Punditry

Meghan McCain, daughter of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Cindy McCain, beer distributor heiress, whose only accomplishment of note is being born to rich and famous parents and finding a way to parlay a poorly written blog into a book deal, doesn’t like Newt Gingrich. Why does anyone care what this spoiled woman-child thinks? Because she’s on TV, naturally.

In what can only be explained as a prank that has gotten out of control, Meghan is also an MSNBC contributor who was brought on to represent the Republican Party. Well, it was either a prank or just how far down the food chain MSNBC had to go in order to find anyone willing to call themselves a Republican and regularly appear on their network. Either way, it ain’t right.

Meghan was on “Now with Alex Wagner” earlier in the week to discuss the Republican primary and used the opportunity to unleash fresh hypocrisy on the world.

In addition to claiming that a Gingrich nomination would be “the end of the Republican Party,” McCain decided to attack Newt’s wife Callista, who, in her eyes is a hussy.

Of Callista, Meghan says, “[S]he was a third wife and a mistress and is coming off somewhat icy and [her] reputation of being somewhat controversial within their campaign is doing damage. Maybe just to politicos, but I think it’s something that people, and especially values voters, will bring into the race.”

GUESS WHAT MEGHAN: YOUR MOM IS ALSO A HUSSY.

McCain, herself not a “values voter,” calls Mrs. Gingrich “a mistress.” It’s true, Newt was married to his second wife when they met. But what Meghan neglects to point out is her own mother Cindy, wife of the last Republican nominee, was a mistress herself. Yes, John McCain was married when he met and became involved with Cindy. That this doesn’t occur to Meghan isn’t surprising, since she’s so oblivious to the world around her that she actually thinks people take her seriously.

But that slight to mistresses might make for an awkward Christmas dinner at the McCain house…whichever of the 8 homes in which they’re “Christmasing” this year.

MSNBC contributor Meghan McCain is also, like, totally a blogger! When not dispensing overpriced dime-store insight into the space between her ear she calls the young Republican mindset, she muses about stuff ‘n’ stuff on her website, McCainblogette.

Tuesday, Meghan took to her blog to offer some advice on “How to avoid 140-character regret,” four pearls of wisdom on how she tries to avoid exposing herself as an idiot by making embarrassing mistakes on Twitter.

She describes it this way: “Here are some rules I’ve set for myself to avoid any Tweet-centric mishaps or regrets.”

Overlooking the opening graph that would earn a D- in a third grade writing class, her points are as follows.

“1. Never tweet directly after a breakup, trust me no good will come of this. You are too emotionally raw and you don’t want to take it out on your twitter family.”

OK, not the worst advice ever. But it’s a lot like telling a kid “Don’t stare at the sun.” It’s gonna happen. But still, not a horrible start. Though referring to strangers on Twitter as “family” is a bit odd.

“2. Never tweet when you are angry in response to a follower. Take a step back and breathe- it’s just some anonymous person on the internet.”

First, the word “Internet” should be capitalized. Second, didn’t she just say people on Twitter were her family? Now they’re “just some anonymous person”? Where’s the love, Meghan? Third, if Twitter isn’t for fighting and letting the world see pictures of what you’re eating for dinner, what’s it for?

“3. Make sure that whenever you post a picture, you have looked over numerous times to make sure it’s correct. Tori Spelling’s husband recently tweeted a topless picture of his wife accidentally without realizing it- yikes!”

OK, there’s just a lot of stupid happening here. A LOT! Take a second and read that again, then realize that she’s a Columbia University graduate and PAID to write for The Daily Beast. The first sentence has a missing “it” and “Tori Spelling’s husband recently tweeted a topless picture of his wife accidentally without realizing it…”? Who would Tori Spelling’s husband’s wife be? And could you “accidentally” tweet something while realizing it? If this is what you get with an Ivy League education, community college for everyone! Tina Brown, that sound you hear is your brand tarnishing.

“4. And finally, try not to tweet anything you wouldn’t be comfortable with your mother, grandmother or sister reading – that’s my rule of thumb.”

Um…Uh…Why did she feel the need to make three points about her “rules,” then, in the final point, say THIS ONE is her “rule of thumb”?  What are the other three? General guidelines she thinks people should just ignore as long as grandma, mom and sis are cool with what you’ve said? “Rules of pinky”?

You have to wonder sometimes if Meghan ever reads what she’s written. More than that, you have to wonder how hard it is for colleagues at MSNBC and The Daily Beast to not laugh at her when she’s around. As for the rest of us, it’s a good thing she’s not around.

Ann Coulter is making the media rounds to explain her endorsement of Mitt Romney in the GOP Primary. Yesterday, she joined the “Morning Joe” team in studio. She was dressed in black and her long blond hair was looking fab. When Joe Scarborough pressed Coulter on the “flip-flop” issues that some of the conservative candidates seem to have, she tried to say being politically consistent isn’t as important as the media makes it seem. From there? Things get a little blurry. Coulter starts talking about Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) lack of consistency and calls him….something.

MSNBC censors silenced Coulter’s microphone. Here’s the awkward exchange.

When Team Joe freaks out, Coulter seems genuinely stunned, as if she doesn’t even realize what she said. She managed to sneak out half of the word “douchebag” before the censors struck again. What exactly did Coulter say? Did MSNBC fail to bleep out the douche bag comment? Coulter went on Joy Behar’s HLN show last night to explain WITHOUT getting bleeped. The word was “dickweed.”

For those of you keeping score at home:

Dickweed = Not OK
Douchebag = Totally OK

Unless of course you’re TIME‘s Mark Halperin, who famously said President Obama was being “kind of a dick” earlier this year without getting bleeped. However, he was suspended for over a month for his comments.

We reached out to “Morning Joe’s” Willie Geist who “doesn’t have anything to add to the story”.

For the past 24 hours Betsy’s been chronicling Battle Van-Carlson,  the feud between FNC’s Greta Van Susteren and Tucker Carlson over a Daily Caller post that described in detail lewd remarks about former Governor Sarah Palin, made by convicted rapist and all-around idiot Mike Tyson.  Written by Jeff Poor, the piece recounted an interview Tyson recently gave to a Vegas ESPN affiliate in which he offered vulgar, sexually-charged WTFuckery about Palin’s love life.  After reading the post, Van Susteren went berserk on Carlson, calling him a “pig,” “liar,” etc.

Greta suggests that by running the story, the Caller is guilty of journalistic crimes against women and smut peddling.  Tucker argues that Tyson’s high-pitched squeaks are newsworthy and deserve public scrutiny and condemnation.  What say you?  Read more here and here…and weigh in below.

Jamal Simmons has a birthday wish: “$40 for 40 kids,” says an email invitation.  Sounds a little fishy, right?  At we first we thought CNN and CBS contributor was wrapped up in some wacky child labor or human trafficking ring.  But who would e-vite their friends to participate in organized crime?  So we read on.

The reality is Simmons is celebrating his 40th birthday with a party at 9th Street’s Mood Lounge this weekend.  In lieu of gifts, the pundit is asking guests to make a $40 donation to Detroit’s Rosa Parks Scholarship Foundation, an annual program that awards 40 Michigan high school seniors $2,000 scholarships.  Ah, that’s better.  Happy birthday to Jamal!  You can support his cause here.

HuffPost‘s Michael Calderone is reporting that none other than famed WaPo columnist Ezra Klein (looking rather muscular here) will regularly contribute editorials to Bloomberg View. He joins a roster that includes Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, former OMB director Peter Orszag, The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg, and Bloomberg‘s Margaret Carlson and Al Hunt.

Not to worry, Klein will keep his job at WaPo, as will Goldberg at the Atlantic.

Read more about the new section here.

Conservative pundit and frequent TV commentator Ann Coulter spoke at GWU Wednesday night to a large crowd of Republicans, a few Democrats, and at least one angry Libertarian, who gave her the finger when she told him she wasn’t a gay marriage supporter. The speech was usual Coulter fare, but one quote stuck out.

Asked by one student about marijuana legalization, Coulter said she was going to have to disappoint most of the room. She’s opposed. Primarily this is because men who start smoking pot early tend to have a “sunken chest” and wind up being about as tall as Bill Maher.

After the speech, Coulter spoke with a small group of reporters. She addressed one question about why her new book, Demonic, due out June 7. It doesn’t feature her mug on the cover as most of her past books do. Beside the fact that the title wouldn’t fit with her “smiling face”, a sample cover with her photo didn’t get the Matt Drudge seal of approval.

“I sent the cover to Matt Drudge and he hysterically said, ‘No, no, no! Just the title, just your name.’” Coulter didn’t think her publisher would be cool with it, but asked anyway. “I tried, and they accepted it, and we all loved it,” she said.

Coulter said she’d happily come as a guest to some fancy schmancy WHCD parties, but there was a catch: “Will it help me sell books?” Fishbowl promised 10,000 books sold if she’d come. Whoops.

In other Coulter news you won’t want to miss…

Read more

Depending on which account you read of MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, the man is either an angel or the Devil himself.

The Daily Beast‘s Washington Bureau Chief Howard Kurtz paints a picture of O’Donnell as a humble, well-meaning host with passionate views he isn’t afraid to defend.

“Lawrence O’Donnell doesn’t sound like he wants to be talking about himself or his prime-time cable show,” Kurtz writes of the MSNBC host. And later: “You can’t accuse the 59-year-old journeyman of overselling himself.” Kurtz talks about O’Donnell’s even temper as compared to his former colleague, Keith Olbermann, writing that there’s not much “resemblance in their style.” O’Donnell isn’t perfect, but that seems to be what Kurtz finds appealing. Kurtz describes O’Donnell’s tone as “that of a disapproving prep-school headmaster,” but the description seems endearing. O’Donnell is far from “playing the role of infallible host,” having apologized on the show twice in its short time on air, but that only serves to make him greater in Kurtz’s eyes.

Kurtz’s profile makes brief mention of another great O’Donnell trait – “he doesn’t seem overly sensitive to criticism” – with mention of a profile that took a much different look at the TV host: Moe Tkacik‘s New York Observer piece from last month.

In Tkacik’s piece, titled “The O’Donnell Factor: A Hill Hack Goes Prime-Time Wacko,” the freelancer and former WCP writer isn’t as enamored with O’Donnell. Tkacik writes O’Donnell has “specialized in the sort of news…preferred by people who can’t be bothered to follow the news” which has “proven such a disaster” that some viewers have decided to watch Parker Spitzer instead. (The horror!) O’Donnell is a “vigorously vacuous character whose insipidity of subject matter is matched only by his sanctimony.” Tkacik questions the murky details of O’Donnell’s life story: When did he graduate from college? How old is he? Did he actually write for the Harvard Lampoon? Why did O’Donnell really resign from his job on Capitol Hill? All questions Kurtz fails to ignore in his short paragraph on O’Donnell’s background. Tkacik closes with a debate O’Donnell had with former Florida Rep. Alan Grayson. A debate in which “Mr. O’Donnell was wrong, on his terms as well as those of any sane debate.”

Both Kurtz and Tkacik discussed O’Donnell’s recent interview with Iowa Rep. Steve King, though with differing tones…

Read more

Lanny Davis raised some eyebrows today by calling out a number of high-profile reporters and commentators in an interview on Sirius XM’s P.O.T.U.S. channel. President Clinton’s former special counsel, now partner at Lanny J. Davis & Associates, spoke out for the first time against a series of stories criticizing his professional relationship with two African dictators, directing his remarks at the New York Times and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz. “Ms. Maddow went after me as being the defender of dictators and corrupt people and whatever the dark side is,” Davis told Sirius XM’s Joe Mathieu. “So I called the next day to say it would be nice if Ms. Maddow allowed me to offer the other side of the story. And I never heard back. And then I called my friend Ed Schultz, I sent him an email, saying could you have me on to tell my side of the story. And he said, ‘You criticized Rachel Maddow; I’m not having you on anymore.’”

Davis also took aim at the New York Times, which ran a story in December calling  him “a kind of front man for the dark side. “Two reporters who worked on this story never called me, and they would have gotten a much different outcome had they called me about other facts that they were omitting in their reporting.”

Davis on Maddow and Shultz here.

Davis on the New York Times here.

It’s just so…romantic. The latest edition of Bloggingheads features Religion Dispatches‘ Sarah Posner and Slate‘s Dave Weigel, who often write about the same things, report from the same places, and eat the same soft pretzels. I slipped into more than just a couple of comas trying to get through the 58 minutes 18 seconds of fun.

They talked abortion for an eternity. A literal eternity. A full 25 minutes full of Stupak amendments, Pence amendments, pro-choice people, pro-life people, anti-choice people, and Roe v. Wade.

Finally they moved (if you can call it moving) on to the CPAC/GOProud controversy. Posner brought up Ann Coulter, who took credit for getting the gay conservative group to give up on gay marriage. Posner said she didn’t know if that was true. Weigel said GOProud didn’t deny it. Both wondered if Coulter really deserved the credit. Meanwhile, I wondered if Sarah Posner is related to Mike Posner, the guy who sings “Cooler Than Me.” I’m still wondering. 

Moving on. Yes, we’re moving. Posner and Weigel moved on to Islamaphobia at CPAC, which both agreed was the most interesting story. (Glad they saved it for 40 minutes into the discussion.)

Then there was this exchange:
Weigel: “For some reason, this sideshow didn’t get as much attention.”
Posner: “Well, let’s get a little background on the sideshow.”
Weigel: “Yeah, explain the sideshow.”
Posner: “So, the the sideshow is…”

Get these people a thesaurus.

Overall, the discussion was kinda fun and flirty, complete with lots of LOLs shared only by Posner and Weigel. I, meanwhile, wanted to die. Thanks for making me watch this, Betsy. I’ll never forget it.