Bozell: Christine O'Donnell's Reaction to Piers Morgan Was 'Downright Bizarre'
Editor's Note: The following commentary by NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell was posted late this afternoon on CNN.com.
It's time to weigh in on the Christine O'Donnell v. Piers Morgan dust-up Wednesday.
In short, O'Donnell's behavior was beyond indefensible. It was downright bizarre.
The questions Piers Morgan put forward may have been trite, even seemingly silly, but given to whom they were being posed, they were not inappropriate. He asked if in her heart O'Donnell has committed lust.
He asked her views on gay marriage. He asked her views on witchcraft and on masturbation. Titillating questions? Sure, but O'Donnell has staked out public opinions on all these fronts and it is those public statements she's made that invite questions like his. She had to know she'd be asked these things when she accepted the interview invitation. If she didn't then she's living in a parallel universe. Moreover, Morgan was neither Chris Matthews rude nor Keith Olbermann offensive. He simply asked the questions.
O'Donnell had no right to reject the questions. Even worse, in declaring them inappropriate she made an ass of herself.
She answered the gay marriage question by declaring, over and over, that the answer could be found in her book, which book she was there to promote, except she refused to discuss her position on gay marriage, which was in the book. She declared she was there to "talk about the issues I chose to talk about in the book," and when asked by Morgan, "Do you answer that question in the book?" she answered, "I talk about my religious beliefs, yes. I absolutely do." But she wouldn't answer his question about gay marriage, and instead accused him of being rude to her.
Nonsensical is too kind. She is a buffoon.
O'Donnell had no right to walk off the set. But in a sense I'm glad she did -- if it means she'll never come back. Conservatives do themselves no favors by defending this woman and she is doing conservatives no favors by going on national television programs to talk about -- God only knows what she'll talk about, or not talk about, next. Please, Christine O'Donnell, call it a day.
- Brent Bozell's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
While O'Donnell could have
Submitted by robert108 on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 7:57pm.
While O'Donnell could have handled Morgan's crude overtures in a much better fashion, for example, by ridiculing his obsession with sexual topics, he was being extremely creepy, and was obviously out to play "gotcha" with her, rather than seriously discussing her book. Ann Coulter would have flayed him alive(figuratively speaking) in the same situation.
Ann Coulter? She is now a GOP icon for that funny oufit
Submitted by lrgon on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:54pm.
that works out of a hole in DC? What's their name, go proud something. Yea, I guess she would have stood up to weird Piers.
Why do conservatives find it so hard to tell creeps like Matthews and Piers and Olgermann what's his name to read what the Bible says about God's views on the subject?
The Bible Would Protect Itself from Matteews and Piers
Submitted by Avitar on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:40pm.
I don;t think that the book would burst into flames but the word will beyond their understanding.
I don't think Piers is the
Submitted by ThoughtPolice on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:11pm.
I don't think Piers is the one obsessed with Sex. O'Donnell has been very public about her ideas on what other people should and shouldn't do sexually based on her own views of morality. Fortunately, we live in the U.S. in which morals can be different amongst different people. My question is, if she feels strongly about her views, why not express them in this interview?
Because she was on to discuss her book
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:21pm.
which is not about sex, nor about her own sexual habits.
But since Michelle Obama is very public on her ideas about what other people should eat and not eat, when is the media going to ask her about her eating habits? Not only does she talk about it publicly, she's a hypocrite.
But I forget, she's not a conservative.
context, context, context
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:22pm.
Her views were representative of a cause she championed two decades ago and was being showcased as one side of a "debate" on an MTV show. I understand that people are responsible for their actions, but she was in her twenties. The book, apparently, is not about that time in her life. Again, until everyone is held to the same standard, this is nothing but an example of singling out a media-made controversial conservative woman.
Thanks, Brent.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:00pm.
Finally, the voice of reason!
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Where is my Calendar?
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:07pm.
Is it April 1st again already?
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Want to defend Christine but can't
Submitted by Kuso Jiji on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:10pm.
Piers Morgan is a jerk but she chose to go on his show and she had to know he has a liberal agenda and the questions would be designed to make her look bad. If you are going to go on a show like that, you had better have a better game plan then what Christine had that night. She should have come out and said her position on gay marriage or ducked the question by saying she believed in seperation of church and state and marriage was a bond between a man and a woman in the eyes of the Lord.
~Brent
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:18pm.
Quit acting like a pompous jerk. When you've got leftists agreeing with you that might be a clue you're sniffing around the wrong fire hydrant.
Piers got sexually personal with her on national television. If that tool had asked me if I'd ever lusted in my heart I'd have retorted, "Not after you, darling." and flayed him alive.
This was obviously not a line of questioning she'd agreed to and as a private citizen she has every right to walk away from some creep asking her questions she's not comfortable with.
I agree that some on the
Submitted by tcm14 on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:21pm.
I agree that some on the right have shown an amazing propensity to throw Christine O'Donnell under the bus. But I haven't really watched her enough to know if that is the right thing.
~Some people curry favor with the liberal elite
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:25pm.
with the occasional burnt offering of an unpopular fellow conservative.
Gotta go with Brent on this
Submitted by Flig Narson on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:28pm.
Gotta go with Brent on this one. O'Donnell should have stayed and answered the questions... and she should have been prepared for that sort of salacious crap. Her answers were bizarre and showed a level of impetuousness that should remove her from serious consideration as a candidate at the national level.
You, I believe, are framing the questions as if they were asked of you, as a private citizen... and at that, you would have been completely correct. But O'Donnell is trying to position herself to be a player on a much bigger field than that, and she blew it.
~She IS a private citizen
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:35pm.
And any "serious candidate on the national level" should be asked "serious" questions that actually have some bearing on what's going on in the nation. This interview was nothing more than an attempt to trivialize, marginalize, and mock her and she recognized that and left.
She is a private citizen
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:38am.
I could be wrong, but I don't recall hearing about her announcing her candidacy for office in 2012.
But O'Donnell is trying to position herself to be a player on a much bigger field than that, and she blew it.
No, she is trying to make money and promote her book. She may also be trying to be a leader in the TEA party movement, but that is not a public position. She is still a PRIVATE citizen.
We Are The 53%
Wrathful Brunette, I completely agree with you.
Submitted by Phryj1 on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 4:17pm.
Piers Morgan was in the gutter for pretty much the whole interview and was obviously mining for whatever controversial soundbites he could get out of O'Donnell. She figured out what his game was and refused to play along.
Typical left-wing attack dog hackery, and downright sleazy to boot. Of course, Piers hails from the British tabloid industry, so that kind of thing is his bread and butter. What I find truly intolerable it the GOP establishment refusing to back her up on this. Piers Morgan and CNN should be called out for scummy tabloid-style yellow journalism. Christine O'Donnell was right to walk off.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
O'Donnell had no right to
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:45pm.
O'Donnell had no right to reject the questions.
O'Donnell had no right to walk off the set.
Actually, buffoon or not, she had every right to do both.
Mr. Bozell, I have nothing but the highest level of respect for the work you do, the MRC, and this most excellent website.
However, I think conservatism, and perhaps more importantly this country, only needs one Dr. Charles Krauthammer at the moment.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
I agree with you
Submitted by lrgon on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:42pm.
and disagree with Brent Bozell. She has a right to not be insulted by that clown Piers.
To be blunt,Brent, you blew it on this one.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:25pm.
Do you go into an interview with no clue about the line of questioning? No, I didn't think so.
And if the interviewer jumped completely off the rails, you would just hang around and go with the flow? Sure you would...
Please tell us someone hacked your account.
--Mike
Then...
Submitted by gregfahey on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:51pm.
her "people" should have prepared her for the obvious. I saw the interview and thought "what did she expect?" She and her people were inept. Hey, you bring up things like masturbation and such, the MSM is going to hammer you on this stuff.
Sure, she has a "right to not be insulted" but, going in front of Piers Morgan? Sure, we all know where he's coming from but, why didn't she?
I can well imagine a lot of the MSM sees blood in the water with regards to O'Donnell. They all want a piece of her now. But, she's proven to be a child in the world of grown ups.
She's toast and she's radioactive to the Right from now on.
I agree
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:35pm.
As I posted on this topic a day or so ago, while Morgan was typically weird, O'Donnell didn't account well for herself. She was totally unprepared for the interview, and thus she had no response but to walk off the set. Apparently she thought it was going to be a book-selling info-mercial much like Morgan affords elected Democrats and ex-celebrities in re-hab.
I'll add that she's well past her 15 minutes of fame.
Thank you Brent
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:40pm.
Totally agree
~Oh, I have no doubt that you wanted her to answer
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:47pm.
every single question in painstaking detail. Perv.
Bru why do you always have to get personal?
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:53pm.
I disagree with Brent on a weekly basis, but I have never once called him a pompous jerk. I agree with Brent, now your calling me a perv. Just calm down.
~I've called you that many times
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:58pm.
My opinion on that matter was established long before this thread. I think it had something to do with your constant posts about porn and hookers.
Sure
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:03pm.
And I believe your a nut job, but I don't call you a nut job if I heard you disagree with the owner of this site
I defend adult movies and escorts, but it's not like I post porn or links to hookers websites. Wow and this a day after I thought we were getting along.
~What does linking to them or not
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:09pm.
have to do with anything? You discuss them obsessively and are found on every single thread that is even remotely related to those topics. You make your own forums to talk about them. Now you want this woman to answer questions about masturbation and lusting.
I'm shocked, I totally didn't see that coming.
Because i feel strongly about the topic
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:16pm.
And i post in other forums too. She has talked about the evils of masturbation in the past so he was on topic. I know it's really hard for you to control your urges to name call if you disagree with somebody but little surprised you decided to emulate bsny and attack Mr Bozell for his honest opinion.
~Stuff it
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:27pm.
Masturbation doesn't have a thing to do with politics and a Dem woman would never be asked these kinds of questions. Now you want to make sly allusions to my "urges"? Yeah, I don't think so.
My post directed to Brent was my honest opinion and you can keep saying over and over again that I "attacked" him in order to blow it up into something and pose as his indignant defender, but I couldn't care less. Go ahead and lick his boots, it suits you.
It was her book
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:34pm.
He was talking about stuff in the book she wanted to promote. Whatever looks like you are having one your unreasonable rage moments
Her book was not about masturbation or sex
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:45pm.
The book was about how the media brought up her past and ridiculed her for her beliefs. She did not discuss her sexual urges, feelings, or behavior. It had NOTHING to do with her book and everything with Morgan being one of those men who is so insecure in his masculinity he feels the need to put women in their place by making everything about them sexual.
I did not read the book
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:49pm.
..........but he kept saying I'm asking you things you said in the book. She also said it's in the book. Sorry I thought she acted weird. If some people disagree with a conservative It does not make them pompous
Actually, she said
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:04pm.
she discussed the role of religion in the book. He made the connection between to role of religion played in her life two decades ago. It was a BS interview shawn. All you need to do is ask yourself if Piers would have treated Hillary the same way.
she probably would not have BK
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:06am.
I don't deny it. However check out 50 seconds in. SHE SAID it was IN HER BOOK . She actually didn't get into a hissy fit until he asked her about gay marriage.
I guess It all depends on how you look at things. I'm sure some people say no matter how stupid Obama looks, that he burns his opponents and bags their ashes. Its a face thing, try to be prideful no matter how much you humiliate yourself.
She addresses the show shawn
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:14am.
That's what she said. Now, I haven't read the book either, but I gotta quarter that says she doesn't put a lot of ink on her views regarding masturbation. If the clip shown at the beginning of the piece was her reading from her book, it would be relevant, but the clip was from the early 90's, the book from two decades later.
Again, would he ask Hillary over and over and over and over how she felt about her husband getting fe!!atio in the oval office? If not, this was a smear attempt, plain and simple.
like I said BK
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:22am.
Probably not. However it was Hillarys husband that was the cheater it was not her. It was Odonnell in that short clip that talked about masturbation. I thought it was fair game.
I totally agree with Brent on this one, but I respect your opinion as well. I just don't understand how some folks go on these childish rants because some conservatives put down under conservatives. There is room for disagreements, but obviously for some, if you are not with us, you are with the liberals.
The problem shawn
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:26am.
is that she isn't on a Sex in the 90's tour, she's on a book tour. The book is somewhat of an autobiography so in the book she mentions the role religion played n her life and how that led to the MTV show. Piers took that and focused on one aspect of the show- that's a stretch. Sure, he could ask, but once she "no comment"-ed, he should have moved on. Brent's wrong on this- and it's important to note that this piece was written for CNN; a decidedly different audience than NB and the host network of the show.
Its not a right or wrong answer
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:36am.
Not many people are as conservative as Mr Bozell. He does a lot more to fight liberal bias than anybody on Newsbusters. You think he is wrong and I'm sure many conservatives think he is right. She was actually pretty nice and responsive to his questions until the gay marriage thing.
Weird how she answered the masturbation questions with a decent lengthy response, but was offended at the gay marriage thing.
Shawn, The question is, why
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:44am.
Shawn,
The question is, why did Piers Morgan continued to press the issue after O'Donnell said over ten times, "no comment" and "I am not hear to discuss the views on gay marriage"? Sure as a reporter you push it once, twice, three times maybe, but he could have continued.
AND don't forget, masturbation and lust were made an issue during her campaign by the media who was more than willing to take Bill Maher's attacks on O'Donnell and put them out there for the public to see.
SHE never made masturbation or lust a campaign issue and if I am not mistaken, she never made gay marriage an issue either. So, why are the relevant to the interview EVEN if it was a political interview?
It was a gotcha type of question or let's spice up the interview type of question.
I saw O'Donnell defend herself against Maher's mysoginist attacks, maybe she just got tired of everyone asking her about somethign she said over twenty years ago.
However, the more I think about it, I would have taken on Piers Morgan and called him on his bias and stupid line of questioning. It was a great opportunity for a Conservative to show the Liberal bias in the media.
Thank you liberal lies
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:51am.
I agree that O Donnell should have challenged him and called him out instead of walking out. See Fut, isn't it nice when people can agree to disagree, instead of calling people names? Not everybody can agree on everything.
Shawn, LOL, I am a nice guy
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 8:02pm.
Shawn,
LOL, I am a nice guy when I am treated well and if you loo at most of the times I end up blowing up on someone now is after a while of attempting to be nice to that person.
But anway, I think O'Donnell wasted a great opportunity to take on a Liberal wacko.
Also, I am seeing on the Right on this forum something that I have NEVER liked from the Left, but it is some Conservatives doing it.
How can we demand that a Conservative not criticize another Conservatives? Why do we want to shut down the opinions that a Conservative has of another Conservative? It is a Left wing tactic to attempt to shame people into silence and there are way too many Conservatives on NB that use this tactic and they are attempting to use it on Mr. Bozell.
Brent has a Right and Freedom to write what he pleases, when he pleases on whatever website he please. It is his opinion and he has the Right and Freedom to express it whenever he wishes. Of course we can criticize him for this opininon, but this thing that I am reading on this forum Conservatives claiming that he should have never wrote it that he should ahve criticized her behind closed doors is very scary coming from some Conservatives.
But geez, really? Mr Bozell needs to apologize? he should have said it behind closed doors? Why do some people believe that some public figures are beyond public reproach?
~Excuse me, Hitler here
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 8:26pm.
When a well-known, established Republican figure like Rove, or even a lesser-known figure like Bozell, calls a conservative woman an "ass" and a "buffoon" the Left knows it can savage her without repercussion. This is like seeing your female cousin getting roughed up by a gang and instead of coming to her defense, you throw a rock at her. Now they know she has no protectors and they are free to do as they please with her.
Like I said, too many
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:10pm.
Like I said, too many Conservatives want to shame people into silence, no different than what Liberals do. Either you think and express yourself like them or it is insults time.
"How dare Mr. Bozell express his true thoughts and feelings on O'Donnell's interview? if he does it is like he allowed his family members get beat up." really?
Of course these are many of the same Conservatives that if Mr. Bozell would have written a glowing review on O'Donnell they would be cheering him on. But shoot, Mr. Bozell committed the sin of expressing his true feelings and thoughts.
Conservative Thought Police, as creepy as the Liberal thought police.
Diversity of thought is true diversity. Is this not what we Conservatives always preach and demand? It sounds more and more that too many Conservatives what Conservatives to come from the same cookie cutter.
If O'Donnell is as good as so many people have claimed she is. She will have zero problem with the Left.
Palin had to deal with the Republican establishment and she has always come out winning. She has had to deal with the Republican establishment and the Left wing establishment at the same time and she comes out winning. O'Donnell can't do the same?
~If you'd like to continue this
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:13pm.
Let's take it to the bottom of the thread where there's more space.
Brunette, sure
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:15pm.
Brunette,
sure
Liberallies
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:17pm.
Really? That is your take on the objections here? What I object to is Bozell, who screams about appropriateness and morality on sexual subjects all the time, decided it was o.k. for a host of a national news program on at 8:00 p.m., to ask personal and sexual questions of a conservative woman. O'Donnell's comments in the past on these subjects were in relation to her religious beliefs, NOT her political beliefs. If you were to express the opinion that pre-marital sex was wrong could I then ask you about your sex life?
Why aren't liberal women asked these insulting questions? Why are ONLY conservative women subject to this, and how on earth can Bozell, the keeper of the moral standard who complains on another thread about inappropriate adult cartoons, vilify O'Donnell?
shawn
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 8:26pm.
As I said, the book was not about her personal sexual habits or urges. If she acted weird maybe it's because it's not a subject she expected to be asked about on national television. In fact for many of us those subjects are only discussed with our spouses, or with our children when we are educating them about sex. Again, if anyone can point to an interview where Morgan asked such personal questions of his subjects I'd love to know about it.
shawn?
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:43pm.
Have you read the book?
Stop sexually harassing me bru
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:55pm.
You are making allusions about me licking another man. Sarc.
Are there a lot of people who
Submitted by redfish on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:57pm.
Are there a lot of people who even think masturbation is a good thing? I know some people do, but I doubt its a majority. Christine O'Donnell didn't say people who masturbate are evil, she said it was a sin; religious Christians also consider drinking, smoking, gluttoning yourself, being prideful, being greedy, and being lazy as sins. None of them argue you're hell for doing any of those in small amounts. Nobody has gone to hell for drinking a pint of beer, nor are they going to hell for masturbating. The point is just that they're habits to avoid. She was speaking in the context of the culture of the 90s, where some people were actually encouraging teenagers to masturbate as a matter of good health.
Now, I'm not a religious person, but this is to me is a fairly evident interpretation of Christian beliefs. I didn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. By themselves these beliefs are not extreme; they're only extreme if you treat them as extreme in practice, and punish anyone who strays from some standard of perfection. The question is why it isn't evident to everyone else; and I think the fact that anti-conservative people control much of the debate have to do with it. In an ideal world, it wouldn't have been a relevant question to ask, because what Ms. O'Donnell meant by it was pretty obvious. Asking about them is just begging the question, in that he's already assuming that its an extreme belief.
It doesn't help that social conservatives don't (properly) know how to answer these questions, and either quote the Bible or avoid discussing them, either. So I can't really defend Ms. O'Donnell.
timing and context
Submitted by dmacleo on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:46pm.
O'Donnell has staked out public opinions on all these fronts
yup decade or so ago and Bill Mahr made them all public.
just pisses you off people did not choose your candidate in primary right Mr Rov...I mean Bozell?
~Decade or so ago
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:56pm.
Well before she was running for public office. Remind the class what relevance her personal views on masturbation have to politics?
The person in this
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:01pm.
video is not the same person interviewed by Piers. Maybe he (or another pretend journalist) should press Barack Obama just as hard on his cocaine use.
~Or how he sought out the company of Marxists in college
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:06pm.
like he talks about in HIS book. Seems far more relevant to politics than masturbation.
Agreed
Submitted by shferg on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:52pm.
I'm glad you stood up to call her out on her behavior. Conservatives have enough ridiculous attacks without having to act in the behavior of which they always accuse us of--crazy. She is so much smarter than she acted.
And really random: I really question her PR people. When you see your client acting like an idiot isn't it your job to step in and correct it? Isn't that why you've been hired?
This sounds a lot like
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:58pm.
establishment GOP criticism of a failed candidacy. The fact is, I probably wouldn't press my girlfriend this hard on this subject; a national TV host should have better manners.
Additionally, she responded to the question with what amounted to a "no comment" answer -several times. A journalist, or even a wannabe journalist like your run-of-the-mill CNN host, should know when it's time to move on. He didn't because his intent was to embarrass her. Piers would not have pressed Hillary Clinton this way.
For a guy who's usually quite offended by anything sexual on television, Brent sure is tough on (hmmm) a GOP candidate that ousted an establishment RINO senator before eventually surrendering the seat to a democrat.
~She didn't join the club, pay her dues, or play by the rules
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:02pm.
Throw her to the wolves.
Yup
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:11pm.
.
"....ousted an establishment RINO senator..."
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:19am.
RINO congressman.
What bkeyser said.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 3:42am.
And everything Wrathful Brunette said.
Agree
Submitted by grammajane on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:04pm.
When arre conservatives going to learn to stay away from the media. Agree, she had every right to walk off after being questioned by that jerk. Most of her "bizzare" statements were said by her, as a teenager. She tried numerous times to focus on her book and he wouldn't. All he wanted to do was bash her about gays/marriage which she realized and she refused to answer. Appreciate your piece, Mr Bozell, but do not agree.
Yeah, stay hell away from the
Submitted by Rowane on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 9:02am.
Yeah, stay hell away from the mediots and STICK TOGETHER like the Democommies do.
The only way conservatism is ever going to win out is to be conservative and quit bowing to these idjits, it almost seems like they're codependent on the mediots.
You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything. (Aaron Tippin)
Let's all agree
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:07pm.
O'Donnell needs to open up about everything in her life, and the Good Bishop Romney needs to explain his racism as a cleric as well as his progressive plunge into socialized medicine.
And he needs to explain those sins until I'm satisfied! And it's going to take a heck of a lot more than "I pulled over to the side of the road and wept" That's some pathetic explaining if I've ever heard it.
It's about time Republicans were held to the high standards of Mr. Bozell. Hear! Hear!
Snark! Snark!
~Wake up, people
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:19pm.
Any woman the Leftists perceive as a threat is subjected to the same treatment, she is sexualized into irrelevance. They objectify her in the most demeaning ways they can think of. Palin is a perfect example, she was sexualized to the point of figurative rape. Nikki Haley was falsely accused of multiple affairs when she began pulling ahead of her opponent in the polls, and Christine O'Donnell is supposed to sit there and take it while men sneeringly ask her about masturbation and her "lusts".
Any "conservative" man who sits by and agrees with this treatment needs to go on a lengthy and painstaking quest for his honor, his integrity, and his testicles.
Double whammy
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:32pm.
Not only was the media attempting to sexualize O'Donnell into irrelevance (well said Bru), they were also able to mock Christianity through this. After all, these are O'Donnell's religious beliefs based on her view of Christianity, and Morgan was able to get his smirk and snide little attitude in there.
Mr. Bozell, the fact that O'Donnell expressed her religious beliefs as they apply to sex, does not mean it is fair to ask her about her personal sexual life on national television.
So tru Bru!
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:40pm.
We constantly catch the left slinging the party line (aka talking points), but danged if this don't sound like something Karl Rove, Meghan McCain, John McCain, and a few other "rock-solid Republicans" woulda' said a few months back.
Sure hard to argue with that august body of staunch conservatism.
~Establishment flunkeys, all
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 9:12am.
The 'smart, reasonable' Republicans get invited to all the good parties, you know.
Like Dave mentioned in an earlier post,
Submitted by packman on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:50pm.
I also have nothing but the highest level of respect for the work done by Brent Bozell, the MRC, and this most excellent website. (Thank you Dave!). That having been said however, I don't understand why Brent felt it necessary to crucify Christine O'Donnell in such a manner. Yes, she is a bit of an enigma, but Piers Morgan is an amoral twit steeped in the loneliness of his arrogance and his miserable liberality. He resorted to exactly what Wrathful Brunette refers to, namely the repugnant sexualization of conservative women. What has happened to Sarah Palin over the last several years is reprehensible by anyone's standards, and as you point out, they tried it with Nikki Haley as well. Michelle Bachman is no doubt also in their sights and they would love to attack Laura Ingraham as well. It is a well-known strategy of the liberal mindset to go after conservative women on sexual issues. Because of the fact that Sarah Palin doesn't subscribe to the liberal child-killing worship of abortion, she is hated above hated by the left. Piers Morgan is nothing more than another biased media jackass aiming his big guns at women who dare do hold a political or religious belief that is different than his own. And although the questions were related to issues that O'Donnell herself had touched on when she was a political candidate, I believe those are not fit subjects for a televised interview. As has been pointed out by others, no one in the mainstream media would ever dare to direct such questions to The One. I really don't know how I feel about her walking off in mid-program, but I think Morgan's questions were definitely out of line.
For my money, Brent's double- barrel shotgun blast aimed at Christine O'Donnell was a little off target. It should have been aimed at Piers Morgan who is simply another of many of the elite liberal media leftists, whose tactics are well-known and should have come as no surprise. Christine O'Donnell will probably fade into the political sunset of her own making, but the Piers Morgans of the world will still be here - that's who our attention should be focused on.
Well, that's what I think.
"...Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread..." ~Thomas Jefferson
Damn, we so need a "Like" button
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:13pm.
Thanks, packman.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Xacly Bru!
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:10am.
Just the look of disgust on her face at the questions should have been enough for a person to realize that the questions were offensive and they should change the line.
We Are The 53%
Sorry Wrath... I know you're not going to like this...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:27pm.
...but did Mr. Bozell read my post on the article that he linked to here? Of course, I'm being a little facetious when I say that, but I will reiterate here what I said there:
This was not a stellar moment for EITHER individual. I found Mr. Morgan's questions a little creepy and off-topic, and Ms. O'Donnell had every right to refuse to answer those questions, BUT she did agree to do the interview, and should have anticipated what was to come, knowing who it was interviewing her.
I understand she was trying to focus the interview onto topics that she wanted to discuss in her book, but if her idea of doing that was to walk off the interview, then maybe it was a good thing she didn't get elected after all, because public office would have made her subject to far worse scrutiny. High-tailing and running away was an over-reaction to Mr. Morgan's line of questioning, plain and simple.
Courage, girl...
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
~I'd have handled it differently
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:32pm.
I'd have burned that twerp down and bagged his ashes. But I'm not going to join the left in pillorying a woman who didn't want to answer questions about her "lusts".
DumbCanuck
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:35pm.
I've thought about O'Donnell's appearance on the show myself. I don't watch it, so can anyone tell me when Morgan has asked such personal sexual questions of a guest in the past? I'm sure she thought there would be a lively debate about the issues of the day, the election, the debt ceiling, the stock market...But what would have clued her into his behavior?
If that's what she thought the interview was going to be like...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:47pm.
...then maybe she was being a little naive. Personally, if I was handling her pr, I would have suggested that she not do the interview in the first place. But she did.
I don't watch CNN especially Pierce, because I know where he comes from, but I did see that interview clip posted on this site. Frankly, I raised an eyebrow when I found out that she actually agreed to this interview in the first place.
I'm not defending Pierce's justification for his line of questioning, that is he wanted to talk about her views that she herself made public. To me, this was a typical Liberal smear on a Conservative woman, but Pierce comes from an entertainment background, and all I'm saying is that Ms O'Donnell should have anticipated the type of questions that she should have known would be asked of her, and come better prepared. Running off the set the way that she did does not help her public image.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
DumbCanuck
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:53pm.
Where is the proof that she should have expected this? In what other interview has Morgan behaved this way? Because she was doing a book interview, not a campaign interview, on a network that describes itself as a news network. It's very easy to sit back and say she should have expected this, but why? When has this happened before?
Furthermore, the
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:51pm.
Furthermore, the masturbation, lust issues where brought up by Bill Maher NOT by Christine O'Donnell. Maher hates O'Donnell like the guy hates all woman, or at least that is what he shows in his HBO show.
He is the one who made the masturbation and lust an issue.
I never once heard Christine O'Donnell make anyone of these two issue part of her campaign strategy!!!!!
The only time i heard Christine talk about these was to defend herself from Maher and the hate she was receiving from the Left and sadly from the Right too, but never making them a campaing issue.
CNN is having a field day with this!
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 8:30am.
Good points made all around, but this whole website is dedicated to liberal bias in the media, and a great deal of documentation was made on CNN and Pierce in particular. How could anyone NOT know, or not expect to get the line of questioning that she got during the interview?
CNN is using this interview in promo's for Pierce's show nearly 24/7 now. Pierce is gloating so hard, he's replayed the interview several times. I finally managed to catch the ENTIRE interview, and now I must admit that I was wrong.
I said earlier that I still had a great deal of respect for Christine O'Donnell. Now I'm sad to say that I lost a great deal of respect for her as a result of this 'performance'. (I never had any respect for Pierce to lose in the first place)
She was asked about her comments on Bill Maher's show, and she responded by saying that she was "too candid" with her remarks. Very forthright of her. She was then asked about her campaign ad about her not being a witch, and she responded by saying that she deferred judgement to the "experts" that were running her campaign, and expressed regret for doing so. She went on to say that in her "gut", she knew she shouldn't have included that line about her not being a witch. Again, a sincere mea-culpa.
At this point in the interview, I had a very distinct impression that she was targeting her responses toward a typical CNN viewer... to promote her book, I suppose. She was taking a beating, but she was rolling with the punches, not realizing that Pierce was laughing at her, and not with her.
Now Pierce started salivating, and saved the best for the second part of the interview. That's where the question of gay marriage came up, and this was where the wheels came off. After all, up to that point, she renounced her comments on Maher's show, and admitted that the "I'm not a witch" line was a mistake, so I guess Pierce wanted to see if he could score a trifecta!
So why on earth would Ms. O'Donnell hesitate to answer this question as candidly as she did with the others? Pierce has an explanation. It was because that Christine knew that her position was becoming seen as bigotted, and that she realized herself that her comments would never fly with a CNN audience. This is where I've come to the realization that Ms. O'Donnell was selling her soul to promote her book. If she had given an honest answer, she'd be concerned that the book may not sell with a CNN audience, because she'd be seen as a bigot. On the other hand, if she started to fudge the answer like she did with the other questions, she was afraid she would alienate her conservative base. Up to that point, I think even Ms. O'Donnell knew she was walking a very thin line. This is why I believe she didn't want to answer the question.
She should have. Damn the torpedos... full speed ahead, I say. Now CNN is having a field day with this because her non-answer is confirmation for them that even Christine O'Donnell is acknowledging that an anti-SSM position is bigotted. Christine O'Donnell did not do conservatives a favor in this interview.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
As usual, the way the media lets slip little info at a time
Submitted by Calypso Jones on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:33pm.
I'm not going to say her behavior was the least bit bizarre at this point. I'm thinking there's plenty more yet to come out that we don't know about the set up and what went on before and during the interview.
And i gotta say, I'm about sick and tired of the main stream republican elite cutting the legs out from under any conservative that doesn't toe their line.
Brent is right....
Submitted by jdripper on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:44pm.
Christine O'Donnell's time came and went. Unfortunately she did not go with it.
Jack
yes and our damned left wing media
Submitted by Calypso Jones on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:05pm.
saw to that.
Embarrasing questions don't all relate to sex
Submitted by lrgon on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 9:59pm.
What if Piers had Mr.Bozell on his show and asked Brent if he had ever been against war and presented Mr.Bozell with a copy of a Triumph magazine where the Vietnam war was opposed by the magazine he published due to the war violating the Just war principle? http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Triumph_(magazine)
Mistaken Identity
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:25pm.
"L. Brent Bozell, Jr. founded Triumph in 1966..." is the father of L. Brent Bozell III, the man who wrote this article on O'Donnell.
I doubt either father or son would be embarrassed by your line of questioning. Precisely why would someone confront Bozell III with your question in the first place? Chances are it would be for malicious reasons.
For the record, I am OK with O'Donnell walking out on anyone's show who can't take multiple hints that the line of questioning is not acceptable. O"Donnell is not under oath and has no obligation to answer anything and everything.
As Pierce contnued attempting to force the issue, he set up a volatile situation which did not end as he expected. Too bad, so sad. O'Donnell is a private citizen who has freedom of speech - when to use it and when not to. Conversely, O"donnell should have known what she was generally in for going on the show - an aggressive inquisitor who disdains O'Donnell's ideology and will try to embarrass her at any opportunity.
We don't know if any topics were agreed not to be hashed. We do know O'Donnell politely asked Pierce multiply times to move along and he would not. Maybe Pierce didn't have much else to ask and was looking to fill the time with sex and witchcraft.
My guess, strat,
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:32pm.
is that Piers was asking about the only subjects with which he a commonality with his guest; certainly he wouldn't understand conservatism and probably hasn't the foggiest idea how to speak to one. Kind of like a chimp interviewing a paid patron at the zoo; nothing but masturbation and feces throwing until the patron moves along to the lion cage.
Good Hypothesis, BK
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:56am.
You go with what you know.
One day that lion will be in the same cage as the monkey. Same will occur to Piers. Then it will be "go time" with Morgan getting the shredding. Instant You-Tube classic.
Game, set, and match
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:49pm.
To the Stratman.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
TY
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:02am.
I would pay cash money to see you matched against Morgan. Stilleto heels can be quite effective against a foppish cockroach.
More abuse of the word "right"
Submitted by Pharmer on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:00pm.
Says Mr. Bozell: "O'Donnell had no right to reject the questions."........... "O'Donnell had no right to walk off the set."
Sorry, Mr. Bozell, this is still America. O'Donnell was not on that set by contractual agreement, nor force of any law. Therefore she was free to end the interview at any time. Also the media people can throw an interviewee off at any time. Those of us who have played the media game understand how this works.
It might have been in O'Donnell's best interest to hang around, and smear little Piers with his own questions, but not many people watch CNN, and she's probably well aware that her interests lie elsewhere.
As for sexuality issues....... Most of those "positions" were pulled out of the inexperienced O'Donnell because the media was having a field game with her religious affiliation.
"
Piers had O'Donnell on for a bit of sex-talk, and she apparently wasn't in the mood. It's a woman's Right to say "no".
I beg to differ...
Submitted by kata on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:03pm.
I think she had every right to walk off. An interview is not a prison sentence.
That said - I agree she was not prepared for CNN Thunderdome Edition. Just like going into a football game or a boxing ring - you have to understand your opponent. She obviously didn't. Piers Morgan's interview style is obnoxious, provocative and about as far from charming as you can get - but it's consistent.
If I were preparing for an interview with this man I would have watched the YouTube clip of Ann Coulter. She deflected Mr. Morgan with ease for the full half hr and it was obvious he'd not read anything except the title of her book. He poked her with personal questions and she threatened to give his audience a full segment of "no comment" forcing him to move on. He then went through her most incendiary "greatest hits" despite that none of them pertained to her current book and she managed to constantly steer it all back to specific things in her book and laughed him off the whole time even while managing to contextualize a great deal of it.
That's a lot of plates to keep in the air. And there is no shame in being incapable of doing so.
I fully recognize I would never be capable of verbally defending myself with that kind of aptitude. As should Ms. O'Donnell. Unfortunately, everything Mr. Morgan brought up two days ago had some basis to things Ms. O'Donnell has said on camera. So while it came off as creepy, it's still creepy under the excuse of context.
Maybe I am too much of a realist. It is what it is. She trades international book exposure for a walk on hot coals.
I listened to Ms. O'Donnell's explain her reasons for walking off to a "journalist" on the Today show, she not only didn't want to be on the [Piers Morgan] show in the first place - there are several other things she's done publicity-wise that she wasn't real pleased with being talked into. I think she needs to tell her agent she will no longer do confrontational style interviews until she has the verbal akido required to field the questions to the issues she's pinned her convictions to.
Wow KK
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:35am.
Its been ages. Hope all is well in Seattle :-) You still drawing cartoons?
things are good, shawn
Submitted by kata on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:51am.
positively wonderful actually! I've not really had much motivating me lately in the way of art other than the occasional HS project my kids draw me into (pun not intended). But I have no desire to thread-jack so drop me a PM sometime and let me know how you're doin :)
Bizarre??
Submitted by paulnashtn on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:04pm.
Actually I think Bozell’s reaction is 'Downright Bizarre’. She has a new book and agreed to an interview about the book and Morgan asks these stupid questions that have nothing to do with the book. She was booked as an author and he commented that the reason that he thought he could ask those questions was that she was a politician. Morgan was WAY out of line and so is Mr. Bozell
Look: I don't recall which
Submitted by seanrobins on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:14pm.
Look: I don't recall which GOPers turned on O'Donnell during the election, but for the most part, the party and its stalwarts treated her disgracefully after she won the nomination. All the same people who will tell us if - god forbid Romney is the nominee - that we have to support the nominee, went on the attack after O'Donnell legitimately won the nomination.
So, I don't really care at this point if she plotzes on top of a few MSMers from time to time - whether justified or not.
But the truly bizzare ones, are those who turned on the nominee from Delaware so viciously, that they, and not the nominee, cost the GOP that Senate seat.
Pathetic, all the way 'round.
sean robins
encore
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:27pm.
nice post
bingo
Submitted by dmacleo on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:32pm.
it was "bizarre" for sure.
EX. ACTLY
Submitted by Calypso Jones on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 5:09pm.
Brav0.
and lest you forget Republican Party. TWO can play at that game.
OHMYGOD. Let's mark down the
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:25pm.
OHMYGOD.
Let's mark down the date and time: I completely agree with Brent.
AIEEEE! The pain! I see four horseman on the horizon! Is that an eclipse?!
Big surprise
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:27pm.
-
But lucky for you it hasn't
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:29pm.
But lucky for you it hasn't affected your ability to comment on Newsbusters.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Brent,
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:04pm.
I know why you are assaulting O'Donnell. The MSM is using her, wacky person she is, to paint her as some example of what Conservative are like, out there.
You have to remember that the Democrats have nothing to point to for success and not a whole lot to point at as GOP failures since they won the house. So what's left? Marginalize finding personalities to display that they can claim are representative of the GOP.
It's good that you are not a fan. She is wacky. But I wouldn't defend Pierce for specifically having her on his show not to discuss a book, but to ream and ridicule her. Is that nice? Does nice exist anymore? And yes O'Donnell should take up a new hobby for about a year and a half.
Agreement
Submitted by Wall Watcher on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:04pm.
When the pretend right agree with the ultra left, look out. Brent can you make your point without the childish name calling?
Had no right?
Submitted by Name on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:08pm.
How could one even come up with concept like that? She is a free citizen. She has every right to get up and walk out of any situation. She wasn't under oath at court, and you aren't the judge that can cite her for contempt. And I guarantee that is the only time she wouldn't have the 'right'.
Why would she be expected to endure the inane questions of a nutless ninny conducting a remote interview? As I recall, the anti-masturbation thing was an old video from a catholic youth group camp that was dug up by negative researchers. Hardly part of her political platform. It was the witchcraft stuff that she talked about on horse-faces' show. I personally don't see how you can take the ramblings of a 20 something woman and brand her for life about it.
I think more people should just stand up and walk away from this crap. It isn't like they were sitting face to face and he brought this up. It was a remote interview, and he could mute anything he wanted of her responses. He wouldn't have had the guts to ask those questions in person.
Obviously, in terms of basic
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:21pm.
Obviously, in terms of basic civil rights, she didn't have to answer the questions and could walk out of the interview.
I don't think that's what Brent meant.
No doubt, then, that you
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:47pm.
No doubt, then, that you would be ok with a media person asking President Obama, "Mr. President, why did you decide to launch your run for Illinois State Senator from the house of a well known terrorist, Bill Ayer?"
If this was asked of Obama, the media, YOU and the rest of the Liberals would go nuts!
and O'Donnell's view on sexuality are well known why? Because Bill Maher decided to paint her like as a nut and show edited cuts of Politically Incorrect in his HBO show. She never spoke about this subject matter while running for the Senate, did she? If she had, then it would be relevant!
Did you hear her while she was running for Senator making masturbation and lust a campaing issue? Please by all means if you did and I missed it, link it here on NB.
The only time she spoke about this was to defend herself from the false accusation that the Left and bill maher were making, but SHE never brought it up first or made it a campaing issue!!!
If she had, then I understand, but she did not make these sexual subjects campaing issues.
NewsBusters is jumping on another tea party candidate
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:25pm.
I'm not surprised. To be honest, if I had to choose Christine O'Donnell or Mike Castle, I would still choose O'Donnell. And that's the part these media republicans don't like.
The ONLY reason why Christine
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 11:35pm.
The ONLY reason why Christine O'Donnell's views on sexuality, masturbation, etc became relevant in the election is because Bill Maher put what she said in Politically Incorrect over ten years ago in HBO. The mass media were then more than glad to share it with the whole world. Let us not forget that Bill Maher threatened Christine O'Donnel informing her that he had more.
1) I agree O'Donnell should have expected the insulting questions.
2) Piers Morgan was less than the gentleman for asking a lady about her "lusts" and about masturbation. Again, the ONLY reason we know about her views on this is because the media were more than glad to share her views on it, which she said over ten years ago, with the public.
3) Funny, if the media thinks that it was relevant what she said over ten years ago, why isn't relevant what Obama did and said over ten years ago? The men used marijuana and cocaine. Started his run for Illinois State senator at the house of a well known terrorist. Yet the media is more worried about what a lady thinks on masturbation, who she has lusted for and her views on gay marriage?
4) Christine O'Donnell is not obssesed with these subject matters. Bill Maher, Piers Morgan and Liberals are. They can't stand being told that masturbation is wrong, that gay marriage is wrong and that lusting for someone in your heart is a sin. O'Donnell said what she said over ten years ago. No doubt she probably holds the same views, but if we are going to crucify someone for what they did or said ten years ago, let us make sure that we are even handed.
and yes, any man that asks a woman, Liberal or Conservative, about masturbation, about who she has lusted after in her heart is truly less than a man.
However, these same Liberals are always telling us Americans what they think are sins, smoking, driving SUVs, not believing in universal healthcare, not being "open minded" to gay marriage.
So, Liberals are free to preach to all of us what they considerer to be sins, but a Conservative can't?
Changed My Mind
Submitted by SimJim on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:20am.
I read Mr. Bozell's article and found myself in tepid agreement, but after reading comments, I find I don't agree with him at all. Conservatives have every right to demand fair and respectful treatment. As pointed out, neither Obama nor Clinton would answer legitimate questions about their past if they had been asked so why should O'Donnell be condemned for not answering illegitimate questions.
Exit, stage right.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:42am.
Morgan's 'devil-worship' dig as well as his persistent masturbatory harangue was rude, impertinent and unprofessional. On the other hand, his inquiry about O'Donnell's views on same-sex marriage was topical and legitimate and her contradictory responses that "it's all in the book...let's discuss the book" were, well...strange.
She isn't the first guest who has walked out of an interview nor will she be the last, and her reasons for doing so were as--or perhaps even more--justified than most.
Jer
None of you know if she was right...
Submitted by Robert17 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:27am.
...because we don't know what was agreed to beforehand. If he violated the agreement, she damn well should have left.
I totally agree
Submitted by JohnPent on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:47am.
I see so many people latch on to her as if she has something to offer all of us. She does not. I do not want to rudely dismiss her, but - like you kind of said above - the more TV this woman does, the worse off all of us on the right are. She is someone that we should dismiss because she is not qualified to be a leader in this movement. I honestly do not believe a word she says, and I would certainly never pick up a copy of her book.
She does not realize it, but she did damage to conservatives when she did that interview. She is not capable of understanding that, and that is sad.
We have some great women in our movement. She is not in the league of Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann.
And O'Donnell continues to do damage...
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:09am.
Replacing Barack Obama in 2012 is the ONLY mission that matters. This war of words among conservatives over Christine O'Donnell's disastrous candidacy (and post-election life) will only serve to split us at a time when we have to unite and focus.
I just don't understand why a senatorial candidate - who most of the people outside of Delaware had never even heard of before 2010 - inspires such fierce support. Is it some kind of new rule that to be a "true conservative" one cannot have an opinion about individual candidates that may deviate from other conservatives? Now, we have people here attacking Brent Bozell? I'm fully expecting someone here to accuse Mr. Bozell of being a "RINO". Good grief, these threads are beginning to read like those on Kos.
With you 100%
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:41am.
It's Boy Blah-Blah not a former candidate for the US Senate that should be the focus.
Because she isn't perfect?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:16am.
Your suggestion is to throw her under the bus?
Cowtowing to the MSM is more damaging than politely standing up to them. She basically said "no comment" and please change the subject several times. When the host was rude and didn't after being politely asked, she politely left. She didn't rip off the mike and storm away, she excused herself and left.
A woman can only put up with so much from a man she doesn't like. That breaking point is different for all of them. We shouldn't throw anyone under the bus because they are weaker than Palin and Bachmann.
We Are The 53%
Yes, throw her under the bus
Submitted by JohnPent on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:31pm.
Denny,
She makes us look bad. Did you see the Friday morning show interview she did? The more this woman speaks, the worse we all look. She is trying to use this movement for her own egotistical gains. We cannot let people like her being the ones that are invited on national shows to speak for us.
You can bet that MSNBC is going to try to sign her as a regular just to damage us. Think of her four times a week on a variety of MSNBC shows telling that audience who we are? That is the risk in playing into this woman's self promotion strategy.
This post a few days ago basically says it well:
http://nobama.com/2011/08/18/christine-odonnell-is-worthless-to-the-tea-...
Everyone is right here about one thing: We should not fight among ourselves. We just need to understand that some people can get on the national stage and make all of us look bad. I happen to think that Christine O'Donnell is one of those.
Jp
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:39pm.
Well that was a pretty useless link, your website I assume? Do you think that Boehner might be using the Tea Party for his own egotistical gains? Because right now I think he is. O'Donnell isn't a Tea Party or GOP official so how does her being asked sexual questions by Morgan make me look bad?
I don't believe in throwing people under the bus.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:47pm.
Simply because they are not in the same league as Palin and Bachmann.
Not defending the weaker among us, especially the women, just gives more ammo to the liberal hate groups like NOW.
When prominent figures in the conservative movement start name calling, they are no better than the other side.
One of the most important concepts of conservatism is that it is an idea, we do not idolize anyone, but at the same time we shouldn't throw people under the bus simply because they aren't the perfect image on the national stage.
We Are The 53%
"O'Donnell had no right to
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:54am.
"O'Donnell had no right to reject the questions", but your fine with it when Obama does it? Her only mistake was to argee to talk this morgan homosexual.
She can
Submitted by Bob K on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:54am.
Join Newt, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, and a long list of others who will go no further than they already have. She's a has been.
Book selling 101
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:55am.
Christine O'Donell wrote a book. She needs to sell this book in order to repay the publisher of this book and others and possibly make some money for herself. In order to sell her book she needs to get it exposed to as many potential buyers and readers as possible. In order to do that she will need to dedicate herself to a long list of book signings, radio interviews in every small town in America, tv interviews, etc. If (and that's a BIG IF) she can get booked on even a poorly rated tv show like Piers Morgan's that is a major coup in the world of "book pub." These appearances however come with one caviat -- somebody may ask you some trite or embarassing questions. Somebody may deviate from what you may have assumed would be the line of questioning. BE PREPARED. Know what you wrote and be prepared the best you can to handle the interviewer who will try to make a name for himself/herself. You may have to shut down an interview but know -- know it now and know it very well -- that if you walk away the interviewer may well have "won" the only victory he/she was after in the first place. Best of Luck with the remainder of your short (I know it seems like forever but it is not) book selling tour.
O'Donnell should anticipate and be prepared for provocative
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 3:49am.
and potentially embarrassing questions--including those touching on her statements about dabbling in witchcraft decades ago.
But she should not expect nor be subjected to mocking wisecracks about "crossing herself" or if it was some sort of devil worshiping sign, regardless of whether the remark was intended humorously or not. And for that reason alone, she owed no further obligation to Morgan inasmuch as his hand had been shown--and it consisted of cards dealt from the bottom of the deck.
Jer
Yet Another Agreement With Mr. Bozell
Submitted by Solo on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 3:24am.
Whenever non-leftist people make the decision to go on these shows, they've GOT to go in knowing that the MSM hit machine is going to be in full attack mode.
It does NO GOOD to go there, then wimp out and look weak when things get tough. If O'Donnell had been strapped and ready for WAR, she would have fared much better. She's got two choices, either grow a spine or stay home with her mouth SHUT. These people "fight" dirty, and either these so-called conservative "leaders" should understand that, plan for it and then execute or shut up and get the hell out of the way. I'm getting really nauseated with all this "fraidy-cat" behavior.
Liberals DO NOT scare me, I WILL "scrap" with them when necessary...over time, I've come to find out through dealing with them that they DON'T really believe in what they say they do and if you go right at them with facts and logic, they stumble and bumble to find adequate comebacks. They just parrot and regurgitate talking points they've heard from others who think like them, or else they'll just become frustrated when you roast them in a "debate", get pissed, cuss you out and walk off. GAME OVER. Whatever. *rolls eyes*
I'm sorry, but if girlfriend can't stand the heat...you guys know the rest.
Easy enough to say..
Submitted by adam1972 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:35pm.
But I haven't seen you drop the "Solo" and replaced with your name... I haven't seen you attempt to publicly put your whole life on that line, protect it with whatever god gave you to give. The willingness to try is worth a LOT more than the willingness to secretly call one out in judgement. There's plenty of backseat drivers to be had, why aren't you willing to come out and actually make the difference? Why so heated to knock someone down who was willing to help hold that line just a little longer?
This is why the left is kicking our ass.
Fine point.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:41pm.
"Solo" is just as off-base as Brent is here.
Call her up. E-mail her. Tell her how "bizarre" she is, and own the comment.
It's worth noting that Brent wrote the seriously-bizarre article he wrote for CNN.com. He can tell us why he pulled such a stunt, but it certainly doesn't reflect well on him.
--Mike
Off-base, Mike? Don't think
Submitted by Solo on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 5:57pm.
Off-base, Mike? Don't think so.
ALL I was trying to point out is that, once again, either those who do not resonate with the left column need to get tough and stop playing with these folks, or get embarrassed EVERY TIME.
Either smoke 'em or get SMOKED. Enough said.
Unless your first name is Han...
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 9:07pm.
...or Napoleon, you're not owning your criticism--you're hiding in the tall grass behind a nom de plume.
Brent, to all appearances, is sucking up to the CNN.com crowd at the expense of a conservative.
What's your excuse?
--Mike
~Mike
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 9:42pm.
I've been threatened with death, beatings, anal rape, and other nice things from our tolerant liberal friends merely for offering facts and links in response to Leftist lies. If I were single and therefore childless, I'd use my name and tell them to give it their best shot. I'd like nothing more than the opportunity to put a beatdown on the desperately deserving.
But I'm not going to needlessly subject my children to danger from deranged "progressives", and I'm not going to be intimidated off the internet.
Yes you are a beacon of light
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:07pm.
...........shining down on Newsbusters. You are so honest and never come up with your own interpretations. You don't name call and ALWAYS stick with the facts and never let personal vendettas cloud your judgement on presenting the whole facts
Even though I read 90 percent of the threads that get over 20 views and never once saw anyone threaten you with anal rape, I am so sure it is not an exaggeration and it is the truth and nothing but the truth. I am also so sure if anyone calls you on something they think is slander, you dont need proof,you quickly burn them down and bag their ashes. Bravo.
~My, someone's sore
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:08pm.
I wasn't referring solely to this site, but don't let me interrupt such a marvelous rant.
Not sore
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:18pm.
Feeling very good after posting that though. Thanks for asking
"wasn't referring solely to this"
Well why don't you refer to halibut or salman? Are you calling me fish? Ooops am I twisting your words? Lol, almost as ridiculous as saying the word urge was some sort of sexual allusion.
~Dude
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:22pm.
You are not helping yourself.
Dudette
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:25pm.
You don't believe anyone that disagrees with you helps themselves. You opinion is always better than everyone elses
~If by "better"
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:26pm.
You mean coherently expressed and properly punctuated, I'll give you that one.
Lol
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:30pm.
That was pretty good.
shawn
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:27pm.
You sound pretty darn sore. Own it.
Sorry Rad
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:36pm.
I had a very civil conversation with her a few days ago. All said was thanks Brent I totally agree and she decided to personally attack me. Sorry but I did not start this. I never reply to her posts unless she decides to start something.
That's a stoopid comment Shawn
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:30pm.
Because you haven't read it, she must be exaggerating?
Here's a question for you. Have you ever seen her threaten to hunt someone down, kill them and bury there ashes, and think that she is speaking literally?
Do you think that NB is the only place that she posts comments?
We Are The 53%
Toney
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:34pm.
Uh, when it comes to Bru, I wouldn't put that beyond the realm of possibility. Of course it would have to be someone who deserved it. :-)
~Hasn't anyone seen ConAir?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:39pm.
Geez, I paraphrase a movie line twice and shawn gets his thong in a twist. I guess I better not bring out the "chewbubble gum and kick @ss" line from that cheesily awesome Roddy Piper flick.
Okay let's be fair here
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:48pm.
If you want to talk about my thong. Let's talk about yours. You can't accuse me of sexual harassment if you said the same thing.
~Don't have any
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:52pm.
Sorry. Would you have preferred the traditional 'knickers' reference?
All right Bru
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:00pm.
That was another good comment Anytime you want a civilized debate about any topic I will give it to you. Please dont give me any cheap shots okay? I said I agree with Mr Bozell, the perv comment was uncalled for.
I thought our differences were settled a few days ago.
~Shawn
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:11pm.
You're not going to like this, but my opinion of you changed for the worse quite some time ago. Permanently. That doesn't mean I hate you with the fiery passion of a thousand flaming suns, it just means that I don't think highly enough of you to care. The way you treat women in your mind bleeds over to the way you treat women online, and when I see you doing it I'll probably say something. And if you say something that simply piques my curiosity, like your fear of a President Bachmann, (I don't think that's going to happen, by the way) I'll probably ask you about it.
You don't have to freak out every time I address you; you'll know right away which one it is.
Bru
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:21pm.
I always treat women with respect on here unless they insult me first. I don't know what I have done to make to you so angry except for one Bible quote you took the wrong way. I will only be disrespectful to you if you do it to me first.
Shawns thong?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:55pm.
Is it here?
We Are The 53%
Denny
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:13pm.
Nothing gets the ladies more excited when they see Shys face on top of the junk
Especially when I hum over the Atlantic.
Denny
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:43pm.
No I have not. It could be true, but I have seen accusations from from her that are totally off base. I thought she mean NB not off of it
I also never seen her make a real threat to somebody either, I do not believe I accused her of it either.
I'm NO backseat driver, Adam.
Submitted by Solo on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 5:54pm.
I'm NO backseat driver, Adam. I can handle mine, ALL DAY. Solo happens to be my nickname, is that ok with you?
The point I was making is that so-called "conservatives" or anyone who does not resonate with the left side of the aisle needs to go directly at these folks or move out of the way. They CANNOT be punks or the left WILL beat them down.
Then handle it
Submitted by adam1972 on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 11:07am.
Just don't piss on the guy next to you because he uses a slingshot instead of a rocket launcher. Instead of using the opening she left, making it more public than it was the day before; how far to the left that show has gone (as well as the station), every conservative jumping on it and kicking CNN in the chins... Like the left does; all at once together, simultaneously attacking our ideals. No, instead he belittles someone for what he deems a lackluster effort..... openly.
The whole idea about conservatism, the idealism behind all this we stand for ultimately comes down to one thing. One thing that was missing that stoked everyone's fire. Respect. In this case he wore his lack of it on his sleeve. It's what the folks over at CNN thrive on, and it appears he was sing to draw more of them to his site.
He ultimately proved nothing by acting like a 16 year old kid who thinks they just figured out the world, and their judgment is the final word. If you compare this piece to other pieces he's written you'll see that he lacked a LOT of finesse, respect and humbleness.
The right decision?
Submitted by MediaMike on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 7:10am.
Brent, after seeing this video I thought ... our system works.
Thank goodness this kook wasn't elected.
Go do what she's done.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:43pm.
Or half of it. Or a tenth.
Anything but lobbing verbal bombs at people from the safety of your anonymity.
--Mike
Most folks post for fun
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:54pm.
She is on, not to promote conservstives She is there to promote her book and make money.
The right decision?
Submitted by MediaMike on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 7:15am.
Brent, after seeing this video I thought ... our system works.
I like Rick Perry (so far) ... he answers anything and everything ... even questions from 10 year olds used as props by their moms.
Thank goodness this O'Donnell kook wasn't elected. She even makes ME feel sorry for Piers Morgan. Republicans can do MUCH better than this.
I sure hope the Tea Party is
Submitted by Barack Must Go on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 7:24am.
I sure hope the Tea Party is watching this ( mental patient ) woman so they don't make the same mistakes the next go round.
Sandbagging Used by Piers Morgan
Submitted by merr4402 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 8:43am.
It is obvious to me, that Piers Morgan invited her on to his show to talk about her book. But when she came on, it was obvious he didn't want to talk about her book at all.
She was Sandbagged plain and simple.
Sandbagging Used by Piers Morgan
Submitted by merr4402 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 8:47am.
>She was Sandbagged plain and simple.
It's what Journalists do these days. That's why you can never trust them and you can expect them to twist your words to their activist agenda.
This is the state of modern journalism.
~A funny thing happened on the way
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 9:09am.
to exposing liberal media bias. An organization whose sole purpose is based on the existence of another entity has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. When the liberal media shark goes the way of all the earth, so will it's remora.
After reading all the new comments here I am saddened
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 9:10am.
So much for 3 years' worth of saying we need to dump the professional politicians and get real Americans in DC. O'Donnell's first sin was ousting the RINO Mike Castle, and after that she was marked for the kill. She could be the smartest, most beautiful, most charismatic woman in the world, and this still would have happened.
What Mr. Bozell really meant with this is, "she doesn't have the right to still exist after Karl Rove told her to go away."
Ann Coulter has gotten angry and walked off interviews before. But since she's a power player among the establishment, she has the right to do whatever she wants.
Let me give you all a piece of advice. Both the MSM and the DC gang know exactly how to ambush / swindle / outmaneuver anyone they want, especially an average person with good intentions. Think of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Think of how the older Senator pretended to mentor him while keeping him away from the graft project. Think of the propaganda they used to make him look like a villain.
Most of the people here would have ended up saying, Mr. Smith is done, he doesn't have the talent to make it, he's embarrassing us.
Sure we'll get our token guys like Marco Rubio, but the majority of elected Republicans will continue to be professional performers like Newt Gingrich.
~Amen
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 9:24am.
When Republicans join in the attack on conservatives the Left knows there's nothing they can't get away with. Also, no conservative woman will have any desire to run for office and subject herself to such a vicious savaging.
Brent Bozell should be ashamed of himself for taking such cheap shots. "Ass" and "buffoon", indeed. It's clear what crowd he was trying to ingratiate himself with, and it does not reflect well on him.
Again, it was written for CNN.com.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:46pm.
And, gee, Brent could actually... y'know... defend himself here, of all places.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Talk about your liberal media bias... Brent just dished out a serving of it himself.
--Mike
Outrageous
Submitted by Joe W. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:47am.
I normally agree with Mr. Bozell, but I thought he was incredibly wrong on this one. My opinion of the man is greatly diminished as a result of his ill thought out comments and opinion on the matter. I believe Mr. Bozell owes an apology to Ms. O'Donnell and a more thorough explanation of his vitriol to the loyal contributors on this web site. The berating of this woman is precisely the sort of venom we have come to expect from Chris Mathews and his fellow liberal moon bats at MSNBC....NOT Newsbusters, and certainly NOT Brent Bozell. I, for one, am deeply disappointed and outraged.
Brent disagrees
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:55am.
What's the big deal? Conservatives can't criticize other conservatives? Give me a break?
Criticize??
Submitted by Joe W. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:00pm.
That was hardly critical, Shawn, and you know it. He excoriated her and called her some pretty nasty names, a la Chris Mathews. And the left is eating it up. Brent blew it big time. That's MY opinion. Am I not entitled to it in your world, pal??
Apology?
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:56am.
Hardly
CNN
Submitted by Joe W. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:57am.
CNN readers are having a ball with this....Thanks a lot for furthering our cause, Mr. Bozell.....played right into the liberal's hand......
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/19/odonnell.response/index.html.
O'Donnell vs Waters
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:11pm.
As a given, let's assume that Christine O'Donnell is a nutty as a fruitcake. She's an open target for everything the media can throw at her. Given that assumption, we also know that the left has way more of their share of these goofballs and kooks actually sitting in Congress, such as Maxine Waters. We never see this kind of interview with those clowns, even on FOX.
I
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Brent have you noticed
Submitted by bobbys on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:59pm.
Lets compare Q s to different people
Brent consider this a test and we can grade it on a curve.
See if you can pick out which ones would go to a conservitive vs a lib.
.
What do you have against Gays getting married.
How often do you masturbate.
Are you a witch.
Why do you hate gays.
How is your new puppy.
What is your fav color.
Are you surprised at how many people love you.
Tell us a cute story about your new puppy...
How is your golf game coming along.
Tell us about your date night was it as romantic as your first date.
How is that puppy
Not in the league of Palin and Michelle?
Submitted by Pharmer on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:19pm.
(mentioned JonPent @01:47)
VERY few people are in that league.
Palin and Bachmann have practice, and have much more charisma than most. Ann Coulter has less charisma but incredibly more fight in her. Palin plays the media like a fish.
O'Donnell is a comparative newbie, and will improve with time. She will reject the useless interviewers after she has had enough of them. Piers Morgan was about as bad to her as little Alan Colmes was to me on radio. Interviewers sometimes threw me off when they lost control of themselves, and listening to them froth afterwards was fun.
O'Donnell still has good work left in her, and should not be ripped to pieces by the older guys, because it will dissuade the normal Americans from attempting political service. She should, however strategize her interviews according to her purposes.
I do believe that Brent Bozell has made his bid for entry to the ruling class, media club with his over-the-top criticism of Christine O'Donnell. Perhaps, if he's feeling his age lately, or worried about the financial future, we should be more compassionate.
Or maybe conservatives should strongly dissuade the media from devouring our own.
~Amen
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:23pm.
.
she could be
Submitted by kata on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 6:29pm.
If she dusts herself off and goes back into the fray prepared. Palin didn't come back with her feint and laugh like hell strategy because she had help - she did it in spite of the that fact that she didn't.
Something like this can be a catalyst for a person. I will file this under wait and see. It's a shame Mr. Bozell cannot see it. I have no compassion for a man that uses language he would abhor in any other context.
You sir, owe her a PUBLIC and very PERSONAL apology.
Submitted by adam1972 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:25pm.
This is the very essence of what is WRONG with the conservative movement. The reason we are being eaten alive by a group that is much smaller than our own. You sir have just disparaged PUBLICLY someone who was willing to hold the line with you. Whether you disagree with the limitations she imposed on herself, she drew a clear and bold line as to what she was there to represent and was more than willing to stick to her guns on it! She didn't feed into his goals of getting her to answer his gotcha question. Although it seems that it fed into your desire sir to be a "Damage Control" Commander.
You sir have a podium with many conservatives who listen to you intently, look for the direction the wind is blowing to be displayed here on your site. What you've shown us here today is that you're wiling to see someone get drug out and hung publicly, personally and publicly damaged... all so you could report how bad she was treated on CNN.
To see your anger publicly displayed at Christine for having drawn a line and then RESPECTFULLY re-enforce that line... Well it's flabbergasting to read you disparage her openly for it.
There are very few conservatives that would publicly announce what their beliefs are openly and publicly in fear of retribution from the zombies on the left. In the safety of anonymity; conservatives are a dime a dozen, especially in this arena where the left controls the outcome.
She did nothing wrong. She set her standards for the conversation and stuck to them. Morgan decided to become part of the paparazzi and just go head on and get what he wanted, in a very disrespectful manner I might add.
Whether you like what she had to say, this fight was her own and she came out looking better for it for many people who are sick of it.
It's obvious you wanted this fight to have gone a few more rounds, with a few more words said. YOU may have had the salvo to launch it and maintain it. YOU may have taken a few hits the left would have paraded on every news channel. YOU may have been able counter it for all we know. Do that "Damage Control" it now seems you prefer. Nonetheless SHE had her opportunity and did what she felt was right. The only ones that should be upset are the ones standing on the left side of that line she held.... Unless you've let your moral compass point from the left and you've deemed yourself somehow better than this individual who tried her best to hold that line.
What I would give to have more conservatives willing to stand the line like she's allowed herself to.... Myself included. Unless we have people like you standing guard with a loaded weapon that is...
At which point it becomes hard to tell which ending I would prefer.
~Excellent
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:26pm.
.
Thank You
Submitted by Joe W. on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:21pm.
Very well stated, my friend.
I got a little choked-up
Submitted by packman on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 11:19am.
reading this....nicely stated Adam...
"...Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread..." ~Thomas Jefferson
Hmmmm....While I do not agree
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:43pm.
Hmmmm....While I do not agree with Brent Bozell on this. The man is entitled to his opinion and is also entitled to voice them publicly!! What the heck?!
Conservatives can't criticize Conservatives?
We do not like it when Liberals do not criticize their own and defend them at all cost. Mr. Bozell is being consistent in his way of thinking and proving that when he believes someone needs criticizing, Conservative or Liberal, he will do it.
This is what is so wrong with American politics today on both sides of the aisle.
If you are a Conservative we are suppose to all think alike and the same with Liberals? We aren't cut from cookie cutters people.
Brent Bozell owes no one an apology.
Sadly, I am seeing this more and more, very closed minded Conservatives as much as Liberals.
Either we all agree or if you don't you are an evil Conservative?
Bozell backed up why he thinks O'Donnell screwed up. He has a Right to his opiniong as well as a Right to publish them where ever he feels like it.
Why do some Conservatives want all Conservatives to think alike and fall inline as if we were all cut from cookie cutters? And my goodness, literally God help the Conservative who decides to step out of line and think differently, The Conservative Thought Police comes out in full force. As creepy as when Liberals do it!
All people are bound by the
Submitted by adam1972 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:51pm.
All people are bound by the same set of rules when it comes to basic respect. He chose to step over that line when he not just berated her for what she did, but called her names for it. PUBLICLY. There's a reason in any professional field, including the military that the rule of PUBLICLY patting on the back and PRIVATELY bitching one out.
He could have just as easily stated, " I believe Christine could have handled it better. I don't think she should have left the interview because in my opinion it fed into the left's perception of Conservatives".
He's free to think what he wants.. Just show some god given respect to someone that at least tried.
THEN he could of called her on her cell and bitched her out.
Adam1972, Last time I
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:56pm.
Adam1972,
Last time I checked all of us still have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.
You are doing to Brent Bozell what you say he should have done to O'Donnel privately.
Like I said, i 100% disagree with Mr. Bozell, but he has a Right to express his opinions publicly, just like you and me.
The Thought Police is Evil whether it comes from Liberals or Conservatives.
You have opinion about the issue which you have expressed publicly, Mr. Bozell has an opinion which he has expressed publicly. Are you saying that you can do it publicly and he can't?
Has this become the question?
Submitted by Calypso Jones on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:44pm.
Who did more to damage the cause of conservatives ESPECIALLY TEA Partiers? Mrs. O'Donnell or Mr. Bozell. I have utmost respect for Mr. Bozell but the Left Wing Media already hated her and succeeded in projecting the attitude of her so called craziness. Mr. Bozell simply agreed with them and gave legitimacy to their level of contumely.
I'm less concerned with Mrs. O'donnell's walking out of a crude interview than i am with the seeming agreement Mr. Bozell gave to the hated media.
Turn off the tube and get some air.
Submitted by adam1972 on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 11:27am.
Nowhere did I ever call Mr Bozell a name. No where did I belittle his attempt to help Conservatism..... Unless you ARE the thought police and feel that the mere act of standing up for your principles is offensive. He came out and directed his conversation to "The crowd" and put her down and belittled her. What's newsworthy about that?
These are the same principles Mr Bozell has spoken of many times. The reason so many of us respect him like we do (or in some cases did). But in these cases were he does react in a way that is lacking mutual respect.. we need to call him on it as well as we would appreciate others calling us out when we do the same.
If you've decided that you prefer to live in the MtV and MSNBC world and you have a right to express your feelings and motivations on your sleeve and feel that expressing them in any form you wish, in as demeaning and disrespectful manner as wish is your right..... well, you're right. If you feel it's okay to belittle someone on air or online, please; keep defending it as your right. You have that right and freedom. Just please, don't compare someone calling someone else names and belittling them publicly to actual criticism. Criticism is supposed to be helpful and thought provoking.
I came out and reminded him that we are all trying to work together and disrespecting someone publicly is wrong.
I never disrespected him once.
I see
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 8:22pm.
So it's ok for Mr. Bozell to call her a washed-up has been who need never give an interview on TV again. But if we call him out as an insensitive name-caller, we're the thought police.
"I think she handled it the wrong way."
vs
She's a 'buffoon' who 'made an ass of herself' and should 'never come back.'
Now is this the part where you call me a kid and accuse me of misunderstanding you?
Hoosier Conservative, Mr.
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:03pm.
Hoosier Conservative,
Mr. Bozell has the Right and Freedom to call Ms. O'Donnell what ever he wishes! And you have every Right and Freedom to criticize him in writing for doing so.
Yes, it is the thought police to tell anyone that they can't express their thoughts publicly.
Mr. Bozell obviously feels and thinks that O'Donnell screwed up and that she screwed up big time. He has the Right and Freedom to use whatever words best express his feelings and his thoughts on how O'Donnell behaved. I 100% disagree with him, but I welcome his point of view where ever and how ever he chose to express them. This is what is called REAL diversity, not Liberal diversity, you know, Liberal Black, Liberal Hispanic, Liberal White, Liberal Asian, etc.
What I am seeing here are Conservatives demanding and insisting that Mr. Bozell should have never expressed his feelings and thoughts in this matter publicly. The criticism against Mr. Bozell aligns more with Liberal thinking. "Geez man, get in line or you aren't a true Conservative!" "How dare you criticize our own in public?!!"
It sounds like some Conservatives here want the same type of diversity that Liberals shoot for. Everyone cut out of cookie cutters with different shades of skin color. C'mon now.
I'm confused
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 10:18am.
So I have every right to criticize Bozell, but I'm the thought police if I say what I really think.
Exactly what kind of criticism is permissible to say?
Hoosier conservative,
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 1:14pm.
Hoosier conservative,
Telling someone that they should not speak in public when they vehmently disagree with an individual is hardly and just merely criticism.
Insulting someone for expressing their thoughts is hardly criticism.
Demanding that someone apologizes for being consistent and criticizing someone on the Right as much as they would criticize someone on the Left is hardly and just merely criticizing.
This are the tactics that the Left uses demanding apologies, shaming people into silence merely because they spoke their mind.
What happens when a public figure speaks out against homosexuality? The Left goes crazy all of them stepping over each other demanding that the individual apologize. If he does not apologize? the insults and belittling attacks begin day-in and day-out.
Yes, it is the Thought Police to belittle someone, insult someone merely because they spoke their mind and expressed their feelings on how someone acted on a television show.
Criticism is not what some, who disagree with Mr. Bozell, are doing on this forum. Sorry.
there are some here that are criticizing and expressing their feelings against Mr. Bozell, but there are others here who are the Conservative Thought Police, no different than the Liberal Throught Police. Creepy on both cases. Extremes is not only a phenomenon of the Left, the Right also has its extremes!
i find it amazing that there are those who say that O'Donnell should have been criticized in private, yet they themselves take on mr. Bozell publicly! hmmm.... In other words, they can do to Mr. Bozell what they demand he should have not done. Great.
there are too many on the Liberal side and on the Conservative side who believe that there are some public figures on their side who should not be publicly admonished.
Whoa....
Submitted by adam1972 on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 11:54am.
The mere fact that you try and assemble a figurative example with a jumble of different facts.....
It is NOT the thought Police to belittle and insult someone for speaking their mind. I think you're being to sensitive and drawing with a brush that's a little to large for the canvas you're on.. Thought police is someone who tries to suppress ideas that deviate from a way of thinking. A good example being how the left is using our schools to suppress religion, capitalism and push ideas of Climate Change, Multicultarlism, sex and Socialism.... Calling someone out for name-calling is hardly being "Thought Police". You're just being extremely hyper sensitive and feel offended because you more than likely agreed with him. Deal with it. I never intended to nor do I believe I ever did belittle anyone for saying what they believed.
There was once a time when our greatest generation spoke freely to each other, albeit in respectful tones.. unless it was a fight and then it was on. The lines were clear. Now we have everyone wanting to disrespect everyone else, calling names; all in the name of "Freedom of Speech". That's hubbub. Freedom of Speech comes with the responsibility of mutual respect.
Adam1972, I am being too
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 2:41pm.
Adam1972,
I am being too sensitive? Hmmm...I am not the one having a heart attack because someone else used the words "ass" and "buffoon" to refer to someone else! The ones being too sensitive are the Conservatives who believe some conservatives should not be admonished in publicly.
Hmmm...someone here demanded an apology from Mr. Bozell. Somone here also said that they should have criticized and taken on Ms. O'Donnell in private and not publicly. This IS the Thought Police. This is demanding that Conservatives never admonish Conservative in public or else.
and you might want to look up the words and exchanges between Presidential campaings of our Founding Fathers. Calling Ms. O'Donnell a buffoon and an ass is childs play compared to what our Founding Fathers called each other during their political times. Sensitive? I think that is you.
No, Freedom of Speech is not what you deem it to be. Sure there is respect associated with it, but no where can we find, "Freedom of Speech, as long as you respect the person you are debating with".
I know quite a few Conservatives who are members of the Greatest Generation and their potty mouth is like nothing I have ever heard and my goodness when they start talking about Obama is worst than the words that come out of a drunken sailor.
You need to deal with the fact that Mr. Brent Bozell has the Right, Freedom and Free Will to speak as he wishes whether we agree with him or not. You are so incredibly sensitive that now you believe I am defending Mr. Bozell's Right to say what he wishes because I agree with him. Please do not bring in here silly Liberal tactics. No, I respect, cherish, and admire the Freedom fo Speech and Expression that does not exist around the world like it does in the USA. Whether it is Liberals or Conservative attempting to shut people up through demanding apologies or group thinking jumping on someone, I will always defend the Right of anyone to say what they please.
I hardly call name calling telling somoene they have acted like an ass and a buffoon. If this is what you call name calling, I hate to see what you call what our Founding Fathers called each other when they disagreed politically!
would you call respectful the gun duels that our Founding Fathers had? Is this respect? What is respect? What you deem it to be? It looks like you want to define Freedom of Speech in your terms and then push that definiton on everyone who disagrees with you.
America is full of incredibly hyper sensitve individuals whether on the Right or Left.
All you are doing is proving that political correctness is not only a Liberal phenomenon.
You demand a lot of respect, but you refuse to respect the Right, Freedom and Free Will of Mr. Brent Bozell to speak his mind with the words he wishes to use. Free Will is a superior Right over Freedom of speech. Mr. Brent Bozell has the Free Will to speak his mind as he wishes. His Free Will is supported by his Freedom of Speech and mutual human respect does not exclude anyone from calling out someone when they believe that individual is acting like an "ass" or "buffoon". Speaking the Truth when someone believes that an individual acted like an ass or buffoon is hardly disrespectful. Stop being so hyper sensitive and stop with the political correctness.
~Gun duels
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 2:46pm.
No gentleman fought a duel with a man whom he did not respect, in the sense that duels were fought over matters of honor between equals.
LL, I honestly think you are downplaying the name-calling and calling it "free speech" and "speaking the Truth" because of the way you behaved here a week ago.
Brunette, 1) If you must
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 3:31pm.
Brunette,
1) If you must know. yes, I believe it is ridiculous how I behaved here a week ago. I had told myself that I would never get into the silly and immature flamming wars and I did it again. It showed a lack of character, it was uncharitable and stupidly immature. I do the Roman Catholic Church no favors by "defending" Her in the manner that I did. It was pathetic of me, pathetic behavior.
I will be honest, though, I think others didn't behave any better than I did. But that is of course my personal opinion.
2) I by no means am defending Mr. Bozell's Right to say what he said, even though I 100% disagree with him, because of what happened here a week ago. I whole heartly believe what I am saying.
Talk to Free thinker and others, I have "gotten" into fights with them because I believe that Free Will and Freedom of Speech are so incredibly important. Coming from Venezuela, having friend coming from nations where Freedom of Speech does not exist, I cherish this Right very much. Maybe you are right and I am exagerating to one side because of my personal experiences, but man youo should hear Venezuelans talk about their politicians, about those we agree with and those we disagree with.
I whole heartly believe that Liberal values such as political correctness have zipped in into the America pscyhi and I think this is one of those occassions.
3) Mr. Bozell is wrong, 100% wrong, very wrong. I do not agree for one minute with what he said or the tone that he used, but he has the Free Will, the Freedom of Speech to say it using whatever words he believes best communicate his message.
Freedom of Speech is not merely to protect the speech we agree with, much more importantly is to protect the Speech we vehemently disagree with.
and yes, I know great individuals from the Greatest Generation who fought in WWII battles who use language that would make any decent woman blush and run, but the guys are the most harmless and nicest guys alive. AND Mr. Bozell's attack on Ms. O'Donnell is nothing compared to how our Founding Fathers, who respected each other enough to create the Constitution, attacked each other when they ran for political office.
~LL
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 4:26pm.
You frame your argument in defense of Bozell as if saying everything you think is some sort of moral virtue. Frankly, only a fool says everything he/she thinks. (Hahahahaha After I said that I thought, "That sounds familiar" and typed it into Google. "A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards" Prov. 29)
Anyway, I think that to frame this as a freedom of speech issue is a strawman argument. Freedom of speech is a right in the sense that the government cannot prosecute you for uttering your political opinions. You can say whatever you want about politics or the government without prosecution (except for threats of violence, I should think) but freedom of speech doesn't have a thing to do with private communications. You don't have the right to tell your neighbor he's a lyin', cheatin', no-good, goat-molesting, tool-stealin' sunuvabich as he may punch you in the face or sue you for slander. You know what I mean? This simply isn't a free speech issue at all, as there is absolutely no reason Bozell would or could be arrested for saying what he said and no one is even remotely suggesting it.
No one has a "right" to say what he/she thinks, everyone has a "right" not to be arrested for saying it. See the difference?
Brunette, Yeap, it is better
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 6:45pm.
Brunette,
Yeap, it is better to stay quiet and be thought of as a fool than open one's mouth and confirm that one is a fool (or however the saying goes!)
Listen, I don't agree at all with what Mr. Bozell said, but I welcome what he said. The more I think about, yeah, if anyone dared call my wife, daughter, sisters or mother a buffoon and ass, i would probably have some very strong words and fists to exchange with them. Mr. Bozell screwed up on his choice of words.
But I do not believe for a second that anyone of us should ask him to not say them or not express his feelings because it will hurt the cause, the Conservative movement, the Tea Party, etc. We must never demand from anyone that they stay silent for the good of anything...except of course for the good of God and Salvation.
You are right, as I have argued with countless of Liberals, Freedom of Speech is a government issue, not a private citizen vs. private citizen issue or corporation issue. Thus, I will say it this way, Mr. Bozell has the Free Will to say what he said, just like you, Radical, Adam etc have the Free Will to go after him for what he said.
to be honest, I hate political correctness in all of its forms whether it comes from the Right or Left. and I could be wrong, BUT I know that if Mr. Bozell had used the words he used against O'Donnell against Michelle Obama, Debbie what's her last name (DNC chairman) nut case, Hillary Clinton, many of us Conservatives that are complaining about the words he used against O'Donnell, would not be doing so. Of course, of course, this is my personal opinion.
We must hold all sides, all political parties to the same standards.
~Staying silent
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 9:21pm.
If we were talking about, for instance, staying silent (for the good of "the cause") about some monstrous wrong or injustice being perpetrated against an innocent, I'd agree with you. In that case, one's conscience would be violated by not speaking out. That isn't the case here, as no law was violated and if anyone suffered an injustice it was the woman Bozell excoriated. Everyone saw what happened; Bozell is no righteous whistleblower. He didn't have to break this story because no one would know if he didn't tell the world, you know what I mean? He was not personally involved, it didn't have anything to do with him, and no purpose was served by his flagellation of the woman. The only harm that would have resulted from him keeping his mouth shut would have been a brief spike in blood pressure.
If a liberal woman walked away from the same situation that Christine did, I would support her and Bozell would have ignored it. Have you ever seen him talk this way about a liberal woman, no matter how poorly she behaved?
This is not 1776
Submitted by adam1972 on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 4:29pm.
and this is not your grade school. No one ever said he had no right to say what he did. No one said he was wrong in thinking what he thought. No one is hyper sensitive over anything (least not myself).
There is a reason the respect for those at Tea Parties is well earned, they respect those around them and the property they are on. This may be Mr Bozell's Blog, he may have the Freedom of Speech... He doesn't have the right to denigrate Christine in front of the world the way he did. You confuse Freedom of Speech with Anarchy. Freedom of Speech comes with responsibilities and repercussions. You have NO idea what "Thought Police" is or where it comes from. 1984 George Orwell. It reflects more appropriately what the Liberals are doing to our youth. They are taking Religion away, marginalizing it, pushing climate change and green everything, demonizing Capitalism... aiming to suppress ideas that deviate from the way of thinking that they believe to be correct. This is where you oversimplify and where your error sticks out. Mr Bozell is free to say and feel what he wants, he does NOT on the other hand have a right to openly denigrate someone without repercussion. The repercussion is that those that read his articles, follow Mr Bozell's site's have the right to object and make known what he did was disrespectful and rude. He does NOT have to listen, he does not even have to read what we write.. The clincher is in the facts though.... Those that tell you to keep your mouth shut and not object are the ones trying to control and hence closer to a "Thought Police". To sit here and tell us we should not criticize Mr Bozell for openly belittling and denigrating Christine is pompous and self serving.
Look around you and see how many others like you think freedom of speech means you can say or do anything you want. Search you tube for "Progressive or Liberal Protest". That's freedom alright.
Please don't use the Founding Fathers as an example of your "Free Speech" (Anarchy). Those men might have had some dislikes for one another here and there, disagreements; but they had respect for each other and said those words to their faces in open sessions and outside sessions. Speaking behind someones back, denigrating them was a loss of honor and ridiculed. NO COMPARISON.
Adam1972, 1) I can't use the
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 6:32pm.
Adam1972,
1) I can't use the Founding Fathers now? The Founding Fathers said much worst to each other than what Mr. Bozell said to Christine O'Donnell. And Mr. Bozell did not say it in private so no one could listen. He said it publicly, in an open letter to NBers!
NB is popular enough that I can guarantee you that as soon as it was written, Ms. O'Donnell was told about it. Mr. Bozell is known well enough in Conservative circles that Ms. O'Donnell knows exactly what he said.
Mr. Bozell putting his words and thoughts on NB IS telling Ms. O'Donnell to her face what he thinks of her and her actions on CNN.
2) Mr. Bozell has Free Will. he has the Free Will to do what he pleases and then answer to God for how he used or misused his Free Will!! Do you not understand this? Why do you want to take away Mr. Bozell's Free Will? He has the Free Will to attack anyone he feels like.
Mr. Bozell has the Free Will to degenirate Ms. O'Donnell and you have the Free Will to criticize him for doing so! What do you not get about this? Never once have I said that people should not criticize him, never once!
3) Nice assumption there, eh? I have no clue where the Thought Police terms comes from? How do you know? Are you in my head, do you know the books I have read? No you don't, so do us all a favor and do not make assumptions about what I read, do not read or what I do not know or do know. C'mon now!
4) I have NEVER once said that everyone who disagrees strongly with the words used by Mr. Bozell must stay quiet and say nothing. Please point out to where I have said this. Post, date and time where I said it. You can't and won't because i NEVER said this.
What I have said is that just like YOU have a right to criticize and take on Mr. Bozell, HE has the right to criticize and take on Ms. O'Donnell publicly! or does he not? You can take on Mr. Bozell, but he can't take on Ms. O'Donnell? Hmmmm...
no one said you can't criticize him, I said that some have gone beyond criticism and are attempting to silence him through demanding apoligies, by saying that Conservatives should not be complaining about Conservatives in public.
Of course you can criticize him and take him on for what he said, but one thing is criticism and another thing is demanding that he not speak his mind in public about his beliefs about another Conservative! and this some have advocated in this forum. Or are you also going to claim this has not happened?
Stop putting words into my mouth that I never said. Thank you.
We even have people in this forum saying that they used to respect him, but shoot, now that he dared criticize a Tea Party person...that's it, the man is out.
By the way, you seem to forget something. While we all must respect each other's life because we are human beings. respect beyond this is earned, not begged for. Maybe, just maybe and I am not in Mr. Bozell's head, Ms. Christine O'Donnell has not earned Mr. Bozell's respect, have you thought about that?
But it sounds like you want to force people to respect the individuals that you respect. Again, you are attempting to take away the Free Will of people and want to force them to think and talk like you.
Free Will, we must respect it, cherish it and yes when someone misuses it, we must call that person on that action. But not one of us has the right to take away the Free Will of anyone.
And just because we respect the Tea Party it does not mean that we can demand, attmept to force people to respect it or get all angry and all up in arms because others do not respect the Tea Party.
By the way, it was you who claimed that in the past people respected each other in politics. That the greatest generation disagreed with each, but with respect. I can point to countless of instances where this is not true going as far back as including how the Founding Fathers treated each other when they disagreed.
Now, you condescending tone and air of superiority can be left out the door. I am not going to get into a flaiming war with you, but if you can't show me the respect that you demand Mr. Bozell must give to Ms. O'Donnell, please do not boether replying to me since I will not answer back. Thanks.
What you seem to be missing is
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 10:31am.
that Brent played right into pierceds and the liberals hands. Bring out someone that can be claimed to be representative of the Tea Party and then make her look dumb. Pointing at that underlining that is not helpful. Unless you're one of those fools that thinks because you have the right to say something it is right to say.
yup
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 10:45am.
The MSM headline for this is, conservatives now admitting the tea party is full of wackos.
What Piers Morgan did to
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:49pm.
What Piers Morgan did to O'Donnell was wrong, very, very, very, VERY wrong. However, a more expereinced interviewee would have turned the talbes on Piers Morgan. I am 100% sure that neither Bachman nor Palin would have walked out.
But as I said it back during the elections, Christine O'Donnell was a weak candidate that had no chances of winning. She did no favors to the Conservative cause. We handed Liberals more Liberalism by allowing that seat to go Democrat.
Ms.Donnell's campaign views and witches in America
Submitted by lrgon on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:37pm.
She obviously must be crazy (according to the left and the "moderate right) because during the primary battle with a looney "moderate" RINO she sounded like someone from the GOP's past- Robert Taft.
The real bona fide "looney" establishment GOP pulled the rug out from under her and refused to help her defeat her left wing Democrat challeger. Now the nation is better off, again, according to the same demonic forces of the ("left" and the GOP establishment), to have a liberal Democrud in the US senate like senator elect Chris Coons whose Freedom Index record spells disaster for America:>>>>http://www.scribd.com/doc/60755135/New-American-August-8-2011-Freedom-Index
Why the GOP establishment would snub O'Donnell who wanted to cut off the federal embilical cord to all those worthless federal depatments, agencies and bureaus is that the GOP likes them.
O'Donnell campaigned on a drill baby drill attitude; throwing cap and trade in the waste basket; repeal of Obamacare and the social values issues near and dear to social conservatives.
Fiscally and socially she was the total package that conservatives look for, but not the GOP establishment who prefer their candidates to be like New York state's Dede Scozafafa, Massachusett's Scott Brown and Alaska's liberal/ moderate Lisa Murkowski.
It really isn't O'Donnell's past dalliance with the witch thing that bothers Piers Morgan since he probably hangs out with them. It is interesting that Newt Gingrich mentioned during the Ames,Iowa debate that the Venona Files proved there were plenty of communists (witches) in our government.
If a couple of real witches from the 50's (McCarthy era) returned, perhaps, Piers Morgan would welcome them with open arms on his show? Alger Hiss, presidential advisor and acting Sec. General of the UN and Harry Dexter White the Assistant Sec of the Treasury were found in the Venona files. The real witches get a pass but even they leave a black stinky trail: http://www.bing.com/search?q=Venoan+papers&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC
Morgan's witch hunt~
Submitted by GG_NB on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 4:32pm.
Morgan just wanted to demean her -- the usual tactics. He wasn't trying to gain useful information. Sure, he can ask what he wants, but they were dumb, utterly transparent questions that weren't going to add a useful second to the nation's dialog on where this country is going -- or where Americans want it to go.
Morgan sounded like he was in junior high, and he was just out to use O'Donnell, who (no disrespect intended to her) is not really relevant to what is happening with the conservative movement right now. She can walk out if she wants to -- it's still a free country. It was a waste of time. Sometimes the wisest thing is to walk away from a waste of time, instead of giving someone else a platform to be dippy and use you for their own agenda.
I'm sick and tired of the condescending, demeaning and just plain hatefulness of some libs in trying to demolish conservative women -- or in attempting to attach any meaning to what it means to be conservative to irrelevant junk. It makes those who do it look immature, pathetic, dim and often cruel. That's not a winning combination, and I think most reasonable Americans see right through it.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Piers Morgan uses that Brtit accent for show only?
Submitted by lrgon on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 5:33pm.
British society is alleged to still maintain some degree of the qualities associated with the manner in which a British gentleman treats a lady.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan
Ms. McConnel should have rightly reminded the haughty alleged "catholic" that despite his Brit accent and his alleged catholic upbringing, he was behaving in a low down manner one expects to find in the lowest reaches of a nineteenth century New York City bowery brothehel. A denizen of which would have treated the almost succesful senatorial candidate with much more respect.
Just Don't Go
Submitted by cobokat on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 7:40pm.
While I'm not a fan of Piers Morgan, his show or CNN, I have to say she went on his show knowing he could ask any questions of his choosing. I didn't think she handled herself well and this just plays right into the hands of those that want to stereotype her. She should have had short quick answers and left it at that.
Did you watch the whole interview?
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 8:15pm.
She spent several minutes giving him 'short quick answers' and trying to 'leave it at that' but he pestered her regardless.
Just like everyone who
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:17pm.
Just like everyone who disagrees with Mr. Bozell is writing their disagreement, Brent has the Right to express his thoughts and feelings on O'Donnell's interview.
I 100% disagree with him, but he has a Right to expressing his feelings and thoughts publicly and privately.
LL
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:19pm.
So why can't express our thoughts and feelings?
~LL
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:20pm.
"How dare Mr. Bozell express his true thoughts and feelings on O'Donnell's interview? if he does it is like he allowed his family members get beat up." really?
That's not a quote from me; why does it have quotation marks around it?
Palin had to deal with the Republican establishment and she has always come out winning. She has had to deal with the Republican establishment and the Left wing establishment at the same time and she comes out winning. O'Donnell can't do the same?
She hasn't always come out winning; she's taken such a rhetorical beating that many people, many conservatives, consider her 'unelectable'. She's also had considerably more practice by this time, she's older than O'Donnell, and she's got more experience both in government and with the media. Palin was blindsided in '08, if you recall.
The point is that if the Left knows her own side won't defend her at all, she's a bloodied seal in a shark tank. And that goes for any conservative, but particularly the women. They're being sexually savaged by the Left while the men of the Right look on.
Brunette, I did not mean it
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:33pm.
Brunette,
I did not mean it as a quote from you. I ment it as a generalization as to what some Conservatives are saying about Mr. Bozell.
Brent has a Right and Freedom to express his opinion. We can't demand that the Left stop their attempt to shame people into silence because they disagree with them and then we Conservatives do the same to Conservatives that we do not agree with.
As Rush Limbaugh says, let the best idea win in the arena of free speech. If we do not lead by example, how can we demand the Left to not do what some Conservatives are doing.
True Palin has not always won, but she has learned from her mistakes and right now, the Left fears Palin, the reason why they are always after her. But I believe O'Donnell can do the same.
But all Conservatives have a Right and Freedom to express their feelings and thoughts and we shouldn't be demanding apologies or belittling people for expressing their thoughts.
You speak that Republican men are just standing by. I haven't heard Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Palin or any other prominent female Conservative speak out in favor of O'Donnell, have you? If you have, please put up the link and I am more than willing to read it, but don't blame the men only. Prominent female Conservatives have not come running in to O'Donnell's defense.
~"Belittling people for expressing their thoughts"
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:44pm.
Surely you taste a faint flavor of irony in that phrase.
Brunette, Not here to fight
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:07pm.
Brunette,
Not here to fight with anyone. I am attempting to understanding where my fellow Conservatives who are criticizing Bozell for expressing his opinions and thoughts are coming from.
I will repeat, I disagree with him 100%, but he has a right to express his thoughts and opinions, right? Maybe I am jumping the gun, but it sounds like some want him to stay silent and say nothing instead of expressing his thoughts which criticizing O'Donnell.
We must cherish the thoughts of others and debate them, but not belittle (Maybe I am trying to change. Brunette. I get were your irony comment comes from) those that disagree with us or demand that they do not express their thoughts.
In the arean of free speech and ideas, the best ones will always win.
~LL
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 1:42pm.
A few points:
Brunette, 1) Of course I get
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 12:48am.
Brunette,
1) Of course I get it. However, are you saying that Mr. Brent Bozell should have not spoken his mind, given his opinion and expressed his thoughts so the Left wouldn't go after O'Donnell? The Left has been going after O'Donnell long before Mr. Bozell said anything. They would still go after her even if he did not say anything.
It would be open, in fact it has been open season on O'Donnell regardless of what Mr. Bozell said or did not say.
Worrying about what the Left is going to think of us, in my opinion, is silly. They will criticize us and all of our public leaders and private leaders no matter what we say, do, don't say or do not do.
He has the Right and Freedom to express his thoughts and opinions using whatever words he deems appropiate for the readers to get his point.
Are you suggesting that the Conservative party line, that towing this line is much more important than having someone express their feelings, thoughts, sentiments freely?
2) Yes, very interesting and true article. I 100% agree with the writer. The Left does see everything from gender and race points of views. The Left hates any and all women and minoties who do not tow the Left wing party line. They hate women and minorities who are Conservatives, REpublicans, Tea Party. I am a minority and I get all ridiculous and sad attacks from the Left. I have been called a sell out, a house ni..er, an Uncle Tom.
However, you are jumping to conclusions that the Right is also this way and that with the Right, that with Republicans it is all about gender.
You said below that Republican men have stood on the sideline and not defended O'Donnell. I say to you, establishment Republican women, Conservative women are also standing on the sideline and not running to O'Donnell's side. Sorry, this has nothing to do with gender when it comes to the Right, to Republicans, to Conservatives.
On the other hand, I 100% agree with you. When it comes to the Left and women issues I am right there side by side with you. The Left hates women, the Left has no respect for women.
It is a great article and I have friends who have turned from the Dark Sike to the Republican and Conservative side and they have informed me of exactly the same things that Ms. Robin's says in her article. I wish more and more Liberal women opened up their eyes to the horrors of Liberalism.
Liberalism is anti-women!
3. Mr. Bozell has every right to express his sentiments, his thoughts as he wishes. I disagree with him that she should have answered the questions since what she said about masturbation, lust, gay marriage was said over ten years ago and her Senate campaing had nothing to do with any of these issues. I 100% disagree with Mr. Bozell. Bill Maher inserted himself in Ms. O'Donnell's Senate race and Mr. Bozell fell for the tactics the Left wingers used to destroy her.
Mr. Bozell honestly believes Piers was not out of line in his questions. Why would Mr. Bozell lie and say that Piers was out of line in his questions? Shouldn't Mr. Bozell express his true feelings? or do we want him to express the feelings that will tow the Conservative party line?
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that we want to put party, Conservative values, Conservative public figures above our own personal beliefs and values. This is wrong. My values, morals and beliefs come way before the values, morals and beliefs of the Tea Party, Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Libetarians, etc.
~LL
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 8:27am.
The Left has been going after O'Donnell long before Mr. Bozell said anything. They would still go after her even if he did not say anything.
Yes, that premise is not in question. The Left will always attack, but now they can say that even Republicans think she's an "ass and a buffoon". Just like they can throw Barbara Bush's "Palin should stay in Alaska" comment in our faces and claim Palin is unpopular with the Right. The truth is that Palin is unpopular with The Establishment, Left and Right. To attack our own emboldens those who are already attacking them, does it not?
However, you are jumping to conclusions that the Right is also this way and that with the Right, that with Republicans it is all about gender.
You said below that Republican men have stood on the sideline and not defended O'Donnell. I say to you, establishment Republican women, Conservative women are also standing on the sideline and not running to O'Donnell's side.
It's not that it's all about gender, but men are the natural protectors of women. A woman who runs to the defense of another woman is likely to become a victim of the attacker, as well. Men are supposed to be the fighters and defenders; when they leave it up to the women they lose all credibility, and when they join in the attack on a woman they make themselves despicable.
Shouldn't Mr. Bozell express his true feelings? or do we want him to express the feelings that will tow the Conservative party line?
He's toeing the Establishment Republican line, and pandering to the Left. On the "feelings" part, no, I don't think that everyone "should" express their true feelings on anything and everything. Sometimes our "true feelings" are petty, spiteful impulses that harm ourselves, those we express them too, and those we express them about.
What did his name-calling accomplish? The Left is gleefully taking and using the new ammunition Bozell gave them against the TEA Party and Sarah Palin (they endorsed O'Donnell; discrediting her discredits them). The Left gained ground, a strategic advantage. It isn't just about Christine, she's a pawn the Left took in order to advance to a more strategic position against the Conservative movement as a whole.
Brunette, To attack our
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 3:11pm.
Brunette,
To attack our own emboldens those who are already attacking them, does it not?
While the answer is of course, yes. We cannot demand or push people on our side not to attack those Conservatives whom they disagree with.
Mr. Bozell has every Right in the world as it has been given to him by God Himself to criticize and attack whom ever he wishes, Liberal or Conservative.
To demand that we do not attack those Conservatives or Republicans that we do not agree with because the Left will use our words and actions against us is not right. We must act upon what we know what is Morally Right and not upon what will others do and say.
For example, I am a Roman Catholic, but I whole hardly believe that it needs to be said that there are horrific priests that screwed up big time and committed the grave and horrific sin of pedophilia. When my non-Catholic friends ask me, I tell them this. Am I not suppose to speak the Truth about this because then some enemies of the Church will use my words against the Church?
If you whole hardly believe that something is the Truth you cannot be silent merely because someone may use what you believe is the Truth against you or the groups, organizations you support and admire.
It's not that it's all about gender, but men are the natural protectors of women. A woman who runs to the defense of another woman is likely to become a victim of the attacker, as well. Men are supposed to be the fighters and defenders; when they leave it up to the women they lose all credibility, and when they join in the attack on a woman they make themselves despicable.
Well, I think if a woman misbehaves, as Mr. Bozell's believes is the case with Ms. O'Donnell (I 100% disagree with him) it can and must be said to her that she did wrong. I by no means believe that scolding a woman is despicable. I do believe that calling her a slut, whore and the other horrific things that have been said about Palin, Bachman, O'Donnell, Rice and other Conservative women is despicable and beyond the pale. Any men that hits a woman is despicable just like I believe that any woman that hits a man is despicable (the man can't defend himself). I hold men and women to the same Moral Standards.
Also, having 4 sisters, I do not believe for a second that women are helpless being that can't stand up for themselves. Yes, of course having a men protect you and defend you, as a woman, greatly helps as my brothers and I have stood up for our sisters and individuals wives countless of times. But I don't believe that women can't stand on their own and help each other.
We can't hold men and women to different Moral standards. We can't demand that Conservative men come to the aid of Ms. O'Donnell and not demand the same from Conservative women.
The Left gained ground, a strategic advantage
So are you only interested in the Left not gaining ground and strategic advantage? Are you saying that Mr. Bozell should not have spoken up on his beliefs because these aide the Left? for the good of Conservatism, the Tea Party and the Republican party Conservatives should not speak up and say out loud what they believe because they may help the Left?
Again, it seems that to some in this forum believe that Conservative values, Republican party values, toeing the Tea Party values is much more important than someone expressing their personal, strong held beliefs. is this not what Liberals do? Hide their true beliefs and not speak them in public in order to gain strategic advantage and ground?
To me, the Truth is much more important than whatever might give the Right or Left an strategic advantage or help them gain ground. Obviously, Mr. Bozell believes that he has spoken a Truth, I 100% disagree with him, but his personal beliefs and values are much more important than Right-wing values or attempting to avoid the Left from gaining ground or strategic advantage.
Free Will and mr. Bozell's Freedom of Speech are 100% much more important than, "...for the good Conservatism, for the good of the Tea Party..."
~LL
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 5:07pm.
Mr. Bozell has every Right in the world as it has been given to him by God Himself to criticize and attack whom ever he wishes, Liberal or Conservative.
That's not even in the same galaxy as theologically sound. God didn't give us any "right" to criticize or attack anyone, at all. I'd love to see the book, chapter, and verse you're basing that on.
Well, I think if a woman misbehaves, as Mr. Bozell's believes is the case with Ms. O'Donnell (I 100% disagree with him) it can and must be said to her that she did wrong.
Major, major disagreement here. "Misbehaves"? Did she piddle on the rug? "Misbehaves" implies willful transgression of the rules; what rules would those be? "Thou shalt not walk away from questions about thy lust"? Where does anyone get off acting like she did anything morally wrong in walking out?
"it can and must be said to her that she did wrong"?!
Dude, that is messed up as hell. Seriously. Where do you get this idea that there is some sort of moral obligation to publicly castigate her? Who put Bozell in the judge's seat? Who put you in the judge's seat over any woman? That statement is also completely opposed to Scripture, by the way.
Also, having 4 sisters, I do not believe for a second that women are helpless being that can't stand up for themselves.
This is a cop-out. First of all, I didn't make that statement. Second of all, if your wife accidentally scratched a guy's bumper and he jumped out and began screaming obscenities in her face, would you:
A. Chime in with, "You're a dumbass who can't drive" because it was, after all, her fault
B. Stand silently by, watching
C. Walk over to the guy, get between him and your wife, point out it was an accident and there's no need to act like that.
So are you only interested in the Left not gaining ground and strategic advantage? Are you saying that Mr. Bozell should not have spoken up on his beliefs because these aide the Left?
If I were "only interested" in that, I would have said so; I was simply stating the negative result of Bozell's frivolous diatribe. Bozell's "beliefs" about how O'Donnell handled that interview are irrelevant. "Beliefs" is simply the wrong word to use in this context, it implies things like core values and religious principles, not opinions about how to handle an interview. It's a strawman of the same sort as the 'freedom of speech' you keep referring to.
How is what Bozell thinks (about what someone else did, that didn't have a thing to do with him personally) important to anyone other than himself? Who cares? What does his opinion on this matter accomplish other than making Leftists happy?
Why is blurting out every thought about anything and everything a sacred cow with you?
Respect
Submitted by adam1972 on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 1:50pm.
That's it. It's the whole premise of this argument. It's what separates us from the left. It's why we don't trash property, scream obscenities at the opposition... It's part of what makes us Conservatives.
If this simple premise is too difficult to understand just say so, this has been our argument the whole time and you just refer to "Freedom of Speech" to express his thoughts. No one is arguing that point, just that it does NOT reflect well when we try and keep it on the upside and let the left do the demeaning; and he goes and loses it over an interview that was simply ended in a respectful manner with a person who deserved much less than he got.
Liberallies
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:51pm.
Have you heard of any of the women you mentioned condemn O'Donnell? Perhaps they haven't said anything because O'Donnell is not a political candidate, but an author.
Bozell went out of his way to mock and denigrate O'Donnell. The left does this enough. Did he really feel it was necessary?
Dang it Rad
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:53pm.
You beat me to it.
;-)
We Are The 53%
Radical1979, Actually, Brent
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:01pm.
Radical1979,
Actually, Brent is far from the only Conservative criticizing O'Donnell's performance. Hotair and RedState are doing so too as well as other Conservative websites.
Sorry, some are coming down on Bozell are coming down on him for expressing his thoughts on O'Donnell's performance. I disagree with him, but he has a Right to express his thoughts.
And Brunette claimed that it was only men going after her, this is not true. Michelle Malkin, Laura INgraham would eat this guys alive if they thought he belittled a woman. Sins of omission are as bad as sins of action. We can't condemn some men because they have decided to express their thoughts.
In all honesty, I am clueless to what the Conservative women that I name think, but I think it speaks volumes they have not come out swining at Piers Morgan.
LL
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:10pm.
I disagree. O'Donnell is NOT a political candidate, and with everything going on, unemployment, the stock market crashing, etc, I'd be surprised if they were criticizing O'Donnell. I don't think Ingraham comes out defending Malkin every time she's attacked, and vice versa. Sins of omission are relevant in religion, not in opinion blogging.
And isn't the purpose of this site to express our opinions? So yes, some of us WILL express our opinions that Bozell is wrong in his vilification of O'Donnell and support for Morgan's disgusting behavior.
Radical, You said it well.
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:16pm.
Radical,
You said it well. This site is about expressing our opinion and that is what you, men, Brunette, Denny Crane and the rest of us have done. Mr. Bozell also has a Right and Freedom to express his opinion too, right?
I am not saying we do not have the Right to disagree with him, I will say it again. He has as much of a Right to express his opinion and thoughts on O'Donnell's interview as we have a Right to criticize him and say he is wrong. What I do not like is that some Conservatives are claiming that he should not have said anything at all or that if he thought she screwed up, Mr. Bozell should have said it behind closed doors.
and in a blog, people can also sin Radical. Religion is everywhere not only inside a church.
Maybe you are right, but O'Donnell's interview thing has exploded everywhere. Like I said, it is not only NB criticizing her performance from the looks of it is pretty much most prominent Conservative websites.
LL
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:26pm.
It wasn't just what Bozell said, it's how he said it. He denigrated O'Donnell in the same way he would someone from the cast of Jersey Shore, and is being hypocritical in saying Morgan was correct in his questioning.
Are you seriously suggesting it's a sin of omission for Malkin or Ingraham not to come to O'Donnell's defense if they believe she was wronged?
Those website criticizing O'Donnell are most likely male and GOP insider dominated. Thus, unhappy with O'Donell no matter what she does.
Radical, No, what I am
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:44pm.
Radical,
No, what I am saying is that to claim it is only men that are going after Christine O'Donnell is not right. What are we Liberals? Gender fights now? I know plenty of Conservative women who greatly dislike Christine O'Donnell.
I have always said it since I first came to this nation. Liberal women have done such a great harm to this nation even their way of seeing the world, "A men's world where men always come down on women they disagree with" has zipped into the American Conservative psychi.
and yes, Mr. Bozell has the Right and Freedom to degenirate O'Donnell in the same way he would someone from the cast of Jersey Shore and he maybe be a hypocrite for saying that Morgan was correct in his questioning. But it is Mr. Bozell's Right and Freedom to say it and express his thoughts and ideas. Do I agree with him. Not in any word he wrote, not even close. He is wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. But I welcome his writing, I am glad we live in a nation where he can express his thoughts and ideas and not be shot for it and where we can point at him and say, "You are wrong sir!"
Let us not act like Liberals, individuals who demand that people that disagree with them be silenced or shamed into silence like it is happening to the history teacher. the poor teacher has been suspended by the Liberal school system he works at because oh my gosh, his words were so not sensitive to homosexuals. Is this what we want? Silence Bret Bozell because his words were not sensitive to Ms. Christine O'Donnell?
Bozell is wrong, but this doesn't mean he can't express his opinion or that we can't criticize him, but let us not use the Liberal tool of attempting to shame people into silence or demand that they do not express their thoughts.
AND this has nothing to do with gender.
what I am
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 12:04am.
Is a waste of time. A contrary-an? Even though we both know you dont qualify as anyone's critique.
eh?
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 12:07am.
eh?
eh, he,eh
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 12:46am.
cough, hack, cough, eh, hack, cough, eh,!!!!!
eh?
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 12:58pm.
eh?
~LL
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 7:00pm.
I haven't "claimed that it was only men going after her", I've pointed out that she's being sexualized and so is virtually every conservative woman. Establishment Republican men have for the most part sat on the sidelines and let it happen, to their great shame.
LL
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:52pm.
I haven't heard Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Palin or any other prominent female Conservative speak out in favor of O'Donnell, have you?
No, but neither have I seen them say anything negative about her either.
We Are The 53%
Is Bozell Grinding An Axe For Christine?
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:24pm.
"He [Morgan] simply asked the questions. O'Donnell had no right to reject the questions."
I know it is not, but in a court trial, lawyers object to witness badgering by appealing to the judge that the question was already asked and answered. Everyone knows that every leftist repressive asks uncomfortable questions over and over again to embarrass their opposition. How many times does she have to answer the "have you stopped beating your wife" gotcha questions?
I mean, come on! Stick together to defeat the evilness overtaking our society.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Obviously
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 11:51pm.
But who cares, we got Coons anyway! Right Rove?
HardRightTurn, The ends
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 12:05am.
HardRightTurn,
The ends never justify the means. If we disagree with a Conservative or do not like their behavior, as Bozell does not like O'Donnell, we can't stick together merely for the sake of defeating our opponents. How different are we then from Liberals?
The ends never justify our actions on our way to get there. Defeat the evilness ovetaking our society, but let us not sell our personal beliefs on the way there.
I have a question
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 10:40am.
Has Bozell - or anyone on the right for that matter - ever gotten credit by the left for criticizing a conservative? Did Karl Rove's attacks on O'Donnell cause anyone to respect him more? Does Bozell really, seriously, honestly think that CNN will have more respect for MRC, or separate him from 'embarrassing' conservatives?
This will accomplish nothing for MRC. No one on the left will treat us any different. No one in DC will start reading NB. The only change will be a few more conservatives disgusted by this and NB's influence among the tea party getting weaker.
Allahpundit has already taken Hot Air down that road. NB will suffer the same fate if this keeps up.
Hoosier Conservative, So,
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 12:58pm.
Hoosier Conservative,
So, your goal is to have the Left respect you? Change their minds about Conservatives? Your goal is to have the Left stop criticizing Conservatives?! If that is your goal, good luck!
The Left will NEVER stop criticizing the Right, just like the Right will never stop criticizing the Left.
If your goal in life is for everyone to like you and to stop criticizing you, you will have quite the unhappy life.
No matter what the Right does, the Left will always criticize it. Period. We shouldn't ask people not to speak their mind because oh goodness, we will give the Left ammunition to criticize the Conservatives. They'll criticize us for doing nothing, for doing something, for breathing and sleeping the wrong way. The Left will never stop its criticism of the Right.
Thus, let us not sell our personal values and beliefs on our way to try to make America better so the Left does not criticize us.
Good for Mr. Bozell for speaking his mind and expressing his thoughts. I disagree with him, but he has every Right and Freedom to do so.
Whether it is the establishment Left or Right, the grassroot Left or Right, there are WAY too many people who want others to speak, live and breath the "party" line and if anyone gets out of line, that's it for them.
This is a free market, Hoosier Conservative and you are free to leave NB at any time if you do not like what it is being said. For example, I no longer visit Little Green Footballs and other websites because I do not like the road they have gone down. If enough people stop visiting NB, well NB will go down, right? Free Market of Ideas.
Bozell Homerun
Submitted by PaleHorse on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 11:48am.
Brent, great post. O'Donnell is a walking disaster and her walk-off was nothing short of pathetic. She's famous for her ludicrous comments in the 90s so she should be able to easily handle any questions about them. Too bad she's too ignorant and ridiculous to do so. Her track record in life is a sad, sad document. No job, can't pay rent. I can't for the life of me figure out why otherwise sensible people go to bat for her. This thread alone shows how out of touch with reality many of the most hardcore posters are on this site. No reasonable person could possibly think that Christine O'Donnell is a worthwhile political figure. She hurts the party, she hurts the cause. Get a clue. Bachmann, Palin, O'Donnell? Not serious, not interesting, not worthy of serving our country. These are just facts. If you disagree, you clearly care more about the culture war and less about America.
"not worthy of serving our country"?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 12:02pm.
WTF does that mean? Do you hate women?
And in her current capacity, she is a published author and was booked by CNN to discuss her book. No job? Can't pay rent? You her accountant?
Her life is a sad, sad document? In what way?
Militant homosexuality is a sad, sad document. Maybe you should check out a mirror... Facts are not yours to determine alone.
Plant.
(a) don't hate women. (b)
Submitted by PaleHorse on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 1:08pm.
(a) don't hate women. (b) do hate morons regardless of sex (c) she is NOW a published author after years of having no job and no income (well-documented PS) (d) I'm not her accountant but her financial woes are public knowledge (e) She is a sad, sad human being desperately trying to claw her way into relevance.
You support O'Donnell? Really? Truly a bizarre stance. Sorry to point out the obvious, but as Brent so aptly stated, she is a joke.
Palehorse, So who made you
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 1:26pm.
Palehorse,
So who made you god that you decide who is a sad human being?
Care more about the Culture War than America? If the Conservatives lose the culure war to the radicals, Liberals, America will be lost!
and everything you are saying about O'Donnell is a lot of Left wing propaganda from thinkprogress, dailykos, Olberman, and the rest of the radical Left! Her financial "woes" are no different than that of most politicians Right or Left! But I am sure you knew this and did not buy into Left wing propaganda, right? You might want to check into Hillary Clinton's financial woes after she lost her presidential bid. You might want to look into her campaing people who have been indicted for fraud, oh but heck, HIllary is a Liberal, her financial woes don't count, only that of O'Donnell, right?
if you want to really talk about a human being who has been desperately trying to claw his way into relevance, let's talk about Al Gore or maybe let's talk about a real loser who the left loved and many still love, John Edwards.
Palin, Bachman and O'Donnell jokes? I guess you have been sleeping for the past 3 years since Obama took office, the real joke, and the bigger jokers are the buffoons who bought into his pretty speeches and empty rhetoric of "Hope and Change!" "Yes We Can!"
Rookie, you better come in here with a much better line of attack that stupid, half-truths Liberal propaganda.
No, I didn't say
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 4:31pm.
I support O'Donnell; to my knowledge she hasn't asked for my support except in a general nature in trying to promote her book. I have not purchased the book. I do, however, favor chivalry; the way she was treated was disrespectful and certainly not worthy of CNN.
Based on your previous comment, is it safe to assume that everyone currently out of work or struggling with their mortgage is a walking disaster?
And don't be sorry; what is obvious to you may actually be a chimera of your angry, and seemingly jaundiced mind. Your ability to spit out talking points does seem quite submissive; I assume you're stump-broke, AlabasterPony?
bkeyser, she is a career
Submitted by PaleHorse on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 5:22pm.
bkeyser, she is a career politician without a single day of real work. I don't respect that. Piers Morgan is the worst and his show is horrible. That being said, she should be strong enough to handle that light-weight.
I don't think anyone out of work or struggling to pay their mortgage are disasters. Most people had honest jobs and fell on rough times. She never even had A job. She's not a normal American, so I don't feel sorry for her. She is pathetic. As for my financial status, I'm far from broke. In fact, years of hard work have led me to be quite the opposite. Which is exactly why I don't respect people like O'Donnell.
Trying to make a quick buck.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 5:26pm.
It's all about making money from her brief appearance in the spotlight. She wants the attention. Plain to see by the title of her book.
She's a joke.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Something wrong with that?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 5:40pm.
Is she not allowed to make money, or write a book? It seems to me that lots and lots of people write books and some actually make it on to TV to promote them; though I'd guess that's a small percentage of the total. Why then, would CNN book her for an interview?
Maybe
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 5:37pm.
look up "stump-broke".
And while she has been involved in conservative politics she has never held elective office. Her political positions are seemingly based largely on her Catholic up-bringing. I guess that's what you find pathetic?
We have a winner
Submitted by Wall Watcher on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 6:24pm.
A lot of the attack against O'Donnel, Palin, and Perry is religion based. Even in Bozells insult laden, name calling, piece he invokes GOD.