Meet MSNBC's Minor Leaguer Lawrence O'Donnell

First let me say that once again, I shamelessly pilfered this from IHTM, once of the fastest growing blogs on the internet. If you aren't reading them, seek professional help somewhere before it's too late.

This is a great interview that demonstrates just what happens when idiots are allowed an audience. Take a few minutes and watch Condoleeza Rice thoroughly dismantle a clearly outclassed and under-qualified Lawrence O'Donnell. If you want to see what obtuseness coupled with sheer idiocy looks like when it is contrasted with class and intellectual brilliance, it is worth the time.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rarely do I do this here, but this is very important to understand. So I will make an exception and post my comment I left on IHTM:

The golden statement of that entire exchange was made by Dr. Rice:

“You have to act on the intelligence you have.”

Lawrence has no intelligence, so he has been relegated to the mere recitals of leftist propaganda that is fed to him by those who are as equally ignorant as he is.

I looked online at Mr. O’Donnell’s bio(s) to see his educational resume, and I have to tell you that most sites I checked say he only”attended” Harvard, if they mentioned it at all. Only Wikipedia states that he graduated, but it gives no area of study and we all know how unreliable Wiki can be sometimes. If he were truly a grad of Harvard, I would think somewhere in one of these bios it would say Bachelors Degree in _______. But this is not the case with Larry.

But let’s just say for argument’s sake, he did.

By contrast, Dr. Rice was Phi Beta Kappa and earned a B.A. (cum laude) from the University of Denver. She earned a Masters Degree in political science at Notre Dame, and a PhD from the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the U. of Denver.

We all know of her government service. She is also an accomplished pianist who has played with Yo Yo Ma. She is now a professor at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Larry is a Dem hack at MSNBC and a former shitty actor.

So, yes. You have to act on the intelligence you have. Condi did just that in this interview and Larry O acted on the intelligence he didn’t/doesn’t have.

And it showed…..greatly.

I think this pretty much sums up this block of instruction, quite well. Lawrence O'Donnell, irrelevance personified. Dr. Rice, rational thought and reasoning in human form.

The Gall Of Some People

Once in awhile, someone has the guts to challenge the Emperor on his new clothes. Or in the case of the fable, the lack thereof.

Watch as this reporter does just that:



Very few people would have the guts to come out like he did and press the President as this man did. In what was supposed to be an early softball interview for political sales and marketing purposes, he found someone who was not so much in awe of this empty suited man, one that so many of his peers drool over.

After he thought the mike and tape was off, the President made it clear he likes to be the demagogue-in-chief and does not want to be interrupted while doing it. President Mindless Chatter Filibuster wants to have the ability to use every appearance with the press as a free campaign commercial...and his answers are final.

But the sad part in this whole event is not the President's response. We know that many people in countries and cultures the President admires have tried this kind of thing and they are no longer here to tell about it. Had this happened in Venezuela, well, just say "night night" Mr Reporter.

No, the sad part is two-fold.

One, this wasn't nearly as aggressive as it should have been. With 10% unemployment, gas prices headed for $5.00/gallon by the summer, and a lost war with no defined objective, you'd think there would be more things in which to press the President on.

That's why the number two part of this two-fold sad tale is so evident. It's sad that more news reporters cannot muster up the guts to continue this interview, the next time Obama thinks he should get a pass in one. In fact, he shouldn't even need to interview for the news media to start holding this reckless and inept man they call a leader accountable, for his lies and grave errors that could cost us a country before he is through with it.

Obama's Media: A Slobbering Love Affair Continues

Remember this display of illogical reasoning by Candy Crowley? Remember how ignorant she showed herself to be on national TV?



That's the precisely the kind of idiocy we have come to expect from the slobbering, drooling media types who continue to hail the Emperor with no clothes. Her only saving grace was nobody watches CNN anymore. So she was free to look like a fool and no one really knew. It's kind of like the old saying, "if a tree fell in the woods and nobody was around, did that tree make a sound?"

Here's a moment where someone was around it's a moment that we probably won't hear Candy address in any of her shows because she is a poor excuse for a journalist.

The very people who were supposed to like us because Obama is President do not seem to be very pleased with his likeness, take a look at a shot of Obama getting stomped in effigy.

Muslims around the world were supposed to love us, after that Cairo speech. And radical racist thugs like the Nation of Islam and Black Panthers were supposed to love their country, now that a black man was in office. Farrakhan even called them the "Chosen One".

Even though Obama's Justice Department got charges dropped against two thugs who broke federal law by intimidating voters at a polling place in Philly, it appears that this honeymoon is also over:



You the faithful few who make this a regular stop know that we spent a great amount of time and effort to warn the American public on this and other blogs. But alas, some did not listen.

We were racists for even suggesting that Barack Hussein Obama was a liar, who would say anything to get elected. We were paranoid when we made the claim that he was inexperienced and incompetent. But to quote Obama's one time spiritual adviser, "the chickens have come home to roost".

Muslims abroad and radical racists have finally awakened to these cold hard realities. When will the American mainstream media finally get it?

I don't expect it anytime too soon. They just refuse to ask the tough questions that they were somehow inclined to ask, when George Bush was President.

Down Playing, Minimizing, And Lying

One cannot help but notice something when they read this story. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even a political one) to figure out what this biased account of the top gaffes of 2010 is about:

Racism, pure and simple -- There is only one black man on that list.

I know Richard Steele is sometimes an idiot and certainly what he said was not true. And I don't think much thought went into the choice to make him GOP Chairman, either. But as flippant as I am being and as sorry as it was, the writer of this list is wrong on two fronts.

1. She puts Blumenthal's lie and classifies it as a gaffe, so as to minimize the severity of of the event. A gaffe is a mistake, Blumenthal intended to lie right through his teeth. She wants you to think he simply misspoke on something little like whether he served in Vietnam or not.

2. If she wants to classify lies as gaffes, she left some more significant ones out of her short list -- some big whoppers that she selectively chooses to ignore.

She left out Charlie Rangel telling people he has always played by the rules. She left out the blatant misrepresentation of a Congressional candidate's words in an ad for his own re-election.

If she wants to look at true gaffes, there are some she could have replaced Blumenthal's lie with, starting with Harry Reid's report on job loss. She could have had a field day with Biden, who had too many to count.

She also left out the one about Rick Sanchez and his "cotton-picking president" remark. And his typical scripted anti-Semitic "Jews control the world" moment that got him fired.

I could go on, but you get the drift. There are so many it's not really funny.

The silly gaffes we can overlook. But when we have public figures who state something falsely, minimize the severity of given truths, or deliberately communicate racist statements, should we minimize them as mistakes?

This is but one way people can break the moral fiber of a civilization. They minimize wrong behaviors, which only serves to positively reinforce them. They want you to think it's no big deal. As long as you can justify it with some measure of victimhood, it's okay.

They were tired, they were not thinking straight. They are the targets of a smear campaign by their opponents. It makes no difference what the subject, there is always a "justifiable" excuse for the deceits, and they will use anything possible to distract from the lies they tell.

But the sad thing is, we tolerate it. We accept this as a core value of politicians and this wannabe journalist Holly Bailey facilitates it, with this poor effort she calls a list.

Well, I say it's time to change the way things are being done. It's time to start holding these people accountable. These left leaning, excuse masking, no principled media types can write all of the crap they want. But we need to call directly on the liars to stop.

After the New Year, the moment the new Congress is sworn in, we need to reaffirm to our elected officials that we are still paying attention. We need to put them on notice that in two years there will be another election and they will be fired, if they do not start to change this corrupt culture that has been become known as Washington. We didn't reject the last Congress only to replace them with another group of corrupt members with Rs behind their names.

And..... we should be prepared to do it without blinking an eye. It's our nation. We live here in the full force of the incompetent decisions these bottom feeding liars have made for us, without our full consent.

Couric vs. Rice: Condi Wins In A Blowout

From the opening question, it was never close:



Many years ago, I thought Katie Couric was one of the smartest, freshest, and cutest faces to hit the news scene. Now she is so embittered, it has definitely affected her ability to even do a simple interview without looking like she still belongs on MSNBC, with the likes of Herr Olbermann, Sgt. Schultz, and Chris "Mr. Tingle" Matthews.

How DID they ever let her get away?


HT for video: IHTM

Turning The Tables

It's always fun to see someone take the highly overrated Rachel Madcow to task about something.... and expose her as the fool she is. It's absolutely hilarious to watch 18 minutes of such an event.

In this clip, she appears to be utterly exasperated for not being able to get this man off message, that is... off the issues that his opponent does not want to talk about in public. She would rather try to take something he wrote during the course of scientific debates that occurred 15 years ago, than speak about the present.



Utterly brilliant job... and done by a man who is much smarter and a thousand times wiser than she is. It must really get her goat.

The Right Network

There are many who are frustrated with comedy and other forms of entertainment because of the progressive slant in the material. Although we accept this as the status quo and for the most part can ignore it, some people in Hollywood circles have identified us as a viable demographic that has been under served.

On September 8, 2010 there will be a launch of a new TV network that may help fill the void:



It may be a problem getting cable and satellite TV companies to carry this at first. But if enough people start to clamor for it now and after it launches, they will soon be forced to pick it up.

News Ratings

As we can see, not much has changed over the past few weeks.

Beck's numbers are still more than Olbermann's and Maddow's, combined. This was especially telling, because Beck was not on. He had a guest host.

And Larry King? He had less viewers than the city of Indianapolis has residents.



CABLE NEWS RACE
WED., JUNE 16, 2010
VIEWERS

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,055,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,308,000
FOXNEWS BECK 1,957,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,949,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 1,858,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,502,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,098,000
MSNBC 'RISE FAR RIGHT' 1,044,000
CNNHN GRACE 813,000
MSNBC MADDOW 810,000
CNN KING 693,000
CNNHN BEHAR 682,000

Like it or not, Fox News is where most people prefer to get their news--and their commentary. It's a fact, not an opinion. The numbers speak for themselves.

And the liberal elitists just hate it.

TEA Partiers Are Pro-Government

Allow me to start off with a real "Facebook" approach to this post by saying that it's gray outside and I am ready for the weather to make a positive turn, soon. Now that I have said that, let me say that in the midst of yesterday's dismal lethargic morning I did find time to listen to a few minutes of Meet The Press -- just before I took my nasally congested grandson home to his mother.

The inherently arrogant and smug David Gregory aptly demonstrated why he has earned his adjectives. Here is the wording of his question to Rep. Mike Pence:

MR. GREGORY: Congressman Pence, you spoke at the, the gathering of conservatives this week. Dick Armey spoke there as well, then the leader of this tea party movement. Is the tea party movement, an--as an anti-government movement, is it part of the Republican Party?

REP. PENCE: Well, I don't know. You know, E.J. did that anti-government thing. Look, and the president said this week, he said something about, "You've got these people who are against government," you know. In...

MR. GREGORY: Well, they're not pro-government, that's fair, right?

REP. PENCE: Right, no. The American people aren't against government, they're against big government. They're, they're tired of borrowing and spending and bailouts and takeovers. And the people that you characterize...

MR. GREGORY: But my question is about are they part of the Republican Party, do you believe?

REP. PENCE: The people that you characterize, the tea party movement, are a group of--I was there at 9/12 on the National Mall. I've spoken to tea party rallies and town hall meetings. David, I'm telling you, these are decent, God-fearing, hard-working, everyday Americans...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

REP. PENCE: ...who just know we can't pile this mountain range of debt on our children and grandchildren.

Pence was his usual professional self. He gently corrected the most prevalent misconception that the elitist leftist establishment wants everyone to believe, which is the TEA Party members are anti-government. They are not.

The interesting thing is that these are the same people, who think we are utterly clueless. But at the same time, they openly and naively fall for the inherent myth that government is a panacea to all of our problems .... and that we as a culture are incapable of living without them.

To anyone stumbling onto this blog by happenstance, let's be clear on something. I am a proud American and I am not anti-government. I do not advocate of overthrowing anything at all, despite the image Bozo Gregory wants you to believe.

I do want the same structural framework that was built by the founding fathers to be restored. I want the federal government to take care of things that effect out nation on a macro level that cannot be done on the state level. No more, no less.

They need to protect our borders, be responsible for the common defense, protect out interests abroad, and settle disputes between the states. They do not need to be involved in every aspect of our lives.

We want Washington to be accountable for their actions and want them to stop their ever increasing hunger and thirst for more of our money, and power over us. We want better and smarter government, one that truly meets the needs of the people and not the interests of the politicians who lord over us.

How is that anti-government?

Math Made Easy

Math wasn't my favorite subject. But let's have some fun with numbers anyway, shall we?

(All of these numbers are coming from TV Newser.)


On JANUARY 12, 2007, here were the cable news ratings:

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,498,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 2,189,000
FNC GRETA 1,473,000
FNC BRIT HUME 1,319,000
FNC SHEP 1,315,000
CNN DOBBS 1,106,000
CNN BLITZER 825,000
CNN COOPER 658,000
CNN ZAHN 611,000,
MSNBC OLBERMANN 605,000
KING 544,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 502,000
CNNHN GRACE 496,000


On MARCH 26, 2009:

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,420,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,987,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,374,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,160,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 1,940,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,888,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,322,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,300,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,208,000
CNN KING 1,144,000
CNN COOPER 1,118,000


Wednesday - JANUARY 6, 2010:

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,919,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,611,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,609,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,182,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,154,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,005,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,085,000
CNNHN GRACE 983,000
MSNBC MADDOW 983,000
CNNHN BEHAR 689,000
CNN KING 656,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 615,000
CNN COOPER 590,000


X=the difference of like items + or -. Your assignment is to solve for X.

Try as they may, the leftist networks cannot stop the bleeding.

Legitimate Fears: Government And Media

Many people are making the weakest of cases that FOX News is a threat to the democratic process. I was reading a message board on Facebook earlier and saw a thread started about how the writer was convinced that this is definitely the case.

We can always claim something. But it needs to be supported by sound evidence before we can claim that the debate belongs to any of us -- or our way of thinking. We cannot just claim to be right because we disagree with the content of such writings. We must show why.

The claimer in this case was asked a series of questions by a dissenter, in which the goal was to point out the opposite side of the spectrum. He wanted to show that MSNBC was just as guilty of distributing biased propaganda, but in my mind both are missing the greater point here.

Yesterday, this story was reported by Reuters News Agency.

A top Democratic lawmaker predicted on Wednesday that the government will be involved in shaping the future for struggling U.S. media organizations.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, saying quality journalism was essential to U.S. democracy, said eventually government would have to help resolve the problems caused by a failing business model.

Read the rest of it and by the time you finish it, you should be as concerned about this as anything. Knowing what we know about how the government loves to bailout companies that are "too big to fail", this should be enough to scare you silly.

We know that once the government "loans" any entity money, there are conditions set which are purely designed to punish and manipulate behaviors it deems as maladaptive. GM, AIG, and others have suffered the consequences of allowing the government to rescue them from failure.

It's being sold as the government being stockholders and they are merely exercising stockholders' rights. But make no mistake here, it's still interference and is more of a threat to the democratic process than anything else I can think of right now.

What worries me is thinking about how many of us who may think that the same thing will not happen, if the government is allowed to buy into the media? Do we not think they will try to kill a story they do not want told?

Imagine Pelosi, Schumer, Reid, Murtha, and other corrupt politicians not liking the press they are being given for their thieving, influence peddling ways. Then, just think about how they will have the power and ability to have people fired for it. Those responsible for reporting on their transgressions against the people will not stand a chance, they will be replaced by automatons.

Think about the power that can and will be wielded if this were allowed to happen.

If you are a Democrat and are enamored with this bunch that is in control now, just imagine if this were to carry over to a GOP controlled government. Don't sit their smug and arrogant, because the pendulum can/does swing back harder than you can imagine. Given the severity of the screw-ups your party will very likely not be in power for long, certainly not forever as some would have you to believe.

I don't agree with any one entity, any one party, one ideology, or one candidate. So I want all sides to be heard, regardless of how stupid one side may sound at a given moment. I want Kos to have the same opportunity to be heard as PYY, and others who think more along my lines. I want FOX, MSNBC, and CNN to all be allowed to say what they wish. I want to allow the market to dictate which is telling the truth, not the lying liars who inhabit Washington DC.

As the ignorant masses salivate over the Tiger Woods story, we need to really focus on what is important right now. We need to get rid of the career politicians who think they are above us, and desperately want to increase their power over us.

FBN Sneaking Up On CNBC?

Two and a half years ago, I don't think anyone would/could have predicted this.

Don Imus gave the Fox Business Network the boost it wanted in his first week on the air.

The Imus show, a simulcast of the radio program heard on WABC (770 AM), averaged 148,000 viewers a day for the first week, which began Oct. 5.

That put Fox Business a few thousand viewers ahead of CNBC for the first time since FBN went on the air two years ago. People in the industry, however, cautioned that Imus and CNBC's morning "Squawk Box" tap different audiences and are not really in direct competition.

This is probably true. This is just another apples and oranges kind of thing.

But who would have guessed it? Imus makes a comeback after being branded a racist by fine upstanding citizen activists like Rev. Alfred Charles Sharpton Jr. LLC ..... and other loosely affiliated race-baiting organizations.

Was his comment insensitive? Was it offensive? Probably both.

Imus offends everyone. He pisses everyone off because his ratings have always been about provocative talk and being a jerk. In the midst of it all, it has paid his bills.

But because Bro. Sharpton made it about being racist, the man should be ruined if you ask some people. And yet....it hasn't.

But the point I want to make here is much larger than Imus. Imus may only be the forerunner to bigger things. FBN will soon be ready to exert some real pressure on CNBC, when John Stossel comes over from ABC.

Over the years, Mr. Stossel has experienced an epiphany of sorts by embracing and advocating free market answers, as viable solutions to the economic ills the nation is currently facing. Whereas he once thought bigger government to be a viable solution, he began to see that when the government put forth its hand to heal something, they just made it sicker.

I am quite sure that Stossel will feel more artistic and editorial freedom with his new employers and would think he'll make an immediate impact--if they market him well. After the initial curiosity period, it will be up to him to be intriguing enough to bring in more viewers along the way and the hold the ones he has. Knowing how well he has done on past projects for ABC, I am persuaded to think he will up to the task.

I wonder.

When is Santelli's contract up?

Capitalizing On A Shifting Tide

Sometimes, to do one's homework doesn't require much effort at all. Many times, it just takes a calculator and a very short moment in time.

From Drudge comes this little story problem:

EVENING NEWS RACE:

THIS WEEK: NBC: 8,110,000 / ABC: 7,330,000 / CBS: 5,250,000

A YEAR AGO: ABC: 7,890,000 / NBC: 7,850,000 / CBS: 5,940,000

The Al Gore, Barack Obama, and the other NBC loving sycophants will no doubt see it as a victory. If you really stretch it, I guess it makes sense. The National Barack Channel has overtaken ABC (Always Barack Channel) and increased its lead over the hapless Central Barack Station.

This much is undeniable.

But if we add up the numbers from this week and a year ago, we can properly compare them. If we do, we will we see another trend that the Obama Central Committee does not want to acknowledge.

One year ago the numbers showed a viewership of 21,680,000 and this week it totals up to 20,690,000. That's a difference of 990,000. This means almost one million less viewers are watching the network news.

Where are they going? And why?

I think the answers provide us all with information leading us to why the White House fears FOX News so much, and has spent valuable time demonizing it. They are the only ones not in lockstep with Obama and the other Democrats who seek to radicalize the nation. And they are the ones continually gaining viewers in large percentages.

Try as you may, you cannot compare network news broadcasts and those on cable. Doing this is the classic apples and oranges fallacy, because they are very different animals altogether. Even so, you can look at the decreases of one and increases of another, and certainly draw some reasonable, educated conclusions.

By looking at the latest cable ratings, we can see the huge disparity between FOX and the others combined and the disparity is growing. But I doubt all of FOX's gains are from other competing cable news shows. It very well could be that an exodus from the traditional network newscasts has begun, and will continue if they do not cease and desist from airing overtly (and covertly) partisan broadcasting.

This makes me wonder why someone hasn't already thought of something.

Why hasn't the FOX Network put up a traditional nightly newscast on its network affiliates, to compete with the other three outlets? It may be just what is needed to shake up the MSM, and the leftist elite who control it. Take the objective reporting aspect of the news, pair it with a sharp anchor, and I bet they could do some major damage to all three networks real soon.

If someone who works at FOX could see this post, they may feel free to use this idea and sell it as their own. If their conscience really got to bothering them, they could simply pay the school loans off for my son, and give him a job when he graduates with his degree in journalism. We''ll call it even, and I will not have to post bad things about them on this second-rate blog.

The Difference

First of all, I lifted this video from I Hate The Media, which is not all that uncommon. If you are not regularly reading it and occasionally swiping something from them for your blog, you are not in the thick of it. If this is the case, you must do some soul searching and ask yourself, why not?

Secondly and most importantly, Keith Olbermann is a wannabe TV Journalist who loves to play fast and loose with real facts. If you look up the word spinmeister, you will see Olbermann's photo prominently displayed. If you look up "liar", you will see two of them.

Recently, an error at the LA Times resulted in some hurt feelings. Watch the first part of this video and see if you think Keith is being truthful, or not:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

It is true.

Olbermann accurately states that on August 19 of this year, his show drew 2.2 million viewers. But that was a collective total, which means it combines his live telecast at 8:00 PM EDT and his replay at 10:00 PM. Tuesday night, this week, he only drew a combined 1.6 million, which is closer to his average.

It is also true that each of these airings did beat CNN, and probably is the number one rated news show in the under 35 demographic. He even acknowledges that it is the number one rated show that is NOT ON FOX. But in his gloatations and glee, he fails to mention that Fox News competitors (in both time slots) thoroughly trounced his show, by a 3:1 margin in total viewers. (Source)

Folks, that's not even close. People can spin it anyway they want. The numbers are overwhelming and cannot be refuted in any way, shape, or form.

Olbermann and his scant number of sycophants can cherry pick some minor details along the way, if it makes them feel better. But they have no answer for the fact that a large amount of people seriously mistrust what this man has to say, on a nightly basis, week in and week out. He does not speak for the common man, he does not speak for the majority of Americans. It shows in the ratings.

In addition to the real numbers involved here, here is another perspective to consider:

To really understand just how this is working out right now, let's have some fun and add the numbers of both MSNBC and CNN. According to the Media Bistro source, FOX beats CNN and MSNBC by almost 2:1 (1.8:1 more exactly).

There is a reason for this, and I think most of you can see it for what it is. But beyond the obvious, let's look at this a little deeper:

More people are not buying into the White House talking points and they are certainly not buying into the wholesale demonization of good hard-working people. CNN and MSNBC have commentators who have grossly mischaracterized those who are not happy with the path this government is taking. They have portrayed these people as racists and swastika-toting Nazis, all because they see through the lies and are willing to speak out, about them.

And it's not just Olbermann, who is doing this while making an ass of himself on national TV. If you study the numbers from the same day, you will see how other commentators are faring. If you think the Olbermann numbers are low, take a look at Schultz, Maddow, and Matthews.

Good old Ed's numbers are horrendous and are lower than third rated network CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Wolf is not objective in the least, and yet Schultz cannot outperform him for the fringe moonbat demo.

In addition, Matthews has two time slots an hour apart. Both slots combined cannot even top one of Fox's last place shows, Sheperd Smith. Look up the word "hack" and Chris's picture is the one you'll see. People recognize hacks when they see them. As a result of this blatant professional deficit, the "thrill running up and down" his leg isn't based on the success of his performance.

This is why the leftist elite wants to silence FOX. They are using threats and intimidation to silence those who dare to ask hard questions about character and the soundness of policies being promoted by our elected officials. These are people who are supposed to represent us and not themselves.

Bill Whittle thinks he has some answers that you might find interesting. I'll let him tell you his story, as he is a master at this kind of thing. But know this, we are making a difference. The elitist class is beginning to alter their strategy, because of it.

Sarah Palin types and sends, the WH goes into spin mode. The people make noise because Washington isn't listening and suddenly, the bill that was expected to get rammed down our throats is on the back burner for now. Some, on the left, now believe that it may not happen this year.

Trust me when I say it, it is making a difference. The only mistake that can be made is to let up.

MSNBC Race-Baiting: The Next Generation

Greg Gutfield from Big Hollywood has an excellent post up about the oversaturation of race-baiting at MSNBC. It isn't new. Keith "Der Hack" Olbermann once gave precious time for this kind of activity, so that a well-known nutcase could demonstrate the criteria for her psychiatric diagnosis. In the case of Gutfield's post, it involves Contessa Brewer.

From what I have seen from her, Ms. Brewer does not seem to know much about how getting ahead in the cable news profession. When one analyzes news show ratings, we know that hosts like Olbermann, Schultz, Maddow, and Matthews are not the patterns by which you can safely create a model of success. All of them are failures by any business or industry model, yet they are allowed to continue to impersonate journalists.

Let's put it another way. It's like trying to create a car company out of the DeLorean or Tucker business mold or better yet, trying to make a blockbuster film like Ishtar or Reds. If you wish to be successful in any profession, it's imperative you use examples of people who do it right, not wrong. In Brewer's case, unless she changes her professional ethic, we can safely assume she has attained all the success she ever will. For her, an MSNBC hack is as high of an honor she will ever reach.

Thus, we see another fine example of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

What A Difference A Year Makes

Let's take a look back at a passage from a past post I wrote four years ago:

Ms. Sheehan has a constitutional right to protest whatever she wants, whenever she wants. Make no mistake about where I stand on free speech, it must always be protected no matter how ludicrous the message or the ideology.

That said, I think it is deplorable how the left has taken a probably decent lady in a weak moment of grief, and exploited it for political purposes. I also believe it to be equally sad that she has allowed herself to be manipulated into this political, media circus.

Fast forward to today, where we read a passage from this piece in the Washington Examiner:

Remember the anti-war movement? Not too long ago, the Democratic party's most loyal voters passionately opposed the war in Iraq. Democratic presidential candidates argued over who would withdraw American troops the quickest. Netroots activists regularly denounced President George W. Bush, and sometimes the U.S. military ("General Betray Us"). Cindy Sheehan, the woman whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, became a heroine when she led protests at Bush's Texas ranch.

That was then. Now, even though the United States still has roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq, and is quickly escalating the war in Afghanistan -- 68,000 troops there by the end of this year, and possibly more in 2010 -- anti-war voices on the Left have fallen silent.

Today we read that in Baghdad, bombs have killed 95 and wounded over 500. We also read that the war in Afghanistan has now killed over 710 of our soldiers, since the invasion in 2001. And like the Examiner article states, those who vehemently protested the wars of George W. Bush are now conspicuously silent.

Cindy Sheehan is still protesting, Code Pink is too. But the difference is as plain as the noses on our faces.

The irresponsible media hacks (who generated the lion's share of the noise during the Bush Administration) are the ones that have kept this quiet, while they malign the rank and file constituencies of the irresponsible political hacks (who have dared to question the machine). The media picks and chooses the issues of the day on any given day and right now, there is no need to attack the Obama Administration for continuing wars that were so immoral just a year ago.

Fox News Channel Winning Primetime Cable Ratings War

This really isn't news, they have been winning it for years now. But the gap is widening and the reason is simple.

The major network evening newscasts, along with CNN and MSNBC, have not presented both sides of the debate. They have not been critical of the gross incompetence and mismanagement by Congress and the Administration. They have portrayed those who are not in agreement with them, as fanatics, lunatics, and rabid racists.

This hasn't set well with mainstream Americans who are now beginning to wake up and realize they have been lied to by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democrats who promised the world to everyone. Why? Because many of the people who bought into the bogus "hope and change" mantra are average people whose only sin was being naive in the last election.

The numbers speak for themselves. Here they are according to Drudge:

CABLE NEWS RACE
NITE OF AUG 10, 2009

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,814,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,118,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,417,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,388,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 1,988,000
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 1,833,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,243,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,082,000
CNNHN GRACE 875,000
CNN KATHY GRIFFIN 810,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 710,000

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have been the most outrageous in their accusations against people who do not support their views, or the gross misconduct of the elected officials (as it pertains to spending and healthcare reform). Both of them have painted the opposition as racists, who cannot stand the thought of a black president. Never mind many of these people may have voted for Obama, both of them pretend to know the hearts and intentions of those they tag with this label. Both of them are drunk on their own arrogance, without a just cause.

Olbermann is one of the most condescending broadcasters in a long list of many before him. The difference between him and the others is, he has no reason to be arrogant. He comes from a sports background. He was an ESPN sports hack long before being a news commentator, and wasn't particularly good at that role. His obsession with Bill O'Reilly is only based in his consistent drubbing by O'Reilly's show, in the ratings.

O'Reilly is not particularly a humble man. But he is obsessed with being fair, almost to the point that he is unfair. More people are finding out they would rather have an egoist that works hard at presenting both sides in his presentation, than the constant demonization of people that do not agree with him. Olbermann is not even in the same league, he sports only a BS from Cornell as evidence of his self-imposed eliteness. At least Bill has two Master's Degrees, with one in Public Administration.

Maddow is different, she was a Rhodes Scholar and received a doctorate in political science. While this makes her more academically qualified to be an intelligent commentator, it does not follow due to the fact she is wrong on most of the issues. Her commentary originates from a the position of an angry gay woman, who has a chip on her shoulder. This is cut right out of the Gloria Steinem/Betty Frieden mold and is not conducive to winning mainstream viewers. Her browbeating of those she disagrees with, only endears her to those who already identify with her radical views. And as anyone can plainly see, the numbers clearly support this claim.

So, here we are again. MSNBC is beaten by a 3:1 margin in all major time slots and CNN is not even placing respectably, in any of them. I would think some marketing professionals would be on the hot seat, along with upper management in the editorial departments. At some point, it would make sense that stock holders would demand better efforts by all who are in authority. Market share must not mean much to anyone in the cable news world, these days.

Recommended Reading (Again)

Under the weather yesterday, therefore I did not feel like posting much of anything.

As a result, here is an interesting article to read:

The Myth Of The Parasitic Bloggers by Glenn Greenwald.

I seldom agree with Mr. Greenwald. But once in a blue moon, he gets it right.

Maureen Dowd's wholesale, uncredited copying of a paragraph written by Josh Marshall (an act Dowd has now admitted) -- for what I yesterday called her "uncharacteristically cogent and substantive column"-- highlights a point I've been meaning to make for awhile. One of the favorite accusations that many journalists spout, especially now that they're searching for reasons why newspapers and print magazines are dying, is that bloggers and other online writers are "parasites" on their work -- that their organizations bear the cost of producing content and others (bloggers and companies such as Google) then unfairly exploit it for free.

The Dowd plagiarism incident has brought to light why the traditional print press is not overly enthused with bloggers. The irony is that many in that profession have called bloggers parasites, while it is they who have all too often used bloggers without crediting them. It's just not overly noticeable unless someone uses exact quotes, like Dowd did.

Ideas and concepts can always be reworded to make the traditional journalist look like the brain and with the traditional platform. I have suspected this here at PYY in the past. The difference between some bloggers and myself is, I don't care. I do not do this for monetary gain or for notoriety, therefore I care little what people do unless they are doing it in a wholesale fashion so as to take hits away from me.

Here at PYY, I have taken pride in using original thoughts, generated from reading stories or other opinion pieces. I link to those articles frequently and take no credit for what is said in them. But many times I do expound on them, adding to the mix. I also call something BS, when I feel it is warranted. All of this is covered under my right to freedom of speech.

CNN Last

It looks like CNN, once the standard bearer and trend setter in cable news, is in the tank. Even MSNBC is now beating CNN in many time slots. But as we can see, America still overwhelmingly believes Fox News to be the best source of news and information on cable. From Drudge:

CABLE NEWS RACE
THU., MARCH 26, 2009

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,420,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,987,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,374,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,160,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 1,940,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,888,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,322,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,300,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,208,000
CNN KING 1,144,000
CNN COOPER 1,118,000

Notice how O'Reilly has over 2.5 times more viewers than his chief detractor?

Cable Ratings War?

Seems to me it's not much of a battle, much less a war. Fox news continues to thoroughly dominate its competition. Drudge occasionally puts up numbers, here are the ones from Friday March 13th:

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,185,000

FOXNEWS BECK 3,074,000

FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,557,000

FOXNEWS BAIER 2,151,000

FOXNEWS SHEP 1,879,000

FOXNEWS GRETA 1,522,000

MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,223,000

CNN KING 1,046,000

CNNHN GRACE 1,045,000

MSNBC MADDOW 954,000

It doesn't take an accountant to crunch these numbers to see that FNC is beating the hell out of everyone from 5-11PM EDT. O'Reilly, often the target of vitriol from Olberrmann, is out dueling this Olbey One Kenobe by over a 2.5:1 margin. And Maddow who was to supposed be the real deal back when she debuted, is turning in pathetically embarrassing numbers. She doesn't even attract a million.

But as you may guess there are those that spin this. The Olberrmann/Matthews crowd loves to portray FNC viewers as ignorant. Don't you just love people that think they are always right and the rest of the world is stupid?