Video: Costas hits rock bottom, continues digging

Aside from the red flag of finding a sympathetic ear in Lawrence O'Donnell being an indicator of Bob Costas' liberal bonafides, the NBC sports commentator continues to rip the mask off. Again, Costas' desire to further explain his position demonstrates that he knows this is a big deal and that he made a mistake (despite his attempt to say the problem was messaging).

What's interesting is that the more Costas attempts to explain what he meant, the clearer it becomes that he meant exactly what pro-Second amendment advocates thought he meant.

Bob, please, just keep talking.

Via Washington Examiner:

Audio: Bob Costas doubles down on anti-Second Amendment 'commentary'

I truly do not know where to begin in reacting to this interview between NBC's Bob Costas and Fox Sports' writer Jason Whitlock (the guy whose column Costas quoted on Sunday Night Football). For starters, Costas is unapologetic and has only one regret - that he didn't have enough time to explain his position (is it me, or was that the same argument we heard from the Obama administration about why Obamacare wasn't popular?). That Costas felt compelled to come out publicly to respond to the backlash speaks for itself; it means it got to him at some level, regardless of how he attempts to dismiss it.

Anyway, some memorable moments from his interview with Whitlock...

1.) Early on, Costas is asked about whether it was appropriate for him to inject himself into the gun control debate on Sunday Night Football. Of course, Costas says that's an 'easy one' and that, yes, it was appropriate because it involved an NFL player.

Bob, you could have done a commentary about the incident without polarizing your audience. The appropriateness of talking about a murder / suicide involving an NFL player did not have to involve an anti-second amendment 'commentary'.

2.) Costas then attacks those who had a problem with his 'commentary' by saying if people disagree with something that's written, they consider it a 'screed' and if they disagree with something that's said, it's considered a 'rant'. I will therefore refer to Costas' anti-Second amendment lecture as a 'commentary'.

3.) At the 1:55 mark, Costas attempts to marginalize those who were critical of him by referring to them all as 'the gun lobby folks'. People who disagree with him are part of the 'gun lobby'. Bob, how come they can't just be 'pro-Second Amendment folks'? Nice choice of words when describing people who disagree with you, huh? (see #2)

4.) At around the 4:00 mark, Costas attempts to compare what he did this past Sunday with what he did at the Olympics, making a reference to the 1972 Munich tragedy. What he doesn't do here is draw the more accurate comparison, which would be taking a political position in which he sides with either Israel or the Palestinians in the larger conflict. For example, did he say anything about how if Hamas had no rockets, Israelis wouldn't be killed or if Islam was banned, there'd be less killings? Nice try, Bob but way off.

5.) Whitlock then asks Bob a leading question about knowing that the comments would be controversial and implies in his question that because Bob has a big platform, it's courageous to speak his mind on controversial topics. I find this point of view quite interesting because the left doesn't seem to have that opinion about right wing commentators. Rush Limbaugh was thrown off ESPN for saying something that was rather innocuous compared to what Costas said.

6.) Shortly thereafter, Costas says he could have addressed the issue on his show later in the week and given it more time, thereby having a greater ability to convey his point of view more fully. His reason for doing it on Sunday Night Football instead? The audience was much larger, which is precisely the point, Bob. You used your platform to espouse a political position that a huge portion of your football audience didn't tune in to hear.

7.) Whitlock then asks Costas if he had to 'clear' his comments with NBC management. The question is ridiculous, as is Costas' answer. Costas's response that management doesn't 'forbid' him 'from saying anything' is absurd. If Costas espoused a pro-Constitutional / second amendment view, he in all likelihood, would have been fired. He was able to say what he said because NBC management agreed with it. Right, Bob?

8.) Costas said he would be 'surprised' if NBC heard from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in any 'negative way' about his comments. Gee, I wonder why. Could it be the politically correct culture that exists in both the NFL and at NBC? Duh.

9.) Wow. At the 10:45 mark, Costas actually says that there are people who treat their guns as if they're on par with their wallets or car keys, never leaving the house without them and that when people do that, it leads to bad things far more often that it leads to good things. This is a despicable comment, in part, because the good is not seen. How many times did the mere presence of a gun prevent bad things from happening in these instances, Bob? This comment only further underscores Costas' anti-Second amendment position. Keep talking and keep digging, Bob.

10.) To the absurdity of #9, Costas wants an example of when a professional athlete, armed with a gun has done any good. That's the point, Bob. The presence of guns in the hands of responsible owners can prevent acts of violence. Such scenarios aren't generally newsworthy. I don't recall you ever commenting on them during any NFL halftime shows.

On the same day that Whitlock interviewed Costas, he told Roland Martin that the NRA is the new KKK.

Listen to as much as you can stand.

Via Daily Caller: