It would make the table kinda empty
Much like the earlier attempts to get Rosie O’Donnell fired, there is now an online movement to get Elisabeth Hasselbeck removed from the The View. The website Fire Elisabeth Hasselbeck asserts that Elisabeth should be fired because of “her blind defense of this administration” and her use of The View “as a platform to perpetuate inaccuracies about the Iraq War.”
Although there are plenty of people who dislike Elisabeth, wouldn’t her departure effectively grind the show to a screeching halt? Could you imagine a show with only Joy Behar and Barbara Walters? Nonetheless, for those of you interested, visit Fire Elisabeth Hasselbeck to sign the petition.
Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Rosie O’Donnell, petition, The View, Joy Behar, Barbara Walters
May 29th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Oh puleeze! I’m a gay liberal and I totally love Elisabeth! In my opinion, she’s the most articulate woman at the table whether you agree with what she says or not. I can’t believe her view on the war causes so much anger in people. The show is about DIFFERENT views. It would be boring if all 4 women were in agreement. Elisabeth is also the sweetest to all the guests, including Alicia Silverstone who snubbed her. Now that took some character, poise and self-control. Don’t let her blondeness or young age fool you. She’s one smart cookie!
May 29th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Sadly, this is where we’re headed in this country. Silence all conservatives! Isn’t that what the far left wants to do? Hey, it works for Chavez. It also worked for Hitler and Stalin.
Tallfreak, while I appreciate your sentiment - and you’re right, BTW - this is what the far left is out to do - and if the fairness doctrine gets passed, that’s exactly what will happen.
Instead of signing thier petition, we should educate them about free speech.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Winnie I came across your site back when anne nicole died and rosie had no kind words to follow her cheapshot in the hours preceding anne’s death.
I was addicted and although I a lesbian I could not stand Rosie’s addition to the show and that monday was the last straw.
Her demise was predictable from the moment I saw the announcement by bw on the emmys. I thought I’d abide my time and watch the downward crash and burn and then my favorite show would be back.
After anne nicole and a week of withdrawl I happened upon your site.
Perfect! I could kept up with the view without that bozo blocking the view. Your bias was towards bubba and that’s fine for all your effort you are entitled. but now your advertising petition sites to fire eh? how gauche.
I’ll no doubt continue to read on, happily so and please do keep up all you hard work, it is very appreciated but …
May 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I have to pretty much agree with Talkfreak.
I love Elisabeth, and share a lot of her views. Although I didn’t agree with Rosie’s views, I respected that she had a right to express her views, and liked her passion for what she believes in. The show is all about different “Views”. It needs a concervative’s point of View in my opinion.
And didn’t Rosie use the View as a platform to express her views??
(Also I am NOT at all for the Fairness Doctrine.)
May 30th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Jdawg -
Why are you always so obsessed with the “far left”? They don’t have any power in this country.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Jeff,
Apparently you haven’t been keeping up with current events.
The Democrats took Congress last Nov, and if you recall, the far-left made it clear they OWN the Dem party.
Bought, and paid in full by George Soros.
Far-left is what it is, and they won’t be happy until they have turned this country into a 3rd-world banana socialist/communist dictatorship.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Can you provide proof, please, to back up your statement that “the far-left made it clear they OWN the Dem party”? And statements from “far-leftists” don’t suffice - provide proof of some actions. Last I checked, the Democrats caved in and approved Bush’s Iraq-funding bill without a timetable.
By the way, more than half the country wants us out, so that’s not a far-left position.
Also, the Democrats wouldn’t have won back the Senate without moderates like Jon Tester, Jim Webb and Bob Casey.
So again - please provide some proof that far-leftists control the country.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:15 pm
You want proof, but you don’t want quotes from the people who say these things? What, do you subscribe to the Rosie model of “you can’t just blather your opinions here…”, or can you just not handle the truth?
I suspect both.
I can provide you with reams of info, but you would just ignore it.
In fact, I find that presenting fact to people like you is a lot like teaching a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
BTW, more than half the country does not want us to surrender. They want us to win - leftist want us to surrender. There’s a difference. I want us out, also, but I want us out VICTORIOUS - do you? Hmmmmm?
June 1st, 2007 at 10:58 am
Jdawg -
(1) I’ll clarify. Quotes from far-leftists saying that they have power do not prove that they have power; quotes just prove that they *say* they have power. Proof of *actions* would show that they have power.
(2) You state, “I want us out, also, but I want us out VICTORIOUS - do you?”
In order to answer that, I’d need to know what victory looks like. Please clarify what victory looks like - then I’ll be able to answer.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:16 am
Furthermore -
(3) You state: “BTW, more than half the country does not want us to surrender.”
According to a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll a couple of weeks ago, 24% of the public thinks we should give the surge time to work; 71% thinks we should either set benchmarks or a specific date for withdrawal.
What poll was your information from?
June 1st, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Jeff,
Again, I reiterate - show me a poll that says most was us to SURRENDER?????
Benchmarks - ok, timetable; no.
My opinions aren’t based on polls, and we shouldn’t conduct a war based on some silly skewed poll. I s’pose by that reasoning, we never should’ve gone after Hitler…
June 1st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
I never said most Americans want us to surrender. Since I didn’t make that argument, I’m not going to try and find a poll to show that it’s true. I said that more than half the country wants us out of Iraq, and I provided a link to a poll to back that up.
You claim that the poll is skewed. This is what the poll said:
“If you were a member of Congress, which one of the following proposals on Iraq would you vote for? Setting a specific deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Setting benchmarks for Iraq to meet to receive continued help from the U.S., but without a deadline for withdrawal. Giving the troop surge time to work before setting any benchmarks or deadlines.”
What about this is skewed?
I noticed that you didn’t answer my earlier question. You said, “I want us out, also, but I want us out VICTORIOUS - do you?” Again, what would victory look like to you?
Remember, this all started because I remarked that you seem to think the “far left” has tons of power - you said, “this is where we’re headed in this country.” But the “far left” doesn’t seem to have much power. The Democrats backed down from their confrontation with Bush when they decided to vote on an Iraq bill without a timetable.
“This is where we’re headed in this country.” Not sure where you think it is that we’re headed, or what it has to do with the “far left.”
June 1st, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Jeff,
There are only Two (count them, please) ways to leave Iraq:
1) In defeat - that is, we pull out without any resolution, leaving things as they are.
2) In victory - that is, with a stable gov’t in place, able to defend itself, with AQ on the ropes, gone, or in retreat.
So, I ask (again) - how do you want us to leave, in victory, or defeat?????
Not a difficult concept.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Oh, yes, now I understand, to you there IS no far-left, just something conservatives MADE UP to scare everybody, right?
Please.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Jdawg, first, I don’t understand all the biting sarcasm on your part when I’m trying to have a conversation with you, and second, it’s odd how you keep making assumptions about me. “I can provide you with reams of info, but you would just ignore it.” Oh really? “In fact, I find that presenting fact to people like you…” People like me? You don’t even know me. “Oh, yes, now I understand, to you there IS no far-left, just something conservatives MADE UP to scare everybody, right?” Where are you even getting this stuff from?
Thanks for defining victory! Now that you’ve done so, I can respond.
A “stable gov’t in place, able to defend itself, with AQ on the ropes, gone, or in retreat” would be great. If that’s the definition of victory, I’m all for victory!
Now: how do you suggest we accomplish that? Because we haven’t accomplished it so far.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Also: of course there are people with far-left views, just as there are people with far-right views. But I don’t think all ultra-leftists think in lockstep, nor do all ultra-rightists.
And the vast majority of the country ranges between center-right and center-left.
But you responded to a post on this website, a post that had nothing to do with the far left, and you wrote a comment showing some preoccupation on your part with the far left. “Sadly, this is where we’re headed in this country. Silence all conservatives! Isn’t that what the far left wants to do?”
As if “the far left” is some monolithic entity.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:59 pm
“I’m all for victory!”
I’m honestly glad to hear that. Really.
“Now: how do you suggest we accomplish that? Because we haven’t accomplished it so far.”
Were it up to me, I would ‘Cry havoc! and let slip the Dogs of War’ - that is, I would let our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines do what they’ve been trained to do - that is, get all kinds of biblical on these animals. Trust me, they respect that, and once they’ve been given the royal a$$ whupping of all time, they’ll back down like typical schoolyard bullies. The only reason they do what they do now is because they get away with it while we try to be all warm-and-fuzzy-and PC and “oh-can’t-we-just-all-get-along”
And, in case you don’t understand, or can’t grasp what I’m saying - the left in this country are doing all they can through groups like move-on and media matters to silence anything even remotely conservative. If you can’t see it, you’re blind or uninformed. My original post had to do with the cavalier way leftists put up sites and petitions calling for EH’s firing simply because she expressed a slightly conservative opinion. Throughout history, this is what tyrants have done - Hitler did it, Stalin did it, and today Hugo Chavez is doing it (to the delight of many liberals, BTW).
If you can’t understand that, then I don’t know what else to say.
Open your eyes, man. We have our rights, but those rights can be easily taken away. Unless we stand up for them.
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:54 am
OK - I can honestly respect your opinions in that last post.
As for “once they’ve been given the royal a$$ whupping of all time, they’ll back down like typical schoolyard bullies” - it’s not just Al Qaeda that’s causing the chaos in Iraq. It’s also the Sunnis and the Shiites fighting each other. Getting rid of Al Qaeda, if we can find them, isn’t going to end the chaos.
If we want to put our money where our mouth is, we should also bomb parts of Pakistan, since it’s a big haven for Al Qaeda members. For some reason we haven’t done that.
I don’t know what the hell we should do about Iraq. It’s a mess. I waver between thinking we should stay and thinking we should go. To be honest, at this point, I don’t trust this president to do anything right in regard to Iraq, whether we stay or go, and it’s not because he’s a Republican but because he’s incompetent. He’s screwed this up from the beginning, and I think it’s possible to hold that opinion whether or not one thinks going into Iraq was the right thing to do in the first place. We need someone who knows what the hell he’s doing, Republican or Democrat.
And from what I gather, you think the status quo needs to change also, even if we differ on how it needs to change.
As for the other point - “the left in this country are doing all they can through groups like move-on and media matters to silence anything even remotely conservative” - I have a few things to say.
First, that’s a pretty monolithic term, “the left.” I consider myself to be pretty liberal, especially on social issues. I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life (except for Mike Bloomberg, and he’s hardly a Republican). So I’m on the left. But I’m not trying to silence anyone.
Referring to “the left” makes it seem like there are three groups of people in this country - the left, the center, and the right - when really there are at least five: the far-left, the left, the center, the right, and the far-right - and probably even more subsets. When you say “the left,” you’re grouping a whole slew of people together with diverse views on a bunch of different things, just as I would be doing if I said “the right.” (Social conservatives? Fiscal conservatives? Catholics? Evangelicals? Neoconservatives? People who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal, or vice versa?)
That’s why it irks me when people refer to “the left” when they really mean certain individuals or organizations. One can hold leftist views and not be frothing at the mouth. I’m proof, as are tons of other people who feel like me. Criticize the group or the organization or people who hold a certain opinion, but try to be specific instead of tarring an entire political side. (That should go for people on the right and the left, by the way.)
As for groups like MoveOn and Media Matters trying to silence anything conservative - are they? I don’t really keep tabs on them. But it seems like Media Matters tries to point out inaccuracies in the media as well as instances of conservative bias. That’s hardly an attempt to silence conservatives. I see even less of a case with MoveOn - advocating liberal positions is not the same as silencing conservatives. And it looks like the MoveOn website right now has a plea for protecting Internet freedom.
It happens on both sides, by the way. Ari Fleischer told people to “watch what they say.” Joe Lieberman said, “in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.” Bush and Cheney have tried to silence war critics as well.
As for Hitler - he was hardly a leftist.
Finally, as for the thing that started all this - a petition to have Elisabeth Hasselbeck fired - that’s just a stupid idea. But people create stupid websites putting forth stupid ideas all the time. I don’t see MoveOn or Media Matters (or anyone, for that matter) supporting it.
I might keep reading this thread and responding, or I might not… at any rate, it’s been fun.
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:40 am
Jeff, check your history. The left today likes to makes us think Hitler was some analogy to a modern conservative. The truth is that Hitler took over the reins of something called the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party - the anacronym (in German) essentially pronounced Nazi.
Socialists are not right-wing.
They are left-wing.
Hitler was a Socialist.
Hitler was a leftist.
“Bush and Cheney have tried to silence war critics as well.”
Who?
“As for groups like MoveOn and Media Matters trying to silence anything conservative - are they?”
Yes. They are trying. They monitor everything said by any conservative anywhere. Then they try to raise a stink over it.
“If we want to put our money where our mouth is, we should also bomb parts of Pakistan, since it’s a big haven for Al Qaeda members. For some reason we haven’t done that.”
Yet. Keep in mind, the gov’t of Pakistan is working with us - for now.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
A few things:
(1) I said that Bush and Cheney have tried to silence war critics. You’re right to ask me to back it up with specifics and I shouldn’t have said that without backing it up. The reason I said it is because I had a vague recall of Cheney saying something to the effect of “war critics are helping the terrorists.” So I did a google search just now, and the first things that came up are this and this. (Please forgive the link to a liberal website - it’s the first thing that came up in my Google search for “Bush and Cheney have tried to silence war critics.”) I guess one can argue whether or not those are good examples. If they’re not good examples, then forget I said it.
Regardless, my point remains. My point in beginning this debate with you (which I’ve said a few times and will say once again) is that this kind of thing happens on the extremes of both sides, and it’s not a trait inherent in just liberalism or conservatism. It’s a trait inherent in the human debate process. Sometimes opponents detest each other’s views so much that they want to silence the opposition. It’s not a good thing. But it happens, and it’s not inherent to “leftists.”
(2) Monitoring everything said by any conservative anywhere and then trying to raise a stink over it isn’t the same thing as trying to silence conservatives. You can disagree with conservatives/liberals or call them idiots or dead wrong or claim that they’re overrepresented in the media. But that’s not the same as trying to silence conservatives/liberals. I don’t think anyone would seriously argue that Elisabeth Hasselbeck should be ejected from “The View” because she’s a conservative, except for some dork with a website. I took issue with your hyperbolizing from this one silly example.
(3) Whether Hitler was a leftist or a rightist is frankly irrelevant to all of this, because he was so beyond the pale that I don’t think he can be compared to anyone in the legitimate U.S. political spectrum today. When talking about Hitler, “left” and “right” lose all sense of meaning. I’m sure you’ve heard of Godwin’s Law.
So, to wrap this all up (AGAIN):
There are always going to be people who try to silence people who disagree with them, because it’s much more comfortable not to have to deal with disagreement. It’s just a thing that humans do. As one example, some random person made a website saying that Elisabeth Hasselbeck should be ejected from “The View.”
To make my point even shorter:
Stupid people exist.
I’m done.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
You’re right - not only are they not good examples, they are meaningless examples. If anyone had truly been “silenced” because they had been critical of the war, or of Bush’s policies, it would be all over the NYT, etc. You would have no problem finding it through Google. This is, unfortunately, a straw man created by the left. There is no evidence of such a thing, because frankly, it has never happened.
If you look in recent history in this country what you find is that those on the left are actually going out attacking Republicans - slashing tires, threatening with guns, shooting up GOP offices, etc. It isn’t hard to find. You never hear of the reverse because, again - quite frankly, GOPers don’t act like that.
I appreciate the debate and your civility. I do wish, though, that you would take some time to actually do a bit of checking. The idea that “both sides do it” just doesn’t wash. Yes, there are extremists on both sides of the political spectrum, but it’s fairly well known that the left is far more angry and antagonistic than the right. These things have been documented.
However, every tyrant in history seeks first to silence the opposition. Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Mao did it, Chavez is doing it right now. And there are many on the left who are pushing to see it happen here in the US. This issue with EH is hardly one single example. The desire is widely felt amongst the left.
If you would, go to http://www.newsbusters.org - you will see many examples of bias in the news, and you can see links to actual sources. I think it will help open your eyes.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Jeff,
Regarding Godwins law:
Looked it up, interesting - however, I mention Hitler, because he did what I said he did - it is a historic fact. The man did exist, and Nazis existed as well (they still do).
But I understand your point.