Tried and failed.

That seems to be the motto which MSNBC should adopt for their Olbermann/Matthews experiment.

Saw this first at Drudge this evening but thought I’d wait for further confirmation of its validity. This is proof enough:

MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel’s coverage of the election.

That experiment appears to be over.

After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.

The change — which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle — is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel’s perceived shift to the political left.

“The most disappointing shift is to see the partisan attitude move from prime time into what’s supposed to be straight news programming,” said Davidson Goldin, formerly the editorial director of MSNBC and a co-founder of the reputation management firm DolceGoldin.

Executives at the channel’s parent company, NBC Universal, had high hopes for MSNBC’s coverage of the political conventions. Instead, the coverage frequently descended into on-air squabbles between the anchors, embarrassing some workers at NBC’s news division, and quite possibly alienating viewers. Although MSNBC nearly doubled its total audience compared with the 2004 conventions, its competitive position did not improve, as it remained in last place among the broadcast and cable news networks. In prime time, the channel averaged 2.2 million viewers during the Democratic convention and 1.7 million viewers during the Republican convention.

Many of us have noticed the venom in especially Keith Olbermann when discussing anyone on the Right. Now we can confirm that it has not been a figment of our imagination as those who sit in anchor chairs and host reputable programs at the parent company, NBC have taken notice also:

Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams, the past and present anchors of “NBC Nightly News,” have told friends and colleagues that they are finding it tougher and tougher to defend the cable arm of the news division, even while they anchored daytime hours of convention coverage on MSNBC and contributed commentary each evening.

Mr. Williams did not respond to a request for comment and Mr. Brokaw declined to comment. At a panel discussion in Denver, Mr. Brokaw acknowledged that Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews had “gone too far” at times, but emphasized they were “not the only voices” on MSNBC, according to The Washington Post.

Al Hunt, the executive Washington bureau chief of Bloomberg News, said that the entire news division was being singled out by Republicans because of the work of partisans like Mr. Olbermann. “To go and tar the whole news network and Brokaw and Mitchell is grossly unfair,” he said, referring to the NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

Where were these anchors and executives when Olbermann told the President of the United States to “Shut the H_ll Up?” (minute 2:07 of the video)

What is MSNBC to do? Will they edit closely the programming and commentary of Olbermann and Matthews? Time will tell, but for tonight this is a win for those who do not believe “news” anchors should be no more than partisan shills for one party or another. Leave that to the pundits.

HT: Ed Morrissey for the link to the NYT article.

After the Petraeus report it seems the Congressional Democrats’ hope for Republican defections to order a quick withdrawal from Iraq is going to end up in frustration again.

Senate Republicans, bolstered by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus’ war report this week, are closing ranks and say Democrats will continue to fall far shy of the votes needed to force a pullout from Iraq.

Republicans facing intense antiwar pressure in home states, such as Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, and the party’s war critics, including Sens. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, say the general’s congressional testimony helped persuade them not to switch their votes.

“I’m supportive of a reasonable plan which they offered,” Mr. Lugar said on PBS’ “NewsHour” after Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq, called for withdrawing about 30,000 troops by July.

President Bush, in a prime-time address tonight, is expected to endorse the general’s plan to return to the pre-surge force strength of 130,000 troops by July.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who failed repeatedly to muster enough votes to compel the president to accept a pullout plan, yesterday said he will try again next week with measures to force significantly larger troop reductions.

“I call on Senate Republicans not to walk lockstep with the president as they have done for years,” the Nevada Democrat said. “It is time to come over and join us.”

Mr. Reid said Democrats will introduce four to six war bills, including measures for large-scale troop reductions and to transition the mission from combat to training Iraqi forces and conducting counterterrorism operations.

He did not provide details of the legislation, but the characterization of measures was nearly identical to failed bills from earlier this year.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott has been checking the votes and feels the Democrats will, once again, fall short of the 60 votes necessary to pass any of these bills.

Someone once said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. This is the very definition of partisan insanity on the part of the Democrats, but they really don’t seem to have any plan other than get out of Iraq.

Republican leaders also say the Democrat-led Congress’ fixation on the war is preventing action on essential legislation, such as fixing the alternative minimum tax and passing spending bills for the budget year beginning Oct. 1.

Can anyone name any significant legislation passed by this Congress?

It’s been eight months since the Democrats took over the legislative branch of our federal government and, other than a minimum wage hike attached to a war funding bill, no significant legislation has been passed.

They say Americans voted for a change in November, and maybe they’re right, but I doubt the American electorate voted for the same futile votes to be taken over and over again.

The Senate is going to be hard for the Republicans in the next election due to retirements and so many senators’ terms being up for re-election.

Based on the last election I’d say things are very close in this country as the Democrats didn’t win huge majorities in either chamber or huge victories in many districts or states.

If the American people begin to see the surge working they are not likely to insist we give up. We like victory too much and I doubt we have changed that much over this one war.

Americans need to understand we must prevail in this war against radical Islam or we will all be doomed to their rule over us in the future.

This subject seems to be what everyone is talking about so why shouldn’t we?

Karl Rove and I have something in common: Both of us treasure a campaign poster from the 1972 elections.

The poster, which Rove hung in his Texas political consulting office, was from the re-election campaign of Illinois Gov. Richard Ogilvie, a reform-minded Republican moderate. It was adorned with the slogan: “Charisma Isn’t Everything.”

No doubt our shared lack of charisma drew us both to this campy relic.

But Ogilvie’s progressive Republicanism spoke more to my political affections than his. Rove will be remembered for an approach that drove millions of Republicans and independents of Ogilvie’s stripe into the Democratic Party.

With Rove leaving President Bush’s White House, much will be written about his style of politics. But the key question is whether Rove succeeded on his own terms.

His objective was grand. In an interview in 1999, Rove predicted that the 2000 election would be like that of 1896, when William McKinley created a new Republican majority that went on to control the presidency for all but eight of the next 36 years. As Rove saw it, McKinley built a dominant party by changing its message and appealing to new voter groups. George W. Bush would be this era’s William McKinley.

Bush would do more than just refurbish the coalition that Ronald Reagan built, the back-to-the-future fashion in conservative circles now. Bush offered “compassionate conservatism” as a corrective to the cold-hearted kind. He laid heavy stress on education reform, stealing one of the Democrats’ best issues, and spoke warmly of Latino immigrants. Just as McKinley appealed to the new immigrant groups of his time, so did Rove and Bush understand the urgency of winning a significant share of the growing Hispanic vote.

Rove liked Napoleon’s adage: “The whole art of war consists in a well-reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive, followed by rapid and audacious attack.” He would defend Republicans against charges of hostility to the poor, public education and minority groups, and then attack Democrats with whatever came to hand.

This set up Bush’s victory over Al Gore in the U.S. Supreme Court, and from there, Rove went from strength to strength. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he used the national security issue to capture both houses of Congress in 2002. The terror issue, along with “rapid and audacious attack,” defeated John Kerry in 2004, and fortified the Republicans’ congressional majorities.

Yet just two years later, the bottom fell out. Bush could now become not William McKinley but Herbert Hoover, the man who ended the very Republican era for which Rove has such fondness.

What went wrong? Rove’s key missed opportunity came after 9/11.

Instead of using the period of national unity that followed the terrorist attacks to build a broad Republican coalition rooted in Dwight Eisenhower-style moderation, Rove sought to create a narrower but tougher ideological majority willing to pursue such conservative dreams as the partial privatization of Social Security.

Story

I can’t think of anything that he did for the country. It was all for total dominance. He failed.
This is an editorial by Eugene Robinson. He does lean Democratic but then so do I.

Buh-bye, Karl Rove. On your way out of the White House, don’t let the screen door hit you where the dog should have bit you.

I can’t say that I’ll miss George W. Bush’s longtime political strategist — the man Bush used to call “Boy Genius” — because, well, that would be such a lie. And anyway, to quote one of the great country song titles — “How Can I Miss You When You Won’t Go Away?” — I don’t believe for a minute that Rove really intends to withdraw from public life. I predict he’ll be writing op-eds, giving interviews to friendly news outlets and calling Republican presidential candidates to warn them not to abandon Bush, no matter how low his approval ratings slide. Rove’s new job will be to put lipstick on Bush’s hideous legacy — and, in the process, freshen up his own.
Rove’s reputation as the great political thinker of his era took a severe beating in November, when, despite his confident predictions of a Republican victory, Democrats took control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

But let’s give the man his due. Karl Rove managed to get George Walker Bush elected president of the United States, not once but twice. Okay, you’re right, the first time he needed big assists from Katherine Harris (speaking of lipstick) and the U.S. Supreme Court, but still. Honesty requires the acknowledgment that Rove was very good at what he did.

The problem, of course, is that what Rove did and how he did it were awful for the nation.

Rove announced he was quitting as White House deputy chief of staff in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, saying that while he knew some people would claim he was just trying to elude congressional investigators, “I’m not going to stay or leave based on whether it pleases the mob.” That’s the man, right there in that quote: Benighted fools who don’t blindly trust his honesty or fully appreciate his genius are nothing more than “the mob.”

Rove didn’t invent “wedge” politics, but he was an adept practitioner of that sordid art. When Bush was campaigning in 2000, he proclaimed himself “a uniter, not a divider.” But the Bush-Rove theory of politics and governance has been divide, divide, divide — either you’re “with us” or “against us,” either you’re right or you’re wrong, either you should be embraced or attacked without quarter.

Yes, politics is about winning — they don’t give style points for graceful failure. But the us-or-them brand of politics that Rove mastered and that Bush practiced has been a disaster for the nation and its standing in the world.

Yesterday, in remarks on the White House lawn, Rove praised Bush for putting the nation “on a war footing” after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But that’s precisely what Bush failed to do. Rather than try to foster a spirit of national solidarity and shared sacrifice, he persisted with tax cuts designed to please his wealthiest supporters. Rather than engage critics of the war in any meaningful dialogue, Bush accused them of wanting to “cut and run.” Rather than actually practicing the bipartisanship he disingenuously preached, Bush governed with a hyperpartisan political agenda.

I would rather take down the post than have someone step on it.

Story

Thanks to the Washington Post, far from a Republican newspaper, there is a list. Go read.

Here’s a sample:

Party Voting Totals
92.7% Democratic (233 members)

84.2% Republican (202 members)

88.7% All Members (435 members)

100% - Charlie Norwood (R-GA) DEAD as of Feb. 07
100% - Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
99.7% - Nita Lowey (D-NY)
99.4% - Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA)
99.1% - Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
98.9% - Xavier Bacerra (D-CA)
98.7% - Diana DeGetter (D-CO)
98.6% - Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
98.6% - Hilda Solis (D-CA)
98.6% - Ellen Tauscher (D-CA)
98.6% - Al Wynn (D-MD)

This is not the complete list so go read it all.

Hat Tip: Captain Ed