CNN's Beck falsely asserted that Novak "said it was an insider on the Clinton campaign"
On the November 19 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, discussing Robert D. Novak's November 17 nationally syndicated column, in which he wrote that "[a]gents of Sen. Hillary [Rodham] Clinton [D-NY] are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL], but has decided not to use it," host Glenn Beck asserted that Novak "said" his source "was an insider on the Clinton campaign." In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, during the November 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Novak acknowledged that his purported "source" was not involved in the Clinton campaign, referring to that "source" as "a well-known Democrat, but neutral so far" who was "told by an agent of the Clinton campaign" about the "scandalous information." Novak said he "then checked with another source who is neutral and said he had heard the same thing from Clinton -- Clinton people."
As Media Matters further noted, Sam Stein, political reporter for The Huffington Post, wrote of Novak's Fox & Friends appearance, "So Novak was not privy to the dirt itself, nor did he talk to Clinton's people. Rather, he heard it from someone who had heard it from someone else. Another secondary source, Novak went on to say, claimed to have heard the same thing." During the discussion with Beck, Democratic strategist Peter Fenn stated: "Here's the situation. Bob Novak, who's a friend of mine, I like him a lot, but you know, he doesn't have that -- his sources are usually the Karl Rove sources, the insider Republican sources." But contrary to the unsourced claim in Novak's column and his earlier statements, Beck responded with the false assertion: "He said it was an insider on the Clinton campaign." Fenn then responded, "That's what he says."
From the November 19 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: But first, when conservative columnist and generally good-looking man Robert Novak calls Hillary Clinton, quote, "such a good person," to me that's pretty much the same thing as seeing the four horsemen of the Apocalypse riding into town. You know what I mean? Armageddon, somebody check the Scriptures. Or it's just another day in the life of presidential campaign politics.
Well, the compliment came in response to questions about an unsourced item in Novak's column over the weekend, which stated that Clinton had scandalous information -- shh, but don't tell anybody. It's about her closest rival, Barack Obama. And that she had chosen not to disclose it because of that whole good person thing.
Obama was quick to respond, releasing a statement accusing the New York senator of dirty tactics and demanding that she, quote, "Either make public any and all information referred to in the item or concede the truth that there is none."
The Clinton camp went on with the second option and said there was no truth to the column, nor did they have any idea what Novak was talking about. And -- surprise, surprise -- blamed it on a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Democratic strategist Peter Fenn joins me now.
You know, Peter, I'm pretty -- they say that I'm the 18th most influential conservative in America. I don't know who these people are in this vast right-wing conspiracy.
FENN: Listen, just take it. It's a great accolade. What the heck?
BECK: It's a conspiracy. I don't get those calls. I want to be in the club. Which do you think it is, Peter?
FENN: Well, I'll tell you. I think this is a very tough time for these candidates. It's six weeks before the Iowa caucuses on January 3, and they're all walking on egg shells. They're all afraid anything's going to upset their apple cot --
BECK: Peter --
FENN: -- cart. So --
BECK: Peter, you know how much I love you, right?
FENN: Yeah. Right.
BECK: I love you.
FENN: Right. Right.
BECK: Right? You're a Democrat I love. I'm not going to let you get away with that. Come on, give me a real answer. Do you think this is a vast right-wing conspiracy or do you think this is Clinton playing politics?
FENN: I think -- look, I smell a little bit of a rat here. I'll tell you why.
BECK: So it's Clinton?
FENN: Well -- no. Here's -- no, no. Here's the situation. Bob Novak, who's a friend of mine, I like him a lot, but, you know, he doesn't have that -- his sources are usually the Karl Rove sources, the insider Republican sources. So, if --
BECK: But wait a minute. He said --
FENN: -- if the Clinton people -- if the Clinton --
BECK: He said it was -- wait a minute. Hang on just a second. He said it was an insider on the Clinton campaign.
FENN: That's what he says. And I, you know --
BECK: Is Karl Rove working for --
FENN: Well, you never can tell. You know, you've got to watch Karl. He's a little slippery.
This is word parsing nitpickyness by MMFA, Beck said it was an "insider", and Novak said the original source was someone from the Clinton campaign who told Novak's "neutral well known Democrat".......that is hardly some false assertion by Beck.
But what a ridiculous story anyway, Novak ought to be ashamed for even breathing a word of some third party source of information that may or may not exist at all. It makes the Clinton campaign defend, what? And Obama reacts to, what? What kind of journalistic volleyball is Novak playing, maybe he should retire.
Tommy
Well said , this is just MMFA and its disgust toward Beck. Novak should be ashamed of himself, this is a man who has lost so much of his integrity and it continues with the sham of a story.
To falsely peddled Novak's tripe, as Beck is doing, is misinformation that should be debunked. (And if it gives an opportunity to display his utterly goofy TV mug, well that’s just an added bonus.)
Tommy is wrong. YOU seem to be easily taken in. MMFA is right.
Solon, I do not think Beck is the issue here its Novak. Novak claims it came from an "agent" what exactly is Beck supposed to say? If you feel I am wrong so be it.
Of course Beck is not the issue here..... it's the lies he tells that are the problem.
Beck lies yes, but Novak is the one who possibly made something up well before Beck did. Who are the "agents" . Why would Novak print something based on third person heresay?
Why would Novak print something based on third person heresay?
The right-wing wackos like Robert No-Facts do that all the time.
Novack said this when again? There's been more than enough time for Beck and any other schlameel to validate the story before repeating it like a fact. To assume otherwise is disengenious. Beck is either lazy or purposefully pushing the lie.
Beck is either lazy or purposefully pushing the lie
My bet is lazy, the guy does not seem to be very intelligent. The real question to me is who are these "agents"?
My bet is lazy, the guy does not seem to be very intelligent. The real question to me is who are these "agents"?
Agreed about Beck, the agents are a imaginary friend in Novaks brain
But that vast right-wing conspiracy is all concrete.
I'll call it a half-vast right wing conspiracy.
That's a good question. Novak says the details are being spread by word of mouth among the democratic circles. My bet is he's got nothing but air or he'd be able to name them. But then again we are talking about the same guy who was complicit in plamegate...
Snoopy
I still to this day do not understand why Novak is not in prison for treason.
Well, Libby isn't in either thanks to Herr Bush. I guess laws are only for Democrats now.
January 19, 2009, Libby will be pardoned. Shameful.
It is shameful if it happens lets not predict.
The issue HERE is Beck. Beck is the one who made the false claim. Whatever the issue is overall THIS thread is about Beck making an indisputably false claim.
a claim that was a lie by the disgusting Novak.
NO. Novak SAID HIS source was NOT in the Clinton administration. Beck said it WAS. So the misinformation being talked about in THIS thread is Beck's
Well said, Solon. The only "parsing" here is in the first post.
The issue here is that Novak said "agent" and Beck said "insider" We can fight all we want if one means the other bottom line is if you are going to reference Novak as being truthful you belong on a MMFA thread. Novak spreads Conservative misinformation.
No Dorris you are missing it too. Novak said his source claimed he heard it from an agent and Beck said Novaks SOURCE was an insider. Novak NEVER claimed his source was connected to the Clinton campaign in any way.
Novak NEVER claimed his source was connected to the Clinton campaign in any way
Of course Novak never claimed that however I do not believe anything Novak says he is a liar.
Whether you believe him or not isn't the point. The point is that Beck misrepresented him.
Of course Beck misrepresented him. Just because I detest Novak more than Beck however does not mean I am defending Beck.
BECK: He said it was -- wait a minute. Hang on just a second. He said it was an insider on the Clinton campaign.
What part of this is true?
Not even Novak would claim he heard this from an insider on the Clinton campaign.
What's true is the right wing nut jobs are trying to keep this story alive.
Novak did say "agents"
What is exactly an agent?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/655729,CST-EDT-novak18.article
Novak acknowledged that his purported "source" was not involved in the Clinton campaign, referring to that "source" as "a well-known Democrat, but neutral so far" who was "told by an agent of the Clinton campaign" about the "scandalous information."
Highlight this:
"told by an agent of the Clinton campaign"
Sounds like an insider to me. Shrug.
Exactly Jeter, I swear on a stack of bibles nobody can parse words like liberals trying to frame a weak rebuttal.......Incredible.
"Agent" is not an "Insider". HAHAHAHA!!
"Exactly Jeter, I swear on a stack of bibles nobody can parse words like liberals trying to frame a weak rebuttal.......Incredible."
I guess that nobody would be you Tommy since we all see you do it on a daily basis on close to every item on MMFA.
Strawman. We are not arguing that agent is different than insider. Rather the issue is Beck blurring the distinction between Novaks source and the ORIGINAL source. You probably know that but since you have been SPANKED on that issue you are trying to change the subject. THAT is weak.
Do you know what a "source" is? Novak said that HIS source had nothing to do with the Clinton campaign, and Beck said that Novak's source was a Clinton insider. What Beck said was false. No parsing necessary for those of us who can comprehend the English language.
tommy just likes taking shots at mmfa. he admitted it over on the "n. y. times id'd" thread. but he does have his little circle of defenders.
An agent, insider or however else Novak's supposed source wants to portray it didn't tell Novak ANYTHING.
And Beck didn't say that the insider told Novak directly, he said that Novak said it was an insider, or an agent, where it came from. You and a few here keep missing that.
Please reread Beck's statements.
He is saying Novak's source was an insider.
It wasn't.
Novak's source was a "neutral" who said an agent of Clinton's campaign told him.
That difference may seem trivial to some and I'll bet that's exactly what Novak is hoping since he has no way to check out what he's reporting is true or not.
And he was right, the original source, according to Novak was an "agent" of the Clinton campaign......which is only common sense, isn't it? Novak is going to say that Clinton has dirt on Obama that came from some other campaign, how would they be privvy to such information? They wouldn't. What Beck said was perfectly accurate.
The original source is NOT the same thing as NOVAKS source. This is simple. Novak has no way of knowing who the ORIGINAL source is. Even more importantly, in fact CRUCIALLY, he has no way of knowing if this source is in a position to know this FIRSTHAND or if it is a rumor picked up around the campaign. If it were HIS source he WOULD know that. He was only told the source was an agent in the campaign. What does that mean? Someone who makes the coffee? Did they SEE documents or photos or did they hear gossip or overhear something they may have misinterpreted? Novak cannot know this since the original source was not NOVAKS source. THIS is the reason it is only a rumor. Every real journalist understands this distinction and if they have even a hint of journalistic ethics doesnt try to pass off one for the other.
What? Beck said "He said.......it, (meaning obviously the original source) was an insider".
Novak said it was a neutral Democrat whose source, (meaning obviously the original source) was an "agent".
Now you can sit there all day and "is", "is" this all day long, but to reasonable people it's the same thing. Not surprising you can't see it though.
ONLY if you take it out of context. Beck said that DURING a discussion not about the original source but about NOVAKS SOURCES. In fact Beck interrupted Fenn talking about Novaks usual sources in order to make THE VERY DISTINCTION WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. Beck interrupted the talk about NOVAKS SOURCES and said Novak said IT was a Clinton campaing insider that is CLEARLY talking about Novaks source the parsing is being done by you and dishonestly at THAT.
I love it when we get to this point where there are only two explanations for your position: Either you're an idiot or you're dishonest. You're very obviously not correct, so it clearly has to be one of the two.
I think they miss it intentionally.
They are loyal little MMFA soldiers.
It's not me who has a problem reading MMFA's postings before I post is it?
If you're referring to the posts where Jeter apologized, then he is due props for his class, as always. We have all jumped the gun and posted too quick sometimes, it's no big deal but Jeter's apology was standard fare for him, as I said, classy.
You, on the other hand, could learn a valuable lesson.
Jumped the gun?
Man, you ought to work in public relations.
Thanks Tommy,
Johnny One Note never posts before reading, he just posts after not understanding what he's read.
Hey, I'd be embarrassed too if my prejudices against anything posted by MMFA were revealed.
Coming from someone who can't think for himself & never questions anything...even the obvious, I'll take your post as a compliment.
Johnny you are a blind partisan bobblehead.
Don't be proud.
Once again, Jeter speaks without knowing the facts.
Do I sense a pattern here?
Sorry Johnny One Note, but it's you without facts. Sometimes I agree with MMFA, sometimes I don't. At least I'm not some bobblehead.
Unlike you who never disagrees, just like a blind partisan parrot.
Again, don't be proud.
Not being able to think for yourself is kinda pathetic.
No, you're just some one who comments on posts before reading them.
If that isn't the definition of bobblehead or good little soldier then I don't know what is.
There's a big difference between reading something and agreeing and disagreeing with it before you read it.
ONE THREAD...ONE POST
That's your argument?
Man, you are making an idiot of yourself.
You've been exposed.
Take it like a man.
I've been exposed for only skimming ONE thread before posting. And I've returned your insults.
Yeah Johnny One Note that's quite a case you've built there ::eye roll::.
Hope you're not an attorney, cause you'd lose a lot of cases.
You've been exposed as an exaggerator & a liar John-Boy.
Take it like the wuss you are.
Seriously dude, you should have quit while you were only a little behind. You're now off the radar.
Exaggerator an liar?
It proves once again you aren't reading posts.
I think Jeter has earned more respect and the benfit of the doubt here. I like your posts Johnny but Jeter is one of the good guys, even though we usually disagree.
Sorry, anyone who refers to the posters here as bobbleheads and good little soldiers gets no respect from me especially when their own knee jerk reactions are exposed.
I agree those comments were dumb, but I think we can separate them from his not reading a thread before commenting. I think we should criticize the behavior that more genuinely merits it.
I do not agree there are any good apologists for conservative misinformation.
Sorry.
I'm not sure how that relates to what I said. If your issue is with his "bobblehead" and "soldier" comments, I agree with you. I brought it up myself, because it was idiotic on his part. Make that your argument, instead of the "read before posting" aspect. That's all I'm saying.
That should have gone under solon's post.
I see the willful misrepresentation of facts and the name calling as part of the same problem.
And I especially believe apologists for conservative misinformation are not the good guys.
I agree those comments were dumb
If your issue is with his "bobblehead" and "soldier" comments, I agree with you. I brought it up myself, because it was idiotic on his part.
Brab,
How often have I personally insulted you, Solon, King, Beach, Snoop Pearlene, Lynn, or other reasonable posters? I'd guess never. And in turn none of you have ever reverted to insulting me.
Respectful posters treat each other with... respect...even when they disagree.
Many of us here from opposing sides joke around & despite often having different opinions have formed close cyber friendships.
Johnny One Note does not fall into that category. He has a history here, short as it is, for doling out cheap shots, invective, insults & name-calling.
As you know I always give back what I get.
If you are polite/civil, I will respond in kind.
If you're not, then I've no problem tossing insults back at ya.
Name-calling & insults are not unusual on this site. Many are directed at Republican/Conservatives by Democratic/Liberals. Some are deserved, many are not. But I find it rather laughable that Dem/Libs here are flabbergasted when a Rep/Con shoots back.
Libs call us Cons: Wingnuts, & claim we are repeating GOP talking points. So if I call Libs Moonbats or bobbleheads/soldiers...is that somehow worse?
I won't apologize for any insults I threw John-Boy's way. They were deserved.
But Brab if you found my insults "dumb" & "idiotic" why not have a word with one of your own?
Were the insults warranted in the post below? If you think they were, would you please explain why?
Hell, based on Tommylogic, we could just as easily dismiss everything he posts here. After all, everybody knows he's just a dimwitted and dishonest contrarian with absolutely no comprehension of the basic rules of logic and debate. By his standard, every time he posts his nonsense, instead of countering it with truth and logic, we should just shrug it off and say, "Well, it's Tommy, what do you expect?" And that way he would be free to spout his idiocy unhindered by pesky things like facts and logic.
- clams casino / Tuesday November 20, 2007 07:27:20 PM EST
Where's the part about "We're keeping Checkers"?
Calling on "close cyber friendships" is something I'd expect of a 15 year old.
Taking pride in "holding your own" against the big bad liberals on a web site is a symptom having too much time on your hands.
I've said it once and I've said it again, there are no good guys among those who defend conservative misinformation.
You've made your choice to post here. You've even fooled some into believing you're a reasonable person even though you resort to name calling once your arguments are blown away.
You've made your choices now stop crying.
"I think they miss it intentionally...They are loyal little MMFA soldiers."
Who are they, exactly? Are "they" Johnny? Hmm, no, because he is one person and you're referring to more than one person. Didn't mean to insult everyone who wasn't seeing it your way? Then you were being dumb, because that's exactly what you did. We all do dumb things from time to time, the important thing is that you own up to it.
That is a valid criticism. Harping on the Boehlert thread is not, for the stated reason that you owned up to it. I do empathize. If he keeps bringing it up for eight months, then you'll have some idea how Wesley behaves.
As for the "Bobbleheads" part, it seems from what I saw that you started using that as a substitute for your original term on Tommy's advice. I see you aimed that much directly at Johnny alone, but I viewed it as a continuation of your "soldiers"/"you don't think for yourself" theme. If that's not fair, then I'll stick to my criticism of the "soldiers" comment alone.
If you want to criticize Johnny for his behavior, I have no problem with that. Solon and I both commented to him, and both of us have defended your general reputation in the past. And I don't want people to overgeneralize criticism of Republicans based on extremists. I think I've made that clear many times in the past, particularly by flagging people like Coop. The point here is that you made a comment about a group of people based on their disagreement with you. That much is not fair of you, as far as I can see.
So I'm not saying you can't criticize Johnny fairly, any more than I would say that people can't criticize Tommy fairly (and I've defended Tommy myself when he's been criticized unfairly). As for your example, there are literally hundreds of threads to show how Tommy is illogical, hypocritical, and intellectually dishonest. I agree that Tommy is not actually "dimwitted", I think he's just not usually mature enough to change his position, and so he digs himself into holes instead. You should remember that not long ago you went into a "no-more-mister-nice-guy" phase because you were aggravated at other people's behavior. Well, many of us have been exasperated with Tommy's behavior for ages, so you should empathize with the results of that.
A couple of other notes should be made about this. First, whenever Tommy is confronted with points about his illogic or hypocrisy, he often tells people to just ignore him instead of actually addressing the arguments;this is very much in line with Clams' conclusion. Second, and more importantly, Tommy himself has argued that opinions have no possible basis to them. He doesn't have to justify anything he says about anything or anybody, because it's his opinion. That is sacred. So by that standard, Clams' comment is also just his opinion. It doesn't have to have a basis to it anyway. That's Tommy's stated view. What's more, that would mean that by that standard, Johnny has the right to say anything he wants about you, and he doesn't have to justify it at all. If you disagree with what he says, that's all there is to say about it, nothing more. Tommy has also stated that if a guest doesn't express their personal offense at a talk show host's remarks, then nobody else has a right to talk about it at all. By the same logic, if Tommy doesn't object to what Clams said, then it's none of your business. And Tommy can't complain, because as I pointed out already, it's just Clams opinion, and so anything goes. Surely Tommy wouldn't hold others to a different standard than himself, right?
Of course, you're not going to buy into those arguments, and that's the point. You know that opinions should have justifications, and that you are not prevented from addressing what anyone says here, so you yourself would surely find Tommy's arguments dishonest or nonsensical. If you want to talk about Johnny's history as a justification for criticism, any number of us can do the same for Tommy.
I meant to put in there that Tommy does have his good days as well. It's a Jekyll and Hyde sort of thing, as I've said in the past.
And also I should have noted that by Tommy's standard I have no obligation whatsoever to justify my opinion of your remarks. You clearly have a higher standard, as you should.
Brab,
I'll try to keep this short as these threads get so skinny they are hard to read. Why is my comment They are loyal little MMFA soldiers any more troubling to you than general statements about Conservatives made by Liberals such as accusing us of parroting GOP talking points. No one adds the rejoinder saying this does not apply to the following Conservatives & then lists posters names.
In this instance Tommy said, & I agreed that nobody can parse words like liberals trying to frame a weak rebuttal. Tommy was highlighting those words as being: agent vs insider. I've been here long enough to have observed the minutia that some will employ in order to make their point. The meaning of "is" is tactics. It often makes my head hurt.
Brab, as you know some here are not interested in a civil debate/discussion. Their attitude is I'm correct, you're wrong, & instead of debates we get lectures. As you are aware Libs outnumber Cons by a wide margin here, not unexpected this being a Lib site. As you should also be aware, some Cons, myself, Tommy, Bruce & AA have agreed on certain issues with their Lib counterparts. But on those many other occasions where we offer a different perspective or opposing reasonable opinion, there are some Libs that simply aren't capable of accepting this & launch into personal attacks. That we fight back seems to often earn us the bad reputation, instead of the instigator.
I've been fortunate to have had you, & others come to my defense when I've been unfairly attacked. I'd like to think I've earned respect here, not because I parrot Liberal viewpoints on occasion, but because whether I do or not, I conduct myself in a civil manner & lay out my opinions fairly. I'm able to admit when I'm wrong, but I won't back down if I truly believe my opinion is the correct one.
Posters like Johnny & Clams are what I would refer to as typical bobbleheads. Unable to accept opposing opinions, they launch personal attacks. Then they cry foul when someone counterstrikes.
I just said that I don't want people to overgeneralize Republicans, now you want to know why I don't find it as "troubling"? I have pointed it out to people many times that not all Conservatives are the same. I got into it with Samscomputer over his unfair treatment of Bruce. If that's your argument with Johnny, then make it. It certainly doesn't give you the right to make a generalized statement about those that disagree with you on a specific thread.
Am I really supposed to accept the legitimacy of your comment because some others have done the same thing, especially when I've criticized those people as well?
You are either misremembering or misrepresenting what happened. Tommy said "And Beck didn't say that the insider told Novak directly, he said that Novak said it was an insider, or an agent, where it came from. You and a few here keep missing that." That's what you replied to. What Johnny said previously was "An agent, insider or however else Novak's supposed source wants to portray it didn't tell Novak ANYTHING." In other words, it wasn't an attempt to parse between "insider" and "agent". Johnny pointed out prior to your comment that it made no difference, that it wasn't the issue at all. Your response meant that anyone who thought Beck was conflating the direct source with Novak's source was being willfully blind for partisan purposes.
Again, if that's not what you meant to do, then own up to it. But you can't very well claim that you were criticizing Johnny for parsing between those two words when he himself said it made no difference. Your explanation makes no sense whatsoever. First you say that you were talking about one person when you said "they", and then you claim you were talking about Johnny parsing when you and Tommy were the ones building that strawman. Were you misreading? Did you jump to a conclusion? As I said, we all do dumb things.
If you want to address the reality of what happened, make a new comment. The rest of what you said was already addressed by my previous post.
about a month ago, i can produce the thread, someone made a comment comparing bruce to billybob. you, me and several others said that was an unfair comparison and i told bruce he was welcome here.
Thank you for jogging my memory.
I do recall reading that thread & exchange now. I didn't remember which posters were involved though. Only the BillyBob remark.
Bruce is one of the fairest & most reasonable posters on this forum. I was happy to see that posters came to his defense.
I wish both you & Brab a nice Thanksgiving.
actually i try to stay away, but you can't always, from generalized statements about this group or that, because there are things i am so called conservative on. and i do think it can hurt your argument when you start name calling or generalizing. it does happen on the left too. happy thanksgiving to you also.
and i meant "you" generally.
Here are the posts in order:
=====
Highlight this:
"told by an agent of the Clinton campaign"
Sounds like an insider to me. Shrug.
jeter2 / Tuesday November 20, 2007 04:37:04 PM EST
Exactly Jeter, I swear on a stack of bibles nobody can parse words like liberals trying to frame a weak rebuttal.......Incredible.
"Agent" is not an "Insider". HAHAHAHA!!
tommy / Tuesday November 20, 2007 04:43:26 PM EST
I think they miss it intentionally.
They are loyal little MMFA soldiers.
- jeter2 / Tuesday November 20, 2007 05:02:09 PM EST
It's not me who has a problem reading MMFA's postings before I post is it?
johnny_nyc8351 / Tuesday November 20, 2007 05:03:55 PM EST
Several posters above Tommy were grappling with the terms "agent" & "insider", I don't believe Johnny was even involved in that & my post wasn't directed towards him or any one poster. My first post was a general observation.. I never said Johnny was parsing words, never mentioned him by name or inferred that he was. Again, read the above posts. I posted a statement which Tommy replied to. I then replied back to Tommy. Then John-Boy jumped in.
My post to Tommy which contained the reference to MMFA soldiers was directed only to him[Tommy]. Johnny as you can see added his worthless off topic 2 cents AFTER our mine & Tommy's exchange.
And that is where the thread began to, shall we say, unravel out of control into post after post of insults.
Brab, I see very little criticism of the use of generalizations tossed at Conservatives. If you have done so, then I applaud your efforts. Apparently I've missed them or have forgotten.
I never made the claim that my comment was directed only at one poster, it was in fact directed at any of those Liberals here that parse words. Yes that is a generalization. Not every Lib falls into that category. Just like not every Con echoes GOP talking points.
Read the thread yourself. You did not reply to Tommy when he made his "I swear on a stack of bibles nobody can parse words like liberals". There is no reply from you there. Is it different on your screen than on mine?
Look at your list of comments. What the hell were you talking about when you said "I think they miss it intentionally"? It doesn't relate to the "stack of bibles" post at all. "Parsing" doesn't have anything to do with missing a point that's supposedly being made.
Your post was in reply to Tommy when he said that Beck never said that Novak claimed he got his information directly from a Clinton source. Why is that missing from your list? That was always the issue. Tommy's the one who brought up the insider/agent nonsense in the first post, and Doris is the only one who seemed to grapple with it. Everyone else dismissed it as the irrelevant strawman it was.
"I never said Johnny was parsing words, never mentioned him by name or inferred that he was."
Your first post to me here was all about Johnny. You were talking about how he deserved what you said to him. Now, this is all about your "soldier" and "bobblehead" comment, remember. So when I said those comments were dumb, you go off about Johnny...but now your reason for making those comments have nothing to do with him? What the hell are you talking about?
Again, your "soldier" post was in reply to Tommy when he said that Johnny was missing the point. Your comment obviously had to include him! It makes no sense to say that you were talking about a completely different subject and group of people when you agreed with Tommy about a specific person.
And again, I said the point about the Boehlert thread was not legitimate. I'm talking about what you said, which you seem to be incredibly confused about.
I am not sure what you mean when you said
Doris is the only one who seemed to grapple with it.
I made it clear in my first post that this thread belonged here and that Beck was speading "misinformation" because he referenced Novak who I also said I can not stand. It seems to me you were trying to get me involved in your little battle with eachother. How more clear can I be? Novak spreads conservative misinformation, Beck spreads misinformation that is conservative. That is why the thread belongs here.
Fair enough, you're the only person who seemed to address it at all.
"The issue here is that Novak said "agent" and Beck said "insider" We can fight all we want if one means the other bottom line is if you are going to reference Novak as being truthful you belong on a MMFA thread."
After Tommy brought it up, I don't know who else Jeter is referring to. That was the point, sorry for the phrasing.
I was commenting on Tommy and JLyons and others who were starting the conversation, maybe I read it the wrong way but even suggesting this "did not belong " here. I felt regardless of what Beck said, it did belong here because he referenced Novak a man who is a true republican "agent" who spreads misinformation. Fight all we want about what Beck said and meant, the thread belonged here because it was spreading misinformation.
I appreciate the clarification. I only said "grappled" because that was Jeter's term, and I didn't see who else he could have been talking about.
It is ok, Happy Thanksgiving !!
Likewise!
Brab,
Sorry it took me so long to check in here. I'm trying to get out of here [work] by 3:00 & I had a ton of stuff to clear off my desk.
When I first read your post, I thought, Brab is nuts, I should know what I replied to. But I went back & re-checked, & you are correct. I apologize for missing that. It wasn't intentional. I think what happen is I planned on replying to Tommy's parsing post, got waylaid, & ended up replying to his other post. I simply forgot. And I agree, it does make more sense. BTW, I did not even notice till now just who Tommy was replying to. Turns out it was Johnny, but at the time that had not been a part of my thinking. I was making a general comment.
As far as Johnny goes. He made some crack about my screw up which I'm sure you know I corrected & apologized for, but he's an ass, so he threw it up in my face. Then he suggested I am always prejudiced towards anything MMFA posts here. Since that is false, I suggested that I could think for myself & was not a bobblehead like him. Another words my including Johnny personally did not begin till he decided to be a jerk.
Well Brab, I'm out of here. I'll check in later today.
If we miss each other, have a great Turkey Day :-)
Jeter
As I said yesterday Johnny seems to be a real hater. Someone who does not like or tolerate others. Must not of gotten along well with others in school.
I sort of figured something like that was the case, that you got your wires crossed. To believe otherwise, you would have to be not only insulting everyone who disagreed with you, but then lying to me about it. I didn't think that was in character at all.
That's a simple explanation for the criticism that I said Johnny should have concentrated on to begin with. All the other stuff diverted your attention from what actually happened in the first place.
Again, the Boehlert thread incident isn't legitimate criticism. At the same time, now that you realize that your post referenced Johnny directly, maybe you can see why he reacted the way he did. Not saying anything he said was right, but if you re-read everything you might see it all in a slightly different light.
Happy Thanksgiving!
It kind of reminds me of the Limbaugh and the hillbilly heroin story.
Know what I'm saying?
You've also insulted most of the posters here.
Care to go for the trifecta?
Oh, good lord this is getting rediculous. I've known Jeter in cyberland for a long time now, I don't recall him habitually posting before reading. Just please drop it and save it for another time.
Sorry.
I'm not as impressed as you are by someone claiming to be an independent think who is anything but.
Thanks Snoop,
Hey both sides have nutjobs.
Johnny One Note is a Moonbat. A blind partisan who can't think for himself or even consider other viewpoints.
He's a bobblehead who obviously would prefer Republican/Conservatives not post here.
MMFA doesn't agree.
Once again, insults instead of facts.
In light of you busting yourself out today I'll your "loyal little MMFA soldiers" comment with a grain of salt, thanks.
Actually Jeter, I much prefer "bobbleheads", but soldiers will do for today, even with a grain of salt.
MHK, first you tell me I'm "shrill" when I wasn't. Now I'm busting myself out?
Have you been drinking?
I prefer making a fool out of yourself compared to "busting yourself out."
Well Johnny One Note seeing you make a fool of yourself on a fairly regular basis, it's great that you prefer that.
Hey, just because Tommy doesn't seem to understand a word I post doesn't make me a fool.
To be honest, I'd be a little worried if he did understand them.
I wouldn't look for that anytime soon.
J
You just admitted to posting a knee jerk reaction prior to reading a complete article and in the same day your going to call people here "good litter solders" I said I'd take your comment with a grain of salt, considering that you did something that a "good little solider" would actually do. Respond to an article without all the facts.
Sorry about the shrill comment, but it's a little hard to take some of the criticism your dolling out on HRC due to the way your framing it. I'm not supporting her in the primary, I actually like what John Edwards (gasp) Lately your comments on HRC are a little hard to take as it's all negative, all the time and today your actually giving credence to a story put out by Robert Novak of all people?
Novak = Zero creditability.
I realize that you hate HRC, but normally your more reasonable. Leave the irrational/cynical/ hater routine to Tommy.
Good grief MHK...I do this once every blue moon [post after only skimming an article] & you make a federal case out of it.
At least I can think for myself, & don't come here & only repeat party talking points like some here do.
Hence the I'll take your comment with a grain of salt.
I know that your not a mindless drone and can think for yourself J. You know that I'm more then willing to stick up for you when I think you need sticking up for... but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to poke a stick at your from time to time.
Have a good thanksgiving.
Thanks MHK :-)
You have a nice Thanksgiving too.
In other words you only accept Jeter when his opinions align more closely with yours? When they don't, he is being shrill, cynical and a hater?
And then you preach credibility? Now that is one for the books.
Tommy.... the gift that keeps on giving.
That is Johnny the man who loves to attack and smear . Jeter and Tommy are good long time posters and you spew hate.
Yes, I'm the one calling people "bobbleheads" and "good little soldiers."
Jeter is reasonable, fair, and honest...... the exact opposite of you.
The tone of his posts were becoming a little too much likes yours IMO. Jeter is welcome to disagree and we do often, I just I don't like seeing someone I enjoy reading (a reasonable person that comes to here to discuss ideas, for dialog, conversation) turn into something even remotely similar to you. Your the one that likes to assign nefarious motives to all things Clinton and will go to any length to prove yourself correct (imaginary examples, travel in time, etc).
No you guys are just flat WRONG. It is YOU who are willfully not seeing that Beck was absolutly WRONG.
Solon, Your parsing silliness has been shredded......face it, even though you hate Beck, he only reported what Novak said. All your CAPS and bloviating doesn't impress.
No tommy it hasnt. At least not for anyone with the ability to READ to those of us that can READ it is YOU who has been taken apart. You are just wrong AGAIN it is that simple. It isnt my fault that the English language seems to complex for you. I mopped the floor with you AGAIN.
Pffffffffttt!
Check your mop, I think you slipped on your tears.
Again it isnt my fault YOU cant read. You are both WRONG. I set that out step by step. Anyone who CAN read, which apparantly leaves YOU out but not most of those here, can see you got taken to school. That you arent bright enough to see that yourself is YOUR problem and not mine. YOu were wrong. I showed it. You may SOMEDAY obtain the reasoning ability to understand it
Solon, Have you been in a bad mood lately? I'm not wising off here, just noticing the increased CAP use, & more vitriol than I'd expect from you.
Yesterday you went off your nut at my joking about sex, drugs & rock-n-roll. It was a joke. Hope you'll find time to go read that thread for my reply.
As for this thread.
BECK: He said it was -- wait a minute. Hang on just a second. He said it was an insider on the Clinton campaign.
FENN: That's what he says. And I, you know
Now Solon I don't see the confusion here. Novak said it was an "agent" [insider] on the Clinton Campaign. We all realize that insider told some neutral party, who in turn told Novak.
So it began with the insider.
No matter how this is parsed, sliced & diced. Beck did not talk out of turn.
You're not addressing what Solon has said though. In context, Fenn was talking about Novak's sources, when Beck interrupted him and said that he said his source was a Clinton insider. Beck even went so far as to start asking if Karl Rove was working for the Clinton campaign.
Beck was very clearly saying that Novak's direct source was an insider, otherwise his interruption and subsequent comments don't make any sense.
And Novak's source was a neutral Democrat who got it from a Clinton campaign agent, or insider......Beck was speaking, obviously, about the original source. It was about Clinton vs. Obama - not some neutral Democrat vs. Obama.
And Novak's source was a neutral Democrat
This is where your comment should end.
How in the world would a neutral Democrat have any inside info or be privvy to some dirt Clinton has on Obama? That's ridiculous. Of course the original source was a Clinton-ite......otherwise this stupid story makes no sense whatsoever.
How in the world would a neutral Democrat have any inside info or be privvy to some dirt Clinton has on Obama? That's ridiculous
That's something you need to take up with Novak.
Beck obviously believes Novak and his "neutral Democrat" source.
The issue isn't who was or was not actually the original source. The issue is that Beck misrepresented what Novak said to make it look like his direct source was a Clinton insider.
"Novak's source" is not the same as "the original source". That's why when Beck interrupted and eventually asked if Karl Rove was working for (Hillary), he conflated the two concepts.
The issue is Novak's credibility, that is the real issue. For me, and I think you agree, it doesn't matter whether Novak said it was told to him by a neutral Democrat who got it from a Clinton agent, or from a Clinton "insider" directly - neither are credible for me, it's hearsay with no backup from either source, and no details to boot.
So, whether Beck said directly or third party or anything else, it doesn't really matter, it's irrelevant because the story itself is at best, suspect. So Beck's "false assertion" as stated by MMFA, isn't worth one iota either way.
We view Beck's overall point differently. I don't see it as misinformation, or a falsehood from Beck.
Of course Novak doesn't have any credibility. But when Beck misrepresents the situation to make it look like Novak's direct source is an insider, then it glosses over that lack of credibility. It makes Novak look more responsible than he really is, obviously.
So your concern about Novak's credibility is at the very heart of this item, which makes it odd that you're protesting it so vociferously.
Because Beck misinformed no one, despite Novak.
You are WRONG, that has been shown. Beck misinformed by claiming Novaks source was a Clinton insider, Novak didnt claim that. Beck made a false claim. This has been shown your stubborness wont change a thing.
You keep saying that, but you don't address the arguments. So the assertion isn't really worth anything.
Beck was talking about Novak.
Nobody knows who Novak's source is.
So then Beck interuppted Fenn talking about NOVAKS sources to talk about the ORIGINAL source without making it clear that he was basically changing the SUBJECT? And that makes sense HOW? No tommy that is rubbish, Beck was OBVIOUSLY talking about WHAT WAS BEING TALKED ABOUT AT THE TIME. Novaks source
No bad mood just a bit frustrated to me this is obvious. YOU did the same thing Tommy did and take it out of context. Fenn was specifically talking about NOVAKS source when Beck interrupted and said it was a Clinton insider. Given that I dont see any possible way that you can say Beck was talking about the ORIGINAL source. If he was he is a moron who cant tell the difference between Novaks source and the original source or dishonestly trying to blur the distinction. Either way, and THAT is giving Beck a huge benifit of the doubt, it is STILL misinformation.
Fenn was specifically talking about NOVAKS source when Beck interrupted and said it was a Clinton insider.
Solon it was a Clinton insider, an "agent", whatever, it's the same thing. That is who told a so called neutral Democrat who then told Novak.
So when Beck says: He said it was an insider on the Clinton campaign. I'm reading this as WHO the ORIGINAL source was.
Let's say you are part of a political campaign & pass on some inside info to me. I in turn tell Tommy the info & tell him I got it from Solon. Tommy then posts the info saying only that he got the info second-hand from a Conservative poster, who had been told the original inside info by a Liberal poster.
Later on, AA writes: Hang on just a second. Tommy said it was an insider who is also a Liberal.
See how that works?
Now you may not agree, in fact I'm sure you won't ;-) but that's how I read Beck's remark.
No posting wont work. the immediacy of conversation is necessary. There was an ONGOING conversation the SUBJECT of which was NOVAKS SOURCES. In the middle of this conversation the subject at the time being without dispute NOVAKS SOURCES, Beck interrupts him and says HE, now that can ONLY be Novak, said it was a Clinton campaign insider. Now at what point did the subject change from NOVAKS sources to the original source? What was said that indicates any change in subject? It would be like someone talking about the Clinton administration and without pause, after interrupting this conversation in mid word using a pronoun only without any indication of change of subject I started talking about the Bush administration and expecting you to get that. It doesnt make sense. It cannot be demonstrated that it makes sense and the only real reason to believe it is true is that you WANT TO. IF Beck had meant the original source and he had any expectation of ANYONE following that, when the subject HAD been Novaks source he would have needed to say SOMETHING to indicate he was NOW talking about something COMPLETELY different than Fenn had been talking about. Unless he was trying to BLUR the distinction between the two. Remember that Fenns very POINT, what he was trying to SAY when interuppted had to do with this VERY distinction. That Novak wouldnt have any sources in the Clinton campaign. That it was a secondhand source. Then all the things I talked about earlier come into play. Novak has no way of knowing whether we are talking about first hand evidence from that source or a rumor, how high up, whether it could have been a misinterpretation. THAT was where Fenn was going and Beck STOPPED him to say NO he said it a Clinton insider WHILE, in the very MIDDLE of Fenn talking about NOVAKS sources, not an original source.
Newsflash! Many of you, and your ultra liberal brethren here, seem to believe that you're somehow proven right when you get others here to agree with you.
You keep thinking that if it makes you feel better.
Newsflash! Many of you, and your ultra liberal brethren here, seem to believe that you're somehow proven right when you get others here to agree with you. You keep thinking that if it makes you feel better
What the hell is the matter with you Tommy? You've been posting like a woman experiencing PMS. You are screeching and screaming and basically being an a**. As far as that 'get others to agree with you' crap, you and Jeter have been running the Abbot & Costello hour on almost every post.
The matter? That I take a different opinion, sorry if you don't like it.
And you just STICK to that opinion even after it is shown that it doesnt make sense.
Because there's no means to determine whether an opinion makes sense or not. It's just an opinion, there's no possible basis for such a thing.
But Tommy's arbitrary, meaningless opinion tears everyone else's arbitrary, meaningless opinion to shreds. Somehow.
Tommy we all know you will have a different opinion from most of the posters here and most, myself included, respect your difference of opinion. What I don't respect is lately you post like a screeching, pissed off woman with PMS. Then you go on to say the very thing you and Jeter do on a consistence basis, agree with EVERY thing each one says. Well NEWSFLASH for you Tommy, just because Jeter agrees with you does not make either one of you right.
So, as long as I post milquetoast little disagreements, you're fine with that? Well, too bad. Scold your fellow liberals who screech their PMS posts all day long, be consistent with your slaps on the wrist, and I will then consider your admonition.
Try having your posts make sense. These dont.
Tommy obviously you're experiencing a bad case of PMS. As far as 'slaps on the wrist' consider this withdrawn. You are free to act like a big a** as long as it makes your happy and I'll stop expecting better of you as well.
Pearlene 9 out of 10 Libs agree with each other here. And sometimes it's 10 out of 10.
Why would it surprise you that Tommy & I often agree 99% of the time?
You two can willfully ignore facts, have your little echo chamber and post back and forth to each other on every thread if you want to.
Just don't be thin skinned and start name calling when you're called on your bs.
Most trolls have the sense to disappear.
John,
I know you've been trading insults with J and I understand why you might want to hit back, but most of us would be more then willing to attest to the fact that Jeter isn't a troll. He's been posting here for a long time and is usually a very reasonable guy.
Can we you two please stop now?
Gee Pearlene...
Tommy & I see this differently. In fact we believe we see it correctly & just because the Liberals who are the majority have determined they know better, doesn't mean they are right & we're wrong.
But to compare Tommy & I to Abbot & Costello...what's with that?
Yeah a dozen or so Libs vs me & Tommy. Hey I think we are holding our own.
Pearlene, you know I luv ya, but please go post on a Con site & let me know how that works for you.
I'd much prefer having a conversation with you and tommy vs. someone like JustUs or copious. Now those guys are pure batsh!t crazy!
Except the ONLY way to think you see it correctly is to ignore the facts of the matter. Fenn was talking about NOVAKS SOURCES. Beck interrupted to say he (Novak) said it was ( Novaks source) a Clinton insider. There is no way out of this. Looking at the FACTS cannot get you to your conclusion. No reasonable argument has been made that can take you from the FACTS to your conclusion.
Jeter is doesn't surprise me that you and Tommy agree just as it shouldn't surprise you to be outnumbered on a liberal site. Many here are liberals but we all don't always agree. Tommy, IMO has been having a PMS moment of late where he lumps us all into one group and then gets nasty when we continue to express a different opinion. It’s not like him and I simply wanted to know what was his problem. He told me to ‘get over it‘, which I will do. Your name came into this from Tommy posting ‘ultra liberal brethren here, seem to believe that you‘re somehow proven right when you get others here to agree with you. You keep thinking that if it makes you feel better‘. I pointed out to Tommy that both of you do the exact same thing and unfortunately Tommy got snippy and I got snippy back with the Abbot & Costello remark. There was nothing personal meant by that remark and I'm sorry if you were offended.
I would get bored posting with people who simply agree with me and that's what makes posting with you and Tommy fun, you have reasonable and thoughtful conservatives views.
Now on topic, you are wrong. 'Insider' implies the person would have to be someone close to be privy to confidential information.
BECK: He said it was -- wait a minute. Hang on just a second. He said it was an insider on the Clinton campaign.
Novak's piece began with "Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton," implying more than one and a representative not one privy to that type of confidential information. Novak used the word 'agent' for a reason. He knew that when the uproar came and it did he would be forced to tell the truth which was his source for the story was not anyone close to Clinton but rather, someone who was "told by an agent of the Clinton campaign" about the alleged dirt. He heard it from someone who had heard it from someone else that why he used 'agent' and why it was a lie for Beck to use 'insider'.
No problem Pearlene :-)
You & I can disagree & still be buds.
Actually Abbott & Costello probably did fit the situation today ;-)
As far as Beck's remarks go, we still don't agree...please don't ask me to tell you why, I've already posted my reasons 2-3 times already & I'm tired.
In the larger scheme of things, it doesn't matter, because Beck doesn't matter, & Novak has used up most of his credibility.
I don't know who is responsible for starting all of this. Could be Rove..or Hillary. Or maybe neither.
But kudos to Obama for standing up & announcing he wasn't going to put up with this kind of sleazy attack.
While YOU seem to think if you stubbornly keep restating a postion already SHOWN to be wrong it will magically become right. It wont. You are wrong. I have shown it beyond any reasonable doubt. Keep being stubborn if you want but it is clear to anyone who can read that is all it is and you are WRONG.
Novak's "source" was, according to Novak, not an insider on the Clinton campaign. Beck, who thinks typed words can speak, said that Novak "said it was an insider on the Clinton campaign". Beck's wrong twice and Novak's a liar always. It's that freakin' simple.
And what Novak said, he has no evidence to back-up, only a "source" that heard it from someone else. He admitted that he didn't know if the story were true or not. Then why in the hell would he report it? Maybe. because he's a Rebublican tool, and not a journalist, trying to cause trouble between two Democratic campaigns.
So in misinterpreting an already unsubstantiated claim by Novak, Gibson proves himself to be an even bigger Republican tool.
That would be because Beck wasnt talking about the ORIGINAL source AT ALL.
In the original column, Novak suggested he had more personal knowledge of that rumor-mongering. "Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton," the piece began, "are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination..." There was no mention of a source.
Novak disclosed that his source for the story was not anyone close to Clinton but rather, someone who was "told by an agent of the Clinton campaign" about the alleged dirt. Got that? So Novak was not privy to the dirt itself, nor did he talk to Clinton's people. Rather, he heard it from someone who had heard it from someone else.
But he did double check with someone else who heard it from some other guy so it must be on the level, right? :)
Journalism and Law 101 - Compounded instances of hearsay are all still hearsay. Until you have a primary source you have nothing.
EXACTLY
I agree that it is a ridiculous story, in that the mere "fact" of the story is that Novak heard it from someone who heard it from someone else. Sort of like that game of telephone when you're a kid, when by the time it gets to the end of the line, the original message is nothing like what comes out the other end.
I call BS on Novak too, because since he is a rather well known republican stooge, why would any high ranking democrat even really talk to him? He's shown that he's partisan to the right, and that's fine, it's no secret, but why would a democrat give him the goods? It doesn't make sense.
I also like how Beck is trying to turn this into a "Clinton" thing, yet another Clinton story, that isn't a story. Novak said Clinton had this. Obama said come clean, or deny it. Clinton camp denies it, no story right?
Well, for folks like Beck, and other right wing talking heads, this is just another reason why Hillary is such a "bad" person allegedly, but she's trying to be good. It's also another story that is supposed to show her "scheming and plotting calculated side". She lets it leak that they have something bad about Obama. Novak and others pick it up, and run with it. Obama calls her out. She can deny it, and play it off as dirty tricks by the right. It's not really far fetched, but it does look like in this case Novak is whistling Dixie. I'm thinking whoever his editor is should check his sources a little closer next time. I mean, as others may have said, this would be really no better than me writing up a bunch of drivel, and saying an anonymous republican told me that Thompson had a love child once with Barbara Streisand during her Yentil years.
"Papa Fred, can you hear me?"
Yes it IS a false assertion. Novak never said anything LIKE his source was inside the Clinton campaign. He heard a RUMOR that his source attributed to the Clinton campaign and those two things are worlds apart. The point being made clear when it was pointed out his sources are usually republican sources with good reason to smear Hillary. If the person sitting in front of you says something THEY are your source. IF they say they HEARD it from someone else it becomes hearsay, a rumor. If it turns out not to be true he could go back to his source and say hey you told me this. In THIS instance if he did that the guy would just say, no I told you I HEARD that. It is a HUGE difference. It is the difference between saying somone inside the Clinton campaign is saying... and THE RUMOR IS that someone inside the Clinton campaign is saying.
Of course RUMOR is your word - Novak said an "agent" of the Clinton campaign, Beck said an "insider" - worlds apart? Once again, you're as off-base as always. Wow.
Of course I am not off base. Are you REALLY not getting this. Novak did NOT say his SOURCE had anything to DO with the Clinton campaign. He even said his SOURCE was neutral. What he said was his SOURCE told him something that he GOT from who he CLAIMED was in the Clinton campaign. That is his SOURCE was once removed from the story. That is the DEFINITION of a rumor. What part of this arent you understanding. It is YOU who is MILES off base. Lets take this VERY slowly. Novaks SOURCE had nothing to do with the Clinton campaign. I dont know how much simpler I can make this. Nor how simple I have to make it for you to understand it.
The point here is Beck's false assertion as labeled by MMFA, which it is not. Beck said Novak said insider, Novak said agent - there is no difference. Beck never alluded to second hand, or third hand or anything of the sort. If he had said it was directly told to Novak from a Clinton insider, then you and MMFA would have a leg to stand on, but he did not.......but as usual, you're cut off at the knees, again.
Are you kidding??
Novak said he heard it from a "neutral" Democrat.
I'm starting to think it would be better if you didn't read MMFA's posts before you comment on them too.
It surely doesn't seem to make much difference whether you do or not.
I dont get it tommy. Do you have ANY reading comprehension whatsoever? Fenn said Novaks sources are Rove sources, insider Republican sources. Beck then said wait a minute...he said it was an insider in the Clinton campaign.
So taking it slowly AGAIN, they were discussing Novaks sources and Beck said Novak claimed that source was a Clinton campaign insider. AGAIN, and as usual it is YOU that apparantly cannot read.
And he believes his misunderstandings "cut people off at the knees."
This is really hilarious and I thank MMFA for allowing Tommy to post even if it's only for comic relief.
There doesn't seem to be any way around that. Beck clearly misrepresented what Novak said, so that is misinformation.
I think everyone should be able to see that, "loyal MMfA soldiers" or not.
You know I am shocked. This seems so simple to me. Tommy gets stubborn so I get that but several posters here seem to not get Becks misinformation. To me its blatantly obvious.
I have already said the whole Novak story itself is a ridiculous hit piece out of the blue, why would I stick up for Beck about it?, he is just eating it up as are the other rightwing tools. But this thread is unwarranted for what it purports is Beck's false assertion.
No it isnt. Beck made a false assertion there isnt any way out of that. Fenn was talking about NOVAKS SOURCES and Beck Novak claimed it was a Clinton campaign insider. THAT IS CLEARLY FALSE, no matter HOW stubburn you are about it.
Give it up Solon.
I made 7 posts explaining more or less this same thing to Tommy a while back (regarding a Congressman's unchallenged claim about Bush's longing for bipartisanship).
While I admire his pension for battle, there are many times when he doesn't recognize his argument has been torn asunder and lies in a bloody heap for all to see. The elite predator however, makes the kill and feasts - it is only the jackal and vulture who continue to feed on the carrion.
Novak is a typical lying repug who can't be believed, good catch by MM on Beck's lying.
Novak to me has lost any credibilty he had last year in his Plame involvement.
BECK: But first, when conservative columnist and generally good-looking man Robert Novak...
* * *
Sho' nuff misinformation!
Any bets if Obama sneaks up any more on Clinton, we see some sort of scandalous revelation?
He now has the lead in Iowa...
AA, i think the campaign will get nastier but from Edwards not Obama.
I would have to agree about Edwards, I have lost all respect for this man with the mud he threw toward Senator Clinton in Las Vegas last week. United Democratic Party is the only way we will beat the Repubs.
I agree, wtf was Edwards thinking?
People don't want attack, attack attack 27/4.
I think people want reasonable conversation on how the candidates policies are different. The entire CNN debate in NV was a joke right from the get go with Blizter attempting to instigate a fight instead of a discussion in their policy differences.
I bet the moon (cheese) that there is no scandal and Novack just cooked it up inside his pea size brain.
Obama is turning into a real ass ! The stupid idiot fell for the wingnut lie and lashed out at Clinton ! Worse, he accused H Clinton of "swiftboat politics" when just a week or so ago he criticized B Clinton for the switfboat analogy ! He's far too temperamental and knee-jerk and gullible to be President.
Wingnut lie? Or planted rumor by Hillary's motley crew.
You don't know & neither do I.
Obama was smart to jump on this & show everyone he won't be intimidated by these sleazy tactics.
You can't say we don't know.
That implies the Clinton camp neither comfirmed or denied.
Actually the Clinton campaign denied it and rightfully chastised Obama for believing it.
Now, you can say you flat out don't believe anything coming out of the Clinton camp but then I'd suggest you were predisposed to that opinion before Novak printed anything.
Obama was stupid for believing that anything coming out of a wingnut's mouth has even a shred of truth in it. He's got a lot to learn about politics, including when to ignore.
He didn't single out the Clinton campaign in his "swiftboat politics" remark. I've seen many articles presented this way, but none of them quote what he actually said. He was talking about this type of politics in general, whether it be from someone in the same party or from another party.
[link to news.independent.co.uk]
[link to www.newsmax.com]
This is off topic, but has anyone else seen Beck billboards? I was in Florida last week and they're everywhere. I didn't even know who or what they were selling because I was moving too fast.
All I could make out was the word "CRAP". And there was a picture of some idiot where the "A" should have been in the word crap. The sign read something like "Cut the crap."
At one point, I was stopped at a light and I saw that it was Glen Beck, standing in crap.
I thought, that works for me.
I've read though all the posts on this thread. Quite entertaining. And, contrary to what 1 contrarian (and 1 contrarian sidekick) posted and reposted here ad nauseam, one fact remains: Beck falsely asserted that Novak "said it was an insider on the Clinton campaign"