Blitzer: Ellison [not Goode or Prager] "touched off a raging controversy"
SUMMARY: Wolf Blitzer attributed the "raging controversy" over Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's reported intention
to use a copy of the Quran in
his swearing-in ceremony to Ellison rather
than those who have denounced Ellison.
On the December 21 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer attributed a "raging controversy" to Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN) for his reported intention to use a copy of the Quran as part of his swearing-in ceremony -- rather than attributing it to those who have denounced Ellison. Blitzer's comments came while reporting on a letter written by Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) attacking Muslims and Ellison. Blitzer stated that Ellison's "plans to use the Quran in the swearing-in ceremony have touched off a raging controversy." Blitzer also suggested that Ellison was "war[ring]" with Goode.
Blitzer's suggestion that Ellison was to blame echoed Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus, who, as Media Matters for America noted, said she thought it was "a little bit strange" that "we're focusing on" Goode instead of Ellison on the December 21 edition of MSNBC News Live.
Earlier, Blitzer did note that it was Goode who was stirring up controversy: "Virgil Goode is warning a soon-to-be colleague ... not to use the Quran at his swearing-in ceremony, and Goode says he wants to keep other Muslims out of the United States. Will Goode stick to his guns?" CNN correspondent Brian Todd did likewise: "Mr. Goode has generated, as you say, a lot of controversy over that particular letter." In a later report, Todd added that he visited Rocky Mount, Virginia, to see if "Representative Goode could clarify any of his recent remarks that have stirred up so much controversy."
However, in Blitzer's second comment on the issue, he said it was Ellison who "touched off controversy recently when he indicated he'd include the Quran as part of his swearing-in ceremony," while Goode "has done his best to add to the controversy." Blitzer also called the issue "a Quran controversy and a growing war of words."
As the weblog TPMMuckraker noted, the blog Waldo Jaquith posted a controversial letter by Goode saying: "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America." In the letter, Goode also attacked Ellison: "[I]f American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."
In contrast with some of Blitzer's coverage, other media outlets have laid blame for the controversy on a conservative columnist who criticized Ellison, and not Ellison. As a December 7 article in The Christian Science Monitor noted, it was Townhall.com columnist Dennis Prager's November 28 column about Ellison's intention that "sparked a brouhaha on talk radio, in the blogosphere, and in newspapers across the country." Since the November 28 column, Prager has appeared on MSNBC's Tucker, Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, and CNN's Paula Zahn Now to talk about Ellison's intention to use the Quran.
Onscreen graphics during The Situation Room also suggested that Ellison's decision was to blame for the controversy or stated that Ellison was fighting Goode. Relevant onscreen text read: "Quran Controversy," "Goode vs. Ellison," "Ellison vs. Goode," Controversy Over Ellison's Plan to Use Quran for Swearing In," "War of Words," "Quran Oath," "Bigoted Comments?" and "Goode's Remarks Called 'Islamophobic' ":
From the December 22 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode is warning a soon-to-be colleague, Minnesota's Keith Ellison, not to use the Quran at his swearing-in ceremony, and Goode says he wants to keep other Muslims out of the United States.
Will Goode stick to his guns?
[...]
Democratic Congressman-elect Keith Ellison of Minnesota, a Muslim, touched off controversy recently when he indicated he'd include the Quran as part of his swearing-in ceremony next month.
Republican Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia has done his best to add to the controversy now, calling for immigration policies that would keep Muslims out of this country.
Let's get the latest now from CNN's Brian Todd.
He's joining us live from Rocky Mount, Virginia -- Brian.
TODD: Wolf, we're expecting to hear any moment now from Congressman Virgil Goode, the Republican from this district in southern Virginia. Up to this moment, he has stood by -- at least through his aides -- stood by comments that he made in a letter to a constituent a couple of weeks back, where he really slammed the request by incoming Congressman Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress. That request by Mr. Ellison to use the Quran in his swearing-in.
Mr. Goode has generated, as you say, a lot of controversy over that particular letter.
[...]
BLITZER: Happening now, a Quran controversy and a growing war of words -- a Republican congressman is refusing to back down from remarks about Muslims many people are saying are simply offensive. And more lawmakers are now weighing in on plans by one congressman-elect to take his oath on Islam's holy book.
[...]
BLITZER: Controversy growing over the use of the Quran for a congressional swearing-in, and one lawmaker, Virginia Republican Virgil Goode, coming under fire for remarks that many people are saying are personally very offensive.
At issue -- plans by Muslim Democratic Congressman-elect Keith Ellison of Minnesota to take the oath of office on the Quran in his private ceremony. Now other lawmakers are weighing in.
[...]
BLITZER: His plans to use the Quran in the swearing-in ceremony have touched off a raging controversy. One soon-to-be colleague now wants to keep Muslims out of the country. I'll have an exclusive interview with Congressman-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress.
[...]
TODD: Wolf, we came down to this small town today to see if Representative Goode could clarify any of his recent remarks that have stirred up so much controversy. Well, he certainly did clarify them. He's not only unrepentant, he's outright defiant.
What happened?
He's one of them "kill all moslems for Israel" Crusaders.
My favorite "Blitzer gets blitzed" video: [link to www.youtube.com]
From a debate on the Israel/Palestine conflict. It's a bit old, mind you.. But watch at the end.. he won't even look over at the person (Finkelstein) who just refuted him.
by lying and fanning the flame of racial haterd and bigotry with a dash of religous superiority thrown in...
Don't take this the wrong way because I wrote a pretty scathing opinion piece about this bozo, Goode on my own site yesterday. And another on Prager. However, MM may be making too much of Blitzer's choice of words on this one.
Yeah, yeah, I know; Blitzer's been hanging around with Dobbs too much lately. But the meat of the reporting on this story seemed pretty balanced to me.
I admit that when I use the word 'balanced' here, it's in used in the context of the overall dismal reporting by cable news.
Normally, when a person says something (Ellison said he plans to swear on the Koran) and pundits attack him, the original person is described as having started a controversy.
People who support the original person may think the critics are full of it, but it's still standard to say it was the original person who started the controversy.
I don't have a problem with Blitzer saying that.
do you know how this all came about?
This goober Virgil Goode represents the face of the Republican base; An ignorant xenophobic racist Religious fascist.
I say let him speak on TV as much as possible.
IF Keith Ellison or ANYONE for that matter had stated their intention to be sworn in using a Superman Comic Book...it would have TOUCHED off a controversy. A comic book instead of a BIBLE? Oh think of the uproar!! Well, quite frankly the Quran [to some] is just as controversial. Simply BECAUSE it's NOT a [Christian] Bible. What can I say? People get comfortable with certain symbols.
So yes Ellison TOUCHED off the controversy. It doesn't matter whether some here think everyone should have shrugged it off OR accepted it without question. Again, let's get real. Of course it was going to raise a few eyebrows...AND a few more angry voices. Nice IF it hadn't, but this is REALITY.
The OTHERS, Goode in particular have STIRRED the controversy and are to blame for making it a *Raging Controversy* among a certain segment.
I say a CERTAIN SEGMENT, because I don't believe that MOST of the nation gives a crap one way or the other.
But the issue HERE is that it WAS Prager not Ellison that started the controversy. I mean it is absolutly clear Ellison is within his rights that isnt even disputed. Ellison didnt bring it up or make a big deal out of it and Wolf, whoring, said he did.
The ALL CAPS thing is kind of FREAKY.
For bold text, do <b>this</b> and for italic text do <i>this</i>.
I may drop the *capitalization* OR tone it down as my New Years Resolution.
Just wondering how come no one here ever asks Tex [a Democrat/Liberal] who writes in a similar style to "drop the capitalization". Mmmmmm I think there's a vast Left-Wing conspiracy afoot!! ;-)
BTW, I'm well aware of how to use the HTML tags. I find them a pain, so I don't bother. But thanks for the tutorial ;-)
Now just to show you I'm NOT thin skinned...Have a Merry Christmas Val!!
And to ALL of my cyber buddies here at MMFA: Have a Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year!!!
Hope you all have wonderful & safe Holiday!! :-)
just how it was written out. I'm trying to get out of the caps habit too and use the tags more also. shrug as far as tone goes, I'm a junk yard dog poster sometimes myself so I can see how it happens :)
I must confess that I did NOT know how to use the tags. Since I probably WON'T remember how in the future, and find the all caps MORE convenient, I think my lazy self will CONTINUE to use all caps.
MERRY CHRISTMAS, MERRY XMAS, HAPPY HOLIDAYS, SEASON'S GREETINGS, PEACE ON EARTH; GOOD TIDINGS TO YOU.
Ellison didn't do anything controversial. He's following his own beliefs.
Had he done what many do and have their photo taken with a Christian Bible, then that would have been an item for the Right Wing blogs.
Had he not had anything like a Christian Bible or a Quran or whatever in his photo-op, he'd have been nailed by the Right as godless.
Pretending for a moment that he was actually swearing on something when taking his oath, I would want him saying his oath in a way that he felt most meaningful.
Ellison did NOTHING wrong. Or controversial. Prager and Goode have seized upon something THEY can work into a frothy mess for rating and political points.
Of course Ellison's announcement TOUCHED off a controversy.
Controversy:
1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.
2. contention, strife, or argument.
Now whether you or anyone thinks it shouldn't have is NOT the issue. And no one is saying he did anything wrong. He simply opted for something DIFFERENT. And something different can, and often does touch off a controversy. Goode & others STIRRED it up. But Ellison's announcement touched it off. That's simply the reality.
I live in Massachusetts. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is my Governor [for a few more weeks anyway]. Had Romney wanted to be sworn in using the Book of Mormon, THAT would have TOUCHED off a controversy. Again, not because it's wrong, but simply because it's DIFFERENT. Public opinion causes controversy, but it is obviously touched off by an issue.
There is controversy about Mitt Romney being a Mormon should he run for President. I personally don't see the big deal. But SOME do.
We don't live in some kind of Utopia, where anything different is ALWAYS accepted by everyone without debate.
<< If ... anyone ... had stated their intention to be sworn in using a Superman Comic Book...it would have touched off a controversy >>
Jeter, I understand your point there, but I still have to say that comparing the holy book of one of the world's great religions to a comic is still pretty far over the top - especially considering that you yourself said you think most folks really don't care.
But to the issue at hand. First, I agree with others that MMFA may be making too much out of a single phrase since the rest of the report was apparently (which I say because I didn't see it so am relying on the statements of others) pretty balanced.
At the same time, I do have questions about Blitzer's phrasing. Call it misuse of the active voice. Saying Ellison "touched off" a controversy can't help but carry the implication that it was done consciously. Ellison "got dressed this morning." Ellison "read a book." Ellison "touched off a controversy."
This is a case where passive voice would have been better: "A controversy was touched off after Keith Ellison, answering a reporter's question, said he was going to hold a Qur'an during swearing-in ceremonies."
Or, even better, "Conservative columnist Dennis Prager touched off a controversy when he denounced...."
Ellison won't be sworn in on anything, just like everyone else. His photo op he will have a Quran with him.
People need to move on from this. It's nothing. Well, it's nothing as long as we believe in the Constitution and the right of religious freedom and all. I know I do, but there appears to be some republicans who are having some heartburn with that facet of our society lately.
He is like so many other politicians who just want to look good to the home folks and doesn’t really care how he does it.
How many Joe and Jane citizens in his district of Virginia even know that when the “Oath of Office” is given that the only thing the elected or appointed person swear (or affirm) to is the Constitution of the United States. You raise your right hand and no bible or any other book is required, the founding fathers wanted it that way. (See the 1st amendment to the Constitution.)
When I took my enlisted oath, along with about 100 other GI’s, the last thing on my mind was if there was a bible present. The oath I took more that 30 years ago was not about whether I was a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Mormon, or anything other than a young American who was getting ready to defend his country and his Constitution. Its time this country started looking at that simple fact again.
Here is the Oath I and every enlisted soldier took.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Here is the oath given to all civil servants of the United States Government.
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
5 U.S.C. §3331
As far as I am concerned; Mr. Goode has failed to show any belief in or understanding of that oath!
I just wonder if the cable news bobbing heads have even thought about that?
I took that same oath in the military 31 years ago and agree with you, swear to uphold the Constitution and protect and defend the United States, it's as plain as that..... Alot of these talking heads and politicians most likely never served in the military.......
....too many of those civil servants turn out to be those domestic enemies of the Constitution.
This link will take you to a speech Presented to the Leadership Conference of the Office of Personnel Management By The Hon. John Charles Thomas
[link to www.opm.gov]
This should be required reading for every American, especially our elected officials.
not that it will stop others from cherry-picking, but thanks.
This is a media trademark tactic. It involves a few choice words in key places. Its end result is designed to give birth to debate to something totally off the wall, in this case Goode's comments that would and should be label as racist in the context it was spoken in.
The choice words Wolf Blizers used, the misinformation about the use of the Quran, does not indicate the Quran is not used in any formal capacity at all. In affect, it is used in the same way someone would use a "lucky charm."
The Bush administration and the Republican Party use this tactic to give acceptable status to something that would, at one time, be labeled and classified as borderline hate speech. How else would we find ourselves debating the merits of something we classified as inappropriate speech. Clearly this belongs in Goode's behavior file along with the other KKK type speech outlined in the 60s as racist.
This is the Republican racist Party that is behind the times. If we can keep good records, we should be able to make a clear cut case for the Republican Party being the Racist Party.
Joseph
I'm from his (Ellison) district and he faced Alan Fine (Jewish) and some of the comments from Fine were denounced by Republicans. Let's get a grip, will he be a good legislator and represent the people of his district? If not, I won't vote for him again and he can take his oath on anthing he wants as long as he swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
He's a former AIPAC lobbyist. AIPAC primarily reflects the right-wing Likud's positions, rather than representing those of more left-wing Israeli political parties, such as the Labor Party.
Yet another example of why "liberal media" is a big fat lie.
The Labor Party is pretty right-wing themselves when it comes to the Palestinians and the Israeli Arabs. The real liberal movement in Israel is unfortunately very small, groups like Gush Shalom and others. They got parties in the Knesset that want full-blown ethnic cleansing in the name of the pure Jewish state. One of their leaders was just made deputy prime minister. It's sad that a nation supposedly founded as a refuge from religious intoleration is governed on the principle of ethnic and religious supremacy. I really think Israel's behaviour is an insult to the victims of the Holocaust.
If Ellison had taken the oath standing on his head or sticking his middle finger up at the flag, he could be accused of "touching off a controversy." But in fact, he did what every other member of Congress did- he took the oath using his religious book of choice.
The MEDIA "touched off the controversy" by making it a huge story that Ellison is not a CHRISTIAN or a JEW and is therefore somehow NOT NORMAL. Saying Ellison "set off a controversy" is saying that being a Muslim is controversial. It's only controversial if you are a member of the media trying to appeal to xenophobic morons- or if you are a xenophobic moron yourself.
This is the ultimate in blame-the-victim mentality. Ellison didnt want this attention? Why, he shouldnt have been a Muslim then. Or, he shouldnt have run for Congress. Or, he shouldnt have won. His own damned fault, right? Right?
Look what Muslims have done to England and France, do you want that to happen here? Get your heads out of your asses.
With the ignorance and bigotry we have all come to expect from you taz. The substance of a soapbubble and the stupidity borne of a studied ignorance. We have religious freedom in this country. Ellison can consider any book he wants as his holy book including the Sears catalogue. The fact it aggravated bigotted morons like YOU is just an added bonus. You get any denser light will actually begin to bend around your head.
........to rational thought. When he was on radio (KABC) and television (NBC) here in L.A., he used all kinds of hyperbole to frame people's positions in opposition to his, not so much to spark debate as he claimed, but to stack the deck against anyone who differed with his religious and/or political "superiority". That is the context for his fanning the flames of a false issue here by circulating and promoting Goode's email to a constituent. Of course Goode's position is going to resonate with many, especially in VA, where even in the face of the "Macaca Debacle" Webb still only won by 7200 votes.
I usually dont entertain bigoted rants, but I'd love to know just what "the muslims" have "done" to England and France, besides just wanting to live according to their religious beliefs (you know, like Catholics and Jews and all the people who once had rocks thrown at them as they came off the boat in this country...)
My guess is that you mean that "they" have bombed subways and burned buildings-- not like peaceful Christians, who burned crosses and lynched blacks and bombed abortion clinics and took down the Murrah building in OK City a few years back...
You are just a bigoted jackass. The VAST majority of muslims are perfectly peaceful people, the kind you'd love to have as neighbors, if you werent such an ignorant moron.