Bush 41 - Olbermann and Maddow are "Sick Puppies"!
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
October 18, 2009 6:02pm CST
Former President George H.W. Bush told CBS News that President Obama "is entitled to civil treatment and intellectual honesty when it comes to critics."
Referring to the tone of national discourse he said, "I don't like it. The cables (TV) have a lot to do with it."
In the radio interview, Mr. Bush said the volume of criticism aimed at him when he was president was not as "day in and day out."
The Republican elder statesman said, "It's not just the right." He complained, "there are plenty of people on the left."
While he said he does not believe in personal name-calling, he singled out MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow calling them "sick puppies."
"The way they treat my son and anyone who's opposed to their point of view is just horrible," Mr. Bush said.
"When our son was president they just hammered him mercilessly and I think obscenely a lot of the time and now it's moved to a new president," he added.
With a chuckle, Mr. Bush said his son's critics "weren't singled out as much as they should have been."
He said harsh criticism "should not be par for the course. To the degree it turns off one student or one person from serving that's bad."
Mr. Bush said verbal attacks on Mr. Obama "sometimes crosses the lines of civility." He also said it crosses "party lines and ideological lines."
Mr. Bush does not believe most of the attacks on Mr. Obama are racially motivated. He said, "You might find some racists out there but I don't think the attacks per se have to do that he's an African American."
(End of excerpt)
Read more here: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5390374.shtml?tag=contentMain%3BcontentBody
Hope this is clickable!
I must admit to having been a little disappointed in former President Bush. I mean, he said he doesn't like name-calling, then he goes on to call Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow "sick puppies"; wouldn't that be considered name-calling? Keith and Rachel are liberals, granted, but I don't think they've treated anyone "horribly" for not agreeing with them. Especially when you consider the nastiness that's been coming from the right lately!
Any comments?
Annie
3 people like this
6 responses
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
18 Oct 09
annie, i watch Olberman and Maddow a LOT. They both have a very snide, school yard mentality. They are in fact sick puppies. They are for the most part nasty, childish, and in most cases, have almost no grasp of the stories they are offering their "opinions" on and giving commentary. They are commentators, granted, so being party shills is just something I expect from them, mush the same way I expect it from hannity and Rove.
As for President Bush's comments, he was calling out name calling and yes, called them names in the process. Do you really see his comments as that bad? They are no where near some of the things I have heard from Maddow's and Olberman's mouths, both of which have out right and near personaly insulted friends of mine.
And please, I beg you, don't start pointing at other news networks, i can almost feel it comming....this isn't about "other" news nets, it's about Olberman, Maddow and Bush.
lets stay on message....
unless you were just bored and intended this to just be antoher Fox vs MSNBC thread that is. 
5 people like this
@irishidid (8688)
• United States
19 Oct 09
I'll leave Maddow out of this because I don't know much about her. As for Olbermann he is the current pseudo-liberal mindset. He justifies the crap he talks and the terrible things he says about people by using the pseudo-liberal "we want to save the world" mantra. If you're going to talk all peace, love, and cookies for everyone act like you mean it. That goes for all pseudo-liberals.
On the other side. If you're going to be conservative or whatever-act the part. For both sides, if you truly believe what you're saying-stop apologizing for saying it. If someone is your conviction keep it your conviction and remain steadfast to it. You can later decide you were wrong, but if you truly believe it at the time, then don't apologize.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
19 Oct 09
I'm not sure who you're saying is apologizing. I know I don't apologize for my beliefs. I HAVE and WILL apologize if I happen to offend someone or have something I've said or written misunderstood because while I never intentionally offend or treat someone disrespectfully I've certainly been known to choose my words poorly or simply misspeak, something I think we're all guilty of now and then.
I understand the right hates Keith just as the left hates some of their more outspoken pundits but in his defense he doesn't just open up on someone for no reason. When he calls someone out on something it's for something specific that they've said or done and he explains why HE believes they were wrong. Everyone doesn't agree with him but I believe he's very sincere in what he's saying.
Annie
1 person likes this
@irishidid (8688)
• United States
19 Oct 09
I wasn't talking about you personally, annie. I mean people who take a stance and then later apologize for it. Take Jane Fonda for example. And please, whoever reads this, if you want to argue the Fonda angle, stick to the truth not the lies. Anyway, she believed as she did at the time. It was her conviction, right or wrong. She should have said it was how she felt at the time. Admit she was wrong, but don't apologize for how you felt at that time. Now I've really lit the fire. LOL
I understand what you're saying but Olbermann is still a pseudo-liberal. 
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
19 Oct 09
Well Bush 41 stayed true to his behavior as a class act. He was kind to Obama and didn't criticize him as NO former president, with the exception of that a$$ Carter, has ever criticized a sitting president.
As for the "sick puppies" remark, well that's just telling it like it is. I honestly can't stomach Olbermann long enough to sit through an entire episode. He really does disgust me. Rachel Maddow is particularly foul. In case you've forgotten how, here's a nice little reminder. Personally I've seen more class from Beavis and Butthead.
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLsKt4O4Yw8
1 person likes this
@irishidid (8688)
• United States
19 Oct 09
I can't call her what she is and that does NOT start with a B. Darn it.
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
19 Oct 09
You don't think they've treated anyone horribly? Olbermann called Michelle Malkin "a mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it" and accused her of harboring "facistic hatred". Hey Keith, your misogyny is showing.
But Malkin set Olbermann straight, to make sure he got the facts. Malkin said:
"In case you were wondering what kind of lipstick we big mashed up bags of meat wear, I prefer M.A.C. Lustreglass in Ornamental or Lipglass in Spite. Because nothing goes better with fascistic hatred!"
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
19 Oct 09
Of course, Michelle Malkin has never insulted or mistreated anyone, right? She's a master of hate and fear-mongering. When it comes to these back and forth spats between commentators on the left and on the right we could argue for a week straight about basically "which came first, the chicken or the egg"!
Annie
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
19 Oct 09
Your theory on the "back and forth" falls flat in face of the actual response Malkin gave to his tirade against her. She responded with self-deprecating humor.
I thought liberals objected to women being called "meat". I thought women objected to men referring to women as "meat".
You defend the comment because you like Olbermann, but if some conservative talk show host called a liberal woman a bag of meat, you'd be all over it screaming about what a pig he is.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
19 Oct 09
I do find it funny that he doesn't want to get into the name calling, and then does it. I also find it interesting that he mentions two liberals, and forgot all about all of those right wingers, that attacked Clinton much worse than Olbermann, and Maddow attacked his kid. But, we all have to remember that Bush Sr. has always had a selective memory, and he is the one that put Saddam in office. So his judgement doesn't have a great track record.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
20 Oct 09
Yes he was, but he will never admit it. I also enjoy the fact that he ignors all of the horrible things that he did while working in the government. What ever allows you to sleep better at night, I guess.
1 person likes this
