About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Maddow corrects Armey: "MoveOn never ran an ad that compared" Bush to Hitler

August 16, 2009 11:25 am ET

From the August 16 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:

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.

EMBED

Previously:

Fox News hosts revived lie about MoveOn and Hitler ad

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by hisroyalmattness (August 16, 2009 11:30 am ET)
      1  
      Dick is one to never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Rachel is great and we need more people like her in the media. She is smart, articulate, and sticks to her guns.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pjonesdotca (August 16, 2009 11:57 am ET)
        2
      It would appear that Rachel was wrong on her claim.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (August 16, 2009 12:20 pm ET)
      14  
      I love Rachel.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by deeznuts (August 16, 2009 8:11 pm ET)
        7  
        I'd like to know what "ad" Armey "looked at again this morning" since the ad was never made public.

        Anyone who's still hosting the ad online must have swiped it off the MoveOn site in the few hours that it was even available. MoveOn did the responsible thing and took it down. Anyone who is still hosting it is clearly doing it to disingenuously smear MoveOn.

        Then again, these ARE wingnuts we're talking about.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by robyn20094113 (August 16, 2009 11:46 pm ET)
        5  
        I love the WTF look on Rachel's face in this piture. She's great.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by tbone (August 16, 2009 12:31 pm ET)
      15  
      Nice to see Rachel on the panel - Gregory's shorts need some starch when it comes to Republican guests.

      As for Armey, typical. Takes no responsibility for fomenting uncivil discourse, followed by a blatant lie.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Romario (August 16, 2009 12:41 pm ET)
      20  
      Dick Armey came off like a dick....condescending and all. I love how Rachel came prepared with quotes and called Armey out for wanting to eliminate Social Security when he was in Congress. I wonder how many of the tea-bagging old folks heard THAT.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (August 16, 2009 12:48 pm ET)
        14  
        Most of them didn't even hear it, Romario; all they needed to see was the (R) beside his name to close their ears and believe everything he said...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by dmhack (August 16, 2009 7:51 pm ET)
        7  
        In a business where image matters, what a contrast between Rachel and the appropriately named Dick (Armey). His slumping, sneering, hand-rubbing body language spoke volumes even with the volume off.

        Up until now, the right has generally ignored Ms. Maddow for good reason---she comes armed with facts and proof and they only have their lies---but that's going to have to change. How long before they go after her sexual orientation? I'd bet it won't be too long because if they can't fight her on the facts then they'll try to destroy her character. It's just what they do.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by raven28 (August 17, 2009 8:08 am ET)
            3
          If she chooses to do things that her charachter could be called into question then she should stop talking. Typical democrat.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (August 17, 2009 4:35 pm ET)
            3  
            So anyone who doesn't conform to religious values shouldn't speak? Interesting.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (August 17, 2009 10:56 am ET)
        4  
        Dick Armey was accused of sexually harassing female students while a professor at North Texas State University in Denton in the 70s. He IS a a condescending, sexist jerk.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (August 18, 2009 12:07 am ET)
             
          Was he accused or was he convicted? You should pay attention to some of standards in this country. How many times was Bill Clinton accused?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 18, 2009 7:34 pm ET)
               
            I don't know, "fair"-liberal. What does the Paris Business Review say about it?
            Report Abuse
    • Author by bip84124092 (August 16, 2009 12:41 pm ET)
      2  
      Rachel did an amazing job when she was given time. I hope she'll be on more often but I think she's too real and honest. She doesn't play the game. She's totally in your face with the facts.

      If David Gregory wants to get MTP better ratings it might be wise to reinvent itself with more guests like Rachel. When "This Week" with a bunch or conservative old hacks starts stealing your ratings you're in trouble.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DAWUSS (August 16, 2009 12:45 pm ET)
      6  
      Did Gregory cut Rachel off? Hmmmm...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (August 16, 2009 12:47 pm ET)
      19 1
      No journalist in the business goes in more prepared than Rachel--which is probably why the right-wing teabag-enablers are now going after her with fangs bared...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by reanna-mator (August 16, 2009 6:27 pm ET)
        7  
        I know. She really does her homework before she goes at something. We really need more journalists/commentators like her.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (August 16, 2009 1:32 pm ET)
      21 1
      Rachel is the absolute best!! I'm so in love with her (figuratively speaking of course)

      As for that corporate whore Dick Armey... What a scum sucking nasty pathetic insect of a puny minded man!

      The utter disdain and hatred that I have for people like him scares me to no end that I can feel such disdain and hatred for a certain type of people. But people of his stripe have pushed buttons in me that I never before shown.

      My hatred is not the kind that would make me do something stupid... it has compelled me to expose these kinds of people for the total frauds and treasonous pricks they are!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (August 16, 2009 2:45 pm ET)
        13  
        Especially since Hanni-I mean Gregory--did his best to keep either Rachel or Daschle from contradicting his garbage. And now he's stomping on the "tyranny" button, so I guess w know what Fox will be spouting all this coming week...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by robyn20094113 (August 16, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
        12  
        Capt., I can so relate. I did not know I even had those feelings in me. It was during the election that I noticed these lying, shameless freaks were really bringing the worst out in me. I hate that they are not held accountable for the harm they cause. I hate how they are holding back progress that the entire country would benefit from.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Pinhead (August 16, 2009 3:13 pm ET)
        11  
        The look she gave Armey at 0:31 is priceless
        Report Abuse
    • Author by boxtop455113 (August 16, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
        1
      I don't watch Maddow's show because Hannity is on fox at the same time slot.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fairliberal (August 16, 2009 1:59 pm ET)
        33
      Ah, very good rachel, parsing words. A mere technicality, Move On never ran the ads but they were featured on their website and after the uproar, removed them. More than once as a matter of fact.
      She's learning. Did she intern at MMFA?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by tharri874 (August 16, 2009 2:28 pm ET)
        25  
        It's not a technicality at all. The ad was a submission to a contest sponsored by Moveon.org. The never made it, they never aired it, and quickly removed the ad fron its website and disassociated itself from it.

        It's right there in the link under the video.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (August 16, 2009 5:06 pm ET)
            24
          Yeah, Everyone has unfairly picked on those poor innocent folks at Move On.

          http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2009/08/09/flashback-pelosis-moveon-aired-bushhitler-ad/

          http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36456

          http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/bstein80/moveonorgs-ad-comparing-bush-to-hitler
          Report Abuse
          • Author by hisroyalmattness (August 16, 2009 5:25 pm ET)
            2  
            First thing fairliberal, what is in your links have a problem with reality. LonelyConservative says the ad was created by MoveOn.org. World News Daily Saysthe anti-Bush website Moveon.org has featured a second potential TV ad comparing President George W. Bush with Adolf Hitler.Freedom work states “This morning on Meet the Press, Rachel Maddow denied that MoveOn.org created an ad comparing president George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler.”
            All these statements are wrong. It was not created by MoveOn. Someone in a contest submitted the ad and when they were aware of it, they took it down. By taking down the ad there is no way it was a potential TV ad. Just because they write something does not make it true.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by vysotsky (August 16, 2009 5:52 pm ET)
            17  
            First of all, the post from WND reports that MoveOn responsibly removed submissions to its contest that likened Bush to Hitler. Are you saying MoveOn shouldn't have done that?

            Second, the LonelyConservative post says, "You certainly didn’t hear Pelosi complaining about this ad by MoveOn." Actually, the video they play isn't by MoveOn -- it's a video that was submitted to MoveOn's contest. In fact, it's one of the videos that was pulled by MoveOn. Again, why are you criticizing MoveOn for pulling the submission?

            And lastly, what a surprise, the FreedomWorks post is about the exact same ad, which is misidentified by FreedomWorks as MoveOn's ad.

            "Yeah, Everyone has unfairly picked on those poor innocent folks at Move On."

            MoveOn certainly is innocent of the charge of producing and airing ads that likened Bush to Hitler. But you knew that, because you read the WND story. Right? You did actually read the stories to which you linked, didn't you?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by vysotsky (August 16, 2009 6:16 pm ET)
            17  
            Oh, and by the way, I especially liked that concluding quote in the WND piece by Jack Rosen, president of the American Jewish Congress:
            "Comparing the commander in chief of a democratic nation to the murderous tyrant Hitler is not only historically specious, it is morally outrageous. Comparing an American president, any American president, to Hitler is an outrage."

            So on the one hand, we have MoveOn, which neither produced, selected, nor aired any ad in its contest that compared Bush to Hitler, but instead removed those ads. And on the other hand, we have people like Rush Limbaugh, who does compare the Democratic Party, Obama and his administration's policies to Hitler and Nazi Germany, and Glenn Beck, who calls Obama a racist and compares his policies to Nazi eugenics programs. Or do you think that the difference between these examples is just "a mere technicality"?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by magnolialover (August 16, 2009 6:39 pm ET)
              12  
              Don't forget, Moveon also APOLOGIZED that the submission ad got through and onto the website.

              I don't see any such things coming from our mainstream media about their Hitler/Obama comparisons.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by deeznuts (August 16, 2009 8:07 pm ET)
                6  
                Which they shouldn't have done since it wasn't their fault some yahoo submitted an ad through their automated submission system.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by John Paradox (August 16, 2009 8:49 pm ET)
                6  
                This is more "ACORN" BS. After all, the (R)s claim that ACORN was guilty of 'voter fraud', which means (not what they think, obviously) that someone(s) were able to vote when they were not eligible. In fact, the situation was that ACORN caught the fraudulent REGISTRATIONS before they went through, thus precluding the possibility of actual fraud. Those phony registrations (which ACORN and other organizations are REQUIRED to include) were technically VOTER REGISTRATION FRAUD, or would have been if they had been accepted without comment (and these fakes were pulled from regular registrations and noted as fakes)

                Also, how many of our Neocon apologists have ever volunteered to be poll workers? I've known several people who did over the years.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (August 16, 2009 7:14 pm ET)
            7  
            Are you still desperately crying for attention, child?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by clams casino (August 16, 2009 7:26 pm ET)
            8  
            I love it when wingnuts provide links that prove the exact opposite of what they claim they prove.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by magnolialover (August 16, 2009 7:59 pm ET)
              6  
              Which might go towards proving that they don't read. Or read, and or comprehend too well.

              I also like how Fairliberal stated that Moveon "featured" the ad on their website. They of course, did no such thing either. It was amongst the MANY submissions. And, as others have said, one that they took down, quickly, and then apologized for (as they should have, because they should have had better review before allowing them to be posted).
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (August 16, 2009 11:56 pm ET)
                7  
                Which might go towards proving that they don't read. Or read, and or comprehend too well.
                Bear in mind that this same poster looked at parisbusinessreview.net and decided that it proved that O'Reilly really was referencing an actual publication (while falling for an April Fool's joke), and therefore MMfA was wrong, wrong, wrong for saying that the publication didn't exist. Apparently the overwhelming amount of clues that the site was set up solely to mock O'Reilly went unnoticed, so the idea that FL can grasp the subtle difference between "featured" and "removed" is probably too much to expect.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (August 17, 2009 12:02 am ET)
                  5  
                  In case anyone has trouble believing that. I still find it incredible.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by vysotsky (August 17, 2009 1:03 am ET)
                    4  
                    Wow.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by fairliberal (August 18, 2009 12:38 am ET)
                       
                    Had you read a little further, you would have seen that I also said that in essence , O'Reilly had been had. He ran with that story without checking it out. I knew what the site was when I posted the link. Can anyone prove that the site did not exist when MMFA searched for it.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Brabantio (August 18, 2009 7:51 am ET)
                         
                      If you could read at all, you'd see I referenced the "April Fool's" theory in my post. I read what you said. If you want to keep pushing this point, then address what I said:

                      How about the line "the web presence of the quintessential, underground, Parisian business quarterly". Underground? It's poking fun at the fact that it doesn't exist, that it can't be found.
                      And "Fictional facts for wrong-Headed right-Wingers". Was that supposed to be on the page when O'Reilly's staffer was reading it?
                      Did you notice the bit about "Two Peabody awards"?
                      Does the fact that they tell you to expect a complete on-line presence by Fall 2004 strike you as a little bit odd?
                      Don't you think that if the physical magazine existed since 1951 (or ever, really), that there would be many, many references generated while googling it?...Googling "Paris Business Review" does not lead you to any evidence of an actual, physical magazine.
                      Can you find the "Poor Little France" article, or any reference to it besides this webpage? And since that page supposedly came about on April 1st, 2004, the same day as this elusive article was published, why the hell wouldn't it be put online and linked on that page?


                      So your theory is that this site popped up on April 1st and posted an obvious joke of an article. Then an O'Reilly staffer somehow stumbles across this piece, not thinking that it might be suspicious that it was posted on April 1st, or that an actual French publication would be using the clearly sarcastic title "Poor Little France", and relayed this information to O'Reilly. As soon as O'Reilly does this, it erases not only this article, but any others it posted as well. Nobody else ever saw it. Nobody linked to it or reposted it on another site before it was deleted. Nobody found a cached version and posted it to show how O'Reilly was fooled. The website then transforms itself into a full-blown mockery of O'Reilly, and never posts anything again. Did O'Reilly ever make such an explanation, anyway?

                      And based on that brilliant theory, you expect to show that MMfA was either being dishonest or negligent in its research by ignoring that site, and the only way around that is to prove that the site wasn't around at all at that time? How would you prove that, anyway? As if anyone can be expected to look at that page and think "well, what if this...and this...and this...and this..." before drawing a conclusion. It's not exactly reasonable doubt.

                      Give it up.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 18, 2009 7:37 pm ET)
                           
                        Keep going, "fair"-liberal. Do not stop! I love it. Keep on going. This is a wonderful sociological experiment. How far will she go to "defend" her hero O'Reilly? Tell us more about this wonderful website that you think O'Reilly was duped by. Please go on.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 18, 2009 7:34 pm ET)
                       
                    Oh, thank you for that Brabantio. Still brings a smile to my face. That is wonderful. Says all you need to know about "fair"-liberal and her "sources". Classic.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (August 17, 2009 7:36 am ET)
            2  
            Poor little Commode Boy. Pwned by his own link yet again, which doesn't say what he thinks it does.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (August 17, 2009 11:00 am ET)
            1  
            Posting links to these sites shows how utterly uninformed you are. No surprises here.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (August 18, 2009 12:50 am ET)
                 
              What all of these links show is the repeated comparisons of Bush and Hitler made by the left. Many , many times and undeniable.

              And what you are all ignoring is the video of one of the ads that clearly states "sponsored by moveon.org" at the end.

              But of course they are innocent victims, just like acorn. Libs never do anything wrong.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (August 18, 2009 7:59 am ET)
                   
                Why shouldn't we believe that some right-wingers made the video and slapped "sponsored by moveon.org" at the end of it? If we're supposed to believe that convoluted theory about the Paris Business Review, I don't see why we shouldn't believe something as simple as that.

                But more likely, if you're making an ad for a contest that's sponsored by Moveon.org, wouldn't you put something like that at the end? The whole intent of the video is to win their contest, after all.

                Nobody's saying that liberals never do anything wrong. The point is that Moveon never ran any such ad.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 18, 2009 7:38 pm ET)
                   
                "What all of these links show is the repeated comparisons of Bush and Hitler made by the left. Many , many times and undeniable.

                And what you are all ignoring is the video of one of the ads that clearly states "sponsored by moveon.org" at the end.

                But of course they are innocent victims, just like acorn. Libs never do anything wrong." - "fair"-liberal

                Is that what the Paris Busines Review told you, "fair"?
                Report Abuse
      • Author by vysotsky (August 16, 2009 2:52 pm ET)
        13  
        "A mere technicality, Move On never ran the ads but they were featured on their website and after the uproar, removed them."


        So it's your position that this distinction is merely technical? Fascinating. This may be the first time that I've met someone who maintains that the difference between a winner of a contest and a loser of a contest is one of mere technicality. Or that the difference between removing a controversial submission in a contest and paying to run that submission is just a technicality.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by robyn20094113 (August 16, 2009 3:12 pm ET)
        17 1
        Fairliberal, why do you hate intelligent, well informed people?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (August 16, 2009 6:41 pm ET)
          6  
          It's probably a jealousy thing.

          The other thing about this whole democrats called Bush Hitler too. Well, first of all, I don't seem to remember any liberal media members doing this during the term of George W. Bush, and if someone did, all the same it is W-R-O-N-G.

          As someone else posted, equating the President of the US, ANY President to the US to Hitler and the Nazis is stupid at best, and dangerous at the worst. And it is most definitely STOOPID in the extreme.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by cdmsr (August 16, 2009 7:08 pm ET)
            2  
            It is called projection. Lacking qualities such as intelligence, fairness and integrity, he projects that quality (the absence of redeeming attributes) onto others -- he can't even conceive of a person sincerely meaning what they say. Look at his screen namme: Two, two, two lies in one!
            Report Abuse
          • Author by John Paradox (August 16, 2009 8:43 pm ET)
            4  
            Actually, the term I most often heard in dealing with Dubya (also Rush, inSanity, etc.) was 'chickenhawk', since they all have about equivalent military experience.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by magnolialover (August 16, 2009 9:01 pm ET)
              4  
              Chickenhawk, applies to Bush and his cronies for certain. Rove. Cheney. Et all.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by robyn20094113 (August 17, 2009 12:05 am ET)
                5  
                Hi Flower, I agree with both your posts. As much as I protested the war, I never compared Bush to a Nazi and I never heard anyone else. I always thought he was very stupid. He proved that many times, before he was president but I always said I thought he was likable in the sense that he might not be a bad neighbor. You know the type quick to help you fix a fence, get your cows back home etc. ha. I always said that I thought Cheney was pure evil. He always gave me the creeps. Still I never compared him to a Nazi either. Just a power hungry, sadistic, evil person. Looks like my hunch was right.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by magnolialover (August 17, 2009 8:59 am ET)
                  4  
                  I too, protested the war, before it started, and after (Iraq, not Afghanistan). I did hear people call Bush a Nazi, but I also told them that they were wrong. This was most oftentimes in private with just me and some friends discussing things that were happening at the time.

                  I too, thought him, intellectually challenged, or in-curious as to what was happening around him. I never thought him that bad of a person, but I did think his policies, a lot of them, were craptastic, and we saw how that all ended up.

                  Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (August 17, 2009 10:59 am ET)
        3  
        The ad was never run on television nor was it "featured" on Moveon's website. It appeared there as a submission to a contest. Moveon had nothing to do with the actual ad and they took it down almost immediately after it showed up on their website. The ad was never run. Nothing Rachel said was a lie.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by robyn20094113 (August 17, 2009 1:19 pm ET)
          1  
          He can count on right wingers never checking facts. He can count on them taking his comment and running with it.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 16, 2009 2:28 pm ET)
      9  
      The Conservatives(republicans) are going to learn one day; When they play high stakes poker,raise,and call all hands,they need to have a hand that at least has a chance to win.If you don't people will wonder what else they are bluffing about,and start calling their hands
      Report Abuse
    • Author by overmars jr. (August 16, 2009 2:34 pm ET)
      4  
      For anyone who wants to watch the whole show:

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32437249#32437249
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (August 16, 2009 2:43 pm ET)
        10  
        I couldn't make it all the way through in one sitting; David Hanni--excuse me, Greagory--might as well have been wearing a Rush Limbaugh button on his jacket for all the impartiality he showed...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by overmars jr. (August 16, 2009 2:53 pm ET)
        11  
        Oh man, she nearly has him peeing himself and running away at the 10.30 mark.

        Wow. Stutter much, Dick?

        "Erm... uh... what I find fascinating blah blah blah back on message back on message."
        Report Abuse
      • Author by fawltylogic (August 17, 2009 12:39 am ET)
        4  
        I'd rather carve off my arm with a spoon. I'm glad Media Matters does the watching for me, how they put up with watching this excrement we call "news" is beyond me. Thank you all.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by papa bear3 (August 16, 2009 3:28 pm ET)
      1  
      What is with Gregory, and "Meet the Press" also, the advertising time was almost equal the guest time. Tim Russert is probably rolling over right now. The show has become unwatchable unless you tape it. Charles Wrangle is causing more damage than helping. We need more Rachel Maddows. But you have to admit Bush may not have been like Hitler, but Cheney surely was/is, definitey the hand in the puppet.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ILBCNU (August 16, 2009 3:54 pm ET)
      1  
      Just another "dick" who has been a pain in this country's ass for many years...

      We need media reform in the worst way in America. Mmmm...something like it was before media consolidation was passed under Pres. Clinton!!! Then, just maybe, these moderators like Gregory, would possibly challenge the B.S. coming from the likes of Armey...

      Go Rachel!!















      Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (August 16, 2009 4:37 pm ET)
      11  
      Armey is trying for the "He did it too" excuse. A more fair comparison would be if Bush was called Hitler ad nauseum by mainstream commentators from the moment he won the nomination.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by christopher howard (August 16, 2009 7:18 pm ET)
      10  
      I don't like Dick Armey, but one has to admit that he is perfectly named as a leader of the current right-wing backlash.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hockeytemper (August 16, 2009 7:58 pm ET)
      1  
      LIARS!

      Dick Armey is talking about THIS ad which was found on You Tube by searching moveon.org+hitler. It was the first selection!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpxmYvlLKXo
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpxmYvlLKXo
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpxmYvlLKXo
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpxmYvlLKXo
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpxmYvlLKXo

      Maybe you all should watch it again...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fawltylogic (August 19, 2009 2:49 am ET)
        1  
        That was NOT an ad by MoveOn.org. It was submitted in a contest by an individual, and quickly removed by MoveOn.org. They never used it as an ad, or as anything else.

        Meanwhile, the right-wingers in mainstream media are comparing Obama and the Democrats to Nazis all the time now. Why was this clip made by some anonymous guy on the Internet worse than Rush or Glenn Beck?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by WordBloom (August 17, 2009 12:04 am ET)
      2  
      Keep feet to fire, Rachel!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (August 17, 2009 12:37 am ET)
      6  
      And Gregory of course just sat there and let "both sides" speak, even though one side was clearly lying? Please, can the media just go ahead and declare bankruptcy already? They have absolutely no function whatsoever.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by JustinJade (August 17, 2009 4:03 am ET)
      2  
      am i the only one who thinks that he has a porn star name and is not to be taken seriously???
      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (August 17, 2009 9:01 am ET)
      4  
      One other thing I find ironic, is this. Remember who very recently, we've heard from a lot of conservatives on TV, on the radio, about how we all just need to move on from the Bush years. It's over, nothing we can do about it.

      Ironic that to try and make their point (whatever that is) they are now, yes, brining up things that happened during the Bush years.

      Once again, IOKIYAR.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by vysotsky (August 17, 2009 11:10 am ET)
        1  
        That is indeed tasty irony, but lately I've been savoring another rather delicious irony that hasn't been covered much by anybody of note. Remember how conservative talkers mocked the "Don't Tase Me, Bro" protester?

        Here's what Glenn Beck had to say:
        BECK: And a college student gets Tasered for being extremely annoying.

        MEYER [video clip]: Don't Tase me, bro. Don't Tase me! I didn't do anything wrong! Ow!

        BECK: I say hit him with another 50,000 volts.

        MEYER [video clip]: Ow!

        [...]

        BECK: Coming up, a college student is Tasered by campus police during a John Kerry event. Some say the action was overly aggressive. I say he was asking for it and deserved every single volt that he got. I'll explain.

        [...]

        BECK: Now, I'd like to say that my sense of humor has evolved past the point where I don't enjoy watching someone get Tasered. I'd like to say that, but I can't. To me, Taser videos are a little like potato chips. I just can't watch just one.

        But the latest edition to the genre is a little more layered than the usual demonstration video that local newscasters love to make. Andrew Meyer is a pinhead from the University of Florida, who attended a speech by Senator John Kerry.

        During the question and answer period, he went off on a long, convoluted rant about why Kerry conceded the 2004 election and then proceeded to accuse Kerry of not trying to impeach President Bush because they're both members of the Yale Skull and Bones secret society, you know? Ooh.

        Campus security then tried to gently escort Meyer out of the building, but he seriously resisted. And they felt a Tasering might do him some good. So they did.

        I would have Tasered him just for being stupid enough to listen to John Kerry for two hours, just yammering on. In my opinion, I don't see Meyer as a victim of an overly aggressively law enforcement agency. Looks as though this guy wanted to get Tasered.

        Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Beck now claiming that violence against people who disrupt public meetings is anti-American, unconstitutional and Nazi-like? Huh. I wonder what happened to change his mind.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (August 17, 2009 12:36 pm ET)
          1  
          Hmm, could it be that there is a democrat in the White House, or that he moved to FoxNews? Or a combination of the 2?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by vysotsky (August 17, 2009 1:42 pm ET)
            1  
            Is there? Huh. Now that might explain a few th... nah. No way anybody would be so blatantly hypocritical about basic constitutional freedoms, right?
            Report Abuse
        • Author by fawltylogic (August 17, 2009 12:48 pm ET)
          3  
          That's just the CNNHN Beck, the same one that criticized the health care. The FN Beck is a different person.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by o rly (August 17, 2009 11:06 am ET)
      5  
      Here's a thought - scrap the useless Dick Gregory and get Rachel in there.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (August 17, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
        3  
        Here's another thought - have opposing views explained by those who are prepared and not a paid corporate hack/fearmonger (Armey) or an uninformed doctor who obviously prefers the status quo (Coburn).

        The pro-reform views on this episode were from someone who wrote a book on health care (Daschle) and someone who obviously came prepared with facts (Maddow).

        Report Abuse
    • Author by pbg (August 17, 2009 11:12 am ET)
      1  
      Naw. Bush was Mussolini.
      Report Abuse