The message we need to e-blast to media yakkers re: debate "winners" (ANGLE, O'DONNELL)

[UTUSN]

Shrub was the master of the low expectations gambit, and the usual suspects have been using it ever since for their wingnut/'Bagger love objects but moreso in assigning the "winner" label in debates. Quoting two DUers in a thread asking whether ANGLE had done well the way the media was saying:

************QUOTE********

By ThomWV: "Harry came off as a timid wank but was saved by her, Angle, being a raving idiot."

By SoCalDem: "The reason why teaparty people are running so many "perky" women They can be rude & sassy & and impugn the manhood of their male opponents, and there's no real way for them to fight back without appearing to "bully the 'lil woman"...they "take" it, and they are wimps. The woman only has only to avoid shitting herself onstage, and she's the winner."

*********UNQUOTE*******

MESSAGE: Debates and points and what/who is "exciting" for media and ratings purposes don't matter in the scheme of governing and in the good of the nation.

The main link for MSNBC/Morning Joe: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/

There is the e-mail form link in the lower left hand corner: "What should we be talking about?": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28544273/ns/msnbc_tv-morning_joe/ That e-link is basically active during the circus' on-air hours.

[Catshrink]

1. Thoughtful and reflective answers are so passé

soundbites are the only thing that matters to the media.

[FSogol]

2. Harry should have gnawed raw meat off of a still warm cow leg.

:shrug:

[UTUSN]

3. I've "done" Tweety/Sunday, SCHIEFFER, & Faux/Sunday, adding this;

&, no, Pundits, who will provide more fodder for your entertainment, like material for comedians, is a poor reason for picking future office holders