Maybe when IDIOTS stop making up crap...HB3 wrote: When, oh when, will the Dems stop insisting on "ideological purity"?
Let's have Keith's ENTIRE POST shall we?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/17 ... ck,-Please
I was checking in tonight to see what was new, came across a diary trashing first me and my colleague Rachel, and scrolled through it shaking my head, sadly, until I got to one comment that leaped off the page.
can't verify, of course... (2+ / 0-)
but a friend in the news biz tells me he got a damaging e-mail from one of his pals at NBC. something to the effect that their anger was pre-planned because "beating up on the President has been good for ratings."
I haven't checked but I'm hearing that Olbermann slammed the speech on Twitter before it even started.
"Can't verify"... "haven't checked"...It can't be verified because it's nonsense, and it wasn't checked because nobody bothered. Unfortunately there's been a lot of this here lately.
And what's more, I didn't "slam" the speech on Twitter before it even started. I got off the phone with my White House source at about 7:35, and then summarized his description of the speech thusly::
I gather this may not be the big picture broad canvas "never again" speech redefining our nation's energy addiction that many are expecting
Wow. What a slam!
For years, from the Katrina days onward, whenever I stuck my neck out, I usually visited here as the cliched guy in the desert stopping by the oasis. I never got universal support, and never expected it, nor wanted it (who wants an automatic "Yes" machine?). But I used to read a lot about how people here would 'always have my back' and trust me this was of palpable value as I fought opponents external and internal who try to knock me and Rachel off the air, all the time, in ways you can imagine and others you can't.
Now I get to read how we pre-planned our anger because 'beating up on the President has been good for ratings'.
If I can understand people's frustration with seeing a speech by a Democratic president criticized in a venue such as mine, why is it impossible for some people here to accept my frustration about the speech? You don't agree with me, fine. You don't want to watch because you don't agree with me, fine. But to accuse me, after five years of risking what I have to present the truth as I see it, of staging something for effect, is deeply offensive to me and is an indication of what has happened here.
You want Cheerleaders? Hire the Buffalo Jills. You want diaries with conspiracy theories, go nuts. If you want this site the way it was even a year ago, let me know and I'll be back.