On Hannity & Colmes, Morris falsely claimed Gerth book says Media Matters was "set up by Hillary's staff"
On the May 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist Dick Morris falsely claimed that in Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.'s Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown and Co., June 2007), the authors "point[] out that Media Matters ... was actually set up by Hillary's staff, and she had a large amount to do with setting it up." In fact, Her Way does not state that Media Matters for America was "set up by Hillary's staff," nor does it claim that Clinton "had a large amount to do with setting it up." Rather, the book notes that Media Matters is "independent" and "had among its earliest supporters and advisers long-standing allies of Hillary and the Democratic Party."
Morris later added: "I haven't read either book, and I really will comment more after I've read it, but I understand good things about the Gerth book."
From Her Way (Pages 268-269):
One of the attendees at the meetings that led to CREW's [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington] creation was David Brock, a former enemy turned ally of Hillary's who was starting his own nonprofit group about the same time. Hillary and Brock had forged a seemingly strange alliance. Brock's nonprofit, a Washington-based media-monitoring venture called Media Matters for America, found a temporary home in early 2004 at the Center for American Progress. Already providing its daily news summary to Hillary, the center helped [Jodi] Sakol get the daily media analysis prepared by Media Matters in order to help shape the Senate war room activities.
Although it was independent, Media Matters had among its earliest supporters and advisers long-standing allies of Hillary and the Democratic Party. One of them, Kelly Craighead, who planned Hillary's trips for eight years when she was First Lady, advised Media Matters "on all aspects" of its launch. The new group wasted no time becoming an aggressive protector of Hillary's reputation and boasting about its role as a truth police, forcefully going after journalists for what the group deems to be leaving out key information, or cherry-picking material. In three years, the group has cited more than seven thousand examples of "conservative misinformation," Brock said.
Hillary, though not a close friend of Brock's, advised him and "quietly nurtured" his nonprofit empire. The watchdogs at Media Matters often rushed to Hillary's defense.
Moreover, in an endnote on Page 401, the authors note:
Brock, in an e-mail to an author in 2007, said Hillary "was one of a large number of progressive leaders who were interested in the issue of building progressive infrastructure." One of Hillary's closest friends, Susie Tompkins Buell, held a fund-raiser for Brock's cause, and almost half of the Susie Tompkins Buell Foundation's grants in 2004 and 2005 went to Media Matters. (Clinton, Living History, 334, for discussion of their friendship. Form 990 Annual Reports of the Susie Tompkins Buell Foundation for 2004 and 2005 show grants of $300,000 out of total grants of $636,000. See Byron York, "David Brock Is Buzzing Again," National Review, June 14, 2004, for discussion of the fund-raiser.)
From the May 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
MORRIS: Well, I think that it's silly to go after her over the state of her marriage. I felt that Ed Klein (ph) made a mistake when he did that. And, as I understand it, the Gerth book -- I don't know anything about the Bernstein book -- but the Gerth book has a lot of stuff that's really within the foul lines, really fair.
I think he points out that Media Matters, one of the left-wing media critics that periodically unloads on you guys, was actually set up by Hillary's staff, and she had a large amount to do with setting it up. I think they have ethical violations that she committed while a United States senator. So I think that you don't have to go back to archaeology and ancient history. You can talk about the stuff that she's done since she was elected.
COLMES: Well, you say set up by her staff. David Brock set up that site, and he was not a Hillary acolyte, as far as I know.
MORRIS: Well, uh -- but it was set up --
COLMES: But, by the way, the Van Natta book and the Gerth book talk about this plan, this 20-year plan, which has been discounted. They got exclusive, apparently, access to Diane Blair's records, a [unintelligible] friend of Hillary, that says that that's absolutely not true. And it's also discounted by other people like Taylor Branch, who is quoted in the book. And Taylor Branch says, "Absolutely untrue." So that's pretty much been discounted.
MORRIS: Well, I think that Gerth's comment about that 20-year plan, in fact, came from Leon Panetta. And Clinton asked -- Panetta asked Clinton why he was working with me. And Clinton answered that, "Hillary and I have this 20-year plan," and then he went into it. But, listen, I haven't read either book, and I really will comment more after I've read it, but I understand good things about the Gerth book.
Morris must have constant headaches trying to keep all those lies straight.
Good.
Randy
I totally agree... one of these days, someone (not Bill O'Lielly) should make a chart with all the lies and smears spoken and written about 'the left', attach the guilty party's names to them, and send them to every household in America...
Why don't u start with media matters!!!! That'll take the rest of your life.
I'm thinking that Morris is unhappy he never managed to steal one of Hillary's high heels. Dude's really got a thing for her.
He learned from the best. The lying Clintons. Hillary does it with much more ease than Dick. AND she comes up with much better accents depending on where she is.
"He learned from the best. The lying Clintons."
Bingo! Birds of a feather as the saying goes.
Nobody can distort reality like you can it seems.
Hillary used an accent because she was reading in the voice of the author who was a Southerner. She wasn't trying to pretend she was a Southerner.
Unfair smears don't become you.
So it wasn't Soros after all?
Yes it was!
Aha! I have to call MMFA out here.Two quotes from Dick " Sr. Chupadedosdelpies" Morris;
"I think he points out that Media Matters, one of the left-wing media critics that periodically unloads on you guys, was actually set up by Hillary's staff"
"I haven't read either book"
A clear admission of ignorance and delusion.Morris isn't lying, he's just sharing his pathetic fantasies, or what he "thinks" with us. Shame on you, MediaMatters!
Yeah,
This guy is a superstar of conservative journalism.
Doesn't have a frikkin' clue what he's talking about--even admits he hasn't even read the books.
How stupid does he think his audience is? ... I know ... don't answer that.
I guess the discrased former prestident, Bill never lied either, huh. Oh yeah thats why he got impeached. BECAUSE HE'S A LIAR!
So it wasn't Soros after all?- snoopy / Wednesday May 30, 2007 03:41:04 PM EST
It's Soros on Tuesday, Hillary on Wednesday, Bill O'Rielly will come on the air Thursday and say it's snoopy, but all doesn't matter to the right wingers as long as it's swift boating which occurs on Friday when no one pays attention until Monday when the swift boating gets plenty of air play on Hannity and Colmes and everyone by then is too lazy to dig deep and realize they've been swift boated.
If it's Thursday, it must be Snoopy...
I like it!
Snoop does his best work on Thursday!
Soros is an evil master of disguise who assumes the identity of Hillary in his plot to win the presidency.
...yeah, That's Soros' cover and what a great disguise; not to mention a delicious diabolical plan. Soon that evil Liberal will win the American presidency and take over the world and spread freedom, peace and prosperity through out the world. Demon!!
I figure Brock is doing his part for Hills as a token of repentance for his Troopergate story.
Set up? No. Carrying her water? Yup.
What does this have to do with Morris lying and discussing a book he hasn't even read? Oh that's right...nothing.
How does MMFA pointing out conservative misinformation on HRC = David Brock "carrying the water" for her? Is MMFA selectively citing conservative misinformation for some democratic presidential candidates and not others?
You're right, they're carrying the water for them all.
Now you're catching on.
I sort of agree with Jetter on this one (a little).
Brock was nasty to Hills (oh no! Now I'm in trouble!) during the early Clinton years.
But mmfa does not just cover Hillary, so as far as bias (as some people (cons) on this board have suggested), I would say no.
No they're not.
Carrying the water means to be subservient, and allowing oneself to be used.
That's not the case. You wish it was, but it's not. It'd be easier for you to claim that Media Matters is simply a tool of Democratic candidates, instead of a legitimate organization that calls out conservative misinformation!
Excuse me MHK? I most certainly was on topic. Ah me thinks the real problem here is you're just always in such a rush to scream Foul!!--you can't see/read straight!!
I obviously didn't believe Morris because I wrote:
"Set up? No."
The following excerpt is in the book & featured here--and I don't see MMFA saying it's false:
Hillary, though not a close friend of Brock's, advised him and "quietly nurtured" his nonprofit empire. The watchdogs at Media Matters often rushed to Hillary's defense.
That MHK is what I meant by "carrying her water"
Anything else?
Yes excuse you.
Your comments make no mention about Morris which is the main part of this story. Your immediate reaction is to make disparaging comments about Hillary and David Brock in some attempt to imply that MMFA is the cheerleader for the HRC campaign, with your "carry her water" comment. Do I need to cite all of the examples where MMFA is attacking the conservative message when it involves other candidates? Your on this website close to every day yet you still make comments to imply that MMFA has a special agenda just for HRC?
I was always under the impression that you weren't that partisan.
The watchdogs at Media Matters often rushed to Hillary's defense.
They "rush" to her defense because she is often attacked with unfair smears from those on the right.
It's not because they are carrying her water. Here's a good explanation of what "carrying her water" means.
"To carry someone's water" does indeed mean to occupy a subservient position, to do the bidding, the menial tasks, and frequently the dirty work, of a more powerful person, and is most often used in a political context. A junior member of Congress, for instance, who calls a press conference to vigorously denounce criticisms of party elders might be said to be "carrying water" for those criticized. The implication of "carrying someone's water" is that the underling is acting not on personal initiative but at the behest, either explicit or perceived, of more powerful figures. To describe a person as "carrying water for" someone else is pejorative and a subjective judgment, implying that the person is acting only as a proxy for a more important person.
Media Matters is not subservient to Hillary. She happens to get attacked a lot, and so they confront those unfair smears.
You're the one who's not being honest!
Jeter:
On a first name, PET NAME basis ("Hills") with Hillary Clinton? How exciting! How long have you guys known each other, so such pet names aren't meant as demeaning and belittling?
Only if you use "Tex", when it's really "Texas"
Sputter...sppfftt...lmao...now that's funny, I don't care who you are...
Is this the best you got Tex? Man you're really slipping...
Your post doesn't deserve a response, but it's so damn stupid I can't pass on it.
Get off your high horse cowboy.
Yeah no one here calls Hillary "Hills" ::roll eyes::
Only YOU would try to attach some nefarious motive behind it.
1) Plenty of your Dem/Lib comrades have used "Hills" here...yet you've never popped out of the woodwork to chastise them. Double standards once again from the Lone Ranger, gee what a shock.
2) After the numerous *pet names* aka slurs used here by Dem/Libs when referring to Republican/Conservatives in a demeaning & belittling way, you've got a hell of a nerve saying a word about me calling Hillary--"Hills"
Tex, I think it's time for you to ride off into the sunset.
Dang Jeter I thought you had a sense of humor.
Usually Tex's posts are longer. I've always thought them very good.
Trust me eweston, if I thought for one minute that Tex was trying to display a little humor here, I would have responded much differently.
But I've been around these here parts for a few years & while Tex is a very knowledgeable guy...he's also condescending, pompous & tends to pontificate.
His nitpicking about me referring to Hillary as "Hills" is just part of his righteous indignation act. And was ridiculous & totally uncalled for. Thus my retort was appropriate under those circumstances.
As you noted, I do have a sense of humor...but I also do not suffer fools gladly. Nor will I allow someone with *double-standards* to lecture me.
JETER:
You say, "Is this the best you got Tex?"
RESPONSE: Do you expect every comment made to you to BE the "best" ever made? Conversation with you must be highly tedious. NO, to answer your question, it's far from the "best I've got". It was just a comment.
You say, "Man you're really slipping..."
RESPONSE: Actually, with Bush in the 20's approval ratings, and the GOP polling worse, I'm pretty satisfied with the combined efforts of my "leftwing" friends. If that's "slipping", let me slip slide away.
You say, "Your post doesn't deserve a response, but it's so damn stupid I can't pass on it. Get off your high horse cowboy. Yeah no one here calls Hillary "Hills" ::roll eyes:: Only YOU would try to attach some nefarious motive behind it.
RESPONSE: Actually, the "cute and familiar" practice of PET NAMING one's political foes is a mainstay of rightwing narrative building. Limbaugh, for example, never refers to Harry Reid ... it's always "DINGY HARRY". This is a calculated little strategy aimed at belittling and showing lack of respect. It's subtle, but integral to the overall FRAMING that the Rightwing feels they MUST do in order to try to win elections, so it is a widespread practice among rightwing pundits. Your familiar and sneering reference to "Hills" ... when we know you wish only for her defeat ... is just another example of the tactic. No biggie.
You continue, "1) Plenty of your Dem/Lib comrades have used "Hills" here...yet you've never popped out of the woodwork to chastise them. Double standards once again from the Lone Ranger, gee what a shock.
RESPONSE: Don't you listen to O'Reilly? He says it's no defense for an action to point out someone else's bad behavior. This response is thus null.
You continue, "2) After the numerous *pet names* aka slurs used here by Dem/Libs when referring to Republican/Conservatives in a demeaning & belittling way, you've got a hell of a nerve saying a word about me calling Hillary--"Hills"
RESPONSE: Actually, I asked if you actually KNEW Hillary well enough to call her by a Pet Name. I guess not. Then I asked, alternatively, if it was an attempt to belittle. Obviously it was. You say others do the same. Fine. Just wanted to know if you were among their number.
You conclude, "Tex, I think it's time for you to ride off into the sunset."
RESPONSE; Dream on.
Your familiar and sneering reference to "Hills" ... when we know you wish only for her defeat ... is just another example of the tactic. No biggie.
So now you're a mind reader? Gosh what other hidden talents do you have?
Sorry Tex ole boy but since I've written here more than once that I would consider voting for Hillary just to get Bill Clinton back in the White House, your *charges* against me are as usual, false. So there goes your "sneering & familiar" BS argument. Got anything else? Nah, I didn't think so.
The bulk of your post is such mumbo-jumbo I can only figure there isn't much light in your mother's basement for you to see what you're writing.
BTW cowboy, "Hills" isn't the equivalent of referring to someone as "Dingy Harry". Man you are really off your game. Though I see you are still attempting to twist words in order to make the point you don't have.
Belittle Hillary by calling her Hills? Maybe you forgot what I wrote to that nonsense the first time around...so here's an instant replay:
Only YOU would try to attach some nefarious motive behind it.
Tex, seriously ride off into the sunset on your ass...um donkey.
JETER:
I made my point, and you made yours. That's what forums are for. And I learned something wonderful: You are going to vote for Hillary! Congratulations! If you're voting for her, it's OK to call her "Hills". That's sweet!
(If I'd have known you were a Hillary supporter, I probably wouldn't have commented on your Pet Name for her. You've come a long way since the early days, as I recall a distinctive rightwing bent to your ideology back then! Welcome back from the dark side.)
Last week Jeter the hypocrite claimed that some posters here had absolved Brock of guilt. I challenged that claim. He replied, then scolded me on another thread because I didn't quickly reply to his comment. As soon as I found out that he had replied to my comment, I went back and totally demolished his argument. He had tried to use two other posters' comments to bolster his allegations, and one of them, Solon, totally denied Jeter's distortion of Solon's meaning. Jeter originally scolded me for not replying to his comments, but then he failed to come back to that very thread after he was embarrassed by his debunking. If anyone doubts what I say, go to the Malkin thread from about a week ago.
On this thread, Jeter claims that others use "Hills", and that Tex is a hypocrite for only calling Jeter on his usage. In fact it's those on the right who use "Hills" on this site, and Tex called someone on this same behavior, in the same way, two years ago! Here's an example from May of 2005. http://mediamatters.org/items/200505040004?offset=40&show=1
Badfinger continues, "Hills (badfinger has a "pet name" for Hillary? Are they friends? Pals? I've never heard her referred to with this nick-name. Maybe badfinger is "tongue in cheek" here? Isn't such banter supposed to be FUNNY??) ... wants to be all things to all people ...
RESPONSE: Is this the result of badfinger conducting psychoanalysis on Hillary? A conclusion about what "SHE WANTS" is pretty presumptive otherwise. Or maybe badfinger feels safe because EVERY POLITICIAN wants this same thing, in which case it is silly to attempt to pin this characteristic on ONE politician, as if it sets her apart.
- tex / Saturday May 7, 2005 11:55:33 PM EST
I wasted an hour of my time tonight (not looking for sympathy, but documenting that I tried to see if Jeter was right this time), trying to verify Jeter's claim that lots of people call Hillary "Hills". Guess who calls Hillary "Hills"? Jeter, and Hogprint and Badfinger. Both Hogprint and Badfinger are not progressive posters. Jeter used "Hills" as long ago as July of 2005.
Twice in the last week, he had tried to justify his comments by claiming that other's comments here would support his arguments. It was not true either time.
Georgie, your obsession with me borders on psychotic.
Maybe if you'd looked on this very thread [pg 1] you'd have found this:
=====
I sort of agree with Jetter on this one (a little).
Brock was nasty to Hills (oh no! Now I'm in trouble!) during the early Clinton years.
But mmfa does not just cover Hillary, so as far as bias (as some people (cons) on this board have suggested), I would say no.
- aDifferent McCain / Wednesday May 30, 2007 06:15:35 PM EST - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
=====
ADifferentMcCain is a Liberal/Progressive/Democrat
You spent an hour on research and missed it? Hahahahaha. What a loser you are.
Gee I wonder how many others you missed?
As for the rest of your gibberish...I hope others will check out the Malkin thread to see how it really went..not your delusional summation.
Georgie with each post you look more foolish....maybe you should go back to just reading this forum and not posting.
BTW lets review a snippet of what I wrote here and Tex's response:
Me: I've written here more than once that I would consider voting for Hillary just to get Bill Clinton back in the White House
Tex: And I learned something wonderful: You are going to vote for Hillary!
Mmmmm? Is that what I wrote? Nope. It's just Tex lying again. This is the guy you're staking your reputation on? What a dumbass you are.
JETER, you are the definition of pathetic.I made this claim: "Your familiar and sneering reference to "Hills" ... when we know you wish only for her defeat ..." You challenged my claim, in the nature of a rebuttal, thusly, "So now you're a mind reader? ... Sorry Tex ole boy but since I've written here more than once that I would consider voting for Hillary just to get Bill Clinton back in the White House, your *charges* against me are as usual, false."
OK. So you SUPPORT Hillary in the White House? I stand corrected ... or DO I? There is no other possible conclusion, Jeter. I said you wished for Hillary's defeat, and you said this is a FALSE conclusion about you, that you would SUPPORT Hillary. This was your rebuttal, and it was a fine one.
And so I conceded I was wrong about you. You took up supporting Hillary (to get Bill back in office, you said), and I congratulated you on this decision. I admitted I was wrong.Ah, but NOW you come back and rebut your own rebuttal. You didn't SAY you supported Hillary (which was the key to your original rebuttal of my claim ... and to accuse me of "lying" about your position), but only that you'd CONSIDER supporting her.Guess what? By weaseling around on your later claim of Hillary support, you have now destroyed your original rebuttal, and your claim that what I said was "false".
See, either I'm right, and you wish for Hillary's defeat, and you're LYING about "considering" voting for her ... OR, You DO suppot Hillary's candidacy (and I am wrong).
Can you clear this up? ARE you a Hillary supporter, or am I ABSOLUTELY CORRECT to say you wish for her defeat? No weaseling around now, Jeter. It's one or the other. Which?
Here are our actual quotes:
Me: I've written here more than once that I would consider voting for Hillary just to get Bill Clinton back in the White House
Tex: And I learned something wonderful: You are going to vote for Hillary!
=====
Let's keep this simple so even an old demented cowboy like yourself can understand it.
Cowboy: So you want Hillary to be defeated.
Sane Person: Actually no, I'm considering voting for her.
Cowboy: Great, you're voting for Hillary.
Sane Person: Well as of right now I'm only still considering it.
Cowboy: So you admit you want her defeated.
Sane Person: Well no, of course not because I may end up voting for her. I told you I'm considering it.
=====
The rest of your post is just more of your disingenuous, inane ramblings. I'll wait for the movie.
Seriously, there must be an Rest Home for old cowboys...I suggest you check into one.
That's really pathetic.
After you make the comment that others have said it first, you then copy a comment from someone who was only copying YOU?
That's the very definition of pathetic!
Your claim was that people on the left had been intitiating that comment. HBL was simply copying your comment, and did it after Tex raised the issue, and apparently did so because Tex made it an issue! That's entirely different than what you said, which was
"Yeah no one here calls Hillary "Hills" ::roll eyes::
Only YOU would try to attach some nefarious motive behind it.
1) Plenty of your Dem/Lib comrades have used {that's past tense, but HBL used it after you had, and after Tex had called you on it, so it's untrue to claim this as an example!} "Hills" here...yet you've never popped out {how exactly is he to have "popped out" to call HBL on using that term after he (Tex) made his post? Are you saying he's clairvoyant?} of the woodwork to chastise them. Double standards once again from the Lone Ranger, gee what a shock."
No, more nonsense from Jeter. There were no examples of people on the left using "Hills" in a pretty exhaustive search I made before you called Tex out for not mentioning that. You are one of the few who used "Hills", and you've been doing it for at least two years!
Still waiting for you to come up with "plenty of examples" (your words were that there were plenty of examples) of people on the left who had been calling her "Hills".
Your only example of that was to quote another poster who didn't call her "Hills" until after you did and after Tex called you on that behavior!
In order for your example to be valid and appropriate, that example has to come from a post made before yours, not after yours, numbskull!
Who wants to bet that Jeter never replies to this, just like he never replied when he was wrong on the Malkin thread? There he tried to use a post from Solon that he said supported his position. Even Solon disputed that his post supported Jeter's position, and I didn't have to slip any money under the desk to get Solon to say that!
Tex, Jeter and George, thank you for providing one of the funniest series of posts I've ever read here. You guys should really hit the road with your comedy act.
How is calling Hillary "Hills" offensive Tex? Why would anyone respond to such a lame accusation Jeter? Why spend an hour doing research on this idiotic argument George?
If you take this act onto the road why not call yourselves--Birdbrain, Blockhead, and Bonehead
The Three Stooges would have been a better moniker, but it's already taken.
Thanks for the laughs boys.
Point taken July Mom.
I'm sorry you included me as one of the stooges, but I guess I deserve it for falling in with bad company ;-)
What an incoherent crap of a post you left Georgie-girl.
Here's my final word on this foolishness that Tex started:
Calling Hillary "Hills" is no big deal. And yes I've read it here before, and no I'm not an idiot like you who is going to spend even 5 min trying to prove that I've seen it.
Your research of an hour proves ZILCH. There's no way you could scan the archives of this site in an hour. So for you to claim that only I & a few others have referred to Hillary as Hills is just BS. You didn't prove it, and you can't.
I'm done responding to this silliness. If you want to keep posting...post away.
Baloney, Jeter.
You made the claim that plenty on the left have called her "Hills".
That's not true.
It's your job to prove your allegations. You said that many use the "Hills" moniker. They don't. Then you claimed that you might consider voting for Hillary, and therefore your use of "Hills" was not derogatory. Only people who are trying to be derogatory towards Hillary use that nickname, and I proved that with my search the other night!
Note that you failed miserably in that task of proving your allegation. The one person you quoted made that comment after you made your comment. You said that people had made that comment. Copying the quote of someone who made the comment after you have said it, and after Tex called you out on it fails miserably.
You failed miserably. When you fail miserably to make a successful argument, Jeter, you invariably behave like this when you don't simply choose to fail to respond altogether. That's what you did on the Malkin thread. You failed to acknowledge that your argument was blasted out of the water when the person you quoted denied that what they said meant what you claimed it said. You were wrong, and when you couldn't refute it any more, you just stopped commenting altogether.
NOTTHATGEORGE:
Bless your heart. Thanks for the research and backup!
At your service Tex.
This was another example of Jeter not being honest.
He did the same thing on the Malkin thread. He claimed that some posters had absolved Brock of guilt. Even Solon, a poster who Jeter quoted, denied it. Jeter was wrong. When his error was documented, he stopped commenting on that thread, even though he had scolded me for not replying promptly to his comments! Here he claimed that you are a hypocrite because you haven't called out lefties for calling her "Hills". He cannot provide a single example of anyone from the left calling her "Hills" before you called Jeter out for calling her "Hills".
Here's the link to the Malkin thread. I know most don't care but I don't fear a fair examination of the interaction there. Solon agreed with me, and when Solon agrees with you, you know you're on solid ground!
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705230009?offset=40&show=1#comments
Let's see if Jeter can admit his deceit here, or if he simply makes some more unfair smears of those who have pointed out his dishonesty while still failing to address issues raised, or if he follows his familiar pattern and just doesn't respond at all.
Tex,
The only point you made is to once again prove that you are a dishonest cowboy.
Thanks for leaving an example of your dishonesty for all to read. It's your M.O.---> Distort & Lie about what another poster actually writes:
Me: I've written here more than once that I would consider voting for Hillary just to get Bill Clinton back in the White House
Tex: And I learned something wonderful: You are going to vote for Hillary!
Cowboy, you are pathetic.
JETER, you are the definition of pathetic.
I made this claim: "Your familiar and sneering reference to "Hills" ... when we know you wish only for her defeat ..." You challenged my claim, in the nature of a rebuttal, thusly, "So now you're a mind reader? ... Sorry Tex ole boy but since I've written here more than once that I would consider voting for Hillary just to get Bill Clinton back in the White House, your *charges* against me are as usual, false."OK. So you SUPPORT Hillary in the White House? I stand corrected ... or DO I? There is no other possible conclusion, Jeter. I said you wished for Hillary's defeat, and you said this is a FALSE conclusion about you, that you would SUPPORT Hillary. This was your rebuttal, and it was a fine one.And so I conceded I was wrong about you. You took up supporting Hillary (to get Bill back in office, you said), and I congratulated you on this decision. I admitted I was wrong.
Ah, but NOW you come back and rebut YOUR OWN rebuttal. You didn't SAY you supported Hillary (which was the key to your original rebuttal of my claim ... and to accuse me of "lying" about your position), but only that you'd CONSIDER supporting her. Guess what? By weaseling around on your later claim of Hillary support, you have now destroyed your original rebuttal, and your claim that what I said was "false".See, either I'm right, and you wish for Hillary's defeat, and you're LYING about "considering" voting for her ... OR, You DO suppot Hillary's candidacy (and I am wrong).Can you clear this up? ARE you a Hillary supporter, or am I ABSOLUTELY CORRECT to say you wish for her defeat? No amount of ad hominem "cowboy" cute language will obscure the root of the point here. No weaseling around now, Jeter. It's one or the other. Which?
Scroll up Tex [or have your nurse do it for you-- if you're unable to follow simple instructions] and read my post:
- jeter2 / Thursday May 31, 2007 10:59:57 AM EST
Sweet fancy moses, Jeter...you've got the patience of Job...dealing with the tinfoil crowd...nice work.
Also you have solved something that I've always wondered about. What if we had political talk shows back in the 1930's...how would Stan and Ollie have come across...thanks to your efforts...I no longer have to wonder.
Wesley,
Tex & George are 2 reasons I will never leave the Republican party. If they are an example of most of the Left...yikes!
Since you cannot fairly attack our arguments, you unfairly smear us.
That's exactly what I would expect from you, Jeter.
Welcome Jeter. Good to have you here among the good guys!
Morris lies and FAUX loves to play his lies. What a great pair they make.
Kinda gives a new meaning to...La Cage Aux Folles...?
Latest update- According to Morris MMFA is also responsible for all the famines, and diseases of the world and they originated in Hillary Clintons staff meeting.
What network other than FOX does this hack get a chance to spout out lies, hate and innuendo? I can not think of one. Is he a FOX News Analyst? I think he is a the biggest liar of the liars.
When are they going to give Dick his proper billing? He's on Hannity and Colmes more than either of the two of them?
Although it was independent, Media Matters had among its earliest supporters and advisers long-standing allies of Hillary and the Democratic Party.
Explains a lot.
And Gerth is someone to believe...that explains even more.
Fiver, if you do come back and read this.
Look up David Brock (mmfa's founder) and the Clintons. See the what he did in the 90's and who he worked for. Does not explain a lot, not at all, except maybe he feels sorry for what he wrote and said in the past.
I'm familiar with The Republican Noise Machine. I also recognize when the same tactics he supposedly deplored are being employed on HRC's behalf. The piece we're commenting on is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on the author addressing nothing of substance. This piece is following another attack on both recently leaked Clinton books which lambasted them for not being new but still addressed nothing of the substance.
I read, and used to respect, MMFA for exposing the tricks the corporate media used to deceive us. Unfortunately, these same tricks are now being used by Media Matters> to deceive us on behalf of the Hillary Clinton.
How are Dick Morris and David Brock any different? Both switched sides, and neither has any problem with ditching the truth if it serves their new boss' needs. Media Matters is blatantly pro-HRC which has unfortunately translated into an anti-truth and extremely anti-progressive website. HRC is the corporate candidate endorsed by Media Matters, and they are being dishonest by not stating so outright.
Baloney. Were her words misrepresented or NOT? MMFA is not obligated to ignore conservative misinformation because it concerns a Dem that neither you nor I like. This is NOT a blatantly pro Hillary site that is ludicrous. A book coming out at this time IS a bigtime smear. MMFA has done a good job of showing it is a hitjob. Now Hillary has as much chance of getting my primary vote as does Billy O'falafel. YOUR agenda doesntdefine what MMFA does. Hillary may be a corporate shill, I certainly think she is she may be the corporate candidate but it isnt about HER its about the pattern of misinformation against ANY Dem frontrunner. If Obama gets a nice lead in the race you will see the shift to HIM and MMFA will then be doing a whole bunch of Obama pieces. Right now BECAUSE she is the corporate candidate she is the one the right thinks will get the nomination and the one they are focused on.
Again, the tactics are identical (including the right-wingers' consistant abuse of the CapsLock Key).
I'd like MMFA to come clean. I'm not the only commenter here who has notice a blatant HRC bias. Contrary to the comments put up by Hillary's rabid defenders, we are not all right-wing trolls.
What's with the knee jerk HRC defense. Did she vote for the war without reading the NIE? I don't care if it's not "new" news. Did she or didn't she? MMFA used to point out factual inaccuracies. Now they just muddy the waters if it might be bad for Hillary. New corporation, Same old s***.
They have nothing to come clean about just because you are progressive doesnt mean you cant be wrong. Nor does the fact you agree with others who continually trash this site. The misinformation itself determines who is getting the attention. If you peruse the archives you will see that at many times it is dominated by this person or that it only means THAT is the rightwing focus at the time. Your antipathy for Hillary which I agree with doesnt need to blind you to the facts here. When the rightwing decides its Obama they need to worry about and HE becomes the focus HE will get the majority of the posts and some of the posters here will complain that MMFA is shilling for HIM. Just like the complain that MMFA is carrying water for whoever is dominating the rightwing agenda about half of the time this happens.
How are Dick Morris and David Brock any different? Both switched sides,
Your first distortion. David Brock changed sides. Dick Morris never was on the side of the Clinton's. He worked for them. I worked for a few bosses whose side I was never on, yet I still worked to push their agenda while they were my boss!
... and neither has any problem with ditching the truth if it serves their new boss' needs.
Your second distortion. Brock had no problem with ditching the truth. Eventually his conscience got the better of him, and he stopped doing that. Brock gets no pass for his previous behavior, but he's not acting that same way now. Morris has been consistently ditching the truth. They are not the same.
Media Matters is blatantly pro-HRC
!Your third deceitful comment. This has been explained to you guys ad naseum. Many distortions about Hillary = many debunking threads by Media Matters! It doesn't mean they're pro-Hillary. They're pro the truth!
... which has unfortunately translated into an anti-truth and extremely anti-progressive website.
Your fourth distortion. Media Matters has not changed. One of their strengths is that they stay focused on their mission. One of the rightwing memes here is that Media Matters is somehow going off course. You don't get to decide for them what their course is, and they have not deviated from that course in any case!
HRC is the corporate candidate endorsed by Media Matters,
Your fifth distortion, same as your third. Media Matters has not come close to endorsing her.
... and they are being dishonest by not stating so outright.
What would be dishonest of Media Matters would be to state that outright. It's not true, and if they said it was true, that would be the deceitful remark!
Dick Morris is Hillary's stalker. I'll bet he has a homemade shrine to her in his closet, with a life-size doll that he glued her hair to. "I have another strand, my dear. Once I get some fingernail clippings, you will be complete!"
Are you sure you didn't mean TOENAIL CLIPPINGS ?
Just by looking at him, one can tell that Moris is a toe sucker from way back. Suck one toe, and you're a toe sucker for life.
Close, Joe... but what Morris REALLY wants is some of Hillery's TOENAIL CLIPPINGS!
Damn!
Therick beat me to it.
Still, you can't point out this toe-sucking fetishist's second favorite digital hobby too many times, can you?
One question: Why the 5000 word MMFA article regarding the two recently leaked Hillary books - the whole point of the article, the only point of the article, was that the information wasn't new; not that it was wrong (Did she read the NIE before she voted for war or didn't she?), but that other news outlets had previously reported the same information. The so-called falsehood was that facts had been reported by other souces. WTF? MMF doesn't seem to care about false reporting, only anti-Hilary reporting.
Man, they quoted Policitco to make a pro-Hillary point.
P.S. In no way was I being deceitful. Your saying so puts you side by side with FOX News. Hope it's a comfortable fit.
The whole point of the article was to say that even though it was being promoted as shedding new light on Hillary, it was not shedding any new light, but was in fact rehashing old stories.
Media Matters clearly explained this.
If you didn't understand that, then the problem is yours. You're wrong. The headlines of the Media Matters stories told the story!
Here's some of the headlines from Media Matters on these books
Wash Post's Baker and Solomon highlighted old disclosures in Clinton books as newWash. Post wrongly cast familiar portraits in new Clinton bios as "fresh"I believe the information was wrong as well. Nothing the Clinton's do or were imagined to do is ever thrown away. A form of recycling.