Posted on 12/27/2009 7:44:44 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The title of this post comes from remarks by Lt Gen. Honore at a press conference following hurricane Rita in 2005, when he was admonishing the press work with him cooperatively to communicate accurate information to the public for a change.
It kind of sums up my view of NBC. This morning brought another example, when Andrea Mitchell was on a panel on Meet the Press spouting unfounded opinions about a vast array of issues. Here's one that really got to me.
MR. GREGORY: Just be a little bit more specific, Andrea, whether we're talking about figures like President Obama or Sarah Palin, who you spent a lot of this year covering as well, as kind of this leading edge of conservatism at the moment. What happens?
MS. MITCHELL: What I noticed when I was out covering Sarah Palin when she was out on the book tour, at 4 and 5 and 6 in the morning on freezing days, when people had been out for hours, camped out with their kids because they wanted to see her, they are so hungry for a symbol for anyone who can give them answers. And in this case, she was just signing books.
All accurate so far, and if she had stopped there, all would have been well. But she didn't.
But there's an anger out there, and I have not seen it since my very first campaign, which was 1968 and George Wallace. And that is the angry populism which is not fact-based, it's just furious at everybody; angry at Democrats, at Republicans. The tea party has higher numbers in our last NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll than either of the other traditional parties. And that is what I think this news cycle which you referred to is feeding into, and that is what does frighten me. This spirit of America is so large and embracing, but there is an angry subtext because of economic dislocation that is very, very worrisome.
Tea parties = Ku Klux Klan. Right. Stuck on stupid.
I saw this skank bust her ugly scum-mug through the crowd (pushing the plebes aside) to try to goad Sarah into bad-mouthing John McCain. Sarah kept her cool beautifully, while this horrid witch-whore hissed and pissed trying to get the answer she wanted. It was truly a disgusting display of bottom-sucking low-life behavior on the part of the Mitchell skank and truly a display of class and character on the part of Sarah.
In Obama’s case, he celebrates the Murder of the Just Born.
Don't want anyone being punished with a Baby when it's so much easier to just kill it.
Andrea Mitchell, the Tokyo Rose of Liberalism.
NEVER confuse ignorance with malevolence.
Andrea is far angrier than any Tea Partier.
I was looking at Zazzle the other day and found a bumper sticker in Chinese, that I “think” is pro-Palin.
Yes Andrea. Wallace on a National scale. What a Moron that hag is.
I think you owe Herr Frau Johanna Maria Magdalena “Magda” Goebbels an apology. LOL
I don’t want to go too far - but this compulsive, reactive behavior reminds of Our Lord’s words “ ... I come not to unite the world, but to divide the world ... I am the rock that divides ..”
Al Greenspan should put a white sheet over her head.
What is this Tea Party that she refers to?
Pray for America’s Freedom
Not only that SevenofNine, but if a closet racist liberal ever tries to pull the race card on Palin and the teaparties, remind them that not only does the Palin family have Native American heritage—Native Americans being the most marginalized ethnic grop in our society, but Trig Palin represents by far the most discriminated-against segment of our population: the disabled.
One wonders what liberals would say if Palin picked someone like Bobby Jindal as a running mate.
(Sarah spends a lot of time in her book discussing Alaska’s cultural diversity and her appreciation for Native American traditions and their respect for nature. She also talks about the social and economic struggles faced by people in the Yup’ik community Todd grew up in. This is no rich, white plantation-owning family!)
I can remember the first presidential election I voted in. Now, my first real presidential election was 1980. However, back in school we held mock elections and the earliest one I can remember was 1968. I was 6. I voted for George Wallace. All of us did. The only kids who didn’t were the northern transplants. Granted, we all voted for who our parents for us but there was a very real state pride thing going on.
I will say I voted to re-elect Wallace in 1982 when I had the vote. Three times. Primary, runoff and against Folmar and to be honest, I would have done so again in 1986 had he run again. (I ended up going with the hometown guy Graddick and we all saw how that turned out). My father also got us to help put up signs for him in the re-election bid in 1974 and I seem to recall us also being for him in 1970.
Most people who like to use Wallace as an example have no idea what Wallace was talking about. The comparison of Wallace to Palin is a bad one because Wallace always had very strong support from unions. It is also a bad one because Wallace had an extensive record of achievement as a chief executive. In his first term he accomplished things that no governor had ever accomplished before. He brought a lot of jobs to the state.
It is also a bad comparison to draw because Mitchell is trying to draw out the race card and tying that into Palin. Now, the only campaign Wallace ran explicitly on race was 1962. He implicitly mentioned it in 1970 but Wallace’s campaign in 1968 wasn’t based on race.
Then again, Wallace is also the reason that Humphrey was able to become President.
Uh, the Democrats that were the party of the Confederacy are nothing like the liberals of today. Just as the Socialists who called themselves Radical Republicans in the 1860s and 70s have no connection to our party of today.
Just as Thomas Jefferson would not recognize the party today that supposedly claims him as their “intellectual forefather”.
In modern politics Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Davis, Wade Hampton and Oscar Underwood would all be Republicans and Abe Lincoln, U.S. Grant, Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner would all be among the most liberal of Democrats.
Correction. Humphrey was not able to become President.
If Wallace hadn’tve run, based on Johnson’s own performance in ‘64 and Nixon’s in ‘60 it is fair to assume that a majority of Wallace states (and the election) would have gone to Humphrey, not to mentions states Nixon carried like Tennessee and Florida.
Them bringing up race actually helps us. I think I saw it posted on this site where right now Obama’s approval rating among whites is below 30%. That’s a damning a statistic.
Now is actually the perfect time to talk about affirmative action. Because really, now that Obama’s president, it isn’t needed. And more importantly, it is another way we can remind the middle class that he’s not on their side.
Of course this silly b!tch doesn’t bother to ask why people are angry.
Same thing these days, hadn't you noticed before this?
Andrea is out to get Sarah like all the other leftist cocktail party crowd. She is also jealous.
there is an angry subtext because of economic dislocationWhat! Andea! You're not saying people of America are ANGRY that Barry the Boy King took his private 747 to spend the holiest Christian holiday at a $3500/night getaway, closed beaches for his private deal with Bruno Not-Proud-Of-My-Country, and pulls down four hundred large for playing golf.
And Wallace, Andrea--he was a DEMOCRAT, you know, like ROBERT BYRD THE KLANSMAN.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.