. I am a two-fingered typist. You'd think I'd learn to proof before hitting send.
Why should it be assumed by anyone that simply by sending soldiers into Iraq, they have the right to start indiscriminately killing civilians?
Murtha has no right to excuse these animals. They are solely responsible for the actions they take. Accusing anyone else for what they do simply distracts us from the fact that they are murderers. They have no excuse. They need no excuse.
This is like two children fighting in the back seat during a long boring trip. One hits the other and then gives the excuse, "He was looking at me!"
How many of you are fathers or mothers? How many times do you tell your children to take personal responsibility for their own actions? How many times do you impress upon them the fact that two wrongs don't make a right?
It's the same principle. You don't allow your kids to throw and break things because some third party made them angry.
Did the terrorists ask Amwerica to leave their country before they started attacking or did they just start attacking?
This isn't brain science. Nobody is at fault for terrorists attacks but the terrorists themselves.
You don't have to be a liberal or conservative to realize the media coverage of current events is one-sided. The liberal agenda is being carried over the airwaves labeled as "breaking news" instead of it's true content--the talking points memo that is hatched by the left and released to the puppet press each and every day!
"...hellbent on destroying the US?
Yes...the US that I know and respect.
We believe some...like you are HELLBENT...others are decieved by people like you, Dan.
The gullible ones.
And what proof would you have that I'm anything but sincere in my beliefs and love of God, country and countryfolk?
That I disagree with you?
Come now, we're adults. Can't we disagree without assuming the other is some hellspawn destructor?
'Hellbent' is not the same as 'Hellspawn'
I agree that much of the Democratic Left 'seems' hellbent on weakening this nation to including awarding the enemy with brownie points at every opportunity, with the occasional state secret or two as a bonus dessert.
Now, someone who is a hellspawn... realistically, Hell can't spawn anything. Satan certainly can, but let's not go there.
I don't believe you are hellspawn... Hellbent much of the time, okay, but not hellspawn.
Thanks!
Are US military forces in Iraq serving our national interests? That's the question!
Are we stopping the spread of WMDs?
Are we seeding democracy in the middle east?
Are we damaging Al Quaeda?
Are we reducing anti-americanism in islamic rhetoris?
If we aren't accomplishing anything positive with our presence there, then are we causing negative side effects?
Have we created a training ground for terrorists?
Are worldwide terrorism attacks up?
Are lots of Iraqi's dying?
Are we using up lots of military equipment and people?
Have we alienated other countries?
Have we compromised our own morals?
Have we lost focus on Afghanistan?
The analysis seems pretty clear to me. While there may have been initial benefits to occupying Iraq our presence there no longer accomplishes anything for our country. In fact it inflames anti-americanism all around the globe. It is turning out that the JFK bombers had no connection to anyone in either Iraq, Al Quadea or Afghanistan. The negative image that the US has acquired from this Iraq project stirred these men to plotting violence.
That seems to me what John Murtha was saying. In TV interviews you can't speak in sentences of longer than five words.
For the Bent one,
First, one has to review just who around the globe has a negative opinion of us, and distinguish between who's opinion has value to us, who's opinion is based on their own hatred that already existed before even the first Iraq war, will their opinion, if changed for the better, will benefit us or the world, as well as a few other points. Fred Thompson spoke of the need to visit with our friends overseas and communicate the neccessity of our continued efforts against terrorist groups and their sponsors. Just as in this country, there are many who just don't get the serious nature of this foe and the ramifications of abandoning the fight.
In his first four points beginning with the WMD question, I would answer yes to each. We are making progress in each of those areas. The rate of progress is less than most would like, that being most on either side of the issue, but progress is being made.
Certainly Sadam isn't spreading WMDs anymore. And Kadafi of Lybia has withdrawn his plans for weapons as a result of our actions. Iran and N Korea are certainly the more likely to be a problem with nukes, but overnight success you won't get. Let's hope we can pick up the pace there.
With elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the seeds have already been planted. We're watering them now. Growth takes time. It took us over 100 years to decide and more years after we agreed to get it right. Why would it go faster in the Middle East?
We are damaging AlQueda with another report of a leader killed yesterday. The citizens of Iraq are reportedly coming across with more info against them all the time. So we're seeing a change of heart in the Sunni population. This is leading to the last point of reducing anti-Americanism in Islamic rhetoric, but this has been happening for quite awhile. There have been many stories of Iraqis who have expressed gratitude and appreciation for our actions and their hopes are high that we won't leave too soon. The MSM doesn't report it much, but people like Laura Ingraham and Michelle Malkin, who have made trips there and ventured outside the heavily protected areas to speak directly with the people have found plenty of examples.
AS to his next group, the negatives, as far as I can see, the first four would be happening no matter what we do. Terrorist training would surely be happening as it was before we recognized the threat of the Islamofascists. Are attacks up or are we recognizing and reporting them more than we did before 9/11? The scumbags have internet access and the can get CNN. They know how to gauge the sentiment of our people and will step up attacks when they think it will serve their needs. If they think we're about to bolt, they'll fight harder to convince us it's a good idea. Indeed, they insist that it's only a matter of time before we bail out and they'll act accordingly.
Lots of Iraqis were dying before we came, the scumbags are killing lots more since we've come in order to turn support away from us, and they'll certainly continue killing them after we've gone. And the same goes for our military and personnel. We'll be fighting them somewhere even when Iraq no longer needs our help. Don't kid yourself that it will be otherwise.
As to the last three, we can't help it if other countries don't understand the threat. If they don't like us as a result, too bad. I don't much care for the idea of making decisions based on the opinions of countries who are too stupid to understand that they'll have their day soon if we don't take care of businees now.
We haven't compromised our morals, we've risen to the occasion. Questioning the morality of our purpose, the manner in which our troops conduct themselves (Abu Graib is an abberration), and the intentions of our president casts a pall on YOUR idea of morality.
Re, "You don't have to be a liberal or conservative to realize the media coverage of current events is one-sided."
Well, yes, actually, you do have to liberal or conservative to understand the media coverage of current events.
Media coverage of current events is driven by the profit motive. That would fall under the umbrella of "the Right," not "the Left."
So FIX IT already, or shut the hell up blaming the Left for it.
You can't? No, you can't. So quit worshiping -- OK, OK, quit venerating -- the GODless marketplace and pretending that it's the American way so it must therefore must be the godly way.
Judt add it to the list of things about which this world has deceived you.
Equating media bias to profit motive? Ha! Media bias comes from the individuals within the media establishment. Media sees itself as the final and authoritative arbiter of truth. If they don't report it, it isn't news. And the truth is, most of those new outfits are run by card-carrying blue-blood liberals...... decidedly NOT conservatives. Besides, advertising dollars go where the rating dollars [your 'profit motive'] are.
As for fixing the system, I thought that's what FOX News was for, though they're not as conservative as most Lefties think. Most of you on the left thoroughly despise FOX. Why? Because they don't kow-tow to the liberal news template, nor pass their 'storied' offspring through the editorial fires of Moloch. FOX doesn't seek to spoon-feed it's viewers; per their motto: they report, we decide.
(snort)
If you don't understand "profit" you shouldn't talk about it.
Keith Olbermann would not have the platofm he has if MSNBC wasn't making money off him. Air America did fail. Olbermann has not.
In eighteenth century Britain, Minister of Parliament Charles James Fox was a supporter of the American Revolution. First example of comforting the enemy. It was not pleasing to the Brits when he later rooted for the Jacobins in the Revolutionary Wars in France. Sooner or later, people will realize the Democrats are of questionable loyalty.
Not if they figure out that the GOP has sold the country out to multinational corporations. Yeah, right. The mint could put In the Free Market We Trust on money and some people wouldn't get it.
"The mint could put In the Free Market We Trust on money and some people wouldn't get it."
Ya know, there are separationists who wouldn't mind that at all.
Last time I saw KO's numbers, he WASN'T making them much money. Just as AA's numbers sucked, some attempt to keep it going. I suspect as much of KO. I still think he's their answer to Jon Stewart and not meant to be taken seriously. He's like a Colbert report, but he really think's he's bright. Poor buffoon.
Of course, I see Olbermann as an Edward R. Murrow. Maybe a lib Walter Winchell. I don't know. An important voice, anyway. And his contract was just renewed for five years. I don't think they do that for people without enough numbers.
Cable news is not the same as entertainment television, however much it resembles it. His numbers-- and they are low --are not what got him re-upped. 'twas the controversy. MSNBC's numbers are too low to get rid of someone who at the very least attracts some measure of viewership.
Olberman as Murrow? Winchell? an important voice? Now you're just trying to make me spit my drink with laughter, aren't you? You rascal!
Post a Comment
<< Home