Posted on 02/08/2008 4:46:22 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
As Mark Finkelstein reported on Newsbusters on the 7th, MSNBC's David Shuster made a rather interesting comment about Chelsea Clinton as he was hosting "Tucker" that evening. Shuster asked if Hillary Clinton's use of her daughter on the campaign trail seemed "like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" Well, NBC has now announced that they've suspended Shuster over the comment.... so much for free political speech.
In a press release, NBC says the following:
On Thursday's "Tucker" on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.
Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns accepted invitations from us on Thursday evening to participate in a February 26th debate. Our conversations with the Clinton campaign about their participation continue today, and we are hopeful that the event will take place as planned.
Of course, Shuster's comment seems quite mild compared to say Randi Rhodes' radio skit that said that Romney supporters would go on mass murder sprees, or that conservatives will "kill" Hillary as Chris Matthews said on the 8th... or just about anything that the women on the View say at any given time. Not to mention the horrible things that liberal TV hosts have said about Rush Limbaugh or any conservative figure.
So, where are all the suspensions of liberal TV hosts who attack conservative candidates or personalities? Can you name one?
And, it is also interesting that Hillary has gotten into such a faux outrage over this particular comment. No one hearing that comment would imbue it with a sexual meaning. Shuster's comment is completely understood to mean that he thought the Clinton campaign was using her daughter in a cheap way, but no one imagines it to have a sexual connotation at all. In fact, there isn't even any real way to misconstrue the comment into a sexual innuendo on Shuster's part. It just isn't too hard to "get" his point at all.
Is Hillary that thin skinned?
Worse, why did the TV giant bend over so easily and suspend Shuster for this little comment when they let so many vile slams on conservatives go by without so much as a raised eyebrow?
In fact, MSNBC makes their biggest name caller a center of attention, don't they? After all, not long ago the Cable station said that Keith Olbermann formed a focal point for their new "leftward tilt."
So, suspend someone who says a somewhat off color comment about a leftie, but encourage and reward those who viscously attack conservatives.
That's the MSM for ya!
MSNBC is one sick “news” organization; they do nothing but hate speech from morning to night; but cross the Clinton’s and holey cow! Matthews had to apologize to Hillary last month, now this suspension. Yet the olberidiot is still on the air and he calls President Bush a Nazi, a liar, and all other kinds of sick comments every night.
Clearly, if you trash a republican, a Christian, or a troop, that is just fine with MSNBC, but mention a Clinton and you are toast.
MSNBC, the poodles for the DNC.
Keith Olberman, News Director of MSNBC speaking of President Bush:
"And in pimping General David Petraeus...etc etc."Slap your own face, (D)Oberman
Good point.
I need some help with something, and perhaps a Constitutional scholar who is lurking can help.
Part of the First Amendment to the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the fredom of speech" (unless it's McCain-Feingold, I guess), but in the Constitution itself, "freedom of speech" is not mentioned at all.
Considering how many people BMW about having their First Amendment rights violated when someone other than Congress "abridges" their "freedom of speech", I'm wondering what is the precedent for "freedom of speech" that made the clarification in the 1st Amendment necessary? Was it in the Declaration?
Did he state something INACCURATE?
Now, this is REALLY stupid!
Mamma and poppa Clintonista spend years shielding their little baby from the lime-light... even as recently as a few months ago when Bill sent his hit squad to that restaurant to get Chelsea’s picture taken down...
What morons....
The truth is: The Clinton’s ARE now pimping out darling Little Chelsea. What hypocrits.
I don’t particularly care for David Shuster or PMSNBC, but this is ridiculous. And Shuster should stand his ground and tell that idiot Dan Abrams to shove it.
Um....
The first ten amendments to the Constitution are the “Bill of Rights,” remember from grade school?
Unlike numbers 11 onward, the first 10 were not afterthoughts, they “in the works” from the start, but required a bit more hammering out.
>> I don’t appreciate it when people take shots at Chelsea!
>> Vexed!
Oh, who gives a rodent’s tukkas about the littlest Clinton?
She’s all grown up now, and can start taking her own lumps for herself. After all, she has decided, after seeing her entire life what her parents really are, to (pardon the expression) climb into their political bed, and become part of it all.
Whatever mud splashes off Bill and Hillary and onto Chelsea, at this point, she deserves.
Had this happened on Fox, we would have heard calls for the revocation of their license.
Wink! Check out my tagline! ;o)
I noticed that in your rush to make such a snarky comment, a-hole, that you didn't answer my question. No matter what you call them, they are still AMENDMENTS to the Constitution, without which - as it turns out - the original Constitution would not have been ratified.
I found further research on my own - the ability to do so having resulted from a grade school, middle school, high school, and partial college education - here:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/speech.htm
So you can take your comment and shove it up your back passage.
Of course the MSM is fair... NOT!
I guess David Shuster is trying to achieve Don Imus status.
“take your comment and shove it up your back passage.”
Christain4Bush
Lovely.
So Christian.
That's my name, genius. My given name. Does your Bunk Detector work on yourself?
And it’s not “Christain” (4Bush), you plankton.
If you’re going to denigrate me for making what you call an “un-Christian” comment (not realizing, or caring, that my screen name is my actual name), at least spell the bloody screen name right.
Better yet, since the original comment didn’t apply to you, why not just stay the hell out of it, instead of trolling in business that didn’t concern you.
“you plankton’ !!
now THAT’s a new one. (to me anyway)
Good for you.
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.