CNN aired Laura Ingraham saying conservative "suicide voters" might vote for Clinton over McCain
On the February 6 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, correspondent Carol Costello reported on conservative radio talk-show hosts' condemnations of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), stating that "conservatives cannot stomach" the idea of a ticket consisting of McCain and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Costello's report included an audio clip in which Laura Ingraham asserted on her show that some conservatives would turn themselves into "suicide voters" and vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) rather than vote for McCain.
In the CNN clip, Ingraham said: "McCain has been -- has so radicalized key conservatives that some have vowed to turn themselves into suicide voters next November by pulling the lever for Hillary Clinton."
From the February 6 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
COSTELLO: The talkers called McCain's big night a win for liberal Democrats, since part of John McCain's platform was reaching across party lines.
RUSH LIMBAUGH (talk show host): We want is to defeat those people. We view those people as threats to the American way of life as we've always known it.
COSTELLO: On Laura Ingraham's show, she lamented McCain's victory, reminding her listeners Ronald Reagan would not have been happy -- especially today, on what would have been his 97th birthday. She then urged them to go to a Heritage Foundation's website called What Would Reagan Do.
RONALD REAGAN (former U.S. president): Tomorrow night in the kitchen, I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let them know and nail them on it.
COSTELLO: Still, Ingraham wasn't ready to declare McCain's win meant the death of Reaganism or conservative talk radio just yet.
INGRAHAM: Before people start writing again the obituary, whether it's for talk radio -- blah, blah, blah, we've heard that before -- or the obituary of conservatism, remember what was happening last night. In state after state, John McCain wasn't winning conservative votes.
COSTELLO: McCain did come in third among conservatives. But Huckabee won in five states on Super Tuesday, even though talkers told their listeners a vote for Huckabee is like a vote for McCain.
HUCKABEE: People across this country are saying that, yes, we heard what the pundits said. But this is our vote, not theirs. This is our election, not theirs. This is our presidency, not theirs.
COSTELLO: And with Huckabee's success came talk of a McCain/Huckabee ticket -- something conservatives cannot stomach.
INGRAHAM: McCain has been -- has so radicalized key conservatives that some have vowed to turn themselves into suicide voters next November by pulling the lever for Hillary Clinton.
COSTELLO: It was a common theme in the world of conservative talk, although some eventually admitted if it came down to a McCain/Huckabee ticket, conservative voters would abstain.











Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts



Ok I must be missing something here.
What's the beef?
Ok I must be missing something here.
What's the beef?
Don't worry, the sensitive left will find some way to be offended by the remark.
There's no beef, guys.
MMFA's just noting that a conservative is so upset that they're going to back a liberal-- and consider it to be suicide (!)
It's called irony. Or maybe just ridculousness on their part. It's worthy of note.
You all should be sitting back in your chairs, arms folded, feet up on your desk, smiling smugly, watching these conservatives having a fit over their presidential nominee - even contemplating "suicide" voting as an alternative.
Instead some of you are hand-wringing over what she said. Priceless.
Oh, I am sitting back and enjoying it! It beats "the young and the restless" any day of the week.
But the real suicides will commence on November 8th when a bunch of crackers in the south wake up and say:
"SHEEEIT! My PREZ'DENT IS A *!@*?*&!" (insert racist or sexist term here!)
I think MMFA, as a progressive site, would be DELIGHTED if people started voting for Hillary in the general election for whatever reason (they would also probably be equally delighted if people voted for Obama, if he were the nominee).
A. It elevates that nitwit to serious news correspondent to allow her to disgrace the television with her presence and yes, opinions that are devoid of fact, tact or substance...it's the equivalent of having a three year old appear on the nightly news to call all Republicans 'poopie heads.'
B. It makes like of suicide bombers, glad to know trie conservatives find the war on terror so amusing
C. It's MMFA's site, they can do whatever they want right? The free market will decide.
Eden,
As I have explained, the "WITH" posts often go directly to the relevance and placement of why an item is here. That is as valid a viewpoint as anything else. It has nothing to do with MMFA's right to put it here, nobody is questioning that.
And it is certainly far more valid than when somebody just drives by and insults the media misinformer in question with nothing else.
Yes but Tommy this was today's WITH:
"the sensitive, what’s the beef, Ingraham was saying what she believes. gross misinformation, to speak so heinously."
Do you believe any of that adequately explains why this is a WITH item? I'm just saying the WITH is getting to be a crutch for some cats that can't explain the difference between conservative politicians, policies and personalities.
"some cats"
I like that, nobody speaks that way anymore, that is so cool. You're OK by me. :)
HA HA I do talk that way. I like reintegrating old slang.
You're ok by me too Tommy, we don't always agree but it's fun to argue with you.
When reintegrating old slang and terminology (something i likewise delight in) its a nigh impossible task for once its gone there is little chance of return. Some of the most nifty terms are unfortunately lost into the void, but i suppose this is how languages develop.
The main target of MMFA's ire is CNN in this case.
Of course, MMFA does not like Ingram's characterization of conservative deserters at a time of a presidential election as "suicidal".
I think the main 'beef' is that MMFA doesn't like that CNN, "the most trusted name in news," found it necessary to give TV air time to sewage like this.
Pete, I disagree.
This is a very valid and relevant story, many of the conservative base bolting their nominee? You think just because Ingraham chose a hyperbole that it descends into being "sewage". I don't. She speaks for many in her party, it's a very newsworthy story.
OK, now we have a discussion.
From what 've seen so far on this site the Righty posters like to claim that the Limbaughs, Coulters and Ingraham's are not representative of the party. That all Republicans shouldn't be tarred by the shrill diatribes of a few wingnuts with radio shows. So MMFA is pointing out that the MSM does allow these nuts to act as spokespeople and that the MSM is crazy for allowing that. It's like Obama having to apologize for something MoveOn does.
So in reality I would say MMFA is helping normal conservatives like yourself weed to out the whackos, albeit whackos with vast audiences for the betterment of the party as a whole.
Eden,
I hear what you are saying, but Ingraham speaks her mind every day on the radio - she has many listeners and people that agree with her, but she speaks for only for herself, she isn't obligated or responsible for anyone eles. Some agree, some do not. If she says something stupid, it's on her, if she says something smart, it's also on her.
So here's my beef...
My grandmother is a good person, worked hard all her life, raised a big family and kept it together.
Today she spouts O'Reilly word for word and believes it. My uncles do to. In fact lots of people do. The items you usually dislike are the ones that hinge on particular conservative personalities. To your credit you acknowledge that they are a-holes and lower the discourse. My beef is that the general public isn't Tommy. About half the country is dumb as rocks and everything they believe Bill O'Reilly or his kith and kin told them to believe. It's why 50% of Americans still think Saddam was in on 9-11.
WITH? It's here to expose these influencial vultures with vast audiences and no editor for what they are....and thats a craven bunch of loony self servers that aren't fit to do news let alone opine. IMHO of course.
To be even clearer I believe the Right's monoply on talk radio and over representation in the rest of the media allows a constant stream of brain washing to occur, subtle but sly, on the publics airwaves. Certain mantras about liberals would have impossible to spread and cultivate without ditto heads all over the place repeating it ad nasuem to vast captive audiences.
Opinions and jokes become stories and sources then fact and law, and if you tell any lie enough it becomes true to a certain POV.
ie. The way MMFA is dismissively mentioned in the MSM, how O'Reilly's "I've been taken out of context spiel" made it's way over to the accepted dialogue column of what's true and what's spin. You visit here and there are recordings of the shows available free of charge. I say gramma, Bill is lying, he did say that and I can prove it. She says Oh, where? At that fake Media Matters site where they distort his recordings to make him look bad.
Again, lies repeated a lot becoming accepted truth
Eden, look at the positive side. Even comedians are starting to make fun of fox news! The mainstream isn't buying it, and the left never bought it...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/07/craig-ferguson-on-fox-new_n_85567.html
Eden,
Some people believe what they want to believe, no matter what. I am sure it happens on the left as well, so it's probably a wash overall.
If your grandmother is a good person, then that is far more important than any dumb pundit she believes in. Let them have what they have, I have elderly relatives who believe in things that are totally ridiculous too, in my opinion. We just don't discuss it.
Have a nice evening, gotta run.
Even the nicest ordinary private citizen could probably reach about 150 or so people by just being a nice good person and being kind to those around them. Even if someone is involved in public service, they might be able to directly influence the lives of around 400 people (I mean ordinary people, again, not presidents of companies or major charities, world travelers or celebrities). Now, reaching out and improving the lives of whomever you can reach by whatever means is a great thing and I'm not knocking it...
BUT, who you vote for affects the lives of BILLIONS of people--about 300 million here, and people all over the world who feel the effects of our wars, international violence, global warming, and aggressive diplomacy.
So, even a "nice" person can be doing tremendous harm to the world around them by voting for bad people on bad information and bad understanding...
"BUT, who you vote for affects the lives of BILLIONS of people--about 300 million here, and people all over the world who feel the effects of our wars, international violence, global warming, and aggressive diplomacy."
SO what you're saying is that if one disagrees with your world view on these issues, they are just wrong. With no room for difference of opinion?
So, it's not "just because" someone disagrees with me that they are wrong--LOOK AT THE CONSEQUENCES and then realize that one should take some responsibility to get informed, think critically, and vote intelligently, to save yourself and the rest of the world from what's gone on above.
She speaks for many in her party
- tommy / Thursday February 7, 2008 6:22:59 PM EST
but she speaks for only for herself
- tommy / Thursday February 7, 2008 6:35:56 PM EST
You Maverick!
But everytime you go off on this topic you neglect the larger truth. Yes Laura's words, or Bill's or Rush's or Sean's or whichever RW pundit with good ratings and a book deal or two one may name are just their own words. But their success in their fields makes them and their words representative of their followers. I am not a spokesperson of the crazy left, I'm some twit with an internet connection. Laura Ingraham is a spokesperson of the fringe right as a function of her success in preaching to them.
These people are wingnut icons because they are saying what the wingnuts want to hear. When their ratings drop and their books stop selling then their words become just their own and not representative of anything else. You may not agree with everything these blow hards say and good for you on that. But listen to the call in segments on any one of their shows. There are plenty of people who take their words as gospel in stone from on high and those people spread the word. Every ridiculous "the liberals want to give terrorists free educations and houses and make it illegal for conservatives to drive SUVs" starts with these shows.
I'm all for free speech--let her have a "newspaper" that is a bunch of 8.5x11s stapled together that she hands out on street corners, let her put up flyers, let her have her own public-access radio station or website, and let it reach both people who would be interested in hearing it if her diatribes weren't propped up by corporate media.
But, I don't get invited to speak on CNN, YOU don't get invited to speak on CNN. Furthermore, why do I watch CNN? Because I want to hear from intelligent, well-informed people who have done a thorough study of the news of the day and can provide a valuable perspective. CNN is a major TV network, and their commentators can be the best of the best--what standard of quality are they demonstrating here?!?!?
So she could have gotten her point across without hyperbole every bit as effectively as I could have?
I think we can at least agree on that.
But then, CNN probably would not have found her remark 'newsworthy.'
A vote is a CHOICE. This Rightwinger has characterized a choice ... a vote for Hillary ... as "SUICIDE."
Vote for Hillary, you are taking your own life. You are DEAD.
This is Rightwing MISINFORMATION, heard in the Media. Hysterical hyperbole by the "conservatives" to characterize a vote they disagree with as FATAL, a DEATH BLOW.
Next thing you know, they'll be saying NOT supporting GW Bush's policies will result in a MUSHROOM CLOUD.
"Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child’s play. About this, I have no doubt.
I want you to know, I've given this a lot of thought -- I'd forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I'd make it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win.
Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
---Mitt Romney, Feb 7, 2008
BUT LET'S NOT TAKE THIS LITERALLY.
"Give Terrorism a chance, vote Democrat"
BUT LET'S NOT TAKE THIS LITERALLY.
"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," ---Dick Cheney, Sept 2004
BUT LET'S NOT TAKE THIS LITERALLY.
"Next thing you know, they'll be saying NOT supporting GW Bush's policies will result in a MUSHROOM CLOUD. "
But, didn't they alrea....OH!
That was joke grenade! :-)
Vote for Hillary, you are taking your own life. You are DEAD.
Tex, I took it to mean that voting for HC is political suicide, the "death" of republican chances to win the white house and/or of the republican party as it now stands. In other words, it would be conservatives "sacrificing" their vote in order to kill the changes that they perceive are occuring w/n the repub party.
What's the beef?
"some conservatives would...... vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) rather than vote for McCain."
Do you all accept that as a factual claim? Or is that conservative misinformation intended to damage a moderate among them? Please remove tin foil hat before giving your answer.
(If you don't know who that is, watch Rashomon, a film from the 50's by Akira Kurosawa. It's absolutely brilliant)
That said, "suicide voters" seems a little harsh...but I agree, this doesn't seem to be as much about exposing "conservative misinformation," but it is certainly and interesting read to see how crazy some of these people are!
Dave,
Which candidate of the remaining three who all have realistic shots for the White House would be best for the country in your opinion? I'm not asking who would be best for your arm ;).
Fried,
Honestly, I think it would have to be Obama. Hillary and McCain would probably not be able to get anything passed by Congress for a variety of reasons. Obama simply hasn't made as many enemies as those two have. Plus, he seems like the only genuine candidate left. I really think he wants to change things. Clinton and McCain are in it for themselves.
Obama's positions are virtually the same as Hillary's. He is very liberal (and I, personally, mean that as a very sincere compliment), so why would you as a conservative want to vote for him?
I'm glad to see irrational voting go both ways, but there are a lot of really good reasons to vote for Obama, that have to do with his commitment to getting us out of Iraq, improving our health care system, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, undoing the political corruption that has gone on, etc. (I will also point out that all of these are also good reasons to vote for Hillary). These have nothing to do with who's "genuine" (I have no idea what that even means!) or who is or isn't "in it for themselves" (hint: they ALL are--they're politicians! Don't be fooled!!!). Remember all the trouble we got into when we selected a president "we would want to have a beer with"?!
So please, make some effort to learn about how policy positions affect the world in which you live, and make informed decisions, rather than falling for the next "genuine personality" (whether liberal or conservative) that comes along!
I cant see a McCain/Huckabee ticket working, I doubt McCains base like's Huckabee any more than Huckabee's far right support likes McCain. Oh yeah, that and Huckabee is nuts. I think old Rudy was sucking up to be on McCains ticket when he endorsed him last month.
ROFLM*O
For real...what's the beef ?
I mean, come on now....
If Laura Ingraham is that concerned about votes, then she should rally for the discontinuation of electronic voting machines and support paper ballets as the only method Americans should be using to cast their votes!
Like anyones vote really counts anymore....Oye Vay
Here's a bit of the speech Mitt made when he cut and run from the primary campaign:
”If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”
So, if Ingraham and all the talkers really and truly believed in Romney as a candidate it follows that voting against McCain is truly a suicide vote on their parts.
But really, the talkers don't believe in anything but themselves. So why does anyone believe in them?
I'm just saying---
I am a Christian and I can not understand why Laura Ingraham always wears the big cross necklace. She must be trying to make a statement with it, but then she doesn't support the candidates whose actions are at least a bit Christian. Why does she support Romney over Huckabee for example? I'm a Democrat because I believe Christians should help the poor, elderly, disadvantaged, etc. Still, Huckabee does follow social conservative values. But Romney? Why Romney over Huckabee?
She then urged them to go to a Heritage Foundation's website called What Would Reagan Do.
You've got to be kidding me. What Would Reagan Do? Looks like a thinly veiled reference to WWJD. Unbelievable.
WWRD, t shirts coming soon. Most conservative hacks talk like Reagan was God anyway.