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

Republicans: Playing Politics, Stupid Or Both With Obama Middle Name Issue

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).

Politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17506.html

Revisionist Historian/President George W. Bush Trying To Repackage Hurricane Katrina Response Catastrophe

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.

Dianne Feinstein Is To Be Commended

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?

Politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17118.html

Bobby Rush Pushes The Race Issue With Rod Blagojevich Appointment To Replace Barack Obama

I would be less than honest if I did not say that the comments from U.S. Representative Bobby Rush didn’t make me feel more than a little uncomfortable at times. Rush, flanked by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and former state Attorney General Roland Burris (who Blagojevich is pushing to be Obama’s replacement in the United States Senate from the state of Illinois). I’m no Blagojevich fan, but unless or until proven guilty it’s still his right to make the appointment. And, I think people should respect and judge whoever Blagojevich appoints (if he is in fact allowed to do so) without prejudice and put an end to this ridiculous notion of guilt-by-association politics we saw far too often during the presidential campaign. Burris should be judged on his own merit and should not be treated with prejudice simply because he was appointed by Burris. For those who do treat him that way they should be ashamed of themselves. Judge the man on his own record. Now, that being said, I was a little dismayed by Rush pushing the race issue so hard during his press conference. I agree that it would be nice to see more blacks in the United States Senate, but I think Rush pushed the issue too hard. I think Rush would have been best served to perhaps mention it, but work more behind the scenes to make his point. That would have been more effective and less controversial. Invoking the word “lynch” was a bit much, but Rush’s underlying point was well taken about not prejudging. I have to admit, I had not thought about Obama being the only black official in the Senate prior to his resignation as president-elect. 

Here is a quote from Rush:

“This is a matter of national importance,” Rush said. “There are no African-Americans in the Senate, and I don’t think that anyone, any U.S. senator who’s sitting in the Senate right now wants to go on record to deny one African-American for being seated in the U.S. Senate. … And so I intend to take that argument to the Congressional Black Caucus.” 

I do see his point, to a large extent, but Rush clearly could have and should have handled the situation better. Had he done that he would have been far less polarizing in this increasingly politically-correct world. Judge Burris on his own merits and how he can represent the people of Illinois.