3/7/09 12:51 AM

'He Now Runs the Place'

J$P Audio! An MSNBC anchor used the "pimping" slur:

Audio only:

From The John Gibson Show, February 11 2008

Bill Corcoran
Is Gibson kidding? Apparently he hasn't read Media Matters, or the essay on CLG http://www.legitgov.org/comment/rec_report_100208.html
February 12, 2008, 2:47:37 AM EST – Like – Reply

Reason? Media Matters was founded by Hillary Clinton--co-founded I mean!
February 12, 2008, 7:14:15 AM EST – Like – Reply

On The Mark
I've never thought reading was Gibson's strong suit. Nonetheless, there wasn't really much time to brew a tempest. MSNBC acted so quickly, appropriately and well. Seems to me I remember an equally eggregious comment by Gretchen Carlson which FNC elected to ignore. Maybe, the pot and the kettle ought to both hold their tongues.
February 12, 2008, 7:41:34 AM EST – Like – Reply

Good grief. Apparently Chelsea is a "special needs" type person? Or is she still a small child at 28? If she's actively campaigning (which she is) then she is fair game. Pimping? Well what do you call it when you get your daughter to go on a breakfast date with a 21 year old superdelegate? Yep, pimping is right. Hillary needs to quit blaming everyone else for her failures. Now she promises that Bill won't have any affairs if she's elected. Ya, right. Only if he can't get his hands on Viagra!
February 12, 2008, 12:32:23 PM EST – Like – Reply

Slip says Pimp, gets suspended.
Olby says Pimp, doesn't even get a slap on the wrist..
One could, say that Slip was just following his mentor's lead.
So is it, Don't do as I say, unless I say it's okay?
February 12, 2008, 7:28:31 PM EST – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
MSNBC did its best to promote this non-story just to get their little known name some publicity. 
Last I checked, Chelsea wasn't a crackwhore; therefore the "pimping out" statement was meant to be figurative. It is also true in a sense, Hillary IS using Chelsea for political means. Chelsea is old enough and active enough in the political arena to be fair game.
February 13, 2008, 7:07:33 AM EST – Like – Reply

Bill Corcoran
Hey Fox Fox fan: Do you feel Cheney's Lesbian daughter was also "fair game" when she was out campaigning during the last election?
Aftter all Mary Cheney was very active in campaigning for her father and President Bush in the Gay and Lesbian community. 
I recall how the right wing went bonkers when it was mentioned Mary Cheney is a Lesbian, and yet she had "outed" herself and was actively engaged in the political process.
February 13, 2008, 8:40:56 AM EST – Like – Reply

Well, Bill. I think you've got your memory a little wrong.
It wasn't that she was outed as a Lesbian... it was that she was "outed" in every other breath.
I remember watching (and then seeing the clips) of Dick Cheney debating John Edwards... and every other word Edwards said was, "...your lesbian daughter."
The right got upset that the left was attempting to use Mary Cheney's sexual preferences as a weapon against Dick Cheney and President Bush. It was a dirty and a very obvious attempt to ager social conservatives.
February 13, 2008, 12:53:16 PM EST – Like – Reply

Bill Corcoran
I'M NOT BLUE. Edwards didn't "out" Mary Cheney. OMIGOD! I can't believe you don't know that it was well known long before Edwards mentioned it at that debate that Mary Cheney was a Lesbian. And the reason it was well known is because Mary Cheney had announced it herself. 
This is what happens to people who watch only FOX NEWS. They haven't got a clue of the chronology of an event like Mary Cheney's Lesbianism.
Mary Cheney was out in the Gay community campaigning for her father and Bush long before that debate and everyone knew it----but apparently NOT you.
February 13, 2008, 1:13:32 PM EST – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Bill, both Mary and Chelsea are fair game. If you make public statements, then you are publicly accountable. 
You are correct, Edwards didn't "out" Mary- but ImNotBlue is also correct that Edwards flaunted/abused it.
February 13, 2008, 9:58:03 PM EST – Like – Reply

Billy… buddy… baby… Of course Edwards didn’t out Mary Cheney. I wasn’t using “outed” like he was telling people something didn’t already know… of course they knew it! I was saying he “outed” her as in he brought it up every other word, ACTING like the voters didn’t already know.
I’ll type slower and less poetically licensed from now on if it helps. Perhaps now you can go back and actually address the substance of what I was saying. Here’s the bottom line: It was a dirty trick to try to repeat the phrase, “Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter,” as many times as possible, in the hopes of scaring off social conservatives. It was disrespectful to the Vice President, it was disrespectful to Mary Cheney, and it was disrespectful to gays and lesbians, whose sexual preferences’ should not be used as a political weapon.
Oh, and FYI… in 2004, I wasn’t watching FOX at all. I watched the network debates, and then went back to being concerned about my final year of college. But then again, I’m not surprised you’ve made that assumption. When you’ve based your “career” on hating a news organization, and attempting to slime any and everyone who watches it, you have to make assumptions when the facts don’t support the story you want to tell. But next time you lie about me, perhaps could you make me a little taller… at least then, perhaps, we’ll both gain something from it.
February 13, 2008, 10:22:53 PM EST – Like – Reply

Bill Corcoran
ImNotBlue: Why don't you produce a transcript of that debate so we can see if Edwards referred to Mary Cheney as a Lesbian "over and over" as you say. 
I seem to recall he said it only ONCE, but you have a different version so produce the transcript of the Edwards/Cheney debate and we will count how many times Edwards mentioned Mary Cheney wasa Lesbian. 
As for me trashing Fox News, I'm not alone. If you were to read my blog you would see there are countless stories coming out of Iraq tht Fox News is not covering. 
I will continue to say it isn't what Fox News reports, but what Fox News doesn't report is the problem.
February 14, 2008, 7:51:07 AM EST – Like – Reply

On The Mark
I don't really think that you can describe Edward's comments as "a dirty and very obvious attempt to anger social conservatives". Anyone who keeps abreast of politics or the national news, in general, knows that the line social conservatives draw in the sand is far from straight, wobbling this way to excuse Mary Cheney, that way to embrace Tom Delay, back again in the other direction to embrace Larry Craig, detouring to cuddle with the Abramoff castoffs, darting again to the other side this or that local politician caught with his pants down in a men's room lavatory, back and forth, weaving one way then the next, day in and day out. If I were writing a primer on situational ethics, I would use the group of social conservatives as a case study. Their anger and their loyalty are highly selective, and they are incapable of being embarassed.
And, since the voice of social conservatives in the US is FNC, that is one reason FNC seems so unbalanced to many of us, if not even a bit unfair.
February 14, 2008, 7:51:43 AM EST – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
On The Mark, do you even know any social conservatives? Your description of them is rather inaccurate. I know scores of them personally, and their condemnation of Larry Craig and pedophile priests is as harsh as that coming from the left. 
For a while, my liberal and conservative coworkers and I would joke about wide stances and feathering fingers under the stall every time someone went to the bathroom.
None of the social conservatives that I know like pedophiles of any sort. The ones with kids are highly protective of their children.
Yes, some of the higher echelon politicians will do anything to protect their fellow party members to protect themselves if they have any association with the offenders. Those protections aren't limited by party boundaries.
February 14, 2008, 10:41:51 PM EST – Like – Reply

On The Mark
The point in your final paragraph is demonstrably correct, FF.
Yes, I do know some "social conservatives". I live in a part of our nation in which I would find it difficult not to know them, to work with them, to live in proximity with them. The term is not one which I find accurate, particularly now as it is a far, far less monolithic group than it once was even a short time ago. A number of my friends and associates describe themselves as social conservatives. My own lifestyle is very conservative, far more conservative than the lifestyles of many of these friends and associates. My politics is far more liberal, because I dislike being dictated to as to how to lead my personal life. It is not the core beliefs of social conservatives to which I object, it is their zealotry and the propensity towards hypocrisy. Holier-than-thou folks do tend to set themselevs up for a dramatic tumble.
More to the point of this site, I do truly believe that FNC set itself up as the voice of the RNC, which meant, until recently, the voice of social conservatives. I don't have any problem with that. I think a number of the FNC personalities will even admit that, yes, FNC tilts disntinctly to the right. I do have a problem with these same people proclaiming to the rooftops that they are fair and balanced when they demonstrably are not. Anyone who watched that shameless exchange between Hannity and Coulter last night can't seriously claim fairness and balance. That aside, the Republican party and the social conservatives are going through such a rite of passage at the moment, that I think FNC probably feels its moorings loose. Goodness, just look at the pro-Guiliani to pro-Romney to begrudgingly pro-McCain transformation in just a matter of weeks. That has led me to conclude that the New Hour, BBC America and CNN, even ABC, have it just about right. When a news organization seems to align itself one way or the other, FNC with the RNC and social conservatives, MSNBC with more liberal trends, it begins to lose a great deal of credibility. In my view, FNC, which seldom reflected my own views, and MSNBC, which more often reflected my own views, have taken tremendous credibility hits of late.
February 15, 2008, 9:07:17 AM EST – Like – Reply

Josh Narins
Fox Fan, 
I haven't seen Chelsea Clinton open her mouth in this campaign PUBLICLY. In fact, a little kid came up to her and asked her to answer some questions and she wouldn't do it. Fox News then put the little girl on the air and tried to make a deal about it, as if to show Chelsea was being mean to kids.
Overall, though, this was a pretty good catch by whichever unnamed Fox researched dug it up.
February 15, 2008, 1:03:58 PM EST – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Chelsea not publicly speaking, Josh?
"If Chelsea Clinton was tired for her sixth public appearance in Ohio promoting her mother in two days, she did little to show it."
Many more like this from various states...
And OTM, this is a historic first. We agreed on something!
February 15, 2008, 7:04:49 PM EST – Like – Reply