This video is starting to make the rounds on Memeorandum. Wow, what a catfight!
Given how quickly Megyn and Kristen go at it, I get the feeling that the two had a dust up before going on air. Notice at the 4:00 mark, Kristen starts off by accusing Megyn of “putting her in the same category of people who don’t give a darn”. Where did that come from? Megyn never made that accusation on air.
If I had to pick a winner, I have to give Megyn Kelly the nod. Kristen Powers contradicted herself badly by first trying to say she didn’t really see voter intimidation and finally ending with she agrees there was intimidation. Plus the “look what Bush did” argument has long ago fallen out of vogue. Kelly on the other hand stayed on point saying Powers did not know what she was talking about and proves it when Powers contradicts herself.
Sadly, what is lost in this verbal brawl is Congressman Brad Sherman’s comments which were never addressed by either Megyn Kelly or Kristen Powers.
Via: Memeorandum
Video h/t: The Right Scoop
Posts
8 comments:
I was watching Megyn's show when this went down. It was a definite smackdown, with Megyn being the clear winner.
Man I love me some Megyn Kelly. She is my hero.
Wow...that was great ! Megan was the clear winner of that discussion and I wished I could also see the brunette's face (forgot her name) as she heard that going on. I found myself thinking too bad the 2 of them weren't in a mud pit. You could have sold tickets !
I watch FoxNews 99% of the time but I missed this when it happened. Thanks so much for bringing it in here !
Signed,
SB Smith
TX
I think you are right, there was more going on there than the on air disagreement.
That clip was a pleasant surprise when I first saw it. I didn't see it coming, but I should have since Megyn has learned not to cow down to O'reilly and often puts him in his place during a debate.
I liked the way she debated and came out swinging with the "You don't know what you're talking about line". It is always important to address the root of the lie or disagreement. Who goes on national TV to talk about something and then isn't even aware of such an important facet of the issue?
How many times will hosts let their paid guests pretend to be uninformed so that they do not have to acknowledge wrong-doing from those on their side?
Reminds me of a Red Eye appearance by Dr. Marc Lamont Hill. The host made a comment about an issue, Hill ignored it, the host repeated it and said something along the lines of you're refusing to acknowledge this point- Dr. Hill then responded with this little bit of insight into blind ideologues, "Yes, because doing so would be detrimental to my position"...or something like that.
Perez testified that the decision to pursue a civil case was a matter of ‘career people disagreeing with career people.’ The facts would seem to support that account.”
__________________________
More facts here, and why little can be had or made of all this bruha, and why the Bush admin. bumped the whole thing down to civil (not criminal) status, from blogger Oliver Willis, whom I disagree with on many philosophical issues, but he DOES have the goods on this:
"Here's some more FACTS the right doesn't want you to know about:
1. Department Of Justice closed The New Black Panther case because nobody came forward to indicate a pattern of intimidation. The law requires that witnesses come forth to indicate that there was a pattern of voter intimidation. No witnesses did so from this polling place. None. Nada. Zip. The Department of Justice can’t just go ahead with a prosecution because they feel like it if they lack the required evidence. It would in fact be an abuse of legal power to do so.
2. An injunction was filed against the New Black Panther Party member with a nightstick. The only weapon at the scene (conservative media has tried to claim there was a gun there, there wasn’t) was a nightstick wielded by a New Black Panther Party member. The DOJ did file an injunction against this man.
3. The “kill ****” video is from before the election. The National Geographic Channel video of a New Black Panther Party member yelling about killing “****” and white babies was made before the 2008 election, not after as Fox and other outlets have falsely promoted.
4. J. Christian Adams is a GOP activist, and his testimony is all hearsay. In his testimony, J. Christian Adams cites a lot of hearsay but nothing he directly observed. In other words, office gossip at best, possibly completely fabricated stories at worst.
5. There is no connection between President Obama and the New Black Panther Party. President Obama has no connection to the New Black Panther Party. He does not support their mission or their rhetoric. President Obama has repeatedly denounced racial hatred. The only (false) connection between Obama and the New Black Panther Party is that outlets like Fox News keep trying to connect the two in a cynical, dangerous attempt to play racial politics to aid the Republican party."
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2010/07/11/why-di...
Well, to be fair here (and I'm lily-white, just for full disclosure) some are saying there's far less to the whole New Black Panther case than meets the eye. At least legally and as far as the responsibilities of Obama's administration. I'm certainly no supporter of the administration on ideology and political philosophy. And maybe some of the NBPs are obnoxious. But let me forward you something I came across from a site from a guy named Adam Serwer, and then also Oliver Willis, who is also black on blogs on these kinds of issues.
Allegedly, what was claimed was said (in regards to Obama's DOJ's stance on this) in testimony by former Justice Department attorney Christian Adams is that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes ordered: “Never bring another lawsuit against a black or other national minority, apparently no matter what they do.”
In reality, as Serwer pointed out:
“(A)ccording to the Raben Group, a progressive PR firm Fernades worked for prior to the Justice Department, she didn’t leave her job with them until June 22, 2009, more than six months after the criminal case against the NBPP members was dropped. Even if she did say that — and none of my sources in the Voting Section ever heard her say anything of the sort — it wouldn’t have had any bearing on the NBPP case, because she wasn’t there when it was dismissed.
All of which kind of puts a rather large wrinkle in the right-wing fantasy that the decision to pursue a civil rather than criminal case against The New Black Panther Party members was a racist decree handed down from the racist leadership of the Obama administration. None of the Obama administration’s political appointees who have been attacked as having mandated this decision were even working at the Department of Justice at the time the case was downgraded!
What keeps popping up in my head now is what was the program called that National Geographic was making if they are the ones who filmed that NBP member's ranting ?
Also if no one showed up to testify that they were intimidated at that polling location it indicates one of 2 things. Either the word was not put out in that precinct that there was going to be a hearing (?) to go and make a statement about their intimidation...so no one even knew about it.
OR...the word WAS put out in the precinct about it....and, for whatever reasons, no one chose to show up.
Disturbing either way.
Signed,
SB Smith
TX
Post a Comment