Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Cokie Roberts: Trump and Those Who Support Him are ‘Morally Tainted’

Cokie Roberts: Trump and Those Who Support Him are ‘Morally Tainted’

‘Morally Tainted?’ Were They Talking About Trump . . . or Hillary?

Question for Cokie Roberts and Joe Scarborough: does the name Hillary Clinton ring a bell? On today’s Morning Joe, NPR’s Roberts and Scarborough proclaimed  Donald Trump “morally tainted.” Roberts took it one step further, also declaring “morally tainted” those who support Trump.

Scarborough asked Roberts whether she’d ever seen “a candidate so morally tainted, so challenged that people are calling him a racist and calling him a con man, at the same time saying we support him?” Roberts said no one has ever seen anything like this, and for good measure, citing her roots growing up in the Jim Crow South, suggested Trump’s candidacy was a “stain” taking the country back in that direction. But when it came to being morally tainted, Hillary’s name never crossed the lips of Roberts or Scarborough.

Now it’s true that no prominent Democrats have called Hillary corrupt and unethical but nevertheless declared their support for her. But is that because neither Hillary nor those supporters are “morally tainted,” or to the contrary are her supporters that much more tainted for refusing to acknowledge the truth about Hillary’s taint? Are Joe and Cokie rewarding Dems for observing the Law of Omerta?

JOE SCARBOROUGH: There are a lot of Republicans exposed right now, saying he’s a con man but they’re supporting him. He’s a racist but they are supporting him. He exits the stage, what is the lasting impact on the Paul Ryans and the Marco Rubios and the Rudy Giulianis and the entire Republican party?

COKIE ROBERTS: They’re morally tainted! I mean, there’s just no question about that. You can’t say he’s a racist and what he said was textbook racism but I support him because he’s the nominee of my party.

. . .

JOE: Obviously you grew up in politics around your mom and dad, have you ever seen anything like this —

COKIE: No. No.

JOE: — where you have a candidate so morally tainted as a candidate, so challenged that people are calling him a racist and they’re calling him a con man, at the same time they’re saying we embrace him, we support him?

COKIE: Nobody’s ever seen anything like this. Not only did I grow up in politics, I grew up in the Jim Crow South. And we spent the last 50 years trying to bring people together instead of push people apart. And so that becomes a terrible stain on the country.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

GeorgeCrosley | August 16, 2016 at 10:17 am

I’m “morally tainted” in Cokie Roberts’s eyes? Okay, I’m cool with that.

To the acolytes of Ragsdale I. M. A. Dumbass Esq.
So now you’ve got Cokie Roberts, & Joe Scarborough in your corner. You’ve got the entire MSM in your corner. Not to mention every other supporter of the business as usual, status quo crowd.
George Soros, Warren Buffet, Mark Cuban, the Koch brothers & the Broadmoor 400 donors. The whole kit & caboodle.
Ragsdale I. M. A. Dumbass Esq. certainly is a genius.. There’s no denying that! Don’t believe me? Just ask him.

    Ragspierre in reply to secondwind. | August 16, 2016 at 11:09 am

    “Not to mention every other supporter of the business as usual, status quo crowd.”

    But stupid, lying conservative-hating nutter, THAT would be YOU!

    I’m for the guy who was ready to burn down the tax code…real change, instead of playing around the margins, and in a way that’s been rated as raising the national debt by $16 trillion, IIRC.

    I’m for the guy who was/is FOR doing away with the ethanol boondoggle, not the one who is FOR EXTENDING IT AND EXPANDING IT.

    I’m the guy who is FOR market economics, not the creep who HATES them, and wants another half-trillion in “stimulus” borrowing and a planned (command economy) very like Bernie Sanders.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/12/trump-goes-full-bernie-again-with-pro-borrowing-comments/

    I was, and still am, for “real change”.

    Der Donald’s just another Collectivist. As I’ve said for over a year.

    If you doubt that, read the whole thing. That is, for any with any intellectual integrity.

      Hi Ragspierre,

      I recognize you as a long-time commenter here at L.I.

      I miss the days when commenters on this thoughtful blog were routinely well-reasoned, such as yourself. Anything related to Trump turns into a sewer.

      Best of luck

      mariner in reply to Ragspierre. | August 16, 2016 at 3:17 pm

      In this particular case someone else started it, but I’ve often seen you slander other commenters without provocation.

      I once respected you as an intelligent, reasonable commenter.

      No more.

        Ragspierre in reply to mariner. | August 16, 2016 at 3:48 pm

        secondwind | August 3, 2016 at 2:24 am

        I’ve pointed this out before on several occasions.
        Conservatives are blaming Trump & his supporters for all the difficulties conservatism is now having. Yet Trump wasn’t even a factor in republican party politics until a year ago. Conservatism has held the floor as the “opposition” position against party regulars for my entire life. Since 2000 when I began to vote republican I’ve consistently voted for the more conservative option. As have most other Trump supporters. Yet even when we’d win, we’d lose. 2014 capped that reality off.

        Reagan was elected by the entire country. He wasn’t the property of conservatives alone. Conservatives couldn’t have elected him by themselves.

        Conservatism is the philosophy of losers. With conservatives as the vessel of opposition the countries consistently lost ground. Though they mostly oppose Trump they have the temerity to tell him what he must do to win. Even though he’s beaten all of them as they’ve lost.

        And they continue in their wrong-headed way’s to this day.

        That only makes sense to a conservative. Just as liberalism only makes sense to liberals.

          Q. P.
          I stand by that statement. What’s your point?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 16, 2016 at 4:12 pm

          “Not to mention every other supporter of the business as usual, status quo crowd.”

          But stupid, lying conservative-hating nutter, THAT would be YOU!

          That’s the point. That you support a stinking, lying pathological Collectivist thug. You are a poor, delusional wreak of a human being who broke his life on “tax rebel” bullshit, and never recovered.

          To those of you like Mariner :
          This response from Ragsdale I. M. A.. Dumbass Esq, make my point. You think you can have a reasoned & rational conversation with this?
          In a response to B.E.M.M. Ragsdale threatens to carve me up with his knife like bacon.

          I’ve clearly gotten under his skin. His hatred consumes him. And this lunatic is who you chose to follow?

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | August 16, 2016 at 11:17 pm

          Egads, Ragsdale I. M. A. Dumbass Esq. and Chucky Thin Skin have spoken. I am starting to think that if ORDA is not a paid shrill, he is Rags second personality.

          Chokey Roberts is a disgusting over paid elite that loves everything Hillary and the democratic party. Why is LI making Joe a mainstay to this site is beyond me. LI has lost its way.

          As for Rags and Skinner, get off your high horse. Your whining is getting old. Let it go. You both have lost your way. Glad to see second wind get your panties in a bundle. I find myself coming back to this site now to see what Second Wind says since you two have not offered any value lately. It have become entertainment for me instead of informational since you two boobs can’t control yourself no matter how obnoxious Second wind is.

      buckeyeminuteman in reply to Ragspierre. | August 16, 2016 at 4:21 pm

      Rags, here’s a little advice. “When you wrestle with a pig you both get dirty. The problem is the pig likes it.”

      Tenbor in reply to Ragspierre. | August 16, 2016 at 7:13 pm

      By not voting for Trump, you are tacitly endorsing the following:
      Black Lives Matter and the rest of Soros’ pets.
      Planned Parenthood and Infantcide
      The Palestinians and the Knife Intifada
      Settlement of Radical Islamists in the United States
      Unrestricted illegal immigration
      Effective repeal of the 2nd Amendment (and the 1st, 4th and so on).
      Rule of Man instead of Rule of Law.

      That’s the short list. Just for starters. Are you ready to accept all of that just so you can smugly state you voted your conscience?

    To all.
    I meant to add an addendum to this statement that addressed the “points” Ragsdale I. M. A. Dumbass so emotionally raises. I screwed up & that addendum appears later in the thread. I meant to add it as an addendum instead of as a response to him because he’s difficult to deal with when he gets like this.
    I apologize for any confusion.

      mariner in reply to secondwind. | August 16, 2016 at 3:15 pm

      You don’t encourage him to be reasonable when you start a comment by referencing him as “Ragsdale I. M. A. Dumbass Esq.”

      When you start at that low level you have no beef if he responds in kind.

        Mariner :
        You entirely miss the point of what I’m doing.
        A question to you.
        Have you ever objected to the tactics, misrepresentations, lies, foul mouthed rhetoric, etc. routinely engaged in by one Ragsdale I. M. A. Dumbass Esq over this year? Are my points regarding aid, deliberate or not, to the election of one Hillary Clinton not valid?

        I’m simply responding in kind. I’ve made numerous reasoned points over the past year only to have them blown off, mocked, consistently misrepresented & dismissed as a fool & I can’t say I remember you stepping up one time to object as you do here.

        I can’t say I remember you standing up to object when others have been similarly treated by one Ragsdale I.M. A. Dumbass Esq either.

        Your objection is selective. As I suspect is your support.

        MarkSmith in reply to mariner. | August 16, 2016 at 11:21 pm

        Noooo, Rags never make condescending remarks……..

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to secondwind. | August 16, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    With that list, you should start to wonder. Soros and the Koch Bros agree? That should sure tell you something.

    Trump is the ultimate grifter and you are one of the marks. He will tell you whatever you want to hear. That was great for the primaries, but now we are in the main event.

    I am sure that as soon as your knee jerks, you will have a riposte..

LOL. So the “moral” choice is this election is the woman who laundered her husband’s dirty campaign money through her Arkansas law firm, counseled corrupt S&L executives how to break the law (then snuck into her law firm at night and stole her own billing records so this could not be documented), fired the White House travel office staff so she could replace them with her own cronies (then lied about it), mocked and humiliated her own former law partner in such a publicly demeaning way that she drove him to suicide, stole historic antique furniture from the White House, set up a private e-mail server as Secretary of State so that she could avoid public records laws and hide the evidence of her influence-peddling, lied repeatedly to congress and the American public . . . .

Cokie is as crazy as she looks.

    meyou in reply to Observer. | August 16, 2016 at 10:45 am

    Abortion is IN The Platform Of the Democrat Party, so not sure how Kooky & Joe are defining morals. Does anyone know how we can express our OUTRAGE directly to these amoral mouthpieces? I’m not on FB, so please tell me another way!

Is that Cokie, or a picture of Jim Carrey’s “Grinch”?

Yowza!

Projection is a symptom of mental disorder, Ms. Roberts.

It is a far better measure of one’s character to look at those who have declared to be one’s enemies than those who have declared themselves to be one’s friends, for friendship can be faked, but enemies are quite honest about their hatred.

As I’ve said about Trump before, I may not like him very much, but he (censored)-off the right people.

DieJustAsHappy | August 16, 2016 at 11:25 am

Speaking of duplicity. This is just knee-slpaiin’ funny! Someone, such as Cokie Roberts, from the MSM wanting to address us about matters of morals.

I think I’d rather be a bit tainted than a complete sell-out.

Great! This is going to make family get-together a even more fun! I’m the only conservative in a large family of liberals and now they can hang “morally tainted” around my neck. They’ve already questioned my intelligence and sanity ….

For example – a quote from a visit this weekend that supposedly proved moral superiority: “I listen to both sides. I watch The View!”

    ButterflyISme in reply to B Buchanan. | August 17, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    Oh yeah….I feel you B Buchanan~ I’ve been labeled an “idiot”, “ignorant”, “racist” and now I can add “morally tainted” to this growing list…..all for what???? Having a difference of opinion.

casualobserver | August 16, 2016 at 11:41 am

The fact that any of the Hillary fans in the media (or, known also as just “the media”) use any terms like “moral” shows just how jaded they are. Surely they aren’t so stupid as to think that the plurality of voters who aren’t fans of her cannot easily be reminded of the reasons they dislike her. Any comment approaching trust, morality, honesty, power, corruption, etc., does NOT work in Hillary’s favor. Except in Dem precincts.

You see? I ask, Ragsdale I. M. A. Dumbass Esq. respond’s with irrelevancy’s to the point nonsense. Just as I said he would. It doesn’t matter what he says he “supports”, the reality is he & his acolytes will get Hillary Clinton elected.

Goodbye 2nd amendment, hello further strangling of market economics. Goodbye American sovereignty, hello T.P.P. & internationalist statism. Goodbye distinct American citizenship, hello world citizenship & an open to the world labor pool.

This is what Ragsdale I. M. A. Dumbass Esq. will truly bring about with his “principled conservative” religious fervor in opposition to Donald Trump, & de-facto support for Hillary Clinton.

    What IS it with you an the oxymorons?

    There is no such thing as “internationalist statism”

    It’s GLOBALISM. The proper term for it’s adherents is to be named a “GLOBALIST.”

    Now, as to your point regarding those either not voting, or not voting for Mr. Trump being a vote for Sec. Clinton. I’ll repeat, as you obviously didn’t take the time to read my prior commentary on the matter.

    ahem.

    In a succinct form, the Conservatives who won’t vote for Mr. Trump see it as this:

    “Mr. Trump = Sec. Clinton.”

    What the SUPPORTERS of Mr. Trump have promulgated is:

    “Mr. Trump > Sec. Clinton.”

    The problem for Mr. Trump’s supporters is that you actually have to convince the Conservatives of your proposition, and you haven’t done that yet. You’ve merely spouted platitudes that a non-vote or a vote for anyone OTHER than Mr. Trump is a vote for Clinton. To Conservatives, that is not an issue because TO Conservatives at this point, they are equally bad. See the first equation.

    Goodbye 2nd amendment, hello further strangling of market economics. Goodbye American sovereignty, hello T.P.P. & internationalist statism. Goodbye distinct American citizenship, hello world citizenship & an open to the world labor pool.

    Let’s walk through these, shall we?

    1.) Gun Control: In his 2000 book, “The America We Deserve” Mr. Trump wrote that he supports a ban on assault weapons and a slightly longer waiting period to buy a gun. (Source: PBS News Hour “2016 Candidate Stands” series , Jun 16, 2015). Now, he ALSO said (around the same time) “I oppose gun controls—when weapons are banned, only the outlaws have them.” So, which is it now?

    2.) Further strangling of market economics: A small one: He doesn’t understand the first thing about the concept of “carried interest” and hedge fund management. A bigger one: the Trans-Pacific Partnership is NOT the boogie-man that all you Trump supporters are weeping, wailing and gnashing your teeth about. Could it be better? sure. But simply to think that slapping a 35% trade tariff on incoming goods will somehow bring back manufacturing is an LSD induced hallucination. It WON’T work. All you’ll do is make the imported goods 35% more expensive, and create hardship for people wanting to buy those goods, because they CAN’T be made economically here. I OWN a US based manufacturing plant that makes Automotive, Aerospace, Firearms and Data-communications components. All the “easy” components went 15 YEARS ago to Taiwan, then China, then India, and now they’re being set up in Pakistan chasing the lowest labor cost and the highest responsive value-added-per-direct-labor-dollar. You want to REALLY bring back employment and manufacturing here, implement the FAIR-TAX proposal (23% Consumption tax on ALL NEW goods and on all services, eliminate income, corporate, FICA and inheritance/gift taxes), which will act as a WTO legal positive trade subsidy, because goods manufactured here will have ZERO tax to citizens of OTHER nations, meaning OUR manufactured goods become less expensive to THEM than their OWN goods, and as long as they are members of the WTO, they CANNOT implement a trade tariff onto those goods without violating THEIR trade agreements.

    From the 2000 “Reform Party” campaign: Mr. Trump proposed a one-time 14.25 percent “net worth tax” that would apply to individuals and trusts with assets greater than $10 million. That’s called “wealth confiscation.” He’s been smart enough not to bring it up again.

    3.) American sovereignty: I don’t have anything to say on this one. Mr. Trump has always been an “America First” type as far as I can find. My guess is that this is due to his immigrant Grandparents and parent. Ditto for “Goodbye distinct American citizenship, hello world citizenship & an open to the world labor pool.” although I would note that Mr. Trump has made use of non-US based production facilities for many of his products, so I question his sincerity just a little bit.

    To sum up:

    No candidate is entitled to ANY voter’s vote. Each and every candidate must EARN the vote of supporters. Simply extolling a voter to vote AGAINST someone (Sec. Clinton) leaves the voter open to voting for someone who fits their principles the best, and for MANY Conservatives, that is NOT Mr. Trump. That is where the law of unintended consequences comes into play, either driving MORE candidates into the race to take up the peeled-off voters (like McMullen) or driving voters into smaller 3rd parties which were already separately present, but had lesser draw. For example: Gary Johnson gave a FANTASTIC answer on Tax policy on the FAIR-TAX the other day during a NPR interview, although he fumbled it by agreeing that it was “regressive” when he SHOULD have stood his ground and said it was proportional to SPENDING.

    I asked this question before, and have not recieved an answer (from anybody). I’ll ask it again:

    Why should OTHERS betray their own principles by the action to put their support (because that is what a Vote is) toward an individual that they don’t believe in or who is actively hostile to their opinion, on the off-chance that if ENOUGH other individuals ALSO do so, that the offending person will defeat another, in their opinion, equally bad candidate?

    The only person who can bring Conservatives around to Mr. Trump is Mr. Trump himself. He can do that by engaging to principled Conservative positions, with rational reasoning of how he got from point A to point B (simply espousing them might not be enough in light of some of his past positions).

    Now, Secondwind: I know YOU don’t care about Conservative principles (you’ve TOLD us so many, many times). I’m not sure exactly WHERE you fall on the political spectrum. You would decry Mr. Trump’s movement toward any Conservative principles.

    I’ll repeat something else I’ve said in a different comment: Mr. Trump CANNOT WIN without the Conservative movement united behind him. His approach has been better of late, and he has been recognized as moving toward Conservative positions by some Conservative thought leadership. The questions are A.) will he keep moving on the Conservative spectrum, and B.) are those position adoptions real, or are they transitory?

      MarkSmith in reply to Chuck Skinner. | August 16, 2016 at 11:35 pm

      Skinner, probably one of your better written post, but way too long.

      I disagree with this:

      I’ll repeat something else I’ve said in a different comment: Mr. Trump CANNOT WIN without the Conservative movement united behind him. His approach has been better of late, and he has been recognized as moving toward Conservative positions by some Conservative thought leadership. The questions are A.) will he keep moving on the Conservative spectrum, and B.) are those position adoptions real, or are they transitory?

      I think Trump can win without the “Conservative” as you think what a Conservative is. Your version of “Conservative” will never be elected as President. In fact, I don’t think anyone out there meets your standard of “Conservative”.

      That said, your only chance to get “your conservatives” in play is to break the system of entrenched special interest in both the GOP and the DNC. Trump does that. Hillary will set your cause back even farther than anything Trump can do.

      BTW, I agree on the consumption tax with elimination of the income tax. I doubt I will ever see that in my lifetime.

        Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | August 17, 2016 at 8:03 am

        “That said, your only chance to get “your conservatives” in play is to break the system of entrenched special interest in both the GOP and the DNC. Trump does that.”

        The later proposition is a risible fantasy.

        He will reinforce the entrenched special interests. It’s what Collectivist do.

        If you want to know what my vision of Conservatism is, you don’t need to look very far:

        http://fleeingfromutopia.blogspot.com/2011/03/fleeing-from-utopia.html

        It’s literally the first post of my blog.

        I think Trump can win without the “Conservative” as you think what a Conservative is. Your version of “Conservative” will never be elected as President. In fact, I don’t think anyone out there meets your standard of “Conservative”.

        No. Mr. Trump really can’t win without the Conservatives united behind him. The math simply does not work, because Mr. Trump can’t replace the Conservative voters with new moderately-aligned independent voters (even accounting for his celebrity status and likelihood of drawing in Low Information Voters (LIVs) who know nothing other than his stage pronouncements).

        Further, there were several candidates in this election cycle who were in the acceptable range. Sen. Cruz was my preferred candidate, and he falls well within my acceptable definition of Conservatism, and his stances are consistent with The Civil Society concept. Governors Walker and Jindal were quite acceptable, with sufficient executive experience and record. Dr. Carson would have been a good choice, but he was weak on governmental experience (his executive experience at John’s Hopkins notwithstanding). Gov. Perry would have been marginally acceptable (but likely unelectable on a national stage).

        That said, your only chance to get “your conservatives” in play is to break the system of entrenched special interest in both the GOP and the DNC. Trump does that. Hillary will set your cause back even farther than anything Trump can do.

        Mr. Trump has shown a propensity to ENHANCE the position of special interests which benefit him and his organization. He has done so repeatedly in his real estate dealings in New York. I have no idea why supporters of Mr. Trump believe that he will be anything other than friendly to special interests, other than his early, bald-faced statements that “he wasn’t controlled by special interests.” Some of them are DIFFERENT special interests than the normal Establishment Republican set of special interests (he’s friendly with labor unions, airlines, casinos, land management companies, resource companies, defense, healthcare, industry and wall-street investors), but each IS vying for his attention, and he is providing it TO them just the same.

        As for Clinton setting back the cause, that is part of the larger philosophical argument and it goes back to the equation that Conservatives are laboring under:

        “Mr. Trump = Sen. Clinton.”

        Now, the other side of that equation is the shenanigans at the Republican convention, where the Establishment types and the Mr. Trump supporters colluded (however briefly) to prevent changes to the nomination and party rules that may (I think will) be the death of the Republican Party come the day after the election if Mr. Trump loses. The Conservative base has been slighted once too often and three candidates in a row is no longer a coincidence; its a pattern.

        The very reasonable rules changes which were proposed which were defeated would have enhanced the next cycle and led to a much more robust candidate which would have been in line with the Conservative mindset, but the Establishment Republicans don’t actually want that, because a true Conservative WOULD break the entrenched crony-capitalist system which has grown like a weed, displacing true competition where each individual stands on their own.

        I just don’t see Mr. Trump doing that if he manages to win. I may be wrong, but I’m usually a fairly good judge of likely outcomes, and given history and past actions, I foresee Mr. Trump, if elected, acting in a manner that is consistent with the crony-capitalist system, because that’s what he KNOWS and it’s comfortable, rather than burning the whole thing down and rebuilding it the way it should be.

My God, what is wrong with her eyes?

    tom swift in reply to Virginia42. | August 16, 2016 at 12:44 pm

    She has her father’s eyes.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to Virginia42. | August 16, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    The photo is just one moment out of the vid. What is more of interest to me is what seems to be the excessive eye-blinking. I think it’s a sign of something more than “there’s something in my eye.” However, at the moment, of what escapes me.

      rabidfox in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | August 16, 2016 at 3:40 pm

      Just assuming that you weren’t being sarcastic – excessive blinking (unless there is a medical reason) is a clue that the person is lying.

        DieJustAsHappy in reply to rabidfox. | August 16, 2016 at 8:40 pm

        Not sarcastic, although re-reading my comment I can see how that might be interpreted. Thanks for the clarification. If she was lying, perhaps it was that she really wanted to call Trump supporters something else but couldn’t on the air.

          DaveGinOly in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | August 16, 2016 at 11:23 pm

          It’s called “projection.” Often when liberals talk about other people they’re actually talking about themselves. For instance, say they don’t trust American NRA/conservative types with firearms because they don’t trust themselves with firearms. In this case it’s probably projection once removed. She really believes these things about Hillary, but is projecting them onto Trump because her ideology won’t allow her to see the truth. She probably consciously believes she’s telling the truth, but her subconscious knows she’s lying. So she blinks excessively.

          Five cents, please.

    murkyv in reply to Virginia42. | August 16, 2016 at 9:37 pm

    She looks like my Yorkie when he’s dragging his butt because his anal glands are itching

Cokie Roberts is an elitist, and really part of a corrupt cult of willful ignorance.

Roberts is about as relevant as Morning Joe.

I’d rather be “tainted” than “corrupt” as anyone who knowingly support Clinton must be at this time given the preponderance of evidence.
Or “clueless” as those that are just stuck in the MSM rut of disinformation.

I am so disappointed in Cokie. I remember her in the good old days when the Sunday shows were a little more responsible and were fun to watch. Cokie was one of the commentators/anchors whose opinion was solid.

Those days are gone. Maybe I was a little naïve, and there was no Rush or Fox News to set me straight. But Sundays were worth waiting for — I remember hurrying home after early Mass and sitting outdoors in the summer, with my little television under an umbrella, watching the greatest lineup of talk shows — one after the other. Charles Kuralt and the “Sun” day making viewers smile and sometimes cry, then the panel shows on each of the other networks. Good political talk, hardly blatant partisanship like today.

While I’m reminiscing, I remember Breakfast at Wimbledon with all those great names and the wonderful (to me) Bud Collins. It was like watching with family. Now it is so antiseptic and business-like, from all perspectives. I don’t watch it anymore. The fun has been taken out of it.

Has Cokie not seen the #NeverHillary memo?

DieJustAsHappy | August 16, 2016 at 2:24 pm

Informative, substantive, civil (for the most part), wholesome (again, for the most part), little malice or rancor, a sense of local, regional, and national issues (not everything was a federal case) are some of the descriptors that come to mind of that era …

Bud Collins. Yes. I miss the likes of him, as well.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | August 16, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Whoops. This was supposed to be a reply to Joepat. I’m getting a bit uneasy with my posting mistakes as well as spelling and grammatical errors. Hate to think of what sort os symptom it might be. Sorry.

One thing you can count on each morning is the loony left behavior from Morning Joe!

People so out of touch with the voters of “Middle America”!
Wonder what Donny D had to say about this?

buckeyeminuteman | August 16, 2016 at 4:26 pm

Monica Lewinsky’s dress is “morally tainted” but I have yet to hear any talking heads in the MSM bring that up during this erection cycle. The morals of the Clintons are the lowest of the low. Saying one turd sandwich is worse than another turd sandwich is a pretty poor topic of conversation.

The truth about Hillary’s taint? OMG! It’s true. I just can’t handle the truth. Don’t want to, either.

And you wonder why they call her “Cokie.” Hint, hint. Look at those Nancy Pelosi-type eyes!

ButterflyISme | August 17, 2016 at 10:39 pm

I can’t wait for this stupid election to be over with. : ( I know there have been other elections with people heated over the candidates, but this is seriously just one of the nastiest ones. As the mud~slinging, labeling continues our we too continue to grow apart from one another over people who really in the end don’t know us, our stories, our cares & concerns and after one of them gets into office won’t give 2 shits about us while we will be left trying to salvage friendships, family ties, etc. over politics. Sofa king over politics!!! : (

Cokie is the perfect name for that bug-eyed freak of a mug.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend