Timeline of Rick Sanchez 10/22 lie.

October 22, one of the topics discussed on Rick Sanchez' portion of CNN Newsroom was the limiting of executive pay and bonuses for those seven companies that have not paid back their bailout money.

I began with two tweets to Rick.

2:04 PM "@ricksanchezcnn. Since Congress & the White House rely on taxpayer $ to stay afloat, shouldn't they take a 90% pay cut too?"

2:09 PM "@ricksanchezcnn How many of those 7 firms have already TRIED to pay the taxpayers back but were NOT ALLOWED TO DO SO by Obama?"

These are CLEARLY pro-CEO-bonuses (actually, pro-sanctity-of-contract).

I don't have an exact time for Rick's comments, because I can't find a YouTube video of the show, but I do know Rick's first comment relevant to this came after my second tweet and before my third.

According to the show transcript:

SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.Boy, you guys are -- we call this a national conversation and let me tell you something. The nation is conversing
and all of you to a man and to a woman seem to be angry at these big Wall Street fat cats.

I knew this was clearly a lie, considering I myself had tweeted twice taking the side Rick claimed nobody was taking. I didn't have access to Twitter at the time (cheap cellphone; can't surf the net with it) but I could surmise that I surely wasn't the only one, either.

2:16 PM "@ricksanchezcnn just outright lied, said ALL his Twitterers 'TO A MAN' were angry abt corp bonuses."

I honestly thought Rick would take this opportunity to go back and correct his error. He didn't.

(I'm fairly certain this Sanchez quote came after my 2:16 tweet but before my 2:28 one.)

SANCHEZ: By the way, I'm still waiting.

Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez here in the world headquarters of CNN.

I'm still waiting for one person to Twitter me since this show began -- maybe it will be you -- Twitter me if you believe that the Wall Street bankers should get their bonuses, because I swear, I have yet to get one person who's backing the bankers on this thing. I have never seen a situation where it's quite so one-sided.

In fact, look. Look at this one that we got just a little while ago during the break. It's another one. And it seems to say the same thing. "Look, if you get government money, all deals are off. No big paycheck until you pay off the debt." That seems to be what everybody is saying.

I would be interested. Again, if you're out there and you believe that the bankers should be getting their bonuses, send me a tweet. I would like to hear what you have to say. Maybe you can even things up. Oh, I doubt it.

I sent another.

2:28 PM "@ricksanchezcnn The CEOs should be paid what they're owed. Dodd, at Obama's urging, put in the loopholes that demanded it, remember?"

SANCHEZ: Let me share a couple more on the Twitter page, if we possibly can. There you go. "What the bankers should be getting is a nice kick in their rear end."

And underneath that: "You're nuts. No one's going to fight for these bankers." There you go. If you're serious, I'm serious. Let me know. If you think that you can explain a cogent reason why these bankers should get their money, send me a tweet and we will put it on right away.

2:46 PM "@ricksanchezcnn Ppl who get welfare still have to honor their contracts. So why shouldn't bailout corps have to honor their contracts to CEOs?"

and finally

2:51 PM "@ricksanchezcnn Out of the last 50 years, how many years has the US gone further in the red? Where's THEIR [i.e. the govt] 90% pay cut?"

Rick didn't put any of them on. Which means "we will put it on right away" is ALSO a lie. He did manage to put an @MikeBates tweet on, so I know it wasn't a case of getting lazy late in the show and not putting on any new tweets, which sometimes happens.

It's not a situation where Rick didn't see my Tweets. He has, on several occasions, had no problem finding my tweets and putting them on the air.

Spin is one thing; we are talking about bald-faced lying. He deliberately, blatantly lied. And I called him out on it.

I watched yesterday, to see if he might, just MIGHT grow a little integrity and admit that he lied (he sure had no problem calling out FOX for what he perceived as a lie, now did he?) or at least retract the claim that his Tweeters TO A MAN AND TO A WOMAN were angry about the bonuses.

But he didn't.

And because of that, I will no longer watch his show.

And I'm in the process of composing an email to CNN explaining WHY I will no longer watch his show.

Participation implies endorsement, and I do not endorse his lying. I will no longer loan him my legitimacy by participating in his little charade.

@RagnrDannskjold

Wow. I had no idea.

Longtime (and not-so-longtime) readers of this blog know I have had great fun taking potshots at CNN's Rick Sanchez, mostly on the basis that he is an intellectual lightweight a-la-Miller Redfield and a shill for the Left.

But I had no idea he was evil. And no, not in the loosely-thrown-around way that the Right often uses the word. Truly, big-time Chappaquiddick Ted-level evil.

From an August 1991 article in the Miami News (emphasis mine):

Best known for his stint as a sometimes-melodramatic correspondent on
Channel 7's "Crime Check," [Now CNN-anchor Rick] Sanchez continues his work on the station's evening and late newscasts while awaiting a September 13 court date on misdemeanor drunk-driving charges. Though the results of one test show the newsman's blood-alcohol level was .15 -slightly over the legal .10 limit - the test was
performed after Sanchez left the scene of the accident. In January Sanchez told New Times he had consumed no alcohol the night of the accident. His attorney,Richard Essen, now says the anchorman returned home and had "a couple of drinks to calm his nerves" before returning to the scene. Essen doubts that Sanchez's DUI charge will ever come to trial. "I think the results of the blood tests will be thrown out," the lawyer says. "If the results of the blood tests are
suppressed, then there is no evidence against him at all. The state cannot
proceed."

Meanwhile, after two months in a coma, [Sanchez's victim] Smuzinick has regained consciousness and is making slow improvement. His right side remains largely paralyzed due to massive brain damage, but he can move his left arm and leg and sometimes hold his head upright. Using hand signals, he can answer yes or no to simple questions. Doctors last Friday removed a feeding tube from his trachea, and
Smuzinick can now eat liquid foods.

This guy has the audacity to call out Hannity for running a commercial for Robert Allen Stanford's company before anybody suspected any funny business was going on?

I will no longer be watching Rick Sanchez' show or mentioning him lightheartedly on these pages. Evil must be opposed.

CNN: Enough drunk-drivers and meth/sex fiends to fill up an episode of Springer AND COPS.

[H/T commenters on NewsBusters.]

Sockpuppets?

I've noticed that on Rick Sanchez' show, a few twitterers are overrepresented. Their comments appear over and over, and are not particularly insightful or "airworthy." They get airtime anyway.

And conservative/libertarian tweets are few and far between. Since the show stopped running direct texts in favor of tweets, I have managed to get exactly one through.

Why is this? And do we really need to see "Oh, Rick! You and Barack R SO smart and make me moist!" run four times in an hour, when conservative/libertarian opinions don't appear anytime during that hour? Are we stupid enough to believe NOBODY sent an intelligent, right-leaning tweet to the show during that time?

So I took a look at their Twitter pages. They seem to have almost no opinions that do not reference Rick Sanchez, and they wallow in adulation of both Rick Sanchez and Barack Obama.

curious1966. Freakyfran. bethbangert. upsetAtUSA.

Can someone with a little more technosavvy than me do me a favor and see if any or all of these come from the same ISP address, and if that ISP is located in either CNN headquarters or the Obama campaign?

Wanna see? Wanna SEE? Huh? HUH???

My comment scrolls across the bottom of Rick Sanchez' screen beginning at 0:53 YouTube time.



BTW, "$$" in this case means "money," not "dollars," because THAT would be Idiocracy-style less gooder grammar.

I think the comment ran once before this, but I didn't catch the time.

Oh joy, the blogosphere is complete.

Miller Redfield has a blog now.

Is CNN's Rick Sanchez the lovechild of Treat Williams and Miller Redfield?

Rick and his guests seem awfully fond of drawing some vague connection between Barry O and the fact that the White House was built by slaves.

SANCHEZ:Coming at you right now: in a White House built by slaves, a historic meeting between old and new. The president-elect and his wife, Michelle, meet the current president and the first lady.
...
There you have it. It's the shot of the White House where this historic meeting is taking place. This is a building that was built by slaves, and now you have a black man who is about to be the president of the United States meeting there with the current president. How much more historic can you get?
...
AMY GOODMAN, HOST, "DEMOCRACY NOW!": Well, first, I watched the first African-American elected president of the United States, together with his wife, walk into the White House -- a house built by slaves. And the idea that he, with his two little girls -- will raise those little girls with his wife in this house is truly historic and voted by people across the political spectrum. This was truly a global election.
...
BRANDON LAWRENCE: Nothing but happiness and, just honestly, a call to action. And honestly, when I say that, it is to be someone the same pigment as President-Elect Obama, looking at his hard work in an election that, when I, for the first time, was able to vote for the election and for someone like Barack Obama to be in this position and walking through these -- the house that slaves who look like me have built, it's something that is very, very encouraging.
...
SANCHEZ:Again -- and I think Amy nailed this a little while ago when she was explaining to us the historic reference -- the importance of this day, this moment -- a house that you were looking at right there, that was built by slaves. But Barack Obama and Michelle Obama inside today, getting ready to take over in that place 10 weeks from today.

Except that Barry O's ancestors weren't slaves. They didn't even leave Kenya until the 20th century. So he has absolutely nothing to do with slavery. Unless, of course, his ancestors were some of the victors in tribal warfare that sold their prisoners to the white man (maybe some of Barry's other ancestors, now that I think of it) as slaves.

Tangential question: Did any of Barack Obama's ancestors own any of Michelle's?

John The CNN Contributor.

Got another crawl on The Rick Sanchez Show yesterday:

"Someone keeps stealing Frampton's Obama signs; does Ted Nugent have an alibi?"

(You can see it scroll across beginning at 1:19 and again at 6:12 here. )

Only marginally clever, I know, but they won't run any texts I send that have any substance to them.

Thursday & Friday both they've gone with the "Name one person Obama hangs around with that's anti-Semitic" story, like it's some big mystery and the answer is "nobody that we know of."

Both days I sent an answer -- Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson. They rejected it both times.

I don't know how much he hangs around with Al Sharpton* or I'd send that answer in, too.

* UPDATE: Quite a bit, apparently.

This April, Obama made an appearance at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, the same organization that shouted racial and anti-Semitic epithets at the Jewish owner of Freddy’s Fashion Mart in Harlem in 1995. The National Action Network quotes Mr. Obama as saying, “Reverend Sharpton is a voice for the voiceless, and a voice for the dispossessed. What National Action Network has done is so important to change America, and it must be changed from the bottom up.”