CNN's King mischaracterized Axelrod's Face the Nation exchange
SUMMARY: John King aired a clip of David Axelrod's Face the Nation appearance and suggested that Axelrod said tea party protests were "unhealthy." But King did not air the question Axelrod was asked, which was about both the tea parties and Gov. Rick Perry's comments about secession.
During the April 19 edition of CNN's State of the Union, host John King mischaracterized an exchange that occurred earlier that day between CBS' Face the Nation guest host Harry Smith and White House senior adviser David Axelrod. King claimed that Axelrod "was asked about these tax-day rallies, tea parties" and then played an edited clip of Axelrod saying, "I think any time that you have severe economic conditions, there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that's unhealthy." King later suggested that Axelrod said that it is "unhealthy for an American to go out and hold a sign and say, "I think my taxes are too high.' " However, at no point in the show did King play a clip of the full exchange between Smith and Axelrod, in which Smith asked about both tea parties generally and comments by Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) regarding secession.
Smith and Axelrod had the following exchange on Face the Nation:
SMITH: What do you make of this spreading and very public disaffection with, not only the government, but especially the Obama administration -- the tea parties this week? You even have the governor of Texas even using the word secession? What -- should Texas be allowed to secede?
AXELROD: Well, I don't think that really warrants a serious response. I don't think most Texans were all that enthused by the governor's --
SMITH: But what about the first part of the question. This building disaffection --
AXELROD: -- by the governor's suggestion. Look, I think any time -- I think any time that you have severe economic conditions, there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that's unhealthy.
SMITH: Is this unhealthy?
AXELROD: Well, we're in a -- this is a country where we value our liberties and our ability to express ourselves, and so far, these are expressions. Now, one thing I would say is, the thing that bewilders me is this president just cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people. So, I think the tea bags should be directed elsewhere, because he certainly understands the burden that people face.
From the April 19 edition of CNN's State of the Union:
KING: Well, a subset of the economy debate is taxes --
BILL BENNETT (CNN political contributor): Right.
KING: -- and Republicans have used higher taxes against Democrats for some time, and there were a bunch of events around the country this past Wednesday -- which was tax day, April 15 -- and a lot of people turned out to say they oppose this administration; they think, you know, it's going to raise taxes too much. They're arguing against the priorities of the Obama administration.
Mr. Axelrod, who we just heard a moment ago, senior adviser to the president, was asked about these tax day rallies, tea parties, on CBS, and he said this.
AXELROD [video clip]: I think any time that you have severe economic conditions, there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that's unhealthy.
KING: James Carville, is it mutating into something unhealthy --
JAMES CARVILLE (CNN political contributor): No.
KING: -- for an American to go out and hold a sign and say, "I think my taxes are too high"?
CARVILLE: No. And I love David Axelrod. And by the way, most Democrats I know are delighted with this. We couldn't get enough of this coverage. I mean, when a guy comes up and he says, "How many of you make under $250,000 a year?" They go, "Yeah, he's -- you're getting your tax cut." And then, they booed him.
This was -- I think, if anything, it was harmless and somewhat damaging to Republicans. I couldn't -- the more that we cover this thing, and the more we -- and the average age of these things had to be 72.4. I mean, they had every old crank in the country out there. Then they would put a couple of, like, kids on the front of it. I mean, they got -- but, please, let's cover this more.
BENNETT: That's a smarter response than Axelrod's, but I don't think -- I don't think it's accurate. Yeah.
KING: For the specific to have a senior adviser to the president of the United States saying it's unhealthy.
BENNETT: Terrible.
KING: They were just --
BENNETT: Terrible.
KING: -- they're out protesting.
BENNETT: This goes right into the [Homeland Security Secretary Janet] Napolitano thing. Unhealthy? What's the next thing, federal agents looking down at us -- look, people want to let off steam, they let off steam. These things were mostly very positive. The problem was -- as we say in philosophy -- insufficient options. Media coverage: The different network coverage on this was just horrible.
But I wish they had had a little more focus to them. But I think that'll happen. Right now, Barack Obama -- we're in the first 100 days. He's blocking out the sun. I mean, the guy, everything he does, it's all about Obama. Republicans will have their moment.
another swing and a miss by mmfa, and nice try to manipulate Axelrod's remarks, the "unhealthy" had nothing to do with secession. period.
No where did Axelrod say that the tea-baggers protest were unheathy! PERIOD!
He implied it, for sure. Smith said "the first part of my question" which was about the teabag protests, and that's when Axlerod said "unhealthy", and then backtracked when Smith called him out on it.
exactly. why Axelrod or his defenders cannot just say it was not the best word to use and move on. Instead they haul out the parsing playbook and try to spin it, absurd.
The drummed up Faux-induced protests were ugly and unhealthy. Of course they've a right to do it and no one is suggesting otherwise. There's nothing wrong with Axelrod's remarks. A tempest in a teapot.
No YOU are being absurd. My above post explains it. You guys need to remember that desperation is the worlds worst cologne
No he didnt. The first part of the question was specifically about dissastisfaction he geve two examples the teabag parties AND Perry talking about succession. He then asked about the DISSATISFACTION. So NO he in no way even implied that protests like the teabagging was unhealthy
The way I was the interview was that "there is always an element of disaffection" refers to the tea bag parties and "can mutate into something that's unhealthy" refers to the secession talk. Also, Axelrod says "this is a country where we value our liberties and our ability to express ourselves, and so far, these are expressions", which I believe refers to the tea bag parties. Now, if I saw King's report without seeing the entire interview, I would indeed believe he was referring only to the tea bag parties. I would have been misinformed.
You read it wrong, because you're ignoring that Smith specifically said "The first part of my question" before Axlerod starting saying "unhealthy".
I think you misread it because of your bias?
He said disaffection "can mutate into something that's unhealthy." Do you disagree?
why don't you show us exactly how King mischaracterizes Axelrod? mmfa keeps blurring the response with the secession comment and that is a flat out distortion.
When King misquoted Axelrod right here:
Axelrod: "unhealthy for an American to go out and hold a sign and say, 'I think my taxes are too high.'"
King isn't quoting Axelrod, he is askng Carville if holding a sign such as that is what Axelrod meant by mutating into something unlealthy. And why do you keep ignoring mmfa's distortion about saying the unhealthy remark was about secession? Do you agree it was?
I just showed you exactly where King mischaracterizes Axelrod. You asked, I answered. Go ahead and dismiss it, I don't mind.
As for secession, it was part of the question, but go ahead and dismiss it, I don't mind.
As for "mutating into something unlealthy", I think it for more probable that Axelrod was referring to one of the many "Obama Hilter" signs, then the "I hate Taxes" signs, if, in King's view, Axelrod's "can mutate" comment was specific to the Tea Parties.
you failed. as usual.
Wow, very well played. You win, as usual.
jimmyb, you always want to win, why? So here goes, I second the motion from Victor Colorado. You win. Do you feel happy now? I feel good for you because you are happy and are still as ignorant as always. Let me say you are the most Blissful person here.
P.S. You never answered the Victor question.
this thread is such a no brainer distortion by mmfa that any "win" is a hollow victory. and Victor never asked a question, he made a statement about a quote that was inaccurate. so you lose.
A "win" is a hollow victory, but yet you still feel compelled to tack on "you lose" at the end.
Your 1st reply to me was directly below my question, which remains unanswered:
Axlerod said disaffection "can mutate into something that's unhealthy." Do you disagree?
You're ignoring the context completely, and that's why people are ignoring you.
What???
BINGO.
You're ignoring the context completely
Ironic. You and jimmy are ignoring Axelrod's "context".
Exactly, that's why Dexter can't/won't expain his understanding of the proper context of Axelrod's remarks.
jamesB just did the same thing King did. He acts as if Smith's question stands alone by itself and then concludes that Axelrod's response applies only to the first part of a previous, multi-part question. If you watch the tape or read the transcript, you can see that Smith's second question is actually interrupting Axelrod's response to the first question. Axelrod was just trying to complete his thought after he was interrupted.
Not at all!
sorry, that ? was to dexteritas.
It doesn't matter whether I agree with that statement or not; it has nothing to do with the topic.
Ok then... but I for one think Axelrod's statement is germane to the topic.
You're taking it out of context though. Old bread can mutate into something unhealthy.
yep. The whole point that all the liberal word parsers continue to ignore is mmfa's false assertion that the "unhealthy" response had anything to do with secession, which it absolutely did not it any way, shape or form. That is why this thread is a dishonest manipulative distortion. and that is why the liberals defending it want to talk about mutations, it is hysterical.
"[T]he whole point" is not necessary what you say it is, nor is necessary what you think Media matters thinks it is. Axelrod clearly staes that people's disaffection w/ the gov't "can mutate into something that's unhealthy" and you can't bring yourself to agree or disagree with him. So you dodge and parse, which is fine by me.
as dexter said above, old bread can mutate into something unhealthy, so what? why you insist on some discussion on that is very clear, you want to ignore the flagrant distortion here by mmfa with regard to secession. we all get that, it's not working and that has you all ????? with your idiotic "What". give it up.
Dexter changes the topic to old bread and you say I'm the one wants to talk about it rather people's disaffection w/ the gov't??? Are you mad???
Man, what point are you trying to make?!?
That he can't carry Tommy's parsing purse.
What????????
In THIS context, we're talking about people's disaffection with the federal government. Why can't you agree or disagree with Axelrod here?
exactly, in which Axelrod said is "unhealthy", and then mmfa tried to blur that with the secession comment, unsuccessfully. except the liberals bought it hook line and sinker.
That's a lie. He did not say the disaffection was unhealthy.
Darn, I go away on a trip and I see you end up having all the fun poiting out the futility of MMFA's Parse and Score program. Unless they continue making mountains out of ant hills their followers would go into therapy for lack of things to complain about.
Next time you want to set the record straight letme know and I will help!
Is jamesB somehow not making mountains out of ant hills?
No, he just pointed out the inacurracy of MMFA's reporting and then the rest of you tried to Parse and Score but when failed you used the deflection technique of either changing the subject or asking a question back - and then trying to make him look bad for not replying to rediculous requests.
nailed it. and they think some of us are so incredibly stupid to fall for their diversion tactics and follow them. that's what has them so hysterical on this "unhealthy" comment. If they were honest they'd admit mmfa blew it big time, but like Axelrod, it's not in them.
jamesB,
I've been pointing similar misrepresentations by MMFA for years now. Very few times will anyone on the left admit what is readily apparent. :-) Most of the time they simply divert with parsing or name calling.
yeah, but it seems to be only a select few doesn't it? playing word parsing games with liberals is always fun watching what tactics they will employ to try and divert off the topic and argue some distraction. the name calling doesn't bother me in the least.
Yes or no, do you actually think Axelrod was referring to the tea party protests as an unhealtly mutation?
Right on cue - and stereotype. You couldn't have proved our point any better!!!
Oh - to Victor and the rest....doesn't history tell a story about a tea party in Boston that only involved a mere handful of the then residents on the continent? And what did that eventually lead to?
Second point, if the impact and resulting effect of the first tea party was unhealthy, what would a healthy response have been? What if those tea parties had been ridiculed as the left press is doing? I could use several other examples of the actions of the few making sweeping, positive changes...but that might burst your bubble.
Can you please show the quote where Axelrod said that tea-baggers were unhealthy? Speaking of history wasn't the boston tea-party about taxation without representation? The tea-baggers have representation except if their from Washington D.C.!
I only know what he said and what he responded to in this interview. It's all here, read it for yourself.
So you don't even know if Axelrod was referring to the tea party protests as an unhealtly mutation. Seriously, that is AWESOME! Keep on keeping on, jamesB!
to use the word "unhealthy" as a response, in any context, to a question about disaffection at the government during tough economic times is pretty telling, and scary, despite all the liberal rescue attempts to explain it away.
I see nothing wrong with it in this context, and no rescue from your gotcha attempts are needed.
IF you are so good that you can "know" what someone else was thinking or meant to convey with their words then we will annoint you the new ORacle of Delphi!
Threst of us mere mortals can only tell you what the words or dialog appear to suggest.
Yet jamesB "knows" with certainty that Axelrod was not speaking about Perry's secession comments when he used the word "unhealty". He "knows" it becuase he simply wants to paint a Democrat in the worst possible light. And he's somehow not parsing or playing word games when he does it. Quite a trick.
He appeared to be continuing his original answer.
The best argument you guys seem to have is that Axelrod considers the misdirection of activist energy to be unhealthy. That doesn't say anything about freedom of speech or right to protest either, so even then the dialogue is misleading. That's more of a matter of tone and partisanship. And if that was the case, why didn't Axelrod just say so, instead of what he actually said? That wouldn't seem to be a position that really required any backpedalling anyway.
The bottom line is that it makes a difference that he was asked about secession. That introduced an element of extremism well beyond the average behavior at a tea party. And even if that wasn't revealed, the following comment should have been. To pull that one line out of that exchange creates a completely different appearance.
OK let's go back to history. We had a tea party, which led to a revolution and "seccession" from the British Empire. By all of the left's positions put forth herein, you all back in the late 1700's would have condemned the actions of those few misplaced protestors. How dare they defy the central government. Clearly, whther axlerod meant the tea parties were unhealthy or the secession point unhealthy, I gues his use of the term would mean that he would classify the actions of our forefathers as UNHEALTHY!
And although MMFA puts forth an arguament that you can not compare the two ewvents, because the first tea party was about taxation without representation. But the whole point of it was that the colonies were represented - just those that represented them agreed with the British government. Here, those protesting most likely do not have the president they voted for representing them, and quite likely don't have the Senator or Representative they voted for representing them. So it is still a situation of taxation with representation - thus the protest or demonstration is the way to make their voices heard.
THus in the end it really doesn't matter whether axlerod used the term to refer to the first point or the second - it is and was an outrageous comment to make and clearly shows me this administration will stop at nothing to silence the voice of the right.
You need a serious history lesson, and just because you make up stuff in your mind doesn't mean it's true. You guys really need to check yourself! You have no argument but won't admit it! Please provide the quote from Axelrod that proves anything you've said! You haven't because you know your reaching! PROVIDE THE QUOTE FROM AXELROD THAT PROVES YOUR POSITION!
I guess if you're looking at it from the viewpoint of the British, losing the American colonies was "unhealthy". Is that the viewpoint you're coming from? You would side with the people in Texas if they decided to split off from the USA and you consider the opinion that such a thing is less than desirable to be "outrageous"?
Seriously, read your post again and think about what you're saying. Just a little bit, please.
Ok, I'll take the bait...
Your grasp on American history leaves something to be desired. The colonists participating in the original tea party were protesting being taxed without elected representation. The colonists and all other British citizens had zero say about who their leader (The King of England) would be. Let’s summarize the two “tea parties.”
1773 Tea Party – Colonists angry they are being taxed without elected representation by the King (A man born into privilege given a lifelong appointment to rule the country based on a fluke of birth) of England.
VS.
2009 Tea Parties - Conservative hacks whining that the government (elected officials) is spending too much money and “taxing” (their taxes have not actually been raised unless they make more than 250K per year) them.
Your second point seems to be that since the colonists eventually seceded from the British and America was born, this means that secessions are both healthy and worthwhile endeavors. I assume then that you would also say that the civil war (which started after the South seceded from the Union) which caused the deaths of roughly 620,000 Americans was “healthy.” Again let’s summarize:
1861 South Secedes – The South secedes from the Union because the States want more local control over government so that they can continue the immoral practice of slavery (subjugating, forced work for no pay, torturing, and killing of African-Americans for profit) which results in a costly war that leads to the deaths of roughly 620,000 American soldiers.
VS.
2009 Texas Secession comments – Texas governor suggests that secession might be a good way to solve the problem of elected government spending money and “raising” taxes on citizens.
Bravo right wing hacks! Bravo.
You mean a select few that will take the time to put up with your non-sense!!!
I mean no offense here but can all of you self-congratulating-MMFA-is-wrong guys take your self congratulating posts somewhere else please?
I read all the way to this point and was beginning to think "gee, these posters have meaningful stuff to say", till the name calling and group conratulating spoiled it all.
Thanks.
Add up the name calling - it is a good exercise I do often. This post like most it runs Left/Liberals 5 to every Right/Conservative 1. So I guess you are asking the left to depart?
But King did mischaracterize Axelrod's Face the Nation exchange. Axelrod never said there it was "unhealthy for an American to go out and hold a sign and say, 'I think my taxes are too high.'" Yet King suggested he did.
he did no such thing. You can't follow this can you? King was asking Carville, a committed liberal, to clarify if an American holding up such a sign was a mutation of something unhealthy based on severe economic conditions as explicitly laid out by Axelrod. There is no getting around what he said and what he responded too, it had not one damn thing to do with secession as mmfa says, for one thing, which is the crux of this and the other thread.
King said Axelrod's response was to a "question about tea parties" when in FACT, his reply was about more than that - which is why CNN only aired the repply and not the question. These typical gotcha games are just silly. But don't worry, you still win. Yay, you!
The same person who claimed that Limbaugh wasn't accusing Michael J. Fox of faking his Parkinson's Disease symptoms because Limbaugh said that Fox was acting...and Fox is an actor...now has the nerve to talk about admitting what is readily apparent. And has the nerve to talk about parsing, on top of it.
Heal thyself. With your history of flaming partisanship, you have exactly zero credibility in this regard.
I'm not deflecting anything. Axelrod's remark: that people's disaffection w/ the gov't can mutate into something that's unhealthy is simply not a problem with me, whether he's talking about Perry or Teg Baggers. But please... you two go ahead and make a mountain out of an ant hill.
But he didn't point out any inaccuracy? If he is saying Axelrod said the tea-baggers demonstrations was unhealthy he is wrong!
See my post above, if axlerod meqnt for "secession" to be unhealthy, and he had been an influence broker in the late 1700's our country would never have come into existence. Because wasn't secession from Britain the ultimate end to what the tea party started?
Regardless of what part of what sentence the word "unhealthy" modified or described, it was an unfortunate and STUPID comment for axlerod to make. And the mere fact that MMFA has no fewer than 4 posts devoted to deflecting the issue from what was said to how others are portraying it is by its own nature an indicment of axlerod.
I'am waiting for the quote that proves your point. The sentence that you haven't provided, because you know your just BS'ing. You keep talking about what was said but you haven't quoted Axelrod which tells me YOUR PARSING!
It's actually King that is making more of something than is really there.
you gotta it, this is a doozy. liberas have such a hard time trying to worm out of something they said, instead of a simple "sorry, wrong word", they stumble over each other trying to explain and parse it to death. they never change.
If Axelrod called peaceful protesters 'unheathly', then I'd be on him for an apology. But he didn't.
You don't even know what your arguing about!?! Please state your point clearly?
No you come back and join up with JamesB showing that your reading comprehension rivals that of a goldfish. The real futility is trying to explain something obvious to people like the two of you who either arent bright enough to GET the point or are comitted to not getting the point out of pure partisan blindness
I think that analogy backfires on you. If anything can become unhealthy, then that's even less reason to believe that it was any condemnation of the tea parties themselves, anymore than expressing disgust over mold would be a criticism of bread itself.
and Wordly, look at this pedestrian deflection from the number one extraordinare on this website for doing exactly that. This post above needs to be in the hall of fame for trying. can't stop laughing.........
Why is it a "deflection" to address a comparison that someone else made? If it wasn't supposed to mean anything, then he shouldn't have posted it. If it was supposed to be relevant, then I have the right to challenge it.
Deflecting you haven't provided anything to deflect. Provide the quote CHICKEN!
"anymore than expressing disgust over mold would be a criticism of bread itself"
this ranks up there with THE most inane, unparalleled most ridiculous post on this website to ever grace these boards since I have been reading. I think I will print and post on my wall, this is a winner. LOL!
but that gem of yours did accomplish one thing. Next time I bite into a piece of moldy bread I am going to specifically parse my anger and say I am not criticizing the bread itself, I am just expressing disgust over the mold. OMG!
No you haven't gone far enough. You also need to blame someone who palyed a part in the bread before you because somehow they failed to do something right or the bread would never have gone moldy. Then keep complaining instead of working on a fix as complaining makes you feel like the bigger person! LMAO.
Heckle and Jekly,a perfect pair of nuts!
Not "the bread", just "bread". Just as you wouldn't be talking about a specific protest, but all protests.
I'm not the one who made the comparison. I just explained why I didn't think it worked in Dex's favor particularly well. Your unwillingness to address that, combined with your overcompensating reaction, suggests to me that you don't have an argument to make here.
just "bread".
Well, It don't matter to me if james is dishonest in his posts. If he would produce one coherent argument, I would give everything I own to his favorite charity.
Actually I don't think I misunderstood the interview. I believe "disaffection" refers to the tea bag parties and the "mutate into something that's unhealthy" is the secession talk. It all hinges on "there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into so ething that's unhealthy". There were 2 issues on the table at once, tea bag and secession. When Smith interupted Axelrod with "but what about the first part of the question", Axelrod's "element of disaffection" point was addressing that question and then he returned to the secession issue with the "unhealthy" bit. There is certainly some ambiguity here, but that is my interpretation of it. Bottom line, I think King did a crappy job of informing the public of the question that was asked.
Fine, we'll chalk it up to Axelrod's inability to answer the question directly (which is a disorder that affects all WH press secretaries immediately upon taking the position.)
And to some posters who only wish to ask questions, get them answered and ignore the answers. But they never seem to like the opposite.
No the first part of the question was about the DISSATISFACTION of which the teabag parties were one of two examples he then asked SPECIFICALLY about the first part of the question about the DISSATISFACTION. NOT the first part about the teabag parties.
Agreed, James. In fact, Axelrod was right on: the entire tea party fiasco trumpted by Freedom Watch, FNC & FBN was indeed unhealthy and a complete farce.
If I recall correctly. Last week I sent a message concerning that circus we call "the state of the Union" where this clown named John King carries forcefully the rightwing talking point. We can remember two weeks ago when he tried to give that "polarizing president" BS more leverage by refering to Pew Research Poll which itself calls against any quick conclusion like the Karl Rove of the world.
IT'S TIME TO START FOCUSING ON THOSE HUSTLERS ON CNN WHO PRETEND TO BE OBJECTIVE AND I'M GLAD THAT MMA IS PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT PHONY.
I emailed CNN and ask them to get it right. At this time in America, we do not need nonsense occupying the debate.
We need people on their game and contributing to how we're going to fix things.
Misrepresenting what has been said helps no one
Did anyone see Michael Smirconish(sp) on "Reliable Sources" yesterday? I think the point he makes about how cable news fosters this phony adverserial conflict no matter how absurd the positions in place of real debate and discourse is very revealing! Also his comment's concerning David Gregory's refusal to book him on his 1600 show, really hammers home how "news" has very little to do with cable news and everything to do with ego's and entertainment.
SMERCONISH: Well, I think it's very common. It's exactly what I was just describing. I mean, it's this mentality that says that only good television is television which pits one individual against another and there's a fight that ensues. I just don't believe that.
I mean, what's wrong with a host taking a contrarian point of view in a respectful way? I think the viewers get all that they need. But you're right, in that circumstance -- and I raised it just as one clear example -- my invitation was predicated on my willingness to say that Barack Obama was cocky or that Hillary was untrustworthy. And I was unwilling in that circumstance to say either.
And then there's the pettiness of David Gregory:
CONISH: In that circumstance, I had appeared, as I continue to, on a variety of MSNBC programs. I've had a relationship with Chris Matthews for years, and I had been appearing both regularly on "Hardball" and on David's program. David let it be known that he had wished I had come forth on his program and not on "Hardball" to make clear how I viewed the presidential race.
And then there's the pettiness of David Gregory:
CONISH: In that circumstance, I had appeared, as I continue to, on a variety of MSNBC programs. I've had a relationship with Chris Matthews for years, and I had been appearing both regularly on "Hardball" and on David's program. David let it be known that he had wished I had come forth on his program and not on "Hardball" to make clear how I viewed the presidential race.
KURTZ: And you were then canceled for an appearance on Gregory's program?
SMERCONISH: I didn't come back on that program until after David had given up the program and David Shuster was the host. And when David Shuster came back as the host, all of a sudden, my invitations were more forthcoming.
And then there is the speeches by Amy Goodman and Glenn Greenwald March 31, on the Political Media given receiving their Izzy Awards here is the link :
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/19/izzy_awards/index.html?source=newsletter
Not only were the tea-bagging parties unhealthy they were stupid and a fox news backed joke what were these clowns protesting BUSH'S trillion dollar that was the wrong country that we attacked. these people are just fox news OBAMA haters!
how many comments must I post to get them printed?