MSNBC Whacks Romney for Failing to Dismiss 'Treason' Talk; But In '08, Obama Failed to Dismiss 'Treason' Talk on....MSNBC
On MSNBC's Ed Show on Monday night, Ed Schultz attacked Mitt Romney for failing to disagree emphatically with a voter who said Obama should be tried for treason. "For all his faults, at least John McCain [in 2008] had the guts to talk down the crazy. Four years later, the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party doesn't have the character or leadership skills to correct conspiracy theories on the road at an event? Romney didn't address the treason accusation at an event until a reporter grilled him about it."
Guess who didn't have the "character or leadership skills" to correct his supporters when they made crazy talk about "treason" in the last presidential election? That would be Barack Obama. Which supporters? You can start with...Keith Olbermann, occupying Ed Schultz's current spot on MSNBC. Check out Olbermann on April 25, 2008, for example, when the treason came from Team Clinton, which was supposedly going to undermine Obama in the fall:
OLBERMANN: Surely, the specifics of the racial aspect to this are being overplayed, aren’t they? I mean, if any Democrat were to deliberately try to undermine another Democrat`s chances at winning in November, wouldn’t that just be regardless of color, gender, or anything else, would not that not be political treason or something like it?
REP. JIM CLYBURN: That’s absolutely correct. No question about that.
Of course, Krazy Keith also unleashed this attack on Team Bush. Take Valentine's Day, 2008, on Bush's promise to veto any extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that did not grant immunity to the telecom companies:
OLBERMANN: Because if there were, sir, now that you have vetoed an extension of this eavesdropping, if some terrorist attack were to follow, you would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists. You would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people. You would not merely be guilty of stupidity. You would not merely be guilty of treason, sir. You would be personally, and eternally, responsible.
And if there is one thing we know about you, Mr. Bush, one thing that you have proved time and time again, it is that you are never responsible.
But Schultz in 2012 just regurgitates Obama talking points like he was that actress Alicia Silverstone feeding her baby:
The Obama campaign responded with this statement, "Time after time, in this campaign, Mitt Romney has had the opportunity to show that he has the fortitude to stand up to hateful and over-the-line rhetoric. And time after time, he has failed to do so. If this is the leadership he has shown on the campaign trial, what can the American people expect of him as commander-in-chief?"
You know, now, this is the key point. Today's event displayed Mitt Romney`s weak leadership skills. It's become a pattern. Last week, Romney buckled to the Christian right getting rid of a top foreign advisor because he was gay. And a few months ago, he was all about Ted Nugent until he said crazy stuff. And now, he's allowed an accusation of treason to slide by. This is about character.
What really made Schultz's opposition to "crazy talk" amusing was his first guest to address the "treason" talk on Monday: Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who just recently was describing the House Speaker and the House Majority Leader as "demons." Jane Wagner came to her defense.
Waters praised Schultz for his attack: "Well, Ed, you nailed him again. He has been consistent in lack of being grounded in anything."
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Don't expect them to follow
Submitted by rbosque on Tue, 05/08/2012 - 10:54pm.
Don't expect them to follow their own standards, however low.
Obama won't correct his million dollar misogynist backer
Submitted by frank14 on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:13am.
Bill Maher.
Is this all they got? Really?
Submitted by ant on Tue, 05/08/2012 - 11:16pm.
This is pathetic, nonetheless, pathetic is what I've come to expect from liberals. For one thing, where is Obama not guilty of violating many laws ( not just un-Constitutional 'rules' that the proles are subject to, but actual law!)? As impeachable a 'President' we haven't had for some time. Secondly, where are the calls from Dims or anyone, re Obumbler, to separate himself from so-called 'nasty rhetoric' like we hear cast onto the People from scum like Pelosi, Clyburn, Reid, Stark, Occupy, the press, Mahrer, etc., etc., This is one hell of a scumbag plot, and I'm not surprised at all. Do they really think they are going to win with this? Destroy all Democrats...start with the media!!!...They are a cancer on America...
Ed like obama has nothing to
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Tue, 05/08/2012 - 11:27pm.
Ed like obama has nothing to offer except the same time worn personal attacks. Romney could win the white house anytime if he weren't such a RINO. He doesn't have the stomach to directly attack obama on the economy, immigration or his moronic foreign policy. Romeny playing right into obama's hand with his McCainish strategy.
Yup, that's the Democrat Party
Submitted by tcm14 on Tue, 05/08/2012 - 11:22pm.
Leftist wingnuts get their own TV shows, or elected to office.
This is like
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Tue, 05/08/2012 - 11:34pm.
the pot calling the kettle half-black.
Wuss
Submitted by rgallegos on Tue, 05/08/2012 - 11:57pm.
What the? Really? So now we have a wuss in chief running for relection for the most powerful office in the world? Man up or go home!
Take a look at what Lincoln was called and many others in past elections. I can't believe that elections have become so namby-pambyish!!!
Fatso
Submitted by grammajane on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 12:22am.
should know much about dismissing. Every word he blabs, is dismissed by normal people.He is so pathetic and becomes worse daily/nightly.
None of Mr. Graham's examples are appropriate
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 1:50am.
analogues.
"Political treason" is an entirely distinct contextual usage of the term. And while Olbermann's Valentine's Day rant about "treason" and Waters' "demon" reference are instances of low-road rhetoric, neither word was uttered in the presence of a presidential candidate nor was injected into a question addressed directly to the candidate and applied to his opponent [in Romney's case, the POTUS].
Besides, Democrats--including the then Senate majority leader--were described as treasonous and demonic on several occasions during the Bush presidency.
Jer
That's because...
Submitted by GeneralAl on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 10:32am.
"Besides, Democrats--including the then Senate majority leader--were described as treasonous and demonic on several occasions during the Bush presidency."
That's because they were then and they still are!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
Then you must be acutely embarrassed to be
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 3:48pm.
represented by gutless wimps who shirk their Constitutional duty to redress the problem. I guess the Tea Party politicians really aren't that much different after all.
Jer
So what does that make you Jer
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:40pm.
You who, support, and elect them.
Nice to see you acknowledge their efforts,
I'm sure you're aware...
Submitted by lunchbox on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:16am.
that Mitt Romney did say afterward that he did not think Obama should be tried for treason. You and Ed are kind of making a big deal about nothing here.
You also say, "Besides, Democrats--including the then Senate majority leader--were described as treasonous and demonic on several occasions during the Bush presidency. "
When and by whom?
Can you say,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:21am.
Weasel Zippers?
Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 4:54pm.
Weaselzippers was a minor actor in this drama. I'm not even sure zip was around at the time.
Jer
Oh, my bad,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:44pm.
It was Rush,
oh dear.
Good freakin grief
What's your point, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:56pm.
Mr. Graham quoted Olbermann and Schultz--talk show hosts.
lunchbox REQUESTED an example.
Rush is the highest-profile, 800 lb. talk show gorilla, and therefore the most appropriate. Would you care for some others, or would you rather just stick with your tiresome and pointless "Good freakin' grief"?
Jer
But,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:03pm.
YOU seem to be upset about Mitt. Did you really think that crap was going to stick?
Talk about tiresome and pointless,
Spinsanity has compiled numerous instances of over-the-top
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 5:10pm.
accusations from both sides. Republicans--including pundits [Coulter, North, Malkin] and politicians [Trent Lott, Tom Davis]--were particularly prone to flinging the patriot card. Here's a brief account of Limbaugh's comments on Senate majority leader Tom Daschle from Novermber, 2002. This treason and demonology combo was just the tip of the iceberg in Rush's continuing smear of Daschle:
Yet Limbaugh, especially, is guilty of extremely vicious rhetoric. Consider just a few examples from his frequent diatribes against Daschle over the last two years. On Nov. 15, he asserted that Daschle's criticism of the conduct of the war on terrorism amounted to "an attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism," called him "Hanoi Tom" and suggested that he is " a disgrace to patriotism." On other occasions, Limbaugh has suggested that "In essence, Daschle has chosen to align himself with the axis of evil" and has drawn an extended analogy between Daschle and Satan.
Jer
You're point is moot. Jer
Submitted by ant on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:33pm.
Not only ARE many Dems guilty of treasonous acts, I, for one, don't care if someone else feels the need for another to step up and denounce those types of accusations. If Pelosi and the rest of the lizards, want to call me a 'racist Nazi traitor', it makes no difference to me if Obama got up and said "that's wrong" (which he didn't and wouldn't anyway). The People will make those kind of 'representatives' answerable, not an apology on NBC from someone else. We're listening to the Dimocrat echo-chamber arm known as the media, basically, whine and cry and fling sh*t to the wall...a distraction, not an issue.
I see, ant...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:08pm.
It's the old "but in the case of Democrats it's TRUE" argument, and therefore my defense and my position are moot, and my examples meaningless.
I wish lunchbox had informed me of that fact--assuming he agrees with you--before I went to the trouble.
Really, there's no point in carrying the debate any further. The TRUTH is on YOUR side and consumes any facts which might chip away at such blind arrogance.
Jer
Now you're getting it
Submitted by ant on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:14pm.
But, seriously, maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. It seems your coming from the angle that one apologizing as some kind of representative for another's opinion is an important topic and worthy of great attention. I don't see it..this is America, we have freedom of speech...sounds like the MSM is all hot and bothered for Romney to condemn free-speech...and maybe you are too.
You're not getting it, ant..
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:26pm.
In fact, you're actually undercutting Tim Graham's point. He seems concerned that Obama didn't apologize for the comments of Olbermann and Schultz. that were uttered in a setting in which Obama was not a participant.
The actual issue is how a candidate responds to a remark addressed DIRECTLY TO HIM which included an incendiary claim about his opponent--in other words, the Romney town hall scenario.
Jer
Not under-cutting his point, at all
Submitted by ant on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:51pm.
He's simply pointing out the double-standard on the left. As you may re-call the right was not involved in a collective battle-cry or orchestrated 'meme of the week' for Obama or anyone else to apologize in the many.many instances Dim reporters and politicians have gone over-the-top in their rhetoric. We or the left haven't demanded an apology from Obama when some leftist dope mouths off, we simply consider the source- who wants to argue or magnify the ignorance of leftists (they're pretty good at damaging themselves), but now all of a sudden the left needs Mitt to condemn every statement made by anybody, anyday. See it now?
ant...I'll try one more time.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:01pm.
Neither has the Left demanded that a Republican president or candidate apologize EVERY time a conservative talk show host or pundit or politician has made some over-the-top comment or employed inflammatory rhetoric--although Tim Graham is apparently suggesting that Obama should have done so when Olbermann and Schultz and Waters went hyperbolic [or, as you would put it, "exercised their right of free speech".]
HOWEVER, THOSE CASES DIFFER FROM THE ONE INVOLVING ROMNEY AND THE QUESTIONER AT THE TOWN HALL MEETING. In that instance, the controversial observation--that Obama should be tried for treason!--was part and parcel of a question addressed directly to Romney. The issue is whether or not Romney should have at that time and place voiced his objection to that question. He did not. He ignored it. Later he was asked about it and he stated he disagreed with the questioner's premise. But THAT was the matter under scrutiny--not the necessity for, or the absence of, general condemnations regarding overheated verbiage which is a [regrettable] staple of partisan punditry and political commentary, but during which the president or presidential candidate was neither a participant nor even present.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by ant on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:48pm.
See UpNorth's comment below.
Refer to Obama's divisive and wrong statements from his own metrosexual mouth, not against political opponents, but the People of this Country, consider interviews he's done with his press lapdogs, ponder on a Mexican President receiving a standing ovation after condemning a State in the Union.
Jer, how about Hoffa's comments, when Baracka
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:24pm.
actually was present? His "Take out the sons-of-bitches" comments were made in an introduction for the President. I didn't hear any distancing or apologizing from him.
It was crude language, UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:56pm.
But it would have been helpful if the conservative blogosphere hadn't chopped the quote...which completely altered the meaning. [That's right. Both sides selectively edit.]
Jer
[BTW...you were mistaken about the weaselzippers comment the other day.]
Um, Jer, I think most everyone at NB knows
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 12:46am.
what it means when the head of the Teamsters Union says, "Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong". I don't think he was inviting any Tea Partiers to sit down and debate the merits of their positions on Labor policy, or any policy. And, it would have been helpful if the President, who was on the stage, would have stepped forward and told Hoffa to stow that kind of rhetoric. But, we all know he wouldn't, and won't, do that, don't we?
It's quite clear that conservatives have no place in Hoffa's America.
Funny, UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 1:36am.
Reading the sentiments expressed at NB, I get the same feeling about the place for libs in conservatives' America.
Jer
Anyway, "taking out" referred to going to the polls and voting them out of office. Here's the rest of the story in order to avoid future embarrassment. [FTR, Hoffa's rhetoric was still out-of-bounds, imo.]
Good evening Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:20pm.
Rush was right about Daschle. Daschle is ---------. Fill in the blank with all the insulting, demeaning names you can think of, he's all of them.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good evening, coco...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:28pm.
Not as bad as Delay. Delay was both a crook and a traitor.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:35pm.
Delay was the victim of a hatchet job by a crooked prosecuter and the democrat crime syndicate
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
How about Duke Cunningham, coco?
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:37pm.
Did the Democratric Crime Syndicate railroad him as well?
Jer
Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:02pm.
Considering the massive coverups the family accomplished for their own members (male prostitution rings, grand theft, perjury, to name just a few) yes they did railroad him.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
I'm sorry, coco...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:08pm.
I had forgotten the Boudin maxim: Conservatives Don't Steal.
Silly me.
Jer
What the heck,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:48pm.
Being a Crook is highly arguable, but traitor is completely out of line.
Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:04pm.
I agree with you about Delay and treason. But the charge is also completely out of line with respect to Daschle.
Jer
Wow Jer,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:33pm.
A talk show host, really? Do we really need to go over Malloy's, Maher's, Oberdud, Chrissy Mat, or any of the other dozen or 2 lib talkers rhetoric. Or should we simply look to the folks you libs choose to represent you? Is their anyone left who they havent insulted?
I see you understand Mitt said he did not think Obama treasonous, but who cares right? It's your projectionist thoughts that counts, eh?
One other thing...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 5:08pm.
"I'm sure you're aware that Romney did say afterward that he did not think Obama should be tried for treason."
Yes, it was a relief to learn Mitt wasn't quite ready to assemble a firing squad. This concession raised his grade for the episode from a D- to a C+...still well short of McCain's solid A for his handling of a similar incident during the '08 campaign.
Jer
So what would be acceptable Jer
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:36pm.
Some groveling in front of the camera, or kissing of the ring?
Certainly
Submitted by ant on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:38pm.
I mean, just as one example, what's treasonous about releasing top taliban warriors back into the war-zone to fight your troops again based on a 'promise' not to be a bad boy? What's treasonous about selling guns to Mexican drug gangs in an effort to skew data in support of your arguments against the 2nd amendment? What's treasonous about telling Russia to 'keep it down, man, as soon as I win again, I can sell out my Country to you in relative comfort." What's treasonous about making end runs around the legislative branch or deeming the executive the sole 'deciders' on sending millions of tax-payer dollars to those who would cut off our heads?
Hey Ant,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:46pm.
I just heard Obama say our Military fights for him. "Who fight on my behalf"
I believe it
Submitted by ant on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:09pm.
His arrogance....I, me, mine....doesn't surprise me anymore. They 'fight on his behalf' but he wants them to pay for their own health costs, even relating to war injuries,..illegal foreigner invaders though? Hell no, we can support them cradle to grave!!, when is LARaza gonna step up and start paying for Mexican child-birth costs? Oh no, too busy planning for the re-conquista...sorry, Jer, hope that wasn't too much of a OT tangent for ya.
This is why you (should) get the big money!
Submitted by Annie Ashe Fields on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 3:08am.
I love you guys.
THANK YOU for pointing this out.
Yep, John
Submitted by nolefan2 on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:29am.
McCain dismissed all that treason talk. That's why he is the President of the US today. Wait a minute! He is NOT the President.
Can see where this is going.
Submitted by Pinetree3 on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:58am.
Can see where this is going. Romney is going to be expected to weigh in on everything some nut might say. "Mr. Romney, what do you have to say about what this person in Barrow, AK said 3 years ago?"
It's always the same.
Submitted by BuffNBone on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 10:43am.
Many are cold but few are frozen.
Waters praised Schultz for
Submitted by Pinetree3 on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:04am.
Waters praised Schultz for his attack: "Well, Ed, you nailed him again. He has been consistent in lack of being grounded in anything."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did she pat him on the head and say "good boy." Or "good honkey."
Hhmm
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:20am.
This is about the most encouraging thing I have heard out of Mitt.
The Left should be happy
Submitted by katiejane on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:37am.
we've reined in the antiChrist talk. Considering the Left is the side talking about how Bush & Cheney sould be tried fo war crimes I think I'd be a little annoyed if Romney chatized me for thinking BO dosn't have the country's best interest at heart.
Here's what we expect...
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 10:56am.
"If this is the leadership he has shown on the campaign trial, what can the American people expect of him as commander-in-chief?"
Here's what we expect, that the President would uphold someone's right to free speech, even if that President finds the speech in question to be "hateful" or "inappropriate." We certainly don't expect the President to chide someone for making a statement they disagreed with. But, apparent, that's just what Obama would do, chide someone for making a statement he disagrees with.
Hay, Obama, being the Commander in Chief doesn't mean you're the head of the Vocabulary Police, you know.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra,
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:12am.
Obama won't even chide the Taliban but praises them when they agree to speak the word peace while removing the heads of their opposition.
MSNBC: It's come to this...
Submitted by mrt721 on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:02am.
"He's A Poopy Pants"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4osRZe70cs
Treason? What about Hussein's spending the US into bankruptcy.
Submitted by AFVet on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:12am.
Remember when Hussein Obama made the statement that President Bush had put the US $4 Trillion further into debt in eight years and that was 'unpatriotic' in Hussein's eyes. Well if that was 'unpatriotic', than I guess putting the US $5 Trillion further into debt in just three years must be down right 'treasonous'. And do not forget putting the projection is that the Hussein Regime and the Democrats lead by Nazi Pelosi and Dingy Harry that pushed up the spending in 2009 and 2010 and now refuse to cut spending will have put the USA $6 Trillion further into debt in just four years and closer to bankruptcy. So if we want to talk 'treason' lets see who is really doing the harm to the USA and whose actions are truly 'treasonous'.
you got it wrong Vet,
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:15am.
it is a common mistake - Obama meant that Bush did not spend enough money and it was treasonous to not spread the wealth around more.
Repeat after me
Submitted by ohio granny on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 4:02pm.
Repeat after me: one standard for me and one for thee and the libs get to decide the standard.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!