McCain appeared on Beck's radio show shortly after Beck called Clinton a "stereotypical bitch"
Less than two weeks after Glenn Beck called Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) a "stereotypical bitch," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) appeared on the March 27 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show. Discussing the emergency supplemental funding bill for the Iraq war recently passed by the House, McCain called it "shameful" and "disgraceful," and said of the Democratic troop withdrawal plan included in the bill: "I think we should call this legislation the Date Certain for Surrender Act." At the end of the interview, McCain said: "I look forward to coming back with you, Glenn. I thank you, and I look forward to coming back on."
As Media Matters has documented, Beck -- who hosts an evening program on CNN Headline News and was recently hired as a commentator for ABC's Good Morning America -- has a long history of extreme, hate-filled speech targeting a number of individuals and groups. He has an extended history of attacks on Arabs and Muslims:
- Beck said to Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim ever elected to Congress: "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " Beck added: "I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way." Beck later apologized for what he said was a "poorly worded question."
- He has declared that "Muslims who have sat on your frickin' hands the whole time" rather than "lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head" will face dire consequences.
- He said that "[t]he Middle East is being overrun by 10th-century barbarians" and "[i]f they take over ... we're going to have to nuke the whole place."
- Beck aired a segment mocking the names of several missing Egyptian students in which the announcer said that one "may or may not be accompanied by his camel." The segment showed pictures of crowds and pointed to random, unidentifiable people as the missing Egyptians. It ended with a reading of the students' names in quick succession followed by the announcer pretending to gag as he struggled to pronounce them.
Beck has smeared numerous other groups as well:
- Beck claimed that there are three reasons that an illegal immigrant "comes across the border in the middle of the night": "One, they're terrorists; two, they're escaping the law; or three, they're hungry. They can't make a living in their own dirtbag country."
- Beck referred to "those who were left in New Orleans [during Hurricane Katrina], or who decided to stay" as "scumbags" and said he "hate[s]" the families of 9-11 victims.
- Beck called anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan "a pretty big prostitute." He later described her as a "tragedy pimp."
- During a discussion of the "politically correct world we live in," Beck claimed that Braille on walls (used to identify rooms for blind people) "drives me out of my mind." He then said, "Just to piss them [blind people] off, I'm going to put in Braille on the coffee pot ... 'Pot is hot.' "
- After airing a clip from the documentary film An Inconvenient Truth in which former Vice President Al Gore states that global warming could cause many highly populated coastal areas to be submerged by seawater -- including the entire city of Shanghai -- Beck responded: "This is what would happen to Shanghai. Does anybody really care? I mean, come on. Shanghai is under water. Oh, no! Who's gonna make those little umbrellas for those tropical drinks?"
Most recently, he has taken to smearing Rosie O'Donnell, who also appears on ABC:
- On March 16, Beck claimed that O'Donnell "has more contempt for the United States than the guy who is the number-two guy of Al Qaeda" -- a reference to alleged 9-11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
- On March 20, Beck called O'Donnell "a fat witch" and continued to repeatedly mock her weight.
- On March 23, Beck claimed to be "a little ashamed" that he had called O'Donnell a "witch," but quickly added, "But she's so fat."
From the March 27 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: So, Senator, you know, you and I disagree on a few things. But we do agree on the war. And what is happening in Congress right now, I honestly think is morally reprehensible.
McCAIN: Well I do, too. I do, too. And I think we should call this legislation the Date Certain for Surrender Act. If you believe -- and I've watched you, and I know you agree with me that -- if you believe we ought to get out of Iraq, if you don't think that another penny or life should be put in danger or wasted, then, by golly, then vote to cut off the funding.
BECK: Thank you.
McCAIN: Vote to cut off the funding and stop it now. Instead -- but they won't do that, Glenn, because then they have responsibility for what happens.
[...]
McCAIN: Listen, I'm looking forward to coming back with you. I thank you, Glenn, and I look forward to coming back on.
McCain's appearance on Beck's show have absolutely nothing to do with Beck's comments about HC. They are in no way related, which raises the question why they are linked here? To slam McCain? Or to get Beck more thread time?
Tommy,Appearances on these shows by reputable politicians provides a level of credibility and respectability that many of these shows don't merit. For instance why would any serious politician go on Michael Savage's show? They might as well go on Jerry Springer's TV show. Why associate with that. That said I doubt if some of these politicos are aware of some of the things these nutty political talk show hosts say or do, and Beck is still relatively new to the scene. Beck doesn't seem as crazy as Savage he's just a self professed nit wit.
Lynn,
What about Democrats going on Imus?
Imus is worse than Beck.
I dont know why anyone would go on EITHER of their shows
Jeter,
I'm talking about any politician regardless of political affiliation and I feel the same way about the Imus show. I have never understood why politicians and serious journalists go on his show. I've said that here many many times.
Jeter
PS.
I must admit until recently I watched the Imus show because these politicians let their hair down with him for some reason. Imus' Q&A sessions with these congressman-senators could be very revealing. The only problem is Imus being the prima donna that he is will only ALLOW the politicians he likes on his show, so he essentially has the same guest over and over and over...... But Imus and his crew are jerks.
Hey Lynn,
I know you've knocked Democrats for appearing on Imus here on numerous occasions and I agree that neither party does themselves any favors by continuing to guest on his program. Or programs similar to his.
Politicians--Republicans or DEMOCRATS appearing on either program give those clowns Beck & Imus credibility neither deserve.
I just would like MMFA to at least acknowledge that about Democrats appearing on Imus, since they are obviously so bent out of shape about a Republican appearing on Beck's program.
It's called consistency.
Otherwise they sound like hypocrites.
"I just would like MMFA to at least acknowledge that about Democrats appearing on Imus, since they are obviously so bent out of shape about a Republican appearing on Beck's program."
You've been here long enough to know that this site aims at conservative misinformation. It's not "fair and balanced" fantasy land. If you want people taking shots at liberals, try MRC.
Prag,
MMFA looks ridiculous citing McCain as being somehow wrong for appearing on Beck's program because 2 weeks earlier he [Beck] called Hillary a bitch. Especially since MANY Democrats have appeared with Imus after Imus & his buddies have called Hillary exactly the same thing.
If MMFA is not going to acknowledge THAT, then they've got a hell of a nerve pointing out that a Republican would appear on Beck's program when Democrats are appearing on Imus.
IF you can't see how that comes off as hypocritical...
Let me make it simple for ya:
Don't knock someone IF you're guilty of the same behavior.
Nice analysis J2. I posted angry one day recently (Shouldn't do that) about this site not being interested in the truth, just winning arguments. This is the kind of thing I was talking about. Exposing half the story doesn't get you all the way home.
Bruce,
This thread is an example of just that. I can't understand where MMFA is even going with this...especially since Democrats appear regularly on Imus, who, IMO, is a heck of a lot worse than Beck.
Imus is cited here fairly often for numerous *infractions*...yet Democrats continue to appear on his program.
How ridiculous to slam McCain for his appearance on Beck's show when many Democrats are practically regulars on Imus.
Pressure to fill up space.
Gotta "go" with somethin'--don't know for sure what the remainder of the day will offer.
That's what I think too, Lemoc.
What show did MMFA appear on again?
Or are you saying that anything a Republican does should be off-limits if any Democrat, anywhere, anywhen, did something similar?
...are you saying that anything a Republican does should be off-limits if any Democrat, anywhere, anywhen, did something similar?...by valentinian
I'm saying be prepared to have it thrown back in your face.
McCain appearing on Beck is no different that Biden appearing on Imus.
MMFA creating a thread about McCain's appearance on Beck is ridiculous at best, and stinks of overt hypocrisy at worst.
IF you don't get that, then there's not much more I can say Val.
Again, if Biden appears on Imus, does that mean that no one left of Karl Rove can object if McCain appears on Beck? How broad a brush do you really think you can use, Jeter?
Val,
Object all you'd like, as long as you understand how friggin ridiculous your objection is when Democrats frequent Imus's program and are essentially as guilty as MMFA is trying to allege McCain is.
Wanna sound like a hypocrite? Good, cause you do.
You and Tommy- One Tone are wrong again, go to the freeper site if you don't like it. For the last time, it's about conservative misinformation, conservative misinformation........
Ok genius where's the "Conservative Misinformation"?
This is yet one more glaring example of SELECTIVE Liberal/Democratic outrage.
And what's your brilliant [cough cough] suggestion? Go to a Freeper site if we don't like it.
You do realize this site is becoming no better than those "freeper" sites are. And this thread proves it.
You've become what you Liberals claim to despise. Biased close-minded partisans. Nothing to be proud of.
A bunch of little Liberal Hannity's. Too funny.
Them's Fightin' Words!!!
Keep sounding like your buddy Tommy, all you write about is how articles don't belong here on MMFA. Leave if it pisses you off, real cute about the liberal hannity crack, ha ha ha or LOL LOL LOL
This site is advocational. It has a dog in the fight---liberality/Democratics. Like in the courtroom where two lawyers square off against each other to do the best for their clients, not the good of society as a whole necessarily. We, the consumers of this site and the all the other media, are the judge/jury.
Imus is worse than Beck
And yet Democrats like Joe Biden appear on his show Monday and kiss his A**. Dodd is on the show regularly, Kerry is on the show regularly. His producer Bernie calls Hillary a "B*tch" as well. I feel this piece is not fair, lets focus on real hate on MSNBC every morning in Imus.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703070009
Chuck Schumer has gone on Savage's show.
To make a point: Conservatives hate strong assertive women and minorities, but they love the white guy.In isolation, you're correct it doesn't amount to anything, but a larger picture is being painted here. This is just one square inch.
sort of how Liberals hate the unborn?
Conservatives don't hate minorities or assertive women. They hate people that they disagree with. just like the left. We smack Michael Moore or Sean Penn, you smack Glenn Beck or George Bush. It's all a game. Politicians whore themselves out to talk shows to attract voters. McCain was on Beck to slam Congress for its shameful inclusion of $20B in pork for a supposed emergency military spending bill.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR DEMOCRAT!!
If you vote for John McCain, you must be in favor of prostitution being legalized, and available on demand. John seems all to willing to drop to his knees for any degenerate that may have a forum on demand!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I think legalized prostitution would rock. Clean it up, tax the heck out of it. The same for soft drugs.
You know in the movie "It's a Wonderful Life", where the Jimmy Stewart character is shown a very cold cruel future for his town if he kills himself? It seems like were there.
I knew the repercussions of Hunter Thompson eating that shotgun would be dire.
Actually, Goobs, that is an interesting observation. The presumption in IAWF is that if Potter, the town capitalist, takes over the town it will become nothing but a chintzy, cheap and tawndry existence. If George Bailey's vision progresses, the working class is given more opportunity.
Which America do we live in?
Beck puts me in mind of the hardened keeper of the new neon sign lit bar.
Capra's vision was to portray George as a capitalist with compassion.
We have evolved to that as a society. WE. We are ALL capitalists, like it or not.
Not me. Capitalists have investments. I have debts.
I think you may be making the point that our society has evolved a market economy, and like it or not it is our milieu. I might have some quibbles about that, but "we are all capitalists" is simply not factual.
By participation (choice or no choice), we all are. And your actual balance sheet is probably better than you think. The Present Value of your future social security receipts should appear on your financial statements.
You're not keeping two sets of books, are you?
Damn, I miss Hunter.
I could not have survived the Nixon and Reagan years without him.
Amen, King.
The porn industry stuttered for a short time when he checked out.
I'll bite. Whatcha talkin' 'bout?
He ALWAYS had porn playing on ALL the TV's at his place(s). Part of the "all chaos, all the time" theme.
Anyway, that's what some some journalist wrote.
And if it wasn't true, they couldn't say it--we all agree on that.
Oh please.
And how many Democrats appear on Imus shortly after he's said something nasty about Hillary or [fill in name] or right after he has ventured into the racist bigoted cesspool with that buddy of his [can't remember his name]
When will MMFA have a thread about that???????
Never?
Yup, that's what I figured
This thread is ridiculous.
And I don't care for McCain or Beck.
Your analogy and comparison is spot on - this is a ridiculous thread and definitely warrants a "why is this here?".
I am with you Jeter, I have no love lost for either Beck or McCain - but when it's so transparent as to why these threads are here, well, why don't they just put up a target with some pundit or right wing politician square in the middle and say "Fire away!"? To cloak it in some misinformation is absurd.
Count me in, too. This is a nonsense thread. It's along the lines of so and so appeared on fill in the blank tv show and never was it mentioned that they pulled the wings off of a fly when they were 12.
Wow. Look what slithered out of his gated community to make an appearance. And look. You learned how to reply to a post! I guess old constipated dogs can learn something.
New! Available from Ronco. The fantastic Tommy "Why is this here?" rubber stamp. No longer will you have to ignore topics that disinterest you. You can literally put your stamp on them with minimal effort.
Coming to your favorite retailer.
Tommy,
This thread has no merit. Doesn't even make sense. And I agree with what you wrote in your first post:
"They are in no way related, which raises the question why they are linked here? To slam McCain? Or to get Beck more thread time?"
This thread was obviously slapped together by MMFA just to slam Beck and/or McCain. Including Hillary in the mix is such a stretch that it's laughable...
Will MMFA ever slam a Democrat for appearing on Imus? Not bloody likely.
And yet, it's successfully tied up at least two conservatives, who have taken the time to stamp "What's this doing here?" once again on a thread, while ignoring others. Anything that sucks up some con free time, is good with me.
Prag,
I enjoy your posts because they always make me chuckle as they rarely add much to the discussion and only serve to highlight your lack of reading comprehension for everyone here.
I'm sorry it hurts your feelings when someone successfully points out that MMFA isn't perfect.
MMFA never claimed to be fair and balanced so I'm not really sure what point you have here?
Jeter, despite your so-called "success" in pointing out MMFA's sins, this site does point out Mr. Straight Talk's various contradictions. Its possible that someone might even email his campaign and point out his appearance on a show that uses such contradictory language and maybe his press liason will think twice before recommending Mr. Straight being on such a show. Isn't that what MMFA can do, spur action against such reporting?
"I wondered, and still do, why people respond to posts that are frivilous or have no substance? If they find it so necessary to respond, then don't whine about why they are there in the first place." - Tommy (just a few threads ago)
You're so creeeeeeeeeepy.
Very nice, Val. Touche'
That post is going to come back to bite him in the a$$ on a daily basis.
I've got 5 dollars on him flagging his own post so we can't use it against him in the future.
Are you all that bored that I become the topic even when I'm not here, I am flattered, but it's still damn creeeeeeeeeepy.
And if you bothered to read what I wrote, I specifically said I wondered why people responded to silly POSTS, not TOPIC THREADS......which this one absolutely is. And I feel a duty to point that out to many of you, since your blinders can't see it for yourself.
So, just to be clear, I don't flag any of my posts, they are here for everyone to read (and keep, creeeeeeeeepy).
I will continue to respond to topic threads I view as frivilous - call it whining if you like, it's all good.
And thanks for thinking of me so often.........????
"Are you all that bored that I become the topic even when I'm not here[?]"
Uh, don't look now, but you are here. I was responding directly to one of your posts. Are you so narcissistic that you think all of this disappears when you step away from the computer? I guess that would explain your constant amazement at how we're able to quote your past posts (hint: nobody but MMFA "keeps" them).
It doesn't matter that your original comment was about "silly" posts (you do know that you were refering to your own posts, right?), because you're doing the exact same thing with entire threads.
"I will continue to respond to topic threads I view as frivilous - call it whining if you like..."
Actually, you called it whining, but thanks for confirming that it's your "duty" to whine.
I don't know much about Beck but anyone who smears Rosie O'Donnell is OK with me.
Yeah, this thread could be characterized as ridiculous, or even not relevant, but sure is fun to provide opinions on a site that allows both parties to exchange thoughts ( or non-thoughts )
Yeah, I'd rather argue the specific issue, rather thanthe meta-issue of whether or not you think there are other things someone else should put up on their web site.
I could spend all day bitching about what they put up at TownHall.com, but why?
Thinly veiled excuse.
This is a shabby attempt to defame McCain...using Beck as an excuse. Think what you want about either...this is pandering and juvenile.
Call it a public service announcement. MMFA has documented quite well the cycle of misinformation that Beck regularly delivers. MMFA has documented quite well the lack of integrity McCain displays. This is a friendly reminder of who mainstream conservatives look to for information.
This is really a two for one deal. Thanks MMFA!
I'm advocating in favor of compassion and understanding for MMFA. Few of us have the pressure to feed a website with SOMETHING, 24-7 (oops--meant 24-5), and ya gotta fill the space if ya wanta keep the pee-pull comin'.
I don't understand the "shocked, shocked" response to the fact that MMFA actually has negative things to say about conservatives...
And nobody knows juvenile better than a whiny wingtroll.
Guys, this may be off topic, but it recently occuured to me to actually use the little "Digg" button. I mean, if we all were to Digg some of those MMFA reports we might make an impact, right? So anyway, I dugg the "Ann Coulter Action Center". Immediately got a "Hate = disagreeing with a liberal comment". Anyway, if anyone thinks it's worth fighting the good fight over there, I'm "Shiphunter".
Any thoughts on this?
Guys, this may be off topic, but it recently occuured to me to actually use the little "Digg" button. I mean, if we all were to Digg some of those MMFA reports we might make an impact, right? So anyway, I dugg the "Ann Coulter Action Center". Immediately got a "Hate = disagreeing with a liberal comment". Anyway, if anyone thinks it's worth fighting the good fight over there, I'm "Shiphunter". Any thoughts on this?
I would have flagged the dupes, but I am on probation for, I think, calling some asshole an "asshole." Big mouth strikes again.
I wonder........if O'Donnell and Beck bump into each in the hallway....or better, a televised event. Forget fighting----it could be an insult-off. ABC would make a bundle, and it would seem to fit their new style.
It's funny that Beck would use the words "stereotypical bitch" to refer to Rdoham-Clinton. I've actually thought that phrase applies to Beck--more like the bitchiness of the adolescents in "Mean Girls" rather than a womanly kind of bitch. Sexist, I know, but stereotypes do come to mind . . .
Of course McCain appeared on Beck. McCain's a vote whore.
Schumer appeared on Savage's radio show. Funny I don't seem to remember a MMFA post about that one. So strange really--they must have missed it somehow.
You, Bruce, and Jeter will have much to discuss.
What about Tommy? It doesn't matter, we don't do or say anything without Karl Rove's permission!!
Sorry... and Tommy. And Dumbfounded D and Dexteritas too (below).
Speaking of McCain, there was a funny spoof on his MySpace page.
dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
So i must have missed it.what part of McCain appearing on Beck was misinformation?The level of credibility and respectability will drop here if they are so transparent about there motives and slanted views. It will become the site that cried wolf. I know that if i dont like what i'm reading then i can go someplace else. But eventually that will be said to everyone and who will be left to blog?
You are reading the mission statement of the 501(c)3 that pays for this blog. I have never seen where anyone represented that every post on this blog would always, of necessity, closely adhere to the mission statement of MMfA.
It seems to me that items are posted to provoke debate and discussion, and for no other reason. The debate and discussion are always, without exception, more interesting than the meta-discussions about the people who decide what to post.
I beg to differ. everytime the topic drifts towards the other side of the Mission Statement, i.e- dem-bias and liberal misinformation, we get called out as trolls or beck lovers. But the only way we can see where this logic comes from is to ask questions and see if it can refute our own logic. i am not a dense person. if your argument holds up then i have no choice but to question my own. Isnt that what this sight is for? or is it just for like minded libs?
D, everybody here is an individual, but my impression is that there is a fair amount of repectful - if sometimes bare-knuckled - debate on this site. Everyone has a point of view and everyone generally defends it strongly. That is not the same thing as intolerance of other points of view.
I was not meaning intolerance. it was seeming like the genuine questions were not being answered. or the questions were taken as if they were from a far right troll when that is not the case. i am open to healthy debate. but even when this site is for the purpose of bringing attention to conservitive misinformation it should not be an excuse to side step other points of a valid debate. for a fair fight/debate, all parties should be armed with information. otherwise its propaganda to one party or the other.
"So i must have missed it.what part of McCain appearing on Beck was misinformation?" dumbfounded d
"And I think we should call this legislation the Date Certain for Surrender Act."- Lord McCain
Right there, that is misinformation. The surrender frame is misinformation.
"And I think we should call this legislation the Date Certain for Surrender Act."- Lord McCain
Again, what part of this is misinformation? i can think all day long that we should rename the sun the moon and the moon the sun and it would not be catigorized as misinformation. it is an opinion. And considering that he is not the only person in congress that thinks that running away from iraq and stickin our heads in the sand is not going send a clear message to the terrorists??they will say to there allies "if they can hold out until the americans leave then we can regroup and win" or that " the american people gave up"
btw- there is more misinformation in your re-writing of the quote than there was in it. i know its satirical but quoting someone and then adding your own misinformation seems counter productive of what you preach.
ps. if that was the misinformation then why is that not being discussed?
forgive the punctuation errors. if it seems like there should be one then feel free to add it.
Alright. I misspoke. It's not outright misinformation. It's his opinion, a very inaccurate agenda driven opinion. Check MMfA's mission statement again very closely and explain how this thread does not fall under the purview of their mission.
His opinion, the prevailing conservative opinion, that a timeline for withdrawal will allow insurgents to cool their heels until the U.S. pulls out is faulty in this way: What is preventing them from going underground and waiting out the storm right now? But the point is moot. Our military presence in Iraq serves no interest of national security anyway. Nor are we winning hearts and minds; Iraqi's believe life was better under Saddam (no I don't have a link for that last assertion, I'm recalling a report I heard on the BBC). Furthermore, ending the occupation of Iraq and implementing a political solution is a more sensible alternative to defusing the insurgency than blunt military force.
Now, Dems in Washington are not being altogether forthcoming about withdrawal or maybe they are not being clear enough, but a military presence will probably have to remain in Iraq for support of the political mission. I also wish more attention would be given to the private armed contractors in Iraq. What will become of them?
p.s.- The inaccuracy, formerly misstated as misinformation, in McCain's statement is more than likely not being discussed because for some reason too many people on this site will indulge tommy on tommy's terms. In other words, we are easily derailed.
Well first off. whats preventing them from going under ground and hiding right now is our military bombing every hole they crawl into. if they went and hid, we would find them and take them out. Our miltary is keeping them on there toes and keeping them busy. There are military reports stating that if we pulled out today then 1 million iraqis would die right away and more would follow. everything that we have done there the last 4 years would be a waste. You say the BBC had a report saying life was better under saddams rule?? That is easily refuted by opening up your eyes and looking at the reports. people have a lot more freedom. freedom to vote. and most importantly, the freedom to say what they want and not fear that saddam is going to kill himself and his entire family. And that BBC report goes against what our own news agencies are saying. Ever since we had a surge there the amount of violence in bagdhad has dropped dramatically. i would call that national security.
And true, a political solution would always be first choice but we are not dealing with a political government. we are dealing with terrorist that have sworn to kill us. no amount of politics are going to change their agenda. If you could name one thing that we could do politically to change the terrorists minds on bombing innocent people all over the world then trust me, you would have an open forum to do that. until that time, i think we should finish what we started.
But If we were going to pull our troops before the job is done then we should do it tomorrow. not in 08'
MMFA never claimed to be fair and balanced so I'm not really sure what point you have here?
Wait, so I should take nothing seriously that's written on this site, I should allow none of it to shape my opinions, because it's all biased bs here for liberal entertainment?
Why would you want to even participate or read a site that was bs?
If a site or organization leans to a side, it should provide evidence why their side is better, and be prudent not to be hypocritical...not just ignore their own rules.
If MMfA was doing an article on it's own article about McCain being on Beck, it would be titled something like "MMfA documents McCain appearance on Beck; ignores Democratic appearances on Beck, Imus, Hannity, etc."
You're just whiny because we don't worship the hatemongers you do.
Exactly, and these are the same people that complain about Rush's dittoheads and Fox News' watchers.......settling in the comfort of only like minded thinkers who share the same distaste for anything contrarian is, well, sad.
There is a difference that you don't seem to comprehend between taking a contrarian position and merely being contrary.
Val, You don't like it when I question the validity of a topic thread, that's fine - disagree and explain where I have gone wrong, but to say it's only being contary is ridiculous. The contrary position, in this particular thread, is exactly what many have explained very succinctly, it's hypocrisy in highlighting McCain's appearance on Beck's show when liberals appear on equally inflammatory venues all the time.....and that goes directly to the substance of it.
If you can't, or won't see that, it's your prerogative.
No, hypocrisy would be MMFA appearing on Imus's show, if it were possible for blogs to do TV appearances.
If it is hypocritical merely to point out that someone has done something without noting that others, perhaps closer in political affiliation, have done something similar at some point in time, then the term has no meaning whatsoever.
Biased BS for liberal entertainment? You can try to spin this in whatever manner you want, but I will stand by what I said. MMFA is not required to track liberal issues just because you think they should and never claimed to do so. You do get that right?
Implying that because they don't track both sides makes their items on conservative invalid is pretty weak. This shouldn't surprise me since the favorite defense of the right is "but Clinton did XXX" in an attempt to deflect criticism or instead of addressing the issue. If he is willing to go on a show like Beck's to pander for votes knowing who the audience is and how issues are discussed then I think it is relevant. Does McCain endorse and support the type of discourse that takes place on Beck's show? McCain has shown that he is willing to bend his values in order to get the GOP nomination. He got into bed with the same people that viciously attacked his character and his family back in 2000, yet the media continues to focus on what a stand up, straight talking maverick McCain is.
It makes me wonder what type of campaign this man is going to run in the up coming election cycle if going on Beck is a preview of whats to come.
Still no one has addressed my point about Schumer appearing on Savage's program, a sure sign that the left wingers on this forum acknowledge Media Matters' intellectual dishonesty.
And when Shumer appeared on his program, was it so that Weiner could PROMOTE and SUPPORT his candidacy? I DON'T THINK SO. No comparison there... Move Along....
I DO AGREE HOWEVER, That MMFA was reaching on this one, no doubt. I just think they're too efficient sometimes. Beck obviously doesn't like Hillary Clinton. He's definately NOT even-handed or objective. I think we all can agree on that. The name calling is Beck's mantra and it's ALWAYS aimed directly at DEMOCRATS or WHOEVER disagrees with him.
Slight correction (and INTERESTING OBSERVATION), no pun intended, as far as I know Schumer is NOT running for president.
A sure sign. That must be it.
"If it is hypocritical merely to point out that someone has done something without noting that others, perhaps closer in political affiliation, have done something similar at some point in time, then the term has no meaning whatsoever." = Valentinian
You misunderstood the basis for the hypocrisy claim. It's not hypocritcal to not point out what liberals were doing, it's just biased, which you've made very clear is OK because this is MMfA. The hypocrisy claim had to do with is implying that news outlets are "biased" because they fail to mention counterpoints to their articles (when the counterpoints would support a liberal position) BUT they do so in their own articles.
Basically in a debate or while making an argument, you establish "rules" of engagment. If you're a leaning/biased debator (like MMfA or Hannity), you want to manipulate the rules to give you an advantage, but you can't break your own and have any weight. Arguing that it's OK for MMfA to break their own rules because they have a bias is like saying MMfA is just a liberal rally with no true substance to their work. I think they would take issue with that.
The hypocrisy claim had to do with is implying that news outlets are "biased" because they fail to mention counterpoints to their articles (when the counterpoints would support a liberal position) BUT they do so in their own articles.
You lost me, possibly with multiple uses of "they."
Weren't there a bunch of conservatives jumping up and down defending some website that posted a teaser about Obama being like a serial killer? Yet, yesterday and today, we're the ones displaying selective outrage?
Take note MMFA, no teasers. Teasers are only fair when thumping on lefties but not when thumping on republicans. It's as if MMFA hasn't even read the rules of the game. Republicans can be as assertive as they want, lefties must adhere to strict guidelines of decorum obsequiousness. No fair pushing back you guys.
I don't know what you're talking about Roundhouse.
As for Valentinian, you're right. Correction:
Arguing that it's OK for MMfA to break MMfA's own rules because of a bias is like saying MMfA is just a liberal rally with no true substance to their work. I MMfA they would take issue with that.