Today on Blogcritics
Home » MSNBC (AKA Fox News-Lite) To Add Another Conservative To Nightly Line-Up

MSNBC (AKA Fox News-Lite) To Add Another Conservative To Nightly Line-Up

MSNBC will shift Tucker Carlson’s low-rated talk show out of prime-time in much of the country to 11 p.m. EDT, with ex-Fox News Channel anchor Rita Cosby filling his time slot.

Since its debut June 13, the bow-tied conservative’s show has averaged 201,000 viewers, 25 percent fewer than its time-slot predecessor, “The Abrams Report,” had in May, according to Nielsen Media Research.

MSNBC reminded reporters yesterday that Cosby scored an exclusive interview with Jermaine and Tito Jackson on her first day at MSNBC last month. She will begin “Rita Cosby: Live and Direct” Aug. 8.

***

So, if you’re scoring at home, that’s:

Hardball, hosted by faux liberal Chris Matthews

Countdown, hosted by actual liberal Keith Olbermann

Live and Direct, hosted by Rita Cosby, formerly of Fox News.

Scarborough Country, hosted by former conservative congressman Joe Scarborough

The Situation, hosted by mainstream conservative Tucker Carlson

***

Rick Kaplan has engineered the change at MSNBC — The Situation was the first show he created — and thus far, he hasn’t helped the network escape cellar-dwellar status.

How low were Carlson’s ratings? How about 10% of Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes and 17% of CNN’s Larry King Live? Ouch.

But here’s the dirty secret Kaplan won’t admit. None of MSNBC’s right-tilting shows (and I include Hardball in that category) do well in the ratings. They all get clobbered, no matter how many RNC talking points they recite, and no matter how many right-tilting panels they showcase.

Memo to Kaplan: People on the left side of the aisle watch television, too.

Instead of creating Fox News-lite, shoot for balance. Take Bill Moyers’ advice and, rather than retreading the same mix of pundits over and over, introduce guests at the “grassroots level,” as Moyers puts it.

Maybe we’d all learn something, and MSNBC might finally get some viewers.

***

This article first appeared at Journalists Against Bush’s B.S.

About David R. Mark

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Small correction to my last comment. David doesn’t actually link to Chomsky, that’s AmeriPundit. David does link his blog to MediaMatters and DailyKos and a couple of other moveon.org front groups, so my basic point remains valid.

    Dave

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    and you link to the druge report merely for entertainment purposes?

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ Eric Berlin

    DailyKos and and moveon.org are partisan organizations. They push their positions, just as conservative groups do.

    So what?

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    Eric Berlin’s comment in 53 should speak for this entire thread.

    “So what?”

    So what if a cable news talk show host leans one way or the other?

    —BEGIN RANT—

    So. Fucking. What.

    Screaming bias on a show, then applying it to the news station, then broadening it to the entire industry (i. e. “liberal media”) does nothing productive whatsoever.

    Cable news talk shows have a much different purpose than neutral reporting. But it seems nobody knows the god damn difference on this thread, because they care way too much about what this guy said about that guy on this date.

    —END RANT—

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    I just think that Dave Nalle should spend more time arguing the merits of an article I post, and less time arguing the merits of my blog.

    It’s easier to pick on my blog, I guess. It’s easier to criticize me, question my integrity, etc. Anything to take people’s eyes off the ball, right?

    The rest of you should be troubled by who I link to on my site. If I link to someone that Dave finds questionable, he deduces, then every post I have on here is questionable. And since my blog title is objectionable to Dave, then every post I have on here is objectionable.

    Why does Dave do this? It’s to change the subject away from the original post. Dave can’t refute my points, so instead he asks the rest of you to look over here!!!, and maybe it will send most blogcritics away, frustrated at where the conversation has headed. It’s such an obvious game, yet Dave has done it on several of my recent posts.

    I know Matthews is a Democrat, because he once discussed it, Dave says — ignoring the point I made about how Matthews started as a Demcorat, but, in my opinion, has moved steadily to the right since the 2000 president election.

    I know these Matthews quotes are out of context, Dave says, but he offers nothing to back it up, other than his ongoing effort to discredit me personally, and anything I post here.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Again, my overall point is that MSNBC now has an overall rightward tilt, which it has been shooting for since Rick Kaplan came aboard. It’s not working — in terms of ratings, let alone balance or accuracy of inforrmation.

    My point, again, is that MSNBC should not try to be Fox News-lite, but instead consider taking Moyers advice. Rather than having Pat Buchanan, Tony Blankley, David Gergen and a half dozen other pundits comment on nearly every issue of the day, find people in the trenches, give the shows more news and less partisan opinion, and see if people watch.

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ Eric Berlin

    David, I can understand your frustration, but you’re also guilty of ignoring other people’s opinions.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    I have no problem, Eric, with other people’s opinions.

    The problem I have is when an opinion is basically a personal attack, or a throwaway “You’re wrong,” with no back-up.

    If someone disagrees, fine. But shouldn’t they give some reasoning, some back-up information? I don’t write my pieces off the cuff. I try to do some homework before drawing any conclusions.

    Fair?

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Eric, I agree that Matthews favors big-ticket interviews. But that’s tangential to my point.

    In other words, what you have said and what I have said are not mutually exclusive. You can like big ticket interviews and be apolitical, and at the same time have right-leaning panels and be prone to repeating conservative spin.

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ Eric Berlin

    David — I said that Matthews favors those who he sees as larger than life political personalities, that he dislikes the Clintons on a personal level, and that he’s forced to play nice with the right to some extent because of the current power alignment in Washington.

    What I didn’t say, in addition, is that I feel Matthews feels that the Democratic Party, for lack of a better word, is wimpy. He admires conservatives and liberals who aren’t afraid to state boldly who they are and why. And, unfortunately, there’s a lot more of the former at present.

    So I am really contradicting what you’re saying. I don’t think Matthews has “drifted right.”

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    Guys, guys, break it up.

    You’re all correct. Move on. Chris Matthews’ ideology should not be this big a deal to anybody.

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ Eric Berlin

    What else are we going to talk about?

    Tucker Carlson’s bow-tie selection?

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Eric, if Matthews were basing his opinions on facts, fine. But when he repeatedly uses conservative spin as fact, or when he repeatedly blasts the Democratic Party (for being wimpy or otherwise), then it’s hard to imagine a way that he can be called a “liberal.”

    Fair?

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com/ Eric Berlin

    I’m not sure I agree with you assessment.

    But nonetheless — in theory — shouldn’t a liberal unhappy with his own party make it known that things need to change?

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Matthews booted Michelle Malkin from his show for bringing up the possibility that some of John F. Kerry’s wounds were “self-inflicted.” (And the Kerry camp never really denied this…)

    He irritated fellow-Democrat Zell Miller enough for actual physical threats to be uttered.

    He basically called all the scores of Swift Boat Vets a pack of partisan, lying scum.

    And he nearly broke down in tears when Gore conceded back in 2000.

    MAYBE he has drifted to the right since the 2004 election. (I haven’t watched his horrid show since then.) But he was openly anti-Bush prior to that. And he snuffled around in Nader’s pants back in 2000.

    He ain’t a conservative. Maybe he’s not even really a liberal. Maybe he’s just a loose-cannon Democrat. (Or was, until 9 months ago, when he suddenly became a henchman of the GOP, according to Mr. Mark…)

    Whatever he is or isn’t, MSNBC is hardly “Fox-lite.”

    Imus endorsed Kerry. Rita Cosby is clearly non-partisan. Olbermann is a leftist. And Tucker Carlson is pretty damn moderate.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>and you link to the druge report merely for entertainment purposes?<<

    Drudge may personally be right wing, but his site isn’t so much right wing as it is informational. He fancies himself an investigative journalist and digs things up. That makes it interesting.. It’s a far cry from DailyKos.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>DailyKos and and moveon.org are partisan organizations. They push their positions, just as conservative groups do.

    So what?<<

    So don’t try to claim you’re conservative while promoting them. Plus, they are more than just partisan organizations, they are activist propaganda organizations. They’re not just a guy with left-wing opinions, they are part of a network which manufactures attack strategies from the extreme left.

    Dave

  • Calvin

    Mathews did move from far left to moderate left, after MSNBC got clobbered in the ratings war during the last election. Appearntly liberals do not watch TV.

  • Steve

    I find the debate over Matthews political leanings quite amusing…the fact is there a number of folks out there who are independents, that is, who they vote for to be president is based on whether they like him or not, irregardless of partisan concerns…I guess a two party culture makes it difficult to accept such a notion but it’s true!! Your two party system sure does a good job of screwing up the political debate…if only politics were that black and white!

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Matthews booted Michelle Malkin because she started dealing in unproven gossip and had trouble backing up.

    She was so used to having heard hand held on Fox that she crumpled at the first person who made her culpable for what she was saying.

    Read it below
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>I just think that Dave Nalle should spend more time arguing the merits of an article I post, and less time arguing the merits of my blog. < <

    So your blog no longer represents your opinions and these articles are not the same ones you post on your personal blog?

    >>It’s easier to pick on my blog, I guess. It’s easier to criticize me, question my integrity, etc. Anything to take people’s eyes off the ball, right? < <

    Your integrity is central to the nature of your articles. In examining your motivations for posting what you do I am striking right at the heart of what you post and why you post it.

    >>The rest of you should be troubled by who I link to on my site. If I link to someone that Dave finds questionable, he deduces, then every post I have on here is questionable. And since my blog title is objectionable to Dave, then every post I have on here is objectionable. < <

    David, your entire premise - your reason for being in blogland - is questionable. That's the point. You exist only to attack the administration on a partisan basis and produce nothing of any positive value in what you write. You don't like Bush. The media is all right wing. We get it. Let's hear something interesting.

    >>Why does Dave do this? It’s to change the subject away from the original post. Dave can’t refute my points, so instead he asks the rest of you to look over here!!!, and maybe it will send most blogcritics away, frustrated at where the conversation has headed. It’s such an obvious game, yet Dave has done it on several of my recent posts. < <

    I have no interest in deflecting people from this post. You have a point to make. You made it. That's fine. I think you're wrong in suggesting that MSNBC is conservative, but others have already shown how you're incorrect in sufficient detail. I've watched MSNBC, if it isn't the most liberal cable news outfit, it's certainly in the top two. You can make an argument that they've made some effort to balance things out by putting a weak conservative (Carlson) in a time slot where no one will watch him, but that doesn't do much to convince me.

    >>I know Matthews is a Democrat, because he once discussed it, Dave says — ignoring the point I made about how Matthews started as a Demcorat, but, in my opinion, has moved steadily to the right since the 2000 president election. < <

    You see, here's exactly where you fall short in your analysis. You admit that Matthews has moved right - that's central to your thesis. Ok, why not consider WHY someone who is presumably intelligent and clearly not terribly easily swayed, has gradually moved to the right politically. IMO that's the issue here, not endless litanies of comments Matthews has made which you characterize as conservative.

    >>I know these Matthews quotes are out of context, Dave says, but he offers nothing to back it up, < <

    What kind of backup do you need? The quotes are short, in many cases easily open to other intepretations, and seem to require your explanation to show why they're conservative. Let me give you a couple of examples:

    #28 - what you call a 'conservative myth', expressed in that discussion is a simple, logical truth of poitics which any astute observer could make. Plus it was clearly expressed as a quasi-humorous remark. A lot of Matthews style is to make sarcastic comments which when taken out of context may sound exactly opposite of what he really thinks. He likes to put words in the mouths of his interviewees and essentially dare them to deny them. That's what it looks like is going on in this quote.

    >>Does this sound like something a liberal would say:

    From the June 16 edition of Hardball:

    MATTHEWS: I bet he [Schwarzenegger] wins next fall, because the best thing going for him is the Democrats. They’re still a party of raising money and pressure groups and the same old crap<<

    This does sound exactly like what a Liberal fed up with the ineffectiveness of the Democratic party would say. Sorry, it’s absolutely believable.

    All of your quotes are like this. They only make Matthews look conservative if they are interpreted through your eyes. To anyone else they sound like an irritable, sarcastic moderat-liberal who’s unhappy with the Democratic party. Does one have to accept everything the Dems do and praise them endlessly just to be a liberal now?

    Dave

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Matthews on Iraq:

    “If Madeline Albright had suggested this war, not one Republican would have backed it. But all the dutiful Republicans say, ‘Yes master, we have to fight this war,’” he added.”

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ

    Matthews on the efforts of our military personel in Iraq:

    “It’s hopeless. This is nation-building? This is ‘romper room,’” Matthews said”

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    Why on earth does one side of the political spectrum deduce that Chris Matthews is on the “other side”?

    Better yet, why on earth are we still talking about this?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I’m with RJ here. Matthews isn’t anti-liberal and he isn’t a conservative. He’s anti-everybody. David Mark just sees him as a conservative because he’s hostile to liberals. I think an equally good argument could be made that he’s a liberal because he’s anti-conservative. And I think both would be wrong.

    Dave

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Drudge’s rep for attacking the left, often with false leads, is legendary.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I just put Drudge on there because he has a lot of more obscure news links. I’ve never noticed that he was engaging in all that many attacks, but I’ll take a look at his site and maybe remove the link if it seem merited. Of course, based on what I’ve seen on this thread you see simple statements of fact as attacks on the left, so maybe Drudge isn’t as bad as all that.

    Dave

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Matthews booted Michelle Malkin from his show for bringing up the possibility that some of John F. Kerry’s wounds were “self-inflicted.” (And the Kerry camp never really denied this…)>>

    Read the interview. He told her off for suggesting something that had been discredited, then trying to attribute it to an incorrect source.

    >>

    He irritated fellow-Democrat Zell Miller enough for actual physical threats to be uttered.

    >>

    Anyone who refers to Zell Miller as simply a Democrat can’t be taken seriously. Matthews, of course, asked Miller about why he didn’t simply become a Republican after denouncing the Demcoratic candidate for president in a speech at the GOP convention. Miller’s reaction was legendary for being over-the-top nutty.

    >>

    He basically called all the scores of Swift Boat Vets a pack of partisan, lying scum. >>

    Which they were. Their charges were not only based on hearsay — none of the Swifties served with Kerry — but often contradicted one another. Numerous sources were able to drive trucks through the swifties’ logic. The swifties were backed, btw, by the same man who funded the smear campaign against John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary.

    >>

    These are really weak examples. Lots of people have suggested Malkin lacks credibility. Lots of people said the Swifties lacked credibility. Lots of people have questioned Miller’s motives.

    And just as quickly as he denounced Malkin, Matthews has trumpeted Tony Blankley and Pat Buchanan over and over. He frequently has John Fund on his show. Deborah Orin is a favorite guest. Do you want to get into counts of how many right-leaning vs. left-leaning guests Matthews has had on panels?

    >>

    I never said that Matthews was universally pro-GOP. Nor did I claim he was a conservative.

    I did say that he was prone to conservative spin, and had said numerous things against the Democrat Party and against liberals, and that he said on two occasions that he voted for Bush in 2000.

    He’s not a liberal.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Dave Nalle: “You don’t like Bush. The media is all right wing. We get it. Let’s hear something interesting.”

    You continue to misrperesent my blog. It’s so easy to try to discredit me with falsehoods, right?

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    >>I know Matthews is a Democrat, because he once discussed it, Dave says — ignoring the point I made about how Matthews started as a Demcorat, but, in my opinion, has moved steadily to the right since the 2000 president election. < <

    You see, here's exactly where you fall short in your analysis. You admit that Matthews has moved right - that's central to your thesis. Ok, why not consider WHY someone who is presumably intelligent and clearly not terribly easily swayed, has gradually moved to the right politically. IMO that's the issue here, not endless litanies of comments Matthews has made which you characterize as conservative.>>

    So you agree with me, Dave?

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Once again, I never suggest that Matthews ia conservative, or even a Republican. I merely said he was a faux liberal — someone who does not represent, nor advocate, liberal positions, but who because of his background, is called a liberal by conservatives.

    I know that’s a hard concept for the soundbite generation, but most of what Dave Nalle has written doesn’t really refute my point. It just simply attacks me personally — the weakest and most illogical form of debate.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Once again, I never suggest that Matthews ia conservative, or even a Republican. I merely said he was a faux liberal — someone who does not represent, nor advocate, liberal positions, but who because of his background, is called a liberal by conservatives. < <

    So what you're actually saying is that your definition of liberalism is the one true definition of liberalism and that his version of liberalism is evil and anathema and he should be cast out of the liberal club?

    Would it trouble you to know that I consider mysefl a liberal? Are you going to kick me out of the club?

    I'd be interested to hear what your definition of a liberal is. Does it have to do with what a person believes, or who he swears allegiance to? Is there room in it for people who share your beliefs, but place truth higher than ideology?

    >>I know that’s a hard concept for the soundbite generation, but most of what Dave Nalle has written doesn’t really refute my point. It just simply attacks me personally — the weakest and most illogical form of debate.<<

    I have not actually attacked you personally. I haven’t made one comment about anything except what you’ve written publicly. If you take criticism of your work and your public allegiances as a personal attack, then you might want to consider whether your beliefs come from reason or something more personal that makes it impossible for you to take criticism objectively.

    Dave

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    I’m sorry, Dave. When you lie about me, question my integrity, and say that all I do is hate, I consider that a personal attack.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    Dave and David, both of you go to your rooms. No supper for either of you.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    (from my room, shouting)

    When did I lie about you, David? If you’re going to call me a liar you need to back it up. And none of this weak opinion posing as fact you use in your typical comments.

    Dave

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    You say I hate Bush. Wrong. And I’ve corrected you on this before.

    My blog is not anti-Bush. It’s anti-Bush spin. There’s a distinction. My blog is designed, primarily, to find examples of conservative spin being treated as fact. Secondarily, I have written about Bush propaganda efforts (undocumented VNRs, paid reporters, etc.) as well as flip-flops by the administration, and in-fighting among Republicans (or, put another way, steps taken by some Republicans to distance themselves from administration spin.) You may not believe, or agree, with the premise. But it’s not a hate blog.

    A “hate Bush” blog, in my opinion, is one that writes about hating Bush, or making fun of Bush’s intelligence or speech patterns, or the Bush twins, or what have you, with no news peg, no attribution, no effort to contribute to anyone’s knowledge on the issues of the day.

    I find stories from the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, PR Week and O’Dwyer’s PR Daily, as well as work with transcripts from various television talk shows (i.e. Hardball, Meet the Press) and transcripts of government hearings, White House press conferences, Bush’s weekly radio addresses and other speeches, and look for things that fit the profile of the blog.

    ***

    You say that I believe the media is all right wing. Wrong. And I’ve corrected you on this before.

    One of my blog’s purposes, again, is to find examples of conservative spin being treated as fact by the mainstream media, or by the night-time cable talk shows.

    You have a whole slew of people — I’m guessing yourself included — who believe the media is universally liberal. I don’t agree. I think there are liberal and conservative reporters at the NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post, for example, and I have provided examples to back that point up.

    ***

    So, when you make a baseless claim and I say, “No, Dave, you’re wrong, and here’s why,” and then you repeat the claim over and over, you’re spinning. It fits your argument better to discredit me. I get it.

    Again, you struggle to actual refute anything that I say. You instead pick on my choice of stories, or you start trying to discredit me or my blog. You’re not the first person to do it. And I’m not going to just take it. You don’t scare me.

    But until you say, “And I go to conservative blogs all the time and tell them to also point out conservative hypocrisy.” Or, “I go to New York Yankees blogs and try to convince them to write flattering things about the Red Sox,” etc., then it’s pretty lopsided of you to say, “You’re blog is too liberal — you should attack liberals, too.”

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>You say I hate Bush. Wrong. And I’ve corrected you on this before. < <

    Your attacks on Bush are irrational and exceed the level to which it makes any sense to attack him. They appear to the reader to be generated by a desire to do harm rather than a desire to expose truth. The only conclusion which can be drawn from this is that they are motivated by emotion rather than reason - the likely emotion being hate.

    >>My blog is not anti-Bush. It’s anti-Bush spin. There’s a distinction.< <

    A semantic one. Plus the distinction of seeing statements of fact as spin.

    >> My blog is designed, primarily, to find examples of conservative spin being treated as fact. < <

    Which results in innocent expressions or interpretation of fact being labeled as spin solely on your say-so.

    >>Secondarily, I have written about Bush propaganda efforts (undocumented VNRs, paid reporters, etc.) as well as flip-flops by the administration, and in-fighting among Republicans (or, put another way, steps taken by some Republicans to distance themselves from administration spin.) You may not believe, or agree, with the premise. But it’s not a hate blog. < <

    It's counter-spin. You're trying to balance out perceived spin from the administration with spin of your own. Sometimes that may be justified. Clearly many times it is not. This is because you start from the assumption that the administration has an intent to deceive, which I don't believe has been proven. What makes it a hate-blog, IMO, is that you start from that assumption without considering the actions of the administration objectively. Your operating principle is that they are lying, so everything they say looks like a lie to you. That's not fair or rational.

    >>A “hate Bush” blog, in my opinion, is one that writes about hating Bush, or making fun of Bush’s intelligence or speech patterns, or the Bush twins, or what have you, with no news peg, no attribution, no effort to contribute to anyone’s knowledge on the issues of the day. < <

    So, you back up your spin with selected facts and that is an excellent way to disguise the fact that right down at the bottom you are basically just out to target the administration. That's fine, you have a right to do it, but don't try to tell us that you have some sort of pure motivation for it.

    >>I find stories from the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, PR Week and O’Dwyer’s PR Daily, as well as work with transcripts from various television talk shows (i.e. Hardball, Meet the Press) and transcripts of government hearings, White House press conferences, Bush’s weekly radio addresses and other speeches, and look for things that fit the profile of the blog. < <

    Translation: you cherry pick your facts and sources to make sure that you can eliminate anything positive coming out of the administration and focus only on those things which can be portrayed negatively.

    >>You say that I believe the media is all right wing. Wrong. And I’ve corrected you on this before. < <

    I only said this in the context of a dismissive remark regarding your MSNBC fantasy. I don't actually believe you think the media is right wing. I don't think you're stupid, just biased.

    >>One of my blog’s purposes, again, is to find examples of conservative spin being treated as fact by the mainstream media, or by the night-time cable talk shows. < <

    But the problem is that what you define as spin is merely one way of looking at fact. It does not change the actual facts. You can choose to call a given interpretation of the significance of an event, 'spin', but that's just a convenient negative label which you can use to make an attack. It doesn't mean anything or make the 'spin' incorrect.

    >>You have a whole slew of people — I’m guessing yourself included — who believe the media is universally liberal. I don’t agree. < <

    Neither do I. I think the media is overwhelmingly directly by the profit motive, although many individual reporters are liberals in their private lives. Regardless of that, they report the way they do largely because they think it will attract viewers, increase their Q-rating and make money for their employers.

    >>So, when you make a baseless claim and I say, “No, Dave, you’re wrong, and here’s why,” and then you repeat the claim over and over, you’re spinning. It fits your argument better to discredit me. I get it.< <

    No, clearly you don't. If I come back to you saying the same thing, that is because you didn't disprove what I said, you just denied it. You have a pattern of thinking that denying something is the same as proving it false.

    >>Again, you struggle to actual refute anything that I say. You instead pick on my choice of stories,< <

    Your choice of stories IS the refutation of your position. That's where your deception originates.

    >> or you start trying to discredit me or my blog. You’re not the first person to do it. And I’m not going to just take it. You don’t scare me. < <

    I'm not trying to scare you. Why would I want to do that. I'd just like to see if you are completely blinded by partisanship or can actually see the truth. I've asked you some questions in this thread which you've carefully ignored. You don't like being challenged on your beliefs and take it personally. I get it. But maybe you should consider that if you're so sensitive to criticism it might be because you feel that maybe you've let yourself go down a path where you're no better than the administration you're attacking.

    >>But until you say, “And I go to conservative blogs all the time and tell them to also point out conservative hypocrisy.” <<

    You’re clearly not at all familiar with my work here on BC or elsewhere. I’m against hypocrisy wherever I see it. I don’t like it when the administration lies, and I don’t like it when they’re lied about either.

    Dave

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    You guys should see a doctor. you seem to be suffering from Lastworditis. It’s a sad disease of the ego.

  • dee

    I am a moderate. I do not like Hilary either and often watch Matthews but not on the all the time. So, he doesn’t like Hilary. big deal. I don’t hate bush either. I hate his politics.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    There’s really not much more to be said on this topic. By know David should know where I stand and if he’s not interested in any self-examination, that’s his choice. I’ve got better things to do.

    Dave

  • http://elbichoshive.blogspot.com El Bicho

    “There’s really not much more to be said on this topic.”

    which is why you had to type one more post. Try Commenters Anonymous before someone takes your keyboard away.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    My last word is that I wish Dave would stop demanding that every debate be centered on my blog, and instead, if he chooses, look to poke holes in my specific articles. I don’t post here because I want to deal with Dave’s aggressive and pointed attacks on my blog.

    And sorry if I have lastworditis.

  • MCH

    “Matthews booted Michelle Malkin from his show for bringing up the possibility that some of his wounds were self-inflicted.”
    - R.J. (Bobby) Elliott

    Look, Bobby, the reason Matthews called Malkin on the “self-inflicted” accusation is because she was casting aspersions on a combat veteran, although never having served herself.

    It’s one thing for the Swiftboat vets to attack a fellow veteran – they earned that right by serving. But it’s an entirely different matter for a Chickenhawk (like Malkin, or Rush Limbaugh, or Bobby Elliott, etc) to pretend to know what combat is like and attempt to discredit the service of a decorated veteran.