NBC's Gregory repeated Coulter falsehood on Today
On the June 28 edition of NBC's Today, guest host and NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory uncritically repeated the false claim made by right-wing pundit Ann Coulter on the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards received "big money to speak in front of a poverty group." Gregory used the claim during an interview with Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, to argue: "If you strip away some of the inflammatory rhetoric [by Coulter] against your husband and other Democrats, the point she's trying to make about your husband ... is in effect that he's disingenuous, especially on the signature issue of poverty, whether it's a $400 haircut or taking big money to speak in front of a poverty group." Gregory asked, "[I]s that a real point of vulnerability that you have to deal with in this campaign?"
However, as Media Matters for America noted, in claiming that Edwards "charge[d] a poverty group $50,000 for a speech," Coulter appeared to be distorting the earlier disclosure that Edwards received $55,000 for a January 2006 speech at the University of California-Davis. While Edwards reportedly "chose to speak on 'Poverty, the great moral issue facing America,' " there is no evidence that he was speaking to a "poverty group" at the university. Furthermore, as Media Matters documented at the time, the widely repeated claim that Edwards "charged" UC-Davis for the speech ignored the fact that there was an admission fee to the event, which, combined with sponsorships, offset Edwards' speaking fee, according to his campaign.
From the June 28 edition of NBC's Today:
GREGORY: You said rather pointedly that you think Ann Coulter is guilty of hate speech against your husband and others as well. If you strip away some of the inflammatory rhetoric against your husband and other Democrats, the point she's trying to make about your husband, Senator Edwards, running for the White House is in effect that he's disingenuous, especially on the signature issue of poverty, whether it's a $400 haircut or taking big money to speak in front of a poverty group. If you, again, strip away the inflammatory rhetoric, is that a real point of vulnerability that you have to deal with in this campaign?
EDWARDS: David, that is not -- that has absolutely nothing to do with what she was saying whatsoever. I have a response for that, and if you -- people -- John has a lifetime of dedication to poverty issues. And if you don't trust him on that because he once got a haircut that was too expensive, don't vote for him and don't support him. But if you believe that lifetime as opposed to the price of a single haircut, then do support him.
yay! I'm 1st, and all I have is this ol link I posted yesterday! Horray for beer!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/06/28/ann-coulter-loses-it-on-_n_54129.html
Anybody else notice that the big C called her attackers harridans? I laughed out loud. Obviously, this is a person with no sense of irony.
David Gregory is usually better than this. It's disappointing to see that even a decent journalist can fall victim to the right-wing talking points.
And he's not just falling victim to them, he's also going to great lengths to explain them to us and show us what the "point" is, when there isn't one.
No, this is the usual bs from Gregory. I only good thing I give him credit for is occasionally asking a real question at press conferences.
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/davidgregory
Just because something is said on a TV show doesn't mean that it should be a subject of debate. There aren't two sides to everything.
And this clown Gregory is trying to tell everyone to forget the hate speech and focus on what lies beneath. From what I see, if you "strip away" the incendiary language, you're left with nothing but an uninformed political opinion, bordering on untruths, not news.
I can't imagine Edward R, Uncle Walter or even The Today Show's own J. Fred Muggs reporting" sh_t like this.
My first reaction to this item, always trying to play Devil's Advocate, was to see it as nit-picking.Then I had to ask "What the hell is a poverty group?"
Edwards spoke to a group at a university, on the subject of poverty. Is "poverty group" meant to sound like a group of poor people that he's charging? If it's not deliberate, how flimsy a grasp of facts does it take to describe it that way?
Whenever Edwards, or any other progressive, addresses a "poverty" group they don't accept cash, they prefer bottles and aluminum cans.
I'm pretty sure that's how Edwards works this "poverty" scam. It also helps to clean up the neighborhood.
Bottles, don't leave your cardboard box without them.
What's also bad is that $55,000 fee was likely just for his own expenses. He has to travel with his staff and security. He has to pay for their hotels, airline tickets (probably across the country, from North Carolina to California), rental vehicles, food, etc.
They try to portray that fee as some effort by Edwards to profit from going there to speak, but he most likely just covered all his COSTS of going there to speak.
And, like Media Matters has pointed out, the admission fee the university charged paid Edward's fee, so it wasn't CA tax money being spent.
If Edwards only cared about profiting from speaking, there are gigs which pay a hell of a lot more than the University of California, Davis's $55K.
I usually don't do this Worrier, but that is my pick for comment of the day.
I guess Gregorys attempt to replace Imus failed? He is a phony.
I'm so tired of people talking about the hypocrisy of Edward's speaking about poverty in america, and having people buy tickets to the speech. That isn't hypocrisy. If he did all this talk about setting plans in motion to battle poverty, get healthcare for every american, and provide education funding for anybody willing to work, what is it, ten or twenty hours a week while in school, and then started implementing rightwing doctrine of cutting school funding, destroying unions, privatizing healthcare, and diverting funds away from civic action projects, that would be hypocrisy. As far I can tell, everything in edward's past political and personal life seems to show he is genuine in his beliefs.
can we please get some dictionaries in these news studios? can we have our news personalities (don't call them journalists) look up a word before they use it?
Please?
But Annie is just some irrelevant flame thrower, she has no influence. Try again wingnuts, Ann Coulter speaks for mainstream Republicans.
This was a brilliant stroke by the Edwards'. Bring the ugly Republican face of Annie's political thuggery into full view, let the people see for themselves the maggot rot that has been festering in the Republican base for so long.
Maybe now we can excise the smear gang mentality of the radical wing of the Republican party from the debate and get down to discussing the business of the people.
Here is my question about this "poverty" group. Does it have a name? Shouldn't Coulter or Gregory have to use it? Why wouldn't they say the name of the organization if it existed? Don't we need to be made aware if someone is ripping off an organization aimed at helping the less fortunate?
In short, its not named, because its not a poverty group as mentioned in the MMFA, its a group of people going to a speech about poverty. Wouldn't it have been cool had Mrs. Edwards asked which speech Gregory or Coulter was referring to? Oh well, I am sure they will get many more chances to respond to blind accusations.
What the heck is a poverty group anyway?
I'm guessing it would be some kind of advocate or charity organization, but like you said, Skeletor and her new found slave boy, Gregory, aren't bothering to tell us what it is.
It's just a name that Ann pulled out of her butt on Hardball. It sounds more hypocritical than telling the truth, i.e. that he spoke at a University.
These people have no shame.
Tweety must have told Gregory about what an ecstatic mindscramble it is to be pegged by Annie and he liked it too, otherwise why else would he be such a darling, willing sockpuppet for The Adam's Apple of The SS
A poverty group is a band that cannot secure a gig anywhere more up and coming than the 4th of July Corn Festival in Dongola, Illinois.
Randy
"What poverty group?"
It's a simple question and since the big C keeps repeating the slur, it couldn't be more obvious.
She is getting a ton of coverage over this - this time I think it will hurt rather than help her. She is being exposed for exactly what she is. I don't think her aggrieved posturing will help her at all. Somebody armed with a few facts is bound to ask that question eventually. I can't wait.
So Gregory decided to ask some tough questions, too bad he never thought to do that to Bush (or Cheney). Maybe he could have asked about WMD, Gitmo, the war, the firing of the US attorneys, Valerie Plame, the list jus goes on but no he was too busy rapping with Rove. And of course speaking of haircuts, what about Laura's $700 do?
Ann Coulter Is Not The Only One With A Mind For Bucks
My point is simple. Ann Coulter has made money off of everyone’s misfortunes for years. I recall what she said about the 9/11 widows and calling John Edwards a "f*g." I could go on and on. The fact is she makes money from the outrages things she says, and the special appearances she generates for saying mean spirited things about others. So, Coulters makes a little money off what she says, Matthews makes a little money for MSNBC. Yet, if those Edwards try and make a buck out of this, we will call them petty and superficial because they should be above it all?
First off, what Chris Matthews did, after cashing in on the same shock tactic that has made Coulter famous, is similar to the pot calling the kettle black. The man is a crap disturber,and I mean a good one. To have Coulter on his show questions his judgment call and put into doubt his sensitivities for those Coulter hurts. Then, he allows Edward’s wife to call into HIS show and confront Coulter on disgracing Edward’s dead child — by the way he knew about the donation ad before Edward called in. After Edward confronts Coulter, Matthews leads the ethical drive to place into doubt Edward’s sincerity. This Mother “so and so” actually had a whole show, continuing to rake in the bucks off Coulter and Edwards, asking “special commentators, Democrats and Republicans, who did they think won between the two of them, Coulter and Edwards. You go figure.
Everybody is allowed to make money off this clownish lady except the Edwards. Hell, the least Coulter can do for those she hurts is allow those hurt by her some of the money she makes off them. This is true “hardball” with rational twist.
Joseph
Hay MSNBC, It Is Time To Question Your Conduct
The executives over at MSNBC must find their efforts concerning Ann Coulter and John & Elizabeth Edwards an honest attempt to get to the bottom of things. And, as a follow up, try to clarify that all intentions, mostly on the Edwards’ behave, were admirable. After all, they use the “big boys”, Chris Matthews, and now David Gregory, to work this whole affair for everything they could.
How did all this come about anyway. Oh yea, I recall Matthews used Coulter to generate ratings by having her on for a whole hour. To make sure the ratings gained a boost, Matthews went into “Hardball” mode and allowed Edwards to call in and confront Coulter on using her dead son to advance her shock nasty tactic. Matthews, who knew all along Edwards had sent out donation letters to also capitalize on Coulter’s nasty insulting habit, sees a avenue to make the Edwards look like a superficial money hungry politicians, and he proceeds to do so. Now, I want you to take notice to who is driving this “car” so far: MSNBC.
Enter David Gregory, who is Mr Cream of the Crop over at MSNBC, who put his own don’t mess with me logic into the the matter. Gregory, feeling like he was on a role, decides to ask Edwards if she lessen HER standards by addressing Coulter’s slam on her dead child and loving husband. In affect, Gregory is asking Edwards why did you speak up for yourself. He went on to say, after the first slam did not work, underneath Mr Edwards is just another superficial politician bent on 400 dollar haircuts, while all the time pretending to help the poor.
Keep in mind, MSNBC is driving this whole episode, from start to, I hope it’s over, finish. They should be suspected for smelling like the crap they disturbed, the manipulation they used to do this, and the dishonest way they went about it. We should ask the executives to changes seats with Elizabeth Edwards so we can ask them a few questions.
Joseph
Strip away the inflammatory rhetoric???
Without the inflammatory rhetoric, none of us would even know little Annie's name. What a moronic comment. Gregory is a twit.
How exactly does paying too much for a haircut undo everything that Edwards may have done for the poor in his career anyway? That does not even make sense. Why not debate his policies?
Let me see if I can follow the argument about Edwards.
1. Edwards isn't genuine because he is a rich guy who cares about the poor.
2. Edwards got a $400 haircut because he is running for the presidency and he doesn't want to hear "how can he run the country, that slob can't even cut his hair right?"
3. Rich people can't care about the poor so Edwards doesn't care because he is rich.
4. All the other candidates are rich too, but they don't talk about the poor so they are okay.
I guess there is some logic to this line of thinking, but I'm too dumb to see it.
I guess there is some logic to this line of thinking, but I'm too dumb to see it. - matthew3159
I may be in the same boat as you because I don't understand where you are coming from. Enlighten me.
Joseph
Speaking of hair styling expenses, how much did Ronald Reagan pay to keep his pompadour brown? Sure, I know it's not really relevant, but if the right wing wants to make an issue of it, why doesn't somebody do the research and find out what Ronnie spent?