Despite Blitzer's denial, Coulter, Cavuto claimed Blitzer "got[] a little talking-to" prior to Dem debate
SUMMARY: On Fox News' Your World, echoing an anonymously sourced blurb posted on the Drudge Report, Ann Coulter stated, "Well, apparently, Wolf Blitzer has gotten a little talking-to. And, yes, I think he'll be serving tea and cookies before asking [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham Clinton] a question." Host Neil Cavuto agreed with Coulter's claim that Blitzer "has been given a talking-to" prior to the November 15 Democratic presidential debate. But Blitzer himself said, "No one has pressured me. No one has threatened me. No one is trying to intimidate me."
On the November 14 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, during a discussion about the November 15 Democratic presidential debate, which CNN host Wolf Blitzer is scheduled to moderate, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter claimed: "Well, apparently, Wolf Blitzer has gotten a little talking-to. And, yes, I think he'll be serving tea and cookies before asking [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham Clinton (NY)] a question." Later, when Coulter claimed that Blitzer "has been given a talking-to" prior to the debate, host Neil Cavuto responded, "Absolutely." Cavuto added, "And they can talk to him all they want. I don't see him folding one iota." But, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, Blitzer said on the November 13 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, "No one has pressured me. No one has threatened me. No one is trying to intimidate me. ... No one has even called me to try to pressure me or anything like that. ... I have not felt any pressure whatsoever."
Coulter and Cavuto's claim echoed an anonymously sourced blurb posted on the Drudge Report website November 13, which asserted that "Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on" Clinton and quoted an anonymous "top Clinton insider" saying, "This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy. ... Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert,' " referring to NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, who moderated the October 30 Democratic debate in Philadelphia. Later that day, Drudge updated his post to include Blitzer's denial.
From the November 14 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
COULTER: Although surprisingly enough, Democrats seem to be bringing back their enthusiasm for raising taxes.
CAVUTO: Or at least for getting the debate going again.
COULTER: Oh, getting the debate going --
CAVUTO: They bloodied Hillary at the last one. Now do you expect the tone will be different for this debate?
COULTER: Well, apparently, Wolf Blitzer has gotten a little talking-to. And, yes, I think he'll be serving tea and cookies before asking Hillary a question.
CAVUTO: I don't think Wolf will do that.
COULTER: I sort of don't, either. I thought his debates have been the best so far.
CAVUTO: I think he's a solid interviewer. He's very good. He's opposite me and this network. But the fact of the matter, he is an impeccable journalist. I don't see him folding for anyone.
COULTER: Right. But he has been given a talking-to.
CAVUTO: Absolutely.
COULTER: I'm not joking about that.
CAVUTO: And they can talk to him all they want. But I don't see him folding one iota.
Blitzer said "No one has pressured me"........now Wolf, have you not read your list of don'ts from MMFA yesterday? Better get on that, the debate is within hours.
A website is your idea of pressuring someone?
He said "No one", isn't MMFA someone?
Correct Tommy, I also love that Blitzer says no one pressured me so its true. But if Blitzer dares ask Hillary about immigration, MMFA will attack at no ends tommorow.
Drudge's source was anonymous. Blitzer is not anonymous.
Only to the precise extent that his "question" is falsely framed, in the mode of "Have you stopped beating your kids?" If the question is framed without an embedded falsehood, even though malicious - have at her. She claims to be a big girl now, and it would amuse me no end to see the infamous "Clinton hitsquad" litter Fort Marcy Park with Corporate Media toads. Or is that, again?
Kick some media ass...
A couple candidates need to kick some corporate media ass tonight. If they don't, they're living in a dream world.
Correction. If Blitzer frames a question using what MMFA deterines as GOP spin as it's precedent, then MMFA will post the event with audio and transcript so that it's reader can judge for themselves. What MMFA does is99.999% reactive(I am aboslutely averse to absolutes ;). And, even thier pre-emptive post are based on previous occurances of Misinformation.
Correction. If Blitzer frames a question using, what MMFA determines to be, GOP spin as it's precedent, then MMFA will post the event with audio and transcript so that it's readers can judge for themselves. What MMFA does is99.999% reactive (I am absolutely averse to absolutes ;). Even their pre-emptive posts are based on previous occurrences of Misinformation.
But if Blitzer dares ask Hillary about immigration, MMFA will attack at no ends tommorow.
- SueEld / Thursday November 15, 2007 03:43:01 PM EST
How? As far as I've seen all they do is post transcripts of serial conmentators lies and point out why they're false. That's hardly an attack, it's us posters who do the honors on that score.Meaning he probably does not visit websites for debate ideas.
So, it's not that he wasn't pressured from here, it's just that he doesn't know about it. Fair point.
Maybe he just doesn't give a damn.
Of course, the Coulters of the world will continue to spew these lies in spite of the FACT that Blitzer has stated that he hasn't been pressured. The stupidity of the Coulters is... well, stupendous.
Excellent point Tommy!
While I wouldn't put it past the Clinton Camp to directly pressure Blitzer if they thought they could get away with it, they really don't have to.
They have indirectly anted up the pressure & intimidation by 2 straight weeks of carping, moaning, groaning & whining about the last debate. They started by jumping on Russert claiming he'd somehow ambushed poor Hillary with a Gotcha question. Of course that was bull. She simply hemmed, hawed then answered out of both sides of her mouth. Because she is a panderer & tried to have it both ways.
Then they said her opponents had piled on. When in reality they simply challenged her to answer a question honestly & specifically.
Then Bill wandered around saying things like the boys are being tough on her.
The media lapped it up, & MMFA delivers a Don't Ask List...
Nah no pressure. No intimidation. ::eye roll::
Exactly. And now Hillary has come out against the drivers licenses for illegals proposal because of all the blowback against it, and because Spitzer did.
Why is it so hard for some Democrats to tell you exactly what their position is on issues without polling it to death first? Amazing.
She was against it before she was for it
Gee that sounds like a familiar Democratic refrain ;-)
oops
Other way around
She was for it before she was against it
Though if we wait a few minutes she could change her mind again...depending on the polls!
Who put driver’s licenses on the national agenda?
Thanks for the link, Pete. Very clear look at the issue, and recommended reading for those above who are falling for the "I voted for it before I voted against it..." BS all over again.
They probably won't read it.
This is comparable to Bill Clinton's gays in the military "scandal".
It just deflects from the real issues of the day.
I hate to interrupt this far right love-fest but here's a question for you.
Since the debate hasn't happened yet aren't Coulter and Cavuto merely dealing in the same kind of meaningless hypotheticals you were accusing MMFA of trafficking in yesterday?
Isn't speculating Blitzer will serve up milk and cookies just another form of pressuring him, a way of letting him know the far right will be watching his every move?
Yeah John-Boy I see your point, why should anyone wonder if Wolfie will buckle under pressure just because the Clintonites & their minions have flooded the airwaves & print whining, moaning, & groaning that Hillary was ambushed by a Gotcha question, piled on, & the boys are being tough on her.
Seriously dude, what is it you don't understand here?
Yes Jeter2,
Hillary answered the immigration question poorly. No doubt about it. The question probably caught her off guard. Wow! she's human, isn't it terrible.
However, one question does not mean she is a "total loser," or a "panderer," or "calculating."
It just means that wingnuts such as yourself and the corporate media have something to come unglued about for a week or two. You wingnuts are so childish. It's really pretty amusing--and pathetic.
CF,
Getting caught off guard is one thing, planting questions is another, fundraising scandals is another, flip-flopping on immigration issues is another, disavowing all knowledge of what your own campaign is another...
If Hillary's campaign tried to pressure Blitzer it backfired. If someone else's campaign played a dirty trick, it will have the same effect. I think Blitzer will ask tougher questions in order not to look like a sockpuppet and/or be upstaged by Russert.
Should be fun TV. :-)
AA, just when I thought your 12 step no kool-aid program was working, you fall off the wagon again. ;-)
They have indirectly anted up the pressure & intimidation by 2 straight weeks of carping, moaning, groaning & whining about the last debate.
and you think that is pressure and intimidation? Damn, If I had known that was all it took for a rightie to fold I would have done it years ago.
Jeter you can have your opinions but not your own facts!Hillary was ambushed by Russert and Willians and this site and others have correctly pointed out Russerts misrepresentations and distortions in his questions. i 'am not a hillary fan but right is right. Do you really think the article about Do's and Don'ts is intimidating? Thats amazing and just plain dumb.i looked up intimidate and here is how it is defined:intimidate=to make timid or fearful,to compel or deter by as if by THREATS,to freighjten into submission,implies reduction to a state where the spirit is broken or courage is lost.-----so if your reasonable Jeter you can't possibly equate writing a article is the same as intimidation! You can spew youir hate of hillary but you need a better examples than this one because it has no legs, as even Blitzer himself has said he doesn't know how these stories get started,but he was never intimidated.
Tommy
It's time for your nap.
Blitzer, who said he had not been directly contacted by the Clinton campaign, called the New York Democrat “a sophisticated, strong politician.” But he also issued his own veiled warning.
“If she can’t handle the heat during a Democratic contest, wait until the Republicans really start going after her,” he told TV Newser. “If she’s the nominee.”
Interesting, this seems to be completely at odds with what the right wing hacks are telling us. Actually, not it's not interesting, just routine.
And if she can't handle the Republicans, how will she handle hostile foreign leaders?
I agree... she should run with this. She's already tougher than Guilliani... she should be the B-yatch on wheels these righties are saying she is... relieve any doubt. Beat 'em at their own game. I'd have more respect for her.
She can't use bombs on Republicans.
She can drop F-bombs on them for all I care. They are deserving of it.
More propaganda. Coulter is a credible source.
I hope you aren't serious.
The first line - I thought - negated the second. Sarcasm doesn't come across well through the keyboard.
HOW CAN YOU HAVE ANN COULTER ON YOUR SHOW AND WANT TO BE CONSIDERED A CREDIBLE NEWS ANCHOR OR EDITOR FOR A BUSINESS CHANNEL???
sheesh
HOW CAN YOU HAVE ANN COULTER ON YOUR SHOW AND WANT TO BE CONSIDERED A CREDIBLE NEWS ANCHOR OR EDITOR FOR A BUSINESS CHANNEL???
CNBC has her on, Donnie Deutch are they a credible Business channel?
I do not think that ANY channel who has her on can be considered 'credible' - at least while she is in front of the camera. Her 'fringeness' doesn't equate with 'credibility' by any stretch.
Exactly.
Donnie Deutch normally would get less viewers than the "Watching Grass Grow Channel."
But Coulter was on, made the anti-Semitic remarks and got lots of free publicity for Deutch.
As to Annthrax and the Sludge Misreport, they have no credibility, no sense of decency, and NO class.
Never heard of Donnie Deutch so I guess that doesn't make me a card-carrying member of his Ten Viewers club.
I agree, Sue. But from what I can see, she frequents Fixed Noise far more than any other channel.
The other guys will mostly have her on whenever she's got another crappy book to peddle, which is still too much in my opinion, but Fixed Noise will constantly have her on to discuss issues she knows absolutely nothing about, only for the sake of blaming whatever is happening on liberals while combing her fingers through her hair.
"combing her fingers through her hair". Now, that's good.....I bet if you asked O'Reilly's body language expert she would tell you it's born out of insecurity and/or not really believing all the stuff she utters.
Either that (doubtful) or she has cooties (much more likely).
Ha Ha!!
Aw come on, you know that O'Realy's "body language expert" would say something more like:
"See Bill, she does that as a way of sorting through the many brilliant thoughts in her giant genious brain. She is physically combing through her many potential witty and incisive responses to pluck out just the perfect one."
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check - Irony Edition:
Once again the topic turns to Ann Coulter -and I have just documented several times when you guys have referred to Ann as a BITCH.
It's just so interesting to me that you guys can throw one ugly insult after another at Ann, and then turn around and get misty eyed when a McCain supporter call HRC a BITCH.
The hypocricy is truly breathtaking.
Justice, I hate to say it but you are right . Look a the hate that gets spewed about Ann Coulter. Thats ok though but its a crime and an outrage someone in a campaign Q&A called Hillary a B*tch.
Because Ann Coulter DRAWS FIRST BLOOD! JHC, what part of that do you not GET!
SHE is the instigator in EVERY CASE. SHE is the one who attacks people first and then when people swing back at her, she whines and complains that people are 'taking her out of context' - the most absolutely PATHETIC excuse EVER.
SHE brings it upon herself. Did John Edwards attack HER first?! Nope, SHE started in on him first with her 'f*ggot' comment.
All you're saying is that it's OK to call a woman a BITCH in certain circumstances.
Do any other libs at MMFA agree with this new formulation? I mean, some of you guys were saying that the word BITCH was the same as using the N-word. Do you think that there are times when it's OK to use the N-word, too? Just like you think that the word BITCH is perfectly acceptable under some circumstances?Honestly, your "debating skills" are just awesome.
Aaawww... poor Ann Coulter. You truly are a purveyor of truth and justice. I always find it amusing when some right-winger decides they're going to teach 'us' all a lesson on good manners... especially by defending one of the leading hate-mongers of our time. Good work. You should be proud.
Boy are you stupid! Once again, I never said that it was 'OK'. I DID say that those on the receiving end of attacks from the likes of Coulter WILL come back swinging in the same manner as they are not putting up with the trash anymore. The 'rules' have changed. Get used to it.
Once again, S L O W L Y, I NEVER said that it was 'OK' to call ANYONE a 'bitch'.
Got it now?
justicetruthus8276 , if it'll make you feel better, I'll call you bitch.
No it is not ok to call her a bitch.
Bitch (these days) is reserved for women you respect and are pissed off at for being prettier, better, smarter, etc....than you are.
And....only women should use the B word in the first place.
What right do men have to call her or any woman, that, none.
Do women go around calling men in government, or male commentators bastards. Hardly. Even when they really piss us off. And that happens often in this current day and age.
People need to grow up and call those people what they are!!!
****s and *****s
I am saying if someone punches you its ok to punch them back. You are another crybaby conservative who thinks God gave the exclusive franchise on personal attacks to cons. Didnt happen get over it.
Why oh why would anyone say something nasty about Annie. Here she is spreading her love around the world with HER pleasant speech:
"These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever - and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA? This is truly a war in which we have absolutely no interest."
"I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'" (This declaration prompted a boisterous ovation.)
"There is more dissent on a slave plantation then amongst moderates in the Republican party."
Now I'll say it again to the brain challenged, I would not call Annie a bi*ch however I would call her a skinny, moldy, small minded, nasty, pathetic, heartless, dung infested, horse face, hairball coughing cow, but I would not call her a bi*ch. Got it.
The hypocricy is truly breathtaking.
Well said, could not agree more.
If I follow this correctly, the "breathtaking hypocrisy" in question that you could not agree more with is exhibited on the part of those who justicetruthus8276 calls "you guys" for throwing "one ugly insult after another at Ann." Ummm... who are they and how are they hypocrites?
Wow!!!!!! A collection of four quotes all in one place where Coulter is called an offensive name. An absolutely chilling exposé, justicetruthus8276. Stand and be counted "MadlyBushBoozled" "dewey" "blueblood" and "John the Elder", but be forewarned, justicetruthus8276's sword is mighty sharp.
Thanks. But in all honesty, I owe it all to google and about 5 minutes to spare from my busy day.
By the way, I thought that some people might think that "only" four examples was not too bad. So I'll simply ask - how many examples of using the word BITCH do you think would be unacceptable?
5? 10? Give me a number.
I don't understand the question.
Look, "Gov", if I go out and find 10 more examples of left/libs using the same term at MMFA, you're just going to reply, "What? Only 10?", so then I go and find 20 more and you say, "Gee, that's only 30 examples."
So, before I go to any more trouble, you tell me exactly how many times I have to find where MMFA supporters used the term BITCH where you will agree that MMFA supporters are a bunch of hypocrites.
OK?
OK?
No. I have no idea what you are on about. I read earlier that you thought 4 people were wrong to call Coulter a "bitch". How that makes so-called “you guys” or “MMFA supporters” all a bunch of “hypocrites” is very much unclear to me. If a non-“MMFA supporter” posts somewhere that Olbermann is a handsome fellow, does that make you gay?
No hypocrisy at all.
Skeletor spews hate and she reaps hate.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
;-)
I am possibly the person identified by the handle "blueblood". I protest that I did not call anyone a "BITCH" at that speech. Nor did I call anyone a "BITCH" in the subsequent report of my ejection from the speech. What I did was simply to accurately report what some other person had called Ms. Coulter (to my avid amusement) as the event that precipitated my ejection.
Truth would involve actually telling same, whereas this supposed "Truth" missed on at least one count; and owes therefore at least one apology.
All you're saying is that it's OK to call a woman a BITCH in certain circumstances.
Do any other libs at MMFA agree with this new formulation? I mean, some of you guys were saying that the word BITCH was the same as using the N-word. Do you think that there are times when it's OK to use the N-word, too? Just like you think that the word BITCH is perfectly acceptable under some circumstances?Honestly, your "debating skills" are just awesome.
- justicetruthus8276 / Thursday November 15, 2007 04:27:33 PM EST
Let me offer my opinion (since us libs aren't required to think in lockstep I can only speak for myself) and address this awesome confusion so as to end your bitching.
IMO...
Ann Coulter is a bitch.
Hillary is also a bitch.
:-)
COULTER: But he has been given a talking-to. CAVUTO: Absolutely.
Sorry to interrupt, but can someone (tommy, sueeld, jeter2 , anyone) please explain who/what gave Blitzer a "talking-to"?
The New RepublicBunker Hillary by Michael CrowleyClinton's strategy for crushing the media.Post Date Monday, November 12, 2007
Start here - read the article in the liberal New Republica - you can then draw your own conclusions.
"New Republica" is the Spanish edition of TNR...
' "New Republica" is the Spanish edition of TNR"
Hey, Truthy, that was kinda funny. And you were trying to be funny.Good job, I feel like I should go buy a cake or something.
MMFA, page 1, 3x5 4-color glossy photograph of Wolf Blitzer with the caption underneath reading;
"Some debate don'ts for CNN's Blitzer"
So, no one gave Wolf Blitzer a "talking-to". Thanks for clearing that up.
What a pair!
You know, when I'm looking for unimpeachable places from which to pull facts, the first that pop into my head are Coulter and Cavuto.
Followed by my ass.
It seems that every single item at MM includes postings from Jeter and Tommy. Are you guys supposed to be working somewhere or are you old shut-ins in cluttered apartments filled with cats eating tuna from cans in front of your computer screens? Your postings are filled with the misinformed crap that only comes from Fox news, Coulter and Savage trying to make hay from any tidbit that might damage the media perception of Democrats and liberals. Could you take a vacation for a few weeks, breath some fresh air, grab a little natural vitamin D and get a life. I know you will howl over this "personal" attack, but, seriously, there is a whole society of people out there raising families, going to work, living life. Politics is supposed to be a reflection of real life, a struggle of competing ideas for the betterment of society, not a scorched earth ideological battle for media dominance. You've been living in the shadow of your pathetic self-importance so long you've forgotten that these politicians affect real people. And not just anglo-christian people.
Try telling our dependent cats that our pathetic self importance is an exaggeration, will ya? We have been trying to get them to open their own tuna cans, but they refuse to breathe a little fresh air above a foot off the ground, grab their own Vitamin D, and find their own four-legged life.
And you're right, politicians have no affect on non-anglo, non-christian cats. So they just troll around and "howl", all day long. Pathetic, indeed.
I like your first paragraph, well done. Didn't get the second one. My point was that poiticians affect everyone, even though they pander to mostly anglo-christians. Sorry that it wasn't clear.
Cannonball,
Since Anglo-Christians probably make up the majority of voters in the country, I don't see your point.
First let me say I take exception to the pandering term. What many here call pandering actually is politicians imparting their shared vision with segments of the electorate? I do believe you have used the term pandering here before and Tommy uses it relentlessly to describe the Democrats vote courting particularly towards minority communities. You aren't saying that you don't see anything wrong with pandering to the Anglo Saxon majority but pandering to minorities is innately wrong are ya AA?
Lynn,
Do you actually want someone to "court your vote"? Isn't that incredibly insulting? Speaking for myself, I absolutely do NOT want any politician "courting my vote".......what I want is for them to tell me exactly where they stand on issues, why it's in the country or district's best interest, be honest, don't tell me what I want to hear, tell me what you will do, what you want to do, what you believe in, what your priorities are, your values, your vision - and then tell me to look at his or her opponents fairly and vote, based on intelligence, integrity and who I think would do the best job in the office they seek.
In other words, treat me like an adult.
No it isn't incredibly insulting. I want someone to prove to me that he shares my vision of the country and that's why I should vote for them. NOW it doesn't have to be the entirety of my vision but it had better be pretty damned close or he-she aint getting my vote; and I’ll be watching closely while he’s in office. I also want my values respected and a politician has to prove to me that he does that, you see Tommy I'm a values voter too. I value my faith but I value the right of individuals not to have a state religion imposed on them. I value equal access to opportunity to all Americans, I value a woman's right to manage her own body, and I value the right to affordable health care for all, and so on and so on. So yeah a pol has to demonstrate to me that he shares my vision of America.
AA, I think you've inadvertently included Cannonball's point in your comment.But I promised I was done doing your work for you, so figure it out your own self ! ;0)
Cannonball,
How very selective of you to notice only mine & Tommy's posts but pay no heed to the numerous Liberal posters featured on each & every thread.
This makes all your other observations rather worthless.
Your personal attacks directed at us are rather childish & frivolous, but I've taken into account that they were obviously written by an imbecile.
If ann coulter ever told the truth her head would explode. I saw her the other night and she was talking about what a "great american" Joe McCarthy was. She said it was true because she read it in a new book. I am sending her some good reviews Hitler got in the late thirties. Wonder if she will be singing his praises the next time her giant adams apple appears on Fake News.
I have a cunning plan! I think we should legalize dueling in this country. If people could be called out for telling lies they might think twice about it. I have challenged Billo and Sean to duel but the gutless wankers will not even reply. I would even challenge Coulter, though I would not challenge a female.
The undercard - Zell Miller vs. Chris Matthews
CAVUTO AND CULTER NOT EXACTLY HUNTLEY AND BRINKLY. NO EVIDENCE ANYONE TALKED TO ANYONE EXCEPT CULTER TALKING TO US AND AT CNN THERE BEST DAYS ARE BEHIND THEM.
Coulter is a joke - a shock jock in it for money alone. Why are her opinions even being quoted?
I have a friend, a successful businessman and generally a very pleasant person. A while back I saw him reading one of Coulter's books. I told him that he shouldn't be reading that garbage. We made a bet that I had to read his Coulter book and he had to read my John Dean book.
I welshed. There's no way I could waste my valuable time on this earth to anything she has written.