As posted on Media Matters
From the October 1 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace:
CHRIS WALLACE (host): Does this feed into a sense that -- certainly, at least the Democrats are arguing that it shows an arrogant Republican majority that, you know, is more concerned about incumbency than about, in this particular case, protecting kids?
HUME: It is very serious misbehavior on the part of Congressman Foley. Whether it stems from some overall arrogance or just the weakness of the human flesh is another question. It's probably worth noting here that there's a difference between the two parties on these issues. Inappropriate behavior toward subordinates didn't cost Gerry Studds his Democratic seat in Massachusetts, nor Barney Frank his. Nor did inappropriate behavior toward a subordinate even cost Bill Clinton his standing within the Democratic Party, even though, indirectly at least, he was impeached for it. Mark Foley found out about this -- was found out to have done this, and he's out of office and in total disgrace in his party.
WILLIAMS: It took them long enough, don't you think?
HUME: What do you mean?
WILLIAMS: Well, gee, they knew about it way back, no action is taken. That's the question.
[crosstalk]
HUME: We don't know --
LIASSON: I think the Barney Frank deal was not with a subordinate. We should correct that. We should correct that.
WALLACE: Yeah, I think we should point that out. I don't think Barney Frank was involved with a page.
LIASSON: Frank was not with a subordinate.
HUME: It is worth noting that we don't yet know exactly what they knew and when they knew it. This -- obviously, we'll find out this week.
Don't you just love the way Hume refers to the object of Foley's affections as "a subordinate"? Hey Hume, how about "minor"? You are supposedly a journalist. Is selecting appropriate words beyond your abilities? I seriously doubt that. If you think that none of us caught your attempts to minimize the event through language, you are severely mistaken.
It should be noted that Hume doesn't bother to respond to Wallace or Liasson about his referring to "subordinates". Hume, you a Fox lackey pure and simple. How much did the Devil pay for your soul?
From the October 1 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace:
CHRIS WALLACE (host): Does this feed into a sense that -- certainly, at least the Democrats are arguing that it shows an arrogant Republican majority that, you know, is more concerned about incumbency than about, in this particular case, protecting kids?
HUME: It is very serious misbehavior on the part of Congressman Foley. Whether it stems from some overall arrogance or just the weakness of the human flesh is another question. It's probably worth noting here that there's a difference between the two parties on these issues. Inappropriate behavior toward subordinates didn't cost Gerry Studds his Democratic seat in Massachusetts, nor Barney Frank his. Nor did inappropriate behavior toward a subordinate even cost Bill Clinton his standing within the Democratic Party, even though, indirectly at least, he was impeached for it. Mark Foley found out about this -- was found out to have done this, and he's out of office and in total disgrace in his party.
WILLIAMS: It took them long enough, don't you think?
HUME: What do you mean?
WILLIAMS: Well, gee, they knew about it way back, no action is taken. That's the question.
[crosstalk]
HUME: We don't know --
LIASSON: I think the Barney Frank deal was not with a subordinate. We should correct that. We should correct that.
WALLACE: Yeah, I think we should point that out. I don't think Barney Frank was involved with a page.
LIASSON: Frank was not with a subordinate.
HUME: It is worth noting that we don't yet know exactly what they knew and when they knew it. This -- obviously, we'll find out this week.
Don't you just love the way Hume refers to the object of Foley's affections as "a subordinate"? Hey Hume, how about "minor"? You are supposedly a journalist. Is selecting appropriate words beyond your abilities? I seriously doubt that. If you think that none of us caught your attempts to minimize the event through language, you are severely mistaken.
It should be noted that Hume doesn't bother to respond to Wallace or Liasson about his referring to "subordinates". Hume, you a Fox lackey pure and simple. How much did the Devil pay for your soul?
Comments