David Gregory, for lack of a better term, sucks.  His interview style, who am I kidding he has no interview style.  He doesn't hold people accountable for the lies they spew on his show and seems to believe them at face value.  I guess the only positive is that he speaks clearly, if ineloquently.  Personally I would much rather see someone with some real knowledge or gravitas take over.  

On their roster, my choice is Chuck Todd.  Maddow has her niche and is very good at it, but could not continue in Russert's shoes simply because people on the right will not give her the credibility she deserves or needs to make the show a success.  Hence Chucky Todd is tops.  He knows his stuff, the ultimate political insider, and no one can doubt his ability to forecast political races.

David Gregory is a puff marshmallow with no substance.  I sure hope they can him soon.

i would stop watching mtp if he is chosen. he offers nothing.

I watched Russert pretty much every week.  I watch Brokaw maybe every other week.

I won't watch Gregory.  I just won't.  Not a boycott, just total lack of interest.

David Gregory is not passable as a host.  He has been terrible.  He drew a lot of attention as NBC's White House Correspondent and he was great at it, but the hosting gig on MSNBC has been terrible for him.  He needs to go back to being a journalist, he was great.

The public doesn't know the names of many of the reporters in the White House Press Corps, but they knew his name.  Other than Helen Thomas, that is rare.  I really think he made a mistake going into hosting.

I vote for Chucky T.

Gregory is far more capable than Maddow. Give me a break here. You guys forget his days as White House Correspondent.

What most of you are looking for is a liberal who would further the Party's agenda, but that is not what MTP is about.

I was afraid of this.

Meet the Press always had a beltway thing going on, but David Gregory will just take it to absurd extremes.  He represents the worst of "reporters and political consultants as experts on everything" school of journalism.  

If war broke out between India and Pakistan his first instinct would be to explore all the implications for DC politicians, and whether or not it gave Democrats or Republicans cover or whatever.  At least Tim Russert occasionally had experts on.

How embarrassing was that?

I hope Meet the Press under D.Gregory is a flop. I don't think progressives should be pushing for Rachel Maddow to make Meet The Press into the BEST MEET THE PRESS EVAR!! We should be working to destroy Meet The Press and everything it stands for. Let David Gregory and Bob Woodward wank each other off every Sunday morning, for all I care. Where's Meet The Bloggers? People watch too much TV.

Ugh.  So much for MTP.  Gregory is horrible.  I liked the press conference feuds he waged with Bush and Snow back in the day, but MTP host?  Bad decision, that one.

I'd like to see someone who is curious about the world.  Maddow fits that bill as does Chuck Todd.  David Gregory has always struck me as a person asking pre-written questions without really knowing the full depth of material.  In other words, someone who phones it in.  He's OK but it would take a substantial team to keep him going.  

Of course I'd love to see Helen Thomas most of all.  Also, whatever happened to Dan Rather?  

at the joint press conference with Bush and Jacques Chirac, not too long after 9-11.  The US and French press corps were asking questions in English and in French.  Gregory asked a question of Chirac in quite beautiful French.

Idiot Boy, a.k.a the Naked Emperor, took it upon himself to make a snarky, sneering comment to Gregory along the lines of "well, aren't you a show off?."

It showed Bush for the small minded man that he is.  A real president would have said something like "David, how wonderful that you are so  fluent in French. It's so important for everyone to learn other languages..."  

Ever since that moment I've had a certain respect for David Gregory.

Well, I am not too thrilled with David Gregory, but let's face facts.

1) Who else were they gonna pick? Choosing a partisan host would have completely changed the tenor of the show, and that rules out Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow. Which quite frankly doesn't leave you with a heck of a lot of options. Pretty much just Brokaw, Gregory, maybe Andrea Mitchell.

2) Most of the people ripping on Gregory here for being captive to the conventional wisdom would have done the same for Russert before his death.

Honestly, I don't think it matters who hosts Meet the Press.  The show is unwatchable as far as I am concerned.  Every episode is the same:

1. Invite some high-profile cabinet secretary, or vice-president (or whatever).

2. Ask questions.

3. Cabinet secretary robotically repeats talking points.

It is so freaking boring.  They should just have the guests e-mail their talking points to the host and then he can just read it on the air--verbatim, right off of the telepropmpter.

I really hope nobody wastes their time with this show.

Joe Scarborough.  I mean, seriously, at least the guy's more interesting.  No, I'm not seriously suggesting him for the job, but he's got a better presence than Gregory, even if it's the wrong one for this format.

As mentioned above, Gregory was pretty good as White House correspondent.  He just sucks as a host.  Bad.

Gregory aka Mary Matalin's boy.  Should just go away.  Did the guy every answer the questions about his involvement in the Plame affair?  

IMO MTP should go back to its original format and let reporters ask questions not the monitor.  It was turned into the current format so Jack Welch's favorite lawyer Russert could do deposition style interviews ( softballs for his side, hard ass for anyone else )

'Non-denial denial' alert!

Again, here's that quote:

"I don't know where they are getting this. We have nothing to announce."

Do they say that Gregory won't host MTP?  No.

All they say is that they (a) don't know who HuffPo's source was, and (b) whatever plans they may have, they aren't ready to make the announcement yet.

Sheesh, Todd - you've been doing this gig long enough to tell whether something intended to have the appearance of a 'denial' actually denies the pertinent facts.  This is NOT a denial.

NBC does have some credible reporters who could rise to the challenge with a little practice.
I'm thinking Pete Williams, John Harlow, Jim Miklechevsky (sp?).Perhaps others.
They could rotate for a while and see which one stands out.

I liked Rachel Maddow  better as a guest commentator that I do as a host on her own program.  Though her opinions are agreeable, in general, her presentation doesn't have much "oomph".  I often find it boring and go elsewhere. (PBS (nonpolitical) specials have been good of late.)