Tuesday Links and Open Thread

  • The Five video: Greg Gutfeld at Fox News.
  • Monday’s numbers: Bill O’Reilly-Tucker Carlson-Sean Hannity 1-2-3.
  • Flood:  Bill O’Reilly basks in the success of his protégé Jesse Watters.
  • Wemple: ‘Good work, O’Reilly.’  Today’s O’Whine.  Deadly dog whistles?
  • CNN Elián doc called ‘a story about reconciliation‘.   Back from the dead.
  • CNN ‘ban’ of KellyAnne already over.  CNN: SNL bit ‘really affected‘ Spicer.
  • Sunday Showdown:  Reliable Sources edges MediaBuzz.   Weekend numbers.
  • CNN religion series may have a political agenda.  CNN plans drone division.
  • Tucker video: Piers Morgan says media are determined

31 thoughts on “Tuesday Links and Open Thread”

  1. My lingering memories of Elian Gonzalez include a barefoot Diane Sawyer attempting to play with the little guy on the relative’s carpet with some toys to get him to open up and say something. My thought at the time was, “these people have no shame”.

  2. Non-religious channel religious series ALWAYS have political agendas — witness Bill Moyers. Nobody since Jesus wants to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

    • Liberals never mention that the context of that statement was that the Pharisees had hired someone to ask that question of Jesus because they hoped to have him arrested by the Romans if he didn’t answer correctly.

      It was an attempt to set Jesus up. Typical.

      • Yes, when someone says that without the context of why he said . Also it still doesn’t mean you should be happy to give the gov. your money or want them to take more of it.

  3. watching C-SPAN2
    Did all the comedians on SNL, Comedy Central, HBO, late night network TV or the one in the Senate defeat the nomination of Betsy DeVos?
    ?…. holds breath …?

  4. Sean Spicer’s Press Briefing (which seems to always make news) in just a few minutes at 1:30 ET.

    Not sure who’s covering it.
    CNN? Their chyron was at least mentioning it.

  5. If I was Martha MacCallum, I would get Alan Dershowitz on the phone at 7:00 ET after the hearing.

    He expressed an opinion earlier that “the appeals court in San Francisco will likely find that certain travelers have no constitutional right to enter the U.S., while others do.”

    He described the case as a rush to judgment by both the Trump administration and the lower court judge in Seattle who issued a nationwide stay of the travel ban on Friday.

  6. On a scale of 1 to 14, 1 being lowest degree of unlikelihood, 14 being absolute metaphysical certitude, what are the chances of John McLaughlin giving an opinion about the travel ban?

  7. NBC to add a weeknight “Weekend Update” show as an hour and a half of Trump bashing on Saturday night isn’t enough.

    • Unlikely court will overturn the restraining order. First, courts don’t like to overrule their own decision. Also, if they let the ban go back into effect only to strike it down again later, that’s two big disruptions to the travel business. If they just let the restraining order continue but eventually do decide to rule with the admin, that’s only one. Ergo, while I continue to believe at the end of the line the ban will be reinstated in whole or in part, I doubt the court will reinstate it until the substantive issues are heard and ruled upon.

      • Alan Dershowitz (on CNN) seemed to agree with you about the pragmatic consequences of overturning the restraining order — using the phrase “create chaos.” He also harshly criticized the U.S. Government attorney for a weak presentation — at least on some of his arguments.

        The consensus of the CNN panel appeared to be:
        Obama appointee (Friedland) more sympathetic to Washington State
        Bush appointee (Clifton) more sympathetic to the U.S. Government
        Carter appointee (85-year-old Canby) hard to read

        Could go 2-1 either way.

        Stay tunes I guess.

      • while what you say makes sense; a. both the fed and state attys sounded woefully ill-prepared, scattered possibly intentionally by phoned in judge questions, just 2 not well spoken gentlemen from a novice view, b. what puzzled me is the state’s original filing was about green card and visa holders while the order has been modified i thought to only people from the selected countries with no current legal entry status in which case it is 100% executive i thought. it seems we have a changing exec order and a static objection. Am i totally not understanding it?

  8. Today’s most popular links:
    5 story about reconciliation
    4 already over
    3 political agenda
    2 basks in the success
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 Wemple: ‘Good work, O’Reilly’

Comments are closed.