Angle's report on Gonzales hearing falsely identified Specter as a Democrat
On the July 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, on-screen text identified Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) as a Democrat during a report from chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' July 24 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The text appeared during footage of Specter telling Gonzales that the committee would be reviewing his testimony about a March* 10, 2004, confrontation over the Bush administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program to "see if your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable." Angle introduced the footage of Specter as an example of "other[]" senators who "urged the attorney general to correct his testimony, vaguely warning of legal action." At no time during Angle's report did anyone say that Specter was, in fact, a Republican.
Host Brit Hume, in his preview of Angle's report on the hearing, said that Gonzales "end[ed] up being called untrustworthy and a liar by Senate Democrats." Angle's report mentioned only one other senator by name, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), as criticizing Gonzales. Rockefeller was identified as "the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence committee" in 2004. Angle also mentioned that another "senator asked [Gonzales] flatly why he insists on staying on the job" and that, in response, "Gonzales said that's a good question." The question was from Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI).
As Media Matters for America has noted, former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 15 about the March* 10, 2004, confrontation over the wiretapping program. Comey testified that Gonzales, who was White House counsel at the time, and Andrew Card, then the White House chief of staff, had attempted to pressure then-Attorney General John Ashcroft -- who was ill at a hospital and had transferred his official powers to Comey -- to approve the eavesdropping program despite the Justice Department's refusal to sign off on its legality. As The Washington Post reported on May 17, Gonzales told two congressional committees in February 2006 that the warrantless wiretapping program "had not provoked serious disagreement involving Comey or others."
Media Matters has previously noted examples of Fox News misidentifying Republicans as Democrats.
From the July 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: Next on Special Report, Alberto Gonzales tells his side of that late-night hospital meeting -- remember that? -- and ends up being called untrustworthy and a liar by Senate Democrats.
[...]
HUME: Welcome to Washington, I'm Brit Hume. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faced the most intense congressional grilling yet and the harshest criticism. The subject was a dramatic late-night visit to then-Attorney General Ashcroft's hospital room and the events leading up to it. Chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reports.
[begin video clip]
ANGLE: In another contentious hearing, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told senators today that in an emergency meeting at the White House in March 2004, eight key members of Congress were briefed on a classified intelligence program aimed at terrorists and urged the administration to continue it over the objections of then-acting Attorney General James Comey.
GONZALES: The consensus in the room from the congressional leadership is that we should continue the activities at least for now, despite the objections of Mr. Comey.
ANGLE: Comey, who testified in May about the controversy, was acting in place of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was in the hospital and who had previously approved the same program. That was the day before the Madrid bombings and the intelligence community was on edge and worried about losing a key tool in the fight against terrorists. Gonzales said the Gang of Eight, the leaders of Congress from both parties and of the intelligence committees, urged officials to continue the program uninterrupted but said they couldn't help with emergency legislation.
GONZALES: There was also consensus that it would be very, very difficult to obtain legislation without compromising this program but that we should look for a way ahead.
ANGLE: So Gonzales and former White House chief of staff Andy Card went to see John Ashcroft in the hospital.
GONZALES: We felt it important that the attorney general knew about the views and the recommendations of the congressional leadership.
ANGLE: But Ashcroft refused to overrule Comey. One official who attended the Gang of Eight meeting tells Fox the Gonzales account is accurate, that members of Congress asked penetrating questions about safeguards, but agreed on the value of the program and the consequences of not continuing it.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, who was the ranking Democrat at the time on the Senate Intelligence committee and has never argued the program should be stopped, but he told reporters today the eight officials were briefed but not told about an impending crisis. "We had meetings to brief us on certain programs, but there was never, ever brought up the question of whether or not they all agree in terms of legality. We never even discussed it."
He went on to accuse Gonzales of committing perjury, and others urged the attorney general to correct his testimony, vaguely warning of legal action.
SPECTER: The chairman has already said that the committee is going to review your testimony very carefully to see if your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable.
ANGLE: On the question of the firing of U.S. attorneys, Specter also suggested members might be willing to interview officials in private, as the White House has insisted. But he rejected White House assertions Congress can't even seek contempt citations for officials who refuse to appear. And he warned that if there is no other way to get to the bottom of the firings of the U.S. attorneys, other options are available.
SPECTER: The attorney general has the authority to appoint a special prosecutor. You're recused, but somebody else could do it.
[end video clip]
ANGLE: Gonzales also endured another round of accusations and insults. One senator asked him flatly why he insists on staying on the job. Gonzales said that's a good question, but he had to decide whether it would be better to leave or stay and try to fix the problems. He said he chose the latter and gave no indication he is thinking about leaving.
Specter might as well be a Democrat. He's the biggest RINO in the entire Senate. He'd be better off joining the party that he votes with the majority of the time.
RINO = doesn't suck up to Bush?
As far as I know Specter is conservative in the areas that used to matter for Republicans.
RINO doesn't care about the true republican party, he want's the savage version of the republican party - extremist religious zealots who want america to govern based on protestant views and won't compromise on anything. Their way or the highway...
Not really. I just want a party that respects religious people and their political view points. Someone's political view point shouldn't be discredited simply because they base it on a moral biblical belief. There's a reason why religious people vote overwhelmingly in favor of Republicans. They get tired of the Democrats bashing them all the time.
Overwhelmingly? Methinks you are exagerating. And you may not believe it, but most on the left are not against christianity, they only oppose right wing christians who want to use the government as a means of forcing their wills on others not of their persuasion. Respect must be dual in nature. If that can't be achieved it is a useless word...
I just want a party that respects religious people and their political view points.
I think you meant to say you want a party that respects fundamentalist Christians. The Democratic Party is the one that respect religious people of all faiths by letting they be whatever they want and not intruding. The current incarnation of Republicans want everyone to live like they do. Well, more like how they say, not how they do.
Then quit hallucinating that it is happening. The Dems do NOT bash Christians or Christianity. About 85% of the population identifies itself as Christian, including me, neither party bashes Christians your persecution complex is out of control
It probably would have been more accurate to say EVANGELICAL Christians. They make up only about 33% of the population, and they vote overwhelmingly for Republicans.
RH,
I consider myself a Christian and would not consider voting Republican most of the time because I think the liberals act, not speak, more in line with my religious beliefs. I know you said overwhelmingly, and not all, but that's just my two cents.
What do you think of the Fox misinformation? Even if you consider him a "RINO," he is still a Republican. You can "hunt" him out of the party if you want, but isn't he allowed to have his own views?
And on your Republicans acting like Democrats idea, when, under the last Democrat did we have deficits like this? At least the last Pres didn't plunge us deep into debt with his spending. Just a few thoughts..
I think that the Fox misinformation was inadvartent. Whoever was responsible for that was probably scolded or perhaps even fired. As for there being a surplus under Clinton, I've always said that divided government often leads to more fiscal responsibility. The Republican controlled Congress and Clinton kept each other in check, and it led to gridlock. The Republicans in Congress also played a big role in balancing the budget. Their spending cuts played a big role in balancing the budget.
This is about the thrid or fourth time they've done that this year isn't it? You know what I think, I think someone like you was at the controls and of they decided that Spector doens't meet their criteria for a REAL Republican and they thought it would be funny to put the D by his name, I bet they bust a gut laughing aftwards.
I will agree to disagree with you on the Fox graphic. Like a poster said below, Fox has never marked a Democratic Congressman as a Republican, only the opposite. Plus, mislabelling someone who has served in Congress as long as Spector is inexcusable.
Bill Clinton ran on balancing the budget in 1992. Ending the deficit spending, bloated budgets that came to epitomize GOPolitics during the 80s was one of Clintons biggest campaign pledges.
The mack truck that Clinton drove over "Reaganomics" was his 1993 Deficit Reduction Act. It garnered exactly ZERO GOP votes. That's how much credit the GOP deserve. Zero.
Clinton paid for what he proposed. Promising endless tax cuts while also proposing spending increases was a campiagn promise we heard in 1980. On that Houston stage in 1980, Bush 41 coined the phrase that probably got him on the ticket...VOODOO ECONOMICS.
And that's very simply the GOP fiscal plan today. The GOPers in Congress were caught flat footed by Clintons fiscal responsibility and responsibility won out.
"The mack truck that Clinton drove over "Reaganomics" was his 1993 Deficit Reduction Act. It garnered exactly ZERO GOP votes. That's how much credit the GOP deserve. Zero"
Clinton pushed through an enormous tax increase in that bill. Why would any true Republican vote for a huge tax increase? The Republican Party has always stood for lower taxes and smaller government. The Democrats have always advocated higher taxes. They want to take our money and spend it for us. Even the RINO's in Congress voted against this huge tax increase. Republicans believe that the budget should be balanced by cutting spending, not increasing taxes.
which republicans believe in either A) balancing the budget or b) cutting spending?
clinton balanced the budget...he cut spending and he shrank the govt.
who deserves a tax cut today? you RINO? asking for a handout when deficits are at record levels is nothing but WELFARE.
the GOPers you hail like to talk the talk because small men like Bush can stand in front of a bunch of simpletons and preach to them all the bad things govt will do as he asks for their vote.
bush gave you your free lunch and will leave a tab for our kids to foot the bill. bush raised taxes, he just did it on the next five generations of americans.
Conservatism isnt about balanced budgets or fiscal responsibility. its about leading a bunch of pinheads down the garden path.
I agree with you that the Republicans have been bad on fiscal issues. But the idea that Democrats are somehow more fiscally conservative than Republicans is laughable. Republicans are big spenders and Democrats are huge spenders. What I think we need to do is cut taxes AND cut spending. And believe me, if I was President you would like me less than Bush. I would be a true limited government conservative who would drastically reduce the size of the federal government.
Conservatism is most certainly about fiscal restraint, balanced budgets, reduced taxes AND reduced spending.
That Bush has not supported these principles identifies him as something other than a conservative on these issues.
To the extent that other Republicans have not practiced these principles they also have not been conservatives.
The Democrats are so far removed from these ideas of limited government as to not be worth discusssing.
With those descriptions, however, NL, would you not agree that the Democratic party has been the more conservative of the two over the past 12 years?
why would any true republican vote for a huge tax increase?
well maybe because he asked for an even bigger spending increase? as BUSH DID.
i had to hit this one again...RINO, in the year 2050 will taxes be lower or higher than today? and at what point will the process of reverse inflation, which you appear to endorse, give us zero taxes?
Did you mean that he asked for an even bigger spending decrease? Or did you really mean what you wrote? The way you put it didn't really make any sense.
im suggesting a possible reason that a Republican might support a tax increase.
a potential reason might be because said Republican asked for an even bigger spending increase, as Bush has done. The top three budget deficit proposals by presidents are all owned by the George Bushs. 43 owns #s 1 and 3, the old man owns #2 which obviously was the record until 43 broke it.
i guess i am just uncertain as to what record you are standing on when you try to assert the higher ground on fiscal responsibility.
Democratic presidents PROPOSE BALANCED BUDGETS. Repulican presidents propose deficit spending.
Nobody "proposes" deficit spending. That's just ridiculous. Bush ended up with a deficit because he underestimated how much the tax cut would help pay for itself. He's a supply sider who believes that you can cut taxes without cutting spending. But Bush didn't actually "raise" spending, except on homeland security. He simply didn't cut spending to go along with his tax cuts, which he should have done. He also didn't anticipate 9-11 happening and our economy going through a slow down because of that. But Bush never "proposed" deficit spending. It just happened. The Democrats are now proposing the biggest tax increase in American history to go along with an enormous spending increase. That's hardly fiscally responsible. Bush has already threatened to veto some of the Democrats' huge spending bills.
this post is probably getting too old to matter anymore....but
are you suggesting that Bush is faithfully proposing balanced budgets all the while but that the math doesnt add up at the end of the year?
such is not the case
Bush is proposing record deficits. his 03 or 04 budget set a record for being the largest deficit ever proposed. thats deficit spending. this isnt accidental as you make it out to be.
deficits are PLANNED, GOP systemic occurances since at least the 1980s when Reagan started it.
Bushs first budget proposal was in deficit and it got worse. Clintons got better until he proposed balanced ones.
i cant believe you are asserting that everybody proposes balanced budgets but it just doenst always work out that way, or something, but thats how it read.
these GOP deficits are planned.
Do you really think the Republican leadership "respects" the views of fundamentalist Christians? I fear that you have been duped. The Country Club/Corporate Sugardaddy Republicans have found their Evangelical voter base useful and easily manipulated...black and white thinkers usually are. All they have to do is throw out an emotional but irrelevant issue like the "War on Christmas" or Gay Marriage or the Ten Commandments, and, like Pavlov's Dogs, the Evangelical community can be counted on to flood the polls and vote Republican in an effort to stave off the Demon Left.
Sad, but true.
"I just want a party that respects religious people and their political view points."
You just want a party that respects your type of religious people and your political viewpoints.
When a belief is immoral and is magically made moral because it is backed by a religious belief, it's still immoral. Get over it. Our government is most effective when it remains secular as the founding fathers intended, including the religious ones. Specter is an actual dyed int he wool Republican, your RINO moniker and philosophy are really a shot at those not loyal to the GOP. Anyone who dares to not march in lock step with a very narrow and bastardized view of history and has an R next to their name to you is a RINO. Reality is you are the RINO who has abandoned the sensible politics of Eisenhower, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and yes Specter.
Nope. Specter is still a liberal. Nothing you say will change that. He votes with the Democrats more often than he votes with his own party, and he's the biggest RINO in the Republican party. And also, Reagan and Goldwater were true conservatives in the Republican party, not the Republicans you mentioned who were pretty centrist overall.
He votes with the Democrats more often than he votes with his own party
I'm sure you can present proof of your assertions.
He has a 45% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. That means that he votes liberal more often than he votes conservative.
RINO,
Try being a Christian that witnesses through example. I bet you'll find that all that hostility you think is directed toward you because you are religious is really a result of you being arrogant and wanting the right to impose your religious beliefs on others through the legislature.
The only issue that Specter is conservative on is taxes. He's liberal on most everything else. And Republicans are moving farther to the left all the time, not the right.
He is conservative on taxes and business related matters, and usually sides with those advocating personal freedoms. Of course, the idea of people having privacy from government is now some "liberal" idea (true, it always used to be, back when "liberal" didn't mean "socialist" to republicans) that does not need protecting. After all, if we have personal freedoms, then Al Qaida might attack us at any moment!
That sounds about right. He's probably a left leaning libertarian overall. But he still votes liberal more often than he votes conservative. He has a 45% rating from the American Conservative Union, which is the most liberal rating of any Republican in the Senate.
Cherish him. Hold onto him with all your might. For he is obviously the most sane, most reasonable republican in the party, according to the ACU. And don't fear the loss of your party; rather be encouraged that Specter can form the nucleus of a newly positioned republican party that has the country's best interest at heart, as opposed to what it is now: money-grubbing war-mongering re-election-at-all-costs deadbeats united in the common cause of selfish interests.
If, indeed, the Republicans are moving more to the left, I would consider it more a return to sanity than anything else.
A RINO is someone who doesn't meet RINO Hunter's standards of how a Republican should act.
In other words, a RINO is a Republican who does the right thing. And is able to think for himself, rather than go along with the brain-dead neo-con mob.
I don't understand, Rhino. If a Senator is for justice, law and order, and believes that there is no one above the law, then that person must be a Democrat? If that is true, what does that make Republicans?
Wow, going off-topic on the very first post. Very impressive.
Now why don't you try dealing with the indisputable fact that Fox News has once again presented (purposefully or not) erroneous information that biased a story against Democrats and mislead their viewers?
What about Fox's mistake? I think its a pretty bad one, don't you?
This has been getting increasingly clear over time:
Any Republican who acts reasonably, even if only for a brief time, is destined to be labeled a Democrat, a RINO, or a traitor.
There might be other labels, too - those are the ones I can think of at the moment.
How about addressing the point of this thread: Why does FNC try to mislead its viewers into thinking Specter is a democrat? Do the FNC execs think their viewers are too stupid to notice? Or is that the underlings who compose the onscreen text are ignorant? Tough choice, eh?
RhinoHunter suggests the republicans are moving to the left - surely, he's joking...neocons moving left? That's hilarious!
Plato
Maybe it's more precise to say that they're moving towards an ideology of big government and away from an ideology of limited government. They've abondoned their ideals of having a smaller and less intrusive federal government.
Who's "they"?
What exactly is 'government intrusion' as it relates to the issues that really affect me and my family?
Who are the candidates running on a platform of 'government intrusion'?
And what proposals do they have for increasing 'government intrusion'?
Doh! I think by "they" you meant the GOP. My bad.
You're right. "They" are the Republicans. They've grown the size of government and have been spending money like Democrats. They've been creating government programs like the Medicare Prescription Drug bill that would make FDR proud. They've moved away from their party's vision of having a smaller and more limited federal government, and that's what I meant by saying that they've become more "liberal" over time.
Naw, they aren't becoming "more liberal". The truth is they are now being exposed on a daily basis for the hypocrites they really are!
I'm still having trouble grasping 'government intrusion'. I'm guessing as it relates to your example, the Medicare Prescription plan, you're contending that the government is intruding on a free market that's supposed to help people afford the vital medicine they need by way of ... competition?
IMO, when it comes to health insurance and prescription drugs, the free market has had ample opportunity to work its much ballyhooed magic on costs, and it failed miserably. Maybe 'government intrusion' as you describe it is not the best way to go, but neither is 'staying the course'.
"Government intrusion" - like warrantless wiretaps, search and seizure at the whim of local law enforcement, illegal abortion, loss of habeus corpus, the Swift program, Patriot Act,"vote caging", gay marriage ban... You know, democrat stuff.
So how exactly has the Patriot Act affected you personally?
We don't know, Einstein, because it's SECRET!
How would one know if they are being wiretapped without disclosure of the program?
What would Bush have to gain from listening to your private phone conversation? The Terrorist Surveillance Program is used to track calls from suspicious people in the U.S. to terrorists overseas in countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The FISA court conducts oversight on the program, and Democrats in the Senate were briefed on the program when Bush authorized it.
Rino, that is absolutely false. They went around FISA despite getting the law changed by Congress four or five times. Congress was not briefed to the extent and if they were, they are guilty as well. Gonzo even slipped and made it sound like there are more programs we don't know about.
Bush needs warrants to do this. He admitted as much in that speech in Buffalo. The fact that he can get warrants 72 hours after his wiretaps makes it completely unacceptable. Let me ask you this: Would you trust a President from the other party to have that much unchecked power?
There were several Democrats such as Rockefeller briefed on the program, so that's why I was saying that there is some oversight. I believe that a President of either party should have the tools necessary to keep our country safe from terrorists. I'm not concerned about anybody listening to my phone calls, because they would have absolutely no reason to listen. My phone calls are pretty boring. I don't have anything to hide. I haven't heard a story of ANYONE being falsely accused of helping terrorists who were caught through the wiretapping program. Until that happens and Americans' civil liberties our actually being violated, I'm not going to be too concerned about the program.
People's civil rights have already been violated. Plus, how would they know if their rights were being violated?
Problem is, RINO, without there being a requirement for warrants, what is stopping him from listening to conversations from political opponents or anyone for that matter? The fact that he can get a warrant up to 72 hours after someone listens in is an incredible safeguard. If he found to have the wrong person, he can explain why that person was wiretapped. Plus, according to the Congressional Research Service, this program is questionable legally:
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/nsawiretap/legality.html
Plus, the FBI has already noted that some of the people wiretapped were the "wrong people." Which, as you said, would be a concern of yours:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070902065.html?hpid=topnews
From the article: "Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act."
I am glad you have nothing to hide, but if that is truly Bush's/the Republican's mantra, why not apply it to more things. If he/they have nothing to hide, produce Miers and Bolten. Why should anything stop Karl Rove from testifying if he didn't do anything wrong?
So, you can honestly tell me, RINO, with all of the disparaging things you have said about Democrats that you would trust them with unlimited wiretapping abilities?
"I don't have anything to hide"
So are you officially giving the FBI permission to peruse every single one of your phone calls and e-mail messages?
The whole concept of personal privacy just doesn't not exist for you?
Do you really want every one of your communications to be between you, the recipient, AND the FBI?
Don't you find something troubling about a 342-page piece of legislation that's printed in the middle of the night and voted on that following day?
The most prevalent effect on any American personally is loss of privacy and the power the government has to remain secret about whose privacy is violated. We don't know whose privacy has been breached because we have no legal recourse to find out.
I know, "I'm a fine, upstanding American, they won't do that to me." Yet you have no way of being absolutely sure.
The same way legal abortions affect you?
"...they are spending money like democrats."
Which democrats are they spending like? Bush inherited the largest surplus ever, and he's turned it into the largest deficit ever, with his GOPers running the Congress.
These GOPers are spending LIKE NO ONE EVER DID BEFORE. Between the two Bush's (41 & 43) I believe they've proposed 3 of the top 5 budget deficits ever. 43 broke poppys record.
The deficits these GOPers BRAG about ($200 billion or so) are brazen. Has ANY GOP president proposed a balanced budget in the last 100 years besides IKE?
The record is clear...deficit spending is a GOP tactic. It's their systemic plan, year in and year out.
Thank you for that post.
And what D President (except Clinton) balanced a budget in the last 100 years?
johnson did it more than once in his term. i am uncertain who else did it, but crimony...two of the last three D's submitted balanced budgets....
i am certain that the last 5 R's failed to do this despite holding the WH close to 2:1 ratio.
Surely you recognize the trend?
Studied several charts and I will concede that in about 1965, it appears that LBJ had a balanced budget. On the other hand, wasn't that about the time SS funds were rolled into the budget, which distorted revenue for a bit. I see very little difference between the two parties in spending habits. Clinton benefited from a robust economy in the late 90s, fueled in a large part by the dot con "boom". If you think the economy would have continued to blossom under Gore, look at when the Stock Market started heading South (around March of 2000). Both parties tend to promise to deliver more than they should, primarily in an attempt to keep themselves in power. Tax cuts were probably needed to spur the economy in 2001,2002, but once the "war" was on, a surtax should have been enacted to pay for the additional costs.
Sorry. Meant "abandoned."
The GOP may seem to be moving left over the last few years, but it's probably just in a relative sense.
With the attacks of 9/11 and the increased awareness of Religious Fundamentalism and ultra-conservative traditionalism more Americans have experienced over the last few years, those inclined to that ideology may see their Republican party as becoming pretty progressive.
Also if you remember PLATO, Faux also made the same little mistake during the Mark Foley thing.
They showed Mark Foley (D-FL)
So they think like RINO now, if you hurt the party in any way you are now a Democrat.
I liked this part
"What - on earth - business does the Office of the Vice President have in the internal workings of the Department of Justice with respect to criminal investigations, civil investigations, and ongoing matters?" the Senator asked. (Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Gonzales was stumped, "As a general matter, I would say that's a good question."
The Fox employee responsible for this egregious error has been fired, flogged, bitch-slapped and the whole affair has been noted on her permanent record.
Is it the same employee that labeled Foley a Democrat? How many times has Faux News done this? Anytime a Republican does something they don't like Fox magically makes him a Democrat. It's indicitive of their dishonesty and their ideology. They do it intentionally or are completely inept. Or both.
Both. Actually its an inside joke for the well informed Fox viewer and its done just to piss off liberals.....seems to work well.
Actually its an inside joke for the well informed Fox viewer.. (TTT)
I knew there had to bo ONE!
The exception proves the rule.
"well informed Fox viewer"
there's an oxymoron. And yes it does piss off liberals which is probably the worst motivation a news network should have. Let's lie just to upset a group of people because they are engeged and know what's going on here. Smear Democrats, fair and balanced, smear liberals, we report you decide. Yup, it does the trick. I just hate liars who are supposed to be informing people.
Bing, settle down...have you watched "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" OBJECTIVELY LATELY? I keep pointing to him because he is the most blatant example of left wing hypocrisy AND he will be hosting the next Democratic debate. I....do.....not....have...a....problem with any of this EXCEPT just in the last day or two Keith called himself a "journalist". I do not know what the term means to him but I have my interpretation which I think is commonly accepted and it ain't he.
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/07/countdown_with_313.php#more
His show is ALL opinion....AND THAT IS OK!
WHY THE ENDLESS LIES?????
Why the endless trolling?
NEW RULE:
Anyone with troll as a sign-on name should be banned from posting or at least ignored.
Lynn relax...Marv, Cheer up dude, I thought you all welcomed "diversity of opinion" I have had many good debates with honest progressives on this site. If you were to check my posts you would find I talk about the issues ONLY. I never have and never will make a personal reference to you OR your opinion. I am sure you believe what you say and that is the way it should be. I should be welcome to disagree in a thoughtful and respectful manner as you are welcome to at MOST con sites.
Fox News counts on the fact that most people don't know who the hell these people are and want to continue the fantasy that Republicans don't criticize Republicans.
What really got me and I think MMFA should have pointed out what Angle said at the end of the clip:
"On the question of the firing of U.S. attorneys, Specter also suggested members might be willing to interview officials in private, as the White House has insisted. But he rejected White House assertions Congress can't even seek contempt citations for officials who refuse to appear. And he warned that if there is no other way to get to the bottom of the firings of the U.S. attorneys, other options are available." -Jim Angle
This whole paragraph give the impression that Specter is heading the hearings when in fact Sen. Patrick Leahy is. This indicates further to me that Angle knew Specter is being shown as a Democrat and hide the fact that there are Republicans criticizing Gonzales.
Hey man I’m a loser too. Don't give up, It is not too late!
FOX news lied, they lied, they lied , they lied. No way this is an honest mistake. At best some intern smoked one to many bowls and thought it would be a hoot to tease Specter about being so "libur'l".
Has Fox ever mistakenly identified a Republican as a Democrat?
Until they make that mistake, it's no mistake.
Has Fox ever mistakenly identified a Republican as a Democrat?
Errr...at least twice. Perhaps you meant to state that the other way around?
Ooops, you're correct.
Thanks CD!
King,
I knew what you meant.
There was a time I would have insisted it had to be an innocent mistake.
I'm not so sure of that anymore.
I think these guys at FOX are truly whacked. And devious as hell!
What sealed it for you, I bet it was the cucumber?
I'm just waiting for the Fox "news" graphic with a picture of a crucifix and a tag that says: Jesus (R).
Its a very easy mistake to make going by his voting record! He might as well be a lib. He just ran under the republican party so he can get elected. From what I hear from his constituants and my family in Pa., he wont be re-elected!
No wonder Gonzo always leaves a paper trail when he’s not even paper trained.