Not: Over-coverage of Penn State and Syracuse. Do I need to hear grown men discuss what happened to them when they were kids? It was bad. I get it.
Do a degree, it helps other victims talk who otherwise wouldn’t, but the saturation coverage of a story that hasn’t moved much from the first day is ridiculous. The reality is many producers and show hosts are sports-obsessed, and they’re having a fit because it’s college football and “JoPa”
not hot – penn state perv gets more coverage than world wide catholic pedophilia ring!
Great, I got a typo on my first word of the day. Why does my phone think I want to say ‘do’ instead of ‘to’? Smartphone my arse.
OVERKILL: The Newt/Freddie Mac payout. The guy got $1.whatever million, for some service. But what about the $90 MILLION that was paid out to Franklin Raines to run these entities into the ground. Has anyone questions THAT AMOUNT?
And what about the Bamster and Bill Ayres, Rev. Wright, etc. Besides Sean Hannity, did anyone even mention these people during the last campaign? Why does he get a pass?
Children that are favored always get a pass.
Terrance, in the Ameriacn media, football outranks religion.
Joe’s phone made me put an extra “r” in “Terance”
And what about the Bamster and Bill Ayres, Rev. Wright, etc. Besides Sean Hannity, did anyone even mention these people during the last campaign?
Ya know, just because Hannity tells you no one else covered it, doesn’t make it true. Wright got so much press that Obama had to make a ‘race speech’ to save his campaign. What the right refuses to accept is that the average voter did not consider these things disqualifiers for the Presidency. It’s not complicated.
Wasn’t there a study a few weeks ago that said Rev Wright and Ayers were mentioned less through the whole controvesy, than Herman Cain and his accusers for the first two weeks of the story?
I’m pretty sure I saw something like that. Anyone have specifics?
You’re gonna keep pushing that conspiracy, aren’t you? It’s simple: The scandal doesn’t become a real scandal until your side buckles. The media can cover Cain’s accusers until the cows come home, but if it doesn’t move the needle amongst his supporters..bye bye scandal. It’s old news now, nobody cares; his numbers didn’t start dropping until it became apparent he doesn’t know enough about current events to be President.
Same with Obama. The voters – including not a few Republicans – took a look at Ayers and Wright, and decided they were byproducts of the black Chicago community, with tangible ties to the Civil Rights movement too complicated to tear into. The conclusion was this wasn’t directly related to Barack Obama the man, and they moved on. The only people who stuck with it were the folks who already hated Obama. Scandal. Over.
Hot: Photos of Natalie Wood
Not: Now that Michael Jackson’s drug-dealing doc’s been convicted the folks in Hollywood must’ve really needed another star’s death in the headlines.
Not: Imus In The Morning sucks.
Hot: Even Neil Cavuto says so.
Not: Joy Behar – HLN gives her the boot.
Not: Christmas music on everywhere already. Can’t we get through Thanksgiving first?
Hot: Only 121 days, 23 hours until Sping begins.
Hot: Sunday, last big race race of the season.
Not: Monday, my winter of discontent begins.
Hot: ICN comments section. Interesting and sometimes informative.
Not: Mediaite comment section. Dogs barking.
Regarding Rev. Wright, the only real negative coverage came from FNC and talk radio. The MSM excused the Rev and many called anyone who brought it up a racist. So, they may have “covered” it but only to defend The One.
As I recall from my Olbywatch days, Countdown never reported on Rev Wright until Obama gave his speech where he basically dumped the Rev. Not one report! If anyone had gotten their news solely from Olbermann, they’d have been befuddled why Obama was talking about this Reverend they never heard of before.
Oh that’s bullshyte. You people believe this crap like a religion. What part of “had to make a ‘race speech’ to save his campaign” do you not understand? If the only negative coverage had been from FNC, he wouldn’t have cared. I’m sick of this BS.
-wouldn’t have cared-
I believe more Democratic voters watch FNC than MSNBC, and certainly far more party-independent voter do. Of course he’d care.
– Natalie Wood –
I heard someone say that hers’ was a Hollywood mystery ‘second only to Marilyn Monroe’. Perhaps, but speaking for myself, I can’t remember the last time I thought of, or heard about Natalie Wood. They know how to play us, don’t they?
^ And flipping through the channel guide an hour or so ago, ‘Splendor In The Grass’ was one one of ‘em. No surprise there, eh?
I’m pretty sure I saw the Rev. Wright tape loop on Countdown before the speech. It was all over MSNBC and CNN dayside, plus the evening news and Nightline, too.
There wasn’t much spin you could put on it, the tape was there for all to see. What conservatives don’t understand is that liberals already knew old black refugees of the Civil Rights Era b/tched about whitey and the country sometimes. They grew up in a very different America than us, and we don’t CARE if they howl at the moon in their own churches sometimes.
Natalie Wood drowns, Sal Mineo stabbed to death, James Dean deadly auto accident, and Jim Bacus stranded on an island. Some rebel with a cause should get to the bottom of all this.
Gilligan’s Island. Not real. Sorry, Kelly.
I always suspected Obama was in Wrights church mainly because it was expediate for his career path. He claimed that was not the case, but to fill a spiritual need. Who knows. One thing is clear, Obama had taken the better parts of Wright’s teachings and made use of them with no trace of extremist use. You can see that if you work your way through Obama’s second book.
Not real?… crap
“I’m pretty sure I saw the Rev. Wright tape loop on Countdown…”
My recollection, and I was following Countdown at that time, is that Olbermann never did a report on it until Obama addressed it. In fact, the day before Obama’s big speech (I think it was his second on the Wright subject, but I’m not sure), a bunch of incendiary statements from Wright were all over the news. Except on Countdown, where they weren’t mentioned. Instead Olbermann talked about the growing problem of John McCain’s pastor! (No I am not making this up.)
In fact, after the whole thing with Wright hit the fan and Olby had to cover it, he started making the argument that the Wright mess is actually a plus for the Obama campaign.
I’m not saying other shows on MSNBC didn’t address Wright before the whole thing hit critical mass. I’m sure some of them probably did. But not Countdown and not Olbermann.
$, we both watched Countdown every day at that time and have different recollections, so I’ll leave it at that. I’m not a KO apologist, and have no interest in defending a possibly faulty memory.
LK, I think “political expediency” was most certainly involved. My understanding is that Wright’s church was the one you went to if you were an African-American in Chicago politics. I’m so sure Jesse Jackson, Jr. went there that I’m not gonna bother looking it up.
My strongest, perhaps only memory of Olbermann is how he literally turned on a dime against Hillary Clinton. I forget if he said something positive about her or negative about Obama, but the Blue-blogs went nuts. The next day, it was as if he’d been supporting Obama all along, and all that other ugliness had been a dream-sequence. It was quite a performance.
I wish we had a Weekend Free For All. I get caught up in these conversations on Hot/Not, then feel like a heel for doing it. Sooo..
Not: NOW with Alex Wagner. 4-on-1 with a weird desk. It’s better, and more varied, than The Five..but not by much. And I’m struggling to accept Alex as the questioner. I love her analysis and opinion as a guest. She still gets her thoughts in here, but it’s muted in exchange for “listening”.
The turn on Hillary wasn’t exactly “on a dime”. KO had been peeved about some of Bill’s vaguely racial comments, and Hillary’s “as far as I know” statement on 60 Minutes about whether Obama was a Dirty Secret Muslim: “He’s not..as far as I know”. The final straw was her ‘assassination’ comment in reference to RFK.
Funny that here we are today with Hillary one of the most admired people in America and Obama , well … meh.
Not winning has its merits..
“Funny that here we are today with Hillary one of the most admired people in America and Obama , well … meh.”
Obama is POTUS and Hillary is SoS. Reverse the roles and Hillary is at 40% approval and everyone is saying it’s too bad Obama didn’t win as he’s doing such a good job at SoS.
HOT: Jimmie Johnson will NOT be the 2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series champion!!!
Not Hot: Jon Scott on Bob Costas: “From what I heard he did not have a lot of time to prepare..I thought he did a good job under the circumstances.
“Under the circumstances”? Costas asks if the guy is a pedophile, and of course he says “No”. Well, no one ever applies a word like that to themselves, regardless of facts. He asked the specific thing, the followup…and the guy has to think about it. How many times do prepared interviewers forget to follow-up? Then he lets him go, uninterrupted, spinning details on something that happened nine-years-ago. I’m pretty sure Billo couldn’t manage that…
“Obama is POTUS and Hillary is SoS. Reverse the roles and Hillary is at 40% approval and everyone is saying it’s too bad Obama didn’t win as he’s doing such a good job at SoS.”
- Costas -
That tape should be taught in journalism school under “how to let an interview subject hang themselves without crossing a single ethical line”. I can’t imagine many reporters were pleased the next day: “He’s a sports guy..”
He had a talk radio show for years that went into all sorts of topics. He may still be on radio for all I know. Point is, he’s an experienced interviewer.
- Costas -
He did Later With Bob Costas for eight years or so, too. Came on after Letterman when he followed Johnny. The man can ask a question.
– The man can ask a question. –
And wait for an answer, with an intelligently semi-horrified look on his face.
In addition to disagreeing with your premise , I think you got the gravity of my comment incorrect… which isn’t really your fault, because I couldn’t provide any support (until now).
As NewsBusters reported Monday, the broadcast network news outlets of ABC, CBS and NBC ran a total of 84 stories on the sexual harassment allegations against Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain in the week following Politico publishing its hit piece.
That is more coverage than they gave to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s connections to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, convicted real estate developer Tony Rezko, or America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright throughout the entire campaign.
You say that the public wasn’t that interested in the Wright etc. scandals, but how can you say that when the media failed to cover it extensively? Furthermore, how can you say the public was MORE interested in the Cain scandal, when it had only broken a week prior… there wasn’t enough time to determine the public’s interest, yet the networks went wall-to-wall?
It looks to me more like a self fufilling prophesy. The networks make the decision on what the public will or won’t care about, and cover it accordingly. The decided that Wright etc. wasn’t big or important enough, so they didn’t shout it from the rooftops. But the opposite for Cain. And 99% of the time, the public takes the cue, and “cares” accordingly.
I’m just not sure how one looks at that info and draws a conclusion other than the networks (at best) screwed up.
Anyone in this day in age who pretends that networks ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and CNN do not favor liberal Democrats over conservative Republicans in their coverage have chosen to turn a blind eye to the truth. No amount of statistics, testimonies, or hidden microphone recordings will convince them otherwise. Fortunately where there was once a monopoly, there are now choices. Descriminating minds have alternatives to allow for comparison and contrast.
Hot: turkey with all the trimmings
Not: tofu with veggie tray
Blue/Larry: So your argument is that NBC, ABC and other main stream media, by pushing the Cain sex scandal, want to destroy any chance Herman Cain has to win the Republican primary and thus give it to Romney who has, by far, the better chance of beating Obama. Yeah that makes a lot of sense.
I think that implies too much of a long-term strategy. Besides, I’d venture to say (much as Bernie Goldberg has said) these folks don’t set out with the notion of “let’s support these guys” mentality. The bias manifests in terms of what they find interesting and newsworthy.
So for these stories, as Joe said, they didn’t think the Wright etc. story was that interesting, and made excuses for why it was acceptable. But see the Cain story as more “interesting.”
This is for most part, of course. There are some who want to end Cain because the story of the right-wing Black hurts their “minorities are only Democrats” assumption. But for the most part, it’s more about what they (correctly or otherwise) see as “important,” and the fact that nobody tells them differently. Their bias is the result of group think.
The big difference between the Cain story and the Wright one is the Cain story is about SEX. The other thing that makes a news story coverable for the MSM is video.
That’s why the Wright story had legs and Ayers one didn’t and it’s the reason; along with the SEX, that the Cain story was so big. When the other women refused to go public the story died down. It’s the main reason I think the Gingrich/FreddieMac story really has no future on the MSM. There’s no video.
Hot: deficit soars to over $15,000,000,000,000.99 and a borrowed cup of sugar.
Not: Super Committee now focused on how to announce failure to reduce not a nickel of debt or returning the sugar. I would suggest they do so while standing in the middle of a lake.
May I also suggest that as they are standing in the middle of that lake they tie big, heavy blocks of cement around their ankles so we need not see any of these losers anymore and have to listen to their pathetic explanations as to why the could not come to an agreement.
Pam: Surely you mean only the Democratic members of the committee. The Republican side have held the line against taxing the rich and have thus succeeded in their stated goal of allowing no new taxes..
Fritz needs to jump in the lake and spin.
Police: Fake doctor injected cement, sealant in woman’s backside
MIAMI — Police say a South Florida woman posed as a doctor and gave a series of toxic injections to a woman who wanted a bigger backside and curvier body.
Sgt. Bill Bamford is with the Miami Gardens Police Department. He says Oneal Ron Morris was arrested Friday after a yearlong hunt.
Morris, who was born a man but identifies as a woman, has been charged with practicing medicine without a license with serious bodily injury.
Morris was released from jail on bond, and a telephone listing for her could not be found.
Police say Morris injected cement, mineral oil and a sealant used to fix flat tires into another woman’s rear end in May 2010.
I saw that story on CNN. I have many misplaced sympathies in this life, you can ask anyone. A woman who pays a fake tranny doc in a house $700 to put things in her butt other than that which one might expect…that’s comedy.
I never said “the MSM” wasn’t interested in the Rev. Wright story, and anyone who thinks it wasn’t covered much is bonkers. That tape loop ran for weeks. As I’ve explained ad nauseum to readers who clearly don’t want to hear it, the majority of voters gave Old Angry Black Guy a pass, and figured Obama had done the same. Get. Over it.
Paul Krugman on Newt Gingrich ” “He’s a stupid mans idea of what a smart man sounds like”
Joe, you understand that the story I liked to say the EXACT OPPOSITE.
You may remember seeing it on a loop, and maybe it was on FNC/MSNBC/CNN… or maybe you’re remembering what it FELT like, because you didn’t like hearing it… but that’s clearly not how it happened.
Answer me this, how did the public “decide” the Cain story was of value “days” into it, while days into Wright, they “decided” it wasn’t important?
Btw, stories that reference “this got covered in 2011 more than that got covered in 2008″ are meaningless without context. The Cain story came during an otherwise very slow news cycle.
There was a panic at the time by sympathetic media that the Wright Stuff would torpedo the hope and change love of their life. As soon as Obama gave the “race speech” it was hailed as the greatest oration since the Getteysburg Address. Me, I sill feel that way. I quote it all the time, and I bet you do too.
Do you really think the left-wing strategy of calling everyone who disgrees with you “stupid” works? It’s certainly not new… you folks have been doing it for YEARS. But, I can’t think of anything less impactful, original, or effective.
Krugman should start calling Republicans “poopy-pants booger brains.” It would carry as much weight.
Enough, Blue. You have an agenda which won’t be denied. The big bad liberal media is out to get you, and you have PROOF. Enjoy your manufactured reality.
So OWS, Solyndra, Fast & Furious, global economic troubles, and high unemployment weren’t as “important” as an alleged and unproven sex-ish scandal with a candidate? Really?
It’s the EASIEST story, sure… no facts, one outspoken “witness,” Gloria Allred… but to claim that it was the fault of a “slow news cycle,” no. Just lazy and biased media.
Newt Gingrich is a huckster and a serial liar. Anyone who takes him seriously is an idiot.
Don’t forget to stretch, Joe. Wouldn’t want you to pull something as you put your head back in the sand.
I’ve provided you evidence, counter your “memory,” and made a strong argument for my position. Your view is, “Nuh-uh… because I say so!”
anyone who takes Paul Krugman serious is an icky poo.
Yes, Blue..you really are paranoid. You have a bad case of Conservative Victimization Syndrome, which is drilled into you daily by FNC and Rush Limbaugh. You people are absolutely convinced that if only we’d heard a little bit more about Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, John McCain would be President. You’re wrong. Wright and Ayers were both products of the ’60s, and the voters decided Obama wasn’t responsible for it. Period. Quit whining, for God’s sake.
Just because Obama didn’t need to be saved doesn’t mean the media didn’t throw out the safetynet anyway.
Joe, save your strength. You haven’t said anything new in 5 posts… just the same blind babble over and over again.
I get it. You don’t let anything that contradicts your world view permiate your head. It’s your view, or personal attacks. It was the same way for the OWS story, and it will be the same thing next time too.
I could show you evidence morning noon and night, but you are intellectually unable or unwilling to consider anything that disagees with your previous declarations.
So save your strength, and let the adults talk.
You know Obama wasn’t even a very productive community organizer but everyone liked him.
you know, Obama wasn’t a very productive state legislator, but everyone liked him.
you know Obama wasn’t a very productive Senator, but everyone liked him.
Yes yes yes, the MSM was “in the bag” for Obama, and that’s why he won. Same for Bush in ’04. Never mind that Kerry and McCain were lousy opponents. Y’all paranoid.
Btw, the Obama story was about people he knew. Cain was about the man himself. Kinda different.
Obama didn’t win because the media was in the bag for him, but it didn’t hurt,
James Taranto at WSJ posited the theory that press bias actually hurt Kerry, in ’04. The Swiftboat story started to percolate around March, and most of the press ignored it. As it happened, the book came out around August, and the coverage followed. If Kerry had started answering questions earlier, he might have been able to handle it better by the time that people were actually paying attention. Or at the very least, whatever impact it had would’ve been lessened.
I want my side answering the hard questions early. Cain and Gingrich are IEDs waiting to go off in October of 2012. Boom.
IMB – “November 20, 2011 at 11:31 am”
Come on Blue. It’s a great line. Your just jealous that some right-winger didn’t say it about Obama.
And it has the added benefit of being true.
BTW: George Will was much tougher on Gingrich than Krugman. Maybe he’s a closet liberal.
Nothing cleans out the minefield like a good boom.
All Fritz cares about is great lines. Shallow. And quit the damn winking.
“Liberal bias” is a fantasy concocted by a right wing with a martyr complex. It may have existed on a wide scale in the 60s/70s, when the country at large was more liberal, but it does not now. Of course there’s selective examples here and there, but it’s not the pervasive landscape of paranoid conservative visions.
Obama got better coverage because he ran an astonishing campaign. If you havent noticed, reporters like a good story..
Which is why the subject is pointless. It’s not in liberals interest to recognize press bias, because it favors them. Each and every example is an anomaly, no matter how many there are. Bias only exists on Fox. What ever.
There’s selective examples on both sides. Period.
“Both sides” meaning “Fox”, and everyone else. Again, whatever.
And it’d be nice if the right would stop acting like an outclassed upstart. Rush and FNC have audiences that dwarf their competition, which makes them a very large part of “the MSM”. Yet they talk as if there’s this massive liberal machine against poor wittle them. Boo effing hoo.
And it would be nice if the Left would stop talking about Rush and talk-radio as if it is intended to report the ‘news’. Your side has Hollywood, with all that that encompasses, and that has a helluva lot more influence. So quit whining about Rush.
Rush preaches that victimization crap to a massive audience every day, which is half the reason we still hear this madness on a constant basis. He’s delusional, and poisoning the country.
Y’all are like children. You had all the toys up until 20-yrs-ago, and now you have 90% of the toys. But you’re just gonna piss and moan about that other ten, as though that manages to constitute “balance”. I’m saying that I want ‘my’ side to be challenged. Take yours along with it.
Yeah, ONE person poisons the country, and he’s delusional?
So FOX News + Rush = All the broadcast networks, CNN, MSNBC, newspapers, etc.?
Maybe w should all just follow Joe’s lead? Everytime he whines that “FOX is unfaaaaair,” say he’s just got Liberal Victim Syndrome, say bias doesn’t exist, it’s just an anomoly, and since there’s the rest of the media and not 100% effective all the time, who cares?
Oh, and then we can call some names for good measure.
Nah. I try to criticize substance, not superficial nonsense and name calling. But if that’s all the left has (that and hypocrisy, of course), well then okay. They’re trying, I suppose… they’re just failing.
Just because Obama ran a stellar campaign, don’t discount how the media greased the skids didn’t contribute to the stellarness.
the reason that Fox, WSJ, and Rush have influence is as a small alternative to views from ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, CNBC, MSNBC, HLN, TELEMUNDO, BBCA, CURRENT, LINK, PBS, NPR, HBO, HOLLYWOODLAND, NYT, LAT, etc, etc, etc,… And the Dixie Chicks, bless ‘em.
“All Fritz cares about is great lines. Shallow.”
Yeah larry; you’re right. I like great lines far better than the pre-teen potty humor you favor. Buts that’s just me.
“And quit the damn winking.”
At current rates federal spending will increase the national debt by more than eight trillion bucks but the so-called super committee can’t even work out a plan to reduce the increase in spending by only a couple of trillion over ten years.
The liberals never had any intention of reducing spending and are using a load-of-crap argument of “balanced approach” as an excuse to avoid any reductions. As for blaming Repubs for not agreeing to any tax increases, that’s what the 2010 elections were all about. A vibrant economy, prosperity, jobs, and all-around improvements in the quality of life for everyone has always been generated by the monies not sent to Washington.
Not: Spud tweeted this earlier – After a promo about what really killed Natalie Wood, FNC aired an ad featuring Robert Wagner peddling insurance.
Not: Spud tweeted this earlier – After a promo about what really killed Natalie Wood, FNC aired an ad featuring Robert Wagner peddling insurance.
let me guess.. it had a toll free number to call? fnc=the leader in direct response ads.
next up, buy a flowbee and get 6 more for free if you pay inflated s/h charges, eh?
Flowbee with free inversion-table for an even cut!
The Dems never intended to cut spending in the face of Republicans who had no intention of finally letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Guess who taught who the trick of just saying NO?
NASCAR fans booed Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Biden at the race. Nice work, a$$holes.
We already covered your DR fallacy. Come on, buddy. Get it together.
Oh for God’s sake. ESPN did an interview with the First and Second Ladies (Grand Marshalls for the race), and the reporter asked Michelle if she was rooting for Carl Edwards because he’s on the President’s Fitness Council, or Tony Stewart…because he drives a Chevy. Idiot probably booed her, too..
Booing is only thing left for the NASCAR fans to give the wives an idea of how unpopular their husband’s programs are in the heart of the heart of the country. With all the glowing magazine covers they get, It might cause them to wonder what the booing was about.
The race is in Florida. It has nothing to do with “the heart of the country”, and booing a First Lady is just plain low class.
Btw, for those who feel it necessary to compare the Herman Cain story to a long forgotten campaign scandal, half the reason Cain got so much coverage is because he talked about it endlessly.
Did you ever notice every one Joe doesn’t like is called an “idiot”?
How could someone so sensitive to the feelings of the First Ladies be so hurtful?
Incorrect. Some people I don’t like are quite smart. But if a blithering idiot is gonna say something idiotic – like the media ignored Rev. Wright – he gets what he deserves. He’s an idiot.
And I don’t dislike them. I just disagree with rightwing horsecrap propaganda about an imaginary Great Liberal Conspiracy To Elect The President. It didn’t happen. He won against the Clinton machine – no small feat – then against a Republican Republicans didn’t even like. Having to hear Sean Hannity b/tch about Wright and Ayers three years later – as if the media is the reason those stories didn’t stop Obama – is irritating. But he keeps doing it, and it keeps getting repeated here. It’s a lie.
The media helped Obama whether Joe likes to hear that or not. That was hardly the only factor leading to his win over Clinton (who can not forget the SNL sketch of the toughest question he was getting from the press being if he wanted a pillow) or McCain. It likely wasn’t even the most important factor. But it was a factor, and that’s the truth and not a lie, and Joe calling it a lie means nothing because he’s got a mental block on this issue.
Fritz, you keep reminding me about potty humor. Have not done much for a while, so I’ll see what I can come up with for Monday morning. Joe will appreciate you getting some real funny stuff on the blog again.
The stronger campaign with the more interesting story is going to get coverage that reflects it. Period. “In the bag” is a hysterical delusion by sore losers who can’t accept the fact that John McCain was a has-been running a crap campaign, who then finished it off by picking a VP no one trusted next to a bad ticker. And you guys are still freaking about it three years later. While you serve up another crap candidate. Nice work.
- potty humor –
He’s right, Fritz. People have the right to evolve on a blog. Don’t be Internet Wayback Machine Guy. You know him: sits in a basement cataloging everything you’ve ever said, then referencing something from 6 months ago when you disagree with him. Kinda like being married..
imnotblue, just admit you don’t care if women get counterfeit butt lifts with fix-a-flat!
on the ‘florida’ front:
pill mills in this state supply many, many other states’ junkies with their ‘fix.’
this has been going on for at least a decade.
why does this republican controlled state allow that to continue?
i hear about new laws but we’ve had ‘em before. where is the nationwide database for narcotics?
can’t type much more now, right wrist is still resting uncomfortably.
Anywho, they got booed, who cares? This isn’t the first time the family of politicians have been booed and it wont be the last. This may be new to joe but there are a lot of unpopular actions (or inactions) coming from Congress and the White House and the people there were venting their anger.
This is not really much of a story.
Not much of a story, just cheesy. It reminds me why I put up with NASCAR, but don’t really dig it. Indycar and F1 fans would never act like that.
Not: Harris calling seated college students being pepper-sprayed by a cop in full riot gear “a tense confrontation”. She got the memo..
Ah yes, the mythical, imaginary ‘memo’ for which there is zero evidence. Here’s what Harris Faulkner actuall said in all its outrageous outrageousness:
Video showing a police officer pepper-spraying some protesters, who look like they’re just sitting on the ground. Police tell a different story, and now an investigation… Occupy proters pepper-sprayed during a tense confrontation with police. The video showing the officer displaying a bottle before spraying its contents on seated protesters. Police say the protesters were warned that force would be used if they did not move…. Members of the University faculty now calling on the University Chancellor to resign. The school’s chancellos issued a statement calling this video ‘chilling’ and promising a full investigation.
Nobody is freakng about the press being in the bag for Obama. He even joked “all of you voted for me”. It was just one of many obstacles Republicans faced including weakest candidate since Bob Dole.
I know, I know, it’s not ALL the folks that are out there doing their 99% thing but even John Stewart is having a good laugh at them so I totally feel justified is giving them a dig!
Can’t help ya with the chauvinism thing. Women are different from men (thank God) and that’s how I treat ‘em. Hold the door, pay the bill, don’t pepper-spray. That’s the rules.
I got maced by a state trooper on horseback at a college sit-in once. I think I would have preferred pepper spray.
“- potty humor –
He’s right, Fritz. People have the right to evolve on a blog. Don’t be Internet Wayback Machine Guy. You know him: sits in a basement cataloging everything you’ve ever said, then referencing something from 6 months ago when you disagree with him. Kinda like being married..”
^Fair enough I guess. I’ve made my share of dumb comments here (and have had to make a few apologies too) over the years so I’ll lay off and see how it plays out. As you say people evolve.
-Bush Tax Cuts-
Probably saved you at least $3k annually, Joe. They should’ve been made permanent at the outset and the Republican-controlled House during the first six of the Bush years should’ve cut spending…or Bush should have vetoed at least something.
-Florida Pill Mills-
Florida’s AG has been raising quite a stink about this – she’s a Repub. So a con artist impersonates a medical doctor, gets caught, and is being prosecuted. What’s the big deal?
As you say people evolve
Actually, I think somebody told you to revolve, Fritz.
We all have our pasts.
watching an australian tv series ‘love my way’ (fan of asher keddie)
she just said,”why are you looking at me like i’m some kinda loop.”
this blog has a ton of loops!
^ pot and kettle are speechless
HOT: Friday FNC signs a new Republican contributor. Newsworthy enough to be written up in TVNewser, Mediaite, ICN, NewsonNews, etc.
NOT: Friday FNC signs two new Democratic contributors. Oddly not newsworthy. Story ignored in TVNewser, Mediaite, ICN, NewsonNews etc.
““In the bag” is a lie. It didn’t happen.”
How can you type such nonsense without inserting a little smiley thingy? It’s honestly just about as absurd as arguing that the world is flat.
I don’t understand either. Almost a given among 2008 election reviewers. Like media didn’t question the Iraq war until things started going badly.
It’s simple. If you watch mostly MSNBC, and know all about Obama’s record and scandals, then “in the bag” becomes kinda ridiculous. If people came away from the 2008 campaign coverage not knowing all there was to know about the man, they’re too stupid to vote.
Righties are irritated that leftwing opinionaters didn’t scream and shout “Kenyan/racist/Muslim/terrorist” like the morons on Fox did, so they consider ALL media not called Fox or Rush “in the bag”. It’s a rightwing fantasy. It didn’t happen’
Who were the ‘morons on Fox’ who called Obama a Kenyan? Names and dates please.
Wow, it’s amazing you can breathe with your head firmly entrenched in the sand. There were plenty of lefty media types that admitted the press was in the bag. Your argument is silly at best and flat out insane at worst. Truly unbelievable.
Like the press being in the bag was such a dad or unusual thing. They are always in the bag for something. It was OWS for a while because they wanted it so badly to be meaningful. The press are like a heard of sheep. Mostly liberal sheep.
Like the press being in the bag was such a dad or unusual thing. They are always in the bag for something. It was OWS for a while because they wanted it so badly to be meaningful. The press are like a heard of sheep. Mostly liberal sheep.
so said my ‘dad’ was meant to be ‘bad’
Not that dad was really bad. At least my dad.
There were plenty of lefty media types that admitted the press was in the bag.
Sure there are, son. Ya know, there’s a difference between liking a candidate and covering for him. The press did their job. Wright, Ayers, Rezko, ‘present’ votes, “aloof”…it was all there. So were the huge crowds. They reported all of it.
He ran a great campaign against a terrible one, and got the job. All the revisionist history about press bias is crap. What bothers you is that you were just sure he would lose if the country “really knew about him”. You were wrong. The country learned about him; weighed the pros and cons against his opponent; and decided he was their guy. Get over it.
I heard a herd of sheep.
I heard a herd of sheep.
There wasn’t anyone on FNC claiming Obama’s a Kenyan. And for every guest who pushed the birth certificate thing there was another who explained why that was bs.
There wasn’t anyone on FNC claiming Obama’s a Kenyan.
Hey, a little hyperbole is good for ya. I’ll settle for the other three, including a constant helping of “palling around with terrorists”, which assumed that, a). he was aware of Ayers’ actions decades earlier (I doubt it), and, b). he “hung out” with him like they were “buds” (he didn’t). The whole screeching match (which still continues) over Bill Ayers was ridiculous.
There never should have been guests “pushing the birth certificate thing”. It was deep-crazy conspiracy trolling, tantamount to running 9/11 segments with a Truther as “the other side of the story”.
In the 2008 campaign no one at FNC endorsed the birth certificate issue or even talked about it unless it was to ridicule it. Nobody. Just as nobody at FNC claimed he was a Muslim. Even when an issue came up about his early education in a purported ‘Madrassah’ they went out of their way to point out that Obama is in fact a Christian.
If FNC were Bob Dole they’d say: ‘Stop lying about my record!’
it’d be great if someone could point me towards sheep doing terrorist fist jabs in memory of e.d. hill.
Terrorist fist jab was a quote from time.com that E.D. Hill referenced. The segment she did actually disproved the ‘fist jab’ description. Funny how Fox haters never tell the truth about this stuff.
Uh huh. It was all an innocent mistake that she teased the story that way. Bull.
My recollection, Dr. $, is that Hannity & Hannity seemed to enjoy keeping the birth certificate topic going without ridiculing it.
I can’t think of an example. I don’t believe they ever did a segment on it. And of course it was Hannity and Colmes in 2008.
That absurd conspiracy theory never should have gotten past lunatic websites. Too bad conservatives thought enough of it to nominate Donald Trump “frontrunner” for a few weeks. That was a disgusting spectacle.
^ Perhaps I’m thinking of Hannity’s show after the inauguration, and I don’t believe there was a segment specifically on the topic.
Well I’m still waiting to hear who the ‘fox news morons’ pushing this Kenyan/Muslim stuff in 2008 were. Enquiring minds want to know!
Joe said that was “a little hyperbole”.
$, apparently you missed the “hyperbole” comment. I got overheated. So unlike me..
Why do people comment without reading the whole thread? I don’t get that.
@joe: “a). he was aware of Ayers’ actions decades earlier (I doubt it),” REALLY? – you doubt it?
Even this hick from Wisconsin had heard of Bill Ayers. Do you really think Obama had no idea of who and what Bill Ayers was? That signifies that Obama would not have done any research on someone he had write a forward for a book Obama authored. Do you go to someone’s home that is hosting a party for you and not know who they are? Because it is well known that Ayers hosted a party for Obama.
I can’t believe that and I truly believe you don;t believe it either. I want to believe that you just got so caught up in your arguing with someone about Obama that you truly didn’t think about what you were writing.
Ok I got it. Hyperbole = something that ain’t true!
Pam, I didn’t know Ayers wrote the forward to one of his books. I do believe that if a man is currently a respected player in regional political circles..you wouldn’t do deep background on him before attending a party he’s throwing for you.
The larger question is, was it realistic for Obama to throw a fit over a man’s distant past in the Civil Rights/Vietnam Era. It doesn’t seem realistic to me. The guy is an older, accepted member of the community, and young whippersnapper is going to go after him? The world doesn’t work that way.
Btw, this hick from California never heard of him.
Bill Ayers was doing a “teach-in” at OWS Chicago last week. Some classic leftist role model for the boys and girls to learn from. Back in the days Bill was blowing them up, they weren’t call first responders. They were called something else.
Haven’t heard of him? Founded a communist revolutionary group that conducted bombings of buildings for several years – hard to believe you hadn’t ever heard of Bill Ayers before the election.
“What bothers you is that you were just sure he would lose if the country “really knew about him”.”
Not true. I didn’t think any R had a chance against any D in 2008. That doesn’t make the fact that the MSM openly rooted, defended and promoted Obama’s candidacy any more or less disgusting.
You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Just follow the smell of gunpowder.
Mr. brother was an SDS leader that had the pleasure of hiding the current Mrs. Ayrers for a while. I used to tell professors we weren’t related.
I’m sorry you “find it hard to believe”, but I didn’t know who Ayers was. Maybe the “’60s radicals” thing is still a big deal amongst conservatives. For this lib, it’s ancient history that happened when I was little. I’m not a historian of that stuff.
Not Hot: Speculative coverage and constant rehashing of recent news regarding Natalie Wood’s death. If there was anything new to report I’m sure they could deal with it inside of a minute. Time to change channel.
I’d hardy consider someone who used nail bombs and took part in the bombings of NYPD and the US Capitol building back in the ’70s “respected” in political circles.
It’s a “big deal” amongst people who were actually interested in where this guy came from. For those looking for “history” and racial absolution, not so much.
Alright, enough. I’m sorry I brought any of this up.
Look folks, Joe is a “true believer.” You could gather reporters in a room, they could all say, “Yes, Joe… we openly rooted and altered our coverage in favor of Barrack Obama,” and he’d still walk away thinking something different. No amount of logic, common sense, evidence, video, writings, or basic honesty is going to get through. He’s made up his mind, and he’s far too stubborn and arrogant to consider anything else.
It’s time to move on. Joe has proven himself unreasonable and juvenile once again.
Instead, let’s all argue with a brick wall, or perhaps a street sign. That way, we’d make the same impact… but we wouldn’t have to listen to its lies, insults, personal attacks, or other childish and egotistical retorts.
Yeah, Blue, that helped. I know that I always hate it when childish people name-call.
Recommend reading, THE TRUE BELIEVER by Eric Hoffer. About movements and their members and what they all share in common.
I don’t see the point of “caring where he came from” as it pertained to the Presidential election. There’s no way Obama endorsed nail bombs in the early ’70s, and I seriously doubt it was a current topic of conversation in Chicago politics. The Black Revolutionary Movement of the ’60s/’70s is very complicated, with inumerable ties to things that had come before.
To expect a young black man trying to rise in politics to sift through it, and render a judgement on Ayers that contradicted the conventional wisdom of his community, was simply not realistic. If the man committed crimes and was prosecuted, there’s not much more to be done with it.
-Arguing with street signs-
Last week walking along a sidewalk with some friends I slapped a street sign real hard with my hand and then held my head crying, “Ohhhh Ouch!” Some lady nearby felt really bad for me.
I’m so childish…
stubborn, arrogant, egotistical
Side effects of being right. Whaddyagonnado?
I got head-butted by the guy behind me at church. Luke and Gabriel were quite amused.
Hey, here’s something I didn’t know: Ayers is white. I thought he was involved with the Black Panthers, not the Weather Underground. Sheesh.
now my weatherman comment may make some sense. You need to bone up on the 60′s / 70′s leftist movements and protests. Made OWS look like chicken feed. My brother was one of 30,000 imprisoned in RFK stadium during a massive march on the Pentegon.
I’m just tired of wasting my time, and seeing others do the same. The nice part about ICN is that the folks are more or less reasonable… stuck in their ways, but willing to consider other ideas and respond to them.
Joe, on the other hand, only hears his ideas, and dismisses (rudely) any and everything else. Why YOU find that so endearing, I don’t entirely understand. He’s like a sick puppy you invite into your home, who repays you by peeing on the carpet, ripping up the couch, biting you on the leg… and for some reason you still say, “Awww” at the end. Not me, no thank you.
Blue, why does it matter to you whatever Joe chooses to believe? Besides, what else would you do for frustration?
Oh, I have enough frustration to keep me busy for a while!
It’s not the belief that bothers me. I know and respect plenty of people with a similar belief.
It’s the unwillingness to even listen or engage when contradictory ideas or facts are presented. That’s disrespectful to you, me, and everyone else.
My notion of a site like this is to discuss and debate… not lecture and dismiss when ideas don’t comport to yours. Joe wants to tell me what’s acceptable and what’s not, without ever listening to the other side with an ounce of respect. And I don’t take kindly to that.
“Boo hoo” said sick puppy. You have a standard of defending all things Right, and bashing all things Left, then b’tch at me about “openmindedness”. You’re just silly with the silliness.
You need to bone up on the 60′s / 70′s leftist movements and protests.
I’ve tried, but it all turns into a huge quagmire for me. Kids were being drafted and shipped to a jungle to be killed, and people weren’t happy about it. Other people were fine with it, and pissed at the protesters. That makes for one mighty powder keg that is difficult to discuss outside of its time.
I’m sure there are people who are fine with their “revolutionary” actions, and others who regret some of them. I’m also sure there are many who are conflicted between the “rightness” of their cause, and some of the reactions they had to it. It was a very different time.
Anyway, Joe… Yes, the forward to Obama’s book was written by a well-known terrorist and self-proclaimed communist. The man set out to kill people and has stated publicly since then that he wished the bombs had killed some NY cops. And whether Ayers is a black guy or not is irrelevant – scum is scum.
Oh crud, I tried to copy/paste an excerpt from the Bill Ayers Wiki, but I guess some words stuck me in moderation. Suffice it to say I don’t support everything he did, but the simplistic descriptions of him on FNC make no effort differentiate the younger man from the older one, or the Vietnam War Era from this one. It’s complicated, and I think that’s how Obama saw it.
Actually, there’s been intelligent debates and discussions of Ayers on FNC including some on Hannity & Hannity.
I’m sorry I missed them. All I’ve heard is that thing he does where he asks an open-ended question, then pretends it means something. “What about Bill Ayers, what about Rev. Wright?” All I get from that is “Obama likes domestic terrorist racist country haters.” Real helpful.
I think that’s how Obama saw it.
“You think”. Isn’t that a big enough discrepancy that someone should actually bother to ask him? Wouldn’t the media be derelict in their duty if they didn’t ask?
@ joe: you say:”To expect a young black man trying to rise in politics to sift through it, and render a judgement on Ayers that contradicted the conventional wisdom of his community, was simply not realistic. ”
That young black man was presented to us in the US that he was really, really smart. Did he just get smart later in life – like right before he ran for President? There was supposed to be no one like him, that he was the “One” to bring us ‘HOPE”. Was he really smart or so stupid that he didn’t do due diligence on who he was hanging around with? I go with that he was smart enough to know that a black man could manipulate the liberal press just as he has done. And he got some of that knowledge about how to do that form Mr. Ayers himself.
I ask these questions with all honesty: How come he was listed an an international student when he went to Occidenrtal College in California (this is on the record on the California Legislative record since he got state grant money for some of his expenses there), How come we have never heard of what his undergraduate grades were, what was his record in law school? How come we have not heard from even some of his law school classmates about what a wonderful, smart leader he was in the law school – he did end up being the editor of the law review after all. There has not been enough looking into his background and the media has been complicit in not looking into it.
He is where he is, but I bet after he is out of office we are going to learn much more about our smartest president ever that we wish we would have known sooner.
^ some answers to these questions are needed. Not just bombastic dismissals. The blind eye turned toward Obama is reminiscent of that toward Jack Kennedy in matters of health and fidelity in an era when that allegedly mattered.
HOT AND BOTHERED: The OWS movement “starts with the premise that we all owe them everything,” said Gingrich. And the movement’s sense of entitlement is a “symptom how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country, and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying, ‘Go get a job right after you take a bath”.
Yeah, that was real thoughtful coming coming from a lying huckster. “Get a job!” They’re aren’t any arsehole.
- transcripts -
You can’t see MINE, either. Republicans keep demanding more documents from the black guy with the foreign sounding name. That silence you hear in return is a message..
That’s simply not true. Sorry, buddy.
But there’s a difference between “open-minded” and “easily convinced.” Open-minded means you’re willing to hear other opinions and respond to them, even if you’re not going to change your opinion. Easily convinced means you alter your views based on new facts frequently.
I wouldn’t expect you or anyone else to be easily convinced, just open minded. However, you’ve made it clear that your view is the end all, and no evidence is going to change that. You disregarded anything anyone said or posted above, and went back to the “NO NO NO, I’M NOT LISTENING” that you do so well.
That’s what I’m talking about… and if you can find an instance of me doing that, I sure would love to see it.
YOU’RE not running for anything, so no one cares.
OBAMA is running for President, and every President before has released those transcripts. So it looks like you’re hold the “black guy with the foreign sounding name” to a different standard. If I didn’t know better, I’d say that sounds a little like racism. Why is that?
I’d say you’re full of it. That’s an ‘idea’ I’m not open to.
Like I said, when presented with an idea you dislike or disagree with, you name call instead of engaging it on its merits.
With every post, you prove me correct.
I don’t disagree with your “racism” theory. I think it’s ridiculous. You’re having a conversation with me in which you make your case; then state my case; then thank me for “proving you right”.
So here’s your brick wall: I’m 49-years-old. I was a conservative once; now I’m a liberal (in general), and at my age I don’t see that changing again. I’m open to debates on the vagaries of how news is presented. I’m not open to conservative ideology. I think it’s immoral, and I’m sure as hell not gonna “come around” to something I think is inherently meanspirited and wrong. Got it?
So what you’re saying, and correct me if I’m understanding you incorrectly, is that the reason you refuse to debate “conservative ideology,” is because you think people who believe it are amoral, mean-spirited, and wrong.
So anyone who doesn’t think the way you do, is evil?
At 49 years old, do you recognize you have the political mentality of a high schooler, or do you think that your lack of respect for people who disagree with you somehow makes you more right?
Just remember, that when you complain about how nasty politics has gotten, you’re part of it. It’s people like you, and people who think the way you do, that have turned things this way. When people “boo” the First Lady, it’s “your” people… left/right ideology not withstanding. If you asked those people why they would do that, do you think they would say something other than, “it’s because she’s amoral, mean-spirited, and wrong?”
You’ve endorsed that behavior. I hope you’re happy with it.
I can’t comment on the motives of each individual conservative. I had my reasons for being one at the time, and I certainly didn’t think I was immoral. Blinded perhaps. Newt Gingrich would be a good example of an inherently immoral bastard of a rightie, and I certainly don’t think all conservatives are like him.
So for me, I rest at my opinion of the ideology itself, and let each individual follower work out their own relationship to it. The point of establishing my view of the ideology is to make it clear any discussion that attempts to “convert” me is a waste of time. I am not open to it. I’ve already lived that way of thinking, and found it wanting. I’m not going back.
Newt Gingrich is a fine example of what happens when you go to Washington, which isn’t to say he wasn’t an ass from the beginning. Conservatives go to Washington and decide that power and money trump whatever principles they brought with them. They’re also surrounded by a prevalence of statist/liberal thought, with which they then attempt to curry favor. See Global Warming commercial with Pelosi. Perhaps he had a financial interest, as he seemed to with Bush’s new entitlement.
There’s a reason why ostensibly conservative pols ‘suddenly’ finding themselves adopting ‘liberal’ causes. They’re corrupted by the size and power of government, and all that they can take from it. Liberals go in that way, so there’s really nothing to lose. In any case, they all end up as millionaires. Do the math.
“find”, not “finding”.
I believe I said I wasn’t trying to convert you from the start. Nobody’s going to succeed here if that’s their goal.
But dismissing other views, and being unwilling to consider other evidence which contradicts your views is simply childish.
It’s the equivalent of saying, “The sky is green, and no matter how many photos you show me, I don’t care, you’re stupid, it is as I say it is, go away.”
If you’re that certain in your views, and that unwilling to look at anything other than your views… what are you doing here?
Preaching the truth, baby!
Is that how you see yourself? A preacher?
Are you trying to convince other people of things?
If so, how does ignoring their arguments and evidence, support your argument or convince anyone of anything?
It’s now Monday night. Consider yourself ignored here. Brick wall, and all that. Tootles.
I saw a writer writing about this on Tumblr and it referenced…