December 18, 2013

Conservative activist Larry Klayman — the victor in the recent NSA case — tongue-lashes CNN's Don Lemon and Jeffrey Toobin.

The clip, below doesn't show the whole interaction, but the text at Politico does:
Klayman’s appearance Tuesday night on CNN was preceded by a profile of him that included a quotation from a former George W. Bush staffer saying his lawsuits were about “fighting for himself and his own, in my opinion, delusions of grandeur.”

When Klayman was brought into the conversation, he came out firing.

“I think it is important to note that you’re a big supporter of Obama,” Klayman said to Lemon. “That you have favored him in every respect. You have to try to do a hit piece to diminish a very important decision.... I’ve watched you for many years. You’re an ultra-leftist and you’re a big supporter of Obama.”

60 comments:

Big Mike said...

"Punch back twice as hard."

harrogate said...

I love the smell of Klayman Bluster in the morning!

rhhardin said...

The lunatics are the CNN audience.

But their eyeballs are as valuable as anybody's, and that pays the bills.

Mark O said...

That sort of "impeachment" seems like a good idea.

Mark O said...

That sort of "impeachment" seems like a good idea.

rehajm said...

If two trees in the liberal forest fall and nobody is there to hear do they make a sound?

Bob said...

I love seeing that sort of open contempt for MSM pundits. I think it busts their bubble of smarmy self-congratulation when they're shown that not everyone finds their silly opinions interesting.

Paul said...

Truth is always uncomfortable to the far left.

I hear now Barbra Walters said they 'thought' Obama was the next Messiah.

Rub their nose in it Klayman! They deserve it for the next 20 years.

madAsHell said...

Conservative activist.
Jumbo shrimp.

Bob Ellison said...

At my advanced age, I tend to be prejudiced according to style and look. That guy Lemon looks like a black Ezra Klein, the kind of idiot I encountered at lot as a freshman in college. Toobin looks like Toobin writes.

Must…resist…prejudice…even…when…it…is…probably…correct...

Tank said...

THAT is how Romney should have handled Candy Crowley. At the Benghazi moment he should have confronted her bias and thrown her off the stage and continued to simply have a conversation with the Zero.

If he had thrown her out of the room, he would be President today.

harrogate said...

Tank,

Yes, of course. Romney ought to have been more of a dick. THAT would have persuaded more people to go his way

Chef Mojo said...

Yes, of course. Romney ought to have been more of a dick. THAT would have persuaded more people to go his way.

Why not? It worked for Obama.

harrogate said...

"Why not? It worked for Obama."

It's true. Everyone I have talked to who voted for Obama says the reason they did so was because of this. It's like a chorus of Klaymans and Tanks, everywhere.

Tank said...

harro

Romney lost because a lot of white (omigod) people were not motivated enough to bother voting for him. Throwing Crowley offstage and repeating that Obama was a liar (about Benghazi - but everyone knows he's a liar now) might have brought those people out.

lemondog said...

But their eyeballs are as valuable as anybody's, and that pays the bills.

Don't have cable but I thought CNN was on life support.

ALL journalists should work for tips as in $$ only.

Carnifex said...

I laffed out loud when Lemon said no one but he knew what his political affiliation was. I would guess D, but in his heart Communist.

harrogate said...

"Romney lost because a lot of white (omigod) people were not motivated enough to bother voting for him."

You know, I think you actually believe that.

Hmmmm. I wonder if there has ever been an election during my lifetime, when the losing side didn't explain their loss with some version of "too many people on our side stayed home" or the correlative "the flag bearer for our side wasn't hard core *enough* and so our base stayed home!"

Tank said...

harro

Stick you head in the sand. Numerous analysts have pointed this out.

harrogate said...

"Numerous analysts have pointed this out."

Yes, I remember Sean Hannity analyzing it that way for example. Glenn Beck provided similar analysis. I think Jonah Goldberg amazingly came up with a similar analysis. And now YOU also are arriving with a supporting analysis!

I stand corrected. At some point one just has to bow to the evidence presented.

gspencer said...

A lot of good comments above. Yes, yes, yes. Stick it right back at these lefties. Fire in the belly and confrontational for limited government principles. The absence of that principally is what turned me off re: Romney.

If you want to anger a conservative, assert a lie. If you want to anger a lefty, state the truth.

chrisnavin.com said...

But remember, Candy Crowley broke the 'newsbabe' barrier and Don Lemon is breaking the gay black broadcaster barrier day-in and day-out.

The rest of us can only gather and feel the shockwave as they zoom ahead.

Meanwhile Ted Turner is off buying up land and surveying his kingdom.

n.n said...

Journalists should be required to disclose conflicts of interest. This should be a required of all moderators (e.g. Crowley, also of CNN) who exceed the legitimate bounds of their appointed role.

traditionalguy said...

He had it right about Toobin for refusing to deal with the Legal Decision of the day other than to do an "analysis" that an Obama opponent must be a mental case.

Clayman is an equal opportunity mental case. He goes after every crook in DC.

Ann Althouse said...

Link fixed.

Sorry.

(Comments prompting the fix are much appreciated but now deleted to avoid distractions.)

YoungHegelian said...

I was consulting at the Executive Office during the Clinton Administration. They basically had a person whose job was dedicated to responding to Klayman's FOIAs, law suits, etc. They often pulled in extra help from the various staffs under the Office of Administration to help with responses as the need arose. Klayman hated Clinton, and he hammered the Clinton administration with an obsessive vengeance.

This court victory, however, seems to be a bi-partisan "wingnut coalition" victory, in fact if not in Klayman's intent.

YoungHegelian said...

@harrowgate,

The "missing white voter" reason for Romney's loss is well known by now, harrowgate. Here's a link with the stats. It may be repeated a lot by commentators you don't like, but it happens to be true.

I suspect that if you read something other than DailyKos & Democratic Underground, you would know this by now.

harrogate said...

YH,

I have seen that link before, as it happens. Perhaps *this time* it is true that th side that lost only lost because enough of "its voters" did not go to the polls. All the other times (read: every time an election happens) were just sour grapes, however. Especially when Democrats lose, it's not a relevant argument.

Or maybe, just maybe, the losing side in elections is ALWAYS right, EVERY time, that if only its standard-bearers were not such squishes, more of the base would have turned out and it would have won.

Do you see the infinite regree into which one is launched, with this sort of caterwauling?

All that said, none of this is to deny what we all know. That is would be very interesting if every single person eligible to vote in the United States always voted in every election.

harrogate said...

Regress.

Maybe "regree" can be next year's word of the year.

Henry said...

The "missing white voter" reason for Romney's loss is well known by now

The "missing white voter" reason is statistically evident.

That says nothing about why it happened.

When you are talking about voting and statistical margins you aren't necessarily talking about the most motivated or hardest-core voters.

YoungHegelian said...

@Harrowgate,

Yes, I see the problem, but what your not seeing is that the Republicans are not asking for an imaginary 100% turnout that'll never happen. They are asking "Jeez, why did our turnout drop in just 4 years?", which is a legitimate political question. If the same number of voters who voted for McCain had voted for Romney, we'd be talking about President Romney now.

I, like you, don't think that the answer to the problem is "let's get a true conservative candidate". I think Romney lost because 1) there were probably more Christians who were uncomfortable with his Mormonism than wanted to say so & 2) Southerners & Westerners find New Englanders to be cold fish, and Romney didn't pass the "have a cup of coffee with him" test.

The only way to really know the answer is the dirty old empirical method --- track those people down & ask them. I don't know that anyone's done that task. At least if they have I haven't seen it.

harrogate said...

I have never been able to fully understand why people on all sides of politcial (or any other) questions must find a way to imagine that their position really is the majority position, really is mainstream, etc.

It would be amazing if a little more often, a politician would say some version, "you know, I understand I am in the minority view on this, but I want to persuade others to my side."

Titus said...

Love Lemon's tie/sweater combo.

Gays do know how to dress.

tits.

YoungHegelian said...

I gotta say, after reading the transcript, that it was really poor form to open up an interview with a guest by reading someone else's ad hominem attack on him, and then follow up that ad hominem attack by having your second resident commentator make yet another AH attack the instant he appears on screen.

If Klayman's such a nut job, then why give him air time, CNN? Maybe because he just won a court case with important 1st amendment ramifications? How about you discuss that rather than what a shitbag Klayman is?

Many of the court cases that have strengthened our constitutional rights have involved litigants of less than sterling character.

harrogate said...

"Many of the court cases that have strengthened our constitutional rights have involved litigants of less than sterling character."

True dat.

Michael K said...

"I stand corrected. At some point one just has to bow to the evidence presented."

Not if you are an Obamabot, as the CNN guys are and you are.

Paul Kirchner said...

I avoid CNN and have only briefly seen Don Lemon in action and that was enough to find him insufferable. In that instance, he had a Tea Party spokesman on and after his first statement, Lemon responded, "Come on, [name], cut the crap."

"Cut the crap"? Is that considered professional behavior for a network anchor?

harrogate said...

The Sixth Sense had nothing on Michael K. He sees Obamabots!

cubanbob said...

Tank said...
harro

Stick you head in the sand. Numerous analysts have pointed this out.

12/18/13, 9:26 AM"

Unfortunately for those who wanted another outcome Harrogate is right. When it comes to elections its all about the turnout. Maybe the voters who didn't show up in 2008 and2012 will wake up and see that elections do matter, have consequences and better is the enemy of the good enough.

mccullough said...

Jeffrey Toobin is the only one of the three who bothers me.

Hopefully he's still paying child support to his illegitimate kid. Smarmy prick.

Larry Nelson said...

cubanbob said:
... Maybe the voters who didn't show up in 2008 and 2012 will wake up and see that elections do matter, have consequences and better is the enemy of the good enough.

How true that is, and how interesting the way things work out in the long run.
Now, all of the big government fiascoes of this administration have been a great education for the younger generation, and other demographic groups, that overwhelmingly voted for Obama. An extra bonus has been the near total loss of credibility that we see in the ideological and disingenuous mainstream media.
Unfortunately, this may only slow down the inevitable creep toward a corrupt, crony capitalist, nanny state, and idiocracy of the future. I think Alexis de Tocqueville predicted this near 200 years ago.

damikesc said...

You know, I think you actually believe that.

Hmmmm. I wonder if there has ever been an election during my lifetime, when the losing side didn't explain their loss with some version of "too many people on our side stayed home" or the correlative "the flag bearer for our side wasn't hard core *enough* and so our base stayed home!"


There are plenty of studies of white turnout numbers in 2004 as opposed to 2008 and 2012 to make conclusions.

I said it on Election night and I say it now: We fucked up royally not electing Romney, who was probably the most competent candidate for President we've ever had.

Achilles said...

harrogate said...
I have never been able to fully understand why people on all sides of politcial (or any other) questions must find a way to imagine that their position really is the majority position, really is mainstream, etc.

It would be amazing if a little more often, a politician would say some version, "you know, I understand I am in the minority view on this, but I want to persuade others to my side."

12/18/13, 10:42 AM

But that is not the way our system was designed. I am tired of Republicans accepting false premises. We were never intended to be a democracy. We are supposed to be a Republic. The best way to divide a people on any subject is to put that subject up for vote and hold the minority to the will of the majority. I don't want to spend my life trying to convince people of something just so I don't have to live under the thumb of the government if I don't win an election.

I am tired of a Republican party that thinks they have to give my money to idiots so they will vote for republicans. Let the Dems have that block. Stick to the constitution that limited the powers of government. The establishment picks these jackasses that want to lord the government over me, just in a different realm than the democrats.

Romney accepted the paradigm of the dem party. He was the face of Romneycare when the issue should have been government overreach. The GOP took that issue off the table when they nominated a statist and smeared my favorite candidates and locked the others out of the convention. I didn't support Ron on many things, but If Romney had included Paul in the coalition we would have been talking about president Romney. But we know how that turned out. The GOP are statists with slightly different foci. That is why Romney lost.

Paco Wové said...

'It would be amazing if a little more often, a politician would say some version, "you know, I understand I am in the minority view on this, but I want to persuade others to my side."'

It would be pretty cool if blog commenters did that also.

Michael K said...

"The Sixth Sense had nothing on Michael K. He sees Obamabots!"

And you are just as dead. As dead as "Pajamaboy" or the robot telemarketer.

Tank said...

18/13, 11:32 AM

cubanbob said...
Tank said...
harro

Stick you head in the sand. Numerous analysts have pointed this out.

12/18/13, 9:26 AM"

Unfortunately for those who wanted another outcome Harrogate is right. When it comes to elections its all about the turnout. Maybe the voters who didn't show up in 2008 and2012 will wake up and see that elections do matter, have consequences and better is the enemy of the good enough.


How does this make harro right?

Your point is my point.

Bob Ellison said...

America may not survive this. Stable, mutually respecting opposing parties that manage to rule a republic are not the norm. In most stably-governed countries, one of the following is found:

1) An ethnic majority, usually a rich one, rules for its own good. That's what kept South Africa afloat before Mandela, and it's what works for Britain now.

2) A stupid electorate can't bring itself to throw off its awful leaders. That's how North Korea, Iran, and most other crappy governments get by.

I worry that America is going down path #2. Our electorate is pretty stupid.

eric said...

Because there is a discussion of why Romney lost, etc. I hope the Professor will indulge me in this aside.

As someone who voted for Romney, and McCain, and even Arnie in California, I say thank God Romney lost. Who knew what a boon the Obama Presidency would be to conservatism in the United States? Not only is he demonstrating the incompetence of big government for all to see, but the frustration of squish Republicans is becoming more and more evident each day.

Like in 2010 (Thanks to Obama, not to McCain), the Tea Party had a great year. We got a lot of fresh blood into Congress who are strong intellects and powerful voices for conservatism.

The demise of the Tea Party was written by the Democrat media machine, while the Democrats in the government were destroying the Tea Party through Bureaucracy.

Now that's been exposed. It worked to re-elect Obama in 2012, but it's not going to work in 2014 to depress us.

Let 2014 be another banner year for the Tea Party. Then we can all be thankful for President Obama for helping to make that happen.

Achilles said...

damikesc said...

There are plenty of studies of white turnout numbers in 2004 as opposed to 2008 and 2012 to make conclusions.

I said it on Election night and I say it now: We fucked up royally not electing Romney, who was probably the most competent candidate for President we've ever had.

12/18/13, 2:07 PM

He may have been competent. The issue was the GOP establishment that pushed him had other goals in mind when they went scorched earth on Newt and locked Ron Paul out of the convention.

If Ron Paul is included in the development of the party platform and allowed to speak at the convention, which would make sense given how many delegates he had, and Newt and his supporters were not so utterly denigrated by the GOP, we would be talking about president Romney right now.

Achilles said...

eric said...

Now that's been exposed. It worked to re-elect Obama in 2012, but it's not going to work in 2014 to depress us.

Let 2014 be another banner year for the Tea Party. Then we can all be thankful for President Obama for helping to make that happen.

12/18/13, 2:47 PM

Why do you think they are pushing so hard to import a new electorate from Mexico? They just need to keep the margin within range of voter fraud anyways.

campy said...

2) A stupid electorate can't bring itself to throw off its awful leaders.

The N. Korean electorate does not have an honest chance to throw off the crappy government.

We're not at that point, but we're about 99% percent of the way there.

cubanbob said...

Eric be careful what you wish for. An electorate that is capable of electing Obama twice and keeping the Senate in Democrat hands is quite capable of electing more of the same.

Tank although we are on the same page Harrow is right in that it doesn't matter if that those who should have had voted things would have been different, they didn't vote but they sure as hell complain. But complaining solves nothing. Voting in numbers does. I remember all of the commenters commenting how tired they were voting for the lesser of the two evils and thus saying they were not going to vote or vote third party. Thanks to them we are where we are. My fear is that eight years of Obama isn't going to be enough for the purist to get off their butts and make the difference. I voted against Carter. I voted against Clinton. I voted against Gore and Kerry. I voted for Reagan. In the real world less bad trumps worst and one way or another there will always be an election and only two real choices. It is what it is.

Michael K said...

" Who knew what a boon the Obama Presidency would be to conservatism in the United States? Not only is he demonstrating the incompetence of big government for all to see, but the frustration of squish Republicans is becoming more and more evident each day."

You are assuming that the country can survive this. I am not so sure. The angry left, as exemplified by harrogate and garage, are willing to see Obama rule by decree.

It is a cargo cult all the way.

cubanbob said...

Micheal you forgot to include Magical Thinking as well.

harrogate said...

Michael K,

What did I say that struck you as angry or, for that matter, of "The Left"?? I am curious.

harrogate said...

Achilles,

You misunderstood my point, I think. My point is simply that everyone can't be in the majority on everything, yet somehow, it seems like people want to much to claim that they are. I find it odd. There is after all often quite a lot of virtue in acknowledging that you are begging to differ from the majority view; indeed, as your post shows, a healthy Republic (or society generally) depends upon it.

Not everyone can be "in the center" and not anyone should want always to be there, for that matter.

You say you shouldn't have to persuade, and that's true. But then entering the comments section suggests *some* version of wanting to persuade others a little closer to your position, yes?

Laura said...

Ooooh, boy on boy action. Tongue lashin' and all!

Achilles said...

harrogate said...

...

You say you shouldn't have to persuade, and that's true. But then entering the comments section suggests *some* version of wanting to persuade others a little closer to your position, yes?


12/18/13, 5:02 PM

Yes.

I want to persuade all of these people to stop taking my money to give to people to buy votes, telling me or my friends who they can marry, and just leave me alone in general. Gay marriage is the dumbest least interesting and most generally pointless subject ever discussed and every day they are pushing it. It should not be a national topic and at the least if I don't care I should be allowed to ignore it. But if the majority wishes it to be I have to do what they say right?

It would be nice if they would stop manipulating/debasing the currency, importing a poor electorate, and forcing us to beg the government for healthcare. I have a baby daughter and a wife to take care of, businesses to start and run, and a life to live and I don't really want to discuss this crap all day. I would say the corporate officers in our companies spend 40ish% percent of our time and money complying with state/federal regs. I just want to provide for the family and make stuff people want to buy. But I guess that is way too much to ask yes? Some senator needs some of my money to buy votes and pay off their cronies. I am sure I wont see Senator Murray in the cheap hospitals Obamacare forces me to use.

Statists/Progressives are despicable vermin. I will not support them. I really hope they are defeated at the ballot box because while Costa Rica is nice I don't want to move there yet.

Rusty said...

Achilles said...
eric said...

Now that's been exposed. It worked to re-elect Obama in 2012, but it's not going to work in 2014 to depress us.

Let 2014 be another banner year for the Tea Party. Then we can all be thankful for President Obama for helping to make that happen.

12/18/13, 2:47 PM

Why do you think they are pushing so hard to import a new electorate from Mexico? They just need to keep the margin within range of voter fraud anyways.


Hispanics are turning away from the Democrat party.
Even the illegals can see that the ACA is killing their jobs.

G Scott said...

President Obama spoke directly to this issue a few months ago, when he addressed those who ask "why we don't just ban" expression that is deeply offensive to the faithful. As the President explained:

[T]he answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- and I will always defend their right to do so.

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.

We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

Of course, our respect for the constitutional freedom of speech does not remotely mean that we agree with or endorse those who attempt denigrate the religious beliefs of others. To the contrary, President Obama has also made it clear that "the United States has a profound respect for people of all faiths" and that "we reject the denigration of any religion."

Joshua DuBois is Special Assistant to President Obama and Executive Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships,
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/addressing-freedoms-speech-and-religion