Referencing Wellstone memorial, Beck suggests Democrats "exploit[ing]" Kennedy's death
August 27, 2009 9:42 am ET
From the August 27 edition of Premiere Radio Network's The Glenn Beck Program:
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.
How does one "exploit" a Kennedy? They have been so exploited, spit out and kicked around, that to suggest any further exploitation is simply g-dam stupid.
No doubt, Becky was equally upset at the GOP/rightwing expolitation of Reagan's death {his tribute/memorial/state funeral services lasted nearly a week} -- right?
And if they don't pass massive health care for Ted's sake, then you can say he was wrong.
The audio of the Wellstone "memorial", however, is undeniably chilling.
Well, there was that little thing about tax cuts for the wealthy . . .
Name the tax cuts passed in his name in the wake of that.
I mention the tax cuts for the wealthy that Dumbya enacted 'cause, well, Reagan did the same thing.
In any case, if the 2008 GOP presidential debates were any indication, Republicans definitely invoked him in spirit, if not on paper.
Now, if you're interested in doing this civilly and rationally, please answer my question.
That's simply not true. The memorial was over three hours long, highly emotional, and you are pretending that a minute or two out of it is what it was all about. Somehow I doubt that you have heard anything other than a couple of Fox "News" highlights.
Anyway... So exploiting Kennedy's death to promote a cause for which Kennedy lived - health care coverage for every U.S. citizen - is bad, but exploiting the ignorance of bubba-Americans for a living is virtuous? Glen, your message confuses me and makes me cry.
It would take a week to list all of the dog whistle stuff they exploit along with 9/11, WOT and so on.....
You know, if you actually wanted some background on the event (and I know you don't, but let's pretend), you might think of reading Al Franken's piece. Unlike Becky and the other droolers, the Senator was actually at the event and gives a pretty fair and balanced account of it.
Don't tell me what I did and did not hear and see.
So O'Reilly, according to Franken's account, went and checked, called him back, and told him directly that he got the name wrong, and that proves that he did it on purpose? Really? Cause it sounds to me like he got the name wrong, and owned up to his mistake directly to Franken, only to have it thrown back in his face all over again.
And all of this misses the entire point, why is this the kind of stuff about which people are stomping and snorting? The name of a journalism award? REALLY?
It's just like griping about the place he grew up. I visited Hofstra about three years ago, and Hempstead is just a couple miles past Queens, both of which are less than five miles from O'Reilly's home. If you actually drove around that part of Long Island for a while, you wouldn't dare to claim that his childhood home was in any way lavish. But the larger point is, who cares? Why do people waste time going around screaming about "oh this guy said Peabody instead of Polk" and "this guy said he was a czar when actually it was just elevated to a cabinet-level position" and so on. Seriously! It is because guys like Franken are happy to go to war over inconsequential matters that I place no stock in the things he says.
"Inconsequential matters" = anything Al Franken is proven to be right about
Funny how YOU are willing to put stock in something Bill O'Reilly -- who has proven to be less than factual on "inconsequential matters" such as his childhood home or the type of journalism award he's won - says.
If he can't tell the truth on such supposedly mundane matters, how am I supposed to believe him on more important ones?
Why, the next thing you know, O'Reilly might cite a fictional publication in talking about the effectiveness of his boycott against France . . .
Franken also claimed to have fact checked Jeremy Glick's comments to O'Reilly and claimed they were factual. I believe he said that he had a dozen or so fact checkers. Well , Glick's ststement was dead wrong. But of course Franken claimed it was right.
But it is very easily proven wrong. Glick claimed that Bush the elder was responsible for training and supporting the mujahadeen " beginning in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating" while Bush was head of the CIA. That is just flat out wrong.
Way to go Al!
I'm still waiting to hear how wrong automatically means lie, how this is actually a matter of any consequence other than Franken supposedly being right, and how using Franken's account plus my own experience equates to "putting stock in something O'Reilly says".
Gracious, Shaeffy, re-read your own post . . .
Small detail, I know.
Who's doing the exploiting, again?
It's not. It's called doing it for the nation, and for Kennedy.
Anyway, seeing as the Act passed in both houses and was signed into law, I'd say it was more successful than the immigration legislation proposed by John McCain -- you know, the same legislation he denounced during his presidential campaign . . .
And in other news, while yesterday the brain-trust at FoxNation saw fit to not allow comments on the link to the story of Senator Kennedy's death, knowing what vile, hateful, disgusting people they have posting on that site, today's comment thread about this very subject was predictably vile, hateful and disgusting. So much so that as of a few moments ago they've turned off the comment function. Not before it was filled with 200+ comments that REALLY shed light on what the right wing noise (read: hate) machine has created. Don't stop by unless you've got a strong stomach. It's disgraceful.
What's HuffPo got to do with this? I just clicked on their homepage and see three blog posts and several articles on Kennedy -- some of which have HUNDREDS of comments . . .
But I guess that old double-standard just keeps on rolling...
Actually, NYC was one of a list of the 34 largest US cities the DNC sent letters to inviting them to host the convention; they were one of ten that submitted bids, one of five that were visited by the DNC, but not one of two that got a return visit -- so that's a bit of a stretch there.
In any case, while holding the RNC in NYC undoubtedly helped out the hotel, restaurant, and escort businesses {for a few days, anyway}, I submit that if they REALLY wanted to help out the economy, not spending $12 billion in Iraq would've been better . . .
Wow - do you seriously think that's why??
I am not saying that Democrats are free from political sin, but both sides are guilty of capitalizing on a situation. Conservative commentators seem to forget that, and are quick to point a finger but hesitant to accept any blame.
I study business and politics, and I don't take things at face value. I prefer to know the full meaning of situations.
I am sure that there was a certain amount of business to be gained from the convention, but considering in 2004 the economy showed the highest amount of growth since 1999, any gains would have been short term and not extremely beneficial to the city.
It's that simple.