Did I miss the joke? Was there something funny about what Pete Stark (D-Calif.) said on the floor of the House, claiming that President Bush sends our soldiers to Iraq to get their heads blown off for his amusement? Craig Crawford can apparently see some humor in it.
Crawford appeared on today's "Morning Joe," and while the MSNBC political analyst certainly didn't approve Stark's statement, he did try to soft-pedal it, smilingly portraying it as just one more outburst from a congressional scamp.
View video here.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Craig, I'm just curious, if you're the Democratic party, do you go and give Pete Stark a big, warm bear hug or do you tell him to apologize?CRAIG CRAWFORD: Oh, you know, Pete Stark's like Old Faithful. This guy erupts on a pretty regular basis over the years. I think a lot of Democrats are used to this and just kind of roll their eyes and let it, just move on [.org?]
Joe returned to the subject after rolling the tape of Stark's statement on the House floor:
Republicans sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war on children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement
SCARBOROUGH: So, the president wants troops's heads to be blown off for his amusement. The Democrats may be used to it, but what do you think about Middle America?
CRAWFORD [the photo captures Craig's mirthful reaction to Stark' statement] : Oh, I think this will hit that one pretty hard. I think this is not something that Democrats obviously would want out there, but Pete Stark is sort of a court jester, you know that, you served there.
Crawford then promptly changed the subject: "He's always, he talks about spending money, his plan for healthcare is put everybody on Medicare. I think we'll just gave to borrow more money from the Chinese to do that."
Now, it's true that Stark has a history of making crude and vulgar statements. As per Wikipedia:
- Stark called then Republican congresswoman Nancy Johnson a "whore" of the pharmaceutical industry.
- Called United States Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Wade Sullivan, an African American, "a disgrace to his race".
- Declared that conservative former California state welfare director Eloise Anderson would "kill children if she had her way" because she opposed particular policy proposals.
- Called fellow Congressman Scott McInnis a "little wimp" and a "little fruitcake" and challenged him to a fight during a Ways and Means Committee meeting.
But again, where's the humor in any of this? Would Crawford and his MSM brethren depict a Republican with a history of making similar statements as a harmless "court jester," or would we have endless MSM navel-gazing deploring "the debasement of our political culture," culminating in calls for for the offender's resignation?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Ooops
October 19, 2007 - 07:47 ET by allanf... Yes and that Sandy Berger. He was so forgetful. He always stuffed documents in his socks.
Again...
October 19, 2007 - 07:48 ET by tater...by their skewed logic he is a court jester and Rush is a threat to our troops.
Democrat Justice
October 19, 2007 - 07:54 ET by allanfWe all know nothing will happen to Stark. I'm also sure if a Republican Congressman had said those words about Speaker Pelosi, there would be retribution.
Sandy Berger stuffs classified documents in his socks, and receives no jail time. Scooter Libby is denied bail by an appeals court for a doubtful conviction.
Is the Justice Department still run by Democratic appointees?
JD
October 19, 2007 - 08:10 ET by NortoBeliever
One of Bush's early mistakes that in retro signalled bad news. I always wondered why he left Berger in there and that certainly came back to haunt him and the country.
When he had someone who was on our side(Ashcroft) he would not stand up for him, the border agents, eg. as well, but helps let the Medellin sicko off.
Bush is who we elected, but not who I voted for, in essence. I am close to wishing he would just go away.
COURT JESTER
October 19, 2007 - 07:55 ET by billbAt the very moment that the "jester" comment was being made, CNN ran a pol that showed that 89% of the respondents thought Pete Stark should NOT appologize!
bill... You can be sure
October 19, 2007 - 08:01 ET by bigtimerbill...
You can be sure it would be the same on msnbc or any of the big three most likely, that is their audience anymore, they are lower than low in all ways possible, along with the leftists that stay glued to the leftist propaganda.
Pathetic isn't it?
Please tell me you are
October 19, 2007 - 08:17 ET by motherbeltPlease tell me you are joking about that. I simply cannot believe that 89% of any group thought that was an OK thing to say.
Mornin' mb... I believe
October 19, 2007 - 08:25 ET by bigtimerMornin' mb...
I believe that poll from CNN.
Pretty pathetic eh?
Morning all
October 19, 2007 - 08:47 ET by drillanwrThey must've polled the dems in congress.
Please tell me....
October 19, 2007 - 09:16 ET by billbYou can take solace in the fact that they also showed 11% voted FOR an apology. Let's see..89+11=100. See, I told you CNN was Fair and Balanced!
COURT JESTER
October 19, 2007 - 15:25 ET by merlin61CNN must have polled only Dimocrats, cuz I got
smoke coming from my ears from Mr Starks
nonsensical, stupid, ignorant, unjustified,
un-American remarks. I can't think of enough
insulting words to say about this nincompoop.
Jest friends
October 19, 2007 - 16:43 ET by acumenWell, taking into consideration the mentality of the CNN don't-tase-me-bro audience that poll seems perfectly believable.
Wow I just posted on
October 19, 2007 - 07:59 ET by bigtimerWow I just posted on another thread about the court jester remark from Crawford, he has always made me sad for him, he is just a mouth-piece for the dem party always has been ...he just got his talking points said just the way they wanted....
Why shucks this is nothin' at all, it is just the usual from Ol' Stark...he is just our resident crazy Uncle....blah blah blah....just like brushing lint off from his coat is how Crawford acted.
It was obscene, outrageous, despicable, disgusting, shameful ect ect ect...He should be called to resign, as I said look at the hypocrisy with all of this, it is unbelievable, if any one person in the repub party had said this it would be the end for him with the msm going ballistic until he she did resign.
I was hoping but knew better that it would be the question of the day first thing on the Washington Journal ...no such luck, as far as I am concerned the Journal has tilted to the left so much I only watch parts of it anymore.
well, bt, dontcha know,
October 19, 2007 - 08:06 ET by motherbeltwell, bt, dontcha know, Stark is just "refreshing" (KO's word)...you know, after all those Democrats falling all over themselves apologizing for everything...it's refreshing to have someone refuse.....
How old is Stark anyway??? Maybe they can use the "dementia" defense. Count on the MSM to ignore this...just another day in Paradise....no news here....move along....
It's time for the "resident crazy uncle" to be put out to pasture.
Democrats apologized for
October 19, 2007 - 08:50 ET by drillanwrDemocrats apologized for something???
I must've missed that.
Guess I should've used the
October 19, 2007 - 10:10 ET by motherbeltGuess I should've used the ole <sarc> symbol.
HAHAHAHA
October 19, 2007 - 08:09 ET by motherbeltHAHAHAHA
Look at that big, stupid grin on Crawford's face....he thinks this is hilarious!
That Pete Stark is just a hoot, ain't he????
Do you think he would find a similar remark about a Democrat president funny?
Aren't these the same guys who said it was unconscionable to suggest that Bill Clinton may have used a "wag the dog" scenario???
You know what.. Free
October 19, 2007 - 08:24 ET by rimskyYou know what.. Free Speech is a wonderful thing. But it doesn't mean that you shouldn't be responsible about what you say and how you say it. I actually had written something else here before scrapping it in favor of this. My first gut-shot was not so nice, and would have been satisfying for about a nano-second. But by just thinking for another nano second, I opted out. I'm not going to stoop to that level. Stark and Crawford are shameful.
Free Speech is a wonderful
October 19, 2007 - 08:44 ET by motherbeltFree Speech is a wonderful thing. But it doesn't mean that you shouldn't be responsible about what you say and how you say it. -rimsky
I would alter that a bit, to say that it doesn't mean you shouldn't be held responsible for what you say.
Stark should most definitely be held responsible.
Good point.. thanks
October 19, 2007 - 08:48 ET by rimskyGood point.. thanks
anyone else sick of the word "outrage"?
October 19, 2007 - 08:43 ET by pmohbuckthe word means nothing more than "i'm mad as hell, but i'm just going to tell you i'm mad as hell ... you've hurt my feelings, but i'm not going to do a damn thing about it and you know it ... so, please, do/say it again"
after seeing some of the other things this jackass has spewed from his vulger little piehole, someone in the house needs to stop being "outraged" and put this elderly, senile, little creep in his place.
unfortunately, only people like rush limbaugh have the fortitude and intelligence to hit below the belt when it comes to dealing with these lunatics ... his little ebay auction has made harry reid look like a total loser ... finally, someone strikes back. sad to see that a private citizen is the only one with the guts to combat this democrat lunacy and not the elected republicans who see this stuff first hand ... they just sit there, mouths agape and a few hours later issue a statement expressing their "outrage".
i'm sick of "outrage" and want more action ... freedom of speech does not mean you can say what you want and not be accountable for your words ... this stuff gets swept under the carpet while "toilet dancing with larry craig" gets all the attention ... stark's statements deserve much, much more than "outrage"
"outrage" is something like
October 19, 2007 - 08:47 ET by motherbelt"outrage" is something like "taking responsibility." To the democrats, it means nothing. They "take responsibility" for any number of things (e.g. Reno), but there are never any consequences.
So why would they be impressed by someone's "outrage"? You've got it right...outrage without consequences equals "we got away with it again!"
Stark contrast
October 19, 2007 - 09:22 ET by WR JonasLast week it was phoney outrage over Ann Coulters remark about Jews, (no chuckles or amusement there) but this week its pure fun to see Pete Stark erupt on the House floor .Ho ho ho.
I believe this is a case of selective outrage and a demonstration of the duplicitious and feckless nature of left wing media.
WRJ -
October 19, 2007 - 09:41 ET by drillanwrThe Limbaugh thing ... The Coulter thing ... The O`Reilly thing ...
These people (whose words and intent were taken out of context and twisted to down right lies) are NOT elected officials who owe anybody civil discourse. They do it out of common sense, their livelihoods on the line.
People such as Stark, Murtha, Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid are elected officials who OWE the country civil discourse and a sense of sanity, especially when expressing themselves on the floor.
Our sports figures get fined. The FCC does fine people when they step over the line. But all we are to expect as retribution for bad behavior from our elected officials is the phrase "well, vote them out of office ..." ... unless, of course, if that official is republican.
And the democrats (sans the meager wrong-doings of) couldn't stomach Jim Traficant (D - OHIO) ?!?!?!?
pre Civil War days
October 19, 2007 - 09:30 ET by okiehawk44did you ever wonder what the public discourse was like in the years leading up to our Civil War? that was a war between whole states and between brothers -- must have been a lot of PASSION expressed back then huh? think we're getting closer? i do!
Feeling pretty O.K. about 2008
October 19, 2007 - 09:31 ET by drillanwrAfter reviewing the list of Stark's "Pearls of Wisdom" I find myself scratching a hole in my scalp, struggling to recall EXACTLY WHAT it was Trent Lott said that caused him to step down from the leadership, and listen to demands for him to resign???
BTW, if the RNC does NOT take advantage of this sort of democrat political Tourette's Syndrome by loading political ads of his republican challanger for the seat with these remarks ... well, what more do they need? Come on, RNC! "Explore the space!"
The whole of the democrat party, and their willing butt-buddies in the media, are all suffering from this political Tourette's Syndrome.
Nancy and Harry, et al dems ... as you continue to commit political suicide ... Babies, don't fear the reaper ...
In the immortal words of Christopher Walkin, "I got a fever ... And the only prescription is ... MORE COWBELL!"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5Yyol7T4pfQ
Eloise Anderson would "kill
October 19, 2007 - 09:50 ET by candanceEloise Anderson would "kill children if she had her way"
but....that's the very definition of abortion, and Democrats are in favor of that anyway, so I really don't see any problem here.....
GOP leadership to take the chance and put Stark in his place? Not likely. Our GOP leadership is scared to death of upsetting the MSM. Scooter Libby...Larry Craig...Trent Lott...trouble seems to find them at any turn, so most of them keep their mouth shut.
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
Where is President Bush?!
October 19, 2007 - 10:00 ET by tbbaxterOut of the myriad number of offensive comments made by Democrats with no class or conscience, I find this to be the most offensive yet. Of course, I expect this kind of of remark from cretins like Stark because it requires no discipline or even intelligence. What I find even more disturbing however, is the fact that President Bush hasn't challenged Stark on his comment. By remaining silent, he is doing a disservice to our military and to the office of the Commander In Chief. If Bush doesn't respond immediately, I believe it will send a message to the troops that maybe this moron from California is right!
I agree with the thrust of
October 19, 2007 - 10:09 ET by Jack BauerWhile I agree with the thrust of your comments... I don't think this bit is true
Fortunately the troops are savvy, and not dumb like the liberals think.
JB -
October 19, 2007 - 10:17 ET by drillanwrYeah, our troops, contrary to the left/dems trying to paint them as uneducated misinformed dupes, are quite on to the democrats in this country ...
As for the President addressing Stark's remarks ... I'm stuck between W's steelly glare into the camera and his stern voice condemning the words, and his NOT dignifying Stark's comments with his own ... making the idiot appear completely as insignificant as he is ... and the rest of the dems are.
I'm also convinced Stark's remarks would only get neoPRAVDA attention if Dana or the President, in a presser today, would be challenged, "So, what do you think about Congressman Stark's remarks? Huh? What do YOU say to that, huh? What'd you do to piss him off so bad, huh? You must've done something pretty bad, huh? Don't you think you should fix this? Shouldn't YOU apologize to Stark?"
Good point, Jack
October 19, 2007 - 16:29 ET by tbbaxterYou have a good point, Jack. I was overreacting a bit. But, I do feel that President Bush taking on Pete Stark would send an encouraging message to our troops, and it would also energize the Republican base. Turning the other cheek is one thing, but constantly getting karate-chopped in the neck is something entirely different. Personally, I think it's time to go on the offensive and kick some liberal ass!
Statements like that
October 19, 2007 - 10:46 ET by c5thenIn reality, statements like that show the mentality and the immorality of the speaker rather then the target of the slander. The left are constantly slandering and dehuminizing their opponents (conservatives) because they cannot deal with people having a different opinion than them. They must make it appear, at least to themselves, that their opponents are evil, and less than human in order to feel OK about their beliefs.
The MSM will just ignore or downplay this (as you show above) because they either agree with the statement or are attempting to minimize the damage to "their side".
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com
Just dying to see how The
October 19, 2007 - 11:15 ET by drillanwrJust dying to see how The View hags handle (spin) this one ...
Witches, stirring, stirring over that steaming, bubbling, stinking pot of decaying body parts ... Cackling past their warts and sour breaths and RV hips ...
Craig "The Hyena" Crawford
October 19, 2007 - 11:50 ET by Chris NormanCraig "The Hyena" Crawford laughs inappropriately at a lot of things. I can't stand watching the guy, for that reason alone. The one thing about FoxNews is it brought a lot of different analysts to the discussion, so we weren't hostage to only liberals and jokers like Crawford.
Those Democratic Scamps for Pole Joe
October 19, 2007 - 12:55 ET by Lame CherryThose Democratic Scamps are such a fun lot of court jesters. Pole Joe has Barn Frank running a sodomite brothel with his sodomite whore. Then there is Flipper Kennedy knocking up a young girl and drowning her. Rapist Bill Clinton. Traitor John Kerry and perhaps Pole Joe's favorite in John Murtha egging terrorists on to blow US soldier's heads off.
Apparently the ugly and the liberal of Bubbles is rubbing off on Pole Joe as making excuses for someone degrading the dead of the United States is beyond disgusting.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Anybody else wondering when
October 19, 2007 - 12:59 ET by drillanwrAnybody else wondering when MSLSD will be adding a laugh-track to their programs?
No Video there.... just a picture...
October 19, 2007 - 13:59 ET by hardlinerCome on guys, you can do better than that...
Chuck Adkins
http://www.thepopuli...
Sorry about that. It's
October 19, 2007 - 16:27 ET by Mark FinkelsteinSorry about that. It's working now.