June 14, 2007

What the fuck is wrong with these people?

More lessons in journalism from our very serious media elite:

Thompson from Chris Matthews -- who is really just the slightly less restrained id version of most media stars -- is simply too extraordinary not to note:
Does [Fred Thompson] have sex appeal? I'm looking at this guy and I'm trying to find out the new order of things, and what works for women and what doesn't. Does this guy have some sort of thing going for him that I should notice? . . .
Gene, do you think there's a sex appeal for this guy, this sort of mature, older man, you know? He looks sort of seasoned and in charge of himself. What is this appeal? Because I keep star quality. You were throwing the word out, shining star, Ana Marie, before I checked you on it. . . .
Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of -- a little bit of cigar smoke? You know, whatever.


The idiocy! It burns!

Upcoming story ideas...

Rudy: america's mayor... or america's fucktoy?

Why would a totally straight guy like myself want to suck off Mitt Romney so badly? by fred hiatt.

Some story about Sam Brownback that incorporates the pun bareback...

John Mccain: once you get past those liverspots, he's one hot hunk of juicy man flesh.

Wolf Blitzer interviews a guy who once saw Fred Thompson in a sauna.

30 minute Matthews monologue analyzing presidential penis size throughout american history, relative to perceived job effectiveness. Conclusion: more study needed.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a head that needs a good wall bashing.

JasonC

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I can't stand to watch any of these 'tools' like Matthews, O'Riley, Hannity, or even Wolfie-boy, but it seems that they are REALLY hard-up for things to talk about and they get desperate to keep the talk going (the ONLY sin on these shows is dead-air!). Of course part of the reason for this lack of things to talk about is that they exclude a lot of rational, progressive/left discussion & analysis of the issues (other than to dismiss it sarcastically, if mentioning it at all) so all they're left with is the middle-of-the-road neutral ignorance, or right-wing insanity, which is what they more often choose.

It'd be interesting to know just how many people are SO hard-up for news & 'analysis' that they actually listen to these ideological ranters? I suspect they score well with the non-readers, because what they lose in intelligence, they make up for with volume & attitude.

Anonymous said...

Money and power, power and money....
If Fred Thompsons child bride answered the question honestly she would cite the above as the reason she married that pasty, flabby old coot. Mathews proves his ignorance on a grand scale once again.

maru said...

:: giggle! ::