Goldfarb vs. Shuster: Shuster responds (indirectly)
This afternoon David Shuster addressed the issues The Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb raised earlier this week when he called Shuster a “liar”.
On Monday we did a Hypocrisy Watch segment on Senator Joe Lieberman. His office points out that on some of the issues we mentioned Monday there are no longer major differences between the Senator’s current position and that of President Obama. We pointed out the statements the Senator made as recently as last summer, but his office notes that his stance for instance on dialogue with Iran is now similar to that of President Obama. There’s no question that Senator Lieberman’s positions have evolved since last year when he campaigned for John McCain. However to suggest that Senator Lieberman is a hypocrite was harsh. A fair approach would have been to simply point out the evolution of his policies and not attempt to characterize the Senator’s motives. The Senator can speak for himself. In any case we appreciate Senator Lieberman’s office reaching out and we renew the invitation made on Monday; Senator Lieberman you are always welcome to come on this show and discuss your views on the issues of the day.
I don’t know but this response reads to me like it was dictated from above.
June 17, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Shuster reeled in again. Ed Shultz can say whatever he wants because it’s an opinion show. Shuster does an opnion segment during “straight” news and MSNBC pulls him back. Phil Griffin is freakin schizophrenic. Decide what Shuster does (other than irritate me) and let him do it!
June 17, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Ed Shultz can say whatever he wants because it’s an opinion show
“Whatever he wants” indeed.
Bill O’Reilly got blasted – fairly in my view – for his charge that the ACLU and others who were opposed to the Bush Administration detention policies “don’t care if Americans die.”
That’s nonsense and a smear. Don’t care? Are you nuts, O’Reilly?
But Shultz went one step further on Joe Scarborough’s show recently when he said the Cheney and conservatives want “Americans to die in a terror attack” for political gain.
Shultz, when challenged by Mike Barnicle as to whether he really believes this, replied:
I really do, Mike. I do. I really believe, because I think it’s all about the conservatives grabbing the power and keeping it. These folks hate.
Note: these folks. Not just Cheney.
So, conservatives not only “don’t care” (as O’Reilly stated liberals believe) whether Americans die but actually “want them to die.”
Just peachy Ed, just peachy.
June 17, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Man, Shuster is getting good at these apologies.
Then again, when you’re forced to retract such egregious lies as much as Shuster is, I guess practice makes perfect.
June 17, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Aw..KO’s lapdog is caught running his mouth off again…well since he works for MSNBC lying is almost a requirement.
June 17, 2009 at 7:27 pm
He really didn’t deserve to be reeled in. Joe Lieberman is a crass opportunist who was John McCain’s lapdog until Nov. 5, 2008, then his positions miraculously “evolved” to line up more with the winner. Lieberman is dishonest and hypocritical and deserved the slot in Hypocrisy Watch.
June 17, 2009 at 9:18 pm
No argument there about Lieberman being at the very least opportunistic. But they hypocrite tag given the evidence presented was a bit much.
June 18, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Lieberman is dishonest and hypocritical and deserved the slot in Hypocrisy Watch.
And this makes Arlen Specter… what?
June 18, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Specter, same same. I’ll take his vote (and Lieberman’s) if I can get it, but he’s still a punk. That’s why I liked Huckabee over Romney. Romney may actually be closer to my politics in his heart, but at least Huckabee is willing to disagree with me honestly. Hell, I’ve give it to Palin over McCain for the same reason (shudder).
June 19, 2009 at 6:48 am
Okay, I’ll buy that I suppose.
June 19, 2009 at 8:07 am
Although, one follow up… how does “Specter’s” or “Lieberman’s” punish-ness compare to that of Obama, who has “flip-flopped” on a number of issues once it became politically expedient for him to do so (detainee photos come to mind)? Isn’t that just the name of the game?
June 19, 2009 at 9:01 am
Specifically addressing the detainee photos, there’s a difference between changing your mind for political expediency and doing so because you genuinely had a change of heart. I remember Buchanan and Barnicle on Morning Joe before Inaugeration Day saying that once Obama gets in office and gets some security briefings, some of his national security stances will “evolve.” Apparently he was advised that releasing the photos would do more harm than good and changed his mind. That’s not political expediency. That’s a move to prevent violence.
I have no problem with a politician honestly changing his mind. It’s when they BS their true beliefs, like Romney and McCain did to try to get the GOP nomination, that bothers me.
June 19, 2009 at 9:46 am
Alright… just wanting to know where you’re coming from. Understood… not bad points, I don’t disagree too much.
I’ll buy it… but I won’t pay full price.
June 19, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Half off…just for you.