Goldberg tells Hannity, "I'm sorry, Sean ... but we have to stop going out of our way to find fault with every single thing he [Obama] does."
April 13, 2009 10:26 pm ET
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
Quit embarrassing yourself, hick:
GOP Talking Head Admits it Owns FOX. Don't "Misunderestimate" Republicans
FAIR (You ain't no) LIBERAL...
"Wow that is about the 4 or 5 time in the last few days that an Fox commentator has voiced support for Pres Obams. Kirstin Powers , Mara Liasson, Bill O'Reilly, Bob Beckel and now Goldberg. Maybe there is something to that fair and balanced stuff. "
Who exactly are you trying to kid?
Someone in here? Or yourself?
Just because Goldberg said that he thinks the right (which he is so part of) is now somehow going out of its way to try and attack Obama for every little thing...
This... coming from a guy that wrote that atrocious book about how the media slobbered all over itself for Obama... PUH-LEEZ!!
Even in his little moment of 'defending' Obama (yeah... right!) he still found the time to slam on the left in the same sentence...
So no... the Fair & Balanced moniker of the FoxNoise Propaganda machine is still a load of crap... has always been a load of crap... and will always be a load of crap!
Big deal. Bernie is still a radical reich-wing scumbag, like the rest of the reich-wing propagandists on Faux. Bernie still has blood on his hands for his emboldening reich-wing domestic terrorists . And it doesn't change the FACT that faux is a sponsor and organzing of the radical reich-wing TEA BAG party. Faux is not 'fair and balanced' and any inbred hick that "thinks" otherwise is a complete and utter idiot. Fact.
The issue is, whether or not we wiretap without warrants, which it's pretty clear Obama won't be doing in violation of the Constitution.
Seems as though that yes, Austria speaks German, but it's different, and they also have several other dialects that are NOT German at all. If you're comparing the 2 as public speakers, which it appears that you are, then Obama beats the crap out of Bush every single time. Yeah, I know, it's because he uses a teleprompter. Ha ha, so funny.
Constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald is all over the case of our President acting like Barack "W" Obama on issues like warrantless wiretapping and the torture of prisoners.
That does of course, make a dilemma for conservatives - how to denounce Obama for following in Dubya's footsteps?
real scary , not what youposted but who posted it. what a joke
Soooooooo, 'fair and balanced', hick:
Because Goldberg is finally realizing that criticizing anything and everything might be wrong, well, maybe on one level, or another, he might be rational.
Hannity is not the opposite of Olberman. Not even close. Show me the clips of where Olberman just makes things up out of whole air to push his points? Can't do it. Anyway, FoxNews is ALL pro republican, ALL the time.
Look, criticize the prez all that you guys want. Do it with some facts behind you though. This is what they fail at. Come at him from an intelligent point of view, and if you can do so, then by all means, criticize everything that he does.
"You are right of course, Hannity is Fox's olbermann, a little better perhaps but not much."
I guess if you don't consider that opposite, then I'm not sure what is.
Yeah, there were some liberals on FoxNews that gave Obama credit for some things, and or praised him. And O'Reilly does let a kernel of truth slip once in awhile.
FAIR (You ain't no) LIBERAL...
I went to those links you offered... all very useless! Not really sure what your point is... but I digress... it lends no credibility to your little arguments.
But of course, you will go on believing that it does and that's okay... but come on now... NewsBusters? Those clowns are as useful to news reporting and truth telling as a hole in the heart is to staying alive!
Having read some of the posts...did you by chance read some of the posters and their attempts at attacking Olbermann? Did you?
There was one that I certainly liked, the one that tried to point out that Olbermann only attacked Doocy's kid only AFTER Doocy's kid went on the air and made himself a public figure. But I guess that's not allowed because Olbermann said that he would never attack a person's kid... which he only did...as pointed out... AFTER Doocy's kid went and made a public statement!
So no... Olbermann DID NOT attack Doocy's kid for no good reason... and as far as I can tell... Doocy's kid should shut the hell up if he can't handle the criticism when you go public like he most assuredly did!
failibrul, you sick perverted obsessive freak, when did anyone bring up Olbermann? What is it with you lowlife reich-wingers and your obsession with Olbermann?
The reich-wing have this sick obsession with defending Faux and having a hissy fit over Olbermann. Must be a side effect from the lobotomies. The "people" that run home to watch faux every evening are the same poor souls that have been tuning in and drinking Rush's kool-aide for 2 decades. Faux is just riding the coattails of hate and stupidity that Rush laid out for them.
I'm sure that you have examples of the left calling for revolution during the Bush years right? I'm sure that you have examples of the left (media now, not just some stupid blogger, like myself) chastising the president by making things up right?
What you fail to see, is that for a little over 6 years the media laid down at the foot of the Bush administration, just go on back and read the archives of this site, or just go back and look at political reporting for 2001-2007. Heck, even the presidential campaigns we saw wall to wall coverage of Bush and nothing but negative stories, which is fine, but let's not pretend that the media was out to get Bush. Hardly ever happened.
faillibrul, please show us where any cable or network news channel sponsored and organized an anti-dubyah protest.
The attacks on the Bush Administration may have been primarily on the speed of their decisions (Bush taking a few moments during the 9-11 attacks, the slow response to Katrina). In all fairness, the attacks on Bush's decisions were there by liberal voices and were at times unjustified, but the real criticisms were more from a historical and long-term viewpoint (what could have been done to avoid these attacks and tragedies). Reaction to tragedy and emergency should always be taken to save the most number of American lives, and criticism should be allowed only if the situation spirals into a bad one.
In other words, expect some criticism on how Obama will handle future pirating, but there should be no criticism of his handling of this positive result.
I'm glad to see Goldberg take the high road here. Someone had to react positively to the situation, and I'm glad Goldberg noted that this was immune to any criticism. If only Hannity could take that advice.
"...you remember when liberals wouldn't give George Bush credit for anything? If he came up with a cure for cancer, they wouldn't have given him credit for that."
I don't know or care who "liberals" are, but the kind of argument or debate these Fux hacks routinely make is astounding for how manipulative and dishonest it is.
It sticks out like a sore thumb as big as Florida, that the guy supposedly reaches into the past, to slam some ungrateful "liberals", but instead simply reaches into his own wild imagination:
"If George Bush had found a cure for cancer?"
Why did the Fux hack have to invent a crazy out-there imagined example of something that would have truly been a great contribution to mankind, and a demonstration of selfless virtue, to have cured cancer or to even have tried and worked on such a cure...
Why reach for that ridiculous imagined fantasy of some hypothetical thing George Bush of course never did, why not instead have reached for and cited something George Bush actually did, that he deserved credit for but didn't get, from "liberals" or whoever?
Why didn't this guy cite something actual and real?
I'll tell you why:
Because George W. Bush did nothing whatsoever creditworthy for the American People, in his self-serving criminal lying war-mongering Treasury-stealing eight years administration of our Federal Government, that's why.
"If he came up with a cure for cancer, they wouldn't have given him credit for that."
But he didn't cure cancer, and so why make such a ridiculous imagined example... why not have cited something true and actual?
These Fux are just too obvious, and they debate so strange and dishonest: they make imaginary points in their arguments, and then think themselves to have actually cited facts and truths...
George W. Bush did absolutely nothing creditworthy for the American People, and therefore he deserves no credit whatsoever, not now or at any time past: fact and truth.
No fantasies or imaginations are employed in that statement.
1. Invading Afghanistan
2. Changing Daylight Saving Time to March, instead of April
3. Putting aside coral reefs in Hawaii for protection
4. Trying to get a realistic immigration policy into place (refuted mostly by repubs)
And I remember some other things that he did that I liked, although I don't recall specifically.
That is the thing with these guys, first of all, they totally forgot who Bush was almost immediately after the 20th of January 2009. And they also forgot the fawning press coverage the man got, when he didn't deserve it, mostly because in an effort to not be perceived as "liberal" there were a lot of news organizations who wouldn't say boo to Bush. Prime example? Helen Thomas. She "dared" to ask one hard question to Bush, and was never called on again, for almost 6 years.
Of course, the entire time they were in office, the media was after them. Also, these guys seem to forget the crazy stuff people were completely MAKING up about Clinton for years, and it was not just little fringe groups, it was in the main media sources.
The favorite whipping boy for the right the NY Times was hard core pro war in Iraq. So hard core, they had a reporter who made up very pro war propaganda stories, and they were printed without being checked.
Short memories, they have short memories indeed.
George W. Bush's "good friends" and business partners murdered three thousand Americans in a single morning, and he not only covered up for them by classifying the Conclusions of the Joint Congressional Inquiry's Report into those attacks, but then lied us into a distractionary invasion of IRAQ, and got over four thousand U.S. Troops killed there, for no reason whatsoever involving U.S. National Security...
But why dwell on negatives, when the good news is you can spring forward in March instead of April.
George W. Bush oversaw the completely unregulated theft of over a trillion dollars of the American People's private capital from Wall Street financial services companies and banks, leaving our economy in a near depression, and causing that more than trillion dollars to be made up for, with our taxpayer dollars...
But he signed a piece of paper protecting an inanimate submerged rocky structure in the Pacific Ocean that nobody was interfering with anyway, and so it all balances out.
George W. Bush postured and pandered safely, as other Republicans stoked xenophobic fears about Mexicans, and he went into Afghanistan, when the attackers on September 11 2001 were all saudis (his "good friends" and business partners)...
If that's the good news, then what's the bad?
But why dwell on negatives, when the good news is you can spring forward in March instead of April.
George W. Bush oversaw the completely unregulated theft of over a trillion dollars of the American People's private capital from Wall Street financial services companies and banks, leaving our economy in a near depression, and causing that more than trillion dollars to be made up for, with our taxpayer dollars...
But he signed a piece of paper protecting an inanimate submerged rocky structure in the Pacific Ocean that nobody was interfering with anyway, and so it all balances out.
George W. Bush postured and pandered safely, as other Republicans stoked xenophobic fears about Mexicans, and he went into Afghanistan, when the attackers on September 11 2001 were all saudis (his "good friends" and business partners)...
If that's the good news, then what's the bad?"
Well, I'm pretty sure that Bush was not friends with al Qaeda, but if you're referring to Saudi Arabia in general on 9/11, then you're sort of correct. I don't disagree with you about Iraq, but Afghanistan was necessary, and still is, in my opinion. I won't be swayed on that.
I mentioned the Spring forward thing as an example of something Bush did that I agreed with. Because we are always being accused of being against everything Bush did or said.
Yeah, I remember when Bush supported non regulation. So?
Again, the reef thing, example of something he did that I liked.
The attackers on 9/11 were actually NOT all Saudis, I do believe that there were 2 or 3 of those men who were of Yemeni descent. Saudi Arabia didn't attack us, a group of terrorists who happened to be from, mostly, Saudi Arabia did. Would it have made more sense to you to invade SA? Really? Because crazily enough, the folks who perpetrated the attacks, and also the country where they trained was, yes, Afghanistan.
Bush's immigration policy was a good one I thought, and would have done a lot to correct the issues we face about immigration, illegal, and otherwise. He "allowed" republicans to posture and be xenophobic, because like it or not, those folks do have their own minds, well, sometimes.
I never stated that there was overwhelming good news from the Bush administration, as his faults far outweighed his positives in my opinion.
Then why did he not protect us from the 9-11 attack? I guess Obama is already a hero for protecting us from an attack for the last 100 days?
There was alot of division amongst Conservatives and Republicans today. I found a few particular exchanges on the Mike Gallagher show this morning to be quite amusing. So many of them (conservative show hosts) tried to, "give credit where credit was due," and the audience turned on them. Their listeners didn't want to hear it. You could almost feel their collective conscience crying out, "dont go soft on us now!"
It was entertaining to watch them fall over themselves trying to spin this in a way so that they could congratulate the troops while still some how finding fault with Obama's handling of the situation. Hannity was particularly guilty of this.
There was something, I don't know, "slimey" I guess would be the best word, about todays reporting from the right. I started to get the feeling that their support for Obama was reluctant at best, and that some of them would even prefer to be reporting the worst of all possible outcomes to the hostage situation. I can also hear the quotes to come later when anyone accuses Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, etc. for not ever showing support for Obama, and they beg to differ and point out that they supported his handling of the Somali Pirates.
Goldberg just affraid that the Feds are going to come after him for inciting murder and violence after murderers like the one in Tennessee read his book berating liberals and then went on a shooting spree killing liberals.
http://mediawhoresusa.blogspot.com/2009/02/bernard-goldberg-was-inspiration-for.html
Hannity will repeat this over and over trying to make someone believe it until he believes it himself. Makes me sick how he will hold up a piece of paper claiming "It says it right here, I have it right here." Knowing very well he has left out a word or distorted it in some way. When it is pointed out that he knows he is not quoting it right he will talk over the guest or shout them down. He is shameless in not caring how many people know he is a liar. That is the example he wants to set for his kids.