| Gov. Times | 0 | |
| WaPo | 0 | |
| CNN | Dead wrong: Man attends own funeral after mix-up over body’s ID |
0 |
| Politico | 0 | |
| McClatchy | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Brutal Honesty:
"We [the US] tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan," she said.
- Sec. of State Hillary Clinton - 10/29/09
Barry Manilow: Elisabeth Hasselbeck is “offensive and dangerous”
It’s no secret that the ABC daytime show The View is an overwhelmingly liberal show. Just last week I blogged about the torture I went through having to watch a few segments of it while waiting to have the oil changed in my car.
If you’ve ever watched a segment of The View, whether it be on ABC itself or via a video on YouTube, you know by now that Elisabeth Hasselbeck, the show’s lone conservative, is about as nice as she can be to liberal guests while maintaining her ground. In fact, on the show I had the misfortune of having to sit through last week, the uber-liberal actress and staunch opponent of the war in Iraq Susan Sarandon was talking about her role in an anti-war flick, and was minimizing her contribution to it, when Hasselbeck told her she “disagreed” with her and believed she made a much bigger contribution to the movie than she gave herself credit for, which Sarandon, in turn, thanked her for saying.
Hasselbeck sounds really scary and intimidating, doesn’t she?
At least to Barry Manilow she does, anyway. Via Richard Newcomb at Newsbusters:
Barry Manilow epitomizes the liberal reaction to being forced to share a stage with someone with whom he disagrees- instant flight! Manilow is apparently cancelling his scheduled appearance on the mostly-liberal gabfest show ‘The View’ because new host Elizabeth Hasselbeck is a conservative. According to TMZ, Manilow said of Hasselbeck,
In an exclusive statement to TMZ, Barry says, “I strongly disagree with her views. I think she’s dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her.”
Newcomb then compares Manilow’s chickening out to the Democrats cutting and running from two scheduled debates that were supposed to be co-hosted by Fox News. He’s got a point. I mean, it’s pretty clear from what happened with the Fox News debates that Democrats like Hillary Clinton were uncomfortable with the idea that they might get more than just softball questions. And the presidential contenders aren’t the only ones who aren’t interested in having their ideas under the microscope. For example, the Goracle isn’t exactly keen on debating so-called ‘man-made global warming.’ And other global warming alarmists like him go so far as to try and intimidate into silence anyone who disagrees with the prevailing argument on global warming. One alarmist who writes for an environmental magazine has even called for “Nuremburg-style trials” for gw skeptics. And let’s not forget how Senate Democrats threatened ABC’s broadcast license last year over the ABC docu-drama Path to 9-11, which was critical of the Clinton administration’s failed counterterrorism measures, while Bill Clinton himself got his lawyers involved in an attempt to pull Path to 9-11 altogether.
The Democratic party – and many of their supporters – would have you believe they are all for the “free and open exchange of ideas” but when it comes right down to it, they’d like nothing more than to ignore the fact that there are two sides to every issue. Except when it comes to getting their own message out, of course, when you consider that some of these very same people who aren’t interested in debating conservatives are the very same people who are just itching to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, because they’re upset that liberal talk radio isn’t popular and feel the only way they can get their ideas out there to the American people is by mandating some type of ‘equality in broadcasting’ nonsense – monitored by the state – in which conservative talk radio stations would be forced to air liberal talk shows. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I believe it’s entirely possible that their goal isn’t really to have a “balance” in broadcasting, but instead is a way to attempt to shut down conservative talk shows, because liberals know conservatives won’t stand for being legally obligated to give them ‘equal time’ on their radio stations.
In Manilow’s case, and that of many other head in sand liberals (the same liberals who want everyone to believe they are ‘enlightened’) ignorance is the preferred method when it comes to the possiblity of being exposed to any opinions contrary to their worldview. “I don’t want to debate. You should just believe me,” is what they’re essentially saying. Such a stance is an indication that these liberals know their ideas won’t hold up under close scrutiny. Manilow is just one more self-important lefty who doesn’t want his little liberal bubble burst by a harsh dose of reality.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
45 Responses to “Barry Manilow: Elisabeth Hasselbeck is “offensive and dangerous””
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Oh you’ve got to be kidding. Barry Manilow????? Hey, Barry, the only thing offensive and dangerous is your music.
Then again, are we really surprised? These are the people who support the same democrats who are afraid of Fox news. However, they want us to believe that they will stand up to Syria, Iran, and Al Qaeda.
Cowards, liars, and hypocrites all. Now Manilow can lump himself with the rest of the “open minded” and “tolerant” liberals.
One should never, ever forget that a fundamental premise of the paternalistic, socialist totalitarian state for which the liberals long fears and loathes contrary speech.
Those who disagree with the learned liberal conclusions, particularly the foreign and military policy dissertations of the well educated glitterati, are simply anti-social and must be silenced.
Boycotts, the PC police and now the return of the fairness doctrine mean only one thing, particularly since they control the schools, and that is trouble for conservative speech.
What a loss for elevated discussion of the issues! Does this guy look like a couple of cosmetic procedures have gone awry or is my Apple not getting the picture right?
This creature makes Kathy Griffin look like an A-lister, he’s soooo…… seventies [EARLY seventies, & really nothing more than a piano bar version of Dylan's weakest efforts.]
Who cares what an over-the-hill hermaphrodite thinks about politics? But he thinks he can gin up some publicity for his sagging tour, or maybe get an invitation to Keith Oddmann’s sprightly little shop of errors.
Barry Manilow?!
barry, its O.K. to go on the veiw, its stacked in your favor — 4 against one anyway, what are you scared of, Elizabeth ususally doesn’t pick political battles with the guests, its usually the loony hosts that gang up on her.
Take your over the hill copacabana arse back to the sleezy casinos you sing in and croone on YOU IDIOT. !!!!
Somehow I am surprised to hear this. Barry Manilow is not exactly a hipster.
I always kinda liked Manilow. But I didn’t realize he’d descended into senility. Sheeeeeeesh!
Barry was somewhat liked for his soft music and big honker, but now he’ll be remembered as a brain dead moonbat.
All I know about Elisabeth Hasselbeck is what I saw of her on the YouTube clip when I on my card had her winning a round 10-8 against Rosie.
She seems intelligent, pert, and polite.
As for Barry Manilow, he was an excellent tutor to the Idolettes when he appeared on the 2006 series. He has found his true niche at last.
Look, I’m a liberal, and I can’t stand “the view”. It has nothing to do with political position, and has everything to do with the fact that the show is hosted by MORONS. Seriously, would you watch a show hosted by conservative morons?
It’s not exactly well loved on the liberal side of the aisle… have you seen how many SNL sketches have been used on that show “some people call it a train wreck…. we call it, THE VIEW”. It’s unfortunate that Manilow feels threatened by a lone conservative host, it’s silly. I also DON’T CARE. It’s a non-story.
Now, about Petraeus only talking to Brit Hume…. that’s a headline.
“paternalistic, socialist totalitarian state for which the liberals long fears and loathes contrary speech.”
Except for the socialist part, this is the perfect description for how the hosts on Fox News, right wing talk radio and our current administration run the show.
Look – “The View” is nothing more than a bunch of hens sitting around clucking noisily around each other. Plus, Barry is half right – Hassellbeck is offensive but NOT dangerous. Maybe he meant offensive and STUPID? Anyway, there’s nothing wrong with conservative viewpoints. They’re needed, so quit YOUR clucking.
But FOX News lost ALL of it’s credibility a long time ago. It’s not a conservative organization that presents ‘ideas’ and debates, it’s an extreme right-wing noise machine that twists facts and blatantly lies to it’s viewers, the whole time disguised as news.
THAT is ‘dangerous’ – not silly, little, entitled Hassellbeck…
Barry Manilow backs out of appearing on the view, and you equate that with chicken Democrats? I’m losing count of how many debates the Republican candidates have turned down for “scheduling conflicts”.
“because liberals know conservatives won’t stand for being legally obligated to give them ‘equal time’ on their radio stations.”
So conservatives don’t like sharing the stage with liberals either?
I’m so sick of this partisan crap. Anytime you see a liberal exhibiting totalitarian tendencies, you ascribe it to their liberal views… thinking something along the lines of “Typical of a liberal”, etc…
But of course this is a standard partisan-based fallacy.
It’s typical of EVERYONE with strong political views, not just those on the right or left. For every left wing tyrant (Mao, Lenin) there’s a right wing one (Hitler, Pinochet). So let’s stop playing the holier-than-thou game and acknowledge that we are all flawed as humans, not liberals or conservatives.
Anytime I find myself thinking “Typical of a…”, it’s usually just a case of my own biases selectively noticing when one group does something, but not the other group. Not all the time of course…
Another partisan fallacy is the old “Whenever I ask a …, about …, they have no response.”
Fill in the blanks however you want, the truth is, just because the local loon at your bar doesn’t have a comprehensive political philosophy, doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. Again, this is something we see from both sides, and it’s stupid.
Without Barry Manilow, who would we listen to when we ride in elevators?
I think the man is a terrible dresser, and I think him backing out of the view is a ploy to sell albums, but I know I can always count on Barry Manilow to be playing in the elevator.
ST, looks like some moonbat sites must’ve linked to you today, judging by the troll infestation. Let’s take them in order:
Start with this mindless belching:
Yeah, I know how Fox News doesn’t let the likes of Alan Colmes say anything…and you’ll never find a Dem on any of their shows, right? What nonsense.
When CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, LAT, etc., etc., allow anyone to disagree with the lefty talking points, get back to us, OK? Till then, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Oh yes, and the current administration doesn’t allow “contrary speech”? Then explain why you and the entire odd assortment of loons that calls itself the Kos community are still loose on the streets? Idiot.
Next, Carl has a marginally more sane point, but loses coherence early:
“Offensive” meaning disagreeing with Carl. That’s just not acceptable.
And, we might point out, this is in contrast to the current Dem presidential candidates, all of which ARE dangerous – to national security and the economy, for starters.
See the list of left-wing media outlets just a few lines above this, and repeat that statement to them. Or, if you’re really courageous, go back to whatever L-cubed site directed you here, and post the same thing, and see how long until it’s deleted. So much for the mythical left-wing respect for free speech.
I notice you can’t provide any links or proof (no, Soros organizations like Media Matters don’t count), so maybe you mean like when they ginned up fake TANG documents to try to influence a presidential election. Oh, wait, no, that was one of YOUR networks…
Maybe it was when they photoshopped pictures to try to help win sympathy for terrorist groups like Hezbollah. Oh, wait, no, that was one of YOUR press services…
Here comes another one out from under the bridge:
Again, your evidence is…where?? However, we do know that the Dems lack the courage to stand up to serious questions on Fox News, but are a collection of lickspittles for the likes of Assad.
Next troll:
Are you blind and deaf? Conservatives are USED to having the deck stacked against them. The View is just a more blatant example of what you get in the MoonbatStream Media. 3 or 4 to one is about normal, as leftists need to make up in volume and length what they lack in coherence.
What conservatives object to is nonsense like the ‘fairness doctrine’, which is only a scheme to suppress opinion that the left dislikes. Again, when you get the list of left-wing media organizations to broadcast or print any views to the right of, say, Hillary, then you’ll have some credibility.
Wrong on Hitler…he was more on the left. In case you missed it, Nazi was a shorthand for National Socialist German Workers Party. Distinctly left wing. As for Pionchet, he was a dictator, sure. He also arragned for elections to end his rule, and so far as I know, didn’t send millions of people to firing squads or re-education camps, unlike the left’s heroes like Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Lenin. In the panoply of dictators, Pinochet is laughably small potatoes.
And here’s another interesting point…you can’t show me any conservatives who run around celebrating Pinochet, but the Che T-shirt is part of the uniform of the left and you spend millions flocking to the handiwork of loons like Michael Moore (a VIP at the last Dem convention, remember) praising the likes of Castro and Saddam Hussein. Neither of whom, to bring this all back to the point of ST’s original post, had a sterling reputation for free and open discussion of issues.
- Shorter Great White Rat….
- “No one will ever be able to accuse the Left of intellectual honesty.”
- As for the plastic palm tree guy, I’m sure his 3 fans from E. 136th street will be chrushed.
- Side note: Heres a little poetic justice that will make yout day if you enjoy watching Lefty worms squirm. Pay attention to the reporters parting comment. (This ones for you ST. Enjoy.)
- BBH –
Heh. I personally prefer the DEVO Easy Listening Disc, which had DEVO’s own Muzaking of their music.
Laura Ingraham summed up my feelings perfectly with her earlier book title: “Shut Up and Sing!”
Mr. Manilow seems to have proved this adage, ascribed by some to Lincoln, too: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
No doubt Fox has some righties on there carrying on every day, but they do allow other people to come on and debate.
In fact Brit Hume has people like Juan Williams on the Panel. As for Patreaus only talking to Brit Hume, I have no idea that anyone else wanted to talk to him. After all the full page ad that ran in the NYT pretty well laid out the liberal media attitude toward Patreaus.
“you can’t show me any conservatives who run around celebrating Pinochet”
So I guess you didn’t catch the glowing editorials written by right-wingers at the time of his death?
I love the fact that you claim the left celebrates Mao and Lenin. You need to stop conflating “the left” with “stupid college students who took one class and think they know history”. They are not, in fact, the same thing.
Though you did fall victim to my second partisan fallacy: assuming you know the left’s philosophical position on something because you saw one loon wearing a che’ shirt. You don’t. You’re fooling yourself, and it’s sad.
“Wrong on Hitler…he was more on the left. In case you missed it, Nazi was a shorthand for National Socialist German Workers Party. Distinctly left wing.”
Look up the night of the long knives. Hitler used socialism/populism to get power, but abandoned his left wing supporters for his right-wing business interests. Get a clue before trying to pwn “trolls”.
“…Hitler used socialism/populism to get power.”
- Oh. I know where we’ve seen that before. Same as the way the Sec Progs are trying to gain power now. Race baiting, class warfare, a Socialist chicken in every pot. Of course as we get closer and closer to the election cycle we’ll also notice a sharp veer to the center, because you know, the Left is nothing if not principled.
- Save the revisionist agitprop for “fly over state rubes”, (whom also only reside in your minds in some very important ways), most people have caught your one trick pony act, and they don’t care for Marxism.
- If you are a “Classic” Liberal, then the aforementioned does not apply.
- BBH -
As for Patreaus only talking to Brit Hume, I have no idea that anyone else wanted to talk to him.
This has to be the stupidiest comment I ever heard. Yes, I’m sure CNN, NPR, NBC, CBS and ABC just forgot to ask. Or their permission slip just got lost in the mail?
EVERYBODY wants to talk to Petraeus. He is the closest person to the complete assesment of Iraqi progress. By making himself available for only one powderpuff interview, he does a disservice to public understanding of the issue.
After all the full page ad that ran in the NYT pretty well laid out the liberal media attitude toward Patreaus.
1) NYT accepts money to print ads. They also printed 1 page ads from gulliani & McCain. Doesn’t mean they support any of them.
Futhermore, NYT is not affiliated with any of the major broadcasting networks, so an ad in NYT should not affect interviews with, say, CNN.
- “EVERYBODY wants to talk to Petraeus”
- Well actually no, they didn’t, because that would have screwed up the “narrative” the Left wanted to project as fact. The ad didn’t even try to argue specifics of the Iraq war. they simply tried to impune Patraeous by calling him a traitor BECAUSE he is a lackey of Bush, and we all know (wink wink) that $ChimpyMcHiltlerBush is the worst thing since the plague. New group of LunarBats, same old games.
- BBH –
Well, maybe not everyone. At least, not the people who need to be listening to him. Remember when Pelosi couldn’t make his last assessment:
What was it that somebody else was saying about the Republicans blaming “scheduling conflicts”??
Priceless.
Wait, you haven’t read this one yet:
THAT has to be the dumbest comment I’ve ever heard. Have you seen that one? Oh, that’s right, you wrote it, of course you’ve seen it.
Hitler equated with conservatives.. nice. I guess on a day when all the trolls come here we should have expected to see it.
Anyone see any conservatives running amok, destroying Jewish businesses?
“Hitler equated with conservatives.. nice. I guess on a day when all the trolls come here we should have expected to see it.”
Oh dear me, someone get the smelling salts!
seriously, equating Hitler with conservatives? By pointing out that Hitler was right wing? The same way conservatives point out that Mao and Lenin were left wing? I never took that to mean that they were equating liberals with Mao.. just taking a cheap shot. Which, if you read my original post, is what I’m calling stupid.
You just pulled a combo of the “Strawman” (misrepresentation of a position) with the “Typical of a … ” partisan fallacy.
Thank you for proving my original point.
No, Ryan, but we do have one of our political parties that celebrates anti-Semites and gives them prominent places at their national conventions.
That would be the Dhimmicrats, of course.
By the way, I suspect ME would be very comfortable not only with Hitler’s socialism, but with other policies, such as confiscating all privately owned firearms.
ME’s problem – well, one of them – is in confusing authoritarian regimes such as Pinochet’s with totalitarian regimes such as the various communist flavors. The latter are much worse, and are invariably left-wing. It’s why there’s a natural alliance between say, Hugo Chavez, the islamofascists, and people like ME on the American left.
By the way, ME, when you find someone distributing pro-Pinochet literature, or setting up a pro-Pinochet booth, or prancing around in a Pinochet shirt at a conservative rally, please post a link to the evidence. Just from this past weekend there’s no shortage of your side cozying up to Marxists. Pretending some sort of moral equivalence is comic, and doesn’t help your credibility one bit.
Getting back to the subject here…
Elizabeth is the one who, as of late, continues
to quip things such as “That is his opinion.” or
“That is how she feels, she has a right.”
Barry exercised his right not to sit next to
or be interviewed by someone with such a distorted
view of the world in his opinion. Not everyone
thinks she is a sweet little cupcake with a halo
on her head.
NC COP: I never debated Pelosi’s lack of ability to ask a question, or attend briefings. Her incompetence is an entirely different issue.
I was strictly talking about media networks that make money by televising important people in interviews that directly affect the news. Maybe you’ve heard of this before? Any of these companies would give their right arm for an interview with a figure that has bee central to the Iraq debate for the last 6 months.
Pelosi’s inability to show up is horrible, however unrelated to media accessibility to Petraeus.
Oh, OK…now I get it.
Just two quick questions…
Is acknowledging that someone has an opinion supposed to be “offensive”? Or does that fall into the “dangerous” category?
I already know that saying people have rights is considered offensive and dangerous by the left, since their guiding principle is that we have no rights except as granted by the Almighty…and by that they mean the government, not God.
alchemist,
Strange..I don’t recall seeing you show up here to characterize the Democrats’ refusal to appear anywhere except on friendly media outlets as “horrible” when that happened. And, as you know, it is still happening. So why the change of heart?
Just curious…
Barry Manilow is a chicken if he is afraid of Elizabeth Hasselback. The fact that Barbara Walters stands behind her cohosts publicly(maybe not privately, I don’t know) earns my respect.
I’ve never been a big Walters fan, but she did support Rosie when she was off her rocker, and she is supporting Hasselback’s right to have her own opinions.
Dear, We all know that the Democratic party is not for the Free Exchange of Ideas, well not unless you are a Chinese Donations Bundler, then it’s not ideas they want freely exchanged. Look this party began when Jefferson stabbed his friend John Adams in the back. They have been conniving and scheming ever since. The more I learn about the real history of the Dem party, the less happy I am about ever being one. – Lorica
P.S. Is it me or has someone left the italics on for this post???
Great white Rat:
I was mixed on the democratic decision to not show up for Fox News. It really depends on who the moderator wouldn’t have been. I understand not trusting the Fox news channel, the same way that I wouldn’t trust the Limbaugh show, or Conservatives don’t trust the Al Franken show.
Fox News however, has demonstrated that it has an axe to grind, and although I disagree with the decision not to be there, I understand not wanting to stand in the way of the axe.
Still, I’m sure together we could a handful of middle of the road, high integrity reporters/interviewers that could ask Petraues some tough questions. Brit Hume is none of those things. Neither is the senate. Capesh?
Hmmm….
Brit Hume has no integrity? Examples? Or do you just hate him because he’s Fox’s lead anchor?
Hume is by far the most mature, and credible, journalist on any news network. Your comments speak volumes about your real level of rationality and petty partisanship, but thanks for the insight into your character, or lack thereof.
Heh…I fixed the italics thing I think, at least on my monitor. Now if ST comes along and edits it upstream all bets are off.
LOL Sev – just fixed it
Alchemist, how can you dis Brit Hume? I think he’s cool
I should add that someone needs to become more educated on Nazi Germany as well, especially when equating those members of the left who involve themselves with Che/Mao/Lenin as “stupid college students.”
Game, set, match. Nice job, GWR.
You see conservatives at rallies holding American flags, while you see people that ME would associate with wearing Che shirts, distributing Mao info, etc, etc.. You don’t have to google much to find it. In fact, in the Bay Area I could probably drive 20 minutes and find someone doing it.
I don’t buy that for a minute – you’ve given no evidence to substantiate that claim – but just for a minute, let’s accept that claim.
If Fox News has an axe to grind, then there’s no denying that CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, AP, Reuters, etc. each has a virtual hardware store full of axes to grind. Each of those is far less balanced and even-handed in their coverage of the news than is Fox.
So let’s take that scenario to its logical conclusion. No political figure has to appear on a network or before a reporter who isn’t known to be friendly – the Dems’ Fox rule – and let’s apply it.
First, there will be few, if any, televised debates during the 2008 campaign, since no commercial network qualifies. C-SPAN might be the only possibility, and even then the questioners would have to be vetted by both parties in a process that would make the investigations of Supreme Court nominees pale in comparison. You might disagree, but only mildly – I’m sure you’d “understand” and defend the GOP’s view, right?
Second, President Bush should have the right to immediately rescind the press credentials of any network, newspaper, or reporter who he deems to have an “axe to grind”. After all, to use your term, why should he have to stand in the way of the axe? You might disagree, but only mildly – I’m sure you’d “understand” and defend the President’s view, right?
Ridiculous? Of course. But it’s the logical result of the Dems’ argument. The Dems cannot refuse to acknowledge the largest cable news network without granting the GOP the right to use the same standard. Not if they have a shred of intellectual honesty, which isn’t something you should try to “understand”.
It’s significant that when the Dems shrink from appearing before Fox, you disagree but you “understand” them…but if General Petraeus doesn’t offer himself up to the vultures at, say, NBC, that’s “horrible” in your view.
If you and the rest of the left think that if you win the White House next year you’ll be able to pretend that only the hard-left news outlets exist anymore, then you’ve really heeded the final boarding call and pushed back from the gate of reality.
Sure I have. I just think it’s so interesting that ABC, CBS, NBC have been obviously one sided for decades and nobody seemed to have a problem with it. Suddenly, though, Fox decides not to attack President Bush and they are “taking sides” and “right wing propaganda”.
Maybe you’ve heard of that before?
Sorry, had to actually work, I’m back.
So I’ll back off a little on Brit Hume, he is the best anchor on Fox news, and although I still beleive his debate on his show is heavily skewed(one organization compared to other cable shows as noted by FAIR (which I’m sure is not well respected here), so instead of arguing apples, all night, let’s discuss the substance of the interview.
So, although I had previously seen 5 to 10 mintues sections of the Petraues interview, but I watched the entire hour last night. To have a good interview, you need not ‘attack’ someone, but you do have to probe the information that’s given to you to verify 1) your understanding and 2)it’s credibility. Brit Hume didn’t do that. For example: Croker (Iraq Ambassador) talked about iraqi police and military regiments stepping up, and filling in for armed services, additionally previous insurgents becoming allys.
My question would have been “how do we know we can trust them? What indicates that they won’t take our support, and attack us later?” There are a million other questions that could have been asked, not just the ones I thought of. Unfortunately, not a single follow-up question was given in that section. I think that’s unfortunate. To be fair, it was called a “briefing” and not an interview, however I think Hume should have earned his paycheck by engaging the conversation, (and not being lectured at).
alchemist, you’re right about FAIR not having any credibility here. Any organization that even refuses to acknowledge liberals as liberals (instead using the “progressive” euphemism adopted to hide their true agenda) has, as you once said, an axe to grind. And classifying the screamingly left-wing Susan Estrich as a “centrist” is laughable. To FAIR, it appears anyone to the right of Hugo Chavez counts as a “conservative” for purposes of their silly studies.
That said, I don’t disagree with your other points. The questions you cited that maybe should have been asked seem reasonable, and some degree of probing is always good.
Again, though, consider the contrast. Conservatives are used to probing, even outright attacks, from the leftist media outlets – one of the more extreme examples being Dan Rather’s attempted hit job on G.H.W. Bush which led to the ex-president administering an on-air smackdown. But when Bill Clinton got some mildly probing questions from Chris Wallace (a registered Democrat, by the way), it was an entirely new experience for Clinton, and he (and the entire left) reacted with their usual venom.
Again, my dispute with your stance is that you find it “horrible” when leftist media types are denied the chance to question conservatives, but you’re entirely understanding when the shoe is on the other foot. I’ve yet to hear you explain that inconsistency.
I think that the further out you go on the political extremes to either right or left the more alike they act. The far ends of the political spectrum both use the same tactics to silence their opponents. Sure, there are differences between right and left wing dictators but they both still use secret police, torture, and repression. It’s human nature to want to silence people who disagree with us and I think both sides are doing the same things. And the different media outlets make their money by throwing red meat to their respective followers. Their politics are more determined by what they think will help the profit margin than by what they really believe is right.
it amazes me how much time people have on their hands to debate whether or not someone made the right decision to be on “The View”. One day The View will end and their will be another show to take its place. One day we will all forget about his decision to “bow out” and it really won’t matter. Those who have unkind words to speak of him are obviously very young, have a lot of anger and are looking for a scapegoat, this situation seemed to fit for them and well you can fill in the rest.
One person pulls out of an interview for very personal reasons and it begins a backlash of political banter. ” who is right or wrong”. that debate can last an eternity and there will always be a new subject to discuss….