Wales2004

Andrea Mitchell doesn't have much of a show host personality or presence and just seems plain awkward. I haven't watched more than a few minutes of her here and there because she seems best suited for reporting and not interviewing. Going by what I recall of David Gregory's MSNBC show, I don't know how they saw him as a replacement for Tim Russert. I think Chris Matthews is awful though because although his show produced this rather humorous moment: <iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YK0d8ENS__c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> He generally talks over his guests and he is rather impatient and constantly comes across as not listening but instead sort of waiting for whoever to finish talking. Ed Shultz also has that annoying habit of cutting people off before they finish as if he's in a hurry to get to a commercial break but has not mastered the art of getting a person to wrap up their comments without his impatient sighing and hesitant interruption perfected by Chris Matthews.

I actually got that.....I really did. Energize or scare?

Okay Ann, this article seems to substantiate what Chuck Todd was saying about the Romney campaign's claims: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/romney-says-hes-winning-its-a-bluff.html I prefer to wait for an investigation into this. I remember the story of the woman who scratched the "B" in her face and lied about it.

Apology accepted. Right now I may have more of a disdain for Republicans than Democrats based on their public positioning of themselves as the moral compass of this country and I'm by no means implying that there are not individuals within that party who are genuinely compassionate and care about the poor and downtrodden. I'm talking about what key members say publicly. But that's not to be mistaken as my having any great love for the other party. Democrats seem to be publicly more sane than most of the Republicans that generally have control over the microphones--at least that's how I see it. If you go back and read what I said about Chuck Todd, you'll see that I was questioning his rise based on his ability to light up those red and blue colors on the digital electoral map. Maybe that's unfair of me because that doesn't speak to how smart he actually may be. I've just never been bowled over by any analysis I've heard from him. I feel the same way about how Luke Russert is rising at MSNBC/NBC as if they've got Tim Russert Jr. in the wings, I can't watch Fox cable news because I find them far less tolerable than the few minutes it takes me before I get annoyed with Lawrence O'Donnell pushing himself as that great writer of "The West Wing" and his endless griping about the evils of Mitt Romney. It doesn't feel like deep hatred...just disgust but Fox is mired in deep hatred. I'm not a fan of either candidate but I don't hate either of them and I don't care to listen to anyone spewing venom at them that feels personal.....disdain for their positions or how phony those politicians are but hating people doesn't make you any better. The only people I admittedly hate are pedophiles.

I should have said network mates not show mates

I don't care whether he's a Republican or not because I honestly never considered his possible party affiliation since neither he nor Andrea Mitchell are blatantly pushing any agendas as the rest of their MSNBC show mates are. Even so, is it not possible that from 1992 to until now, he could have changed party affiliations, if he was ever affiliated with the Democrats to begin with? 20 years is a life time for some people and one can grow and see things so much more differently in that span of time--even shorter at that. Also, it's possible for a person to work for a candidate without being affiliated with said candidate's party. He might have just believed in this man's platform. And as far as the wife goes.....James Carvile and Mary Matalin ring a bell?

ICAM. Thanks for sharing that. Come on Ann, do I really come across as one to take Chuck Todd seriously??? I didn't realize he was a Republican though. All I know is he was pushing red and blue around on a digital map one day and soon after he became their political guru. But MSNBC has highly questionable taste in their on air talent anyway. At one point they even had Stephen A. Smith on various shows as a political analyst which is beyond head shaking and laughable. He seems to believable that the louder you are, the more right you are. Now he's back at ESPN which claims to be the worldwide leader in sports but they also seem to be leading the pack and way ahead of MSNBC in their poor taste in on air talent (and I'm being generous with the word "talent" for some of their special personalities). Anyway, I take Chuck Todd slightly more seriously than I take Stephen A. Smith pretending to have more than a superficial knowledge of football.

I know and i don't take them seriously either. There couldn't possibly be that many Christians if you believe that many are called but few are chosen. And all of that prosperity preaching ignores Jesus saying that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to Heaven. I get that people need to do whatever works for them---no problem do what works for you. Just don't try to use God to manipulate people into voting however you want them to vote. Republicans are not the messenger party of God and they need to stop pretending that their stance on abortion and gay marriage makes them God's chosen people above everyone else. No, it doesn't.

This is something I asked my friend about who called me twice yesterday extremely hysterical over Mitt Romney as if she believes I might become Romneytized. That's something that I can guarantee will never happen. He has such contempt for the poor that there is no way on earth I could ever justify supporting a man like that. Absolutely no way. I don't trust anyone who claims to be a Christian and a Mitt Romney supporter. The two things are spiritual opposites.

This is true and on MSNBC Chris Matthews is leading the charge. I turned him off pretty quickly last night because I get tired of hearing him shout about all the white people that won't vote for Barack Obama. Before he used to keep asking what Barack Obama was going to do about it as if that made an ounce of sense. If he's saying that white people don't want to vote for Barack Obama because their racist then did he want Barack Obama to go to the Appalachians and hypnotize them into thinking they should vote for him anyway?

According to Chuck Todd, the Romney campaign already believes they are at 271. That Billy Graham endorsement must have put them right over the top. How do you go for years claiming Mormonism is a cult, meet with Mitt Romney, give him your endorsement, and then pull reference to Mormon cult from your website? There has to be some deep hatred for Barack Obama for that kind of soul selling.

If there was a seventies thread... <iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8MW40mbx3Vg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4Zz8mbqtgO8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I tried to watch but that split screen is way too distracting and I couldn't take more of Mitt Rommey's smirk. It sounds as if he basically spent his time agreeing on most foreign policy issues and stuck on you didn't meet with Israel. The Conservative spin seems to be that he looked Presidential or Statesman like. What America needs is a President that looks like one but doesn't necessarily know what the heck he is talking about.

I assume it must be still doing well in Canada. Nickelodeon should probably just get rid of Teennick because Degrassi is all they seem to have going for them outside of their All That 90s block. They picked up some Australian show "SLIDE" which only lasted one season with 10 episodes. As long as they have that station they will probably keep Degrassi as long as it's still in production. They're about to end three shows on Nickelodeon and they cannot show Sponge Bob all day.

A little more Ellie <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Voctl_nw7cM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fBf2v4mLM8k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm still stuck on Clarity but then there's this.... <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/B-OoisekXIA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Ellie Goulding has a cover of it that makes the lyrics even more clearer but it's wrecked for me by the inclusion of Tinie Tempah. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5hzgS9s-tE8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZvzwYUz66bo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So I heard on CBS radio news this morning that Mitt Romney's camp expects "Romnesia" to backfire and hurt Barack Obama with Independents. If they say so....

Apparently Romney's people came back with a response that implies that they have made themselves the spokesperson for all women. I guess they must think that women are such a stupid bunch that we will all fall for anything they say on behalf of us all.

If our love is tragedy why are you my remedy? If our love is sanity why are you my clarity? <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5liE2jPPF0g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/q0SyUgw98tE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I don't doubt that Mitt Romney and his family feel superior to the Obamas but I'm pretty sure they feel the same way about the Bush family as well. Mitt Romney and his wife just seem to exhibit a great level of disdain which is probably directed towards anyone who they don't see as being at their level. That said, certain segments of the media need to learn how to deal better with these types of "uncomfortable" situations and not apply these double standards. Tagg Romney and/or his brother(s) can claim after the fact that he was joking but that's not good enough. He should acknowledge that it was inappropriate and apologize. And the people letting him off the hook need to ask themselves whether they would think it was cute or funny if either of Barack Obama's expressed the same sentiment. The Romneys are surely motivating Democrats who probably weren't going to bother voting to change their minds and vote for Barack Obama and they may also convince some Independents who won't like their display of ugly condescending characteristics. We seem to be so many miles away from Ann Romney playing on the stupidity of the media with her fake outrage over Hilary Rosen pointing out that she's not a 9-5 job working mother. I am just going to go on wondering why it is that the Republicans cannot get it together and run better candidates for President.

Even though there are fringe elements that might believe the lies about Barack Obama's birth, the people who tend to perpetuate it probably don't believe nor do they care. When Mitt Romney stands up and jokes about where he and Ann were born and about no one ever asking to see his birth certificate, it's not because he believes Barack Obama isn't an American. Honestly, if the Republicans truly believed that then they would have fought to keep him off the ballot in 2008 and would have put up one massive fight to have blocked him from taking office. That never happened so the ones perpetuating the idea know it's bogus and they do it to appeal to their low base in the same way they float the lazy people on welfare and seemingly hold onto the single parents wrecking the country with their criminal offspring. Democrats can make 1001 concessions and go along with what you say and it still won't change the Republican's stance. The Republicans generally promote this feeling of being superior to everyone else--especially morally superior since they are more Christian than any other Christians on their mission to "fix" society in their image. BTW, the issue regarding the unemployment figures not including the long term is nothing new. The same thing happened when the economy was bad on George H. Bush and people stopped looking. I don't know what the numbers were then but they are at issue now because of the election and the Republicans fear that it makes it look as if Barack Obama isn't doing as poorly as they want him people to see him as doing. This says a lot more about the nature of the Republican party than it does about anything else. There may be a lot of genuinely good sincere people in the Republican party as may be the case with Democrats, but unfortunately the fringe elements get the spotlight. Society loves to emphasize the negative over the positive.

Even more so because he lied about the binders. A group of women prepared the binders before the election so that whoever became governor would have a pool with which to work.

Reince Priebus seems to believe that the more talk about Libya the better. He basically promised there will be more on Monday. Maybe Mitt Romney will talk about how he's using George W. Bush's foreign policy advisers. I rather liked how he made George W. Bush sound as if he was President in the Middle Ages....2008 was such a long long time ago. It kind of sounded as if he was governor back in the fifties when it was hard to find women for the complicated government jobs that required a search through binders full of women. A friend told me that a PBS special on him showed how concerned he and his church were about the single mothers. They wanted to give the children up for adoption so that those little ones could all have the advantage of a two-parent home. I can only imagine how angry Madonna made them with "Papa Don't Preach" even though that may have been their anti-abortion anthem.....such conflict.

I don't really get why Republicans are so stuck on Libya when I thought the economy was supposed to be their issue. What did Candy Crowley correct after the debate? It would be helpful when you make those statements if you'd provide more information so everyone will know to what you're referring. All I know about is the phrase "Acts of terror" which Barack Obama did say. The semantics of it are quite another thing. Mitt Romney interjected a whole lot more than he should have and I don't think it helped him but then again I'm not a Republican and I'm not a Democrat either so..... I found Mitt Romney overly aggressive and he can't help his condescending nature apparently. But back to the fascination with Libya as if it's the greatest source of weakness to be found along with the whining about how Barack Obama won't give Benjamin Netanyahu his way and how China is a currency manipulator. The whole thing makes Republicans look more than daft and quite desperate actually. Who do the warmongers want to attack now....every nation in that region not called Israel? And at the same time get China irritated because this makes a whole lot of sense. This nation has been hampered by the whole WMD lie for over a decade and their big gotcha on foreign policy is politicizing what happened in Libya and pretending that everyone in the nation wants to know every detail.....as if there aren't things involving National Security that people will never understand. Pretty darn smart for those who want to restore Anglo-Saxon relations. Mitt Romney was this summer's laughingstock in Britain and elsewhere so yeah.....let's take him seriously on his foreign policy prowess with his George W. Bush foreign policy experts. I am guessing that people will remember the Somali pirates put down. Osama Bin Laden. Muammar Qadaffi dead. Among others. And this happened while the alleged Muslim was running this country. Yikes.