Here is a good read about and asshole named Joe
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donald-sutherland/morning-joe_b_560129.htmlAre the programmers at MSNBC nuts? They give us refreshing afternoons with Chris and Ed, put us to bed with the clarifying sensibilities of Rachel and Keith and then, idiotically, wake us up with Mr. Small Mouth.
Who is this idiot? Why is he there? He can't even listen. He doesn't conduct a decent conversation. He runs over everyone else's words with a landslide of diarrhea.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Response to butterfly77 (Original post)
Post removed
dkf
(37,305 posts)UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)she does contradict him at times. But that over the top sexual tension thing they have going is somehow unsettling. (And I'm no sexual prude.)
Not that I watch much. All morning television is insufferable.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)
"And he doesn't need to be named Joe. They put calling a cup of coffee a cup of "Joe" out to pasture decades ago. Joe's a plumber now."
PatSeg
(47,427 posts)found Joe as loud and annoying as we do! There are very few people who are as full of themselves as Joe Scarborough, and he's a bully.
cindyperry2010
(846 posts)same thing
dkf
(37,305 posts)And why the people who worked with him can't stand Newt. He didn't like what Bush did, and he wants us out of Afghanistan.
Moreover I get a lot of insights from their guests, like Richard Haass or Steve Rattner.
That is more objective than a lot of MSNBC hosts are. Probably more so than Rachel or Ed who are team players where the team is the Ds.
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)Insiders dishing, spilling, gushing about their experiences, up close and personal.
Oooooh, how cool.
But if you're saying that "a lot of MSNBC hosts" DON'T have their primary focus on
what the R's are up to -- and that's the reason they're not "objective," that's a
triple load of horse apples.
I mean, what could possibly be so enlightening or electrifying about why
ANYONE doesn't like Romney?
He's that ROTC guy in the shiny helmet from Animal House, Douglas C. Neidermeyer,
all grown up and polished, basking in the glow of a fortune built on buying
companies and firing workers.
What's to like?
dkf
(37,305 posts)Its another to get into why Republicans don't like them. From the R side there is more insight as to personality, how they get on with their own side, etc. These are people who work with them on their team. That is the stuff that tells how good an administrator they will be. First of all we need someone who can get the nuts and bolts together.
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)It's not because "they're Republicans," it's because they're shameless, posturing, two-faced political whores.
Their ability as "administrators" and to "get things done" conveniently overlooks that their success or
failure as candidates and politicians rests on their ability to satisfy the demands of their uber-wealthy
sponsors, while maintaining the charade (a total fiction), that they're 'really looking out for the middle
class,' and represent traditional 'middle class values' and 'common sense.'
You only have to look at the economic history of the last 3 decades. The interests of the middle class
have been sold out and sacrificed at every turn, and the real patrons, backers and behind-the-scenes
string-pullers have been rewarded beyond the wildest dreams of avarice.
In fact, the Republican Party is splitting. There is at present a Civil War. It's being played out in the
media between Fox News, the pro-Newt faction, which no longer sees any need to maintain the fiction
that anything but Raw, Pure, Right-Wing ideological Outrage is needed to run a campaign, and the National
Review crew, which lacks the sheer bile, vitriol and spleen Tea Party activists thrive on, but would be
quite happy with a Romney candidacy. Based on his "ability as an administrator."
That Romney made his money by buying companies and firing workers and slashing costs -- regardless
of the effect on the actual, long-term financial health of the company that was purchased (or the best
interests of the local economy, and the 'middle class') -- is NEVER discussed.
But by virtue of the incredibly large sums of money invested in the PR for these candidates, the notion
that they have "nuts and bolts" financial acumen of some sort, is still maintained. It's always assumed,
like the dogma of the religious belief that it's become....
It's a joke.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/8931-how-fox-news-is-helping-barack-obamas-re-election-bid
The only dollars and cents, or balance sheets that matter, are those invested by the very wealthiest
backers of each candidate.
roody
(10,849 posts)
morningglory
(2,336 posts)He has a competent panel on (often) and they can only sit in stunned boredom as he rambles on and on and on...
butterfly77
(17,609 posts)ugly.arrogant.I could go on let me stop I am getting angry just thinking about him..
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)From about 3 PM to 11 PM, weekdays, there are some of the most insightful people hosting shows that one could conjure up from the wasteland that is now the American political journalism landscape, award winning journalists, former democratic operatives, and even a token black Christian minister.
Then as the sun rises over most of the American east coast, for 3/4 of the year, another bright and oncoming start raises his voice for a few moments, just to wake us early-risers for our day. That young man is going places, but for the life of me, I cannot remember his name, (hey, I'm old, and don't watch at 5:30 AM except when I can't sleep any longer).
Then BAM 6 AM to 9 AM Morning Joke is on.. with his genuflections to the concept of capitalism, his willingness to cut-off mid-sentence any distinguished guest, and his every fifteen minute reminders that he, too, once held elected office from the reddest parts of northwest Florida. He bores his co-hosts, he banters and argues with the blond and mildly intellectual daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski, former S.o S. under Carter.
I always find Morning Joe only one step above ABC's most intellectually-dulling morning show as I eat my breakfast. I switch off the Today Show as soon as they are interviewing the latest mother of quintuplets, or latest almost victim of another serial killer.
But look at how horribly MSNBC wastes the weekend. Starting just after Rachel gets off the air on Friday nights, we are looking at tattooed muscular behemoths working out with weights or throwing feces and urine at prison guards...until 7 AM Saturday, or 8 AM Sunday, when one of the most brilliant analytical minds in America today hosts his brand new two hour show, with some of the finest minds around his table that any news analysis producer could ever assemble.
Chris Hayes should replace Joe Scar Monday through Friday, 6 to nine. He is brillant, and America deserves his brilliance over the tired self-satisfied, failed dullard of a politician that even Florida didn't want anymore.
MSNBC, fire the folks that send us prison and crime show reruns every weekend for over 12 hours. Get rid of Joe scar, he is USELESS as a host, and actually gets in the way of his own influential guests. Fix it, or let that network, with such incredibly intellectually stimulating gems as Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes wither on the MSNBC vine.
It's really a crime that MSNBC is so poorly managed as to allow Morning Joke and dead weekends with criminals to go on and on, year after year.
morningglory
(2,336 posts)butterfly77
(17,609 posts)about Chris Hayes I enjoy his show and the set up I now see that Alex woman who comes on at noon is trying to do the same thing but,she can't get control of her own show.
The panel takes over and she doesn't need a show anyhow who is she related to that gave her that show?
