Santelli now agrees White House's purported "veiled threat" wasn't a threat
SUMMARY: On NBC's Today, Rick Santelli claimed that he's "not saying" that the White House is "threatening" him. However, while on The G. Gordon Liddy Show, Santelli agreed with G. Gordon Liddy's claim that Robert Gibbs made a "veiled threat" during a press briefing.
During the February 26 edition of NBC's Today, CNBC on-air editor Rick Santelli claimed that he's "not saying" that the White House is "threatening" him. However, as the blog Think Progress noted, on the February 23 broadcast of Radio America's The G. Gordon Liddy Show, Santelli agreed with host G. Gordon Liddy's claim that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs made a "veiled threat" during a February 20 press briefing.
On Today, co-host Matt Lauer said of Gibbs' remarks about Santelli: "[A]fter you heard his comments, you said that he was threatening you. Are you serious about that?" Lauer later said to Santelli, "[W]hat Robert Gibbs said was, basically, he was -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- he was saying he's not sure that as a former trader and current television personality, you're living in the same kind of neighborhoods where people are struggling to pay their mortgages. He wasn't threatening you." Santelli replied:
SANTELLI: Well, listen, I'm not saying threatening. And just to be pinpointed specifically, I find very unusual, and I think that it's more of a decision for you as the press or all the people on the lawn that giggled at the joke about caffeine -- and it was funny -- but how would they like to be pinpointed specifically? I think that's the issue at hand. I don't want to make more out of this.
However, during Liddy's show, Santelli said of Gibbs: "He started that press conference saying, 'I don't know where he lives. I don't know where his house is.' This is the press secretary of the White House. Is that the kind of thing we want?" When Liddy interjected, "That's a veiled threat," Santelli responded, "It really is." Liddy later said of Gibbs' comment, "And that's a veiled threat, you know, 'We know where you live,' and so forth." Santelli replied, "It really -- it's quite scary."
From the February 23 broadcast of Radio America's The G. Gordon Liddy Show:
SANTELLI: He started that press conference saying, "I don't know where he lives. I don't know where his house is." This is the press secretary of the White House. Is that the kind of thing we want? Is that what it --
LIDDY: That's a veiled threat.
SANTELLI: It really is. You know what? This isn't about left or right. I wasn't for any of the bailouts under the last administration. But I don't realize or recall reading the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution where it says that once you vote for somebody in November, you put duct tape over your mouth and you can't say a word for the next four years. That's just not right.
LIDDY: No, it isn't. And that's a veiled threat, you know, "We know where you live," and so forth.
SANTELLI: It really -- it's quite scary.
From the February 26 edition of NBC's Today:
LAUER: Let me take this a step further. Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, commented, called you out in the briefing room, and after you heard his comments, you said that he was threatening you. Are you serious about that?
SANTELLI: Listen, let's put it this way. Matt, you're married, are you not?
LAUER: Yeah, I am.
SANTELLI: OK. This is more about the feelings my wife had when she watched the body language and listened to what he was saying, and I think you understand --
LAUER: But this is the White House press secretary. Do you think he's going to threaten you on national television?
SANTELLI: Well, let's rephrase the question. Do we think it's normal to be named by name, as opposed to the general media at large, say the cable guy or some of the comments? I find, my wife finds, and many of my friends find that the direct confrontation and pointing me out by name just is not ordinary, and I'll leave it at that and let people make their own judgment.
DYLAN RATIGAN (CNBC anchor): Let me say -- let me say one thing on Rick's behalf. Rick has -- is channeling an emotion everybody in America is feeling, that people were able to cheat the system, whether it's on Wall Street, whether it was politicians, or whether it was homeowners. Rick has been aggressive in criticizing the treatment of the bankers, the behavior of the politicians. He's gotten a lot of attention now for the homeowners, but that is not a unique issue. He hits a behavioral economics 101 issue, which is people will not engage a system that they do not believe is fair.
LAUER: And I completely understand your supporting Rick, and Rick, I'm sure your wife is a lovely person. However, what Robert Gibbs said was, basically, he was -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- he was saying he's not sure that as a former trader and current television personality, you're living in the same kind of neighborhoods where people are struggling to pay their mortgages. He wasn't threatening you.
SANTELLI: Well, listen, I'm not saying threatening. And just to be pinpointed specifically, I find very unusual, and I think that it's more of a decision for you as the press or all the people on the lawn that giggled at the joke about caffeine -- and it was funny -- but how would they like to be pinpointed specifically? I think that's the issue at hand. I don't want to make more out of this. You know, here I am, and I want to continue to do what I've always done, and that is, question motivation, whether it's the Fed chairman, and we know --
LAUER: Right, but the only thing I would say -- the only thing, Rick, I would say --
SANTELLI: -- that he wants the economy to cure down the road, but is it true?
LAUER: But the only thing I would say , Rick, is if you go out of your way to call out the president of the United States, you have to expect that his representative may go out of his way to call you out. Isn't that go -- doesn't that go with the territory?
SANTELLI: Well, what we're really saying is calling out -- as a member of the press, do I not get to ask a question or question the system? I understand that. I just --
LAUER: And as the press secretary, doesn't he have the right to ask you a question?
SANTELLI: He certainly does. It would be nice if he did it face to face, but I don't know that he needs to throw out my name. I just have an issue with that.
RATIGAN: I think that the emotion here is a real emotion that everybody in this country feels, and we would be well-served by this administration, Republicans and Democrats, making it clear that they are going to make sure that the cheaters on Wall Street and in the housing market and in Congress will be caught. I think that if you back up and look at the emotion, I think that's Rick's point --
LAUER: Clearly --
RATIGAN: -- your point, and my point, and a lot of other people's point.
LAUER: Clearly, it's touched a nerve. We will all agree on that.
SANTELLI: One think, Matt let's get this out.
LAUER: Real quick. Real quick, Rick.
SANTELLI: Everybody that's talking right now, we want all of this to succeed. We just want to make sure that as we spend the money we don't have, we're getting a return and people have a chance to look at it and understand where it's going --
LAUER: OK.
SANTELLI: -- and what type of return we're getting for these trillions.
RATIGAN: And you can't restart a system that's riddled with cheaters.
LAUER: All right, guys, thank you. Dylan, Rick, thank you very much.
Amazing. Astounding. Flabbergasting. Bush toadies routinely arrested and rousted protesters at his public appearances, and this obnoxious millionaire is whining because the Press Secretary needled him a little at a press conference? WAAAAAAAAAA.
And in both the context and the actual WORDS that were spoken, you'd have to be either braind damaged or a right-wing idealogue to think this was meant as a threat.
As most right-wingers (O'Rielly anyone?) know: It's: "We KNOW where you live!" NOT: "We DON'T KNOW where you live!"
It's like accusing some of assult who said "I'm not going to beat you up over this."
I think the problem here is that Republicans, after the past 20 years, can't understand that if the Democrats were out to get them, if the poor people were out to get them, if the media were out to get them, if the Al Qaidas were out to get them, if teh gays were out to get them, and if Robert Gibbs was out to get them, the Democrats, the poor people, the media, the Al Qaidas, the gays, and Gibbs, would actually get them. They're under the impression that everyone is as incompetent as they are.
The feeble electrical impulses of reality can't penetrate the hard shell of "wish-it-was-true" guarding their synapses.
It's like accusing some of assult who said "I'm not going to beat you up over this."
Or the repub version of the old joke:
"Have stopped not beating your wife?"
Would you like to provide some proof of someone who was 'rousted' at a public appearance?
And I am not talking about a breach of peace arrest by the screamers from Code Pink and others like them.
It is common knowledge that those public gatherings Bush held were filled with his supporters and not the "public." tickets were given to those who raised funds and were loyal Republicans. Here's a question for you : With an approval rating hovering among 25-30% was there ever a question from the audience(not that he had many public forums)that represented dissatisfaction with what he was doing in the war or with the economy?
Why can't we include them, they have rights just like everyone else! But here, I complied with your whiney narrowing of the field anyways...
http://iwitnessvideo.info/blog/110.html
Try this on for size, Darth.
http://www.slate.com/id/2172500/
i saw this. what was ridiculous was his wounded innocence. he went into a rant on the floor of the stock exchange on national television and then he wonders why he gets answered by the white house. he really had every right to do it, but don't act all surprised when you get a reaction.
mary matalin on this morning bashing obama, with no one from the other side to answer her.
What else do the Cons bring to the table? They have nothing, had nothing and won't even have a party if they keep acting like spoiled babies. I guess that 6 years of unfettered power really made them think they were untouchable. They were wrong about that also.
Why should there be a reaction, does not concern the White House!
questioning presidential policy very much concerns the white house, last time i checked.
He is a private citizen, it should not concern them. He does not write any policy, so if he want to question the White House so be it, leave the private citizen alone.
So were the dixie chicks, too bad your standard is a double standard.
What does this have to do with the Dixie Chicks, last thing I remember about that group was folks were not showing up for their concerts. That would be the public banning them, not the White House. Matter of fact, I think when Bush was asked about the Dixie Chicks and he said the following.
''The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind,'' Bush told Tom Brokaw at the time, adding, ''They shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out. You know, freedom is a two-way street.''
So if Obama was to follow the same path, he should support his opinion and let the public take care of it, if so be.
here's how it goes,chief. you are a private citizen and have the right to be left alone until you put yourself in the public eye. just like joe the plumber. you don't start making all kinds of public pronouncements, attend rallies with sarah palin, and then complain you're being scrutinized when the reality is different from what you're complaining about. obama had an opinion about what was said, he did "support his opinion" and he answered through his spokesman. something like a "two way street"? some cheese with that whine?
So you are ok with individuals looking into Joe the Plumber private records because he has a question of Obama that make Obama say the truth. Look, the reason Joe the Plumber started to attend the rallies, is because the democrats started to smear him, and because of this McCain and Palin wanted individuals to know what would happen if you were to question Obama. Well guess what "squaw" they were right, you go after this administration, they go after you. Wow, and you like this type of government. Well I do not, and soon you will not either.
tell me one instance where joe the plumber was "smeared"? of course if you consider telling the true facts about someone a smear, i already know the answer.
This First one is from Obama, the others are talks shows or Gibbs. SInce you knew the answer, this is for those who do not know the answer like yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqis9mRcWl4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b3PZracxLQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0BnxnZuUdk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzBQQwrnoCY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MjvOeT8Hu8&feature=related
"how many plumbers do you know make a quarter of a million dollars a year?"
What's the smear? He called out "plumber joe", who wasn't even a plumber, correctly. Only a conservative would think calling out a liar for lying is a smear.
just posting some links and claiming they prove your argument doesn't mean they do so.
Any chance of you being honest? No, just like Jock the Plumber, you don't know what you're talking about.
That's not what we're talking about. You specifically said the white house shouldn't waste time responding to private citizens, I showed you an example of a republican double standard.
Here's another one - bruce springsteen.
No, you said Dixie Chicks and I responded with proof that the former President did not attack them, he supported their freedom of speech. Unlike the Obama Administration who seems so thin skinned it has to go after a single person. What is he going to do when a individual from another country calls him out, CRY! FYI It was the fans that went after the Dixie Chicks. Ok, so Bruce now, you mean the person that signed a agreement with a large company and now goes out and bashes them. I guess he was like the current mortgage individuals, those whom do not read their contracts or whom the company he was doing business with. It just shows that Bruce was a either too dumb to know who Wal Mart is, or too dumb to then kill his own record sales. Snoopy, another fine example of someone the Government did not attack.
Nowhere did I call it an attack. Do you really know how to read? And as this thread details, mr. thin skinned santelli now claims he was wrong and that obama didn't really attack him after all. And your attempt to deflect from the fact by pointing at something bruce did that's completely irrelevant just proves my point that you have to resort to deflection when the proof shows you wrong.
You right wing types really have thin skin.
Snoopy you brought up the Dixie Chicks and Bruce, not myself. No, but his Administration did bring up his name, which means the GOVERNMENT was talking about him and what he said. I will be helping with the Tea Party here in my home state. I liked the idea.
Yes I did bring them up, in response to your claim that the white house shouldn't be responding to private citizens, to show you that it does, and that republicans who were supporting it regardless of what was said are now being hipocritical.
So here, since you think Obama shouldn't be responding to private citizens, let's see how you plan on spinning this one.
Snoopy, I am sorry I used the word Attack, which was so intolerant of me, I should have used such softer language. Ok, I will be nice and not use words like attack. When then President Bush was asked about the Dixie Chicks, he responded with a easy answer, did not talk about what they said, just that they have a right to say it. He was tolerant, and nice, where as the Obama Pres Sect, talked about the person, not sure where he lives, or what he blah blah blah. Obama's Pres Sec should have said the same as Bush.
Again you distort reality. You need to stop eating so many magic mushrooms. When the right attacked the Dixie Chicks for no good reason, that was wrong.
When the Obama Administration called out Santelli for a very good reason, that was right.
The two events are different as night and day.
Your memory is as good as your track record of being right. i.e. zero. The Dixie Chicks tour following the statement by Natalie Maynes sold out, and their CD was #1 on the Billboard charts. The public did not "ban" them. All tickets that were returned to the ticket companies were bought almost immediately.
Once again, the facts win, and you lose.
"He is a private citizen"
No, he's not. He's a media personality, whose powers of persuasion, due to his public persona, far outweigh his powers of perception. The number of YouTube hits his rants have received prove that it would be unwise for the WH to leave him unanswered.
Wow, so the Obama Administration is going to go after every T.V. and Radio Personality that attacks him, or calls into question his polices. Wow, is he so thin skinned he can not take it?
You do know that Santelli's rant was mentioned in the question posed to Gibbs, don't you?
Yes, and Gibbs could have said, "Every Citizen has a opinion to express, it is what makes America Great, Next"
I defy you to explain how responding to someone takes away their right to their opinion. Gibbs' answer did not suggest that Santelli had no right to anything.
Wow, you all are so clueless on the bigger message here, you are so focused on the small issue. BIG PICTURE HERE - WHY should the GOVERNMENT even be talking about CITIZENS, they should be addressing Policy, Spending, GOVERNMENT affairs, not what a SINGLE PERSON on TV talks about and THEIR Opinion. The rate this Administration is going, they will be talking more about TV & RADIO personalities then they do polices. What about the Senators that speak up against Obama, is that next, or maybe when someone calls into a radio show says something about this GOVERNMENT they do not like, will they address that as well. CLUELESS, do you not see what is going on around you. THEY are talking about a single person not liking his Mortgage Policy.
You say more than once that they don't talk about policy, then you finish with "they are talking about a single person not liking his Mortgage Policy". Yes, they were addressing what he said on their policy. Gibbs was asked a question about that viewpoint and Gibbs addressed it, since that has to do with public perception of government policy.
What part of that picture do you not see?
yeah, they've just devoted endless hours to santelli. he was mentioned briefly at one press conference, and then.....uh,.....not again. and yes, if a senator says something about obama, the white house will address it, just like every other press secretary before has.
Why should there be a reaction, does not concern the White House!
SANTELLI: No they're not, Joe. They're not like putty in our hands. This is America. How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills? Raise their hand.
President Obama, are you listening?
I guess he was and is afraid of a little critisim, so instead of attacking Santelli, how about he answers the question. WHy should we pay for a person that has defaulted on their loans.
Obama HAS answered that question. And I don't think the press secretary saying "Santelli seems to be out of touch with average Americans" is really "attacking" him. Why don't you listen to what Obama has said instead of spouting nonsense?
The Avg american does not agree that we should pay for bad mortgages. Which means that Santelli is in touch with the avg Joe. What is the nonsense. My point has been a simple one. The GOVERNMENT does not need to speak about idividuals by name, but policies in General.
The nonsense is claiming that Obama hasn't spoken to why the government (ie taxpayers) should help people who have defaulted on their loans. You said he should answer the question. He has. That was my only point.
Some part of the 70+% who support the stimulus plan must be "Avg american[s]."
Come on, YOUR original comment was WHY was the Obama administration responding to Santelli, who YOU called a "private citizen". Santelli IS NOT a private citizen, he is the host of a business/financial show on cable television.
Santelli CHOOSE to use HIS position as a host of a business/financial show to ask a direct question to President Obama, which Gibbs, as the White House spokesperson, responded. THEN Santelli CHOOSE to appear on a right-wing show to pretend that he was "threatened" by the White House, when Santelli KNEW that wasn't what Gibbs said. Santelli LIED!
WHy should we pay for a person that has defaulted on their loans.
We have been over and over the housing situation.
NO ONE wants to pay for their neighbors home, but IF offering assistance to my neighbor will stop my home value from dropping $150,000, then I say HELP MY NEIGHBOR! IF offering assistance will allow a family or an individual time to get on their feet, then I say HELP MY NEIGHBOR!
"mary matalin on this morning bashing obama, with no one from the other side to answer her. " I see that sooo many times. I wish someone would do a study about how often this happens. Morning Joe hides behind a facade of being "balanced" but there is not one person on that show you could call "liberal."
When the Repubs were in power the news channels and 'nets told us that is why they on more. Now that they are out of power they are on because they're the "counterpoint". That's how rides both ways in the "liberal" media.
Much like you all based Bush, but he was man enough to know that as the President you will get second quessed.
Not so much second guessed, but called out on his lies. There is a difference between armchair quarterbacking and calling someone out on a lie.
No i've never based Bush! I may have bashed him but anyway what is your freakin' point? How was the Rush show today?
I wouldn't go to first base with bush, but I'm betting marky hit a home run with him!
I never saw a first "quess," how can there be a second one?
In other words, they called his bluff and the schmuck folded. He had nothing to begin with.
The sclm should be smacked for pretending he had a legitimate point in the first place when he never did. They should have fact-checked his gop-slop nonsense and called him on it from the beginning instead of wasting a week on his nonsense.
I just want to know why the Press Secretary is evening talking about a private citizen. It seems the only time this administration talks about a news or radio personality it is when they come out against this administration. Why is that? Does this administration not have better things to do then talk about what a private citizen is saying? Freedom of Speech, we have every right to question our government. Threat or not, he is a private citizen. Unless he has threatened the President, then that is a different issue.
It's called a rebuttal. The White House has the right to address what's said about Obama, private citizen or not.
Apparently the right to free speech only applies to republicans.
Maybe they're still upset because Democrats aren't confined to the Bush "free speech zones."
A rebuttal, if the White House address every rebuttal, I have a feeling they are not going to get much done this year.
There aren't that many people who made as big a stink as Santelli did. I'm sure they can manage a few comments per year without impeding the process of governance.
Heck, Obama has gotten more done in the last month than Bush and the repuplicans did in 8 years. If he decided to take a three month vacation he'd have earned it.
Hahaahahahahahaaa! Man, that must be some great stuff you smoke! Spent more? Go ahead, prove that 800 billion is more than 5+ trillion! Only an idiot would believe you. And it's totally funny watching you revise history and switch from pork to earmarks! Poor hurt marky, after sitting on the sidelines for 8 years letting his party of choice drain the treasury and ruin the country now can't stand being forced to watch Obama step in and clean up y'alls mess - and doing it with support of almost 80% of the country! Face it, no one likes you right wingers anymore, so cry away, no one cares what y'all think. Win an election if you want to become relevant.
Change the subject of Pork and Earmarks. Would like some examples of Pork in the same bill, I can bring that a well, but since you can not grasp what a Earmark is, why confuse you more. Snoopy, here you go, a answer to your 5+ Trillion, SOn in one Month he is just one trillion away. Can't wait for the next month, sure he will find more ways to spend. You must be so proud of your Vote, before long you will have what you want equal pay, cause we will all be out of a job.
Posted February 26, 2009
By Kenneth R. Bazinet And Michael Mcauliff
Daily News Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON—President Obama unveiled a staggeringly huge budget this morning, telling the country it will take almost $4 trillion to run the U.S. next year.
That will be a whopping $1.75 trillion more than the President expects the government to raise in revenue, creating the largest federal deficit in real dollars since the country was fighting World War II.
If the deficit is 1.75 trillion, then that's the number you count. You don't say it's 4 trillion dollars worth of debt.
I'm way proud of my vote, Obama has come through on a lot of his campaign promises. It's a shame he had to spend a month coming up with a solution to the problems republicans created, but I have every faith that he will follow in the footsteps of other great republicans and reverse the mess.
oops, not other great republicans, that was supposed to be democrats.
he's a private citizen in a very public position and he went out of his way to call out obama by name and whip up the crowd of traders on television. if he's such a girly man that he can't take the heat he needs a different occupation.
Seems the only person here not taking the heat is the Administration they were so bothered by his comments they had to rebuttal. Please, maybe instead of a rebuttal they should be more concerned about how many folks are now againts these new policies.
Yeah, good point. Last I checked it was like 22% and falling.
Snoopy, just recently, hhhmmm today,
Four in 10 Americans (41%) say they are more confident in President Barack Obama’s plans to improve the economy after his Tuesday night address to Congress, including 57% of those who watched the speech live. Was it not just 60% a week ago? Obama Job Approval Dips Below 60% for First Time February 24, 2009 For the first time since Gallup began tracking Barack Obama's presidential job approval rating on Jan. 21, fewer than 60% of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president.Oops, you left out some facts in your attempt to spin that as a negative...
So 41% more confident, 39% unchanged among those who didn't watch the speech, 57% more confident among those who did. Vs 13% (partisans like you) who nobody cares about anyways. Nice try at rewriting history there.
Mark's post on that was bizarre. He talks about 57% of people who watched the speech live, then asks if the number was 60% the previous week. It makes it sound like he thinks he's talking about 60% of people who watched the speech last week.
It also is a ridiculous poll for what he's trying to claim. I watched the speech, but was already confident about his plan. So for me, there was no effect. But I'm on the POSITIVE side of Obama's approval. This poll just asks what the effect of the speech was, not whether a person is in favor or against the plan. You would have to compare approval of the plan before and after the speech to actually see if the approval ratings changed.
You mean like this other part from the same link that Mark purposely didn't reflect on?
Also, now that I look at the link, the "under 60%" poll was taken BEFORE the speech. Obama's job approval today? 65%
Now I'm not one to use day-by-day snapshots to prove anything, but to use a poll from before a speech to prove a speech failed? That's con logic at its best.
Overall Job Approval has dropped.
But the 57% wasn't overall job approval. That's why your post was bizarre.
Tha is from the speech, my data is his overall job. Heck I agree, he sure can read a speech, he would be a good T.V. Anchor man,.
You should use more recent data...
Obama Approval Index History
Date: 02/26/2009
Total Approve: 60%
Total Disapprove: 40% http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history"they had to rebuttal"
I usually avoid commenting on grammar, but this one just hurts. Rebuttal is a noun. Using in as an infinitive is like saying "to arguement." The word you needed was rebut.
Thanks Con, nice input. Always go after the messenger, not the message.
Here's a tissue for your pity party.
Tissue, yes from the tears of laughing at you all today. You all are so much fun, I just get a kick out of you all. I can post one iteam and get 4 to 5 to attack me. Love it,
more of that ol' victim mentality, I see. We respond to you, you feel threatened like we attacked you. Just like poor santelli. I may have to start referring to you as mini santelli.
So you only do this is to be a troll. O.K.
I always enjoy that one, Marker-
"ha ha, I said stoopid stuff & a lot of people pointed out how stoopid it was! I must have hit a nerve! I am lol'ing at you for pointing out my failure! LOL!"
I think this is what their leader El Rushbo calls "tweaking". Victory through idiocy.
You've been caught trying to spin a poll, now your feeling hurt becuase you've been caught in a lie. Maybe Rush will have something on it for you manana.
Lie, what Lie, his approval rating is down.
Obama Job Approval Dips Below 60% for First Time February 24, 2009 For the first time since Gallup began tracking Barack Obama's presidential job approval rating on Jan. 21, fewer than 60% of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president.
His approval rating is NOT down. It's been rising since Tuesday. The 3-day rolling average is now 65%.
Don't rely so much on one-day polls.
He's not a "private citizen" when he's on national television, a CNN reporter. He was making some nonsense points in his capacity as a REPORTER on NATIONAL TELEVISION. It's not like he was some random man on the street that Gibbs just started to pick on. Gibbs was answering a REPORTER from a NATIONAL TELEVISION show. Do you kind of understand now?
Peebs, really, he is not a private citizen? Reporter or not, he has every right to speak his mind on T.V. SO, if I were to get on T.V. and make the same comment, it would be ok for them to come after me as well? Really, WOW, Big Brother is on the move.
How does a rebuttal take away his right to speak his mind? Maybe you should reconsider what you're saying.
Sure is on the move. We see it everytime the republicans hold a convention or town hall. Love the "free speech" zones...
At least they get one, with this Administration, you will not even get one of those in the future. Did you see the protesters that Obama has been getting at public speeches?
Really? See one yet? I saw a hannity supporter asking Obama a question. Imagine that, letting someone from the opposite party in to one of your town halls, and even let them ask questions! Something that's unheard of at those republican bubble talks.
You do not get paid for your comments. You are comparing apples to oranges. But if you went on TV and spouted out non sense they would have every right to respond. BTW, what was said be Gibbs that so offends you. Should the White House just let any one from the media say what ever they want and not respond?
Oh, I wouldn't bet that this poster doesn't get paid for his comments.
And he gets paid for the comments he makes as other posters too.
mark, how does answering a charge mean they "come after [you]"? what fragile flowers some of you are. gee, santelli's wife was upset. and? maybe she should tell her husband to buck up and quit acting like this is middle school and bobby said something bad about me.
And I wonder how many people think of Santelli's wife and think "aww they're being picked on" looked at Michelle Malkin revealing personal information about private citizens she disagreed with and thought "they deserve it".
Right, during the S-Chip debate during Bush's presidency,she gave out the address and encouraged people to watch and harass them! Such hyprocrites. Remember Cheney(not the poster)saying reagan proved deficits didn't matter, which led to Bush's turning a $200+ billion surplus into a over 3 trillion dollar deficit. And they have nerve to talk about "it's bad to raise taxes in a recession." Well 95% of the people will see a tax-cut. Their hyprocrisy is predictable and not thought threw.
And let's not forget what happened to Valerie Plame because her husband wrote an editorial critical of the Bush Administration.
Hey Barbanto, Michelle is not the PRESIDENT! What part do you all not get, this is the Government going after a individual. You all are so blind to this, it makes blood shot out of my eyes. Then again, I expect a liberal to be clueless to this type of issue.
I know she's not the President, so what? I still wonder how many people weep for the Santellis yet thought Malkin putting personal information out on the web was just fine and dandy. Obama didn't put out personal information either. Santelli went on a wild rant, Gibbs was asked about that point of view, and Gibbs responded because it was relevant to the question and they have the right to respond to anyone who influences the public discourse regarding the policies being implemented in this country. You keep saying "going after" like there's some tremendously unfair persecution going on, and it's utterly absurd.
... it makes blood shot out of my eyes. MARKY
Do you have an original thought or are you Beck?
Hey Ben, have you never heard that before Beck? Really? What about makes "my blood boil", "skin Crawl" "words make me blind", these have been around for a while.
Hey Ben, have you never heard that before Beck? marky
Really, never heard it befor beaver using it.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=it+makes+my+blood+boil&btnG=Google+Search&meta= sure, commonly used
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=it+makes+my+skin+crawl&btnG=Search&meta= same here
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=words+make+me+blind&btnG=Search&meta= never heard this expression and there ain't much on the google
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=it+makes+blood+shoot+out+my+eyes&meta= not much here unless you add "beck" and then...
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=+beck+it+makes+blood+shot+out+of+my+eyes&btnG=Search&meta=
Well, yeah, if you're going to use that foreign CANADIAN Google. I'm surpried it's not called "Google-eh?"...
Shh! I laboured on that!
I just want to know why the Press Secretary is evening talking about a private citizen. It seems the only time this administration talks about a news or radio personality it is when they come out against this administration. Why is that?
Your statement is just silly. First of all that "private citizen" is a public figure he is on CNBC. Second his reaction and vitriol needed to be combated , you can't get away with what he was attempting to do. Also the fact he feels it is ok th throw children out in the streets.
Why shouldn't they respond?
Has he been arrested? Has he been harmed? If not, then his right to free speech is intact.
Was he a private citizen when he made his rant or was he a reporter?
Did Santelli really think, that in this atmosphere of partisanship, that the rant he went on wasn't going to be circulated and magnified by right-wingers? He made himself a part of the debate, whether by intention or by lack of forethought, and therefore what he said got a response. The moral of the story is:if you don't like being pinpointed, don't fly off the handle on television.
I'm not sure where this notion came from that government officials can't respond to criticism from the private sector.
I think it's funny when the Troglodytes get all frothy about Obama responding to liars like Limbaugh. The ugly truth is that worms like Limbaugh and Hannity can only thrive if their lies go unchallenged. That's why they're whining so much now.
there was a certain poster on here who used to insist that answering these people, to paraphrase, "only gives them credibilty and mmfa is furthering the misinformation by even addressing it".
Yea, but remember the conservatives outrage at a private citizens group for their "Betrayus Ad". Congress had to pass legislation condemning it. Their such hyprocrites.
That's an excellent point. And legislation does take up time that could be used for more important things, unlike a minute or two of a press conference.
I'm still wondering why Congress has time to hold hearings on steroid use in Baseball.
Nerzog agree for once with your statments. Why?????????
Well, like the neo-con wiretap "argument", if he did nothing wrong, he's got nothing to worry about.
That's not my argument and surveillance of SUSPECTED terrorists is a slightly different than an IRS fishing expedition.
Will you volunteer for an audit?
And wiretapping unsuspected terrortists? Is that okay?
yes surveillance of suspected terrorists.....and everyone else in america. im sure there are records of these very posts somewhere in a secret database
Stop it ! You make an assumption that has not been verified and proceed to argue about the difference between wiretaps and an IRS "fishing" expedition that you have no proof is taking place. You conservatives and your party really are becoming the party of "Beavis and Butthead."(P.Krugman)
I guess you decided to move on to some other frivolous argument after Snoop provided you proof of those arrested and harrassed at Bush gatherings. Troll on!
You mean, the possibly millions of people that were wiretapped and listened into on that were not suspects? Because, that's who got wiretapped. It wasn't just a few bad apples rotting in the bottom of the barrel. The wiretaps were broad, and way overreaching. That's why we have a FISA court.
What IRS fishing expedition? You mean, the one you just made up?
Sorry foghorn, I should have refreshed. My fault.
Don't worry. Hopefully repetitive debunkings will get through the skulls of the ignorant. That's where their misinformation comes from in the first place - the repetitive bombardment of lies.
I love how Fog goes from IRS Audit to a Wiretap, love to know how that mind works. I am sure it goes something like ----- IRS -- I - I Am -- I am lost ---Yea Lost, wait Lost, OH Lost wait that is some good tv --- TV uummm love watching tv, I need to watch Idol tonight mmm Idol, Idol like Gore, Gore has good watches -- Looks at his watch says 10:51 ---One --- Two -- opps, what was I thinking? Looks up from the bar at Starbucks and sees a Neon sign ---- Neon, yea Neo- Con -- Neo Con, those greedy guys, wait I think I heard once on CBS about a neo con and a wire tap., Yea that is is, I will show Cheney - "Well, like the neo-con wiretap "argument", ' Well I showed him who is boss. Yea, I feel good about myself I just slammed a Righty. I think I will go and get my food stamps now.
That was a sterling example of projection. You outdo the 30-screen multiplex at the Shopping Mall.
A microphone and a TV spot..no power!!!!! Apparently the Cons saw his rant come through and kept replaying it over and over. So if I get audited it is because of what? Any American can get audited. Except you.
And since President Obama is the most powerful man in the world does that mean his Administration should just keep quiet. Dick, you are living in the past. The Democrats were not permitted to speak out under your junta....the tables are turned. The most powerful man, President Obama seems to speak out whenever the hell he wants to. And you are now officially in D.A. Limbaughs' dog house. He is the most powder full man in the world.
You sure the black helicopters aren't going to come for him? Besides, if he doesn't have anything to hide, then he doesn't have anything to worry about. Right?
"...and we are going after the reporter?" What part of rebuttal don't you understand. Classic dittohead thinking! Cheney says the guy will be audited, but there is no proof he will, and here you come saying that "we are going after the reporter." I"ll bet you lose when you shadow box.
I read though the transcipt your talking point is unsupported.
Your welcome.
DRM, yes, that is how this new Administration works. Always attack the messenger, and ignore the subject he was addressing.
The Obama Administration actually attacked his message. It's a lie that they attacked the messenger.
But we can understand how you could be confused. Those on the right assume that because everyone they pal around with is slime, that the Democrats are slime too. But they aren't. They don't attack the messenger. That's what the Bush Administration did, like to Joe Wilson and the former Press Secretary Scott McClellan.
Where was all this Troglodyte outrage when John McCain mentioned Kieth Olbermann by name? Or when Simple Sarah Palin was whining about Katie Couric?
Or, just how about when the republicans gripe and complain, en masse, about the "liberal media"? I mean, it's not as if they haven't been calling the media out for years on end here. And now, Gibbs responds to a question someone posed about this guy, and all of a sudden, they're going after reporters and the right wingers (on here at least) are upset about it?
Holy guacamole.
I saw the original press conference. As I recall -- and I wish someone would confirm -- a reporter asked Gibbs about the comments being made by Limbaugh and Santelli (or if not Santelli by name, by clearly identifying him somehow). Then Gibbs responded by discussing Santelli directly. It was not just Gibbs talking out of the blue.
How can Santelli keep his job? His outburst was disrespectful to the president and his team.
I disagree with what he said, but he certainly has the right to express his opinion. As the White House has the right to respond.That's a dangerous slope when you start firing reporters for disagreeing with the administration
start firing reporters for disagreeing with the administration
No, you fire them for being STUPID and unable to grasp the difference between "we don't know where he lives" and "we know where he lives".
The point though that I think is being missed is that Santelli hadn't even read the bill before he opined on it. His rant stooped to the lowest level and of course his populist rant found an uninformed audience, that's not shocking. Whats shocking is that it was promoted by MSNBC and and it's affiliates as representative of some sentiment. But uninformed sentiment, and for the sake of controversy and ratings they thought it was more important for THEIR bottom line to promote ignorance than to fulfill their responsibility to inform their viewers and excuse me for saying this, to be fair and balanced. You see it here by conservative posters presenting a false argument then proceeding to argue based on a false supposition. When called on it , they move onto some other nonsense or debunked myth(never letting a lie die)until your left scratching your head to the insanity of it all. They say(Republicans)govt. is the problem...yeah, the way they run it. Jindal critizing Bush's response to Katrina was hilarious. They are childish and I agree with Krugman they go around trying to find things that sound funny in a bill (like money for studying volcanoes to advert disaster)but really serves a purpose and then ridicule it, sort of like two adolescents "Beavis and Butthead."
He keeps his job because we have freedom of speech in this country. If he were to get fired for his little tirade, that would be utterly wrong and amazing at the same time. Do I think that this guy is a chowderhead? Yeah, definitely. Do I think he should lose his job because of his outburst? Not even close.
Exactly. And really, "disrespectful" to the President? What could be more subjective? If someone thinks Obama deserves criticism, they can express it and let people judge it appropriately. That's the same mode of thinking as conservatives questioning the patriotism of those that disagreed with them on Iraq, wireless wiretapping and torture.
But if the media doesn't do the job without bias, shouldn't they be fired? I know that Matt Laurer kinda stood up for the president, but still the damage was done and Santilli keeps himself in the spot light. That is why we should complain enough to get the fairness doctrine back.
DJ, do you know what the current over and under is on Santellin keeping his job is in Vegas is right now, I last heard a month. Two weeks to let it cool and then a two week notice. So guessing Santellin will be out of his job by what March 15th.
"No, you fire them for being STUPID and unable to grasp the difference between "we don't know where he lives" and "we know where he lives"."
Yes, leave that kind of talk to Bill O'Reilly.
Didn't G. Gordon Liddy once recommend that federal law enforcement officers be shot in the head because they might be wearing body armor? Why is an editor for CNBC appearing on that traitor's show? Is CNBC conspiring to violently overthrow the U.S. government?
G. Gordon Liddy, by any reasonable standard, and certainly by Republican standards (if they stick to their own standards for themeselves, which, not surprisingly, they won't), is a domestic terrorist. He conspired to blow up the Brookings Institution. That sounds like a terrorist to me.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Unlike Ayers who really did blow up something.
Obama knew Ayers, and McCain knows G. Gordon Liddy. Both terrorists by reasonable standards. The problem is that Republicans like to conveniently forget that little fact. Ayers always pops up as a subject, but G. Gordon Liddy somehow never makes it into the conversation. John McCain also attended an event with a woman who defended a bomber of an abortion clinic and said nothing. That seems to slip by conveniently as well. I guess the "liberal media" forgot to talk about that one.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
This air-head needs to do just as the Press Sec. suggested...get your facts straight before you go calling out the president of the United States...after all, he is not Fox News! Scared for his wife...B.S. He was just embarrassed!
Q On the foreclosure plan, aside from Rush Limbaugh and that cable rant on the floor of the Exchange, there really does appear to be some --
MR. GIBBS: Chuck's network? (Laughter.)
Q -- there really does appear to be some anger out there from people who just don't believe the President when he said that only people who acted responsibly are going to be helped here. How can you assure people that you're going to reward only people, only homeowners who acted responsibly?
MR. GIBBS: Well, let's go through this, because I do think this is very important. And I've watched Mr. Santelli on cable the past 24 hours or so. I'm not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives, or in what house he lives, but the American people are struggling every day to meet
The follow up question to Gibbs should have been, ..
Q - So would you answer the question - How can you assure people that you're going to reward only people, only homeowners who acted responsibly?
Gee Whiz, you are so very, very lame.
MR. GIBBS: Well, let's go through this, because I do think this is very important. And I've watched Mr. Santelli on cable the past 24 hours or so. I'm not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives, or in what house he lives, but the American people are struggling every day to meet their mortgage, stay in their job, pay their bills, to send their kids to school, and to hope that they don't get sick or that somebody they care for gets sick and sends them into bankruptcy.
I think we said a few months ago the adage that if it was good for a derivatives trader that it was good for Main Street. I think the verdict is in on that.
Here's what this plan will do: For the very first time, this plan helps those who have acted responsibly, played by the rules, and made their mortgage payments. This will help people who aren't in trouble yet keep from getting in trouble. You can't stay in this program unless you continue to make mortgage payments. That's important for Mr. Santelli and millions of Americans to understand.
Here's what this plan won't do: It won't help somebody trying to flip a house. It won't bail out an investor looking to make a quick buck. It won't help speculators that were betting on a risky market. And it is not going to help a lender who knowingly made a bad loan. And it is not going to help -- as the President said in Phoenix, it is not going to help somebody who has long ago known they were in a house they couldn't afford. That's why the President was very clear in saying this was not going to stop every person's home from being foreclosed.
But Mr. Santelli has argued, I think quite wrongly, that this plan won't help everyone. This plan will help, by the money that's invested in Freddie and Fannie -- will drive down mortgage rates for millions of Americans.
The President in his speech was very clear in saying that every American with a mortgage payment should call their lender and see if they can refinance right now. This plan helps people that have been playing by the rules but can't get refinancing, get that refinancing so their home doesn't become foreclosed on.
And Mr. Santelli might also know that if you live in a home that's near one that's been foreclosed, your home value has likely dropped about 9 percent, which for the average home is about $20,000.
Factcheck.org has challenged Obama's claim that only responsible homeowners will be aided. From their site:
Obama said his plan to help struggling homeowners would aid "responsible" borrowers but not someone "who bought a house he could never hope to afford."
But even the program's defenders concede that it can’t possibly distinguish between "responsible" borrowers and those who foolishly (or fraudulently) signed up for mortgages beyond their means. The Associated Press said Obama's words "ring hollow." And the news agency quoted the Federal Reserve chairman as saying even the foolish borrowers would be aided:
Sheila Bair, chair of the FDIC, also said there was no easy way to vet homeowners. "I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," she told NPR. And, Bair added, it’s in the "collective economic interest" to not have more foreclosed homes on the market. "To try to punish all of those parties now by foreclosing on more homes, putting more families on the street, putting more houses onto the inventory, creating more downward pressure on home prices when you have so much inventory on the market right now. Is that in our collective economic interest to do that? I just don't think that it is."
Do we think it's normal to be named by name, as opposed to the general media at large, say the cable guy or some of the comments? I find, my wife finds, and many of my friends find that the direct confrontation and pointing me out by name just is not ordinary, and I'll leave it at that and let people make their own judgment.
In other words, "I know I can't justify my whiny 'they're so mean to me' petulance, so I'll just throw out some innuendo and hope everyone thinks what I want them to think without my having to take responsibility for it."
HEY, out there! Can we pleeeese have a moratorium on FOOLS? ENOUGH!
I am reluctant to turn on my TV these days. Guys like Santelli should be put back in their cages and just ignored. Why is HE given air time? What a putz!
It does get frustrating! Santelli hadn't even read the bill and he was presented as some informed reporter representaing the public???? Why wasn't the 1st question out of these journalist mouth, "Have you read the bill completely and what sections of it do you find fault with? " After his rsponse No, I haven't read it, we as viewers could then decide what weight to place on his opinion. The telling part is that in his rant he doesn't specify any part of the bill???? A dead give-away to someone who is just trying to rant, the part that he was promoted by his channel is even more telling!
I had to scroll past most of this thread, the repetition of MrFoot asking why others didn't get it was a little tedious. I'll do the summary:On Planet Wingnut, Free speech means uncontested free speech (at leats for Repubs), and an administration answering BS directly is seen as wimpier than hiding behind scores of media mouthpieces who do the yapping while you clear brush.
Wow, what "great" discussions you all have had about Santelli (aka private citizen) vs Gibb (aka White House, Government, President Obama's Administration) last week. I just loved it, loved it, loved it.
Republicans just don't see "NO" right in "ANY" thing that gives credit or a positive moment to the Democrats or President Obama's Administration - period. Reading the responses from Republicans is like trying to pull teeth with chop sticks. The Democrats are yelling to the Republicans that they need something stronger, but the Republicans feeling great pain throughout their body stands firm in using the chop sticks because they heard what their leader Rush Limbaugh said on the radio for them to use, and he really knows alot about pulling teeth because he is ... brilliant like that (so say the Republicans).
Anyways, they will use their chop sticks trying to pull their teeth until the cows come home, and experience the pain day after day after day after day. Eventually the Democrats stop feeling sorry for them and begin to laugh at the craziness and just walk away shaking their heads with amazement. This is what I see here at MM with trying to debate these Republicans on "ANY" issue relating to the Democrats or President Obama. Why waist my precious time when in the end the Republicans are in pain and just won't budge without their Republican talking points from their leader Rush Limbaugh (who some say is a former drug addict), 'Smile'.
You think I'm out there with this way of thinking? Ask this question to a Republican - What is the relationship with Scooby Libby (formerly VP Cheney's CS) and Valerie P. (private citizen was employed as CIA Agent)? I see you get where I'm going with this, right? Now wait for the answer from the Republicans and I bet it is "CHOP STICKS", huh? Wink, wink.
<p><strong>Can You Say "Paranoid" ?,
This guy is part of the new UnAmerican, right-wing conspiracy. Soon they will start naming people The President slept with in High School, and guys he bought pot from in college. Their desparation would be comic if it weren't for the size of their sheep herd.
This whole situation reminds me of the time I was asked in an online Forum," Why aren't there any Liberal Talk Shows on radio?", and my answer was, " Because you can't distill intellectual concepts, nor complex ideas into 30 second sound bites, or 'Bumper Sticker' catch phrases".
We need to find a way to counter all the Garbage that Rush, Savage, and their ilk put out each day, the progressive thinker who comes up with some thing that will appeal to this vast radio audience, will surely qualify for sainthood!.</strong>
Hey HGMorgan4592,
This is a "GREAT" idea we can do here at Media Matters with coming up with a Progressive/Liberal "TRUE" Radio Show. Some of the best political minds (not in President Obama's Administration) are: Mr. James Carvelle, Mr. Keith Olbermann, Mr. Jon Stewart, and well these are some of my favorites that I know could do justice on the radio. Mr. Carvelle is just quick, smart and stand by his words no matter what -- a real true southern man...I just love him. Anyways, we may can name their Radio Show "Chop Sticks" referring to Republicans using Chop Sticks to pull their teeth 'cause Rush told them it works, ha ha...just a thought...