On the August 7 edition of Fox News host John Gibson's nationally syndicated radio program, the show's executive producer, known on air as "Angry Rich," described as "a poor choice of words" his August 3 statement -- documented by Media Matters for America -- that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards "whored his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick."
Angry Rich did not apologize for the remark and went on to say of Edwards: "That doesn't mean he's not duplicitous, which he is."
After Gibson asked him to "be specific about what [he] meant," Angry Rich read from an April 5 New York Post article that stated, "Democrat White House hopeful John Edwards' team has been collecting email addresses from supporters who've sent his cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, notes -- and using them for fundraising requests, aides acknowledged yesterday." Gibson said that Angry Rich's comment was "unfortunate," but then asserted that Angry Rich was nonetheless "on high ground" because his remark had come in response to the Post report.
During the discussion, Gibson never quoted Angry Rich's original "choice of words" -- that Edwards had "whored his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick." Rather, he said that Angry Rich had "made some offhand comment about Edwards and the way Edwards has, shall we say, employed his wife in the campaign," and later described the remark as follows: "[Y]ou said that Edwards was using his wife in the campaign in a certain way."
You've got to love the spin here. So instead of whoring his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick, Angry Rich really meant that Edwards "employed his wife in the campaign." Excuse me, but how does "whoring his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick" become transformed into "employing his wife in the campaign?" Because in that first statement, Angry Rich is specifically stating that Edwards is using his wife's cancer in order to raise campaign contributions. Now Angry Rich is changing his statement by saying Edwards employing his wife in the campaign--without using any references to Elizabeth Edwards' cancer. Angry Rich is trying to admit that he practically slandered Edwards and his wife (and perhaps even his wife's cancer as well) without having to admit it as well. And forget about having Angry Rich or John Gibson apologize to Edwards for this guttural character attack against him. And even after Angry Rich admits that it was a "poor choice of words" he still attacks Edwards for using his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmmick. Consider this from Media Matters:
ANGRY RICH: This is from the New York Post on April 5. "Democrat White House hopeful John Edwards' team has been collecting email addresses from supporters who've sent his cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, notes and using them for fundraising requests, aides acknowledged yesterday."
GIBSON: Ah. So if you were, let's say, [conservative radio host] Laura Ingraham, who wouldn't be a John Edwards supporter but would have a great deal of sympathy and sort of simpatico and sisterhood feelings toward Elizabeth Edwards because they're both cancer victims --
ANGRY RICH: Right.
GIBSON: Laura went through her episode, and Elizabeth Edwards is going through hers. If Laura Ingraham sent Elizabeth Edwards a, you know, "stay strong, get well" note, they would use that as a campaign fundraising mail piece, expecting somebody like Laura Ingraham to cough up some bucks for --
ANGRY RICH: They admitted to turning those emails around and soliciting cash, yes.
GIBSON: So, your remark --
ANGRY RICH: -- was about that.
GIBSON: While unfortunate --
ANGRY RICH: It was a poor choice of words, sure.
GIBSON: -- was about that. And so, in fact, you were on high ground.
ANGRY RICH: Right.
GIBSON: Correct.
ANGRY RICH: That doesn't mean he's not duplicitous, which he is.
GIBSON: He is, yes.
It is rather ironic that Angry Rich sources his little rant against Edwards using his wife's cancer from the New York Post, which is a newspaper that is owned by News Corporation's Rupert Murdoch. Guess what else Murdoch owns--Fox News Corporation, which provides syndicated radio services through Fox News Radio, that happens to host The John Gibson Show. In other words, Rupert Murdoch is both John Gibson's and Angry Rich's employer! Talk about self-generating spin here! We're talking about a Murdoch-owned newspaper publishing a negative story attacking Edwards, which is then picked up by a Murdoch-owned radio program to continue regurgitating this negative attack. And yes, it is regurgitation here. The NY Post story came out on April 5, 2007--four months ago! It is stale news now.
But it really doesn't matter to the wing-nuts now. They still can't debate John Edwards on any issue, not when they have been cheer-leading a Bush administration that has so screwed up this country with Iraq, Katrina, the economy, intelligence scandals, erosion of civil liberties, the debt, the attorney scandals, the health care crisis--the list goes on here. The only weapon the Right has are these malicious character attacks as a means to instill fear within the American people. It is what Gibson and Angry Rich are doing now, even as they supposedly admit their "poor choice of words," by still clinging to the notion that Angry Rich is on "the high ground" as he continues attacking Edwards by using this four-month-old NY Post story to support his guttural remark from last week. This mindless hatred and vitriol is just amazing.
No comments:
Post a Comment