I'll be on Fox News around 1:30 PM to talk about the Democratic primary and how the party's so torn that the country will decide that four more years of war, recession, and tax cuts for the rich are the way to go.
« Time to Get Mad | Main | Supply and Demand »
Matt Sells Out
10 May 2008 08:47 am
Comments (40)
MY's been training in psych-ops?
Don't you mean "Faux News"? ...am I right guys?
If the Republicans had any sense of fair play they'd have spotted the Democrats 20 points by nominating Karl Rove.
The Dems need 63% of pledged delegates to nominate without the superdelegates. (Rounding up 50/80, how you get to just over 50% using only 80% of the delegates.) It's a stupid system, and anyone trailing someone with 60% of the vote could make the honest observation "neither of us can make it without superdelegates" and the dishonest observation "so this is a virtual tie." The presence of so many supers guarantees that the process will drag on interminably in any close race.
I'd also observe that the party can't pull together by winning over Hillary supporters until either Hillary admits she's lost, and drops out, or the bulk of her remaining supporters admit she's lost, go through a couple weeks of mourning, and then are ready to take a look. Wooing them while Hillary's still saying "don't leave me, I can do this" seems disrespectful, as Obama and McCaskill and others have implied.
So, you're John McCain's own mini-me?
I'm all for wars, recession, and tax cuts for the rich, but I want some Schiavo-style life-saving thrown in too, dammit!
I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party myself.
(So, for the third time since I have been eligible to vote in a Presidential election, I am not voting for the Republican, despite being a die-hard right winger).
In your appearance, will you be as scruffy, scruffier, or not as scruffy as you usually are on your bloggingheads appearances?
Those Fox News folk can smell a hipster a mile away. You better clean up.
Hope you are doing this for free because taking Rupert Murdoch's money is taking the blood money that propagandized us into a stupid war in Iraq and is propagandizing us into a war with Iran.
But I bet the money that Fox earned urging the American public that ragheads must die will buy a bunch of cool PS3 and Wii games.
I hope you plan on using public transportation to get there, or better yet, ride your bike. High carbon emissions in the service of Roger Ailes profits would make you a sell out and a hypocrite.
Don't forget accountability! And brush your hair!
You really shouldn't behave as though it's a news network.
Show up naked.
The American people demand to hear more about Pastor Wright, flag pins and some with a creepy name of "Rezzzko" who sounds like a terrist.
Please do not discuss the war, the economy, health care, climate change or any other silly issues.
Thank you in advance.
-- Roger Ailes, The Fat F@#k of Fox
I feel as though I should ask the obvious question, while not asked here, may have been asked and answered in a much earlier blog post: Why?
Make sure to adjust your pop culture references from Tony Stark to Tony Bennett. Fox viewers think Iron Man is a multivitamin.
And use plenty of lube.
Here's the question: how many references to HITS will Matthew be able to get into one Fox News segment? I think Matthew should try to get a HITS reference into every answer he gives.
At the very least, make sure they introduce you as "Matthew Yglesias, associate editor of The Atlantic, author of the new book Heads in the Sand, and blogger with the best comments section in the world." That last part is crucial.
Speak slowly and don't use any big words.
joejoejoe -
That was f'in' funny. Thank you for that.
If Matt really believes what he, and many others, claim, why go on? If it's a propaganda-spewing, radical, "fake" news station, why would you ever make an appearance, since actual dialog and sensible debate are impossible?
Either Matt's flat out lying, or perhaps it's not as evil and wicked as he thinks. I wouldn't go on a station I thought was in the pocket of people I claimed were evil.
Matt, you're not selling out by appearing on FoxNews. You're selling out for supporting the same guy Edwards voted for, which makes you a trust fund scumbag.
If you catch O'Reilly eating babies backstage, try not to stare. If you look him in the eye while he's feeding, he will think you're challenging him for dominance.
Am I the only one surprised to hear that Matt's just selling out now? Did I jump the gun, or is he the last to know?
Matt - 1) Why? 2) Please don't listen to the people telling you to clean up & be groomed. That's showing way too much respect. I recommend boxers, an "impeach the Chimp" T-shirt, and no deodorant.
Steve Duncan:
No, that would be Lindsey Graham(R-SC).
Oops I see Luke already more or less made that joke. My apologies.
Kalkin:
I have an even better suggestion. The t-shirt should say "Chimpeach". Someone actually took the time to graffiti a bridge with that near the train tracks leading west out of Philadelphia. I wonder if Don Williams has seen it.
This is a fantastic thread. I vote "Typical Kossack" as the winner.
jeez.... unless you'll be inserting comments about how faux is simply the megaphone for rnc talking points at every oppurtunity, i really wish you wouldn't.
I thinks Matt's book is tanking. He has to do something.
I thinks Matt's book is tanking. He has to do something.
Well, not really. Part of my job at the Atlantic is to accept reasonable invitations to do broadcast media. It's good publicity for the site and for the magazine, and this particular Saturday afternoon show has always treated me well enough and let's me speak my mind. If they do ever get sick of my liberal ways, that would be good for me since it's a little annoying to make weekend TV appearances.
Credit where due: you looked very natty - and your comments were clearly, smoothly spoken, and nicely liberal.
Good show.
how the party's so torn that the country will decide that four more years of war, recession, and tax cuts for the rich are the way to go
Do you really believe this? Is the long nomination battle actually bad for Democrats? Clinton's attacks on Obama aren't any worse than those the McCain campaign will devise. People seem to be thinking that the Republicans wouldn't have brought up bitter-gate and pastor-gate. That's delusional. Hard as it may be to imagine, the McCain presidential campaign will be better-funded, harder-working, and more ruthless than the Clinton campaign. Also, it won't have Mark Penn in its employ.
As far as I can tell, Clinton's attacks are benefiting Obama in the long run. They are preparing him for what's to come in the summer and autumn. These early attacks may even prove to be a kind of vaccination against further attacks. What doesn't kill him will have made him stronger.
Also, as Karl Rove has pointed out, for the last two or three months, the Democratic nomination has dominated the news. McCain probably has gotten maybe a third of the political headlines.
Matt: "how the party's so torn that the country will decide that four more years of war, recession, and tax cuts for the rich are the way to go."
He actually has this right. Because Clinton is going to fight all the way to the convention and then beyond with lawsuits in an attempt to guarantee that Obama loses the election.
Worse, Bush and Cheney are going to attack Iran, and Obama will be unable to distinguish his own position on Iran from McCain's (which should be easy, but not when you're on record as saying "Iran is a threat", which Obama has said), thus allowing McCain the "war hero" to get a "war bounce."
So, yes, the Dems are going to lose the election AGAIN. And the result will be TEN more years or war, recession, and oil companies and the military-industrial complex getting richer while everyone else gets poorer.
Humans ALWAYS - ALWAYS - make the wrong decision.
Dan Kervick: I thinks Matt's book is tanking. He has to do something."
Hard for it not to tank when 1) it's obviously lame, 2) it's late to the game since the topics have been hashed over by twenty other books since 2003, and 3) most of the production run has been sent to Pyongyang, North Korea.
Matt: "If they do ever get sick of my liberal ways, that would be good for me since it's a little annoying to make weekend TV appearances."
See, here we go. Matt's too damn lazy to even hawk his own book except by blogging about it.
When Sarah told Reese to get some rest after being wounded by Vic the Terminator, Reese said, "They never rest."
Neither do the neocons, Matt. So get cracking. Get out of your computer chair and take a walk. Get some exercise. Drum up some energy. Then go prostrate yourself on Fox News. That'll work.
I hope for Matt's sake his book sells, so he can get the big bucks to write another one, but I can't imagine reading a book that is essentially one long op/ed, because a book lacks the timeliness of an op/ed. I got a free copy of Fouad Ajami's book on Iraq and although I agree with his opinions more than Matt's, and Ajami is on a whole different plane when it comes to writing ability (no offense, Matt), I didn't read it. I'll read his op/eds, because they are timely, but by the time he sweeps them up into a book, they're not.
As for Matt going on Fox: I have no problem with him going on the channel, but it doesn't make sense for him to do so and demonize it at the same time.
RSH: Look, we get that you think you're an on the edge "Transumanist". Overquoting from a TV show about a superhuman sexy cyborg goes from self-parody to self-pantomime.
You're right, El Cid.
But I will of course continue to do so whenever I can use such a quote to make a point - especially one which is more of a joke than a point, anyway.
Or did you really think I was urging Matt to get up the energy to promote his book?
I mean, really? Like I care about Matt's book?
As an aside, however, since the show is on hiatus between now and the fall, its fans have to drum up interest so the fall debut doesn't tank in the ratings. Gotta get through that second season so we can have a third. And this is a tough show to follow since it has a season-long set of plot lines and a lot of complicated plots and clues.
Matt ignored the show after the first episode, saying it "sucked". That was a mistake, because the show got much better. The first episode was mostly a rehash of the basic concept from "Terminator 2" to introduce the show to the audience. The serious redirection didn't take off until episode 2.
The writing has been smart, the actors have done well, numerous plot lines and complications have been laid down in season one for development in season two. The action sequences have been good, the special effects adequate for a TV budget, the directing has been excellent. This is probably the best sci-fi show since the later seasons of "Highlander".
I'm not usually a "fan" of anything, as I associate being a fan with being "uncritical". But I can say I haven't seen much to criticize about the new Terminator show so far (other than some bloopers and rationalizations here and there.)
So expect more from me on this show. It's better than constantly reading about Matt's lame book and his pathetic efforts to hawk it.
RSH: I am now truly sorrier for having mentioned it than I imagined I could be.
Good. That will teach you.
Oooo, oooo, oooo, oh, Trev, ooooo, oh, ohh, ohhh, ohhhh! Rock on, dude!! Oh, ohhh, ohhh, dude, ohhh!
Comments closed May 24, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
If Mr. Yglesias is appearing on the fascist news channel, he is in no position to criticize Senator Clinton or Senator Obama for appearing on that piece of filth.
Posted by SLC | May 10, 2008 9:20 AM