My impression of Imus in the morning.

I haven't seen it in years, but does this carnage of white masculinity always talk with grunts and other useless pauses? If I were to get a nickel for every "uh" and other time waster, I could buy the radio/t.v. show by the end of the year.

It's extremely disorganized. They just broke out into music, and then a commercial because someone couldn't find the information on his script.

The good news is that this can't give them much punch when they counter-attack Clarke, as they tried this morning. Weak jabs that Leslie Stahl didn't ask Clarke why he was opposed to Homeland Security and the reference to the Viacom-pushing-a-book accusation. But I've been on MSNBC for ten minutes now, and I've heard no other information.

is how they are trying to discredit Clarke on the basis of politics, book deal, etc., but I have not seen anyone say that what Clarke wrote and said was a lie

How desperate are these slims

Imus is so full of himself. I used to kinda like him, but now I see him in a whole new light.

Yeah, I noticed the "uhs" every minute. He acts as though he is so bored. He turned me off when he turned against Clinton, meanwhile
he marries someone half his age.

No, I don't like Imus at all.

I saw Condi last night and she looked like a deer caught in the headlights.

She didn't deny anything Clarke said, she just tried to discredit him for his job as terrorism czar. She tried to invoke all the shit that has happened over the Clinton years. WTC93, USS COLE, etc.

It was pathetic.

The truth is coming to light and these fanatics we have as government are seeing their life flash before their eyes.

It's now only a matter of time.

My only hope is that President Kerry brings criminal charges against each and everyone of them.

Buh bye Georgie boy.

He is on the air because he appeals to 50-70 year-old white males in the power elite. He usually provides the Republicans with a supportive media outlet and that is the only reason that he allowed to broadcast. He's sort of the Washington Times of broadcast.

Jonathan Alter from Newsweek is defending Clarke (at the expense of Clinton) and Imus is asking why Clarke didn't quit after 9/11. I'll give you one good reason why Clarke didn't quit. Because when 9/11 was happening, HE was the only one with the balls to stay behind in the White House when everybody else fled. If you know that everybody else who should be leading this country is running for their lives, and you love your country, what do you do? You stall and wait until the cowards compose themselves and come up with a plan of their own before you step out and let the people know the truth.

But if he had come out after 9/11, the blame would have been put on him and the media would have helped the Bush Administration pin it on him. Imus is so wrong with claiming Clarke should have resigned because the idiot under the cowboy hat would have been right there helping the Bush Administration blame Clarke without looking at the data.

After he "saw" the first attack "live" on TV, what did he do? He entered a classroom and sat in on a reading lesson, and remained there even after being told (?) of the second attack.

between Stern and Imus the Repugs are getting it every morning.

I enjoyed it a-lot.... Imus is negative most of the time ....but Jonathan Alter from Newsweek is on and ...and he is saying that Clarke was telling the truth and Condsleeza knew better and was flat out lying and trying to trash Clarke.....He is talking about the White house Great trashing machine....Hooray Alter....

At least Imus brought up the fact that the Republicans were attacking Clinton in the 90s and distracting them. Alter said, "Oh, come on." I think Alter is one of those media whores who will refuse that they added to our problems in the 90s by creating news churn that helped keep the Republican congress from cooperating with Clinton on matters of foreign affairs.

you are right about that......

show -- he's the grouchy, disgruntles old man.
Is he full of crap. Yea. But I just ignore him.

Of course, he is supporting Kerry right
now, while the rest of the staff on the show are
Bush supporters. So I give him credit for that,
even though I have no idea whether he's sincere.

And, he runs the Imus Ranch for kids with cancer
in N.M., and I know he's very dedicated to that.

So, I generally enjoy the show on MSNBC because it's the only
current events program on at this hour.

I don't know how current he is. They just replayed Clinton's comments regarding Monica Lewinsky as if that absolves the Republicans from their misbehavior in the 90s. If the media had been truthful, they would have aired the history of presidential extra-curricula, including Kennedy's sexual peccadillos as well as George Bush I and Jennifer Fitzgerald. The truth is that before the Republicans attempted their coup in the 90s, no president had been called on the carpet on personal matters. The Republican attack in the 90s was political, it was calculated and malicious. And I'm still waiting for the media to come out and set the record straight.

some people complain because Imus tends to focus on the negative. But look at the beasic message of the Jonathan Alter book: Imus mouthed the right's responses, (Alter called him on playing the "devil's advocate") and Alter answered every question in a manner that will make sense to middle America. Alter even called Condi Rice "pathetic." Still, a number of d.u.ers look at this as negative. Get real. MSNBC is mainstream media; Imus is part of that, and it is better for him to put on Jonathan Alter to reach the middle class than someone so far to the left that they would not listen. You have to speak the language people understand. Don't look for "the bad" in everything, especially those things that are going to help Kerry win in the fall.

As long as you make that distinguishing point.

Imus appeals to one specific segment of society. You hit it on the head. There is another "Imus" post/thread about four above here, where I discuss Imus' strategy in greater detail. But let's be serious: the group he reaches are highly unlikely to read d.u., or to relate to the same messages that are on here. (Although some contributers are at very least as negative in attitude as Imus.) Our goal should be to unite a broad base of support behind a candidate to replace bush this fall. Re-making the county into the image of d.u. is not possible, and probably that wouldn't be a good idea anyhow.

Imus was pissed and rightly so IMHO. If Leslie Stahl commits to be on and then backs out at the last minute I suspect weak knees on her part.

Imus has a long memory for a senile old man.

You are taking it too seriously...

It never seems to amaze me that people actually think he's some sort of serious pundit...

His show has a distinct style and pace...

Also bear in mind...It's RADIO...they sell ads - not relevant commentary...

this week is even more unorganized than usual because he has just moved his locale to his ranch for kids with cancer in NM, i believe. his staff and cohorts are still in NYC and there are logistical problems.

that said...he's getting old, both physical and content wise, with waaay too much time spent on "imaus outrage" usually focused on real or imagined slights that life has dealt him.

he still gets good people on air like Kerry on a regular basis pre prez run, and other journalistic and political notables. that keeps me checking in but the show is on the downslide because the man is.

Oh yah,,,, he's the dude that would prance through the offices uttering the work "Nigger"...

I loved Sterns portayal of this Imus in Private Parts...

on Howard Stern again!!! LOL :evilgrin:

:evilgrin: