The Party of Cheetos

I'm a pretty regular Morning Joe watcher as it happens, and I even caught some of yesterday's broadcast. But I missed the part where Joe Scarborough made a ludicrous defense of John McCain screwing up the chronology of events in Iraq and then launched into an unhinged attack on, well, me and my friends:

Also during this segment, Scarborough attacked liberal bloggers for correcting McCain’s error, saying they were probably “just sitting there, eating their Cheetos” and saying, “Let me google Anbar Awakening!” He added, “Dust flying — Cheeto dust flying all over. They’re wiping it on their bare chest while their underwear — you know, their Hanes.”

This after Scarborough observed that "I know a couple of hosts ran this last night and made a huge deal because a liberal blogger picked it up." The blogger in question being Spencer Ackerman. I'm really a bit baffled as to where these anti-blogger stereotypes come from. Spencer's reported from Iraq several times, I published a book recently, Ilan has a master's degree and speaks three languages -- we're not sitting around smearing ourselves with Cheetos. Like a lot of people, we write stuff. And some of the stuff we write is published on the internet. Is that really so weird and discreditable?

Comments

The bloggers this douchebag knows are republiscum bloggers. Cowards all, they don't understand that the elephants are all yellow, but they have somehomehow absorbed the late Steve Gilliard's image of the Cheeto-eating republiscum coward and they have translated it into their McSame-worshipping, republiscum-deep throating worlds.

Posted by Mark | July 24, 2008 1:59 AM

I for one can't stand Cheetos.

Sour cream and cheddar potato chips, that's me.

Matt's been known to eat at Wendy's, so there's a certain credibility to this criticism. And the cited qualities of the bloggers Matt references are not terribly impressive - a book, a master's degree, three languages. Who gives a shit? Matt's book didn't change the world, like the scores of thousands of other books published last year didn't. Masters degrees are a dime a dozen. So are language skills.

Matt's just whining here. It's weak.

Seriously, when are "people" - you know, "I'm referring to people" (Kaylee in Serenity) - going to realize that these right wing freaks don't care about reality, or anything relevant to reality? Stop being shocked about whatever stupid shit they post. They don't agree with you, they don't like you, and they will make up anything they need to in order to denigrate you.

Start treating them like enemies because they are. Don't expect them to do anything other than what they do. Ignore whatever they do that doesn't actually mean anything - which is ninety percent of what they do. Just continue to fuck them in the ass with facts and treat them like the scum they are verbally.

Matt, don't whine. Call up this jerk and tell him, like the guy at the end of "Wanted", "What the fuck have you done lately?"

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 24, 2008 5:01 AM

Wait -- I thought liberal bloggers were stuffing themselves full of Slow Food arugula while arrogantly sipping their organic lattes?

Everyone knows that it's the right wing bloggers who fling the Cheeto dust.

Also known as the Orange Underground:

http://orangeunderground.com/

Posted by El Cid | July 24, 2008 10:19 AM

Clearly, Matt, you're not one of those folks Scarborough was talking about. If you were, you'd know that those of us who sit around in our underwear, using "the Google" to fact-check the candidates, cannot stand baked Cheetos. Nothing but the greasy original for us.

Posted by Andy | July 24, 2008 10:21 AM

we're not sitting around smearing ourselves with Cheetos.

Dude, we've *seen* the Flophouse.

Posted by Gabriel | July 24, 2008 10:26 AM

Cheetos? Since when does Jonah Goldberg hang out with you guys?

Posted by Freddie | July 24, 2008 10:33 AM

Uhh, bit of a glass houses/stone-throwing factor here, isn't it? Here's Scarborough:

"The Anbar Awakening started in the fall of 2006. World War II started in December of 1941."

WWII started in December of 1941? Does Europe exist?

Posted by Justin | July 24, 2008 10:36 AM

Free advice, Matt: Bothering to defend yourself against, or to even acknowledge, this kind of middle-school bitchy nastiness only makes you look insecure.

Posted by James Gary | July 24, 2008 10:37 AM

Presuming that they are stained with cheetos, how does that change the fact that McCain was wrong?

The only thing more embarassing than being a cheeto-dusted loser is being shown up by a cheeto-dusted loser.

Posted by Tom | July 24, 2008 10:37 AM

Okay, okay, you cheetos-stained wretch -- we get the hint -- we'll admit it -- bloggers (and specifically TPM alumni) did some half-decent work catching John McCain's gaffe-slash-lie the other night.

Matt's (justifiably) p*ssed off because Politico left him out of their account of this particular media food chain.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12008.html

Posted by Ted | July 24, 2008 10:39 AM

When they start throwing around "geeky kids living in their parents' basements," that tells you they've got nothing else. When they can't argue the facts, they start arguing "who you gonna believe, a big-shot with a TV show like me, or some loser nerd who has time to look up facts and stuff?"

Posted by Redshift | July 24, 2008 10:40 AM

Joe S. has built himself an audience by pretending he's no longer a Republican stooge and can "call it like it is," but when push comes to shove, his true colors come out.

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

Posted by Dan | July 24, 2008 10:41 AM

And some of the stuff we write is published on the internet. Is that really so weird and discreditable?

You know, someone whose medium is the vast wasteland of television really has no standing to look down on bloggers.

Posted by RSA | July 24, 2008 10:41 AM

Joe is just being defensive. As you've observed before, blogging (as a medium) is *very* good at critiquing the mainstream media. So naturally, when they find an inarguable issue like this and hammer on it, the MSM responds with ad hominem attacks. It's a standard defense mechanism to people that are threatened, but pretty disheartening to see in people whose nominal job is to inform people. It seems as if they can't set aside their personal feelings in favor of their professional responsibility.

Posted by Liberal Blogger Reader | July 24, 2008 10:41 AM

Y'know, there's an alternate take, here. Specifically, one should take notice of how Scarborough managed to name-drop not one but two brand names into his rant. In short, he took some typical boilerplate and transformed it into a vehicle for product placement. If this works, he may have tapped a potential advertising goldmine. Clever man, that Scarborough.

Posted by Shawn | July 24, 2008 10:42 AM

I'm a pretty regular Morning Joe watcher...

There's your problem right there.

Posted by tinisoli | July 24, 2008 10:42 AM

What Redshift said. They have no arguments or facts; all they can do is demonize people who do.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 24, 2008 10:43 AM

Is that really so weird and discreditable?
When you have nowhere else to go, you shoot for the ad hominem. That said, I think they only reason someone like "Morning Joe" gets away with it is that his 60+ audience doesn't use The Google, let alone know how to blog. And when they don't understand it, they think it's weird. We're a bunch of foreigners on their land as far as they're concerned.

Posted by slag | July 24, 2008 10:44 AM

Part of what is going on here is that the talking heads on TV were chosen for their image, not their analytical skills. And they know it. So, they are threatened by the very idea of people affecting the public discourse through analytical skills as opposed to image. But they have no other grounds to attack these people on but image, so they construct this unfavorable image and then attack it.

Posted by DTM | July 24, 2008 10:46 AM

I think we should all write angry e-mails to Scarborough and point out that Matt has been written up in the NYT Style section. It's true!!

Of course, it was for living in a "flophouse," which kind of brings us back to that stereotype . . .

But don't tell Joe that.

Posted by Ted | July 24, 2008 10:46 AM

Who gives a fuck if a blogger is a Cheeto-stained wretch in their underwear or not? Whether or not they get shit right is really all that matters. I'll take, say, Atrios's record against Tom Friedman's or Richard Cohen's any day. Why is this a difficult question?

Posted by ed | July 24, 2008 10:46 AM

I thought the preferred food source was Hot Pockets?

Anyway, a bunch of underwear clad slobs typing-away in their mom's basement are able, in a few seconds, to point out a huge gaff from McCain's speech (more than a gaff, as it now appears McCain actually didn't know the timeline).

In other words, they fact checked, reported the findings and asked McCain to clarify. He couldn't. That's news.

Yet rather than being ashamed that they missed it, the news-media talking heads are making fun of bloggers?

awesome.

Posted by hankest | July 24, 2008 10:48 AM

There is a bit of a "I'm sick of the every day opinion-after-opinion in-your-face" factor you need to be aware of if you choose to be a prolific blogger. I think this is what Appel's "Blogs Suck" was about. If you were thought of primarily as a book author or long-form magazine writer, then your blogger profile would be subsumed by your respectable journalist profile. People woul come to your blog and say, "Hey, Matt posted today! Wonder what he has to say."

However, with twenty plus posts a day, I think you lower your "respectable journo" price as perceived by establishment types (ie the douche Joe Scarborough, whose opinion of you I hope and assume you don't give a shit about, Matt) by increasing the supply of your content so much. On the other hand, you increase volume and new content for the Atlantic, which is what they pay you for.

What I am curious about is whether Matt will be continuing writing for the magazine here.

Posted by Mike | July 24, 2008 10:48 AM

Wait a minute--they have BAKED Cheetos? For some reason I thought snacks coated in fluorescent orange "cheese" were exempt from the baked-not-fried craze, but I guess that's why Albert P. Carey is CEO of Frito-Lay and not me.

Also, I heard that Chester Cheetah was still a major Ron Paul freak, but that might just be a rumor.

Posted by Philly | July 24, 2008 10:48 AM

I believe Joe has been reading the Editors Comix. AS pointed out above, he is familiar with Republican bloggers. The Kerning bloggers.

Posted by theCoach | July 24, 2008 10:51 AM

...only when you write about the Wizards.

Posted by charles pierce | July 24, 2008 10:53 AM

Think about the sort of crowd that is at a bagel store or diner at 6:00 AM, even on weekends. Then think about the sort of crowd that probably comprises most of the audience for "Morning Joe." This is just a guess, but there probably aren't too many people who are very familiar with the concept of blogging. There are probably even less who think there's nothing wrong with it. In other words, the demographic that you and your friends fall in is ripe for attack. Scarborough knows this, but it's an easy way to discredit those who are rightfully pushing the story of McCain screwing up the order of events without having to deal with the substance of the argument. That's a good thing, since the only sane response is to simply wonder what the hell is happening to John McCain.

Posted by Brian | July 24, 2008 10:55 AM

Matt, bloggers have been calling "BULLS***!" on the TV talking heads more and more. That's why your ilk are hated by them.

Posted by LFC | July 24, 2008 10:57 AM

we're not sitting around smearing ourselves with Cheetos

....wha? Cheetos is associated with chickenhawk warbloggers, not liberal bloggers. Doesn't this idiot Scarborough know anything? (Don't answer that...)

Posted by Gregory | July 24, 2008 10:57 AM

It's weird because you despise America and hate the troops and want everyone to pedal a bicycle in their Birkenstocks. There, I said it! Hey, anybody have a tip on removing cheese dust stains from white underwear..........?

Posted by steve duncan | July 24, 2008 10:58 AM

Presuming that they are stained with cheetos, how does that change the fact that McCain was wrong?

Right. It's an ad hominem that doesn't undo McCain's mistake. What do Cheetos have to do with anything?

But logical fallacies aside, it still remains the case that John McCain is running for president and Spencer, Matt, Ilan, etc. are not. Thus, McCain quite fairly gets held to not only the non-Cheeto-covered-bare-chest standard, but also the knows-what-the-fuck-he's-talking-about-without-consulting-Wikipedia standard (especially when he's the foreign policy wiz candidate, boasts about not needing consultants, etc.).

Posted by Brent | July 24, 2008 11:00 AM

Wait -- I thought liberal bloggers were stuffing themselves full of Slow Food arugula while arrogantly sipping their organic lattes?

So are liberals still elitists or 'white trash' now? Or somehow "elitist white trash"?

On another note: if you ever do eat Cheetos, put Old Bay on them. It sounds repulsive at first but someone introduced me to this way of doing it and really, I can't eat them any other way now (if I eat them, that is).

Posted by JDinBalt | July 24, 2008 11:02 AM

I meant the Cheetos cheese puffs go with Old Bay - not the harder, more compact kind of Cheetos.

Posted by JDinBalt | July 24, 2008 11:04 AM

Joe said:

I will guarantee you the host that ran it, were waving their arms, had no idea whether the Sunni Awakening, or, or, or, the surge began at the same time.

Wrong. Covered it almost a year ago.

They also, anybody that would argue that the Sunni Awakening would have survived in Al Anbar Province, without the surge, anybody that would make that argument is so ignorant of the facts on the ground in Western Iraq, in Al Anbar Province, and what the Sunni sheiks were doing throughout 2007, that they are too stupid to be on TV.

Wrong. You can't say that The Surge® protected the Awakening when The Surge® didn't protect the Awakening.

Joe is too stupid to be on TV, but he's dumb enough to be a conservative, which is why he's on TV.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 24, 2008 11:13 AM

I notice you don't deny anywhere in your post about eating cheetos. Stop evading the issues.

Posted by am | July 24, 2008 11:18 AM

Being academically well-credentialed and, more generally, being honorable and reputable, is not mutually exclusive with eating Cheetos. Or casually sitting around at home in one's underwear. Just saying.

Posted by dry_fish | July 24, 2008 11:18 AM

The problem is the term 'blogger', which sounds like 'booger' or 'frogger'; you need a better job descriptor, something like 'epundit'.

Posted by lampwick | July 24, 2008 11:19 AM

WTF?? It's Cheezy-poofs while naked, buddy

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | July 24, 2008 11:43 AM

The whole purpose of a show like Morning Joe, one that runs a long time and covers a lot of subjects is to thrust someone with a lot of strong opinions as the host without the need for a large research staff to actually "google" stuff like Anbar Awakening. The show's a farce and is no more newsworthy than the Ricky Lake show was.

Posted by tom.a | July 24, 2008 11:46 AM

Not cheetos. Organic cheetos.

Posted by phil | July 24, 2008 11:47 AM

There's more of us. Let's kick Joe's ass.

Posted by Chris | July 24, 2008 11:51 AM

Matt, Joe's a cock, basically, he's a nasty canker-covered cock . . . I don't get this buzz that he's somehow a darling of liberals and progressives because he asked if Bush were dumb . .. he's always gonna be a neo-con canker who upon occasion will take a different stance from conservatisim depending on whatever the polls are saying.

He was one of Newt's first wave, he'll never be anything other than a dick.

Posted by Joshua James | July 24, 2008 11:52 AM

Matt, Joe's a c**k, basically, he's a nasty canker-covered c**k . . . I don't get this buzz that he's somehow a darling of liberals and progressives because he asked if Bush were dumb . .. he's always gonna be a neo-con canker who upon occasion will take a different stance from conservatisim depending on whatever the polls are saying.

He was one of Newt's first wave, he'll never be anything other than a d**k.

Posted by Joshua James | July 24, 2008 11:53 AM

Scarborough's little Cheeto rant fails miserably as a sentence, but, oddly, succeeds as verse:

Dust flying —
Cheeto dust flying all over.
They’re wiping it on their bare chest
while their underwear —
you know, their Hanes.

*sniff*... beautiful.

Btw, I'd always been under the impression that it was liberal bloggers who originated the Cheeto-eating blogger meme to describe their conservative counterparts.

Posted by raff | July 24, 2008 12:02 PM

I'm really a bit baffled as to where these anti-blogger stereotypes come from.

Scarborough dreams of sitting around at home in his underwear (evidently Hanes) and smearing himself with cheetos, possibly not in a solitary fashion. What's so hard to figure out?

Posted by Deborah | July 24, 2008 12:03 PM

someone whose medium is the vast wasteland of television really has no standing to look down on bloggers.

It is rich, isn't?

I don't think MY is 'stooping' in posts like this. This is a blog! No space or subject restriction. And I would guess that there aren't too many degrees of separation, if any, between people who work on a show like 'Morning Joe' and this blog. A blog is such a personal kind of journalism that it seems to be in its own world, but in fact (or 'in POINT of fact' as Lou Dobbs likes to say) lots of people read this one, and I would guess that includes tv people.

There's also something a little too telling about Joe's extended riff on Cheetoes. I mean, he just goes on a little too long, with the the dust, the smearing, the underwear, etc. It doesn't take very much imagination to envision Joe himself sitting on his ass (probably in front of the tv) wallowing in a 'Family Size' bag of Cheetoes. He's a Regular Joe, after all! He knows how to really relax.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 24, 2008 12:15 PM

Turn TV to C-SPAN. Break off channel selector. Throw away remote. Problem solved.

Posted by JohnMcC | July 24, 2008 12:36 PM

Oh yeah, there are no idiots talking on C-SPAN.

Posted by too many steves | July 24, 2008 1:09 PM

Spencer's reported from Iraq several times, I published a book recently, Ilan has a master's degree and speaks three languages -- we're not sitting around smearing ourselves with Cheetos.

So you don't deny that you blog in your underwear?

Posted by Chuck | July 24, 2008 1:34 PM

Those are liberal newfangled baked Cheetos in the picture. Conservatives, being, well, conservative, prefer the fried kind.

Posted by rea | July 24, 2008 1:39 PM

I write for Burnt Orange Report down in Texas. I actually just started a series titled "shattering blogger stereotypes."

So far, I've tackled the myth that bloggers hate the media, and the myth that there are no female bloggers. Later this afternoon, I'll tackle the "age and experience" myth.

Just a heads up. Enjoy your writing, whether you eat Cheetos or not.

--Phillip Martin
Senior Adviser, Burnt Orange Report

Posted by Phillip Martin | July 24, 2008 2:26 PM

The Joe show mystifies me. My favorite is the football player. You know, the guy who ripped his quarterback after he retired and before the quarterback won the Super Bowl. I don't know how he's adding value unless there's some kind of sports segment I'm not aware of.

Posted by asl | July 24, 2008 2:27 PM

Joe is an ignorant ass. He is still sore that Rachel Maddow drank his milk-shake. You notice that Harold Ford is his best P.A.L.? Figures.

I'd rather eat Cheetos than Wonder. Eff' him.

Posted by sy | July 24, 2008 2:39 PM

This is the best Cheetos -related thing, ever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-1CmwAa6F4

Posted by Kentron Zed | July 24, 2008 2:56 PM

Speaking from the minority here... I used to like Joe. But this sort of thing doesn't make it easy. I just never seem to feel like turning his show on anymore.

Posted by JMA | July 24, 2008 3:00 PM

This is the best Cheetos -related thing, ever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-1CmwAa6F4

Posted by Kentronix | July 24, 2008 3:04 PM

Now I have the urge to buy and consume cheetos. Damn you Matt!

Posted by Alex Broner | July 24, 2008 3:06 PM

Oh yeah, there are no idiots talking on C-SPAN.

Of course there are, but there are no idiots being paid millions of dollars by C-SPAN talking on C-SPAN. It's kinda like the difference between a great apes exhibit webcam at the zoo and giving a morning program to a feces-flinging brain-damaged gorilla.

Posted by mds | July 24, 2008 3:48 PM

There's also something a little too telling about Joe's extended riff on Cheetoes.

The only way he picks up that association is by reading left-wing blogs that talk about the 101st Fighting Keyboarders and their elite kerning brigades.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 24, 2008 4:11 PM

Scarborough not only wears Cheeto-stained underwear - he wears it for weeks on end. I mean - look at the dull-witted motherfucker: he takes his stylin' cues. from "The Wonder Years" kid. The dorkville hair, dyspeptic smile, anal-retentive personality. Everything about this suckwad screams pedophile.

Posted by Trevor | July 24, 2008 4:41 PM

Oh, doncha think he's just trying to get with the whole sophmoric side of blog culture? You know, smackdown vs. smackdown, insult vs. insult, it sells to many liberal political junkies, apparently. Like where if you don't like Andrea Mitchell's reporting on Obama's speech, you make cracks about her nipples, and if you don't like Candy Crowley's reporting, you make jokes about her weight or just have a little chat about how revolting her body and soul is. I'd be willing to bet he's seen similar in his email inbox from self-identified bloggers and blog fans...

Also, keep in mind that there is a tradition of professional pundits insulting each other since way back in the days of Dan Ackroyd and Jane Curtin on Sat. Nite Live doing the "Jane, you ignorant slut" bit. A full-time blogger is a pundit. It's interesting, now that I think of it, I really don't see much ridicule of people who blog related to a job or area of expertise, like a policy wonk blog by someone with a job in a think tank, or a tech guru blog by someone in the tech industry; seems to just be the pundit type bloggers, and pundits have a tradition of ridiculing each other. Someone like Dowd or Safire has been called every name in the book and had all variety of insults applied in their career. Try to change the culture or get used to it?

Posted by artappraiser | July 25, 2008 3:56 AM

Apparently Matt is not aware of all internet traditions.

Cheetos (also, Cheeetoz, and various similar spellings) are the "nutrition" of choice for the Fightin' 101st Keyboard Commandos. Check out Jesus' General (http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/) and Sadly, No! (http://www.sadlyno.com/), among others, for the finest in Cheetoz-related program activity updates. Jonah Goldberg can't get enough Cheetoz!

I have a feeling Scarborough heard about it and is trying to taint bloggers who actually know what they're talking about with its powdery, yet greasy orange stain.

Posted by mroberts | July 29, 2008 9:17 PM