Wednesday Cable News Links and Open Thread
Tuesday's numbers: F&F nears 1M viewers.
Healthcare ratings.
Life in River City.
Profile: Michael Ware. Greta antes up.
Ad shuffle: a bad move, or less than meets the eye? Fact-check.
What cable news needs: 20-somethings! Hotline after dark.
Updated through the day. Use our valuable bandwidth to post your cable news comments in today's open thread. Standard rules apply. fox news cable news
Blackflon
NEWSPOODLES DISTORT MEANING OF RACISM!!!! PLAY RACE CARD AGAINST FOX NEWS!!!
OReilly to Dr. Marc Lamont Hill: Tearing Up a Rosa Parks Sign at a Town Hall Meeting Is Not About Racism
Reported by Julie -
Pitiful.
August 19, 2009, 8:38:24 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Blackflon
NEWS POODLE RACISTS ATTACK JUAN WILLIAMS!!!
Uh oh,its time for O'Reilly to trot out his favorite house negro Juan Williams............................................greg mcclure | 08.19.09 - 1:42 am | #
August 19, 2009, 8:42:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Ashley
Those hounds are such bigots, their slurs againt Juan Williams are reprehensible. Thanks for keeping us informed B.
August 19, 2009, 10:48:15 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
Blackflon, your first headlie will be a source for Rip 'n Read Olbermann tonight. He can't resist.
Re: "What cable news needs: 20-somethings!": I'm a 20-something!
August 19, 2009, 12:08:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Blackflon
Ashley | 08.19.09 - 10:53 am | #
They pretty much think that a black democrat is an Uncle Tom or a traitor if he doesn't follow the democrat plantation line.
It's beyond me why they attack people who can have differences with their own party.
I disagree with Williams on some issues but I would never use vile language against him.
August 19, 2009, 12:14:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Haggis
I noticed the friends went after Barney Frank this morning....over his remarks to a question he was asked..."Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table."....The Friends weren't happy with this reply. Unfortunately the Friends didn't let their viewers hear the question he was replying to...here's the question..."Why are you supporting this Nazi policy?"
Video:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8
I personally thought Barney handled the response brilliantly after hearing the full thing.....Something the F&F viewers didn't get to hear.
August 19, 2009, 1:21:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ImNotBlue
I loved Barney's responses that were along the lines of, "Yeah, healthcare is expensive, but the Iraq War..."
Talk about being on "auto pilot"! I guess when in doubt, talk about something else... even if there's NO relation to it. Someone should remind Frank that it's 2009... get with the program!
August 19, 2009, 2:00:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Ashley
I noticed the friends went after Barney Frank this morning....
Haggis | 08.19.09 - 1:26 pm | #
Yeah, 'cause you saw it on MM.
Yet another
-Read MM
-Find something anti-F&F
-copy you tube link
-go to J$P
-paste link there.
August 19, 2009, 2:18:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Haggis
Ashley | 08.19.09 - 2:23 pm |
Funny how I emailed the Friend about their selective editing at 12.47pm UK time....long before MM posted about it....Explain that.
Barney Frank
From********@hotmail.com)
Sent: 19 August 2009 12:47:58 (UK Time)
To: friends@foxnews.com
I see your using edited clips to attack Barney Frank.
Why are you not telling your viewers the whole story?
This is the question that the woman asked "Why are you supporting this Nazi policy?"
Just in case your morning RW talking points didn't include the question asked....Here's the video from a real news organisation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8
Haggis.
August 19, 2009, 2:29:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Blackflon
Barney Frank needs to remember who he works for and stop insulting people.
August 19, 2009, 2:50:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Poor Barney.
He's such a beacon of thoughtful and moderated rhetoric himself.
From excoriating a Harvard Student who had the temerity to ask him what part "if any" he played in the lending crisis, to calling Justice Scalia a "homophobe for not finding an inherent right to gay marriage within the Constitution, to saying that Republicans are a group who feel that the more inequity there in is society "the better", he's just the soul of rational and considered "conversation".
August 19, 2009, 2:54:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply
cee
Another example of democrats raising the level of class in our public dialogue.
August 19, 2009, 3:27:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply
puck30
so let me see here, Haggis goes after a woman, FNC, posts videos. Whoopie Barney Frank does a Smackdown. Barney Frank shows how it's done. Blah Blah Blah.
Have not even bothered to look at what 'Chop Shop' vids he put up, but I'm sure none of them made mention of this little fact.
Lyndon LaRouche Democrat?
Here it is, of course with full video.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/cnn_fails_to_report_woman_comp.asp
Gee I wonder how fast somebody is going to change the subject?
Haggis gives crumbs, I give you the whole pie.
August 19, 2009, 3:31:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply
chris
Haggis | 08.19.09 - 1:26 pm |
yawn...........
August 19, 2009, 3:33:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Ashley
Funny how I emailed the Friend about their selective editing at 12.47pm UK time....long before MM posted about it....Explain that.
Barney Frank
From********@hotmail.com)
Sent: 19 August 2009 12:47:58 (UK Time)
To: friends@foxnews.com
Haggis | 08.19.09 - 2:34 pm | #
Well Haggis - to explain something you say when doing so would require me to accept what you say as fact.
Based on your past history of deception, I cannot accept many things you say at face value. This "email" cut and paste that you provided would seem to back you up, however I find it highly unlikely that the time stamp generated by Hotmail would record your email as being sent in "UK Time" rather than GMT, or in the current case it should be BST.
Regardless, I enjoy watching the video of Barney Frank showing his true charactor and insulting Americans with whom he has differing opinions.
Don't like a constituents opinion? Why, go ahead and insult them. That's the Haggis way.
August 19, 2009, 3:42:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Ashley
Besides Haggis, accepting what you say it true, it only means that you went to some other site for your F&F hatefest talking point of the day,
- Find something anti-F&F
-copy you tube link
-go to J$P
-paste link there.
Same old same old.
In other words, I was right, it just wasn't MM.
August 19, 2009, 4:03:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Funny how I emailed the Friend about their selective editing at 12.47pm UK time....long before MM posted about it....Explain that.
Haggis | 08.19.09 - 2:34 pm | #
How did you see today's F&F before 2pm UK time?
August 19, 2009, 4:11:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Grammie
Great link, Puck.
As for Frank I'm sure he correctly thinks that he is bullet proof and nothing he says or does will hurt him.
If the scandal that his live in boyfriend was a male prostitute servicing his tricks out of Frank's home didn't topple him I don't think that proverbial "in bed with a dead boy" would even make a dent his votes.
August 19, 2009, 4:19:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Ashley
Interesting how Haggis can say "explain that:", when there are a number of things out there that he refuses to address, such as his sliming of Bret Baier. There is this recent exchange with our esteemed host, who in my opinion, was treated quite rudely by Haggis.
*****************
I notice the weekend friends had Dr. Marc Siegel on again to dish up his talking points....The same talking points he dished up for the weekday Friends. Of course there was absolutely NO opposing viewpoint....The Friends simply let him spew away without a single challenge to anything he said.
well back to the golf to see if Padraig can pip Tiger to the winning post.
Haggis | 08.09.09 - 5:00 pm | #
Thanks for the tip from MM. So if I understand this right, you are saying there was no opposing view to Dr Siegel on F&F Weekend. Correct? This is your chance to revise and extend your remarks, or stand by them.
johnny dollar | Homepage | 08.09.09 - 5:26 pm | #
Johnny are you saying there was someone on with Dr Siegel to at least give some balance?
Haggis | 08.09.09 - 5:36 pm | #
Is that all you have to say? You stand by your statement?
johnny dollar | Homepage | 08.09.09 - 5:47 pm | #
No further response from Haggis on this.
**************************
Haggis - don't you think you owe an explanation to Johnny? Or, will you continue to be rude.
August 19, 2009, 4:40:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Grammie
Speaking of Barney Frank Neil Cavuto just had a very illustrative segment on the boorish Mr Frank's MO.
As Neil said after a video with Frank, tongue in cheek I'm sure, he thought it was just him that brought that side out.
August 19, 2009, 5:01:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Ashley
Excellent ratings for FNC as unusual. Apparently, most of the American Cable News Viewers like the cut of FNC's jib, and rightly so.
August 19, 2009, 5:16:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
Another example of democrats raising the level of class in our public dialogue
=========================
A woman shows up with a photo of the president of the United States of America, doctored to look like Hitler; because he thinks expanding health coverage is a good idea, and you complain about the level of public dialogue in the response? Puhleez.
August 19, 2009, 6:10:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Grammie,
In order for Barney Frank to even slightly shock and dismay his constituents, he'd have to be caught in bed with a dead girl.
August 19, 2009, 6:15:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Re: F&F
WOW!
August 19, 2009, 6:16:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
I think we've worn out the Haggis diversion of the day (Barney Frank) so let's to cable news topics. Thank you so much.
August 19, 2009, 6:26:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Haggis
johnny dollar | Homepage | 08.19.09 - 6:31 pm |
Johnny I've forwarded the email to you that I sent F&F.
It wasn't a diversion.....F&F smeared Barney Frank without giving their viewers the complete facts....I'd say it was a legitimate cable news post.
August 19, 2009, 6:38:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
yeah we get it, Doocy dared to say Frank was 'rude'. That's a 'smear'. OK, move along now.
August 19, 2009, 6:44:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Haggis
I see the friends were in "tea party" promotional mode once again....and Fox presenters say MSNBC are in the tank for the Dems LOL....What does openly promoting "tea parties" make FNC....You can only come to one conclusion....They're in the tank for the GOP.....just like they were the previous 8 years.
Check the screen shots at link below....FNC blatantly promoting "tea parties." dates/times/locations.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200908190024
August 19, 2009, 6:58:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Welll, Johnny, Haggis read about the F&F segment on a blue blog, wrote the show a letter, and then jumped over here to confront us!
It's only about 11pm, his time.
He might not have yet exhausted all avenues when it comes to this outrage.
August 19, 2009, 7:10:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Check the screen shots at link below....FNC blatantly promoting "tea parties." dates/times/locations.
http://mediamatters.org/research...ch/ 200908190024
Haggis | 08.19.09 - 7:03 pm | #
Oh, I spoke too soon. I see that MM has moved on and Haggis has too.
What a boy! It's not even Thurs. as yet, and he's already moved on to the next day's outrage!
August 19, 2009, 7:12:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
" yeah we get it, Doocy dared to say Frank was 'rude'. That's a 'smear'. OK, move along now."
The clip I'm seeing looks like a pretty obvious smear. is there something more to this that makes it not? I mean, they seem to have left out the rather important part where Frank, is asked why he supports nazi plans.
That would sorta put Franks's in a bit of context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4ni-8T7VAY
August 19, 2009, 7:47:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Haggis
shizzle | 08.19.09 - 7:52 pm |
Shizzle....your point is spot on... but these are the hardest of hard core Fox fans....In their world it's simply impossible for FNC to do anything wrong.
August 19, 2009, 8:06:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
In their world it's simply
Haggis | 08.19.09 - 8:11 pm | #
Ignoring the point that the questioner is a Democrat, that the question was ..."Why are you supporting this Nazi policy?" (as in National Socialism), not "nazi plans" and that Rep. Frank could have simply responded that he disagrees with the premise of the question and not ridicule and insult the questioner, I know of no one, here or anywhere else, that believes it's " impossible for FNC to do anything wrong."
Please refrain from putting words in other people's minds, beliefs in other people's minds and motives in other people's hearts. It's disengenuous and rude, be gone!
August 19, 2009, 8:57:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Guest
"Ignoring the point that the questioner is a Democrat, that the question was ..."Why are you supporting this Nazi policy?" (as in National Socialism), not "nazi plans" and that Rep."
How do you know the party affiliation of the Questioner? Her, carrying a doctored photo of the President, doctored to look like Hitler no less, would make me think she is not a Democrat. But perhaps you know something I don't.
Still, that is completely besides the point. The clip I see on Fox, accuses Frank of attacking his constituents.
Yet they don't bother to mention the lady has doctored a picture of the president to look like Hitler, or show the question that set Frank (who is Jewish) off.
Instead, they show Frank berating this lady, as though she did nothing offensive and then proceed to roast him for it. that strikes me as pretty dishonest and looks like a deliberate smear. .
August 19, 2009, 10:23:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
"But perhaps you know something I don't."
Perhaps he does. The woman was a Lyndon Larouche supporter, a man who is on the extreme fringe of the Democratic party, right up there with the 9/11 truthers. She was certainly not a Republican. Not that it matters one whit, but since you made a point of disputing it I thought the facts should be known.
Frank was attacking his constituents. The berating of that lady was just one of many clips. They didn't just show him berating that lady, they showed him responding over and over to a multitude of different people.
you know, when you claim all Fox showed was him berating that lady, and don't bother to mention all the other clips they also showed, that strikes me as pretty dishonest and looks like a deliberate smear of Fox. But I could be wrong.
August 19, 2009, 10:35:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
You know anon, come to think of it, I wonder if you know what you're talking about at all. You say 'they show Frank berating this lady', but F&F did not show Frank berating the lady at all. All the clips they showed were of other exchanges with other people.
Please nail down your facts.
August 19, 2009, 10:40:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
But I could be wrong"
We should start with this because it may have been the only accurate thing in your response.
perhaps you know something I don't."
"The woman was a Lyndon Larouche supporter, a man who is on the extreme fringe of the Democratic party, right up there with the 9/11 truthers. "
Do you have a link, something that shows this woman has been identified and what her/his party affiliation is?
"She was certainly not a Republican. Not that it matters one whit, but since you made a point of disputing it I thought the facts should be known."
Agreed, that is why I asked "How do you know the party affiliation?" never did get that answered. But see, that isn't so much a dispute of the facts as you say, but more of a well, a question. As in you seem pretty sure how do you know this, it seems counterintuitive. If you wern't acting like a such a jerk I'm sure you would have noticed that yourself.
"Frank was attacking his constituents. The berating of that lady was just one of many clips."
Sure, right, it was the one where a Jewish guy has to sit and get asked about his support of Nazism. Not relevant at all. Fox Certainly wouldn't want anyone to think Frank might have been justified, or at the least had reasons anyone would accept. better to sweep that under the carpet.
"They didn't just show him berating that lady, they showed him responding over and over to a multitude of different people."
Without showing the questions being asked. So for all we know it might a been a town hall of people calling Frank a "Dick" and him responding. That seems like truly responsible journalism. Complete with, all their opinions about how awful Frank is.
"You know, when you claim all Fox showed was him berating that lady, and don't bother to mention all the other clips they also showed, that strikes me as pretty dishonest"
Well maybe that's because you are poor reader. Perhaps your vision is bad. Or maybe you are just dishonest yourself. It could be a multitude of things, because I never claimed "All Fox Showed" was Frank berating that lady. I pointed out that he berated a lady and it was pretty justified, and fox didn't bother to show why it was justified. They did bother to show frank yelling at her over and over again though.
August 19, 2009, 11:04:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
"You know anon, come to think of it, I wonder if you know what you're talking about at all. "
Well, you would be wrong (again.)
"You say 'they show Frank berating this lady', but F&F did not show Frank berating the lady at all. "
Hmm, perhaps this is deliberate, perhaps you are dishonest.
The first thing the clip I posted shows
Frank saying, that arguing with that lady would be like arguing with a "dining room table." That was the lady carrying the Hitler/barack sign.
"All the clips they showed were of other exchanges with other people."
Uh no, the dining room quote is shown right up front that is to the Lady with the Barack/Hitler picture.
"Please nail down yur facts."
Please don't lecture me, before getting your own facts straight. and the word is not "yur"
August 19, 2009, 11:12:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
"Do you have a link, something that shows this woman has been identified and what her/his party affiliation is?"
Well her Hitler sign said LyndonLaRouche.com on it. I think that's a pretty good clue myself.
"Fox Certainly wouldn't want anyone to think Frank might have been justified, or at the least had reasons anyone would accept. better to sweep that under the carpet. "
You have no idea what Fox wants anyone to think. If you had any notion of how Fox actually covered this story you wouldn't make such an ignorant comment. Not only has Fox repeatedly showed the complete exchange--both sides--but Fox has even defended Frank's response. (I'm saying "Fox" defended Frank in the same inaccurate way you talk about what "Fox" wants and Fox journalism, which you based on one clip from one morning talk show.) But you say Fox wouldn't want Frank to appear justified. How can that be, when Fox showed all the things you said they were trying to sweep under the rug? And actually defended the way he replied to that woman? I wonder if there's an explanation for this contradiction between what Fox airs and what you claim they air.
Again, get your facts straight. I shouldn't have to educate you about widely reported basics (like the Lyndon LaRouche sign in question), and I get a litlte tired of people who make claims about what "Fox" wants based on a two minute clip of one program.
But I could be wrong.
No wait. I ain't wrong. You are.
August 19, 2009, 11:13:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
"Uh no, the dining room quote is shown right up front"
I was talking about the actual discussion segment, not the teaser for it. Sorry for the confusion.
"and the word is not "yur""
Ooh, snap. Word up! Now I've really been humiliated.
August 19, 2009, 11:19:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
Somehow I knew, I just knew, when I wrote, "Ignoring the point that _____, _____, and _____..." that any forthcoming response would, in fact, focus on the that which I was ignoring, and conversely, ignore that on which I was focusing.
Shocking!
August 19, 2009, 11:24:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
"Well her Hitler sign said LyndonLaRouche.com on it. I think that's a pretty good clue myself."
There isn't a LyndonLaRouche.com There is a LyndonLaRouche.org. Which is a watch site like your Olbermann Watch. I'd call that a good clue myself.
"You have no idea what Fox wants anyone to think. If you had any notion of how Fox actually covered this story you wouldn't make such an ignorant comment."
I know how it was covered on fox and frineds or whatever that stupid show was. They were smearing Frank. perhaps the rest of Fox isn't as slimey.
"Not only has Fox repeatedly showed the complete exchange--both sides--but Fox has even defended Frank's response. (I'm saying "Fox" defended Frank in the same inaccurate way you talk about what "Fox" wants and Fox journalism, which you based on one clip from one morning talk show.)"
Great. So we can excuse the network and just agree fox and frineds Smeared Frank.
"Again, get your facts straight. I shouldn't have to educate you about widely reported basics (like the Lyndon LaRouche sign in question), and I get a litlte tired of people who make claims about what "Fox" wants based on a two minute clip of one program."
Good lord We'd never catch you complaing about a two minute clip of olberman would we? Also I shoudn't have to educate you about basic things like, the fact that the clip did show Frank's remarks to the crazed Hitler lady.
"No wait. I ain't wrong. You are."
No you are wrong.
August 19, 2009, 11:35:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
"I was talking about the actual discussion segment, not the teaser for it. Sorry for the confusion."
Apology accepted. thanks for admitting you were wrong.
"Ooh, snap. Word up! Now I've really been humiliated"
Well, that more or less happened, in the last post.
August 19, 2009, 11:37:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
Does it always take this long for posts to go up.
August 19, 2009, 11:45:40 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Only when they're yours.
"There is a LyndonLaRouche.org. Which is a watch site like your Olbermann Watch. I'd call that a good clue myself. "
If you spot a clue, perhaps you'd better get one. Nobody is disputing that the sign is from Lyndon Larouche's operation. Look at it yourself:
http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/08/18/this-is-rotten-2/
Then try reading TNR:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/08/12/who-s-behind-that-obama-as-hiltler-sign-lyndon-larouche.aspx
I'm amazed that you want to contest something that is not only a documented fact, but is also quite irrelevant to the issue. So with that angle closed, we need not debate the LaRouche connection any more.
"They were smearing Frank. perhaps the rest of Fox isn't as slimey. "
Well then perhaps you shouldn't talk about the rest of Fox when you haven't seen it. Do you also review movies you haven't seen?
August 19, 2009, 11:58:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
"How do you know the party affiliation of the Questioner? Her, carrying a doctored photo of the President, doctored to look like Hitler no less, would make me think she is not a Democrat. But perhaps you know something I don't."
"Still, that is completely besides the point."-anon, nee shizzle?
Besides, it's completely beside the point, you know, since you put it that way, I gotta' go along with you. Democrats would never carry a photo of the President "doctored to look like Hitler, no less."
http://images.google.com/images?q=images+bush+hitler&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGIE_en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=28yMSpeEJaOCmQfXhvipDA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4
August 20, 2009, 12:18:40 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
How is it "smearing Frank" to show video of what the man actually said?
Why should it be taken for granted that someone considering a policy to be naziesque is an exculpating factor in having a congressman tell her she's from a different planet and that she's as reasonable as a piece of furniture?
Would it have mattered if Newt Gingrich had responded that way to someone in townhall meeting, because they accused he and the House Managers of being Nazis because of Clinton's impeachment hearings?
If someone had held up a picture of John McCain as Hitler because of his support for toppling Saddam Hussein would THAT have stifled criticism of McCain if he had treated them like that in a townhall meeting.
Frankly, this video had hit the airwaves all night long before Friends played it.
One takes it for granted that at any townhall meeting a politician could very well get qusetions from crackpots, just as guest speakers do at Universities.
The onus is on the politician to behave in a civil and responsible manner.
I think the problem is here that it's such a shocking and unspeakable crime for someone to treat the current president in such a manner, that this crackpot and this sign she carried is supposed to be the story. That's certainly how CNN and others played it when they acted as though this woman was just one more angry horrible ignorant conservative.
Frankly, this chick was incidental. Just as the guy who insulted former Sen. George Allen to the point were he made a jackass of himself, was incidental.
I'm afraid that for a person in the crowd to call Pres Obama a Nazi is not earthshattering news. For a congressman to act like an college frat boy in response, IS news.
Well,
August 20, 2009, 12:36:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
"Besides, it's completely beside the point, you know, since you put it that way, I gotta' go along with you. Democrats would never carry a photo of the President "docttored to look like Hitler, no less.""
First off, I think you should argue with what I say, not what you read into it. I never said, a democrat would not carry a Hitler sign, I was saying that it seems unlikely a democrat would be carrying a Hitler sign of Obama. How many Republicans do you know who carry George Bush Hitler signs.
I then ask how you know the person was a democrat. So far I have not recieved a convincing response. I agree it doesn't matter though.
I also agree it is besides the point. In fact, if you look at my first post to you. I say that is besides the point.
August 20, 2009, 12:40:26 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Actually, a prominent Democrat made a Hillary Clinton as Eva Braun video during the campaign last year.
August 20, 2009, 1:44:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
First off, not only did I look at your first post, I quoted it above. And, I attempted, evidently unsuccessfully, to playfully correct your usage: it's "beside the point," not "besides."
Second off, sarcasm is a common, acceptable form of discourse.
Third off, "since brevity is the sould of wit...I will be brief."
Never mind.
August 20, 2009, 8:36:57 AM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
" First off, not only did I look at your first post, I quoted it above. And, I attempted, evidently unsuccessfully, to playfully correct your usage: it's "beside the point," not "besides."
Wow, you caught me without an "s" very astute; or as Johnny would say, "Oh snap."
August 20, 2009, 12:38:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
"If you spot a clue, perhaps you'd better get one. Nobody is disputing that the sign is from Lyndon Larouche's operation. Look at it yourself:"
If we are going to have a debate we are not going to get anywhere, if have to go three rounds over, a false assumption on your part.
First off, I asked Ramjet what he was basing his claim, that the lady was a democrat on, noting that it seemed counter intuitive that a democrat would attack a democratic president so forcibly. This is not, as you put it, disputing his position. It is saying that it is a difficult claim to swallow without proof, I was asking what do you base your conclusion on.
Which binrgs me to, Being A Lyndon Larouche supporter (his and your reason for calling the lady a democrat). If Lyndon Larouche is a democrat, then David Duke is a republican, and you too are guilty by association.
If you take a close look at Larouche, you see a very strange man, who has a hybrid of Ultra-left and Ultra-right wing views. For example, he is Anti-gay, and Pro-Life, yet he started a labor Party movement. He has made connection with Ultra conservatives, like Willis Carto, Ken Duggan and embraced many of there ideas, yet he thought Joseph Mccarthy was a devil and loves Frankiln Roosevelt.
However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assume you think her carrying a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache in order to attack the views of a jewish congressman was in poor taste. If so, then we are in agreement that a lady who seems to Follow LaRouche was doing a tasteless thing. I assume then you have no problem with Frank calling her on her tasteless view?
"I'm amazed that you want to contest something that is not only a documented fact, but is also quite irrelevant to the issue. So with that angle closed, we need not debate the LaRouche connection any more."
I agree, the issue in question is whether Barney Frank was out of line to attack this person or others at the town hall and whether Fox and friends covered it in an appropriate way. The coverage I have seen, on Fox and Friends. did not include key parts of Frank's exchanges and that made Frank look much worse than he otherwise would have. I think this is a smear and it is the kind of thing you and others, have accused Media Matters of doing.
"Well then perhaps you shouldn't talk about the rest of Fox when you haven't seen it. Do you also review movies you haven't seen?"
I was speaking of Fox and Friends not the network, I probably should have been more precise in that.
August 20, 2009, 1:18:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply
shizzle
'How is it "smearing Frank" to show video of what the man actually said?'
Well, If you believe that then I assume you agree media matters has never smeared, because they show clips of what people say. However, I think from comments I have read of yours in the past, you do think context matters.
"Why should it be taken for granted that someone considering a policy to be naziesque is an exculpating factor in having a congressman tell her she's from a different planet and that she's as reasonable as a piece of furniture?"
Well, then again, you are also saying that it is acceptable to paint Hitler Mustaches on Bush and say his Foreign Policy is naziesque. However, I would say arguing with such a person would be like arguing with furniture and it is okay to say so.
"Would it have mattered if Newt Gingrich had responded that way to someone in townhall meeting, because they accused he and the House Managers of being Nazis because of Clinton's impeachment hearings?"
I would say, that had Gingrich or a Jewish Republican acted that way, it would have been justified. However, even more importantly, I think that it would have been wrong for a video clip of Gingrich responding without the nazi allegation in place to have been run on a news show. It would be missing vital context and would be dishonest.
"If someone had held up a picture of John McCain as Hitler because of his support for toppling Saddam Hussein would THAT have stifled criticism of McCain if he had treated them like that in a townhall meeting."
No more than my objections are stifling criticism of Frank. people would still have objected to McCain and in my view they would have been wrong. They certainly would have deserved more than just seeing McCain's angry reaction however.
"Frankly, this video had hit the airwaves all night long before Friends played it."
Not everyone would have seen it though.
"One takes it for granted that at any townhall meeting a politician could very well get questions from crackpots, just as guest speakers do at Universities."
Sure, however, I think it is best to call a crackpot a crackpot.
"The onus is on the politician to behave in a civil and responsible manner."
I don't see why. I don't see why anyone should have to put up with this nonsense and I thik a person is well within there rights to call it nonsense.
"I think the problem is here that it's such a shocking and unspeakable crime for someone to treat the current president in such a manner, that this crackpot and this sign she carried is supposed to be the story. That's certainly how CNN and others played it when they acted as though this woman was just one more angry horrible ignorant conservative."
It was part of the story. You have seen the full video I assume, and you think Frank was at fault. I disagree. It doesn't matter though, what does matter is that you are basing your opinion on full information.
If I had seen the frank video as presented on fox and friends I would have thought he was out of line. I don't feel that way though because I have seen it all. You still do. We are both basing our information on a more complete picture.
"I'm afraid that for a person in the crowd to call Pres Obama a Nazi is not earthshattering news. For a congressman to act like an college frat boy in response, IS news."
Im sorry I disagree with your assessment. I do think it is a valid perspective, but its not how I see it.
August 20, 2009, 1:40:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Shizzle the "complete picture" that I'm basing my assessment upon, is not about what unelected audience members say in townhall meetings.
As long as they allow other people to talk, and the forum is such that they are allowed ask questions based upon their views, they may be as crackpot and as paranoid as they wish to be. Such is life, there no stopping them.
However, I do have different standards for elected officials, especially those who have placed themselves in such a setting.
THAT is a CONTEXT and a standard that is unaffected by individual opinion, by religion, ethnicity, by the IQ and the judgment of audience members, etc. Most importantly, it's unaffected too by how you "see it".
It's the only context that is important in the end, because Frank's attitude, his stability, and his sense of perspective are the things that do matter ultimately . The same was true about Sen. George Allen vs his harasser and would be true of John McCain in the same scenario.
Someone once said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen'. I'm pretty sure that instruction was to the elected guy in charge, not the constituent with the placard. And I'm pretty sure too it didn't come with caveats based upon nothing but the smokiest of subjectivity.
August 20, 2009, 3:45:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
From my initial comment:
....and that Rep. Frank could have simply responded that he disagrees with the premise of the question and not ridicule and insult the questioner,........
I know of no one, here or anywhere else, that believes it's " impossible for FNC to do anything wrong."-ramjet | Homepage | 08.19.09 - 9:02 pm |
"The coverage I have seen, on Fox and Friends. did not include key parts of Frank's exchanges and * that made Frank look much worse than he otherwise would have."shizzle | 08.20.09 - 1:23 pm | #
*Now, that's impossible!>)
August 20, 2009, 5:16:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply
