Nina Totenberg was embarrassed to say that she was at a "Christmas Party."
On Inside Washington this week, Totenberg said, "I was at – forgive the expression – a Christmas Party."
"Forgive the expression"?
Video.
Transcript, from the Media Research Center
NINA TOTENBERG: I want to say one thing about the budget that didn’t get passed, the omnibus bill. You know, we talk a lot about – we just passed this huge tax cut in part because business said, you know, we have to plan, we have to know what kind of tax cuts we have. Well, these agencies, including the Defense Department, don't know how much money they've got and for what. And I was at – forgive the expression – a Christmas party at the Department of Justice and people actually were really worried about this. These are law enforcement people don't know exactly what kind of money they can spend for what.
Can you imagine Totenberg saying, "I was at - forgive the expression - a Ramadan event"?
There is no way a Leftist like Totenberg would utter those words.
9 comments:
[Mary sez: 'Can you imagine Totenberg saying, "I was at - forgive the expression - a Ramadan event"?']
No, I can't imagine that and can't fathom why you'd suggest that alternative statement. Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar....what does Ramadan have to do with Totenberg's comments?
Ms. Totenberg is most likely Democratic leaning - she was afterall married to a Democratic Senator (the late Floyd K. Haskell - D-CO) and has her share of critics - as well as her share of well deserved recognition for her reporting work of nearly 40 years. She has been honored seven times by the American Bar Association for excellence in legal reporting. Your disparaging comments are really quite unnecessary and uncalled for.
Mike,
You've obviously been hiding under a rock for the last 20 years. Nina Totenberg is expressing an opinion prevalent in the media and government on the word Christmas with her comment "forgive the expression." The word Christmas, as well as the holiday itself, is under assault from those institutions. They want to completely rid the culture of any mention of Christ or Christmas.
Liberals like Totenberg (and, yes, she's a liberal) act as though saying Christmas is an insult to the listeners. Why else would she ask for pardon before saying Christmas. This assault has been going on for years so you should be very familiar with it.
Totenberg's 40 years of reporting experience haven't informed her mind much if you ask me. She still insists that the failed tax bill was a tax "cut" when it was only a extension of the existing tax rates. There are not cuts to anyones taxes in the bill. I repeat, there are no tax cuts in the bill. Nina Tobenberg knows this fact but she continues to lie about it. That's not excellent reporting in my book, no matter the number of awards she's gotten over the years.
John White
Ms. Totenberg works for NPR right? (I had to look it up because I don't pay attention to the ministry of information.) The most astonishing part of this article is that anybody (the author) would be surprised that an NPR talking-head would consider the word "Christmas" offensive.
Mike, however, took the bar up a level by being unable to "fathom" how the words "Christmas" and "Ramadan" are related. Here is a hint Mike: imagine it with "Kwanzaa" or "Hanukkah" and see if you really think Ms. Totenberg would apologize just for saying the word.
John: "Nina Tobenberg knows this fact but she continues to lie about it" (regarding tax bill).
Well, John - there is a difference between a "lie" and having a different point of view. I share Totenberg's perspective - you don't. The taxes were cut by the Bush administration 10-yrs ago - those cuts were set to expire due to legislative action (since they were passed using reconciliation). To extned the Bush tax plan, the "cuts" are being extended. Just because you and Rush Limbaugh don't think taxes are being cut doesn't mean you're accurate. When we disagree am I supposed to call you a liar?
Jack: "Here is a hint Mike - imagine it with "Kwanzaa" or "Hanukkah" and see if you really think Ms. Totenberg would apologize just for saying the word." Mary is the one who inserted another religious faith into the dialogue - not me, and not Totenberg. I thought it was a stretch that Mary would be critical of one sideline comment Nina made while ignoring the main issue - Totenberg was discussing the militray and justice departments not being certain what sort of funding they had to work with - the Christmas party comment was not germain to the point Totenberg was making. I think her (and your) critique is out of line.
I thought it was a stretch that Mary would be critical of one sideline comment Nina made while ignoring the main issue - Totenberg was discussing the militray and justice departments not being certain what sort of funding they had to work with - the Christmas party comment was not germain to the point Totenberg was making. I think her (and your) critique is out of line.
Mike Dawson is free to join the real world any time he chooses. But then, no one is keeping him from remaining in fantasy land either.
Your arguments are at the very least, grossly obtuse and at worst, disingenuous. We all know it and see it. Move along.
Ms. Totenberg is a mental midget and doesn't deserve her job. What a total 100% joke of a woman.
And you are right, Mike doesn't live in the real world and he proves it with every post.
There's that 'disingenuous' claim again - as explained previously you don't know me well enough to make that assertion...odd too that Harvey, and 't. hee' have the same inaccurate word usage - I'm beginning to think all these attack responses are coming from the same person. Why have a blog discussing politics if the only thing that is acceptable is regurgitating lines mouthed by Palin, Limbaugh, Gingrich & Company? Viewpoints that do not mirror your own are not welcome here? All is fair in political comment just so long as it does not poke fun at conservatives, tea-baggers or heaven forbid their religion? There are plenty of fine American citizens who do not wear their religion on their sleeve and are capable of understanding that Totenberg's simple comment could easily have multiple meanings - and also be bright enough to know the point of her remarks was not about religion - but rather a discussion about budget issues. Totenberg utters one comment that conservatives don't like and it's like the wrath of God is coming down on her...but when Mary makes in inappropriate comment about Ramadan, or calls someone she doesn't even know to be obtuse, or a liar, or disingenuous - the wagons are circled in her defense. How about if we pay less attention to sidebar "issues" and focus more on the main topic? It's like being critical of a movie 'cuz you don't care for the font used on the closing credits! By the way: happy holidays.
So grossly obtuse it is, Mike. Congrats.
No one wants to re-invent the wheel, hence most people's lack of interest to "discuss" the topics you feel are important, blah, blah, blah...
Too funny. There's an interesting website that tracks language use showing examples of how definitions evolve - as well as frequency of use. (http://www.wordnik.com/words/disingenuous/examples) The past decade has seen a spike in use of word disingenuous and most of the examples provided are of writers trying to discredit an idea or individual with critical commentary. Of the examples provided those which stood out to me were the political and social attack quotes. Disingenuous, obtuse, real world, rose colored lens.
"No one wants to re-invent the wheel, hence most people's lack of interest to "discuss" the topics you feel are important, blah, blah, blah..." What the heck is that all about? Mike is not the one who selected the topic - it's Mary's blog for gosh-sakes. The comment Tottenberg made (defense and judicial budgets) was completely ignored as the blog focused like a laser on a vague comment related to religion. When I point that out the flood gates open with critique of me: he's disingenuous, obtuse...all the sort of mindless yet aggressive rhetoric that is illustrated at the site mentioned above. The style of attack commentary is amazingly well documented in this era of blog-o-mania - everyone's got an axe to grind. Is civil discourse out of fashion? Specifically how are my comments advocating "reinventing the wheel" and what how does the critique grow from just plain old obtuse to grossly obtuse? It seems like a thinly veiled attempt to squelch a voice. And why the "t-hee" disguise?
Post a Comment