Bill Cunningham raises the ire of national organization...

[davepurcell]

...MoveOn.org. There's a short list of things I'm willing to take a hit on my karma for, and one of them is wishing that someone would bash this motherfucker's head in with a bat. He's truly a repugnant human being.

dp

----

Subject: Conservative radio host deceives Fox viewers


Dear Media Corps member,
Conservative talk radio host Bill Cunningham appeared on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" last night to speak about the death of African-American Nathaniel Jones after four white police officers beat him Sunday. Sean Hannity introduced him as "a great American with a full report from the great station, WLW," Cincinnati's Clear Channel station.

Cunningham deceived viewers about the facts of the case, repeatedly claiming Jones had died due to his obesity though the coroner's report has not been released. Urge other networks not to follow Fox News' lead by inviting Cunningham as a "local expert" on the incident.

CNN
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html?32

MSNBC
viewerservices@msnbc.com

CBS News
audsvcs@cbs.com

NBC News
http://www.msnbc.com/news/435157.asp#nbc

ABC News
http://www.abcnews.go.com/service/Help/abcmail_news.html

"At the end of the day, this man died of heart failure because he was a blimp and a poor imitation of Notorious B.I.G." insisted Cunningham. Meanwhile, his own radio station reported: "The coroner is expected to release an official cause of death in the next several days."

Whether the cause of death turns out to be related to the beating or not, Cunningham's comments were premature and deceptive. Instead of seeking more information so an accurate determination could be made, Cunningham jumped to the conclusion that no police misconduct had occurred, despite numerous recent deaths in Cincinnati's African-American neighborhoods.

Cunningham dismissed host Alan Colmes' questions about whether the police had been adequately prepared to de-escalate situations involving mental illness or drug use. Colmes said: "This is the fourth time in seven years that confrontations between Cincinnati police and individuals who were or appeared to be mentally ill have ended fatally. The fourth time in seven years. Doesn't that concern you and shouldn't that be looked into? Is that a pattern?" Cunningham's reply: "All of us could be mentally ill."

When Colmes pressed him on the fatalities, Cunningham explained them as follows:

"Because crazy people do crazy things. When someone that weighs 350 pounds that looks like Haystack Calhoun tries to take your head off, you can't call a T.O. baby and say, 'Wait for the taser, wait for the stun gun, wait for mental health experts.'

"He was on top of him like a bat suit. And this refrigerator weighed 350 pounds and he was pummeling the officer nearly to death. And I'm proud of what the cops did and I want them to do more of it."

Later in the show, Cunningham locked horns with the show's other guest, defense attorney Milton Grimes:


CUNNINGHAM: I'll bet you a dozen Krispy Kreme doughnuts this guy died of congestive heart failure, because he weighed almost 400 pounds.
GRIMES: You keep emphasizing this man's size. He's a human being. You keep emphasizing his size.

CUNNINGHAM: Well, that's the reason he died. He was morbidly fat. Eating right...

GRIMES: That's your belief. You have nothing scientifically to back that up.

Cunningham ended his appearance with this insult toward Grimes: "People like you are destroying the inner cities by paying degenerates, paying idiots or poverty pimps. Talk to Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Grimes. Talk to Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson [the anti-Jesse Jackson, Christian Coalition member who advocates boycotting the NAACP]."

Fox News treated Bill Cunningham as a reasonable local expert instead of a race-baiting ideologue. Then they let him get away with making outrageous claims without any evidence.

Often, other news networks are tempted to follow Fox's lead. Before that happens, encourage them instead to find a guest who will provide their viewers with honest facts and context:

CNN
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.html?32

MSNBC
viewerservices@msnbc.com

CBS News
audsvcs@cbs.com

NBC News
http://www.msnbc.com/news/435157.asp#nbc

ABC News
http://www.abcnews.go.com/service/Help/abcmail_news.html

Please help us keep track of how many comments were made at:
http://www.moveon.org/mediacorps/cunningham_dash.html?id=2169-511677-jhX2onYXdEj2Oaz68gGTiA

We can't let Fox News be a bridge for deceptive, fringe pundits to get onto mainstream news shows. Thanks for sounding the alarm before they sneak through.

Sincerely,
--Noah T. Winer
MoveOn.org
December 2, 2003

[doctort13]

You know, if you hit Billy in the face a few times, it may improve his looks.

This is one ugly man.
http://www.700wlw.com/timages/page/willie2.jpg

[Bronzetree]

Sometimes when I'm not in the mood to listen to CDs, or accidentally leave the radio on 700 after a Reds or Bearcats game, I listen to Cunningham just to humor myself on how much of a dick he can make himself out to be.

[dcXhc]

Thread title is deceptive. It should read:

"Conservative Republican raises the ire of national organization formed to attack Republicans and conservatives"

[tobedawg]

Well.. it's NOT like I expect "TRUE" journalism from the FOX PROPAGANDA CHANNEL ..

[WalterSobchak]

Originally posted by dcXhc
Thread title is deceptive. It should read:

"Conservative Republican raises the ire of national organization formed to attack Republicans and conservatives"

careful there. I was not wearing my glasses when i read this and your wit almost poked my eye out. please post a disclaimer next time, thanks.

[mattsledge]

I said it somewhere else, and Iwill say it here:

Since "Willie" is a radio talk show host, his primary function is this:

To get the highest rating possible for his show and radio station.

Truth be damned, the hyperbole flies and the lies are outright blatant - all in the pursuit of ratings.

His mission is more than accomplished by being an ass on national TV. People will now tune in to WLW to see what he will say next ...

Which, by the way is how Howard Stern used to get HUGE ratings. People would only listen to him to hear what outlandish thing he would say next.

[davepurcell]

Originally posted by dcXhc
Thread title is deceptive. It should read:

"Conservative Republican raises the ire of national organization formed to attack Republicans and conservatives"

Funny timing on you saying that, because I just read an article this week (though I can't remember where at the moment) that made a good point about MoveOn's values being remarkably centrist and in line with the avg American's thinking. They purposely avoid divisive issues (e.g., abortion, death penalty) and generally seek compromises or reasonable solutions to things.

Yes, they lean Democrat, but opinion polls repeatedly show that the Democrats are more in line with the opinions of the majority of Americans. Remember who got the most votes in the last election?

dp

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by davepurcell
Funny timing on you saying that, because I just read an article this week (though I can't remember where at the moment) that made a good point about MoveOn's values being remarkably centrist and in line with the avg American's thinking. They purposely avoid divisive issues (e.g., abortion, death penalty) and generally seek compromises or reasonable solutions to things.

Yes, they lean Democrat, but opinion polls repeatedly show that the Democrats are more in line with the opinions of the majority of Americans. Remember who got the most votes in the last election?

dp

The organization was founded to take on the Republican leadership in Congress over the Clinton impeachment.

I'm not saying that this Cunningham dude isn't a royal ass (not living in Cincinatti I couldn't say), it's just not surprising that a group that was formed to attack conservative Republicans would attack a conservative Republican over his appearance on a conservative Republican talk show.

[davepurcell]

Originally posted by dcXhc
it's just not surprising that a group that was formed to attack conservative Republicans would attack a conservative Republican over his appearance on a conservative Republican talk show.

You're wrong, and the way you phrase this is emblematic of what's wrong with the larger debate. MoveOn was not formed to "attack" anyone. Look at the name: it was founded to urge Congress to reach a resolution and "move on" to more important issues. In their own words again:

Censure and Move On was a bipartisan group of concerned citizens organizing around a single cause: reaching closure on the Clinton scandal. The vast majority of the American public understood that a continuing obsession with scandal will do great damage to our institutions, our economy, and our power and prestige in the world. We expect our representatives to understand this as well, and show true leadership.

Again, MoveOn is a remarkably centrist organization that goes out of its way to avoid divisive issue and works to reach a reasonable consensus on issues. That's far from "attacking" anyone.

dp

[wdwrongforum]

Originally posted by mattsledge
I said it somewhere else, and Iwill say it here:

Since "Willie" is a radio talk show host, his primary function is this:

To get the highest rating possible for his show and radio station.

Truth be damned, the hyperbole flies and the lies are outright blatant - all in the pursuit of ratings.

His mission is more than accomplished by being an ass on national TV. People will now tune in to WLW to see what he will say next ...

Which, by the way is how Howard Stern used to get HUGE ratings. People would only listen to him to hear what outlandish thing he would say next.

Exactly, and by reading this thread it probably worked.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by davepurcell
You're wrong, and the way you phrase this is emblematic of what's wrong with the larger debate. MoveOn was not formed to "attack" anyone. Look at the name: it was founded to urge Congress to reach a resolution and "move on" to more important issues. In their own words again:

Censure and Move On was a bipartisan group of concerned citizens organizing around a single cause: reaching closure on the Clinton scandal. The vast majority of the American public understood that a continuing obsession with scandal will do great damage to our institutions, our economy, and our power and prestige in the world. We expect our representatives to understand this as well, and show true leadership.


FoxNews - In their own words: "Fair and Balanced"

Do you believe that too?

Originally posted by davepurcell
Again, MoveOn is a remarkably centrist organization that goes out of its way to avoid divisive issue and works to reach a reasonable consensus on issues. That's far from "attacking" anyone.

dp

MoveOn has been (along with A.N.S.W.E.R.) the main forces behind the anti-war marches. They've been behind pro-choice movements as well. That's hardly steering clear of divisive issues.

MoveOn was founded to oppose the impeachment of Clinton.

After the impeachment they remained in business, set up a PAC and stated their intention of helping to defeat Republican candidates in the 1998 elections.

George Soros has put up $5 million with the express goal of defeating George W. Bush. How is he doing this? By giving the money to MoveOn.org.

I'm not saying they're "bad" or "wrong." If you share their beliefs, that's fine. But don't try to portray them as a "centrist" organization.

[BigSugar]

yeah, Willie is a Class A jerkwad, but i'd agree with sledge that he's 90% bluster and hype, and 10% substance on this stuff. it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the coroner's report came back and said "congestive heart failure" or "Pulmonary embolism", but it's too early to make conclusions....just like it's too early to make conclusions about the police actions in this matter that are being discussed in the other thread.

MoveOn may be centrist, but centrist Democrat, which is not the equivalent of centrist American. big difference in my opinion. Their stated goals are to defeat republicans in Congress and the Presidency, as well as state and local races. Since the new "soft money" laws have come into effect, MoveOn has positioned itself under the tax code as one of the organizations that don't have to comply with the limitations on political donations (hence Soros' huge donations). In doing so, in the press/media and in their own stated goals, they have outed themselves as decidedly liberal in the causes/candidates they support, although the laws prevent them from espousing support for any particular candidate. Their ads, 99.9% of the time, target conservative candidates on their conservative viewpoints....and these tend to be anti-republican in nature.

but, who cares really. it's not like the republicans don't have soft money organizations that support them. So, maybe it helps balance. all in all, nothing we say will make Bill Cunningham less of a prick, or make MoveOn more conservative. just glad to see people giving a shit about what happens in the political arena.

BTW Dave, even with my friends/family discount, you'll need a cool $50,000 plus experts and bond money if you want to take a bat to Willie (more if he actually crokes!)....so think hard before acting. :) karma is expensive!

xoxo
D. Lama

[supra-genius]

Hey look, not only was Billy obnoxious, he was also dead wrong...

From the AP wire:

Death of Cincinnati Man to Be Listed as Homicide
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: December 3, 2003

Hamilton County Sheriff's Department
Nathaniel Jones, in 1998

CINCINNATI -- The coroner said Wednesday that a struggle with police was the primary cause in the death of a 350-pound man whose scuffle with police outside a fast-food restaurant has prompted outcry among black activists in Cincinnati.

Hamilton County Coroner Carl Parrott said Nathaniel Jones, 41, suffered from an enlarged heart, obesity and had intoxicating levels of cocaine, PCP and methanol in his blood.

Parrott said the death will be ruled a homicide, but added that such a ruling "should not be interpreted as implying inappropriate behavior or the use of excessive force by police."

Jones' death certificate will list a cause of death as an irregular heart beat because of a stress reaction from the violent struggle, Parrott said.

Activists say Jones' death was another example of brutality by Cincinnati police against blacks in the city rocked by race riots in 2001.

Jones died Sunday after being taken into custody in the parking lot of a White Castle restaurant. A police cruiser video camera showed Jones lunge at officers, who repeatedly hit him with metal nightsticks during the struggle.

Jones' body had bruising on the lower half, but did not show signs of blows to the head or organ damage, Parrott said.


It doesnt say the cops beat him to death, but that is was the cause... ( Kinda obvious one there) Honestly, I have no problems with how the police acted in this situation. They did what their training taught them to do. What needs to change is the training they have, more training on how to deal with the mentally unbalanced or drug inhibited individuals has been needed for years and this just another sad example of what can happen.

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by supra-genius
It doesnt say the cops beat him to death, but that is was the cause... ( Kinda obvious one there)

again....WRONG!!!

the coroner said that had nat jones not been on PCP and cocaine to intoxicating levels, then he would likely have survived the struggle. The force used did NOT cause the death. please get this straight, as it's a huge distinction. had nat jones not used drugs, had he not attacked police and instigated the response, had he not had high blood pressure and heart disease, then he would be alive. period. the stress on his heart which caused his death was entirely caused by his own actions. the police had to respond to his violence by subduing him. but the force DID NOT CAUSE THE DEATH.

[davepurcell]

Sug & dcXhc -- gents, I don't have time to respond properly, but I suggest you check you check any number of opinion polls sometime. Centrist Democratic values are for the most part Centrist American values. Bush, DeLay, Ashcroft & co are way to the right of truly centrist US values.

Remember who got the most votes in the last election?

I'm not arguing who has the better answers -- I'm just saying that in terms of values, MoveOn and centrist Dems more closely reflect the values of Americans. It doesn't always work out that way in the elections, but it's reality.

And Dc, you're wrong -- MoveOn was founded to urge Congress to MOVE ON. Get it? I got their very first emails and have been a member since the very early days. You can keep saying they were formed to oppose Clinton's impeachment, but you're flat, 100% wrong.

dp

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by davepurcell
Sug & dcXhc -- gents, I don't have time to respond properly, but I suggest you check you check any number of opinion polls sometime. Centrist Democratic values are for the most part Centrist American values. Bush, DeLay, Ashcroft & co are way to the right of truly centrist US values.

Remember who got the most votes in the last election?

I'm not arguing who has the better answers -- I'm just saying that in terms of values, MoveOn and centrist Dems more closely reflect the values of Americans. It doesn't always work out that way in the elections, but it's reality.

ok. i don't necessarily disagree, but there's alot that goes into determining core "values" other than # of votes in an election cycle. on the other hand, you could argue that with the majority of states having Republican governors, the majority of both houses being republican, and having a republican president means just the opposite of what you're saying. doesn't make it so, but it's worth looking at.


And Dc, you're wrong -- MoveOn was founded to urge Congress to MOVE ON. Get it? I got their very first emails and have been a member since the very early days. You can keep saying they were formed to oppose Clinton's impeachment, but you're flat, 100% wrong. dp

if they were formed during the impeachment, i think Dc has a fine, valid and supportable argument, and both of you may be right. if they were formed after the actual vote, then Dave's right. after all, if they were formed to "oppose" the impeachment AFTER the vote on impeachment took place, then they'd have to be pretty silly people.

but they've since taken their own advice, moved on from the clinton era and stepped squarely into the realm of anti-republican (or liberal if you prefer) politics. bully for them. we of the conservative ideology enjoy a good challenge. :D

[dcXhc]

MoveOn was founded to support Clinton leading up to impeachment. Their motto was "Censure and Move On". Their position was to oppose impeachment and offer censure instead. In other words, MoveOn was founded to oppose the impeachment.

After the impeachment was over, the group decided it didn't want to "move on" but to get revenge instead.

They morphed into a political action group and targeted Republican members of Congress who had voted for impeachment and were up for re-election. They did not target any of the five Democrats who voted for impeachment and were up for re-election.

They subsequently registered as a PAC. They have distributed hard money to 75 Democrats. 0 Republicans. They spent an additional $2.4 million in soft money entirely on Democratic candidates in 2000.

Democratic pollster and Gore adviser Celinda Lake: "In the long run, MoveOn could be our Rush Limbaugh."

Is Limbaugh a centrist too?

Have you seen http://www.GWBush.com ?

Whose website is that? Zack Exley's. Zack's a senior director at MoveOn and organized the group's recent "electronic primary."

Currently MoveOn is sponsoring a contest for anti-Bush ads. The panel of "centrist" judges includes James Carville, Donna Brazile, Janeane Garofalo, Al Franken, and everybody's favorite centrist -- Michael Moore.

So, judging from the group's activities, your average centrist American believes that Bush is evil incarnate, and your average centrist American only supports liberal Democrats. Moreover, your average centrist American wants a special prosecutor appointed to investigate Bush and they want Rumsfeld fired.

mmmmkay.

I'm not saying there's anything "wrong" with MoveOn's views, just pointing out that they are the epitome of a strictly partisan liberal activist PAC.

Originally posted by davepurcell
Remember who got the most votes in the last election?

Do you mean the 2003 elections in which the Republicans picked up two new governors (three if you count The Governator)?

Or did you mean the 2002 elections in which the Republicans picked up six more house seats and two more senate seats?

[supra-genius]

Originally posted by BigSugar


again....WRONG!!!

the coroner said that had nat jones not been on PCP and cocaine to intoxicating levels, then he would likely have survived the struggle. The force used did NOT cause the death. please get this straight, as it's a huge distinction. had nat jones not used drugs, had he not attacked police and instigated the response, had he not had high blood pressure and heart disease, then he would be alive. period. the stress on his heart which caused his death was entirely caused by his own actions. the police had to respond to his violence by subduing him. but the force DID NOT CAUSE THE DEATH.

Im not wrong... Yes he was on drugs, yes he had and enlarged heart, and yes he had high blood pressure but if not for the struggle, he would be alive.. To quote the coroner "Absent the struggle, however, Mr. Jones would not have died at that precise moment of time." So, he could have had all those thing wrong with him and lived, but instead he got in a fight with the cops and died, how does that not make the fight the major contributing factor in his death??? He didnt die from high blood pressure, he didnt die from a drug overdose, again the coroner states "The struggle caused cardiac dysrhythmia, which was the ultimate physical cause of death, but he stressed the event precipitating his death was the struggle."

[davepurcell]

dcXhc, you and I aren't going to agree on definitions of "liberal" and "centrist" so we'll just leave it at that. I completely understand what you're saying, but I disagree.

Most nonpartisan political observers, especially political scientists, recognize most of the people you list -- as centrist and mainstream -- with Bush to the right and Kucininch to the left. The Clinton/Gore/Carville team were hardly liberal in the traditional sense.

Cheers,
dp

[Duemellon]

I completely understand what you're saying, but I disagree. This phrase has always irked me as being inadequate and misleading. Honestly. If you truly understood what I was thinking, incorporating all my emotions, history, and expectations, than you'd either believe JUST like me afterwards or have some amazing revelation to share that would change my opinion.

I'm just pointing that out as a small thing that irks me unrelated to the larger argument going on right now and not necessarily disagreeing or agreeing with DP's post.

Our inability to do a "psychic dump" of emotions and feelings prevents complete understanding.

[davepurcell]

I said I understand what he's saying, not "I completely understand what you're saying as well as your entire cognitive and emotive states, and social/psychological history, that support and produce your statements."

There's a big enough problem with discourse in our society without picking apart statements like this.

dp

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by davepurcell
dcXhc, you and I aren't going to agree on definitions of "liberal" and "centrist" so we'll just leave it at that. I completely understand what you're saying, but I disagree.

Most nonpartisan political observers, especially political scientists, recognize most of the people you list -- as centrist and mainstream -- with Bush to the right and Kucininch to the left. The Clinton/Gore/Carville team were hardly liberal in the traditional sense.

Cheers,
dp

Fair enough.

But just because I'm a blowhard, I'll throw in one last thought.

I don't believe that reincarnating the Goldwater "Daisy" ad with nuclear annihilation as the tagline is "mainstream and centrist" in anybody's book.

If you look at moveon's site, all their top issues are destructive, not constructive.

"Uncover the truth about Bush."

"Create an ad to blast Bush."

"Fire Donald Rumsfeld."

"Appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Bush."

"Watch our latest ad: Bush = Misleader."

In theory, the group was created as a reaction to partisan attacks on Clinton. However, they are now a group that only dishes up partisan attacks on Bush. But maybe that's your definition of "mainstream and centrist".

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by supra-genius
im not wrong... Yes he was on drugs, yes he had and enlarged heart, and yes he had high blood pressure but if not for the struggle, he would be alive.. To quote the coroner "Absent the struggle, however, Mr. Jones would not have died at that precise moment of time." So, he could have had all those thing wrong with him and lived, but instead he got in a fight with the cops and died, how does that not make the fight the major contributing factor in his death??? He didnt die from high blood pressure, he didnt die from a drug overdose, again the coroner states "The struggle caused cardiac dysrhythmia, which was the ultimate physical cause of death, but he stressed the event precipitating his death was the struggle."

christ, do you bother to read your own posts?? you're post, quoted directly in my response before, said this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by supra-genius
It doesnt say the cops beat him to death, but that is was the cause... ( Kinda obvious one there)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so....now you've changed your position from the incorrect "cops beat him to death (kinda obvious one there)" to "struggle caused enlarged heart to stop", which is the correct version. thanx for fixing that.

and as for Carville, Garafalo and Moore being centrist and middle of the road america!??? LOL!!!!! WWWOOOOOOOOOOOO.....man, that was a good belly laugh. thanx guys, i need that one.....funny stuff. now, let's move on....(titter!)

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by davepurcell
I said I understand what he's saying, not "I completely understand what you're saying as well as your entire cognitive and emotive states, and social/psychological history, that support and produce your statements."

There's a big enough problem with discourse in our society without picking apart statements like this.

dp whoa there DP. It was a non-sequitor comment. Just something said.

[Emperor Wog]

Dave Purcell and Big Sugar were both in my band.

We drank and traveled the country and tore up hotel rooms.

Those were fun times, I'm going back to bed.

[BigSugar]

don't worry paul. just because your father and i fight doesn't mean we don't love you still. now go to sleep little prince and let dave and i work out our difficulties. ;)

[classicgrrl]

Originally posted by BigSugar
don't worry paul. just because your father and i fight doesn't mean we don't love you still. now go to sleep little prince and let dave and i work out our difficulties. ;)

:D
this made my day!

from what I've heard about this guy, Bill Cunningham could raise the ire of a slug...

[yvette7ica]

Originally posted by Duemellon
This phrase has always irked me as being inadequate and misleading. Honestly. If you truly understood what I was thinking, incorporating all my emotions, history, and expectations, than you'd either believe JUST like me afterwards or have some amazing revelation to share that would change my opinion.

I'm just pointing that out as a small thing that irks me unrelated to the larger argument going on right now and not necessarily disagreeing or agreeing with DP's post.

Our inability to do a "psychic dump" of emotions and feelings prevents complete understanding.

If anybody could be omniscient I thought it would be you, Due. You're like the Q of this board. I don't understand how you could think to know so much, but not understand the concept of comprehending someone elses point of view while at the same time disagreeing with it. How is the concept of agreeing to disagree such a foreign concept?

I'm leaving it up to everyone to figure out the sarcasm for themselves.

[Duemellon]

i guess no one here appreciates a non sequitor food-for-thought comment.

Or some ppl just can't accept that I could make such ambitiously ponderous statements.

Wow, someone else could say "I fly in my car heading to work up 71" and then someone else says "Of course you don't mean 'fly', but wouldn't it be cool if we could?" and those Due-snipes like Yvett, would simply take it as a non-sequitor. But no, not when I do it.

Whatever, God ppl, give it a rest once.

[yvette7ica]

Originally posted by Duemellon
Or some ppl just can't accept that I could make such ambitiously ponderous statements.

I rest on the fact that you are a deep thinker when it comes to pulling shit out of your ass.

I'm just giving you shit. At least I didn't call you a douche (even though I was thinking of John Edwards when I was replying to the previous post.)

[Duemellon]

I rest on the fact that you are a deep thinker when it comes to pulling shit out of your ass. blech (http://msg.woxy.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10892&perpage=20&pagenumber=1)