Fox News Forum Writer Tries To Outfox Common Sense

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:

Yet, as Politico’s Ben Smith noted on Saturday:

“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:

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/02/02/lott_gregg_obama/

Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity Partially Blames Sen. Chuck Schmuer For New York Plane Crash

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).

News Hounds:

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/01/18/hannity_blames_sen_charles_schumer_for_us_airways_crash.php#more

Politico’s Comparison Of Roland Burris Situation To Caroline Kennedy Situation Is Ridiculous

You know, some days it just amazes me how people work hard to write controversial articles (nothing wrong with that) without thinking their argument through fully (something wrong with that). Politico has an article running on its Web site that is titled “In politics, does race trump gender?” As is the case with a number of people, the issue of race generally gets people fired up (as does gender … so imagine when you combine the two) and certainly creates a level of interest different and higher than most other topics. In other words, great headline. The first sentence, however, made my jaw drop and nearly bust a hole through the top of my desk, “How come Roland Burris has had such an easy time getting to the U.S. Senate while Caroline Kennedyhas had such a hard time?” I’m thinking it would be news to Roland Burris that he has had an “easy time” getting into the U.S. Senate. President-elect Barack Obama came out against him, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid came out against him, most Democrats were against him (and he is in their party), he was being unfairly linked to disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, he had people trying to dig up dirt on him, the Illinois Secretary of State did not want to certify him, he had to go to the courts and get a ruling, he was turned away from the U.S. Senate in the rain while being hounded by reporters and photographers … etc. You get the picture. Apparently, according to Politico, that was easy. Smooth sailing into the U.S. Senate for Roland Burris. Is Kennedy getting the harder time? Who knows? To my knowledge, she has not even officially been nominated (by New York Gov. David Paterson) to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate. In fact, I believe she is still just one of many potential candidates (obviously, she is the most high profile of the individuals in the running to replace Hillary). And, Kennedy is probably the front runner in this race to fill that seat. Here is a strange statement from the Politico article, “Once supporters of Roland Burris made his appointment to the Senate all about race, the deal was done, though it took a few days for Senate leaders to wake up to the fact.” Not everyone made it about race. Rep. Bobby Rush did bring race into the issue, but not all Burris supporters linked this to race. In fact, I would argue that most supporters of Burris’ nomination supported him because they believed there was no legal reason to deny him. But, I understand it makes for a better and more controversial article to make the issue about race rather than the legalese of the appointment. I would not have a problem with Caroline Kennedy being appointed to replace Hillary Clinton … if that is what the governor chooses. Burris’ political credentials are strong while Caroline Kennedy must be asked questions since she has not been involved in politics. It does not mean she should be excluded due to a lack of experience, but it does mean that people have a right to ask some tough questions of her. So far, she has been pretty solid under the media spotlight. The article asks why Kennedy has been asked tough questions about foreign and domestic issues, but Burris has not been asked those same questions. I’m not sure he has not been asked those questions. And, if he has not been asked those questions, perhaps it’s because he has been asked more questions about the person appointing him (Blagojevich) in a bizarre and almost unbelievable scandal that has the media largely obsessed. Maybe Kennedy has had to deal with things that Burris has not had to deal with, but clearly Burris has had to deal with things that Kennedy has not had to deal with in trying to gain a seat in the U.S. Senate. But, I think it’s almost premature to talk much about Kennedy going to the U.S. Senate when I am not sure she has been formally nominated by Gov. Paterson.

Yahoo/Politico:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090113/pl_politico/17399