This entry was posted on February 28, 2011 at 8:52 am and is filed under Free For All . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Seems the whole “PsyOps” story was a complete fabrication. Of course, that didn’t stop Chris Mathews from suggesting that the despicable Rolling Stone reporter deserved the Pulitzer for the story nor did it stop Mathews from likening our military to North Korea. I don’t know what’s worse, some wingnut reporter from Rolling Stone doing his best to bring down top military brass or some wingnut NBC talking head actively cheering the story. Both are a national embarrassment.
There was an interesting ruling by the Supreme Court on the use of hearsay evidence and a person’s “right to confront” an accuser.
Brief outline: The police responded to a report of a shooting. They found a man, shot, in a car in a gas station parking lot. They asked what happened and he told them that a man named Bryant had shot him.
The man who was shot died before trial. Bryant was charged with the murder.
Question: Could the prosecution use those statements against Bryant in the trial? Or is it hearsay evidence and statements that, since the person died, that Bryant can’t challenge?
The Court ruled 6-2 (Justice Kagan recused herself) that the statements were admissible. Ginsburg and Scalia (!) dissented.
It isn’t at all surprising that Justice Scalia dissented in this case, as you’ll easily find several similar opinions of his along this line of reasoning. Despite what most liberals will claim about him, his is not an ideological interpretation of the constitution.
To Justice Scalia, the constitution reads as it was written and amended, and words have definitive meanings that cannot be changed simply because we do not approve of their ramifications. To believe otherwise renders that document, and indeed the freedoms we are guaranteed through adherence to it, worthless.
Is anyone going to provide a link proving Hastings fabricated the psy ops claim? All I’m getting with Google are blog commentors like LS saying it is so.
Was this fake story floated to Rolling Stone to get back at it for the Gen. McCrystal story? I have very little knowledge of the PsyOps story but it sounded fishy to me from the beginning.
The counter-charge is that there is a debate within the military about what Holmes was trained on, and how he wad expected to use that knowledge on politicians. “Fabricated to take down the military” is a laughable accusation.
It is strange that the proverbial “death declaration” – the dying person dramatically identifying his murderer – was never ruled on as being permissible by the Supreme Court until today.
I think Ginsburg and Scalia were right: the statement should have been excluded. New trial.
If a fundamental right is to be able to confront your accuser, how can you confront a dead person?
That’s a ridiculous opinion. By the very nature of the crime, murder suspects are always being confronted with evidence from a dead person. All evidence from the scene – including last words from the victim – should be admissible.
All evidence from the scene – including last words from the victim – should be admissible.
All evidence? The Constitution says otherwise. Illegally obtained evidence isn’t allowed. E.g., fruit of the poisoned tree. Also hearsay isn’t allowed.
Anyway, legally obtained evidence is one thing, accusations are another. This wasn’t evidence (tracing the bullets to a gun, fingerprints, et cetera); these were alleged statements that only the police claimed to hear.
What good is the fundamental right to confront your accuser if statements by him or her can be used without your ability to challenge the accusations?
If you’re going to insult me by feeling it necessary to point out that illegal evidence must be excluded, there’s no point in talking law with you. LEGAL evidence in a case should include dying words. If only one person heard it, then you need other evidence to support it. I seriously doubt any jury would convict a man solely on the statements of one cop. It doesn’t work that way.
If they were his dying words and he was aware that he was dying, then it’s a dying declaration and is admissible. But if he died later from other cause, it’s probably not a dying declaration. However when the police show up on the scene and the guy has just been shot, and he tells them whodunit–that’s an ‘excited utterance’ and is admissible evidence. Not all hearsay is inadmissible, and not all out of court statements are hearsay. This sounds like it’s hearsay but falls under the ‘excited utterance’ exception.
I guess I should’ve taken Spud’s advice to wait before reviewing. Martin Bashir’s first day was very good. He had Charlie Sheen’s astonishing GMA meltdown as a lead-in, which certainly fits in his wheelhouse. Bashir’s scathing takedown of CBS was brilliant: “You tolerated his abuse of women for years, but snapped when he went after his bosses.” Touche.
If you’re going to insult me by feeling it necessary to point out that illegal evidence must be excluded, there’s no point in talking law with you
When you write “all evidence” I can only read you to mean “all evidence. Some people do indeed believe that all evidence can be used no matter how it was acquired. Yes they do.
In any case, having slogged through the ruling the majority didn’t rule on the admissibility of “death declarations” and the right to confront your accused. They ruled that the statements were permissible because they were not “testimonial” ones but simply statements told to the police during an emergency.
And the trial court – the man was convicted of second degree murder – ruled that these were “excitable utterances” and not “death declarations” and therefore were allowed.
This sounds like it’s hearsay but falls under the ‘excited utterance’ exception.
Yes, that’s what the trial court and SCOTUS (the majority that is) ruled.
But are “death declarations” admitted otherwise? Has the Court ruled on them?
It seems from reading Scalia and Ginsburgh (separate opinions because Scalia went ballistic) that they think broad lines are needed and the right to confrontation should exclude allowing such statements to be used.
More incivility coming from Wis…Democratic State Rep. Gordon Hintz who after the budget vote turn to Republican State Rep. Michelle Litjens and said “You are f#cking dead”…..one can only imagine what the reaction from the MSM would be if any male Republican elected official had said this to a Dem elected Woman….but like most of the things coming out of Wis if it makes the Union of the Dems look bad…the MSM mostly ignores it.
Never mind. Another week of being the only lib pissing and moaning amongst a sea of righties is a bad idea. We return you now to your regular programming, already in progress. “Tonight..on The Great Great American Panel..!”
You sure have change Joe after lecturing me and others on civility after the Gifford shooting and now your defending the actions of Union thugs and Dems calling for violence and actually engaging in those acts.
And as a reminder it was liberal anti-war protesters that began using the Nazi symbols against Bush and it was SEIU thugs who threw the first punch when they attacked and put that poor guy in a wheelchair at a Townhall event that was the beginnings of the Tea Party movement….in fact there are as far as I know no Tea Party members who have engage in similar attacks such as the Union thugs have…only difference is the MSM accused the Tea Party of being violent(even though they haven’t done anything)while actively ignoring real violent acts from Union thugs.
And the issue, which some refuse to acknowledge since the imbalance favors them, is how such stories are reported in the press. Maybe there wouldn’t be such a baseless, irrational fear of the Right if such transgressions on the Left were equally reported and condemned. But they aren’t, because the people in charge agree with the people who do them. So you don’t hear so much about union thugs or environmentalist whacko violence. You can live in your happy little world where the Left is peaceful and kind, and only the Right ever does mean, naughty things.
^ It’s also true that conservatives are generally happier people, anyway, and don’t b!tch and moan about such talk until sticks and stones start breaking bones.
Keep talking, kids. I’m well aware of the transgressions on my side, and that you guys will band together here all day to berate me with them. This is an endless and futile battle, and I’m exhausted.
I call for an ICN truce over this union thing. Let’s talk about Charlie Sheen instead. I think we can all agree that he’s crazy.
Although he might be a plant funded by the Koch brothers to detract America from the vast right-wing conspiracy’s attempt to crush the American worker. Or something like that.
“Keep talking, kids. I’m well aware of the transgressions on my side, and that you guys will band together here all day to berate me with them.”joeremi
Your the one that decided to live in a glass house while throwing stones….of course were going to keep reminding you of what your side is doing after the way you lectured us after the Gifford shooting.
Mlong, there’s a rule I never break: if a person apologizes for being out of line, I don’t go back and remind them what they did wrong as if the apology never happened. I apologized for my post-Giffords rantings, and I’m not gonna put up with you going back in time.
The reason you don’t hear much about union thugs and environmentalist whacko violence is that union members are not thugs, and environmentalist fringe group whacko violence is *extremely* rare. The facts sort of get in the way here. Environmentalists are pretty chill, friendly people. And I’m really sick of the constant refrain of “union thugs” in particular. Excuse me, but when you’re talking about union members you’re talking about some of my family. They are not thugs. They are not violent. Okay, maybe on the ice during their hockey playing days they were violent, but that’s about it. I just knew the moment this thing got started, Fox News would be working hard to focus the entire attention of their commentators and most of the attention of their news shows on the small handful of people who don’t know how to behave, because their audience doesn’t want Fair And Balanced coverage of labor issues – they want to hear about “union thugs.”
And Tea Party people are MY friends, and I’m sick of the Left and the media smearing them with every act of violence real, or usually imagined. It’s a political tactic, and I’m tired of it. Political violence is extremely rare on BOTH sides. It would be real sweet if we ALL stopped gaming it for political advantage. Good luck with that.
Head to Mediaite… they have a (non-media story) about a Dem conrgresswoman talking about taking “taxpayer dollars” away from NASCAR. Apparently, she doesn’t approve of the military’s ad buget going to NASCAR.
As a NASCAR fan, I’m sure you’ll have something to say about that.
That’s “Joe” for you common folk, and yeah, I saw it. I think it’s money well spent. If you wanna request that ALL recruiting money be cut, fine, but singling out one of the most effective tools is ill-informed grandstanding.
If it truly is an effective tool then there’s no good reason to end it, but there’s nothing wrong with a member of congress raising the issue. Just because something sounds good doesn’t mean it necessarily is good, so make the spenders prove it.
I support review, too, but be prepared for a shock. NASCAR people are PSYCHOTIC about supporting the sponsors that keep their boys on the track..ESPECIALLY Dale, Jr.
That’s one stupid pol. You think union people are rough, wait’ll the NASCAR people find out somebody’s trying to pull National Guard off Junior’s car..
I have no problem with the NASCAR spending, even though I don’t really follow (I am one of those people who thought it was never the same without #3). But what strikes me is that everybody wants to cut spending until it hits their own people and their districts, in this case, the teams based in North Carolina and such. Because that government spending actually keeps people from losing their jobs. I want them to keep their jobs too, no problem. And yet..
Steve, I’ve been to a few Wizards games (cheap tickets.. very cheap) and I wasn’t real tempted to become a fan. Already have the Redskins misery to get through every season, that’s enough. Even the Caps look bad lately. At least there’s our baseball team.. oh, wait.
..and yet, we’re watching. Ew. Did Anderson have a revolted look, or was it just me?
Sheen looks creepy. He has that vibe, with the smile and the eyes that used to be charming. Predatory.
Well, then, you got me. 45 minutes worth, more ‘Piers’ than previously experienced. I think I can safely say that he’s more embarrassing of a suck-up than King ever thought of being. Shouldn’t be long before Mel Gibson makes his comeback-appearance.
And, of course, Bernie Goldberg is right. That’s not to say Jesse Waters does anything wrong, but he produces for an opinion show and always does his on-air reporting from a predictable perspective.
Back to Sheen, because it’s bugging me. We have people in Mexico being killed by the thousands, and the violence is creeping into border-states. The government isn’t doing squat besides talking about it. So what do we do? Have Charlie Sheen go on all the networks, TV and radio, to talk about how great his life is and how many drugs he’s done. The ‘questioning’ that he receives is restrained at best, but only when it isn’t a chummy suck-up. I don’t really know what I expect, but that ain’t it.
He’s obviously a creep at the moment, but he’s hopelessly addicted to EVERYTHING he touches. The man is dying before our eyes, and the creeps are the ones enabling him by putting his scary mug on television.
You can’t tell me that there aren’t kids, and not a few adults, watching him strut around like the cock-of-the-walk and thinking ‘He’s rich and famous. What’s so bad about it?’.
This is whats so bad about the currant state of the “News” business today…all these fights over getting Sheen interviews are for being the network that’ll get him dying on air…same with a lot of the coverage from Egypt and Libya where their sending their reporters to places where they know there’s a good chance something will happen to them….and they’ll get it all on video.
Also I would not at all be surprised to see CBS let Sheen come back to Two and a Half Men…after all ratings trump everything else.
By the way who was the genius who invited Sheen’s buddie Alex Jones on the View today?…don’t they know he’s a big time Truther and just as nuts as Sheen is?…..now I know Truthers don’t get as as much coverage or scorn as Birthers but come on don’t give them any kind of credibility by even trying to interview them as if their normal.
February 28, 2011 at 9:11 am
Seems the whole “PsyOps” story was a complete fabrication. Of course, that didn’t stop Chris Mathews from suggesting that the despicable Rolling Stone reporter deserved the Pulitzer for the story nor did it stop Mathews from likening our military to North Korea. I don’t know what’s worse, some wingnut reporter from Rolling Stone doing his best to bring down top military brass or some wingnut NBC talking head actively cheering the story. Both are a national embarrassment.
February 28, 2011 at 9:36 am
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/02/27/media-scholar-tells-howard-kurtz-huffington-posts-bigger-threat-journ
Wow. I couldn’t believe it when I heard this professor say it yesterday.
February 28, 2011 at 10:57 am
There was an interesting ruling by the Supreme Court on the use of hearsay evidence and a person’s “right to confront” an accuser.
Brief outline: The police responded to a report of a shooting. They found a man, shot, in a car in a gas station parking lot. They asked what happened and he told them that a man named Bryant had shot him.
The man who was shot died before trial. Bryant was charged with the murder.
Question: Could the prosecution use those statements against Bryant in the trial? Or is it hearsay evidence and statements that, since the person died, that Bryant can’t challenge?
The Court ruled 6-2 (Justice Kagan recused herself) that the statements were admissible. Ginsburg and Scalia (!) dissented.
February 28, 2011 at 11:45 am
Ginsburg and Scalia agreed?! Apparently they are actually very close friends.
February 28, 2011 at 12:10 pm
It isn’t at all surprising that Justice Scalia dissented in this case, as you’ll easily find several similar opinions of his along this line of reasoning. Despite what most liberals will claim about him, his is not an ideological interpretation of the constitution.
To Justice Scalia, the constitution reads as it was written and amended, and words have definitive meanings that cannot be changed simply because we do not approve of their ramifications. To believe otherwise renders that document, and indeed the freedoms we are guaranteed through adherence to it, worthless.
February 28, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Is anyone going to provide a link proving Hastings fabricated the psy ops claim? All I’m getting with Google are blog commentors like LS saying it is so.
February 28, 2011 at 1:00 pm
^
Denver Post.
WSJ Blog Story.
The counter charge isn’t that Hasting fabricated the story, it’s that Holmes is talking through his hat.
February 28, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Was this fake story floated to Rolling Stone to get back at it for the Gen. McCrystal story? I have very little knowledge of the PsyOps story but it sounded fishy to me from the beginning.
February 28, 2011 at 1:24 pm
The counter-charge is that there is a debate within the military about what Holmes was trained on, and how he wad expected to use that knowledge on politicians. “Fabricated to take down the military” is a laughable accusation.
February 28, 2011 at 1:25 pm
‘in’, ‘was’
February 28, 2011 at 1:46 pm
It is strange that the proverbial “death declaration” – the dying person dramatically identifying his murderer – was never ruled on as being permissible by the Supreme Court until today.
I think Ginsburg and Scalia were right: the statement should have been excluded. New trial.
If a fundamental right is to be able to confront your accuser, how can you confront a dead person?
Next case.
February 28, 2011 at 1:54 pm
That’s a ridiculous opinion. By the very nature of the crime, murder suspects are always being confronted with evidence from a dead person. All evidence from the scene – including last words from the victim – should be admissible.
February 28, 2011 at 2:02 pm
All evidence from the scene – including last words from the victim – should be admissible.
All evidence? The Constitution says otherwise. Illegally obtained evidence isn’t allowed. E.g., fruit of the poisoned tree. Also hearsay isn’t allowed.
Anyway, legally obtained evidence is one thing, accusations are another. This wasn’t evidence (tracing the bullets to a gun, fingerprints, et cetera); these were alleged statements that only the police claimed to hear.
What good is the fundamental right to confront your accuser if statements by him or her can be used without your ability to challenge the accusations?
February 28, 2011 at 2:07 pm
If you’re going to insult me by feeling it necessary to point out that illegal evidence must be excluded, there’s no point in talking law with you. LEGAL evidence in a case should include dying words. If only one person heard it, then you need other evidence to support it. I seriously doubt any jury would convict a man solely on the statements of one cop. It doesn’t work that way.
February 28, 2011 at 2:13 pm
If they were his dying words and he was aware that he was dying, then it’s a dying declaration and is admissible. But if he died later from other cause, it’s probably not a dying declaration. However when the police show up on the scene and the guy has just been shot, and he tells them whodunit–that’s an ‘excited utterance’ and is admissible evidence. Not all hearsay is inadmissible, and not all out of court statements are hearsay. This sounds like it’s hearsay but falls under the ‘excited utterance’ exception.
February 28, 2011 at 2:14 pm
I guess I should’ve taken Spud’s advice to wait before reviewing. Martin Bashir’s first day was very good. He had Charlie Sheen’s astonishing GMA meltdown as a lead-in, which certainly fits in his wheelhouse. Bashir’s scathing takedown of CBS was brilliant: “You tolerated his abuse of women for years, but snapped when he went after his bosses.” Touche.
February 28, 2011 at 2:29 pm
If you’re going to insult me by feeling it necessary to point out that illegal evidence must be excluded, there’s no point in talking law with you
When you write “all evidence” I can only read you to mean “all evidence. Some people do indeed believe that all evidence can be used no matter how it was acquired. Yes they do.
In any case, having slogged through the ruling the majority didn’t rule on the admissibility of “death declarations” and the right to confront your accused. They ruled that the statements were permissible because they were not “testimonial” ones but simply statements told to the police during an emergency.
And the trial court – the man was convicted of second degree murder – ruled that these were “excitable utterances” and not “death declarations” and therefore were allowed.
Ginsburg and Scalia want bright lines on this.
So do I.
February 28, 2011 at 2:32 pm
This sounds like it’s hearsay but falls under the ‘excited utterance’ exception.
Yes, that’s what the trial court and SCOTUS (the majority that is) ruled.
But are “death declarations” admitted otherwise? Has the Court ruled on them?
It seems from reading Scalia and Ginsburgh (separate opinions because Scalia went ballistic) that they think broad lines are needed and the right to confrontation should exclude allowing such statements to be used.
February 28, 2011 at 2:35 pm
But are “death declarations” admitted otherwise? Has the Court ruled on them?
Sorry, you answered it.
If the person making the statement is aware he is dying, then it is admissible.
February 28, 2011 at 2:58 pm
More incivility coming from Wis…Democratic State Rep. Gordon Hintz who after the budget vote turn to Republican State Rep. Michelle Litjens and said “You are f#cking dead”…..one can only imagine what the reaction from the MSM would be if any male Republican elected official had said this to a Dem elected Woman….but like most of the things coming out of Wis if it makes the Union of the Dems look bad…the MSM mostly ignores it.
February 28, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Payback’s a b/tch, ain’t it, Mlong? Two years of N@zi and Marxist and ‘lock and load’ gets a little tiring. Game on.
February 28, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Ten years of it is tiring. It’s all good when you agree with their goals, isn’t it?
February 28, 2011 at 3:28 pm
And it’s perfectly acceptable when everyone but Fox ignores it. Because all’s fair.
February 28, 2011 at 3:32 pm
None of it is fair. Just don’t expect me to listen to crocodile tears when your side hears nasty things they don’t like. Boo. Hoo.
February 28, 2011 at 3:41 pm
^Congrats, you’ve become what you say you detest.
You do know that by doing so they won? And you lost?
They beat you.
C’est la vie.
February 28, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Never mind. Another week of being the only lib pissing and moaning amongst a sea of righties is a bad idea. We return you now to your regular programming, already in progress. “Tonight..on The Great Great American Panel..!”
February 28, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Or a Very Special Episode of ”Rachel Maddow Makes Crap Up!”
February 28, 2011 at 4:04 pm
You sure have change Joe after lecturing me and others on civility after the Gifford shooting and now your defending the actions of Union thugs and Dems calling for violence and actually engaging in those acts.
And as a reminder it was liberal anti-war protesters that began using the Nazi symbols against Bush and it was SEIU thugs who threw the first punch when they attacked and put that poor guy in a wheelchair at a Townhall event that was the beginnings of the Tea Party movement….in fact there are as far as I know no Tea Party members who have engage in similar attacks such as the Union thugs have…only difference is the MSM accused the Tea Party of being violent(even though they haven’t done anything)while actively ignoring real violent acts from Union thugs.
February 28, 2011 at 4:07 pm
She’s auditioning for Fox. It’s embarrassing.
February 28, 2011 at 4:07 pm
– More incivility –
And the issue, which some refuse to acknowledge since the imbalance favors them, is how such stories are reported in the press. Maybe there wouldn’t be such a baseless, irrational fear of the Right if such transgressions on the Left were equally reported and condemned. But they aren’t, because the people in charge agree with the people who do them. So you don’t hear so much about union thugs or environmentalist whacko violence. You can live in your happy little world where the Left is peaceful and kind, and only the Right ever does mean, naughty things.
February 28, 2011 at 4:11 pm
^ It’s also true that conservatives are generally happier people, anyway, and don’t b!tch and moan about such talk until sticks and stones start breaking bones.
February 28, 2011 at 4:18 pm
You can live in your happy little world where the Left is peaceful and kind, and only the Right ever does mean, naughty things.
I don’t know anyone here who doesn’t think Beck is irresponsible. Or that Hannity is ridiculous.
Which of us “righties” has defended this garbage?
February 28, 2011 at 4:32 pm
The fact that we disagree makes us evil. Word.
February 28, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Keep talking, kids. I’m well aware of the transgressions on my side, and that you guys will band together here all day to berate me with them. This is an endless and futile battle, and I’m exhausted.
February 28, 2011 at 4:38 pm
I call for an ICN truce over this union thing. Let’s talk about Charlie Sheen instead. I think we can all agree that he’s crazy.
Although he might be a plant funded by the Koch brothers to detract America from the vast right-wing conspiracy’s attempt to crush the American worker. Or something like that.
February 28, 2011 at 4:47 pm
“Keep talking, kids. I’m well aware of the transgressions on my side, and that you guys will band together here all day to berate me with them.”joeremi
Your the one that decided to live in a glass house while throwing stones….of course were going to keep reminding you of what your side is doing after the way you lectured us after the Gifford shooting.
February 28, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Mlong, there’s a rule I never break: if a person apologizes for being out of line, I don’t go back and remind them what they did wrong as if the apology never happened. I apologized for my post-Giffords rantings, and I’m not gonna put up with you going back in time.
February 28, 2011 at 5:11 pm
The reason you don’t hear much about union thugs and environmentalist whacko violence is that union members are not thugs, and environmentalist fringe group whacko violence is *extremely* rare. The facts sort of get in the way here. Environmentalists are pretty chill, friendly people. And I’m really sick of the constant refrain of “union thugs” in particular. Excuse me, but when you’re talking about union members you’re talking about some of my family. They are not thugs. They are not violent. Okay, maybe on the ice during their hockey playing days they were violent, but that’s about it. I just knew the moment this thing got started, Fox News would be working hard to focus the entire attention of their commentators and most of the attention of their news shows on the small handful of people who don’t know how to behave, because their audience doesn’t want Fair And Balanced coverage of labor issues – they want to hear about “union thugs.”
February 28, 2011 at 5:18 pm
^ Well if they stop attacking people we won’t hear about their thug tactics now will we?
February 28, 2011 at 5:21 pm
And Tea Party people are MY friends, and I’m sick of the Left and the media smearing them with every act of violence real, or usually imagined. It’s a political tactic, and I’m tired of it. Political violence is extremely rare on BOTH sides. It would be real sweet if we ALL stopped gaming it for political advantage. Good luck with that.
February 28, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Laura’s right. You heard it here.
February 28, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Thanks, Remi.
February 28, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Hey Remi…
Head to Mediaite… they have a (non-media story) about a Dem conrgresswoman talking about taking “taxpayer dollars” away from NASCAR. Apparently, she doesn’t approve of the military’s ad buget going to NASCAR.
As a NASCAR fan, I’m sure you’ll have something to say about that.
February 28, 2011 at 5:42 pm
That’s “Joe” for you common folk, and yeah, I saw it. I think it’s money well spent. If you wanna request that ALL recruiting money be cut, fine, but singling out one of the most effective tools is ill-informed grandstanding.
February 28, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Unfortunately, ‘political jerkness’ is not the least bit uncommon on either side. Though ‘we’ might have a slight edge…
February 28, 2011 at 6:10 pm
-NASCAR Military Recruitment-
If it truly is an effective tool then there’s no good reason to end it, but there’s nothing wrong with a member of congress raising the issue. Just because something sounds good doesn’t mean it necessarily is good, so make the spenders prove it.
February 28, 2011 at 6:13 pm
I have no problem with reviewing it… but she was singling out NASCAR. The military sponsors all major sports.
This appears like she’s going for political points.
February 28, 2011 at 6:29 pm
I support review, too, but be prepared for a shock. NASCAR people are PSYCHOTIC about supporting the sponsors that keep their boys on the track..ESPECIALLY Dale, Jr.
February 28, 2011 at 6:35 pm
The headline on Hot Air said ”Karl Rove openly mocking Palin”. And there’s a godawful picture of Rove. A little gift for our friends.
http://nymag.com/news/politics/karl-rove-2011-3/
February 28, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Man, this Charlie Sheen interview gets worse with every viewing. It’s sad.
February 28, 2011 at 6:55 pm
– Sheen –
He’s younger than me and looks ten-years-older. And my upkeep is minimal. Scary dude.
February 28, 2011 at 6:55 pm
“This appears like she’s going for political points.”
Yea a Dem looks at NASCAR and only sees Republican voters.
February 28, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Do not become a Washington Wizards fan.
Man, what a mess.
At least some awful teams have a sort of character. Or quirkiness. Something to watch. Something interesting. Bad but not always boring.
This team has nada. Zilch.
February 28, 2011 at 7:06 pm
It’s old, but notable. Some of us like to criticize her, but this was the right response.
Palin: No, I don’t question Obama’s faith or his citizenship
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/17/palin-no-i-dont-question-obamas-faith-or-his-citizenship/
February 28, 2011 at 7:08 pm
- NASCAR -
That’s one stupid pol. You think union people are rough, wait’ll the NASCAR people find out somebody’s trying to pull National Guard off Junior’s car..
February 28, 2011 at 7:20 pm
So apparently Sheen is on Piers Morgan Tonight. Maybe I should be watching. This could be awesome. Train wreck TV!
February 28, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Sheen with Piers Morgan. Be there.
February 28, 2011 at 7:22 pm
I have no problem with the NASCAR spending, even though I don’t really follow (I am one of those people who thought it was never the same without #3). But what strikes me is that everybody wants to cut spending until it hits their own people and their districts, in this case, the teams based in North Carolina and such. Because that government spending actually keeps people from losing their jobs. I want them to keep their jobs too, no problem. And yet..
Steve, I’ve been to a few Wizards games (cheap tickets.. very cheap) and I wasn’t real tempted to become a fan. Already have the Redskins misery to get through every season, that’s enough. Even the Caps look bad lately. At least there’s our baseball team.. oh, wait.
February 28, 2011 at 7:23 pm
– Sheen –
Had he been smiling in the mugshot, he’d have looked better than he does now.
February 28, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Sheen looks like crap. Piers to Sheen (paraphrase): “I don’t think you are crazy.”
February 28, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Sheen is on live, which surprises me. Hope they have the seven second delay.
February 28, 2011 at 7:26 pm
He said ‘balderdash’. He can’t be all bad.
February 28, 2011 at 7:32 pm
On the other hand, puke.
February 28, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Wonder how abc feels letting most of their interview sit around for Tuesday at 10pmET.
February 28, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Ya know, just because Sheen WANTS to talk, doesn’t mean you should LET him..
February 28, 2011 at 8:03 pm
..and yet, we’re watching. Ew. Did Anderson have a revolted look, or was it just me?
Sheen looks creepy. He has that vibe, with the smile and the eyes that used to be charming. Predatory.
February 28, 2011 at 8:11 pm
I’ve seen enough Today Show clips on MSNBC. I am most assuredly NOT watching Piers.
February 28, 2011 at 8:11 pm
You’re watching, not me. I’ve seen that look on many faces over the years… and then I see them with a tag tied on their big toe.
February 28, 2011 at 8:21 pm
Well, then, you got me. 45 minutes worth, more ‘Piers’ than previously experienced. I think I can safely say that he’s more embarrassing of a suck-up than King ever thought of being. Shouldn’t be long before Mel Gibson makes his comeback-appearance.
February 28, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Oops.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-goldberg-fox-colleague-jesse-waters-is-not-an-objective-reporter-who-practices-journalism/
February 28, 2011 at 8:59 pm
And, of course, Bernie Goldberg is right. That’s not to say Jesse Waters does anything wrong, but he produces for an opinion show and always does his on-air reporting from a predictable perspective.
February 28, 2011 at 9:01 pm
What the heck is O’Reilly thinking?
February 28, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Back to Sheen, because it’s bugging me. We have people in Mexico being killed by the thousands, and the violence is creeping into border-states. The government isn’t doing squat besides talking about it. So what do we do? Have Charlie Sheen go on all the networks, TV and radio, to talk about how great his life is and how many drugs he’s done. The ‘questioning’ that he receives is restrained at best, but only when it isn’t a chummy suck-up. I don’t really know what I expect, but that ain’t it.
February 28, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Some of those drugs Sheen plays with came at the expense of innocent lives in Mexico… and the US for that matter. He’s a creep.
February 28, 2011 at 9:38 pm
He’s obviously a creep at the moment, but he’s hopelessly addicted to EVERYTHING he touches. The man is dying before our eyes, and the creeps are the ones enabling him by putting his scary mug on television.
February 28, 2011 at 9:40 pm
You can’t tell me that there aren’t kids, and not a few adults, watching him strut around like the cock-of-the-walk and thinking ‘He’s rich and famous. What’s so bad about it?’.
February 28, 2011 at 9:52 pm
I think most people comparing that face to the one they’re used to is more alarmed than envious. The dude looks terrifying.
February 28, 2011 at 9:58 pm
People are stupid. Especially the ones looking for an excuse. He definitely looks like someone you wouldn’t trust with one of your kids, though.
February 28, 2011 at 11:06 pm
This is whats so bad about the currant state of the “News” business today…all these fights over getting Sheen interviews are for being the network that’ll get him dying on air…same with a lot of the coverage from Egypt and Libya where their sending their reporters to places where they know there’s a good chance something will happen to them….and they’ll get it all on video.
Also I would not at all be surprised to see CBS let Sheen come back to Two and a Half Men…after all ratings trump everything else.
By the way who was the genius who invited Sheen’s buddie Alex Jones on the View today?…don’t they know he’s a big time Truther and just as nuts as Sheen is?…..now I know Truthers don’t get as as much coverage or scorn as Birthers but come on don’t give them any kind of credibility by even trying to interview them as if their normal.
February 28, 2011 at 11:07 pm
Good segment about it on Hannity. Beckel is not a fan. Sounds a lot like me.
February 28, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Now if Jones had been on when Rosie was there, that would’ve been a show..