Gibson compared N.Y. state comptroller's remarks about putting a "bullet between the president's eyes" to remarks by Al Gore, Joe Wilson
Fox News' John Gibson compared New York state comptroller Alan Hevesi's remark that Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) would put "a bullet between the president's eyes, if he could get away with it," to criticism of President Bush by former Vice President Al Gore and former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. But in those comments, neither Wilson nor Gore suggested that Bush -- or anyone else -- should or would be killed.
On the June 2 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson compared New York state comptroller Alan G. Hevesi's June 1 remark that Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) would put "a bullet between the president's eyes, if he could get away with it" to criticism of President Bush by former Vice President Al Gore and former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. But in those comments, neither Wilson nor Gore suggested that Bush -- or anyone else -- should or would be killed. Additionally, Gibson falsely suggested that conservatives had not made remarks analogous to Hevesi's -- seemingly portending violence against Democratic presidents and other progressives.
Hevesi made his comments during a June 1 commencement ceremony at Queens College, and he apologized for them in a news conference later that day.
During a discussion with Newsday columnist and Fox News contributor Ellis Henican -- who stated that he accepted Hevesi's apology and agreed with Hevesi's acknowledgment that making the remark was "stupid" -- Gibson suggested that Henican "go after the other people who are saying these things that don't get Hevesi's attention." Pressed by Henican to name some of these "other people," Gibson replied: "Listen to Joe Wilson talk about punching people in the face. Listen to Al Gore: 'How dare they.' "
But the comments from Gore and Wilson to which Gibson apparently referred did not involve killing anyone.
For instance, in a May 26, 2004, speech, Gore criticized the Bush administration for allowing the abuse of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison facility in Iraq:
GORE: How dare they blame their misdeeds on enlisted personnel from a Reserve unit in upstate New York. President Bush owes more than one apology. On the list of those he let down are the young soldiers who are themselves apparently culpable, but who were clearly put into a moral cesspool. The perpetrators as well as the victims were both placed in their relationship to one another by the policies of George W. Bush. How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush-Cheney administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison.
During an April 27, 2005, speech, Gore also twice stated "how dare they" while critiquing the Religious Right's "assault on the integrity of our constitutional design." In fact, far from advocating violence himself, Gore pointed out that a speaker at a conservative conference quoted Stalin's "no man, no problem" axiom for dealing with political dissent while advocating that Congress should take away jurisdiction from courts who make decisions with which conservatives disagree:
GORE: Another influential leader of one of these grassroots organizations, James Dobson, who heads the Focus on the Family group focused his anger on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And he said this, and I quote, "Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court. They don't have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the Ninth Circuit doesn't exist anymore. And it's gone."
Edwin Vieiras, speaker at their conference on confronting the so- called judicial war on faith, said that his bottom line for dealing with the Supreme Court came from Stalin.
[laughter]
I'm not making this up. He said, and I quote, "He," Stalin, "had a slogan and it worked pretty well for him whenever he ran into difficulty: 'No man, no problem.' "
[laughter]
If we are a nation of laws, not men, that Stalinist approach is so deeply antithetical to what our country is all about, it should be repudiated unanimously in both parties. But through their words and threats, many of these Republicans are creating an atmosphere in which judges might well hesitate to exercise their independence for fear of congressional retribution or worse.
It is no accident that this assault on the integrity of our constitutional design has been fueled by a small group claiming special knowledge of God's will in American politics. They even claim that those of us who disagree with their point of view are waging war against people of faith.
How dare they? How dare they?
Wilson has written that he thought about "punching" syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak and has purportedly said he would like to "punch" U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad. But as with Gore, none of these comments included the suggestion that anyone should or would be killed.
In his book The Politics of Truth (Carroll & Graf Publishers, April 2004), Wilson wrote that after Novak exposed his wife's secret work for the CIA, he "felt that punching the man [Novak] in the nose would not have been an unreasonable response" [p.348].
Additionally, a March 24 post on the Daily Kos weblog contained purported quotes from Wilson's March 20 speech at Florida State University in Tallahassee. Although the full text of the speech is not available, the author of the post, who claimed to have attended the speech, quoted Wilson as saying "I'd like to punch [Khalilzad] right in the face." (These and other purported quotes from the speech drew attacks from such conservatives as Jonah Goldberg and Andrew Sullivan.)
Further, Gibson falsely suggested that conservatives had not made remarks that are analogous to Hevesi's -- seeming to portend violence against liberals. When Henican responded to Gibson's assertion that violent anti-Bush rhetoric had "infected the political class" by noting that "[s]ome pretty harsh" things had been said during the Clinton administration, Gibson asked: "Do you remember a 'bullet between the eyes' comment about Bill Clinton?" When Henican later asserted that "[t]here's hatred on all sides of the political spectrum," Gibson responded: "Not like that."
But Gibson apparently forgot about, for example, Ann Coulter's musing, in her book High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery, 1998), on "whether to impeach or assassinate" President Clinton.
As Media Matters for America has noted, many other conservatives have also made public remarks seemingly contemplating the murder of those with whom they disagree. For example, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly once said that the Los Angeles Times editorial board wouldn't understand his objection to legal representation for detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, until terrorists kill then-editorial page editor Michael Kinsley. Also, radio host Glenn Beck said he was "thinking about killing [filmmaker] Michael Moore" and pondered whether "I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it." Media Matters also exposed conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Venezuela's socialist president, Hugo Chavez.
From the June 2 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: So, Ellis, to coin a phrase, where's the outrage?
HENICAN: Well, I mean, listen -- it's moronic, it's dumb.
GIBSON: Well, a bullet between the eyes, Ellis, What's it between friends?
HENICAN: I'm telling you, everything. It's dumb. It's stupid. Pick a word. We're calling him at Newsday "the out-of-comptroller." But come on -- I mean, it was one stupid thing said. And he immediately apologized for it.
GIBSON: No, no, no, Ellis, that's not what I'm talking about.
HENICAN: No, no. That is what you're talking about.
GIBSON: No, no. There's an atmosphere of this, where people feel it is permissible to say virtually anything about Bush --
HENICAN: No -- no -- no -- no --
GIBSON: -- and now it has infected the political class.
HENICAN: Welcome -- welcome to the 21st century. I don't know if you remember something called the Clinton Administration? Some pretty harsh things were said then. It is part of the course of --
GIBSON: Do you remember a "bullet between the eyes" comment about Bill Clinton?
HENICAN: I remember that he was a rapist, that he was a drug dealer, a bunch of crazy stuff. This -- but seriously, put this in context. Nobody is defending it, least of all Alan Hevesi, who apologized about 15 minutes after the words were out.
GIBSON: No, I get that part. What I'm trying to get at with you, Ellis, because you watched the scene --
HENICAN: And I covered it as well.
GIBSON: And you covered it as well. What is going on out there that people feel free to say such things?
HENICAN: Do you think this was done free? The guy's paying a huge cost for it. He's being clobbered for it.
GIBSON: No. You don't -- look below Hevesi. Look at what's going on the Left. Look at what's going on the angry Left.
HENICAN: There's hatred on all sides of the political spectrum --
GIBSON: Not like that.
HENICAN: I denounce it every time I see it. I denounce it.
GIBSON: Not like that.
HENICAN: Ah, same kind of stuff.
[...]
GIBSON: What about the atmosphere?
HENICAN: I'm trying to reel in the overreactions to it. I'm doing you a favor here.
GIBSON: No, no, no. I'm trying to reel in the overreactions to Bush. And you're not playing here.
HENICAN: Nobody is saying Bush ought to be shot. Nobody means that. Nobody is saying that. If it came out in a stupid sentence, what you do is apologize and you recognize it for what it is, a stupid utterance by a smart guy who did something stupid.
GIBSON: Are you willing to go after the other people who are saying these things that don't get Hevesi's attention?
HENICAN: Like who?
GIBSON: Tons of them.
HENICAN: Well, you know, I don't believe that anybody ought to joke like that --
GIBSON: Listen to Joe Wilson, talk about punching people in the face. Listen to Al Gore: "How dare they." Listen to all that stuff.
HENICAN: Listen, listen. You know what the truth is? It's that it always bothers us when it's on the other side of the political spectrum. People, you know -- conservatives denounce liberals when they do it. Liberals denounce conservatives. The truth of the matter is, everybody ought to take a cold shower and separate the real stuff from the things that are just stupid.
GIBSON: All right. The shower's ready. I'm holding your towel. Get on in there.
HENICAN: But we're not doing it together, all right?
GIBSON: Absolutely not.
HENICAN: Shower for one. Shower for one.
GIBSON: Shower for one. Exactly.
HENICAN: See you, buddy.
GIBSON: All right, see you later, Ellis.
*
BYLINE (joe wilson or joseph wilson
or joseph c. wilson)
and punch and novak
It is pretty apparent that Gibson was not suggesting that Gore said to shoot Bush, but you would not know that from the headline. Here is what I want to know. Are the libs here going to denounce this type of vile rhetoric? Are they going to be hypocritical? We know Havesi was not going to go after the President with an actual gun. But, where is the outrage over such an extreme statement? Why is the media not jumping on this with all fours attacking Hevesi like they would if this were a conservative Republican? The best that MMFA can do is find a conservative commentator and come to a stretch of an implication in an effort to find some conservative bias. How about the fact that this is not all over the headlines like it would be if this were a Republican? Where is MMFA covering this bias in the media?
As for being hypocritical, are the Dems going to call for Hevesi's resignation over this? I mean after all they went nuts over Trent Lott wishing an old man happy birthday and extended the meaning of his comments to a point that no rational person would have gone on their own. If Trent Lott was forced to step down from Senate leadership for his innocuous remarks are the Dems going to call for Hevesi to do likewise for his more extreme, though honestly non-threatening comments? I am not holding my breath.
Are you serious?
It is quite clear that Gibson is equating the severity of the "bullet between the eye" comment to the comments made by Gore.
How else would you have them word it?
rhetoric that comes from the left. This comes from him mentioning this. He did not directly suggest that Gore made the same accusation.
I am just curious if you or another poster on the left can defend these discrepancies in treatment between Lott and Hevesi and MMFA manufacturing of conservative bias in the glare of the news media's liberal bias preventing coverage of Hevesi's quote.
Funny how I am called a con by some and implied to be "on the left" by others.. even more funny how you attempt to evade the very simple issue that I explained, refuting what you said originally:
The MMFA article title is apt in what it describes the equation by Gibson, of a "bullet between the eyes" comment in severity to another comment made by Gore "How dare they".
Perhaps you missed this comment (even though it was bolded): GIBSON: Are you willing to go after the other people who are saying these things that don't get Hevesi's attention?
Clearly Gibson is saying that the other statments he proceeds to provide examples for are just as inflammatory. Therefore he is equating them. Did I really need to spell it out in that simplistic of detail? It really wasn't that hard.
See my breakdown of the article in another post in this thread. By leaving out the comment that he is "reeling in overreaction" the implication is that he is point out statements that are examples of overreaction. Hevesi's comment was an overreaction. Wilson's was an overreaction. Gore's was an overreaction.
This is why I say MMFA is really stretching on this one and leaping over stuff to attempt to manufacture conservative bias.
Big deal, that does not mean that Gibson is NOT trying to imply that the media isn't covering comments of which he feels are equal in severity, which is the entire point. Gibson is trying to get Henican to defend other comments Dems have made that he considers just as outrageous as the "bullet between the eyes" comment (just that for some reason the media isn't covering them blah, blah insert implied liberal media bias here)
What it boils down to is the Gore comment ISN'T as inflammatory (which is why it isn't getting coverage), so why does it need to be defended in the same context as the other bullet comment?
the blockquoting tag doesn't seem to like me. (first sentence should have been the same size in the quote)
Gibson's mind and assume what he is trying to do. I am simply following the discussion and comments made. Who has the weaker point?
you can say that about anyone. weasel words.
putting words in their mouth is a cop-out???? I can prove clearly the basis for my point. Putting words in their mouth is mere speculation with no way of verifying accuracy. How can the latter possibly be a stronger point?
He doesnt get the benifit of the doubt that he actually meants something other than the impression his words imply. He has a responisibility to be clear. IF he is not he is not doing his job. His response clearly gives the impression that the comments are equivelent
I do not feel that Gore's comment was extreme as that of Hevesi's. Including it in his list may not have been the best choice but it does not imply that Gibson definitely thought it was as extreme. He may well have been citing overreactions without delineating between extremity. Note, I am purely speculating on that last comment.
and other than that, I haven't heard the bullet comment yet myself, and depending on context I may very well agree that people on the left should be calling for his resignation.
I do not necessarily think he should resign. A reasonable person would probably see this as very high rhetoric and not a definite threat to the President. I think too often politicians are called to resign over misstatements that get blown out of proportion. I am not sure Hevesi should resign. I am only concerned with the silence from the left after they went ballistic over situations like Trent Lott. It is the hypocrisy that concerns me here, not whether Hevesi keeps his job. Let him stay for all I care. As long as he is not making a bona fide threat, he has freedom of speed and that extends to making distasteful comments.
exactly. gibson is comparing a remark about violence against the president with al gore saying [gasp] "how dare they". i guess buzz light above the ears sees those as equal.
why would Gibson need to reference their specific comments? Guys, this is such an obvious MMFA stretch and manufacturer. If not, why is this response section not covered up with libs defending this?
Address the real questions. Liberal media bias for not covering Hevesi and hypocrisy for not calling for Hevesi to resign in light of the far less offensive comments by Trent Lott. Can some liberal please explain these logical disconnects?
their specific comments? earth to buzz. that's what he did. he was asked for statements that were similar and he replied with statements by wilson and gore. he made the equation. we are commenting on that equation. Is this clear? and the "libs" stuff is priceless. always good for a laugh.
GIBSON: No, no, no. I'm trying to reel in the overreactions to Bush. And you're not playing here.
Very clearly...what is Gibson's premise? "Reel in the overreactions to Bush." Now that is what he actually said. Are you going to try to read more into that?
Henican reponds and he specifically addresses the bullet quote...not Gibson.
Gibson's next comment: GIBSON: Are you willing to go after the other people who are saying these things that don't get Hevesi's attention?
Gibson has just stated that he is attempting to "reel in overreaction" so the logical assumption is that his above comment references this attempt to reel in the Democratic rhetoric. That is not necessarily limited to death threat comments.
He then goes on to reference two people making overreactive comments and notes what they have said: GIBSON: Listen to Joe Wilson, talk about punching people in the face. Listen to Al Gore: "How dare they." Listen to all that stuff.
There...a logical dissection of the discussion. To suggest that Gibson is suggesting Gore and Wilson made comments in the same vein of Hevesi as far as a death threat is simply not supportable.
gibson says that there are others "who are saying things that don't get hevisi's attention". so, is he not complaining that wilson and gore made similar statements and they are not getting the same "attention"? therefore he is saying they are equal in the attention they should get.{ i think we all understand that gore and wilson were not talking about shooting anyone} {well, i take that back, you don't understand that.}
of a category for overreaction. But he clearly states that he is refering to overreaction. Gore's comment could be classified as overreaction.
Rather than nitpick words, why not address the main point of this thread which is the hypocrisy of MMFA regarding the silence of the media on these comments and the failure to call for Hevesi's resignation in light of the treatment Trent Lott received. The issue of what Gibson meant is as clear as we can possibly make it without further speculating and, as someone else posted, a minor quibble, even if you are right, compared to the bigger question here.
of this thread is not what you have chosen to define it as. it is about gibson saying that gore's remark deserves the same "attention" as hevesi's remark. and as for your accusation of anyone attempting to put words in his mouth, all we have done this entire thread is quote his exact words.
I quoted nearly an entire passage (leaving out small talk for brevity). Perhaps from an MMFA perspective, their's and liberals' hypocrisy might not be the point. But that is why conservatives need to frequent sites like this to hold the left to task for its logical inconsistencies when they come about.
gibson said that the statements of others should get the same "attention". he named two people as worthy of that same "attention", al gore and joe wilson. do you deny he did this? without all the other hot air. a simple yes or no?
Perhaps you are right. But until you can give me something more than your speculation through your left wing filter we are at a stalemate. Ask yourself if I was asking you to make an assumption and put words in someone's mouth, given my conservative filter - would you just buy that without more evidence? I doubt it. So we can only go by what he said, and what his quote does not support your point.
you deny that he is saying that gore and wilson's statements should get the same "attention" as hevesi's? no weaseling. yes or no?
the last time I checked Trent Lott was still in the Senate. And the reprimand and demotion he did receive was called for by his own party...or don't you remember that?
Only IRRATIONAL people could possibly claim that Lott saying we wouldnt have all the problems we have now if Strom had been elected on the Dixiecrat segragationist platform was NOT racist. We have no dems to denounce in this thread. Halevi claimed, by pulling some nonsense directly out of his ass that a Dem would put a bullet in Bushs head. No dem said any such thing. If you can cough up a dem saying something like this I would denounce it but you wont. I am certainly not going to denounce Shumer because of something some conservative CLAIMS is his opinion.
was intentionally implying that segregationist policies would have been benefited this country rather than making a nonchalant remark about an old friend being president, there is no way to have reasonable discussion with you. You are apparently too biased against Republicans to even approach rational debate. I find it absurd that anyone could have listened to the clip of that comment in context and come to a conclusion that Lott was making a premeditated political statement.
He said his state voted for Strom and if the nation had done the same we wouldnt be having all these problems. The dixicrat ticket WAS segragationist, it was their main platform. I couldnt care less what conversations you have. Try all you want to spin this, it was a pure racist statement, any attempt to pretend otherwise is leaving reality far behind.
Far more than 'wishing an old man happy birthday', Lott went on to praise him for his presidential run heading the Dixiecrat party. The dixiecrats were a breakaway group of southern Democrats who had organised themselves in support of the preservation of segregation & racial discrimination. Lott further added that he was proud that Mississippi (his home state) had voted for Thurmond, & that "... is the rest of the country had done the same we wouldn't have all these problems that we have today."
Can you seriously claim that there is a reasonable & nonracist interpretation of his words?
Or is racial discrimination as honorable as you apparently find antigay discrimination?
Why should he resign anymore than Hevesi should resign? He is free to an opinion and if the citizens of Mississippi do not like it, then they can vote him out. It is not the place of liberals from whereever to decide that Trent Lott should or should not have leadership role in a party to which they do not even belong. No, even conceding your point momentarily, this was nothing more than an opportunistic grab at smearing Republicans and sadly the GOP did not have the backbone to stand up against it.
I am sick of the left preaching 'tolerate, tolerate, tolerate' when the only thing they tolerate is liberal points of view. The hypocrisy is disgusting.
Or misogyny. They are sick and unacceptable I am sure you are sick of people talking about tolerance. It is not a wingnut virtue. Your weak attempt at a point is ludicrous. Liberals had NO power to strip Lott of his leadership status only the GOP could do that and only the GOP DID that. Why? Because THEY unlike say YOU, realized this statement of pure racism was indefensible and made them LOOK bad.
that being tolerant is some sort of flaw? Does that make intolerance a virtue?
Tolerance can be a great thing but some people use tolerance when they mean acceptance. Cannot give a blanket answer when the question is asked like that.
You made the statement.
2) Do you think that a liberal agenda is somehow evil?
You are making broad blanket statements and you are exhibiting such extreme liberal bias that having a rational discussion is extremely difficult. Case in point - where in the world did that last question come from???
"I am sick of the left preaching 'tolerate, tolerate, tolerate' when the only thing they tolerate is liberal points of view. The hypocrisy is disgusting."
I asked "Do you think that being tolerant is some sort of flaw? Does that make intolerance a virtue?"
You didn't answer either, and in the meantime I wondered if you think that liberalism is evil. I wondered this because of your parroting of Sean Hannity.
I said tolerance can be a positive thing. That was a general question to a broad question. What do you want me to tolerate. The only way I can be more specific is to deal with specific issues. Only then can I comment on whether I feel that tolerance of certain issues is a positive or a negative. I do not play this entrapment game in a debate/discussion.
your comment. You brought it up. Defend it or retract it. Your a smart guy, tell me what you meant by saying that all libs preach is tolerate, etc. . .
Not to mention that you didn't answer my other 2 questions in direct response to your statement.
If your confused, you were talking about Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond. It sounded as though you were okay with Lott's praise of Thurmond. But then you said that libs were hypocrites. Then I asked for clarification, and you have been vauge ever since.
I don't get it.
Yeah...me neither...I have no idea what is so hard to understand about my responses. Let me explicit and be clear there is no hidden meaning...when I said that liberals preach tolerate, etc., I was not thinking of a specific issue was making a general comment of the left's seeming desire to tolerate anything...well aside from traditional and Christian values in many cases. If you took that to be meaning something specific, sorry bout that.
To placate you here are some examples of thing that the left seems to want us to tolerate/accept:
1. Homosexuality 2. Pre-marital sex (for example, handing out condoms in school) 3. Free speech in schools promoting anything except Christian values 4. Broad variety of criminalization of thought (hate crimes legislation)
"1. Homosexuality 2. Pre-marital sex (for example, handing out condoms in school) 3. Free speech in schools promoting anything except Christian values 4. Broad variety of criminalization of thought (hate crimes legislation)"
I think I see where you are coming from. But why would preaching tolerence of 1 and 2 be an example of hypocracy by also speaking out against Lott's praise of Thurmund's run for president on a segregational ticket?
I'll also note that the ACLU (an orginization deemed to be left wing) has fought for students rights to pass out Christian religious flyers at their scools.
Also, I know of no legislation against hateful thoughts, just against unlawful actions that cause harm to minorities.
by pressing for what Dems wanted tolerance of. I gave it to you, and then you say that it is not related to Lott and Thurmond. Cannot win with you!
As for the ACLU, while I think they do more detrimental things than postive things for the country, I do acknowledge that they will defend conservative right to freedom of expression from time to time. (Now who is mentioning something not related to Lott and Thurmond?)
As for legislation that criminalizes thoughts - it is called hate crimes legislation. If you assault Joe Blow on the street, you get X years in prison. However, if you assault Gay Joe Blow on the street and the court determines you "hate" gays, you get X+Y years in prison for the exact same act of assault. What the extra years? The extra years are for the thought of hating someone. It is very clear - criminalization of thought.
campaign against Robert "KKK" Byrd? Or is he another thing that liberals let slide because he is in the "right" party?
So, give us an example of 'libs' or 'Dems' praising Byrd for the ugly stupidity that he exhibited in his early years. Can't, can you? Weak argument. Weak to the point of brittleness.
Sort of like the argument that you're making against MMFA, now that I think of it.
Was any attempt made to prevent Byrd from holding a leadership position? Where is the Democrat outrage when he was in leadership position? He was president pro tem once from 1989 to 1995 and then again from 2001 to 2003 when Jeffords dropped our of the GOP. Where was the outrage at the racist past of Robert Byrd? Ironically, his last period as president pro tem happened to be in progress when the Dems were crying for Lott's resignation from a leadership position. Now, tell me how in the world that is not hypocrisy???
The left said very little about this, they gave repubs enough rope to hang Lott. It was the repubs that were running around with thier hair on fire. Lott has mentioned that the right wing radio defended him too much, and brought too much attention to the incident, meanwhile repub lawmakers were putting him out to pasture.
The party's candidate from the previous election would be a pretty heavy hitter right?
As for the GOP, you will not get any argument from me. I think they overreacted and in modern GOP fashion, they exhibited no backbone. That cannot be blamed on the Democrats for sure. This is why, even though Republicans control both houses of Congress, the Democrats have far too much influence, IMO, especially in the Senate. Vote the majority of them out as far as I am concerned.
You're good, GraysonBuzz! You nailed that one right on the head by asking: " Are the libs here going to denounce this type of vile rhetoric? Are they going to be hypocritical? "
Have you noticed that not ONE liberal in this thread denounced what Hevesi said or called for any type of punishment for saying it.
but Byrd renounced the KKK decades ago. Thurmond was probably a member until the day he died.
Oh and please don't try to tell me that the Repubs were the party of equality because without them the 1964 equal rights ammendment would not have passed. You certainly know that most of those Dixiecrats joined the Repubs,(although this is a canard that Hannity tries to pull on his sheep often).
Byrd renounced his KKK involvement and you have no problem accepting this. (I am not challenging the veracity of his claim and will concede it as I have no evidence to suggest otherwise.)
Thurmond endorsed racial integration in the seventies, apparently long before Byrd renounced his KKK involvement. (Wikipedia entries on both men) However, you suggest that Strom never abondoned his views though his actions tend to suggest otherwise.
Hmmm....smells like hypocrisy to me. Careful to clarify this apparent discrepancy? I am sure it could not be attributed to a political bias now could it???
and if it is I will concede-- guilty as charged.
Honestly, the remark about Thurmond was off the cuff, and without facts to back it up. Could I be so bold to appologize, and ask for a humble retraction. I will then shut up for a long time, (but only about Strom).
Respectfully TheRick (signature)
I would hope, taking your comments at face value, that you might see how someone could take your comments in a manner in which they were not intended. I do not expect this to change your mind with respect to Trent Lott, but I would hope it might give you or someone reading it a little perspective.
As for suggesting you would not be entitled to be hypocritical if you desired, I would not suggest that. You would be more than free to do so. I believe in your freedom of speech, my freedom of speech and anyone else's freedom of speech. No matter how unpopular their point of view, it is their right to hold that point of view. If we do not like it, we ignore them.
You see, Byrd actually has talked about his past and renounced what he did, while Lott was glorifying Thurman's presidential run as a segregationist. The difference is about as big as you can get. One is someone being sorry for intolerance, the other is celebrating it.
---"It is pretty apparent that Gibson was not suggesting that Gore said to shoot Bush, but you would not know that from the headline."---
Contrary to that claim, it is, in fact, very clearly obvious and apparent from Media Matters' headline. It says "Gibson compared", not "Gibson suggests Gore would shoot Bush".
---"Where is MMFA covering this bias [against Republicans] in the media?"---
Where do sites like the right-wing Media Research Center cover bias against Democrats? You don't write complaints to them, do you?
Wow- putting a bullet between the eyes is EXACTLY like saying 'how dare they'...good to know, you tool, Gibson
Besides Fox News?
I dont think he says anything relevant.
The other posts are flooded with Dems defending gay marriage, fabricating accusations on George Bush, and the Iranian president (probably among other topics I am not following). However, few libs are stepping up with any type of defense of the hypocrisy associated with this story. If that does not make the hypocrisy obvious, what else will?
of Ann Coulter? You sent her how many letters saying "stop"? What's that # again? Zero?
Don't come here accusing any poster here of hypocracy until you can prove you don't do the same.
I do not read her stuff very often so I am entirely familiar with some of the things she has said. From what I know about her, the left cannot stand her and I know she is blunt.
She said the way to talk to a liberal is after you beat them with a baseball bat. That we should invade Arab countries kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity, that someone should poison Justice Kennedy's Creme Broulle. And that only question about Clinton was impeach or assasinate. Will those do?They are a small sample of the womans insanity
Go to some right wing web site and whine with the rest of your ilk to your hearts content. Perhaps you don't understand-- we don't care.
MMFA is one place on the web where the truth can be read on a daily basis. When MMFA makes mistakes, they retract or correct them--unlike the hacks that stroke your biases.
In the meantime, you've probably heard about "bringing a knife to a gun fight." You should stop bringing opinions to a fact site.
This stuff is majority spin. Liberal spin. And some of it, such as this article is poorly disguised spin. This site is not about truth, it is about fronting a liberal agenda. If this site were about truth, then they would call out "bias" from both liberals and conservatives. I would think that most of the site would be spend counteracting liberal bias in the media. If this is about truth, please explain to me why MMFA is not going after the media for sweeping the Hevesi incident under the rug when a Republican would be tar and feathered? Please explain why they will criticzie the media for not calling for Hevesi's resignation after the treatment Trent Lott received by the left? Why is it that not one liberal yet has addressed these points? Then you call this a site about truth. If you think that, you need to read more than just liberal web sites.
just a lot of hot air. libs this libs that.
I admit I have a political leaning. But I also attempt to be as objective as I possibly can given my viewpoint. Pure objectivity is not necessarily feasible. But a higher degree of objectivity than what I typically see at MMFA is my M.O.
mr. "objective".
You should stop bringing opinions to a fact site.
Talk about this post. If you want to bring up other issues, start your own site. I've wasted about 12 minutes of my life reading a few of your posts, and all you are is a Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'reilly regurgitator. (sp?)
That's 12 minutes that I'll never get back, and at my age you gotta watch that sort of thing. But don't dispair, most conservative nimrods grow up sooner or later. They see the light and become good decent liberals--the way God meant them to.
with any regularity is Hannity. No, I think for myself and do not need talking points for anyone. I know libs like to try to suggest that conservatives have to have our thoughts fed to us, but I find that often the opposite is the case.
As for growing, I thought that we grew wiser as we matured and that was why we moved from the radical days of youth (which I fortunately never went through) to rational outlooks that made us realize that the stuff the libs were feeding us were a bunch of lines.
As for spending time reading my stuff, here is a suggestion. I use one posting name...just don't read it. See how easy that is! :)
Graysonbuzz says, "Please explain why they will criticzie the media for not calling for Hevesi's resignation after the treatment Trent Lott received by the left?"
THE FACTS: "Trent Lott’s decision to step down as the senate majority leader was the right decision and probably overdue. I personally felt he should have stepped down as majority leader the moment he made the comments. As President Bush clearly articulated, Lott’s comments did not reflect ‘the spirit of our country.’ His comments were offensive. However, what I think is most appealing about the story is that Lott was brought down not by liberals, but by conservatives. He was forced to resign not by Democrats, but by Republicans."
[link to main.uab.edu]
------
Lott's "treatment" was not "by the left", but by his OWN GUYS. Can't get your facts straight, buzzy.
would be in the spirit of country and unoffensive? Conceding for a moment that Lott meant his remarks as you feel he did, what does it say when the GOP lines up to oppose him yet Dems are making weak excuses about Hevesi having apologized?
GB: "does this imply that Hevesi's remarkwould be in the spirit of country and unoffensive?"
RESPONSE: Nope. The man profusely apologized for his ill-considered analogy.
GB: "Conceding for a moment that Lott meant his remarks as you feel he did,"
RESPONSE: Hevesi used an over-the-top phrase that depicted unintended violence. He realized his mistake. He is a COMPTROLLER for the State of New York. Lott, on the other hand, revealed that he lamented that segregationist policy did not dominate our nation's rule. He was MAJORITY LEADER of the SENATE. Should a comptroller be fired for an inflammatory introduction? I don't think so, but it's up to New York. Should a PARTY LEADER be demoted for revealing he is an unrepentant BIGOT? Quite a different circumstance, and his party thought YES, he SHOULD be demoted. Good call.
GB: "what does it say when the GOP lines up to oppose him yet Dems are making weak excuses about Hevesi having apologized?"
RESPONSE: It says that these instances are wildly different, in terms of how ideology/world view will affect POLICY which impacts all Americans.
Impact of Majority Leader of Senate: Enormous.
Impact of Comptroller in New York: None.
Pick a different comparison than one between the then-Senate Majority Leader of the United States Trent Lott (4th in line to the presidency?) and some state official from New York.
Once you do that, I'll address your media bias argument.
Oops. He may have been minority leader. I'm not sure exactly. But I think you get my point.
His comments were so far from what he was accused of saying it was absurd. The fact that the GOP caved into the Democratic whining and forced him to step down shows how spineless some of these Republicans can be. Trent Lott was railroaded for saying something far less egregious than did Hevesi but no one will call him on it. Instead you dodge.
So you feel that racial bigotry is OK?
When you have no way to defend yourself - in this case the hypocrisy of the situation - just attempt to imply that your opponent is a racist. That is supposed to be kryptonite in modern America right? Well I know, first the tactic you are using and second I do not care if a liberal calls me a name that is undeserved. Now..can we return to the facts and stop playing name calling games?
The comment was purely racist. FACT. No rational interpertation of what he said could lead to any other conclusion. Even the GOP agreed which is why they stripped him of his leadership post. The libs had NO power over their decision. The WHINING is all yours. Pretending a pure racist comment was something else. Bull.
I cannot pass up this double standard from the left.
With respect to Gibson, the source of this entire post from MMFA, the left will not stick to what he actually can be quoted as saying but they insist on discussing a deeper implied meaning...to fit their point of view.
With Lott, rather than consider that his concepts had no meaning deeper than off the cuff comments, the insist that he said such and such and since Strom party was racist...*screeching halt throwing contextual analysis out the window*....Trent's a racist.
Gotta love it. You guys play the political game well. I just wish the Senate Republicans were as politically savvy as you guys.
What other meaning can even be implied?????He said we wouldnt be having all these problems IF a man running on a segragationist platform had been elected. No possible rational interpretation of this can exclude a racist meaning. To say otherwise is disengenuous at least if not delusional
Notice how every time some con gets caught saying something racist, or defending the racist remarks of a fellow con, they pull out the old, tired "you're playing the race card" defense?
This seems to be their GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card, allowing them to make any number of inane, bigoted statements.
I made it clear that I did not find Lott's comment to be anything more than an off-the-cuff remark. You guys on the left are the one infusing it with deep meaning. Thus, I cannot be defending bigotry/racism/"smear du jour" because I fail to draw that conclusion. Just because you consider something racist, does not mean that someone else does and if they do not their defense of that something does not mean they are defending your interpretation.
Nice try to characterize the "get out of jail free" card. Pretty weak defense considering, unlike many today, I have the guts to stand there and say "I do not care what smear name you want to call me since we both know it is not true." Kryptonite to some...not to me. Don't need a get out of jail free card as I did not nothing to "get in jail."
You still haven't given a rational defense of Lott's comments praising Thurmond's pro-segregationist campaign for the presidency. By what possible standard could it NOT be considered racist? Calling it an 'offhand remark' is exceptionally weak, because it is often in 'offhand remarks' that people reveal the darkness that lurks within their hearts. Dismissing it is not an argument. It is merely an act of denial.
Thus, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Lott meant more. You might could use his apology, but a politician apologizing when someone criticizes him/her is not much proof of anything but being a politician.
No, I listened as well as read the comment and I got the impression that it was a comment to flatter an old man, not an effort to reignite racial tensions. In the absence of more evidence, that is quite logical.
As far the darkness lurking or whatever...ooohh....look...racism...under the bed! And there...in the closet...more racism! Racism, racism, everywhere! Liberals find so many things racist that are not even remotely close that you have no credibility on that topic. Even if you are right about Lott, am I going to take a liberal seriously who might call out ten people for being a racist when only one or two actually are? Not a chance. You guys have cried racist wolf far too many times.
you said a lot of nothing, and failed to answer my question.
why don't you quote lott's comment?
put Strom Thurmund on Mt.Rushmore.
Is that MMFA (and posters here) APPARENTLY have NO problem with what Hevesi said...only that Gibson had the "audacity" to COMPARE it to a couple of Liberals.
Gibson was dead wrong, BUT how about addressing Hevesi's remarks?
Or Senator Schumer's quick dismissal of them.
Schumer saying he was satisfied with Hevesi's apology is outrageous. He SHOULD have called for Hevesi's resignation.
But NOT a peep from the MSM criticizing Schumer...very interesting indeed.
I'm NOT a supporter of this CURRENT administration [even though I'm a Republican/Conservative] HOWEVER Hevesi's remarks were, IMO, a lot more inflammatory than Gibson's gibberish.
So Liberals, where's your indignation?
Before there is any capitol punnishment, there should always be a trial.
see ya'll tomorrow.
See ya' in the posts.
Yawn, same old same old. Jeter, you seem so reasonable then you go back to this tired old tactic, why? You are better than this! Do you hear anyone here defending this comment? (I'll give you a hint; the answer is not "yes".) As has been said many times, it was a terrible thing to say AND he apologized for it. Did Lott? Not that I remember. Has Coulter? Doubtful. Did BO say he was sorry for any of the number of times he has hoped for the deaths of Americans? Nope, just says he was kidding. And where is you full condemnation every time any of these people (or other "conservatives") say these things? Why aren't you defending these comments? Come on Jeter, show some indignation! If not it is clear you agree with these comments. See how silly that sounds?
" Jeter, you seem so reasonable then you go back to this tired old tactic, why? You are better than this!"...by military_husband
Funny how I'm only good ole REASONABLE jeter when I'm AGREEING with the Liberals here ...otherwise I'm *just one of those Conservatives* using "tired old tactics".
MH it's NOT a "tactic", what I wrote is simply the way I'm viewing the situation.. Now it's possible I MISSED a poster's remark CONDEMNING what Hevesi blurted out, but IF I did that's because only one or two did (including my good buddy lostlogic [Bless her]--see below)
I thought Hevesi's remarks were apprehensible!! And I was disgusted with Schumer's reaction (or lack of one) as well.
I just would have thought MORE posters would have at least MENTIONED this.
As far as ME condemning Conservatives who make STUPID or INFLAMMATORY or BIGOTED remarks, I think my record here will show that I have in fact spoken out and chastised them MANY MANY times.
While it's ALSO true that I don't find EVERYTHING O'Reilly says as offensive as Liberals do and I occasionally find Coulter somewhat funny...when I think they have crossed a line or have made a disgusting comment-- I SAY SO....
I don't recall posting about Lott, but I UNDERSTOOD why people were unnerved by his comments...and had I posted I would have said just that. I personally don't BELIEVE he meant what many INTERPRETED he did-- but it certainly came out sounding racist.
When William Bennet made his STUPID RACIST remarks I, like other posters here went after him.
All I'm looking for is Liberals here to OCCASIONALLY reciprocate.
No, maybe they didn't DEFEND the comment....
BUT I would have liked to have read them condemn Hevesi here, NOT just ASSUME they do.
"Funny how I'm only good ole REASONABLE jeter when I'm AGREEING with the Liberals here ...otherwise I'm *just one of those Conservatives* using "tired old tactics". "
No Jeter, this is the only tactic I see you use that I hate and call you out on (as I have before). I saw Ollie North and Hannity say the same type of thing about the group picketing Iraq war vets' funerals. They wanted to know why Dean or Kerry weren't out there condemning these guys. Despite the fact that the group doing it is very rightwing, it is not their (or our) job to denounce every crazy thing said by every left leaning person or politician. I would not expect you to defend every crazy thing every conservative said. The discussion was not about what the man said, but the comparing it (wrongly) to comments made by Gore and Wilson. Do you really think people here think it was a good thing to say? Should the posters have to go out of their way to point that out? On the thread about O'Reilly's recent gaff, I failed to mention that I don't approve of Nazis. I suppose since I didn't you could assume I support what they did. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
as soon as I heard the comment. My next thought was Schumer must want to just scream for having his name dragged into this idiot’s stupidity. I am sort of torn on the whole should they step down for stupid comments thing. I actually didn’t think Lott should have been removed from his leadership position…of course there really is no leadership position to remove Hevesi from so this is sort of like comparing apples and oranges as far as punishment goes. Of course there is the concept that if they are stupid enough to throw these comments out there for public consumption then how sound is their judgment to begin with?
"Well I for one cringed...as soon as I heard the comment. My next thought was Schumer must want to just scream for having his name dragged into this idiot’s stupidity."...by lostlogic
=====
My FIRST thoughts exactly. BUT when I saw how the whole situation was pretty much being IGNORED [swept under the rug?] and Schumer shrug it off-- I started to get PEEVED.
I'm not sure whether I thought Hevesi might have VOLUNTARILY resigned or I expected [ Schumer & MANY other] DEMOCRATS to strongly CONDEMN his remarks & judgment- and STRONGLY suggest he resign. BUT I found it incredible when NEITHER happen.
Can you imagine IF a Republican had said that about a Democratic President? Or IF O'Reilly or Coulter had uttered such a disgusting remark (certainly their "style")...the posters here would have gone nuts.
Ah well, maybe I EXPECT too much from the others here. Thank God for YOU!! I ALWAYS count on you to see things "logically" :-)
You want a Liberal to "explain" this situation to you, but the examples are the key. Hevesi used a horrible "shooting" analogy to depict Schumer's aggressive style, and realized immediately it was a gaffe of epic proportions, and apologized.
Gibson, for his part, wanted Henikan to "condemn" Democrats across the board, for "a ton" of equally egrigious examples of horrible attacks on Republicans. When asked to produce such similar attacks, Gibson came up with Gore and Wilson, neither of which called for shooting and/or killing anyone (leaving aside that Joe Wilson was a life-long Republican).
Here's what we'll do, Graysonbuzz. You take Gibson's part, and I'll supply some other rightwing examples. You post what you consider statements that EQUALLY call for condemnation, stated by Democrats.
You seem to want Liberals to condemn the words of "their people", so here's your chance; I will condemn any statement you bring forward from Democrats which compare to those I post from the Rightwing. Ready?
------
"Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He’d better have a bodyguard." -- Jesse Helms
"I use a cardboard cut-out of Hillary Clinton for target practice." -- G. Gordon Liddy
"Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore. I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it." -- Glenn Beck
"In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether Bill Clinton 'did it,' even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate." -- Ann Coulter
------
Looking forward to your presentation of prominant Democrat comments of EQUAL violence, hatred and desire for death as represented by these rightwing public comments. I will condemn every one that comes close to this level.
Anything that does not involve almost the exact same phrase (shooting in this case) is not an example of the overreaction of which Gibson is commenting. As I have clearly outlined, Gibson was dealing with overreacting statements, not just statements on shooting. You are trying to evade the validity of the article by creating too narrow of a focus...not going to work. The issue are comments of overreaction which is what Gibson and, in context, examples which are valid examples of such. Spin, spin, spin but I am not falling into that trap.
As for the comments implying any threat, real or perceived, to Bill Clinton, I state very clearly I do not support them. See..that was easy. No dancing. No hem-hawing. No dodging. Just came right out and said I did not support them. However, most of those quotes were not from elected officials so comparing them to Hevesi is not apples to apples. Hevesi is an elected official who should have a standard of decorum. That does not excuse political commentators entirely, but, in the absence of a real, true threat, allow the marketplace to deal with them. If you do not like what they say, do not listen to their show or buy their books. They do NOT represent anyone but themselves and their employments and their continued employment is between them and their employer. Voice you opinion to their employer, but when it comes down to it, it is a private decision. Completely different than Hevesi. As for Helms, while the statement were he still in office, would merit closer scrutiny, I would like to see it in context. Unlike the others you cite, that statement could have been made in a completely non-threatening manner. For example, someone could have been criticizing the people who live somewhere by characterizing them as being lawless people and if a president was going to visit there he would need a bodyguard. Hence, the reason I would like to see the entire quote and the context to better understand the nature of the comment. (And note, this is PRECISELY, my position on Lott...in context, his comments make more sense as a shallow, playful remark than a vicious, racist rant.)
When you say, "most of those quotes were not from elected officials so comparing them to Hevesi is not apples to apples."
... are you referring to Gibson? He invokes Gore (who holds no office), and Wilson, who WAS an ambassador (appointed, not elected).
See, when you grasp for excuses, you seem to ignore that a standard has already been set ... BY GIBSON.
Are not qualitatively different than rhetoric NOT espousing violence? Not even a good try. You need to step up your game. You arent really very good at this
graybuzz and a couple of others just love clogging up threads with incoherent contradictory and stupid assertions. Distracting from any actual debate. Their ramblings and spewings mean only that they are scared enough to try to deflect talk to anything but facts.
I just love finding the logical inconsistencies amid the bias, and point it out and call liberals to task for it. Liberals get away far too often without being challenged on the points they make so I greatly enjoy making them take ownership of their comments.
"Liberals get away far too often without being challenged on the points they make so I greatly enjoy making them take ownership of their comments."
However, I've called you on your comments many times in which your reply has been to simply change the subject (although not always). Therefore, who is tripping up whom?
You have pointed out NO logical inconsistancies. You make broad statements and unsupported assertions based on NOTHING. I have seen no logic or even decent arguments in your posts. Only regurgitation of todays propaganda parrot talking points. No facts, no insight, no logic. Nothing.