ABC's Halperin: Conservatives no longer letting "liberal entertainers" like Michael J. Fox "have a free ride"
During a report on the October 29 edition of ABC's World News Sunday about the controversy surrounding nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh's recent attacks on actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's disease, ABC News political director Mark Halperin claimed that "[i]n the past, conservatives let liberal entertainers kind of have a free ride," but now "they're saying, under George W. Bush, if you get involved in politics, we're going to come after you and the Democrats you're supporting." As Media Matters for America has documented, Fox is campaigning for candidates who support embryonic stem cell research; in 2004, he appeared in a campaign ad for Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (PA).
Halperin's claim that "liberal entertainers" no longer "have a free ride" echoed NBC's Today co-host Matt Lauer's declaration that "if Michael Fox goes out there politically and puts himself in the fray, he has to expect to be taken to account," which Lauer made six days after Halperin told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly that ABC and the rest of the "old liberal media" -- the broadcast networks, CNN, and major newspapers -- have "a chance in these last two weeks" before the midterm elections "to prove to conservatives that we understand their grievances," and that "[w]e should use this last two weeks as an opportunity to help rebuild our reputation with half the country."
Additionally, during a report on Iraq earlier on World News, ABC News correspondent and host Dan Harris claimed that Democrats are "not so quick to offer solutions" regarding Iraq, while ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper said that "[w]hen it comes to Iraq, Democrats are all over the map." But neither Harris nor Tapper noted divisions within the Republican Party over Iraq policy.
As Media Matters noted, several Republicans have raised concerns about the administration's strategy in Iraq, among them Sens. John Warner (VA) and Olympia Snowe (ME), and former Secretary of State under President George H.W. Bush, James A. Baker III. Further, in the lead-in to Tapper's report, Harris cited an ABC/Washington Post poll conducted October 19-22 that showed that "57 percent of Americans say the war was not worth fighting." But neither Harris's introduction nor Tapper's report noted that the same poll showed that 48 percent of respondents "trust" Democrats "to do a better job handling" the "situation in Iraq," compared with 40 percent who favor Republicans.
From the October 29 edition of ABC's World News Sunday:
HARRIS: In the latest ABC News poll, 57 percent of Americans say the war was not worth fighting. Democratic candidates have been quick to focus on that discontent, but not so quick to offer solutions. Here's ABC's senior political correspondent, Jake Tapper.
[...]
TAPPER: When it comes to Iraq, Democrats are all over the map.
[...]
TAPPER: If Democrats take the House, look for investigations into what one top Democrat calls Bush administration "Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retributions and Cover-ups in the Iraq War" -- a focus on how we got into Iraq, even if they have no cohesive answer on how to get out. Jake Tapper, ABC News, Washington.
[...]
HARRIS: In tonight's "Sunday Spotlight," when celebrities and politics collide. This morning on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, actor Michael J. Fox responded to an attack from conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. Celebrities have been politicking, mostly on behalf of Democrats, for years, but these days, it seems that, increasingly, they are taking a beating.
FOX: I don't want to react personally to these -- these attacks. It's pointless. It's silly. It's, like, getting in a fight with a bully. But make no mistake, it hurts.
HARRIS: The man who Michael J. Fox is calling a bully is Rush Limbaugh, who accused Fox of exaggerating the symptoms of his Parkinson's disease in this Democratic campaign ad.
LIMBAUGH: He is moving all around and shaking, and it's purely an act.
FOX: When I heard that response, I was like, "What? Are you kidding me?"
HARRIS: Fox may have been caught off guard because while celebrities have been pushing political causes for decades, they are usually treated with more respect than, well, politicians. It is mostly Democrats that get a hand from Hollywood.
BEN AFFLECK (actor): Welcome. Welcome, everybody.
HARRIS: Humphrey Bogart stumped for FDR; Harry Belafonte for Kennedy; Warren Beatty for McGovern.
HALPERIN: In the past, conservatives let liberal entertainers kind of have a free ride. Now they're saying, under George W. Bush, if you get involved in politics, we're going to come after you and the Democrats you're supporting.
[...]
HARRIS: The lesson -- in today's political climate -- anyone who enters the arena, even popular and ailing celebrities, better come wearing armor.
Republicans, it should be said, have their own celebrity backers, including Clint Eastwood, Wayne Newton, and Bo Derek. One man who is increasingly getting active this year, is Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus in The Passion of the Christ. And we'll be right back.
Someone had the courage to say what we all (Matt Laur) were thinking. Those damn Parkinson's victoms looking for a free ride! Its nothing but cure, cure, cure with these people! Can't they put aside their partison agenda for one second and talk about the booming economy?
(and with just as much sarcasm) it's a shame, and unfair that the left has people like M. J. Fox, and Cindy Sheehan argue their point of view. The right can't destroy them without making themselves look bad. It's so unfair!
Hahahahahaha (Didn't AnnCoulter actually say something like that a while ago?)
Attacking MJF has been a boon for Democrats. I have never seen such near universal disgust by regular folks aimed at Rush Limbaugh and the GOP who seemingly cannot restrain themselves from blatant and unfair cheap shots. The true nature of some Republicans is coming out and people are being naturally repulsed.
Keep up the good work guys.
As I heard more of Limbaugh's venom recently, claiming that all this boils down to "hate for Republicans"... All I could think was, if that dumbass would just shutup... offer a brief apology for saying the wrong thing in the heat of the moment, it would all be gone...
But, they can't... They just can't admit any sort of wrong-doing, failure, mistep, etc... it's like some biologic aberrancy. MJF was very kind about the whole matter, I thought. Now he looks like a saint. When I hear this continual bullying ... I just hope that other decent-minded folks hear the same and get as turned off (downright mad) as I do.
He admited he never even read the bill. He is being used by the ultra left. All these people know how to do is divide America. Halperin is giving his OPINION and MMFA attacks him?
But its fine for Al Franken and Olby to give their opinion?
Double standard.
fox didnt even read the bill yet he is shilling for it like a two bit hack and plays off people's emotions.
MJF was shilling for McCaskill for Senate, not the Missouri law. Check out my link below.
then what does that make Rush Limbaugh?
Oh wait, let me answer for you--"The Truth Monitor!"
By saying he's acting, Rush (and other Republics) are attacking MJ Fox and his disability, not his argument. Understand that is the meaning of Ad hominem (just in case you didn't know).
Just another Me Too Troll - move along; nothing to see
Is Blaze and Art the same person? I'm going to do this... post as one, then congratulate/condone with the other. That's a great move!
when two trolls find each other in this crazy, mixed-up world.
It's very sweet, isn't it?
who'll intervene with it's time for a divorce? Limpballs? Sean Hannity? Maybe that great mediator bill o'leilly!
Would trolls qualify?
Quoting is not "attacking." But if you can point out where MMFA actually "attacks" Halperin here, please go ahead and I will apologize just like Rush.
otherwise they wouldnt post it. it is meant to cause outrage among the libs. when olbermann gets a post up it's always "olbermann awarded" or "olbermann cited" or "olbermann named/pointed out"
never "olbermann claimed"
Labeling something as an example of conservative media bias is an attack? Wow, I didn't realize your threshold for what constitutes an "attack" was so low. With skin that thin, do you have to live in a bubble like the Bubble Boy?
Nice riposte, Rusty. But did you know that the Bubble Boy's bubble was manufactured from latex supplied by Vandelay Industries?
And Art wants to be my latex salesman!
That is as bad as voting for the "best looking" guy/gal.
He was campaigning for a Senate candidate. He wasn't pushing the Missouri bill. That's why.
the bill was his whole reason for SUPPORTING HER IN THE FIRST PLACE! she supports the bill -> he supports her. but since he doesnt even know what is in the bill, his support for her has lost all credibility and he should go away and apologize.
If Fox was making some sort of ad for the Bill itself or some Missouri State official then you would have a point.
MJF does not mention the Missouri bill even once in the ad. You should apologize for your dishonest attempt to falsely smear him again.
"the bill was his whole reason for SUPPORTING HER IN THE FIRST PLACE!" --art vandelay
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please provide a link (from a legitimate source) that shows the bill as the "whole reason for SUPPORTING [McCaskill] IN THE FIRST PLACE!". Thanks.
watch his interviews and rewatch the video he made for mccaskill. he doesnt talk about any other issue and we all know thats what fox campaigns on and bases his support on. if someone is pro embryonic stem cell research he will be behind them no matter what, even if he reads the bill or not, even if the bill included a provision to make nambla legal he'd still be for it since he didnt read the bill.
Or a piece of something. . .
That is weak even from you. MJF didn't have to read a state bill/referendum when he was only supporting a candidate for Federal office in the ad. Period.
You provided no link that showed where Fox has ever said his whole support for McCaskill was based on her support for the Missouri Bill.
Instead you substitute meandering speculation and mindreading for logic. Congratulations, you have just won me over to conservatism. It must be great to be able to make arguments and statements apparently without any facts or evidence whatsoever.
Nice.
You should be the one to go away and apologize, since you come here time after time and flat out lie. I could understand if it happened occasionally, but with you it is all the time.
Discussing issues is fine here, from all sides, but when you have to lie to make your point and refuse to back up anything you say, then you should be the one to apologize and leave.
Please detail the lies you are referring to? Simply offering a different opinion than most here does not constitute lying?
Vigorous debate and varying opinions should be encouraged, it strengthens and informs everyone reading.......not asked to leave because they challenge the pervasive opinions here.
but that involves give and take. The cons that cruise this board are not interested, for the most part in listening to other's opinions, but rather look to argue and provoke a negative response. It's not debate when the conversation only goes one way. Often times when cons are challenged with facts it's ignored not challenged or accepted. Talking to some cons is like talking to an answering machine recorded message that repeats the same thing over and over again.
A hack right winger would say the exact same thing as you as the exact opposite - and from their point of view, as well as yours, they would be correct.
It's amazing, isn't it?
are you reffering to exactly? That some cons are impossible to talk to? I can debate until the cows come home. I'm waiting for a reasonable con to approach this board. This posting for example, we have Art stating things that are not accurate, then jumping on someone for making a joke. How does one debate that? With facts, and Art doesn't respond. Yourself, you are just attacking me for my opinion. State some facts for a change.
who youre talking about but i try to reply to every post and ive acknowledged points from the other side. i dont like being censored though. it's boring.
Where's the link asked for on the previous page for example.
I thought your qoute of the proverbs on another thread was deliberately misleading, misquoting and therefor unreasonable.
"the bill was his whole reason for SUPPORTING HER IN THE FIRST PLACE! she supports the bill -> he supports her. but since he doesnt even know what is in the bill, his support for her has lost all credibility and he should go away and apologize." --Art Vandalay
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You stated this as if it was a fact (or at least that you had a strong logical basis for it). You were asked for a link to support that position. You did not provide it, but ignored the request. It is YOUR statement and therefore your responsibilty to prove it or at least give some good evidence to support it.
Telling me to watch the video again and read the interviews is simply lazy and not sufficient at all. Do your own research and get back to me. If you can't find it, then it would be nice to know instead of leaving a lame post like you did.
This is why some posters apparently think you are a troll and dishonest. You can definitely change that around with some honest debate.
Although I will admit I do not really like Art a whole lot, I still believe he has a right to post on here and not be flagged or banned. His opinions may seem crass and idiotic to some(okay most) people he still has a right to state them. However his smears against a physically disabled man is low and pathetic. It is even a bit cynical....
There should be no stifling of opposing opinions. How else would we be able to point out how wrong Artie and other vitriolic righties are? I WANT Rush spewing his garbage on a daily basis. The more (in)famous he gets, the more his disgusting bile is presented to the non-political American public. He might win over a few soul-less, parasitic bottom feeders along the way, but most will see him for the scum that he is. And the whole world gets to witness any remaining shred of Rush's credibility flitter away. Keep it up, Rush! And I mean that in a purely business sense.
For voting for the guy you'd most like to sit down and have a beer with.
More likely twelve or thirteen beers. This is George W. Bush we're talking about here.
Do you even know what the original Michael J. Fox ad was about? He was campaigning for McCaskill, a Senate candidate -- not the Missouri Bill, which he has not read (Why should he?).
Last I checked Senate Candidates voted on Federal legislation not Missouri legislation.
he has said in subsiquent interviews that he believes that she will do what is needed to pass legislation to fund research that helps stamp out these diseases.
The ones who oppose Fox simply attack him. That is all they know how to do.
Would that be between people who want to give scientists the tools and funding they need to cure diseases that affect all of humanity and people who want to block, criticize, and distort those efforts all in the name of their personal religious belief?
To me this is akin to a scecnario where scientologists were numbered in the millions and they wanted to cut of funding and support to all medical practice and treatment in the counrty. This is a division and a decisionthat needs to happen for the ultimate good of the country. The constant attacks on science need to either end by the majority of the country saying ENOUGH, or we will continue to decline and end up as a third world country.
I don't understand this. So you think Fox is just a dupe? That's neo-con thought for you. Liberal arguments can't possibly have any merit therefor they must be dupes. Attack the messenger instead of discussing the merits. And by the way you are entitled to speaking your opinion and anyone else is free to mock it. Deal with it.
is NOT supposed to be an opinion show like Al Franken.
"He admited he never even read the bill. He is being used by the ultra left. All these people know how to do is divide America. Halperin is giving his OPINION and MMFA attacks him?
But its fine for Al Franken and Olby to give their opinion?
Double standard." --DaveBlaze
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is Halperin's opinion beyond criticism for some unknown reason? I don't quite understand your reasoning.
In case you haven't figured it out yet (and from your post, it is hard to tell) MMFA is a (whispers) liberal website.
(regular voice)MMFA makes no claim of being balanced in their criticism although they go out of their way at times to be fair. If you are uncomfortable with that, you can set up a website yourself the way you prefer.
It amazes me that liberals are always expected to unilaterally disarm and be completely objective at all times, but there is NEVER any criticism by these nutjob trolls for newsbusters.org, mrc.org or aim.org or even Halperin himself, who displays no apparent concern over being perceived as too concervative.
Liberals have been genuinely concerned about being balanced for a long time. MMFA serves the purpose of a fair counterpoint and they don't make believe they are anything different like some others falsely claiming to be "Fair and Balanced".
I think many conservatives would just like MMFA to wussify or go away so any criticism they experience will be diluted and ineffectual.
the accolades. She made it GOP "hip" and socially acceptable to attack victims.
And of course her daddy, Rush.
She complained that she couldn't attack the 9/11 widows without making herself look bad. Then she attacked them anyway.
"If we screw up so royally that the entire world hates us (Iraq policy), lunatics go nuclear (N. Korea), and people actually die waiting for us to do our jobs (Katrina)....
...then it's YOUR fault for not having a plan, and we should stay in power."
If they could only get that onto a bumper sticker, about 30% of the country would actually slap it right next to their W'04 decals, because apparently there aren't enough liberal media types to "understand their grievances"... Halperin is a stooge.
That's why people like Matt Lauer are so afraid to speak out against Rush's diatribe. Matt is probably still worried about appearing "too liberal" in his questioning of Ann Coulter's attack on 9/11 widows.
The message is, right-wingers can be as vulgar or harsh in their attacks on anyone they perceive as being on the left, and if the mainstream media says their criticism was harsh, that mainstream media figure is attacked as being "liberal".
I think we liberals need to start being more vicious towards people like Lauer when they take such a partisan stance in favor of the right, just like the right-wingers take a harsh stance towards them (viciously attacking them in books, websites, articles, etc.).
If we don't fight back the way the right-wing loud-mouthes do, we're doomed to lose the mainstream media more and more every day.
I don't think pointing out conservative misinformation on websites like MMFA is enough. We need to be just as vicious as they are. I hate to say this, but we need our own Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs making inflammatory comments about the right, instead of the same intellectual types who take the honest and nice debate approach.
We don't have to do that, I don't want to win that way.
Liberals can win without histrionics and malevolence. This doesn't mean be a cream puff. It means stand up and give no ground to lies, stereotypes and innuendo while being forthright about your principles.
Develop the liberal and progressive message in terms that resonate with the reasonable conservative leaning people who are not blinded by partisanship. Liberal policies are ultimately good for the country, the trick is talking about the policies as reflections of our core liberal values. For example, gay rights is a matter of expanding rights for for all Americans. Loving committed adults are entitled to access to the American dream of prosperity for all and protection under the constitution. Let the other side argue that the government should tell people that they are not entitled to equal freedoms.
Hard line conservatives today have to resort to violent imagery and feigned indignation to divert attention from their immoral policies.
"In the past, conservatives let liberal entertainers kind of have a free ride..."
In what past, exactly? The last thing "liberal entertainers" have ever gotten from conservatives is a "free ride. "Hanoi Jane" Fonda springs to mind.
The meta-discussion in this country is getting really tiresome. I just wish pundits had to have letters after their name like politicians do, so people would quit bitching about "bias" on either side.
Anyone who claims to be "unbiased," especially about these emotional trigger issues, is lying or deluded or both.
that free ride,too.
My whole life (as far as I can remeber, late 60's), and what I've read of history, waving the flag and cheering for Big Biz and the military, right or wrong, has been the way to become a pillar of the community and a respected politician.
Decent politicians (so what, I still believe they exist) have to pander to this to appeal to the average American.Without it, they don't get elected, and don't get a platform to say anything.
Entertainers, unlike pols, can gain access to the public even if they keep their politics secret, or hold views that are not in line with the conservative media or powers.
Makes the GOP flying monkeys nuts, doesn't it?
In what past, exactly?
I'm sure Barbra Streisand, Ed Asner -- and for that matter John Lennon -- will be quite interested to hear all about that "free ride" they'd been accustomed to getting from those kind and gentle conservatives.
in one regard. Let cons take their pot shots at liberals. It's all they can do. Let them make fools of themselves. Let them show to the world their ignorance and their cold black hearts.
It's hysterical that MMFA uses Arlen Specter as it's shining example of conservatism that Fox supports.
They aren't using him as an example of conservatism; they're using him as an example of a Republican, which he is.
Maybe I misread MMFA's beef. Is their problem that Fox was described as a "liberal" or that conservatives are now free to take shots at people like him?
Arlen Spector has been a Republican since before a lot of these Neocons were born. He is not much different today than when he was long ago as the DA of the City of Philadelphia. It's the rest of the Republican Party that's changed.
at whoever you like. And anyone else is allowed to take shots at you for doing so. Cons get so ticked off when they are being called out for being rude, insensitive or down right ignorant. First thing they do is cry that their free speech is being denied. The reality is Rush Limbaugh, in my eyes, is just a jerk for mocking someone with Parkinsons because he doesn't agree with him. It's a free country. Cons are free to be obnoxious and liberals are free to point that out.
Not even a good TRY
I want my news to provide context, insight and facts. Halperin seems to the marketing director trying to woo conservatives to ABC. Why doesnt he just do his job. Here are some ideas. The republicans keep saying they want victory in Iraq (Oleilly "do you want American to win?" this is such a ridiculous question to me). Well how about asking them to define victory. The dems say they want to drawdown. How would they do that? What are the probable results of draw down? How about contacting military/historical /ME experts. He is more concerned with ratings than news. Do your job and the ratings will come. Why are our elections revolving around Maccaca, shaking actors, and naked bimbos on ads. There are real differences in the leaders and ideas on how the country should be run. I am glad that the emotional aspect involves people but it is the news director's job to give context to an issue, not play to emotions or respective bases. How many biomedical researchers has he contacted? How many experts has he contacted from the original 94 panel. Please stop Halperin you are harming America.
"In the past, conservatives let liberal entertainers have kind of a free reide. Now they're saying, UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH, if you get involved in politics, WE'RE GOING TO COME AFTER YOU AND THE DEMOCRATS YOU'RE SUPPORTING." - Halperin [emphasis mine]
Whoa . . . is it just me, or does that sound a little like a tactic of the Third Reich's Stormtroopers? I mean, at least in the past, from what they're saying, if an entertainer/private citizen came out in favor of a Democrat, they only went after the Democrat . . . now that we're "UNDER" Bush, I guess the rules have changed . . .
"The lesson - in today's political climate - anyone who enters the arena, even popular and ailing celebrities, better come wearing armor." - Harris
Boy, I MISS the days when someone could publicly support a candidate without having their patriotism questioned or their character attacked . . . and if Cindy Sheehan is any indication, I guess the attacks aren't limited to "popular and ailing celebrities . . .
Living in kansas city I would like to think I know whats going on here. Missouri's Amendment 2 is essentially a legalization of embryonic stem cell research. Micahel J fox supports McCaskill for her support of this I would think, and also becaue he is very much a liberal. But the fact is he manipulates people when who does these kinds of messages.
Fox admits in the book, Lucky Man, that before Senate subcommittee on appropriations September of 1999, he did not take his medication for the purposes of having the ravages and the horrors of Parkinson's disease illustrated. Why would he not employ this underhanded technique again?
Just because he suffers from an illness does not make him a saint, nor does it mean that lacks an agenda.
So he showed up in front of Congress with his symptoms full blown? The deception would have been if he had taken medication to calm his symptoms. Cons can't habdle reality. They just criticize it. Kudos to Fox for showing Congress exactly what Parkinson's does to his body. Kudos to him for having the guts to stand up for what he believes in. And shame on the Rush Limbaughs of the world who throw civility out the window and only question h is motives.
7 years ago, at a different stage in Fox's illness, he went without his medication to show Congress what the disease was like.
In the most recent ad, he took medication.
Did you miss the part where Limbaugh was totally wrong? Limbaugh said that Fox was either acting or was off his meds, and he was totally wrong. Fox was actually on his medication. It is the medication that causes shaking like that.
Simply ignorant! The fact that years ago he could go without his medication and still function has no bearing on how he must treat himself with medication currently in order to communicate at all! He could not make it through an hour long interview with The Actor's Studio without taking 2 breaks to get more medication last year!
I've read 81 posts, and I've yet to come across any arguments opposing embryonic stem cell research, or government funding of such research.
It looks like we're all in agreement that it's a good thing for science to proceed and leave the choice to the patient. If you're opposed to embryonic stem cells you'll be able to decline the treatment.
I've heard that some people think government funds shouldn't be permitted due to moral opposition. Can we apply that rule to all government funds? If so, can I shift my family's $12,000 federal contribution for the war in Iraq to $12,000 for embryonic stem cell research? Why not?
you will then be labeled as an America Hater, Not supporting the troops liberal, Al Qeada sympothizer, and baby killer.
You can never win with these guys.
Me thinks I will no longer watch the ABC news or the ABC Sunday news program. I like to watch news programs in which they report the facts and let the chips fall where they may. I really do not care to hear someone's opinion of the news. Call me crazy, but after hearing the facts, I like to form my own opinion without any help from the media types who claim to be unbiased.
El-Mark-bo-
In the past, liberals let conservatives like you get away with making really dumb comments. Thanks to MMFA that is no longer true.
By the way, didn't you write that Drudge was the next Cronkite? That's all anyone needs to know about you.
The closing comments stated that GOP candidates have had their show biz backers too. Wayne Newton, that right wing mafioso, has been a GOP saint for decades. Eastwood, Mike Love of the Beach Boys (who, if it hadn't been for Brian Wilson, would be pumping gas in Hawthorne, CA), many another macho actor--and few IF ANY of whom have had any military background.
Hmmm. So tough on screen. So spineless off screen.
Don't forget Regan. Entertainer, actor. Those were his qualifications for office. Although, I never thought I would long for the days of Regan with this Bush administration in office. At least they had some resemblence of actual conservatives.
This Halperin guy, it does appear that he is going completely out of his way to say "we're conservative". With him running the political service of ABC News, how does one jibe that the network will be balanced? It won't be. This guy is shooting his mouth off, and it wouldn't surprise me if he'll be at FoxNews very soon. It's a better place for him anyway.
"Mike Love of the Beach Boys (who, if it hadn't been for Brian Wilson, would be pumping gas in Hawthorne, CA)",
Points for originality- I don't remember the last time I saw a Mike Love smackdown here. ;>)