Shuster on Gates controversy: "Isn't Rush Limbaugh now making this a racist issue with his own rhetoric?"
July 24, 2009 5:15 pm ET
From the 3 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on July 24:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Both Shuster and the female co-host (Whos name I dont know) came off as militant and angry just attacking the conservative for being a conservative.
The blonde lady gave a uber poor defense of Obama, and based on just her argument and the conservative guy's argument the conservative won that debate
The overall problem here was that the conservative refused to admit what Rush said was racist and the MSNBC team refused to admit that what the President said was stupid (both facts I beleve are true) because what Rush said was no worse then what Obama said, so you cant praise one and condem the other as both sides tried to do here
Secondly, what is this "attack the conservative for being a conservative" jazz? FNC attacks people. This was tough questioning and fact digging, which we always ask for... and now, when one does it, we cry foul?
Sorry, I'm not with you on this take at all.
But the fact is that the anchors and other guest kept double teaming the conservative guest before he could fully anwser the question. That is very much a FNC tactic and should not be on a credible news station.
Each side got their say but then when they went back to the Con for expalnation they all jumped on him
for example the female hosts comment of "since you wont say Rush went over that line [calling the president an anrgy black man] maybe we should assume that Rush never has a line to cross and that everything Rush says is right in your world" (approx 2:45 in)Thats a straight out attack on the Con that add's nothing to the converstaion execpt to disparage and discredit the othersides view point for no reason other then they dont agree with your point of view. I dont approve of it when FNC does that to liberals and I dont approve when MSNBC does that to Con's.
The news has some oblgation to fairly present both sides and when it is clear that the newcaster sides with one guest over the other, instead of asking hard questions and demanding claification then thats bad reporting.
and then she followed up the statment I quoted above by asking the Con why meanspirtedness is comming only from the Con side. thats flat out hypocrisy and bias showing again.
And both anchors cut him off in the middle of a point about how what Obama said about the cops is similar to what Pelosi said about the CIA (a point I would disagree with btw)then jumped on him for not discussing Rush, and before he could anwser either question they asked him the other guest jumped on him with a question of her own. (approx 4:15)
Really it came across like they were yelling at him for not agreeing with them.
Now to be fair Shuster did raise a good point at the end about how Obama is willing to walk back his statement and Rush isnt, so they should focus more on Rush, but it still seemed as much of that clip was them yelling at the guy who disagreed with their point of view.
Cutting a guest off 7 or 8 times in under 3 minutes is just flat out bad reporting.
Secondly, I completely disagree with your take on this...
No, the point of that was to demonstrate the guest's obvious double standard. It was not "an attack".
As for meanspiritedness coming from the right, good grief, dude. Where have you been since January 21st? These people on the right have lost their flippin' minds and say any old thing they can think of to be hurtful to people.
Sorry, I do not agree with your take on this at all.
However I disagree with you over the response to the quoted section of my text. She might have only been pointing to the double standard of the guest had she asked instead something along the lines of "if those statements by Rush did not cross the line, where is the line and why has Obama crossed it when Rush has not, considering more people might agree with the President then Rush?"
However there is no reason to assume that because the guest agrees with Rush on this one issue, that the guest would always believe that Rush is right as she said.
Instead that seems to me that that statement serves only to attempt to paint the guest as no more rational, qualified or intelligent then Rush, as there is no factual information to back that statement.
I am thinking here of the old saying that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, this could have been one of the only issues in which Rush and the guest agreed (probably not but can’t prove it either way) and generalizing the two as having the same views is unfair.
And as a side note, you are correct the GOP has ratcheted up the meanness since 1/21/09, but that’s no reason to sink to their level. I'd like to think the MSM could respectfully disagree with someone's point of view and not always try to win the discussion as they do on FOX, as it highjacks the viewers right to make their own decision on the issue.
Not quite. Rush is full of crap, and he's paid to be full of crap. I really don't think he believes half the garbage that comes out of his own ass. Obama, on the other hand, was expressing his honest opinion, right or wrong.
What I ment was that Rush made a very stupid controversal statement and Obama made a very stupid controversal statement. The fact that Obama has been willing to walk back his statement and Rush has not and the fact that Obama might not have said what he did had he thought about it for a split second, and rush would have said it anyway doesnt change the statments.
Rush made a stupid and controveral racist comment about a black man with no proof to back it up
Obama made a stupid and controveral racist comment about a white man with no proof to back it up
in that sense both are equally as bad for them to say.
Obama does get the nod for maturity however for admitting that he might have made a mistake and applogizing for the controversy
Obama called what the police officer did stupid. Not him. For all he cared the man could've been purple.
Rush called Obama, the man, an angry black man. That's personal.
These are two completely different statements, and should not even be compared in the first place. The only thing reason Obama's statement became "controversial" is because Cons are looking for anything, anything, to raise controversy over Obama.
It's very immature, I wish people would stick to politics here, we have bills that will severely alter America, and we're talking about Obama's birth certificate and some comment he made about a police officer? What?
OK. If Rush was wrong in calling Obama an angry black man, then we must assume that Obama was happy about the incident, and that by calling the police officer stupid was his form of phrasing a compliment. We must also assume that Obama is not black, which is true. And last, we must assume that Obama is not a man.
But wait, Only one of these needs to be true to make this a false statement stated by Rush.
So, Is Obama angry? Well, by his calling a police officer stupid for performing his job, when all the information was not available at the time.. This sounds a bit irresponsible for the person who is leading our government. He should be instilling confidence in our nation's ability to protect and serve rather than trying to tear down one man for doing a job for which he is a professional. And, this is no rookie cop either, check on his background, his history, this man is very respected in law enforcement.
Is Obama black? You know.. I don't remember the others in this video saying that Obama was black. He was called African-American. Which is actually more accurate since many believe he was born in Kenya. Plus, since he was born to an African-(something) male and a white American female, this makes him what the movie Australia calls a creamy; neither black or white. Yet his actions and associations are those more of our black Americans.
Is Obama a man?
Biologically, I believe he is. But, please feel free to debate this.
There are so many things that we can cite which Obama has done in his brief residence in the White House which can be considered illegal or against the national success, but we cannot forget that as a leader, he must try to portray our nation as a positive influence instead of trying to tear it down in virtually every turn and industry.
And Rush Limbaugh, is just a man. He is not president. He holds no political position. He just speaks his mind within the constraints of the law (freedom of speech). Are we going to let one man who is simply expressing himself in a lawful manner get you upset??!
If you focus on individuals more, then you elevate them. And in doing this, you give them power. Power to influence more. People are curious, if you say to someone "Don't Look!", you know they will look when possible.
Was Rush racist? Have you seen the Goode Family? If black Americans have a new name of the month, share the site we can so so we call them the right name. If you think I am being racist, think about it, How am I supposed to know what this new name is? And besides, I personally will NEVER call 0bama a black. I will call him an African-American.. because so far as I know from everything said, he is an actual African-American, more than over 99% of the black Americans in this country.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean he can't be criticized. The second sentence is pretty funny, since Gates was arrested for expressing himself in a lawful manner because officer Crowley got upset.
Right, we've all heard this nonsense before. Let's ignore lies and inflammatory comments because pointing it out just gives them more power. Of course, it then becomes virtually impossible to ever object to any mainstreaming of such a person, since there's no track record of behavior that could be established.
And Two: rush limbaugh, calling The President "an angry Black man," for the express purpose of inflaming the passions of the wing-nut element of the GOP is--by lights years--a far worse remark, than The President saying a department, who arrested someone who was legally in their own home and breaking no laws, "acted stupidly."
What limbaugh said was calibrated and malicious; what The President said was, fair, albeit, impolitic.
You have a distorted sense of proportion, my man.
He accepted Obama appolgy phone call, said he was "profoundly gratfull" for the Phone call, will meet the president for Beer.
His department wouldnt agree with you either
"It is clear to us from this conversation that the president respects police officers and the often difficult and dangerous situations we face on a daily basis. We appreciate his sincere interest and willingness to reconsider his remarks about the Cambridge Police Department,"
Look if the offeneded cop can accept the presidents statments as an appolgy who are we to do any less?
Ummmm... what? How on Earth was Obama's comment racist? He clearly stated that he did not have enough facts and was not here to determine if race played a factor.
Utter nonsense.
"Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that...
number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact...
And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us. And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently and often time for no cause casts suspicion even when there is good cause."
-President Obama
Thats a lot of talk about race if the president thinks race had nothing to do with it. And there is the implication throughout that the cop arrested Gates without cause excpet that he was black.
Assuming that the white cop arrested Gates soley because he was black, and that white cops always arrest black men when they can is jumping to a conclusion for the white cops behavior based on the supposed sterotypical actions of the group, instead of on the actual actions of an indivdual. Judging an individual by group is the defintion of discrimination, if the group being used to judge is a racial group then it is racism plain and simple.
Had the president not thought racism involved at all he would not have needed to bring it up or at least dismiss it quickly not dwell on it for the better part of his reply.
Also, even if none of that was there, it still wouldn't necessarily be racist. Obama knows Gates. He could be making an assumption that Gates would not act in a way that would genuinely warrant arrest, therefore that specific officer would be profiling. Even that would not be "racist", because it doesn't apply that concept to white people in general.
Finally, look at his answer if he had cut off after "that's just a fact". Is he suggesting that police tend to be racist? No, he's talking about a matter of policy. That's an important clarification to make.
I just went back and watched the press conference again.
Obama Addresses Henry Louis Gates-Gate at Press Conference...
President Obama starts out by saying that Professor Gates was a friend and HE, Obama, MIGHT be a little bias. President Obama went on the say that HE didn't know all the fact "BUT what's been reported is".
There is much more to the Obama's answer than the cut and paste parts YOU posted.
President Obama goes on the explain that once Professor Gates had given his identification to the police, which Professor Gates says he gave BOTH his Harvard ID as well as his Mass. driver's license, the police matter was over.
President Obama then says, it should NOT have have ended with a disorderly conduct arrest of Professor Gates in home and the police behave stupidity, in arresting Professor Gates in his home.
You have cut and paste different parts of President Obama's answer, not the full and complete answer.
"Well, I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys. He jimmied his way to get into the house. There was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place. so far so good. Right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger in -- well, I guess this is my house now so it probably wouldn't happen. Let's say my old house in Chicago. here I'd get shot. But so far so good. They're reporting, the police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate what happens. My understanding is at that point Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words but my understanding is that Professor Gates then shows his I.D. to show that this is his house. And at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped. Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that's just a fact.
As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in this society. That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet, the fact of the matter is that, you know, this still haunts us. And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and hispanics are picked up more frequently and often time for no cause cast suspicion even when there is good cause, and that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be." -President Obama
now with that out of the way first off to pearlene as you can see Obama doesnt say Gates showed both id's, just that he showed I.D., the both I.D.'s comments come from his clarification the next day
secondly to Brabantio you are correct that people would have wondered as to the role of race, however it would have been easy enough to state that Obama didnt know if race was involved and move on For example, "Now i've heard rumors that the event was racically modivated but I dont have enough information to address those rumors. What I do know is that tempers run high in these events and it is poosible that both Gates and the police let their tempers get the better of them in this situation."
Now its true I made up the above quote but it follows the same route Obama himself has taken on this durring his appolgy and other addresses on the subject. This route is an expansion of what Obama talked about in "number one" in the speech I quoted and with the evidence avaible when obama made the speech that option is just as likely to be the case as "number 3" the racism option.
Yet notice the amount of focus on each option. everything I put in italics focuses on race and racism. By contrast only the sentence talking about temper mentions temper.
Of the two possiblities temper and race Obama definitly focused on race. the focus on race also makes race seem to be the more likely cause as the temeper cause is discussed and dissmissed in a sentence. And even the 3 things he lists "number one...is a fact" are ordered and phrased as to be sequential. "first we know people mad in these situations, second that temper led to the police acting stupidly and arresting gates. Third racism played into the arrest because that how it usually goes down in this country when cops get mad at minorities who are in the right.
Obama spent the whole speech talking about the relations of minorities to the police and placing that in the same discusion as the Gates arrest he is linking the two together in people's minds. He may very well have inseirted race into a sistuation where it didnt exist based it appears on a guess that it probibly did exist due it being a black man and a white cop, and again thats racist.
Again, he was asked about race relations in the question. He wasn't asked "what do you think about the Gates arrest?" all by itself. I would think that if he ignored the part about race that he would be criticized for that as well.
The problem is that the question linked Gates and racism together, so Obama probably should have used some phrase to clarify that he was talking about racism and not the case. Something like "separate and apart", maybe?
Yea that's one of the things I was trying to say, Obama did not do a good job seperating the two in his first speech (did a much better job is the second attempt)
I'll even agree that it was a loaded question as it came to race. However that seemed to drive the President to a conclusion based on race, which is not a direction he should have gone, I think he should have done a better job making the issues "seperate and apart" as you put it, because reguardless of intent it is clear what many people drew out of his statement
I'm never particularly impressed with the idea that "many people" have the wrong idea about a statement, therefore the speaker made a mistake. The context is quite clear. Either we're talking about people who aren't paying enough attention or people who are relying on right-wing pundits for their thoughts. I'm not sure what can be done about either one of those things, really.
Erm... no, he didn't. Demonstrate where in that passage he said that.
That's some solid logic there, Lewis.
Isn't Lewis the same idiot who said Americans are better than the rest of the world?
Next?
This is while they were both still in the house.
Crowley doesn't identify any crime that takes place within the house, but for some reason finds it necessary to call more police in. Why? There's no crime, he said twice already that he believed Gates was the legal resident, and there's absolutely no basis for believing that there are any other intruders in the house. If there's some jurisdictional issue that requires Harvard University Police to handle people affiliated with them, then why didn't they handle it, instead of Crowley continuing the argument? Why did Crowley book and process Gates, if there's an issue with jurisdiction? And most importantly, how would Crowley have any basis for thinking that there might be a reason for Gates to be arrested, since the ultimate charge relies on an action made in public, and the call was made while Gates was still in his own house?
Especially considering that there's no basis for the officer to even remain on the premises at this point, this specific action is a very clear intimidation tactic. It would also justify escalated aggravation on the part of Gates. Furthermore, Gates did not receive Crowley's name and badge number. Regardless of whether Crowley's account is accurate or not, he still owes Gates that information. By leaving the house without providing it, and by making Gates' exit of the house a condition for further discussion, the idea that Gates can be held responsible for leaving the house in an agitated state is incredibly difficult to justify.
I don't buy the assertion that the charge must have been dropped because it lacked merit. Considering his stature and his relationship with Obama, there could be other factors there. But looking at Crowley's report, it's clear that the charge was stupid at best and deliberate entrapment at worst, and stood no chance of being taken seriously in a court of law.
As an African American, it tells me NOTHING, but I bet it tells you that Crowley was justified in arresting Professor Gates.
Buy a clue!! In AMERICA and we FOLLOW the LAW!!
This the Massachusetts LAW on disorderly conduct:
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the First Amendment prevents application of the disorderly conduct law to language and expressive conduct, even when it is offensive and abusive. The one exception would be language that falls outside the protection of the First Amendment, "fighting words which by their very utterance tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
And you've obviously forgotten that THIS President holds a LAW DEGREE AND practiced law, which gives him the right to call the Cambridge police department "stupid" for arresting Professor Gates on a bogus charge!
Incidentally, arguing is not a crime. Whether he was inside or outside the house, the Massachusetts Supreme Court previously ruled that speech does not constitute disorderly conduct. No matter how many cops take another cops side, it doesn't make them right.