FUCKING MSNBC cuts the President's speech off then goes to Buddy Romer

[bigdarryl]

WTF!!!

[flpoljunkie]

1. It's over. President Obama is now shaking hands.

[polichick]

2. You don't think they should show all of his speeches every day, do you?

[phleshdef]

4. Yes. When the leader of the free world goes out to address the public, it should be fully covered.

I don't care if its President Obama, President Bush or President Bachmann. A political news channel reporting American political news should give full time to reporting what the most important political figure in American politics has to say, if that person happens to be speaking.

[polichick]

5. That ain't gonna happen when he's out on the stump every day - and it shouldn't.

[MNBrewer]

13. Leader of the "Free World"

:rofl:

[rurallib]

3. Comca$tNBC

they should change their name.

[polichick]

6. Actually, since Comcast took over the public service spots highlighting progressive policies...

...have greatly multipled - surprisingly.

[rurallib]

15. So have the appearances by RW apologists on the evening shows

But first a word from Michael Steele.

[polichick]

16. I wouldn't complain about that particular Republican - he's sane...

...and usually pretty fair. They have to include a few from the other side.

[JTFrog]

17. You wouldn't complain about that Republican, but Obama gets your 24/7 outrage.

Something seems a little screwed up there. :eyes:

[polichick]

18. Something's "screwed up" alright - your reading comprehension.

[JTFrog]

20. So which part of "I wouldn't complain about that particular Republican - he's sane..."

did I misunderstand?

FFS. Why not just own your words?

[polichick]

21. I have no problem owning everything I've ever posted on DU...

You think msnbc isn't going to have some Republicans on?

If you could read without Obama-paranoia-syndrome tainting your understanding you'd know that I suggested it's better to have a sane Republican who's usually fair than someone who isn't.

[JTFrog]

22. "it's better to have a sane Republican who's usually fair than someone who isn't."

There is NO such thing.

But hey, feel free to pat that batshit crazy Republican on the back all the while trash talking our Democratic President. I guess it makes sense. :eyes:

[polichick]

23. LOL - I guess you want msnbc to invite Beckkk or a tea partier rather than...

...someone who is sane and relatively fair.

YOU make no sense - but that seems pretty par for the course.

[JTFrog]

25. "sane and relatively fair. "

LOL. All while trash talking President Obama at every opportunity.

It's obvious that not much makes sense to you.

[polichick]

27. Don't let that Obama-Paranoia-Syndrome eat you alive!

[JTFrog]

29. Right now I'm sitting here looking at you trying to see things from your point of view...

but I can't get my head that far up.

:shrug:

[polichick]

35. Quelle dommage - the Syndrome has already won.

[JTFrog]

38. You obviously mean Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Yet another thing that leftbaggers have in common with the teabaggers.

[FrenchieCat]

7. The media has better things to do......

they'd rather talk about the President than to allow him to talk to the nation.

I noticed during the Republican Debate last night, not one of them was corrected
on their lies about anything. It was rather obvious that they don't care to expose
Republicans. Flashback to the Democratic Primary, the commentators were on Barack Obama
like white on rice about whether he was a patriot, etc....

What passes for liberal media on the major networks and cable these days is about
4 hours of evening programming on MSNBC, and that's about it! I guess we should be
eternally grateful!

[rsmith6621]

8. What The F### Buddy Romer Has a Schedule just the same....

...what a childish thing to bitch about...President Obama hasn't exactly acted like a friend to those who voted for him lately.If you want 24 hours of Obama then open up your own network.


JEEZ!

[AtomicKitten]

9. Pres Obama's campaigning has increased public support for his jobs bill by 10 points.

The MSM can't have that, ya know.

[polichick]

10. It's great news that support is up, but you really can't expect the msm to cover...

...every speech in full when he's making them every day.

I've been pleased that they show some of it EVERY DAY.

[JoePhilly]

11. If it was 12 tea Party nuts or a Sarah Palin speech, it would be on every channel.

[polichick]

14. Not every speech in full every day - that's not how it works.

[Cali_Democrat]

19. Even if Obama did get full coverage in the day time, I'm not sure it would even matter

Check Fox, CNN and MSNBC ratings during the day. My guess is that they're very weak.

If Obama wants to really reach Americans, he should give prime time oval office addresses more often.

[JoePhilly]

24. "Bully Pulpit!!", "Pretty speech!", "Bully Pulpit!!", "Pretty speech!", "Bully Pulpit!!", "Pretty sp

I'm trying to decide, which it is!!!!

If the networks shouldn't cover his speeches live ... how does he use the "Bully Pulpit??"

Or ... are we saying ... "sure, these are pretty speeches, but no one is watching them, so who cares."

Or maybe ... we should be saying that the job situation is so important, that every time Obama talks about it, it should be COVERED in full ... and then reviewed on the "liberal Media" night after night, after night, after night.

No?

Ugh.

[polichick]

26. An Oval Office address shouldn't be a "speech" - but a serious statement...

...about a serious problem in simple everyday language.

[JoePhilly]

31. Are you serious ... or just playing semantic games.

To use the "bully pulpit" you can not just sit in the oval office and make a "serious statement" between 7pm and 7:30pm.

You need to GO OUT ... into a variety of locations ... and tell the people DIRECTLY, what you want to do.

And why do you think that a "speech" does not include "simple everyday language" ... that's suggestion is total nonsense.

[polichick]

32. I didn't mention the "bully pulpit" or say what's in a speech...

...read more carefully - your Obama-Paranoia-Syndrome is getting in the way of your understanding.

[JoePhilly]

33. Read the Subject of your response ... see the word "speech"????

You tried to differentiate between a "speech" and a "serious statement".

Now you want to claim you were making no such distinction ...

[polichick]

34. Try again - read slower maybe. I described an Oval Office address.

[JoePhilly]

36. Which you think is a "serious statement" ... but a "speech" in a city

or small town, is not.

No?

[polichick]

37. Describing an Oval Office address...

...says nothing about what a speech might be.

[Cali_Democrat]

30. Too much caffeine?

Calm down.

[polichick]

28. An Oval Office address about the obstructionist Congress might be a very good idea.

[JoePhilly]

12. They do it all the time ... they cut from him to 2 talking head pundits

who talk down whatever he's talking about.