Imus and Carlson invoke Chavez to smear Dem presidential candidates
SUMMARY: While discussing Hillary Clinton with fellow radio host Jay Severin, Don Imus asked, "Well, why do we think that we -- I mean, why don't we just select [Venezuelan President] Hugo Chavez, then, if we want some rabid nut? I mean, why do we think that that's a face we want to put on America?" Severin answered: "I think you've got that, that's pretty much it. With Hillary Clinton you've got Hugo Chavez in a dress, and about the same size." Separately, discussing John Edwards' performance in the Nevada caucus, MSNBC's Tucker Carlson asserted, "It turns out that Hugo Chavez and his ideas are still not that popular in this country, liberal as it's become. That's the lesson I take away."
On the January 22 edition of ABC Radio Networks' Imus in the Morning, while discussing presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) with fellow radio host Jay Severin, host Don Imus asked, "Well, why do we think that we -- I mean, why don't we just select [Venezuelan President] Hugo Chavez, then, if we want some rabid nut? I mean, why do we think that that's a face we want to put on America?" Severin answered: "I think you've got that, that's pretty much it. With Hillary Clinton you've got Hugo Chavez in a dress, and about the same size."
On the January 22 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, while discussing Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards' performance in the Nevada caucus, host Tucker Carlson asserted, "It turns out that Hugo Chavez and his ideas are still not that popular in this country, liberal as it's become. That's the lesson I take away."
As Media Matters for America has noted, conservative media figures continue to invoke Chavez to smear Democratic presidential candidates and their respective policies. Carlson has previously referred to Chavez as an "enem[y] of America."
During the same episode of the January 22 edition of Imus in the Morning, Imus asked, "What is it that the Clintons would not do? Can you think of anything?" Severin responded, "No, there isn't anything. They would kidnap their own child."
From the January 22 edition of ABC Radio Networks' Imus in the Morning:
IMUS: What is it that the Clintons would not do? Can you think of anything?
SEVERIN: No, there isn't anything. They would kidnap their own child.
IMUS: Like the great Jimmy Breslin, one of the great columnists of our generation, and anybody else's for that matter -- [sportswriter Mike] Lupica was telling me last night Jimmy has a phrase entitled -- describing people as having "no bottom."
SEVERIN: Yeah. I think that's way off, though, when it comes to Mrs. Clinton.
IMUS: Well, no, no, no. That'll be fine, Jay. Nineteen till the hour here at the Imus in the Morning program.
CHARLES McCORD (news anchor): That's not necessary.
IMUS: That's just not necessary. That's just -- just cruel.
SEVERIN: It happens to be true.
IMUS: Yeah, but I asked Charles, I said, "Well, is there anything that you think they wouldn't do?" Charles said, "Poison a municipal water supply." But I mean, I don't even -- I -- that's -- of course they would.
SEVERIN: No, theirs is an epic story of two people, you know, whether they're working together or not, who really would -- that's sort of the sad part of this. The charge that Obama made last night, which is the essential indictment against the Clintons, either one of them or both, is that they will say and do anything to win, to capture or retain power. And if people realized that, maybe the Clintons wouldn't be part of this, you know, dynastic model, but apparently it doesn't put people off as much as I think it ought to.
IMUS: Well, why do we think that we -- I mean, why don't we just select Hugo Chavez, then, if we want some rabid nut? I mean, why do we think that that's a face we want to put on America?
SEVERIN: I think you've got that, that's pretty much it. With Hillary Clinton you've got Hugo Chavez in a dress, and about the same size.
IMUS: It's 17 till the hour here on the Imus in the Morning program.
From the January 21 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
NICK GILLESPIE (Reason editor in chief): I feel like John Edwards is being marginalized in this discussion.
CARLSON: He is. And why is he in the race anyways?
PETER BEINART (The New Republic editor-at-large): Not to mention Dennis Kucinich.
CARLSON: No, at least Kucinich you can say -- Kucinich is carrying the torch of the department of peace. No matter what happens, David, it's not about Dennis, it's about the ideas he represents. But John Edwards?
BEINART: Who got 4 percent in Nevada?
CARLSON: Yes!
BEINART: I mean, he -- he got marginalized himself. It's a big union state. If he can't win more than 4 percent there, come on.
CARLSON: It turns out that Hugo Chavez and his ideas are still not that popular in this country, liberal as it's become. That's the lesson I take away.
Olbermann definitely harasses Hillary Clinton, and he has an obvious problem with women-- especially those who are hot, sexually aggressive, and young. They're all pretty bad over at MSNBC-- they're a reflection of the American management class these days.
"Not funny"
It is all about Olbermann, isn't it? So you can't be too sure he isn't responsible.
I do not see what the death of a young actor has to do with Olbermann. Obviously you are an Olbermann clone who believes anything he says because he hates Republicans and hates FOX. I got it , thanks.
Same as what Imus' and Severin's comments have to do with Olbermann. Which is nothing.
That is clear enough for *almost* anyone to see.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I see those posting on this thread missed the point that pricked me!
Hugo Chavez may well be a throw-back character of the Commie Insurgent Peasant Era come from the mountains to overthow the legitimate DICTATORSHIP installed by our corporate alliance in the Pentagon, but he is not.
Hugo Chavez may well be a Fidel Castro wannabe, but he's not.
Hugo Chavez may well be a military threat to democracy, but he's not.
Hugo Chavez may well be very dangerous for the region, but he's not.
I'll tell you why he's not.
He is something we do not have: a truly legally honestly, certifiably, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF HIS COUNTRY! This will the CIA was doing everything but a military coupe to stop him, and he stil was elected by a United Nations Certified democratic election.
When he tried to grab power for life, the electorate told him NO WAY! And he listened, he is doing what his citizens demand of him, and not doing that which the citizens of his country say not to do.
We have a President may not have won his second term legally, we just don't want to know!
We have a President that knows he's above the rule of law, and cares not what the citizens of his country thinks, and will be as distructive as he and his administration can possibly be to democracy while staying out of jail.
So if given the choose of a Hugo Chavez, or a Republican; which do you think will protect, defend, and preserve democracy?
Happy Thoughts
Dan Grady
I guess the good citizens told 'ol Hugo to close down the opposition TV station, and 'ol Hugo, humbly and hat in hand, just DID WHAT THEY TOLD HIM!
http://johnib.wordpress.com/2007/05/27/hugo-chavez-venezuelan-president-closes-opposition-tv-station/
I'm sure YOU"D just love to shut down the opposition in THIS country now wouldn't you dan? I just love when a liberal show his TRUE stripes!
Ah yes, the old bait and switch. Typical left wing gibberish. You can't answer the question so you change the subject.
Dan Grandy posted:
"So if given the choose of a Hugo Chavez, or a Republican; which do you think will protect, defend, and preserve democracy?"
So...Do you agree with this statement Solon? That is the gist of MY post. It was after all the LEAD to this thread. Of course you totally ignore such an ignorant statement by Dan and instead tar and feather my response with the tired Rush reference (for the record I don't know if Rush has even commented on this) and then go on to name calling. How mature.
What did I say about tigers and stripes?
What irritates me even more is the consistent smearing of Hugo Chavez in the corporate media. More often than not, his critics have no understanding of Venezuela, or Chavez's political direction. He's built up to be some rabid enemy of the state, and some sort of threat. Its pure ignorance.
The American media hates Chavez because he's anti-corporate. It's propaganda. They demonize him constantly.
Venezuela, by the way, has more kids studying classical music than any other country per capita. Think you'll hear about that on TV?
Chavez has never (to my knowledge) done or said anything hostile toward the U.S. and the American People... he doesn't hesitate for a moment to express publicly an opinion of George W. Bush that seems near hatred (and yet still is itself not apparently hostile, not in the sense of threatening physical violence).
The worthless privately employed minions of the corporate-owned "media", they spin Mr. Chavez's comments about Mr. Bush as being "anti-American"... yeah right, as if that kind of dog has more than one kind of bark: criticism of Mr. Bush by millions and millions of good Americans, is likewise spun as "hating America", by those privately owned "media minions".
Despite the fact that neither Mr. Chavez (nor anything else Venezuelan) represents any threat at all to the lives of the American People, this worthless hack "media" often speaks of him as though he does...
...and this in contrast to the nearly anonymous and invisible saudi 'royal family' (you know, George W. Bush's "good friends" and business partners), despite their financing and directing the thing in Iraq called an "insurgency" (in addition to the attacks of September 11 2001), and who everyday beat into the heads of their people and their people's children, a death wish for America and the American People.
I wonder if owning substantial chunks of Time-Warner and other publicly traded "media" corporations, is what makes the saudi 'royals' so anonymous and invisible to the hacks employed those corporations (such as imus and carlson), and instead spins Mr. Chavez as someone hostile to the American People.
You must be insance. So Chavez is just a benevolent leader looking out for his people's best interests? The interests of the region? you might want to rethink that sir. I can't speak for other conservatives but one of the things I find most appalling about some libs is their apologetic excuse making for the bad guys in this world.
Chavez is an enemy to this country and to world stability. One need only look at his policies and bedfellows. One need only listen to the man's own words. Wise up sir. Sorry bout getting off topic.
As afr as linking Chavez to dems well that's an easy link to make...I'm sure sources won't be asked for on this...
Everywhere you turn these days, someone's calling somebody else a "red"...
Just what is a "red" anyway?
Farc is running - or out to take control of - the cocaine trade in Columbia. Not a bad cash crop to have control of, I bet.
Personally, I don't think it's any of our business. Why should we tell any country what crops they can and cannot grow - Especially families that have been growing these same crops for a living for hundreds of years?
It is all part of the capitalistic free-market society that America so strongly promotes and for which the market should determine free trade – Unless it is a product that we don’t have enough of (like oil) or have made illegal (like poppies, cocaine, or marijuana). Then it’s OK to not play by the rules.
What if some country decided that tobacco was ruining the health of their citizens and started flying planes to destroy tobacco crops? I mean what crop has killed more people, really? Should we be considered an “evil” nation for growing and distributing tobacco to most of the world? I think we are every bit as “evil” as any nation exporting poppy derivatives such as heroin and morphine, or cocaine, or marijuana.
There really is a legal market for most every crop – even poppies, cocaine, or marijuana. You can find extracts from any of them in any pharmacy in America. The problem seems to be the supply and demand vs. taxes issue. The "war on drugs" is a farce - and one of the biggest wastes of American tax dollars in history.
Yep, the FARC has committed human rights abuses. So have Hamas. They're both labelled terrorist organisations, which doesn't really help in a negotiation situation. unless you have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Obviously Chavez sees an advantage in participating in the release of hostages....
but if terrorists are your big concern, you'd have to question US support of Israel I guess... just for you know, consistency and that...
chavez not only wants to negotiate the release of hostages, he wants to give farc a legitimacy that most other countries do not want to give them. as i pointed out, colombia has a legitimate elected government. they should work within that system.
Where has he been anti-democratic? He hasn't. That's the rub of it all. He's promoted as being anti-democratic, but he hasn't done anything of the sort. If you're talking about the taking off of the TV stations down there, remember, they were back on the air within a day or so, after mass protests against the move.
How is Chavez anti-democratic again? Let's see some examples rather than opinion.
Well what bothers me is the attack on the Press, the Human Rights violations that Amnesty International has documented also.
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/04/chavez0419-ltr.htm
Again, I don't think you've received the full story on his "attack" on the press. Some TV stations were talking about starting a coup to get Chavez out of office. He shut down those stations (not all stations), protests erupted, said stations were back on the air shortly after they were shut down. How do you think a President of the US would act if TV stations were calling for his ouster via a military coup?
The example, or link that you posted was a letter indicating that someone had been threatened, not by Chavez or his government, but by someone within the country itself. How is this anti human rights? The letter was asking Chavez to ensure that human rights and specifically this one person, be safeguarded against harm.
You have not shown me how he has been, as you stated previously, anti democratic. He's not, that's the problem, but the press in the US portray him as some crazed dictator lunatic, which he's not. He is the democratically elected President of his country, who was elected in fair elections.
Again, I keep asking people for examples, and you give me that he's "scum".
What about him do you think he's a scumbag? What has he done, to you or this country (the US) that makes him "scum"? I'm just trying to get a straight answer. The comparison to Hitler, is again, unneccesary for the point of this conversation.
Chavez, the "scum", has donated millions of gallons of heating oil to residents in the NE of the United States this winter, and last winter in order to offset their heating costs, because the costs of oil have risen. Is he "scum" for doing that? While that is just one example of something good he has done, I'm certain that there are things that he has done that I wouldn't agree with. The main point is this. In the US, Chavez is unfairly targetted by the media, and by the current administration, as being some sort of lunatic and dictator, which he is neither.
What makes him scum? Let me know. I'm not defending him, but your blanket assumption is just wrong.
You can do google searches, or read Amnesty International, Chavez is scum he is friends with someone who hates Gays (Ahmadjad the Iranian idiot), he wants to be dictator for life.
http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Americas/Venezuela
"You can do google searches, or read Amnesty International, Chavez is scum he is friends with someone who hates Gays (Ahmadjad the Iranian idiot), he wants to be dictator for life."
He doesn't want to be dictator for life, he has been re-elected to his office. He wanted to set no term limits, but that was voted down by the PEOPLE of Venezuela. Amnesty international makes some decent points, and there are valid criticisms of Chavez no doubt, but your whole assertion that he's scum, and is a dictator, (at least about the dictator part) are incorrect assertions based upon facts in evidence. Is he scum? Well, some think so, and apparently the people that matter, the people that elected him, think he's doing a pretty decent job.
As far as being friends with someone who hates gays, hell, we have a President who hates gays too. Lump in our friends China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, Israel, and a bunch of other allies that have hatred towards gays, and Chavez will look mundane in comparison. And if you want to really bring Amnesty International into the fray (you cited them, not me), we can look at the laundry list of things going against our country, and it reads to be a lot scarier than what I read about Venezuela:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/americas/north-america/usa
Again, can Chavez be criticized? For certain he can be, and has been. But to call him a dictator, that's incorrect based on facts. To say he oppresses free speech, that's incorrect as well. To call him scum? Well, that's a judgement call based on opinion. Based on the fact that he was elected for a 3rd term by the people of his country and enjoys overall a pretty high approval rating, I think he's doing pretty well for himself.
That may be true but compared to YOU I am Stephen Hawking
obviously you have no working knowledge of the chaos that is the Middle East. If Israel started a war with Hamas, the US would have no choice but to join them, and several other Middle Eastern countries would take up arms against us and Israel. Is that what you want? More needless death? Because that definitely won't bring democracy to the Middle East, and isn't that what it's all about anyway?
I hope no one thinks I am supporting Farc or Chavez -as it looks like some think I am. I just pointed out two of the biggest reasons for Chavez' "success" - oil and drugs.
Anyone questioning why anyone would support either probably already knows the answer. Throughout the world, if someone is benefiting financially because of the power or actions of some political figure or political movement - then they will support that driving force. Sort of like some voters and politicians in America who condone and promote corporate greed solely for their own gain (Republicans/Cheney?). It's a no-brainer - money trumps everything, even morals.
Clevenative, great points on the drug/tobacco analogy.But then, I'm one of those America-haters who is not completely blind to our arrogance and hypocrisy.
And that would be the invitation to the wingnuts to build the "so America is evil and has never done anything good?" strawman.Go!
Why do we support Saudi Arabia then? Why do we support China? Why do we support the UAE? Why do we support Kuwait? All of these countries have a lot worse human rights violations than Venezuela. Chavez was elected to be President of his country in elections that were monitored, and considered and signed off on as sound and fair. Chavez is not a dictator. He was democratically elected. Chavez does not hate the US, he hates George W. Bush. If you hate the President, this does not mean that you hate the entire country. Chavez enjoys popular support in his own country, and a vast majority of Venezuelans approve of the job he's doing. And when they don't agree, they let him know about it. Such as, when he tried to change the Constitution there to let him be elected again, the popular vote overwhelmingly shot that down.
You're equating hate for one person with hate of an entire country. Chavez is a bad person because he meets with Cuba? Because he meets with Iranian leaders? If that's the case, then we shouldn't talk to China, France, Russia, and other countries that we are friendly with that do the same things he does.
Does Chavez do some things that we might disagree with? Of course, but then again, he doesn't run our country does he? He's the leader of a democratic country. If they don't like what he's doing, they can vote him out. If you want to compare bad things that he's done, then we can talk about the invasion of Iraq, and the hardships that this has caused the Iraqi people in general, and the death toll from said invasion, and then we can go back to 1991 and talk about sanctions that were imposed on Iraq and how those made the Iraqi people suffer greatly. Compare that to a few folks kidnapped by Farc in Columbia, and it's a whole different ballgame don't you think?
there have been more that a few folks kidnapped by farc. they have kidnapped hundreds and have held three americans whose plane crashed in the jungle in 2003. they have done bombings and have killed those who speak out against them in the areas they control in colombia. if chavez wants to criticize the bush administration for supporting a coup against him, which is a valid criticism, then he cannot turn around and support a group trying to overthrow an elected government.
Does Chavez fund FARC? Give them provisions and materials to carry out their acts? Does he openly praise their violent actions?
Or does he support making violence unneccessary by supporting their right to have a voice in the political process?
This may be a poor comparison since every circumstance has unique attributes, but the IRA is a good example of the way terrorism can be neutralized by granting political legitimacy to terrorist groups.
Yes.... Get the real thing. Coca Cola...What are you saying? Imus and Severin were telling a truth that is obvious to most normal Americans.
MMFA is obsessed with Imus. If they can't get him on a stupid joke that he admitted to, they attack him for a slight comment he made about Hillary. You know that is there mission. When she loses they will be at a loss for words.
CocaCola??? LOL - If you didn't catch the meaning of the type of "coke" I was talking about, well - I'm just speechless! Sorry, sometimes I forget that conservatives don't get "street slang".
"Who let the dogs out? woof woof woof" ...Mitt Romney, 01/21/08 trying to be "hip".
IMUS, McCORD, SEVERIN, and CARLSON ...
Blatant perpetrators of the recently coined "TWEETY EFFECT".
Their misogynistic and blatantly irrational hatred of "the Clintons" in general and HILLARY in particular will help throw gasoline on the fire that pushed Hillary over the top in New Hampshire.
The more these Neanderthal Rightwingers spout their nonsensical hatreds with namecalling and supposedly clever "comparisons" ... the more they will drive fair-minded voters to the polls to vote for Hillary.
I just hope and pray that they KEEP IT UP, ALL of those in Media who are carrying the Rightwing water and utilizing the age-old Rightwing tactics of smear and deceive and HATE and fear.
We are now in "BACKLASH" territory, and those long knives the overwhelmingly Rightwing media has out for Hillary, are slowly being drawn across their own throats. They are self-inflicted wounds, and hopefully FATAL to the whole notion that Rightwing attack politics, and the tactics of personal destruction and character assassination, will continue to WORK.
The more we see Hannity and Matthews and Russert, the more we hear Imus and Morris and Ingraham ... the more CERTAIN I become of a Hillary VICTORY in 2008. She will win regardless, but flood of misogynistic and racist bile from the ever infuriated rightwing will ensure a LANDSLIDE.
KEEP IT UP, you haters within the Rightwing!