Hannity denounced as "hate speech" Clinton statement that GOP phone-jamming convictions were evidence of "vast right-wing conspiracy"
After playing a clip of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) stating, "If anybody tells you there is no vast right-wing conspiracy, tell them that New Hampshire has proven it in court. We have the -- we have the facts, and we're going to make that a crime" on the March 13 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity immediately denounced her comments as "hate speech." Yet neither Hannity nor guest and Republican pollster Frank Luntz explained that Clinton was referring to felony convictions of a Republican National Committee regional political director, a GOP operative, and a former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party stemming from a 2002 phone-jamming scandal that sought to immobilize Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts and, according to a May 17, 2006, Washington Post article, "helped John E. Sununu [R-NH] win his Senate seat by 51 to 47 percent, a 19,151-vote margin."
Luntz responded to Hannity's comments by saying: "We've been analyzing her [Clinton] over the past few weeks on your show. And she doesn't seem to pick up the fact that there's too much negativity. There's too much divisiveness."
However, as a March 13 Associated Press article on Clinton's comments reported, the 2002 phone-jamming scandal referenced by Clinton resulted in two Republican operatives' pleading guilty to criminal charges; a third was tried and convicted. According to the May 2006 Washington Post article, Charles McGee, former executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party, along with former Republican National Committee regional political director James Tobin and GOP consultant Allen Raymond, devised a plan to obstruct Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts on November 5, 2002, by having an Idaho telecommunications firm tie up Democratic and union phone lines. The Post further reported:
"The New Hampshire Republican Party, burden by legal bills, is virtually broke, with $733.60 in its federal and state accounts.
The Republican National Committee, in turn, has paid $3 million in legal fees in criminal and civil cases growing out of the controversy. The RNC has paid at least $2.8 million to Williams & Connolly and other firms for Tobin's defense, and about $150,000 to Covington & Burling to defend the RNC in a civil suit brought by the New Hampshire Democratic Party."
[...]
"[E]vidence filed in Tobin's trial in December shows 22 phone calls from Tobin to the White House between 11:20 a.m. Election Day, two hours after the phone jamming was shut down, and 2:17 a.m. the next day, four hours after the outcome of the election was announced."
From the March 13 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
CLINTON [video clip]: If anybody tells you there is no vast right-wing conspiracy, tell them that New Hampshire has proven it in court. We have the -- we have the facts, and we're going to make that a crime.
HANNITY: All right, it's back. That was Hillary Clinton this morning with some pretty harsh words for conservatives. So, what does her hate speech really mean?
With us, the author of Words that Work, Republican pollster Frank Luntz, is with us. All right. Frank, what does that mean?
LUNTZ: Well, I don't know why she does this, because she can be just as Democratic without having to throw back those words that she's been using for the last 10 years.
We've been analyzing her over the past few weeks on your show. And she doesn't seem to pick up the fact that there's too much negativity, there's too much divisiveness. And there's a reason why she continues to drop a point or two and why [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] keeps going up. You don't want to use words from 1996 in the 2008 election.
Anyone who denies the existance of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy has slept through the last 12 years.
Right or left, they are no different. Both parties want some kind of control over their peeps that voted for them. They are almost all scoundrels. At the end of the day, they taost more together then we get to toast our spouses. They are all in bed together, that is what is sad. Really sad, most of America continues to play into the game.
Right!
They are both in bed together......and yet soldiers and Iraqi citizens continue to die.
and what is your point?
.. I think his point is that they need to get our people lout of Iraq.
Well to that I have no disagreement.
That's a convenient cop out. The reality is the right wing conspiracy is built on falsehoods, innuendo and spin. The left is on a crusade to speak truth to power.
Hannity wants to claim that pointing out voter fraud, where the individual was charged and convicted of such, is some how hateful. That on it's face is absurd. Last I checked I haven't heard Hillary Clinton smearing Hannity.
You may be right to a degree, but time and time again, from Watergate, phone-jamming, push-polling, funky electronic voting machines, voter disenfranchisement, and other shady election tactics, the overwhelming majority of these tactics have been perpetrated by the right.
And the right has even tried to perpetuate the misbelief that a "conspiracy" is something only crazy people believe in. A "conspiracy" is simply two or more people conspiring to a common end. So we have seen above that 1) It is vast, 2) It is Right-wing, and 3) It is a conspiracy. Therefore there is a "Vast Right-wing Conspiracy," just like Hillary said.
The issue here with Hannity is that we have the blind leading the blind (or the misinformed leading the misinformed). Hannity has confused fact (three Republicans convicted in the scandal) with opinion ("Hate speech"). To "hate" someone or something is a matter of opinion. To report the facts about somone or something is, well, fact. If it was Hannity's goal to report the exact opposite of the truth, then I suppose he succeeded. I have long ago abandoned any belief that Hannity has any desire to "inform" his audience.
"Hannity has confused fact (three Republicans convicted in the scandal) with opinion ("Hate speech")."
I have to strongly disagree with this assertion. Hannity is not confused, he is a liar and a ring-wing Tool. Hannity is no less intelligent or more confused than the likes of Savage and Limbaugh, who are intelligent American men who determined some time ago that telling lies, spreading rumor, and forming innuendo were an easy way to get rich. Their money is stained with the blood of American soldiers, and I hope some day they beg a higher power for forgiveness and redemption before they're forced to deal with the result of their actions.
I have to disagree with you. I agree that Rush and Savage lie to get a larger audience. I think however, that Hannity actually believes the nonsense that he says. Something about the way he says it sounds different then the way Rush and Savage speak. I REALLY think Hannity is that blind to the misdeeds of his party and his fellow ideologues. He just is delusional. I don't know, one man's opinion.
I agree; Mr. Hannity actually seems to believe in the rhetoric he spouts. After seeing him knuckle under to Bob Jones when Mr. Jones implied Catholics were satanists (Hannity is a Catholic), I fully believe that Mr. Hannity lacks the moral fortitude to actually form an opinion of his own. He is only capable of reiterating the crap others feed him.
I agree. I actually think Rush and Weiner are fairly bright guys whose lies and insanity are strategic. Hannity seems to be a garden variety moron. He actually seems to believe six impossible things before breakfast as long as they conform to his delusional fantasies.
Both parties want some kind of control over their peeps that voted for them.
Which is about as irrelevant to the point at issue as it's possible to be.
The Democrats were, to adopt your condescending terminology, trying to "control their peeps" - they were in a get-out-the-vote campaign. If the GOPpers had been trying to control their own peeps with their own get-out-the-vote campaign, there would have been no problem.
Instead, the GOPper were trying to screw up and block the Dems attempt to get out their own voters - which is obviously a completely different matter that renders your crack meaningless in this context.
This is not hate speech, obviously Hannity is being his patented inflammatory self, again.
But to say the convictions in NH are proof of a "vast right wing conspiracy" is silly. Just as the same baseless charge was when she made it the first time.
State your positions clearly, argue them forcefully with convictions and integrity - and leave the "boogeyman right wing conspiracy" out of it.
"the 2002 phone-jamming scandal referenced by Clinton resulted in two Republican operatives' pleading guilty to criminal charges; a third was tried and convicted."
"The Republican National Committee, in turn, has paid $3 million in legal fees in criminal and civil cases growing out of the controversy."
"[E]vidence filed in Tobin's trial in December shows 22 phone calls from Tobin to the White House between 11:20 a.m. Election Day, two hours after the phone jamming was shut down"
3 Republicans either plea or are found guilty, RNC foots the legal bill, and the phone rings off the hook at the White House.
Some may call it silly, others call it a conspiracy.
Come on Pete, I specifically said calling it a "vast right wing conspiracy" is silly - and it is. I was not commenting on the actual incident itself, which has already been adjudicated.
calling it a "vast right wing conspiracy" is silly ... I was not commenting on the actual incident
I suppose whether the phrase is silly or not depends of how you define the terms "vast" and "conspiracy." But in fairness to Pete, it seems to me that he was arguing that a case that links an attempt at voter suppression to both the RNC and the White House could reasonably be regarded as a conspiracy.
You may think he's wrong, but I don't think you can fairly deny that the charge of a "right-wing conspiracy" - we'll leave aside "vast" for the moment - has met a standard of plausibility.
Then I beg your pardon...
Some may call it an incident, others will call it a conspiracy.
It's only silly because the term "Conspiracy Theorist" has been tainted by the fools who see aliens in the white house and believe the National Enquirer is a good source of otherwise unreported news. Conspiracies do, however, exist, and pointing them out should not be tsked when they are correctly pinned down.
As the saying goes, if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Voter fraud was a right-wing conspiracy driven by Republican leadership to defraud one of the most basic rights we have as Americans - our right to choose who our leaders are.
But to say the convictions in NH are proof of a "vast right wing conspiracy" is silly. Just as the same baseless charge was when she made it the first time.
I agree 100% Tommy. Let's not forget Hillary blamed the "rumors" about her hubby & Monica on this so-called "conspiracy"...turned out not to be a "rumor" or a"Right-Wing" conspiracy.
Dirty tricks like phone jamming are usually carried out by local groups and are not necessarily approved by any national committee.
All other types of "attacks" are just politics as usual.
Both do opposition research. It's all out in the open. There is no conspiracy.
It's not Hate Speech...that just Hannity being an idiot again.
Jeter,
I don't believe that's the entirety of what she was saying. Why the very smart Bill Clinton stupidly started an affair in the oval office I will never understand; but I think what she was saying is that the Clinton administration had been under attack from a cooperative right wing effort. She knew this and he knew this and why he would just hand them Monicagate I do not know. You should really read Brock's Blinded By the Right. It's not a name calling book. It's written very matter of factly- this is what I did, this is what she did, this is what he did, this is what we did. He was a part of the movement and the right wing machine that coordinated efforts to attack Clinton. You'll love the names you see there. There are the usual suspects of course but some of the names will suprise you. They truly declared war on that man.
there was the "arkansas project" paid for by right winger richard mellon scaife.
"Dirty tricks like phone jamming are usually carried out by local groups and are not necessarily approved by any national committee."
...except for this one, which had the financial and legal support of the national GOP, and apparently was talked about at some length by the white house in phone conversations.
Except the people involved seemed to be in touch WITH the White House which itself would undercut your local action defense. This looks like a conspiricy to me, how vast it was might be arguable but it certainly looks like a conspiricy and then by definition it would be hard to say how VAST it was.
Somebody get me Hannity's phone number... I'll give him some examples of what hate speech is. ;>)
Hate Hannity Hotline: 212.613.3830
(Seriuosly, it's real!)
Let me get this right....
Hillary talking accurtely about convicted GOP felons is "hate speech"
BUT
Ann Coulter falsely claiming John Edwards is gay using a vulgar offensive term for gays is NOT hate speech??
Do these guys get paid per spin?
Clearly not. Bill Gates is still the richest man in the world.
yep, and ignorence is strength
Welcome to Right Wing Wacky World!
Where citing evidence is "hate speech" and calling someone a f****t is a "schoolyard taunt".
You couldn't have summed it up any better.
You left out that really fun one. When someone complains about a right winger being intolerant of gay people, or brown people, or whatever, those complaining are labelled as ... "intolerant."
Intolerant of intolerance.
It's the latest attempt by the Right Wing to co-opt language to mean what they want it to mean. We already saw Tommy trying this in another topic.
I don't know if jamming a phone bank in NH is proof of a "vast" conspiracy, but it is proof of some degree of rightwing wrong-doing. However, if one judges the scale of the operation in terms of phone calls that were prevented, that might be construed as "vast".
Randy
if it were an isolated incident, perhaps. but coupled with the 'purging' of voter rols with false data and little or no notice and preventing people from contesting same, plus all the little tricks played with changing polling places in the middle of the cycle, or making sure the poor preciencts only get the broken ones so they always break-down. Well, yes it is kinda vast at that...
One piece of the rightwing conspiracy puzzle then. That I accept wholeheartedly. Hard to believe but when I posted the comment above it was on page 1 of this thread. Evillib is a busy little troll.
Randy
it is a very busy troll, and sadly way to many reasonable folks keep feeding it :(
I think Evil can be turned he has moments of lucidity. He vacilates between roaring incoherence and reasoned posts. Then again I feed all the trolls.
Shammity should know hate speech since he's such great buds with the Republican Spokesman Ann Coulter.
Well Tommy should Hillary include the last 12 years of "misteps" by the GOP interferring with elections?Mr. Hannity would believe a clear position argued forcefully with conviction and integrety? Or would it be just more negitivity and divisiveness? The trouble as I see it is that it does not matter what the substance of her dialogue is. It will always be framed as untrue.
Would the last 12 years of "missteps" in elections also include the most recent one when the Democrats trounced the Republicans in nearly every contest? Or was the 2006 election perfectly fair and without any controversy?......or is it only the ones that Democrats lose that are suspect?
I get it.
ok- leave out the 12 year part and answer the rest. Or just cherry pick
Show me criminal convictions that were handed down besides the one that is being discussed here regarding voter fraud, instead of left wing conspiratorial wishful thinking paranoid baloney, please.
Look in Ohio.
Were there convictions in Ohio?
Yes! But even still why should convictions be a measure of wrong doing? Why should clever or lucky criminals be excused. There is ample evidence of voter fraud within the Republican Party beside the NH incident.
Well, it's not just New Hampshire.
Here's a useful list of voter registration fraud.
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Voter_Registration_Fraud_Clearinghouse#State-by-State_Breakdown_of_stories
I'm guessing Tommy is in the "Vince-Foster-was-murdered-by-the Clintons" camp. Rarely do you see a conspiracy theory with as little merit as the Vince Foster saga, yet right-wingers will cling to this theory as if there was no greater truth in the universe.
So, just so we are clear, Tommy. Conspiracy theories advanced by the left are to be dismissed immediately. Conspiracy theories advanced by the right are just good, hard-nosed, investigative journalism. Do I have that right?
As Randi Rhodes pointed out they can't steal it if there is an overwhelming response. That's exactly what we had. The previous elections were close enough. Look at Florida in 2000, an illegal ballott, a partisan in charge of the vote count, an obvious over vote for a candidate in the county with the illegal ballott. If Gore had taken Palm Beach county by 15,000 we'd be enjoying Al's second term. Unfortunately only 600 or so votes seperated them. It was close enough to fix, and it was. That being said there were still problems in Florida and Ohio with electronic machines conspicuously losing votes for Democrats. It doesn't take a conspiracy to steal an election esp. if you own the machines as Mr. Hagel did when he miracuously won in an upset in 2004.
Randi Rhodes.......well, why didn't you say it? I thought you were talking about a partisan left wing hack?
As opposed to you being a right wing hack...
My opinions are my own, I would hope clear thinking people of their own mind wouldn't take them as gospel, anymore than they would Randi Rhodes'.
Trust me on this: we don't.
Tommy, you stopped reading at the first line, clearly... Bing's point was that the turnout in most of the 2006 elections was so large that it overcame any possibility of vote tampering. That's most, 18,000 undervotes from Sarasota County FL is no small hill of beans.
Generally, you don't see tampering unless you go look for it. When you win an election, you have other things on your mind. Doesn't mean that they didn't try - or that they did - just that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It could be that the Republicans who lost last year are such good sports that they didn't bother looking for any voting irregularities. It could be that they looked and didn't find anything. Who knows.
Val, Absence of evidence is absence of evidence - I'm sorry. If there is proof of some "vast right wing conspiracy" through voter fraud with convictions, then pony it up.
Otherwise, conjecture and possibility and "Elvis sightings" are just that.
Tommy with all due respect I don't think any manner of convictions will convince you. Many acts of voter fraud and disenfranchisemtn are legal. For example in Ohio 2004, Democratic districts had less voting machines than Republican districts which caused delays of several hours. This was not by mistake. It was also not a mistake that Republican districts registered no Kerry votes but 100% voter turnout. Thes aren't illegal but they happened. The voter intimidation was rampant as well. In Colorado we had a right winggroup calling up registered Democrats posing as Democrats and giving bad information on polling places.
Bing, Convictions will most certainly convince me more than wild allegations. If something such as"voter fraud" are legal, then let the Ohio or any state's Democratic party work to change the laws instead of whining about something that is LEGAL! Does that not sound ridiculous to you?
I hear this complaint all the time from Democrats when the lose elections, but did you hear any of that from the right when they were beaten up in 2006? No, and you rarely do. They take their lumps, figure out why they lost, stop blaming disenfranchisment or fraud, and clean up their own house so they might win again. The Democrats could do the same - change the laws, monitor elections more closely, do what it takes.
Nobody wants fraudulent elections, EVER.......if there is evidence there is, then bring it forth and convict those responsible.
Tommy, I just explained to you that a stink was made, it was under reported. And if you look you will find hard proof of voter fraud and intimidation across the board regarding the Republican party. I understand that convictions would better convince you but as I stated fraud happens without any laws being broken. If you wanted to do the research I think you would be convinced. But ce'la'vie.
The Democrats did "do what it takes," with obvious results.
Republicans do whine and complain - they also fire U.S. attorneys tht don't follow up on their imaginary claims of voter fraud.
"did you hear any of that from the right when they were beaten up in 2006? No, and you rarely do."
Boy, wonder why THAT is! Could it be because The Democrats Do Not Steal Elections at the rate the Republicans have proven themselves capable of? Could it be that the Democratic leadership, slimy as they may be, still have some kind of hold on a sense of BASIC political morality that they'd not use national offices to organize voter fraud at key places across the nation? Basic principle here, Tommy: The right can't complain of cheating when none took place. The Democrats complaining of cheating when it has been proven does not make them the whiners that you and the rest of the right are desperately trying to paint them as.
Face it: The Democratic leadership may be slimy, but the Republican leadership has been proven to be slimy and crooked.
"Nobody wants fraudulent elections, EVER"
Except Republicans, obviously. Otherwise, the right-wingers who can clearly see proof of fraud would stop insinuating that the Democrats are picking over small beans instead of bringing up valid points about the sanctity of our Democratic process.
I think what you mean is absence of obvious evidence. Evidence is all around, you have to look for it. Must be the left wing media bias.
You are being ridiculous what about the staged riot that shut down the recount in Florida where a goodly portion of the 'rioters' were identified as CONGRESSIONAL STAFFERS FOR THE GOP??????? The fact you LOVE to be lied to and burry your head in the sand doesnt mean that those of us that actually know what we are talking about are deluded only that YOU are brainwashed
Call her a hack but her facts check out. She provides links to her sources and is often way ahead of the media in reporting. To her credit she declares that she is no journalist just a talk show host and she encourages you not to trust her.
While we are there though, let's compare. I dare anyone to pick a right wing radio host and match up against Randi and see who is talking straight. She don't lie. She might take it to Bush and other righties pretty hard but she knows what she's talking about.
It doesnt matter WHO said it those are uncontested FACTS.
It is only the ones the Democrats lose afterall look how the Republicans stole the Presidency from Gore in 2000 with the Bush theft.
Hate speech?
The only hate speech comes from Hannity and his ilk.
Tommy I have been watching the crap go on in your country every election. I am shocked at the juvinial games played by Rove et al. From the Florida fiasco to complaints in the last election. Just because the Dem's won does not mean that fraud is OK with them. The GOP theme of if it is leagal then do it as opposed to is it moral has left your country the laughing stock of many international obsevers. When third world countries have cleaner elections than the wealthiest country in the world one must ask-What the hell went wrong?Your founding fathers would be mortified to see some of the ways that cheating and immoral acts have permiated your elections.
Mark,
I am not sure what country you are from, but here in America we have due process where it takes real evidence to convict someone of a crime........not whining from one side or the other to excuse their own failings - which is primarily the crux of these baseless voter fraud charges, except the ones that have resulted in convictions.
...unless you're an "enemy combatant".
Morality and ethics are not legal or illegal. They are up to the individual.
Tommy. Why do you need a conviction to prove that things were done wrong. My lawyer is bigger than your laywer is crappy excuse for not doing the right thing. Think of the wisper campains. Legal sure. Were they the right thing to do? Of course not.Anything to win though.
Mark, It isn't what I need, it's the way our legal system is set up. Accusations and allegations are easy to toss out, proving them through the due process of law with evidence resulting in convictions is the way we do things here.
And for the record, I am not talking about immorality - that is a completely different measurement.
The Right likes to move the bar at their own whim. Remember, it's not "fire anyone involved in leaking a covert agent's name" it's "fire anyone CONVICTED of leaking a covert agent's name."
See, what throws your argument off is the "covert" part...Plame wasn't...:-(
Would you care to back that statment up?
Quite easy, really, they got Libby for perjury,,,,that's it. If they could've gotten him for more they would have. Secondly, Armitage, Novak, etc., would be in trouble as well. Finally, she'd already been identified as a member of the CIA in a Vanity Fair article. You see there's vastly more evidnece that Plame wasn't covert than that a VAST CONSPIRACY exists
Seems to me like your being a little loose with the facts to suit your agenda sir.
I suggest you read this timeline sir and draw your own conclusions. VF article was in 2004… July 8, 2003 – Columnist Robert Novak calls senior White House adviser Karl Rove, according to subsequent media accounts. Novak tells Rove he had heard that Joseph Wilson’s wife, who worked for the CIA, played a role in Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger. Rove confirms the story to Novak without mentioning Valerie Wilson’s name or covert status, saying “I heard that, too.” ( Rove ... Talk on C.I.A. Officer, NY Times, July 2003). Novak will later write that he originally acquired the information from an official who is “no partisan gunslinger.” Novak says, “When I called another official for confirmation, he said: ‘Oh, you know about it.’” (Novak, " CIA Leak" Chicago Sun-Times, Oct 2003).Miller speaks with Libby for the second time. In both this interview and the interview on July 12, 2003 Miller claims that Libby “played down the importance of Mr. Wilson's mission and questioned his performance.” (Miller, Judith “ My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room ,” The New York Times. 16 October 2005.) On the same day, Libby allegedly met with the Counsel to the Vice President David S. Addington and asked what paperwork the CIA would have if an employee’s spouse traveled overseas. Libby was also advised by the Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs Catherine Martin, who had spoken with “another government official,” that Wilson ’s wife worked for the CIA. (Fitzgerald, Patrick J., Department of Justice , United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby. 28 October 2005.) http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html
Granted, but that still begs the answer to why they didn't throw that in against Libby.
And what of Gn. Vallely saying wilson outed her to him?
they call that hearsay. In other words not substantiated with verifiable facts.
So, therefore, it can be neither confirmed nor denied. Leaving it as a possibility. Interesting since Libby just went to jail because it came up to Russert's word against his.
Weinerocks, now I know you're just some kid playing around. You've had the whole Plame case explained in patient excruciating detail at this very site. You're not a dumb kid, you wouldn't be able to hang in as long as you do if you weren't at least one of the smartest kids in your school.
Which leads me to believe that you're just wasting people's time for fun. Or you're fairly bright, just lacking the "logic" part of the old noodle.
What begs to be answered is why you made crap up in your first post.
Because there are other elements of the crime which are harder to prove, for instance they would have to prove Libby KNEW she was covert. Now if Libby hadnt LIED, had he coughed up the truth they MIGHT have been able to prove those elements but since he LIED we will never know.
Both the CIA and Fitzgerald said she WAS covert. In fact the only people who say she wasnt are the rightwing liars who have brainwashed you. Who is a better judge of who is and who isnt a covert agent, the CIA or some guy posting on a website who constantly shows he NEVER knows what he is talking about?
Real evidence eh?Like yellow cake,WMD's,Links to BIn Lauden. Many things have been done as of late with no evidence.Again the attitude that if it is leagal it is OK does not fly with me.There is more to life than just not breaking the law. "DO THE RIGHT THING" -spike lee
Hannity is one of the few people who make Tucker Carlson look like a genius.
"vast right wing conspriracy?" Do they just issue everyone at the Democratic National Convention tin foil hats? Hillary makes the slack jawed yokels who getanal probed by aliens rational. This is your front runner? Good luck.
...by aliens LOOK rational...
DAMMIT
Is this a hit and run or do you want to have a discussion?
Sorry friend, there is a concerted effort by people in the media of a certain political bent that wilingly lie cheat and spin to slander political opponents. There was a concerted effort to bring down Clinton by the same group of people and eventually the fool got caught with his pants down. (sorry couldn't resist!) Seriously come on. The Fox news network is an all out puppet of the GOP! In other words there is most certainly a vast right wing conspiracy. Perhaps you should don the tin foil hat. Savage is not accurate with facts by the way, you might want to consider that.
Really? Savage isn't always accurate? OMG, and just the other day I said he wa....oh wait I already know that and have never made that claim...all I said was that he rocks (which he does). That said I'm going to have to take a play out of you guys' book, since everytime a con talks about left media bias you say "where's the proof?", so I will parrot your argument. Where's your proof that foxnews is primarily right? I would contend that, while more right than say, everything else but con talk radio, the only reason it seems far right is because the rest of the news stations are lib biased. And is foxnews really all you've got? If that's the case 1 station out of all news networks hardly counts as "vast"
Damn, Bingvangorden, I thought maybe you wanted a dissusion. I guess you don't like to play the "burden of proof game" when all you have is rhetoric and insinuations.
The proof is in all those memos Moody wrote.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200611150009
The following are excerpts from memos Moody wrote before and during the 2004 presidential campaign:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002
Today we have a picture -- aired on Al Arabiya -- of an American hostage being held with a scarf over his eyes, clearly against his will. Who's outraged on his behalf? It is important that we keep the Abu Graeb [sic] situation in perspective (5/5/04).
Moody on the war in Iraq:
As is often the case, the real news is [sic] Iraq is being obscured by temporary tragedy3/25/04).It won't be long before some people start to decry the use of "excessive force". We won't be among that group (4/4/04).
Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? The US is in Iraq to help a country brutalized for 30 years protect the gains made by Operation Iraqi Freedom and set it on the path to democracy. Some people in Iraq don't want that to happen. That is why American GIs are dying. And what we should remind our viewers (4/6/04).
on Falluja
Let's not get lost in breast-beating about the sadness of the loss of life. They had a chance (4/22/04).
[L]et's refer to the US marines we see in the foreground [of pictures coming out of Fallujah] as "sharpshooters" not snipers, which carries a negative connotation (4/28/04).
There are tons more if you REALLY need evidence the sky is blue
Well Savage, you could say that changing the meaning of the word "conspiracy" is a part of the conspiracy itself. "Conspiracy" simply means two people conspiring together to a common end. The tin foil hat definition is a recent creation, and is usually the best defense when evidence of conspiracy surfaces. We know that the right conspired during Watergate, conspired during the phone-jamming, and conspired in numerous documented instances of push-polling. Add to that the numerous cases of voter intimidation, disenfranchisement, and outright election fraud, and what you have at the very least is a long list of separate incidents. It is not unreasonable for one to connect the dots and claim that rather than a series of isolated wrongdoings, the right has for years engaged in these practices as part of their overall election strategy. Is anyone who attempts to connect these dots automatically a tin foil hat wearer? Of course not. So for these folks to be immediately dismissed because of a fundamental misunderstanding (which you, Savage, have illustrated) of what the word "conspiracy" means, is a sad indictment of Americans' ability to be habitually misinformed.
Do they confiscate all the grey matter of you propaganda parrots or are you REALLY this stupid?
People still watch Hannity?!?!
I thought Americans had moved on, he still has the same talking points, I would think even republicans grow tired of his ranting.
I think all TV news stations are medicore at best, espcecially at covering politics. All I ever use is the internet, the one place where the truth resides.
Hate speech, once defined by racial slurs and talk of death, is apparently now merely accusing a political party of having an underlying secret agenda. Thank Hanity for lowering that bar.
Hanity will forgive Coulter but call THIS hate speech??
I live near Utah and Hannity challeged Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson to a debate on Iraq. Hannity said he would fly for free to Utah and debate Anderson, "anytime, anywhere." Now Hannity is not going to unless fox and his local radio station that carries his program are the only one to carry the debate. This guy is a weasel and a lowlife, conservatives show how simple-minded they are by listening to people like Hannity. It goes to show again that conservatives are wimps when push comes to shove. All blow and no show
So typical of the righties!