You know, Rachel, I think if you actually wore the specs on TV, I’d have Hannity start calling you “Four Eyes” and Bill could start referring to you as “Ms. Magoo”. It would be a hoot! and I’ll tell you this on the DL, O’Reilly usually doesn’t wear pants while on set. You can use that to start a big feud. C’mon, I’ll be fun! Wait, is that Joe Lieberman over there? Gotta scoot. See ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya!

Rachel: I didn’t know we were having a Zombieland themed party, but you sure look the part, Ailes!

Dance off!

Ailes: “I must say that you have held up very well so many years after playing Alice on The Brady Bunch.. So tell me, just between you and me: Could you tell right away Mr. Brady was gay?”

“Roger – just so you know – I saw you moving all the red ribbons to the back of the tree.”

“Rachel, would you like to work for a real network with actual viewers? Sign here, and we’ll see if Keith’s head explodes.”

Is it to much to ask that posters on this website comment without all of the personal attacks?

Is anyone else really surprised at how tall Maddow is?

Mark Edwards says:
December 16, 2009 at 9:03 am

and I’ll tell you this on the DL, O’Reilly usually doesn’t wear pants while on set.

I’m not so sure how true that is… there are often shots from the site where you can see his pants.

However, it was always talked about that Hugh Downs would wear shorts under the 20/20 desk. I guess when nobody sees your legs, might as well be comfortable.

blueblogger says:
December 16, 2009 at 11:04 am

If you think this is bad… you out of touch. The above stuff is mild… very mild compared to the usual.
_____

What is up with Maddow’s glasses? They look like they’re from Fisher-Price! I bet they’re very expensive.

It was rumored that Comcast was going to keep CNBC’s daytime lineup and MSNBC’s evening lineup. While Comcast denied that, the changes to MSNBC’s daytime lineup have begun again. Now, as someone who watches Maddow and would never watch fox, here’s what I’m guessing Maddow said to him. Is it true that you were the original Pillsbury Dough Boy?

As some of you may know, part of the reason that fox has bigger ratings is because they are on basic cable in many states. Now, MSNBC will likely be added to more homes as well. This might explain the constipated look on Ailes’ face. Maddow would never work for fox because she wouldn’t be allowed to actually report the news as she does now. Besides, Maddow has a Phd in Political Science from Oxford University. She just wouldn’t fit in with the GOP propaganda that fox peddles!

roxsteady wrote:

Besides, Maddow has a Phd in Political Science from Oxford University. She just wouldn’t fit in with the GOP propaganda that fox peddles!

If he had only stuck it out a little longer as a Rhodes Scholar, instead of being Governor of Louisiana, he could have an MSNBC show that gets thrashed in the ratings every night!

“So except for being a liberal, lesbian with short brunette hair who doesn’t defer to men, you’re saying I COULD work at Fox News?”
“Well, there is the “facts” thing too, that could be a problem.”
“I use facts on my show.”
“Exactly.”

Caption:
It is men the likes of you that validate that sexual preference is a matter of choice.

Jindal? Really? This dolt isn’t on anyone’s radar. You did see howdy doodies response to Obama’s speech? Try again dear. That was soo week. As for their ratings that’s all they have but, in the news business it’s all about credibility. There’s a reason that fox is constantly the butt of jokes and ridicule. It’s because they are a joke. More people watch Dancing With The Stars. It’s garbage but, I wanted to point out that in this case size doesn’t matter. Jindal? Really?

Ailes: Just because you’re an America-hating socialist doesn’t mean I can’t wish you a Merry Christmas!

Or

The secret service tried to get me to check my tea bags at the door but these right wing jowls are all my own.

Rachel: Is it true what they say about short, fat men?

Rachel: Is it true you haven’t seen your junk in years?

Ailes: Oh yeah I can put a whole watermelon in my mouth no problem! So Keith when did you start darkening your hair?

DanOregon wrote:

“So except for being a liberal, lesbian with short brunette hair who doesn’t defer to men, you’re saying I COULD work at Fox News?”

News flash, Dan: Being a gay liberal with short hair doesn’t preclude one from working at Fox News. Two words; Shepard Smith.

@Roxsteady
“As some of you may know, part of the reason that fox has bigger ratings is because they are on basic cable in many states. Now, MSNBC will likely be added to more homes as well.”

Where have you been? MSNBC has been a mainstay on cable networks longer than FOX News. For years FOX was shut out of the Turner/Time/Warner systems until the courts forced them to diversify their news carriers – and even then they chose MSNBC over FOX. Their ratings are not because of some market advantage.

roxsteady wrote:

Jindal? Really? This dolt isn’t on anyone’s radar. You did see howdy doodies response to Obama’s speech? Try again dear. That was soo (sic) week (sic).

How predictable, roxie.

You trumpet Maddow as some supergenius because she has a doctorate in PoliSci from Oxford and thus incapable of falling prey to “GOP propaganda,” but when I point out that Governor Jindal has an Oxford PoliSci degree as well (not even mentioning he had the option of attending Harvard Medical School or Yale Law School), you call him “Howdy Doody.”

Typical, typical, typical. For liberals, a prestigious sheepskin only means something if it translates into a lifelong leftist bent. Al Gore and John Kerry’s Yale degrees? Those qualify them as brainiacs. George W. Bush’s Harvard MBA and Yale degree? Meaningless, say the likes of you. Keith Olbermann’s Cornell diploma (B.A. in Communication!) makes him superduper smart. Bill O’Reilly’s Master’s Degree at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government? Not good enough.

Maybe if Jindal had gone to Harvard Med, he would have found a cure for knee jerk reactions like yours.

blueblogger says:
December 16, 2009 at 11:04 am
Is it to much to ask that posters on this website comment without all of the personal attacks?

Told ‘ya.

Where you went to school is not as important as what you got out of it. I know people who went to Ivy League schools and can’t put a coherent sentence together, and I know people who never finished college and are absolutely brilliant.

The real issue is not so much intellectual prowess as it is intellectual honesty and intellectual curiosity. When the people LNSmithee lists are put to this test, the answers become clearer. Which of these people are willing to pursue the facts, even if in the end they produce a different result than their original premise? That is intellectual curiosity. Which of these people are then willing to go on the air and say – “Here is what I originally thought, here is what I learned, here is how my thinking has changed”?

By that measurement, Rachel Maddow stands miles above everyone listed, left and right. She is both curious enough to research and honest enough to learn and change.

Olbermann is intellectually honest, but not very curious. That is to say, his arguments are usually sound, but there is often more to be heard on the subject that he does not pursue because it might eat into his self-righteous indignation.

Al Gore is first and foremost a politician and thus while extremely intellectually curious he has often fallen short when it comes to intellectual honesty. However, in my opinion he has been both on the subject of global warming.

Kerry, perhaps because he is still in politics, is clearly intellectually curious as shown in his (incredibly long winded) questioning in committee meetings, but he is very far from intellectually honest as he clearly is searching for specific arguments to support an already chosen position.

Jindal is intellectually honest – he states the conclusions that he has drawn from the information he has gathered, but he is stunningly uncurious. He would have recognized his own comments about a volcano warning system as ridiculous if he had been curious enough to find out what it was he was choosing as an example of government waste.

That just leaves O’Reilly and Bush. These men are both extreme but for two different reasons.

O’Reilly is, simply put, the most intellectually dishonest voice on television. He is clearly very, very smart – yet he states things that he knows to be untrue, and uses rhetoric he is smart enough to know is potentially dangerous, on a constant basis. He will claim to have never said things that he is on tape saying, all because he knows his key demographic will always take him at his word and don’t watch the stations that will go to the videotape to keep them all honest – left and right (god bless John Stewart).

Bush, on the other hand, is the most intellectually incurious person I could imagine. This is a man who decided to go to war in Iraq before he even knew what Shia and Sunni were. This is a man who at times of national crises delegated everything out and just trusted it was handled, doing little or no follow up on his own (remember “Heck of a job Brownie”) to see if things were going as well as those around him said they were. While Obama surrounds himself with more qualified people, I am starting to become concerned that the latter tendency is one he shares.