Fox News' Hill: Sen. Kennedy "is" the "hate speech and the partisanship that you've seen in Washington"
SUMMARY: On Fox News, E.D. Hill, commenting on Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama, said: "[T]his is Barack Obama, who has -- I mean on his website, you look at it and sort of the whole thing is devoted to 'I'm a man of change because I want to get away from all that -- the hate speech and the partisanship that you've seen in Washington.' Ted Kennedy, you know, is that." Hill, however, offered no examples or evidence of Kennedy's alleged "hate speech," and Google and Nexis searches turned up no examples of Obama using the term "hate speech" to describe the political climate or discourse in Washington.
On the January 28 edition of Fox News' America's Pulse, host E.D. Hill, commenting on Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's (D-MA) endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (IL) earlier that day, said: "Yeah, but at the same time, you know, this is Barack Obama, who has -- I mean, on his website, you look at it and sort of the whole thing is devoted to 'I'm a man of change because I want to get away from all that -- the hate speech and the partisanship that you've seen in Washington.' Ted Kennedy, you know, is that." Hill, however, offered no examples or evidence of Kennedy's alleged "hate speech," and a Google search of Obama's campaign website for the phrase "hate speech" yielded no examples of the phrase being used to characterize the rhetoric or climate in Washington. Further, a search* of the Nexis database also turned up no examples of Obama using the term "hate speech" to describe the political climate or discourse in Washington. Hill also asserted: "You know, if you talk about the people of have sort of gone to the farthest wings, Kennedy certainly represents that. So it seems like an odd coming together, unless that's the direction Barack Obama is headed."
From the January 28 edition of Fox News' America's Pulse:
HILL: Well, John Edwards had been most aligned with liberals, but with his chances, a lot of folks think, all but gone, it looks like their allegiance is now shifting to Obama. Kennedy's niece, and daughter of former president John F. Kennedy, Caroline, is also endorsing Obama, as is Ted's son, Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy. Now the question is, does lining up with the liberal wing help or hurt Obama? Major Garrett is following that side for us. So what does that endorsement do?
MAJOR GARRETT (congressional correspondent): Well, you know, E.D., a lot of endorsements really mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Some endorsements are symbolic and some are tactical. A tactical endorsement, for example, would be Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa endorsing Hillary Clinton. Tactically, that matters in Los Angeles, site of a huge Latino vote on February 5 in California. That's going to be crucial to Hillary Clinton. Ted Kennedy is much more of a symbolic endorsement. He's probably not going to move a whole lot of votes in Massachusetts that Barack Obama would not get anyway. But what he does suggest is a couple of things that are important as far as the Obama campaign is concerned. First and foremost, Ted Kennedy is an authoritative voice within Democratic circles on the question of universal health care. Hillary Clinton has attacked Barack Obama's plan. Ted Kennedy's endorsement there gives him some strength on that issue. Also, Ted Kennedy talks about experience and the idea that politics can be changed by a dynamic, visionary leader like his brother John Kennedy was. On all three of those scores, symbolically the endorsement carries considerable weight.
HILL: Yeah, but at the same time, you know, this is Barack Obama, who has -- I mean, on his website, you look at it and sort of the whole thing is devoted to "I'm a man of change because I want to get away from all that -- the hate speech and the partisanship that you've seen in Washington." Ted Kennedy, you know, is that. You know, if you talk about the people of have sort of gone to the farthest wings, Kennedy certainly represents that. So it seems like an odd coming together, unless that's the direction Barack Obama is headed.
*Media Matters searched "All News" over the previous two years for: (Obama w/30 hate speech).
Obama is full of hate he just hides it well and kennedy is just full of well something I can't say, Kennedy has made a career off of jis dead brothers name. When he campaigns it is not on the issues but on the sacrifices made by his brothers. Ted has never sacrificed anything except the truth about killing Mary Jo his one true accomplishment.
Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama is irrelevant, to me, anyway. I understand the media loves these endorsements and the linkage they provide, but I also believe to most people they are essentially meaningless.
And I also understand how within the party ranks they mean something, I guess - but meh. I admire Obama, I have no such similar admiration for Kennedy......he is exactly the opposite of what attracts me to Obama, his divisiveness, his rhetorical partisan spin, his class warfare activism.....all of which is not Barack Obama.
But he will get beyond this endorsement and rise above it, I hope people don't blame him for it. ;)
"he is exactly the opposite of what attracts me to Obama, his divisiveness, his rhetorical partisan spin, his class warfare activism.....all of which is not Barack Obama."
Tommy, I'm not seeing your point. Ted Kennedy is certainly a liberal and an unrepetent liberal at that. Is that what makes him divisive? He is also a partisan -- but only in the sense that he promotes his party and his party's platform. Does that make him divisive? He comes from one the nation's most wealthy families yet focuses not on his own wealth, but on those less fortunate. Does that make him divisive. I'm just looking for some clarity and consistency here since you seem to be agreeing with E.D. Shill, a true partisan hack and a poor pundit.
but as for your points re: Kennedy, as shown below you have no evidence that he is divisive at all, and whats more 'class warfare activism' is part of any liberal political mind, its practically the definition, concern over class disparity...
Was he lying in that though? Not really. Iraq IS George Bush's Vietnam. One statement though in what? Several DECADES of civil service? Yeah, that Ted Kennedy, sure is bitterly partisan and all. Jeesh... As someone else said, Kennedy has reached across the aisle, and worked probably hand in hand more times than anyone really cares to remember. But of course, say one bad thing about the current President that happens to ring true and he's a partisan divisive creature? Yeah, OK, only in Bizzarro world maybe.
What Kennedy's brother did during Vietnam itself really has nothing to do with Ted Kennedy at all, unless Ted was advising him to do what he did, and then you might have a point, but I don't think that he was.
Well then who is he dividing if most of the country agrees with him? Stating his negative opinion on the war is no more divisive than another Senator who states his support for the war. They're both divisive statements if you want to look at that way. The only difference is that Kennedy has the majority of public opinion behind him.
CLAMS:
When the little boy was the only one to say, "Hey! The Emperor HAS NO CLOTHES!" That was "divisive".
If you do not fall in lock-step compliance with the current POWER, unquestioningly and in total subservience, THAT ... to the Rightwing ... is being "DIVISIVE".
To which I say, hail to the GREAT DIVIDE!
Classic whine, classic victim mentality. Poor boy, you accuse me of being the conductor of the topic derailment train, yet you lay down the track by responding - and then cry "derail", "derail", and blame me!
If you and your fellow track layers are so easily duped by me, then what does that say about you? Advice - don't respond. See, you can stop whining now, it's easy.
Tool.
But you just called it skillful derailment, and now you want me to continue? One sign you are losing an argument is you make no sense and contradict yourself from one post to another.
I was asked to give an example of a divisive comment from Ted Kennedy, I did exactly that. Do you really think I expected you, or most here, to agree?
What is funny is that you can't defend his comment intelligently, or coherently, (i.e. supporting foreign conflict is as divisive as "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam"), so you accuse me of "skillfully derailing the topic". And then you keep responding/encouraging further derailment.
Clams, you look foolish here, I think I will pull this train off the tracks now......find another one to hop on.
I love the way liberals try and reframe the debate by saying that anyone who opposes the war is labeled "divisive" and a traitor, which is asinine. I never said principled opposition to the war is anything of the sort, on the contrary, that is American. And I also never said those that support the war have clean hands either, of course they don't. They also use sleazy tactics to marginalize those they oppose.......it's a two way street.
What is divisive, however, is using cheap hyperbole to make political points at the expense of nearly everything else - i.e "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam".
If you oppose the war, fine, that is perfectly commendable - but to haul out such bumpersticker comparisons only enflames the debate, solves nothing, further polarizes the two sides and divides us more.
You're just mad that Kennedy voiced his opposition effectively, forcefully, unapologetically and happened to voice the majority opinion of the world and the U.S.
Yo, Tommy!
Ever hear of a turd blossom named Karl Rove? He was the Republican party's equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. And he ran loose through the neighborhoods with the complete blessing of every Republican who polished George W. Bush's brush-clearing boots.
Snoopy's right on: Now that the shoe is on the other foot and Emperor George's Surge Clothes have disappeared and we're facing a recession, bankruptcies, $3.00/gallon gasoline and people are still living in mud in New Orleans, I hear a lot of Republicans calling for a show of love from the other side of the aisle. If it weren't for Pelosi's promise not to conduct impeachment hearings, George would be still trying, and I emphasize trying, to answer questions in front of a panel of Congressmen and women who are embarassingly brighter than he ever dreamed of being.
Ted Kennedy represents the old school in Congress and we all know how that works and we almost expect it. Our hopes for a better future in our country are not pinned on him. His rhetoric doesn't make me want to vote Democrat any more than Bush's childish view of reality makes me want to "be patient" or vote Republican.
How is it "divisive" if it's true? Are you attempting to whine about divisiveness since it was exactly divisiveness that got herr dubyah elected in the first place. GOPigs, with the aide of the reich-wing MSM, went out of their way to divide America for the last 15 years. And you have the pathetic nerve to take one comment from Mr. Kennedy and attempt to claim that as "hate" and "divisive"? Give it up, tommy, your act is old and obtuse.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
So Tommy, you missed the part that called Sen. Ed Kennedy a purveyor of hate speeh?? You think a mental midget like E.D. Hill is entitled to make such divisive statements, lies, on the public airways about a sitting U.S. Senator in the context of a Presidential Primary contest??
I believe you think our freedoms will survive a corporate media willing to publicly lie about our national leaders?
Low bar there Tommy, maybe your an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, or Burma, or Pinoche's Chile and miss the party line being spoon fed you?
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Tommy, your presence and comments are irrelevant, to everyone, anyway.
He did? How did he actually do that? Oh wait, it WAS actually bitter partisanship. And remember, all of those investigations. All of that taxpayer money spent and what did we end up with? A stained dress. Yeah, that's all you had. Never you mind that we had a strong economy, which I'll suppose you'll say was all due to GHW Bush's doing. We had relative peace. We had a balanced budget. We had a budget surplus. We had a President who was liked and admired around the world and in our own country as well, and who also enjoyed approval ratings well into the high 60's and 70 percentage range of things (even at the end of his presidency). Yeah, those were some "low" times.
Get over it. The man got a BJ from a young intern. His wife found out about it. They reconciled, and moved on with their lives. Why can't you? What other "low" points were you talking about again?
Johnwiz, from the other thread ,regarding acknowledgement of the success of the surge, and from your post, I'm getting the feeling that conservatives don't really understand the meaning of the words "indisputable" and "fact".
Memo to E.D. Hill:
The laundry called - did you want starch in your KKK outfit?
Not me Mag, it's the Moonbats up here that keep voting for the guy.
;-)
Being from Maine, we used to think that just about everyone from Massachusetts was crazy and or invaded our State just for the weekends.
:-)
Fox News Cut Away Before Event Was Over!
Fox cut Obama off before he had finished his thank you speech. Fox had more important news of their client... The Bush Republicans and the promotion of the Bush State of the Lame Duck Speech. The refused to cover the complete story.
Meanwhile CNN and MSNBC covered the entire Obama/Kennedy story and had commentary afterwards.
Boy... Isn't that shocking news!
President George W. Bush will deliver his final State of the Union address Tonight; Starting at 9pm Eastern.
Bush looks to redefine his legacy: "I'm better than the Emporer Caligula."
It's a hard sell.
true enough. however, in caligula's defense, he at least had the decency to be assassinated after only being in office for a couple of years.
politics is partisan? wow, when did this happen, and why wasn't i informed? ah, for the good old days (circa pre-dawn of life on this planet), when everyone and thing thought and acted exactly alike, in total harmony with each other and the world about them!
ok, back to the real world. of course politics is partisan and "divisive" (god, i love that word!), it's god's will, you whining, right-wing republican ninnies! always has been, always will be. otherwise, what's the point? if everyone agreed, all the time, on everything, it'd be called oh, i don't know, maybe a monarchy? perhaps a dictatorship. talk amongst yourselves and decide.
i don't want "unity" and "bipartisanship" to reign on capital hill, i want my guys (democrats) to prevail in my (their) vision of america. if i didn't, i wouldn't bother wasting time voting for them. anyone who claims otherwise is an idiot.
politics is partisan? wow, when did this happen, and why wasn't i informed? ah, for the good old days (circa pre-dawn of life on this planet), when everyone and thing thought and acted exactly alike, in total harmony with each other and the world about them!
Actually, I think it was pre-Big Bang.
President George W. Bush will deliver his final State of the Union address Tonight; Starting at 9pm Eastern.
THANK GOD!!
Hi Pearlene! While I respect your desire to thank God, I'm going to add a statement/ question from the non-religious minority;
What kind of disturbed deity would allow George W. Bush to hold the highest elected office in the most powerful nation on earth for 8 years in the first place?
Sorry if I've shaken your faith. ;0)
"What kind of disturbed deity would allow George W. Bush to hold the highest elected office in the most powerful nation on earth for 8 years in the first place?"
Well...look at it this way: if all GOOD things come from God...you get to use your imagination as to where the BAD things spring!
Gee, it's almost as if E.D. Hill is just making stuff up.
That's why she works for Faux News.
Fox News' Hill: Sen. Kennedy "is" the "hate speech and the partisanship that you've seen in Washington"---MMFA Headline
This article’s headline sums up Hill’s statements, but also gives a glimpse into the Republican psyche.
The Democratic Party is the party of the non-real Americans (as is Kennedy himself). Therefore it’s as though anything Ted Kennedy, as a sort of shadow leader of the Democratic Party, says that the GOP doesn’t agree with is an attack from a foreign enemy which has established a beachhead in America---not a dissenting view from the opposition party, the loyal opposition. The Republicans ARE America, not just a segment of America.
There is no reasoning with people who have this mindset. They see Democrats as either friendly poodles who go along with them or vicious Rottweilers who don’t. They have no respect for non-real Americans in this country, utter contempt for those who are real Americans who are also Democrats (they are common traitors), and a white hot hatred for leaders of the non- real American party who happen to be real Americans (enemies of the state no better than Osama bin Laden such as Hillary Clinton).
But it did make it easier for these aging eyes to read. ;-)
E.D. that's what she does for me....
New FOX Show...E.D. and Rush sponsered by, you guessed it, Viagra. The motto of the show...."GET DOWN WITH E.D."