Election

Fox’s Major Garrett In Sex Romp With Senator Craig

Posted by on January 10, 2008 at 1:59 am. 2 Comments :

In the fog of hard-fought political wars, the foot soldiers are exposed to stimulating sensations as the campaigns heat up and swirl with emotion. The ups and downs pound furiously as sweaty staffers strain to satisfy insatiable supporters and reporters.

One such reporter appears to have succumbed to the siren call of amour on the campaign trail. Sources have revealed that the fittingly macho-named Major Garrett is tied romantically with the disgraced “non-gay” senator from Idaho, Larry Craig. While there has been no confirmation at this time, the sourcing is “strong, very strong.” Garrett is the reporter who covered the Craig affair for Fox News. And while the photo at the left may not be considered conclusive evidence, it raises the temperature of the scandal significantly.

This revelation comes on the heels of the New Hampshire primary where Garrett reported with titillating excitement that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was floundering and that a staff shake-up was imminent.

“…some of the top advisers to former President Clinton are set to join to Hillary’s faltering campaign as early as tomorrow…Carville and Begala’s strategic advise will now carry greater weight than that of the original team that devised a strategy that has led to a defeat in the Iowa caucuses and a likely defeat in tonight’s New Hampshire primary.”

Garret was only one of many whose prescient observations presumed the fall of the house of Clinton. But he alone swept away the veil that barely hid the forms of Carville, Begala and their naked ambitions.

As it turns out, Carville vehemently denied that he was becoming entwined with the Clinton campaign:

“Fox was, is and will continue to be an asinine and ignorant network. I have not spoken to anyone in the Clinton campaign about this.”

And Begala uttered similar protestations:

“…whoever told you I am joining Hillary’s campaign fed you some bum info. It’s just not true […] I’m not coming in as a volunteer, or as an adviser, or as a strategist or anything else.”

Undeterred, Garrett continued to report the personnel changes and insisted that his sources were impeccable. He told Begala that he would “take it under advisement.” Just to be clear, he was telling Begala that what his sources were saying about Begala was better than what Begala was saying about himself. He then gave Begala this assurance:

“I am not trying to screw you […] I’m careful and don’t have a reputation for pulling stories out of my ass. I’m not now. The sourcing is strong, very strong, or I wouldn’t go with it.”

You can almost hear the strength oozing from Garrett’s baneful wale. Perhaps he is lamenting having promised not to screw Begala. But it is notable that he made no such promise to Sen. Craig.

In the end, it is not possible to provide skin-tight confirmation of Garrett’s dalliance with Craig. Though the evidence at this time is somewhat less than circumstantial, I have confidence in the faithfulness of my sources. But should this flare into a climax of reportorial passion, I vow to treat Garrett with uninhibited fairness. When I receive his call denying that there is any truth to the scandalous allegations herein, I will gladly take it under advisement.

Obama Capitulates To Fox News

Posted by on January 9, 2008 at 4:03 pm. NO Comments :

On the morning after his second place finish in the New Hampshire primary, Barack Obama apparently feels he needs the solace of a hostile new network to salve his wounds. By appearing on the infantile Fox & Friends morning show, Obama has gilded Fox’s credibility as a news provider and simultaneously damaged the cause of all Democrats and progressives.

What a bitterly disappointing turn of events from a candidate who had previously snubbed the hacks at Fox News for nearly a year. What could have prompted him to make such a foolish and pointless decision? Surely it couldn’t have anything to do with his aide’s recent altercation with Bill O’Reilly. The last thing that Fox should get for their top personality behaving like a thug is a reward!

Was Obama intimidated by Chris Wallace calling Democrats “fools“ for not appearing on Fox? Has he forgotten what Fox spokespeople said when he pulled out of a Fox-sponsored debate in Nevada last year?

“Obama and his staff are in for a rude awakening if they think they can write off Fox News. If a candidate is serious about running for president, he or she is going to need a network like Fox to reach out to all those voters in the red and purple states.”

And…

“If true, perhaps Mr. [Robert] Gibbs [an Obama campaign manager] should reconsider that ill-advised strategy given his candidate is trailing by 20 points in the polls.”

Obama has proven all of them wrong, and he did it without any help from them – despite their self-important threats that they are indispensable. Nothing has changed since then. There has been no apology or even an acknowledgment of slack reporting. Fox spent the rest of the year smearing Obama and his Democratic colleagues. Here’s a reminder, Senator…

Just stay the HELL off of Fox News! Is that so damn hard? And read Starve The Beast for more reasons why.

Update: Hillary Clinton was on the same episode of Fox & Friends as Obama. While it is just as bad that Clinton appeared on Fox as Obama, Clinton has appeared on Fox in the past, so it is not exactly news that she did so today. Additionally, she has never articulated an intention to not appear on Fox as Obama and Edwards have. To the contrary, she has been rather chummy with Murdoch who is a contributor and fundraiser for her campaigns.

TV Pundit Jeopardy

Posted by on January 9, 2008 at 1:49 pm. NO Comments :

Full disclosure: Of the top three Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is my third choice. But seriously…

Coverage of this campaign has been laughably bad. In New Hampshire, Clinton was predicted to lose to Obama by double digits. Her “emotional moment” torpedoed any chance she had of winning. Her staff was about to undergo a major upheaval. Fox’s Major Garrett even announced that Clinton vets James Carville and Paul Begala were about to take over her campaign. He continued to report this after both publicly denied it, and Begala told him personally that it wasn’t true. Speculation then turned to when Clinton would drop out of the race.

There is a sad irony to this since not too long ago all the press could talk about was Clinton’s “inevitability.” Then Obama’s win in Iowa made him inevitable and Clinton a has-been.

Coverage of every Democrat has fallen far short of any standard of professionalism. Edwards, when not being outright ignored, was ganged up on for trivialities like haircuts and homestead. Obama was slandered as a potential Muslim extremist who was schooled in a Madrassa. But Clinton has suffered some of the most vile attacks based on the misogynistic tendencies of the male-dominated press corps. Among the most frequent criticisms is the myth that she starts off with higher negatives than other candidates. Here’s the truth:

Dec 2007 Favorable Unfavorable
McCain 53% 27%
Edwards 49% 42%
Clinton 48% 50%
Obama 43% 51%
Thompson 42% 42%
Giuliani 40% 55%
Huckabee 40% 47%
Romney 38% 51%

Both Giuliani and Romney score lower in favorability and higher in unfavorability than Clinton. But do we ever hear reporters talking about how devastatingly unpopular they are?

So the pundits, as usual got it all wrong. They’ve been wrong every step of the way. And when they are shown to be wrong, they simply shift their weight and devise a new theory that will later be shown to be wrong as well. The big problem with that is that they will be on the air tomorrow (and many more tomorrows) to get it wrong some more.

Why does it have to be that way? Wouldn’t it be great if punditry worked more like Jeopardy? Whoever has scored the highest by the end of the day gets to come back and play the next day. Those who got more of their answers wrong are never heard from again. This simple modification of the rules of the game would vastly improve the media’s political analysis.

Why Is The Edwards Surge Not A Headline Story?

Posted by on January 6, 2008 at 2:32 pm. NO Comments :

A picture sometimes really is worth a thousand words…

Rassmussen conducts a daily national tracking poll of all presidential candidates. The latest shows John Edwards picking up significantly more support, since the beginning of the year, than any candidate of either party.

The percent change for Republicans is: Huckabee 18.8% / Giuliani 13.3% / McCain 11.8% / Thompson 8.3% / Romney -6.3%.

So why isn’t this news?

Because some networks are more interested in trivialities than substance:
[Chris]Wallace asked a total of five questions, three of which concerned Edwards’ non-appearance on the network.

Because some candidates are unafraid of taking on the media:
Edwards continues to solidify his position as the candidate most committed to media reform and supportive of efforts to rollback consolidation. He has spoken out on many occasions on the need for independence and diversity in the press and he has been a leading voice of opposition to the FCC’s policy of weakening regulations on ownership caps.

Because the media’s pack mentality kicks into high gear when it gets defensive:
They are ultimately afraid that the populist appeal of a movement that truly seeks to bring economic opportunity to every citizen, instead of just the elite, could catch on. That’s why it has to be strangled in the cradle of a candidate who is running third in national polls. The risk extends beyond Edwards himself. If voters responded positively to the issue, the other candidates would adopt it. So even if Edwards does not become a contender, the issue stays on the table.

Because media conglomerates make billions from their political connections:
There doesn’t seem to be an end in sight for the profligate spending on political ads and events. These expenditures are sponsored, for the most part, by mega-corporations with interests in the outcome of the elections.

And because sticking your neck out to curtail media abuse can attract some freshly sharpened axes:
Responding to the FCC’s proposed new rules for media ownership, John Edwards has written a letter addressed to Commission chairman Kevin Martin. Like his predecessor Michael Powell (Colin’s boy), Martin has drafted a set of rules aimed at advancing the interests of Big Media conglomerates and permitting them to get even bigger and more powerful.

And now the media fails to report the strongest surge of support of any candidate. What a surprise. However, it is important that we do not become sullen and defeatist. We cannot allow the media establishment to lead our nation around by its nose. Just because they have an immense quantity of old-world firepower is no reason to surrender to them. We have new weapons that give us more power than they imagine. The very fact that Edwards’ support has accelerated despite the media resistance, is evidence that the people’s message can be heard over the din of propagandists. We only need to keep our voices and our spirits up.

While the circumstances related above are specific to the campaign of John Edwards, it could (and will) apply to any candidate with the courage to take on entrenched media institutions. So even if Edwards is not your candidate, this is still your fight because your candidate will be next.

Developing: O’Reilly Tangles With Obama Aide

Posted by on January 5, 2008 at 12:47 pm. 7 Comments :

O'Reilly Fear FactorThe Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that Bill O’Reilly had a less than cordial encounter with an aide to Barack Obama at a New Hampshire campaign event. Apparently The Fester wasn’t getting the preferential treatment to which he was accustomed. Here is Lynn Sweet’s account of this developing story:

The incident was triggered when O’Reilly–with a Fox News crew shooting–was screaming at Obama National Trip Director Marvin Nicholson “Move” so he could get Obama’s attention, according to several eyewitnesses. “O’Reilly was yelling at him, yelling at his face,” a photographer shooting the scene said.

O’Reilly grabbed Nicholson’s arm and shoved him, another eyewitness said. Nicholson, who is 6’8, said O’Reilly called him “low class.”

“He grabbed me with both his hands here,” Nicholson said, gesturing to his left arm and O’Reilly “started shoving me.” Nicholson said, “He was pretty upset. He was yelling at me.”

Secret Service agents who were nearby flanked O ‘Reilly after he pushed Nicholson. They told O’Reilly he needed to calm down and get behind the fence-like barricade that contained the press.

Obama had his back turned at this point and did not see any of this.

O’Reilly yelled “sir” at Obama and Obama walked over, not aware of what happened and told him he had an overflow crowd to visit.

This part is a little creepy:

Mr. O’Reilly said he thought Sen. Obama was great and that he loved him and loved to have him on the show and said he would think about coming on after the primaries.

O’Reilly “loves” Obama? With friends like that, who needs enemas? For all of O’Reilly’s obstreperousness, his only purpose in forcing his way up to Obama was to beg him to appear on The Factor. He didn’t even try to ask a substantive question. Since Obama and Edwards have refused to appear on Fox, I guess they feel they need to go out and stalk them. And I certainly hope that after Obama thinks about it, he will continue to decline to appear on Fox and particularly on O’Reilly’s program.

A few minutes ago (approx. 12:05pm), O’Reilly called in to Brian Wilson anchoring the Fox News broadcast. He denied that there was a scuffle but said, laughing, that he might have used profanity (called the aide an SOB). At the end of the call he menacingly warned mankind that “No one on this earth is going to block a shot from The O’Reilly Factor. It is not going to happen.”

Wilson, said that there will be limited video later today and that O’Reilly will show the whole thing on his show on Monday (presumably after having had time to edit/alter it).

I will try to stay on top of this and post video if it becomes available.

Update: Now Wilson says that the video will only be available on The Factor this Monday. Since when does a news channel withhold newsworthy video for two days? Since the video features their #1 personality and can’t be cleared for airing until they make sure it doesn’t reflect badly on him.

Update: For good measure, O’Reilly also crashed a Clinton campaign event (YouTube) earlier the same day and attempted to plant a question with a member of the audience. The woman stood up and fingered O’Reilly who Clinton then pointed out before answering the question.

Rudy’s 9/11 Generation

Posted by on January 3, 2008 at 12:50 am. NO Comments :

If you thought Rudy Giuliani couldn’t get more crass in his exploitation of the tragic attack on September 11, 2001, you underestimate Rudy. On the second day of the new year he proves that there is no bottom to his well of puke.

Rudy 911

“I think it wouldn’t be unfair to describe us as the 9/11 generation, because how we handle this is going to say something about us in history.”

That’s right, Rudy thinks that the entire current population should be defined by a single, horrible day that represents both the hatred of a small tribe of barbarous extremists, and the woeful unpreparedness of an incompetent and illegitimate administration. I think I’ll stick with Baby Boomer.

Huckabee Calls On Bloggers To Stop The Presses

Posted by on January 2, 2008 at 2:21 pm. 1 Comments :

In a campaign event to thank bloggers for their support, Mike Huckabee told about 700 of them that they were “doing the Lord’s work.” He drew specific attention to a little known Commandment that compels disciples…er…voters that “Thou shalt disrupt the work of journalists.”

“He noted that the mainstream media might be ‘filing a bad story’ right now, and if the bloggers were relying on the same wireless system at the hotel, they might be ‘clogging up the lines’ and preventing them from filing.”

This sermon from the uber-righteous former minister and presidential hopeful says a lot about the state of morality in religious right-wing circles. It is especially revealing coming from a candidate who just held a press conference disavowing negative advertising, but showing his negative ad to same press gathering.

Apparently the God Huckabee worships thinks it’s OK to manipulate the media by seeding it with attack ads, and simultaneously interfere with reporters who are trying to do their jobs. This is the sort of hypocrisy that Huckabee regards as “the Lord’s work.”

John Edwards Not Playing Rupert Murdoch’s Monopoly

Posted by on December 27, 2007 at 1:20 pm. NO Comments :

John Edwards isn’t shy about letting Rupert Murdoch know how he feels. When asked a question about media consolidation at a recent campaign stop, Edwards said:

“I am not particularly interested in seeing Rupert Murdoch own every newspaper in America.”

Nicely done, John. This answer responds directly to the heart of the question and points an incriminating finger at the industry’s worst offender.

Edwards continues to solidify his position as the candidate most committed to media reform and supportive of efforts to rollback consolidation. He has spoken out on many occasions on the need for independence and diversity in the press and he has been a leading voice of opposition to the FCC’s policy of weakening regulations on ownership caps. He was also the first candidate to refuse to participate in Fox News-sponsored primary debates.

But every time Edwards takes a principled stand, the pundidiots can’t help but crack-wise at Edwards expense. In the item linked above, James Pindell of the Boston Globe follows the Edwards quote with this bit of irrelevancy:

“It should be noted that Edwards received nearly $800,000 in a book contract from one of Murdoch’s companies, HarperCollins.”

Why, pray tell, should that be noted? It is not a political contribution or evidence of electoral support. It is a payment for publishing rights to an author from a book publisher. It is the free market at work. And if anything is notable about it, it is that Edwards will act on his principles even if it is contrary to the interests of corporations who lay out big bucks to do business with him. In other words, they can’t buy him.

This isn’t the first time this canard has been raised. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post felt it necessary to note the same book deal after Edwards called on his opponents to refuse donations from Murdoch. Never mind that he was not admonishing them to refrain from doing business with News Corp., just from accepting the sort political funding that can be seen as buying influence. And lest anyone think that the book advance in itself has purchased any slice of Edwards’ soul, just look to these statements for proof that his independence and integrity is in tact:

“High levels of media consolidation threaten free speech, they tilt the public dialogue towards corporate priorities and away from local concerns, and they make it increasingly difficult for women and people of color to own meaningful stakes in our nation’s media.”

“It’s time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this [News Corp./Dow Jones] merger and other forms of media consolidation.”

“The basis of a strong democracy begins and ends with a strong, unbiased and fair media – all qualities which are pretty hard to subscribe to Fox News and News Corp.”

Contrast that with Hillary Clinton’s qualifying remarks following a rather commendable statement against media consolidation:

“I’m not saying anything against any company in particular. I just want to see more competition, especially in the same markets.”

While Clinton takes pains to soften the blow against her Foxic benefactor, Edwards comes right out and says what he thinks. For this he is often tagged in the press as a phony. That is the same characterization they make of him when he advocates for the poor – something the media apparently believes rich folks should never do. And for his trouble he is ganged up on by sanctimonious pundits that would rather point a finger at targets of their imagined hypocrisy than left a finger to help those less fortunate.

If you’re paying attention it’s easy to see who the phonies really are.

Rudy Giuliani: American Fascist

Posted by on December 24, 2007 at 12:11 am. 1 Comments :

Rudy Giuliani is blazing a trail for himself in Republican circles as he vies for the nomination of his party for president. The former mayor who marched in gay pride parades and supported abortion is now reinventing himself as Mr. Conservative. Unfortunately for him, some conservatives aren’t waiting to welcome him into their ranks. The American Conservative magazine, co-founded by uber-rightist Pat Buchanan, is featuring America’s Player on the cover of its current issue. Their characterization of him as a fascist 9/11 monger isn’t particularly flattering. And neither are the articles accompanying the illustration.

In Declaring Forever War, Michael C. Desch writes that “Giuliani has surrounded himself with advisors who think the Bush Doctrine didn’t go nearly far enough.” Desch is no wild-eyed liberal. He is a professor at the George Bush School of Government at Texas A&M. His article reminds readers of Giuliani’s national security failures as mayor such as:

“…his decision to locate the city’s counterterrorism center in the World Trade Center, which had already been the target of an al-Qaeda terrorist attack in 1993; his failure to integrate the fire and police communications systems; his penchant for surrounding himself with sketchy characters like Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik […] He dropped out of the blue-ribbon Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group because it cut into his paid speechmaking.”

Tom Piatak is the author of GOP Loses Its Life. Piatak warns that a Giuliani victory would spell defeat for the social conservatives that have propped up Republicans since the Reagan years:

“If Giuliani becomes the party’s standard-bearer and is then elected, the informal prohibition against pro-choice candidates within the GOP will be shattered, and the power of social conservatives within the party will inevitably decline.”

Surprisingly, Glenn Greenwald, a well-respected progressive, was accorded the space to opine that “…it is hard to imagine a more toxic combination than Rudy Giuliani and the Oval Office.” His column, Authoritarian Temptation, is a frightening account of how Giuliani’s dictatorial style would translate should he ascend to a White House that has been altered by eight years of Bush era precendents:

“Giuliani, when he was merely in charge of New York’s garbage collection, zoning rules, and a municipal police force, developed a reputation as a power-hungry, dissent-intolerant authoritarian, obsessed with secrecy and expanding his own power.”

The fact that a magazine called American Conservative is taking shots at the Republican front-runner is worthy of notice. But even more noteworthy is the theme that Giuliani is viewed by conservatives as a tyrant in the making. This is consistent with the conclusions of Rachel Morris’ Washington Monthly article, Rudy Awakening, that claims that “As president, Giuliani would grab even more executive power than Bush and Cheney.” It is also consistent with Giuliani’s own perverse vision of freedom:

“Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.”

Freedom is about submission. And Orwell is spinning in his grave.

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

Giuliani: Still Corrupt, Still Immoral

Posted by on December 21, 2007 at 5:51 pm. NO Comments :

Last month The Politico published a story that escalated into one of the sleaziest scandals of the current campaign season. The story revealed that Rudy Giuliani had been secretly slipping off to the Hamptons with his mistress, Judy Nathan. There were also allegations that the costs of those trysts were improperly charged to obscure city offices.

This morning, the New York Times weighed in with its own account of Rudy’s accounting. The Times seems to conclude that it was unlikely that there was any mischief in Rudy’s travel expenses. [Link to graphic scan of the article]

This quasi-revelation has set off a mini-storm of rash exclamations of vindication and denunciations of the “liberal” media for their unscrupulous attacks on America’s Player, er…Mayor. Web sites like the PowerLine Blog and Townhall are shocked – shocked I say – at the mistreatment Giuliani has suffered.

There’s only one problem: Giuliani has not been vindicated at all. The only thing the Times has uncovered is that the majority of the funds spent on Rudy and Judy’s holidays were charged to the Mayor’s expense account. How exactly does that excuse him from spending city money on seaside sex romps? The Times doesn’t even rule out the possibility that some of the expenses were indeed charged to agencies that regulate lofts and assist the disabled. The article even admits that up to $40,000 is entirely unaccounted for.

In light of this, why are rightist bloggers asking “Where Does He Go to Get His Reputation Back?” Why is Chris Matthews asking an even more idiotic variation on this inane theme, “Where Does He Go to Get His 10 Points Back?”

Setting aside the fact that Giuliani is still guilty of misusing city funds, his apologists are conveniently forgetting the moral component of this story. Let me remind them: Rudy Giuliani was cheating on his wife. In the Republican Party that is probably a more heinous crime than robbing the city treasury.

Giuliani is not entitled to his reputation back (such as it was) because he is still culpable for making his constituents finance his romances. And he is not entitled to any polling points back because he lost them due to his slack morals, which are still in evidence. And hacks like Chris Matthews ought to think things through before making bigger asses of themselves than they were to begin with.