Mika and Joe provide comic relief!


As we summer again:
We're off on a mission of national import, summering for the next few days at an impossibly chic, undisclosed location in the Hudson Valley.

But first, a bit of comic relief, live and direct from yesterday morning's Morning Joe.

(To watch what follows on videotape, you can just click here.)

At 6:13 Eastern, in the program's first segment, Mika read a report from prompter about Steve Bannon's latest escapade. The background:

Bannon had made a phone call to liberal icon Robert Kuttner. This followed Kuttner's piece for The American Prospect concerning North Korea.

Kuttner had battered Donald J. Trump pretty good. At the end of his piece, he wrote this:
KUTTNER (8/15/17): For all of his nuclear bluster, Trump may find that the price of avoiding a catastrophic war with North Korea is that the United States becomes even more of a client state of China. In the meantime, the risk of two arrogant fools blundering into a nuclear exchange is more serious than at any time since October 1962.
Oof. For whatever 16-dimensional reason, Bannon called Kuttner with words of praise, possibly failing to realize that his deathless remarks were on the record and were indeed being recorded.

Now it was Thursday morning. Joe and Mika were trying to explain what Bannon had done.

Their sidekick, Willie Haskell-Geist Jr., was even present this day. At 6:13, Mika began reading from prompter. This is what she said:
MIKA (8/17/17): Robert Kuttner described being surprised to get the phone call from Bannon. The White House chief strategist apparently called to praise him for a recent piece in which Kuttner had written about North Korea.

(Signalling heightened interest)

Here we go! He said, quote, "In Kim, Trump has met his match. The risk of two arrogant fools blundering into a nuclear exchange is more serious than at any time since October 1962."
Uh-oh! Mika was quoting what Kuttner had said. But, as would soon become clear, she apparently thought she was quoting Bannon.

As it turned out, that's what Joe thought too! When Mika stopped reading from prompter, this is what he and Mika wonderfully said:
JOE: So Willie, really, I don't know where to begin with this. But let's just start with the part where he calls the president of the United States, his boss, a blundering fool.

MIKA: That's a problem.

JOE: Blundering fool. And then undercuts his military strategy...He's just going—

WILLIE: Right to the top.

JOE: —straight for attacks on the commander in chief, calling him a blustering fool and saying he's lying to the world.

MIKA: "Blundering."
Willie continued from there. Wonderfully, Mika had corrected Joe's wording of the quotation, failing to realize that it was being attributed, if we might borrow from Hitch, to "the wrong man."

At 6:18, Axios' Jonathan Swan was introduced into the discussion. He quickly corrected the gang's mistake. Nobody batted an eye.

As we've noted in the past, everyone makes mistakes. This one was amusing, but also perhaps instructive.

In the humorous realm, we get to see Mika's work on this program in a nutshell. In saying "That's a problem," she offered one of her trademark, three-word affirmations of Whatever It Is That Joe Said.

In this case, she did so without understanding that the remark in question was being attributed to the wrong person. Her later correction of Joe's wording was icing on the cake.

That was the humorous side. More strikingly, none of the program's three principals—Joe, Mika and Haskell-Geist—seemed to have familiarized themselves with the material being discussed on their program.

Producers had planned for this topic to be reviewed in the program's opening segment. When the topic arose, it was left to Swan to come on the air and straighten the whole thing out.

Things like that can happen. In this case, the error provided some late-summer comic relief.

We expect to post tomorrow even as we summer. For one thing, Jason Zinoman's profile of David Letterman's relationship with Donald J. Trump strikes us as horribly, deeply revealing concerning The Way The TV World Works.

We plan to read Mika's third book, Obsessed, over the weekend. We recently read her second book, Knowing Your Value (2011), in which she extensively drew on the wisdom of a fellow you may know—a fellow named Donald J. Trump.


  1. "Wonderfully, Mika had corrected Joe's wording of the quotation, failing to realize that it was being attributed, if we might borrow from Hitch, to "the wrong man""

    She didn't 'fail to realize' anything, Bob. Quit pretending that the establishment media are anything but a crude goebbelsonian propaganda operation, where who who said what (or even whether they said it or not) matters.

    1. Hello and a good times to you and friend.

      I have it here warning post about punjab cricket.

      Do not eat it punjab cricket. If eat it punjab cricket you have it bad smell gas.

      One time lady friend name Smupa eat it a punjab cricket.

      She then have it bad smell gas for 3.5 days.

      For this time we not have good time bed time. Not good. Thank you

    2. Bannon says liberals play the race card to their own detriment. Bob says liberals play the race card to their own detriment. Therefore Bob is an ex Goldman Sachs white nationalist in a J Crew hunting jacket.

    3. Perhaps you might want to concentrate a little less on denouncing infidels, and pay more attention to what they're actually saying.

      If indeed both Mr Bannon and Bob are saying the same thing, then you may want to listen and consider it...

    4. Thank you Mao for your advice. I may want to do those things. I could always benefit from paying more attention and listening more.

      I want to wish you a good weekend and I am hoping the best for you and success in all spheres of your life.

      You and I will always be brothers and I will always love you and be there for you despite any superficial political differences.

      Yours forever,


    5. Ha. The dark Greg, a junior high mentality that used to pretend to defend Bob, tips his real hand here. The hard right cranks do come and go round here, but he has had a certain tenacity. Actually, liberals SOMETIMES agree that they play the race card to their own detriment. I wish they did more often, but it's hard to explain to Trumpscum like you two.

    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    7. Having "a junior high mentality," if he does, does nothing to distinguish him from the "real" Greg. I actually felt the post above, especially given its third paragraph, vowing to look past political differences, at least where simple civility is concerned, showed more class and intelligence than either "Greg" has ever shown here before; so, of course, the "real" Greg is quick to deny any involvement with it, thus maintaining the general Bizarro World vibe of this comment section, where spellcasters ply their numinous trade, liberals dispute Bob's points (seemingly without realizing they are often corroborating and/or exemplifying them), and Mao and Dave in Cal are relentlessly and cartoonishly demonized as the likes of "Trumpscum," even though they often make the only insightful comments on any given day, etc.

    8. ...Dave in Cal are relentlessly and cartoonishly demonized as the likes of "Trumpscum," even though they often make the only insightful comments on any given day, etc.

      Yes, here is Comrade DinC being insightful.


      David in Cal June 6, 2017 at 9:00 PM

      According to liberals, Comey was
      1. A God, when he ended the investigation of Hillary
      2. A Demon, when he announced that new evidence might require that investigation to be re-opened.
      3. Again a God, when Trump fired him

      If he has nothing concrete to testify against Trump, he might become a Demon again. OTOH if he has enough to justify impeaching Trump, he will become the God of all Gods.


      That insightful comment was made shortly after the pussygrabber fired Comey and it was revealed that pussygrabber was doing everything he could to obstruct the investigation into his treason. Comrade DinC had his panties in a bunch.

      For more insightful comments such as these, check out mr. pig vomit, rush Limbaugh, or tune into Fox NOOZ.

    9. @ 12:48 - concern troll's concern is noted.

    10. Just making fun of your occasional association fallacy.

  2. Heh. Apparently the Bannon-Kuttner conversation was much more interesting that you led us to believe, Bob:

    “The Democrats,” he told the American Prospect’s Bob Kuttner, “the longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.”

    If your comment section is any indication, this is exactly how it's going to play out.

    I would add that should liberals switch to economics, whatever they got to offer, all those 'international trade' agreements they've been peddling, promising benefits to everybody (lying, that is) - it's gonna hurt them even more.

    Protectionism, economic nationalism, isolationism, that's the ticket. Whoever runs on it - wins. Liberals, the neocon/globalist wing of the US elite - they lose. What we are witnessing now is their agony. Or so I hope, anyway...

    1. There are many on the "left" (see Bernie Sanders supporters) who are opposed to treaties like Nafta. I wish you would quit making statements like "All liberals are...". It's grade-school,stupid, unhelpful, and wrong.
      Some conservatives like international trade agreements. Some liberals do. Some conservatives are bullies. Some liberals are bullies. Etc, etc. It's an obvious point, but one that is lost on you...but then, at this moment as I type this, I'm pretending that you are intellectually honest, and don't make sweeping generalizations and illogical deductions, and aren't here just to troll this website.
      I tried to share a while back a story about how a life-long conservative friend of my mother's ended the friendship because my mother voted for Obama, and how my mother was really hurt by it, but you just pissed on it with your usual cavalier nonsense ("Yes, liberals are bullies...").
      Anyway, would isolationism have been the correct response to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan? Does protectionism invariably lead to positive results? I don't expect a truly honest answer from you.
      Your presence on this comments section is tiresome. I'm barely able to stomach Somerby anymore,much less his pilot fish (or barnacle) named "Mao."

    2. Poor anon, victimised by having to (being forced?) to read my comments and to reply to them. Please accept my sympathies..

      Incidentally, in my experience wing-nuts are nowhere as arrogant and bullying as liberals. They, in general, do not feel superior to anyone, their typical statement would be something like this: 'we just want to live in our communities like our parents lived, and you can do whatever you want'. However flawed it is, I find their basic message much less objectionable than liberal hatred, bullying, and arogance.

      But that's just me, YMMV...

    3. Mao - I'll pour soup on your head.

    4. "in my experience wing-nuts are nowhere as arrogant and bullying as liberals."

      So they tend to side with, not against racists. Shocking. What did you tell them, that the 2008 economic crash was caused by the CRA?

    5. Mao - "Protectionism, economic nationalism, isolationism" - whether who runs on this platform wins or whether this platform improves things are two different things. How do you know that this won't lead to economic disaster, if ever put into place fully? I have never voted for a GOP president, aND VOTED FOR Clinton - but it does seem that the liberals and democrats are going off the deep end with the Russia probe and the identity politics - that doesn't mean Trump isn't worse - he is, he's a disaster for the country.

    6. Not "put into place FULLY", obviously: any extreme leads to a disaster. Globalization, in one form or another, is here to stay; this is reality, technological reality, with global communications, intercontinental shipping, and so on.

      That said, whatever the conditions, national govermnent must pursue interests of its population, not the interests of global capital.

      Right now, the neocon/globalist clique is firmly in control of the government. Mr Trump came in opposing it (albeit not very eloquently), and this is, in my opinion, what this struggle is all about. It's a push back. If it fails, there will be another one, and it might be violent. One way or another, serious adjustments will have to be made. That 'change' the Obama campaign promised and failed to deliver - it'll have to happen. In my opinion.

    7. "That said, whatever the conditions, national govermnent must pursue interests of its population, not the interests of global capital."
      The problem is, the interests of global capital run our government with legal bribery and massive lobbying.
      Trump saw it, so did Sanders and Clinton. So did millions of liberals.
      Americans have been brainwashed into believing that Freedom, Capitalism, and Godliness are a Holy Trinity. Woe betide any apostates.

    8. Mao, you put unwarranted emphasis on my use of the word "fully." I meant fully to the degree that you would advocate, not fully to some absolute extreme degree. You thus avoid answering my question. Who are the members of this "neocon-globalist clique?" And what makes you think Trump doesn't belong to it? - or that he opposes their interests? Isn't he just a demagogue who bamboozled his voters? He advocates loads more money for the industrial-military complex, weakening of regulation of banks, and abolishing the estate tax - how does that (and nominating reactionary Neil Gorsuch) advance the cause of fighting the globalist cabal? I doubt it does.

    9. I don't know about any individual members, or Trump's personal convictions; it doesn't interest me. I'm talking about political dynamics.

      The Trump campaign was about protectionism (aka economic nationalism) and isolationism (dealing with pregmatic, anti-terrorism issues, rather than 'spreading democracy' or destroying potential adversaries).

      This is why he'd won. Then I saw that NAFTA is being re-negotiated, new tariffs imposed. I saw the war in Syria winding down. Today we'll know something about Afghanistan.

      Of course this agenda is being viciously opposed, and it can be derailed in the end, but it'll only mean that the issues remain unresolved for the time being, and they'll become more critical.

    10. With these types of changes - e.g., higher tariffs (which ones have gotten higher anyway?), renegotiating NAFTA, some benefit, some lose out. Higher tariffs - higher prices. Trump milked anti-Terrorism hysteria - number of people directly harmed by it is negligible, especially when compared to lots of other things. "Viciously" oppose or just "oppose" - you use slanted language. Is protectionism and economic nationalism the only reason, or even a reason he got elected? - how do you know? there were a lot of factors. Will the overall good outweigh the bad with tariffs and renegotiating NAFTA? - again who knows? In the meantime you seem awfully naïve in shilling for this guy.

    11. "Then I saw that NAFTA is being re-negotiated, new tariffs imposed. I saw the war in Syria winding down. Today we'll know something about Afghanistan."

      None of this is true. These lies comes from Trump. Trump is a politician. Mao, himself says all politicians lie. Mao can defend this crap all he wants to us liberals, but I want to see him take on this Mao guy who says all politicians, including Trump lie.
      Hopefully, it'll be a fight to death.

    12. Obviously, any economic policy benefits some and hurts others.

      De-industrialization of the country, the race to the bottom in search for the cheapest labor on the planet (globalist politics) benefit capital and (arguably, for the time being anyway) the professional/managerial segment. It hurts the blue collar/ uneducated labor segment most.

      So, yeah, killing 'free trade' agreements, imposing tariffs and such - all this benefits the working class, at the expense of capital and the professional/managerial class. Of course professionals are already being gradually replaced (outsourced), and managers are not too far behind.

      I don't think 'viciously opposed' is an exaggeration, but that's obviously a judgement call.

      'Overall good' is in the eye of the beholder. Some win, some lose, and those who lose will no doubt see it negatively.

      As for 'shilling for this guy' - you started well, but, alas, I see you're turning into the generic Anonymous here, already? Oh, well.

  3. Well, Bob. Ms Bro, Heather Heyer's mother, has now said she refuses to speak with Donald Trump. Uh-oh. I guess she's another one of those "broken-souled" liberals after all.
    It seems that Mr. Somerby is saying one of two things when he accuses liberals of being "broken-souled", or whatever word he chooses on a given day...the conservatives use words like "arrogant", "elitist", "Commie", "Socialist", etc...but I digress.
    Inferring from Somerby's blog these days, either:
    1) conservatives should not be held to a higher standard; in other words, they are allowed to call liberals names and lie about them to their heart's content, to prevent minorities from voting, to try to legalize ramming protesters with cars, to equate Nazis with anti-Nazis, be ultra-tribalist to their heart's content, etc..and liberals have no right to respond similarly or feel offended by this; Remember the outcry against Clinton's saying 'deplorable'? My God, talk about snowflakes on the right! But libs have been called deplorable and worse for decades by Repub politicians and right-wing media elites who are far richer and more powerful than any media figure on the left; Bob pretty much never discusses abuses by the right; or
    2) Somerby agrees with conservatives about liberals or doesn't understand the extent of the 'weaponization' of hate by the right, especially in these days of social media and the internet. The right continue to claim their 'victimization' by liberals, while owning the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and many states, and passing laws that clearly undermine free speech and full participation in our political system by members of the 'outside' (read liberals or minorities or gays or whatever nowadays).
    To cons/Repubs, politics is an all-out war against their 'enemies', one which at the moment they are 'winning' (although it may turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory). Cons, particularly ones with political power, disdain any and all 'kum-ba-yah' attempts from the left, and simply double-down on their fascistic, tyrannical tendencies.
    This hatred is spread by Fox News, and even in right-wing churches...right-wing pastors literally tell their flock that they must vote for Repubs, and that Democrats cannot be Christians. The power of that is unimaginable. If you think God is on your side, you are probably not willing to engage in a rational discussion.
    To echo the words of Shylock, if you call a liberal a traitor/Commie/elitist, do we not take offense? Are libs not human beings too?
    Can you fight all-out war with campfires and guitar strumming?
    But go ahead and write this piffile about Mika and Joe, for the Lord's sake.

  4. Special thoughts and condolences to our very own member of the Wrecking Crew, CMike, on what must be a very tragic day for him/her/it.

  5. Enjoy your own peculiar brand of pig-killing Somerby.

  6. Bob, just close down he comments section. I've never seen anything intelligent posted here (unless I wrote it).

    1. Why should any intelligent person post here? Bob Somerby never reads the comments — as evidenced by his repeating factual errors long after the corrections had been dutifully posted as comments by alert and earnestly helpful readers. Well... I suppose they can at least alert other readers to the problems.

      The fact that Somerby won't even clean out blatant spam should be a sign of how little he cares about his comment section.