White House soiree: Boortz, Hannity, Gallagher, Medved and Ingraham were reportedly invited to meet with Bush in the Oval Office
In a September 16 posting on his weblog, nationally syndicated radio host Neal Boortz wrote that he had been invited to "the West Wing of the White House" for a "30-minute meeting with the President in the Oval Office [which] turned into 90 minutes." Boortz added that the "other invitees were [conservative radio hosts] Sean Hannity, Mike Gallagher, Michael Medved and Laura Ingraham." As the weblog Think Progress noted, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in a September 17 posting on its website that conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has been invited to the meeting but could not attend.
Below, are examples of some noteworthy comments, previously documented by Media Matters for America, from each of the recent guests who reportedly visited the White House:
Neal Boortz
- On the August 3 edition of his radio show, Boortz asked his audience, "[H]ow incompetent, how ignorant, how worthless is an adult that can't earn more than the minimum wage?" Boortz continued: "You have to really, really, really be a pretty pathetic human being to not be able to earn more than ... the minimum wage."
- On the July 19 edition of his radio show, Boortz claimed that "at its core," Islam is a "violent, violent religion," and called "this Muhammad guy ... just a phony rag-picker." Boortz asserted that "[i]t is perfectly legitimate, perhaps even praiseworthy, to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins."
- On the June 6 edition of his radio program, Boortz stated that "[s]o many" of the victims of Hurricane Katrina "have turned out to be complete bums, just debris."
- While discussing protests in Los Angeles against proposed immigration restrictions, Boortz, on the March 27 edition of his radio program, suggested the U.S. government should "store 11 million Hispanics," who entered the country illegally, in the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans before deporting them to their home countries.
Sean Hannity
- On the August 29 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Hannity sought to encourage Republican voters and candidates to ensure a Republican victory in the November midterm elections, proclaiming that "there are things in life worth fighting and dying for, and one of 'em is making sure" that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) "doesn't become the speaker."
- On the August 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, while previewing a discussion about Republican gains in a recent poll, Hannity asserted that "some people are saying" that a Democratic victory in the November elections would be a "victory for the terrorists."
- On the May 3 edition of his radio show, Hannity compared voting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) to voting for Hamas or Hezbollah. When a caller questioned the prospect of democracy spreading in the Middle East by noting that people are "vot[ing] for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas on the West Bank," Hannity replied, "Well, you could vote for Hillary Clinton tomorrow, too, for crying out loud."
Mike Gallagher
- Appearing on the February 8 edition of Fox News' DaySide, Gallagher called the funeral for Coretta Scott King "one of the most despicable displays of ugly political partisanship that we have ever seen" and claimed that liberals "think a memorial service is an opportunity to eviscerate Republicans and condemn this current administration."
- While substitute hosting the December 22, 2004, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Gallagher compared giving blankets to illegal immigrants to "offering a burglar the right tools to break into somebody's house."
- While substitute hosting the June 28, 2004, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Gallagher asserted that a Bush-Cheney '04 video (which attacked Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry and juxtaposed footage of Democratic Party leaders with footage of Hitler) "brilliantly put together side by side Al Gore's raging maniacal rant next to Adolf Hitler."
Laura Ingraham
- On the July 19 broadcast of her nationally syndicated radio show, Ingraham stated that Hearst Newspapers columnist Helen Thomas -- who is of Lebanese descent -- "represents Hezbollah in the White House press room." Ingraham's comment came after she played an audio clip of a White House press secretary Tony Snow during a July 18 press briefing saying, "Well, thank you for the Hezbollah view," in response to an assertion by Thomas that the United States had not made an effort to stop Israel's recent attacks on Lebanon and that the "perception of the United States" was that the government supports "collective punishment against all of Lebanon and Palestine."
- On the May 1 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Ingraham claimed the "supposed mainstream media" are "making the same bet that [Sen.] Ted Kennedy [D-MA] is making" by supporting a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Ingraham maintained that just as Kennedy supports granting a path to citizenship because it will "redound to the Democrats' benefit," presumably through votes, the media -- which she claimed "tilts to the left" -- support citizenship because it will bring "new viewers, new listeners, new customers to the more liberal viewpoint" to which the media purportedly cater.
- On the March 21 broadcast of NBC's Today, Ingraham decried NBC News for "report[ing] only on the IEDs [improvised explosive devices], only on the killings ... only on the reprisals" in Iraq, and for "reporting from hotel balconies" instead of in the field. Following the explosion of a car bomb in Baghdad, Iraq, on May 29 that killed two members of a CBS News crew and severely wounded a third, Ingraham defended her remarks. On the May 31 broadcast of her nationally syndicated radio program, Ingraham stated that when she "brought up the hotel balconies, that was coming right off a Richard Engel report from a hotel balcony about the latest IEDs going off." She added that "[a]ll the guys [troops] I talked to in Iraq were tired of it, and I was speaking for them." Noting Woodruff's injuries in Iraq, Ingraham later stated that although "our hearts and prayers go out" to the "brave" journalists in Iraq "who are on the ground, getting the facts out," "I will not change my view that giving context in this reporting is important." She continued: "[Y]ou have to see the forest through the trees, here. The insurgents not only know how to play to the press, they manipulate -- let's make that very clear."
- On the April 11, 2005, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Ingraham stated that Democratic Sens. Kerry, Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) are "on the side of" North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il because of their opposition to John R. Bolton, President Bush's nominee as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (Bush subsequently gave Bolton a recess appointment, which lasts through the current session of Congress).
Michael Medved
- On the August 2 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, Medved dismissed as "ridiculous" Hollywood agent Ari Emanuel's call to "professionally shun[] Mel Gibson and refus[e] to work with him even if it means a sacrifice to their bottom line" for recently making anti-Semitic remarks. Medved declared that Emanuel is "[filmmaker] Michael Moore's agent, and Michael Moore has done far more damage to the Jewish community, particularly regarding the issue of Israel, than anything Mel Gibson has ever done."
From the September 16 posting on Boortz's weblog Nealz Nuze:
WHAT I DID ON MY SUMMER VACATION
Last Wednesday afternoon I got an excited phone call from Belinda [Skelton, producer]. The White House had called and wanted me to be present for a meeting with the President in the Oval Office on Friday morning.
So, here I am, in the middle of Arizona, about 90 miles north of the Mexican border, with nothing but hiking and workout clothes, and I having to figure out a way to get to Washington DC by Thursday night.
I arrived at the West Wing of the White House at the appointed hour. The other invitees were Sean Hannity, Mike Gallagher, Michael Medved and Laura Ingraham. What was supposed to be a 30-minute meeting with the President in the Oval Office turned into 90 minutes. Though the meeting was completely off the record, there is much that can be shared about the visit.
All of this to tell you that I have extended my vacation for two days to make up for the two days lost on that trip back to the East Coast. I'll be live with you on Wednesday.
The desert awaits! No rattlesnake problems as of yet. Professional courtesy, I suspect.
They are shills for the administration. That doesn't surprise me. What does is today's conservative gulping the right wing rapture crowd's kool-aid. "Rev. Jones, paging Rev. Jones. We are running low on punch."
What would Goldwater think of his conservative movement now? According to his daughter, he would have left the Republicans a long time ago.
So Bush invites media people who support him. Big deal.
Was there equal scrutiny by the left when Clinton had sleepover guests in the Lincoln Bedroom, including Barbra Streisand, as his guests? There may have been by the right and that was just as silly.
Who would you expect to get invited? Rhandi Rhodes? As long as Bush is there, who he invites is his business.
Yeah, that's a good comparison - Sean Hannity, who broadcasts anti-Democratic invective to millions every day on radio and cable television...
... And Barbra Steisand. A singer and movie star. Who writes about politics now and then on her blog.
OK...
And this little visit will change what exactly? Hannity and the rest are mouthpieces and excuse makers for Bush all day long before this visit, and will be afterwards.
What is your point? They are going to gush about him even more? I doubt it.
In my opinion MMFA is just reiterating the obvious here. Most of us know that the conservative pundits named in this thread are biased mouthpieces for the White House. This thread is for any of the newbies who may be unaware of that. So the next time they read a column by one of these people they will be able to assess it in the proper context. That's just my two cents and I agree Bush can invite anyone he wants to the house that we are letting him use. He recently invited Clay Aikens and appointed him to some silly commission, committee or something.
But it doesn't fall under any conservative misinformation guidelines that I can determine. It looks like simply whining about who Bush invited to the White House.
This does fall under conservative misinformation guidelines. The fact that not only conservative, but over the top conservatives are invited to the White House, shows that they are tied to the Administration. Especially during an election. It just shows that they are gathering together to manage the media with the Republican Talking Points. Of which, most of the pundits say they don't participate in.
In either case, lib or con, I wish that all Presidents would have meetings with people they disagreed with. It might puncture that bubble that Presidents seem to fall into.
No, this is not conservative misinformation. It's common knowledge after simply listening to some of the aforementioned commentators that they ARE occasionally over-the-top and biased towards the Bush Administration, but them meeting with the President really doesn't mean anything.
From what I've seen, most Republican talking points originate in Congress or from the leaders of the GOP. I can't really imagine that there's a devious collaboration between the Bush Administration and Republican media figures. If there was, maybe an open meeting with them wouldn't be the best way to go about it...
Actually there is and has been. See this link:
[link to www.buzzflash.com]
I have heard Rush Limbaugh indicate that he receives a daily missive from the White House of their talking points. Also, I read a quote from the head of the mega evangelical congregation in Colorado Springs that he speaks to Bush or one of his advisors every week. And it is odd that whenever Karl Rove is testing a new phrase or buzz word, miraculously some of these right wing pundits all start using the phrase or word spontaneously at the same time. Come on, open your eyes... this White House uses the right wing media to its full advantage. Would you really expect Karl Rove not to?
Do you never tire of repeating the "where's the misinformation" mantra? How much time do you waste every day telling us, in so many words, that "this is silly"? It's not up to you what MMFA chooses to feature on their site, and it's pointless to keep harping on them for straying (in your eyes) from their mission statement. Obviously, this story is meant to underscore the lapdog status of the White House guests. If that's not relevant enough for you, then move on. Jeezus.
Tommy's viewpoint is valid. This article really doesn't do much but let people know that he met with commentators who MMFA users may define as hateful and over-the-top.
However, I did take a look at the actual MMFA mission statement:
Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.
I see that as a free ticket for MMFA to post whatever they want, as long as it may be relevant later in the media, or if it may later lead to conservative misinformation. Whether or not an article is conservative misinformation on its own is one thing, but whether or not it may lead to misinformation later should be the question.
For instance, if a FOX News political analyst says that the Bush Administration's handling of the Katrina crisis was some of the best leadership our country has ever seen - would it have been wrong for MMFA to post an article dealing with the failures of the Bush Administration, seeing as how it's not conservative misinformation?
Who knows if this article is relevant. Just some food for thought though.
to post what they want. it's their site. get over it.
I'm not having trouble "getting over" the fact that MMFA can post what they want. I'm pointing out the part of the mission statement that I feel clearly states that posting stories such as this is JUSTIFIED and part of their stated objective.
Mr. Irrelevant. If you are so put off, then go.
What a moron.
This post simply reaffirms the ideological bent of this President. Any individual with integrity would distance themselves from persons who make such abhorrent remarks, but this President invites them all over at one time to have a little party in the Oval Office. And, as someone has already noted, your Lincoln Bedroom / Streissand comparison is ludicrous. These jerkwads actually have a soapbox to stand on everyday, and unfortunately influence voters. Meeting with the President may have the effect of legitimizing their points of view in some circles.
Don't you ever get tired of making your "this post doesn't belong here" comments? Why don't you read them over a few times and think about there content overnight? Then maybe you won't waste everyone elses time with your BS threads.
The term “The Fourth Estate” is shorthand for the system of checks and balances in the U.S. We all know (thought) the role of the press is to play watchdog and to hold government accountable for its actions at every turn, without fail, apology or exception. The fact that “The Fourth Estate” is eroding rapidly is obvious. President Bush’s shameless meeting with these unethical media types represents his careless regard of yet one more American bastion of liberty.
You’re right Tommy is a moron. President Bush should only have guests who are right and don't influence voters. Like liberals, liberals are not over top or wrong and therefore should be the only one's allowed in the White House. Now that I think about it I will probably stop letting my conservative friends come over to my house because they might influence my voting in November.
the first post on any thread should automatically be "why is this on here? where's the misinformation?" by tommy. let's save him a little time.
I would have looked at this and said, "why, after years of conservative only invites, does bush think it a good idea that he continues to only feed his base rather than try to serve the entire country"? But that's just me. At least clinton walked down both halves of the isle. But that's ok, paybacks are hell...
First he might have needed to be in a room of people as disconnected from reality as he is and with Hannity in the room well its hard to find anyone in American even dumber than Bush and he might have felt it was time he was in the actual physical presence of one of them.
I think you're on to something.
This meeting of Bush's most avid MEDIA supporters was obviously a calculated ROVIAN move to coordinate "the message" and get the propaganda in sync with the White House's latest perversions of language and truth (for example, "stay the course", that ballsy and macho phrase, has fallen out of favor -- since staying the course means hundreds more dead American soldiers and thousands more maimed and dismembered -- so NOW the new phrase-of-the-day is "ADAPT TO WIN"). A message has more impact is repeated VERBATIM by all in the employ of the regime, much as religious MANTRA.
Secondly, though, I believe this shows Bush in need of an "intervention" of sorts, a PEP RALLY to bolster his spirits and to be slobbered on by the rightwing's most accomplished slobberers. Perhaps Rove is concerned about Bush's "morale" considering his popularity and job performance numbers have been in the toilet for ages. That's bound to get a Texas boy down, and the sure cure is to submerge him in a glorious love-fest with his most able Media Ministry personalities.
In such a rarefied atmosphere, where REALITY, DEATH, and INCOMPETENCE are laughed away, where ILLEGALITY and the Constitution are scoffed at, and phrases like "the greatest president ever" are likely to be lavished on the Prez (along with vigorous demonizing of ANY who dare think or speak differently), Bush was bound to emerge energized and shot through with the feeling of lordly infallibility (perhaps even an erection!).
What's really instructive is that Rove determined Bush NEEDED this injection of ego-gratification. Must be Bush is seen as nearing a breakdown, which Rove hopes to stave off.
Where is Monica Lewinsky when she could do something GOOD for this country?
I'll let YOU choose.
3000 dead American soldiers (for nothing), 20,000 maimed and dismembered, tens of thousands of INNOCENT Iraqis dead, and no end in sight ... or ...
Get the President a BJ.
I don't know that Bush attacked Iraq out of sexual frustration, but I DO know that Clinton didn't get us involved in such a bloody quagmire.
So, you may be on to something. It's no contest in MY mind which is the better situation. How about YOU? Are you SERIOUS in your suggested "equivalence"?
Obviously Bush is recruiting all of the major right wing pundits for a coordinated election year media blitz. This isn't just like inviting movie stars.
Again, as in so many other threads, Tommy wants to change a topic. In this case, he'd really rather we didn't discuss the serious matter of right-wing, progressive-hating talk show hosts being given the red carpet tea and cakes treatment at the nation's White House (my my, there's a true stab at non-partisanship by the "uniter-not-a-divider" Bush). Tommy would much prefer that we change the subject to, oh, Bill Clinton.
to you. It's significant to anyone who knows that these individuals have lied and will most likely continue to lie for the Bush administration. They're all divisive hate mongers that are doing a disservice to the country. But in typical fashion you poo poo something you think is irrelevant. This unfortunately is very relevant and telling. You lie with dogs and you get fleas. In this case the dog and fleas are interchangeable. They sully each other with their presence. When a president invites highly dubious talking heads to the oval office for a little meeting that's alarming and unethical.
Guests at the white house are OUR business.
>>"Big deal"<<
Tommy's predictable response to 99% of Media Matters items.
There was equal scrutiny when the Clintons invited guests over to the White House.
Every lurid detail of Clinton's personal life was scrutinized. I remember a story about an airplane being delayed over a haircut.
I remember hearing stories about Hilary's illicit affair with Vince Foster which led to his "murder".
I remember an endless parade of women the Bill Clinton allegedly slept with.
It is amazing the short memories people have.
So when George Bush invites his propaganda posse to the White House for a pep rally and talking points strategy session, I'd say the public has a right to know.
It is interesting Rush didn't bother to show.
And I do find it odd that Coulter wasn't on the invite list considering GE's willingness to promote her stuff on all of their channels.
This is NOT your website. IF you dont like what they post why not start your own website and do it your way. Keep telling me what you dont think should be here and why YOUR judgement on the matter is better and more important than the people who actually pay for the bandwidth but try to imagine how little I care.
...the kind that doesn't make you laugh or even smile or is at all amusing or informative in any way.
I hit this web-site just this morning, and start clicking the items, in the order in which the topics interest me...
I click the "PBS-Lehrer-Frist-terror-Reid" item first... I want to maybe comment on how much the present "anti-terror" legislation (detainee interrogation, torture, etc.) is just campaign noise, intended to maybe bait Democrats into siding with "terror suspects"... and that Democrats seem not to be taking the bait, leaving just the GOP Senators to make as much noise as possible... and I see that there was only a single comment posted to the item, and so I don't add to it... and figure this "detainee" noise will go away soon as a campaign issue, when the GOP Senators get tired of their sham oppostition to the president on this one... and that Iraq will come back as the issue, as it always does.
I then click the "Iran intel, Iraq intel, WaPo mea culpa" item... likewise, I see Iran as highly distractionary during this campaign... but the item has Iraq in it, and it has the term "mea culpa"... so I clicked it, as I tried to recall whether "mea culpa" is best interpreted as "my bad", or "I'm responsible"... and again, there's just a single comment to the item, and again, I don't add to it.
Then I come to this item, the "bunch-o-hacks having a soiree in the Oval Office" item... and I click it, not so much for the subject matter, as for the word "soiree"... I believe it means some kind of dance among a bunch of folks; they can be hacks I guess; not a square dance or a waltz, I don't think; but I'm not sure... then I begin to doubt myself, whether a "soiree" is even a dance; maybe it's a sewing circle or knitting group; or maybe it's what the chickens do, as they scrabble about the yard at feeding time... and I see that at the time I click, there are 40 some odd comments to the "soiree" item... and I figure:
"That makes sense that so many should comment on this item, as opposed to the others. This item has hannity's name in it, and the posters here seem more oriented to personalities in the 'media', than to issues. And so sure, a string of comments on what they think of hannity."
But then I get to the point of clicking the "SHOW" Comments drop down menu button, and I think:
"Wait... any time I see there's a lot of comments, they're never anything I want to read... they're always just a long string of bickering chatroom nonsense... a long and staggered comment thread, of folks typing inane stuff back and forth to one another."
And sure enough, that's what I saw.
At the head of it was a poster who, for whatever reason, dozens of comments have to be attched to his every post, it seems... heck if I know why... post your thought if you like, but bicker and rant in an inane chatroom way? I don't know know... why do that here... why not go out into the real world, and argue with real people... shout at buildings from the sidewalk even, I don't know... but it's inevitable it seems, to see the comments thread become just some sort of worthless chatroom dialogue, always kicked off not by the poster at the head of the thread, but by the dozens who can't help themselves but to respond... instead of the comments on the item that I expect to see.
And then way at the end of the dialogue, as the last word kind of, I see what I expect may appear just above what I'm posting here... a comment addressed to the guy who everybody just had to respond to:
"This is NOT your website."
No, maybe not, I thought...
But it sure is his comments thread... so long as everybody finds his comments so fascinating, that they have to make an inane chatroom string of dialogue to follow them... a string of comments that easily exceed in length, the item that appears above them.
...maybe there are a disproportionate amount of posts in this thread because this story was posted much earlier in the day then all of those above it. Either way, you're simply doing the same thing that everyone who responded to Tommy's dismissive post was doing, and that is complaining about the lack of serious discussion. OK, so it was definitely piling on at a certain point, but maybe we all simultaneously reached the limits of our patience with the repeated use of the troll-like mantra "Where's the misinformation?" and it's variants. If one noisy thread like this can at least put a temporary stop to those distracting dismissals, then it was worth it.
you're right on point DEM02020. The platform for substantive debate that this site offers, if properly utilized, is almost peerless. For the short time I've been posting on this site I could never quite discern the motives of many of the contrarians that visit. Well, no longer is that the case. You have brought their design into full relief. Distraction, distraction, dis them to prevent traction.
While nobody appreciates a cultural scold, the cult-like appeal of media personality is something akin to heroin. This is not to suggest punditry critique as innately without value but this country is dusting off missiles aimed at yet another country that poses dubious threats to the world.
...generated by this crew, I'm surprised the White House didn't start floating in mid-air.
If my suspicions about the party are correct, somebody has to subpoena the blue dress Hannity was wearing that night.
Exactly, and if Laura Ingraham starts smoking cigars, I will raise my eyebrows.
I have to say that in that case, I may raise more than an eyebrow. Sorry for the sophmoric humor, but if I were Pres., she would definitely be the one I would ask if she had ever been shark hunting at the White House before.
Good one Tommy.
for a cancer patient to smoke cigars. From this whitehouse it will more likely it will be a "wire tap" or "probe".
I know one of the topics of conversation must have been what GW, Neil and Medved didn't do when they were of age to fight in their generations war, Hannity & Ingraham could have piped in about how when the nations military was involved in Dessert Storm, they was much too busy.
I'm sure Rush would have been there but he had probably soiled his sheets and hood the night before. He couldn't get the soot and smell of burning wood out in time.
Of course everyone knows that this is just an attempt at humor. I don't have my own show like these "humorists" who visited the White House", but I know, I'm just starting out. Maybe some day.
if there's another Dessert Storm, I want to be first to the Apple pie.
It took me all morning to realize that your response was to my misspelling of the word Desert. Maybe the right is correct about all of us "dumb" libs.
Hell, if they're going to offer dessert, I'll get in line right behind you. Hopefully, Oscar, they'll have some ice cream to go with the Apple Pie.
just couldn't resist the poke at the misspelling. I also hope there is carmel topping with the ice cream and apple pie. Have a great dessert (or is that desert?)!!
They just stopped by to pick up their paychecks.
Cheerleader practice.
Haha Good one Irony!
What a cast of characters eh? My FIRST reaction when I read THIS headline was that at least Bush had the good sense NOT to invite Ann Coulter.
Just an HONEST question here [so please no vindictive replies] Does anyone know IF Clinton invited *Clinton-friendly* pundits, journalists, columnists, TV or Radio hosts to the White House? Maybe THIS is common among Presidents.
That said, Bush could have invited a LESS inflammatory gang to visit among the MANY other Conservatives out there.
But I am only aware of Al Franken, but this was before Franken was had his own show dedicated to politics although he had written a book or two about Rush Limbaugh at the time.
The POINT is, they all have PUBLIC airtime sanctioned by the FCC. It is the PUBLIC's business to know who is invited to the White House for any reason, excepting confidential or secret matters.
Hannity in particular is hypocritical, as he works for Fox News, which purports to be "fair and balanced" It is not. He is a total shill for the GOP and that fact needs to be repeated at every opportunity. MMFA is doing its job of reporting on the takeover of the media by right-wing corporate interests and the lack of balancing viewpoint from the left.
and furthermore, the deregulation act of I believe 1987, which allowed massive mergers and acquisitions in the media by huge corporations like Clear Channel, Fox, etc. was sponsored by the Reagan administration, a REPUBLICAN administration. The aftereffects have been profound. The media is in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and the intimidation by the corporate bosses have strangled real journalism in this country. (gasp, rant over).
Is this a response to Clinton's lunch with the blogosphere? Are the chattering chipmunks of the right feeling they aren't getting face time sufficient to justify the constant backrubbing and toe-sucking?
that Karla Rove was having a hissy-fit because that great journalist Mr. Gannon wasn't invited. Of course, they have used the Lincoln bedroom free of charge.
All seriousness aside, I heard that Rush Limbaugh did not want to be seen with such low-lifes. That is from a good source. Being seen with Hannity, Boortz etc. was okay but the White House gang embarasses him..Oh no, where was O'Reilly? Imagine, these REPRESENTATIVES of the REPUBLICAN PARTY were singled out and publicized but the people who designed our Energy Policy with the Vice President were protected all the way to the Supreme Court. Also, with all of these big mouths talking at once around the table, who was listening?
You know, I'd almost forgotten about Gannon, the gay prostitute who got into whitehouse press conferences because he was a right wing plant who asked questions the regime wanted to hear.
In these days of "heightened security," Gannon should have been jailed as a security threat, yet he got in. And the "mainstream" media let it go after a couple of days.
"Gannon," by the way, has his own website
[link to www.jeffgannon.com]
I have it bookmarked under "right wing loons," though if I were gay and in need of release, I may have it down for the same reason.
Hmmm...maybe Gannon and David Whorowitz get it on in their time off. Picture that...
Should be about this and nothing but this. We have to find out whether this is true. If it is true, every reporter in the room should ask the president why he invited liars and bigots to soil THE PEOPLE'S WHITE HOUSE that we let him live in. Then every reporter in the room should ask Mr. Bush why he should not RESIGN IMMEDIATELY for trashing the office to which he was elected and the White House he occupies. He ran in 2000 on a platform of restoring dignity to the White House. I'm sorry, but what Bill Clinton did in his office was shameful, but it had nothing to do with public policy, and it could have remained private for all I care. But old Cement Head George inviting these bigots and FCH (fellow cement heads) to the White House is an impeachable offense. He cannot invite anyone he wants to the White House (and it's invite WHOM, Tommy) and expect to get a free pass. The press needs to run this one to ground and, if true, rip this idiot to shreds over it.
Bush: "You aren't doing enough to catapult the propaganda! The reporters are actually questioning me about the war! Sell me to the masses, make them obey me again! I am the War President! How dare they question me?!?! Make them obey, dammit!"
Gang of Psycho TV and Radio People: "Yes, master! Right away! We'll push the message on the sheep! Can we lick your boots clean, master?"
Bush must have the cleanest boots in the world.
Tommy,How did Lincoln sleep in the Lincoln Room,when it wasn't in existence till the early 50's, that is the 1950's? Do you think when Boortz was hob-nobing with Lil"w" that they joked about his draft-dodging ?(Boortz is a Class A draft-dodger in his own right),Or maybe Boortz tried to impress Lil"W' That he graduated from Texas A&M,and that they were soul-mates,both having lived in Texas. Oh I have a correction to make ,Boortz never graduated from any college, says he's 6 hrs short.Do you think that the White House had to bring in some extra help to clean up the 6 inches of drool and slobber,left by those ass-kissing fools
You can smell it in the air. George Bush is desperate. If he loses one house of congress, it's over. There might not be impeachment, but there will be a long series of aggressive investigations. The manipulation of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War, the illegal Nixon-esque wiretapping, the Valerie Plame affair, the response to Katrina, asking Richard Foster to lie to congress about the cost of the medicare plan, and a whole littany of other crimes that would cost Clinton his head, literally and figuratively. Little Georgie is hoping that his shills in talk radio can once again do what Limbaugh did in 1994 and keep the sheep in the herd, because many are beginning to flock over to another herd called reality and thinking for yourself. Maybe Limbaugh sees the writing on the wall and decided it just wasn't worth it. He knows what he did in 1994 probably isn't going to happen again.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
Exactly... Everything Bush touches turns to crap and instead of re-evaluating his policies and practices he turns to aggressive public relations instead. So typical...
I haven't had time to go over all the comments, though I DO like to do so. There's a lot to learn from them, from people who are as disgusted with the Bush regime as I, those right wingers who like to think they're saying something, and some others who ramble on as if they've been thinking.
My only comment on these morons on whom Dubya relies is that they're complete ideologues. I'm not sure if they even take themselves seriously--like is bill o'leilly really a right wing pundit or a self-promoting salesman who knows his market/audience? I vote the latter.
But Hannity? He's an undereducated flatulence with a medium. Ingraham? Coulter spelled in a different way. They're not substantial; they're divisive and intentionally so--and THAT'S where they make their money. (Note that Hannity did a show "free" for a community college in Utah to rival a Michael Moore presentation. But he required a private jet, etc. for a cost of $50,000. So much for free... Regarding that, see the documentary "Horns and Halos.")
As to some idiot's comparison of these alleged pundits with Streisand, first of all, I don't like Streisand, but as others have pointed out, she's a singer/movie star not a media pundit. If you can't understand the difference, that's your problem, not the problem of those who can.
I was trying to make some comparison, "If Clinton had hosted..." and I can't think of anyone. Just remember that Hannity, et al at least claim to be ideologues (and, perhaps as another poster commented, they're as dumb as Dubya!) THAT'S what frightens me. If Dubya got a taste of reality he might be almost human. Now we need to impeach, convict and punish him BECAUSE of the ideologues who advise him/his machine.
Even Rush Limbaugh was too embarassed to be in the same room with these morons. All they needed was the presence of Jessica Simpson to raise the collective IQ into triple digits.
Actually, he might have been more embarassed of George Bush. Probably both the radio hosts and George Bush. Or maybe he was just too creeped out by Michael Medved's face. It's bad enough seeing him on television. [link to i.cnn.net]
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
Lets not forget Neal Boortz. [link to www.wbt.com]
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
[link to www.youtube.com]
What does it say about our White House and President when he gives serious time and crediance to people that say things like:
"at its core," Islam is a "violent, violent religion," and called "this Muhammad guy ... just a phony rag-picker." Boortz asserted that "[i]t is perfectly legitimate, perhaps even praiseworthy, to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins."
There are some indiviuals that might view this as passive agreement to these statments.
You were expecting him to invite Amy Goodman, Randy Rhodes, Al Franken, and Michael Moore? Bush always surrounds himself with people who are friendly to him.
I do think it's a significant development though. Did Clinton ever conduct meetings with groups of liberal radio hosts? Has this ever happened before?
I don't blame people for thinking that the administration is up to something. At the very least, they could be thinking of a way to reverse his lowly approval ratings. I mean, even people on the right are giving it to Bush lately.
Although I am not able to listen to him like I use to.
[link to www.ajc.com]