They’re both Patriots which is precisely the reason slobber face hates them.

Newt isn’t a threat to civilization, just to honesty, integrity and decency everywhere. Few men possess the intellectual dishonesty of Newt Gingrich, which is why he has 0 shot at the Presidency.

Beck and Newt are Sharia Law conspiracy nuts.

Palin doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about. The President is hiding the truth about Egypt from us? Yeah..sure he is. Idiot.

Chris is asking if Beck will speak at the Republican convention , huh ? He’s really dialed into this subject . Sad .

JoeRemi said:
Beck and Newt are Sharia Law conspiracy nuts.

Palin doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about. The President is hiding the truth about Egypt from us? Yeah..sure he is. Idiot.

Can you provide the quote in which Palin said this?

They need to take the N out of MSNBC and replace it with an S — since there are more Smears than News coming from their hosts. You can listen to Chris Matthews for days on end, and you will never hear him address Ms. Palin’s call for more fiscal responsibility, less intrusive federal control of the economy, and greater government accountability. But he smears Palin every night, with the lowest, most pathetic insults. Viewers should ask themselves why Chris (and the rest of the MSNBC crew) only launch insults while hiding from substantive issues. The answer is obvious: most Americans agree with the call for smaller, more accountable government, so the leftwing media needs to hide the fact that they are on the wrong side of that issue.

“I think if you look closely at Newt Gingrich you see a mortal enemy to our civilization.”

How’s that new civility working out? “ENEMY?” Wow… sounds mighty threatening to me.

Mr. Matthews, you have (pre-)blood on your hands!

Hahahaha…a Leftist media hack who comes on at 6pm every day (uh, like, uh ‘clockwork’) to shriek about the same things dares to say that someone ELSE ‘talks like a ‘cuckoo clock.’” Leftist media hacks on parade (and in flames).

Why is Matthews such a misogynistic person? Such disparagement over women as a whole – unless Democratic.

Thank you for you daily Matthews piece Matt. I wonder if the lunatic Left will be here defending this guy like the Cult defend their talking heads. There has to be a DS somewhere…

Nacho said:
Thank you for you daily Matthews piece Matt. I wonder if the lunatic Left will be here defending this guy like the Cult defend their talking heads. There has to be a DS somewhere…

He’s trying to decide on which screen name to use right now .

WCinWI said:
Can you provide the quote in which Palin said this?

Sarah Palin said:
It’s a difficult situation, this is that 3am White House phone call and it seems for many of us trying to get that information from our leader in the White House it it seems that that call went right to the answering machine. And nobody yet has, no body yet has explained to the American public what they know, and surely they know more than the rest of us know who it is who will be taking the place of Mubarak and …not real enthused about what it is that that’s being done on a national level and from D.C. in regards to understanding all the situation there in Egypt. And, in these areas that are so volatile right now because obviously it’s not just Egypt but the other countries too where we are seeing uprisings, we know that now more than ever, we need strength and sound mind there in the White House. We need to know what it is that America stands for so we know who it is that America will stand with. And we do not have all that information yet..

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Palin_criticizes_Obama_on_Egypt.html#

My show is absolutely non-partisan

Chris “I have an Obama shaped tingle running up my leg” Matthews.

Gasket said:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Palin_criticizes_Obama_on_Egypt.html#

Yes – I know about that quote. But I’m waiting for the quote in which she said the President was hiding information from the American people.

Publius219 says:
Newt isn’t a threat to civilization, just to honesty, integrity and decency everywhere. Few men possess the intellectual dishonesty of Newt Gingrich, which is why he has 0 shot at the Presidency.

If Newt and Palin have no shot at the presidency, why is the left so obsesesed with them?

WCinWI said:
Can you provide the quote in which Palin said this?

“Nobody yet has explained to the American public what they know, and surely they know more than the rest of us know who it is will be taking the place of Mubarak. … We need strength and a sound mind there in the White House. We need to know what it is that America stands for so we know who it is that America will stand with. And, we do not have that information yet.”

WTF does Sarah Palin know about the high-wire act that is dealing with a crisis in the Middle East. Stupid bitch should stfu.

WCinWI said:
Why is Matthews such a misogynistic person? Such disparagement over women as a whole – unless Democratic.

You are pulling the sexism card.

JoeRemi said:
“Nobody yet has explained to the American public what they know, and surely they know more than the rest of us know who it is will be taking the place of Mubarak. … We need strength and a sound mind there in the White House. We need to know what it is that America stands for so we know who it is that America will stand with. And, we do not have that information yet.”

WTF does Sarah Palin know about the high-wire act that is dealing with a crisis in the Middle East. Stupid bitch should stfu.

Obama has flubbed the treatment of this situation. I’m still waiting for the quote.

Go display your misogynistic tendencies elsewhere.

Gasket said:
You are pulling the sexism card.

Yes – sexism exists. Matthews proves this daily.

Chris Matthews: Palin “Talks Like A Cuckoo Clock” And Gingrich Is An “Enemy To Our Civilization”

Matthews crows like a Capon Rooster with its ass frozen to the ground. And is an embarrassment to “all” Civilization…

Nothing Palin and Gingrich have ever said is as cuckoo as Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow, Obama, Biden and RRK say on an hourly basis.

WCinWI said:
Yes – I know about that quote. But I’m waiting for the quote in which she said the President was hiding information from the American people.

You can not be ignorant. She was criticizing Obama in that piece. Joe Remi was not quoting her. He was paraphrasing what she inferred in the article. Basically calling Obama inept and saying Obama is not telling us everything (ie. obfuscating) he knows about the Egyptian situation. It basically advances the narrative in the rightwing echo-chamber that Obama should not be trusted and is a serial liar. Now, it’s true that Obama can not tell the public everything he knows about a delicate foreign matter issue that is evolving. No POTUS would. It would be reckless and irresponsible. The last thing he wants is for a bad situation to be made worse by the peanut gallery. Palin’s critique though was not one of substance but one of petty mockery — to infer that potus was intentionally duping/misleading it’s citizenry. She does this all the time if you have not noticed.
Note: Even after her mockery, she couldn’t even come up with a suggestion of her own on what should be done (better) which makes her critique stupid in the first place. If you don’t know what can be done better, shut up and let the grown ups do their work.

Gasket said:
You can not be ignorant. She was criticizing Obama in that piece. Joe Remi was not quoting her. He was paraphrasing what she inferred in the article. Basically calling Obama inept and saying Obama is not telling us everything (ie. obfuscating) he knows about the Egyptian situation. It basically advances the narrative in the rightwing echo-chamber that Obama should not be trusted and is a serial liar. Now, it’s true that Obama can not tell the public everything he knows about a delicate foreign matter issue that is evolving. No POTUS would. It would be reckless and irresponsible. The last thing he wants is for a bad situation to be made worse by the peanut gallery. Palin’s critique though was not one of substance but one of petty mockery — to infer that potus was intentionally duping/misleading it’s citizenry. She does this all the time if you have not noticed.Note: Even after her mockery, she couldn’t even come up with a suggestion of her own on what should be done (better) which makes her critique stupid in the first place. If you don’t know what can be done better, shut up and let the grown ups do their work.

It’s a direct quote from her CBN interview.

My criticism of the little quitter has nothing to do with sexism. Any Pretty Boy or Pretty Girl who coasts through life on their looks while refusing to learn anything, then has the cajones to criticize foreign policy, gets all the scorn they deserve. Sarah Palin isn’t actually dumb..she’s just too damn lazy to KNOW anything.

WCinWI said:
Yes – sexism exists. Matthews proves this daily.

I never said sexism doesn’t exist. That is a strawman response. I said you are pulling the sexism card in THIS situation. Matthews mocking a Republican woman or women does not mean he’s sexist. He’s mocking Republican men as well. The common denominator is their ideology and political beliefs and nothing to do with their gonads.

“Although this played like a Matthews’ greatest hits album it still leaves viewers wondering what exactly is Matthews’ goal with such segments?”

I wonder the same thing. He is marginalizing himself.
The show is called Hardball but lately he is just tossing softballs to sycophants.

Can this tingle miester not have one single show without bashing Palin??
*yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwnnn*

JoeRemi said:
It’s a direct quote from her CBN interview.

My criticism of the little quitter has nothing to do with sexism. Any Pretty Boy or Pretty Girl who coasts through life on their looks while refusing to learn anything, then has the cajones to criticize foreign policy, gets all the scorn they deserve. Sarah Palin isn’t actually dumb..she’s just too damn lazy to KNOW anything.

My apologies Joe. I have not transcripted the CBN interview but funny enough the piece in the politico article was almost identical if you parse her response. Same talking point.

Ed Schultz should take Chris aside in the MSNBC locker room and talk some sense into him . Maybe tell him that constant mocking does make for a worthy TV show . Or maybe it does on this network . Scarborough gathers some sneering lefties each weekday morning for an unwatchable Mock Fest .

WCinWI said:
Why is Matthews such a misogynistic person? Such disparagement over women as a whole – unless Democratic.

Nah, he attacks Democratic women too. Not as much in recent years but if you watched his shows when Hillary Clinton was still in elected office, and then running for president.. you’d notice. I don’t think he’s been especially kind to Pelosi either but he’s toned it down some. He definitely has issues with women.

Gasket said:
You can not be ignorant. She was criticizing Obama in that piece. Joe Remi was not quoting her. He was paraphrasing what she inferred in the article. Basically calling Obama inept and saying Obama is not telling us everything (ie. obfuscating) he knows about the Egyptian situation. It basically advances the narrative in the rightwing echo-chamber that Obama should not be trusted and is a serial liar. Now, it’s true that Obama can not tell the public everything he knows about a delicate foreign matter issue that is evolving. No POTUS would. It would be reckless and irresponsible. The last thing he wants is for a bad situation to be made worse by the peanut gallery. Palin’s critique though was not one of substance but one of petty mockery — to infer that potus was intentionally duping/misleading it’s citizenry. She does this all the time if you have not noticed.
Note: Even after her mockery, she couldn’t even come up with a suggestion of her own on what should be done (better) which makes her critique stupid in the first place. If you don’t know what can be done better, shut up and let the grown ups do their work.

Because Obama has been a serial liar and can’t be trusted. As a free leader, you don’t comment on foreign democracies in action. You don’t win anyone over by insertion. You work at the ground floor, by instituting local governments to form. Also, if Obama can’t even come out aganist the MB, that’s just a poor response. He doesn’t because he doesn’t want to set off the folks over in Egypt, but he has fumbled this situation so bad.

JoeRemi said:
WTF does Sarah Palin know about the high-wire act that is dealing with a crisis in the Middle East. Stupid bitch should stfu.

She doesn’t know anything about it. I completely agree on that point.

The b-word is not cool, though. Really not cool.

WCinWI said:
Obama has flubbed the treatment of this situation. I’m still waiting for the quote.

Go display your misogynistic tendencies elsewhere.

Yeah…Obama has flubbed the response so bad that the GOP leadership in congress and several of his rivals for the presidency next year support his measured approach. *Bangs head against wall*

da-wdc said:
Nah, he attacks Democratic women too. Not as much in recent years but if you watched his shows when Hillary Clinton was still in elected office, and then running for president.. you’d notice. I don’t think he’s been especially kind to Pelosi either but he’s toned it down some. He definitely has issues with women.

You could be right. He’s been kind to Hillary lately so it looks like he’s only gone after conservative women.

Gasket said:
Yeah…Obama has flubbed the response so bad that the GOP leadership in congress and several of his rivals for the presidency next year support his measured approach. *Bangs head against wall*

So far only McCain and Graham have been vocal participants and I don’t consider them of a conservative bent. Graham will most likely be gone in 2012.

da-wdc said:
She doesn’t know anything about it. I completely agree on that point. The b-word is not cool, though. Really not cool.

She constantly bashes people for her own self-angrandizement. She’s a mean, self-centered little bitch.

Gasket said:
I never said sexism doesn’t exist. That is a strawman response. I said you are pulling the sexism card in THIS situation. Matthews mocking a Republican woman or women does not mean he’s sexist. He’s mocking Republican men as well. The common denominator is their ideology and political beliefs and nothing to do with their gonads.

When you have constant segments on female women and call them names in the process, that’s called sexism.

JoeRemi said:
She constantly bashes people for her own self-angrandizement. She’s a mean, self-centered little bitch.

Perhaps you need to go workout. Endorphins are a wonderful mood enhancer.

WCinWI said:
When you have constant segments on female women and call them names in the process, that’s called sexism.

That is politics not sexism. He doesn’t bash ALL women. Not even ALL Republican women either.

Gasket said:
My apologies Joe. I have not transcripted the CBN interview but funny enough the piece in the politico article was almost identical if you parse her response. Same talking point.

Gaskit, you have the patience of a saint. You might as well bash your head against a wall then debate with most of the people on here.

WCinWI said:
Perhaps you need to go workout. Endorphins are a wonderful mood enhancer.

I rode my recumbent trike yesterday. 78 degrees here in California. Most excellent.

If Sarah would make ONE decent choice, my mood might improve. She ALWAYS goes for the dick move. I’m sick of ‘er.

gordonbloyershow said:
Nothing Palin and Gingrich have ever said is as cuckoo as Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow, Obama, Biden and RRK say on an hourly basis.

Okay the Gig is up Bloyer! The RNC must be paying for all the spinning that your doing. With Bloyer it’s -always, never, every time. That’s how you spot a Kool-Aid drinker.

WCinWI said:
Because Obama has been a serial liar and can’t be trusted. As a free leader, you don’t comment on foreign democracies in action. You don’t win anyone over by insertion. You work at the ground floor, by instituting local governments to form. Also, if Obama can’t even come out aganist the MB, that’s just a poor response. He doesn’t because he doesn’t want to set off the folks over in Egypt, but he has fumbled this situation so bad.

From the buffoon who does not know what party Bill Nelson is in!

Gasket said:
You are pulling the sexism card.

Yes, because libs/progs are typically sexist / racist / homophobic assholes, and Matthews leads the pack with his Palin / Bachmann obsession.

gordonbloyershow said:
Nothing Palin and Gingrich have ever said is as cuckoo as Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow, Obama, Biden and RRK say on an hourly basis.

From the CFA buffoon who cannot defend the insanity that is Fargo!

Chrissy’s problems are further enhanced because of a bad fit on his dentures. He was letting the spittle fly today as he tried like hell to keep his uppers in place. He thinks Beck is crazy while the whole world KNOWS Chrissy ‘Thrills & Tingles’ Matthews IS CRAZY…!!! Not sure why everyone keeps going after Fair & Balanced FOX News because it makes everyone over at PMSnbc look so foolish and childish. It really is pathetic to see how far down PMSnbc has dropped. They are fighting a losing war by going after a mature adult cable network like FOX News. Sorta like Michael Moore going against Michael Jordan in a game of HORSE.

WildMan said:
Chrissy’s problems are further enhanced because of a bad fit on his dentures. He was letting the spittle fly today as he tried like hell to keep his uppers in place. He thinks Beck is crazy while the whole world KNOWS Chrissy ‘Thrills & Tingles’ Matthews IS CRAZY…!!! Not sure why everyone keeps going after Fair & Balanced FOX News because it makes everyone over at PMSnbc look so foolish and childish. It really is pathetic to see how far down PMSnbc has dropped. They are fighting a losing war by going after a mature adult cable network like FOX News. Sorta like Michael Moore going against Michael Jordan in a game of HORSE.

Fox as a mature network? Oh, that Katy Perry bit about that’s not my bellybutton…but I didn’t say to stop. Very mature. Almost Spice Channel for old Rup!

JoeRemi said:
I rode my recumbent trike yesterday. 78 degrees here in California. Most excellent.

If Sarah would make ONE decent choice, my mood might improve. She ALWAYS goes for the dick move. I’m sick of ‘er.

Having lived in CA, you should be working on local CA politics to elect people that will fix YOUR own states’ problems. CA was horrible to live in from everything non-weather, non-entertainment and non-educated related to that I put up with for the three years I lived there.

jim bronson 990cc said:
From the buffoon who does not know what party Bill Nelson is in!

It doesn’t matter what Party the person is in….Moderates can be considered Rinos. :) Like I said, there are tons of Dems in red states that will be voted out.

WCinWI said:
Having lived in CA, you should be working on local CA politics to elect people that will fix YOUR own states’ problems. CA was horrible to live in from everything non-weather, non-entertainment and non-educated related to that I put up with for the three years I lived there.

Thanks, I’ll get right on that project that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

JoeRemi said:
I rode my recumbent trike yesterday. 78 degrees here in California. Most excellent.

If Sarah would make ONE decent choice, my mood might improve. She ALWAYS goes for the dick move. I’m sick of ‘er.

Last I checked, Palin was right about oil, death panels, the Feds cash flow and is right on the Roadmap idea. If you can show me where she’s been wrong, that would be a great discussion. :)

WCinWI said:
Because Obama has been a serial liar and can’t be trusted.

That is your opinion. Just like I think conservatives (like Palin) are liars and can never be trusted. See? There. Productive. Not..

As a free leader, you don’t comment on foreign democracies in action.

WTF is a “free leader?” Pres. Obama MUST comment PUBLICALLY due to the fact that Egypt is of strategic importance to the USA’s national interests. It is his JOB in case you missed that! Furthermore, he is the leader of the free world and Egypt receives the second highest amount of foreign aid from the USA. This is not some obscure country like Benin or Guyana where he can phone it in. Get real. If Obama had not said a single thing, it’s you demagogues who would be hammering him for it..

You don’t win anyone over by insertion. You work at the ground floor, by instituting local governments to form.

You are wrong and your conservative hero Pres. Ronald Reagan would disagree with you as well. US foreign policy has always been aggressive (publically) in courting political change. Remember Reagan’s Tear Down That Wall proclamation? He didn’t do that from the secret confines of the West Wing or the Situation Room. Not only do you need to change minds in governments, but you also need to sway & shape opinions of the governed. The PEOPLE need to know what side the US is on….and they don’t like hearing that from the conduit of their govt. You don’t do this via whisper campaigns. It comes from the public bully pulpit of the office of the POTUS via media. Your naivete is perplexing.

Also, if Obama can’t even come out aganist the MB, that’s just a poor response.

Poor response if you are a myopic political neophyte. What happens if the MB controls the next government after democratic elections? Can you tell me how one would even begin to negotiate with them after a public censure or repudiation? It’s not a smart diplomatic move. You acknowledge the danger of a theocracy and dissuade the Egyptians from changing course to that path. You can articulate the position without being indignant — which is what Obama did. Going out at this juncture and saying that the MB are terrorists, evil, the “enemy” or whatever fighting word you an dream of, is counter productive in THIS environment where everything is still unknown and changing by the day. If anything, it may endear moderate fence sitting Egyptians to embrace them. This bellicose rhetoric NEVER works. Just like you don’t want some foreigner aggressively telling you who you should vote for in 2012.

He doesn’t because he doesn’t want to set off the folks over in Egypt, but he has fumbled this situation so bad.

You are right and wrong at the same time. He doesn’t want to openly castigate a nefarious group in case there’s a backlash or gives them any more cred than they deserve. This is a continuously evolving situation where every action or inaction could have unpredictable and unintended consequences. Yet, we have to listen to the Monday night quarterbacking naysayers like yourself who think they know what should have been done better last week. Sigh.

JoeRemi said:
Thanks, I’ll get right on that project that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Sorry if I don’t wish to condone the act of crude personalities.

It’s not my fault if you think that CA is such a great fiscally sane state.

BlackWidow said:
That is politics not sexism. He doesn’t bash ALL women. Not even ALL Republican women either.

BlackWidow said:
Gaskit, you have the patience of a saint. You might as well bash your head against a wall then debate with most of the people on here.

Why do you change your screen name to insult other commenters ?

WCinWI said:
It doesn’t matter what Party the person is in….Moderates can be considered Rinos. :) Like I said, there are tons of Dems in red states that will be voted out.

Yeah, it does. A dem cannot be a RINO…but I guess that is too much for your intellectual capacity!

Gasket said:
That is your opinion. Just like I think conservatives (like Palin) are liars and can never be trusted. See? There. Productive. Not..

WTF is a “free leader?” Pres. Obama MUST comment PUBLICALLY due to the fact that Egypt is of strategic importance to the USA’s national interests. It is his JOB in case you missed that! Furthermore, he is the leader of the free world and Egypt receives the second highest amount of foreign aid from the USA. This is not some obscure country like Benin or Guyana where he can phone it in. Get real. If Obama had not said a single thing, it’s you demagogues who would be hammering him for it..

You are wrong and your conservative hero Pres. Ronald Reagan would disagree with you as well. US foreign policy has always been aggressive (publically) in courting political change. Remember Reagan’s Tear Down That Wall proclamation? He didn’t do that from the secret confines of the West Wing or the Situation Room. Not only do you need to change minds in governments, but you also need to sway & shape opinions of the governed. The PEOPLE need to know what side the US is on….and they don’t like hearing that from the conduit of their govt. You don’t do this via whisper campaigns. It comes from the public bully pulpit of the office of the POTUS via media. Your naivete is perplexing.

Poor response if you are a myopic political neophyte. What happens if the MB controls the next government after democratic elections? Can you tell me how one would even begin to negotiate with them after a public censure or repudiation? It’s not a smart diplomatic move. You acknowledge the danger of a theocracy and dissuade the Egyptians from changing course to that path. You can articulate the position without being indignant — which is what Obama did. Going out at this juncture and saying that the MB are terrorists, evil, the “enemy” or whatever fighting word you an dream of, is counter productive in THIS environment where everything is still unknown and changing by the day. If anything, it may endear moderate fence sitting Egyptians to embrace them. This bellicose rhetoric NEVER works. Just like you don’t want some foreigner aggressively telling you who you should vote for in 2012.

You are right and wrong at the same time. He doesn’t want to openly castigate a nefarious group in case there’s a backlash or gives them any more cred than they deserve. This is a continuously evolving situation where every action or inaction could have unpredictable and unintended consequences. Yet, we have to listen to the Monday night quarterbacking naysayers like yourself who think they know what should have been done better last week. Sigh.

Free leader is a leader of a Democratic society, even though we’re guided by a Republic. Last I checked, he wasn’t the Free Leader of the World, but the President of the United States. He had the ability to comment once. After that, he inserted himself into the talks by the use of the word “now”. Last I checked, Obama didn’t have a side in this. Can you tell me what his “side” is? I’m perplexed to this – and not because I’m confused on the matter, but because it’s been a confusing message. Four scenarios: 1) You are for democratic society and you are with the people of Egypt, 2) You are with Mubarak because of his friendly relationship with us, 3) You are with the people and you have a set up back-up set of options for a transition that will allow a fair election to go on, and 4) You allow chaos to occur because there are limited political parties with hold on the country.

Take your pick.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Yeah, it does. A dem cannot be a RINO…but I guess that is too much for your intellectual capacity!

And Specter was what? You’re just so silly.

WCinWI said:
And Specter was what? You’re just so silly.

No, you are. Ducking the issue of your ignorance only brings it further into light!

jim bronson 990cc said:
No, you are. Ducking the issue of your ignorance only brings it further into light!

Haha…I provide a name of someone and you’re calling that ducking. Wow.

Either way, 2012 will be a great blue-to-red movement. Who cares if it’s a DINO or RINO?

WCinWI said:
So far only McCain and Graham have been vocal participants and I don’t consider them of a conservative bent. Graham will most likely be gone in 2012.

You are a liar. Everyone from Romney to Santorum and Mitch Daniels has inferred POTUS’s cautionary approach has been good. Also, you have not heard a single word of criticism from the GOP leadership (you do know who those are right?) about Obama’s handling of the Egyptian crisis. They are usually not a shy bunch.

WCinWI said:
Last I checked, Palin was right about oil, death panels, the Feds cash flow and is right on the Roadmap idea. If you can show me where she’s been wrong, that would be a great discussion. :)

Actually, she has been wrong on all those. You also need to realize that Palin has no original thoughts of her own. She just parrots talking points she gets from the rightwing mediasphere. Even the term LSM was not coined by her. It’s Bernie Goldberg of FNC who started using that word. Why is it strange for Palin to be wrong on an issue about the Fed? LOL.

Palin / Beck… rent free in his head…

WCinWI said:
Haha…I provide a name of someone and you’re calling that ducking. Wow. Either way, 2012 will be a great blue-to-red movement. Who cares if it’s a DINO or RINO?

Again, ducking the issue. Who is the GOPer cansisate? Has anyone declared? 4 years ago 13 GOPers did. Why the cowardice? Oh, forgot who I was asking.

I wonder just how much longer COMCAST is going to put up with Matthews – not only does he continue the fact that MSNBC is the network about FNC, but his hatred for women just oozes out of his skin.

It really does amaze me that previous msnbc management put up with this shit, but the new management should put a stop to it sooner rather than later.

Chris is gonna be removed from the air one of these evenings in a straight jacket if he doesn’t get a grip.

too weird these days, that is what MSNBC has become.

Gasket said:
You are a liar. Everyone from Romney to Santorum and Mitch Daniels has inferred POTUS’s cautionary approach has been good. Also, you have not heard a single word of criticism from the GOP leadership (you do know who those are right?) about Obama’s handling of the Egyptian crisis. They are usually not a shy bunch.

Actually, she has been wrong on all those. You also need to realize that Palin has no original thoughts of her own. She just parrots talking points she gets from the rightwing mediasphere. Even the term LSM was not coined by her. It’s Bernie Goldberg of FNC who started using that word. Why is it strange for Palin to be wrong on an issue about the Fed? LOL.

Actually, our leadership is quite shy on a multitude of issues. Just because you disagree with my assessment doesn’t mean that I’m a liar. That’s your own projection.

Once again, PDS is alive and well.

A) So your gas has not gone up?
B) The provision including death panels originally in the bill wasn’t removed?
C) QE = inflation….from my understanding
D) Entitlements are broke….and I like the idea of being able to privately invest money. I hope it gets done. The Dems won’t do it.

She is living rent-free in your brain. It’s just too easy to provide fact-based rebuttals so it’s all good.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Again, ducking the issue. Who is the GOPer cansisate? Has anyone declared? 4 years ago 13 GOPers did. Why the cowardice? Oh, forgot who I was asking.

I’d prefer to talk to an adult. Have a nice evening. :)

TfT said:
I wonder just how much longer COMCAST is going to put up with Matthews – not only does he continue the fact that MSNBC is the network about FNC, but his hatred for women just oozes out of his skin.

It really does amaze me that previous msnbc management put up with this shit, but the new management should put a stop to it sooner rather than later.

Chris is gonna be removed from the air one of these evenings in a straight jacket if he doesn’t get a grip.

too weird these days, that is what MSNBC has become.

They can all go over to Current TV? I was wondering why his Sunday NBC show got moved to ABC.

WCinWI said:
I’d prefer to talk to an adult. Have a nice evening. :)

When all you have shown is the maturity of an elementary school child? You would not know how to talk to an adult. Good night, COWARD!!!

jim bronson 990cc said:
When all you have shown is the maturity of an elementary school child? You would not know how to talk to an adult. Good night, COWARD!!!

I see you wish to disrespect the President. That is too bad.

WCinWI, If you don’t even know the WH position on the Egyptian upheaval — maybe you shouldn’t comment on how bad it is. My 2 cents. I shouldn’t even have wasted my time arguing with you on the subject.

WCinWI said:
Last I checked, he wasn’t the Free Leader of the World, but the President of the United States.

.

Maybe you should have your eyes checked or you are suffering from Beck syndrome since I never said such a thing. POTUS is the defacto leader of the free world. Are you telling me you have never heard of that phrasing before? Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Free_World

WCinWI said:
I see you wish to disrespect the President. That is too bad.

Delusions of granduer. You are not the POTUS!

Gasket said:
WCinWI, If you don’t even know the WH position on the Egyptian upheaval — maybe you shouldn’t comment on how bad it is. My 2 cents. I shouldn’t even have wasted my time arguing with you on the subject.

Maybe you should have your eyes checked or you are suffering from Beck syndrome since I never said such a thing. POTUS is the defacto leader of the free world. Are you telling me you have never heard of that phrasing before? Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Free_World

I worked in research. We never used Wiki in our research proposals. He is the President of the US. Simple as that.

Gasket said:
WCinWI, If you don’t even know the WH position on the Egyptian upheaval — maybe you shouldn’t comment on how bad it is. My 2 cents. I shouldn’t even have wasted my time arguing with you on the subject.

Maybe you should have your eyes checked or you are suffering from Beck syndrome since I never said such a thing. POTUS is the defacto leader of the free world. Are you telling me you have never heard of that phrasing before? Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Free_World

Oh and I specifically stated that I wasn’t confused on his take because of my own lack of understanding, but because he has been wishy-washy on the matter.

However, you are no longer enjoyable to chat with as you don’t use common sense. I wish you good luck in your discussions with others. Toodles. :)

How much longer will this screwball continue to have a public forum?

Gasket said:
WCinWI, If you don’t even know the WH position on the Egyptian upheaval — maybe you shouldn’t comment on how bad it is. My 2 cents. I shouldn’t even have wasted my time arguing with you on the subject.

Maybe you should have your eyes checked or you are suffering from Beck syndrome since I never said such a thing. POTUS is the defacto leader of the free world. Are you telling me you have never heard of that phrasing before? Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Free_World

Your assumption is that the US is a superpower. This is a silly notion. China owns our debt. Obama has brought down our superpower status over the past two years. We can differ on this point, however you can’t say that China doesn’t owe our debt.

Plus, I thought that libs didn’t believe in the concept of superpower status? I thought we were all equal countries. Oh well.

Now toodles. :)

jim bronson 990cc said:
Delusions of granduer. You are not the POTUS!

No – I just listened to his speech on civility. Apparently you didn’t.

I thought you said goodnight before? Apparently I was mistaken.

WCinWI said:
I worked in research. We never used Wiki in our research proposals. He is the President of the US. Simple as that.

Gutless:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-the-leader-of-the-free-world-mean.htm

WCinWI said:
No – I just listened to his speech on civility. Apparently you didn’t. I thought you said goodnight before? Apparently I was mistaken.

And back at you. Silly!

jim bronson 990cc said:
Gutless:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-the-leader-of-the-free-world-mean.htm

I’ve already replied to his idea of a superpower. We are all allowed to disagree on that.

jim bronson 990cc said:
And back at you. Silly!

Nope – I’ve been quite cordial given the parties involved. Normal people would’ve yelled stronger language back. You can’t fight certain facts. We can agree to disagree on our statuses as a superpower, but on simple facts.

WCinWI said:
Nope – I’ve been quite cordial given the parties involved. Normal people would’ve yelled stronger language back. You can’t fight certain facts. We can agree to disagree on our statuses as a superpower, but on simple facts.

That should be….but not on simple facts.

WCinWI said:
I’ve already replied to his idea of a superpower. We are all allowed to disagree on that.

But of course. Your problem is, you do not back it up with anything other than YOUR opinion. That is why you are gutless. But that is not an attack on you personally. It is merely a statement of fact. Please read before responding!

WCinWI said:
Actually, our leadership is quite shy on a multitude of issues. Just because you disagree with my assessment doesn’t mean that I’m a liar. That’s your own projection.

Once again, PDS is alive and well.

A) So your gas has not gone up?
B) The provision including death panels originally in the bill wasn’t removed?
C) QE = inflation….from my understanding
D) Entitlements are broke….and I like the idea of being able to privately invest money. I hope it gets done. The Dems won’t do it.

She is living rent-free in your brain. It’s just too easy to provide fact-based rebuttals so it’s all good.

Listen to me, carefully. Palin knows NOTHING about economics…..ok? You seem to forget that it took 4-5 schools for her to get a measly journalism degree. I am sorry, but, me listening and heeding Palin’ s “opinion” or advice on QE2 is like me listening to Rachel Ray giving me advice on the best compression ratio for my car’s engine. I get it you are a big Palin fan, but, that does not change the fact that the lady is out of her depth in a shallow pool (Peggy Noonan’s words) and has a general lack of intellect. She is a dumb woman. Genius in her brand marketing though. I have already debunked some of those things you have enumerated above (in previous related threads — you can search if you think I am ducking) and I don’t feel like doing it again. It gets boring.

WCinWI said:
That should be….but not on simple facts.

Responding to your own responses? I may have to take back what I said. You are not cowardly, merely delusional.

JoeRemi said:
“Nobody yet has explained to the American public what they know, and surely they know more than the rest of us know who it is will be taking the place of Mubarak. … We need strength and a sound mind there in the White House. We need to know what it is that America stands for so we know who it is that America will stand with. And, we do not have that information yet.” WTF does Sarah Palin know about the high-wire act that is dealing with a crisis in the Middle East. Stupid bitch should stfu.

JoeRemi said:
She constantly bashes people for her own self-angrandizement. She’s a mean, self-centered little bitch.

JoeRemi said:
I rode my recumbent trike yesterday. 78 degrees here in California. Most excellent. If Sarah would make ONE decent choice, my mood might improve. She ALWAYS goes for the dick move. I’m sick of ‘er.

Hey Joe… remember when you said that Mediate had really become a sewer where the nuttiest people hung out.

Congrats. You can hang your hat with the worst of them.

I’m sure we’ll talk about this more.

WCinWI said:
Nope – I’ve been quite cordial given the parties involved. Normal people would’ve yelled stronger language back. You can’t fight certain facts. We can agree to disagree on our statuses as a superpower, but on simple facts.

No, we can’t. Your problem is you do not speak for me. But I expect that from GOPers. They love totalitarians.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Responding to your own responses? I may have to take back what I said. You are not cowardly, merely delusional.

I hope that you have no children. And on that note, I bid YOU adieu. :)

WCinWI said:
I hope that you have no children. And on that note, I bid YOU adieu. :)

Much “adieu” about nothing. LOL!

Gasket said:
Listen to me, carefully. Palin knows NOTHING about economics…..ok? You seem to forget that it took 4-5 schools for her to get a measly journalism degree. I am sorry, but, me listening and heeding Palin’ s “opinion” or advice on QE2 is like me listening to Rachel Ray giving me advice on the best compression ratio for my car’s engine. I get it you are a big Palin fan, but, that does not change the fact that the lady is out of her depth in a shallow pool (Peggy Noonan’s words) and has a general lack of intellect. She is a dumb woman. Genius in her brand marketing though. I have already debunked some of those things you have enumerated above (in previous related threads — you can search if you think I am ducking) and I don’t feel like doing it again. It gets boring.

So is it worse to go to school and get a degree or to not go to school at all? Or does that not matter? I don’t get your logic. I went to multiple schools before graduating from a Big 10 university. I also have a masters degree. Once again, I don’t get your point in this whole, it took so many schools to get it done. Isn’t in the idea of that it was done at all? This is why liberals will never make any sense.

All I know is that she’s been right on the issues thus far. That’s enough for me.

You haven’t refuted a darn thing. If you had, I would admit to the concession. And I don’t remember using that word. Also, what state do you live in? Big city, small? Is it running on a surplus? These are far more important questions that you should be asking instead of arguing with a woman for the sake of arguing with a woman.

WCinWI said:
So is it worse to go to school and get a degree or to not go to school at all? Or does that not matter? I don’t get your logic. I went to multiple schools before graduating from a Big 10 university. I also have a masters degree. Once again, I don’t get your point in this whole, it took so many schools to get it done. Isn’t in the idea of that it was done at all? This is why liberals will never make any sense. All I know is that she’s been right on the issues thus far. That’s enough for me. You haven’t refuted a darn thing. If you had, I would admit to the concession. And I don’t remember using that word. Also, what state do you live in? Big city, small? Is it running on a surplus? These are far more important questions that you should be asking instead of arguing with a woman for the sake of arguing with a woman.

Too funny:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021350-503544.html

WCinWI said:
So is it worse to go to school and get a degree or to not go to school at all? Or does that not matter? I don’t get your logic. I went to multiple schools before graduating from a Big 10 university. I also have a masters degree. Once again, I don’t get your point in this whole, it took so many schools to get it done. Isn’t in the idea of that it was done at all? This is why liberals will never make any sense.

All I know is that she’s been right on the issues thus far. That’s enough for me.

You haven’t refuted a darn thing. If you had, I would admit to the concession. And I don’t remember using that word. Also, what state do you live in? Big city, small? Is it running on a surplus? These are far more important questions that you should be asking instead of arguing with a woman for the sake of arguing with a woman.

To be more clear, I went to multiple schools because of Summer classes and for the ability to study abroad.

It would be my assumption that you’re against Pell grants and affirmative action then right? You want things to be equal I would assume? We might be able to agree on that front.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Too funny:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021350-503544.html

La La La La La……….

WCinWI said:
La La La La La……….

Duck and cover. It is what you do best.

WCinWI said:
I worked in research. We never used Wiki in our research proposals. He is the President of the US. Simple as that.

What the hell does “research” have to do with this? We are not writing research proposals here. We are debating politics. I used a colloquialism that you were apparently ignorant of, you “corrected” me and I re-corrected your wrong correction. You then started back-pedaling with some evasive sophistry. Typical wingnut stuff.

WCinWI said:
Oh and I specifically stated that I wasn’t confused on his take because of my own lack of understanding, but because he has been wishy-washy on the matter.

However, you are no longer enjoyable to chat with as you don’t use common sense. I wish you good luck in your discussions with others. Toodles. :)

I suppose a chat becomes non-enjoyable when your arguments get perforated with logic, reason and facts. A person with common sense would disabuse the existence of death panels. A person with common sense would see Palin for what she is, a buffoon. Toodles sweetheart. :)

jim bronson 990cc said:
Duck and cover. It is what you do best.

Just because you need a friend, doesn’t mean I need to be that particular one. Please find someone else to chat with as I’m sure you’ll be able to better converse with them.

Have a lovely night.

WCinWI said:
Just because you need a friend, doesn’t mean I need to be that particular one. Please find someone else to chat with as I’m sure you’ll be able to better converse with them. Have a lovely night.

Need? No. But owned…

Gasket said:
What the hell does “research” have to do with this? We are not writing research proposals here. We are debating politics. I used a colloquialism that you were apparently ignorant of, you “corrected” me and I re-corrected your wrong correction. You then started back-pedaling with some evasive sophistry. Typical wingnut stuff.

I suppose a chat becomes non-enjoyable when your arguments get perforated with logic, reason and facts. A person with common sense would disabuse the existence of death panels. A person with common sense would see Palin for what she is, a buffoon. Toodles sweetheart. :)

No – there is a difference between ignorance and just plain not agreeing with the term. Anyone with a political bent at all is going to know what leader of a free world means, however if you don’t feel that your country is a superpower, the phrase doesn’t apply. Therefore you corrected nothing.

I think you are more of the DU, Kos or Huff Po bent….here we like to talk with numbers and facts.

And please stop with your sexist terminology. In the work place that would be offensive. You might want to try using that same tact.

jim bronson 990cc said:
Need? No. But owned…

A liberal that is defending slavery? Wow.

Off to enjoy conversation with others. :)

ImNotBlue said:
Hey Joe… remember when you said that Mediate had really become a sewer where the nuttiest people hung out. Congrats. You can hang your hat with the worst of them. I’m sure we’ll talk about this more.

You know quite well what I think of the little bitch, and you know that I’m not afraid to say it. The other forum I talk on has a much saner level of discourse, so I tone it down for them. These morons get full blast.

WCinWI said:
They can all go over to Current TV? I was wondering why his Sunday NBC show got moved to ABC.

The Chris Matthews Show is syndicated. What you saw was a move from one local affiliate to another.

JoeRemi said:
The Chris Matthews Show is syndicated. What you saw was a move from one local affiliate to another.

Thanks. Good to know. Even if I don’t like your sexist attitude. Thanks for the info.

AWESOME.

CLASSIC MATTHEWS LINES

HILARIOUS

MATTHEWS POWER

WCinWI said:
No – there is a difference between ignorance and just plain not agreeing with the term. Anyone with a political bent at all is going to know what leader of a free world means, however if you don’t feel that your country is a superpower, the phrase doesn’t apply. Therefore you corrected nothing.

I don’t care whether you don’t agree with the term. It is a fact of life and a common US phrase. I am right and you are wrong. Mine is based on fact, yours based on a subjective opinion.

I think you are more of the DU, Kos or Huff Po bent….here we like to talk with numbers and facts.

I rarely visit those sites…maybe once a week. I only actively blog on THIS site actually. My favorite liberal blog is TPM. Just a FYI.

And please stop with your sexist terminology. In the work place that would be offensive. You might want to try using that same tact.

I use that same term on the guys here. You can ask Pablo. LOL. It’s not sexual in the context of my use. You know I live here in the midwest where waitresses use that on strangers. You need to calm the F down and stop thinking people are targeting you because you are a female. I like using the word as snark and I will not stop doing it just because it infuriates you. Free speech baby. If you stop being an ass, I will reconsider. :)

WCinWI said:
So is it worse to go to school and get a degree or to not go to school at all? Or does that not matter? I don’t get your logic. I went to multiple schools before graduating from a Big 10 university. I also have a masters degree. Once again, I don’t get your point in this whole, it took so many schools to get it done. Isn’t in the idea of that it was done at all? This is why liberals will never make any sense.

All I know is that she’s been right on the issues thus far. That’s enough for me.

You haven’t refuted a darn thing. If you had, I would admit to the concession. And I don’t remember using that word. Also, what state do you live in? Big city, small? Is it running on a surplus? These are far more important questions that you should be asking instead of arguing with a woman for the sake of arguing with a woman.

I thought you were done arguing with me? I have no sense…remember?

Sorry, I cannot have any intelligent discussion with anyone who :
a: Is a birther.
b. Believes in death panels.

I will just mock them. :)
Yes, I have discussed and refuted most of the arguments you have put up (not in THIS thread) about Palin. I don’t feel like doing it again. There are some things that Palinistas never concede so I will not even waste my time.

Next…

WCinWI said:
Thanks. Good to know. Even if I don’t like your sexist attitude. Thanks for the info.

It’s not sexist. I give it just as good to male assholes, too.

WCinWI said:
To be more clear, I went to multiple schools because of Summer classes and for the ability to study abroad.

It would be my assumption that you’re against Pell grants and affirmative action then right? You want things to be equal I would assume? We might be able to agree on that front.

Why are you against affirmative action? I’m going to assume you are a white woman. You do realize that they are the greatest beneficiaries?

Gasket said:
I don’t care whether you don’t agree with the term. It is a fact of life and a common US phrase. I am right and you are wrong. Mine is based on fact, yours based on a subjective opinion.

I rarely visit those sites…maybe once a week. I only actively blog on THIS site actually. My favorite liberal blog is TPM. Just a FYI.

I use that same term on the guys here. You can ask Pablo. LOL. It’s not sexual in the context of my use. You know I live here in the midwest where waitresses use that on strangers. You need to calm the F down and stop thinking people are targeting you because you are a female. I like using the word as snark and I will not stop doing it just because it infuriates you. Free speech baby. If you stop being an ass, I will reconsider. :)

I thought you were done arguing with me? I have no sense…remember?

Sorry, I cannot have any intelligent discussion with anyone who :
a: Is a birther.
b. Believes in death panels.

I will just mock them. :)
Yes, I have discussed and refuted most of the arguments you have put up (not in THIS thread) about Palin. I don’t feel like doing it again. There are some things that Palinistas never concede so I will not even waste my time.

Next…

You’re right. We differ. I operate on facts and you operate on what you think are facts.

And just so you know, you don’t blog on this site.

Also, no you did not refute anything that I have said. Simple as that.

Ciao sweetheart.

Gasket said:
Why are you against affirmative action? I’m going to assume you are a white woman. You do realize that they are the greatest beneficiaries?

NEXT….

JoeRemi said:
It’s not sexist. I give it just as good to male assholes, too.

Sexism is not only an against female idea. Sexism is sexism. Period.

WCinWI said:
Sexism is not only an against female idea. Sexism is sexism. Period.

If you think my criticism of a woman coasting on her looks, while treating everyone else with disdain, is sexist, so be it. If Scott Brown – an obviously handsome man – was doing the same thing, I would bust his chops, too.

Sarah Palin – as McCain’s handlers are all too willing to tell you – refuses to crack a book, yet she spouts off about things like the Middle East as if we should take her denigration of the President seriously.

She’s hot. That’s it. She is not a serious person. Not very nice, either.

JoeRemi said:
If you think my criticism of a woman coasting on her looks, while treating everyone else with disdain, is sexist, so be it. If Scott Brown – an obviously handsome man – was doing the same thing, I would bust his chops, too.

Sarah Palin – as McCain’s handlers are all too willing to tell you – refuses to crack a book, yet she spouts off about things like the Middle East as if we should take her denigration of the President seriously.

She’s hot. That’s it. She is not a serious person. Not very nice, either.

Scott Brown did use his appearances to gain his seat. Nor will he have the same support as he had when he last ran. I don’t care if it’s a male or a female – you’re just a sexist person.

JoeRemi said:
If you think my criticism of a woman coasting on her looks, while treating everyone else with disdain, is sexist, so be it. If Scott Brown – an obviously handsome man – was doing the same thing, I would bust his chops, too.

Sarah Palin – as McCain’s handlers are all too willing to tell you – refuses to crack a book, yet she spouts off about things like the Middle East as if we should take her denigration of the President seriously.

She’s hot. That’s it. She is not a serious person. Not very nice, either.

I think it’s wrong to bring up looks in politics period. If you have a problem with a person, talk policies and not looks. Period.

WC, I’ll lay off the b-word around you. I’m used to this putrid swamp being infested by a dozen Gordon Bloyer clones. You don’t seem to play that game, so I’ll pull it back. And yes, that’s a little bit sexist. Once I figured out you were female, that affected my decision, too. Sorry.

JoeRemi said:
You know quite well what I think of the little bitch, and you know that I’m not afraid to say it. The other forum I talk on has a much saner level of discourse, so I tone it down for them. These morons get full blast.

What’s funny to me is that you somehow think you’re better than “these morons.” Judging by your eloqueince… you are no better than they. You are the same type of trash, consumed with hate and rage, incapable of respectful dialog.

As far as I’m concerned, this is the real Joe. Enjoy the sewer. I know you will.

WCinWI said:
I think it’s wrong to bring up looks in politics period. If you have a problem with a person, talk policies and not looks. Period.

The Cult Of Sarah Palin is very much tied into her looks. To ignore it would be hysterically dishonest.

WCinWI said:
I think it’s wrong to bring up looks in politics period. If you have a problem with a person, talk policies and not looks. Period.

I take that back. It’s ok to bring up looks, not as a reason why someone is a bad person. Done with this convo as you seem it’s ok to call both sides names.

Wait, what? Wasn’t Chris just gushing about Mubarak just the other day on Morning Joe? Wasn’t he just saying it was chilling the way the Obama administration was throwing Mubarak under the bus?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-is-ashamed-by-the-lack-of-intelligence-on-egypt/

Put aside the outrageously disingenuous canard Matthews is spinning that Beck was implying the Bush’s were conspiring with the Muslim Brotherhood when he stated we didn’t bomb Babylon because of it’s symbolic importance to Muslims. Now he’s trying to tie Mubarak love onto Beck and Gingrich when Beck, though admitting Mubarak helped keep the peace for 30 years, exactly as Mathews himself said in the above clip, categorically stated we should have gotten out of bed with him years ago on moral grounds?

Matthews has no intellectual honesty left whatsoever. His show is now all about false gotchas, just like the rest of MSNBC’s lineup.

JoeRemi said:
The Cult Of Sarah Palin is very much tied into her looks. To ignore it would be hysterically dishonest.

There is no cult. However, as a female conservative, it’s nice to see an attractive person with values and ideas I respect.

There are Obama supporters and there are Palin supporters. Simple as that.

ImNotBlue said:
What’s funny to me is that you somehow think you’re better than “these morons.” Judging by your eloqueince… you are no better than they. You are the same type of trash, consumed with hate and rage, incapable of respectful dialog. As far as I’m concerned, this is the real Joe. Enjoy the sewer. I know you will.

The “real Joe” has nothing but scorn for Sarah Palin. I think she is a pox on the political landscape. You know that. And when I’m in a bar full of bullies – as this place usually is – I’ll talk their language. WC is clearly not in that league, so I’ll moderate. I will NOT apologize for my thoughts on Palin. She’s mean and lazy, and the Rabid Right is sucking her up because they dig looking at her. That bothers me.

Yoda002 said:
Okay the Gig is up Bloyer! The RNC must be paying for all the spinning that your doing. With Bloyer it’s -always, never, every time. That’s how you spot a Kool-Aid drinker.

You how to spot a idiot? It is by the name they hide behind, YODA, is a joke and so are you. You are the coward hiding behind a phony name to shill for Obama. You gig has always been up the moment you chose the name Yoda.

From Hotline
More than half of registered voters believe President Obama will lose a bid for a second term, even as more Americans say they approve of his job performance than at any time in more than a year.
A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, released Tuesday, shows 51 percent of registered voters, and the same percentage of adult Americans, believe Obama will lose if he runs for re-election. 46 percent say he would win.
And more voters say, at the moment, they will vote against Obama. Fully 51 percent say they definitely or probably will not vote for Obama, while 47 percent say they’re predisposed to vote for him. Independent voters would vote against Obama by a 44 percent to 53 percent margin, while he would win moderates by a much larger 55 percent to 45 percent margin.
The numbers come in the same poll that showed Obama gaining from a big positive bump. The sample of all adults approve of the job Obama is doing by a 55 percent to 44 percent margin, the highest Obama’s approval rating has gone since a poll conducted November 13-15, 2009.
And yet Obama shouldn’t worry too much. Early decisions about how a voter will cast a ballot haven’t proven to be terribly good indicators of a candidate’s performance in the following elections. A similar CNN survey from January 1995 found 54 percent of Americans saying they would vote against Bill Clinton, while just 39 percent would vote for him. Fully 65 percent said they believed Clinton would lose re-election. Clinton easily won his re-election bid in 1996.
The poll, conducted January 21-23 among 1,012 adults, comes with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent. Subsamples of 479 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and 441 Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents have a higher margin of error, around 4.5 percent each.
The survey also tested the Republican presidential primary field, a group so disparate and wide open that more than half of Republican primary voters have never heard of some of the leading candidates. More than 59 percent of voters say they have never heard of, or have no opinion of, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Sen. Rick Santorum, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Rep. Mike Pence and Sen. John Thune.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee leads the pack in name recognition with a 72 percent favorable rating. He’s closely trailed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who is seen favorably by 70 percent of Republicans, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has a 64 percent approval rating.

JoeRemi said:
The “real Joe” has nothing but scorn for Sarah Palin. I think she is a pox on the political landscape. You know that. And when I’m in a bar full of bullies – as this place usually is – I’ll talk their language. WC is clearly not in that league, so I’ll moderate. I will NOT apologize for my thoughts on Palin. She’s mean and lazy, and the Rabid Right is sucking her up because they dig looking at her. That bothers me.

If you think that Mediaite is a site for bullies, you must live in a box. Wow.

This site is tame for a Lefty-leaning blog.

WCinWI said:
If you think that Mediaite is a site for bullies, you must live in a box. Wow. This site is tame for a Lefty-leaning blog.

I’ll take your word for it. I don’t read many blogs, especially the comment sections. Endless flame wars are tiresome.

JoeRemi said:
I’ll take your word for it. I don’t read many blogs, especially the comment sections. Endless flame wars are tiresome.

You don’t contribute much when you call political figures of any nature a name though. You’re adding to the tone of the comments section.

Scott Brown used his male appearance as a stud to get elected. But because he is a male, he no longer gets the scrutiny. Female pols shouldn’t get the brunt of that criticism. The main criticism I can handle is the old vs. young argument as there are too many older pols in office.

WCinWI said:
You’re right. We differ. I operate on facts and you operate on what you think are facts.

And just so you know, you don’t blog on this site.

Also, no you did not refute anything that I have said. Simple as that.

Ciao sweetheart.

What facts are you operating on sweetheart? You think ACA has death panels, you think Palin is a voice to be listened to on economy matters, you think the USA is not a superpower. Do you plausibly think you are arguing on anything that can be supported factually? Like I said, Palin was wrong on all those factors. Stop being an ideologue and look at things objectively. What’s your masters in if I may inquire? Anything in the science field?

Ok..I don’t blog, I post on Mediaite.

WCinWI said:
NEXT….

Answer the question, you broached the subject.

Gasket said:
What facts are you operating on sweetheart? You think ACA has death panels, you think Palin is a voice to be listened to on economy matters, you think the USA is not a superpower. Do you plausibly think you are arguing on anything that can be supported factually? Like I said, Palin was wrong on all those factors. Stop being an ideologue and look at things objectively. What’s your masters in if I may inquire? Anything in the science field?

Ok..I don’t blog, I post on Mediaite.

Answer the question, you broached the subject.

NEXT……

WCinWI said:
You don’t contribute much when you call political figures of any nature a name though. You’re adding to the tone of the comments section. Scott Brown used his male appearance as a stud to get elected. But because he is a male, he no longer gets the scrutiny. Female pols shouldn’t get the brunt of that criticism. The main criticism I can handle is the old vs. young argument as there are too many older pols in office.

Look, you’re right. The woman gets under my skin like no other public figure, and has since that nasty Republican Convention speech. I find it deeply offensive that someone who knows so little can be so confident in damning others. Now she wants to “help” journalism. She says it with a straight face!

My point about looks was “coasting”. Scott Brown obviously markets his looks, and that’s not a problem. He also knows what he’s talking about when he speaks, and takes his job seriously. It’s fine to be pretty, and take advantage of it. But not when you flush everything else.

gordonbloyershow said:
You how to spot a idiot? It is by the name they hide behind, YODA, is a joke and so are you. You are the coward hiding behind a phony name to shill for Obama. You gig has always been up the moment you chose the name Yoda.

From Hotline
More than half of registered voters believe President Obama will lose a bid for a second term, even as more Americans say they approve of his job performance than at any time in more than a year.
A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, released Tuesday, shows 51 percent of registered voters, and the same percentage of adult Americans, believe Obama will lose if he runs for re-election. 46 percent say he would win.
And more voters say, at the moment, they will vote against Obama. Fully 51 percent say they definitely or probably will not vote for Obama, while 47 percent say they’re predisposed to vote for him. Independent voters would vote against Obama by a 44 percent to 53 percent margin, while he would win moderates by a much larger 55 percent to 45 percent margin.
The numbers come in the same poll that showed Obama gaining from a big positive bump. The sample of all adults approve of the job Obama is doing by a 55 percent to 44 percent margin, the highest Obama’s approval rating has gone since a poll conducted November 13-15, 2009.
And yet Obama shouldn’t worry too much. Early decisions about how a voter will cast a ballot haven’t proven to be terribly good indicators of a candidate’s performance in the following elections. A similar CNN survey from January 1995 found 54 percent of Americans saying they would vote against Bill Clinton, while just 39 percent would vote for him. Fully 65 percent said they believed Clinton would lose re-election. Clinton easily won his re-election bid in 1996.
The poll, conducted January 21-23 among 1,012 adults, comes with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent. Subsamples of 479 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and 441 Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents have a higher margin of error, around 4.5 percent each.
The survey also tested the Republican presidential primary field, a group so disparate and wide open that more than half of Republican primary voters have never heard of some of the leading candidates. More than 59 percent of voters say they have never heard of, or have no opinion of, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Sen. Rick Santorum, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Rep. Mike Pence and Sen. John Thune.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee leads the pack in name recognition with a 72 percent favorable rating. He’s closely trailed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who is seen favorably by 70 percent of Republicans, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has a 64 percent approval rating.

That does not prove anything about how Obama would fair if paired with a SPECIFIC GOP candidate. Have you even looked at the polls? Rasmussen has Romney ahead of Obama by a point or 2 and that is within sampling error and from a GOP leaning firm. He’s the one who does the best against Obama (out of all candidates) but it’s questionable whether he would even make it out of the very rightwing GOP primaries next year. Obama has already bottomed out. Independents have already started swinging again.

WCinWI said:
NEXT……

*cluck..cluck..cluck..cluck..*

JoeRemi said:
Look, you’re right. The woman gets under my skin like no other public figure, and has since that nasty Republican Convention speech. I find it deeply offensive that someone who knows so little can be so confident in damning others. Now she wants to “help” journalism. She says it with a straight face!

My point about looks was “coasting”. Scott Brown obviously markets his looks, and that’s not a problem. He also knows what he’s talking about when he speaks, and takes his job seriously. It’s fine to be pretty, and take advantage of it. But not when you flush everything else.

No he doesn’t. I have no clue if Brown will get voted through next election cycle. If so, it won’t be the same constituency that voted and donated to him initially. Just because you vote as a Moderate doesn’t mean you are voting for good policies.

No offense, our state of journalism is a sorry state of affairs. That’s what she’s alluding to. I agree with her sentiment. Also, what did she say wrong in her Convention Speech? I’ve watched it multiple times and thought it was good.

JoeRemi said:
The “real Joe” has nothing but scorn for Sarah Palin. I think she is a pox on the political landscape. You know that. And when I’m in a bar full of bullies – as this place usually is – I’ll talk their language. WC is clearly not in that league, so I’ll moderate. I will NOT apologize for my thoughts on Palin. She’s mean and lazy, and the Rabid Right is sucking her up because they dig looking at her. That bothers me.

The woman will get annihilated. Seen any recent polling? With Palin matched against Obama, she loses TN, AZ and she makes TX a swing state. Most reasonable people (aka not her rabid worshippers) know she’s a joke and would not entrust her with the highest office of the land…you know — being the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD! :)

WCinWI said:
No he doesn’t. I have no clue if Brown will get voted through next election cycle. If so, it won’t be the same constituency that voted and donated to him initially. Just because you vote as a Moderate doesn’t mean you are voting for good policies. No offense, our state of journalism is a sorry state of affairs. That’s what she’s alluding to. I agree with her sentiment. Also, what did she say wrong in her Convention Speech? I’ve watched it multiple times and thought it was good.

I realize you’re a Tea Partier disillusioned with Brown, but you can’t pretend he’s not a serious politician. The comparison is silly at this point, anyway. Sarah Palin is NOT a politician. She’s just some chick talking nonsense. The fact that ANYBODY takes her seriously is ludicrous.

Convention speech: She played the standard “VP attack dog” role, except nobody knew who she was. It came off as arrogant and presumptuous. I hated it.

JoeRemi said:
I realize you’re a Tea Partier disillusioned with Brown, but you can’t pretend he’s not a serious politician. The comparison is silly at this point, anyway. Sarah Palin is NOT a politician. She’s just some chick talking nonsense. The fact that ANYBODY takes her seriously is ludicrous.

Convention speech: She played the standard “VP attack dog” role, except nobody knew who she was. It came off as arrogant and presumptuous. I hated it.

You do realize that 2008 was a fluke year. You had a Black Presidential candidate and people on the Republican side pissed at Bush. I hope you realize that liberals make up about 20% of the electorate.

The last I know, she’s been in government office for 20 years and has owned a business. She doesn’t have knowledge on international issues/military, but her VP can bring that in.

And no, I really think that people that vote for moderate policies aren’t good. It has nothing to do with understanding the Tea Party movement.

Wow, you move around a lot in a conversation. I didn’t ask you if you thought Brown was “good”. I said you can’t accuse him of not being serious about his job. He’s obviously well-read, and thinks things through. And I don’t agree with a damn thing he says.

If Palin “doesn’t have knowledge on international issues/military”, she’s not qualified to speak on it.

How in the heck is he well-read? What qualifications made him that way? What has he said, by ways of words that would lend this belief? I don’t get this whole idea of thinking things through if he hasn’t himself put out a proposal or advocated for something that someone else hasn’t.

Obama doesn’t either so he shouldn’t be counted as qualified either.

Look, if you can’t tell the difference between a person with clear lines of thought in their heads, and mindless strung-together bumper-sticker slogans, we have nothing to discuss.

JoeRemi said:
Look, if you can’t tell the difference between a person with clear lines of thought in their heads, and mindless strung-together bumper-sticker slogans, we have nothing to discuss.

Umm that would make a lot more sense if Obama wasn’t repeating his Win the Future slogan. Nice try though.

Every politician uses slogans, just like they use looks. It’s the absence of anything else that presents a problem.

JoeRemi said:
Every politician uses slogans, just like they use looks. It’s the absence of anything else that presents a problem.

Last I checked, Palin helped in a major way with changing the course in 2010. How’s Obama gonna win the future with an unconstitutional health care mandate? That’s the crux of his legacy.

Matthews is so deperately looking to get some of those Keith Olbermann’s viewers.

WCinWI said:
Last I checked, Palin helped in a major way with changing the course in 2010. How’s Obama gonna win the future with an unconstitutional health care mandate? That’s the crux of his legacy.

The Republicans had ’10 sewn up no matter WHAT Palin did. High unemployment and the historical backlash to the new party in the first midterm gauranteed it. They would have done even better if two slam-dunk contests hadn’t been sunk by useless Tea Party buffoons (Angle and O’Donnell).

Can’t wait for the GOP primary circular firing squad.
Romney is not winning GOP primary with Romneycare as anaethema as it is to the primary voter. His mormon roots will not fly for the evangelicals. No way.
Daniels is being shunned by the far religious right. He needs them for the primary.
Huckabee is too religious for most independents and is considered a RINO by many of the dogmatic conservatives.
Sarah Palin performs the WORST against Obama in the GE even though she has a VERY good chance of winning the primaries if she enters.
Santorum, Gingrich, Thune…are wastelands. Even Pence read the tea leaves and opted out of 2012. He may run in 2016 though after being Gov of IN.

What is a Republican to do? I can guarantee you that the Lush Limpballs strategy of choosing the most conservative candidate (& therefore, most unelectable in the GE) will prevail and Obama, absent a big catastrophe will SAIL to victory.

Don’t forget, the Republican challenger can flip FL, VA, OH, NC & IN + win all of McCain’s 2008 states BUT still LOSE to Obama in 2012. Don’t forget Obama’s war chest that he will not have to spend a dime fighting someone in a primary. GOP challenger will need at least half a BILLION bux to be competitive for 2012 and they will burn through at LEAST half of it in the primaries.

It will be brutal. Ha.

JoeRemi said:
The Republicans had ‘10 sewn up no matter WHAT Palin did. High unemployment and the historical backlash to the new party in the first midterm gauranteed it. They would have done even better if two slam-dunk contests hadn’t been sunk by useless Tea Party buffoons (Angle and O’Donnell).

Uhhh, last I checked, without the excitement of Palin AND the Tea Party, working together, 2010 was not going to be as big of a win as it was. And 2012 and 2014 will be a fun year too, seeing as now more Tea Party folks are politically active versus the Dem. Party.

I’m sure the high unemployment will trend. Now the Obama administration is talking about high speed rail. HAHAHAHA. Talk about more unfunded mandates.

Gasket said:
Can’t wait for the GOP primary circular firing squad.
Romney is not winning GOP primary with Romneycare as anaethema as it is to the primary voter. His mormon roots will not fly for the evangelicals. No way.
Daniels is being shunned by the far religious right. He needs them for the primary.
Huckabee is too religious for most independents and is considered a RINO by many of the dogmatic conservatives.
Sarah Palin performs the WORST against Obama in the GE even though she has a VERY good chance of winning the primaries if she enters.
Santorum, Gingrich, Thune…are wastelands. Even Pence read the tea leaves and opted out of 2012. He may run in 2016 though after being Gov of IN.

What is a Republican to do? I can guarantee you that the Lush Limpballs strategy of choosing the most conservative candidate (& therefore, most unelectable in the GE) will prevail and Obama, absent a big catastrophe will SAIL to victory.

Don’t forget, the Republican challenger can flip FL, VA, OH, NC & IN + win all of McCain’s 2008 states BUT still LOSE to Obama in 2012. Don’t forget Obama’s war chest that he will not have to spend a dime fighting someone in a primary. GOP challenger will need at least half a BILLION bux to be competitive for 2012 and they will burn through at LEAST half of it in the primaries.

It will be brutal. Ha.

After the health care law is ruled as unconstitutional in the state of VA, who’s gonna care who’s in power? The legacy will be tainted.

Gasket said:
Can’t wait for the GOP primary circular firing squad.
Romney is not winning GOP primary with Romneycare as anaethema as it is to the primary voter. His mormon roots will not fly for the evangelicals. No way.
Daniels is being shunned by the far religious right. He needs them for the primary.
Huckabee is too religious for most independents and is considered a RINO by many of the dogmatic conservatives.
Sarah Palin performs the WORST against Obama in the GE even though she has a VERY good chance of winning the primaries if she enters.
Santorum, Gingrich, Thune…are wastelands. Even Pence read the tea leaves and opted out of 2012. He may run in 2016 though after being Gov of IN.

What is a Republican to do? I can guarantee you that the Lush Limpballs strategy of choosing the most conservative candidate (& therefore, most unelectable in the GE) will prevail and Obama, absent a big catastrophe will SAIL to victory.

Don’t forget, the Republican challenger can flip FL, VA, OH, NC & IN + win all of McCain’s 2008 states BUT still LOSE to Obama in 2012. Don’t forget Obama’s war chest that he will not have to spend a dime fighting someone in a primary. GOP challenger will need at least half a BILLION bux to be competitive for 2012 and they will burn through at LEAST half of it in the primaries.

It will be brutal. Ha.

What’s gonna happen when Palin doesn’t run and Obama has to defend himself against a non-Palin entity? Better yet, who is the Dem. Party gonna run after Obama? What promising political folks do you have? HAHAHAHA that would be none. The Repubs have TONS.

Besides, you’re only going off of the media lists. You’re not even including the main folks that are off the grid. :)

20% of the electorate is liberal. Simple as that.

FL, VA, OH, NC & IN + win all of McCain’s 2008 states………you forgot WI & Iowa.

Palin and the Tea Party certainly played a role, but to pretend they were the sole catalyst for victory ignores many political realities going into the midterms. And it’s all for naught if the extreme right wing lands the GOP Prez nom, ESPECIALLY if it’s Palin. You can cite your “20% liberal” stat all you want, but this country sure as hell isn’t 80% hard right. Your stat is weak, anyway. Most of the liberals I know call themselves Independent. They aint voting for Palin..

WCinWI said:
What’s gonna happen when Palin doesn’t run and Obama has to defend himself against a non-Palin entity? Better yet, who is the Dem. Party gonna run after Obama? What promising political folks do you have? HAHAHAHA that would be none. The Repubs have TONS.

Besides, you’re only going off of the media lists. You’re not even including the main folks that are off the grid. :)

I am not even sure why I’m responding to you after your cowardly chicken shit move a page or two ago but I can’t resist tearing your rebuttal. I will respond to this only and ignore you henceforth.

1. Who cares about 2016 now? Do you think anyone in 2002 would have thought Obama (who was not even a US Senator then) would win 6 years later? Democrats have a tradition of fielding “surprise” candidates. Republicans have a tradition of nominating KNOWN establishment types. Just look at history and go all the way to WWII and see who the GOP candidates have been. They have all been WELL known people.

2. Obama doesn’t need to worry about defending himself from a “non-Palin entity.” The GOP will field one of the already KNOWN contenders as I have described in (1) above. It’s almost like an ascendancy queue. It’s a history they are doomed to repeat. Name recognition is very important. They all have flaws going against the incumbent POTUS and they will expose each others weaknesses in the primaries for all voters to see. People already know about Obama. His numbers can only go up. They didn’t move at all last year. (Check Gallup and Rasmussen for proof) They varied very little considering he was under assault left and right.

WCinWI said:
20% of the electorate is liberal. Simple as that.

FL, VA, OH, NC & IN + win all of McCain’s 2008 states………you forgot WI & Iowa.

Independents WIN elections, not ideological camps. Did you even look at the vote tally of the LIBERAL Kerry or Gore against the “conservative” G.W. Bush? Kerry BARELY lost to Bush in 2004. They did not get only 20% of the vote either, and neither did Obama in 2008. That argument does not stand. If anything, it says that Americans would rather vote for a liberal than a far right conservative. Just saying…;).

IA and WI will go to Obama again. Like I told you already, your WI GOP US Senator only won by 5 points in a very conservative friendly environment in 2010. WI is a sure thing in 12 for O. I know you hate hearing it but I could bet you a nice $20 bill on it. I’m that confident. Note: I did not say that Obama will lose those 5 states. I hypothesized in the likelihood he lost all five (which he will not) — it would be difficult for the GOPer to win the presidency . There are some states especially in the west and southwest that will remain blue because of the hispanic factor. You can thank the GOP demagoguery for that. O’s actually polling AHEAD of specific GOP candidates in some of those 5 states TODAY less than 2 years to election day and right after a historic beatdown in the house. I am not exactly sure how good that is for the GOP candidate.

Cheers.

how sad and pathetic is it that Tingles thinks soooooooo little of Beck, Bachmann and Palin yet he just can’t stop OBSESSING over them and TALKING about them.

Gasket said:
Obama has already bottomed out. Independents have already started swinging again.

You need to leave politcal analysis to experts. Don’t quit your job at Arby’s. When you quit being a coward hiding behind a phony name some might pay attention to something you post.

JoeRemi said:
Most of the liberals I know call themselves Independent. They aint voting for Palin..

I am glad you admit libs are liars.

sarainitaly said:
how sad and pathetic is it that Tingles thinks soooooooo little of Beck, Bachmann and Palin yet he just can’t stop OBSESSING over them and TALKING about them.

So many people share his low regard for this trio and for the serial divorcee and deadbeat dad Newt that it pulls in a number of people. Frankly, I hope he backs off Palin. Polling now shows our President beats Palin even in Florida, South Carolina and Tennessee. She’s a dream candidate for all Democrats.

You have to admit Tumbleweed, Matthews is really only doing what you do daily. You bash our President and his family daily, you espouse absurd extreme rightist talking points merely to try to be popular with our rightist colleagues here. Matthews is currying favor with moderate, liberal and progressive thinkers. The only difference I see is that Matthews believes what he is saying. I don’t think you believe a single word you write.

Mathews is nothing more than the five year old of the media that stands in the corner screaming so people will pay attention to him. oh, we hear you Chris, and just like that screaming five year old, you’re annoying.

Gasket said:
Can’t wait for the GOP primary circular firing squad.

Wow, the hate/death imagery is thick. I thought you libbies were all about love and tolerance? The stench of hypocrisy is thick with you, congrats.

gordonbloyershow said:
I am glad you admit libs are liars.

Aah, there he is, WC. This is the mindless dreck I usually encounter in this putrid swamp.

JoeRemi said:
The “real Joe” has nothing but scorn for Sarah Palin. I think she is a pox on the political landscape. You know that. And when I’m in a bar full of bullies – as this place usually is – I’ll talk their language. WC is clearly not in that league, so I’ll moderate. I will NOT apologize for my thoughts on Palin. She’s mean and lazy, and the Rabid Right is sucking her up because they dig looking at her. That bothers me.

You are the same as those you complain about. Rabidly partisan, full of hate and spite for someone you disagree with, unable to make a coherent point, and almost entirely irrational.

You are one of the bullies… you’re not talking “their language,” they’re talking yours.

ImNotBlue said:
You are the same as those you complain about. Rabidly partisan, full of hate and spite for someone you disagree with, unable to make a coherent point, and almost entirely irrational. You are one of the bullies… you’re not talking “their language,” they’re talking yours.

If you read my conversation with WC, and couldn’t find any coherence in it, you’re not paying attention.

I’m “full of hate and spite” for someone who’s full of hate and spite. Sarah Palin is mean. Period.

JoeRemi said:
I’m “full of hate and spite” for someone who’s full of hate and spite. Sarah Palin is mean. Period.

Hmm… I guess next time Palin says something you don’t like, I guess my response should be: “Yeah well, she’s full of “hate and spite” for some folks who are full of hate and spite for her. You’re mean.”

Did you say that you give what you get? I guess that means you’re okay with her being “mean,” since you’re “mean” to her.

It has nothing to do with “don’t like”. Righties say things I disagree with every day, and I continue to like many of them just fine. Palin delivers huge reams of mean-spirited BS without a clue what she’s talking about. This business about the President holding out on the American public about events in Egypt is inexcusable. She literally pulled that out of her ass. She has NO IDEA what she’s talking about.

JoeRemi said:

Well in that case, off with her head!

Civility be damned!

Screw civility. I never called for it. People can scream and stomp all they want, it’s part of the political process. My problem was with the violent gun stuff, which is gone now. Palin has the right to be a jerk, and I have the right to call her out on it.

“Matthews is currying favor with moderate, liberal and progressive thinkers.”

I believe it’s spelled ‘favoouurrourourrerrourre’.

I wonder what Chris and the Beck haters are going to say tonight. The number of people that are starting to agree with him is getting bigger. Hmmm, could it be because Beck is right?

Feinstein: “We don’t understand this”crisis in Egypt
posted at 12:55 pm on February 9, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The people who are cheerleading immediate democracy in Egypt don’t recall the lesson learned in Gaza, Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) warned MSNBC this morning. Feinstein warned of “fundamentalist Islamic sects” taking control of Egypt in the present chaos and told Andrea Mitchell that “we don’t understand the ebb and flow” of politics in the Middle East, and that simply demanding elections in an environment as unstable as Egypt’s at the present could lead to some very undemocratic long-term outcomes

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday he hopes the Obama administration‘s behind-the-scenes handling of the crisis in Egypt is going more smoothly than it looks from the outside.
Mr. Rumsfeld told the “America’s Morning News” radio broadcast that a confusion of public messages from the White House over the handling of embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was “unfortunate” and has not helped ease the crisis in Cairo. …
“That is unfortunate, that they seem to be crossways with their assigned diplomat, Frank Wisner and with some differences in terms of people in Washington. I don’t know enough to know precisely what’s taking place, but that tends not to be helpful,” Mr. Rumsfeld said on radio broadcast.
“I’m hoping there is effective private diplomacy taking place … and the turmoil that we are seeing will ease,” he said.

Muslim Brotherhood text reveals scope of radical creed
By OREN KESSLER
02/09/2011 02:09

Translated by Palestinian Media Watch, book details group’s goal of global Islamic conquest.

One of the greatest beneficiaries of the unrest in Egypt has been the Muslim Brotherhood.

Banned but tolerated for decades by successive Egyptian regimes, the Islamist movement is now emerging as a central player in the country’s resurgent opposition.

On Tuesday, two Brotherhood representatives participated in an opposition delegation that met with Vice President Omar Suleiman for the first set of talks over implementing political reforms.

Pundits have portrayed the Brotherhood as uncompromising zealots or beneficent providers of social services that long-deprived Egyptians desperately need.

But a translation released Tuesday of a 1995 book by the movement’s fifth official leader sheds light on just how Egypt’s Brotherhood views itself and its mission. Jihad is the Way is the last of a five-volume work, The Laws of Da’wa by Mustafa Mashhur, who headed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt from 1996-2002.

The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday saw excerpts of the text, compiled by Palestinian Media Watch founder Itamar Marcus and analyst Nan Jacques Zilberdik.

They detail the Brotherhood’s objectives of advancing the global conquest of Islam and reestablishing the Islamic Caliphate, the public and private duties of jihad and the struggle Muslims must wage against Israel.

The full text, translated by PMW, will be posted Wednesday on the organization’s website, Palwatch.org.

IN CASE YOU MISSED THE IMPORTANT PART HERE IT IS AGAIN.

They detail the Brotherhood’s objectives of advancing the global conquest of Islam and reestablishing the Islamic Caliphate, the public and private duties of jihad and the struggle Muslims must wage against Israel.

JoeRemi said:
Screw civility. I never called for it. People can scream and stomp all they want, it’s part of the political process. My problem was with the violent gun stuff, which is gone now. Palin has the right to be a jerk, and I have the right to call her out on it.

So you follow and support the President… but ignore what he has to say?

Wow. Doesn’t that make you “as bad as” the Republicans?

If anyone knows cuckoo it’s Matthews.

Oops, there goes another sphincter surrounded by a void.

More over-the-top rhetoric from liberal bomb-thrower Matthews. If it weren’t for some conservatives who are more popular than he is for him to rail against, Matthews wouldn’t have a show. Pathetic.

Mathews is correct on both counts. Actually understated.

gordonbloyershow said:
You need to leave politcal analysis to experts. Don’t quit your job at Arby’s. When you quit being a coward hiding behind a phony name some might pay attention to something you post.

You mean, experts like you Blower and Dick “The Toe Sucker” Morris? Haha..Did you ask him of his disastrous wide eyed mid-term prediction of the GOP winning 100+ seats in the house and 10 senate seats? This is the person you actually interviewed as a political analyst? Nancy Reagan can get better results via seances. If you have the balls, challenge my outlook instead of C&P’ing other people’s thoughts dummy.

Penguin60 said:
Wow, the hate/death imagery is thick. I thought you libbies were all about love and tolerance? The stench of hypocrisy is thick with you, congrats.

I am not a politician or an elected official. I don’t need to be tempered, tolerant and reserved. Basically, I have no problem telling you to f*ck off. :)

Cheers.

ImNotBlue said:
So you follow and support the President… but ignore what he has to say? Wow. Doesn’t that make you “as bad as” the Republicans?

I’m not a follower.

Mrs. Palin could sell cuckoo-clocks with Matthews coming out every half hour saying, “my leg tingles, my leg tingles”.

“Chris Matthews Talks Like A Cuckoo Clock And Is An “Enemy To Our Civilization”

There Tingles, I fixed that line up for you.

BFD said:
“Although this played like a Matthews’ greatest hits album it still leaves viewers wondering what exactly is Matthews’ goal with such segments?” I wonder the same thing. He is marginalizing himself.The show is called Hardball but lately he is just tossing softballs to sycophants.

“No Balls” would be a better name for Mouthewes.