David Shuster exposes Republican Congresswoman ... absolutely hilarious stuff.

[Stoneburner]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/...-ever-killed-somebody/

I personally never would have thought of this, but Shuster's point is rather powerful. Why so much attention to a damn ad while you can't remember an actual soldier you represented?


Shuster: ?Let?s talk about the public trust. You represent, of course, a district in western Tennessee. What was the name of the last solider from your district who was killed in Iraq??

Blackburn:?The name of the last soldier killed in Iraq uh - from my district I - I do not know his name -?

Shuster: ?Ok, his name was Jeremy Bohannon, he was killed August the 9th, 2007. How come you didn?t know the name??

Blackburn: ?I - I, you know, I - I do not know why I did not know the name?? [Snip]

Shuster: ?But you weren?t appreciative enough to know the name of this young man, he was 18 years old who was killed, and yet you can say chapter and verse about what?s going on with the New York Times and Move On.org.? [Snip]

Shuster: ?But don?t you understand, the problems that a lot of people would have, that you?re so focused on an ad ? when was the last time a New York Times ad ever killed somebody? I mean, here we have a war that took the life of an 18 year old kid, Jeremy Bohannon from your district, and you didn?t even know his name.?

 

[OutHouse]

:roll: so what point are you trying to make?

Its pretty easy to make somebody look bad by asking a researched question that you know the answer to.

I find a question like this childish and very amateur. why would you find a stunt like this "powerful"?

 

[alchemize]

Quick, everyone post the name of the last soldier that died in your county without using the internets to research it!

Bzzt, I failed

 

[ProfJohn]

You could probably play that trick on nearly every member of congress.

Not sure what it accomplishes.

 

[Stoneburner]

It's a trick to know a dead soldier you represent but it's the height of legislative responsibility to continue to cry about an ad in a newspaper.


Makes perfect sense. It's called having your priorities straight, something the Republicans have failed at in recent times. The point here was that the NY times ad was IRRELEVANT and of little importance compared to say, a dead soldier. I am going to assume none of you will dispute that point.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
It's a trick to know a dead soldier you represent but it's the height of legislative responsibility to continue to cry about an ad in a newspaper.


Makes perfect sense. It's called having your priorities straight, something the Republicans have failed at in recent times. The point here was that the NY times ad was IRRELEVANT and of little importance compared to say, a dead soldier. I am going to assume none of you will dispute that point.

WTF?? ummm congress has a 11% approval rating with both houses controlled by the dems. the Dems are just as bad, take off your stupid blinders and stop being a sheep for one party.

 

[ProfJohn]

Yet another example of someone on the left using the death of a soldier to make a cheap political point.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Yet another example of someone on the left using the death of a soldier to make a cheap political point.

So by that comment we can infer you think the death (and dismemberment) of our young, brave soldiers is cheap. The thing that is cheap are words, not lives and like iot or not, he made that point rather well.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Yet another example of someone on the left using the death of a soldier to make a cheap political point.

So by that comment we can infer you think the death (and dismemberment) of our young, brave soldiers is cheap. The thing that is cheap are words, not lives and like iot or not, he made that point rather well.

Oh stop it, he meant the stunt was cheap. Twisting someone else's words doesn't help your position.

Was it a cheap stunt? Sure. Was it effective in showing misplaced priorities? Debateable. Is too much being made of an ad in a paper? Probably. Is the look on her face at the end of the video when he thanks her for stopping by priceless? Absofrigginlutely.

 

[Fern]

This Shuster sounds like a f'ing tool. What a cheap stunt.

(The politition doesn't sound like the *brightest light on the porch* either. I can't believe he played along with this juvenile crap like that.)

BTW: I doubt even he knows the name of the last guy from TN Killed. It takes a while to confirm it and inform the family etc. Bohannon is just the last one he knows about.

Fern

 

[Stoneburner]

Profjohn, he was using the cheapening of a soldier's life to make a very profound political point. Get it straight.

Tell me, is a soldier's life or death less important that a left wing ad? I'll await your yes or no answer.


And don't be whining about "Stunts" when the republicans have been using this ad as a way to NOT DEBATE the war itself.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Profjohn, he was using the cheapening of a soldier's life to make a very profound political point. Get it straight.

Tell me, is a soldier's life or death less important that a left wing ad? I'll await your yes or no answer.

And don't be whining about "Stunts" when the republicans have been using this ad as a way to NOT DEBATE the war itself.

Awaiting his answer as well....

 

[Lemon law]

The point being, if Congresswoman Blackburn had bothered to read the moveon.org ad, she would have found it far better researched than a mere blog. It takes hours to run down the various links provided and the moveon.org ad does make a rather compelling case that Petraeus has cooked the books in the past and is using phony statistics now.
And if Congresswoman Blackburn were honest she would not be exploiting the emotional issues. That fact that she does not care about who pays the price in her district only reinforces her ignorance.

Shuster neglected to do both and as such only did a half assed job of exposing a sadly typical congressperson. Republican or democrat, we elected them and now we pay the price in dollars.

Lets not forget the people who paid with their lives and died for lies.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Yet another example of someone on the left using the death of a soldier to make a cheap political point.

Why is it not permissable for people to mention that soldiers are in fact dying in this war? Every time someone brings it up it's "exploiting deaths for political points". Are we supposed to pretend that people just count to 10 after they get shot? People with families, children, hopes, and dreams are being killed every single day because of this war. If you're going to support it... then accept the fact that people are going to remind you of this.

I do believe that the interviewer's point was 100% right that the republicans are spending an insane amount of time whining about a newspaper ad (because they think they can make political hay out of it), when there are obviously other priorities they could be attending to.

That being said, yeah it was definitely an ambush. I don't like it when Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity do them all the time, and so it wasn't very fair of them to do this here. I especially don't see the point when the interviewer is obviously right... why resort to an ambush when you've got a topic you can just legitimately slam them on? I do have to admit it was pretty satisfying to see her get knocked off her anti NYT talking points and flail around though.

 

[eits]

i think that was a dick move by shuster.

so many people die in iraq and it's hard to remember names you're not familiar with. you hear or read them and you forget them.

something like the moveon.org thing is more high-profile and easier to remember aspects of.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Yet another example of someone on the left using the death of a soldier to make a cheap political point.

QFT.... it's sickening

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
It's a trick to know a dead soldier you represent but it's the height of legislative responsibility to continue to cry about an ad in a newspaper.


Makes perfect sense. It's called having your priorities straight, something the Republicans have failed at in recent times. The point here was that the NY times ad was IRRELEVANT and of little importance compared to say, a dead soldier. I am going to assume none of you will dispute that point.

guaranteed that if he asked the same question to a democrat, they'd probably respond the same way.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Yet another example of someone on the left using the death of a soldier to make a cheap political point.

QFT.... it's sickening

oh stfu... as if the right doesn't use the death of a soldier as a tool for personal political gain...

almost all of our politicians use dead soldiers as a tool, one way or another.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Yet another example of someone on the left using the death of a soldier to make a cheap political point.

QFT.... it's sickening

oh stfu... as if the right doesn't use the death of a soldier as a tool for personal political gain...

almost all of our politicians use dead soldiers as a tool, one way or another.

They do... but that doesn't make this example any less sickening.

ps: gtfu.

 

[Starbuck1975]

oh stfu... as if the right doesn't use the death of a soldier as a tool for personal political gain... almost all of our politicians use dead soldiers as a tool, one way or another.

Doesn't make it right regardless...this was a cheap political stunt, nothing more...and it proves nothing.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

oh stfu... as if the right doesn't use the death of a soldier as a tool for personal political gain... almost all of our politicians use dead soldiers as a tool, one way or another.

Doesn't make it right regardless...this was a cheap political stunt, nothing more...and it proves nothing.

Was it supposed to prove something? Perhaps that one cheap stunt deserves another?

 

[imported_Baloo]

What Clinton said, about people being invisible to the current administration, extends to the house and senate republicans as well, that is what is being said here.



Edit: and let's not forget what the republicans went on about John Kerry. Clearly, they have much lower standards for themselves that they hold for others. Listen to them whine when it's one of their own.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

ProfJohn said:

Yet another example of someone on the left using the death of a soldier to make a cheap political point.

When will you people look for the media to call out these political charlitans..She sat there and said how emotionly & phyisicaly "in touch' with ALL military families in her district", but couldn't name this soldiers name...laughable, all she wanted to talk about was the MovOn ad

I guess it just depends on which soldier you want to throw over the side of your swiftboat, huh? By the way, it makes it easier to do so if they are missing two legs and an arm.

Cheap political point, my ass. These particular Republicans have no longer the right to call anyone out on issues of character, integrity, honor, decency. Those words have no meaning coming out of their mouths.

Normally, I would never be caught dead subjecting myself to the bowtied shrieks of "Tucker Carlson" on MSNBC, but it so happened that David Shuster was substituting for him, so I gave it a spin. Which makes me wonder, do Tucker's ratings spike when a real journalist takes his seat?.

The gratifying segment was Shuster's exploration of Republican hypocrisy regarding the NYT Petraeus ad vis-a-vis Rush Limbaugh's similarly uncivil labeling of Chuck Hagel as "Senator Betray Us." Shuster's guest/pinata was Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), whose district has a military base from which many soldiers are deployed to Iraq.

He started by asking if she would "like to take this opportunity to condemn" Limbaugh's comments about Senator "Betray Us" Hagel. She, of course, said she'd rather fixate on the NYT ad. The best part, however, was when Shuster asked her the name of the latest soldier from her district to die in Iraq. When she predictably didn't know, he then asked her why she didn't know this when she apparently knows so much about the vagaries of the Petraeus ad.

Although the setup was a tad sneaky of Shuster, it was quite enjoyable watching Rep. Blackburn squirm in the stench of her own misplaced priorities. When David Shuster thanked her for coming on the show, she just fumed, tight-lipped.

Paragons of media mediocrity Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck get their own shows, but not David Shuster?

 

[Moonbeam]

His name was CannonFodder3900

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
His name was CannonFodder3900

Wrong, I believe the official count is more like 3800 at the moment. You are at least 2.5% in error.

But only Patraeus's combination hairdresser mortuary assistant czar knows for sure and the missing metric may be was he shot in the back of the head or the front of the head? Once we know these things we can properly and accurately distill a formerly living person into a clean sanitary proper statistic. Dead bodies no longer need names.