Jump to content

Meet the Press


  • Please log in to reply

1019 replies to this topic

#781

theatresister

theatresister

    Channel Surfer

Posted Feb 15, 2010 @ 8:32 AM

I will continue to maintain that proceeding with a military tribunal assumes that KSM et.al. are part of some "military" and elevates them to a status that they don't deserve. Terrorists have been successfully tried in civilian court while only three have been convicted in a military tribunal, two of those now freed. The judge in the shoe-bomber trial recognized that these thugs did not qualify as enemy combatants and affirmed that the way Richard Reid was treated was a measure of our liberties. He refused to recognize this moron as a warrior.
Eric Holder has asserted that there is compelling evidence, that he cannot reveal, which will assure conviction. I do find it interesting that he has also hinted that if the seemingly impossible result of acquital occured that a judge could not compel the US justice system to free captors held overseas. So I guess in the event of an aquital KSM would be shipped off somewhere, and the problem would then revert to indefinite detention (which the Obama administration has not ended).
My other point would be a little visceral...I would rather these guys face ordinary citizens (not exactly a jury of their peers, since where would you find such a thing) and try to spout any kind of defense, than a formal tribunal of career military men.
I have no doubt that the tribunal has merits in some instances...but it seems too sterile a setting for these murdering thugs. In his remarks the judge at Richard Reid's trial related that the shoe-bomber asked his arresting officer where all the TV and camera people were...and the officer told him "You're no big deal"!!!! This sums up my belief...what these people believe and what they try to do IS a big deal...but THEY are not!!! We cannot allow them to change us!
  • 0

#782

horsefeathers

horsefeathers

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 15, 2010 @ 12:06 PM

Thanks to Rachel for calling out Congressboy for being a two-faced maroon.


She is such a pleasure to watch. She comes equipped with actual facts instead of talking points. MTP really missed the boat when they hired the Ken doll instead of Maddow.


Oh I totally agree. Gregory is such a snoozer - I don't even watch anymore, and just happened upon the round table yesterday when I was flipping channels. Rachel can tick off the facts like nobody's business. Why can't Gregory be prepared like that?

I really enjoy her taking the Republicans to task for opposing the Stimulus and then going to ribbon cutting ceremonies for its projects. Yes, I understand that it's your job to get everything you can for your district, I and I don't fault you for that. But it's abject hypocrisy to act like the Stimulus is the end of the world and then show up to bask in its glory. But of course, Gregory just let him spew out his talking points and then changed the topic of discussion. Why do they have to discuss all these things in a lightning round, without allowing enough time to have a substantive exchange on important topics. Oh, because they had to leave time to ask Harold Ford Jr. about his Merrill Lynch bonus - 3 or 4 times! Anyone notice how he did not answer the question about parental consent? Shady.
  • 0

#783

yosemite209

yosemite209

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 15, 2010 @ 2:59 PM

Rachel can tick off the facts like nobody's business. Why can't Gregory be prepared like that?

Because pandering to pols & spending hours in hair & makeup take up too much of his time to actually prepare.
  • 0

#784

Al Funcoot

Al Funcoot

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 15, 2010 @ 6:08 PM

Thanks to Rachel for calling out Congressboy for being a two-faced maroon.

She is such a pleasure to watch. She comes equipped with actual facts instead of talking points. MTP really missed the boat when they hired the Ken doll instead of Maddow.


It's clear that Maddow watches little of her competition (or, most likely, many of her colleagues' show) because she is so clearly not playing the game everyone else is. She's there to discuss the issues, not to play pundit boxing like everyone else.

That said, I see why they didn't give MTP to Maddow. Considering how many Republicans are so afraid of talking to her and won't appear on her show, MTP would struggle to find a mix of guests (then again, looking at the other Sunday shows, it wouldn't be so bad to see a show where the world doesn't revolve around the GOP's talking points).

MTP hosted by Maddow would be great but I think things need to change before that can happen, Rachel needs more time to get the media overall to see her not as some rabid partisan (of course there's a difference between having a POV and being partisan, Rachel doesn't change her opinions based on who they benefit).
  • 0

#785

dagny

dagny

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 16, 2010 @ 11:37 AM

That said, I see why they didn't give MTP to Maddow. Considering how many Republicans are so afraid of talking to her and won't appear on her show, MTP would struggle to find a mix of guests

Even as I cheered her taking down the baby congressman, I couldn't help but think that Rachel will have an even harder time getting Repubs on her show.
  • 0

#786

ThomasAAnderson

ThomasAAnderson

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 16, 2010 @ 12:47 PM

I thought Rachel was great but I was really pissed that Gregory kept interrupting her. It's really clear that he only has her on to get the ratings but is unwilling to let her express her opinions and those of every THINKING liberal/progressive/democrat in this country.
  • 0

#787

Eliot

Eliot

    Stalker

Posted Feb 17, 2010 @ 5:19 PM

That's because she makes him look bad and he knows it.
  • 0

#788

mumbles

mumbles

    Fanatic

Posted Mar 28, 2010 @ 11:24 AM

This show is so moldy. They could have had the same political roundtable ten years ago. Seriously, Shrum and Doris? Shrum's out of the business (and wasn't that successful when he was in it) and she's a (plagiarizing?) historian. Those two will be rolled out in wheelchairs if this show is still around in 30 years.

And seriously, producers - there are other women in the press besides Gwen Ifill, Andrea Mitchell, and Doris (who isn't really in the press). Find them!
  • 0

#789

attica finch

attica finch

    Stalker

Posted Mar 29, 2010 @ 12:03 PM

I watched yesterday's show, and it seemed like every topic was "X happened; what do Republicans think?" Now, I'm not suggesting that getting the minority party's opinion isn't a valid way to run a show, I'm suggesting that 1) It's as if the Republicans' POV is the only one that's interesting; 2) MTP never never framed issues like that when Dems were the minority party. Gregory misstated poll results with abandon, to boot.

They could have had the same political roundtable ten years ago.

And they did! (Okay, Meacham's a comparatively new player in town, but a White Male Publishing Titan? Not so new.)
  • 0

#790

samsnee

samsnee

    Stalker

Posted Apr 14, 2010 @ 10:51 PM

Man, Gregory is a douche.

[url="http://"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/arts/television/13politifact.html?scp=1&sq=david%20gregory%20politifact&st=cse"]Gregory says people can check their own facts[/url]

Critics say that kind of truth telling rarely happens on television. But David Gregory, the moderator of “Meet the Press” on NBC, said that accountability is “in the DNA” of his program. He said he had considered Mr. Rosen’s idea but concluded that people can fact check the program on their own online.


He can't even detect his own bullshit so I doubt it's in his DNA.
  • 0

#791

ColdLogic

ColdLogic

    Channel Surfer

Posted Apr 18, 2010 @ 5:23 PM

I suffered through today's show long enough before I had to turn it off. The way Gregory keeps interrupting guests mid-sentence just grates. If I wanted to see that, I would watch Chris Matthews (which I don't).

Also, I think it's better when the panel leaves out politicians. Then we get more constructive analysis and less talking points.
  • 0

#792

Eliot

Eliot

    Stalker

Posted May 16, 2010 @ 12:34 PM

And seriously, producers - there are other women in the press besides Gwen Ifill, Andrea Mitchell, and Doris (who isn't really in the press). Find them!


This morning they dusted off Peggy Noonan and rolled her out onto the set. I could barely see her through all the cobwebs on my screen.
  • 0

#793

CanuckDon

CanuckDon

    Video Archivist

Posted May 23, 2010 @ 10:44 AM

I guess there's nothing like refusing to do the show to convince Gregory to actually deliver a bitch-slap. And then he seemed to go off on Sestak, as well. Where'd this DG come from?
  • 0

#794

yosemite118

yosemite118

    Couch Potato

Posted May 23, 2010 @ 11:02 AM

he seemed to go off on Sestak, as well. Where'd this DG come from?

You know, I might have applauded Douchebag's actual brief foray into real journalism w/ Sestak, but what kept running thru my mind was how he only seems to do this w/ democrats. I've never seen him grill a republican like that. He needs to go after both parties like that, as both are filled with self-aggrandizing, lying windbags.

Rachel can tick off the facts like nobody's business. Why can't Gregory be prepared like that?

Because pandering to pols & spending hours in hair & makeup take up too much of his time to actually prepare.

Bwahahaha.

It's only funny because IT'S TRUE.
  • 0

#795

eurp

eurp

    Couch Potato

Posted May 23, 2010 @ 10:23 PM

I really expected Rachel on the show today as part of the roundtable to discuss Rand Paul. Maybe she had too many "facts" compared to the other panelists.
  • 0

#796

radicalmoderate

radicalmoderate

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 24, 2010 @ 1:44 PM

In other news, it's a year later and David Gregory still SUCKS. The first 15 minutes today when he was by himself was painful. I was so excited when a commercial interrupted. And his interview with Micheal Steele was particularly bad. I mean seriously I think Mika Brezinzski bad.

It got so much better when the roundtable commenced, why? Because Rachel was there.

I think it's terrible that they are desecrating the memory of Tim's many years of brilliant work by letting this go on.
  • 0

#797

chalkdust

chalkdust

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 24, 2010 @ 2:24 PM

David Brooks is a snot: "Democrats go to the Vineyard." As if he isn't more of an elitist than about 90% of the people who vote Democrat. Rick Santelli is a smug idiot - he said nothing of any worth or even any sense. Harold Ford, Jr. is a good-looking idiot who serves no one but himself: Chris Christie isn't that popular, and the idea that DEMOCRATS have to be more accommodating to Republicans is laughable. EJ Dionne is a little too caught up in media politics to address the actual situation. And I know why Rachel can't jump on the utter stupidity (on the PAC money issue and the idea that healthcare is increasingly unpopular, when it's actually GAINING popularity), because a woman can't speak without everyone insisting that she's dominating the conversation, when in fact it was Harold who was dominating. And I know someone's going to say "Oooh, three liberals to two conservatives," but (1) Harold doesn't count, and (2) the smug coming off Santelli and Brooks, to a lesser extent, sucked all the air out of the room. Rachel can be smug - it's not one of her better traits, but she's good at it. I kind of wish she'd unleashed a little of it here, but my more rational side says it's good she didn't.

And what IS the point of David Gregory? I wasn't a huge Tim Russert fan, and I think Chuck Todd has turned out to be a disaster equal to or sometimes greater than Gregory, but is it a requirement to be incompetent at your job now in the mainstream media?

I haven't watched in a while, and I think it's actually gotten worse. I would be happy to hear genuine debate, but too much of this was an utter waste of time.
  • 0

#798

tisha

tisha

    Couch Potato

Posted Nov 21, 2010 @ 5:46 PM

It's unbelievable to me that MTP had that lunatic, newly elected congressman Allen West on as a panelist today. He's in a position to offer commentary about politics today? I thought the panel on this show was supposed to be commentators and journalists, and instead we get someone like West, who was going to have a complete nut talk show host as his chief of staff.
  • 0

#799

wallybear

wallybear

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 23, 2010 @ 6:10 PM

And what IS the point of David Gregory? I wasn't a huge Tim Russert fan, and I think Chuck Todd has turned out to be a disaster equal to or sometimes greater than Gregory, but is it a requirement to be incompetent at your job now in the mainstream media?

Oh boy do ITA. IMO the only requirement for news reader- for there are only 3 or 4 real journalists left- is that they are pretty & can read a teleprompter. That is aptly displayed in the hiring of Gregory, who is horrible on MTP. I used to love the show, & haven't watched since about a month or two after he started.
  • 0

#800

yawningreyhound

yawningreyhound

    Channel Surfer

Posted Dec 19, 2010 @ 12:07 PM

Full disclosure: I'm a bleeding heart liberal social Democrat.

David Gregory, I believed, today was combative and disrespectful of the VP. If he would've treated Cheney like that, Cheney would've shot him. My problem with DG is that he's not equal in his treatment of the two parties. He's bootlicking to the Repubs for the most part and combative with the Dems.

He never talks about the obstructionist agenda of the Repubs, always criticizing the Dems for their caves but rarely illustrating the blockage of practically every item moved to the Senate for passage.

I believe he does the sports questions in a lame attempt to be Tim Russert whose passion he completely lacks for any sports. For anything, actually.

There, got that off my chest. I email the show weekly but does he change? No. (chuckle) Well, he did fix his hair which was nasty for a while. Hair schmair. Give me substance and honest journalism. If we can't get honest journalism on NBC, where else is it? Not that he lies, don't get me wrong, but in his attempt to be objective, he comes across ineffectual.
  • 0

#801

alexvillage

alexvillage

    Couch Potato

Posted Dec 19, 2010 @ 1:01 PM

David Gregory is a conservative who wants to look independent, is afraid of being labeled "liberal media host" and comes across as a know-nothing. All his questions are "gotcha" kind, he is always fishing for a soundbite and has very little knowledge of issues (he also thinks he is cute, which is so far from reality, imo). He keeps trying to "find his own voice" but he is really trying to be Russert, only he is not nearly as smart as Russert. Meet the Press became just another stupid, useless show

Edited by alexvillage, Dec 19, 2010 @ 1:01 PM.

  • 0

#802

yawningreyhound

yawningreyhound

    Channel Surfer

Posted Dec 19, 2010 @ 5:25 PM

. . . (he also thinks he is cute . . .


True that! When he does the Grinch Who Stole Xmas smile that comes across as a smirk, I just want to hold a mirror up to him!
  • 0

#803

wallybear

wallybear

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 30, 2011 @ 11:13 AM

Gregory is such a tool I just can't stand it. I never watch MTP anymore, but I saw that Sec. of State Clinton was going to be on this morning, & I wanted to hear what she had to say about what's happening in Egypt. Gregory kept asking leading questions, & finally HRC said, "Look, I'm not going to let you put words in my mouth, David." LOVED IT! He was like a puppy w/ his tail between his legs; he asked one more quick question & then it was over.

David Gregory is a conservative who wants to look independent, is afraid of being labeled "liberal media host" and comes across as a know-nothing. All his questions are "gotcha" kind, he is always fishing for a soundbite and has very little knowledge of issues

All so true. After HRC, he had Senator Mitch McConnell on, & it was a lovefest. There is zero objectivity in Gregory.

If we can't get honest journalism on NBC, where else is it? Not that he lies, don't get me wrong, but in his attempt to be objective, he comes across ineffectual.

I switched to ABC's This Week about a month after Gregory took over MTP. This Week is so much better. Stephanopolous was outstanding as the anchor, & I also really like Christianne Amanpour. She is a REAL journalist. She never tries to put words in people's mouths, she asks a question, LISTENS to the answer & then follows up, she's never preening for the camera or making stupid, snide remarks trying to look hip. This Week is so much better than MTP, & after watching MTP today, it reminded me why I switched to This Week. Gregory sucks big time.
  • 0

#804

jjj

jjj

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 30, 2011 @ 11:46 AM

Thanks for the report, wallybear -- I will catch MTP on one of the repeats. I also don't watch it anymore, but will happily tune in for a good Hillary smackdown.
  • 0

#805

NancyEss

NancyEss

    Couch Potato

Posted Aug 8, 2011 @ 8:11 AM

No comments since January? Not necessarily surprised, since I hardly ever watch anymore due to David Gregory. Anyway, tuned in this weekend because I wanted to hear what Rachel Maddow had to say. My candidate(s) for MVP is/are the cameraperson/director who caught/showed Austan Goolsbee's reaction shots whenever Alan Greenspan was speaking. Goolsbee's efforts to suppress smirks & jaw-dropping were priceless. I wish him great success in his post-government life. Like Jon Stewart said, he seems positively giddy to get out of Washington.
  • 0

#806

Jessie Q

Jessie Q

    Couch Potato

Posted Mar 6, 2012 @ 10:17 PM

Eric Cantor on 4/4/12

My 12-year-old brain will not stop giggling at this!
  • 0

#807

babypinkfish

babypinkfish

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Apr 1, 2012 @ 9:46 AM

WHAT?!?!? MTP hosted by Joe Scarborough??? Oh, it gets worse - MIKA IS THERE TOO!!!
  • 2

#808

shabbieshok

shabbieshok

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 1, 2012 @ 2:58 PM

Really? I usually catch MTP in a later rerun if at all but thanks for the heads up about MJ and Mika. Ick. For sure I'll make sure to skip it this week, although really, they couldn't be much worse than David Gregory.
  • 0

#809

diydude

diydude

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 1, 2012 @ 5:16 PM

Definitely a skip, this week. Are those two joined at the hip? He needs Mommy there to hold his hand?
  • 0

#810

dagny

dagny

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 16, 2012 @ 10:33 AM

So, let's see, a discussion on the gender wars with pretty boy, three other guys and the token female. Yep, that sounds about right.
  • 0