Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Clinton on Faux: How could Roger Ailes be so confused?

There's been so much whine coming from the direction of the "Fair & Balanced" network that you'd think they were based in Napa. "Boo hoo, Bill Clinton raised his voice! Waaaah, Bill Clinton looked at me angry! Mommy! Mommy! Mommmmyyyyyy!" Today, Fox even tried to portray Clinton's forceful response to their interviewer as an attack upon all of journalism. Why Ailes confused Fox News with journalism, I have no idea.

To hear them tell it, Clinton ripped off his shirt, turned lime green and feasted on poor Chris Wallace's intestines before relieving himself on the First Amendment. That's not exactly how it happened.

Meanwhile Keith Olberman has a different take on it:


Paul said...

Whoa! LOLOL! This guy is serious, right?!!? This isn't a John Stewart kind of thing? Couldn't listen to the entire dialogue, way too much general assertions and opinions, not backed up by facts. But the opening regarding Chris Wallace as "a monkey posing as a newscaster" - then the 1950's-era attitude tossing out a challenge regarding Bush's "manliness" - sounds like the worst attacks I've heard from some far-right types against Democrat politicians. Same song, different pages.

Paul Bagala and James Carville were on O'Reilly's show this past week. It was rather loud and shout over each other, but one got the feeling they enjoy each other. What was telling to me was whenever O'Reilly would ask for an example (particularly from Carville) he got nothing. That's a shame - either Carville didn't do his homework (doubtful, given his background) or he was too used to speaking in generalizations.

In case anyone wants to wander over from some hyper-partisan blog (this one discusses issues raised by Candorville, remember?) and respond with namecalling because I admitted I watched O'Reilly's show - please spare me. I believe in going to source documents. If I want to find out what the Democrat Party stands for I don't ask the spokesperson for the Republican National Committee. If all I hear is namecalling, assertions and no facts (even facts subject to interpretation) I pretty much discount the message and the messenger. The video clip illustrates that.

Tiffany said...

Oh, please. Try watching an entire show, then. The "special comment" segment comes at the end of the show, but it's always preceded by and based on a longer, factual segment at the beginning of the show.

Oh, and when I hear someone say "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party" (the actual name of the party), I pretty much "discount the message and the messenger."

I also find it hard to take you seriously now, since you dismiss Olberman who uses indisputable facts (even if you can dispute his analysis), but say that Bill O'Reilly is fact-based, when he's constantly making up "facts" that just aren't true.

You always say that you haven't said what "team" you're on, but your posts make that very, very clear. Pretend to be an impartial observer all you want, but it's clear you're a Republican (or "Republigoon," since we're all now changing the name of each other's parties) through and through.

Paul said...

Well Tiffany, you either show your age or don't share the same historical humor - however obscure - I do. "Democrat" was a perjorative 18-century term used to describe "Republicans" (both not the same parties we have today, obviously). Rather used in a "pox on both your houses" "there's not that much difference between you both" context.

If you have a nice, similar reference for "Republicans' ("Republic" doens't fit at all) I'd be glad to use it.

"Discount" is not the same as "dismiss," by the way. Entirely different concepts.

tiffany said...

Not "entirely." The fifth definition of "discount" is to "disregard," which is the same thing as "to dismiss."

Why do people try to nitpick grammar when they disagree with someone? Just another way to try and dismiss (sorry, "discount") that person's message.

Your historical humor excuse doesn't wash in today's climate, where "Democrat Party" is STILL used as a pejorative, but of the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party. There isn't a comparably easy way to change the name of "Republican Party," which leaves your side at an advantage, and you people sure do press that advantage.

Anonymous said...

Olberman rules!

Paul said...

BTW - "you haven't said what team you're on" - I've offered that, if I recollect correctly, only when someone asks. Too often people ask for your label, then think in terms of that label. Besides which, too many hyper-partisans on both sides. "You can't be a Republican if you support current abortion law, strengthening of environmental law or change the tax structure from individuals to corporations." "You can't be a Democrat if you want to do away with affirmative action, let people keep more of the money they've earned (regardless of their income level) or - oh, the examples abound. We don't have many Scoop Jackson or Les Aspin Democrats (fill in similar concept) Republicans anymore.

And - there are more teams than two - in spite of the power brokers (Democratic :) and Republican parties) who want to protect their turf ("money and power" remember?) at the expence of a democracy in a republic.

Just saw your previous post - don't generally use fifth-level definitions - don't mean to nitpick to avoid a discussion - just try to be clear in what I mean.

Tiffany said...

A lot to agree with in your last post - especially the use of the term "Democratic" ;-)

I don't remember you offering what political party you belong to, but I'll point this out: I went in not knowing what party you belonged to, and then concluded you must be a Republican after reading several posts where you expressed your views. That's the opposite of knowing you're a Republican, and then having that color the way I read your posts.

Paul said...

Good point.

Paul said...

Bit off this topic, refers to earlier conversation:
Some refer to Drudge report as right-wing smear press. I saw it as compilation of various wire services, etc. Just saw this:

Translated report from the Iranian News Agency on their Holocaust Denial cartoon contest. Haven't seen this on any other "news" sources - again, it's source material from a main antagonist - provides plenty to think about in terms of how the Iranian government view the world.

Paul said...

G'morning, Tiffany et al -
This excerpt on Port Security (especially coming on the heels of the Democratic Party publishing a security plan) illustrates what I was trying to explain - Republican Congress (let alone the administration) hasn't taken the lead on this, the Democratic Party makes a proposal in "Real Security, Protecting American and Restoring Our Leadership in the World", then we're back to business as usual (again, this site discusses issues - what's good policy - not "state your team and take a position" - a refreshing change from so many, such as the site for the editorial cartoon for Atlanta's largest newspaper, where the discussion sounds like kindergarteners yelling variations of "nanny nanny boo boo" at each other) -

From the Wall Street Journal:
Congress is patting itself on the back for passing the Port Security Act last Saturday. But the day before, a House-Senate conference committee stripped out a provision that would have barred serious felons from working in sensitive dock security jobs... watered down a Senate-passed requirement that aligned the standards for hiring dock workers with those used at airports and nuclear plants.

Sen. Daniel Inouye, a Hawaii Democrat, assured colleagues he would fight for the ban in conference but in reality fought to have it weakened. His staff even called Port of Charleston officials and told them their port would be shut down if the DeMint amendment became law.

Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, a close friend of Mr. Inouye, also fought the measure

Tiffany said...

I should point out, in light of my last comments, that I really enjoy reading your posts, Paul. They always strike me as well-informed and good-natured, which is rare on the Internet. There are just a few things that press my buttons (people dismissing people such as Olberman and Cafferty is one, people saying "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party," for whatever reason, is another), so I get a bit testy when that happens.

elliott J. said...

Drudge Report is definitely right-wing. You can tell by their headlines and what they choose to cover. For example, when Clinton went on Fox, Drudge blared "Purple-faced rage." When Bush gets just as indignant as Clinton in his interviews (like that one last week with the guy from the Today Show), Drudge ignores it. The headlines and unflattering (often open-mouthed, in mid-blink, etc.) photos Drudge uses with Democrats often seem like they're trying to make Democrats look crazy. Compare that with the neutral headlines he uses about Republicans and the headshot-quality photos he uses for Republicans.

That stuff may sound frivolous to you, but it matters.

Paul said...

Thanks, Elliott J - also just read an ABC News report that said essentially the same, but highlighted Drudge's influence. I usually scan it for late-breaking news or to access various columnists.

Tiffany, regardless of my obscure humor, I really don't understand why "Democrat" is considered perjorative by Democrats. I do recall I grew up next to an elderly neighbor who was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat (living through the Depression, he had some valid reasons) and that was the term he regularly used. Maybe then it was just a generational thing.

BTW - I try to confine myself to the topics Mr. Bell raises - this is his space, after all - but if the topic ever turns to such things as primary and secondary education or proposals for reform of the federal bureaucracy - especially funding of the Department of Defense - you may accuse me of being a radical or a socialist! (My take is many of the those of the right-Right (and Left, for that matter) sound like New Deal Democrats when it comes to Defense. The fit-all answer to any problem is - spend more money!).

Paul said... does a nice job of taking political claims/counterclaims/ads and examining them in terms of facts and opinions (similar to what does with urban legends).

Their latest article ( is a nice examination of the entire Pres Clinton - Chris Wallace interview. It's not very emotional, not a lot of colorful expressions or adjectives, but it's pretty insightful.

BTW - the General Schoomaker, cited while he was head of US Special Operations Command, retired shortly thereafter. When the Bush Administration took over Gen Schoomaker was asked to return from retirement and become Chief of Staff of the US Army (senior military person in charge of the Army). In doing so many other senior officers (who'd earned their stars during the 1990s) were passed by.