NPR reporter Mara Liasson pronounced Giuliani "authentic," "comfortable in his own skin"
SUMMARY: On Special Report, discussing the October 9 Republican presidential debate, Mara Liasson stated: "[O]ne thing about [Rudy] Giuliani, if this is the year for authenticity, I would say that so far, Giuliani has been the authentic candidate in the race. He's very much himself, he's in your face, he seems to be comfortable in his own skin." She also said Giuliani is "strong and tough, and he has this incredible experience behind him."
During the October 9 edition of Fox News' Special Report, discussing that day's Republican presidential debate on CNBC, host Brit Hume asked: "What is it about Romney, though? I mean, you watched him. He was a polished performance, he didn't lose his cool, he didn't stumble, he had ready answers for everything, his positions were by and large appealing to a conservative electorate. Why doesn't he seem to penetrate more?" Fox News contributor and National Public Radio national political correspondent Mara Liasson responded: "I think this is a mystery. Maybe because he seems too polished, or somehow light." Liasson added, "[O]ne thing about Giuliani, if this is the year for authenticity, I would say that so far, Giuliani has been the authentic candidate in the race. He's very much himself, he's in your face, he seems to be comfortable in his own skin."
Hume responded, "Well, certainly Fred Thompson seemed authentic today," to which Liasson replied: "Yeah, that's right, that's right. But Romney's also strong and tough, and he has this incredible experience behind him. ... I mean Giuliani."
Liasson did not indicate what she thinks makes Giuliani more "authentic" and "comfortable in his own skin" than other political figures. She made similarly positive comments about Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on the July 15 broadcast of Fox News Sunday, saying that during a July 14 New Hampshire town hall meeting, he "took questions for an hour and a half and answered them all, you know, with the same kind of candor and honesty that people come to expect from John McCain."
From the October 9 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: What is it about Romney, though? I mean, you watched him. He was a polished performance, he didn't lose his cool, he didn't stumble, he had ready answers for everything, his positions were by and large appealing to a conservative electorate. Why doesn't he seem to penetrate more?
LIASSON: I think this is a mystery. Maybe because he seems too polished, or somehow light. I mean, one thing about Giuliani, if this is the year for authenticity, I would say that so far, Giuliani has been the authentic candidate in the race. He's very much himself, he's in your face, he seems to be comfortable in his own skin. You know --
HUME: Well, certainly Fred Thompson seemed authentic today. He was sort of the guy we've always known, wasn't he?
LIASSON: Yeah, that's right, that's right. But Romney's also strong and tough, and he has this incredible experience behind him.
HUME: Romney or Giuliani?
LIASSON: I mean Giuliani. But look, I think that nothing about what happened today in Detroit changed the dynamic of this particular race.
HUME: So you think that Fred Thompson will still remain in second place --
LIASSON: Yes, I do.
HUME: -- in a large number of places?
LIASSON: Probably, probably.
HUME: All right.
I do not see the issue here, am I missing something? Matthews called the Bush administration a criminal enterprise and works for a major msm outlet, why does that not get any coverage on here? Fair is Fair.
They don't comment on conservative-criticizing media.
Because it is vastly outnumbered.
Because Matthews' comment on the Bush administration does not stroke the narrative that he is a right wing operative bent on exclusively fawning over Republicans......hence, shhh here.
Not so, CM can be angry with his ex-boyfriend and recognize that his ex was not a good guy yet still be quite fond of the ex-s type. Certainly I am joking about CM's sexual orientation. His orientation is completely irrelevant of course; but we all have a type of person that we are drawn to for friendship, etc.., and it is clear to me that CM likes a certain type of man. He likes these Republican tough talking macho types, and Chris seems annoyed with intellectuals prone to nuanced discussions. Maybe it's because the former "men" make for better interviews, who knows. In addition Chris seems more interested and captivated by the political game and its excitement and as long as he finds a politician exciting he gives them plenty of exposure even if the exciting candidate is a dangerous warmonger IMHO. Now in defense of CM he did tell Tim Russet in a recent interview that the hard right wingers were extremely difficult interviewees because essentially they speak rightwingese (my word) and that they stay on message using talking points. CM seems to like the more moderate and traditional Republican types.
PS, I believe that people including CM thought that GW was more of a traditional Republican than the neocon he proved to be
I agree with you partially. One of Matthews' faces is conservative, the other is kinda liberal.
The Clinton camp, he said, never put pressure on his bosses to silence him.“Not so this crowd,” he added, explaining that Bush White House officials -- especially those from Vice President Cheney's office -- called MSNBC brass to complain about the content of his show and attempted to influence its editorial content. "They will not silence me!" Matthews declared."They've finally been caught in their criminality," Matthews continued, although he did not specify the exact criminal behavior to which he referred. He then drew an obvious Bush-Nixon parallel by saying, “Spiro Agnew was not an American hero."
Hardball's 10th anniversary party.
Sue...
This is the narrative that wingnuts like Liasson and Fox are going to build, because it's just standard operating procedure for the corporate media.
The Con will be portrayed as the "Hearty Yeoman," "Authentic," a straight-shooter from the red-earth dust.
The Democrat will be portrayed as weak, a panderer, "inauthentic," an elitist.
The corporate media relies on this narrative to get the Re-puke elected.
Mara Liasson is hardly a "wingnut" nor a Conservative.
Geez what's with you folks?
Someone gives even a vaguely positive opinion about a Republican/Conservative & they are automatically labeled a "wingnut"
I used to come here for interesting intelligent debates & discussions. This site has turned into a place populated by a bunch of whiners.
I agree. She is more like a butt-kissing moderate.
She is on Fox News so she better not say anything nice about a Democrat if she wants to keep her job.
Go Sox!
J,
You're absolutely correct. And whenever one of us comments unfavorably about a topic worthiness or relevancy because it gets in the way of collectively bashing some idiot talk show host; we are immediately slapped down and basically told to move on, or we're just being disruptive and derailing the liberal admiration society here.
I would think the liberal posters would also encourage the topics to be about issues and important policies within our government, especially in a time so near an election......instead of worrying about what comes out of Ann Coulter's mouth.
I used to come here for interesting intelligent debates & discussions. This site has turned into a place populated by a bunch of whiners.
If you're that unhappy here at MMFA, Jeter, may I suggest somplace more to your liking - like Free RepubliKKK or Hannity.com????
but she hardly is a balancing liberal to either Hume or Krystol. she is utterly lacking in any political substance but often will underscore an important assumption the "right" needs.
"Matthews called the Bush administration a criminal enterprise and works for a major msm outlet, why does that not get any coverage on here?"
Because...
1. It's true
2. It does not forward the conservative agenda.
"Fair is Fair."
MMFA bills itself as truthful, not fair.
Why is this a news story??? It's not. I would say the only reason this is on here is because someone from a liberal news organization said something positive about a Republican and maybe it's a rally call for her co-workers and others to begin trashing her and trying to ruin her career.
I reply to the comment "I do not see the issue here, am I missing something? Matthews called the Bush administration a criminal enterprise and works for a major msm outlet, why does that not get any coverage on here? Fair is Fair."First you better find the transcript, and then you better have proof that the BUSH CRIME family is not a criminal enterprise. It's well documented that Bush and company have committed a number of crimes already. They just haven't been prosecuted because they CONTROL the prosecutors! DUH!
I wouldn't get too worked up about this one; she was comparing Giuliani to the other Repub candidates on a show talking about the Repub debate.
And, this is all talk about the race for 2nd place, haha.
Sorry - but any good thing said about any of the Repugnants is an offense to taste and veracity. The closest I have been able to come to complying with both demands (truthful and tasteful) is that their remains probably won't poison the soil.
Pundits are not allowed to give their opinion. Those are the rules.
Not really. If they criticize Republicans, they are not noted here. If they compliment Democrats, they are not noted here. Rule clarification.
And yet you keep coming back. Why is that? If this site is as contrived as you sometimes portray.
So I should only comment when in total agreement with the liberal brethren, and never criticize a thread in anyway? Sorry.
Remember, it's not your site to determine that, the comments section is not exclusively to rubberstamp the topic thread, much to the chagrin of many liberals.
...honestly, Tom. This site posts multiple examples per day of 'conservative media bias'. You disagree - fine. But, I really want to know where these 'pundits' are equally criticizing Republicans. Cuz, I don't see/hear it.
Greek, If you get your info exclusively here then your comments make perfect sense....however, check out the cable chat shows on any given day, they stick it to both parties, often.
But I thought the media was patently liberal and was causing the destruction of American society as we know it, thy end is near, repent, end of days, etc.
I'm so confused!!!
name them.... and provide transcripts and time alloted to each- go on, back up what you are saying...
No, you back it up. If you live and die by the one-sidedness of this website that does nothing to bolster your argument.
Mr L was not arguing a point. He simply asked you to backup for your argument with something beyond your mere assertions. Silly him.
Well, I don't (just get my info...) But, if you really care about combatting the purported biased reporting by MMFA (which you tirelessly denounce)... it's fair that you (and Bruce, Wes, etc) enlighten us. I believe you are passionate... but, after a time, it gets a little old - especially with nothing to back it up.
Now, I'm sure one could find a snippet here and there... good! But, the overall tone and proportion of reporting/opinion is (these days) in favor of Republicans... in my opinion. This site does a good job of highlighting and supporting that notion.
Well, my opinion is that overall reporting and tone is decidedly conservative one minute, and decidedly liberal the next.......it's all way over-whined by both sides when they feel they have been treated unfairly. Get over it, I say to both.
hmmm... Well? I'm not sure about that. I hope you're right. It probably does even out, if you take into consideration other forms of media/entertainment... then, I'd say it prob evens out. Strictly so-called 'news'/political commentary? I don't think so...
Wasn't proposing you to go anywhere Tommy. You are generally a thouhttful poster. I find you unpersuasive however wheneverr the mission of this site comes up. Coincidentally, that seems to amp you up more than most other topics.
No joke - you'all should post links where Mathews et al are equally critical of Republicans. You want an equal representation... you can do it here. I'd like to see what you guys are always complaining about.
Here's one from yesterday.
Chris Matthews has been fairly sedate and even-handed throughout the afternoon, but he just gave conservatives some ammunition by offering an editorial comment about an extended answer Fred Thompson gave on whether the feds should step in on a labor dispute.Thompson initially just responded "no," but then explained why he would not support a government intervention. "You should've stopped at no," Matthews told Thompson."Well, that's your opinion, Chris," Thompson shot back.
I think Matthews is pretty much an equal opportunity basher. I think I am on record as not really caring about "bias". It seems to be an insufficient description of Matthews views anyway.
I think CM thinks that if he gets both sides P.O.ed at him, then that makes him some kind of a moderate in his mind. I am not really convinced that is true or that CM is even successful at doing that. I just think that is his intention.
Okay. I appreciate it. As I said to Tom... I do believe - these days, not just minute to minute - the news media/punditry favors the Republican/conservative viewpoint... Mathews gets so horny about some of these conservative guys, it becomes rather embarrassing.
But, maybe that's just a reflection of where we are - that is, in a 'war'... or whatever you want to call it. The neocons have fabricated this conflict and the Pavlovian response by pundits, news media, the general populace is to start waving flags and wax nostalgic circa 1942... Whatever the reason, I do believe there is conservative bias. This site does a good job highlighting it (over time, as a whole). I wouldn't be hanging around this site if I thought it was fabricated.
Obviously his larf is holding him back.
What is her definition of "authentic"? It is such a subjective word and one best used in its adverb form. The word authentic itself means nothing unless it is a modifier of an actual descriptive adjective.
he's authentically authentic- Duhhhh.....! just kidding..
He's an authentic fascist.
There are two ways to be "comfortable in your own skin". One is to have a high regard for your self worth, and the other is to not be much concerned as to how others evaluate you, or both.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Atleast she is talking about what she really know, REPUBLICANS!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
To Tommy the Happy Revisionist and Distortionist:
We heard Republicans screaming for 40 years of the Fairness Doctrine of the Leftwind Media shutting Republicans out of the debate. The truth is what shut them out of debates, their arguments left them sounding as they truly are.
So the Republicans bought the elections, bought the media, bought government with taxpayers money, and now we are truly shut out, along with the truth!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
So, the Republicans;
Bought the elections - oops, the Democratic landslide in 2006 destroys that myth.
Bought the media - oops, don't tell the owners of the NY Times, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, LA Times, Washington Post and countless others.....poof, myth #2 destroyed.
Bought the government - oops, makes no sense, not even sure what is meant by that hysteria....myth #3 destroyed.
Democrats shut out - oops, they control both Houses of Congress.....myth #4 destroyed.
Poof.....
You need more than just a 'majority' in the House to 'control' it... but, that's fine.
Ok, I will ammend the word "control" to "hold a majority". Whew!
Thank you for being honest :)
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Bought the elections - oops, the Democratic landslide in 2006 destroys that myth. // Ignoring the Ohio in 2004, and Florida in 2000, the voting machines, Voter Caging lists, laws in Georgia, Indiana, Washington by Republicans attempting to exclude voters, US Attorneys on a mission to prosecute elderly, and minority voters for voter fraud while ignoring whole election fraud, and of course a whole government so partisan that they ignore existing law to promote government services for Republican candidates, ......
Bought the media - oops, don't tell the owners of the NY Times, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, LA Times, Washington Post and countless others.....poof, myth #2 destroyed. // Except for NY Times few progressive columists and editiorial board that has held onto the hope for civil liberties, the res of your list is owned by corporate moguls that have distorted the public service requirement for the corporate agenda, and any idea that the Washington Post now owned by the same people as the Chicago Tribune is liberal is ridiculous. La Times is a Republican rag I read every day dispite the fact they dropped their best political, and geo-political writer Robert Sheer!
Bought the government - oops, makes no sense, not even sure what is meant by that hysteria....myth #3 destroyed. // Ever heard of the "K Street Project", No-Bid Contracts, Abramoff, Ney, Safavian, Rumsfeldt, Cheney,..... Tommy what cave have you been sleeping in for the past 7 years?
The Dems have a slight majority that is easily obstructed by a stubborn Rubber Stamp Congress holding onto their Fascists lockstep with our Unitary Executive.
Happy Distorting Tommy;
Dan Grady
Sorry, you failed to resuscitate the myths......but you did a great job of furthering all the conspiratorial angles and nutty theories out there trotted out by the whining far left....I will give you that much.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I now know the answer to the cave dwelling question, I suppose your head being stowed up there would answer alot of the distortions you hold onto.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Quite a clever riposte!
Well I wouldn't really call them myths or agree that you single-handedly "destroyed" them, Conan.
Do you think media conglomerates Time-Warner, Viacom, GE, Capital Cities, Newscorp and the Tribune company are all "liberal" entities? Really?
No big deal here. I don't see any kind of endorsement, just an observation that he is has the appearance of being secure which is one of the key personality traits of a good con man. My problem is seeing some of the more credible news analysts show up on Fox. For me, this destroys all credibility when I here them on NPR.
Liasson sez: "Giuliani has been the authentic candidate in the race"
Thereby Liasson proves her worth to Fox Newsas the token "Fox Liberal", opposition view. What a counterweight to Brit Hume! I mean, Liasson is on the far left commie NPR, after all. So when she sez Giuliani is authentic it's gotta be true.
It seems Rudy is a habitual liar, a la Bushie.
Does that make him "real"?
Take a look at the following video clip:
wizbangblue.com/2007/09/07/greenwalds-video-documentary-on-rudy-giuliani-1-of-4.php
He invented things he accused Hillary of saying on the recent Republican debate, things she never said (and she proved it!)
Do we want another liar in the presidency? Can America afford another?
All Rudy did on 9/11 and afterwards is lie and pose for photo ops. He had the rubble of the WTC removed before full forensics could be performed and even before all the firefighters could be found and removed!
He may not be a wingnut like Bush is, but he's just as dangerous for America.