Mika Brzezinski proves my point
June 29, 2009 11:46 am ET by Jamison Foser
MSNBC's Morning Joe hosted Rudy Giuliani this morning to talk about Mark Sanford's affair; Brzezinski conducted the first 3:20 of the interview, and participated in the rest. Right at the very beginning, Giuliani turned the discussion to another famous politician caught in an affair:
Giuliani "Let's look at Bill Clinton."
Brzezinski: "Yeah."
"Yeah," Brzezinski responded. Not "Well, with all due respect, maybe we should look at you."
In fact, neither Brzezinski nor any of the other journalists present ever brought up Giuliani's own high-profile affair(s), even as Giuliani made several comments that would seem to invite such questions:
Giuliani: "I don't want to mention all the names, because you just revive, you revive, I can give you a big list of Republicans, a big list of Democrats, issues like this have come up."
Giuliani: "We have an equal number of people who get into trouble. For every Republican, we can name a Democrat who has the same kind of trouble."
Brzezinski and the others kept saying the really important thing is whether government funds are used in the affair. That might have been a good time to ask Giuliani about New York taxpayers paying for a security detail for Giuliani's mistress. But Brzezinski gave no indication whatsoever that the politician she was interviewing about politician affairs involving taxpayer funds was a politician who had an affair involving taxpayer funds. Instead, she let him attack Bill Clinton.
And yet Mika Brzezinski thinks there is a double standard that benefits Democrats when it comes to political affairs. That's what she was arguing just a few days ago. As I explained in my column on Friday - and as Brzezinski inadvertently proved today - there is a double-standard, all right. But it isn't what she thinks it is.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
Our media at work.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906250005
http://insidecablenews.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/olbermann-and-sanford-and-scarborough
We are watching right in front of our eyes the downward spiral of a reich-winger. Since the election of Obama, the GOPig reich-wingers have become so deranged, vile, and angry, and Holy Joe is no exception. Holy Joe is weeks away from forming his own teabag parties.
If Mika was worth a shiite: "Do we have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans who demonize the other side over so called family values? Or does one party monopolize that tactic?"
Perhaps that's because Giuliani was exonerated of those baseless charges by, of all papers, The New York Times, albeit after the damage to his candidacy had been done.
Giuliani's Office Shifted Money Around? Yes. To Hide Hamptons Trips? Unlikely.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/12/20/us/politics/20071221_GIULIANI_GRAPHIC.html
The Buried, Unquotable Exoneration
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016396.php
The scandal that wasn't
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/12/019333.php
So Judy Nathan never received any security details from NYPD at the behest of her lover Rudy? Regardless, when Rudy mentioned Monica, Mika could have mentioned Judy Nathan.
Your broad claim that "Giuliani was exonerated" of his affair involving taxpayer funds is false (see above) and is not supported by the narrow refutation you provide, which deals only with allegations that he shifted money around to hide taxpayer payments for trips to the Hamptons. There are, as I'm sure you know, any number of ways taxpayer funds could have been (and were) spent in connection to Giuliani's affair that have nothing to do with the Hamptons.
You're welcome to disagree with anything I write, but please do not make false claims in doing so.