Goldberg publishes badly doctored version of Rose/Brokaw interview as purported evidence of Brokaw's bias
SUMMARY: In another house-of-cards example of purported media infatuation with President Obama offered by Bernard Goldberg in his new book, Goldberg echoes Rush Limbaugh by printing badly doctored "snippets" of an interview between Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw. Goldberg's doctored transcript of the interview falsely suggests, among other things, that Brokaw expressed the view that "there's a lot about [Obama] we don't know," when, in fact, Brokaw attributed that assertion to "conservative commentators" and that comments Brokaw and Rose made about their lack of familiarity with the candidates applied only to Obama when, in fact, they were referring to Sen. John McCain as well.
In another house-of-cards example of purported media infatuation with President Obama offered by Bernard Goldberg in his new book, Goldberg echoes Rush Limbaugh by printing badly doctored "snippets" of an October 30, 2008, interview between PBS's Charlie Rose and NBC's Tom Brokaw, which Goldberg cites as purported evidence that Brokaw waited until "just a few days before the election" to "inform us that he knew next to nothing about Obama." Among other things, Goldberg's doctored transcript of the interview falsely suggests that Brokaw expressed the view that "there's a lot about him [Obama] we don't know," when, in fact, Brokaw attributed that assertion to "conservative commentators." Also, recalling another Goldberg example that collapsed upon review, Goldberg's edited transcript falsely suggests that comments Brokaw and Rose made about their lack of familiarity with the candidates applied only to Obama when, in fact, they were referring to both Obama and his opponent, Sen. John McCain.
A full video of the interview is available here.
In A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media, which Media Matters for America obtained in advance of its January 26 publication date, Goldberg writes:
Tom Brokaw had also appeared on Rose's show to inform us that he knew next to nothing about Obama. And he did this just a few days before the election. Obama had launched his campaign over a year and a half before, but apparently it took Brokaw until just before Election Day to decide that he had no idea who Obama was. Ain't journalism wonderful?
Here are a few snippets from that exchange: [pp. 136-137]
Following the "snippets" from the interview, Goldberg writes of Brokaw and other journalists: "It is their job to tell us how he [Obama] thinks, what drives him, what he really believes in, right -- and not hide their fears and suspicions until after they got him elected?" [p. 138]
But Goldberg's "snippets" distort what Brokaw and Rose actually said during the interview. For example, Goldberg claims in his book that the following exchange took place during the Charlie Rose interview:
ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?
BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.
But that's not how Brokaw answered Rose's question. As Media Matters documented in response to Limbaugh's previous distortions of the same interview, Brokaw was not purporting to express his own view when he said, "There is a lot about him we don't know"; he attributed the view to "conservative commentators." Moreover, the statement was not in response to the question about "heroes"; rather, it was made earlier in the conservation. Brokaw responded to the "heroes" question by saying that "Thurgood Marshall is a big hero of" Obama's -- a statement that is missing from Goldberg's portrayal of the interview.
Here's the actual Charlie Rose transcript, with the text that Goldberg included in bold:
ROSE: Exactly, two of them, two books. What do you make of him? Tell me what you see there, because I was talking to a friend of mine, and he said, I see someone who is clearly aspirational, someone who is clearly bright, someone who is clearly ambitious in the best sense of that, but who is clearly cautious. And in the end, he may very well be a man of the center.
BROKAW: He is a very interesting figure in American politics. He has made very few false steps along the way, when you think about this long, difficult road that he has been on -- against the Clinton machine first, and the appearances he has made all over the country.
Sure, he has hit some speed bumps, and there are conservative commentators who say there is a lot about him we don't know because we haven't asked enough tough questions -- the Bill Ayers relationship -- even those who say we've got to go back and explore what his drug use was.
[...]
ROSE: All right. We know people sometimes by the books that they read, heroes they have. We know John McCain, for example, enormously admires Teddy Roosevelt, probably more than anyone else in a political sense, and really wanted to run a campaign, you know, in which Teddy would be his model -- Teddy Roosevelt.
What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama --
BROKAW: He likes Justice --
ROSE: -- the books?
BROKAW: Well, he -- Thurgood Marshall is a big hero of his. He has got a picture of him in his office.
ROSE: Now was that because of his central role in arguing Brown versus Board of Education?
BROKAW: Well, I think that -- remember Barack Obama went to Harvard Law School and taught at the University of Chicago, and there was no greater legal figure in the African-American community or in those times when America was changing than Thurgood Marshall. So, that makes perfect sense.
Goldberg also presents the following edited "snippets" from the interview:
ROSE: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.
BROKAW: No, I don't either.
ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is.
BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.
In fact, Rose and Brokaw actually expressed uncertainty about both Obama's and McCain's views, and Rose specifically said: "I don't know how he [Obama] really sees where China is and where it wants to go and how smart he is about that, or India, or the whole global structure ... or John McCain either" [emphasis added]. Goldberg replaces this context with a statement -- "We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy" -- that Brokaw actually made earlier in the interview (see transcript at the bottom of this item).
From Charlie Rose (portions transcribed by Goldberg in bold):
ROSE: I care about it almost as much as you do in terms of being a political junkie, but there are questions you don't know in terms of -- I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is, I really don't know.
BROKAW: No, no, I don't either.
ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is and where it wants to go and how smart he is about that, or India, or the whole global structure.
BROKAW: Well, one of the things that --
ROSE: And -- or John McCain either.
BROKAW: Yeah, one of things I tried to get at in the national debate, and they began to answer it a little bit, which was -- which I think is an important question: What is the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine when there is a humanitarian crisis?
We are going through one this week in the Congo again, and I raised the Congo as an example of that, and the use of American military forces to intervene if we have no national security stake in all of that. And they both said in a kind of broadest possible terms, well, we should go help out.
But you didn't get the impression that they were going to go pull the trigger on that in the next day. That's an important discussion for this country to have.
In another "snippet," Goldberg presents the following purported exchange:
ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?
BROKAW: You know that's an interesting question.
In fact, Rose did not ask: "And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?" He asked: "And do we know anything about the people who are advising them?" [emphasis added]. Rose also said: "[D]o we know who might populate these governments," further indicating that he was referring to both candidates. And, contrary to the "snippet" provided by Goldberg, Brokaw did not respond by saying, "You know that's [sic: it's] an interesting question" -- a statement Brokaw actually made elsewhere in the interview, while discussing what "books" the candidates read (see transcript at end of item). Rather, Brokaw responded by discussing advisers and potential appointees for both Obama and McCain.
The actual exchange occurred as follows:
ROSE: But I don't really know -- and do we know anything about the people who are advising them, I mean, in terms of whether Susan Rice and where they are? And then who -- do we know who might populate these governments?
BROKAW: Tony Lake, who worked in the Clinton administration; Dick Holbrooke, obviously, is eager to be involved in the briefings. There are some kind of neutral foreign policy specialists in the academies and in the Council of Foreign Relations that Barack Obama has been reaching out to.
John McCain has been reaching out to those think tanks and institutions that are --
ROSE: AEI and others.
BROKAW: -- right of center.
So, sure, we do know -- who do we know is going to land as secretary of state? No, I don't think we know that yet. I had Colin Powell on 10 days ago, who was endorsing Obama at that time, and I raised with him the idea of going back into government service.
I don't think it would be secretary of state, but I said -- I made this up at the point, I said, ambassador-at-large for Africa, where we will have a huge investment, or which I think --
ROSE: And which he cares about.
From pages 136-138 of Goldberg's A Slobbering Love Affair:
Tom Brokaw had also appeared on Rose's show to inform us that he knew next to nothing about Obama. And he did this just a few days before the election. Obama had launched his campaign over a year and a half before, but apparently it took Brokaw until just before Election Day to decide that he had no idea who Obama was. Ain't journalism wonderful?
Here are a few snippets from that exchange:
ROSE: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.
BROKAW: No, I don't either.
ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is.
BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.
ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?
BROKAW: You know that's an interesting question.
ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational [sic] speeches, two of them.
BROKAW: I don't know what books he's read.
ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?
BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.
[Newsweek editor Jon] Meacham, Thomas, and Brokaw are newsmen, right? It is their job to tell us who this Barack Obama is, right -- and not run interference for him? It is their job to tell us how he thinks, what drives him, what he really believes in, right -- and not hide their fears and suspicions until after they got him elected?
From the October 30, 2008, broadcast of PBS's Charlie Rose (portions transcribed by Goldberg in bold):
BROKAW: Now, John McCain, when I asked him the other day about defending her, he said, not just defending her --
ROSE: I know, he said that in [inaudible] --
BROKAW: -- I admire her, and wanted to make that clear. So he is not backing away in any way.
ROSE: All right. Barack Obama, we know him because of -- he has been in the public view for a long time. He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational speeches.
BROKAW: Two of them.
ROSE: Exactly, two of them, two books. What do you make of him? Tell me what you see there, because I was talking to a friend of mine, and he said, I see someone who is clearly aspirational, someone who is clearly bright, someone who is clearly ambitious in the best sense of that, but who is clearly cautious. And in the end, he may very well be a man of the center.
BROKAW: He is a very interesting figure in American politics. He has made very few false steps along the way, when you think about this long, difficult road that he has been on -- against the Clinton machine first, and the appearances he has made all over the country.
Sure, he has hit some speed bumps, and there are conservative commentators who say there is a lot about him we don't know because we haven't asked enough tough questions -- the Bill Ayers relationship -- even those who say we've got to go back and explore what his drug use was.
ROSE: Even though Senator McCain had a chance to do that very thing and ask him about it in one of the debates.
BROKAW: And did not. He chose not to go there. And, look, he is a very smart guy. I love this phrase "postmodern," even though I don't know what it means.
[...]
ROSE: All right. We know people sometimes by the books that they read, heroes they have. We know John McCain, for example, enormously admires Teddy Roosevelt, probably more than anyone else in a political sense, and really wanted to run a campaign, you know, in which Teddy would be his model -- Teddy Roosevelt.
What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama --
BROKAW: He likes Justice --
ROSE: -- the books?
BROKAW: Well, he -- Thurgood Marshall is a big hero of his. He has got a picture of him in his office.
ROSE: Now was that because of his central role in arguing Brown versus Board of Education?
BROKAW: Well, I think that -- remember Barack Obama went to Harvard Law School and taught at the University of Chicago, and there was no greater legal figure in the African-American community or in those times when America was changing than Thurgood Marshall. So, that makes perfect sense.
You know, it's an interesting question. I don't know what books he has read. I know that he's got a great, curious mind. So does John McCain, by the way. He's always got a book in his hand. Mark Salter, who is a first-rate writer, is his --
ROSE: Right, and his best friend.
BROKAW: -- alter ego --
ROSE: Yeah, right, his alter ego.
BROKAW: -- and they're trading book ideas constantly. So that's an interesting question.
[...]
ROSE: Foreign policy -- economic crisis will stand out, but there is also enormous challenge here. Have we had a serious debate about foreign policy in this country?
BROKAW: No. We have not had -- there are a number of issues that have not come up. John McCain believes in a league of democracy, putting together a separate group to push against Russia. Charles Krauthammer -- Krauthammer -- wrote that that was -- he couldn't say, and I can, as Charles put it, he said, that is designed to kill the United Nations, which is a good idea. We didn't examine that very carefully.
We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy. China has been not examined at all.
ROSE: At all.
BROKAW: Which is astonishing.
ROSE: But do we know about what they think? I mean, it is more likely we'll know more about John McCain, because he's been speaking about foreign policy --
BROKAW: Right.
ROSE: -- just over a longer period of time.
BROKAW: Right.
ROSE: But I don't really know -- and do we know anything about the people who are advising them, I mean, in terms of whether Susan Rice and where they are? And then who -- do we know who might populate these governments?
BROKAW: Tony Lake, who worked in the Clinton administration; Dick Holbrooke, obviously, is eager to be involved in the briefings. There are some kind of neutral foreign policy specialists in the academies and in the Council of Foreign Relations that Barack Obama has been reaching out to.
John McCain has been reaching out to those think tanks and institutions that are --
ROSE: AEI and others.
BROKAW: -- right of center.
So, sure, we do know -- who do we know is going to land as secretary of state? No, I don't think we know that yet. I had Colin Powell on 10 days ago, who was endorsing Obama at that time, and I raised with him the idea of going back into government service.
I don't think it would be secretary of state, but I said -- I made this up at the point, I said, ambassador-at-large for Africa, where we will have a huge investment, or which I think --
ROSE: And which he cares about.
BROKAW: And a critical decision will be: Who do you send to the Middle East to deal with the Israelis and the Palestinians, because that remains at the nexus of the problems that we have in that part of the world. And he didn't wave off the idea that he would never go -- he didn't say, "I'm never going to go back into public service." He didn't wave off that idea that he could be summoned to public service again.
ROSE: Well, I mean, going back to your idea about bipartisan -- having to raise your hands and enlist as citizens. There is, I think -- and I want to come back to what you sense as you go around the country -- there is this sense that times are so critical that everybody has to stand up and be counted. And because you have been affiliated with the previous administration, or in fact you have been president or you've been a candidate, is now the time to forego that and think about what you can do?
Should, for example, whoever is elected send Bill Clinton to the Middle East because of his own talent and skills there?
BROKAW: Sure.
ROSE: Should you take a Holbrooke, if a Democrat is elected, and send him to Afghanistan, where he feels strongly about Afghanistan, you know? I mean, what -- the reason I have some faith in the country is a lot of extraordinary talent, you know, and what we need is the right kind of people and team that can employ that.
[...]
ROSE: I mean, Time magazine did a cover story called "Does Temperament Matter?" --
BROKAW: Right.
ROSE: -- which is part of that. I mean, part of that, because it is said -- I mean, there are so many things that I don't know, you know, in terms of the make-up of -- we have gone through this long campaign. I care about it almost as much as you do in terms of being a political junkie, but there are questions you don't know in terms of -- I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is, I really don't know.
BROKAW: No, no, I don't either.
ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is and where it wants to go and how smart he is about that, or India, or the whole global structure.
BROKAW: Well, one of the things that --
ROSE: And -- or John McCain either.
BROKAW: Yeah, one of things I tried to get at in the national debate, and they began to answer it a little bit, which was -- which I think is an important question: What is the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine when there is a humanitarian crisis?
We are going through one this week in the Congo again, and I raised the Congo as an example of that, and the use of American military forces to intervene if we have no national security stake in all of that. And they both said in a kind of broadest possible terms, well, we should go help out.
But you didn't get the impression that they were going to go pull the trigger on that in the next day. That's an important discussion for this country to have.
ROSE: Well, and if you look at Rwanda and where you have been -- I remember at some point I saw you off on a trip to Rwanda, I think -- and the former secretary-general of the United Nations has said, we made mistakes. The president of the United States has said we made mistakes.
You know what will happen. Goldberg will report as an attack on him by the liberal media this assertion that he used doctored transcripts as evidence to support his argument as. He's a victim, not a liar and a fraud. Just ask him.
Of course...it's the latest thing to get attention. Look at Ann Coulter. They can't write worth a damn so they create drama by claiming they are being attacked by the liberal media. This schtick is getting pretty tansparent, don't you think?
If only those hotpants and go-go boots could talk, eh, JJ? But that's why we love you... ;>)
Irony, sorry I left those items over at your place. I hope your wife didn't find them. ;-) And for God's ake do not tell Bernie...Shhhh. You promised.
Somewhere.... Tim Russert is crying in his coffee... ?
oops.... my bad... wa watching a TV show while posting and thought I was posting in the one about David Gregory.... wrong thread...
Its possible he's still crying, but about something else. How his people could have made a more seamless fake video. If only Goldberg had asked the right person. Gut wrenching.
Why does this sound so familiar? Oh, I know...it's what Sean Hannity does! The truncated quote...context and meaning supplied by Sean. Ask Barack Obama. Hey, wait...isn't Goldberg a frequent guest on FOX News shows? I'm sure there can't be any connection there.
Regnery Publishing, check. Bulk sales to conservative book club members and Karl Rove rangers, check. Best seller (with a dagger) for two weeks, check. More boxes of unread books in Dick Cheney's man size safe, check and double check.
"(T)here are conservative commentators who say there is a lot about him we don't know because we haven't asked enough tough questions --"
Goldberg should become a commentator on FOX News any day now.
Okay, pointofview, you should run out and buy it now.
Ok, come to find out the quote was to all the "rednecks and bigots, Take this!" of the douroucoulian cabaret.
Mmmmmm......smells like orange blossoms.
Only in very low concentrations. Trolls tend to apply it more liberally.
There is racist history in this country of equating black people with monkeys purportedly because of their skin color and features. I'm unaware of any such history regarding white Texans. So I can see why MMFA was so sensitive to your remarks... which I am sure must have been totally innocent and devoid of any racial context. You're just a victim. What else can I say...?
Oh, I'm sorry...I misread your post. You are making a preemptive defense for calling Barack Obama "monkey boy". Anyway...I'm sure you're still the victim here.
He already cited past history of black people being called monkeys or chimps, BECAUSE of their skin color, and features. That you fail to recognize that, makes you an idiot.
Yeah, past history. But I'm ready for "change". So, in this post-racial society, I feel comfortable comparing someone to a simian simply because they look like a simian. Nothing more, nothing less. If you feel that makes me an idiot, so be it. You'll believe what you want. And I'll believe that you are obsessed with racial differences, and you are not capable of embracing "change".
I does make me believe you're an idiot, and a racist to boot.
I'm not obsessed with racial differences, but I realize that even though an African American is now President, it's not as if those racial divides have suddenly dropped away and are not present. And to pretend that racism isn't all around us is dangerous as well as stupid. Because, it is.
Yeah, but to look for racism under every stone and behind every door is borderlining on obsession. Save the racist label for those idiots that truly deserve it. Calling me racist is, in my opinion, pretty judgmental on your part.
Believe in equality, understanding, non-judgmentalism and tolerance? Practice what you preach.
George Bush looks like a chimp. So does Obama. Can your fragile little conscience accept that for what it is, or will you default to focusing on difference instead of equality, intolerance over tolerance, and judgment over non-judgment?
I always thought that Bush looked a little more like Alfred E. Newman, but again, that's beside the point.
Again, I say that using the term "monkey boy" to describe anyone is inflammatory, and I don't like name calling really for the most part. I'm willing to make exceptions time to time, but alas, I try not to (I did call you stupid, but facts bear that remark out).
So calling someone monkey boy is being non judgemental? Iteresting take on things right there. I don't look for racism under every stone and behind every door, but I see it, and hear it on a daily basis.
Calling someone monkey boy is actually not judgmental. Judgmental by definition means judging, or being critical of behaviors or actions. I'm not saying that he IS a monkey or that he ACTS like a monkey. THAT would be judgmental. I'm saying he LOOKS like a monkey. That's simply an insult, a joke. Other posters on this site have been calling the President "monkey" and "chimp" for years, but I don't recall you being so upset and enraged that you felt the need to chide them for it. Why the selective outrage all of the sudden?
Guy's a piece of work, ain't he?
You're right, calling Bush "Smirking Chimp" smacks of a double standard. That's why I prefer the racially neutral "President Numbnuts".
I prefer to call Bush, George W. Bush, or sometimes just W if I'm lazy (that's what folks have been calling him for years now). I find the silly name calling, well, silly, and childish, and adolescent at best (no offense Nerzog).
Same thing for calling Obama Monkey boy Former Democrat. You did it, and then you did it again, even though you darn well know what that name conjures up in the minds of most rational human beings living in the United States. It's racially charged, and you know it, but yet, you throw it out there like it is not. That just makes you look petty, childish, and exceedingly stupid.
To me, it's not racially charged. To those who are consumed with racism and lack the ability to move beyond racial boundaries, it is. The fact that they can't take it is their problem, not mine. I'm preaching post-racialism, they are living in the past.
Oh, why "no offense Nerzog" but no such connotation for Former Democrat? Is his name-calling any less "sillly, childish and adolescent" than mine?
See what I mean? You folks can't wrap your arms around equality at all, can you?
You say, "Treat all as equals" but when someone ACTUALLY does it in a way that makes you "think bad things", that equality crap flies right out the window, doesn't it?
Nope. What I meant was, I was indeed calling Nerzog's name calling childish and immature, that I meant no offense when doing so. I don't mean any offsense to you either when calling your name calling childish and petty either.
Maybe to you, it's not racially charged, but to everyone else, OK, not everyone, but the vast majority of people will see "monkey boy" and call it racially charged, due to the historical signifigance, of how black people were and are treated in this country. That you don't see that, is laughable really, or try to make us believe that you don't see that.
An analogy if you will. I was recently at a Native American museum, where they had many pieces of clothing from different tribes from around the America's. One of the tribes uses a Swastika (not a Swastika to them, but you know what I mean) as one of their symbols of their Gods. Regardless of what it means, when someone sees it, they think Nazis. Same thing for the Confederate flag, when someone sees that, they think, racist, and slaves. Same thing for calling a grown black man who is leader of the free world Monkey boy. That you don't see it for what it is doesn't make it any less wrong.
I understand that others who can't let go of the past would see it as offensive, but like I said, it's up to them to transgress, not me. I'm merely making the observation that the President still looks like a monkey. Others have been making that observation for years without one flagged post or one "offended" reader response. I'm merely pointing out that now, in our post-racial country where a half-black man is the President of the United States, why are we reacting differently to the exact same observation merely because the person involved is a different color? That's kind of racial, don't you think?
Do you listen? This is NOT about the past. I hear comments like these about black people ALL OF THE TIME. It's 2009.
Former Dem, are you white? If so, you really don't see the ridiculousness of you saying, "I, who has never been judged to be inferior or ape-like due to my skin color, have risen above seeing skin color in order to insult black men, in a completely non-race related way!"
There's a reason why Steven Colbert says "I don't see skin color" on his show so often. It's ridiculous for an American white male to say such a thing, like they are so much better than us "little people" who hear racist remarks made without a blink of the eye every day.
This is the second time in less than a week that you've said something blatantly racist and then claimed it was a "teaching moment" for us sensitive liberals. The only "teaching moment" here is to show that despite a black man being our President, absurd racism is still alive and well in America
FD is just parroting one of PigBoy Limbaugh's favorite tactics. He makes a thinly veiled racist remark, then acts offended and surprised if someone calls him on it.
He knows exactly what he's doing.
No offense taken. I am fully aware of my own adolescent, sophomoric and childish tendencies, and I embrace them. Since I can't act that way at work, I use this forum as therapy and vent my frustrations on Troglodytes like Former Democrat.
I hear ya'.
I try, very hard, to avoid calling others names. Had a hard time with that when I was a kid, and didn't like it when it was perpetrated on me, so therefore, I "try", to not do it. Sometimes, I'm not successful, sometimes, I am.
Don't get me wrong, I love me some childish juvenile humor.
I admire your self restraint. When I first started posting on forums like this, I tried to behave that way; I even used my real name (big mistake). This was right before we invaded Iraq, and I was met with rudeness and outright threats.
As a result, I decided to take it out on other Conservatives from then on. I still try to use logic, but I'm only polite to other posters who are polite. When I come upon Conservatives who are snarky and condescending like Former Democrat, I just can't help myself.
True enough. I get heated sometimes, but then, I just count to 10, and remind myself, they're throwing out flame bait basically, to see who will insult them, so they can then use the line of, "I thought liberals were supposed to be respectful of other viewpoints and opinions..." Or something of that nature. I know, as a former flame thrower myself back in my college days when this whole internet thing was new and exciting, I liked to incite flame wars. I'd like to think I've grown a little since then. Not much, but a little.
Good call, nerzog. But be careful, you may even get flagged for calling him "Numbnuts", too. Somehow the race-baiters on this site will equate that to some form of racism as well. They simply cannot let go.
You are the one race baiting, calling a black man, monkey boy.
But wait. I practice equality. George Bush looks like a monkey, too. Is THAT race-baiting?
Why would it be different in Obama's case when we strive to live in a color-blind society?
No, because Bush is white. We don't like in a color blind society.
FD, you're full of crap, and you're playing too coy by half.
You know how this stuff works. It's the same reason that a black rapper or comedian can use the "N" word freely, but a white performer can't. Jewish people can make Jewish jokes, fat people can make fat jokes, etc.
It's okay to call Bush a Monkey because he is white, and a member of the privileged class. There is no history of his group being oppressed and vilified as looking like monkeys. It is an individual insult.... just like calling him stupid or Alfred E. Neuman.
As Magnolia tried to explain, there is a history of racial slurs aimed at black people comparing them to simians. This makes it a sensitive issue in the case of Obama, or any other black person.
(Notice that cartoonists can make fun of Obama's ears without recriminations, sense big ears are a cross-racial characteristic.)
I know it's complicated for black and white thinkers like yourself, but it's just one of those things. It's like using a computer without knowing what makes it work... you just have to go with it.
"since", not "sense".
I hate it when that happens.
Wow, that's a lot of Straw Man bullsh*t, even for you.
By the way, Bush isn't really a Southerner.
"cross-burning rejects were 100% DEMOCRATS"
Most of whom have since become REPUBLICANS.
You're just a talking points bonanza today, aren't you?
hahaha. I was just about to reply to your reply to me about how it was a futile argument to have, because I KNEW he knew what he was doing, I just naively thought I might be able to get through the mush in his brain. But then I see THIS exchange.
Rant rant rant, blah blah blah, my racism is nothing next to your political correctness. By the way, is suicide bomber really nicer than murderer? It means the same thing in my head, except I assume a suicide bomber killed more than one person.
I think he just came down off his crazy pills. And we can only hope that his last line was a sendoff and we won't see more of him. The past week or so has been nothing but the regular posters arguing with nutcases. Where oh where are the sane conservative posters? Or have they just all converted to Democrats?
Speaking of suicide bombers, I remember when there was a push among the Righties to call them "homicide bombers", as if "suicide bombers" was too dignified or something. Of course, there is a practical distinction between a suicide bomber and other types of bombers, which is obvious. Not to mention that such a distinction is useful for practical military considerations. To pretend that "suicide bomber" is some kind of politically correct sop is delusional at best.
Then there was the whole "Freedom Fries" embarrassment. As Former Democrat-Current Dipstick just told us...."Changing language or using different phrases doesn't alter history."
Don't forget "Islamic Fascism"
"The past week or so has been nothing but the regular posters arguing with nutcases."
I think the nutcases were really stressed out by the reality of a President Obama.
It IS OK to call him a chimp, because as others have said, there is no negative connotation in a white man's past to consider that other than just plain old name calling.
Southerners (which I am by the way) have had their accents made fun of, but we made fun of Bush for WHAT came out of his mouth not his twang. Which is fake by the way, since he is from CT. And he seemed to fit in OK with a Northern crowd when he was at Yale, being an underachiever, and still making it into Skull and Bones was no mistake, not to mention his family has had a house in Maine for generations.
I don't care if you utter bad words, or negative words about Obama, but make them NOT personal. I don't call Bush chimp, others do that. I have said before, and I will say again, his actions make him a bad President, not his appearance. I don't need to insult that, when I have his record to remind me of what he has done to our country. If you're talking about the comments Biden made about Obama, there were outcrys about that, at the time when he said it. What he said was that Obama was clean, meaning, clean cut, and articulate, which he is. Compliments actually, and OBama took them as such.
We are hate filled? How so? We don't want to be reminded of bad things? Who says? We're the people constantly saying how we want MORE Iraq war coverage, and the media fails to provide it. 9/11 was a tragic event, and an act of war. Tell me here who said it wasn't? You can't.
There is overt racism. Do you live in North Carolina where I do? Where, when I told some co-workers of mine that I was going to Inauguration last week, they asked me, "Why do you want to go and see that n***** take the oath? Someone is just going to kill him anyway." And this was from educated folks with MBAs, and others with higher educations, not some backwoods rednecks. Yes, back in the day, KKK members were overwhelmingly democrats, and they also changed part affiliation when LBJ put the Civil Rights Act and Voting Acts out there. What did they change to? Republicans, or for a short while, Dixiecrats. Why were they Democrats? Because Lincoln, the man who freed the slaves, was a republican. Do you even know much history? Methinks not.
You're entire paragraph above was imagined by you and full of strawmen, as noted below. Also, Obama didn't botch the oath, the Bush appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court botched it.
You're sick of OBama already? Fine. Why? Because he looks like a monkey? Because that's about the only critique you've had of him so far.
"Enjoy your pathetic lives."
Does that mean you're leaving? How will we cope?
I'm sure that we'll get by.
Enjoy your pathetic lives.
Leaving us? I'm sure it will only be for a while. You've been here before with another handle and it won't be long before you'll be back with yet one more. But if you really aren't intending to come back please reconsider. Watching a troll have a total meltdown is what makes it worth coming here. Take heart--having a meltdown shows you are smarter than the average troll that posts here. Others like AnuttierAmerican (that would be you Bucktooth) are impervious to reason and are quite comfortable with displays of unabashed stupidity. You are obviously a cut above them--you at least have some pride. So get another name and come back. Making trolls have meltdowns is what George Soros pays us so well for (are you sure he isn't paying you too. You know--kind of like being sparring partner for Roberto Duran when he was in his prime. Remember to keep working on your ad hominems, ad populums, ad baculums, and ad verecundiums. Back your opponent into the corner with a straw man and a false dichotomy then blast him with a ignoratio elenchi. You have the stuff. I can tell. I'm a good judge of talent. Thanks for a very entertaining thread.
I have to discount any "journalists" who say we don't know enough about any candidate. Isn't it their job as journalists to answer their own questions? I don't think the media do a sufficiently thorough job of vetting all candidates and getting that information to the public. As Rose and Brokaw pointed out there's a lot we didn't know about John McCain. Who was advising McCain on foreign policy? Some of the names I read were those of neocons whose world views I considered dangerous. But I had to do my own homework to find out more about John McCain. Much of Obama's positions that some in the media described as unknown was actually on his web site, which I doubt many read even just as a starting point. I could go on criticizing the media but my point is that they generally come up short (although some do a good, thorough job) in revealing what's important about all candidates. This is nonsense that Barack Obama was somehow treated differently.
More...
One of the things I concluded about John McCain, after doing my own homework, was that he still had troubling unresolved Viet Nam issues that carried over into his world view and foreign policy; and that domestic issues bored him, such that as President he was likely to deligate domestic issues and/or capitualate to his base for expediency while focusing on foreign policy. This was never explored in depth by the media...all we kept hearing was John McCain was a heroic ex-POW.
One of the problems is equating media with journalism. While journalism may be a subset of the media, the media exists primarily to entertain. It doesn't matter to many in the media if they get things (such as facts) right or present a fair and complete picture. If the media were deficient in revealing Barack Obama they were equally deficient with regards to John McCain.
deligate = delegate
I think you're right--there are too few actual journalists in the media, and punditry has become accepted as actual reporting. The myth of the liberal media has somehow become entrenched, and the myth of "liberal elites" is on its way to being accepted as true.
You are correct. Why do you think the Republicans spent millions of dollars spreading that propaganda through their Talk Radio parrots?
They have succeeded in planting the "Liberal Media" myth into the collective consciousness, and it will be difficult to dislodge.
This is a favorite tactic employed by the right on a regular basis and they seem to get away with it alot.
Jim Quinn in Pittsburgh has used this same example repeatedly as has Limbaugh
The funny thing is that PigBoy Limbaugh will often play an audio clip uncut, then simply lie about what his audience just heard... and his dimwit listeners NEVER CATCH ON.
Goldberg is still upset that he didn't get the brass ring at CBS and the reasons of course have more to do with a liberal conspiracy than his sloppy journalism.
Thanks to MMFA, we have another example (I'm sure there are more) of the sloppy and lazy journalism that has created problems for Goldberg in the past and will in the future. Bernie - you still have friends at Fox.
this is the shell game that Limbaugh runs all the time....He quotes Brokaw, quoting HIM! I know untrain commentators like him do not understand showing some proof rather than simply making wild assertions.....He condemns all formal education, all science, and anyone that insist on fair play. He called a black pastor making a quote, (Black..get back, red come ahead, yellow, that is mellow) as racist! He is just a very low knowledgeable BloB!
You're right, it's one of PigBoy's favorite schticks.
Back in the Fall, Limbaugh played a clip of Brokaw talking about the economic crisis. Brokaw said that, as a society, we would have to take another look at how we use credit... whether we really need that big house or that big SUV.
Then Rush blasted Brokaw for being a Marxist. He claimed that Brokaw was advocating the government putting limits on what size house or car we could buy! Of course, his sycophantic callers joined in the whinefest, proving just how stupid they really are.
The fact and point of Goldberg is completely true and nothing was doctored. The Point was that the media had absolutely no clue, which we still don't, what Barack Obama is going to do.
The fact is that important points were omitted which is simply sloppy and misleading. Another fact - there are some who could not care less if important points were omitted, nor do they mind if its misleading. It simply reinforces a point of view already held and makes them feel better.
Finally, if the point Goldberg was trying to make is that the media did not know what Obama was going to do then he is out of his mind. Do a quick search and you'll find they knew plenty. By the way, he's closing Gitmo, I think it was in all the papers prior to his election. Buy hey, if it makes you feel better, Goldberg is a paragon of professional journalism.
We do know, it's just that folks like yourself keep ignoring his policy positions and keep claiming that you're scared of the man in charge.
Only to the willfully uninformed. You are arrogantly so.
This may come a little late in the game as I see others have made much the same point, but I still want to say it.
People, will you all PLEASE stop trying to treat "Former Democrat" as if you were addressing a mature adult?
Haven't you figured out yet that the entire schtick is that of a sniggering schoolchild? It consists of going "ha ha, I can use racist terms and you can't say nuthin' 'bout it, ha ha."
Of course there is a difference between calling Obama (or any other black man) "monkey boy" and calling Bush (or any other white person) "chimp." (Which, I'll note, I never did for the same reason I refused to indulge in "fat" jokes about Rush Limbaugh or "male" jokes about Ann Coulter: I'm against mockery of physical characteristics.) Of course context matters; of course history matters. And quite frankly, I don't think for a single second that FD doesn't realize that.
FD is a child - intellectually and morally if not chronologically - and a self-aware bigot just giggling over yanking the grown-ups' chains. Once that is said, FD is no longer worth any attention.