Andrea Mitchell, Non-Partisan

Andrea Mitchell, Non-Partisan

Post by Tom Enrigh » Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:20:25


http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/08/andrea-mitchell-beyond-parody.html

You can't make this stuff up:

    The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they
might have wanted to in that context, because that -- what they're
putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of
silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions
were to Obama.

And, on "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell feels obligated to inject
this cheap and unsubstantiated partisan smear into the media
mainstream. In-freaking-credible.

UPDATE: D.S. Hube at Newsbusters:

    Andrea Mitchell barely hestitated to toss that out there, with
guest host David Gregory merely offering a rather semi-innocuous
"Right" in response.

Look, I am not one of those who believes that every story about
politics has to be perfectly "balanced," but when you have a campaign
accusing its opposition of cheating, this is something that requires
(a) supporting evidence, and (b) an opportunity for the opponent to
address the accusation. You can't just run out there in front of the
camera and repeat slander to a national TV audience of 4 million
viewers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Tom Enright

 
 
 

Andrea Mitchell, Non-Partisan

Post by xyzz » Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:40:32


Quote:
> http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/08/andrea-mitchell-beyond-parody.html

> You can't make this stuff up:

> ? ? The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they
> might have wanted to in that context, because that -- what they're
> putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of
> silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions
> were to Obama.

> And, on "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell feels obligated to inject
> this cheap and unsubstantiated partisan smear into the media
> mainstream. In-freaking-credible.

> UPDATE: D.S. Hube at Newsbusters:

> ? ? Andrea Mitchell barely hestitated to toss that out there, with
> guest host David Gregory merely offering a rather semi-innocuous
> "Right" in response.

> Look, I am not one of those who believes that every story about
> politics has to be perfectly "balanced," but when you have a campaign
> accusing its opposition of cheating, this is something that requires
> (a) supporting evidence, and (b) an opportunity for the opponent to
> address the accusation. You can't just run out there in front of the
> camera and repeat slander to a national TV audience of 4 million
> viewers.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> -Tom Enright

This was published in my local newspaper today. enjoy:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/corrections/story/1185329.html

So he was in fact, not in the cone of silence. Maybe you 'wingers need
to stay up with the news cycle a little more?

 
 
 

Andrea Mitchell, Non-Partisan

Post by The Grand Beckonin » Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:40:29

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:20:25 -0700 (PDT), Tom Enright

Quote:

>Look, I am not one of those who believes that every story about
>politics has to be perfectly "balanced," but when you have a campaign
>accusing its opposition of cheating, this is something that requires
>(a) supporting evidence, and (b) an opportunity for the opponent to
>address the accusation. You can't just run out there in front of the
>camera and repeat slander to a national TV audience of 4 million
>viewers.

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>-Tom Enright

Flashback to 2000, with all of the accusations of voter fraud and
suppression in Florida, and not a single case ever demonstrated.  So
how did the come to make the accusations if they had nothing to base
it on?  

Just like a frantic wife yelling at her husband, they scream out
something shocking that they merely want to be true to make them
appear to be victims of some grave injustice.

Bush lied about WMDs! He played on our fears! It's all for oil! It's
all for  Haliburton! Bush cheated in Florida! Bush blew up the levies!
Bush is the new Hitler!  Bush is a war criminal! Bush is invading our
privacy!  Bush blew up the World Trade Centers!

Liberalism is a mental disease.  

 
 
 

Andrea Mitchell, Non-Partisan

Post by rich hammet » Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:42:52

Minun olisi pit?nyt tiet??, olisi pit?nyt tiet??,
olisi pit?nyt tiet?? KUKA SIN? OLET, Tom Enright:

Quote:
> http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/08/andrea-mitchell-beyond-parody.html
> You can't make this stuff up:
>     The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they
> might have wanted to in that context, because that -- what they're
> putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of
> silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions
> were to Obama.
> And, on "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell feels obligated to inject
> this cheap and unsubstantiated partisan smear into the media
> mainstream. In-freaking-credible.
> UPDATE: D.S. Hube at Newsbusters:
>     Andrea Mitchell barely hestitated to toss that out there, with
> guest host David Gregory merely offering a rather semi-innocuous
> "Right" in response.
> Look, I am not one of those who believes that every story about
> politics has to be perfectly "balanced," but when you have a campaign
> accusing its opposition of cheating, this is something that requires
> (a) supporting evidence, and (b) an opportunity for the opponent to
> address the accusation. You can't just run out there in front of the
> camera and repeat slander to a national TV audience of 4 million
> viewers.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, the McCain campaign called the initial reports
that he wasn't in the quiet room "lies and slander," too,
until they finally admitted it was true.

If you yell loud enough, that will be forgotten, too.

rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\  Rich Hammett       http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/
\    "How come things that happen to stupid people keep
/     happening to me?!"

 
 
 

Andrea Mitchell, Non-Partisan

Post by Chris Bellom » Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:07:15

Tom Enright wrote, On 8/20/08 9:20 PM:

Quote:
> http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/08/andrea-mitchell-beyond-parody.html

> You can't make this stuff up:

>     The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they
> might have wanted to in that context, because that -- what they're
> putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of
> silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions
> were to Obama.

> And, on "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell feels obligated to inject
> this cheap and unsubstantiated partisan smear into the media
> mainstream. In-freaking-credible.

How dare Mrs. Alan Greenspan attack John McCain with facts!

LEAVE JOHN MCCAIN ALOOOOOOOOOOOOOONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cb

 
 
 

Andrea Mitchell, Non-Partisan

Post by lein » Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:17:20


Quote:

> >http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/08/andrea-mitchell-beyond-parody.html

> > You can't make this stuff up:

> >     The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they
> > might have wanted to in that context, because that -- what they're
> > putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of
> > silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions
> > were to Obama.

> > And, on "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell feels obligated to inject
> > this cheap and unsubstantiated partisan smear into the media
> > mainstream. In-freaking-credible.

> > UPDATE: D.S. Hube at Newsbusters:

> >     Andrea Mitchell barely hestitated to toss that out there, with
> > guest host David Gregory merely offering a rather semi-innocuous
> > "Right" in response.

> > Look, I am not one of those who believes that every story about
> > politics has to be perfectly "balanced," but when you have a campaign
> > accusing its opposition of cheating, this is something that requires
> > (a) supporting evidence, and (b) an opportunity for the opponent to
> > address the accusation. You can't just run out there in front of the
> > camera and repeat slander to a national TV audience of 4 million
> > viewers.

> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > -Tom Enright

> This was published in my local newspaper today. enjoy:

> http://www.newsobserver.com/news/corrections/story/1185329.html

> So he was in fact, not in the cone of silence. Maybe you 'wingers need
> to stay up with the news cycle a little more?

Are you suggesting McCain heard the questions as they were being asked
to Obama?    I'd put this one in the file, right next to the
mysterious lump that appeared on Bush's back during one of the
debates.   You know, the device where they fed him answers on the fly.
 
 
 

Andrea Mitchell, Non-Partisan

Post by Trevor Zion Bauknigh » Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:39:14



Quote:
> Tom Enright wrote, On 8/20/08 9:20 PM:
> > http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/08/andrea-mitchell-beyond-parody.html

> > You can't make this stuff up:

> >     The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they
> > might have wanted to in that context, because that -- what they're
> > putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of
> > silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions
> > were to Obama.

> > And, on "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell feels obligated to inject
> > this cheap and unsubstantiated partisan smear into the media
> > mainstream. In-freaking-credible.

> How dare Mrs. Alan Greenspan attack John McCain with facts!

> LEAVE JOHN MCCAIN ALOOOOOOOOOOOOOONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's funny...Mitchell is one of theirs, and they throw her under the bus
in a heartbeat.

--
Trev

 
 
 

Andrea Mitchell, Non-Partisan

Post by Trevor Zion Bauknigh » Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:40:50

In article

Quote:



> > >http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/08/andrea-mitchell-beyond-parody.html

> > > You can't make this stuff up:

> > >     The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they
> > > might have wanted to in that context, because that -- what they're
> > > putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of
> > > silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions
> > > were to Obama.

> > > And, on "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell feels obligated to inject
> > > this cheap and unsubstantiated partisan smear into the media
> > > mainstream. In-freaking-credible.

> > > UPDATE: D.S. Hube at Newsbusters:

> > >     Andrea Mitchell barely hestitated to toss that out there, with
> > > guest host David Gregory merely offering a rather semi-innocuous
> > > "Right" in response.

> > > Look, I am not one of those who believes that every story about
> > > politics has to be perfectly "balanced," but when you have a campaign
> > > accusing its opposition of cheating, this is something that requires
> > > (a) supporting evidence, and (b) an opportunity for the opponent to
> > > address the accusation. You can't just run out there in front of the
> > > camera and repeat slander to a national TV audience of 4 million
> > > viewers.

> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -------------------

> > > -Tom Enright

> > This was published in my local newspaper today. enjoy:

> > http://www.newsobserver.com/news/corrections/story/1185329.html

> > So he was in fact, not in the cone of silence. Maybe you 'wingers need
> > to stay up with the news cycle a little more?

> Are you suggesting McCain heard the questions as they were being asked
> to Obama?    

Are you suggesting he wasn't?? Based on what?

Quote:
>  I'd put this one in the file, right next to the
> mysterious lump that appeared on Bush's back during one of the
> debates.   You know, the device where they fed him answers on the fly.

What do you think it was that caused the very distinctive 'Y' on his
back? It's visible in pictures, you know.

--
Trev

 
 
 

Andrea Mitchell, Non-Partisan

Post by the_andrew_sm.. » Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:04:47



Quote:
> In article




> > > >http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/08/andrea-mitchell-beyond-parody.html

> > > > You can't make this stuff up:

> > > > ? ? The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they
> > > > might have wanted to in that context, because that -- what they're
> > > > putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of
> > > > silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions
> > > > were to Obama.

> > > > And, on "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell feels obligated to inject
> > > > this cheap and unsubstantiated partisan smear into the media
> > > > mainstream. In-freaking-credible.

> > > > UPDATE: D.S. Hube at Newsbusters:

> > > > ? ? Andrea Mitchell barely hestitated to toss that out there, with
> > > > guest host David Gregory merely offering a rather semi-innocuous
> > > > "Right" in response.

> > > > Look, I am not one of those who believes that every story about
> > > > politics has to be perfectly "balanced," but when you have a campaign
> > > > accusing its opposition of cheating, this is something that requires
> > > > (a) supporting evidence, and (b) an opportunity for the opponent to
> > > > address the accusation. You can't just run out there in front of the
> > > > camera and repeat slander to a national TV audience of 4 million
> > > > viewers.

> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > -------------------

> > > > -Tom Enright

> > > This was published in my local newspaper today. enjoy:

> > >http://www.newsobserver.com/news/corrections/story/1185329.html

> > > So he was in fact, not in the cone of silence. Maybe you 'wingers need
> > > to stay up with the news cycle a little more?

> > Are you suggesting McCain heard the questions as they were being asked
> > to Obama? ? ?

> Are you suggesting he wasn't?? Based on what?

> > ?I'd put this one in the file, right next to the
> > mysterious lump that appeared on Bush's back during one of the
> > debates. ? You know, the device where they fed him answers on the fly.

> What do you think it was that caused the very distinctive 'Y' on his
> back? It's visible in pictures, you know.

Bush is Nessie.

a.

 
 
 

Andrea Mitchell, Non-Partisan

Post by xyzz » Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:41:51


Quote:


> > >http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/08/andrea-mitchell-beyond-parody.html

> > > You can't make this stuff up:

> > > ? ? The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they
> > > might have wanted to in that context, because that -- what they're
> > > putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of
> > > silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions
> > > were to Obama.

> > > And, on "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell feels obligated to inject
> > > this cheap and unsubstantiated partisan smear into the media
> > > mainstream. In-freaking-credible.

> > > UPDATE: D.S. Hube at Newsbusters:

> > > ? ? Andrea Mitchell barely hestitated to toss that out there, with
> > > guest host David Gregory merely offering a rather semi-innocuous
> > > "Right" in response.

> > > Look, I am not one of those who believes that every story about
> > > politics has to be perfectly "balanced," but when you have a campaign
> > > accusing its opposition of cheating, this is something that requires
> > > (a) supporting evidence, and (b) an opportunity for the opponent to
> > > address the accusation. You can't just run out there in front of the
> > > camera and repeat slander to a national TV audience of 4 million
> > > viewers.

> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > > -Tom Enright

> > This was published in my local newspaper today. enjoy:

> >http://www.newsobserver.com/news/corrections/story/1185329.html

> > So he was in fact, not in the cone of silence. Maybe you 'wingers need
> > to stay up with the news cycle a little more?

> Are you suggesting McCain heard the questions as they were being asked
> to Obama? ?

I'm suggesting that, despite vigorous early denials, and 'winger
claims that there was no basis for saying John McCain was not in the
cone of silence and that saying so was moonbat craziness, he in fact
was not in the cone of silence.

It demonstrates the attention to facts and integrity illustrated from
3:50 to 3:59 of this classic video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcQ7RkyBoBc

"Were you in the cone of silence?"
"Yeah"
"well your motorcade says you weren't"
"Oh, then I mean no"

 
 
 

Andrea Mitchell, Non-Partisan

Post by rich hammet » Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:00:14

Minun olisi pit?nyt tiet??, olisi pit?nyt tiet??,
olisi pit?nyt tiet?? KUKA SIN? OLET, The Grand Beckoning:

Quote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:20:25 -0700 (PDT), Tom Enright

>>Look, I am not one of those who believes that every story about
>>politics has to be perfectly "balanced," but when you have a campaign
>>accusing its opposition of cheating, this is something that requires
>>(a) supporting evidence, and (b) an opportunity for the opponent to
>>address the accusation. You can't just run out there in front of the
>>camera and repeat slander to a national TV audience of 4 million
>>viewers.
> Flashback to 2000, with all of the accusations of voter fraud and
> suppression in Florida, and not a single case ever demonstrated.

You are on crack.  Here's one:
Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, contracted with a new company (DBT Online Inc.), at an increase of $4.294 million to have the "scrub list"'s re-worked. Nearly 1% of Florida's electorate and nearly 3% of its African-American voters - 96,000 citizens were listed as felons and removed from the voting rolls. (For instance, many had names similar to actual felons, some listed "felonies" were dated years in the future, and some appar
ently were random.) In some cases, those on the scrub list were given several months to appeal, and many successfully reregistered and were allowed to vote. However, most were not told that they weren't allowed to vote until they were turned away at the polls. The company was directed not to use cross-checks or its sophisticated verification plan (used by the FBI).[12]

Quote:
>  So
> how did the come to make the accusations if they had nothing to base
> it on?  
> Just like a frantic wife yelling at her husband, they scream out
> something shocking that they merely want to be true to make them
> appear to be victims of some grave injustice.
> Bush lied about WMDs! He played on our fears! It's all for oil! It's
> all for  Haliburton! Bush cheated in Florida! Bush blew up the levies!
> Bush is the new Hitler!  Bush is a war criminal! Bush is invading our
> privacy!  Bush blew up the World Trade Centers!
> Liberalism is a mental disease.  

I suspect you would find your privacy being invaded if a libral
were doing exactly the same things Bush is.

rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\  Rich Hammett       http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/
\    "How come things that happen to stupid people keep
/     happening to me?!"

 
 
 

Andrea Mitchell, Non-Partisan

Post by rich hammet » Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:02:03

Minun olisi pit?nyt tiet??, olisi pit?nyt tiet??,
olisi pit?nyt tiet?? KUKA SIN? OLET, xyzzy:

Quote:



>> > >http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/08/andrea-mitchell-beyond-parody.html

>> > > You can't make this stuff up:

>> > > ? ? The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they
>> > > might have wanted to in that context, because that -- what they're
>> > > putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of
>> > > silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions
>> > > were to Obama.

>> > > And, on "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell feels obligated to inject
>> > > this cheap and unsubstantiated partisan smear into the media
>> > > mainstream. In-freaking-credible.

>> > > UPDATE: D.S. Hube at Newsbusters:

>> > > ? ? Andrea Mitchell barely hestitated to toss that out there, with
>> > > guest host David Gregory merely offering a rather semi-innocuous
>> > > "Right" in response.

>> > > Look, I am not one of those who believes that every story about
>> > > politics has to be perfectly "balanced," but when you have a campaign
>> > > accusing its opposition of cheating, this is something that requires
>> > > (a) supporting evidence, and (b) an opportunity for the opponent to
>> > > address the accusation. You can't just run out there in front of the
>> > > camera and repeat slander to a national TV audience of 4 million
>> > > viewers.

>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> > > -Tom Enright

>> > This was published in my local newspaper today. enjoy:

>> >http://www.newsobserver.com/news/corrections/story/1185329.html

>> > So he was in fact, not in the cone of silence. Maybe you 'wingers need
>> > to stay up with the news cycle a little more?

>> Are you suggesting McCain heard the questions as they were being asked
>> to Obama? ?
> I'm suggesting that, despite vigorous early denials, and 'winger
> claims that there was no basis for saying John McCain was not in the
> cone of silence and that saying so was moonbat craziness, he in fact
> was not in the cone of silence.
> It demonstrates the attention to facts and integrity illustrated from
> 3:50 to 3:59 of this classic video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcQ7RkyBoBc
> "Were you in the cone of silence?"
> "Yeah"
> "well your motorcade says you weren't"
> "Oh, then I mean no"

I haven't quite figured out why the wingnuts want to keep drawing
attention to the fact that McCain lied until he was caught.

But keep it up, guys!  Truth in politics!

rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\  Rich Hammett       http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/
\    "How come things that happen to stupid people keep
/     happening to me?!"

 
 
 

Andrea Mitchell, Non-Partisan

Post by Damon Hyne » Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:11:46



Quote:
> It's funny...Mitchell is one of theirs, and they throw her under the bus
> in a heartbeat.

You keep making this assertion, no doubt fuelled by the fact that Alan
is somewhat pro-business, and I've yet to see items such as her voter
registration, campaign contributions, etc.

Warren Buffett is 'pro-business', and yet he's no Republican or
conservative.  Ditto Bill Gates.  Ditto Larry Ellsion.

 
 
 

Andrea Mitchell, Non-Partisan

Post by Trevor Zion Bauknigh » Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:06:42

In article


Quote:


> > It's funny...Mitchell is one of theirs, and they throw her under the bus
> > in a heartbeat.

> You keep making this assertion, no doubt fuelled by the fact that Alan
> is somewhat pro-business, and I've yet to see items such as her voter
> registration, campaign contributions, etc.

> Warren Buffett is 'pro-business', and yet he's no Republican or
> conservative.  Ditto Bill Gates.  Ditto Larry Ellsion.

My opinion of Andrea Mitchell has nothing to do with Alan Greenspan.

It has to do with watching her performance on TV, carrying water for the
Republican Party.

--
Trev

 
 
 

Andrea Mitchell, Non-Partisan

Post by Damon Hyne » Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:15:32



Quote:
> My opinion of Andrea Mitchell has nothing to do with Alan Greenspan.

> It has to do with watching her performance on TV, carrying water for the
> Republican Party.

What color is the sky on your planet?  There have been two examples of
her snarkiness toward McCain within the past two weeks and you insist
she's in the GOP's amen corner?