Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Too Funny!

Contessa Brewer, part time news reporter for MSNBC, took it upon herself to school GOP representative Mo Brooks from Alabama. In discussing the national debt crisis, Mr. Brooks was pointing out the massive increase in government spending and national debt under President Obama, when Ms. Brewer took him to task, reminding him that at the time of the trillion dollar government Obama spending spree the lending markets were facing a major correction, and she went on to assert that an economic depression was averted by the Obama spending all those billions on so called shovel ready jobs. The congressman disagreed, at which point Ms. Brewer interjected a hasty and condescending:
"Do you have a degree in economics?"

"Yes ma'am, I do. Highest honors."

"Okay... "
What an idiot! I mean, really Contessa, that's laugh track material. You're a reporter interviewing a congressmen, you are supposed have some background information on him. Certainly you are not there to argue Democratic spin. And yet in your attempt to dismiss the opinion you are supposedly tasked with discovering, you ask a question you presume will undermine your guest without knowing how he will answer?

According to his Congressional page:

"Mo graduated from Duke University in three years with a double major in political science and economics, with highest honors in economics. In 1978, he graduated from the University of Alabama Law School."

And you wonder why no one takes MSNBC seriously?



  1. They just need to be upfront about their bias.
    Maybe keep one of those "bugs" in the corner of the screen--a circle "D" logo or "A Proud Member Of The International Left."

  2. Moreover, the implied argument in her attempted dismissal of the congressman undercuts her right to hold, much less express, an opinion in matters economic.

  3. Exactly!
    It's brilliant that he did have that degree, because it made such an ass of her, but if he didn't, he could still have just as many valid things to say, but she would have got away with the putdown.
    To imply that he has no business commenting on economics without a degree is a repulsive assertion, and one, as Ilion points out, that disqualifies her from the debate.
    It really shows the playground level of the leftist bullies. What she actually means is: how dare you disagree with me and the people I unquestioningly get my opinions from.
    It is the true spirit of fascism: outrage at the very notion of dissent from consensus.

    By the way, James: thanks for your continued support for my site. It's very much appreciated.

  4. It turns out that by her own grasping criteria he is qualified, whereas she herself is not. I'm sorry, but that just tickles me to death!

    Thanks all. Great comments.

  5. Just in case the full thrust of my point wasn't totally clear, by her own standard, she's qualified neither to disagree with the congressman nor to agree with him. Nor with Paul Krugman.

  6. Yes. If she were honest she would have to admit she has nothing to say on the matter. Of course, she did not appear to be in the least bit bothered by that dilemma.

    Now what does that say? I believe that says we've come full circle. We're in need of Darrell's "bug" in the corner with the Circle D.

  7. Oh, you mean the present logo of the Democratic Party? -- the one that looks like the inner bowl of those low-flush toilet they insist are the only ones we are to be allowed to buy?