FDR grandson says Brit HUME should retract or maybe resign--WHOW

Grandson of FDR --James, ---was on Keith Olberman show tonight. He gave great examples of Brit taking some of FDR's writing relating to SSecurity (see below also) and came up wth his own version. Then he called upon Brit to retract his statements--and 'maybe resign"

I sure am glad someone is FINALLY taking that slimeball to task!!
I wonder if the mainstream media will take this up??
They sure were on Rather a few months ago!!
Giving false information to the pubic seems to be an everyday occurance by Brit et al.


Email: Brit Hume, brit.hume@foxnews.com


From Keith Olberman blog on this subject:
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6844293/#050214a
>
> Roosevelts message was pretty straightforward. For 1935, people who would only take money out of Social Security and not put any in, should have their contributions covered half by the federal government and half by the states. Later on, those contributions should be replaced by the “self-supporting annuity plans” — which Roosevelt has already defined (“Second…”) as the actual Social Security system. Buried in the formality of his third point, FDR is talking about things we would later know as IRA’s and Keoghs and 401k’s.
>
> But look at how Hume mixed and matched the original Roosevelt quotes on February 4th (and we’re quoting this verbatim from Fox’s website) “…it turns out 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 plans 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.’”
>
> Roosevelt said no such thing. The “voluntary contributory annuities” are the IRA’s and Keoghs and 401k’s. What “ought to ultimately be supplanted” was the special government contributions to Social Security on behalf of people born in the 1870’s and earlier, and the “self-supporting annuity plans” constitute Social Security itself.......

some 'jouralistic" standands (maybe I have a fantasy)

Al Franken has been screaming for Hume to resign for a week.

listen in noon-3pm AAR.

dp

and so he invited him back to start the show today. Eddie should be well armed to finish him off.

dp

Just like top Repubs did to Dan Rather.

Why are they so afraid???????

Rather--they will only defend their boy Brit!!

they know about it (they will not hear about it on msm!!)

I want top name DEMS to be agressive, just like the Repubs.

OF course they will defend Brit, Gannon, etc-why should THEY tell us how corrupt they are?

But no one is stopping top-name DEMS from taking them on. DEMS are apparently too stupid or too chicken- this story even has "the sex."

Okay- so the repubs "control the media" and they trashed Dan- well guess what, we DONT control the media- we DONT have a "Hannity"- but we DO have household name DEMS who can get interviews anytime they want.

So what is their excuse???

Fox will ignore the e-mails but if Olbermann has copies of all the e-mails sent to Fox, maybe he can raise a ruckus. The only way to get to FOX is through someone like Olbermann.

I do wish the DEM "leaders" would go on the interview shows "raise questions"-that way others would know about it. THAT would work.

Gannon/Guckert=Mark Twain.

They both used false names. This is the level of intelligence we have parading as truth to the poor dumb rocks that watch.

Did Mark Twain protray himself as a serious reporter and get smuggled into Presidential Press Conferences and spout out a half-assed, oxyrush joke?

I won't even go into whether Twain had any of the websites that I've heard guckert has.

Life was so much simpler before the internets.

Edited to say: You do know that Hume compared the two..I saw it on the internets...I never watch that propaganda channel.

which reminds me..I'm moving to France.

Jumped right out of my chair said YEAH!

Grandson also pointed out how shrub twisted FDR's statements in the SOTU in order to gain support for privatization. Grandson, James, stated that he believed that FDR would never have approved of privatization of SS.

written about this? He was all over the CBS-Rather thing from the gitgo. BTW, Anyone have his e-mail? I would like to ask him (politely) myself.

That is the only explanation of why they don't confront the Corp Media lies and propaganda for the Bush Junta.

with a republican on his head.

His Washington Post columns are pure drivel -- I'm old enough to remember when the Post meant jounalistic excellence -- what the heck happened to them???

kurtzh@washpost.com

I just fired off an e-mail asking him why he has so carefully avoided mentioning Britt Hume's distortions of FDR's words to support the planned SS reform by the Republicans. If you really want to get pissed off, go read his chat comments from Monday on the Washington Post website. He goes so far out of his way to defend Gannon that it's not even funny, but hardly surprising given that Kurtz is a big old 'ho himself.

I used to have some respect for him. It's long gone.

espically in the past 4 years.

James! How fortunate is that? We have the originator of Social Security's grandson..calling the fascist smearmongers on their slegehammer talking points!

What I sent:

"I am appalled that Brit Hume twisted FDR's words for the purpose of helping sell President Bush's Social Security plan. Mr. Hume should issue an apology immediately. Fox News owes it to its audience to correct the false information stated by Mr. Hume - I believe this should be done "on air" as well as on your station's website.

I learned of this on Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show tonight, where FDR's grandson appeared as a guest.

I am copying this e-mail to Olbermann's MSNBC e-mail address so that he and knows that people are e-mailing your network to express their outrage."

If you can't explain it in a neat, 15 second sound bite, the eyes in TVland just glaze over.

They can say, "Well, FDR wanted private accounts, too", and then you have to explain patiently and in detail, that, no he didn't for these fifteen reasons. After about the second point you make, the audience loses interest.

In the end, all they remember is, "Well, FDR wanted private accounts, too".

is to figure out a 15 second way to say that FDR didn't want the private accounts.

Don't ask me how, but I'm sure it could be done.

Here's the Countdown vid on Hume/Roosevelt- Hume-Roosevelt

and James Roosevelt a few weeks ago testifying before Congress in which he states the Insurance versus Investment idea.
Roosevelt testifying before Dem committee

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.