Showing posts with label Tamron Hall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tamron Hall. Show all posts

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Lawrence O'Donnell's Girlfriend Tamron Hall Cuts Conservative’s Mic When He Calls Out Media Coverage of Romney “Bully” Story



HotAir.com:
It’s Tim Carney of the Examiner, unable to resist pointing out on air how our very serious media parlays a moronic one-day distraction into a moronic two-day distraction. Day one: Feign outrage over a non-story about something Romney did 50 years ago that’s being pushed for political advantage. Day two: Cite the fact that people are now talking about the non-story as proof that it’s a story worth talking about. Carney hits the first point at the beginning of the segment and then, at around 4:00, hits the second, and it’s all downhill from there. In fact, watch the second vid below to see how the segment ended. Hall didn’t simply dismiss him at the end of the first clip; they kept him around and put him back onscreen at the end of the interview with his audio cut as some sort of visual reprimand. This is what happens, I guess, when you note precisely how the media carries Obama’s water on the unofficial network of Hopenchange 2012.


After you’re done with this, go over to Mediaite and see how another MSNBC show covered the Romney “bully” story today. Maybe that’s why Carney spoke up; maybe he’d been watching the network feed while waiting for his guest shot and could take no more.


Update: An important footnote from Carney per the charge that he was off-topic: “The question I was sent for the Romney bullying segment was ‘Does the story matter?’ So I was answering it, not dodging.”
RELATED: MSNBC host thoughtfully demonstrates what "bullying" looks like

Monday, July 18, 2011

MSNBC’s Tamron Hall Defends Michele Bachmann Over Gay Issue: ‘Why Not Accept Her For Who She Is?’



Mediaite.com:
MSNBC’s Tamron Hall spoke with radio host Michael Smerconish about the bubbling up controversy surrounding Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her history of controversial remarks about a gay lifestyle. Combined with allegations that Bachmann’s husband led “pray away the gay” therapy sessions, it’s no wonder many gay groups are targeting Bachmann for attack or eager to meet with her to educate her. Yet Hall found it particularly interesting that just as some blast Bachmann’s husband for allegedly imposing his views on others, some of the very same critics are determined to get Bachmann to be accepting of their views.


Smerconish said he thinks Bachmann needs to meet a former intern of his who is a strong conservative and a loyal supporter of many Republican candidates, but who also happens to be gay. Smerconish warned that if Bachmann doesn’t distance herself from her past statements fast, then her perceived anti-gay stance could be a “death-knell” for her general election chances, since “no way moderates and independents are ever going to vote for her when they hear all of this.” Hall made an interesting and thought-provoking argument in response:


“It is one thing obviously for people to say they disagree with Congresswoman Bachmann and say that the things that she says are hateful – whatever. I am though intrigued by the number of people who want to change her opinion rather than accept that it is her view. . . . I am intrigued by how her husband’s clinic wants to ‘pray the gay away’ for some people and others would like to pray or inject into her their philosophy, their thoughts and their beliefs. I am intrigued by that. Why not accept her for who she is or who she says she is and decide if you are willing to vote for someone like that.”


It remains to be seen whether voters would be more likely to believe any new clarifying campaign rhetoric from Bachmann or whether her old statements in front of a much smaller audience would ring truer? Regardless, Hall’s point seems simple enough: let candidates speak their minds freely, for better or worse, and rather than have groups try to convert a candidate’s thinking, simply just let the voters decide.
While Tamron Hall does make an excellent point about why people can't accept Michele Bachmann's position on homosexuality, I get the feeling that as a black liberal what she really meant was 'So what? Bachmann's a bigot, she'll dig her own grave'. That said, the Left and the rest of the gay activists within the Gay Mafia continue to need homosexuality be assigned as a biological trait. One can't argue against with a "civil rights" issue if it's determined as unchangeable and the far-Left knows this. So while homosexuality remains and will always be a lifestyle choice due to the fact that there is no scientific conclusion that says it's genetic, liberals will continue to toss out lies that claim otherwise. It's who they are and it's why they're so adamant to not only change Bachmann's mind, but push her aside esp. when her views get to be a little too popular.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Tamron Hall Continues To Shill For David Schusters White, Far-Left Brand


Newsbusters.org:
On Friday, MSNBC anchor Tamron Hall exclaimed: "Harsh political discourse against [President Obama] really amped up and people started to push the boundaries of what might be considered decency. From talk radio to those tea parties that we saw with some pretty offensive signs folks were holding, even in the presence of children. The anger has certainly intensified."

As evidence of the supposed lack of "decency" co-anchor David Shuster declared: "And so listen to Glenn Beck make his case against health care reform just yesterday on his radio show, watch." The audio clip that followed featured Beck yelling at a hostile caller during his Wednesday show.

Based on that one example, Shuster wondered: "So are the political attacks, is the language, is the discourse, going too far? And does it have real consequences?" He then teased another segment on the topic in the next hour, but it was preempted by live coverage of President Obama speaking on health care reform.

Does it ever occur to Tamron Hall that the pertinent issues for while liberals aren't the same as those pertinent to Blacks? Or maybe she does know, but just doesn't care.