Jump to content

The MSM Embarrassment that is Chuck Todd

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
Posted (edited)

473ADDF9-4B2D-4867-88CE-213C9FC2109E_zps

Starting this this thread because I want a repository of Chuck Todd’s bullshit which will no doubt be cranked up to 11 as we get closer to the election. 

Disclaimer:  This is a article has a misleading headline because Todd didn’t explicitly blame Obama.  Still douchebagish. Judge for yourself.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/03/chuck-todd-blames-obama-americas-division-couldnt-bring-country-together/

NBC host Chuck Todd suggested on Sunday that the U.S. is divided politically because former President Barack Obama failed to “bring this country together.”

While speaking with Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke on Meet the Press, Todd asked the 2020 contender about healing the country’s political divide.

“You aren’t the first candidate to say, ‘I’m going to bring this country together,'” Todd told O’Rourke. “The most recent Democratic president, a lot of people put their hope in him and thought he was the answer that was going to do that.”

“Why do you think that didn’t happen in Obama’s eight years?” the NBC host queried.

“I know that President Obama worked incredibly hard to find common ground with Republicans,” O’Rourke replied. “He was able to achieve a heck of a lot in those eight years.”

 

Dear Chuck, fuck you, you lazy POS.  You know precisely why Obama was unable to “bring the country together” and it has everything to do with the racism in the Tea Party/GOP Fox News Trump birtherism bullshit plus Mitch McConnell refusing to work together. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Like 3
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 18987

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Dear Chuck, fuck you, you lazy POS.  You know precisely why Obama was unable to “bring the country together” and it has everything to do with the racism in the Tea Party/GOP Fox News Trump birtherism bullshit plus Mitch McConnell refusing to work together. 

That "I'm rubber and you're glue" bullshit that Trump rolled out in the debates is popular with stupid, lazy people.  No wonder he likes it.  Count me as happy he's pretty lazy.

 

(Edit: you forgot "on the NRA payroll."  Mitch is a donor lapdog).

Edited by Bullneck
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4044

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

473ADDF9-4B2D-4867-88CE-213C9FC2109E_zps

Starting this this thread because I want a repository of Chuck Todd’s bullshit which will no doubt be cranked up to 11 as we get closer to the election. 

Chuck Todd blames Obama for America’s division: Why couldn’t he ‘bring this country together’?

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/03/chuck-todd-blames-obama-americas-division-couldnt-bring-country-together/

NBC host Chuck Todd suggested on Sunday that the U.S. is divided politically because former President Barack Obama failed to “bring this country together.”

While speaking with Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke on Meet the Press, Todd asked the 2020 contender about healing the country’s political divide.

“You aren’t the first candidate to say, ‘I’m going to bring this country together,'” Todd told O’Rourke. “The most recent Democratic president, a lot of people put their hope in him and thought he was the answer that was going to do that.”

“Why do you think that didn’t happen in Obama’s eight years?” the NBC host queried.

“I know that President Obama worked incredibly hard to find common ground with Republicans,” O’Rourke replied. “He was able to achieve a heck of a lot in those eight years.”

 

Dear Chuck, fuck you, you lazy POS.  You know precisely why Obama was unable to “bring the country together” and it has everything to do with the racism in the Tea Party/GOP Fox News Trump birtherism bullshit plus Mitch McConnell refusing to work together. 

I would go further to suggest that it's either delusion or arrogance on his part to assume that one guy, let alone a politician, could "bring this country together." That's just super-hero worship and it has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I watched that interview. He didn't blame Obama for anything.

No, he carefully phrased the question to suggest it was Obama’s responsibility to bring the country together and he wasn’t successful. 

It’s a distinction without a difference and a Fox Newish trolling gotcha question. 

He could have just asked, “why is this country so divided?” which is still lazy but doesn’t implicitly blame Obama.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18657

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

No, he carefully phrased the question to suggest it was Obama’s responsibility to bring the country together and he wasn’t successful. 

It’s a distinction without a difference and a Fox Newish trolling gotcha question. 

He didn't do that, either. He pointed out that Obama campaigned on bringing the country together, which he did. He phrased the question to suggest that the country had not come together under Obama's leadership, which is up for debate I suppose, but he certainly didn't lay blame for that at the feet of the former president. It was more along the lines of a campaign aspiration that went unfulfilled.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He didn't do that, either. He pointed out that Obama campaigned on bringing the country together, which he did. He phrased the question to suggest that the country had not come together under Obama's leadership, which is up for debate I suppose, but he certainly didn't lay blame for that at the feet of the former president. It was more along the lines of a campaign aspiration that went unfulfilled.

Dude, the video is in the link and the quote is in the OP.  Beto’s answer of “I know that President Obama worked incredibly hard to find common ground with Republicans,” kinda says it all but gaslight away.

23 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

“You aren’t the first candidate to say, ‘I’m going to bring this country together,'” Todd told O’Rourke. “The most recent Democratic president, a lot of people put their hope in him and thought he was the answer that was going to do that.”

“Why do you think that didn’t happen in Obama’s eight years?” the NBC host queried.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11217

Posted
Posted (edited)

He didn't blame Obama...if anything, I thought he was leading Beto to blame the GOP obstruction.

Editor's Note:. I think Chuck Todd as a terrible journalist...he rolls over too easy...and shouldn't have his own show, but that's a different matter.

Edited by DixonHur
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

He didn't blame Obama...if anything, I thought he was leading Beto to blame the GOP obstruction.

Okay, the headline to the article is somewhat misleading (edited in the OP with a disclaimer) because Todd didn’t explicitly blame Obama but the implication is there.

You’re right about it being a leading question to bait Beto to attack the Republicans though... which is also bush league IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
  • Author
Posted

96FC00CD-1C41-4A64-B6C6-A41F79254C03_zps

https://archives.cjr.org/review/chuck_todds_obama_book_says_mo.php

But far too often, Todd falls back on lazy, a-pox-on-both-houses thinking. He lambasts the GOP for its obduracy but upbraids Obama for not trying harder to win Republicans over anyway—this despite Todd’s own observation that Republicans had “perfected” the strategy of total obstruction, and that Republicans had come to see opposing Obama as a simple matter of “self-interest.”

So why advise Obama to keep ramming into the wall of obstruction again and again? Here another Beltway obsession rears its head: optics. Todd reasons that “you always want to be the one that ‘gets caught trying’ ” (never mind the result). The fixation with optics also comes through in Todd’s discussion of Obama’s policies. On a range of issues, from the stimulus to healthcare reform to Syria, Todd weighs in on how the process looked, while devoting barely a second’s thought to the policy’s merits. Near the end, Todd sums up thusly: “In the Obama era and for the presidents after him, style points would take on greater weight than ever, both at home and abroad.” It’s an observation that doubles as self-justification.

[snip]

Indeed, near the end of The Stranger, Todd notes that Obama “shoulders some of the blame” for gridlock by not trying hard enough to play the Washington game. The president is just “wired differently,” Todd writes, “he believes the rational should overcome the superficial.” That such a trait can be cast as Obama’s crucial flaw says much about Todd, the press, and the sad state of our politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11555

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Brandywine said:

Well, I still blame MSNBC (Mika and Joe specifically) and CNN for the 24 hour Trump lovefest coverage that got him elected.

Lovefest?  Really?  

You can go with no press is bad press, but your honesty going to claim MSNBC and CNBC had a “lovefest” for Trump?  Jesus.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18657

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Oh yeah.  Minka, Joe and the crew spent all of 16 swinging from Trumps balls.

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/joe-trump-has-decided-to-throw-this-election-706650179834

not sure what kind of psychosis this claim is based in but, HOOOOLLY SHIT.

You really don't understand how that doesn't prove what you think it does, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hornius Emeritus

Hornius Emeritus 12419

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, hpslugga said:

I would go further to suggest that it's either delusion or arrogance on his part to assume that one guy, let alone a politician, could "bring this country together." That's just super-hero worship and it has absolutely nothing to do with reality.


Perhaps, but  Chuck is correct in saying that Obama didn't bring the nation together.  We could talk about the reasons for that or whether it's even possible for one man to do it, but Chuck's right in saying that Obama did NOT do it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted

In the search for truth, I'm not going to waste time about whether I like a particular talking head or not. 

Need to think for a few minutes about whether critiquing this guy (who I recognize but just as another talking head who could be on any cable network) actually is time well spent. 

Is the guy spreading deliberate factual falsehoods and is thus a disservice to the job of media or media entertainment?  Don't watch him.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

In the search for truth, I'm not going to waste time about whether I like a particular talking head or not. 

Need to think for a few minutes about whether critiquing this guy (who I recognize but just as another talking head who could be on any cable network) actually is time well spent. 

Is the guy spreading deliberate factual falsehoods and is thus a disservice to the job of media or media entertainment?  Don't watch him.

Chuck Todd has one of the most powerful and influential platforms in this country.  He is not beyond reproach.  Not calling out his bullshit just gives him permission to keep being shitty.  America deserves better.

 

 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13302

Posted
Posted

In the most astonishing political climate in American history, Chuck Todd will have done nothing memorable when it's over. We'll just remember how hard he tried to force a pragmatic persona. He's a useless lump of hair dye whose first concern is himself. Almost impossible to remember that Tim Russert once sat in that chair. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13302

Posted
Posted

Journalist Jeremy Scahill has never made another appearance on MSNBC after correctly contradicting Chuck Todd on a basic fact about Obama's drone program. He hurt Todd's feelings by being right and it got him banned. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29253

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Chooky said:

In the most astonishing political climate in American history, Chuck Todd will have done nothing memorable when it's over. We'll just remember how hard he tried to force a pragmatic persona. He's a useless lump of hair dye whose first concern is himself. Almost impossible to remember that Tim Russert once sat in that chair. 

I liked this post before I got to the positive line on Russert. He was essentially the exact same. Had he been better, someone else would've hosted the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Chuck Todd has one of the most powerful and influential platforms in this country.  He is not beyond reproach.  Not calling out his bullshit just gives him permission to keep being shitty.  America deserves better.

Actually, in our current media platform environment, calling his bullshit just gives him more attention, and probably indirectly encourages him to be shitty.

Ignoring someone -- choosing the news/opinion you want to consume -- is the only weapon/vote you really have.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PsychMike

PsychMike 1539

Posted
Posted

Apparently I sat next to Chuck Todd at breakfast last week at the Park Hyatt in DC. I didn't know it until some Asian dude came up to him requesting a picture with him. He said he was a big fan. Wish I would've known, I would have given him a piece of my mind.

Not so cool story bro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4044

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Perhaps, but  Chuck is correct in saying that Obama didn't bring the nation together.  We could talk about the reasons for that or whether it's even possible for one man to do it, but Chuck's right in saying that Obama did NOT do it. 

What value does the statement have? I'm being serious, because other than "unrealistic expectations," I see no reason to even make such a ridiculous statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
  • Author
Posted
16 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Actually, in our current media platform environment, calling his bullshit just gives him more attention, and probably indirectly encourages him to be shitty.

Ignoring someone -- choosing the news/opinion you want to consume -- is the only weapon/vote you really have.

Yeah no, we all share the same space and society.  Choosing to ignore voices you don’t like is precisely why we’re in this mess.  A society that doesn’t work together and hold itself accountable when things aren’t working is fundamentally broken.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4044

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I liked this post before I got to the positive line on Russert. He was essentially the exact same. Had he been better, someone else would've hosted the show.

I'm with this, too. Russert was Exhibit A of commentators pretending that the United States government represented the very center of the political spectrum, and that the Democrats and Republicans were equally apart from that center in opposite directions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hornius Emeritus

Hornius Emeritus 12419

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

What value does the statement have? I'm being serious, because other than "unrealistic expectations," I see no reason to even make such a ridiculous statement.

 

If having value is a prerequisite for making a statement, 98% of TV pundits are going to have to turn in their punditry cards.  I fail to see what makes the lack of value of Chuck Todd's statement  any more comment worthy than 98% of the punditry on TV. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Did Chuck or Frank bother to mention on air that Pres. Obama had the benefit of a Democratically controlled Congress for 50% of his two terms?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11555

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

 

Proving what, exactly?  Joe kept that "admission" quiet? 

Do you honestly think it would be earth shattering news to anyone that he didn't really believe birther stuff.  It is exceedingly clear Trump lies.  Joe Scarbourogh breaking version 698 of that story does what?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bat Guano

Bat Guano 359

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I liked this post before I got to the positive line on Russert. He was essentially the exact same. Had he been better, someone else would've hosted the show.

At least Russert asked followup questions when he got the bullshit talking points. He'd ask the same question 3 or 4 times until he got an answer. Todd doesn't do followups, at all; he lets the bullshit stand. Russert was far and away superior; of course, that's not saying much - they were both Sunday morning chat show hosts, which is one small step above pond scum - but in that context, Todd couldn't carry Russert's jockstrap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah no, we all share the same space and society.  Choosing to ignore voices you don’t like is precisely why we’re in this mess.  A society that doesn’t work together and hold itself accountable when things aren’t working is fundamentally broken.  

I think that is absolutely wrong.  We are in this mess because we ignored intelligent voices and were stupid in who we put up for candidates for offices.  On both sides.

I really needed to sit around and pontificate about how bad Alex Jones is?  No, I do a better services by not acknowledging the guys existence.

As to someone who is a bad mainstream news anchor or talking head, I do best by watching someone who is better and ignoring this guy.

I shouldn't ignore authoritarians and bullies.  Spending my time on social critics is a waste of energy and a dereliction of my duties as a citizen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Fozzz said:

Over the full campaign, the press actually treated Trump more positively than Hilldawg.

C02ZA5aW8AAIIW6.jpg:large

https://shorensteincenter.org/research-media-coverage-2016-election/

Because the press wanted Trump to win the Republican Primary because they thought he would be the easiest candidate for Hillary to beat.  Remember we are talking about that point in ancient history when the media hated anyone with the last name of Bush or a Republican that already held  political office more than they did Trump.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...