Beck, Special Report cropped Dunn quote to falsely claim she said Mao was "the man she turns to most"
Continuing Fox News' witch hunt against members of the Obama administration, both Glenn Beck and Special Report misleadingly cropped White House communications director Anita Dunn's remarks at a high school graduation ceremony to falsely claim that she was, in Beck's words, "proclaiming Mao [Zedong] as ... the man that she turns to most." In fact, Dunn actually said that Mao and Mother Theresa were "the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices" [emphasis added].
Beck, Special Report cropped Dunn comments
From the October 19 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: This clip is from a high school graduation back in June of this year. And here is what the White House communications director had to say to the teenagers there.
DUNN [video clip]: Two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most.
BECK: OK, "not often coupled with one another" -- laughter -- "but the two people I turn to most."
[...]
BECK: Let's watch it again and just bask in the irony and get ready to laugh this time, now that you know she was making a funny. Watch.
DUNN [video clip]: Two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most.
From the October 19 edition of Fox News' Special Report:
BRET BAIER [host]: Brit, Anita Dunn has responded to a piece of tape that was first run on Glenn Beck's show in which she references what she calls one of her two favorite political philosophers Mao Zedong, the former communist leader of China. Here is that sound bite real quick and then her reaction.
DUNN [video clip]: Two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most.
Beck, Hume smeared Dunn as saying Mao was one of "the two people I turn to most"
Beck: I don't think Mao should be "one that you turn to most." After playing the misleadingly cropped video, Beck purported to repeat it, saying, " 'not often coupled with one another' -- laughter -- 'but the two people I turn to most.' " Beck continued: "You know, I don't think Mao should be anybody's favorite anything, especially not your favorite political philosopher or one that you turn to most, given that his political philosophies included shooting political opponents in the head."
Beck suggested Dunn's response was contradicted by her supposed statement that Mao was one "that I turn to most." After reading from Dunn's reported response to criticism of her remarks, in which she stated that "the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony," Beck again aired the truncated clip of Dunn's speech, then stated: "Hey, you could even make that case if she hadn't have followed it with, 'the two people most turn to -- that I turn to most.' It's not funny. It's not even close to funny." Later, Beck falsely claimed: "She was proclaiming Mao as her favorite political philosopher and the man that she turns to most." Additionally, Beck said: "Now, if the Holocaust Museum quoted Hitler while saying he is one of our favorite political philosophers and that one we turn to most, well, maybe that would make some news, don't you think?
Hume: "she also said that this is the two people she turns to most." After Baier aired the same truncated quote on Special Report that Beck had, Brit Hume responded: "Well, she also said that this is the two people she turns to most. This doesn't sound like it was a one-off attempt to make a joke and imitate the Republican strategist Lee Atwater."
Dunn actually called Mao and Mother Theresa "the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point"
From the full video Beck aired on October 15:
DUNN: A lot of you have a great deal of ability. A lot of you work hard. Put them together, and that answers the "Why not?" question. There's usually not a good reason.
And then the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices. You're going to challenge. You're going to say, "Why not?" You're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here's the deal: These are your choices. They are no one else's.
In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?" And Mao Zedong said, you know, "You fight your war, and I'll fight mine." And think about that for a second.
You know, you don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what's right for you. You don't let external definition define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.
And then Mother Teresa, who, upon receiving a letter from a fairly affluent young person who asked her whether she could come over and help with that orphanage in Calcutta, responded very simply: "Go find your own Calcutta." OK? Go find your own Calcutta. Fight your own path. Go find the thing that is unique to you, the challenge that is actually yours, not somebody else's challenge. [Glenn Beck, 10/15/09]
Dunn is latest target of Fox News' Beck-led witch hunt against Obama administration officials
Beck previously falsely claimed Dunn "worships" Mao Zedong, "her hero." Throughout most of his October 15 Fox News program, Beck falsely claimed that Dunn "worships" and "idolizes" "her hero" Mao Zedong. In fact, in the video that Beck aired as evidence to support his claims, Dunn offered no endorsement of Mao's ideology or atrocities -- rather, she commented that Mao and Mother Teresa were two of her "favorite political philosophers," and based on short quotes from them, she offered the advice that "you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths" or "let external definition define how good you are internally."
Beck ignored numerous conservatives who previously spoke similarly of Mao. In airing footage of Dunn calling Mao and Mother Teresa two of her "favorite political philosophers" and using those comments to falsely link Dunn to the murder of tens of millions of Chinese under Mao's reign, Beck ignored numerous conservatives -- including Barry Goldwater's "alter ego" Stephen C. Shadegg, Cato Institute president Edward H. Crane, and GOP strategist Ralph Reed -- who have approvingly cited the tactics of Mao, Vladimir Lenin, and the Viet Cong, stating that they had used those tactics in their political work or have otherwise highlighted their philosophies. Moreover, in a 2008 presidential campaign speech, Sen. John McCain stated that "there was a lot of people who said that my political career was not going to succeed. In fact, in the words of Chairman Mao, it's always darkest before it's totally black" [emphasis added], as The Washington Independent noted.
Beck-led Fox News "czar" witch hunt moves to ridiculous smear of Anita Dunn. In attacking Dunn, claiming that she "worships" her "hero" Mao, Beck has targeted yet another Obama administration official in his Fox News-assisted witch hunt of President Obama's so-called "czars." Beck and Fox News have previously attacked with falsehoods and spurious claims White House officials Kevin Jennings, Cass Sunstein, Harold Koh, and Van Jones.
Transcripts
From the October 19 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Well, hello, America. Welcome to Monday. Our little red phone, yes, I always wanted to say that, only Anita Dunn has the phone number to that. Anita Dunn is the one at the White House. Still hasn't rung. Not once. I mean, I thought Anita would call after the clip we played on Thursday, but apparently I misunderstood. This clip is from a high school graduation back in June of this year. And here is what the White House communications director had to say to the teenagers there.
DUNN [video clip]: Two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most.
BECK: OK, "not often coupled with one another" -- laughter -- "but the two people I turn to most." You know, I don't think Mao should be anybody's favorite anything, especially not your favorite political philosopher or one that you turn to most, given that his political philosophies included shooting political opponents in the head. Anita did have an explanation. Here is what she said, quote, "the Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater from something I read in the late 1980s, so I hope I don't get my progressive friends mad at me." Oh, she is charming. "The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat." ABC's Jack [sic] Tapper tweeted that Dunn said she was joking about Mao. I just love those mass murder jokes, don't you? Of course she was joking, and that's so obvious from the clip. Let's watch it again and just bask in the irony and get ready to laugh this time, now that you know she was making a funny. Watch.
DUNN [video clip]: Two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most.
BECK: Hey, you could even make that case if she hadn't have followed it with, "the two people most turn to -- that I turn to most." It's not funny. It's not even close to funny. Maybe it's just me, I mean, I am one of the stupid conservatives so it's possible I just don't understand it, but I don't see anything close to a joke here. She also is saying that she is quoting Lee Atwater who is quoting Mao. OK. We couldn't find that quote, we'd love to see it, but even if it did exist, it's ridiculous as an excuse, because she wasn't just quoting Mao. She was proclaiming Mao as her favorite political philosopher and the man that she turns to most. There's a difference between just quoting someone and declaring them your favorite political philosopher. You know, I mean, there are a lot of people that quote Hitler. In fact, I was in a building once that had a lot of quotes of Adolf Hitler. It was called the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. You know, do you think that they like him? I didn't get that impression. Now, if the Holocaust Museum quoted Hitler while saying he is one of our favorite political philosophers and that one we turn to most, well, maybe that would make some news, don't you think? People would rightfully say, "Why are you calling Hitler one of your favorite philosophers?" And let me ask you this question, would you then accept the Holocaust Museum's response if the response was, "We were just kidding?" Really? How can Anita Dunn possibly think that what she said was funny to high school students? I contend she didn't find it funny at all. She's covering her tracks.
From the October 19 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: Brit, Anita Dunn has responded to a piece of tape that was first run on Glenn Beck's show in which she references what she calls one of her two favorite political philosophers Mao Zedong, the former Communist leader of China. Here is that sound bite real quick and then her reaction.
DUNN [video clip]: Two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most.
BAIER: Here is her reaction to that quote: "The Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater from something I read in the late 1980s, so I hope I don't get my progressive friends mad at me. The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat." Brit?
HUME: Well, she also said that this is the two people she turns to most. This doesn't sound like it was a one-off attempt to make a joke and imitate the Republican strategist Lee Atwater. But look at the outcome here. So Anita Dunn attacks Fox News and the next thing you know, a piece of videotape turns up with her speaking admiringly of Chairman Mao. In the meantime, Glenn Beck, who's having a field day with this whole thing and is obviously one of the objects of their criticism, not only has the telephone on the set, today he's got a guy sitting next to the phone dressed in a Mao suit. I don't think they can keep this up much longer based on the results, Bret.
What part of the fact that he cropped the quote doesn't compute with you? Do you think that it'd be okay for him to misleadingly provide the cropped quote if he provided the full quote one time? If so, why? How does doing the right thing one time excuse him doing the wrong thing another time? Are you immune from prosecution if you steal from a store one time, but not every time you visit that store? Of course not.
The problem with the cropped quote is that it distorts what she was saying.
Let's move the phrases around.
She said that when she is "basically deliver(ing) a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices", "the two people I turn to most are Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa."
So, ONLY when she is trying to make a point about making choices, she likes to turn to comments made by Mother Teresa and Mao. They are her favorite resources when making that point. And so, when you crop off that qualifier about delivering a simple point, you distort what she was saying. She never said he was her favorite philosopher. She said that for making that one point, she used him and Mother Teresa. Vastly different.
And she was being facetious when she said that he was one of her favorite philosophers.
And then the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices.
I call BS on you. Good try. How stupid do you think we are? What you seem to lack in your argument is this: she stated "my two favorite philosophers...". PERIOD.
Please do not provide any more illegitimate and condescending BS again.
You are exactly right. People never use sarcasm; any series of words in a quote should be taken as a person's literal opinion, regardless of context. That's why when Glenn Beck says, in the clip above, "Of course she was joking, and that's so obvious from the clip", he was admitting that this is a non-issue.
And she was being facetious when she said that he was one of her favorite philosophers.
And then the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices.
So why are you so offended at my failure to mention what she stated when I copied her EXACT QUOTE? How is my argument lacking that phrase when I included not just the phrase, but the whole sentence?
So, please do not provide any more nonsense and condescending BS again, right back at ya.
Do you agree?
I'm confident that you, wzwriter, will have no problem proudly proclaiming to the world that you are a big Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann fan (simply because they say what you want to hear and -- as a bonus -- they use the same kind of immature "Faux News" phrases that you enjoy. Furthermore, you will proudly proclaim that MSNBC is a "legitimate news organization."
Interesting !
Unfortunately for you and for all of us, our country loses a great deal due to the proliferation of such ignorance.
1.) By agreeing with my statement, as you clearly did, you have agreed that "such ignorance" IS in fact, ignorance.
2.) There's no doubt or confusion over which ignorance I was referring to. You need only refer back to what elements I was discussing immediately preceding my mutually-agreed statement regarding such ignorance. (YOURS; since you missed it when I was more subtle earlier, in the first go-round).
that is... to proudly proclaim that MSNBC is a "legitimate news organization."
3.) No irony-impairment here, my Olbermann-indoctrinated friend !
4.) There's certainly a respectable share of irony right there in your response. I hope you're able to appreciate it, as I surely do.
I certainly don't speak for all Fox fans, but most of us like the kind of irony you've provided right here. Thanks.
Now here's some real irony you're NOT likely to appreciate:
"Kevin Jennings’ record was well known to Obama when he appointed this pervert to a position overseeing our nation’s schoolchildren. He knew this piece of decaying immorality considered N@MBL@ to be a wonderful organization and had praised that group’s leader as one of his favorite people."
- from Canada Free Press .com
How's that for some IRONY that you probably can't HANDLE ?!
5.) If you try to claim that you DON'T find any irony in the above paragraph, then that would call into question your own understanding and appreciation of great irony, wouldn't it?
There's a ton of it there.
Obama Administration - the gift that keeps on giving, all the Wrong Stuff. ..but at least it's entertainment, every day.
And we've already debunked all your Kevin Jennings nonsense.
You really should read the articles before asking stupid questions you would know the answers to if you had bothered to read the article and not just the headline.
Two wrongs don't make a right - and you can find countless examples of news organizations that ARE NOT doing it.
Really, how often does she turn to them? She said it, so do not see any cropping. What other things does she turn to Chairman Mo?
Do you know what "cropping" is? If you did, you'd know that "cropping" off the last part of her sentence is wrong, since the end of that sentence changes the meaning and understanding of the comment she made.
And she was being facetious. She wasn't being serious that she really turns to Mao that much. Her audience got it - that's why they laughed after she said it, after she said "not often coupled together".
She was emphasizing that she's using Mao in an unlikely way, linking him with Mother Teresa - she was joking about him being one of her favorites.
Not only did she make the statement ironically, creating the juxtaposition between Mao and Mother Teresa, but it was very restrictive. She uses them as political philosophers ONLY for the purpose of making that particular point. It is very clearly NOT a blanket statement using them philosophically outside of that narrow topic.
That's not spin or creative interpretation. That's the meaning a reasonable person picks up by taking her words honestly as she said them.
Don't ever let facts get in the way of your ridiculous statements, Easy(mark).
Thank you.
Now, why cannot you address the accuracy of the following flagrantly FALSE statement, made above by Easy(mark) ?
"Glenn isn't smarter than a 10th percentiler."
You do understand that words have meaning -- and you are simply refusing to face reality.
Which of you big-time FOX-bashers is capable of recognizing AND admitting that, REGARDLESS of your other peripheral comments, THAT particular statement against Glenn is just more absurd, leftist bull?
Your refusal to deal directly with accuracy is just more evidence that word-games are more important to you than facts.
People like Limbaugh and Coulter make dozens upon dozens of offensive, misleading and inflammatory comments in their role in the public discourse, but they're just joking, or it's "hyperbole". We're supposed to "lighten up".
An anonymous poster on a website (who mocks right-wingers in the vast majority of his posts) insults Beck's intelligence, and we're supposed to be outraged that his phrasing isn't technically accurate.
Is that about right?
It's simply incredible that you Democrats suddenly forgot about your espoused "love" of investigative journalism. How could you have so quickly forgotten all the so-called "constructive criticism" you cheered for during Republican administrations?
And if claim you today that your treatment of GW Bush was not hate-filled, then you're every bit the liar that you show yourself to be.
How dare ANYbody criticize your "immaculate" hero, even while every day he demonstrates further what an unmitigated disaster he is, as president?
You say, "Nobody should question or criticize our messiah. He's so intelligent; he can do no wrong."
Dream on, ... childish one.
You say, "This man actually makes crap up on a daily basis and the ignorant people who watch believe what he says." -- As usual, you haven't a clue who or what you're talking about. But it's YOUR loss, and that of ALL the demagogues in your party.
Hillary, however, is one person in your party that's starting to look pretty good by contrast with the rest of that bunch in power today.
Don't you still agree, as I do, with Hillary Clinton 2003 ? when she most famously screeched:
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with ANY administration !"
We should ALL agree with that message, whether the messenger sometimes hurts our eardrums with it, or not. Ya have to lighten up a little bit now. You got control of the steering wheel of the ship of state; and we, as passengers, simply HAVE THE RIGHT to question why the hell you're driving us straight toward a deadly, giant cliff.
If you still don't get-- and I know you don't-- then you are certainly everything you claim your noble and wise opponents to be.
Just because YOU can't see how pathetically flawed these ridiculous czars and other Obama tax-cheating officials are-- and the sheer irony of how the president "matches" them to the most obviously inappropriate positions-- don't expect the REST of America to stand by idly, saying and doing nothing!
Just remember this--
We are Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with ANY administration !!
It's very simple:the context shows that she was simply using Mao's words to demonstrate a point. Beck cut out the context and acted as if the truncated sentence proved that Dunn worships Mao. Nothing that you're rambling about here changes that.
It is also a perfect example of the false world that Fox News allows these extreme partisans to live in. They have no concept of reality - only what Fox News feeds them. Even after they get creamed in two straight elections, even after the term Republican has become a term that no moderate, rational human being wants to be associated with - they continue to behave as if the country is on their side.
Why are they so out of touch? Because they only listen to Fox News and hate radio. They have no concept of the majority opinion in this country. Only what Beck and Limbaugh tell them to believe.
Here let me help you turn your statement into the truth.
Yeah, they repeatedly played the cropped tape of Dunn and let her own words do the talking, without context
Typical of the right wing crackpots, say a lie over and over, and your ditto-head audience believes it.
Though he did play the "cropped" version on yesterday's show, I have to ask: does it really matter? He played the whole thing on his 10/15 show. Oh, I get it, he's trying to fool his viewers on the 10/18 show that may not have been seen his 10/15 one. Riiight. MediaMatters will do anything to help its cause, even if it means justifying a ridiculous Mao quote by the White House Communications Director. Good job, MM. Very good job indeed.
18) when quoting your opponent, edit his words to conform to "correctness"
On Friday, he tried to paint it as offensive. Once he found out that a successful debunking would take advantage of the full context, he didn't provide that full context to his listeners.
She has stated that she was being facetious.
The fact that you won't believe her and won't admit to reality says a lot more about YOU than anything you've said about the Obama Administration!
#2 - dont answer the question
When she said that she was joking I went to Youtube and watched the whole video again. Sorry but she wasnt joking. If I wanted to throw stones back and forth I could say that the fact that you believe her says alot about you but I am more interested in getting an answer to my question....
What would it take for you to say "OK, this aministration is to radical, this isnt what I voted for"?
If they bailout the media (Newspapers) would that be to much for you?
If they find a way to shut down Fox News and shut up Beck, Hannity and Rush, etc would that be to much for you?
If they find a way to ban private ownership of guns would that be to much?
If they were able to overturn constititional amendment #22 and get a third term for Obama would that be to much?
If they gave everyone living within our borders $10,000 checks would that be to much?
Where would you draw the line?
Some of those things are rediculous on purpose. I phrased those questions in that way for a reason. Before you eagerly answer "let him do all of those things!" remember that the shoe will be one day be the other foot. When it is I'll pray for the strength to stand with you in opposition.
And you don't get to tell me what part of your comment I have to reply to, but if I ever decide to let you run my life, I'll be sure to let you know.
Smearing someone is either lying about someone, or distorting what they said to give it a meaning that wasn't there in the original comment.
As I also explained above, Dunn's quote is specifically about giving advice regarding following one's own path and deciding what battles one thinks are worth engaging in. And, for that one point, she uses quotes from Mao and Mother Teresa. She never said that she looks to Mao for all things, or even most things - it was strictly for that one simple point. So, when that qualifier phrase it left off, it distorts the meaning of what she said.
And yeah, she was being quite facetious when she said that Mao was one of her favorites. She gets to say what she meant, not you.
And yeah, the fact that I let people tell me what they meant, rather than your choice to declare you know what someone meant, despite their protests to the contrary, says a lot about both you and me. What it says about you isn't very complimentary, so if I were you, I'd refrain from pointing that out very often!
And no, I won't follow you and go off topic.
As far as staying on topic, seems the topic is whether someone in the administration is or isnt a 'radical'. There have been others accused of the same thing. I think the question is within the realm of being 'on-topic', you'd prefer not to answer it or you cant. Either way, is fine, it is (still) a free country.
One was her comment that Mao is one of her favorite political philosophers.
She was being facetious when she said that.
The second is the truncating of her comment that followed, when she described how, in one narrow venue she uses an anecdote from Mao to encourage children to follow their own path and fight the battles that they think are important.
If you'll read Beck's comments above, he brings up her clarification that she was being facetious with the comment, but he is the one who associates it incorrectly with the second part of this snippet from her that relates to the use of the anecdote from Mao.
I know, and have always known, that they are two separate things.
And you're the one who brought up the joking stuff into this thread, not me. I don't understand why you are so confused here, and why you are so interested in continuing to dig your hole deeper and deeper.
Attacking the messenger would be criticizing the grammar or spelling of your post without ever addressing the things you said. That's attacking the messenger. Drawing conclusions about how you behave in general from one small example would be attacking the messenger. Saying that you won't believe her and that you won't admit to reality directly relates to specific things that you said, and doesn't generalize too much.
It's not "in my world". That's YOU attacking the messenger. The message I gave was not my opinion. It was reality about what attacking the messenger means and doesn't mean, but you then attacked the messenger.
And the topic here is NOT whether or not someone in the Obama Administration is a radical or not.
The topic is Beck and another FoxNews show misleadingly cropping what Anita Dunn said and how that cropping distorts the meaning of what she said.
This too is not my opinion. It's reality. Yet you seem incapable of grasping that. Beck's argument is not the topic of discussion. Beck's distortion of what someone said is the topic, and it's clear that's what the topic is, but you try to argue with me about this plain as day thing?
To review what has happened here....
I have attacked the messenger and you havent, right?
I have seen the whole video clip and dont believe her rather lame excuse, you do. Maybe time will tell whether it you or I who is the gullible one, maybe not.
You have said she was being facetious and also that she meant what she said (which is sort of the opposite of facetious) but it was specifically related to a specific thing.
GOT IT!
Thanks so much.
If that really doesn't make any sense to you, can you expand on the difficulty you're having with it?
She didn't just say one word, nor even just one sentence. She was giving a commencement speech to a bunch of high school kids, so she said quite a bit.
One portion of her comment was that Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers.
She was being facetious about that portion of her comment. She doesn't really think that highly about Mao.
Another portion of her comments were about how she uses something that Mao once said when guiding students to follow their own path and pick the battles she thinks she should pick. She meant that, but didn't mean that she thinks Mao is someone she "turns to most" about general issues. She only turns to him about this one specific issue.
This really isn't rocket science, but you seem overwhelmed and outclassed here. I am not sure why, but it doesn't make you look any more credible, and you would be well served to quit digging right now.
Johnny Cochran was good at that too. Common sense tells you that OJ was guilty. Cochran was able to get OJ aquitted but that doesnt change what common sense tells you about OJ. After seeing the entire clip, I believe that Anita Dunn actual admires Mao as a polital philosopher. You can continue to do backflips, pick and pull apart words and sentences if you wish. You cannot see the forest through the trees and I'm sure you do the same thing with the next example and the next, etc.
My opinion of her based on the commencement speech will not change.
Thanks for your input.
The high school kids even got it. It is called ironic. She was juxtaposing the ideas of Mother Theresa and Mao. Even these two very different philosophers agree that in order to be a truly great person and leave your mark you have to be willing to step outside the norm. Blaze your own trail. Excellent idea to be expressed at a high school graduation. Clearly, you could have used more complex thinkers for your mentors.
It is very simple and anyone with even a high school education should have no problem understanding the clear intent of the quotes if they actually listened to the audio - which you claim you have. If it still does not occur to you what is taking place it is because you believe whatever Beck and Limbaugh tell you to believe and are incapable of complex thought on any level.
You are as useful to any discussion as Glenn Beck is!
How dimwits like you can actually come in here and defend the indefensible (in that he CROPPED her words to fit his agenda!) says a lot about how people of your stripe don't think.
I do admit that it would have been better if MMfA had posted a link to the unedited version... I'm quite sure it would put proper context to her words.
Can you not see how YOU don't even approach living up to your own user "NAME" ?
MY statement is true.
"YOURS," on the other hand, by simply and blindly pasting my exact words as though they are "YOUR" words, demonstrate to everyone but yourself something significant: You are apparently unable to distinguish that which thoughtfully and accurately APPLIES to a situation, from "YOURS" which fails these elements on all counts.
Hey all yer ice,
What part of the word LOCK don't you understand?
yes, brit, go ahead and assume that they wont be able to keep it up. the more you underestimate, the better for the white house. they actually think the white house is just going to give up standing up to fox news and move on (i kind of think that, too, sometimes), but they know that they have to show them who is boss here. i say keep going forward and fight the big fight.
Ms. Dunn, White House Communications Director, indicates that Mao Zedong is one of her favorite political philosophers. I find that disturbing. Politics and philosophy is a favorite reading exploration for me. I have found people with whom I agree and disagree that I admire for one reason or another. There are some despots in history in whom I can find no redeeming qualities and one of those is Mao Zedong. None. I see in Mao a vast path of destruction from which a once beautiful China is ever so slowly recovering.
To quote one of my favorite political philosophers:
"But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao,
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."
Because Anita Dunn was being facetious when she said that Mao was one of her favorite philosophers. She wasn't being serious. So she wasn't saying she admired him.
So, tell me where the one quote she gave us from Mao, where he said that he'll continue to fight his war despite another person's misgivings and doubts, was so terribly wrong or offensive.
In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?" And Mao Zedong said, you know, "You fight your war, and I'll fight mine." And think about that for a second.
You know, you don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what's right for you. You don't let external definition define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.
I don't always agree with the man. That doesn't mean I dismiss everything he has to say.
When he paraphrased her, yes, he cropped the quote. But he did play the whole thing.
Just because I don't shoplift every time I go into a store doesn't make it okay for me to shoplift one time. It's not okay to present her comment without the qualifying comment that Beck left off.
We aren't dismissing everything Beck says in a knee-jerk fashion. That's your side's modus operandi.
Listening to the entire segment of the speech, it's not clear that she looks up and admires Mao.
What is clear is when making one simple point, that one should be a leader, not a follower, and that one should not be afraid to pick battles different than the choices others make, she uses a quote from Mao to reinforce that point.
Using an anecdote from Mao to make one point is not equivalent to admiring Mao as a political philosopher.
And she was being facetious when she said he was one of her favorites. She was saying that he's NOT one of her favorites, but she did think he made a good point in this one limited instance!
A recent example is the swine flu show he did about a week ago. The person on the side of vaccinating people - never contradicted. The person on the side of not vaccinating people - debunked countless times in the half hour segment, never had an argument to not be vaccinated that stood up to scrutiny. Yet, Beck still acted at the end of the segment that there were valid points raised by both sides, and that no conclusions could be drawn from the back and forth.
Back in July we brought you the story of Dr. David McKalip, the Tea Party movement anti-anti-reform activist who was caught circulating a racist email with a photo of loincloth wearing President Obama in the guise of a witch-doctor.
After we publicized the email, McKalip apologized, later said he was withdrawing from the public debate over health care and felt compelled to resign as the head of the local medical association.
So we were surprised when TPM Reader JG let us know that last night McKalip resurfaced as an expert on health care reform for none other than Glenn Beck at Beck's town hall style meeting to discuss the horrors of reform.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/10/post_16.php
The REAL problem is why the WHITE HOUSE ??? has this kind of political thinking as an advisor in the WHITE HOUSE! There are so MANY Maoists, Communists, Socialists in the WHITE HOUSE giving el presidente advice! Glenn Beck is not the problem. Obama and his advisors are the problem.
If I had the time and inclination (I have neither), I suppose I could sit down and string together a series of one-word clips of Glenn Beck to make him say "I do blow about once an hour and my prized possession is my altar-boy-of-the-month calendar from NAMBLA." It is, in fact, not terribly complicated to twist someone's words, intentions, actions and thoughts until it in no way resembles reality. I don't even want to call it intellectually dishonest because I don't want the word "intellectual" anywhere near Glenn Beck.
And furthermore, how precisely do you know that there are so MANY Maoists, Communists, Socialists in the WHITE HOUSE giving el presidente advice? Do you have a list in your hand of 8551684734616 communists who have infiltrated our government and are reporting back to Khrushchev at this very moment? More importantly, do you actually know the real principles of communism? Maoism? Socialism?
So Kira, I beg to differ. Glenn Beck is the problem. He's actually a huge problem. Because he's not a man who ever lets facts and sh*t get in his way.
Saying that she turns to Mao "the most" is a gross distortion of what she said.
It turns what she said on its head.
February 27-28, 2008.
White House Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom Bloom gave a keynote address at the 6th Annual Distressed Investing Forum, Union League Club, New York.
Ron Bloom said: "Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money, 'cause they're convinced that there is a free lunch.
We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults only no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog."
______
I say:
You and your fans are claiming that Glenn Beck's "cropping" of Anita Dunn's quote "changes" the ESSENCE of her intended meaning when compared with her original, un-edited quote. I submit that it does NOT change the essence.
QUESTION regarding Dunn: Did she, or did she NOT, state clearly and unambiguously, that Mao is one of "Two of my favorite political philosophers"? During the entire, original unedited quote, she NEVER gave ANY indication, either verbally or visibly, that she was speaking "tongue-in-cheek."
Words have meaning.
You folks likely get some kind of satisfaction preaching to your own choir, but you're not likely to fool anyone who is looking at the actual evidence. It appears that you are simply digging yourselves a deeper and deeper hole with each attempt you and Anita make to spin the facts. All of these efforts of yours to obfuscate, cloud and otherwise 'rescue' her from her own ill-advised remarks at a high school graduation ceremony will only serve to shore up your "credibility" with other leftists.
While it's possible that Ms Dunn simply did not learn the basic facts about the mass-murderer Mao, it's much more likely that she and other unabashed leftists blindly accepted the standard hero-worship of figures like Mao and Che, as was so commonly practiced by her generation of former hippies. In this case, basic facts about these so-called leftist "heroes" never mattered anyway; it was all simply a way of rubbing dirt in the nose of more traditional-thinking folks. For several of the White House czars and other officials, it's clear that these important distinctions still don't matter.
Washington Times: "The current war with Fox News - which Miss Dunn called "opinion journalism masquerading as news" - shows the White House commitment to controlling the press. Among Fox News' crimes was when Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial statements made on his program by Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs Tammy Duckworth. Yet to Miss Dunn, the media should serve as what Vladimir Lenin called "transmission belts," simple purveyors of whatever the White House dishes out, uncritically and unthinkingly. How dare Fox News check facts?! No one fact-checked Mao."
By the way, I sincerely ask you, what kind of fact checks, protests and damage control did you folks attempt back when Sarah Palin was so badly misquoted by her detractors following the Katie Couric interviews?
Below is a prime example. Palin was ridiculed as being entirely "non-responsive" to Couric's following question. As you will see in CBSnews.com's own transcript that Palin was directly responsive. Palin just didn't CHOOSE to let Katie get away with the false premise of the question. Couric's FOLLOW-UP pattern was design to MISLEAD the unattentive viewers that PALIN had not yet answered the question. Couric was simply trying to downplay McCain's significant efforts to utilize regulation by TAKING THEM AWAY from Palin's choices of answering the questions the
Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?
Palin: "I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us."
Also, please clarify this for me: If she's a communist because she admires Mao Zedong, is she also a nun for admiring Mother Theresa?
Have you read FoxFan's posts? He/She is completely incapable of complex or nuanced thought. You are wasting your time.
________
Couric's FOLLOW-UP pattern was designed to MISLEAD any unattentive viewers that PALIN had not yet answered the question. Couric was trying to downplay McCain's significant efforts to utilize regulation by TAKING THEM AWAY from Palin's choices of answering the questions in the WAY Couric 'required' that they be answered. Later, the mainstream, pro-Obama, anti-Palin media kept showing Katie's insistence that Palin had "not answered the question." And yet, Palin had responded to the original question, but then did not want to play Couric's game beyond that point, on Couric's terms. --
Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more examples of his leading the charge for more oversight?
Palin: "I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us."
In what alternate universe is her response an answer to that question?
Why are all of you shying away from that very clear and concise point? She very clearly restricts the use of Mao. You have to be ignorant or a liar to say that she made a blanket statement calling Mao one of her favorite political philosophers. Her words don't support that interpretation.
Beck fails when he crops her quote to say that Mao is the person she turns to most, when the fact is that he's ONLY one of two people she turns to ONLY when she is trying to make ONE SIMPLE POINT.
She said "the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices".
When you truncate that quote, and leave off that qualifying phrase, it distorts the meaning.
He said that she turns to Mao the most. She never said that. It doesn't absolve him of the guilt of saying that just because he didn't crop the quote every time. I don't understand why you would think that it would give him a pass - it doesn't!!!!
She turns to Mao and Mother Teresa when trying to make one simple point. That's all she said.
FoxNews didn't show the full clip every time.
When they show the full clip - it's like me going into the store and not shoplifting.
When they don't show the full clip - it's like those few times when I go into the store and shoplift.
I don't get to say that my shoplifting, my sin, should go unnoticed because I don't usually shoplift. FoxNews can't say that truncating the quote is okay to do because at other times they didn't truncate it.
My analogy isn't off. You should consider not posting here any more, because it's clear you're just going to make a fool of yourself every time. I mean, if you can't understand the analogy, that's pretty darn sad.
You don't get to allege that MMFA provided a truncated quote when they didn't. They have one posting above. In that posting, there are both the truncated post and the full quote!
Clearly, the normal rules of objective news reporting don't apply to Democrats. Trying to defend her remarks, Ms. Dunn now claims that she got the "quote" from Republican Lee Atwater and that she was really using "irony." Both of her explanations are obvious bald face lies. Again, watch the video. There's no significant quote to take out of context, and there's not a hint of irony in her speech. She now simply tries to blame a Republican when she goes on at length about why she thinks Chairman Mao was so great. And again, there's obviously no irony in her speech to the high school students. In fact, the explanations from the White House Communications Director are indisputably bald face lies. Yet Media Matters and some of those commenting here have tried to justify her comments. That's contemptible.
To claim otherwise shows either ignorance or dishonesty.
No, it's not.
calling Chairman Mao, who is perhaps the greatest mass murderer of the 20th Century, one of two of "her favorite political philosophers.
Well, to be fair, Bush's favorite philospher is Jesus, and I'm sure many times more deaths have occurred in the name of Christ than Mao could ever have killed.
If a Republican had said the things she says, she would have had to resign within 24 hours.
No, she wouldn't.
if Media Matters had a shred of decency and objectivity they would report her comments in full
MMFA has reported her comments in full.
Phew!! And that was just one paragraph. Here's some advice - turn off hate radio and Fox News. Their poisoning your brain.
I cannot believe any of you thinks this is something to be admired.Where is your intergrity? Do any of you have any moral conscious left? Are you that depraved? What have you become?
She was being ironic with the "favorite political philosopher" line, juxtaposing as she did Mao and Mother Teresa. Additionally, he words very clearly restricted the use of Mao to that one narrow point, not a broad endorsement by any stretch of the imagination.
Now do you understand? Or have you already decided not to?
Clearly, we also understand that both you and Media Matters are defending Ms Dunn's choice of "favorite political philosophers."
And you have already decided that Ms. Dunn's choice of Mao as one her "favorite political philosophers" is neither an indication of favor nor approval as the term "favorite political philosophers" so obviously indicates. That is unless you choose not to understand the term "favorite political philosophers."
To help you out a little bit, Webster's defines the word "favorite" as ": one that is treated or regarded with special favor or liking; especially : a person who is specially loved, trusted, or provided with favors by someone of high rank or authority." I figured you might be able to understand that definition, unless you choose not to.
She didn't describe anything Mao did as "marvelous" or any comparable term. You're a liar.
Instead of supporting your case, you keep parroting the phrase "favorite political philosophers" as though context wasn't important. This is further evidence of your dishonesty.
Obviously, you fall into the group I described who have decided that the facts of what she said in their entirety doesn't fit the narrative you wish to put out, so you crop them dishonestly. You have no regard for the truth.
There's actually no rules about whose names you can use in the same sentence. Check this out: Two of my favorite religious figures are Satan and Jesus.
See that? I used Satan and Jesus in the same sentence. The audacity!
No, she doesn't.
Reading is fundamental. Nearly everyone can read. Reading comprehension, however, is an acquired skill. I suggest you acquire that skill.
Having said that, Dunn and the administration picked this fight with an entire network. They go on CNN, ABC and NBC and malign FNC and expect them to go away. I hate to say it, but just from my experience here, this is the way liberals "fight"; they attempt to intimidate by questioning your intellect, education, calling you stupid, or an "illegitimate news agency" for not simply rolling over or disagreeing with their point of view.
I roll my eyes over Beck, Hannity and most times find Limbaugh unbearable, but I find Olbermann and Maddow even worse (I mean come on; Janeane Garofalo as political commentary?). Yet you don't see those liberal commentators questioned in this forum. Why is that? Is it because as long as you're attacking "conservatives" media doesn't matter as much?
Look, Anita Dunn is a progressive lefist; as are a few others in the Obama administration. Is that surprising? What's the big deal? So she invoked Mao? Is that really surprising that folks on the left lean toward socialist or communist ideologies? It cracks me up, leftists hate being called leftists; why is that? Isn't this what you people want? Don't you want goverment controlled health care and industry? Don't you want everyone riding bicycles and electric cars and the rich to support the poor and people to eat and live healthier even if they prefer not to? Don't you want everyone to conform to your intellectually superior view even if they have to be dragged to it? So why, oh why, do you get so angry when that is pointed out?
To borrow a tactic; Media Matters simply looks like the anti-FNC media arm of the Liberal-Democrat party. The amount of face time MM gives Beck, is hillarious, you may as well advertise his show; and look at how much effort they put into trying to discredit FNC. Liberals fancy themselves better than Republican Conservatives, but they are just opposite sides of the same coin.
I expect to now be criticized, called names and get negative reviews, but not to worry, I understand.
Fox, on the other hand, claims to be the "fair and balanced" NEWS network. It is not fair, it's not balanced and it's not news. See the difference?
BTW, if you believe that everyone who disagrees with your statements above are "liberals," then you are simply one of those phony conservatives who believes that they have the ONLY truth. Sorry, I'm a conservative and I disagree with you.
Audio edited version on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCV1KbMAW7w
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vggtNlntIo
It's Chris Wallace.
Chris Wallace never says his son was in the graduating class. His son graduated in 2008. He says his son is off doing bigger things. Which is true.
So why all the hiding? Why could Chris Wallace simply not have come out with his disdain after initially hearing the speech?
Weird.
Fox News. Full of good, honest journalists that never try and deceive viewers while pushing an agenda.
This is going to be Glenn Beck's "Balloon Boy".
I've followed the right wing for years and I've come to the conclusion that nothing that comes out of their mouth or keyboard can be trusted. It almost always turns out to be factually untrue or distorted. Why is this? I can't say for sure, but I posit that it's because almost all right wingers are either dishonest, ignorant, irrational, immoral, stupid, crazy, or some combination thereof. The falsehoods they spread are both cause of and reaction to their declining support among the public.
"You're going to make choices. You're going to challenge. You're going to say, "Why not?" You're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here's the deal: These are your choices. They are no one else's."
Dragging in Mao or even Sister Teresa to give weight to her words was a bizarre form of the old logical fallacy "Appealing to Authority". "Oh, MAO said this, so it must be important! Oh, SISTER TERESA said something like this, so what I'm going to tell you next is important, too!" By dragging their names into the discussion she increased the risk of miscommunication. With predictable results.
Oh, while we're on the subject, dragging in Lee Atwater's name to somehow justify using Mao - or anyone else - only compounded her sin. "OH, I was just quoting LEE ATWATER so it was OK!" Again: Appealing to Authority. You don'DO that, Ms. Communications Director.