GOP strategist on Hannity & Colmes: "[S]omeone is going to have to go out there and take [Clinton] behind the barn"
Discussing the state of the Democratic primary race and whether "somebody's going to have to go to Hillary Clinton and say, 'Get out of this thing,' " Republican strategist Pete Snyder said on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, "[S]omeone is going to have to go out there and take her behind the barn."
On the February 25 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, when asked by co-host Sean Hannity whether "somebody's going to have to go to Hillary Clinton and say, 'Get out of this thing [the Democratic primary race],' " guest Pete Snyder, a Republican strategist, responded, "I think someone is going to have to go out there and take her behind the barn." The comment came during a discussion of the state of the Democratic race between Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama. Snyder went on to explain, "I grew up in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and that's kind of the term they use for that."
As the lyrics "Two go out and one comes back/The way it's always been" in the band Agriculture Club's song "Take 'Em For a Walk Behind the Barn" indicate, taking someone "behind the barn" is a reference to the act of taking someone -- or some thing, in the case of the dog Old Yeller -- out and shooting him or her.
From the February 25 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Let me ask you, Pete, if I can here for just a second. Look, Barack Obama is up by, what, 152 in terms of delegates. Superdelegates are looking for reasons to leave her [Hillary Clinton] and move towards Barack Obama.
She's desperately trying to cheat, as far as I'm concerned, and seat delegates when she agreed not to, from Michigan and in Florida. She's not doing well in the polls in Texas now. Is there a time where Bob Novak is right, somebody's going to have to go to Hillary Clinton and say, "Get out of this thing"?
SNYDER: You know, I think someone is going to have to go out there and take her behind the barn. You know, I grew up in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and that's kind of the term to use for that. And I'm not lifting that language there.
Look, you know, Sean, you hit the word -- you hit the right word there: desperate. When you have a campaign that's based on inevitability and somewhere along the line, you show weakness, this is what happens.
HANNITY: Yeah.
SNYDER: This campaign has been all about her personal ambition, not about what she's offering the country. And that's why it's going down. And this is the real signs of a flailing, desperate campaign. They're grasping at anything.
I loved it!
Isn't that something right wingers from kansas do to their sisters?
Only if the sheep run too fast....
My pappy used to tan my hide, out behind the barn
He taught me to be dignified, out behind the barn
But when he took his strap to me,
And turned me down across his knee
He sure did hurt my dignity, out behind the barn
I got my education out behind the barn
And I'm not foolin' no siree
Passed each examination, out behind the barn
But it almost made a wreck out of me
I smoked my first cigarette, out behind the barn
And that's a day I won't forget, out behind the barn
I got so sick, you should have seen,
How that terbaccy turned me green
I almost died from nicotine, out behind the barn
I met a pretty girls one day, out behind the barn
She wanted me to stay and play, out behind the barn
She taught me how to kiss and pet,
And that's a game I won't forget
'Cause we still play that same game yet, out behind the barn
I wish that I could go again, out behind the barn
And do some things that I did then, out behind the barn
Now you may think it ain't no fun,
To be a poor old farmer's son
But you just don't know what all I've done, out behind the barn
We should ignore that they are right wingers and expect that they give nothing but great advice to Democrats...yep.
Is there no limit to MMFA's offended sensibilities? This is a Republican strategist opining on the Clinton campaign with a harmless play on words, not an order, as MMFA references, to shooting Mrs. Clinton.
Sheesh.....
It was a poor choice of words is all. They shoulda just said lynch her. Based on the other day's thread that is considered so much better.
Really? Of course, it's strictly issues and nothing more by the Democrats. Okkkkkkk.............
I won't totally disagree, but I can't think of any recent examples of democrats saying things this bad on the air.
Watching Clinton's attempt to justify her plagerism claim during the texas debates pretty much made me decide to vote for Obama.
I don't judge political parties' worthiness or their sanctity by the nastiness of their pundits or supporters they put on these cable TV shows. I judge their candidates by their integrity, honor, truthfulness, and their issues they put forth for legislation that has real impact on people's lives.
Whether Ann Coulter says more vile things than her liberal counterpart may make for more salacious, headline grabbing "oohs and ahhhhs", but it's all sideline stuff for me. It coarsens the discourse, that's for sure, but beyond that it doesn't motivate me to vote for, or against, anyone.
These people don't have massive audiences listening for polite political discourse.
Which is why they need to be called out every time they coarsen the discourse.
I don't deny the massive popularity of Limbaugh, as for their effectiveness, that is certainly doubtful considering how ineffective they have been with getting one of their own the Republican nomination.
I think they were even surprised at what little influence they really have when it comes to delivering votes, which is what really matters.
Blustering and huge ratings is one thing, calculating and measureable influence over their listeners is quite another - which they obviously do not have.....despite the left's insistence, the facts disagree.
You can't measure the effectives of the Right Wing Echo Chamber simply by McCain's success.
We've been through all this before. And you can sit there and tell me how much influence Rush has, but the facts are in front of your face that it is minimal, at best, McCain is the perfect example of that. Ratings do not automatically translate into influence, despite your insistence.
You can deny it all you want too, it doesn't make it so. Try another tactic.
And like I said one example doesn't prove you point.
Not after the last couple of decades.
Well considering we are living in the now, and McCain is the perfect example of the current ineffectiveness of rightwing talk radio as it relates to votes, then I understand why you want to dismiss it and go back decades.
Sorry, it's not relevant, if you can't see why I can't help you.
If everyone thought that way we wouldn't be having these discussions. I mentioned the other day about my hygenists' discussion about Obama. They called him a mormon, I corrected them so they came up with some other talking point to discredit him. It's pretty obvious they were dumb as bricks, but guess what? That doesn't keep them from being able to vote.
That's the crux. I'm very glad you don't take the pundits seriously, but this was never about you buddy. It's about whether it's right to provide drivel like this to a bunch of drooling fools just because that's what they want to hear. Promoting stupidity doesn't seem like a noble cause to me.
The chunk of Americans that believe (for example) Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 split their votes equally between Republican and Democrats?
The chunk of Americans who believe Obama's middle name is relevant in this campaign are going to split their votes equally between Republican and Democrats?
You have any stats to back that up or is it just another opinion?
I'd like you to give a few examples like these from the left.
I mean total BS that motivates the progressive base.
Maybe you don't see all the postings from right wing nut jobs about Obama's middle name.
It's not my problem you live a sheltered existence.
You see, Tommy, it's based on the MESSAGE.
Republicans use the tactics of fear and hatred, two base emotions that drive the beliefs of the uninformed/undereducated/ignorant voters.
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who support going to war.
Now where do you suppose 44% of the population got the wrong idea about Saddam being connected to 9/11 and who do you think those 44% voted for?
John Kerry mabe?
Get serious.
No, you back up the fact that you specifically said that translated into votes, that they were not split. Where is your evidence that these beliefs of yours led to the way people voted?
I submit to you considering the landslide Democratic victory in 2006 that you have no idea what you are talking about. More proof that you only offer your opinion, as baseless and silly as that is, apparently.
Come on take a stab at it.
You claim you base yours on "common sense." That and 25 cents will get you a NY Post.
What we have here is you once again asking people to not believe their eyes.
Really. Here's the facts;
1) The Democrats trounced the Republicans in the most recent elections, in 2006. And all indications is they will do the same this fall, they will control both houses of Congress and probably the White House
2) The Republicans are about to nominate John McCain as their leader. The rightwing talk radio hosts despise him, for the most part, and have for years. If they had any influence over their own party members he wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the nomination, much less the general voting public.
Ratings and popularity do not translate into votes, as evidenced by the two most recent voting examples above. Is that easy enough for you to understand?
You can spin you way around these facts all you want, but you just look ridiculous.
I'll give you a hint: It wasn't Dole or Bush.
Who did right wing radio support in the 1996 and 200o Republican primaries? I don't think you can even remember.
And did the fact that neither of those candidates got the nomination stop the right wing propaganda machine from rallying the base (which is about 30% of all voters) in the general election?
I know that is never acknowledged here, but it's only common sense that many vote for Democrats as cluelessly as they vote for their opponents. As I have said a hundred times, it probably cancels each other out.
That was in response to the claim made that dumb Republicans vote based on their ignorance, of which I debunked with facts from the 2006 election, and McCain's rise this election year.
You, on the other hand, have offered nothing in the way of stats to support your contention that votes are "not split" between the parties.
So, carry on.
You're all over the lot here.
- TOMMY / Tuesday February 26, 2008 6:36:18 PM EST
This statement is where an inordinate amount of discussions end up with you.
If you started out the discussion with it instead of always ending with it you would save us all a lot of time.
The internet is open all night.
Take your time.
TOMMY SAYS: "Whether Ann Coulter says more vile things than her liberal counterpart may make for more salacious, headline grabbing "oohs and ahhhhs", but it's all sideline stuff for me."
RESPONSE: Who IS "Ann Coulter's liberal counterpart"? I've been looking for her (or him), writing a book a month screed against Republicans and Conservatives, appearing 150 times on every talking head show on cable, wowwing the lecture circuit at universities across the land.
Who IS this "liberal counterpart" you talk about? It must be somebody substantial, to get all that publicity and face-time, but I'm lost to identify WHO IT IS.
So, Help us out here, Tommy: WHO IS ANN COULTER'S LIBERAL COUNTERPART?????
I wonder why Republican strategists aren't on the Republican propaganda channel commenting about what to do with him.
It would make more sense for them to talk about something they could actually do something about wouldn't it?
"This is a Republican strategist opining on the Clinton campaign with a harmless play on words"
And isn't that why we watch the "news" in the first place? To hear "strategists" make word plays? To hear funny little one-liners about putting politicians out of their misery?
As most of you are aware I am a CLinton Supporter and while I reject the premis of their discussion I don't see a problem with the use of this phrase used to get their point across. It was just using a common phrase that really doesn't have a bad connotation in the way the BO's lynching comment did. I also don't think the definition MMFA gave as what the phrase was referring to may not be what everyone takes away from the phrase. I always relate it to a whopping and not a shooting but that is besides the point. I just don't think this comment is out of line. I think a little reasonableness is called for...don't minimize the impact of a statement like BO made about lynching by suddenly trying to find something in everyday common expressions just because it comes out of the mouth of a right winger.