Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 From Keith Olbermann's show: MSNBC host Keith Olbermann and former Social Security associate commissioner James Roosevelt Jr. examined how FOX News Washington managing editor Brit Hume and other pundits distorted a quote by Roosevelt Jr.'s grandfather, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in order to claim that the former president would have supported privatizing Social Security. During their discussion, Olbermann referenced the distortions by Hume, nationally syndicated radio host and former Reagan administration official William J. Bennett, and Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund -- which Media Matters for America has documented. Roosevelt Jr. echoed Air America Radio host Al Franken's call for Hume to resign, saying that "he rearranged those sentences in an outrageous distortion, one that really calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation." From the February 15 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann: OLBERMANN: President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and, at minimum, midwife to the Social Security system, would have endorsed President Bush's plan to partially privatize it. Our third story on the Countdown -- that is the claim, anyway, of at least three conservative commentators and several Republican congressmen. But it turns out those guys pretty much just made it up. In a moment, FDR's grandson, himself a former associate commissioner for Social Security, joins us to discuss the fraud. First, the background. It began on television with Brit Hume of FOX News, taking quotes from the three principles of security for our old people that FDR expressed to Congress on January 17, 1935. Not all the quotes, mind you, just some of them, and out of context. I'm reading from the transcript on the FOX website of Mr. Hume's newscast of February 3rd. "It turns out," Hume said, "that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it. In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plan should include, 'Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,' adding that government funding, 'ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.'" As promised, I'm joined now by James Roosevelt Jr., now senior vice president of Tufts Health Plan, formerly associate commissioner for Social Security, and, of course, grandson of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Great -- thanks for your time tonight, sir. ROOSEVELT: Nice to be with you, Keith. OLBERMANN: The argument is that Mr. Hume more or less twisted this entirely around. Can you explain it in layman's terms? ROOSEVELT: I think I can. And it's really quite an amazing distortion. What they did was that they took a very simple statement that my grandfather made, which said that Social Security, when it was enacted almost 70 years ago, ought to first of all have a part that took care of people who didn't have time to build up a Social Security account. And the government should fund that out of general revenues. Secondly, Social Security should have a self-sustaining portion that was funded by contributions from both employers and employees. That's what we know and have known for 70 successful years as Social Security. And thirdly, those who wanted and who needed to, as many -- almost everybody -- did, to have a higher income and retirement, should have accounts where they could pay in voluntarily, in addition to the guaranteed Social Security benefit. And then my grandfather said that eventually, the self-sustaining portion of the guaranteed insurance would phase out the government-paid portion. That's because we would have a fully functioning Social Security system as we do today. What Brit Hume and others have done is take portions of that paragraph and rearrange it so that it says something entirely different from what he intended. OLBERMANN: At the risk of doing a little too much reading, just to put it on the historical record, let me read the entire quote from which those quotes were pulled. The ones Mr. Hume pulled, only that he wanted to pull: "In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now to old build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come fund will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions. "Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. "Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." That's one of the Hume quotes there. "It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." So, where he raised the prospect of self-supporting annuity plans -- that was not to replace Social Security, it was to replace the money the government was contributing to Social Security for the people born in, say, 1870 and earlier. Is that about it? ROOSEVELT: That is exactly it. And he rearranged those sentences in an outrageous distortion, one that really calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Smell the ratings!!! Report post Posted February 17, 2005 what's the first thing FDR would do if he was alive? start scratching at his coffin! HA! Sorry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 ROOSEVELT: That is exactly it. And he rearranged those sentences in an outrageous distortion, one that really calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation. A resignation? That's overreacting a bit. I do love it when the networks get in little catfights with each other. It's like when, over the weekend, Fox had a big discussion on one of their news programs about the Eason Jordan comments. These little pissing contests are amusing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Yeah, and MLK would oppose affirmative action. And JFK would support the Bush tax cuts. And Paul Welfare would want his funeral turned into a pep rally for Mondull -- oh, wait, he probably would. Oh, yeah. It's lol2k5 now. And you make fun of my education... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Yeah, and MLK would oppose affirmative action. And JFK would support the Bush tax cuts. And Paul Welfare would want his funeral turned into a pep rally for Mondull -- oh, wait, he probably would. Oh, yeah. It's lol2k5 now. And you make fun of my education... I actually think MLK would oppose Affirmative Action. Malcolm X would probably oppose it even more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Yeah, and he'd be teaming up with Ward Connerly -- I doubt it. BTW: What has Ward been up to? Haven't heard his name in a while... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Remember when Keith Olbermann had a purpose? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted February 17, 2005 MSM distorting a quote? Nah... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Remember when Keith Olbermann had a purpose? I always liked him on SportsCenter. I wish I could comment on his MSNBC gig, but I, like most of America, don't bother watching that station... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 17, 2005 It's odd that Olbermann and Roosevelt Jr didn't provide the context that Hume allegedly didn't provide, isn't it? You know, like the part of the FDR quote that Hume allegedly left out of the equation. Nobody should ever use the letters "LOL" with Fox --- considering that MSNBC has that journalistic U-turn Olbermann. -=Mike ...If you say a quote is out of context, PROVIDING context is usually a good idea... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Don't tread on my catchphrase, hippie. The LOL is used as a term of endearment for the Conservative Brigade's favorite cable news channel. The reason MSNBC doesn't have an affectionate title at this place is because nobody watches them... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Oh, yeah. It's lol2k5 now. And you make fun of my education... Uh, they're a little behind the times. Or beer is killing my brain cells. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Funny how Mike assumes that was the entire interview. I *love* MSNBC, by the way. I don't care if I am the only viewer. Their talk shows (and that's all these "news" networks have anymore) are far better than Fox or CNN. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 I don't watch TV news. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Good man. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Funny how Mike assumes that was the entire interview. I *love* MSNBC, by the way. I don't care if I am the only viewer. Their talk shows (and that's all these "news" networks have anymore) are far better than Fox or CNN. If there was something more damning, smitty would have brought it up. I, obviously, didn't watch MSNBC as I had some nice static on another channel to watch. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Funny how Mike assumes that was the entire interview. I *love* MSNBC, by the way. I don't care if I am the only viewer. Their talk shows (and that's all these "news" networks have anymore) are far better than Fox or CNN. If there was something more damning, smitty would have brought it up. I, obviously, didn't watch MSNBC as I had some nice static on another channel to watch. -=Mike I'll admit it, this made me laugh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Funny how Mike assumes that was the entire interview. I *love* MSNBC, by the way. I don't care if I am the only viewer. Their talk shows (and that's all these "news" networks have anymore) are far better than Fox or CNN. If there was something more damning, smitty would have brought it up. I, obviously, didn't watch MSNBC as I had some nice static on another channel to watch. -=Mike Are you sure that static wasn't Fox News? They start to sound the same after a while. MSNBC is my baby's momma. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 I *love* MSNBC, by the way. I don't care if I am the only viewer. You are -- although I watched a few of Ventura's shows and a certain talk-radio guy's short-lived program on Saturdays, too... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Funny how Mike assumes that was the entire interview. I *love* MSNBC, by the way. I don't care if I am the only viewer. Their talk shows (and that's all these "news" networks have anymore) are far better than Fox or CNN. If there was something more damning, smitty would have brought it up. I, obviously, didn't watch MSNBC as I had some nice static on another channel to watch. -=Mike Are you sure that static wasn't Fox News? They start to sound the same after a while. C'mon, you can do better than this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X Report post Posted February 17, 2005 He's valiantly defending his favorite TV news source. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Does anyone actually HAVE the FDR quote so I can see if he meant it or if it was taking out of context? Also, why does FDR even get into this? Is this like one of those "What would Jesus do?" kind of deals, only with one of the greatest Presidents ever? Oh there it is...why the hell couldn't THAT have been in bold instead of the bull said by the other people for crap sake. The actual quote outweighs the thoughts of a few reporters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Funny how Mike assumes that was the entire interview. I *love* MSNBC, by the way. I don't care if I am the only viewer. Their talk shows (and that's all these "news" networks have anymore) are far better than Fox or CNN. If there was something more damning, smitty would have brought it up. I, obviously, didn't watch MSNBC as I had some nice static on another channel to watch. -=Mike Are you sure that static wasn't Fox News? They start to sound the same after a while. C'mon, you can do better than this. I would if I was actually being serious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 I used to watch Donahue on MSNBC, however once he was rewarded for being the highest rated show on the networkby being given a pink slip, and then replaced by Scarbarough, I tuned out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted February 17, 2005 It's odd that Olbermann and Roosevelt Jr didn't provide the context that Hume allegedly didn't provide, isn't it? You know, like the part of the FDR quote that Hume allegedly left out of the equation. Ahem: OLBERMANN: At the risk of doing a little too much reading, just to put it on the historical record, let me read the entire quote from which those quotes were pulled. The ones Mr. Hume pulled, only that he wanted to pull: "In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now to old build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come fund will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions. "Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. "Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." That's one of the Hume quotes there. "It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." I had to reread it a few times, but it seems as though they did, in fact, provdie what you asked for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted February 18, 2005 I used to watch Donahue on MSNBC, however once he was rewarded for being the highest rated show on the networkby being given a pink slip, and then replaced by Scarbarough, I tuned out. Should ANY show really be rewarded for pulling like a 0.02 in the ratings? I would if I was actually being serious. Well that's no excuse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted February 18, 2005 If there was something more damning, smitty would have brought it up. Thanks for having such faith in me! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted February 18, 2005 I used to watch Donahue on MSNBC, however once he was rewarded for being the highest rated show on the networkby being given a pink slip, and then replaced by Scarbarough, I tuned out. Should ANY show really be rewarded for pulling like a 0.02 in the ratings? I would if I was actually being serious. Well that's no excuse. Well when the replacement is pulling half that, yet stays on the air longer, it kind of makes you wonder the motivation behind the cancellation. I am not trying to claim Donahue's show was the best thing going, but to me out of the pundit shows, he actually had debate on his show and let the guests talk about their issues, rather then just scream back and forth and asking redundant questions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted February 18, 2005 Does anyone actually HAVE the FDR quote so I can see if he meant it or if it was taking out of context? Also, why does FDR even get into this? Is this like one of those "What would Jesus do?" kind of deals, only with one of the greatest Presidents ever? He was the best dictator America ever had. Come on. The guy was one pair of reflective aviator sunglasses away from being "Generalissimo Roosevelt, Presidente For Life." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted February 18, 2005 I used to watch Donahue on MSNBC, however once he was rewarded for being the highest rated show on the networkby being given a pink slip, and then replaced by Scarbarough, I tuned out. Should ANY show really be rewarded for pulling like a 0.02 in the ratings? I would if I was actually being serious. Well that's no excuse. Well when the replacement is pulling half that, yet stays on the air longer, it kind of makes you wonder the motivation behind the cancellation. . What are you trying to say, there was some conspiracy going on here? Scarborough is on MSNBC for the same reason that Savage was on MSNBC - the network saw the success of guys like Rush, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly, and they wanted their own version. They can't help it if all of their pundits (and I include Oberman as such) suck. Well, actually, they can, but you know what I mean. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
