Exec. producer tells fishbowl DC that Meet the Press "would certainly be open" to interviewing Bob Barr

There you have it.

why is this here?

"Meet the Press" Executive Producer Betsy Fischer tells FishbowlDC:

Meet the Press has a long history of interviewing third party presidential candidates ... . We would certainly be open to having Rep. Barr back on Meet the Press to discuss his candidacy.

Well there ya go.

Everyone feel better?

Great just what we need , someone who was the leading Clinton smear monger in Bob Barr on meet the press.

 

It reminds me of how truly smart are little kids, and of how they learn everything by experience, and how they interpret all the words they hear, by the context in which they hear them used (little kids having no other way, they being unable as yet to read Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, or to have anybody who does read that standard, take the time to define words for them)...

And so picking up on the meanings of words from experience, and context, when they ask their mom for some snack-related toy-related play-related exception to the rules and the routine of the mom-kid day, and the mom says:

"We'll see... maybe."

They frown (and maybe worse), because they know (from experience) that that means "no".

 

But all is not lost, in keeping one step ahead of such sharp kids, who figure words out from their context, and from their experiences... mom can still put them off, and put off their frowning (or worse), simply by changing the words, to words the little kids haven't learned yet, what they truly mean...

"I'm open to it" mom says.

Which sends the little kid away all optimistic (which is a word few little kids know the meaning of, but a things almost all kids are), thinking "Cool! She's open to it!"...

 

And then along the way, by learning from experience, and by learning what words mean from the context in which they are used, the little kid realizes that that's just another way of saying "no".

 

Has MMFA become the watchdog of the right all of the sudden??  The fact that they would have Nader on but not bar shows there is bias against conservatives.  Barr, after all, is more conservative than Nader.

As a money draw, try this on for size.

McCain vs Barr!!! A conservative mano a mano!

Refereed/moderated by Chris Mathrews!

CM actually roasted a phone jock over the use of Chamberline's name. A rare cudo to him for that.

 

Okay, let's sum up. A few days ago, in the wake of Barr's announcement, MMFA wondered if MTP would have him on, as they did Nader. It prompted protests from the usual quarters, repeatedly grousing that it was premature even to ask the question.

Apparently, not everyone agreed, as fishbowlDC thought it worthwhile to ask MTP directly. They got an answer which MMFA has now passed on.

What we see in response to that is pretty much the same voices that complained about MMFA asking the question now complaining about MMFA telling them the answer!

Which seems to make this another illustration of the fact that some folks are here not to discuss, debate, educate, or enlighten, but only to find a way to gripe about as many posts as they can.

Footnote: I wonder what the response would have been if MMFA had not published this item and the grousers later found out of MTP's expression if willingness to have Barr on. While it's obviously impossible to know for sure, I feel quite confident that cries of MMFA having "suppressed" or "concealed" the "truth" would have rung through the comments.

Allow me to explain the point of this item, since nearly all of the previous posts miss it. The logic is quite simple. When Nader announced another possible presidential run a few months back, Meet the Press booked him immediately. With this post MMFA is implicitly asking if Meet the Press will be as interested in Barr's candidacy. The response to fishbowl suggests they are not. Hence the alleged bias. Really, guys, it's not that complicated.

I feel your rhetorical feelings will soon be crushed. Just like mine, but thats what they're there for.