Fox News has long been a journalistic (I use that term loosely) safe house for Republican and conservative news and views. But, I was a little curious when I saw an article written by John R. Lott Jr. that was titled, “Obama’s Senate Games.” Many of you may know that some Republicans have been upset with New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg (a Republican) who supposedly is being considered for the Commerce Secretary position in the administration of President Barack Obama (who, obviously, is a Democrat). Naturally, Republicans feel this is strictly being done by the Democrats to help them reach a filibuster-proof majorityin the United States Senate. This may or may not be true and I don’t have much of a problem with Republicans speculating about the motive of President Obama supposedly offering the seat to Gregg (even if that is the motivation). Hey, we need to keep it real … politics is a grown-folks business.
Here is the chunk of the article that made me shake my head:
“The White House, I’m told, is still trying to get a guarantee from Governor Lynch that he’ll replace Senator Gregg with a Democrat.”
Smith’s statement was a single sentence and no other implications have been drawn from it. But a report in The Wall Street Journal’s Political Diary today seems to confirm this claim.
Obama is misappropriating a government position, putting someone into his cabinet who he doesn’t believe is the best person for the job.
The Politico information indicates that Obama clearly does not view Senator Gregg as the best person to head the Commerce Department. Rather, it makes explicit that Obama was offering the Commerce job solely to buy a Senate seat for the Democrats.
The question here is: Do you believe Ben Smith? Who is telling Smith this information? Sounds like a whole lot of speculation without a whole lot of proof of anything. The article gets worse before it gets better (if it ever gets better). The writer (Lott) then accuses President Obama of putting someone in who he does not think is the best person for the job (essentially to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate). Then, the writer goes on to bring up the name of Rod Blagojevich (you knew that was coming at some point in the article). Lott then passes the buck to Politico and uses Politico to advance his partisan interpretation and shield himself and his purpose for writing the article: to smear President Obama and Democrats in general.
Fox News, the network of patriots (except when we have a Democrat as president), is at it again attacking our president/commander-in-chief while basically praising conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh. Fox News co-host Gretchen Carlson at least twice took shots at President Barack Obama while drooling over Limbaugh (who was a guest on the Fox News show “Fox and Friends”). Carlson and her co-hosts on the show spent the entire campaign season slamming President Obama about one thing or another while singing the praises of Sen. John McCain. Carlson and her cohorts also spent time talking about media bias against McCain while hypocritically showing media bias against Obama. The bias was so pervasive (to the point that they gleefully made baseless claims that turned out to be completely and sloppily false: That Obama had attended a madrassa, a Muslim school) that it calls into question what the motive behind the bias was for Carlson and her fellow shot hosts.
Here are two comments from Carlson (as documented by Media Matters):
CARLSON: But what I want to ask you when we come back is whether or not Barack Obama should be more concerned with things like the economy and maybe Al Qaeda — if in fact we still are in a war on terror — than you?
CARLSON: Before we went to break, I said something about the fact that in his first week in office, that Barack Obama chose you as his enemy, instead of, like, Al Qaeda, or possibly putting the economy on a higher platform. And so, we came up with this new photo. Did you know that you’re now on Mount Rushmore?
Tha is insulting and idiotic on the part of Carlson (who completely ignores the context of the president’s comment) to even make such a suggestion. But, it does go to the point that she is taking her Republican talking points (this garbage notion that Democrats won’t keep our country safe) and executing them to perfection with Fox News as her platform. What an appalling comment from Carlson, who obviously is trying to appeal to the lowest element in the diversity-challenged (in many different ways even beyond race) and tolerance-challenged Republican Party/conservative community. Carlson is trying to imply Obama somehow is not focused on the enemies of the United States of America and it is an insulting insinuation. But, how could we not expect this from Fox News?
Rush Limbaugh, who has long since pissed away any pretense of patriotism by proudly rooting for our new president (Barack Obama) and commander-in-chief to fail. What a great way for “patriots” like Limbaugh to celebrate our great nation. Limbaugh, who has spit in the face of bipartisanship throughout his life and throughout his professional career, is now mocking President Obama as not being the person to bring the nation and the two political parties together.
“Now this is the great unifier. This is the man who’s going to unify everybody and usher in a new era of bi-partisanship and love.”
The problem is, however, is that Limbaugh does not want to bring people together. He has made a living throughout his career of being a polarizing and hostile figure to those who are not conservative and to those who are not Republican.
Fox News channel’s Sean Hannity, now with an almost daily one hour of hate on his new solo show, decided to use one of his hours to try and sort of blame New York Sen. Charles Schumer (obviously a Democrat if Hannity is blaming him) for the crash of the airplane (which had an engine allegedly damaged by geese caught inside) in New York.
This from News Hounds:
Sean Hannity, ever on the lookout for new ways to smear Democrats, achieved a creative breakthrough last night (1/17/09) on a special weekend edition of his new solo show. Without bothering to investigate any other facts beyond Senator Charles Schumer’s 2004 earmark for a group called GeesePeace, Hannity and FOX News were ready to allege that Schumer is to blame for the crash of the US Airways flight last week. Later in the program, Hannity warned that if it happens again, Schumer would be responsible for any ensuing deaths. In concert with Hannity’s smear, a banner on the screen read, “Buck stops at Chuck?” With video.
The words are disturbing enough, but the video puts it into even more of an obsessive context. Even as Hannity tries to blame any Democrat he can get his hands on for anything that goes wrong, his fellow show panelists start laughing as if they’re watching a television sit com. Reprehensible. Hannity then (as you can see in the News Hounds excerpt) implies Schumer could or should be held responsible for any future plane crashes that involve geese. I know that we are a blame society, but this is bad for even the likes of Sean Hannity (exposing a near catastrophic situation to score political points).
Iowa Congressman Steve King, who said some hateful things toward President-elect Barack Obama during the campaign for the presidency (including proclaiming that terrorists would be “dancing in the streets” if Obama was elected), now has shifted focus (as politicians so often do) to start to criticize Obama for the plan to use his middle name during his swearing in on Jan. 20.
This is from a Politico story:
After telling the Associated Press last year that Obama’s middle name was among the reasons Islamic terrorists would rejoice over his election, King says he’s since been careful to avoid using it. Thus he found Obama’s decision to allow it be mentioned on the steps of the Capitol “bizarre” and “a double-standard.”
“Is that reserved just for him, not his critics?” King asked.
The congressman says he doubts Obama’s sincerity when he explained that he chose to use his middle name so as to be historically consistent with past inaugurations, when America has heard the full names of its presidents echo from the inaugural stand.
“Whatever his reasons are,” King said, “the one he gave us could not be the reason.”
He continued: “The society is a little strange about this. If you’re speaking the truth and in an effort to be objective, there should be nothing off limits in a free society, [but] there are many biases building and clearly a double-standard.”
It is not “clearly a double standard” as King puts it. In fact, I would ask Rep. King how many times he has used the middle name of Sen. John McCain? I would ask all Republicans how many times they used the middle name of McCain throughout the presidential campaign. As a matter of fact, I don’t even know what McCain’s middle name is or whether or not he has a middle name. I can guarantee you this, not a single Republican would be trying to use his middle name if it was Harry or Howard. But, because it is Hussein, it was seen as a way to use anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism as a weapon against Obama. When Obama has his middle name used, when he takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, I doubt he will be using it as many conservatives were using it (to try and scare Americans with racism).
President Bush has come under fire for the federal government’s slow response (yeah, I said “slow”) to the catastrophe that was Hurricane Katrina back in 2005. The president was largely viewed as insensitive and out of touch as people suffered in New Orleans and elsewhere from the devastating effects of the hurricane. Watch this video as President Bush becomes ridiculously defensive and probably paranoid about what many people feel as largely hislegacy of failure/inadequacy as president of the United States of America. But, CNN’s Campbell Brown checks the president on his strange contention that the government was now slow in its response to Hurricane Katrina.
Now that Sean Hannity has essentially been granted his own full 60-minute block of television hate, his new exclusive show on Fox News, he has to be feeling pretty good about himself. Now, the extremist right-wing host will be able to (now completely unchallenged) spew all kinds of hatred toward anything that is either middle of the road or liberal. But, I concur with a popular opinion I’ve already been hearing among many liberals … the show will fast become tired. There is only so much Hannity that most mainstream people (not even just those on the left) can stomach before they will become nauseous (first) and bored (later). This show will eventually pale in comparison to Hannity and Colmes as people will see how talented Colmes was (even if he was much more of a moderate than a liberal and he was far too classy and soft spoken to truly contrast the far more arrogant, extremist right wing and outspoken Hannity). Just as Hannity’s America was a show that made you think it was nap time … Hannity’s new weekday hour will be more of the same.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein has shown the kind of toughness and character that it’s a shame more Democrats are not showing these days. Feinstein has broken with her party in support of seating Roland Burris as the junior senator from Illinois to replace President-elect Barack Obama (once the paperwork is complete). Now, obstructionists in Illinois and in the U.S. Senate are trying to stop Burris, but I at least applaud Feinstein for having the character to stand up for what is right instead of trying to play politics and “look good” to the public and to try to avoid giving political ammunition to the Republicans.
Said Feinstein as quoted by Politico:
“I can’t imagine the secretary of state countermanding a gubernatorial appointment,” Feinstein said. “The question, really, is one in my view of law. And that is, does the governor have the power to make the appointment? And the answer is yes. Is the governor discredited? And the answer is yes.
“Does that affect his appointment power? And the answer is no until certain things happen.”
Later in the article, Feinstein alludes to a point I have made in that this could set a dangerous precedent for opposing appointments like this made by governors in the future. If renegade senators (like Harry Reid is appearing to be) and other politicians can decide not to seat someone because they don’t like that person, don’t like a governor or because a governor is in some sort of trouble (how much or how little is up for interpretation) then how far can this go and how widely can this be applied?
First, I think it would be funny if Al Franken was to somehow manage to defeat incumbent Norm Coleman in the United States Senate race in Minnesota (a race that is in a recount). It appears Franken is in good position to win, but nothing is chiseled into stone at this point. But, that has not stopped some Republicans from becoming panicked over the possibility of the loss. Huffington Post writer Sam Stein quotes this message from the Republican National Lawyer Association:
“As you may know, the precinct recount phase of the Minnesota Senate race was won by Sen. Norm Coleman on Election Day,” reads the petition. “But Al Franken still won’t concede. Instead, Franken raised millions of dollars from liberals in New York and Hollywood to fight a “legal” battle to undo the will of the voters. He even got the Minnesota Supreme Court to order canvassing boards to consider about 1600 previously rejected and questionable ballots. Now, Republican Norm Coleman has until December 31st to fight against Franken’s liberal legal team to keep his Senate seat. RNLA and Norm Coleman are fighting for every vote — literally!”
This cracks me up for several reasons. The biggest thing that gets me is what seems to be a contradiction with respect to wanting to have “every vote” counted. It seems that those who would defend Coleman only want every Republican/pro-Coleman vote counted. The message accuses Franken of wanting “to undo the will of the voters.” The next sentence says “he even got the Minnesota Supreme Court to order canvassing boards to consider 1600 previously rejected and questionable ballots.” So, apparently, the will of the voter does not count with these 1600 ballots since too many of them might be pro-Franken. The last sentence ends with “RNLA and Norm Coleman are fighting for every vote — literally!” That is a flat lie.
Alaska Republican Gov. Sarah Palin reminds me of the Friday the 13th movie series. The series just went on and on … long after we were all ready to turn the page in favor of something new, fresh and of greater substance. Don’t get me wrong, I like the first few Friday the 13th movies, but it went downhill in a hurry. Gov. Palin continues to claim that the McCain campaign blew it by holding her back and not allowing her to go out and do more interviews. Of course, judging by her performances with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric (Palin was brutally bad), Team McCain easily made the right decision. John McCain made some bad decisions (chief of which was picking Palin), but he was wise enough to realize she had no chance in real interviews, particular early on. She was ill-equipped to be vice president, and perhaps even more disturbing was how ill-equipped she was to do simple interviews with questioners who were not hardcore right wingers (Fox News). If Palin (who bungled a question about the duties of the vice president, could not name significant U.S. Supreme Court cases beyond Roe v. Wade and could not or would not even name some of the newspapers she supposedly reads) had it her way, I am sure she would simply have gone on Fox News for those puff-piece segments with Greta Van Susteren, who had a bizarre fascination/obsession with the Alaska governor and the Palin family, or Sean Hannity, who is from the extremist wing of the Republican Party. Maybe Bill O’Reilly, another right winger, would have thrown a few more tough questions than Hannity or Van Susteren, but in the end he is still a conservative and would have been kissing her feet after 10 or 15 minutes. Palin is positioning herself for a potential run/loss in 2012 for the presidency, but if 2008 is any example of what she has to offer than she could end up as a political version of the turkey that was slaughtered in back of her during that one television interview.
It never ceases to amaze me how some of these politicians, the big-time ones and the small-time ones, become drunk on their own power and hungry for more power. Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich appears to be in a world of trouble. Blagojevich was arrested Tuesday and charged with trying to make money or earn other favors in exchange for his decision as to how to fill the vacant spot in the United States Senate (a spot opened by the resignation of President-elect Barack Obama). Apparently, he thought he was holding a brick of gold and was ready to let the bidding process begin … a sort of political auction. Unfortunately for the Illinois governor, the authorities did not appreciate his attempt to capitalize on this opportunity. In fact, the Feds are pretty much throwing the book at him … a couple of books, actually. That is among the other things he was charged with when he was hooked up in some cuffs. Politicians, for whatever reason, seem to feel as if they have this sort of invincibility (the O.J. Simpson effect). But, as O.J. discovered, if you take it too far and keep taking it too far – eventually you get busted. It appears Blagojevich’s time has come.
Sandy Gholston