Is there anything more ironic and hypocritical than listening to Fox News pundits clutching their pearls over the disrespect Vice President Biden supposedly showed Paul Ryan in the debate last night?
The whining started immediately after the debate. In a post-debate discussion hosted by Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly, the first guests were conservative Stephen Hayes and Fox News Democrat Joe Trippi.
Interestingly, Kelly didn’t ask who either thought won, but delved straight into whether Biden went “too far” with “the smirking, such that the substance will be undermined?”
Trippi said he thought Biden “had a very strong debate” but “was diminished, I thought …by the smirking and he overdid it.” Trippi, went on to give some gratuitous props to Paul Ryan, saying he was surprised to see “how strong” he was on “foreign policy.” He allowed as how Biden scored some major points before adding, “But I don’t know about the likeability of that smirking and how he sort of overdid – I found it condescending and overdone.”
Do you think Hayes, on the "other side," had any criticism of Ryan or props for Biden? Of course not! He, too complained about Biden smirking, especially during Ryan’s thank you's t the end which, according to Hayes, “came across as very disrespectful and sort of symbolic of the way that Joe Biden handled the rest of the night."
Next up Brit Hume. He said, “If you read the transcript, you might well conclude that the vice president had a very strong debate… But that’s not all there is to it.” Hume sounded irate as he said that in person, Biden was “smirking, laughing, smiling, mugging.” He thought people would find that “so compelling,” that it would have been hard to take their eyes off Biden and, therefore, it came down to whether or not that was appealing. Hume, predictably, did not. He said, "I thought it was unattractive. I thought it was rude and I have a feeling it will come across to an awful lot of people – it looked like a cranky old man, to some extent, debating a polite young man.”
Greta Van Susteren threw in with the “disrespectful” lot. She claimed to like both men. But she found Ryan “polite and respectful.” But Biden, not so much. “The smiles, the sneers… I thought he was very unlikeable,” Van Susteren said.
Then Chris Wallace made an appearance. He said he didn’t think he had “ever seen a debate in which one participant was as openly disrespectful of the other as Biden was to Paul Ryan was tonight. And that’s what it was… openly contemptuous and disrespectful.”
Nobody’s tender feelings were smarting more than Sean Hannity's. “As I watch a rude, condescending, interruptive, mean-spirited vice president tonight, this is not going to play well. I’ll tell you right now.” He went on to say that two polls say that Romney won the debate.
But despite all that whining, neither Hannity nor any of the others actually said Ryan won.
It’s laughable for anyone on Fox to be complaining about disrespect toward a vice presidential candidate when there probably hasn’t been a day since President Obama’s inauguration that he hasn’t been disrespected on the "fair and balanced" network. He’s been called a socialist, “nauseating” and “disgusting,” portrayed as a traitor who wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon, someone with contempt for the Constitution who wants to undermine the Second Amendment, and, most famously, as an illegitimate president with a phony birth certificate to cover up the fact that he was born in Africa. Fox’s Heather Childers still has a job as a Fox News anchor even after she asked for her Twitter-feed readers’ “thoughts” as to whether, in 2008, the Obama campaign threatened Chelsea Clinton’s life in order to keep her parents quiet over his birth certificate. And Fox Newsies regularly slobber over Birther Boy Donald Trump.
On Fox, personal responsibility is, apparently, reserved for poor people and minorities.
I use hyphens as a punctuation mark all the time and have never got that strike-out effect – perhaps because I put an empty space before and after.
As I posted before, part of the corporate machine being in the tank for Romney is that they threaten to pull their sponsorship money out of anywhere that gives him too much negative attention. You say what they want to hear about MItt, or your funding goes.
If you compare Biden to Romney, Romney was far ruder
Should Biden have waited for his turn? Yes. But what is admittedly rude from Biden is tame compared to Romney’s act, and it’s not like Ryan was exactly civil himself. Why can’t Fox News call both sides out on it? Everyone else did…
“I reject your reality and replace it with my own.”
Another thing that gets me is how the “credibility” of something (the polls, the media, or whatever) can flip depending on the position adopted by that something (polls, media, etc.). That’s definitely a Foxy trait and it is mind-bottlingly (mis-spelling intended) unabashed.
While being happy for one’s side amounts only to being happy for one’s side (IMO and full stop), using a different ruler for “them” and “us” is hypocrisy. That’s what gets my goat with Fox News and I do find it to be insidiously contagious. My antidote is to watch other sources …. with a truly open mind, however.
Yep — that much was evident when she got thrown by the word “carnival.” Lol.
when a neocon/teabagger smirks, itâs called âkicking Obamaâs assâ and celebrated as a win. When a Democratic does the exact same thing, s/he is being disrespectful.
I’m STILL waiting for Kathleen, John “the Independent”, or norm snore to tell us if it was “disrespectful” when Sister Sarah winked . . .
That said, I work with the media, and here’s something I noticed. You remember Romney’s smirk, his eye rolling, his calling Obama “Bro,” and his little cheat sheet?
Which his campaign tried to say was a hankerchief he just happened to put into his stack of papers?
Oh, and remember all the fights he picked with Jim Leher?
The right didn’t have one word condemning or questioning any of that. Not. One. Word. In fact, when when the topic came up, all they talked about was when Obama pointed out that he was cut off with five seconds left, which they called “arrogant.” People who talked about Romney were attacked on the air and threatened by sponsors that their money went if Romney continued being criticized.
I’ll go one step further- my co-workers were told to not compare the two this morning. We were flat told by the office that we couldn’t compare Romney’s perceived rudeness to Biden’s.
Why is that, Kathleen? Since you apparently know so much more about this than the rest of us?
Your links, as I suspected, really do not suppurt your premise. From Huffpo, your link to “Vice Presidential Debate Polls Show Mixed Results” is really a discussion that compares the previously discredited CNN poll, vs. the CBS poll, which shows A DECIDED Biden victory.
Your other links show almost EXACTLY the same discussion.
Now, I’ve given you enough respect to chase your delusion……but I’m done with you. You have been proven to be less than a worthy opponent, which is much the case with your ilk. As I’ve said previously, the damage to YOUR side has already been done. You have either seriously overestimated your intelligence, or severely underestimated ours. In either case, you lose.
Bidenâs frenetic facial fancies only highlighted the many untruths (or mis-spoken words) he put out there.
Just because youâre aggressive, loud & rude doesnât mean youâve told the truth.
Someone should tell that to Rush Limpballs, Sean Hannity, Glenda Beck, Bull OhReally, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, etc.
Check the polls today. Check the fact-checking outlets.
B-b-but . . . I thought “polls didn’t matter; the only poll that counts is on Election Day” — at least that’s what the wingers spout every time President Obama’s popularity goes up . . . which actually occurred two days after the first presidential debate:
As for the fact-checking outlets:
1)Ryan said a Medicare board appointed by Obama will be making healthcare decisions for seniors.
The Truth: According to PolitFact Ohio, âThe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act creates the 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board to suggest ways to limit Medicareâs spending growth. It can be overruled by Congress. Its appointments will be done in public. It will not make decisions on individual cases.
2)Ryan said Obamacare takes $716 billion out of Medicare for seniors, and turns Medicare into a piggy bank for Obamacare.
The Truth: According to FactCheck.org, âRepublicans claim the presidentâs $716 billion âcutsâ to Medicare hurt the programâs finances. But the opposite is true. These cuts in the future growth of spending prolong the life of the Medicare trust fund, stretching the programâs finances out longer than they would last otherwise.
3)Ryan claimed 6 studies guarantee that the Romney tax cut math adds up.
The Truth: FactCheck.org found that there arenât 6 studies. There arenât five studies. In fact, there are no studies, âBut the five âstudiesâ arenât all studies and none of them was nonpartisan. Of the three that could be considered studies, two were written by Romney campaign advisers and a third was written by a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush.â
“SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #1: This poll does not and cannot reflect the views of all Americans. It only represents the views of people who watched the debate. SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #2: The sample of debate-watchers in this poll were 31% Democratic and 33% Republican. That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is about eight points more Republican than an average CNN poll of all Americans, so the respondents were more Republican than the general public.”
Hmmmm. Now I know how math just kinda mystifies Repubs and RW ‘independents’, but it does seem that a sampling that has 8% more Republicans than Democrats (from CNN’s words) would account for much of Ryan’s 4 point ‘victory’.
But, in any case, it’s a moot point. The real result of this debate was a serious re-energizing of the Democratic supporters. You and others can cry ‘rude’ and ‘buffoonery’ in an effort to make yourselves feel better, but the bottom line is that we’re a much happier bunch today, and that does not bode well for your side.
and in the recent past, she said her “biggest concern” for her husband, if elected, was his “mental well-being:”
So, according to Queen Anntoinette, we’re LUCKY to have someone who may have mental well-being issues running for POTUS, since his mere election will improve the nation’s economy.
That’s about as close to an outright admission of the belief that the Romneys are Kolob Overlords destined to rule over the country as it’s possible to get . . .
Gee, any links to support this claim?
Yep! Like Ann Romney said – We’re sooooooo lucky Mitt wants to be POTUS!
‘This is hard and, you know, itâs an important thing that weâre doing right now and itâs an important election and it is time for all Americans to realise how significant this election is and how lucky we are to have someone with Mittâs qualifications and experience and know-how to be able to have the opportunity to run this country.’ – Ann Romney
Thanks Ann! We need a Man like Mitt!!! yep! yep! yep! yep! yep!
Quite a contrast from late August, when the Whore Of Babble-On claimed the media was “in the tank” for Obama:
Oh well — guess it’s the same as polls; they were suddenly credible after the first Presidential debate, too.
Paul Ryanâs 5 Biggest Lies of the First Half of the Vice Presidential Debate
As I recall, it was Romney who started accusing the President of telling “untruths”. Must have been a tactic that to justify all the untruths and mis-speaking that he and his intended to commit.
“disrespected” = called RAyn on his bullsh*t
When The Whore Of Babble-On [Sarah Palin] repeatedly winked at the 2008 VP Debate — causing Rich Lowry to exclaim that he saw “starbursts” emanating from his TV screen — I wonder if Meg was as concerned about “the substance being undermined.”
Probably not. When you have no substance to begin with . . .