Wednesday, June 17, 2009

KC Star columnist Mike Hendricks goes AWOL after slam on pro-life Americans, Mary Sanchez shows up to debate Bill O'Reilly (updated - not AWOL)

John Landsberg reports on KC Star columnist Mary Sanchez' appearance on the Bill O'Reilly show, as part of the on-going debate on late-term abortions and the murder of Dr. Tiller.

It's not clear why Sanchez appeared on the show, since Mike Hendricks, not Sanchez, is the Star columnist who made national headlines after essentially blaming all pro-life Americans for the Tiller murder.

A commenter on the Bottom Line site who seems to agree left this comment:
"... Why was Sanchez the one debating O'Reilly? Where was Hendricks? He's the one who called O'Reilly out. Sanchez is one of the few at The Star who is remotely pro-life...

"... Sanchez was nothing more than a smoke screen for the coward Mike Hendricks to hide behind. If anything her appearance in Hendrick's place made The Star's coverage of this issue even more disgraceful than it was before."


Update: in comments, the word is Mike Hendricks was not invited on the show, so it isn't accurate to say he was AWOL.
.

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

The answer is it’s easier to wear DNC kneepads, and merely wipe your mouth, then actually have to defend an untenable position and get dirty.

As for where he is, though I have no idea, what did Goebbels do when his Reich crashed?

John Altevogt said...

All of the opinion folks at The Star are babbling about pro-life rhetoric being the driving force behind Roeder's anger yet Judy Thomas' article with Laura Bauer made clear in the first 3 paragraphs that Roeder was upset by what happened in the courtroom down in Wichita.  He, like many of us, had grown weary of the failure of the Kansas legal system to honestly and fairly deal with the issue of abortion and Tiller's and PP's abuse of the laws that attempt to regulate it.  From the Thomas/Bauer June 3 article in The Star on Roeder's motivation:
---------------
When Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller stood trial in March, Scott Roeder was there in the courtroom.

And after Tiller was acquitted on charges he had failed to properly justify late-term abortions, Roeder told a fellow activist that the whole process was a “sham.”

“He seemed to be passionate about that,” said Eugene Frye, a Kansas City area anti-abortion activist for the past three decades. “He felt justice had not been served.”
---------------
Note that Roeder did not scream epithets about Tiller the Baby-killer.


And Roeder's view of the trial appears to be correct given the following information from an article by Ron Sylvester in the WIchita Eagle on June 13. This suggests that we have evidence that jury nullification may have been a part of the picture.
-----------
The jury took only 25 minutes in April to declare Tiller not guilty of violating a law governing how doctors obtain second medical opinions on some late-term abortions.
As a spring blizzard began to form outside, jurors were anxious to be escorted by deputies to their vehicles. But the six jurors told Judge Clark Owens they wanted to send Tiller a message.
"They are very happy to know that there is someone with a clean, safe, secure facility, where women can have an abortion without having to go to the back alleys or hotel rooms like they used to," Monnat remembered the jury's message.
-------------
Clearly the jury was packed with abortion supporters for this to have happened.  Can you imagine what would have happened had the jury convicted Tiller and mentioned to the judge that they were glad that an abortionist was being taken off the streets? Regardless the answer to that question there is no explanation that could rationalize why Mary Sanchez went on O'Reilly in Hendrick's place.

Anonymous said...

Thank you John for the insight

Anonymous said...

Did it occur to anyone that maybe O'Reilly never asked Hendricks to come on his show? Or does that not fit into your angry narrative?

John Altevogt said...

Right, O'Reilly publicly attacks Hendricks, but then calls up The Star and tells them to send someone else to debate? That's your defense of his cowardly conduct? O'Reilly asked for someone else? Man, I hope I never have to debate you. Boy o boy, you're good.

Anonymous said...

Very well said John, however, I do have to consider an alternate track.

Considering the worm of a man that Hendricks is in real life, would it be a stretch to believe that he saw what happened the last time someone from the Star appeared on O'Reilly?

As you will recall the last moonbat they sent was Charles Coulter who made himself look like a complete fool sitting there moonstruck and unable to make a coherent statement. Immediately after, he was on the list of those fired despite his waving of the Obama flag and wearing his soap on a rope around his neck.

Hendricks like the coward he is very well could have begged out. On the other hand, were I Zieman, who would I rather send? A beady eyed snake in the grass that will appear as a beady eyed snake in the grass to a national audience...or...a hard nosed racist female that firmly believes in my twisted and demented ideology without being complete offensive to the human eye?

You're probably right, however, I for one never would have let Mike Hendricks represent me in front of one of the largest national audiences on earth.

All in all, either way it is a good thing. One way or another, Mike Hendricks will now never get any recognition, thus a better job. Zieman keeps his part time rattlesnake and Mike Hendricks remains a small paper hack that no one ever heard of.

John Altevogt said...

There are basically two answers to the question as to why he didn't appear:

1. The Star's management did not feel comfortable sending Hendrick's, i.e. he's too stupid, or
2. He's a coward.

If anyone can think of 3, 4, or 5, I'd sure like to read them. Humorous moments like this just don't come along that often.

Anonymous said...

3. Roxy "The cross eyed optimist" said, NO! I need the car for Yoga Class!"

John Altevogt said...

Wonderful, love it. Folks, Derek Donovan simply cannot be trusted to come up with an appropriate excuse for why Hendricks the Coward did not appear on O'Reilly (and even if he did, he has no credibility). I think that we, as good citizens of the Internet, and in the interest of fairness and compassion for the mentally disabled need to come up with responses that Mike the Coward can give for why Mary had to go stand up for him.

#3 was a superb start. Let's all put on our thinking caps and see how many we can come up with.

McClatchy Watch said...

Tony Botello slammed Mike Hendricks today, called Hendricks a thief.

John Altevogt said...

And today's second candidate for the most humorous response comes from Hendricks hisself. From his blog comes this excuse for why Mary Sanchez went in his place.

"In answer to why I am not a TV star and why Mary Sanchez is:

I haven't talked to Mary, so I don't know how she came to appear on the O'Reilly Show.But my explanation is that nobody from the O'Reilly Show called me. I only learned of Mary's appearance after reading about it.

As I explained earlier, I'm not a regular Factor watcher.

O'Reilly was content to slam me on air a couple of times (love that distorted picture they used with the fabricated hair line), but apparently O'Reilly was afraid of talking to me. Were his staff to call up now, here are my conditions: I will go on his show, but only if he will submit to a taped phone interview with me. Sounds fair enough, don't you think? "

McClatchy Watch said...

Just came across this podcast of talk show host Chris Stigall doing a monologue on Mike "Sweet Pea" Hendricks. It's biting.

Anonymous said...

I haven't talked to Mary, so I don't know how she came to appear on the O'Reilly Show.


I'll tell you how. They didn't call you Mike because they called your boss who was too embarrassed to send you knowing that you could not defend your vile rant. He would have ate your lunch, so, we sent someone we thought could handle it and not be saddled with your bile.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the only pertinent question is why anyone, anywhere, would go on O'Reilly's program. Without victims to harrangue and cut off in mid-sentence, he'd have only himself to rant to.

John Altevogt said...

10:29 Your point is completely irrelevant because The Star did choose to send someone and as 10:24 so eloquently put it they did not choose Mr./Ms./Its Hendricks to be the public face of The Kansas City Star.

Instead, they chose Mary Sanchez, who Mr. Landsberg correctly states did a good job with a tough assignment defending a fool.

Anonymous said...

SAME USEFUL IDIOT ALERT, ALERT!

Did it occur to anyone that maybe O'Reilly never asked Hendricks to come on his show? Or does that not fit into your angry narrative?

Actually, the only pertinent question is why anyone, anywhere, would go on O'Reilly's program. Without victims to harrangue and cut off in mid-sentence, he'd have only himself to rant to.

HOW ABOUT GIVING US A LITTLE SUBSTANCE ABOUT HENDRICKS? I THOUGHT NOT

CRICKETS, CRICKETS

Truth Hurts said...

"Actually, the only pertinent question is why anyone, anywhere, would go on O'Reilly's program."

Maybe because of his high ratings and his millions of viewers...

John Altevogt said...

Methinks our angry stalker is back. Can you say obsessive/compulsive?

Anonymous said...

Wow, John has the O'Reilly playbook down pat: Ignore or misconstrue the unwelcome question and attack the questioner.

John Altevogt said...

Yep, same screwball, same terminology. At least he's not threatening us anymore. The medications appear to have some effect.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Lots of misdirected energy/anger on this thread. The O'Reilly Factor has control over who it puts on its show. It didn't have to invite Sanchez on if they didn't want to. Bill would have had a fine time reaming Hendricks for ducking an appearance if that was what had happened. It's possible that show producers asked for Hendricks, and the Star offered Sanchez, but that's pretty unlikely. It's pretty easy to find direct numbers for most anyone on the Star's staff. If you watched the clip, you see that Reilly had a bug up his ass about Sanchez, too, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that the Factor asked specifically for Sanchez. Whether Hendricks should have gone on, whether he was invited and ducked, or whether he was never asked, is irrelevant to Sanchez's appearance. Maybe people are a little ticked off that Sanchez used the old rope-a-dope and came off so well in the exchange. Marshall McLuhan was right.

McClatchy Watch said...

11:18 deleted for violating the rules.

Anonymous said...

Zieman’s conversation with the little wifey about who should talk to O’Reilly- (Comedy For Free)
***
Zee: What do you think Rho, should I send Mary Sanchez the racist, or Mike Hendricks the dolt, to talk with Bill?

Rho: Zee Babee, I need the car today for a little cross-town spin.

Zee: Are you on the sauce again? Focus, will ya?

Rho: I don’t trust Mary, her columns never have the crisp crudeness mine did. Let’s face it, she is a dud, she’ll make the Star look too provincial. I have forgotten more about being a racist than she will ever know.

Zee: Hendricks might say something embarrassing, I am not even going to tell him O’Reilly called me for an interview. He follows the biased agenda I gave him, but he is not ready for the bigs.

Rho: Zee Babee, how about those keys? I need my cornrows loosened so I can better contemplate my next poison pen column.

Zee: Who is going to publish your column now that you are the ‘Three Tire’ laughingstock of KC?

Rho: Perhaps you have forgotten that I am a woman of color, and not the ‘typical white person’ like Obammy’s granny. I did my part for the Messiah, and I want my reward, just like the other buzzards circling the White House.

Zee: Rho, are you registered to vote in Timbuktu?

Anonymous said...

No doubt 12:31 will be deleted for violating the rules, right, McClatchy Watch?

Truth Hurts said...

"No doubt 12:31 will be deleted for violating the rules, right, McClatchy Watch?"

Someone needs their diaper changed.

Anonymous said...

We now have about 4 people posting to one another. Keep it up John. Soon it will just be him.

McClatchy Watch said...

1:33 -- try staying on topic instead of criticizing other commenters.

Anonymous said...

Sanchez bests O'Reilly (listen and watch for yourself):

http://bottomlinecom.com/kcnews/sancheztakesonoreilly.html

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:31 SWEET and very FUNNY. Thank YOU!!!

John Altevogt said...

I believe only one person is being deleted, and I believe that's our stalker. heaven forbid we would start behaving like a newspaper.

Anonymous said...

The Star sent a woman, okay?
Don't you get it? O'Reilly could not ask hardball questions of a little lady named, Ms. 'Sanchez'. Do you prefer pearls or diamonds when you dress for KC society?
Get real, the 'sneaky bastards' pull this shit all the time.

Anonymous said...

Hey, guys, you're trying as usual to find a conspiracy when there is none. If Sanchez was invited by O'Reilly, she accepted (with permission from her bosses) because she wanted to. If O'Reilly contacted the Star, the higher-ups picked the person they thought could do the best job representing them, as any organization would. And they were right. Sanchez remained cool and came off as a class act. Hendricks might have become angry and told O'Reilly off, just as (for example) a far-right nutjob with a short fuze might become angry and tell Olbermann off. No big mystery. Any organization wants to be represented by a person who comes off looking classy -- which isn't hard to do when compared blowhards like O'Reilly.

John Altevogt said...

Actually, we're not. In fact, I think you're pretty close to what actually happened. However that does not bode well for Mr Hendricks does it. He's at the heart of the issue, but is not even advised of the opportunity to go on O'Reilly much less given the opportunity to represent The Star. Not a good sign for Mr. Part time blogger, is it?

Anonymous said...

I don't think it proves anything one way or the other about what his bosses think of him. It's pretty obvious that he didn't have the chance to go on O'Reilly, not because the Star wants to hide him but because he wasn't invited by O'Reilly. O'Reilly probably thought he could browbeat a woman. Sanchez showed him up, and it was obvious in the clip that O'Reilly knew he had been bested.

John Altevogt said...

And O'Reilly's motivations are obvious to you how?

Anonymous said...

It's hard to figure what O'Reilly is up to because his performance is no nuanced. Not.

john--the obviousness of O'Reilly is obvious. The only oppositional guests he has on are those he thinks he can browbeat (men or women). That is his shtick, if you haven't noticed this last decade or so.

Anonymous said...

That is his shtick, if you haven't noticed this last decade or so.



Like Obama?

Anonymous said...

11:17 am.--Congratulations, you win today's award for the most headscratching non-sequitur.

Anonymous said...

If any of you people had ever worked in the news business, you'd know that TV and radio producers never call editors to find out if this or that member of the staff would appear on camera/the phone to talk about this or that.
Producers don't have that kind of time. They know that, like them, editors are too busy to fool with scheduling media appearace. They're too busy putting the friggin paper out.
So producers call the reporter they want to talk to and let them get clearances, if need be.
Jeez-louise. You guys are so stuck on conspiracy theories -=- find out what you're talking about before you spout, if that's not too much trouble (I know, it is) and find out before you spout, would you?
And allow me to say in advance, John, your response is bs if it is absent contrition.