Shepard Smith responds to viewer email…
I’m a little surprised by all the play this has gotten on the web and it’s spreading to the MSM. Is it because Smith dared speak “the truth”? Or is it because Smith dared speak “the truth” on a network that, rightly or wrongly, is widely viewed as tilting right and has Glenn Beck and his 9/12 Project on it (which one could reasonably argue is tapping into the very discontent that Smith is noting as “frightening”)? Or a bit of both? Or neither? Discuss…
June 11, 2009 at 11:39 am
“…on a network that, rightly or wrongly, is widely viewed as tilting right…”
Aren’t we beyond the point where that is questioned. There is no rightly or wrongly, they DO tilt right. Just like MSNBC tilts left. Do you not subscribe to the notion that Fox is a right-leaning news network Spud?
June 11, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Go Shep. It’s good to see somebody over there taking some responsibility for the craziness FNC feeds.
June 11, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Forget the e-mailers, if Smith wants to “take on” the crazies he should have a conversation with one Andrew J. Napolitano.
Napolitano, among other ideas, is a adherent of the “constitution in exile” view (not to be confused with the “lost constitution” view) that, while it has some tenable arguments about the standards that the Courts should use in judging the legality of economic regulation, views almost all of the New Deal legislation as being unconstitutional.
This is a view held by very, very few legal experts on the right (if we can place the Judge there).
June 11, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Steve, is Napolitano a Fox guy?
June 11, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Steve, is Napolitano a Fox guy?
Yeah, he’s “the Judge” who is often asked to give his analysis of Supreme Court rulings.
The guy with the hair?http://www.clarkson.edu/news/photos/napolitano.jpg
There’s a libertarian argument about the commerce clause and Lochner (a key New Deal ruling) and economic regulation and then there’s a fringe view on those matters. I think Napolitano is in the latter camp.
June 11, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Oh, that guy. No wonder I don’t know who he is. When he shows up on The Live Desk, I bail.
June 11, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Shep must have been receiving many more objectionable e-mails than that which he read, above, because that one was no big deal, with the exception of referring to POTUS as “Hussein”.
The e-mailer asked where the birth certificate was (yes, the whole world wants to see it, and 0bama’s spent millions fighting his foes on this subject in court). And the e-mailer points out that 0bama’s leading our country into socialism and Marxism, which is true.
So what does any of this have to do with the Holocaust shooting of yesterday? Anyone?
Also, late reports today state that the shooter apparently wanted to target the Weekly Standard, which of course is run by what you liberals call “neo-conservatives” (Bill Kristol et al). So how could the shooter be considered “right-wing” if he wanted “the neo-cons” to be his next target? The guy was probably some leftist if he was going after Kristol and his staff.
June 11, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Also, late reports today state that the shooter apparently wanted to target the Weekly Standard, which of course is run by what you liberals call “neo-conservatives” (Bill Kristol et al). So how could the shooter be considered “right-wing” if he wanted “the neo-cons” to be his next target? The guy was probably some leftist if he was going after Kristol and his staff.
Good lord, Missy – not you too…
This guy was going after Kristol and his staff and neocons in general because they are (often) Jewish; Kristol certainly is. That’s what anti-semites DO, they target Jews.
This guy was also a frequent poster on FreeRepublic.com – please don’t tell me THAT is a leftist site now.
June 11, 2009 at 3:25 pm
What a SHOCK! Missy is a birther too. LOL!
June 11, 2009 at 3:39 pm
What a SHOCK! Missy is a birther too. LOL!
I admit I’m kind of disappointed. Missy used to be able to do some independent thinking. Guess the election of Obama drove more people around the bend than I had previously realized.
June 11, 2009 at 3:42 pm
The guy was also a 9/11 Truther idiot.
Why is it ok to speak hate against the Bush administration(“Hilter”, “war criminal”, “too bad they missed Cheney with that terrorist attack”, “Tony Snow is now rotting in hell”, etc.), ….. but not the Obama adminstration?
I don’t condone either. But this double standard is appalling. And there are some on here practicing it.
June 11, 2009 at 3:47 pm
The anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying, white supremacist mental case was far removed from any discussion of left and right. There’s left wing, there’s right wing, then there’s just sociopath. Enough. We don’t categorize serial murderers by political leanings. This guy belongs in that category.
June 11, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Why is it ok to speak hate against the Bush administration(”Hilter”, “war criminal”, “too bad they missed Cheney with that terrorist attack”, “Tony Snow is now rotting in hell”, etc.), ….. but not the Obama adminstration?
There is a legitimate interpretation of international law under which both Cheney and Bush (and the lawyers who authored the torture memos) could reasonably be considered war criminals.
The rest of the list, however, is beyond reasonable discourse. I’m sure you can point me to many places where similar things were said.
There’s a qualitative difference, however, in suggesting someone is ‘rotting in hell’ and suggesting that one’s thought-peers should send him there. Which is what the far-right loons are doing; the white supremicists against Obama, the pro-life fringe against doctors, the anti-semites against Jews.
One is an obnoxious opinion, the other is incitement.
June 11, 2009 at 3:54 pm
There’s left wing, there’s right wing, then there’s just sociopath. Enough. We don’t categorize serial murderers by political leanings. This guy belongs in that category.
If he were a deranged nut who picked random targets, you’d have a point. But he targeted a specific institution loathed by far-right extremists.
How is that not political? The very definition of ‘terrorism’ is trying to achieve by violence a political aim you cannot achieve by political means.
June 11, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Stevemg – Yeah, Napolitano used to be pretty “fair and balanced” and reasonable in his analysis. It seems like he had a big change of philosophy since Glenn Beck debuted.
Shep Smith is a good representative of the “fair and balanced” motto and he is right about how far off the rails some people have gone since the election. Conspiracy theory nuts (Obama isn’t an American citizen….9/11 was in inside job) have always been around but it seems that the rhetoric is reaching a fever pitch – they need to take a deep breath.
June 11, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Here, here for Joe.
Too much of a let’s pin-the-tail on the ideology going around on this one.
Some of these people defy labeling; their sick ideology is a toxic mix of far left and far right and anything loony in between.
This guy would have been just as happy shooting Olbermann as he would Limbaugh. Or Bush or Obama. Or the editorial offices of the NY Times or the Weekly Standard. To him, they’re all the same.
June 11, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Here, here for Joe.
That’s “hear, hear” dummy.
June 11, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Ted Bundy was a Republican and John Wayne Gacy a Democrat(had picture taken with Rosalyn Carter–Eek). But, please, continue the high-minded discourse. After all, I’m just one of them.
June 11, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Art, would about all the hate spewed at our soldiers the past 8 years from the lefties? Running them off college campuses, calling them murderers, war criminals, etc. Should we blame the far lefties for the Arkansas murder by the very anti-military nut case???? Hmmmm?????
June 11, 2009 at 4:04 pm
That comment needed an emoticon.
June 11, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Art, would about all the hate spewed at our soldiers the past 8 years from the lefties? Running them off college campuses, calling them murderers, war criminals, etc. Should we blame the far lefties for the Arkansas murder by the very anti-military nut case???? Hmmmm?????
Are you sure you’re not suffering a Vietnam flashback?
The anti-military nutcase, by the way, was a rightwing Muslim extremist, not unlike the Taliban. It is really NOT a liberal position to govern our civil lives by some version of Sharia law.
June 11, 2009 at 4:14 pm
This guy would have been just as happy shooting Olbermann as he would Limbaugh. Or Bush or Obama. Or the editorial offices of the NY Times or the Weekly Standard. To him, they’re all the same.
You are completely nuts. This guy SPECIFICALLY hated ‘negroes and jews’, and what ‘race-mixing’ was doing to America. He loathed any hint of gun control (a popular meme on the right), railed at inter-racial marriage (hardly a liberal position) and god only knows what he thought about gays.
But you guys keep on trying to persuade the world that this guy was either a) a liberal or b) apolitical. See how that works out for you.
June 11, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Ted Bundy was a Republican and John Wayne Gacy a Democrat(had picture taken with Rosalyn Carter–Eek).
They also were sexual psychopaths who killed for thrills, not to ‘advance’ any particular political position. But keep it up.
June 11, 2009 at 4:17 pm
This guy would have been just as happy shooting Olbermann as he would Limbaugh. Or Bush or Obama. Or the editorial offices of the NY Times or the Weekly Standard. To him, they’re all the same.
You are completely nuts. This guy SPECIFICALLY hated ‘negroes and jews’, and what ‘race-mixing’ was doing to America. He loathed any hint of gun control (a popular meme on the right), railed at inter-racial marriage (hardly a liberal position) and god only knows what he thought about g*ys. [edited to escape moderation limbo]
But you guys keep on trying to persuade the world that this guy was either a) a liberal or b) apolitical. See how that works out for you.
June 11, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Must remember not to engage(even indirectly) people who seek political advantage in human tragedy.
June 11, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Must remember not to engage(even indirectly) people who seek political advantage in human tragedy.
Oh, but do continue to support people who, for their own advancement and monetary advantage, incite loonies to murderous rages. Yeah.
June 11, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Arthur, I am aware that the term “neo-con” primarily refers to pro-war conservatives, many (but not ALL) of whom as Jewish. So does the guy go after them because they’re Jewish? Or if he’s conservative, as you imply, wouldn’t he be on the side of the “neo-cons”, and therefore NOT want to attack Kristol et al?
Also, most FReepers are what you’d consider “neo-cons”, so I doubt whether he’d attack one of his own. And how do you know he is a FReeper? Regardless of what O’Reilly often states, they are not a violent group! If a despicable statement is posted, it is usually removed immediately. Jim Robinson, who runs the show over there, has it well moderated.
June 11, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Art, the mainstream right wing in this country is devoutly pro-Israel. Much more so than the left wing.
The right wing is also pro-U.S. mllitary. Much more so than the left wing.
The right wing believes all life is precious, babies & adults. Much more so than the left wing.
To label these nut job killers as “right wing” is sickening, and pathetic on your part.
June 11, 2009 at 4:32 pm
WHY oh WHY don’t I proofread better?
of whom ARE (not as) Jewish.
June 11, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Must remember not to engage (even indirectly) people who seek political advantage in human tragedy.
Oh Laural…so reasonable. It’s sweet.
June 11, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Arthur, I am aware that the term “neo-con” primarily refers to pro-war conservatives, many (but not ALL) of whom as Jewish. So does the guy go after them because they’re Jewish? Or if he’s conservative, as you imply, wouldn’t he be on the side of the “neo-cons”, and therefore NOT want to attack Kristol et al?
Seriously? HE’S AN ANTI-SEMITE. HE HATES JEWS. What part of this are you not understanding? One can both be conservative and hate Jews; they are not mutually exclusive. He also hated Christianity – it’s a common white supremist theme, that the ancient Aryan religions (whatever they may be) of the north were polluted and destroyed by the ‘abrahamic’ religions of the desert people.
Also, most FReepers are what you’d consider “neo-cons”, so I doubt whether he’d attack one of his own. And how do you know he is a FReeper?
because someone using the name James W von Brunn has POSTED there. They were pretty quick off the mark to delete the threads after the shooter was identified, but you can still find them cached. Here’s one:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:niXSYG-nVO8J:www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2141655/posts+http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2141655/posts&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Regardless of what O’Reilly often states, they are not a violent group! If a despicable statement is posted, it is usually removed immediately. Jim Robinson, who runs the show over there, has it well moderated.
This explains a lot. You’re a FReeper.
June 11, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Art, the mainstream right wing in this country is devoutly pro-Israel. Much more so than the left wing.
The right wing is also pro-U.S. mllitary. Much more so than the left wing.
The right wing believes all life is precious, babies & adults. Much more so than the left wing.
To label these nut job killers as “right wing” is sickening, and pathetic on your part.
ONCE AGAIN – these guys are to the right wing as the Weather Underground was to the left.
It’s pretty instructive how quickly you guys rear up in outrage at any indication that there are Loons to your Right.
Do you honestly think you are as far right as it goes?
June 11, 2009 at 5:16 pm
No. I consider myself a conservative, but fairly moderate on the social issues.
Right wing & left wing refer to which sides in Congress the representative sit on. There was nothing about Von Brunn that supported the right wing, aka Republicans.
Art, socialism, even Nazi socialism, is LEFT wing. And that’s what he supported.
What exactly was right wing about Von Brunn?
He believed a Republican president staged a terrorist attack on it’s on country. He believed in (Nazi) socialism. He was anti-Israel. One of his targets was the very right wing Weekly Standard. In one essay, Von Brunn attacked “JEWS-NEOCONS-BILL O’REILLY”.
Isn’t Fox News the “right wing network”, according to all you libs?
So, what exactly made this nut job “right wing”????
June 11, 2009 at 5:18 pm
No. I consider myself a conservative, but fairly moderate on the social issues.
Right wing & left wing refer to which sides in Congress the representative sit on. There was nothing about Von Brunn that supported the right wing, aka Republicans.
Art, socialism, even Naz! socialism, is LEFT wing. And that’s what he supported.
What exactly was right wing about Von Brunn?
He believed a Republican president staged a terrorist attack on it’s on country. He believed in (Naz!) socialism. He was anti-Israel. One of his targets was the very right wing Weekly Standard. In one essay, Von Brunn attacked “JEWS-NEOCONS-BILL O’REILLY”.
Isn’t Fox News the “right wing network”, according to all you libs?
So, what exactly made this nut job “right wing”????
June 11, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Political.com is reporting this…
Weekly Standard may have been a target complicates any view of the racist shooter in contemporary left-right terms. Von Brunn’s white supremacist roots put him under the rubric of a “right-wing extremist,” but the substance of his views — which included everything from believing that President Bush may have been in on the September 11 attacks to denying that President Obama is an American citizen — are too far on the fringe to fit into conventional political classification.
The focus on the Standard, though, appears to be of a piece with his central motivation: Anti-Semitism. In one essay, Von Brunn attacked “JEWS-NEOCONS-BILL O’REILLY,” and the suggestion that neoconservatism is a specifically Jewish conspiracy is common on the racist fringe.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0609/Weekly_Standard_may_have_been_shooter_target.html
June 11, 2009 at 5:28 pm
^ Opps, I meant Politico.com is reporting…
June 11, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Weekly Standard may have been a target complicates any view of the racist shooter in contemporary left-right terms.
Complications? We don’t need no stinkin’ complications.
It’s more fun to try and gain political advantage by using the murder as a club to beat your opponents with. See above.
Right or left, both sides do it. The same folks who called Bush a terrorist and fascist complain when it’s done to Obama. And the folks who complained when it was done to Bush are now doing it to Obama.
T’was ever thus.
June 11, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Look, there are loons on the left that I gladly disavow. The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) conducts acts of domestic terrorism all the time. To date, they have not targeted people and called for the murder of polluters, but assume for the sake of argumental symmetry, that they did. Let’s say a radical environmental fringe posted pictures of oil company CEOs with their home addresses and ominous text warning their followers where to find them, and some loons actually hunted down and killed them.
In that scenario, would I be taken AT ALL seriously if I tried to persuade you that they really weren’t ‘on the left’ but were hard-core conservatives? It would be nonsense on the face of it – their stated goal (preserving the environment from man’s depredations) is a classically liberal one.
Art, socialism, even Naz! socialism, is LEFT wing.
You can NOT be serious. Because the word ‘socialist’ is in their name, that makes them ‘socialist’? Is the People’s Democratic Republic of China a democracy? Or even a Republic?
How can you be both anti-communist AND ‘socialist’?
Von Brunn’s white supremacist roots put him under the rubric of a “right-wing extremist,” but the substance of his views — which included everything from believing that President Bush may have been in on the September 11 attacks to denying that President Obama is an American citizen — are too far on the fringe to fit into conventional political classification.
Many of the various forms of ‘patriot militia’ think that the federal government is invalid and advocate for its overthrow. Does that mean they’re NOT right-wing? These guys carry around copies of the constitution in their pockets and claim everything that happened after 1789 is illegal. They are anti-federal government in any form and they don’t care which party is in the White House, but that CERTAINLY doesn’t make them ‘liberal’; they are loony-tunes paleo-conservatives.
June 11, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Look, there are loons on the left that I gladly disavow. The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) conducts acts of domestic terrorism all the time. To date, they have not targeted people and called for the murder of polluters, but assume for the sake of argumental symmetry, that they did. Let’s say a radical environmental fringe posted pictures of oil company CEOs with their home addresses and ominous text warning their followers where to find them, and some loons actually hunted down and killed them.
In that scenario, would I be taken AT ALL seriously if I tried to persuade you that they really weren’t ‘on the left’ but were hard-core conservatives? It would be nonsense on the face of it – their stated goal (preserving the environment from man’s depredations) is a classically liberal one.
Art, socialism, even Naz! socialism, is LEFT wing.
You can NOT be serious. Because the word ’socialist’ is in their name, that makes them ’socialist’? Is the People’s Democratic Republic of China a democracy? Or even a Republic?
How can you be both anti-communist AND ’socialist’?
Von Brunn’s white supremacist roots put him under the rubric of a “right-wing extremist,” but the substance of his views — which included everything from believing that President Bush may have been in on the September 11 attacks to denying that President Obama is an American citizen — are too far on the fringe to fit into conventional political classification.
Many of the various forms of ‘patriot militia’ think that the federal government is invalid and advocate for its overthrow. Does that mean they’re NOT right-wing? These guys carry around copies of the constitution in their pockets and claim everything that happened after 1789 is illegal. They are anti-federal government in any form and they don’t care which party is in the White House, but that CERTAINLY doesn’t make them ‘liberal’; they are loony-tunes paleo-conservatives.
Edited to escape moderation limbo.
June 11, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Arthur, of course I’m a FReeper. Nothing to be ashamed of.
June 11, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Arthur, of course I’m a FReeper. Nothing to be ashamed of.
Ah, then you’re uniquely qualified to tell us – do a lot of liberals hang out at the Free Republic?
If you said someone had a diary on DailyKOS, or posted often at Democratic Underground, I think the default assumption would be, barring evidence to the contrary, that that person was liberal. Likewise, when I hear someone posts on Free Republic, I tend to assume they’re conservative.
Am I wrong?
June 11, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Ooo Art. Trying not to take sides in the lefty/righty war here, but that’s a good one.
June 11, 2009 at 7:22 pm
whoops, my bad – it’s the People’s Republic of China. I was concatenating with the also-inaccurately named North Vietnam, aka the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
June 11, 2009 at 7:26 pm
I have a headache.
June 11, 2009 at 7:34 pm
“I have a headache.”
Concatenating will do that to you. It’s almost as bad as perseverating.
June 11, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Hah! Gawker:
EXACTLY like a lesbian studies major! What was I thinking?
Go listen.
http://gawker.com/5287371/andrew-breitbart-holocaust-museum-killer-was-a-multiculturalist
June 11, 2009 at 7:40 pm
It’s almost as bad as perseverating.
Could you repeat that please?
The most inside joke ever told.
June 11, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Had to look it up, did you, Laura?
June 11, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Laural taught it to me. I had to look it up.