Patterico's Pontifications


MSNBC Primetime Lineup Meets With President Perpetual Campaign

Filed under: General — JD @ 7:41 am

[Guest post by JD]

Meeting with Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz on the fiscal cliff signals a willingness to actually negotiate in good faith.

The MFM will continue to provide cover for their bad faith.

— JD

61 Responses to “MSNBC Primetime Lineup Meets With President Perpetual Campaign”

  1. Ridiculous

    JD (318f81)

  2. “MSNBC Hosts Visit Obama”.

    Most obvious porno title ever.

    PCachu (e072b7)

  3. “Idiocracy” continues to redefine itself as a documentary.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  4. Frankly, the GOP ought to put Obama’s disastrous proposal to a vote. Then abstain. His ridiculous plan is much the same thing that couldn’t get a single Democratic vote the last time. Dare the Democrats to vote to pass economic suicide.

    If they do, tell the American people to enjoy it, because that’s what they thought they wanted. As H. L. Mencken said, democracy is the theory that the people know what they want. And deserve to get it good and hard.

    As I see it, it’s the only way to break through to people that the MFM narrative that it’ the GOP’s intransigence that’s causing the bad economy. If only they’d let Obama have his way everybody could have everything they want.

    Which is of course a lie. So they need to expose it.

    Also the GOP has to realize that the Democrats aren’t at all concerned about fixing the economy. Just destroying the GOP. It’s politics 1920s Soviet style. The Dems are the Bolsheviks and the GOP are the Mensheviks. If the Dems have to wreak economic havoc to destroy their enemies, then oh well. When you’re fundamentally transforming a nation then you have to expect to break a few eggs in such a revolutionary endeavor. The economy is just collateral damage in their quest for a one party state.

    Of course, that would require them to tell the truth about Mussolini II. He’s not a nice guy who’s just in over his head, as the milquetoasts kept saying. He’s a hard core idealogue who despises “bourgeois” America. Destroying the economy so he can replace it with a command and control economy is his intent. He’s said so on many occasions. He’s acted on that impulse in his major initiatives like Obamacare.

    I doubt they’re up to the political knife fighting they’re going to have to do to avoid being the fallguys for the Democrats.

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  5. He doesn’t have time to meet with Netanyahu or to take “save our ship” phone calls from the consulate in Benghazi, but he’ll cancel his golf outing in order to spend time with Rachel MadCow and Chris “Can I have another drink ?” Matthews.

    That’s our President !

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  6. But but but Faux News !!!!!!!!!!

    JD (318f81)

  7. I’m sure that CNN will be all over this, pointing out how this kind of thing gives the mainstream press a bad name, and wondering what the reaction would be if a President Romney had met with Hannity and company on the same issue.

    The mask is slipping.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  8. Obama would talk to Ahmadinejad before he’d talk to the House GOP.

    His administration accuses the GOP of wanting to bring back slavery. But when a political party actually does legalize slavery the Obama administration will send them money.

    If they’re the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

    And remember who the Obama administration thinks the true terrorists are. Secured Chrysler bond holders who refuse to quietly roll over when the Obama administration tramples the rule of law.

    Why the GOP decided to go with the “he’s a nice guy who means well but doesn’t understand what he’s doing” false narrative I’ll never understand. They should have been opposing Barack Obama all along. The real Barack Obama who’s a nasty piece of work and who knows exactly what he’s doing. They didn’t.

    But then they’ve been going along with false narratives for quite a while. Take Obamacare. As Ted Kennedy aptly noted, we were regulated into Obamacare. The government has been intervening in the healt care market since WWII. It is a hard and fast economic principle that intervention in a market never leads to the desired result. Then there’s a demand for more intervention. And more. And then more. Until the government hast to take control entirely.

    We know Obamacare isn’t the end state. We know the Democrats passed it because it means job security for them, endlessly “fixing” what they keep breaking. And we know breaking the health care system is the goal because Democrats like Bawney Fwank openly brag that Obamacare will lead to a single payer system within ten years.!

    The money quote from Frank comes at around the 40 second point. “Saying you’ll do nothing at all until you get singlepayer is a sure way to never get it.”

    They have to demonstrate that single payer is the only viable option is their strategy. By making all other options nonviable. All their health care reforms to date have been intended to make health care too expensive for people to afford on their own. Obamacare is the next step in sabotaging what’s left of market.

    Sort of like their energy plans. The only way to make unreliable and expensive “green” energy sources viable is to interfere as much as possible with the production of cheap, abundant, and reliable sources of energy to artificially produce shortages and drive the price up.

    At a certain point, maybe, you could give the economic interventionists the benefit of the doubt. But not these guys; the results of market intervention isn’t a bug but a feature.

    But the GOP never could make the economic and more importantly the moral argument against their deliberate sabotage. The argument could have been made. They just weren’t the ones to do it. Mostly because it seems their consultants told them the truth didn’t poll well.

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  9. It is interesting how they separate the policy from the messaging. They are obviously winning the messaging, with the full-throated assistance from the MFM. But their actual policy in their proposal does nothing to fix the underlying issues. Asking the wealthiest among us to pay a little more, their fair share ha, doesn’t fix the problem, not even close. More stimulus spending exacerbates the problem. Handing debt limit increase authority to the President makes it worse too. Vague promises to cut spending in the future are laughable. So they focus on messaging and campaigning, adult solutions to real problems be damned.

    JD (2e25be)

  10. I’ll wager that more people, on a daily basis, see Ed Henry’s questions of Jay Carney on FoxNews, than the total number of viewers who watch those esteemed PMSNBC hosts regurgitate the usual WH lies.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  11. Single-payer that works:

    You go to the Doctor, you pay for it.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  12. askeptic, I don’t understand how your plan helps buy votes or instills dependency.

    Dustin (73fead)

  13. Asking Compelling the wealthiest among us to pay a little more…

    How about a 95% tax rate for those who earn in excess of $10MM in Capital Gains, with no deductions allowed, for those living within Omaha NE?

    It’s for the Children!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  14. Dustin, that’s the magic of it, isn’t it?

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  15. JD, none of what they propose is intended to fix the problem.

    Take the stimulus spending. It’s really just to do an end run around the Constitution (as is their demand to raise the debt ceiling to inifinity). The Constitution gives Congress, specifically the House, control of purse strings and the authority borrow agianst US credit.

    Obama doesn’t control the House. If he gets the House to give him unlimited authority to borrow, an unconstitutionla power grab, as well as his own slush fund he makes Congress irrelevant.

    Since he fancies himself the second coming of FDR, it’s important to note that FDR did the same thing minus the unconstitutional debt limit grab. States and municipalities then and now were going bankrupt. Instead of going to Congress and asking for money they had to go to an executive branch bureaucrat and ask for money. The bureaucracy, indeed the entire executive branch, [reviously had no Consitutional authority to demand that the states and municipalities do as the executive branch demanded. But they had been given the power to either dole out money or not if the states refused the terms.

    It’s not about fixing problems. It’s about leverage. Obama, like FDR before him, is demanding single control of the all the carrots and sticks. And removal of all checks on his power.

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  16. A clip about PMSNBC viewers…..

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  17. Why is there a need for additional stimulus spending?
    We were told, just a month ago, by the Most Respected President, evah, that the economy was mended, unemployment was going away, and that there would be a Unicorn in every stable, and Skittles in the Christmas Winter Festival stocking.

    What changed, other than the re-election of a congenital liar?

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  18. To echo Steve-bring it to a vote and then vote “present”.

    Bugg (ba4ca9)

  19. I’m feeling a little like John Brown when he attacked Harper’s Ferry.
    If we want to end this disastrous slide into Euro-style Socialism (or worse), it will take a good hearty shove to move the body-politik off of dead-center.
    The problem arises that when such a large mass is set in motion, all sorts of unintended consequences can result, and the force that is need to bring that motion to a halt is immense, and rarely stops the mass at its intended destination.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  20. This year I’m having my taxes done by PriceWaterhouseMaddow.

    Birdbath (716828)

  21. “How about a 95% tax rate for those who earn in excess of $10MM in Capital Gains, with no deductions allowed, for those living within Omaha NE?”

    askeptic – The little house in Omaha is mostly for PR. I believe he spends most of his time at his mansion overlooking Pebble Beach.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  22. Buffett hasn’t even paid his own stipulated tax bill, it’s a good thing we have folks pushing back on our side, wait, never mind;

    narciso (ee31f1)

  23. How is inviting MSLSD hosts over to the White House inconsistent with campaigning on the View, Tonight Show, Letterman or the Daily Show? Just seems like the continuation of a pattern to me.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  24. “Buffett hasn’t even paid his own stipulated tax bill”

    narciso – If you’re talking about Berkshire’s taxes, there’s no reason for them to pay in advance of any agreement with the IRS. If they lose, they pay interest on the underpayment. If they pay now to stop the interest clock ticking but keep the dispute alive, Berkshire loses use of the money in the interim.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  25. Comment by narciso (ee31f1) — 12/5/2012 @ 12:57 pm

    Just write the bill using whatever Warren’s address of record is.
    If it catches up a few others, they should have moved to a different neighborhood.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  26. Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, and Lawrence O’Donnell are no longer journalists of any kind, but “influential progressives?”

    Of course Al Sharpton is not really a member of press anyway.

    I think there was more than just those four.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  27. Seriously, imagine the poutrage if MSNBC paid pundits not only visited the WhiteHouse after the election, but were paid campaign consultants (Luntz for Ryan) or bankrolled a campaign with SuperPAC millions (Rove.) Imagine if a number of the Democratic candidates were employees of MSNBC. Imagine if the owners of MSNBC contributed millions to the Democratic party. oh the woes…

    tifosa (7d511e)

  28. tiffy’s off her meds again.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  29. tifosa, from your failed snark, it appears that you are ignorant of actual history. Or was it your intention to merely pretend to be ignorant?

    SPQR (768505)

  30. Immelt could not be reached to reply to Tiffy’s rant, which SHOCKINGLY missed the point.

    JD (2e25be)

  31. missed it by this much:


    narciso (ee31f1)

  32. The republican party has to sink and sink quickly.
    If your with the new republicans then tax increases are o.k.
    Cry baby john should be arrested for impersonating a man, worst speaker in history of the gop.

    mg (31009b)

  33. How about a 95% tax rate for those who earn in excess of $10MM in Capital Gains, with no deductions allowed, for those living within Omaha NE?

    Nah, I’d favor a straight-up bill of attainder, stating that Warren Buffet of Omaha owes the US Treasury $5 billion. That’s a real “Buffet Tax.”

    Unconstitutional? Of course. But it would be fun to see Buffet fight the “Buffet Tax” in court. And it would demonstrate that when some rich guy says “I should pay more taxes” he really means “Everyone else should pay more taxes”, not “I should pay more taxes.”

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  34. #34: Obama was never able to master junior high math. He really shouldn’t criticize other people’s math.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  35. Single-payer that works:

    You go to the Doctor, you pay for it.

    That’s not single payer, that’s millions-of-payers. Single payer means that literally 100% of all medical bills in the country are paid by one payer. Which sounds really efficient and wonderful, until you think about it for more than a minute.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  36. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 12/5/2012 @ 3:27 pm

    We have a Winner.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  37. Milhouse, nothing gets by you.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  38. Milhouse @37,

    True. But it’s millions of first-party payers. Which works well as when you’re paying for yourself you keep costs down.

    What we have now are thousands of third-party payers. Going to one large third-party payer, the gub’mint won’t work any better as long as those third parties have to cover (or in the gub’mint’s case demands to cover) people who don’t pay into it as well as those who do.

    At least in a first-party payer system you get all the health care you can pay for. When it’s a third-party paying the bills, you don’t get what you paid for. You get what they’re willing to pay for no matter how much you paid into it.

    If you want to see how that works out, just take a look at the UK’s NIH and the Liverpool “care” pathway.

    The use of end of life care methods on disabled newborn babies was revealed in the doctors’ bible, the British Medical Journal.

    Earlier this month, an un-named doctor wrote of the agony of watching the protracted deaths of babies. The doctor described one case of a baby born with ‘a lengthy list of unexpected congenital anomalies’, whose parents agreed to put it on the pathway.

    The doctor wrote: ‘They wish for their child to die quickly once the feeding and fluids are stopped. They wish for pneumonia. They wish for no suffering. They wish for no visible changes to their precious baby.

    ‘Their wishes, however, are not consistent with my experience. Survival is often much longer than most physicians think; reflecting on my previous patients, the median time from withdrawal of hydration to death was ten days.

    ‘Parents and care teams are unprepared for the sometimes severe changes that they will witness in the child’s physical appearance as severe dehydration ensues.

    …Bernadette Lloyd, a hospice paediatric nurse, has written to the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health to criticise the use of death pathways for children.

    She said: ‘The parents feel coerced, at a very traumatic time, into agreeing that this is correct for their child whom they are told by doctors has only has a few days to live. It is very difficult to predict death. I have seen a “reasonable” number of children recover after being taken off the pathway.

    ‘I have also seen children die in terrible thirst because fluids are withdrawn from them until they die.

    ‘I witnessed a 14 year-old boy with cancer die with his tongue stuck to the roof of his mouth when doctors refused to give him liquids by tube. His death was agonising for him, and for us nurses to watch. This is euthanasia by the backdoor.’

    The Obamabots are convinced they’re worse off if the “corporations” are covering them if the benevolent government is.

    Yeah, right.

    Clearly, they are incapable of thinking about it for a minute. They are incapable of thinking.

    They watch MSNBC.

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  39. R.I.P. Dave Brubeck

    mg (31009b)

  40. John Brown was a righteous mofo

    just not very diplomatic

    happyfeet (324110)

  41. When is the meeting with Fox at the WH, bTW?

    Patricia (be0117)

  42. “Come sit on Uncle Barack’s lap and yip-yip-yip!”

    Icy ($lAvez) (5d3919)

  43. 41. One of the highlites of my 1st tenure in ‘college’ was hitching upto the Cities to see Brubek and his sons play some opera house venue.

    Hitching home not nearly as pleasant a memory. Basically walked Burnsville to Rosemount this time of year. Finally got a decent ride after the sun was well up.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  44. huh-thats-odd-harry-reid-declines-to-bring-a-vote-on-obamas-cliff-plan/

    I believe one of Obama’s previous budget plans didn’t receive even one vote — or not much more than that — from anyone in the Senate. As for this year, I can’t figure out why the liberals are so resistant to expressing support for Barry’s current plan. And I’m not being snarky when I say that. After all, its main thrust is raising taxes on the upper-tier American, and surveys indicate that lots of people favor that idea.

    So either the reaction from Senate Democrats is analogous to the Secretary of the Treasury (and head of the IRS) being a big-hearted liberal in public — and generous with OTHER people’s money — but a tax cheat behind closed doors. Or President Bummer Obama is so leftwing that even the dyed-in-the-wool liberals in his own party are privately embarrassed by his class-envy, tax-oholic, spend-oholic idiocy.

    Well, if it’s good enough for Greece, it’s good enough for us.

    Mark (56b304)

  45. hitch hiked in cali once/san diego but west/i mean east/ fire burn country el cajon
    2 am- had cops stop frisk taunt me said illegal to hhike with one foot in street/one on curb..
    they gave me a ticket.. i axed them/since they were going in my direction
    for a ride
    they laughed at me…sped off/honked..gave me the razz
    then it rained

    pdbuttons (9be8a8)

  46. 28. Ailes has ordered Rove purged from corporate rollodexes.

    Insufficient Shadenfreude. I was holding out hope a Cairo mob would encounter him in drag.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  47. 47) no the theft, has to be done on the up and up, as usual

    narciso (ee31f1)

  48. 48) it comes from Gabriel Sherman, so caveat emptor.

    narciso (ee31f1)

  49. Regarding Roger Ailes:

    In the spring of 2011, Roger Ailes liked the idea of David Petraeus running for president. It was even reported by New York Magazine that May, according to a link the other day:

    ….All he had to do was watch Fox’s May 5 [2011] debate in South Carolina to see what a mess the field was—a mess partly created by the loudmouths he’d given airtime to and a tea party he’d nurtured. And, not incidentally, a strong Republican candidate would be good for his business, too. A few months ago, Ailes called Chris Christie and encouraged him to jump into the race. Last summer, he’d invited Christie to dinner at his upstate compound along with Rush Limbaugh, and like much of the GOP Establishment, he [Rush Limbaugh?] fell hard for Christie, who nevertheless politely turned down Ailes’s calls to run. Ailes had also hoped that David Petraeus would run for president, but Petraeus too has decided to sit this election out, choosing to stay on the counterterrorism front lines as the head of Barack Obama’s CIA.

    Now it is reported that Roger Ailes sent KT McFarland to Kabul, Afghanistan to talk to General David Petraeus about it, and the resulting conversation is on tape (!) and has been turned over to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post !!) who wrote a story about it for the Washington Post’s website sometime late Monday, apparently.

    Rachel Maddow also talked about it Tuesday December 4 and Rush Limbaugh had something to say.

    In the conversation, KT McFarland asks if there’s anything Fox is doing (about him I guess) that he wants them to do differently and relays an argument from Roger Ailes: If he is offered the job as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff he should take it, but if he is offered anything else, he should resign in six months and run for
    president. Is that OK with him? she asks.

    She says she knows he’s not running for president but the next time he’s in New York he should stop and chat with Roger Ailes – and Rupert Murdoch, for that matter. She says Rupert Murdoch is bankrolling it (? – he can’t do that legally) and that Roger Ailes will resign as head of Fox and run his campaign. (now there, Murdoch could help – he could assure Ailes he’d get his job back.)

    Petraeus indicates he knows that Rupert is after him but says he has no intention of running for office.

    At the close of the conversation he says he might take him Roger Ailes up on his offer should he decide to run. Roger Ailes is a brilliant guy, he says.. But it is not going to happen. He wants to live in his beautiful house with separate his and her bathrooms, and his wife would divorce him if he ran for president (!?) and he loves his wife.

    There could be a little more to his refusal or reluctance to run. The next year, when his definitely by-then mistress Paula Broadwell was contemplating running for the U.S. Senate in North Carolina, (she had been approached, especially by Republicans) he cross examined her:

    What was her position on abortion? he asked. On climate change? Om gun control? On tax cuts? On gay marriage? On Social Security? And when he heard her answers (which probably would have been very similar to what his answers would have been) he told her her answers fit neither party and she should not sell herself out. This is what TIME Magazine reported in its November 26 2012 issue (in mailboxes Friday, November 16) she had told a group of at least six people on July 28, 2012 in Aspen Colorado, over drinks.

    Now there’s one thing some people haven’t noticed: there was no Senate seat up in North Carolina in 2012. Wasn’t this a little bit too early to begin planning for 2014? At least too early for anyone to need to make a decision. What’s going on here??

    Back to the taped (by whom?) and released (by whom?) KT (Kathleen) McFarland conversation with General David Petraeus in Kabul, Afghanistan sometime around April or May, 2011:

    General Petraeus also says in the conversation that besides Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff he likes the job of CIA Director. (It has already been reported he nominated himself for that)

    KT McFarland argues that the only reason Obama would name him CIA Director is to prevent him from running for president in 2012 – and maybe 2016 as well.

    Roger Ailes told Bob Woodward that he mentioned the idea of David Petraeus running for president as a joke (? – I suppose him quitting to run his campaign could possibly be a joke, but not the idea itself) and KT McFarland now says she misunderstood him and thought he was serious.

    “I know now that Roger was joking, but at the time, I wasn’t sure,” said national security analyst K.T. McFarland…

    And Ailes also said KT McFarland is not an important person at Fox – she’s only a contributor and gets a mere $75,000 a year, and it is somebody’s fantasy to make him a kingmaker. That’s not his job.

    Sammy Finkelman (dcc9ca)

  50. President Obama announced on Thursday, April 28, 2011 that he was nominating Leon Panetta, then director of the Central Intelligence Agency, as secretary of defense to succeed Robert M. Gates who was planning to retire that summer, and and Gen. David Petraeus to replace Leon Panetta as head of the C.I.A. (this was the Thursday before the bin Laden raid)

    So the KT McFarland conversation probably took place a week or two before.

    Sammy Finkelman (dcc9ca)

  51. 51. Gabriel Sherman also wrote that May 22 (datelined) New York Magazine cover story about Roger Ailes.

    What else comes from Gabriel sherman?

    Sammy Finkelman (dcc9ca)

  52. So much for Obama being a post-Rachel President …


    Alasdair (a28b33)

  53. 46, Gary were you a beatnik, wearing black turtlenecks?

    mg (31009b)

  54. Lucy does this to Charlie Brown
    the Dems do it to the Repubs
    pass the tax hike – we’ll have spending cuts later
    I promise not to pull the football away
    I promise to cut spending
    when will we get smart?
    as a long time Peanuts fan, I’m afraid I know

    Patty (fa8406)

  55. I believe one of Obama’s previous budget plans didn’t receive even one vote — or not much more than that — from anyone in the Senate. As for this year, I can’t figure out why the liberals are so resistant to expressing support for Barry’s current plan. And I’m not being snarky when I say that.

    Mark, it’s not true that they’re resistant to expressing support for Obama’s current plans. Many are. And they’re willing to rewrite history and say they supported Obama’s previous plans.

    Because when the Democrats lie about how great the President’s budget is…

    …the press will uncritically support the propaganda.

    Unless there is a Republican there to correct them.

    O’BRIEN: I also imagine that cutting the budgets for some of those agencies will give you massive amounts of money? It contributes a lot to the budget, right?

    JOHNSON: True, because discretionary spending is about $1 trillion. our deficit is $1 trillion. soledad, that’s the problem. Republicans have put forward budgets, voted for them, willing to be held accountable. Democrats have not. President obama has not.

    SHRUM: You won’t vote for them.

    JOHNSON: Nor have any Democrats.

    SHRUM: Democrats have voted for those budgets and supported those budgets.

    JOHNSON: Zero to 610 is the vote total of the last three votes on his last two budgets, 0-610. Do you think that’s a serious proposal? President Obama, show us your plan.

    The Democratic/Media complex successfully lied their way out of Benghazi. This is the next exercise in lying.

    Had Senator Johnson not been there, Shrum would have gotten away with saying the Democrats supported Obama’s budgets. A reading from the Book of Obvious: Shrum will continue to insist that Democrats supported Obama’s budgets. When he’s sure no one’s around to correct him.

    There is no lie too brazen for these people.

    Steve57 (1922f2)

  56. Andi in other no-lie-to-brazen-for-these-people news from the land of Unicorns Schumer is inisting that Obamacare passed the Senate with 60 votes.

    WALLACE: Wait, we’ll run out of time. Didn’t health care pass on reconciliation by 51 votes?

    SCHUMER: Health care got 60 votes.

    WALLACE: I thought there was a — when it finally came back it went on –

    SCHUMER: No, but not — not until after it passed by 60 votes.

    WALLACE: But on the changes it passed at 51?

    SCHUMER: No. no. you have to do –

    Obamacare per the New Soviet Encyclopedia revisionist Democratic history is bipartisan legislation!

    Steve57 (d941b2)

  57. Well it is Bob Shrum, his track record in 0-11,

    narciso (ee31f1)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3280 secs.