Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The highly dishonest Jon Keller

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-09-13 09:15 AM
Original message
The highly dishonest Jon Keller


(The above is Keller when he was younger and less pudgy than he is today.)

You may or may not recall my mentioning Keller in connection with Elizabeth Warren's run for Senate. wondering why in hell she had agreed to allow this turd to moderate a debate between her and the Brown turd.

He is a local (Boston) TV and radio personality who is, IMO, extremely dishonest and cynical.

This morning, news broke the former Massachusetts Governor Paul Cellucci had passed away after battling Lou Gehrig's disease for five years. FWIW, I had met Cellucci once, when he was a speaker at my organization's big annual event. He impressed me as an extraordinarily nice person.

In speaking about Celluci this morning, Keller said that whatever good economic health Massachusetts may currently enjoy can arguably be attributed to the fiscally conservative policies of Celluci and his predecessor in office, William Weld.

William Weld took office in frickin' 1991. Celluci was Weld's Lt. Governor. Bubba, in all his center right wisdom, apppointed Republican Weld as ambassador to Mexico. Cellucci then became acting Governor. As an incumbent Acting Governor, Celluci ran for Governor when Weld's term expired and won.

Bush appointed Governor Celluci as ambassador to Canada in 1991, whereupon Celluci left and Cellucci's Lt. Gov., Jane Swift, took over as acting Governor. She was a loser. Once Mutt Romney announced, she retired for public life rather than face him in a primary.

Between them, Weld and Celluci governed Massachusetts from 1991-2001. Romney governed from January 2002 to January 2006, when our current Governor, Democrat Deval Patrick, took office.

At all time dAnd, of course, less than two years into Deval Patrick's first term came global economic collaspse, which changed the economic game everywhere.


At all times described above, the Massachusetts legislature was way over 2/3 Democratic.

Cellucci and Swift both rebated taxes, leaving the Massachusetts Treasury dangerously depleted.


Now, please explain to me how anyone can honestly posit that Weld and Cellucci were arguably responsible for whatever good fiscal health Massachusetts may be enjoying today.

When he finished the above bs, Keller then accused Markey of running a "hyper partisan" campaign for Senate against Republican Gomez.

Well, excuse me, but, when a Democrat runs against a Republican, it's by definition a partisan campaign, isn't it?

What makes it "hyper" partisan? Well, according to Keller, Markey has been "seeking to associate" Gomez with Republican Senate leadership.

First, that is not the least bit partisan and, second, it's untrue.

Gomez has said that he is not the typical Republican, a claim that very legitimately opens the door for Markey to show that Gomez is a very typical Republican. To do that, Markey gives direct quotes from Gomez on the issues. How the hell is anything wrong that kind of campaign?

Most or all local Boston TV personalities are RW, but they at least try to keep that out of their reporting. Keller is unwilling to give us anything but highly biased discussion, under the guise of fairness. He is, IMO, a disgrace.
Refresh | +1 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-09-13 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. Thank you, No Elephants. Sounds like Jon Keller
is a regular RW media mouthpiece. A disgrace, in your words.

Geesh, another one?! It's the corporate message, 24/7. It's never in our best interest and it is calculated to misinform at every turn.

Look at MSNBC, for example. They were making inroads and were gaining a market share. Then they found Big Ed to be too radical and critical of the status quo. They kicked him upstairs to the weekend. Same with Cenk and Olbermann. Since the Ed move their ratings have plummeted. Viewers watching MSNBC are already highly suspicious "news" consumers.

Then Maddow pronounced anyone that harbored doubts about the official 911 story as crazy conspiracy tin foil hat nutters. I've never watched her program since. How many ways can she be wrong? PNAC said, clearly, that "we" needed a new American Pearl Harbor attack. Anyone that doesn't think something is fishy about 911 is brain dead. I don't listen to corporate spokesmen, or women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-10-13 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Thanks, Enthusiast
The catch 22 in which Keller found himself--whether he realized it or not--was that he halfway admitted that Massachusetts was in good fiscal health today.

Only someone who is brain dead would say that none of that is attributable to the man who has been in office for the last seven years or to the Democratic legislature, but is due only to Governors in office from 1991-2001, one of whom actually gave a tax rebate (as did his Lt. Gov.)

As far as MSNBC, as they told Cenk, they are "establishment." When Cenk was told to come up with a new show, his ratings were second only to Maddows. Same thing when Ed got kicked into weekends, somewhere between Harris-Perry, the biggest twit on MSNBC, and the soul-numbing prison shows.

However, now that Schultz has been re-assigned to ratings hell, Ed's ratings probably will go down and they can fire him for a neutral reason.

And Ed was not exactly a huge critic of Obama. He was certainly all for him at re-election time, when it mattered.
,
And, like all MSNBC folk, Schultz seemed oblivious to the existence of any party other than the Republicrats and the Demlicans.

But, their job is not being objective or even uber informative. It's being pro-establishment.

I find Maddow and O'Donnell boring. They seem to to me to drone on endlessly and I've caught O'Donnell in some untruths that I am fairly certain he knew to be untruths when he spoke them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-10-13 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Btw, I posted this on seafan's thread about the Security State
Edited on Mon Jun-10-13 01:25 PM by No Elephants
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.p...

I also recommend fatster's new round up at firedoglake. It's not news writing, per se, but it is a collection of links to interesting news stories.

MSNBC, meh. In the early part of the day, it's Republicans pretending to be balanced (Mika and Joe) or objective. Later in the day, it's...I am not even sure how to describe it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-12-13 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yeah.
I don't find Republicans pretending to be balanced particularly appealing. That's what we see on Fox 24/7.

There are too many professional misinformationists on the TV and internet. I am growing weary of the bullshit.

As far as the NSA and DU3 goes you would be surprised to find a majority of posters have come down hard on the President. Now, this majority is growing less vocal by the day and some threads especially critical of the President have simply disappeared. But, I have been pleasantly surprised by the response. Of course the cheerleader brigade will never change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-12-13 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I think Joe and Mika are more dangerous than Fox. People who think they are
getting objectivity from Fox are as silly as the people who think they are getting objectivity from MSNBC in the afternoon and evening; and both groups are beyond my ability or patience to reason with people.

But, the pretense on Morning Joe is a lot more insidious. In my opinion, anyway.

As far as the NSA and DU3 goes you would be surprised to find a majority of posters have come down hard on the President.


A majority? Really? I am beyond surprised. I am floored.

I am especially surprised because I read somewhere while lurking around on some board or other--don't recall where--that there had been a "purge" of liberals recently. No idea if that is truth or fantasy, but I did read it somewhere.

BTW, does anyone even say "floored" anymore? And what does it mean anyway?

This?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-12-13 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Oops. I just saw that, on seafan's thread, I bet my home that a majority on
DU3 were rationalizing the mass snoop.

I guess I lost my home, but I am not sure who I lost it to. No one seems to have taken the bet.

Oh, well, I'll just stay here as a squatter until the winner, if any, comes to collect.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-13-13 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I guess we are both "floored".
Maybe that means we ended up on the floor out of shock. Or something.

There is just no way to sweep this under the rug. The NSA thing isn't the least bit surprising to me considering the crazy appointments and decisions made by this administration. We appear to have a continuation of the Dubya Administration, mostly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-13-13 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Ari Fleischer called it Bush's fourth term, but how would he know?
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-phone-records...

Obama called it "forward," as opposed to all the polticians who campagn on "backward."


And, once again, Back to the Future comes to mind as we go "forward" into the past.

However, since we do not want to prosecute Bushco, we must look only forward, while carrying out Bush's fourth term. Tricky manuever, that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Nov 21st 2014, 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC