Posted on 02/03/2005 7:54:50 AM PST by paudio
i already tried that logic MEG....
What does 'Piffle' mean??
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050203.asp
MSNBC's Matthews & Reagan Argue Hug Choreographed to Boost Bush
To Ron Reagan's hearty affirmation, MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked if the hug during the State of the Union, between an Iraqi woman who voted on Sunday and the mother of a Marine who was killed in Iraq, was engineered by President Bush in order "to push his numbers on Social Security reform, just to get his general appeal up a bit, a couple of points?" Matthews proceeded to suggest that Bush's "PR guys around the White House did this to promote the President's agenda" Reagan enthusiastically agreed: "Well, of course they did. Oh, sure they did." Joe Scarborough soon dismissed that theory as "just the height of cynicism." Even after NBC's Norah O'Donnell called the hug "very spontaneous," Matthews wouldn't let go: "The only question is whether that Iraqi woman was prompted to go up and hug" the Marine's mother "by some staffer." Newsweek Managing Editor, Jon Meacham, rejected the notion: "I think the idea that that moment was about Social Security poll numbers is absurd."
(ABC's Cokie Roberts also didn't see political calculation in the late Marine's mother leaning forward to hug the Iraqi woman in the row below. Roberts described it as "spontaneous." See item #2 below for how Roberts, Terry Moran and Dan Rather viewed the hug.)
The hug, during Bush's address, took place in the gallery between Safia Taleb al-Suhail, leader of the Iraqi Women's Political Council, and Janet Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas, the mother of a Marine killed in Iraq. For a photo of the two hugging: news.yahoo.com
MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth caught the lively exchange on MSNBC amongst Matthews, Reagan, Scarborough and O'Donnell, which took place at about 10:55pm EST.
After Ron Reagan said that he is uncomfortable with people who have undergone tragedy being used as political props -- unless they got something out of it emotionally, Matthews proposed:
"But isn't it the true story of this gift? If you think about it in a non-political sense, and you think about these service people, we met a lot of them out at Camp Pendleton last week, these young Marines, these guys...making a commitment to join a unit, to operate as a unit, to operate without questioning authority, to think in terms of mission and job and training and the environment they're in, and they give this, their life, for a cause. Shouldn't that be displayed?"
Reagan acceded: "Yes, that's, there's nothing wrong with that, I mean, you did a whole show out there at Pendleton, which certainly displayed their courage and the honor that they have. Again, I'm just uncomfortable with, you know, using people in such obvious pain as a political prop. But again, if they got something out of it, that's the most important thing to me. If they felt satisfied."
Matthews then suggested: "Do you think President Bush used this to push his numbers on Social Security reform, just to get his general appeal up a bit, a couple of points?"
Reagan: "Well, I don't want to speculate on what was in President Bush's mind."
Matthews: "How about his handlers? Do you think the PR guys-"
Reagan: "Well, yes, sure."
Matthews: "-around the White House did this to promote the President's agenda?"
Scarborough interjected: "Please, come on."
Reagan: "Well, of course they did. Oh, sure they did."
Scarborough: "Oh, come on!"
Reagan: "Oh, come on, Joe. What, they did this out of the sympathy of their hearts?"
Scarborough: "You know what? I got to interrupt here."
Matthews: "You're not interrupting. You're here."
Scarborough: "You know, the thing is, to look at that picture, to look at the President, to look at these people at this historic moment, and to suggest that somebody cynically said, 'Oh, let's just put these two people together not because the President believes this in all of his heart-'"
Matthews: "Right."
Scarborough: "I mean, that's just the height of cynicism."
Matthews: "No, I'm just asking you, I'm not taking sides here, but you know who makes these decisions, the PR people around the President."
Reagan: "That's right."
Matthews: "They make the decision about who sits in the box and where they're seated next to who."...
O'Donnell soon quipped: "I am a uniter, not a divider. I think what they, what happened there honestly was the White House does set up those situations where they put them in there, but I think it was very spontaneous, the hug."
Matthews: "Janet's hug. Janet Norwood's hug."
O'Donnell: "It was spontaneous when Janet Norwood's, the dog tags of her son were caught on the sleeve of that woman. She didn't hand the dog tags to her. She was pulling away, and they were caught, and that was a spontaneous moment where she then had to pull them away. And it was metaphorical, in a way, if you will, that her son's dog tags were caught on the sleeve of this woman. And that's why that moment, I think, will be something that's talked about for a long time. Watch here [video replay]. You see she's hugging, she's holding the dog tags, and watch as she goes to pull away-"
Reagan: "It catches on a button on the sleeve."
O'Donnell: "-it catches on the button, and she goes to pull-"
Matthews wouldn't let go of his theory: "I guess the only question is whether that Iraqi woman was prompted to go up and hug Janet Norwood by some staffer-"
O'Donnell: "Well, who cares?"
Reagan: "I don't know that that's true, Chris."
Matthews: "Who cares? I think some people care."
Reagan: "Yeah, I don't know that that-"
Matthews: "I think it's an open question. I think the spontaneity of emotion was spontaneous. [unintelligible] -how much PR went into that thing?"
Reagan: "Both things are true. There is spontaneous emotion there, and I certainly would honor it. And, Joe, you can call it cynicism if you want. All I'm saying is it makes me uncomfortable when people are being used for a reason that is political. Now, if they got something good out of it, then that's more important. But that's simply an observation on my part."
Meacham, Newsweek: "But that's like saying that most military rituals are for political purposes. That's like saying a flag-draped coffin is for a political purpose."
Reagan: "No, it's nothing like that, Jon."
Meacham: "No, it is, Ron."
Reagan: "No, it's not."
Meacham: "It is. It's just, I think the idea that that moment was about Social Security poll numbers is absurd."
You must have missed the speech..The President introduced the Norwoods, they stood, the cameras went on them in the box,as they had to the Iraqi woman when she was introduced earlier. The mother reached down and hugged the Iraqi as all turned to the Norwoods to applaud...a long and sustained standing ovation took place in the meantime.
The camera stayed on the Norwoods as she leaned on her husband then..a shot of the President was shown during this also.
yes, there's been all kinds of logic tried but it's like trying to reason with a DUmmmie, isn't it? :o)
thanks for that article
this is what has me annoyed with the "expert" posting here on this thread:
>>>Ron Reagan said that he is uncomfortable with people who have undergone tragedy being used as political props<<<
and i refuse to concede these people were used for props. i believe they were there to be HONORED - period.
and Ronny tutu can put a sock in it
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1334637/posts
STATE OF THE UNION -- 2005 [Live Thread]
2/2/05
first 1-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-200 ... 4,551-4,582 next last
pif·fle ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pfl)
intr.v. pif·fled, pif·fling, pif·fles
To talk or act feebly or futilely.
n.
Foolish or futile talk or ideas; nonsense.
I know that but what did YOU mean?? No problem, just would like to know the context.
My sentiments exactly. He makes statements with no proof or evidence to back things up.
He does not belong in a cable network... he may even have to prove his worth to work for a supermarket tabloid magazine.
Post 387..over 4000 posts on the Live thread..
Put State of the Union in search here to see the articles
"IMO just another petty Dem comment designed to deflect attention from the real issues enunciated in the SOTU speech -
And it seems it is working!"
as for the media being distracted
http://news.google.com/news?q=state+of+the+union+speech&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&sa=N&tab=nn&oi=newsr
Results 1 - 10 of about 15,000 for state of the union speech
Your arguments have become incoherent. The object was to introduce these people to the nation. I can accept this as your opinion, but you are trying to justify your opinion with nonsense.
Guess he hasn't seen this newer thread yet.
Slain Marine's Mom: Hug Wasn't Staged
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1335393/posts
"They booed when W said the SS was going bankrupt at some point in the future and suggested a crisis existed."
Hannity had a audio clip of all the Dems stating that SS was in deep trouble in the past and then what they are saying now. Some one needs to put together a commercial showing this. I would love to see the egg on their face.
Also, Brit stated that the Dems went to FDR monument to show their support for leaving SS alone. What is funny is that FDR stated his support of a program similar to that of Pres. Bush.
Is it out of the norm for those honored by the President in the SOTU (a tradition started by Reagan) to be sitting in the same section (in this case, directly above)?
They may have been seated near each other to show the obvious contrast between the liberators and the liberated. That's not theater; that's political reality and should be re-inforced. Or that may have just been protocol. Somebody should look at past SOTU speeches to see; regardless, merely placing the women near each other suggests nothing in regards to "staging" in order to produce some "magic moment".
The issue is the hug: I don't think anyone saw that coming and if you're not debating that, then your overall point really has no merit. But what you seem to be saying is that the PR guys (as Chrissy calls them) put these gals next to each other because they "expected some magic" and I think that's a little more than a stretch. If anything, they just expected the two women's mere presence to speak for itself.
"Maybe some people just don't like to see the man behind the curtain."
And we all know who the "evil genius" is don't we?
Matthews joined the Peace Corp to escape getting drafted....he's about admitted as much in previous discussions
Two of the things the networks get before a SOTU are a copy of the speech and the seating chart. They knew when the women were going to be mentioned and they knew where they were sitting, that's how you get those perfectly timed shots when the President mentions somebody.
I entirely doubt the knew the hug was coming, it was a spontaneous thing, but somebody in the PR department sure was hoping it would happen, and they knew that if it did happen it would happen right after the introductions when the camera was on them. Once it started they should have already had a camera trained in that area anyway because there were people there being talked about by the President.
Matthews took it too far, he's in the profession, he knows how these things get setup and he should know how important it is that the participant DON'T know what's going on. You don't get genuine responses when the participants have been coached. But what do you expect, he's a liberal moron.
Most people don't know about it. It gets discussed in rather dry books that 99% of the world doesn't bother to read. I read them because I think the behind the scenes action in live TV is fascinating, usually more interesting than what happens in front of the camera. And unlike you I'm sure that if somebody explained it to the Marine mom she would accept it and not get irrationally bent out of shape, she is after all a Marine mom.
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.