Malloy on FOX and Friends

If you haven’t seen this clip of Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy, watch now:

http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/videolandingpage/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf

This video has been generating a bit of buzz for Malloy. Agree or disagree with him, it’s nice to see a vapid cable news host get called out for being a hack.

Advertisements

37 responses to “Malloy on FOX and Friends

  1. OUTSTANDING! Very funny… that’s the Dan Malloy I know.

  2. Good job Dan! Fox/GOP is playing gotcha games with the stimulus; good for you for calling them out on their obstructionism.

  3. Taking Faux Noise to school, well done, Mr. Mayor. His irritation is so evident, with the grinning pretty boy know-nothing in the split screen.

    How do these people reckon themselves American? So out of touch, so brainwashed, so about the broadcasting payday and the blithering message of their corporate overlords. So like some of the angry un-American voices I hear in these blog comments – Me! me! me! I got mine!

    What about us?

    Thanks, Dan, thanks Jenghis!

  4. GC, Generating a “bit” of buzz is an overstatement. I see three posts…now four.

  5. What a great clip, Malloy, did his city well in that clip. In fact he did the state well too. It is great to see someone push back on the Fox boys. Wonder how Susan B. and Jim A. would have done?

    Keep it up Dan.

  6. This video has been generating a bit of buzz for Malloy. Agree or disagree with him, it’s nice to see a vapid cable news host get called out for being a hack.

    The ‘buzz’ is on Air America. Not exactly MSP. GC, I would have thought Gabe had posted that. (BTW — are there only lefty guest front pagers?).

    I viewed the clip. Yea, the Fox guy was swarmy.

    Question that came to my mind was — why doesn’t (haven’t) the city replaced windows on a school built in 1937, or whenever it was constructed? If it is such a good project, why hasn’t it been done? Especially in Stamford — the wealthiest city in the state?

  7. Too bad that Malloy can’t get exposure on the three CT news stations. I ran circles around that “Gotcha” interviewer. 2010 can’t come soon enough.

  8. Steve Doocy is a pussy cat; why Malloy decided to get adversarial right out of the box when he had a good shot at making fun of the 15 million bucks worth of AstroTurf instead is beyond me.

    Malloy could have looked good; instead he appears argumentative and frankly struck me as some sort of self-righteous pompous PIA.

    Previously I had thought fairly highly of him.

  9. The GOP has legitimate talking points, but it’s kinda like someone sweeping dust off the deck of the Titanic in an effort to “lighten the load.”

    The GOP continues to fail to tackle monetary policy (ending fiat money and returning to sound money). So they focus on fiscal policy, but in a way that fails to address the magnitude of the problem.

    I’m still surprised that no member of Congressional leadership is taking the Jacksonian approach to offering an alternative:

    I wonder how Peter Schiff (2010 Senate!) feels about the central bank?

  10. On second thought… I’m not surprised. They all drink the Bernanke kool-aid. Heck… most of them voted for Tim “Transparency doesn’t apply under my national security exemption” Geithner for Treasury.

  11. Funny part is that this post has 4 usernames commenting that I’ve never seen before.

    Exploratory Committee staffers perhaps?

  12. I bet all those suburban New York City voters are real impressed. Soon as Dannel runs for Governor of Westchester County he’s gonna make quite a splash.

  13. I love reading the “you go girl/boy” posts by the Malloy cheerleaders. Seems like they need something/anything to cheer them up after that last Q poll showing him in the toilet.

    What’s the Big Deal….Malloy railroads some commentator on Fox by talking over him for 3 minutes by not letting him get a word in edgewise.
    Any politico should be able to do that in their sleep….even Mr. 4% Jim Amann.

    And any political operative would counsel (including Roy O) to their client that when faced with a potentially hostile interview, just keep talking! For another example, please see ALL of Bill Curry’s interviews.

  14. Essentially, whether you like Malloy or don’t like Malloy, it’s pretty clear that you’re partisan if you’re criticizing his performance in that interview. The guy was simply well prepared and wasn’t going to put up with any guff or misrepresentation of fact. Good for him. He’s not going to let some pretty face with a script walk all over him. That’s what a good politician does. Malloy was simply doing his job in that interview. He did his homework, he didn’t look down at a sheet of notes, he was ready. The Fox face and his twit producer failed to prep. If they didn’t know Malloy was going to come at them, then they’re morons.

    That wasn’t even argumentative. That was simply controlling the debate, and he wasn’t even rude about it. Fortunately the face didn’t turn it into something that was unwatchable by arguing with him, like the O’Reilly types. People shouting over each other is bad TV. Allowing your guest to speak is good TV. Being a bully on “your” show, like O’Reilly does all the time, shows that he’s simply in love with himself.

    The face even showed his cards with his little impassioned plea about trying to let “us” know about how the money’s being spent — yet he tailored his questions to mislead viewers. He tries to throw out some ridiculous $600 million figure as if they’re asking for that all at once. You can’t ask the federal gov’t for millions of dollars without providing evidence that you have a capital improvement plan in place. The $600 million figure comes from Stamford’s 10-year capital plan. The fields are part of that plan. Malloy was just stating that and it was really inconvenient for the face. That’s why nobody takes Fox seriously.

  15. This interview is great and Malloy did a tremendous job. It’s refreshing to see an elected executive in CT with a full grasp of the issues, strong presence and willingness to fight.

    Fox News was clearly trying to do a set-up here. Guarantee they simply mentioned projects in Stamford to Malloy and his people, then led the story with the $15m for ‘a’ turf field. The entire premise and tone set forth by Fox was argumentative, derogatory and typical of Fox’s viewing an issue through a keyhole instead of opening the door.

  16. That’s why nobody takes Fox seriously.

    Really?
    So I’d guess these folks are just “The great unwashed masses” huh?

    Here’s the ratings.

    Cable News Daily Ratings for February 16, 2009

    P2+ Total Day
    FNC – 1,421,000 viewers
    CNN – 750,000 viewers
    MSNBC –458,000 viewers
    CNBC – 258,000 viewers
    HLN – 337,000 viewers

    P2+ Prime Time
    FNC – 3,185,000 viewers
    CNN—1,120,000 viewers
    MSNBC –1,089,000 viewers
    CNBC – 304,000 viewers
    HLN – 781,000 viewers

    For those that labor under the delusion that “nobody really watches that awful O`Reilly anymore” here’s weekly chart.

  17. AndersonScooper

    ACR, commentors were thinking that nobody in Connecticut watches FoxNews because its entire delivery is that intellectually dishonest.

    The “news” channell is propagandistic to a degree which you’d only expect to find in totalitarian countries. Almost every segment is loaded with political slant, and hosts like Doocywill go to almost any length to please their masters.

    But please answer back and tell us all what a stand up guy Steve Doocy is…

  18. GREAT STUFF!
    I already had a positive impression of the Mayor and this went a long way to reinforcing those feelings.

    As for FAUX GNUS, what’s left to say that’s not already been said?

  19. Essentially, whether you like Malloy or don’t like Malloy, it’s pretty clear that you’re partisan if you’re criticizing his performance in that interview. The guy was simply well prepared and wasn’t going to put up with any guff or misrepresentation of fact. Good for him. He’s not going to let some pretty face with a script walk all over him. That’s what a good politician does. Malloy was simply doing his job in that interview. He did his homework, he didn’t look down at a sheet of notes, he was ready. The Fox face and his twit producer failed to prep. If they didn’t know Malloy was going to come at them, then they’re morons.

    Thank you for making my point when you say “That’s what a good politician does.”

    Any “good politician” knows how to be prepared, handle a potential hostile interviewer, and control an interview.

    And that is why I said…..”What’s the Big Deal?” So does that make me a “partisan” because I am calling a cigar a cigar?

    You Malloy apologists are making this interview out to be more than it is. The fact remains….he’s at what, 14%, statewide, his name ID sucks (even after having run 4 years ago), and he was scared out of running for re-election for Mayor this year because of his almost loss 4 years ago against a no-name GOP candidate.

  20. The “news” channell is propagandistic to a degree which you’d only expect to find in totalitarian countries. Almost every segment is loaded with political slant, and hosts like Doocywill go to almost any length to please their masters.

    Fox News is not supported, and has never been supported, by the government, so there is really no way you can compare it to totalitarian countries.

    As far as biased media is concerned, most foreign countries have very biased print media. Outside the opinion magazines here, the bias is much more subtle, and when it is there, the newspapers won’t really admit to it (everyone knows the WSJ is right of center, and the NYT is left of center, but the newspapers don’t consider themselves this way. Furthermore, the WSJ editorial page may be right of center, but the news sections are not). In Europe, the newspapers are much more biased, particularly in their actual news articles. In Denmark, for instance, Jyllands Posten freely admits it is a independent liberal newspaper (liberal in Europe means liberal as in free markets, nothing like what it means here). This was the paper that published the cartoons about Islam. The main left-leaning paper is Politiken, and they also freely admit that (what’s really bizarre, however, is that the two papers, the two largest in the coutnry, are owned by the same company). Bias in European papers is much more overt than most major city newspapers in the United States. And much more biased than Fox News.

    As for TV stations, most European countries tend to have major government ownership of their primary channels (BBC, ARD, etc) so aren’t as overtly biased as their print publications.

  21. ACR, commentors were thinking that nobody in Connecticut watches FoxNews because its entire delivery is that intellectually dishonest.

    Do you believe what you write?

  22. AndersonScooper

    Doocy believes Sarah Palin has foreign policy experience because Alaska is close to Russia!

    Yeah, it’s hard to believe someone could watch Fox and Friends, even you ‘wingers. I mean I had a hard time listening to Air America, (except for Al Franken). Randi Rhodes makes me want to barf.

    But I forget with you ‘wingers I’m dealing with people who are eager to believe. Like the current noise that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Really, I read in a scientific sounding piece on the WSJ’s opinion page.

  23. But I forget with you ‘wingers I’m dealing with people who are eager to believe. Like the current noise that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Really, I read in a scientific sounding piece on the WSJ’s opinion page.

    Do you have any proof to contravene it? Yes or no? I’m still waiting for you to tell us about “all of the economists” who say that the government must spend hundreds of billions of dollars right now.

    Of course, if you think this “stimulus” will do all that Obama says it will, then you’re a great candidate for “Are You Smarter than an Eleventh Grader?”

  24. Of course, if you think this “stimulus” will do all that Obama says it will, then you’re a great candidate for “Are You Smarter than an Eleventh Grader?”

    What can you say? Reality has a strong liberal bias….

  25. primusinterpares

    But I forget with you ‘wingers I’m dealing with people who are eager to believe. Like the current noise that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Really, I read in a scientific sounding piece on the WSJ’s opinion page.

    Scanman, Scooper:

    You don’t like the Wall Street Journal, fine. It does lean right and focus more on economics than The Times so if you had to choose to read about economics or financial matters I would still think WSJ (or the Financial Times for the gurus out there) would be the choice publication. However if you would like other sources, they are most certainly out there. Ben Bernanke’s major body of work is actually on this precise subject. SO, without further ado I will repost something I posted in a previous forum that you guys didn’t seem to have an answer for:

    Scanman, Scooper:

    Before you hurl insults please attempt to be at least slightly intellectually honest. First, I am not a Republican party man and no leadership of any party leads me or my beliefs.

    Second, Gene Smiley (Professor of Economics at Marquette University) wrote a book called, “Rethinking the Great Depression” is an accessible print version of what is being taught today by economics professors across this country.

    Third, perhaps you should check out the speech given by the former professor and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke, in which he states:

    “The economy improved after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s inauguration in March 1933, but unemployment remained in the double digits for the rest of the decade, full recovery arriving only with the advent of World War II.”

    He goes into greater detail in the speech and outlines the points made earlier by Milton Friedman about the apparent effectiveness of CERTAIN New Deal provisions (despite the harmful effect of others). The speech is on the FED’s webpage. You’ll find the link below:

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200403022/default.htm

    As for ideology, I believe I am the one that is admitting the success of certain aspects of the New Deal and the utter failure of others just as this “stimulus” will likely have similar results. It’s not ideology it’s just common sense.

  26. Third, perhaps you should check out the speech given by the former professor and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke, in which he states:

    But, further down in the speech, Bernake says something that is perhaps more important:

    “With the gold standard constraint removed and the banking system stabilized, the money supply and the price level began to rise. Between Roosevelt’s coming to power in 1933 and the recession of 1937-38, the economy grew strongly.”

    I never suggested the New Deal was an overnight phenom that saved the US in 24 hours. The New Deal, like Obama’s stimulus, is going to take time. But there can be no denying that both the New Deal and the stimulus created jobs in the short term but, perhaps more importantly, were created with the intention of boosting the entire economy in the long run. Unemployment may have remained rather high for several years despite job creation but the sustained economic growth in the post-crash years was the real intent of FDR’s policies.

  27. Meanwhile, Malloy’s video has gone viral.

  28. AndersonScooper

    Primus–

    I read the Bernanke piece and in it he talked about the role of monetary policy with relation to the Great Depression. I didn’t see much about the New Deal, nor fiscal policy. What were you referencing?

    In terms of the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Times, I might trust the bulk of the reporting, even with the bias, but some of the opinion pieces they run can be ludicrous. Theories get put into play as long as they serve the political agenda, regardless of whether they pass the sniff test.

  29. AndersonScooper

    Dobb–

    It’s unfortunate that the GOP wouldn’t stand with the President on the stimulus package. On the American economy, as with waging war, we should be a country united behind our Commander-in-Chief.

    Yes, much of the stimulus package is about restoring consumer confidence. It sends a message that at some point the government will step in to tame unemployment, and it’s meant to allay fears of job losses. (those fears can result in a consumer spending crunch, which can lead to more job losses, more fear, etc. in a vicious cycle.)

    The Republicans should have expressed their disagreements, but the leadership should have been their with President Obama when he signed the bill.

    Sadly it looks as if ideology and partisan politics were more important to Congressional Republicans than standing together to save the American economy.

    Please note that Republican governors, almost across the board, sided with Obama against McConnell and Boehner’s DC leadership.

  30. It’s unfortunate that the GOP wouldn’t stand with the President on the stimulus package. On the American economy, as with waging war, we should be a country united behind our Commander-in-Chief.

    You mean, as united as Democrats were behind President Bush?

  31. primusinterpares

    I never suggested the New Deal was an overnight phenom that saved the US in 24 hours. The New Deal, like Obama’s stimulus, is going to take time. But there can be no denying that both the New Deal and the stimulus created jobs in the short term but, perhaps more importantly, were created with the intention of boosting the entire economy in the long run. Unemployment may have remained rather high for several years despite job creation but the sustained economic growth in the post-crash years was the real intent of FDR’s policies.

    Many highly educated people disagree. A survey conducted by the Economics Department at Wake Forest in the mid 90’s concludes:

    “the profession has not reached a consensus about the causes of the Great Depression, nor about the impact of the New Deal on economic growth.”

    51% say good effects 49% say bad.

    So, it is not a fringe belief, even in academia, as you and scooper are trying to portray it.

    I also think you may have missed the point with Bernanke’s speech. His point is that the primary policy change that saved the US (and UK for that matter) was ending the gold standard (don’t shoot the messenger Ron Paulites). Thus it was primarily new monetary policy that laid the foundation for economic growth, and as he said, the war that caused unemployment to fall, and primarily not the New Deal.

    Also, you appear to contradict yourself when you say that the unemployment rate was high even though jobs were being created. How does that work? Were the unemployed simply not taking those newly created jobs? The fact is that while the New Deal did have a few positive impacts on the economy, far more money was spent employing people for the war than on creating jobs through the New Deal. That is why once the war started the unemployment numbers plummet. After the war, New Deal era government controls were relaxed and real economic growth (not government sponsored growth) continued.

    The pro New Deal argument I am most sympathetic to is that it kept the bottom from falling out between the crash and the war. The debate then becomes was the cost (which we are still paying for) worth the debatable benefit? The ironic thing is that we can never really know because we simply don’t know what would have happened otherwise.

  32. You mean, as united as Democrats were behind President Bush?

    Um when W. passed the bailout it was the House Republicans, not House Democrats, who were the thorn in his side. And what about the Iraq war? Or the Patriot Act? Or Alito and Roberts? Or Condi? Dems voted with the GOP many a time during W’s term.

    The congressional Republicans are bankrupt and out of ideas and the only thing they can do is oppose the stimulus and pray that Obama fails so they can capitalize on it politically because they know they cannot take him on issue-to-issue. It’s sad. Very sad.

  33. “With the gold standard constraint removed and the banking system stabilized, the money supply and the price level began to rise. Between Roosevelt’s coming to power in 1933 and the recession of 1937-38, the economy grew strongly.”

    My parents lied to me! They said money doesn’t grow on trees.

    A gold standard is imperfect, but printing money is far worse IMO.

    We’ve (at least) doubled the money supply in the past year. How does that not impact the price of goods?

    Bernanke claims he can withdraw his fake money from the system expeditiously. But didn’t he and Tim “I oppose banking transparency for national security reasons” Geithner make similar claims of heroism about the failed Bush / Dodd bailout?

  34. ACR those number aren’t all that good. And from the same Web site you linked for those ratings, FNC doesn’t even make cable’s top 20 shows, nor does it appear in the next 20. Spongebob gets a bigger audience. When FNC starts hitting 60 Minutes numbers — 12 -16 million viewers over the last few weeks — I’ll then stand corrected.

    FNC outdraws The Daily Show, but not by much. Look people just have to understand what’s been said above by a number of folks… Fox offers news commentary with a significant slant. That’s all there is too it. It goes to credibility.

  35. AndersonScooper

    Doug, it’s worse than slant. FoxNews is a propaganda outlet, without any journalistic regard for the truth. My favorite part is the way they use the subtitles to editorialize. And my all time favorite was when they advertised Mark Foley- (Dem)!

  36. Do you think Malloy knows why we are in this financial meltdown in the first place?
    Here’s a refresher…http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/02/feds_reimpose_loan_standards_t.html

    Highlights from the article…
    1)
    “There is a great irony that Washington will now lead the way in imposing new, stricter standards, including a tougher income-to-payment ratio, because it was Washington, prodded by affordable housing advocates, which pushed mortgage lenders to dilute their traditional underwriting values in the first place.”
    2)”The movement to water down underwriting standards grew out of claims of some housing advocates and elected officials that mortgage lenders were ‘redlining,’ or avoiding, certain urban neighborhoods,”
    3)”One group that led the way was the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, ”
    4)”Under pressure from Washington, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to begin purchasing mortgages under new, looser guidelines.”
    5)”Prof. Stan Liebowitz of the University of Texas uncovered a 1998 sales pitches by Bear Stearns, the leading private packager of mortgage-backed securities, in which a managing director of the firm assures banks in language remarkably similar to that used by government regulators that these loans were safer than traditionally thought and that investors were ready to buy them, if only banks would make more of them. “Do we automatically exclude or severely discount …loans with [poor credit scores]? Absolutely not,” the eager investment banker tells his audience. Bear Stearns, of course, was eventually sunk by such loans.”
    6)”The Department of Housing and Urban Development under President Clinton, for instance, threatened to introduce legislation to make non-bank lenders, that is, mortgage finance companies, subject to CRA if these firms didn’t sign on to affordable lending goals. HUD even crafted an agreement with the Mortgage Bankers Association, the industry trade group, which pledged that the group’s members would aid in affordable housing goals. One of the first members of the MBA to take up the pledge was Countrywide, which pledged to introduce low-down payment loans with high income-to-payment ratios for low-income borrowers. Countrywide and its co-founder, Angelo Mozilo, ultimately became infamous as one of the first major mortgage lenders to melt down under the weight of its bad lending, but before it was notorious Countrywide was celebrated for its low-income efforts.”

    And this from Obamas new 75 billion dollar boondogle…
    “And, the government will continue to keep prevailing mortgage rates low by buying mortgage-backed securities issued by the agencies. This effort expands a $500 billion purchase plan announced in November that prompted mortgage rates to fall nearly a percentage point.”

    Why are we going to continue the same policies thqt got us in this mess in the first place?

    How many people here know this…

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/07/news/companies/bank_failure/index.htm

    “Franklin Bank, a Houston, Texas-based bank and Security Pacific Bank, a Los Angeles, Calif.-based bank were shut down by state regulators Friday, marking the 18th and 19th bank failures this year. …
    Ironically, Lewis Ranieri, the 61-year-old co-founder and chairman of parent Franklin Bank Corp., is credited with inventing mortgage-backed securities two decades ago, the AP reported, back when he worked at Salomon Brothers, where he is a former vice chairman.”

    So Obama and his Banking leaders, Dodd and Franks still think it is a good idea to let Fannie and Freddie deal in mortgage securities. Unbelievable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s