PDA

View Full Version : Laura Ingraham makes surprising concession on drones




Napolitanic Wars
03-11-2013, 11:30 AM
in a Fox panel talking about the filibuster. The whole panel is good but Laura says something interesting around the 6:20 mark.

WALLACE: "Were you raising these same objections [about the war on terror and drones] when Bush was president?"

INGRAM: "Absolutely not, and I should have been. I should have been raising those questions."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/10/fox_news_sunday_panel_why_shouldnt_the_president.h tml

fr33
03-11-2013, 11:39 AM
She's comin' around I'm tellin' ya.

Valli6
03-11-2013, 11:40 AM
"Absolutely not, and I should have been. I should have been raising those questions."
Ah, but that would've meant agreeing with Ron Paul.

TokenLibertarianGuy
03-11-2013, 11:42 AM
She's comin' around I'm tellin' ya.

She's been really positive towards Rand for ages now. She's also one of the few 'conservatives' who gave decent Ron Paul interviews (Cavuto is another).

sailingaway
03-11-2013, 11:47 AM
Ah, but that would've meant agreeing with Ron Paul.

She did on many things. The problem with her and hannity both, to some extent, was how badly they stabbed Ron in the back in 2008. He didn't trust them enough to explain unguardedly. With her, I think that was unfortunate, and I think there was a tiny window when Ron might have gotten a more thoughtful review from Hannity too - but then Hannity was all newsletters even though he knows very well the smear was a smear.

mz10
03-11-2013, 11:57 AM
Ah, but that would've meant agreeing with Ron Paul.

This goes way back to before Ron Paul was relevant.

Just shows you how much it changes things when you "trust" the person in power.

heavenlyboy34
03-11-2013, 12:03 PM
Take caution before "embracing" Laura. She's all over the map WRT issues most of us care about. Considering she's widely syndicated in the MSM, she could well be part of the regime's left/right paradigm. (IOW, a tool) From what I've heard from her, she, like other propagandists, mixes fact with opinion in such a way that would fool the uncritical observer.

kathy88
03-11-2013, 12:12 PM
After what the MSM did to Ron for 8 years, I'm finding it very hard to believe that "supporters" are buying into this bullshit on a daily basis. I never thought I'd see the day when people started posting Levin and Beck crap, yet here we are.

radiofriendly
03-11-2013, 12:42 PM
Can you believe she said this?

“— we do have a Constitution, guys!” Ingraham exclaimed. “I know the war drums are always beating over at The Wall Street Journal!”

“You guys want to be in a perpetual state of war! No, we’re at a perpetual state of war!”

WOW! Posted the video here: http://iroots.org/2013/03/11/laura-ingraham-takes-on-the-perpetual-drums-of-war/

FSP-Rebel
03-11-2013, 12:51 PM
Whether she's genuinely coming along or just joining the popular bandwagon, I'll take her nice words on the #5 radio spot. Talkers' Heavy Hundred 2013 comes out tomorrow btw!

compromise
03-11-2013, 12:59 PM
I like Laura Ingraham, but probably only because she's hot.

SilentBull
03-11-2013, 01:01 PM
The only question is when are the Rand Paul haters going to admit that they were wrong and that Rand's strategy is genius!

heavenlyboy34
03-11-2013, 01:06 PM
I like Laura Ingraham, but probably only because she's hot.
lolz...OMG, you evil misogynist! ;) :D

Bruno
03-11-2013, 01:56 PM
The line from the party water carriers always changes as the letter behind the POTUS does.

lib3rtarian
03-11-2013, 02:50 PM
I hadn't been listening to her before, but during the filibuster and after, she was great supporting Rand. And she said this on air - "the neoconservative view is really hurting the GOP". That's good. We need all the allies we can get - Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck...

FSP-Rebel
03-11-2013, 02:54 PM
I like Laura Ingraham, but probably only because she's hot.
cougar hunting

TokenLibertarianGuy
03-11-2013, 02:57 PM
I like Laura Ingraham, but probably only because she's hot.

Only reason I can stomach watching Megyn Kelly.

supermario21
03-11-2013, 02:59 PM
Neil Cavuto: John McCain-from maverick to meathead, just thought it would fit here lol. even warns Rand not to get too cozy with the fair-weather-fan republicans.

heavenlyboy34
03-11-2013, 02:59 PM
I hadn't been listening to her before, but during the filibuster and after, she was great supporting Rand. And she said this on air - "the neoconservative view is really hurting the GOP". That's good. We need all the allies we can get - Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck...
Better make those cautious alliances. Those are the type of people who will gladly stab you in the back.

UWDude
03-11-2013, 03:01 PM
IIRC, wasn't there a "flower bomb" for her for her positive interview of Ron Paul a long time ago?

dancjm
03-11-2013, 04:23 PM
I saw that segment and it just felt to me like she really meant what she was saying.

Maybe she has woken up, it's one thing for her to say she StandsWithRand, but calling out the perpetual warfare state is a pretty epic step in the right direction I would say :D

itshappening
03-11-2013, 04:27 PM
She's been really positive towards Rand for ages now. She's also one of the few 'conservatives' who gave decent Ron Paul interviews (Cavuto is another).

Cavuto is just awesome full stop. He's been interviewing Ron on that show since day one and was the only one at fox doing it when there was a virtual black out in the early days

itshappening
03-11-2013, 04:29 PM
The line from the party water carriers always changes as the letter behind the POTUS does.

I think somethings different though considering how much a disaster Bush was and continues to be re-evaluated I think it's going to be harder for them to be apologists in the future. I think (hope) they will have learned their lesson

supermario21
03-11-2013, 04:32 PM
Also, Ingraham was lashing out at the WSJ for repping the War Party drum beating. It was Republican v Republican.

phesoge
03-11-2013, 04:55 PM
Also, Ingraham was lashing out at the WSJ for repping the War Party drum beating. It was Republican v Republican.

I wish I could have hugged the woman when she called out the wall street journal for their support for perpetual war.

anaconda
03-11-2013, 05:11 PM
in a Fox panel talking about the filibuster. The whole panel is good but Laura says something interesting around the 6:20 mark.

WALLACE: "Were you raising these same objections [about the war on terror and drones] when Bush was president?"

INGRAM: "Absolutely not, and I should have been. I should have been raising those questions."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/10/fox_news_sunday_panel_why_shouldnt_the_president.h tml

I recall her absolutely swooning over George W. Bush. Maybe she's coming around. Time will tell. Maybe not unlike the Glen Beck situation. It sure is nice to hear people like her expressing opinions that support both constitutional principles and the politicians like Rand that are their strongest advocates in Washington, D.C.

torchbearer
03-11-2013, 05:19 PM
IIRC, wasn't there a "flower bomb" for her for her positive interview of Ron Paul a long time ago?

it was one of our first projects.
i think brian hand delivered them to her at a book signing in houston.

anaconda
03-11-2013, 05:19 PM
I like Laura Ingraham, but probably only because she's hot.

She also has a wonderful radio voice. It may be worth noting that her show was canceled recently in favor of Michael Savage. I think maybe she's only doing podcasts. So it may be that her new constitutional principles is a marketing decision aimed at this growing liberty market segment. But hopefully she's sincere and it grows on her. It would be nice to have her fully on board with the NEW GOP. :)

supermario21
03-11-2013, 05:22 PM
I think Laura is even better than Beck. I think Beck is still a huge Israel hawk.

PS. Her show on TRN went to Andrea Tantaros but she just switched brands, she still has her show at the same time I think.

heavenlyboy34
03-11-2013, 05:22 PM
She also has a wonderful radio voice. It may be worth noting that her show was canceled recently in favor of Michael Savage. I think maybe she's only doing podcasts. So it may be that her new constitutional principles is a marketing decision. But hopefully she's sincere and it grows on her. It would be nice to have her fully on board with the NEW GOP. :)
Her voice is okay...but her personality irritates me. :P Her show still airs in the Phoenix market, so it's probably on in other markets too.

anaconda
03-11-2013, 05:28 PM
I think Laura is even better than Beck. I think Beck is still a huge Israel hawk.

PS. Her show on TRN went to Andrea Tantaros but she just switched brands, she still has her show at the same time I think.

Here in the S.F. Bay Area, her show on KSFO 560 A.M. was cancelled and Michael Savage took her time slot. I believe as of Jan. 1st.

Cowlesy
03-11-2013, 05:29 PM
Question for the house: Do people feel a need to actually "trust" any of these talking heads? We always talk about back-stabbing, etc, but I have never once felt inclined to give any of them my "trust." Mostly because they've never asked for it. Like a lot of media outlets, I'll like and support when they agree with me, and ignore them when they argue against my interests. But "trust" never comes into play.

If you put on an enjoyable program, I'll tune in and try and support your advertisers. If the program is just stuff I disagree with, I just tune to something else and ignore your advertisers.

*shrug*

anaconda
03-11-2013, 05:34 PM
Wow. Great segment. I am similarly impressed with Ingraham here. And very cool for her to come clean on G.W. Bush, who she used to swoon over.

georgiaboy
03-11-2013, 05:37 PM
good on Laura for this. Her points rang very true, and she appeared to really be expressing heartfelt convictions, even to the point of admitting past error. Having her so clearly outnumbered on the panel is lame.

I hope Rand gives her some exclusive interview time.

ETA - Can the Thread Title be updated to correct the spelling of her name? She deserves the respect.

Feelgood
03-11-2013, 05:40 PM
I hadn't been listening to her before, but during the filibuster and after, she was great supporting Rand. And she said this on air - "the neoconservative view is really hurting the GOP". That's good. We need all the allies we can get - Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck...

http://ferringtonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Mitt-Romney-Sucks-Here%E2%80%99s-Why-Photo-by-2bp.jpg


I did like the little dig at the end of how Bush never killed an American! Zing!!!

heavenlyboy34
03-11-2013, 05:40 PM
Question for the house: Do people feel a need to actually "trust" any of these talking heads? We always talk about back-stabbing, etc, but I have never once felt inclined to give any of them my "trust." Mostly because they've never asked for it. Like a lot of media outlets, I'll like and support when they agree with me, and ignore them when they argue against my interests. But "trust" never comes into play.

If you put on an enjoyable program, I'll tune in and try and support your advertisers. If the program is just stuff I disagree with, I just tune to something else and ignore your advertisers.

*shrug*
Nah, I don't even listen to them on purpose. I only hear about this kind of stuff when it's pasted here or if I hear it as background music at a store or someone's house. And Faux News is a a popular channel for the TV watchers at my gym and a default channels at many stores. :P

supermario21
03-11-2013, 05:42 PM
I sympathize with Laura because she was essentially 1 v 2/3 on the argument, including a conservative WSJ editor. She certainly wasn't towing the party line. Also, listen to some of her past interviews with the Pauls and Pat Buchanan. She has been for less war at least for a little while.

rbohlig
03-11-2013, 06:13 PM
Does anybody know who that woman on the far left was? She was absolutely terrible. I couldn't tell if she was a Bill Kristol type republican or a spokesperson of some sort for the Obama administration....kind of funny to think about.

fr33
03-11-2013, 06:16 PM
For what it's worth during the primaries I heard her say multiple times that she was troubled by the NDAA and assassinating citizens. She was pretty rough on Romney after he had the nomination even.

supermario21
03-11-2013, 06:17 PM
Does anybody know who that woman on the far left was? She was absolutely terrible. I couldn't tell if she was a Bill Kristol type republican or a spokesperson of some sort for the Obama administration....kind of funny to think about.

Kimberly Strassel of the WSJ, so yes, a neocon.

rbohlig
03-11-2013, 06:21 PM
"Predicting an election is risky business, but political journalists ought to be expected to take some risks. So I'm calling it for Mitt Romney.... My final prediction is that at a minimum, Mr. Romney wins 289 electoral votes, a tally that includes Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Wisconsin. If it is a big night, he also picks up Pennsylvania and maybe Minnesota." - Kimberly Strassel.

Lol I didn't think someone could be more wrong than Dick Morris!

supermario21
03-11-2013, 06:24 PM
Keep in mind, Laura Ingraham has been saying since July that if Romney lost, the GOP should be dismantled and rebuilt, so she has been calling for a sea change for awhile. Just remembered this.

anaconda
03-11-2013, 06:43 PM
I sympathize with Laura because she was essentially 1 v 2/3 on the argument, including a conservative WSJ editor. She certainly wasn't towing the party line. Also, listen to some of her past interviews with the Pauls and Pat Buchanan. She has been for less war at least for a little while.

Notice Laura does a near face palm at 6:08 in the video.

William R
03-11-2013, 06:51 PM
She's come a long way since 2007-08

anaconda
03-11-2013, 06:58 PM
She's come a long way since 2007-08

Yes indeed:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNHYhTySro4

anaconda
03-11-2013, 07:02 PM
Lol I didn't think someone could be more wrong than Dick Morris!

Political science genius Dick Morris calls Ron Paul a "left-wing radical."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAVM_IZolkA

scrosnoe
03-11-2013, 07:07 PM
It has more to do with where we are in the political 'season' than that any of these people have truly come around. When we look like a win, they will try to look like they have been there all the time.

cero
03-11-2013, 07:10 PM
Notice Laura does a near face palm at 6:08 in the video.
lol noticed it too

Christian Liberty
03-11-2013, 07:13 PM
After what the MSM did to Ron for 8 years, I'm finding it very hard to believe that "supporters" are buying into this bullshit on a daily basis. I never thought I'd see the day when people started posting Levin and Beck crap, yet here we are.

I acknowledge that he may be lying/playing for influence, I will never deny this, but Beck is seeming significantly closer to libertarian than any of the other major talk show hosts. Not a purist by any means, but libertarian-leaning. He sounded good on the Napolitano interview, whether he meant it or not I of course can't really say for sure.

Christian Liberty
03-11-2013, 07:24 PM
Political science genius Dick Morris calls Ron Paul a "left-wing radical."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAVM_IZolkA

How many left-wingers want to repeal the 16th?

And, while we all do know it, has Ron ever actually SAID he wants to legalize heroin? I'm pretty sure he only explicitly said the FEDERAL government should stop regulating it.

itshappening
03-11-2013, 07:27 PM
The heroin thing is a classic trap.

It would never be available in the store. The doctor would have to prescribe it to the addict. That's the sort of thing I would see happening with heroin becoming legal. Doctors wouldn't just give it to anyone who asks for it.

anaconda
03-11-2013, 07:28 PM
Juan Williams back-stabbed us here. After his "We're living in the age of Ron Paul" meme. Why does everyone in the media miss the reason for Rand phrasing his question the way he did? The argument that the scenario is unrealistically "hypothetical" is retarded. For one thing, if the government admits that it cannot drone an American in the U.S. then it becomes an easier task to subsequently expand this to other potential uses of force by the government, such as assassination by firearms, poisonings, druggings, kidnappings, torture, mind control techniques, etc. Also, it completely frames the 5th Amendment issue as it specifically relates to drones. Rand clearly (in my estimation) meant this to be, in part, a metaphor for more widespread 5th Amendment protections as they continue to come under seige. Furthermore, the most unspoken issue regarding The Filibuster is the stand it took against incrementalism, which should be the next huge populist meme of the day, and ASAP. Neither Rand nor any talking head has mentioned that The Filibuster also had the effect of drawing a line in the sand against incrementalism. Yet it seems to me that it has.

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/243301-opinion-we-live-in-the-age-of-ron-paul

Christian Liberty
03-11-2013, 07:30 PM
The heroin thing is a classic trap.

It would never be available in the store. The doctor would have to prescribe it to the addict. That's the sort of thing I would see happening with heroin becoming legal. Doctors wouldn't just give it to anyone who asks for it.

If there were a market demand for it, the supply would create itself. It already has on the black market. Legalizing it would just take those people who are already using heroin illegally and would make their lives less bad.

If Walter Block is correct than the one group of heroin addicts who can still live fairly normally are doctors who write their own perscriptions for it. I think using heroin is one of the stupidest ideas available to man but I think Prohibition... of anything, is just as stupid.

Classic trap? I'm proud to be hardcore.

anaconda
03-14-2013, 10:52 PM
I'm not quite clear why this didn't appear in the panel discussion we saw linked to in the OP (was there another Fox News Sunday in a parallel universe? Maybe an internet continuation kind of like Jon Stewart's show? Etc.?). But this seems to be additional, and it includes Laura speaking very positively about Rand as a 2016 Presidential candidate.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpNX2Q8Bctc

Napolitanic Wars
03-14-2013, 11:31 PM
I'm not quite clear why this didn't appear in the panel discussion we saw linked to in the OP

It looks like the same panel. I don't know what FOX is doing, but searching for the missing link, I found a clip of Ingram filling in for O'Reilly 6 days ago.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/09/ingraham_mccain_graham_have_filibuster_envy.html

fr33
03-14-2013, 11:39 PM
You have to take what you can find with fox news clips on youtube. MOXnews has been temp banned multiple times for Fox news clips. He doesn't upload them anymore.

anaconda
03-14-2013, 11:46 PM
You have to take what you can find with fox news clips on youtube. MOXnews has been temp banned multiple times for Fox news clips. He doesn't upload them anymore.

The thing is - the panel discussion linked to in the OP appeared to be a complete segment, at least from my perspective. The youtube link in post #54 above looks like the same show from the same date (Laura is wearing the exact same thing, Wallace says "we're back with the panel..") but her comments there are not part of the OP video.

rubioneocon
03-14-2013, 11:48 PM
Better make those cautious alliances. Those are the type of people who will gladly stab you in the back.

Hannity . . . one day after the positive radio interview with Rand post-filibuster,
had on Rudy Giuliani on his cable TV show on Faux News making fun with Rudy about the very filibuster.

J_White
03-15-2013, 12:01 AM
After what the MSM did to Ron for 8 years, I'm finding it very hard to believe that "supporters" are buying into this bullshit on a daily basis. I never thought I'd see the day when people started posting Levin and Beck crap, yet here we are.

^This. and then they will be surprised when one of these supporting MSM hacks does a U-turn and starts spewing hate.
Keep this in mind if and when Rand runs the issues about the Civil Rights Act will be blown out of proportion, twisted and turned till they turn off the Rand surge.
be ready for that.
and i think though I might like the idea of people jumping into the Randwagon without fully understanding him, but it would be best if we keep talking to people around us and spreading the facts and Constitutionist ideas. it will take time but give us solid results, IMO.

itshappening
03-15-2013, 12:12 AM
it wont matter what the knuckleheads say when Rand has Iowa and NH locked up.

Seriously, people spend too much time worrying about these people say and think.

All we need to care about is them saying "Rand Paul" often enough so the Iowa voter turns on tv and see's it, then they get the break and the Rand Paul ad... then they see Rand in their state and high up in the polls.

Some "analysts" will say nice things, some will say ridiculous things to derail him... it won't matter, just as long as they're talking about him and he's driving the debate.

anaconda
03-15-2013, 01:01 AM
Hannity . . . one day after the positive radio interview with Rand post-filibuster,
had on Rudy Giuliani on his cable TV show on Faux News making fun with Rudy about the very filibuster.

Link? Or a little more context? I can't find a link. I would love to see Sean backstabbing Rand, for the record.

Natural Citizen
03-15-2013, 01:06 AM
I'm sorry folks but these people aren't discussing anything near the important elements. I don't for the life of me understand why everyone is all of a sudden giving them so much attention. I've seen zero big boy speak from any of them.

Occam's Banana
03-15-2013, 02:13 AM
The thing is - the panel discussion linked to in the OP appeared to be a complete segment, at least from my perspective. The youtube link in post #54 above looks like the same show from the same date (Laura is wearing the exact same thing, Wallace says "we're back with the panel..") but her comments there are not part of the OP video.

The OP video was the part of the show that was actually aired on TV.

The video in post #54 was a "web only" continuation of the panel discussion - used to draw traffic to the FOX web site.

Occam's Banana
03-15-2013, 02:16 AM
it wont matter what the knuckleheads say when Rand has Iowa and NH locked up.

Seriously, people spend too much time worrying about these people say and think.

All we need to care about is them saying "Rand Paul" often enough so the Iowa voter turns on tv and see's it, then they get the break and the Rand Paul ad... then they see Rand in their state and high up in the polls.

Some "analysts" will say nice things, some will say ridiculous things to derail him... it won't matter, just as long as they're talking about him and he's driving the debate.

So if it doesn't matter, why in the world do you complain so much about Justin Raimondo and others when they criticize Rand (as you do in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?407128-Antiwar-com-Neocons-and-Obamaites-Unite-Against-Rand-Paul-Justin-Raimondo )?

You started a whole thread several days ago just to bitch about Michael Rozeff referring to Rand's filibuster as "useless" (here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?406959-The-Lew-Rockwell-Crowd-Just-Don-t-Get-It! (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?406959-The-Lew-Rockwell-Crowd-Just-Don-t-Get-It) ).

If "every little bit helps" (regardless of whether it is positive or negative), then why do you get such a bug up your nose about those things?

JJ2
03-15-2013, 06:46 PM
Nobody on that panel seemed to understand (Rand's definition at least) what "not engaged in combat" means. They said it was a completely unrealistic threat, yet noncombatants are routinely droned outside the US, including some American citizens! "People sitting in cafes" are precisely who we drone overseas. They don't seem to even understand where Rand got the whole scenario from.

Christopholes11
03-15-2013, 07:23 PM
Nobody on that panel seemed to understand (Rand's definition at least) what "not engaged in combat" means. They said it was a completely unrealistic threat, yet noncombatants are routinely droned outside the US, including some American citizens! "People sitting in cafes" are precisely who we drone overseas. They don't seem to even understand where Rand got the whole scenario from.

Precisely. Do they really want their next door neighbor to be droned if they are thought to be a terrorist? Why not just arrest the person? I hope for their sake the drone doesn't miss its target, killing them instead. Droning American citizens is not only unconstitutional, it's dangerous to everyone, terrorist or not.

Carson
03-15-2013, 07:28 PM
She did on many things. The problem with her and hannity both, to some extent, was how badly they stabbed Ron in the back in 2008. He didn't trust them enough to explain unguardedly. With her, I think that was unfortunate, and I think there was a tiny window when Ron might have gotten a more thoughtful review from Hannity too - but then Hannity was all newsletters even though he knows very well the smear was a smear.

They are still working.

Man could imagine the showers you would have to take after what they do. Maybe they have then in their dressing rooms to get a head start on the ones when they get home.

heavenlyboy34
03-15-2013, 07:50 PM
The heroin thing is a classic trap.

It would never be available in the store. The doctor would have to prescribe it to the addict. That's the sort of thing I would see happening with heroin becoming legal. Doctors wouldn't just give it to anyone who asks for it.
Terrible idea. It's going to wind up trafficked like other prescription drugs and won't really help the situation. Just let the various state deal with it as they do with tobacco and alcohol for now. Eventually it will be necessary to get government out of it altogether because it simply doesn't work-and it isn't consistent with liberty (even from the Constitutionalist's perspective).