About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Conservative media invoke Wellstone memorial smear in predicting politicization of Kennedy's death

August 27, 2009 8:58 am ET — 127 Comments

Following Sen. Ted Kennedy's death, conservative media figures have returned to the smear that the memorial service for Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) became "a political rally" to suggest that progressives will excessively politicize Kennedy's death. But as now-Sen. Al Franken documented at length, the claim that Wellstone's memorial was politicized is a myth based on distortions propagated by the conservative media.

Conservative media invoke Wellstone smear in anticipation of Kennedy's service

Hannity on Kennedy's death: "a lot of this was the politicizing of -- remember Paul Wellstone's death?" Discussing Kennedy's death during his radio program, Sean Hannity asserted, "We've got The Wall Street Journal reporting -- and by the way, a lot of this was the politicizing of -- remember Paul Wellstone's death? You know, 'Let's do everything for Paul.' And we're now being implored to get behind Obamacare because it's what Ted Kennedy would have wanted." [The Sean Hannity Show, 8/26/09]

Savage fill-in Markowski on possible naming of health care bill after Kennedy: "It's political theater" like the "Wellstone memorial." Chris Markowski, filling in for Michael Savage on his radio program, took a caller who said that "if Ted Kennedy had wanted his name on this health care bill, I think that he would -- I would want to see where he said that in writing before he died. He had plenty of time." Markowski responded, in part, by asserting: "I don't think he's requested -- you got to understand, it's a show. OK? It's political theater. Like the Democrats thought that whole Wellstone memorial was going to -- it was going to force them to -- it was going to allow them to win the Senate race in Minnesota. This is political theater. It's a show." [The Savage Nation, 8/26/09]

Lopez on Kennedy's death: Wellstone service "turned into a political rally." The National Review Online's Kathyrn Jean Lopez wrote in an August 26 post to the blog The Corner titled "Re: The Politics of Ted Kennedy's Passing": "All politicos need to remember the Wellstone funeral when a well-known politician dies. Instead of memorializing his life, his service turned into a political rally. Some of the MSNBC coverage today I'm catching looks like a [sic] Obamacare convocation. Human life is about more than poltics. And politics isn't American Idol. Or, even, The Lion of the Senate."

Allahpundit "sure" Kennedy "eulogies won't be politicized at all." Hot Air blogger Allahpundit wrote in an August 26 tweet: "Looking forward to the Democratic line-up at TK's memorial service. I'm sure the eulogies won't be politicized at all."

Instapundit: "A Wellstone Memorial on steroids?" An August 26 post on Instapundit.com linked to a post by JammieWearingFool with the headline "A Wellstone Memorial on steroids? And how did that work out?" JammieWearingFool asserted in the post, written the same day, "While we have no doubt the Democrats will do all they can to exploit his death and will probably have a Wellstone memorial on steroids, we'll stay above that." The link on the words "Wellstone memorial" were to an October 30, 2002, Slate.com article describing Wellstone's memorial services as a "pep rally."

Noting "conservative talking point," Politico's Smith says "[i]t would seem odd to bar politics" from Kennedy's funeral. In an August 26 post, Politico's Ben Smith referred to the comments by Allahpundit and Instapundit as "a conservative talking point [that] is emerging to counter the the hope on the left that Kennedy's death will advance his cause of health care reform," and commented:

It would seem odd to bar politics from the funeral of an intensely political figure who took his causes so personally, but the Kennedy family, the White House, and Senate Democrats -- as well as their foes -- will be navigating complicated, and political, terrain in the days ahead, with real advantage to be won and lost on one of Kennedy's signature causes.

Franken debunked Wellstone smear in 2003 book

Al Franken: " 'This Was Not a Memorial to Paul Wellstone': A Case Study in Right-Wing Lies." In his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Dutton, 2003), Franken wrote:

Paul died on October 25, 2002, when his plane went down in Northern Minnesota. Sheila; their daughter, Marcia; his driver, Will McLaughlin; two other close aides, Tom Lapic and Mary McEvoy; and two pilots died with him. Four days later, C-SPAN, along with almost every Minnesota TV and radio station, carried a hastily-put-together memorial service for Paul, Sheila, Marcia, Will, Tom, and Mary. I was there. It was a beautiful memorial, sometimes incredibly sad, sometimes funny, sometimes rowdy, and sometimes political. Some people watching on television were offended. Some people were moved. But the right saw an opening. They took moments out of context, lied about the rest, and used it as a political club to attack the Democrats. It won them the Senate election in Minnesota and probably in Missouri, which means it gave Republicans control of the Senate.

This chapter is a case study of how the right lies and viciously distorts. It is the story of how the right-wing media repeats its fabrications until they echo into the mainstream press. It is a story of pure cynicism in pursuit of power. It is the story of how the lying liars took the death of my friends and invented a myth that changed the 2002 elections. [Pages 178-179]

"[T]en-second clips" created partisan picture. Franken explained that a eulogy delivered by "Wellstone's best friend Rick Kahn," "[o]ne of the eight eulogies that night," included calling on the audience to "win this election for Paul Wellstone." Franken noted that to those who "only saw the ten-second clips that were later repeated and repeated on TV, it looked like Kahn and the crowd were just being foot-stompingly partisan -- that Wellstone's death was being used for political gain." Franken continued:

But Kahn's speech was also full of phrases like "[our] hearts are now shattered" and "tonight we are filled to overflowing with overwhelming grief and sorrow." This speech was coming from someone who was crushed by the deaths of his best friend, his best friend's wife, his best friend's daughter, and three other very close friends. Yeah, it had some inappropriate moments. But I assumed that people would understand, and cut the man a little slack. [Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Pages 183-185]

Speeches not vetted by memorial organizers. Franken included the following statement from Ann Mulholland, who helped plan the memorial:

We asked each family to choose someone to do the eulogy. At no point did it ever cross anyone's mind to read the speeches. The day before, the people from the hearing impaired group asked, "Do you have any of the speeches?" I just laughed. They wanted to type the speeches in for the closed captioning, but we just didn't have anything.

On Monday night, our press guy said to me, "Oh my gosh -- this is going to be on TV. Should we be thinking about something?" By then, it was just kind of too late. [Page 192]

"Political" smear started by GOP operatives including former Rep. Weber, who later admitted "there was some very nice stuff" at the service. Franken wrote:

The morning after the memorial, I picked up the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and turned to the special section devoted to the event. It was titled "One Last Rally: Victims Remembered with Cheers and Tears," with a heartbreaking picture of Paul and Sheila's granddaughter, Cari, crying. There were two stories on the front page. One was about the event itself: "Overflow Crowd Pays Tribute to Wellstone." The other was about GOP spin: "Republicans Decry Service as Political." With the stories side by side, it was as if two different events had taken place. The real one, and the lie one.

Vin Weber was framing the Republican story line. "This was NOT a memorial to Paul Wellstone. This was a political event." Weber said that the event was a "complete, total, absolute sham" and accused the Democrats of "exploit[ing] Wellstone's memory totally, completely and shamelessly for political gain."

[...]

When I called Vin Weber to research this chapter, I asked him whether he had watched the whole event and whether he had seen any of the eulogies. He said, "Yeah, there was some very nice stuff." This candid Vin was a refreshing break from the lying Vin who talked to the Star Tribune in 2002. But Lying Vin had planted the story line: The memorial was a total sham, a political charade. [Pages 186-187]

Franken traces spin of memorial as "political event" through media. Franken documented the evolution in the media of the smear that Wellstone's memorial service was politicized. He traced the Republican spin of the memorial service as a "political event" from the Minneapolis Star Tribune to C-SPAN's Washington Journal to Rush Limbaugh and eventually to "the mainstream" with Tucker Carlson, who claimed on CNN's Crossfire that "a memorial service for the late Senator Paul Wellstone was hijacked by partisan zealots and turned into a political rally. Republican friends of Senator Wellstone were booed and shouted down as they tried to speak." But Franken undercut those claims in an interview with Carlson documented in the book. Under Franken's questioning, Carlson admitted he had not yet seen the tape of the memorial when he made those claims and was under the incorrect assumption that Kahn was not in fact Wellstone's best friend. Moreover, there were no "Republican friends of Wellstone" who spoke or attempted to speak at the funeral, a fact Carlson acknowledged in his conversations with Franken. Nonetheless, the myth that the memorial was a political event continued to spread throughout the media. [Pages 193-195]

Media similarly accused liberals of politicizing King's funeral, but ignored politicization of Reagan's

Media highlighted purportedly "partisan" funeral of Coretta Scott King. As Media Matters for America documented, the claims that King's funeral was "partisan" stemmed primarily from a tribute delivered by civil rights activist Rev. Joseph Lowery, which included a reference to prewar intelligence failures in Iraq, and one by former President Jimmy Carter, who made what many interpreted as a reference to President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program.

But media ignored political elements of Reagan's funeral. President Ronald Reagan's funeral did not provoke similar scrutiny, despite clear political overtones. For example, the media largely ignored the fact that no Democrats were invited to speak at either the funeral at the National Cathedral or at a ceremony held on Capitol Hill two days earlier.

Transcripts

From the August 26 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' and Premiere Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:

HANNITY: And it is the degree to which the mainstream media has tried to, you know, not talk about his family, not talk about how he battled brain cancer, not talk about -- oh, well, some people did bring up the more controversial aspects of his life. But to the extent that it has been used by so many on the left to promote Obamacare, it is, you know -- that somehow, his death is added reason now to make its passage.

Now, I just -- we have Senator Byrd, according to the Politico, wants Democrats to rename the Obamacare bill after Ted Kennedy. I don't know if they want to call it "Kennedycare," and I'm not sure what the name is here, but -- "Ailing Senator Robert Byrd, one of only two to have served longer than Kennedy, suggests, in an emotional statement, renaming the pending health care legislation for the late Massachusetts senator. 'In his honor and as a tribute to his commitment to the ideals, let us stop the shouting and name-calling and have a civilized debate on health care reform, which, I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name for his commitment to insuring the health of every American.' "

We've got The Wall Street Journal reporting -- and by the way, a lot of this was the politicizing of -- remember Paul Wellstone's death? You know, "Let's do everything for Paul." And we're now being implored to get behind Obamacare because it's what Ted Kennedy would have wanted.

From the August 26 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:

MARKOWSKI: We got Mike on the phone from Portland, Oregon. Mike, Welcome to The Savage Nation.

CALLER: Yeah, hello. My comment was that if Ted Kennedy had wanted his name on this health care bill, I think that he would -- I would want to see where he said that in writing before he died. He had plenty of time to say, "Hey" --

MARKOWSKI: I don't think he's requested -- you got to understand, it's a show. OK? It's political theater. Like the Democrats thought that whole Wellstone memorial was going to -- it was going to force them to -- it was going to allow them to win the Senate race in Minnesota. This is political theater. It's a show.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (August 27, 2009 9:44 am ET)
      2 1
      I would say that if members of Kennedy's own party want to politicize it (not saying they do), they have that right. The opposing party really does not, unless it's simply in response.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (August 27, 2009 10:34 pm ET)
        3 2
        Well, that was the issue with Wellstone's. No matter what happened, his family can have any kind of service they want. It was no one's business what happened, and the fact that the media cried foul was just unbelieveable.

        The whole 2000-2004 era will go down as a very bad period for the American MSM.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (August 27, 2009 9:47 am ET)
      12 2
      I wonder if the public will be smart enough to see the irony of the right's incessant references to politicization of Kennedy's (or Wellstone's) death.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (August 27, 2009 10:05 am ET)
        9 2
        It would be hard to match the politicization of his death that they've already thrown out in the last 24hrs
        Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (August 27, 2009 10:28 am ET)
      13 2
      So, let me get this straight.

      A man spends almost his entire life in, well, politics, such as Kennedy did.

      Republicans are worried that his funeral and memorial service is somehow going to be "politicized".

      It should be no question, of COURSE politics are going to come up, that's what this man did, as I said, almost his entire life. Of course there are going to be things that are going to be a rallying cry around Kennedy's death, seeing as he also spent most of his life working on, and trying to improve, health care.

      You can't be a politician for your entire life, and then expect that whole thing to be ignored when you pass away. It's just ridiculous.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by puppienrainbows (August 27, 2009 11:20 am ET)
        5 14
        I believe,IMHO, the republicans are concerned that when they arrive to pay their respect to Kennedy, they will be subjected to booing, hissing and catcalls, as they were at the Wellstone memorial.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dr. matt (August 27, 2009 11:31 am ET)
          10 6
          They are worried about something that hasn't even happened and that no one is suggesting that should happen. Yeah, more proof that reich-wingers invest too much into their tin foil hats.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by BillJ-MN (August 27, 2009 12:09 pm ET)
          12 4
          I watched the Wellstone Memorial live. The tiny smattering of boos was so brief and scattered as to be almost completely undetectable.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by BillJ-MN (August 27, 2009 3:22 pm ET)
            4 3
            Quick clarification. I was not in live attendance at the memorial. I watched the live broadcast. I was watching when Lott went up on the jumbotron and didn't hear the boos at that time. I took the word of others that there was a smattering.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (August 28, 2009 1:18 am ET)
              1 8
              Ah change we can believe in. First the boos were brief and scattered and almost completely undetectable. Then magically you didn't even hear them but just took the word of others.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by BillJ-MN (August 28, 2009 7:58 am ET)
                4 1
                Don't be an idiot. No, I did not hear the boos on the broadcast while I was watching live. I knew people who did attend the memorial who did hear a small number of boos when Lott appeared on the jumbotron. There was nothing in my second post that contradicted anything in my first. I mostly didn't want to leave the impression that I was in attendance at the memorial.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by ReasonAndResolve (August 27, 2009 12:14 pm ET)
          8 3
          It didn't happen at the Wellstone Memorial and it is doubtful it will happen at the Kennedy Memorial. But, it makes a nice talking point for the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (August 27, 2009 10:10 pm ET)
            2 6
            The estimates of how many people were booing range from about 200 to 20,000 so obviously it did happen. To what extent it happened is what is in dispute. Not if it happened.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by darkmass (August 28, 2009 12:04 am ET)
              5 1
              The estimates of how many people were booing range from about 200 to 20,000 so obviously it did happen. To what extent it happened is what is in dispute. Not if it happened.
              Are those your personal estimates? If so, you are correct not to provide reputable sources.

              However, if they are not your personal estimates, then perhaps your continuing campaign to be taken as credible would benefit from providing those reputable sources you are withholding.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by fairliberal (August 28, 2009 12:54 am ET)
                3 4
                Actually the estimate of 200 was provided by none other than Al Franken, you can find his article linked in this thread. I know that Franken is not very reputable but he will have to do for now. The estimates of 20,000 are equally incorrect and were the claims of some righties. Franken also mentions those estimates. I am dismissing them just as I am dismissing Frankens, the logical answer is somewhere in the middle. Are you even aware of what Franken said about it?

                Perhaps you should check what he said before you question me.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by cdmsr (August 28, 2009 12:52 am ET)
              4 2
              If a "report" has a range of 200 to 20,000 people doing something, it is probably a lie. More likely, it is a falsehood that is exaggerated and ambellished as it passes from one liar to another to another . . . ad nauseum.

              I went to the casino the other night and lost 200 t0 20,000 dollars.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by fairliberal (August 28, 2009 1:15 pm ET)
                2 4
                Wow, speaking of lies, I never used the word report. But you use it and put quotations on it to imply that I or another used it also. And had you even bothered to read Al Franken's article on it you would know that he referenced both estimates. The 200 was his estimate and the 20,000 was Peggy Noonan's and others. Are you calling Al Franken a liar?

                Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (August 27, 2009 12:45 pm ET)
          8 4
          Unlike republicans, when someone dies, democrats tend to have respect. And if they're so worried about getting "booed" maybe they ought to just stay home?

          And what you said happened at the Wellstone memorial, well, it never happened.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ReasonAndResolve (August 27, 2009 1:30 pm ET)
            6 4
            Or maybe they ought to behave in a manner that might not inspire boos.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by puppienrainbows (August 27, 2009 3:06 pm ET)
            5 6
            You're contradicting what billj-mn said, who saw the memorial live. Billj quantified the booing, but substantiating the claim. So, who's lying, you or billj-mn?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Craig (August 27, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
              5 4
              Booing, hissing and catcalls is not the same brief smattering of boos. No contradiction.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by fairliberal (August 27, 2009 9:36 pm ET)
                4 5
                Booing and a smattering of boos are not the same?

                Interesting logic, or is it biased logic?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by fairliberal (August 27, 2009 10:39 pm ET)
                  3 5
                  And Al Franken also stated that it did happen. He even denied that he booed, why would he do that if there was no booing?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Craig (August 27, 2009 11:42 pm ET)
                  2 4
                  Nice editing. With that level of blatant, transparent dishonesty you could work at Fox.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (August 27, 2009 9:18 pm ET)
              3 3
              So, who's lying, you or billj-mn?
              Once again, it is puppiesandrainbows(I) who is lying.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (August 27, 2009 10:14 pm ET)
            3 3
            Al Franken says it happened.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Craig (August 27, 2009 11:47 pm ET)
              3 3
              Well, he was there.

              It was the Republicans that tried to cheapen Paul Wellstone's life by dishonoring his death. It was the right-wing media, not the friends and family who spoke at the memorial or the people who came to it, that seized an opportunity to use a tragedy for political gain.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by fairliberal (August 28, 2009 12:58 am ET)
                3 6
                Well perhaps you should read what your good buddy Al Franken said about the event, he did acknowledge the offensive behavior of some speakers and the booing of some in the crowd. Did he not?

                Who is editing now?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Craig (August 28, 2009 1:27 am ET)
                  5 3
                  You. Franken:

                  I didn't boo. Neither did 22,800 of the some 23,000 people there. This has been a much discussed, much lied about aspect of the memorial. A number of Republicans, like Peggy Noonan and Weekly Standard writer Chris Caldwell claimed that 20,000 people had booed Trent Lott. (Caldwell claimed that 20,000 people booed a whole litany of people who weren't booed at all.) We'll never get an actual count - but I'd say about two hundred people booed Trent Lott when his face came on the Jumbotron. This was about a minute after 23,000 people cheered for Bill Clinton when his face appeared on the Jumbotron.

                  The Jumbotron was carrying the C-SPAN feed, and unless you were watching live, you almost certainly have never seen the moment that Trent Lott was booed. That's because none of the cable news shows repeated it. That's because you can't hear him being booed. And that's because so few people booed him. Also, I swear, it was a good-natured "kill the umpire" boo, (and Lott actually grinned) but I could never prove that. What I have proven is that you couldn't hear the boos on TV because on my book-on-tape I played the audio of the C-SPAN video to compare the 23,000 cheering for Clinton with the smattering of boos for Lott, and you CANNOT hear the boos.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by fairliberal (August 28, 2009 10:19 pm ET)
                    2 6
                    Wow , you can copy and paste good job. And it is nice to see you confirm exactly what I said.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Craig (August 29, 2009 5:50 pm ET)
                      3  
                      No, you left out Franken's characterization of the booing as good-natured and the fact that the boos were so few that they were inaudible on the broadcast. In short, you cited Franken when he supported your opinion and ignored him when he contradicted it. So I posted his actual words to show how disingenuous you are.
                      Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (August 27, 2009 3:18 pm ET)
          7 3
          So a group of republicans who have been vocally trashing kennedy's life want to go to his funeral but are afraid they might get boo'd. Why do they want to go see a man who's politics they hate? They just trying to make sure he's dead?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (August 27, 2009 10:41 pm ET)
            3 6
            Could you point out what those repubs who want to go to the funeral said when they trashed Kennedy's life? Could you even point out who they are, I would be interested to know what they said, it might change my opinion of them.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (August 28, 2009 12:34 pm ET)
              3 3
              why don't you ask puppies who they are? She's the one giving some vague nebulous claim of republicans wanting to go but afraid of getting boo'd. Without more detail from her, I can only assume her IMHO was formed while listening to talking heads on radio and tv.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by fairliberal (August 28, 2009 1:19 pm ET)
                2 5
                "So a group of republicans who have been vocally trashing kennedy's life want to go to his funeral but are afraid they might get boo'd. "

                Those are your words, no one elses.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by snoopy (August 28, 2009 1:29 pm ET)
                  4 2
                  I believe,IMHO, the republicans are concerned that when they arrive to pay their respect to Kennedy, they will be subjected to booing, hissing and catcalls, as they were at the Wellstone memorial.


                  those are the words puppies wrote that I responded to, no one elses. Try again.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by fairliberal (August 28, 2009 10:23 pm ET)
                    2 5
                    You are the one that claimed that they were trashing Kennedy, no one else. that at least implies that you know who they are and what they said. But it seems once again you know nothing. More smoke.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by snoopy (August 28, 2009 11:01 pm ET)
                      4 2
                      As I said before,

                      Without more detail from her, I can only assume her IMHO was formed while listening to talking heads on radio and tv.


                      That was the part of my statement you purposely left out. I always find it amazing how people like you like to cut and paste to get the answer you want instead of the truth you demand. But why expect more from someone who can't read beyond a bumper sticker?
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by Teri Foss (August 28, 2009 2:22 pm ET)
                6 1
                Attendance at a funeral or memorial is for those that have genuine memories of the deceased. If they're motive is to truly pay their respects, the authenticity of their admiration and the desire to express it in the person's passing should cancel all fears. If they're fears of being "booed" are still persistent, than they're feelings are not genuine and they have no place at the service.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (August 27, 2009 9:16 pm ET)
          3 3
          I believe,IMHO, the republicans are concerned that when they arrive to pay their respect to Kennedy, they will be subjected to booing, hissing and catcalls, as they were at the Wellstone memorial.
          I would take you seriously,puppiesandrainbows(I), if what you refer to actually happened. It didn't and your ongoing ignorance is not surprising.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by right ON (August 27, 2009 11:26 am ET)
        10 2
        You are absolutely right. Let those that eulogize and honor Ted Kennedy do so by invoking his passions and ideals during this time. If they want to toss in a little political message, so be it. Kennedy liked to tangle and mix it up with those he worked with on issues that were important to him. It's what he spent much of his life doing in the Senate. I agreed with very little of his politics, but I believe he was well liked and respected and he served his country and his state for decades. People like Hannity and his ilk are to be ignored. They have no respect, and deserve the same.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by political_left-religious_right (August 27, 2009 12:35 pm ET)
          6 1
          Bullseye, rightON.

          I'd like to see more emphasis placed on Kennedy's willingness to work with people across the aisle. He co-sponsored many pieces of legislation with Republicans. In fact, Sen. Dan Quayle's only piece of authored legislation was co-written by Kennedy.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 28, 2009 1:27 pm ET)
          2 1
          You are correct, RightOn. Well said. Although, I really am not that surprised or disgusted by either side trying to politicize his death. What disgusts me is when those who politicize his death act outraged at others who do the same. The hypocrisy on either side is annoying.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (August 27, 2009 4:31 pm ET)
        3 7
        You seem to do a good job on ignoring the fact that your great man was actually a drunken killer whos family money come from bootlegging and the mob.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (August 27, 2009 6:14 pm ET)
          5 2
          ...says the man who's own hero got family money from dealing with the nazi's and trading with the enemy.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by skatscan5624 (August 27, 2009 7:51 pm ET)
            7 1
            and married a murderer, himself.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (August 27, 2009 9:46 pm ET)
              3 5
              What a classless post. And of course like most garbage from the left untrue.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by carlileb5935 (August 27, 2009 10:37 pm ET)
              4 3
              Why did Laura Bush run her car into her ex-boyfriend who she and her friends had just seen up at lover's lane, and killed him?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by fairliberal (August 27, 2009 11:03 pm ET)
                3 4
                Thats garbage, Laura left her home and picked up a friend and that is when the accident happened. Why not show some proof for what you say?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 28, 2009 1:15 pm ET)
                  4 2
                  The facts are that she ran a stop sign on her way to a party and killed her ex-boyfriend. We do not know how fast she was going or how much alcohol she had consumed. We do not know these answers because the investigation into this accident was pathetic. Through poor decision-making she accidentally killed a friend. Much as Kennedy did. He was actually prosecuted for his. What charges were levied against Laura Welch? Show me your facts that refute this and please - feel free to reference whatever Paris periodical you see fit.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by fairliberal (August 28, 2009 10:36 pm ET)
                    1 4
                    The police said no alcohol was involved, I guess that is not good enough for you. The police also determined that no charges were warranted. I guess that is not good enough for you. Were you there? Do you know something that no one else knows? Speak up.

                    What a hypocritical bunch we have here at MMFA. On Wed, the day that Ted Kennedy's death was announced, I saw numerous post about the predictions that Fox in particular would be trashing Kennedy. Did it happen? No it didn't. What did happen was the classless libtards who were wrong, they dragged out stories about 2 former first ladies, one about 90 years old. Wow what class. Highly evolved and very intelligent people. At least in their own minds. They keep telling us that anyway.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by snoopy (August 28, 2009 11:07 pm ET)
                      3 1
                      Such class from the hypocrite who turns right around and pushes the same kind of trashy lies about ted kennedy. As we watched classless reichtards trash kennedy on fox, limbaugh, beck and just about every other reichwing news outlet. It's such a pleasure watching such a slug repremand others for acting like you.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 29, 2009 1:14 pm ET)
                      3 1
                      "The police said no alcohol was involved, I guess that is not good enough for you. The police also determined that no charges were warranted." - FL

                      Really, what was her blood alcohol level? What was Ted Kennedy's at Chappaquiddick? Have you already forgotten the numerous unsubstantiated claims you make against Ted Kennedy here weekly?

                      "The police also determined that no charges were warranted. I guess that is not good enough for you." - FL

                      And what did the police decide in regards to charging Kennedy as a killer as you so often call him? I guess that is not good enough for YOU.

                      "Were you there? Do you know something that no one else knows? Speak up." - FL

                      This is like beating up my little brother, not even worth my time. Were you at Chappaquiddick? Do you realize how ridiculously stupid you make yourself look when these are your repsonses? You fail over and over and over again to defend your indefendible positions.

                      What did happen is you could not allow the time between a man's death and his funeral to pass without attaching the title killer to him even though he was never charged as such. Now you seem to think because your hero O'Reilly hasn't sunk to the same level as you that you are somehow justified or vindicated? Truly bizarre.

                      And every post I have seen here in regards to Laura Welch or Nancy Reagan have been in response to you, or POV, or hilight, or someone else's classless assault on calling a recently deceased man who has yet to be buried a "killer". Also, you seem not to know this in your posts, Nancy Reagan and Laura Bush are still alive.
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (August 28, 2009 12:37 pm ET)
              3 1
              Now now, laura was negligent for running a stop sign, but she wasn't a murderer. Don't let the cons who will say any lie to get under your skin goad you into saying stupid stuff in return to get back at them.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 28, 2009 1:12 pm ET)
                4 1
                I especially love how our little Paris Busines Review supported "fair"-liberal who constantly mentions all sorts of vile conjecture about Kennedy being a killer in posts that have no reference to Kennedy is so quick to defend Laura Bush.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by snoopy (August 28, 2009 1:33 pm ET)
                  5 1
                  Thats expected operating procedure for her. Twenty years of getting her talking points from a bumper sticker have eliminated understanding of things like nuance and hypocricy from her vocabulary. And she thinks "gott mit uns" keeps her hands warm in the winter...
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by teabaggers ♥ [wing]NUTS (August 28, 2009 6:35 am ET)
          4 2
          You seem to do a good job on ignoring the fact that your great man was actually a drunken killer whos family money come from bootlegging and the mob.


          who would have thought driving a car over a faulty bridge, going into the river, trying to save the passenger unsuccessfully and reporting it (albeit, almost a day later) would be considered a murderer. wow, what a heartless bastard... he was like a charles manson 2.0, wasnt he?

          please... what a joke.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (August 28, 2009 11:02 am ET)
            4 4
            Of course you leave out his alcohol abuse, the fact that he returned to the party , consulted with others and then decided to go home to bed. Then in the morning he called his lawyer, not the police. Not to mention that the diver who recovered the body stated that Mary Jo appeared to be in the wheel well of his car apparently in an air pocket. I wonder how long it was before she realized that her hero was not coming back for her , and that she would die that day? So now it is a faulty bridge too?

            I do wonder though, you don't agree with people discription of Kennedy as a murderer, how do you feel about the discription of Laura Bush as a murderer. You know her, the 17 year old, who was not drinking and had an accident that cost a life. Do you equate the actions of a sober 17 year old to the actions of a drunk 37 year old? Those accusations have been made in this very thread, but you didn't comment on them. Only poor Teddy.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 28, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
              4 1
              "you leave out his alcohol abuse"

              Really, what was his blood alcohol content that night?

              And what was Laura Welch's blood alcohol content? Your assumptions prove what a waste of time a dialogue with you is. Neither Kennedy nor Welch were tested for alcohol. And you say there could not have been a problem with the bridge. Well, what was the problem with the stop sign? Nothing. She ran it.

              Welch was no more a victim than Kennedy was. They both killed people due to poor decision-making while operating a motor vehicle. The only difference is in your Paris Business Review, O'Reilly addled mind you are unable to see the similarities.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by fairliberal (August 28, 2009 10:55 pm ET)
                1 4
                Could you be the only fool on the planet that thinks Kennedy was not drinking that night. Others at the party have stated that he was drinking all day long. His heavy drinking was a well known fact with the press. It was different times back then however, and he was a Kennedy. He was notorious in Palm Beach circles for heavy drinking. Is that all just another right wing conspiracy?

                And to equate Laura Welch's accident with the Kennedy case is pathetic at best.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by snoopy (August 28, 2009 11:09 pm ET)
                  3 1
                  wow, what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I guess innuendo is fact in reichworld.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 29, 2009 1:20 pm ET)
                  3 1
                  "Could you be the only fool on the planet that thinks Kennedy was not drinking that night. Others at the party have stated that he was drinking all day long. His heavy drinking was a well known fact with the press. It was different times back then however, and he was a Kennedy. He was notorious in Palm Beach circles for heavy drinking. Is that all just another right wing conspiracy?

                  And to equate Laura Welch's accident with the Kennedy case is pathetic at best." - FL

                  Are you kidding? Is that the best you got? So, you admit you have nothing? Do I really need to copy and paste your own words in defense of Laura Welch to refute your latest attack on Kennedy? Are you this dense?

                  Conjecture in Laura Welch's accident is classless, but conjecture in Kennedy's is not only proper, but necessary? Do you see how far your ridiculous lemming-like following of O'Reilly and the entertainers disguised as political leaders has gotten you? You could post this latest post after your previous post defending Laura Welch and it would seem as if you are arguing with yourself. Your cognitive dissonance is so strong that it actually becomes hilarious. I would agree with you on one thing, your attempt to dismiss one accident as merely an accident and the other as a killing is truly pathetic at best.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 28, 2009 1:25 pm ET)
              5 1
              And I have never called Laura Welch a murderer. However, you have absolutely gone out of your way again and again to call Ted Kennedy every vile name you can think of on these threads even when they have nothing to do with him. Because that's what you are "fair"-liberal, a partisan hack.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (August 28, 2009 11:18 am ET)
            3 3
            He did not report it until they found the car. If that happened today to anyone but a Kennedy you would have a manslaughter charge minimum. He left a party where he had been drinking but you can forget about that to.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 28, 2009 1:24 pm ET)
              4 1
              What was his blood alcohol content that night?

              And what was Laura Welch's the night her poor decisions resulted in the death of her ex-boyfriend.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by skatscan5624 (August 27, 2009 7:47 pm ET)
        4 1
        Politics at Kennedy's funeral is like having singing at Michael Jackson's.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pags2 (August 28, 2009 4:27 pm ET)
        4 1
        The Republicans are worried that the public will idolize another Kennedy, just like the public did after John and Robert Kennedy, and FDR. The outpouring of mourners at Kennedy's funeral will dwarf Reagan's funeral and the media coverage will be on most TV stations (not sure about Fox). Kennedy's death will create pressure on some politicians on the health care issue. Republicans want to deflect attention to the fact that health care was Kennedy's cause so to blunt this the Republicans like McCain make preposterous statements. Kennedy would never have agreed to drop the public option.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rtejon (August 27, 2009 10:33 am ET)
      3 1
      You should all try to see "Abel Raises Cain," the documentary about professional hoaxer Alan Abel, currently in rotation on Free Speech TV. He's proven time and time again that the media outlets are more interested in scooping each other and following hot leads than they've ever been in fact-checking.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (August 27, 2009 12:00 pm ET)
        5 1
        >>He's proven time and time again that the media outlets are more interested in scooping each other and following hot leads than they've ever been in fact-checking.

        Yes, good point. And they are interested in generating ratings and advertising revenues, not in the truth, and that means they often act like complete dumb a***ses.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by LORISNJ (August 27, 2009 11:16 am ET)
      10 2
      Politicizing the death of Senator Wellstone and maybe even Senator Kennedy is a really, really bad thing but politizing the Justice Department not to mention 9/11 is just fine by Hannity, et al?

      Republicans are no longer in the real world and have gone completely into the Land of the Lost!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (August 27, 2009 1:04 pm ET)
        6 2
        Politicizing the death of Senator Wellstone and maybe even Senator Kennedy is a really, really bad thing but politizing the Justice Department not to mention 9/11 is just fine by Hannity, et al?

        Not to mention using the memory of 9/11 to gin up support for an illegal invation of Iraq, in which some of our finest are still dying to this day.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by caveman (August 27, 2009 12:02 pm ET)
      7 1
      What's wrong with "politicizing" a funeral anyway? People have a perfect right to speak their minds at a funeral. If they say something disrespectful of the deceased in the process, then there's a valid complaint.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by National_Insecurity (August 27, 2009 1:32 pm ET)
        6 1
        Imagine the visuals as the 150 million Americans Kennedy' efforts helped walk by. We'd see
        - people with disabilities
        - minimum wage workers
        - studenets
        (add your list)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (August 27, 2009 10:00 pm ET)
          5 6
          What about Mary Jo's graduation picture, or maybe her autopsy photo.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 28, 2009 1:30 pm ET)
            3 1
            And, of course, you would want pictures of the young man that was killed by Laura Welch's poor decisions at her funeral too, right. I believe his name was Michael Douglas. Right? I mean, otherwise you would just be a disgusting, partisan over honor piece of garbage. And that's not you is it "fair"-liberal?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (August 28, 2009 1:42 pm ET)
              6 1
              I say we post a picture of vile things republicans do at their deaths too. We can have a picture of a page being bent over and drilled from behind, a bathroom stall, or my favorite, outsourcing your infidelity to argentina at taxpayers expense! Since fairlib thinks it's ok, let's make sure nobody ever again gets a respectful wake! Make sure every single surviving family member is subjected to the hateful rhetoric you spew so that you can wipe any loving memories the family had from the face of the earth! Just imagine how with all the examples the republicans have provided we'll be able stamp the memory of the rightwing from everyones lives forever and ever!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 28, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
                3 1
                Exactly. How blind can your partisan blinders make you, "fair"-liberal? You will sink so far as to think it is acceptable to disrespect a dead man's wake? That is truly sickening. The wake and funeral are not for the deceased, but for the families of the deceased. And to them, you think it is acceptable to be so vile? You are really low.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by fairliberal (August 28, 2009 11:24 pm ET)
                  1 4
                  Me vile? That is a joke.

                  For 2 days I laid off Kennedy and what did I see here at this highly evolved site of intellectual progressives. I saw attacks against former presidents and 2 former first ladies. A particularly disgusting attack on a 90 year old woman. A real show of class from the intellectuals , as they think of themselves.

                  I guess these vile attacks were preemptive, as if to say "we know the righties are going to attack Kennedy so lets get the jump on them"

                  Finally today, I figured, "when in Rome". If Nancy Reagan and Laura Bush are fair game, so is Kennedy, it is that simple.

                  And you say I have said vile things about Kennedy, I have not. Everything I have said about him is true, every word. You hypocrites on the other hand attack Bush for being born into a wealthy family and forget about Kennedy. So i point it out. You hypocrites mock Bush for getting into Harvard on a legacy admission and forget about Kennedy, so i point it out. But Bush was not thrown out for cheating, that is specific to Kennedy.
                  You libs mock Lt Col Ralph Peters for only being a Lt Col, Kennedy was only a PFC, and promotion to PFC is automatic. So I point it out. You hypocrites still talk of Bush's DUI and forget about Kennedy's case where a young woman died because he drank and then drove. Dispite having a chauffeur. But of course he didn't want the driver coming with him and Mary Jo. So i point it out.

                  Did I say anything untrue? Of course there is more, but enough for now.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by snoopy (August 29, 2009 12:33 am ET)
                    3 1
                    Did I say anything untrue?


                    Short answer? yes.

                    Of course there is more, but enough for now.


                    Enough lying bile from a brainwashed reichwinger, that is. Limbaugh will give her more marching orders tomorrow...
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 29, 2009 1:28 pm ET)
                    3 1
                    "For 2 days I laid off Kennedy" - FL

                    Wow, what a champ you are. Please show me where I said any of this nonsense you are trying to attribute to me. You have lost it.

                    And yes you have said plenty of things that are untrue - even though they may be posted in the Paris Business Review. What was Kennedy's blood alcohol level the night of his accident? Exactly. Then you have the same conjecture to assume he was drunk driving as I do to assume Laura Welch was. That's the point. Get it?

                    As for Ralph Peters - I didn't even know he was at Chappaquiddick nor there when Laura Welch accidentally killed her ex-boyfriend. As for Bush and Kennedy both getting into Ivy League colleges because of legacies - I still am not sure if you are defending legacies or against them. I have no probem telling you I am against all legacies. Clearly, your opinion changes based on which party it concerns.

                    And, are you actually trying to say you have said no vile things about Kennedy? Do I really need to copy and paste them for you? Is this all a short-term memory problem with you?

                    "What about Mary Jo's graduation picture, or maybe her autopsy photo." - FL

                    How about wanting that displayed in front of a man's family at his wake or funeral for starters? Vile enough for you? You are pathetic, "fair"-liberal.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by fairliberal (August 28, 2009 11:26 pm ET)
                1 3
                We can have a picture of a page being bent over and drilled from behind,

                Excellent idea, we can get Barney Frank to pose for it.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by bilbo_dies (August 27, 2009 1:24 pm ET)
      7 2
      you got to understand, it's a show. OK? It's political theater

      And the Republicans have the Democrats beat, hands down, when it comes to putting on a political show.
      They know how and where to get their message out. That is one of the reasons they have been able to sucker the masses into believing that Reagan was such a great president, even though he raised taxes 7 times.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by skatscan5624 (August 27, 2009 7:54 pm ET)
        5 2
        And what about Ford's funeral? All the politics and spin on how he did the right thing in pardoning a criminal. You don't hear about that.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (August 27, 2009 10:17 pm ET)
          4 4
          I wonder what they will say at Clinton's funeral about pardoning a criminal. But the 2 cases are different, Ford did it out of a belief that it would help heal the country, Clinton did it for money.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 28, 2009 1:32 pm ET)
            4 1
            Leave it to fair liberal to think only 2 presidents have given out pardons. Or that all pardons are equal to pardoning a president who committed a crime against the country. You must stop getting your information from the Paris Business Review "fair"-liberal.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (August 28, 2009 11:32 pm ET)
              1 3
              Actually mikey boy, one of your comrades brought up pardons not me. I responded to his post. he brought up Ford, I replied with Clinton. Isn't that fair? What did I say that was untrue about either pres.

              And when did I say that only 2 pres have given out pardons, you are making that up. You are good at that.

              But really do you think that a pres who sells his pardon is actually better than the one who does so for the reason that i referenced?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 29, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
                3 1
                For starters, Mark Rich was never president. But, you'll never get that info from the Paris Business Review.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (August 29, 2009 12:19 am ET)
            3 1
            Ford did it out of a belief that it would help heal the country


            That was just the excuse mr. stumblebutt gave at the direction of the Reichstagg Nationalistic-socialist Committee.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by National_Insecurity (August 27, 2009 1:26 pm ET)
      6 2
      So who on the R side started this? Obviously they all got the talking points, didn't they?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by National_Insecurity (August 27, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
        7 2
        Oh, I just saw the headline - Obama to deliver eulogy. So the Republicans are afraid of the symbolism. In short Obama and the Dems must use this event for healthcare.

        I recall Dubya on an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003
        Report Abuse
        • Author by National_Insecurity (August 27, 2009 2:11 pm ET)
          6 2
          How many Americans had to die for Dubya to exploit their memories?
          ....apologies, I'm being cynical this morning.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (August 27, 2009 3:57 pm ET)
          6 2
          Speaking of politicizing the issue, here's the latest GOP talking point:

          [http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/picture-591.png]

          In addition, Imhoffe said today that he wouldn't read the bill because he didn't need to read it if he was gonna vote against it anyways. There's your politicizing.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (August 28, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
            4 1
            Hmmm, I guess thumbs down for daring to post another fearmongering poll from reichstagg central (oops, I meant Michael Steele and the RNC). Wonder why they don't want me to post their secret polls?
            Report Abuse
    • Author by MjM (August 27, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
      3 11
      BWAA-HA-HA=HA!

      Limbaugh was RIGHT!

      MediaMudders: Bagged by their own content.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Craig (August 27, 2009 3:51 pm ET)
        6 2
        You're not very bright.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (August 27, 2009 9:22 pm ET)
          4 2
          Please, that's better than what MjM usually hears, don't go getting his self-esteem up.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by MjM (August 28, 2009 11:28 am ET)
          2 6
          Well, I'm no Rhodes Scholar, as your fabulously analytical retort certainly shows you to be, Craig, but that doesn't mean that I cannot thoroughly enjoy such delicious irony when presented with it.

          So, as you blubber away in your hanky over Teddy's departure keep this in mind during your equally cerebral retrospection of the man.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Craig (August 28, 2009 2:13 pm ET)
            3 1
            Sucker.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Craig (August 28, 2009 2:50 pm ET)
            3 1
            Oh, and I'd love to know what you find to be deliciously ironic.

            I'll give you a hint. Do you really think that Limbaugh's statements, made when Kennedy was alive, that the healthcare bill would be called the memorial Kennedy healthcare bill upset people because they thought the comments were inaccurate?
            Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (August 27, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
      8 2
      Al Franken crushed this issue a while ago. Here is his article on what really happened:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/reflections-on-the-wellst_b_15459.html

      Randy
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (August 27, 2009 10:34 pm ET)
        2 7
        Yes Franken achnowledges that reasonable people were offended, which does indicate that he believes that some acted inappropriately. He also states that about 200 people were booing and states that he did not boo. Some on the right say that 20,000 booed. Both are probably wrong, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, what is more reasonable to assume is that about 10,000 booed.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (August 27, 2009 11:58 pm ET)
          7 2
          You're saying that one side can establish an estimated truth by lying. If 200 people actually did boo, then the perception suddenly multiplies by fifty on the word of "some on the right" and nothing else.

          It's a neat trick, to be sure. It wasn't an overwhelming amount of disrespect, only a very significant amount of disrespect. I hope you didn't hurt yourself reaching out to the opposition there.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (August 28, 2009 1:14 am ET)
            2 8
            Well what is your solution? , to take the word of an obvious partisan. Franken is just as biased about the estimates as the righties he cited, is he not? And what if 20,000 did boo, does the estimate go down just as dramatically by the word of someone on the left. It works both ways.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (August 28, 2009 7:56 am ET)
              8 3
              And what if 20,000 did boo, does the estimate go down just as dramatically by the word of someone on the left. It works both ways.
              Precisely, which is why it's something you should avoid. And how about the Palin rallies? Let's say someone claimed that forty people were shouting "Kill him" about Obama. Someone else claims that there were zero such people. So according to you, it's fair to say that both are lying, therefore there were twenty people doing that.

              Is there no videotape evidence of this anywhere? That should give you a pretty good idea of who's telling the truth. Whether there is such a solution or not, your logic is still garbage. That was my point.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by jjamele2880 (August 29, 2009 6:17 pm ET)
              3 1
              My solution is usually ignore every moronic, pointless and factless post you feel compelled to place here. I'm hardly likely to miss anything of any value, Mr. Typing Frog of Low IQ.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by BillJ-MN (August 28, 2009 8:11 am ET)
          7 3
          what is more reasonable to assume is that about 10,000 booed. - fairliberal

          That's stupid. You're suggesting that in a large crowd, milling around, chatting, crying, laughing before the memorial started, that over half of them were staring at the jumbotron for that brief time that Lott appeared on it. And that almost all of that group booed in what would have had to have been an almost immediate reaction. And that the boos of 10,000 people was undetectable by the television broadcast.

          What garbage. I'd say that Franken's estimate is probably extremely close to the truth. No more than a few hundred actually booed, probably well under 500.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fantagor (August 29, 2009 2:02 pm ET)
            2 1
            It's just Republican math at work. When Franken says it was 200-300, it must be half the crowd that booed because Franken, who was there, is incapable of telling the difference between a smattering of boos and an ear-shattering cacophony of boos, such as this:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXNetpeu_mk

            Randy
            Report Abuse
        • Author by jjamele2880 (August 29, 2009 6:15 pm ET)
          3 1
          According to your theory, if I think that you are a retarded tree frog, and you believe that you are an actual human being with a high IQ, it's only reasonable to assume that you are some kind of amphibious mutant of average intelligence.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by dab55555 (August 27, 2009 5:04 pm ET)
      9 1
      I have just finished a book published in 1964 "The Strange Tactics of Extremism" by Harry and Bonaro Overstreet. It is a will documented account of the largest right wing extremist groups of that time. I though it would be a fun read to see where the right had been and where they are now. It was not funny in the least. The right has not changed, the arguments are the same, the tactics are also the same and the doomsdaying about every thing is the same. But that is not the real shame . The real heart break is that it is still the montra of the right only not the extreme right as it was in 1964 but of the main stream Republican Party. Every one should read it. It gives you an insight to how they became this way and into their game playing. Someone could to a real piece on then and now. Here is one quote from the book that unknowingly was quite for-telling. From Senator Thomas Kuchel of California "The Republican Party faces one of the gravest dangers in our long history. In California all the odious totalitarian techniques of subversion and intrigue are now being used by a frenetic but well disciplinened few to capture and control our party, and make it into an antiquated implement of embittered obstructionism"
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jcutler9 (August 28, 2009 7:58 am ET)
        4 1
        Thank you, dab, for your mention of this Overstreet book. I have just gone online and ordered it. I have a book by them written in 1949, called "the Mature Mind," which I have had for decades.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by booksnmore4you7526 (August 28, 2009 9:47 am ET)
        5  
        Wow, thanks for this. The book is just as you describe.

        Here are two of the book's chapters:

        http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/bonaro-extremism-intro.html

        http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/overstreet-reading-lesson.html
        Report Abuse
    • Author by didi (August 27, 2009 6:36 pm ET)
      10 2
      It happens that today I just got ANOTHER increase in my health insurance in the last 6 months. The first one was 16% and this one is 7%.

      That's 23% in the space of 6 months.

      My insurance company must need a new corporate jet.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by heatherincolumbus (August 27, 2009 11:49 pm ET)
      7 1
      Re: politicizing the death of Senator Kennedy.

      If memory serves, Ted Kennedy was a politician who worked in politics for roughly 50 years - 46-47 of which were in the U.S. Senate. Again, if memory serves, he advocated for patients rights and for improved healthcare for all citizens as a fundamental right, not privilege.

      So - why NOT try to pass legislation as a tribute to / in the honor of the man who tried to do that his entire political life?

      I also love the way Reps are saying they'd be able to vote for something were Kennedy still alive to compromise. Of course, folks like McCain and Gregg (and others) all voted against Kennedy's last legislation, but I'm sure that's irrelevant.

      So I say go for it...do it in the name of Uncle Ted. Pass that legislation and smack the Kennedy name all over it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by teabaggers ♥ [wing]NUTS (August 28, 2009 6:20 am ET)
      5 3
      i have said it many times, and i will say it again: conservatives dont care about sen kennedy or his death whatsoever. they just care about political talking points and getting a leg up on using his death to make a new claim that the democrats are using him to pass health care. hey, you stupid wingnuts... TED KENNEDY WANTED TO PASS HEALTH CARE! what are the democrats doing wrong?? they are doing exactly what he would have wanted.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by booksnmore4you7526 (August 28, 2009 9:17 am ET)
      6 1
      When are we going to start pushing the actual story line here? That the GOP has become the party of wickedness to such a degree that 95% of them are nothing other than BAD FAITH ACTORS within our political system? This means they have committed treason against their oath of office, if they are elected representatives. We need to quit the underlying notion that we can keep them accountable to "do the right thing." Bad faith actors have no interest doing such a thing.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by HuckFynn (August 28, 2009 1:20 pm ET)
      2 4
      The healthcare bill has died a normal death. Let Ted Kennedy and socialized healthcare rest in peace.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rmb (August 28, 2009 1:46 pm ET)
      2 1
      The mega-rich hypocrital neocon demagogue Republicans and their mega-rich corporation benefactors worship Reagan to this day as a virtual god, and so they point fingers at Democrats for this.

      The downing of Wellstone's plane has never been fully investigated so they accuse Democrats of politicizing his tragic death to distract focus from the causes of the crash.

      Their behavior at town halls models Hitler's brownshirts shouting down the democratically-elected Weimar government officials and their supporters in the 1930s so they accuse Democrats of this.

      They accuse Democrats of cutting Medicare funding when they will ELIMINATE this program by PRIVATIZING it, along with Social Security, if they get power again in 2012.

      "Do not judge, lest you be judged yourselves. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it shall be measured to you." Jesus Christ in his Sermon on the Mount, Gandhi's favorite prose. (Matthew 7:1-2; Matthew 5-7)

      Just imagine what would have happened to Seniors' Social Security pension if Bush/Cheney/Rove and their mega-rich Republican cronies in Congress had been able to PRIVATIZE Social Security BEFORE their surrogates on Wall Street gambled away the world economy for personal mega-profits in 2008.

      Judging others with slander and libel is always an indictment of committing the same wrongs those sitting in judgment are accusing their adversaries of doing. Three fingers always point back at you.

      And, as Hitler often said," If you shout a lie loud enough long enough people will believe it! Macht ist Recht!"

      If Seniors and others shout down Obama's health insurance reform with the public option (Medicare for ALL Americans, not just the elderly and the rich) they will get neocon ideologue Republican PRIVATIZATION of Medicare and SS. Tom DeLay on Hardball: "PRIVATIZE IT!" (Medicare) McCain at town hall: "We (Adam Smith Social Darwinism 'survival of the fittest/richest' Republicans) want to save Medicare and Social Security for your children and grandchildren with good FREE-MARKET solutions!" (PRIVATIZATION!)

      By the way, Limbaugh raked in over $33 million in 2007 alone. As "Deep Throat" told Woodward during the Nixon Republican scandal, "FOLLOW THE MONEY!"

      "...for the love of money is the root of all evil..." St. Paul (I Timothy 6:9-10)

      "Recht ist Macht!"
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (August 28, 2009 11:42 pm ET)
        1 4
        Mega rich republicans? Who are the richest of our politicians? Hint, they aren't republicans.

        "By the way, Limbaugh raked in over $33 million in 2007 alone"...how much did Gore and Clinton and Kerry and Kennedy rake in?

        And BTW, the rich don't need Medicare, they have far better insurance than that. How many dems do you know who are advocating that they get the same insurance as what they are proposing for the people? Maybe zero?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by obamaisasocialist (August 28, 2009 4:02 pm ET)
      1 4
      It would be silly to rename this healthcare debacle after ted kennedy. As the annointed one once said you can put lipstick on a pig, its still a pig.

      Instead how about just proposing the candidate obama healthcare plan. The ability to buy health insurance across state lines or national borders in the case of prescriptions. The ability to purchase the same plan as Congress.

      This would inrease access,lower costs, not involve taxpayer dollars and most importantly keep intact the most effective healthcare delivery system on the planet.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (August 29, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
        2 1
        Thank you for at least considering and offering an idea. However, "Most effective healthcare delivery system on the planet" is way off. That's ridiculous from all accounts. And by the way, President Obama was ELECTED, rather than annointed. Perhaps you don't understand that.
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.