Frankly, that was more of an optimistic headline than the current fact — I would sincerely HOPE all bloggers, free speakers, liberty lovers and activists of all stripes would stop and THINK about the Clintons’ reaction to NBC’s David Shuster’s rather opinionated (and offensive to some) recent remark regarding their daughter, Chelsea. Unfortunately, I’m afraid it’s not going to be sinking in with the general public; the FACT that our civil liberties and Constitutionally “re-iterated”, Creator-granted 1st Amendment civil right to speak one’s mind are in grave danger under a Clinton or McCain presidency.
I’ll be getting back to that one in a few — don’t worry, The GTL ain’t gonna be leavin’ ya’ hangin’ — but FIRST, a “snippet” from Howard Kurtz’ Op-Ed piece in today’s Washington Post:
Chelsea Remark Earns MSNBC Correspondent A Suspension
By Howard Kurtz
In case there was any doubt, using a prostitution metaphor for the daughter of a presidential candidate is not a good career move.
MSNBC suspended correspondent David Shuster yesterday for an undetermined period for making a disparaging on-air remark about Chelsea Clinton. Meanwhile, officials in her mother’s campaign raised the possibility of punishing the news channel by boycotting future debates.
While filling in as a host Thursday, Shuster was discussing the 27-year-old’s role in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign with two guests when he asked: “Doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?”
Howard Wolfson, the campaign’s communications director, called Shuster’s remark “disgusting,” “beneath contempt” and “the kind of thing that should never be said on a national news network.” Wolfson appeared to suggest that Clinton is reconsidering an agreement this week to participate in an MSNBC debate Feb. 26 in Cleveland, saying: “I at this point can’t envision doing another debate on that network.” …
First, I highly DOUBT Mr. Kurtz’ assumption that Mr. Shuster’s remark is “… not a good career move.” For one thing, the world now knows the name “David Shuster” when last week, very few folks had any idea our Creator had even created a pundit by the name of “David Shuster” — at least, not many in my own circle of influence. Now we have and he is precisely the brand of jackass who’ll flourish on the FoxNooz Channel. I highly DOUBT this man’s career is “over” as many are demanding and predicting. Furthermore; NBC’s family of “nooz bidnesses” has every right to do what they feel is important to their “bidness” model. Fine.
But, back to Sir Hillary Rodham Clinton, her vodka drinking buddy, the Sheriff John McCain and how this episode should serve to highlight these front-running candidates’ pea-brained points of view when it comes to the topic of a Citizen’s RIGHT to speak his or her opinion freely and without interference from a “Gub’mint” official…
First, let’s take the “Sheriff” — five little words and the point is made: “McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform“. The most recent assault upon the 1st Amendment civil liberty of Free Speech by any politician and whose name appears FIRST? If you happened to notice it was the name “McCain”, you get an “A-Plus” on the exam. Guaranteed, the “Sheriff” will take his attack to the blogosphere and private emails if elected “Commander-In-Chief” (of the MILITARY — NOT the Citizenry, as myself and my co-blogger, Michael Linn Jones, have been pointing out for YEARS on this blog). Point made; case closed on Mr. McCain; now, it’s onto Sir Hillary; be forewarned though; a little more THINKING is required on my next point.
Mizz Clinton has the RIGHT to be offended, doesn’t she? She and her family, after all, were denigrated by Mr. Shuster’s remark, much as would be should she ever happen to stumble across The GTL™, where she is routinely made MINCEMEAT of. Fine. This is America and nobody truly has any RIGHT not to be offended either though, correct? But, she is offended by Mr. Shuster, which is somewhat understandable — unfortunately for HER, the reaction by the Clinton campaign to Mr. Shuster’s remark clearly reveals the mindset of Sir Hillary when it comes to the topic of the 1st Amendment…
One gentleman offends her while making an UNSCRIPTED remark, therefore; the ENTIRE COMPANY MUST BE PUNISHED and denigrated as a result. Doesn’t this sound an awful lot like the mindset of President Bush who continues to insinuate “nooklee-ir” weapons should remain an option for the United States due to the fact he has a PERSONAL grievance with the jackass “figurehead” (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) in Iran? The former dictator of Iraq?
Haven’t we had it up to our ears with pea-brained presidents who are quick to point the barrels at large groups of people for the insulting remarks of a single person amongst those groups? And even scarier is the fact that David Shuster does not belong in any way, shape, or form to the leadership of THIS particular large group of people (MS / NBC); he’s just a regular employee. FRIGHTENING, the fact our country is now in grave danger of being led for four to eight years by one of two trigger-happy, Free Speech-hating, tunnel-visioned people no matter WHICH side of the aisle is represented. It’s easy enough to imagine a foreign policy of such a “leader” by looking to the current Bush Administration — no imagination needed.
Is this an endorsement for Barack Obama? Hell, how COULD it be? There is a lot left to be learned about the Senator from Illinois before I can even go there. I’m open-minded at this point to back ANY third-party moderate, slightly-left (economically speaking), FAR South (liberty-wise) candidate should anybody fitting that description emerge. Not likely, but there is always hope, I suppose. Apparently, Mike Gravel (D-INO) is still officially in the race (?), so there’s another alternative. Perhaps he and Ron Paul (R-INO) should consider making a third party run together — the former for president; the latter for veep? The time is right, I’d say.
But I DO know one thing — Sir Hillary Rodham Clinton and her vodka drinking buddy (fact, by the way), Sheriff John McCain should NOT, under ANY circumstance, be appointed over the four branches of our military…
Unless the idea of four to eight more years of neoconservatism and “Big Brother” via the Clintonian “Nanny State” or the McCainian “Police State”, and most likely, World War III appeals to you. And yes, Sir Hillary Rodham Clinton — former Wal-Mart executive; former Republican activist (Barry Goldwater campaign); IS a neoconservative just in case you didn’t already know that.
For God’s Sake, my fellow Americans — THINK before you break out the wallets and THINK TWICE before you vote.
***
Thanks to our good friend Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice for including this post in his “must read” blogger roundup entitled Around The Campaign 2008 Sphere…
Other blogger opinions, courtesy in part, to MemeOrandum: Althouse; skippy the bush kangaroo; The Moderate Voice (Our good friend Joe Gandelman has another fantastic roundup over there); Captain’s Quarters (Right); Outside The Beltway (Right); Hullabaloo; Ace of Spades HQ (Right); Drudge Retort; The Left Coaster; Matthew Yglesias; The Impolitic (Our good friend Libby Spencer); Shakesville; Democrat Taylor Marsh
Loading ...
3:15 pm on February 9th, 2008 1
Shuster isn’t likely to find a home on Fox, he’s the most liberal person on MSNBC. In fact he supports Obama. This is like going after Olbermann beacuase he said one off color comment. That’s what aggravates me about this. Yes, it was a dumb comment but it’s the fact that he is susceptible to pressure because of his liberalism that makes this disgusting from Wolfson. Compared to the swill that comes out of actual Fox newscasters, he’s a liberal champion. We should be protecting people like Shuster, not attacking him.
2:02 pm on February 10th, 2008 2
[...] And Don’t Miss This MUST READ On Shuster/Clinton by The Gun Toting Liberal [...]
9:50 am on February 11th, 2008 3
I’m always curious when someone starts shrieking about their 1st amendment rights being stripped away when someone says disgraceful and ugly, which lowers the level of political discourse in this nation to that of an open air cockfight. These are the same people who screech about freedom of the press when the airwaves are loaded with the mind-numbing minutiae of Britney Spears’ latest embarassing escapade, when time would be better served exposing the corruption and greed in our current administration. Part of that right is responsibility, and the willingness to know what’s appropriate to say and when to keep your thoughts to yourself. When did leaving something offensive and vulgar unsaid become a bad thing ? Did I skip that meeting ?