Krauthammer Directly Challenges Totenberg on NPR’s ‘Hypocrisy’ in Firing Juan Williams While Letting Her Opine Freely
“Why is it okay for Nina to express opinions, as she has tartly, sharply, unashamedly and openly” while serving as “an honored correspondent” for NPR, while Juan Williams, “because he expresses his opinions, gets canned from NPR?” So Charles Krauthammer demanded while sitting Friday with Totenberg on the same Inside Washington set. “In fact, the standard ought to be lower in the case of Juan because he’s an analyst, whereas Nina is a correspondent.”
Krauthammer had picked up on NPR CEO Vivian Schiller’s contention that the network had canned Williams because he violated the policy that “news analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that's what's happened in this situation.”
An uncomfortable Totenberg asserted “it’s a very, very difficult line to draw. And NPR tries to draw it, in my view, using rules that don’t exist anymore.” To which, Krauthammer wondered: “But what’s the difference between you and Juan expressing opinions? You on this show, and him on Fox?” He condemned NPR: “It’s completely illogical and hypocritical.” (Audio: MP3 clip)
Instead of criticizing NPR, Politico’s Jeanne Cummings droned on about how “there are a lot of blurred lines and everyone of us has to bear in mind what responsibilities and what role we want to take in our profession. So it is risky when you get pulled on TV. Sometimes you get asked, if you’re a reporter, you sometimes get asked a question that you don't really feel comfortable answering in your capacity as a reporter.”
Krauthammer was unpersuaded: “This is all highfalutin journalistic theory. Where did Juan go over the line?”
Inside Washington, the successor of Agronsky & Company, is a weekly show now produced by ABC’s Washington, DC affiliate (after many years under the umbrella of the CBS affiliate, in later years owned by Gannett), which airs it Sunday morning after it runs Friday night on DC’s PBS affiliate, WETA-TV channel 26, and Saturday on local cable’s TBD TV which is also owned by the ABC affiliate’s parent, Allbritton Communications Company.)
In a Thursday post, “Is Nina Totenberg Next? NPR's legal affairs correspondent frequently expresses her pro-Democratic opinion,” the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes recited several examples in recent weeks of Totenberg sharing her liberal opinions on Inside Washington, including one lifted by Reason.com’s Michael C. Moynihan from the MRC’s site, which embedded our video from YouTube. That quote was a runner-up in the MRC’s 1999 “I'm a Compassionate Liberal But I Wish You Were All Dead Award (for media hatred of conservatives)” at the our very first DisHonors Awards dinner/gala. In 1995, she venomously spouted about Senator Jesse Helms:
I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind, because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.
A few more illustrative examples, as collected from the archive of the MRC’s Notable Quotables, of how Totenberg regularly takes “personal public positions on controversial issues” during her participation most weeks on Inside Washington:
“Spectacular”Elena Kagan, Nina’s “Superman”
“We know she [Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan] was a spectacularly successful dean at Harvard Law School where she was the first female dean — that she just moved the place, got it really moving again. Students loved her. She knocked heads on the faculty to get hires done. She was a spectacularly successful policy bureaucrat in the Clinton White House.”
— NPR’s Nina Totenberg on Inside Washington, May 14, 2010.
Pushing for ObamaCare: Now or Never
“I am not saying it’s ideal. But we have to start this. But if we don’t get a health care bill this time, it is probably the last chance.”
— Nina Totenberg on Inside Washington, November 20, 2009.
Liberal Laws Earned Kennedy "Redemption"
"He'll be remembered as a truly Shakespearean figure: tragic, flawed; who in the end achieved redemption through greatness — both in his personal life and in his professional life, and did enormous things for millions and millions of people."
— NPR's Nina Totenberg on Inside Washington, August 28, 2009.
"It made me feel pretty good. I thought it was a great speech....You know, a friend of mine said, ‘Oh my God, we have a President again!’ Now, in some ways, that’s not fair to Bush, but that’s the way you felt. You felt this was a guy who was totally in charge."
— NPR’s Nina Totenberg discussing President Obama’s address to Congress, February 27, 2009 Inside Washington.
Totenberg “Ashamed of My Country”
“I just want to say: Who are we? We are people who have always been for inspections of prisons, for some degree of human rights, and now we’re defending neither.... We have now violated everything that we stand for. It is the first time in my life I have been ashamed of my country.”
— NPR’s Nina Totenberg discussing secret CIA prisons for captured terrorists, Inside Washington, November 4, 2005. Video.
From the October 22 Inside Washington:
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: NPR then came up with a second explanation, the CEO said, “well he went over the line of NPR analysts and correspondents expressing opinions.” Well, I’m on the set with Juan at least once a week. I’ve been on the set with Nina here for almost 17 years-
NINA TOTENBERG: And Mara [Liasson] on Fox.
KRAUTHAMMER: Well, on this set with you. And I don't understand the inconsistency here. Why is it okay for Nina to express opinions, as she has tartly, sharply, unashamedly and openly, and she’s an honored correspondent there? In fact, they mention your status here on this show in your biography at NPR. And Juan, because he expresses his opinions, gets canned from NPR. That’s what the CEO said yesterday. In fact, the standard ought to be lower in the case of Juan because he’s an analyst, whereas Nina is a correspondent.
NINA TOTENBERG: In the modern journalistic world, where people are asked to give opinions all the time, whether you’re a regular on a show like this or not, if you cover a story you may be asked to appear on a television show and talk about it. I think it’s a very, very difficult line to draw. And NPR tries to draw it, in my view, using rules that don’t exist anymore.
KRAUTHAMMER: But what’s the difference between you and Juan expressing opinions? You on this show, and him on Fox? It’s completely illogical and hypocritical.
COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST: In Nina's behalf, that’s not a question that she should be made to answer-
KRAUTHAMMER: She works for NPR, perhaps she can explain it.
JEANNE CUMMINGS, POLITICO: But I think what this episode does demonstrate, or some of that, the changing nature of journalism. There are a lot of blurred lines and everyone of us has to bear in mind what responsibilities and what role-
KRAUTHAMMER: But where did Juan go over the line?
CUMMINGS: -we want to take in our profession. So it is risky when you get pulled on TV. Sometimes you get asked, if you’re a reporter, you sometimes get asked a question that you don't really feel comfortable answering in your capacity as a reporter.
KRAUTHAMMER: This is all highfalutin journalistic theory. Where did Juan go over the line? I’m defending him. He’s a friend of mine, he’s an innocent, he got fired.
KING: He’s been a friend of mine for twenty years-
KRAUTHAMMER: Where did he go wrong?
KING: As I said, it was not a firing offense.
— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
- Brent Baker's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Liberals can say what they want
Submitted by Rousse on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 3:07pm.
But as we all know, the first admendment only protects shocking liberal commentary. Woe unto the conservative.
Remember how Newt Gingrich was hounded from office because he got a nice advance from a book publisher, which somehow violated the "rules." And every senator and congressman since---has written a book while in office. Even the President is publishing a book while in office. So much for the rules, huh.
Good Opinion --- Bad Opinion
Submitted by libBuster on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 3:10pm.
It is not that NPR bans opinion. It's just that Nina's opinions are good and Juan's are bad.
Half right
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 7:36pm.
Juan expresses his on FOX News and Nina doesn't admit there is a FOX News. Simple.
Actually, this isn't a First Ammendment issue
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 3:19pm.
The 1st ammendment protects us from Government's suppression of free speech, in particular with freedom of the press. Juan's case is a contractual issue. Any industry can fire people, as long as their contract permits it.
But Charles is correct -- was this an arbitrary vengeful firing because Juan (a) appears on hated Fox News, and (b) said something about the new protected class -- muslims? Or did Juan violate a contract provision that doesn't apply to anyone else?
Having said that, the first ammendment also doesn't protect NPR from vengeful Americans pulling the public feeding tube from NPR. We ought to do it as soon as Congress re-convienes.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
No, I don't remember Gingrich
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 3:22pm.
No, I don't remember Gingrich being hounded from office because he got a nice advance from a book publisher.
He resigned because fellow Republicans wanted to get rid of him.
Jer
Thank you for the liberal---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 6:03pm.
version of the event.
MD
MD....
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 2:07am.
I'll simply refer you to Newsbubba's post below. You are free to pursue the issue with him.
Good luck.
Jer
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 2:45am.
No reason to pursue anything.
Newsbubba agrees with you.
Good for him.
He is saying something I agree with in that I don't recall Republicans ever being standup in the past.
As a matter of fact, I believe they tend to bend over and grab their ankles not only as a defensive position, but unfortunately that appears to be their favorite, and only, offensive move as well.
None of that changes the point I was tacitly making: Clinton was, and is, a lying dork.
Don't believe me?
Ask Hillary.
End of story.
MD
0245 hrs?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:43am.
Jeez, MD. Are you guys really still sober and awake at that time of day to pursue this stuff? You need to move to the tropics, bubba!
You are right. I cannot believe that our "Republican Leaders" are so willing to "bent over" for Dumbocraps, especially Clinton.
The boy is a pig and 'any old port in a storm" will do for him. I'll swear, if I dropped my wallet around him, I'd kick it all the way to Miami before I bent over to pick it up.
If the reference to "pig" offends any of you M-words or liberals out there, I apologize. In the future I'll use "goats" as an example, since the greatest scientific discovery made by muslims was the use of goat intestines as condoms. Of course it took the Brits to teach them to remove the intestine first before using it.
Newsbubba---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 8:19pm.
being retired helps me maintain a very tight schedule.
I am usually up by the crack of noon; that allows me to ponder the vagaries of dealing with liberal posters all during the wee hours.
I stay glued to the computer, though, as friends in law enforcement advise me that as a rule, the only people out and about at three a.m. are cops, crooks, or druggies. :^)
MD
Here's a shocker, Jer!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 6:06pm.
I agree with you, bubba! (taking another pull on the Sapphire and Tonic).
You are 100% correct. The gutless bastards who call themselves Republicans and conservatives who inhabit D.C. folded like a cheap suit. They always do when the liberals start yelling at them. I'd call them "a bunch of little girls" except that would be insulting to little girls, who apparently have more backbone than a RINO.
Thank God that the Mama Grizzlies are showing some of those wimps how to "man up."
It's a new dawn, Jer. We DO agree on something. I think I'll have another drink!
Thanks for bringing that
Submitted by BD on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 12:46pm.
Thanks for bringing that up.
What it proved was that Conservatives display moral standards.
Liberals have none..
End of story.
Notice how quickly they cut him off.
Submitted by NeoKong on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 3:09pm.
He asked Nina the question she could not possibly answer and the other guests jumped in to deflect his attack. Everybody knows the answer to the question but they cannot allow it to be said publicly.
Thats EXACTLY what I was thinking NeoK..
Submitted by Paul G on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 4:06pm.
They circled the wagons...3 against 1....
I wanted to hear what/how SHE would answer!...but when the other 2 saw/heard her stumble and mumble...SWoop......there they came...... Charles did try, to his credit, try to ask again...but it was too late..
It's a legitimate question
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 4:27pm.
It's a legitimate question and it can and should be raised by Krauthammer in his syndicated column and/or be posited directly to NPR, which, by the way, would have a very difficult time justifying the apparent double standard.
But, while it may be appropriate to make a general point at this venue, I disagree with Krauthammer assuming the role of prosecutor and cross-examining Totenberg on the set of "Inside Washington".
Jer
Hey Jer..I humbly disagree..
Submitted by Paul G on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 4:53pm.
It was a PERFECT forum/venue, for Krauthammer to ask/cross examine her. Who else was there on that panel that was going to ask THE question? There she was, THE(E) person. THE one that could/should have answered the questions.
Although I might take back the perfect forum/venue part....it should have been done during NCIS...more people watching :-)
Paul G
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 5:04pm.
Perhaps if it were an hour show with a representative of NPR management present.
Krauthammer raised the issue, Totenberg responded, but beyond that it would have most likely devolved into time-consuming, hair-splitting polemics on rules of journalism and roles of journalists, and thoroughly contentious but utimately pointless charges and retorts.
Jer
Just like in a ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 6:05pm.
Court of Law.
Interesting.
MD
Good one Mathew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 8:41pm.
ROFL
No, cajun... it was only a
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 8:51pm.
No, cajun...
it was only a fair to middling one.
In court there will be, right or wrong, a final verdict.
Jer
Not quite Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:03pm.
I found mathew's reply to your numerous posts on this thread funny because I have often witnessed the courtroom PROCESS with much similarity. And as far as I can tell, there is not yet a final verdict on this issue.
Also, cajun---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:16pm.
Jer said that in a court of law, right or wrong, there will be a final verdict.
O.J. Simpson walked away a free man from a murder trial, something that never should have happened.
That was wrong; and because it was wrong, will never be considered a final verdict by anyone outside the crazy confines of the judicial system.
All heinous crimes, like the one committed by O.J. Simpson, will receive a final verdict as an imprimatur from a much higher authority than that which resides in the temporal minds and opinions of the judiciary.
MD
right or wrong
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:17pm.
Thanks Jer, I haven't laughed that hard all day. The courtroom is the last place in the world there would be a right and wrong. The legal system is based on various shades of gray. The people in the system thrive on proving black is white and blue skies indicates rain. A system that takes nearly impossible odds and portrays them as a norm. I think I'm starting to understand why so many in the legal profession are liberal and/or politicians.
You do get a final verdict - until appeal.
If appealed, when appealed,
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:24pm.
If appealed, when appealed, and if appealable. (OJ verdict...right or wrong? Appealable? No.)
Jer
Appealable...right or wrong
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:32pm.
Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it appealable?
Clearly depends what the meaning of 'is' is.
Or more clearly - There still would be no true answer if one reflects on how the judicial system is set up. Starting with the most basic - Innocent until proven guilty (the more money you have to pay for better attorneys the more this law applies to you unless of course you are accused of actions against a protected group - see Duke Lacrosse Team. I'm not saying that the system is set up wrong just that it isn't designed to create factual answers just winners and losers.
Well said, Agnostic. I could
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:41pm.
Well said, Agnostic. I could not agree with you more.
Jer
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:34pm.
Agnostics post displayed simultaneously with mine, and I don't think he was implying anything about the O.J. trial.
I realize you were a lawyer, but that doesn't mean that anyone not a lawyer cannot understand the implications of a verdict.
Believe it or not, some of us have heard the phrase double jeopardy, and know what it means.
That is when Alex Trebek increases the money for the contestants correct answers, twofold.
MD
And with you, too, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:43pm.
So you and Agnostic both may now proceed to Final Jeopardy.
JIer
Jer, I'll risk it all
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:54pm.
On the subject - Ignorant Politicians and why anyone listens to them
Agnostic...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 10:11pm.
If your answer was What is "Ignorance Begets Ignorance"? or What is "we get the government we deserve"? ...
the judges will accept either.
Jer
ignorance begets ignorance because
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 10:17pm.
Dante had a special circle in political hell for the people that deserve this government.
Jer....you know OJ was just..............
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:47pm.
denied an appeal in the Nevada Supreme Court, over the strong arm robbery he was convicted of there. Nevada aint California. My aunt who lives there calls it "Cowboy land". There is justice.....sometimes
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Yes indeed, BEGRUNT...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:53pm.
I heard that just yesterday and was very pleased.
Jer
Not 100% sure about this
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 5:13pm.
I'm going to take a guess here and infer that Jer meant that Krauthammer, or anyone else for that matter, really isn't allowed to ask those type of questions.....except if they are on venues like Fox News or talk radio.
It's just not done. And sets a bad precident.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
You can guess to your heart's
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 5:22pm.
You can guess to your heart's content, Kingfish, but I meant exactly what I said for the reasons stated in my post immediated above yours.
Jer
That makes me sad
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 7:43pm.
Sorry you felt the need to reply that way at what was obviously just a joke.
I need to find new writers for my material.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I'm generally pretty good at
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 8:10pm.
I'm generally pretty good at recognizing sarcasm, joking, kidding, etc., but you really need to put a helpful emoticon at the end of that type of comment.
However, I wasn't trying to be hostile in my earlier response.
Jer
She may not be a defendant, but she is a witness
Submitted by KC Mulville on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 5:29pm.
If Krauthammer attacks Totenberg as if it's her creation, sure, that would be wrong.
But remember, this is a policy that Totenberg is presumed to know. The purpose of any such "policy" is to tell an employee what she can and cannot do. A policy is a boundary: you can do this, you can't do that. So if NPR has a policy about the issue, it's legally implied that the employees know what it is. After all, NPR fired Williams on the grounds that he crossed the line. What line?
Totenberg may not have created the policy, but she is presumed to know what it is. If she can't identify it (and she can't), then how can you fire a long-time employee based on a standard that no one can identify?
I'm a philosopher. I spend a lot of time mulling the ramifications of knowledge - what it is, when can you claim it, how can you assert certainty, etc. And from my perspective, journalism violates every line and boundary of "knowledge." They claim knowledge and credibility where they simply don't have it.
And it's from that philosophical perspective that I reject any supposed distinction between reporting and opinion. You know why NPR can't draw a line between the two? Because there isn't one.
All "straight news reports" are filled with opinion ... the selection of a story as "newsworthy" is itself the first opinion in a long series of opinions that creates a report. Who do we interview? How much of the background do we include? Who do we interview as a critic? These are all purely subjective decisions that are influenced by opinion.
If they wanted to be intellectually honest, they'd simply drop the distinction. Nobody would mind. They're the only ones who think it's a big deal.
KC...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 6:12pm.
The very fact you have raised significant, provocative, yet highly debatable issues underscores my point that a short segment on Inside Washington was an inappropriate forum for those questions to be addressed--unless it were a "special" sixty-minute program devoted to that subject alone with NPR management and other panelists available.
Jer
OK
Submitted by KC Mulville on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 6:27pm.
"Was that the right forum?" is a different concern than whether "Is that a fair question?"
Agreed.
On second thought
Submitted by KC Mulville on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 4:18pm.
Well now wait a minute.
Reporters feel free to discuss the Afghanistan War, tax policy, social issues like gay marriage, and so on ... all of which are issues they have no special expertise about.
But on the one issue they are presumed to be experts about, they can't say anything? They can't discuss journalism on a pundit show, but they can vomit opinions about everything else under the sun?
How does that make sense?
I'm sorry -- this is yet more proof that the people who know the least think they know the most.
NONSENSE! An open offensive
Submitted by BD on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 12:53pm.
NONSENSE!
An open offensive MUST be undertaken against ALL employees of NPR who must be required to answer important questions.
The public has a right to know and it is a journalistic imperitive to ask the question.
Or at least THAT is what I learned in J-school in the 1980's.
Not that journalists act like journalists lately.
I think it was the perfect forum and . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 1:14pm.
. . . Krauthammer was brilliant, and Totenberg and King were exposed. Consider a few facts:
What Krauthammer exposed with his simple but direct question was the hypocrisy of the Left when it comes to free speech and 'professionalism.' Juan Williams now sees that "colleagues" like Totenberg and King are not his friends, because they won't jeopardize their paychecks by coming to his support.
It's not uncommon this year. Both former Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler and Left-wing gadfly Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (both are white) are endorsing independent (and white) candidate Crist in Florida, instead of the legitimate Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek, who happens to be black. Perhaps Meek now sees that his party membership means nothing to other members.
Apparent double standard?---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 6:12pm.
Posted in #9.
Now that was funny!
MD
Okay...re #9
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 6:27pm.
Please disregard "apparent".
Jer
Why?
Submitted by BD on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 12:49pm.
Why?
BD---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 8:29pm.
Exactly.
I always laugh, when the actor playing the role af a judge says, "Members of the jury will disregard that statement".
I guess that means it was never said, eh?
MD
"She works for NPR, perhaps she can explain it."
Submitted by merly1 on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:25pm.
And the rest of the panel would have none of that........
Following the path of Nina
Submitted by TE on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 3:14pm.
Following the path of Nina Totenberg, Williams should have said that he hoped for the death of Obama and his children, and that would have protected his job. Right?
Muddy the waters ...
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 3:20pm.
"Highfalutin"!!!
I love it! :-D
All these people can do is muddy the waters. It's what they do with their "highfalutin" explanations and excuses.
Why don't libs just admit they want to shut everyone else up!
Liberal Panic
Submitted by JustAl on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 3:23pm.
The libs are in full on panic mode. They are about to loose power and see the systematic dismantling of every bit of "progressive" BS they've accomplished in the last two miserable years.
Now, in their rush to do something, anything, to apeal to anyone, they've neatly tied a noose around the neck of CPB.
Outstanding! If the GOP wants to start to redeem itself this is the place to start. Pull the protective cloak of "public" from CPB and it becomes even more irellivant. If the GOP fails to do this, then it defacto becomes an irrelivant third party. Either way, we the people come out ahead.
If we could just get an opening like this to get the h__l out of the UN now.
You're right
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 2:07pm.
The Left finds that it can't keep the diversity-unity illusion in tact, because the cracks are all over the political and social landscape.
Holy Cannoli!
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 3:27pm.
I didn't even realize that Nina Totenberg said all those things!
I think it’s a very, very difficult line to draw. And NPR tries to draw it, in my view, using rules that don’t exist anymore. -Totenberg What the???? How about "using rules that didn't exist before," Nina!! It seems to me that those rules just created NOW, for the express purpose of firing Juan Williams. The fact that Totenberg can accept Williams' firing, in the face of the deplorable things that she has said, is a head-exploding masterpiece of both double standard AND hypocrisy!!Yeah, co-worker solidarity
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 3:51pm.
Nothing like it, eh Juan?
The fact that Charles Krauthammer went straight at Totenberg with this should enlighten everyone as to the Fox crew's deep and abiding affection for Juan Williams.
Charles is a gentleman. I can't imagine him doing this if he weren't deeply angered at the shabby treatment of his friend.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
MB~
Submitted by GG_NB on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 3:29pm.
Yeah, me neither. "Holy Cannoli" is right. Well, I guess this is bringing a lot of things to light.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
MB*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 3:53pm.
Well said.
But don't forget corruption and bribery.
These people have been bought and paid for by CAIR and GEORGE SOROS.
This becomes
Submitted by NDanielson on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 3:40pm.
a first Amendment issue when congress forces taxpayers to fund the repression and sanctioning of free speech that it does not agree with politcally.
Meana Tote-Bag. What a babe.
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 3:37pm.
Meana Tote-Bag. What a babe. How quickly they become one of the Golden Girls.
Or in her case The Fool's Golden Girls.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
Spiteful and hateful, but yet still employed?
Submitted by Tomorama on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 3:51pm.
Hopefully if there is retribution coming, this hag and at least half her grandchildren get cancer.
"I would like to thank all that made this blogging Pulitzer possible, and gosh, all I had to do was write hateful and spiteful things".................................
The "right" defending Wiliams is driving libtards crazy.
Where are all the progressive leaders speaking out in his defense, I hear Palin, Gingrich and others, where Jesse and Weird Al at?
NAACP, homey need help......
I actually heard some nice liberal AA on Matthews say last night that she was just speaking with the "Black Jounalists association (or something like that) and they all think that Williams is Conservative.
Wow, I did take a journalism course in college, but there is NO WAY that I would describe him as a Conservative, NO WAY.
He did dare leave the plantation though, maybe that is what these oh so smart people mean?
No, Tomorama... The "right"
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 4:10pm.
No, Tomorama...
The "right" defending Williams is not driving liberals crazy. Most of the lib pundits who I have heard weigh in on the subject--including Matthews and Colby King--have disagreed with Juan's termination by NPR (and rightfully so).
And please don't break your arm patting the "right" on its back for defending Williams. Hypothetically, if Fox News were to fire Mike Huckabee for saying Islamophobia is a very disturbing phenomenon is this country, I am sure the vast majority of the "left" would rally behind Huckabee.
Jer
Amazing argument Jer
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 4:23pm.
So now your projecting equivalency.
Call it what you like. But
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 4:31pm.
Call it what you like. But there's nothing amazing about it. I'm expressing my opinion on what I believe would be the likely reaction in analogous circumstances.
Jer
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 6:15pm.
You're fired!
Expressing your opinion, indeed.
MD
Jer, I am sorry, the Left
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 4:39pm.
Jer,
I am sorry, the Left in America is rejoicing over Juan Williams firing. Have you gone into DailyKos? Thinkprogress.org? and the many other Democratic party websites? Read the comments, they are 99.9% anti-Juan Wiliams, quite a few very racist against Williams.
The Left is rejoicing over this. There are a tiny, miniscule minority on the Left who disagree with NPR, however, the Left is anti-Juan Williams.
Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 4:54pm.
In the initial aftermath of the firing, the majority of commenters at HuffPo appeared to support Williams and were critical of NPR--which is precisely my view.
I haven't checked it since Williams got a hefty new contract from Fox and ripped into NPR while subbing for O'Reilly. That could have created a backlash against Williams.
Jer
Yeah,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 6:17pm.
the truth does seem to always cause a backlash effect from liberals.
MD
Not to mention,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 2:27am.
Juan went and got a, probably better, gig at Fox. How dare he not whine and moan, and beg for his job back at NPR's plantation?
And, where's the LOTUS, telling all and sundry that NPR "acted stupidly"?
Jer, Why do you always talk
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 1:23pm.
Jer,
Why do you always talk about the tiny exceptions on the Left and make it seem as if it was all of the Left?
Go to Thinkprogress.org, the racist comments against Juan Williams are pathetic. The TRUE colors of the vast majority of the Left has come out with this incident. Thinkprogress not only has the average joe/jane who post as anti-Juan Williams, but Thinkprogress.org bloggers are supporting NPR.
Then you have regular Left wing joe/jane on NPR, Thinkprogress.org, DailyKos, HuffingtonPost, and other popular Left wing sites making horrific, racist comments againast Juan Williams. These Left wingers, which today infest the Democratic party, are rejoicing at Juan William's plight.
the hatred, vitrol and racism on the Left is quite visible, Jer. I am unsure why you have chosen to blind yourself to it.
Jer, you are batting a thousand
Submitted by Tomorama on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 1:21pm.
NAME ONE LIBERAL POLITICIAN JER WHO HAS COME TO HIS AID?
Just one Jer.
You are flat out wrong about the Huckabee thing as well, THEY would all use it to paint Fox as across the board bigoted and you know it.
Take a look at your boy Andrew hammering Fox for hiring him to a bigger position.
Not my opinion chief, actual facts.
And for a backlash against Williams, the man himself has often stated that he is called racist things like Uncle Tom and Oreo BY PROGRESSIVES..... that hate the fact that he appears on Fox, LONG BEFORE this incident genius.
You are outgunned, outmanned and totally out of your limits of thought.
Tomorama, At any moment now
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 1:32pm.
Tomorama,
At any moment now President Obama will come out and make a statement saying that NPR acted stupidly! LOL
The Left in America is full of racists. If you as a minority dare to be Conservative, Republican the Left will come at you with racist comments, vitrol, hatred. I mean, how dare a minority not believe teh lies of the Left? How dare a minority not play the victim card?
As a Conservative Latino, I have experienced the vitrol and hatred of the Left against minorities who dare think on their own. The Left in America demands that all minorities support and vote for Left wing causes. If you don't then you will be called an Oreo, an Uncle Tom, a House N....ger by the same Left wingers who claim to be tolerant, compassionate, open minded, etc, etc.
Tomorama: Know the difference between a pundit and politician?
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 4:58pm.
If not, look it up, sport.
And then reread my post.
And then revise my batting average, so you won't look so foolish.
As I mentioned, Chris Matthews and Colby King have criticized NPR's decision and defended Williams. So have Mark Shields and Howard Kurtz and (I believe) the members of The View as well. Uber-leftist Michael Moore at HuffPo didn't offer a rousing defense of Williams, but he did object to the firing, and another blogger there made absolute mincemeat of NPR.
Here is another representative sentiment which may interest you. [Scroll down to "NPR Bringing US Together" about half-way down the page.] Here is a quote from the article:
In these divisive times, it’s nice to see this outbreak of bipartisan horror. In the unscientific readers’ poll at the Washington Post, which one can assume has a healthy contingent of Democrats, 80 percent said NPR was wrong to fire Juan Williams. NPR pretends to be serving the “public” — but the public doesn’t countenance its wholly unreasonable actions.
Next time, pal, get your facts straight before you start popping off.
Jer
Hey sport
Submitted by Tomorama on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 10:07am.
Hey "sport" I never said a few libtard pundits haven't spoken up for Williams, A FEW have.
You said many on the left have and I simply asked name ONE politician on the left who did so as at LEAST FOUR Conservatives have come out in Williams defense.
The gutless libtard politicians lack the seeds to say anything that might make them look pro-Fox or anti-NPR and that was my point.
My other point was that you are full of spit about the left DEFENDING Huckabee in this type of situation as they would USE it against ALL of Fox and your boy Andrew Sullivan proves it BY HIS VERY WORDS.
And lastly genius, the supposed backlash you speak of because Williams started hammering NPR, how do you account for the OREO and Uncle Tom remarks by your fellow Progressive thinkers over the years or were they SIMPLY thinking ahead?
Again Jer, you are outgunned, outsmarted and brutally OUTMANNED.
Once again, "chief", it would
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/03/2010 - 7:43pm.
Once again, "chief", it would be helpful if you would confine the debate to the specific issue which was raised [by you] and contested [by me]. You claimed the fact that Williams was being defended by the "right" was driving the "left" crazy.
I disputed the claim generally, noting that Juan's position vis a vis NPR had been defended by many progressive commenters at HuffPo as well as a number of liberal pundits, several of whom I named, while also linking evidence of the outcry against NPR at the WaPo website--which further buttressed my argument. I am not excusing or condoning whatever disparaging remarks may have been made in the past about Williams regardless of the source [which is often from the right as well as the left], but those incidents are really not germane to the present controversy.
Finally, I simply expressed an opinion about the likely consequences of an analogous situation involving a hypothetical firing of Huckabee. You are free to disagree with my opinion, which you did, with your customary ad hominem.
One of these days you may actually present a compelling argument. Keep trying.
Jer
NPR vs FoxNews
Submitted by xraynova on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 3:56pm.
NPR's firing of Williams seems more like the first step in an attempt to justify the leftwing position that FoxNews is bigoted, and not "Fair & Balanced."
NPR cannot take such a position while Foxnews has black liberals on its staff.
While it's likely that Jesse Jackson will continue to be welcome at NPR despite making a comment similar to Williams' comment, people like marc lamont hill and al sharpton and other black liberals should not be making plans for visits to NPR's studio... unless they abandon appearances on FoxNews.
So, now that NPR has made the first move, Mara Liasson had better sleep with one eye open as long as NPR is on the prowl. But in its attempt to paint FoxNews as unfair and unbalanced, NPR will wait until the smoke settles, to go after the liberal women who also appear on FoxNews.
Mara... my local drugstore is running a special on NoDoz.
Obama and the Left have tried and continue to try to . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 2:25pm.
. . . isolate Fox News as a dangerous mouthpiece for the extreme Right. Obama tried pointing fingers at Fox, and that blew up in his face.
There reportedly is an old Chinese fable that ends with the proverb: "Sometimes you have to kill the chicken to scare the monkey." So the current tactic is throw some liberals (i.e. Juan Williams) under the bus in order to scare other liberals from appearing on Fox News programs.
Horse Hockey, Nina!
Submitted by TexasMom0517 on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 4:10pm.
NeoKong is right; they all jumped in to deflect the question. The Left's position is "Free speech for me, but not for thee." And, the newest "victim classes" are Muslims and gays (the latter of which the former would put to death, since as Ajhmedinejad (sp) said, there are no homosexuals in Iran.)
I never agree with Juan Williams, but he certainly was wrongfully terminated, and then his reputation harmed, by NPR. NPR and PBS have long ago outlived their need in this country and should be defunded. Congress, do your job.
Monkey Muffins!
Submitted by jdlybrand on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 5:34pm.
When confronted with a simple question, they all chose to engage in journo-babble. Cheers to Krauthammer!
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
The proverbial liberal "shades of gray" argument
Submitted by JakeMo on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 5:34pm.
Ever notice? When it comes time to judge the behavior of a liberal, as Jeanne Cummings said “there are a lot of blurred lines."
But when it comes time for one of them to judge a conservative, suddenly the lines couldn't be more clear.
No way can Krauthhammer's can
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 5:49pm.
No way can Krauthhammer's can be answered honestly.
I think the left would like to stop all liberals from appearing on Fox News. This way they can make true their claim that Fox is not balanced. If they were smart they would encouraged liberals to go on Fox, since very few other channels have any worthwhile ratings.
But Rad---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 6:20pm.
Then liberal stupidity and viciousness would be recognized as the liberal way by too many people who are currently unaware of that fact.
MD
Thank you, Dr. Krauthammer.
Submitted by samhermanmd on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 5:54pm.
Nina Totenberg has no escape route. As you are a fellow pyschiatrist, she can't resort to psychobabble nor can she try slithering away from the fact that CPB has given her cover for her propagandizing for too many years. She is the modern version of Louella Parsons, Hedda Hopper and Westbook Pegler all rolled into one. Of course, Louella and Hedda actually had some credibility--Nina does not.
LOL, Doc Sam
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 5:59pm.
I was reading fast and read your Parson's reference as "Cruella DeVille". That kind of fits, too....maybe Nina should dress up in black & white garb the next time.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Krauthammer: "Where did he
Submitted by GregE on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 6:28pm.
Krauthammer: "Where did he go over the line?"
.........and unless it came later, not in that clip, there was NO ANSWER. Why? Because there is NOT one. IF one came later, it could only have been nonsensical.
I wish Krauthammer would have used examples of Nina Totenburg's opinions, just as Steve Hayes did on Special Report on Thursday night. Steve's analysis with the examples was excellent, and it would have been awesome for Charles to present those to Nina right there in person for her to respond.
good news!!
Submitted by sometimesright on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 7:19pm.
Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year contract Thursday morning, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington Bureau has learned. The Fox News contributor will now appear exclusively and more frequently on the cable news network and have a regular column on FoxNews.com.
gratz, Juan. i don't expect Juan's opinions to mirror Fox's for the sake of the contract but i expect he'll go far. to hell with NPR.
Bad comparison
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 7:52pm.
There seems to be this fallback position for Liberals that says you shouldn't criticise Islam for the attacks of 9/11 unless you're also willing to critcise Christianity for the McVeigh attack on the Murrah building. This is what set off the pigs on The View, and is often mentioned in discussing the JW firing from NPR.
But there's a significant deviation between these two attacks; one was done in the name of Islam, the other was done as a response to the Waco debacle. One had religious roots, the other had anti-government, or militia roots. The motivation was entirely different.
Of course the Lib pundits know this; they're not stupid. They are, however, quite dishonest.
*
Submitted by Chaitealover on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 11:12pm.
Then there's the minor detail that McVeigh was not a Christian at all. He was an avowed agnostic.
Chai
McVeigh was raised a Roman
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 11:44pm.
McVeigh was raised a Roman Catholic, but his only true religion was guns and anti-government fanaticism, much like his soul-mate, the child rapist and faux Messiah, David Koresh. However, McVeigh did manage to double Koresh's body count.
Of course that paled in comparison to the 9/11 Islamoterrorists who bested McVeigh by a factor of 20.
Jer
Jer, McVeigh might have
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 9:46pm.
Jer,
McVeigh might have been raised a Roman Catholic, but he wasn't one as he so clearly claimed! He was NOT a Christian. Just because you were raised something, it doesn't mean that you believe or live your life according to those set of beliefs/morals, correct?
McVeigh would be a Roman Catholic, a Christian, if he had followed ALL of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. As he so clearly showed with his action and with his own claims, he was FAR from a Christian. At no moment did he claim that he bombed the Oklahoma building for Jesus Christ, right? or because the Roman Catholic Church taught him to do it, right?
Why do Liberals have this obession with McVeigh having to be a Christian?
McVeigh was NOT a Christian as he showed through is actions and as he so clearly stated.
McVeigh belongs to the secularist.
But just like atheist refuse to accept the fact that atheist nations, atheits individuals have murdered many more 100s of millions than all religions combined through out human history, they refuse to accept the fact that McVeigh was in the camp of secularist/atheist.
Geez, Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 10:20pm.
You're so contentious you are now trying to convince me of something I already agree with. Relax.
Jer
Nope, they're both
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 3:57am.
They are not only stupid and dishonest, they are willfull liars, by deed and omission.
As stated above, McVeigh was on their side. He was secular. He was an avowed athiest.
Whoopi and joyless can shove that inconvenient truth right up theie a$$. maher too.
If there's a poster...
Submitted by ChrisNH on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 8:08pm.
...showing a prototypical 'Haughty Liberal Media Elite' it ought to have a picture of this Totenberg woman. Goodness gracious, she just LOOKS the part.
with all the yaking going on*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 8:47pm.
Interesting that Mara Liassan has been very quiet since she too was a Fox contributor. hmmm
What Williams said was deeply offensive to Muslims and inflamed,
Submitted by Rush Fan on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 8:50pm.
rather than contributing positively, to an important debate about the role of Muslims in America."
So wrote Alicia C. Shepard, NPR's Ombudsman, in an article defending Juan Williams' firing. Shepard had more to say:
Did you really believe Juan Williams was going to receive a fair shake from the NPR Ombudsman?
NPR's values emphasizing
Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:11pm.
NPR's values emphasizing fact-based, objective journalism Trans - We decide what is journalism - and liberal journalist don't stray from the script versus the tendency in some parts of the news media, notably Fox News, Trans - Only bible-thumping racist clingers would stray from the NPR liberal plantation to promote only one side of the ideological spectrum. Trans - Anyone not in lock step with the liberal NPR message must be promoting an agenda. Funny thoughts for the night - Where are the conservatives from NPR commenting on the firing (David Brooks most sincerely does not qualify). Also, NPR fired a person trying to spread an opposing message on a network NPR claims is one sided. Juan Williams was the liberal foil on a non-liberal channel and that doesn't send a clue that there is more than one side being displayed - unlike the lack of conservative voices for NPR - at least recently.Delicious! Krauthammer at his
Submitted by QueenMum on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:13pm.
Delicious! Krauthammer at his best.
“If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain
I think Williams was fired at
Submitted by tunes59 on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:19pm.
I think Williams was fired at the order of George Soros. Let’s put this in perspective as far as George Soros. Soros born “Schwartz György” in Hungary, worked for the N***S during WWll helping them round up Jews.
Source: Masquerade: dancing around death in Nazi-occupied Hungary By Tivadar Soros (His father’s book)
How does Soros feel about what he did as a teenager? Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes asked him that very question. Was it difficult? “Not at all,” Soros answered. “No feeling of guilt?” asked Kroft. “No,” said Soros. “There was no sense that I shouldn’t be there. If I wasn’t doing it, somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. Whether I was there or not. So I had no sense of guilt.”
That moral hollowness has shaped Soros’ life. He’s a rabid critic of capitalism, but in 1992 when he saw a chance, he speculated against the British pound, causing it to crash, devastating retirement savings for millions of Britons. Soros pocketed $1.1 billion for himself. If he didn’t do it, someone else would, right?
In 2002, Soros was convicted of insider trading in France, and fined millions of dollars. He admitted buying the shares, but denied it was a crime.
He made $3.3 billion off the banking collapse; he called the world’s financial crisis “the culmination of my life’s work.”
Now that we have a fact based perspective of Soros, what do you think George wants for his money?
A real dragon slayer
Submitted by zachlind on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:35pm.
Charles certainly owned the moment and I can only imagine the electricity in the air after the first sentence? Don’t you just love it when a real Conservative goes to battle and slays the dragon, blood, guts and lipstick all over the floor, goodness, life is good? Next Charles needs to go over to the dungeon (NPR headquarters) and disinfect that place too.
How is that fundraiser going?
Submitted by SparkyInVA on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 9:35pm.
Last week while I was traveling, NPR was in fund raising mode. I am sure not many conservatives contribute, but this has to impact the independent's donations as well. While Juan is no conservative, I think he realizes he just got mugged, and his opinion is changing from left to middle.
Hopefully he will start looking a little deeper into his positions and start seeing that actions have consequences: that tough love gives people incentive to change while government programs disincentives the recipients.
Now if he only knew about the origin of that "don't tread on me" flag...
Sorry - double clicked
Submitted by zachlind on Sat, 10/23/2010 - 10:59pm.
Sorry - double clicked
Notice, he asked a direct question
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 1:35am.
And none could answer.
blurred lines?
Submitted by superllama on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 1:58am.
this seems to be their defense...that he crossed some sort of blurred line, so it was ok to fire him. also..notice how they try to push foward that he was asked a question and maybe he shouldn't have answered it....he said what he did of his own free will, no one made him.
i have seen him become more conservative in the last few years, i used to cringe wen he came on tv, because i knew he'd be spouting the party line for democrats. now though, i am proud of him, because he sees how his democrat buddies really are.
Throw down the hammer!
Submitted by wiwf on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 8:00am.
Throw down the hammer!Hypocrite City
Submitted by cobokat on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 9:37am.
It's amazing that everyone on this panel was dancing around the real question. Why is it okay for liberal to openly express their opinions but consevatives cannot?! The liberal media is afraid of this administration.
I Wonder How Her Opinion Would Differ
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 10:26am.
From the article, concerning Ted Kennedy:
"He'll be remembered as a truly Shakespearean figure: tragic, flawed; who in the end achieved redemption through greatness — both in his personal life and in his professional life, and did enormous things for millions and millions of people."— NPR's Nina Totenberg on Inside Washington, August 28, 2009.
Would she think the same if the byline read: ---NPR's Nina Totenberg From Inside a Sinking Oldsmobile, July 18, 1969.Juan should play the race card
Submitted by gregfahey on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:12am.
If NPR had a conservative slant and Juan (being a conservative too) appeared on Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, Behar, etc; and was fired, what do you think would happen?
Those Liberals would be screaming "racism!".
Odd that they can can a black person like Williams and not a hint of racism is bandied about. Trust me, they (NPR) fear this more than anything.
If I were Juan, I'd consider playing this card.
Where is Sharpton?
Psychiatrist remark
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 1:14pm.
Schiller actually said to Juan: "Your mind is not right" "Get it fixed and you can come back".
Charles nails it as usual...
Submitted by MarkR on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 2:13pm.
Do these knuckle heads on this show really understand how foolish they look as Charles is impaling their weak as-sed arguments to pieces? Liberals are so exposed now its unreal watching them do the Obama shuffel ...uh, ughh , oh um uh etc. Its funny to watch Totenberg stretch to nowhere to try and answer Charles assertions. I have seen stupid before but this is becoming as stupid as you can get. Liberals now literally have no shame.
My opinion
Submitted by tampamom25 on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 2:35pm.
If Juan had made a similar comment about someone walking toward him wearing a large cross, there would have been no repercussions at all. But he trespassed on sacred property when he said something negative about Muslims. Let's face it, you can criticize anyone or anything connected to Christianity but do not dare say one negative thing about Muslims. And that, in my opinion, is the sum total reason why he was fired.
1st Amendment Misunderstandings
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 2:48pm.
Juan William's firing was stupid, but it was NOT a violation of the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
First off, the amendment only prevents the Federal Government from punishing people for their comments. It does not prevent the people from reacting to the speech of others. NPR is not Congress therefore the 1st has not been violated.
Second, Juan Williams was not punished. Since the job he held is technically the property of NPR and not Juan Williams, NPR is free to fill that position with whomever they want or terminate the job altogether. Therefore this is another reason why the 1st Amendment has not been violated.
I thought we conservatives had a better understanding of the 1st than a bunch of liberals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
The obvious reason for firing...
Submitted by m4ster chief on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 3:42pm.
I haven't had time to read all the comments, but I know I'm not the first to say that he was fired because he is Black.
After all, that's the liberal line with Conservatives who disagree with Obama. I don't like the ObamaCare plan, therefore I'm racist. So, NPR didn't like Williams' opinion...they are racist.
Give the libs enough rope and they'll hang themselves...
It's real simple. Liberals
Submitted by RealVet on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 8:14pm.
It's real simple. Liberals are cowards.
During the Vietnam War, for the first time they saw the result of militant Communism on the nightly news. The war was suddenly real. They soon realized that they just might have to get hurt or die fighting to liberate people from the evils of that doctrine - so all of a sudden, North Vietnam and the VC were the good guys and America was the bad guy.
They've also been terrified of militant blacks since the 60's riots - as a result, militant blacks became the left wing cause celebre' for the next 4 decades. Example - liberal rationale dictated that it was OK for them to burn down the city and target random whites for execution simply because a bunch of bad cops beat the hell out of Rodney King.
Now it's the muslims. Muslims killed thousands in NYC in one fell swoop. Before and since, they've murdered hundreds of thousands more in the name of their false prophet and their God. They've posted their barbaric deeds on the internet for everyone to see.
Therefore, in the tortured mind of a self-righteous liberal, muslims should not be offended, lest they go on the rampage again in this country. That's why Juan Williams got canned.
In addition to self-loathing, a liberal's existence is plagued with endless Stockholm Syndrome. It fits right in with their hatred of American culture, and their twisted belief that if you appease your enemies, they will leave you alone.
Gosh, it seems like I just
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 8:15pm.
Gosh, it seems like I just posted this not long ago. Guess I need to again.
Jer
So you posted the link twice,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 9:03pm.
did you ever read it through?
It is nothing more than a liberal propaganda blog piece, playing up Lib-Dims as one time derring-do, patriotic, medal-winning heroes.
If the list had stopped there, one could neither refute it nor deny that some of those on the list are to be admired for their military service (despite having become liberal Democrats).
Others listed have been shown to be phony flakes, ala John F'ing Kerry.
The fact, however, that the list continues on, listing Rep-Cons as either military no-shows or as clueless wimps while in service to America, shows the list for what it really is, a hit piece against non-liberals.
Period.
MD
Yep Mat
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 9:10pm.
Just like I told him last time, by the standards of that list, it is fair to call every dimwit that never served a coward.
Yes, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 9:16pm.
Indeed, it is clearly partisan. And I can understand why...inasmuch as Democrats and liberals constantly have the "coward" or "unpatriotic" cards thrown in their face--such as this most recent instance by RealVet.
Jer
Well, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 9:28pm.
When Lib-Dims do their usual, such as praise and support the purple-lipped one, it is easy for me to see why, based on the damage Obama has done to this once great nation, why Lib-Dims, regardless of past military service, are seen by conservatives as unpatriotic.
If you help shaft this country, your past military record, regardless of its shine, becomes either a neutral talking point or a shield to hide behind.
MD
Well here's the rub, Jer
Submitted by RealVet on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:01am.
Well here's the rub, Jer (for you and all liberals) - Like it or not, the vast majority of the millions of Vietnam War protestors, flag burners, America-haters, and draft-dodgers were liberals. They were cowards and traitors who openly supported Ho Chi Minh and the VC.
I know. I lived through it. And I served back then.
And as retired military, I can say with utmost certainty that most of the volunteer military is decidedly conservative and votes Republican.
As for your list - it means absolutely nothing. Many crooks, pedophiles, murderers, thieves, liars, and traitors have served in the military - just like politicians.
Those are the hard core facts.
FYI, Jer
Submitted by RealVet on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:10am.
I never threw a "coward" or "unpatriotic" card in anyone's face.
I did, however (back in 69) have the distinct and satisfying pleasure of busting a dog$hit-throwing flag burner in the teeth with his own metal peace symbol.
It's one of my fondest memories.
FYI, RealVet...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:20am.
I lived through it too. And my recollection is that the vast majority of the anti-American flag burners were nihilistic radicals like David Horowitz for whom liberals like myself felt nothing but disdain.
And, maybe it's a quibble, but when you say without qualification: "Liberals are cowards", I consider that to be playing the unpatriotic/coward card.
Jer
It's just been my personal
Submitted by RealVet on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 7:19am.
It's just been my personal experience that liberals are true cowards - especially the flag burning, America-hating and NVA / VC supporting nihilistic radicals that you refer to.
These people publicly refused to serve their country in time of war; improved enemy morale, and cemented enemy resolve. To me, that is unpatriotic and cowardly.
Those facts need no qualification. However, news history, film archives, books, and the people themselves provide qualification if you need it. I don't, as I dealt with it first hand.
The most despicable aspect of it all is that for decades, these low-lifes and their contemporary counterparts have enjoyed the safety and freedom provided by people who continue to sacrifice everything for America.
If that's the unpatriotic/coward "card" as you say, I have no problem trumping the hand with it.