MSNBC's Shuster to GOP strategist: "There was no money for ACORN [in the stimulus bill], Doug. You guys know better than that."
February 16, 2009 2:13 pm ET
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
>>I have never witnessed any opposing views being presented, a perfect network for closed minds.
Really? Because I would say that of Fox. If you really think O'Reilley or Hannity presents a fair and balanced show, then you are not to be taken seriously. Both people have a problem with the truth, and frame their shows to promote a right wing agenda. Yes, they have guests with opposing views on, but only as a backdrop, on to yell at them and shout them down. Neither Fox commentator actually lets the liberal guests speak.
Sorry, but do you think I would really waste my time on that demagoge?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrNl6-j9x5w
Your response makes no sense at all. I can see O'Reilley acting the demagogue. So naturally, I don't watch him. I would feel the same way about anyone, regardless of idealogy, who rants and acts like a bully.
Screaming is not discussion. I don't know where you get the idea that I am being led around by others. Your post does not follow logically.
>>You said you would not waste your time on him, indicating that you do not watch him, so you must formulate your opinion of him based on the comments of others rather than your own mind.
Apparently you are not reading my posts. I linked to a youtube video. I didn't need anyone else to tell me what to think. That behaviour, from anyone, even once, it absolutely totally unacceptable. You want me to be open minded, but when your own paragon of news is challenged, he tells his guest to shut up. People from other countries often can't even believe we have this nut on TV. When you want to debate, there is no need to do this, ever.
In addition, O'Reilley has a problem with facts. He constantly gets his facts completely wrong. For example, he quoted from a magazine to show that his Boycott against France hurt their commerce. In fact, the magazine didn't even exist. That is pretty laughable. O'Reiley regularly makes those mistakes.
So I don't see why I should watch him.
By the way, I don't watch MSMBC, either.
Rich wrote:
>>Well that is the left wing conspiracy nut I was referring to in another post. If you have sympathy for him and think O'rielly 's behavior was so bad , then you are a sick puppy. I guess you are such a perfect person that you would never lose your temper with anyone as vile and dilusional as that guy Glick. And he was quite repectful to the jerk most of the time, watch it again.
Now this is funny! You accuse us of being closed minded, but then when someone comes on who you don't agree, you applaud O'Reilley for shutting him down! And in another post you said that we liberals are open minded only fro those who share our views. But that is really your point of view. If the person were on spouting right-wing Nazi views (which I find abhorrent), I would also grant him the right to speak.
Free speech means letting the other person speak, even when we disagree with him.
By the way, the guest was presenting a perfectly rational argument.
>>You liberals speak of free speech but what you really want is free speech for your point of view only.
By the way, when did I ever advocate taking away O'Reilley's free speech?
Or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BAFb97L3KU
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrfPMa3lONU&feature=related
Mr. Ruskin,
Surely you jest sir. Here is a homework assignment for you. Get copies of O'Reilly's interview with Obama and compare it to one done with McCain. What you will undoubtedly see is that O'Reilly's "interview" with Obama was nothing more than an attempt by O'Reilly to "debate" Obama. Of course, O'Reilly tried to disguise this, but in the end- he was the moderator of his own created debate with Obama. Now, if you can show me that he conducted himself the same way with McCain then you will have a point. Unfortunately for you, this is the age of video. All of us can see how differently O'Reilly treats his liberal guests as opposed to his conservative guests. Anyway, O'Reilly's "interview" with Obama was a farce. All he did there was try to make himself appear as the obvious "other choice" to Obama. Never in my life have I seen a person claim to interview someone when all they did was debate ideas with them. He called Obama "Robin Hood" for Christ's Sakes!!!! What kind of interview is that????
While you have a point about Olbermann, it makes no sense to try to make a comparison using O'Reilly and Hannity as examples of persons who perform fair and balanced interviews. Jesus Christ man!!! Ask yourself why O'Reilly never challenges Gingrich, Rove, or Coultier with the same zeal as he challenged Obama. Why is that?
What outlet had most viewers believing
Saddam Osama link lie? Faux News. In fact in study after study Faux News viewers believe more proven lies than any other major cable outlet.
The facts don't lie but Faux New does, pathalogically.
Wow. Just. Wow.
Rachel as Keith's twin sister? That's a new one. If anything, I find Rachel to be a much better moderator and source of discussion than anybody on Fox (or MSNBC for that matter). Her facts are backed up with evidence, and she appears to go more into details without just spouting off bullet points.
And guess what? She can laugh at herself at the end of the segment. I could only hope more pundits were like Rachel and less like Olbermann and O'Reilly.
Being a pundit doesn't mean you need to put on boxing gloves for an interview.
When was the last time you watched them?
You're a typical reich-wing GOPig. You attack the messenger because you can't handle the truth behind the message. You're having a full blown hissy fit defending Faux. It's really, really quite sad, pathetic, but more proof that Faux is a right-wing propaganda outfit. Only the sad, lowly, and myopic right would be obtuse enough to defend Faux.
Hey Rick.... you said in part "I guess you like the underdog."
Why... yes I do... and I'm happy to say that I gave his campaign $80 that I could hardly afford... money well spent if I do say so myself!
As for you coming here on MMfA and trying your pathetic best to defend FoxNoise and their paid for whores... stop... your kind of embarrassing yourself...
As for attempting to compare BillO and Sean to Keith and Rachel?
Good god man.... even my 4 year old daughter knows that BillO and Sean are both nuts!
Um... Rick...
If and when that ever happens over at FoxNoise....
No... I would not believe..... that they meant it!
If there is one thing that was painfully obvious since the day FoxNoise opened its doors back in 1996... is that facts and the truth are not part of the FoxNoise machine!
>>I guess that is why they have been # one for all these years, and polls have shown that their viewers are 50% dems and independents so they are not preaching to the choir like MSNBC is. You should try watching some time, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Being number 1 has nothing to do with telling the truth. But you also obscure the picture. Fox news is number 1 amongst *cable.* But when you compare Fox news to non cable, it actually attracts only a small number of viewers:
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=114&sid=590418
NBC's "Nightly News" topped the evening newscasts with an average of 10.4 million viewers (6.8, 13). ABC's "World News" was second with 8.7 million (5.8, 11) and the "CBS Evening News" had 7.2 million viewers (4.8, 9).
I'm grateful someone injected a few facts into the argument, but I would have loved it if Shuster had insisted the GOP analyst explain why he was using an established falsehood to push his argument. And if he had dodged it, perhaps the other talking head--a democrat, I hope--would have been happy to give his opinion on the use of fake facts.
Also, note that the GOP guy managed to get in another falsehood, the Pelosi/San Francisco $30-million-for-mice story.
This is cable news, where roughly three topics a day are flogged over and over again. Let's get "GOP reduced to making stuff up in phony opposition to bill" in the news cycle, get out a bunch of sticks, and start beating on it.
If your guest is lying to you, that lie should dominate the interview.
I could not agree more. If your guest is going to waste your time lying to you, he or she should have to spend the rest of their time on national TV defending that lie. There should be no other discussion. Let them lie (pun intended?) in the bed they make.
Three topics at MOST. For the last two days, CNN has been obsessed with covering the story of ONE of the victims of the Buffalo plane crash- she was flying home for a hockey game, the hockey game went on without her, but first ten candles were lit on the ice because she wore No. 10 on her jersey, she was an Amazing Person and We'll Never Forget her blah blah blah....nods and sighs etc. from everyone at CNN "fortunate enough to have met some of these wonderful people...."
I'm sorry to sound cold-hearted, but come on. We've got troops being killed in two countries. Congress just passed a massive stimulus bill (though not big enough, in my opinion.) There are plenty of important stories out there. Put the fricking tissues away and get back to work, "News" reporters.
Of course "you guys know better than that." They KNOW they are lying, they JUST DON'T CARE!! Because they KNOW that nine times out of ten, the interviewer will NOT ask them to point to the part of the stimulus package where ACORN is mentioned. Or, they are on radio shows where they KNOW no caller will get through the screener to ask the same thing.
This is a refreshing occurrence but don't expect it to become a common one.
I have a simple formula to be a successful president: Do the opposite of whatever the GOP wants.
It's quite clear after 8 years of the worst presidency in the history of the country, where not a single success resulted, all Obama has to do is find out what the GOP wants, then do exactly the opposite.
Yeah,
Let's give Schuster credit here. He actually called out the GOP hack on the latest lie.
But, he did it in a sort of casual way. He didn't really want to tussle with the GOP hack.
Let's be honest: Schuster is putting his ass on the line. Up in corporate, they're going to be watching his ass and if he continues this tack, he'll soon be cashing an unemployment check.
hey genius maybe you should check which ACORN they are talking about cause there is more than one.
the Acorn getting the money deals ONLY with trying to help out people in housing. has no affiliation whatsoever with the voter registration outfit. period. tuck your tail between your legs and go bow before your lord and masters rush and karl
Times up. Nice job making a fool of yourself, "genius".
http://mediamatters.org/items/200902050020
P.S. There is only one ACORN, "genius".
Rick.Rushkin you wrote would we think it funny if Faux does it...Does what? What we saw David Shuster do was call out a Republican for trying to pass on a lie. That doesn't make him partisan ,just doing his job. Keith O. and Rachel are definitely partisan ,but there is a difference between having two host on your channel who expound a certain line and having a whole station that is partisan. If you watch MSNBC during the day you will see Republicans represented far more than Democrats. During the Stimulus debates Faux news had 5x's as many Republicans than Democrats represented. Faux news doesn't even try to hide it's bias,it's whole premise is that conservative views are not represented and they take it as their mission to present those views, mocking us with "fair and balanced" when they are neither fair or balanced. Just last week they were caught trying to peedle Republican talking points as their own without telling their viewers :
Last week, ThinkProgress released a report showing that, in the debate over the House economic recovery bill on the five cable news networks, Republican members of Congress outnumbered their Democratic counterparts by a ratio of 2 to 1. The analysis tallied interview segments about the stimulus on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC during a three-day period, finding that the networks had hosted Republican lawmakers 51 times and Democratic lawmakers only 26 times.
The economic recovery package passed the House last week with zero Republican votes, shifting the focus to the Senate. Though the venue has changed, the debate on cable has not improved much.
In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that Republican lawmakers outnumbered Democratic lawmakers 75 to 41 on cable news interviews by members of Congress (from 6am on Monday 2/2 through 11pm on Thursday 2/5):
What you "believe" is flat out wrong. It appears YOU are the one that needs to do some research.
Here is the stimulus bill. You failed. http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf
The republicans were talking about ACORN prior to this amendment. Why would this be included in the bill if it is a moot point. This is a ploy by the Senate Republicans knowing it could never be passed. They could never single out an organization and say that they are not entitled to bid for Gov funds. Do you realize what kind of can of worms and law suits that would open up. Name one other piece of legislation ever that has excluded one specific organization from bidding on Federal Appropriations. If this is the way our government is going to go that is scary. What is the Dems put in a gun bill that the NRA can not apply for any federal funds.
More to the point, please proivide a link to information about 4 Billion dollars going to any organization. You can't find it because it is not in the bill. Is there anything that can be said that would make you believe that this money is not intended for ACORN as the conservative media would have you believe.