Tuesday, 16 October 2007
GUEST COMMENTARY: RUDY GIULIANI ON HILLARY CLINTON'S 'EXPERIENCE'
Tonight, Hannity & Colmes (9PM Eastern time, Fox News Channel) will air
an interview with Rudy Giuliani. Here is an excerpt in which Mr. Giuliani
talks about Hillary Clinton's "experience". See if you can find even one
word that you could dispute:.
"Honestly, in most respects, I don't know Hillary's experience. She's never
run a city, she's never run a state. She's never run a business. She has never
met a payroll. She has never been responsible for the safety and security of
millions of people, much less even hundreds of people.
"So I'm trying
to figure out where the experience is here. It would seem to me that in a time
of difficult problems and war we don't want on the job training for an
executive. The reality is that these areas in which - maybe there are some
areas in which she has experience but the areas of having the responsibility
of the safety and security of millions of people on your shoulders is not
something Hillary has ever had any experience
It should be fun hearing Ms. Clinton's answer to this. If she can come
up with one.
RANDI RHODES UPDATE
Earlier today I blogged about Randi Rhodes, the leftward talk show host
of Air America, being brutally mugged while walking her dog in Manhattan.
I wished her a speedy recovery and hoped that whoever did it to her was caught
and punished to the fullest extent of the law.
I also villified the people who were using Rhodes' mugging as a vehicle for
attacking the "right wing"
Well, now I have to backtrack. A lot.
Here is the latest on this "attack", from the New York Daily News (bold print
Air America host Randi Rhodes wasn't mugged
Tuesday, October 16th 2007,
truth to the rumors that Air America host Randi Rhodes (above) was mugged near
39th St. and Park Ave. Sunday night. She is scheduled to return to the air on
Air America radio host Randi Rhodes is temporarily
off the air, but claims she was brutally attacked near her Manhattan apartment
are bogus, her lawyer and a police source said today.
Fellow host Jon Elliott claimed on the
liberal radio network that Rhodes had been mugged while walking her dog, Simon,
on Sunday night. Elliot, who said Rhodes lost several teeth in the attack, waxed
about a possible conspiracy.
"Is this an attempt by the right-wing,
hate machine to silence one of our own?" he asked on the air, according to
Talking Radio, a blog. "Are we threatening them? Are they afraid that were
winning? Are they trying to silence intimidate us?"
A police source said Rhodes never filed a
report and never claimed to be the victim of a mugging. Cops from Manhattan's
17th Precinct called her attorney, who told them Rhodes was not a victim of a
crime, the source said.
Rhodes' lawyer told the Daily News she was
injured in a fall while walking her dog. He said she's not sure what happened,
and only knows that she fell down and is in a lot of pain. The lawyer
said Rhodes expects to be back on the air Thursday. He stressed there is no
indication she was targeted or that she was the victim of a "hate
Rhodes started with the Air America when it
launched in 2004. Her show airs from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. weekdays.
The network released a statement that said Rhodes
"experienced an unfortunate incident."
"The reports of a presumed hate crime are
unfounded," the statement read by a receptionist at the network's New York
offices said. "Ms. Rhodes is looking forward to being back on the air on
Now this is, to say the least, different from the earlier reports.
And, yes, it makes Jon Elliott look like a paranoid nutcake, which I
suspect is wholly accurate.
So I apologize to readers for believing the initial report that Randi Rhodes was the
victim of a mugging. It apparently was nothing more than a BS fantasy of the leftwing
website I made the mistake of taking at its word.
And Jon Elliott? Think of him as a natural spokesperson for LAMB
Central -- and an excellent choice for a venue like Air America.
(For them's who don't know, a LAMB is a member of the Lunatic-left And
THE RANDI RHODES MUGGING
Randi Rhodes is a talk show host on Air America. On Sunday night, while
walking her dog in Manhattan, she was mugged and hurt badly, as you can see by
the account below:
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Randi Rhodes was mugged on
Sunday night on 39th Street and Park Ave, nearby her Manhattan apartment, while
she was walking her dog Simon.
According to Air America
Radio late night host Jon
Elliott, Rhodes was beaten up pretty
badly, losing several teeth and will probably be off the air for at least the
rest of the week. At of late Monday night we have not able to locate any press
accounts of the attack and nothing has been posted on the AAR
Several liberal blogs,
including the Randi Rhodes Message Board and Democratic Underground have logged numerous posts on the Rhodes mugging with most of the
posters expressing concern about the condition of the popular lib
Morning talk host, Lionel filled in for Rhodes on Monday, but did
not say anything about why she wasnt on hand to do her show. The Randi Rhodes
board reports that Sam Seder, who does a Sunday
afternoon show for AAR, will be filling on Tuesday and Wednesday.
was extremely agitated when he reported on the incident. He opened his show by
saying "it is with sadness that tonight I inform you that my Air America
colleague Randi Rhodes was assaulted last night while walking her dog near her
New York City home."
Pointing out that Rhodes was wearing a jogging suit
and displayed no purse or jewelry, Elliott speculated that "this does not appear
to me to be a standard grab the money and run mugging."
"Is this an
attempt by the right wing hate machine to silence one of our own," he asked.
"Are we threatening them. Are they afraid that we're winning. Are they trying to
silence intimidate us."
Some of blog posters also expressed concerns that
the attack on Rhodes was hate crime. Other posters warned that we need more
facts before any judgements are made.
According to Elliott, Rhodes was
resting in her New York City apartment and was not hospitalized.
on liberal talk radio stations and their hosts are not a new thing. About a
month ago a gunman fired a shot through a window at the studios of KPFT, Houstons, Pacifica station narrowly missing a DJ who was
hosting music show at the time. There is currently a $10,000 reward offered to
anyone who identifies the shooter.
This is not the first politically
motivated attack on KPFT. More than 35 years ago, the Ku Klux Klan blew up the
station's transmitters twice within the Houston station's first year on the
Also, according to a blogger on Democratic
Underground, Thom Hartmann said on his Friday
show that his auto repairman, after replacing his windshield, pointed out to him
that he had three bullet holes in his car.
Apparently, some right-wing
critics of lib talk arent happy that conservative talk only accounts for 90% of
the programming on talk radio. These whack jobs appear determined to whatever it
takes to silence the opposing point of view.
Not surprisingly, the only
talk radio host killed for his political views was a liberal. In 1984, two right
wing extremists gunned down Denver talk show host Alan Berg. Bergs tragic
murder was memorialized in a chilling movie Talk
Let's start with the hope that Ms. Rhodes recovers as fully as possible (it
can't be 100% if she's lost teeth). Let's hope that the person or persons
who mugged her are caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Let's also hope that not everyone immediately politicizes the mugging, as is
done in the article I have shown you above (which came from an unnamed writer on
an apparently liberal/left site called www.talkingradio.blogspot.com.
Any regular reader of www.hopelesslypartisan.com probably knows that I don't like Randi
Rhodes. She is not a "liberal" talk show host, she is a far lefter whose
comments make Imus look like a pussycat by comparison. She was the one who
suggested - in a humorous way, at least to her reckoning - that the president of
the United States be shot to death. In terms of her politics and what she
says on the air, Randi Rhodes makes me sick to my stomach.
However, my disagreement with her positions has nothing
whatsoever to do with my feelings about her physical safety. I do NOT wish her ill, I certainly do not wish her physical harm,
and I want whoever did this to her to be held to the fullest penalty our legal
I wonder if the writer, who didn't have the courage to put his/her name
to the above article, would feel the same if the victim was, say, Rush Limbaugh
or Sean Hannity.
Randi Rhodes' mugging is not a political issue, at least not at this
point. If the mugger is found, we will then have a chance to know for sure
what his/her/their motives were. Until then, turning Rhodes' tragedy into
a political hate-fest, based 100% on a combination of personal animosity and
speculation, is odious.
NEWS REPORTAGE, A LA THE TODAY SHOW
This morning, the Today show did a feature on Don Imus' impending return to
This is obviously a legitimate story, given the offensive, racist comment Imus
made (calling the mostly-Black Rutgers University woman's basketball team
"nappy-headed ho's") and well worth the time they gave it. So far, so
But now, however, we get to what they reported -- or, more
exactly, what they didn't report. And then there is this
little matter of the guest they chose to discuss Imus' return:
-Today reported that there was a very strong and very negative reaction to
Imus' comments, which they supplemented with footage of protest
What they did not report, however, is that Imus had a 15 year history
of making offensive comments like this without a thing happening to him.
And the reason this one comment turned into something more was that it was
pushed hard by an entity called mediamatters.org (yes, one of my
co-author Barry Sinrod's favorites).
Mediamatters.org is a hard-left activist website funded by the USA
hating george soros and run by the
With a pedigree like that, it is not surprising that a lot of the
mainstream media in this country act like they're salivating at the
corners of their collective mouths every time this site gives them
directions as to what is and isn't newsworthy.
Mediamatters.org jumped all over Imus. So mainstream media - which,
again, never cared about his similarly racial comments over the years -
jumped all over Imus too, right on cue. It is as simple, and as
Pavlovian, as that.
-Now we come to the one and only guest Today interviewed about
the Imus incident. No two sides here, just one guy.
Using basic logic, you would think that if Today had one person
on to discuss Imus, he/she would be prepared to present both
That probably would mean the guest would be a journalist. It
certainly could not be a partisan for one side of the issue, because that
wouldn't be journalism at all, that would be explicit support for one
side. Complicity with that side. Right?
So who is Today's one guest? It is al sharpton: a career
racist and anti-semite whom media have spent years polishing and trying to
sanitize for their viewers/readers.
That's right, al sharpton. The man who gave us the tawana brawley
fraud, the Freddy's Fashion Mart torching, who called orthodox Jews "diamond
merchants", who called Freddy Harari with his decades-long history in Harlem a
"White interloper", who has avidly supported louis farrakhan, who proudly went
to the funeral of khalid muhammad, a racist/anti-semite who made farrakhan
look like a model of tolerance by comparison -- and, more recently, the guy
whose voice was among the loudest demanding that Imus be taken off the
THAT was the one guest they brought on to discuss Imus.
He was great, too. What theater sharpton provides. He assured
Today show viewers that he believed in redemption and that Imus has every
right to work, but that if Imus doesn't say the things sharpton approves of,
he and his shadowy "group", the "National Action Council" could put the wood
to advertisers and try to force them to back away.
Now there's a great show of redemption. If you don't become al
sharpton's mouthpiece he will use the power and influence conferred upon him
by an all too willing media, to bounce you off the air again.
So there you have it. Information, Today Show style. Geared to
turning people into sheeple and keeping them that way.
Thanks, Matt. Great going Meredith. You're doing a bangup
"PHONY SOLDIERS"? HOW ABOUT A SOLDIER PHONY
Yes, we've heard and seen countless stories about the thoroughly phony claim
that Rush Limbaugh called all troops who don't agree with the war in Iraq "phony
But do you remember that soldier who was filing those horrible stories about
US atrocities in Iraq for The New Republic? Do you even remember that
there WAS such an incident?
Well, let me refresh your memory: Months ago The New Republic started
publishing a series of damning eyewitness reports from the Iraq
battlefield. They were supposed to have come from a soldier named "Scott
Thomas". Trouble was, no one could find him.
Finally, it came out that the soldier's actual name was Scott Thomas
Beauchamp. And apparently just about everything he was reporting to The
New Republic was either grossly exaggerated or
Despite this, TNR stood by their reports, and promised to get to the bottom
of what was true and what wasn't.
Now, I'll let the invaluable www.powerline.com take over and show you how
this has played out after over two months:.
October 15, 2007
coverup that kills you, part 2
Its been another week without word from the New
Republic on the status of its "investigation" into the columns of TNR Baghdad
Diarist Scott Thomas Beauchamp. "The editors" have not spoken on the matter
since their August 10 update. At that time "the editors" spoke grandly of their "commitment to the
truth" and their efforts to resolve the "legitimate concerns about journalistic
accuracy" that had been raised by the critics of Beauchamp's TNR Baghdad Diarist
columns. They also said they took those concerns "extremely seriously."
Nine weeks later, however, they have produced no
new information and their promises seem empty. Indeed, TNR's August 10 statement
and the silence that has followed become increasingly dishonest with each
passing day. Then TNR said that the Army was "stonewalling" its investigation
and that the Army had "rejected our requests to speak to Beauchamp." We now know
that TNR editor Franklin Foer spoke with Scott Beauchamp on September 7. Of
course, it wasn't TNR that reported this call, but rather blogger Bob Owens,
who learned of the call from an Army spokesman.
Further, "the editors" responded to earlier
reports that Beauchamp had recanted and no longer stood by his "Shock troops" column by saying, in TNR's carefully worded formulation, that "it is our
understanding that Beauchamp continues to stand by his stories and insists that
he has not recanted them." TNR did not deny the report, but neither was it
conceding the fact.
Five weeks after speaking with Beauchamp "the
editors" have not contradicted the report. And its accuracy has since been
confirmed on the record by Beauchamp's commanding officer, Col. Ricky Gibbs. TNR
has made no effort to challenge Gibbs's account either.
On August 10, after assuring their readers that
they had "not thus far uncovered factual evidence (aside from one key detail) to
discount his personal dispatches" (notwithstanding the fact that the mistaken
"key detail" made nonsense of Beauchamp's "Shock troops" column), the editors
asked the Army to allow them, "or any other media outlet, for that matter," to
speak with Beauchamp. This statement is particularly galling in retrospect, as
we now know that it is TNR -- not the Army -- that has gagged Beauchamp. On
September 7 "the editors" asked their author to cancel interviews he had
scheduled with the Washington Post and Newsweek. Given their "commitment to the
truth," one wonders why they would make such a request. But do they deny that
TNR editor Franklin Foer and executive editor
Peter Scoblic seem to think that they can keep up this charade indefinitely, but
it is only the indifference of the MSM that has let them get away with it for
this long. "The editors" closed their August 10 update by saying that they
refused to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves -- virtually the only
honest statement weve ever gotten from TNR on this matter. But it should not be
the last. At some point theyll have to say something on the subject, only then
the questions wont be about Beauchamp. They will be about "the
UPDATE: Bob Owens comments here, John
Charles Johnson of www.littlegreenfootballs.com
makes a terrific point about media's non-interest in this scandal:.
Contrast (media attention to this) with the MSM
frenzy over a distorted quote from Rush Limbaugh; here we have a case where
false, disgusting stories about soldiers in Iraq by a proven liar were
disseminated by a so-called reputable source, and the New York Times,
Washington Post, and every other mainstream outlet just blinks and moves
Does Johnson ever get THAT right!
If you want an example of blatant media bias - media bias that attempts
to manipulate you - this is a classic. And don't ever forget that there's
plenty more where that came from, most of which you're not going to read about
in this blog.
Be skeptical. Be very skeptical.
DCC CONDEMNATION OF RUSH LIMBAUGH: UPDATE
Here is the latest update on the DCC (Democratic Clown College) letter
condemning Rush Limbaugh, which was signed by 41 Democratic Senators,
including the instigator, senate malaise leader harry reid.
As you probably know, Limbaugh put the original letter up for auction on
E-bay, with all proceeds pledged for a fund to educate the children of
fallen marines and law enforcement officers.
With three days to go, the current high bid is $50,300. Count on it
ending up appreciably higher.
If Senate Democrats had even the slightest idea of how idiotic Limbaugh is
making them look, they would be on TV and radio already, pledging to match the
high bid dollar for dollar. In that way they might - MIGHT - be able to
make a few of the more gullible among us see them in a positive light regarding
the condemnation letter.
After all, they would both be laughing at themselves (self-deprecation is
great when trying to get out from under a mistake this big) and
contributing every bit as much to the organizations Limbaugh is benefitting
(i.e. they'd be philanthropists too).
But, at least so far, not a peep out of them.
This, folks, is political tone-deafness at its
Will the Republican party successfully nail Hillary Clinton as someone who
spied on her political opponents - much as Richard Nixon's "plumbers" did during
the Watergate scandal?
Well, here is an article from www.thehill.com, detailing the allegations
Republicans would use to do so. Please note the source - two long time
reporters from, of all places, The New York Times. As usual, the bold
print is mine:.
GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call
|October 16, 2007 |
plan to seize on an allegation from the 1992 presidential campaign to
tarnish Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on the red-hot issue of
Government surveillance will be
at the forefront of the political debate this fall as congressional
Democrats and President Bush square off over legislation allowing
electronic spying on U.S. soil without a warrant.
Republicans are focusing on an allegation in
a recent book by two Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters, which suggests
Clinton listened to a secretly recorded conversation between political
In their book about Clintons rise to power,
Her Way, Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York
Times, and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at
the paper, wrote: Hillarys defense activities ranged from the
inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos
about the status of various press inquiries; she vetted senior campaign
aides; and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone
conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack.
tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with
allegations about an affair with Bill, Gerth and Van Natta wrote in
reference to Clintons husband, former President Bill Clinton. Bills
supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was
made during one of those monitoring sessions.
official said, Hillary Clintons campaign hypocrisy continues to know no
bounds. It is rather unbelievable that Clinton would listen in to
conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow
our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by
terrorists as they plot and plan to kill us. Team Clinton can expect to
see and hear this over and over again over the course of the next
Gerth told The Hill that he learned of the incident
in 2006 when he interviewed a former campaign aide present at the tape
playing. He has not revealed the aides identity. Clintons campaign has
not disputed any facts reported in the final version of his book, which
became public this spring, he said.
It hasnt been
challenged, said Gerth. There hasnt been one fact in the book thats
Clintons spokesman panned the book but
declined to discuss the allegation that Clinton had reviewed secretly
recorded calls. We dont comment on books that are utter and complete
failures, said Clintons press secretary, Philippe Reines.
Her Ways Amazon.com sales rank is 43,016.
Several legal experts said it was illegal to
intercept cell phone conversations in 1992.
Its been clear that
since 1986 it was illegal to intercept an individual cell phone call,
said Barry Steinhardt, the director of the technology and liberty program
at the American Civil Liberties Union.
In 1986, Congress
broadened wiretapping law to prohibit the interception of electronic
communications, as well as the use or disclosure of intercepted electronic
communications. Two court cases have since cited that action in ruling the
interception of cell phone communications illegal: Bartnicki v. Vopper,
2001, and Company v. United States, 2003.
Clinton has made privacy
an issue on the campaign trail. In July, she discussed her privacy bill of
rights in a speech to the American Constitution Society. The proposed
rights, ensconced in the Protect Act, include the right to sue when
privacy rules have been violated; the right to protect phone records; and
the right to freeze credit in the event of identity theft.
the same speech, she addressed the controversy over government
Every president should save those powers for
limited, critical situations, said Clinton, according to a copy of the
speech posted on her campaign website. And when it comes to a regular
program of searching for information that touches the privacy of ordinary
Americans, those programs need to be monitored and reviewed as set out by
Congress in cooperation with the judiciary.
That is the essence of
the compact we have with each other and with our government, and we cannot
In August, Clinton voted against an emergency
law that temporarily expanded the governments power to conduct
surveillance on American soil without a warrant. The bill was
criticized for being overly broad and sidelining the role of a special
court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Senates
other Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.), Chris
Dodd (Conn.), and Joseph Biden (Del.), also voted against the bill.
Clintons chief political strategist, Mark Penn, became
embroiled recently in a controversy over intercepted electronic
communications. Mitchell Markel, a former vice president at Penns firm,
Penn, Schoen & Berland, filed a lawsuit against Penn accusing him of
intercepting e-mail. Markel claimed that the firm illegally monitored
messages sent from his BlackBerry after he joined another company.
Markel dropped the suit in July after reaching a settlement with Penn,
Hmmmm. You read this and come away with the impression that, to
Hillary, surveillance is a sometimes thing. If you're surveilling to
protect our national security, forget about it. If you're surveilling to
enhance Hillary Clinton's political ambitions, no problem at all.
Will this come back to bite Senator Clinton during the campaign (this, of
course, assumes she will be the nominee - which, as of now, is certainly a
great likelihood)? Well, maybe. A lot depends on how media handle
If the past is any indication, "heroine Hillary" will be spared most of the
brunt of this allegation. But, who knows? Maybe media will (gasp!)
decide to treat her the way they'd treat other presidential hopefuls under the
I'll wait and see. But I can't say I'm optimistic.