McCain Cancels Larry King Interview because Campbell Brown spanked his buttboy

Ah, the good old ‘liberal media’ lie. Hey, if neocons keep shouting it, well, it still won’t be true but it’ll keep the rubes pumped up.

Since when did the press have to give an ineffective spokesperson a free pass? The asswipe wasn’t even remotely competent in finessing the interview. She asks a direct question, he responds with a totally unrelated ‘talking point’. It’s the oldest trick in the book–except Brown’s wasn’t a trick question. If McCain’s entourage hadn’t cooked up an answer to the inevitable, then sucks to be them. It just made them look stupider.

Hey, McCain picked Creationist Barbie, former mayor of Mayberry and Governor for 2 years of a scantly populated state. Gee, y’think they might get asked, “Is she the best qualified”? The question wasn’t just obvious; it was fuckin’ inevitable. Buttboy was both unprepared and clumsy.

Obama’s coverage has been more positive because he hasn’t run his campaign as a freakshow. Frankly it’s tended toward being boring. Good old–and I mean old–McCain couldn’t have made a more over the top, tacky, ridiculous, soap opera choice for Veep short of…well, maybe digging up Reagan’s corpse and propping it in the corner like that Puerto Rican gang banger.

God, I’m sick of the board timing out. Third try…

Ah, the good old ‘liberal media’ lie. Hey, if neocons keep shouting it, well, it still won’t be true but it’ll keep the rubes pumped up.

Since when did the press have to give an ineffective spokesperson a free pass? The asswipe wasn’t even remotely competent in finessing the interview. She asks a direct question, he responds with a totally unrelated ‘talking point’. It’s the oldest trick in the book–except Brown’s wasn’t a trick question. If McCain’s entourage hadn’t cooked up an answer to the inevitable, then sucks to be them. It just made them look stupider.

Hey, McCain picked Creationist Barbie, former mayor of Mayberry and Governor for 2 years of a scantly populated state. Gee, y’think they might get asked, “Is she the best qualified”? The question wasn’t just obvious; it was fuckin’ inevitable. Buttboy was both unprepared and clumsy.

Obama’s coverage has been more positive because he hasn’t run his campaign as a freakshow. Frankly it’s tended toward being boring. Good old–and I mean old–McCain couldn’t have made a more over the top, tacky, ridiculous, soap opera choice for Veep short of…well, maybe digging up Reagan’s corpse and propping it in the corner like that Puerto Rican gang banger.

I take it this little tantrum means you’re out of cogent argument and are basically conceding the point while trying to keep up the illusion of holding the higher ground. Yes, no?

Fuck. There was five minutes between those last two posting attempts. And I checked, just to make sure, right before the last one.

Sorry for the duplication, guys.

So, you’re saying that there wasn’t any tabloid journalism before 2000? I’ve got a fellow here, name of Hearst, who would like to rebut that.

It’s part of the garbage tabloid media. It doesn’t even have the credibility of Rolling Stone or Entertainment Weekly. You know it and I know it. Your cite is crap.

And on the steady drip drip drip taking it’s toll on the voters, I guess that explains the last sixteen years of liberal dominance.

I wouldn’t worry about it, TVeblen. I, for one, thought it was good enough to read twice…

So, we can keep quiet and allow the media to be smeared and discredited with bullshit accusations of bias, or stand up against it and be whinging.

Interesting choice.

More assumptions. You should give it up. You’re really bad at it.

And there’s no illusion of who holds the higher ground here. I’ll give you a hint. It’s not the one pretending that a tabloid rag has a shred of credibility.

I didn’t say it had credibility, I said it has impact.

Without credibility, there is no impact.

In fairness to SA, since his argument appears to be that the tabloid media has it out for McCain, citing a tabloid magazine is entirely apt. I think his argument is more vulnerable on the other end, when he tries to expand “tabloid” to cover the whole of the news industry.

Dude, two words: Rush Limbaugh.

But that isn’t what they’re doing. Instead, it’s ‘OMG! Her 17-year-old daughter is *PREGNANT!!! *What a family-values hypocrite!!! And how could she accept the nomination knowing that the (innocent and blameless) media will descend upon her and her daughter like a pack of wolves??? What kind of mother is she, anyway???’

And where was all this tough make-'em-answer journalism during the Democratic primary? I don’t recall a single instance of Hillary or Obama’s feet being held to the fire when they gave an answer having nothing to do with the question that was asked, even during the debates. But when it comes to McCain and his minions, it’s shut up and answer what I just asked (even if it’s wrong, as it apparently was regarding Palin’s authority re the National Guard).

Much like US Weekly, Rush Limbaugh only has credibilty to those who give it to him. Those people are already on his side.

I’ve a pretty negative opinion of the American populace due to the fact that TMZ has a show, but I’m still gonna hope that people aren’t forming their political opinions based on a magazine whose last issue focused on Jennifer Love Hewitt’s weight loss.

For what it’s worth, I thought she looked better with the booty. Still love her though.

I’m not so much trying to expand tabloid to cover the whole of the news industry as I am using it to illustrate the deliberate political bias that permeates virtually the entire news business, sans Fox and Limbaugh of course. Sort of an exaggeration that proves the rule, so to speak.

Precisely.

And thanks. Your intellectual honesty is refreshing as always.

Now that I’ve thought about it even more, Rush Limbaugh is a lousy comparison. At least he talks about politics on a daily basis. US Weekly? Not so much. Talking about the candidates home lives is about as far into the deep end of the pool as they get.

You did see the interview that prompted this thread, right? It was about foreign policy experience. And that’s a topic that the Republicans introduced into this campaign.

Okay, I guess you did see it.

Is he still ignoring me? This is fun.

Lord almighty I’ll bet he stinks!
Love the US cover, btw. I won’t buy it, but I’ll make sure the copies are in the front when I go through the checkout line.

Not really. It’s Miller’s poolboy, Hearst McGowin. He earns extra money as a refuter.

And why exclude Fox and Limbaugh (and O’Reilly and Hannity and the the Wall street Journal and the Washington Times and all the other outlets or sources of Right wing bias)? Just because their blatant bias leans in your direction? What have the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, or CBS actually said about Palin or her family? If your only basis for claiming widespread bias permeating the “mainstream media” is a single issue of a single celebrity scandal rag treating the Palin family as celebrities, then your argument is utterly silly.