[subego]

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

MSNBC suspended correspondent David Shuster yesterday for an undetermined period for making a disparaging on-air remark about Chelsea Clinton. Meanwhile, officials in her mother's campaign raised the possibility of punishing the news channel by boycotting future debates.

While filling in as a host Thursday, Shuster was discussing the 27-year-old's role in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign with two guests when he asked: "Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"

MSNBC has been ripping a bit on the Clintons of late, but to be honest, Shuster is such a doofus, I can see him just blowing his own foot off because it seemed like a "edgy" idea at the time. The article didn't say what show he was guest hosting for, but I think it was Hardball, thus giving him the idea he had to "keep it real".

So, what say you? Conspiracy? Stupidity? Conspiracy of stupidity?



Okay, I must admit that I'm also posting this because I assume you find these types of media follies entertaining.

[Chuckit]

I'm not really familiar with Shuster, but I can't really say I understand why MSNBC would suspend him for saying that.

[subego]

Here's the clip. Turns out he was subbing for Tucker.

As for the suspension, in what sense do you see it as not appropriate?

Makes sense from a "law of the jungle" standpoint. You choose a "colorful" term to describe how a presidential candidate is using her daughter, who's father just happens to be a former president... On national television...

You've just stepped on some serious toes.

Makes sense from the Shuster is a knucklehead standpoint. I mean, the question, had he continued to use the far less loaded term "unseemly", might be interesting as an entrée to a discussion of how even strong candidates have trouble mounting a full-court press across all of America at once, but the notion that Chelsea's contributions are actually unseemly is ridiculous.

Is the guy that much of a rube that of all the campaign going-ons at the moment, this is what occurs to his astute political mind as unseemly? Hillary's daughter, who is working full-time on her campaign, is actually trying to influence the outcome of the election? What a whore.

Further, the clip contains his apology, which is one of those "I'm sorry you got angry" kind of apologies.

If I'm his boss, he's done worse than nothing to make me want to stand behind him on this.

Back to the law of the jungle. If you, as a presidential candidate and senator, with your former president husband, can't lay smackdown on someone who takes a cheap shot at your family. Go home. You've lost.

So they put the squeeze on MSNBC, and they mean it. They threaten to cut-off access. Who would suffer the most from this if it remained a standoff?

MSNBC would be shredded before they could blink. The election is the story for the next 280-so days. MSNBC can't afford to be shut out. The way the Clintons decided to make their play, they would hurt themselves more if they didn't shut out MSNBC.

Ergo, MSNBC has gone into grovel mode, and will continue to do so until Clinton magnanimously accepts their apologies.

After she's let them sweat for awhile.

[OreoCookie]

In my opinion, it's not about stepping on anybody's toes: if you're on television, and your conduct is inappropriate, they have every right to suspend an employee. It's not a free speech issue to me.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In my opinion, it's not about stepping on anybody's toes: if you're on television, and your conduct is inappropriate, they have every right to suspend an employee. It's not a free speech issue to me.

I'm confused by what you mean here.

I would say that it's about stepping on toes precisely because it is not a free speech issue.

If it was about free speech he could step on any toe he wanted all day long. He did the toe-tap on MSNBC's dime, so it's up to them what they consider appropriate, and that is 110% based on money.

Shuster stepped on the toes of people who can cost his boss a lot of money, so his boss is going to take him behind the shed.

No one ever clued Shuster into the fact that if anyone is the pimp in this situation it's his boss, and if anyone is the whore, it's himself.

[OreoCookie]

His comments were made while he was working, i. e. he was a representative of MSNBC. IMO it was justified to fire him (well, he was suspended), not because of what he said, but how he said it. If MSNBC decides that this is not how they want to be represented, then it's a fair decision to suspend him.

It's not about stepping on toes at all, it's using unsuitable language.
(Obviously, I cannot say whether this was MSNBC's line of reasoning, but that would be mine.)

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

His comments were made while he was working, i. e. he was a representative of MSNBC. IMO it was justified to fire him (well, he was suspended), not because of what he said, but how he said it. If MSNBC decides that this is not how they want to be represented, then it's a fair decision to suspend him.

It's not about stepping on toes at all, it's using unsuitable language.
(Obviously, I cannot say whether this was MSNBC's line of reasoning, but that would be mine.)

Let me put it this way.

If he had said it about a nobody, it's unlikely you would have heard about it. Even if you happened to be his boss.

This is only an issue because it was said about someone with the motive and means to make it an issue.

[OreoCookie]

In my book, he should have faced the same consequences, even if he said it about someone else or a nobody. If he were part of Bill Maher's Real Time, I wouldn't mind (as HBO), because the expectation I have as an employer in his conduct and language is different.

[Dork.]

That wasn't the smartest thing to say (although the words "pimp" and "pimped" have become acceptable urban slang in certain contexts, although perhaps not when describing a young woman being "pimped out"....). and I don't blame the Clintons for being angry. But as President, Hillary will have to deal with people who will say far worse things about her and her family. If she does go through and stage some vindictive boycott of the station, I will question her ability to deal constructively with people who hold a low opinion of her -- and let's face it, that about half the country, isn't it?

[BlueSky]

At least he didn't call her nappy-headed.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

That wasn't the smartest thing to say (although the words "pimp" and "pimped" have become acceptable urban slang in certain contexts, although perhaps not when describing a young woman being "pimped out"....). and I don't blame the Clintons for being angry. But as President, Hillary will have to deal with people who will say far worse things about her and her family. If she does go through and stage some vindictive boycott of the station, I will question her ability to deal constructively with people who hold a low opinion of her -- and let's face it, that about half the country, isn't it?

But I think that's the idea. The press has felt much freer to say whatever crap they wanted to about Bill Clinton than about Bush, and I think she's laying down the law right now, trying to set the tone of what's off-limits, before it really starts. I have my doubts about it being successful, though...

[subego]

I thought maybe I was being too hard on Shuss, but here's how the first volleys of the email excange between him and the Clinton camp went down:

Originally Posted by Philippe Reines

David - how hard is it for someone, anyone, in the vast MS/NBC universe to contact any one of us at the campaign for comment about Chelsea before going on air and saying that she is being "pimped out" ? It's absurdly offensive. And what the hell does that even mean?

I just don't get MSNBC - does GE not allow you to make toll calls? What's the problem.

Philippe Reines
Press Secretary
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Originally Posted by David Shuster

Nice to hear from you, philippe.

It is a fact that chelsea has made calls to superdelegates, as your campaign colleagues have acknowledged. It is also a fact that the campaign has reacted quite harshly to any media who have sought to interview chelsea. That was the point. By slamming any reporter who seeks to chat with chelsea while simultaneously having chelsea do campaign tasks such as trying to convince super delegates to support her mom, that's the reference.

Chelsea is polite and does a fine job of saying "I don't want to talk.". But for campaign staff to then jump down the throat of a reporter who seeks to talk to chelsea...that's an issue.

Really, Shuster needs to come here to get a little schooling (from myself included) at how to worm your way out of things with BS.

Poor Dan Abrams. He was already having a shitty day, and then this lands on his desk.

[RAILhead]

Mommy just got her panties (does Hillary wear panties?) in a wad, and got the guy suspended.

LAME.

If he would have said that about Romney's kid, nothing would have been done because Romney wouldn't have thought he had to throw his weight around.

[subego]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Romney wouldn't have thought he had to throw his weight around.

How'd that work out for him?

Oh wait, he lost.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by subego 

How'd that work out for him?

Oh wait, he lost.

How did what work out? When did someone take a dig at his kid which led him to having his harpies can the "offender"?

[subego]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

How did what work out? When did someone take a dig at his kid which led him to having his harpies can the "offender"?

It didn't have to happen for you to be confident of how he would behave if it did, so he's done things which would lead you to that conclusion.

I don't know what those particular things are, but what they all have in common is falling into the category of "things done by a loser".

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

How did what work out? When did someone take a dig at his kid which led him to having his harpies can the "offender"?

That's right, no one referred to his kid as being pimped out, or anything like that. No one would. But somehow, it's "anything goes" when it's the Clintons. I say good for Hillary for not taking the sh1t that they've taken for so many years.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Hillary Clinton

Dear Mr. [president of NBC News] Capus,

Thank you for your call yesterday. I wanted to send you this note to convey the depth of my feeling about David Shuster's comments.

I know that I am a public figure and that my daughter is playing a public role in my campaign. I am accustomed to criticism, certainly from MSNBC. I know that it goes with the territory.

However, I became Chelsea's mother long before I ran for any office and I will always be a mom first and a public official second.

Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half hearted apology is sufficient.

I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language.

There's a lot at stake for our country in this election. Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

She's asked for blood in writing.

[Chuckit]

Somebody needs to break out the world's tiniest violin for Hillary. Honestly, whether you believe the language was appropriate or not (I'm personally OK with it, since it was quite clear that he didn't mean it literally), trying to silence your opponents by whining is a terribly unappealing tactic.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Somebody needs to break out the world's tiniest violin for Hillary. Honestly, whether you believe the language was appropriate or not (I'm personally OK with it, since it was quite clear that he didn't mean it literally), trying to silence your opponents by whining is a terribly unappealing tactic.

Eh, Republicans devote considerable portions of their rhetoric to complaining about alleged wrongs that the media does to them - much more so than Democrats. Is that all whining?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

trying to silence your opponents by whining is a terribly unappealing tactic.

They sound more like threats to me.

I watch a fair amount of MSNBC, I'd have to say that they aren't quite sure they want to consider themselves opponents to Clinton at this point.

Certainly not the way they are declared opponents of Bush.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Mommy just got her panties (does Hillary wear panties?) in a wad, and got the guy suspended.

LAME.

If he would have said that about Romney's kid, nothing would have been done because Romney wouldn't have thought he had to throw his weight around.

Your daughter's a crack-whore, really. I kid you not.

Feel better?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Eh, Republicans devote considerable portions of their rhetoric to complaining about alleged wrongs that the media does to them - much more so than Democrats. Is that all whining?

I've heard Republicans complain before, but they don't generally seem this histrionic (nor do the Democrats, for that matter). I can't recall the last time a commentator was suspended because a Republican threw a tantrum.

[olePigeon]

I don't get it. Does Chelsea have neon lights and spinners?

[Chuckit]

No, but that would be awesome.

[Kerrigan]

Who's the "pimp" in this scenario? I mean, one would think it is Bill, but I saw a movie once called "The Players' Club" on BET which had a butch lesbian stripper who "pimped out" her "hos," so this does not preclude Hillary from the role of the "pimp".

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Who's the "pimp" in this scenario? I mean, one would think it is Bill

So, he has neon lights and spinners?

Like I even need to ask.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I've heard Republicans complain before, but they don't generally seem this histrionic (nor do the Democrats, for that matter). I can't recall the last time a commentator was suspended because a Republican threw a tantrum.

I think you're being disingenuous here. "I've heard Republicans complain before," haha. Complaining about the media is a very large proportion of the whole conservative schtick, on talk radio, on blogs, in opinion columns, on and on. It's one of the most important components of conservative political rhetoric, and it has been for decades. You know it, and everyone knows it. Dan Rather - one of the most prominent newsmen in the business - basically lost his job because of it.

The media wouldn't refer to, say, Romney's sons in that way, but with the Clintons, they're just in the habit of saying whatever they want. She has intentionally let it be known that she's going to single them out and put pressure on them if they start it up again. Is that whining, or is it refusing to be walked over?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I think you're being disingenuous here. "I've heard Republicans complain before," haha. Complaining about the media is a very large proportion of the whole conservative schtick, on talk radio, on blogs, in opinion columns, on and on. It's one of the most important components of conservative political rhetoric, and it has been for decades. You know it, and everyone knows it. Dan Rather - one of the most prominent newsmen in the business - basically lost his job because of it.

The media wouldn't refer to, say, Romney's sons in that way, but with the Clintons, they're just in the habit of saying whatever they want. She has intentionally let it be known that she's going to single them out and put pressure on them if they start it up again. Is that whining, or is it refusing to be walked over?

Dan Rather lost his job not because Republicans complained, but because Rather took documents that were faked and claimed that they were true to try and bring down a sitting president. (Hey, what better way than to re-assert that you're worth the money CBS is paying you? What better way to create a position in the history books than to manipulate an entire election by timing the news of these fakes with going to the polls?)

Then, when the documents were proven to be fakes, he claimed that they were "fake, but accurate." Then CBS held an internal inquiry, found the documents to be faked, found Rather and his producer Mary Mapes responsible for trying to represent fakes as genuine news, and fired him. Which is what any organization that wants to make the barest resemblance of being a news source rather than propaganda organ should have done.

It is reprehensible that someone should make such comments about Chelsea. Heaven forbid that a daughter want to help her mother in her campaign! Perish the thought! Yes, she's an adult, so I suppose she's fair game for media slime, but there's really nothing to attack her on, other than perhaps not giving the elementary student writing for Scholastic magazine the interview. (Chelsea declined saying "I've been told by the campaign to not talk to the press, and I'm sorry but that includes you.")

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Dan Rather lost his job not because Republicans complained, but because Rather took documents that were faked and claimed that they were true to try and bring down a sitting president. (Hey, what better way than to re-assert that you're worth the money CBS is paying you? What better way to create a position in the history books than to manipulate an entire election by timing the news of these fakes with going to the polls?)

Of course, but Shuster was suspended not because Clinton complained, but because he twisted what was extremely normal into something that was slimy and sexual. They were both responsible, they were both criticized, and they were both punished, so it's not accurate to say this kind of thing only happens when Clinton or Democrats are involved.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

But I think that's the idea. The press has felt much freer to say whatever crap they wanted to about Bill Clinton than about Bush, and I think she's laying down the law right now, trying to set the tone of what's off-limits, before it really starts. I have my doubts about it being successful, though...

In fairness, though, Bill Clinton really brought a lot of that on himself, while Bush has the convenient advantage of a war going on for much of his Presidency, which automatically changes the rules somewhat. Life isn't fair, though, and if you want to be President, you have to be able to show an ability to handle this without, well, throwing a hissy fit. (And as the first viable woman candidate for President, you even have to endure people calling throwing your weight around "a hissy fit"....)

This reminds me of how the press handled Dick Cheney's daughter throughout both campaigns. In that case, I don't think Mary Cheney did nearly as much for her dad's campaign as Chelsea is doing for her mom's, and yet the Media did anything they could to drag Mary Cheney into the discussion, since it would have been such an easy story. Dick simply reiterated that he wanted his family life kept out of the race, in a manner that let you know he meant it, without overt threats. Although, one has to wonder what would have happened had someone called his daughter something worse than just a lesbian....

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

In fairness, though, Bill Clinton really brought a lot of that on himself, while Bush has the convenient advantage of a war going on for much of his Presidency, which automatically changes the rules somewhat. Life isn't fair, though, and if you want to be President, you have to be able to show an ability to handle this without, well, throwing a hissy fit. (And as the first viable woman candidate for President, you even have to endure people calling throwing your weight around "a hissy fit"....).

Was it really a "hissy fit?" Or is that just an unfair choice of words? Could it also have been interpreted as a tough response that let it known she wasn't going to take any crap? Again, Republicans spend huge amounts of time complaining about the media, and generally people don't say they're "throwing hissy fits." People commend them for fighting. Why did you choose to call her response a "hissy fit?"

I just find it very interesting that everyone seems to agree that what Shuster said was over the line, but they still find a way to criticize Clinton. There's a huge double standard, IMO, when it comes to the Clintons.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I just find it very interesting that everyone seems to agree that what Shuster said was over the line, but they still find a way to criticize Clinton. There's a huge double standard, IMO, when it comes to the Clintons.

Or, it's possible that they've both handled this badly. And that someone who is aspiring to be President might be held up to a higher standard in this regard than a hack of a reporter.

[Buckaroo]

Gads. I swear I looked for any threads on this before I posted. My eyesight isn't as good as it use to be, but I went down the list. In order to allow it to fade away, I posted my reply here. I believe I was looking for the word pimp and Chelsea near the start of the title.

Originally Posted by subego 

Check the next thread.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Or, it's possible that they've both handled this badly. And that someone who is aspiring to be President might be held up to a higher standard in this regard than a hack of a reporter.

So, Clinton criticizing this reporter (I mean, "throwing a hissy fit") for what everyone seems to agree was bad behavior on his part, is just as bad as what the reporter did? I'm sorry, but I don't get it. She wrote a totally appropriate letter expressing her criticism of what the reporter said - something that campaigns are constantly doing with reporters - and as far as I know has never said anything else publicly about it. How that's a hissy fit, and just as bad as what the reporter she's criticizing said in the first place, is beyond me... unless you remember she's a Clinton, and everything they do is seen in a negative light.

[Dork.]

I made the reference to a "hissy fit" as an attempt to deliberately tweak people, of course.

However, it was more in reference to the possibility that she'd somehow boycott MSNBC over this. Taking a little more time to investigate this morning, I can't find the concept attributed directly to her, but rather to some people on her staff. The letter itself is entirely appropriate. It doesn't presume to tell MSNBC directly what to do, but does indicate that they went over the line. I hereby withdraw my reference to a Clintonian "Hissy Fit" (although I reserve the right to reinstate it if the shoe fits in the future.... )

[Buckaroo]

If Chelsea is out there playing politics, she has to expect to get a little dirty in the process.

If she does not want people to talk about Chelsea, then Chelsea needs to stay OUT of the political limelight. You can't have ti both ways. Oops, unless if your a Clinton.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I made the reference to a "hissy fit" as an attempt to deliberately tweak people, of course.

Then I hereby withdraw my own hissy fit over your use of the term hissy fit.

[Buckaroo]

Besides Pimped out does not have the same meaning that SHillary thinks it does.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Besides Pimped out does not have the same meaning that SHillary thinks it does.

So, what does it mean, and what does she think it means?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I made the reference to a "hissy fit" as an attempt to deliberately tweak people, of course.

Oh, you whore.

[macintologist]

Maybe I don't understand American culture that well but could someone explain what "pimped out" literally means and why Hillary would be offended by it?

[subego]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Maybe I don't understand American culture that well but could someone explain what "pimped out" literally means and why Hillary would be offended by it?

To put one's prostitute to work.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, what does it mean, and what does she think it means?

State your car will be in if you have added the gold trim package, curb feelers, continential kit, white wall tires, rims that are off set and stick out at least 4" from the side of the car body, lowered 4", TV boomerange antenna, blackout tited windows, crushed velour seats, custom chain steering wheel, neon liscense plate surround, huge naked woman hood ornament, sound system that has no treble, custom metalic purple paint job, and fuzzy dice.

Used as an adjective: cool, awesome, worthy of a pimp or pimpette
"Dshaun's got a pimped out ride."

Having excessive embellishments or ornaments, particularly of the flashy kind, ie feathers in fedoras, black canes with silver handles, multicolored mis-matched shoes, and colorful crushed velvet suits. Preferably worn simultaneously.

Fresh to death......
real hot lookin
feaaalinn ggoooog G
just a clean look u got going on
nice line up on the hair fresh forces just looking crispy
also iced up
jeweluryy
the best example for pimed out is either having madddddd stylee like crazy colours with crazy designs like something u would see on a bape hoddie orr
just a clean white tee clean white hat grey dickies and some forces

"ey yoo G where u get ur gear from its really pimped out, you loookinnn pimped out"

By the amount of bling-bling he was flashing, we knew he was pimped out.

pimp out is a look..a smoothness its the way you act..it refers to the early 60's and 70's when black men and women were smooth..such clothing include a fedora,tam,kangol,prokeds ,converse,turtlenecks..CA RS anything older than 82 is a pimp out....afros.naturals..lo cks and cornrows(not fashion cornrows..straight back,) are pimped out....

Yo she straight up pimped those Adidas out..

Urban Dictionary: pimped out

[subego]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Urban Dictionary: pimped out

None of those definitions make any sense in the context Shuster used it.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by subego 

None of those definitions make any sense in the context Shuster used it.

Not even a little bit?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I think you're being disingenuous here. "I've heard Republicans complain before," haha. Complaining about the media is a very large proportion of the whole conservative schtick, on talk radio, on blogs, in opinion columns, on and on. It's one of the most important components of conservative political rhetoric, and it has been for decades. You know it, and everyone knows it. Dan Rather - one of the most prominent newsmen in the business - basically lost his job because of it.

No, that is disingenuous. Dan Rather did not lose his job because Republicans didn't like his opinion of them, or even because they didn't like how he expressed his opinion of them — he lost his job because he refused to do his job. Dan Rather's job was simply to report the truth. Instead, Rather made things up, and even when he was called on it, he refused to correct himself. I've had reporters fired for less. Just because Rather was more "prominent" doesn't make him exempt from basic ethical standards.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The media wouldn't refer to, say, Romney's sons in that way, but with the Clintons, they're just in the habit of saying whatever they want. She has intentionally let it be known that she's going to single them out and put pressure on them if they start it up again. Is that whining, or is it refusing to be walked over?

It's whining. She isn't disputing the facts — she's just talking about how personally hurt she is and making vague threats. She sounds like a little kid whose daddy was a two minutes late at her ballet recital and now she wants a pony to make up for it.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Of course, but Shuster was suspended not because Clinton complained, but because he twisted what was extremely normal into something that was slimy and sexual.

This is also disingenuous. Please don't play dumb here; it doesn't help the conversation at all. You and I both know that he was not suggesting anything sexual. He was comparing the Clintons' treatment of her — in very specific aspects — to the way a pimp treats a prostitute.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Maybe I don't understand American culture that well but could someone explain what "pimped out" literally means and why Hillary would be offended by it?

"Pimp out" means to act as a pimp for a prostitute. He was referring to the way a pimp treats a prostitute — using her to do favors that earn him money and power but not letting anybody else get close to her to find out how she really feels about things. It's important to note that he did not say Chelsea was being pimped out.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, that is disingenuous. Dan Rather did not lose his job because Republicans didn't like his opinion of them, or even because they didn't like how he expressed his opinion of them — he lost his job because he refused to do his job. Dan Rather's job was simply to report the truth. Instead, Rather made things up, and even when he was called on it, he refused to correct himself. I've had reporters fired for less. Just because Rather was more "prominent" doesn't make him exempt from basic ethical standards.

It is exactly the same with Shuster. He wasn't doing his job, he refused to offer a real apology, he isn't exempt from basic ethical standards, and that's why he was suspended. But somehow, Clinton is doing something terribly horribly wrong.

It's whining. She isn't disputing the facts — she's just talking about how personally hurt she is and making vague threats. She sounds like a little kid whose daddy was a two minutes late at her ballet recital and now she wants a pony to make up for it.

"Facts?" What in the world are you talking about? It was a simple insult, not a factual disagreement. Campaigns are constantly firing off letters complaining to reporters. Republicans especially complain constantly about the media. But I wager that no one has ever compared it to "a ballet recital" like you just did. Interesting choice of analogies...

This is also disingenuous. Please don't play dumb here; it doesn't help the conversation at all. You and I both know that he was not suggesting anything sexual. He was comparing the Clintons' treatment of her — in very specific aspects — to the way a pimp treats a prostitute.

So now in order to defend Shuster you're claiming that prostitution and pimping are not sexual? My, the twists and turns you get yourself into.

It's important to note that he did not say Chelsea was being pimped out.

Unbelievable. 1) He did say that and 2) what's "important" about your point?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It is exactly the same with Shuster. He wasn't doing his job, he refused to offer a real apology, he isn't exempt from basic ethical standards, and that's why he was suspended.

"Facts?" What in the world are you talking about? It was a simple insult, not a factual disagreement.

So in other words, Shuster did not get any facts wrong, and thus his case is not remotely similar to Dan Rather's. Good, then we agree.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Campaigns are constantly firing off letters complaining to reporters. Republicans especially complain constantly about the media.

Yes, lots of politicians (in both parties) feel that they are treated poorly by the media, but this is the first case I can think of where somebody was suspended because a politician got her feelings hurt. If there was another with a Republican, it's not coming to me.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

So now in order to defend Shuster you're claiming that prostitution and pimping are not sexual? My, the twists and turns you get yourself into.

I'm claiming that he was obviously not talking about literal pimping. Take a short break from making snide remarks at me and watch the clip if you don't believe it.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Unbelievable. 1) He did say that and 2) what's "important" about your point?

You are mistaken. He said — and this is a direct quote — "Doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" This was in the context of how her parents are attacking journalists who try to talk to Chelsea. Do you really believe he was suggesting Chelsea is having sex with people for money? Do you sincerely believe that?