Fox News Reports: Rupert Murdoch Endorses Unconstitutional Lawlessness

In the wake of President Obama’s announcement that his administration would suspend deportation of certain younger immigrants who came to this country as children, Fox News and a phalanx of Republican lawmakers rushed to characterize the plan as a violation of the law and a breach of the constitutional separation of powers. Never mind the fact that the immigrants affected by this initiative never broke any law, and that their immigration status would be technically unchanged, the panicked martinets of virtue on the right are aghast at what they perceive as an immoral grant of amnesty.

One notable exception to this is the CEO of News Corp, Rupert Murdoch. Along with fellow captains of commerce, Klaus Kleinfeld of Alcoa and Philippe Dauman of Viacom, Murdoch released a statement applauding the President’s action:

“We hope this prompts Congress to reach agreement on common-sense immigration policies that reflect American labor market needs and American values. Young people who had no choice over coming to this country, have grown up here and now want to become productive members of our society should not be treated like criminals.”

Yep, Rupert Murdoch said that. What’s interesting is that Murdoch’s statement stands in stark contrast to what some of his own employees at Fox News are saying on the subject. This has set off a battle over deportation, but it’s more of battle between Fox News with it’s boss, than with President Obama.

Fox News Immigration Battle

Sarah Palin: Our president still doesn’t understand the three branches of government. He thinks he can usurp the Congressional branch of our government and dictate and mandate a policy like this.

Charles Krauthammer: Beyond the pandering, beyond the politics, beyond the process is simple constitutional decency. This is out-and-out lawlessness.

Monica Crowley: It’s such a naked politically pandering move […] a breathtaking power grab by the president.

And the Republican parade of circular kneejerkers predictably piled on with hyperbolic accusations of political opportunism and illegality, beginning with the President’s GOP opponent who falsely describes the policy as an executive order.

Mitt Romney: I think the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach [a] long term solution because an executive order is of course just a short term matter.

Steve King (R-IA): Americans should be outraged that President Obama is planning to usurp the Constitutional authority of the United States Congress and grant amnesty by edict to 1 million illegal aliens.

Allen West (R-FL): Is this one of those backdoor opportunities to allow people in the next five months to get the opportunity to vote? Will we see Janet Napolitano and the President come out with a new edict that says since we allow these people to be here legally, we’re now going to allow them to vote? How far down the rabbit hole will it go?

Marco Rubio (R-FL): By once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one.

Dan Coats (R-IN): The administration’s unilateral decision today to give amnesty to certain illegal immigrants is not the answer.

Chuck Grassley (R-IA): The President’s action is an affront to the process of representative government by circumventing Congress and with a directive he may not have the authority to execute.

Lamar Smith (R-TX): President Obama and his administration once again have put partisan politics and illegal immigrants ahead of the rule of law and the American people.

Lindsey Graham (R-SC): President Obama’s attempt to go around Congress and the American people is at best unwise and possibly illegal.

By condemning the President in this manner, all of these stalwart, conservative politicians and pundits are also condemning their primary media benefactor, Rupert Murdoch, who supports Obama’s decision. It would be fun to ask Murdoch for his response to the charge that he advocates the unconstitutional usurpation of tyrannical powers on behalf of foreign criminals invading the country to steal our jobs. Especially when some of those making the charge work for him.

What’s worse is that the charges flying wildly from conservative ranks are wholly erroneous and irresponsible. There can be no constitutional infraction of law when there is no change in law whatsoever. The President is merely exercising the same sort prosecutorial discretion that is practiced everyday by the Justice Department and attorney generals in every state. And the charge that this policy is a path to amnesty or citizenship ignores the fact that there is no change at all in the legal status of those affected. Leading the way in delusional diatribes, as usual, is Allen West, who manages to squeeze a voter fraud conspiracy out of this issue.

Some of the President’s critics are decrying the policy shift as “political.” The problem with that complaint is that anything the President does between now and election day could be characterized as political. If he were to commit military resources to the Syrian rebels, whose need is dire, Republicans would denounce it as politically timed. The same criticism would emerge were he to greenlight the KeystoneXL pipeline, an action favored by the GOP. It literally wouldn’t matter what the issue is, the right would attack it as politics.

The truth is that the charge of politicization is itself political. It is the last resort of a critic who is unable to make any substantive criticism. And, in the end, what’s really wrong with political decision making? Isn’t it just the execution of policy that pleases a constituency? And isn’t it the role of public servants to produce the results that the public wants?

Let’s face it, this is just another example of President Obama being unable to do anything that will satisfy his critics. By taking affirmative steps on an important matter, Obama is accused of being political. Were he not to take such steps he would be accused of neglecting the duties of his office. In effect, the right is insisting that no president do anything of significance during an election year. Of course, if that were to occur that president would be maligned for being more interested in campaigning than governing. Lose/lose.

For the past three and a half years the Republicans have demonstrated their preference for legislative stalemate rather than risk the President achieving something positive for the nation and getting credit for doing so. They are putting their own electoral welfare and lust for power above that of the country, and that, more than anything else, is political.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Celebrity Arbiters

It is becoming almost too predictable that whenever you see a headline on Fox Nation you can assume that it isn’t the truth. Case in point: Today the Fox Nationalists posted an item about President Obama’s remarks at a fundraiser yesterday. The headline on Fox Nation is “Obama Tells Celebrities They’re the ‘Ultimate Arbiter’ of America’s Direction.”

Fox Nation

The quote cited by Fox, as lifted from the Associated Press, read, “You’re the tie-breaker. You’re the ultimate arbiter of which direction this country goes.” Guess what. That is not what Obama told the guests at the fundraiser (who were not necessarily celebrities). The full quote, which is available on the White House web site, reads:

“[U]ltimately you guys and the American people, you’re the tie-breaker. You’re the ultimate arbiter of which direction this country goes in.”

So contrary to the false impression made by Fox (and the AP) that implied the President was elevating a room full of celebrities to some sort of Politburo, the truth is that Obama was speaking broadly and including all of the American people. It was an outright expression of populism and democracy that Fox is trying to turn into some kind of elitism. The same phony characterization also turned up on Fox News with Megyn Kelly drilling home the elitist message.

Fox News

The funny thing is that, even if what Fox is saying were true, I would much rather have people like Sarah Jessica Parker and George Clooney influencing public policy than Romney’s cohorts like Donald Trump and Sheldon Adelson. At least I’d know that their motives were based on their principles and aspirations for a better world, rather than on self-interest and aspirations for more power and wealth.


Fox News: Simultaneously Pandering To And Insulting Latinos

Fox News has been at the forefront of advancing anti-Latino propaganda for years. Their coverage of issues affecting the Latino community has been as decidedly biased as … well, everything else on Fox News. And nothing is more representative of this bias than Fox’s approach to immigration. The network is relentlessly opposed to any comprehensive solution that treats immigrants like human beings.

Today Fox managed to outdo themselves in demonstrating their overt prejudice while at the same time ingratiating themselves to what they acknowledge is a large and growing audience. The following stories were posted in response to today’s announcement from the White House that certain young immigrants would be granted work permits rather than be deported.

Fox Nation Latino Immigration

On the Fox News Latino website the story was headlined, “Obama Administration Halts Deportations for Young Immigrants.” That’s a factually accurate description that treats the news in a neutral manner. The headline was accompanied by a sympathetic photo of a young Latina child draped with an American flag.

On Fox Nation the story was handled somewhat differently. The headline they went with was “Obama Administration Bypasses Congress, To Give Immunity, Stop Deporting Younger Illegals.” In that short sentence they managed to imply impropriety on the part of the administration, infer the controversial subject of amnesty, and insult Latinos by employing the dehumanizing label of “illegals” (even though the people affected by this initiative did not break any law). The photo accompanying this article was of adult Latinos sitting up against a wall in handcuffs.

The differences between these treatments of the same news story illustrates just how cynical and hypocritical Fox News is when dealing with issues that challenge their biases and their marketing agenda. For Fox to post an appealing, straight news article on their web site aimed at a Latino audience, but to post a blatantly derogatory piece on their web site aimed at Teabagging racists, reveals the dark side of Fox’s repulsive mission.

It is also notable that the Fox News Latino site posted the Associated Press article about the announcement in full. The Fox Nationalists posted only two paragraphs plus a video from Fox News of right-wing wacko Allen West expressing his outrage. This is further evidence that the Fox Nationalists want to avoid giving their dimwitted readers too much actual information, but prefer to throw up as much ultra-right-wing opinion as possible. Additionally, Fox Nation allows visitors to comment on the news item, while Fox News Latino does not. That decision helps to promote the sense of community amongst the wingnuts, but prevents the Latino visitors from establishing those community ties.

Not surprisingly, Fox News immediately cast the President’s proposal as an abuse of the legislative process and a backdoor to amnesty. For the record, the proposal does not offer amnesty or even immunity. It is a temporary measure to exercise prosecutorial discretion so that innocent persons are not unduly punished while a more comprehensive solution is negotiated with Congress. The plan only affects those who arrived in the U.S. before age 16, are younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED, or served in the military.

The way the two Fox news divisions handled this event is typical of their dishonest presentation of the news. The framing on Fox Nation is pretty much how one would expect it to be – bursting with prejudice and hatred. However, the pandering ploy used at Fox News Latino is insulting and exacerbates the biases that Fox exhibits elsewhere in its reporting. Hopefully Latino audiences will look deeper than just the Fox site that is attempting to exploit them so that they see the enterprise for what it is.


Karl Rove’s Super Amazing Political Funtime Analysis Happy Hour

The man who used to be known as Bush’s Brain may have spent too much time with America’s foremost remedial president. Karl Rove seems to have leaked a significant amount of grey matter as evidenced by this stunningly inept observation about President Obama and the economy:

“It is fine for him to try and blame it on President Bush or a Japanese tsunami or on ATM, but it makes him look weak, and the American people are not that dumb! […] Let him keep doing that because the American people see that as a weak leader. That’s not somebody who’s in charge. That’s somebody who’s making excuses. And we do not like to elect people President of the United States who are excuse makers. We want a president to be big and bold.”

Romney - Not StupidGot that? America wants a big, bold, non-excuse maker. And blaming Bush for the wrecked economy won’t work because the American people aren’t stupid. That’s a mantra that Romney also likes to chant. In fact, he made it into a campaign slogan. This may be the first time a candidate has ever had to go to such lengths to remind his followers that they aren’t idiots. But that argument becomes more difficult to defend when polling shows what the American people really think. A new Gallup poll says that…

“Americans continue to place more blame for the nation’s economic problems on George W. Bush than on Barack Obama, even though Bush left office more than three years ago.”

The poll shows that two-thirds of respondents (68%) still blame Bush for the state of the economy. That includes about half of the polled Republicans who also continue to hold Rove’s former boss accountable. Consequently, Obama should not be shy about hanging this economic albatross around Romney’s neck. The Romney campaign has already affirmed that their policy agenda is “Bush on steroids.”

Ironically, I have to agree with Rove about a couple of things. First, he appears to be right that the American people are not dumb. They know exactly who is responsible for where we are today and they are not likely to to want to return to the policies that got us here. Secondly, Rove’s advice that Obama continue to blame Bush is pretty sound based on the mood of the electorate.

The problem for Rove is that he’s right for all the wrong reasons. He doesn’t understand where the American people are, and he wouldn’t agree with them if he did. He’s just trying to rehabilitate his own shattered reputation because, as the political architect of the Bush administration, he’s just as responsible for the financial hole we are in as Bush is.

It’s about time that the right quit yakking about Democrats looking backwards to blame Bush. Obama is not reaching backwards to assign responsibility for current conditions to the past president. He is forecasting the future consequences of repeating those mistakes. It is the Republicans who are bringing the Bush era back to the table by proposing nothing but what the Bush administration did. They are offering nothing new in the way of solutions. In fact, the only initiative they will articulate out loud is to preserve the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy. So the Obama administration has no choice but to rebut those proposals. That is not an attack on Bush. It is an attack on the current crop of Republicans who are parroting Bush.

And if it weren’t bad enough that Americans blame Rove and Bush for our current economic problems, they also blame Republicans in congress today for deliberately sabotaging the recovery in order to make Obama look bad. So not only are they dredging up the old Bush era policies that already failed so decisively, they are obstructing Obama’s new solutions from being enacted.

GOP Sabotaging Economy

Since the day that Obama was inaugurated, the GOP has explicitly stated that their top priority is to make Obama a one-term president. That’s not a governing agenda. That’s the purest and most cynical form of self-serving, political gamesmanship imaginable.


Breitbart Wins! The Most Epically Idiotic Article On The Internet – This Week

The World Wide Web is a cornucopia of Olympian ignoramusi. The field ranges from hollowed out heads in suits like Jonah Goldberg, to asylum escapees like Ted Nugent, to pitiful has-been bimbos like Victoria Jackson, to messianic delusionaries like Glenn Beck. With such an abundance of talentless charlatans like these posting staggeringly asinine missives online, the competition for Most Epically Idiotic Article On The Internet is stiffer than Mitt Romney at a gay bar four hours after overdosing on a bad batch of Viagra.

Leave it to Breitbart’s John Nolte to sink to the occasion and compose a work of astonishing stupidity. The title of Nolte’s opus, “Why the Media Hates and Fears Super PACs,” pretty much gives away the fundamental foolishness of his premise. The media is perhaps the biggest beneficiary of Super PACS (more on that later). But foolishness is the hallmark of Nolte’s career. Take for example this article wherein Nolte advocated murdering the mother of a young actress:

Breitbart's Penis Envy

Breitbrat Nolte begins his incoherent rant with a typical bashing of the press as liberal, despite all the evidence to the contrary. With no substantiation whatsoever, he called the media “a gaggle of left-wing operatives disguised as journalists.” Nolte goes on to assert that the media fears the Citizens United decision handed down by the Supreme Court because the media is in the business of the “furthering of leftist causes.” Notice how he refers to the media as a single-minded entity shuddering frightfully at the thought of Citizens United. He makes no effort to document that assertion. But finally, Nolte gets around to what he regards as the core of the problem:

“[T]he media is objecting to free and unlimited political speech – the very thing protected by the very first Amendment. The media’s outrage that there are now no longer restrictions on how much money a company or individual can spend to further a political cause, is the same as expressing outrage that that most sacred of American rights – unlimited political speech – is no longer limited by a tyrannical government.”

Of course. The media is “outraged” that individuals and corporations can now spend unlimited amounts of money on ….. MEDIA! Where does Nolte think that the hundreds of millions of dollars that he concedes will be raised and spent is going to go? By far, the biggest share of that bounty will be spent on advertising in the media. The very same media that Nolte refers to as an amorphous singularity that is united in opposition to Super PACs. So obviously the media is beside themselves with rage. Their secret plot to advance socialism is way more important to them than the windfall in unprecedented profits. Anyone can see that.

Well, anyone that suffers from the same moronic myopia of Breitbrat Nolte, whose grasp of the particulars of the Citizens United decision is utterly confused. Nolte does not seem to understand that the decision opened the funding floodgates to allow unprecedented levels of unaccountable contributions that are tantamount to giving wealthy individuals and corporations permission to buy election outcomes. He describes it as a “First Amendment victory,” but it is a victory for dollars, not for voters. It changes the dimensions of democracy from “one man, one vote,” to “one dollar, one vote,” because now free speech comes with a price tag that only the wealthy can afford. How can the average citizen’s voice be heard when it is competing with Exxon or Karl Rove’s American Crossroads?

Nolte’s whining that the media has been enforcing a liberal tyranny over the nation and is enraged by new competition from the Super PACs created by Citizens United ignores the fact that the media themselves are participants in the rush to exploit the Super PAC phenomenon. Every major media corporation (Time Warner, General Electric, Comcast, Viacom, Disney, News Corp) already has their own. And they are spending heavily to advance their interests over those of the people. But Nolte has trouble with the concept of facts to begin with, as is apparent in this example from his article:

“Fact : In 2008, you heard almost no media outcry against all of that ‘outside money affecting elections.’ Today, that’s all you hear, especially after a Republican victory like the one last week in Wisconsin.

First of all, Nolte needs a remedial course in identifying facts. He cannot assert as fact that “you” heard nothing in 2008 about outside money. How could he know what you heard? Secondly, his main point as to the “media outcry” on campaign finance completely ignores that actual fact that fundraising by independent groups has long been a huge topic of discussion. It resulted in the passage of the McCain–Feingold Act in 2002 that put restrictions on certain types of contributions and spending. That act was still in effect in 2008, but was largely overturned in 2010 by Citizens United. If Nolte didn’t hear people talking about outside money in 2008, it’s because his ears were stuffed with right-wing bias and the smears and tangential trivialities that he helped to promulgate (i.e. Rev. Wright, Anthony Weiner).

Nolte makes an extraordinary leap in logic to assert that media companies are de facto Super PACs and that they have always been “allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to push a political agenda.” But Nolte is not talking about any actual PAC activity. He is asserting the premise that any money spent collecting or reporting news is identical to spending for political advocacy. That’s because Nolte believes that all news is the work of the left-wing gaggle mentioned above. He writes that everyone from the Today Show to Saturday Night Live are “shill[s] for leftist causes.” Therefore, he sees the advent of Citizens United as a leveling mechanism.

“Thanks to ‘Citizens United,’ though, what you now have are mainstream media corporations forced to compete on a level playing field with other individuals and corporations, who can now spend as much money as MSNBC and Politico and The Washington Post, etc. to affect the outcomes of our nation’s politics.

“And this is why the media so loathes ‘Citizens United’ and those beautiful super PACs that have blossomed as a result.”

And therein lies the heart of Nolte’s Epic Idiocy. He actually sees Super PACs as “beautiful,” a blossoming bouquet of wholesome, corporate goodness. In fact, he veritably tingles at the thought of corporations being able to affect the outcomes of elections. Who wouldn’t want corporations – soulless entities whose only purpose is to increase shareholder wealth – to decide everything from how are children are taught, to the state of our environment, to Wall Street regulatory policy, to when, and with whom, we go to war? Nolte’s lust for allowing unaccountable corporations to assume control over the most profoundly personal aspects of our lives is downright perverse. It is also a nearly textbook definition of fascism.


And it’s a perversion rooted in ignorance because the backbone of his thesis is utterly false. It should come as no surprise that a web site called “News Corpse” is not suffering from a naive affinity for the press. But the stated mission of this site recognizes that the problem with the media is that it has evolved into an incestuous family of a few giant corporations whose interests lean more toward their own welfare than the welfare of the public they serve or the nation that protects their independence. The problem with the media is that it IS composed of giant, multinational corporations that exploit their market power and their influence over government.

It is difficult to comprehend how Nolte can harbor such a schizophrenic viewpoint wherein he worships corporations, but despises the media which are, in fact, corporations. He makes no sense in castigating the whole of the media for bitterly opposing Super PACs (for which he provides no evidence), even while they have formed their own and are projected to earn billions of dollars from the advertising headed their way. His opinion can only be described as twisted by a paranoid neurosis that prevents him from observing reality as it is.

It is that blindness that has created a monumental obstacle to rationality and earns Breitbart’s John Nolte the award for the Most Epically Idiotic Article On The Internet. And due to his puerile dimwittedness and cognitive ineptitude, this will surely not be the last time he will be so (dis)honored.


THE VETTING: Mitt Romney’s Brush With A Tragic Back Alley Abortion

One of the best known components of Mitt Romney’s Etch-a-Sketch candidacy is his epic flip-flop on the issue of abortion. In his 1994 campaign for the senate in Massachusetts, Romney was an ardent pro-choice advocate. It was a position he vigorously defended in a debate with his opponent Ted Kennedy. His remarks could have come straight from a Planned Parenthood pamphlet:

“I have my own beliefs, and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. Many, many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that.”

So much for wavering. Romney is now a staunchly pro-life conservative, but the catalyst for his original opinion is worthy of exploration. Romney has never publicly identified the “close family relative” to whom he referred in the debate, but Salon published an article last year that recounted her sad experience as an unwed, pregnant woman in the years prior to Roe v. Wade. She was the younger sister of Romney’s brother-in-law, and was engaged to be married. However, her pregnancy was likely a source of shame and the whole matter was hushed up presumably to preserve the reputation of the family, including Romney’s father who was governor of Michigan at the time.

After the debate, Romney affirmed the position he had taken by saying that it “obviously makes one see that regardless of one’s beliefs about choice, that you would hope it would be safe and legal.” Apparently that observation is not so obvious anymore.

The matter might not have made much of a stir but for the fact that it was raised again today by the National Enquirer, whose typically sensationalized headline screamed “Mitt Romney Backstreet Abortion Shocker.”

Mitt Romney Abortion Shocker

Regardless of the hyperbole of the source, the facts were all present in Salon’s earlier article. Now that the story is out there, it is fair to inquire as to how Romney feels today about the ordeal of his deceased relative. While the loss of a loved one should never become fodder for political gamesmanship, how such experiences shape the values of a candidate are highly relevant. If her loss had such a profound impact on him, even thirty years later when he was running for the senate, does he no longer feel that she, or any other women in her position, ought to have access to safe and legal medical attention?

Since Romney’s current position is to turn back the clock to a time when women had no alternative but the back alley procedures that were often fatal, can he say today that he is satisfied with the fate that his young relative suffered; that it was merely the consequence of her choice; that a young woman today, perhaps another relative, should be subject to the same fate were she to make the same choice?

Romney was once driven by his grief to make an unwavering commitment to never force his beliefs on others. Is he through with grieving? Is he comfortable with the grief that other families will suffer if his promise to repeal Roe v. Wade is fulfilled? Someone should ask Romney these questions.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

What The Media Left Out Of The Senate Hearings With Eric Holder

Yesterday the Senate held a hearing on the excruciatingly overwrought pseudo-controversy known as “Fast and Furious.” The featured witness at the hearing was Attorney General Eric Holder, who has already appeared at nine previous hearings on the same subject. Despite never having produced the slightest bit of evidence of any malfeasance by Holder, Sen. John Cornyn delivered notably vacant harangue that climaxed with this demand:

“In short, you’ve violated the public trust in my view and, by failing and refusing to perform the duties of your office, it’s more with sorrow than regret, than with anger, that I would say that you leave me no alternative but to join those who call upon you to resign your office.”

That tasty soundbite was broadcast incessantly in the media for the remainder of the day, and into the following day. Never mind that there was no substance behind it and no context to explain it. But there was something even more egregious that the media omitted: The response from Eric Holder. For some reason, that information was not deemed relevant to the story. So, in an effort to level the playing field, here is some of what Holder had to say in response to Cornyn’s request:

“With all due respect, senator, there is so much that is factually wrong with the premises that you started your statement with, it’s almost breathtaking in its inaccuracy.”

“If you want to talk about Fast and Furious, I’m the attorney general that put an end to the misguided tactics that were used in Fast and Furious. An attorney general whom I suppose you would hold in higher regard was briefed on these kinds of tactics in an operation called ‘Wide Receiver’ and did nothing to stop them. Nothing. Three hundred guns, at least, ‘walked’ in that instance.

“I’m also the attorney general who called on an inspector general to look into this matter, to investigate this matter. I’m also the attorney general who made personnel changes at ATF and in the U.S. Attorneys office that was involved, have overseen the changes of processes and procedures within ATF to make sure that this doesn’t happen ever again.

“So I don’t have any intention of resigning.”

“I am willing to sit down and talk about the provision of more materials. I have sent letters in that regard, the deputy attorney general has sent letters in that regard, and have not had responses. Which leads me to believe that the desire here is not for an accommodation but for a political point-making.”

There’s quite a bit there for excerpting in the nightly news, but most of the media declined to do so. And yet, the rightist punditry still whines about what they think is the “liberal” media. It would have nice if the news that Holder had wiped the floor with Cornyn had reached more than a few liberal bloggers. The right has no problem blasting its radically slanted message across the airwaves. The left has significant room for improvement in this regard.


Glenn Beck Reviews Black-Themed Obama Campaign Ad

If you were looking for an authoritative analysis of an Obama campaign advertisement targeting an African-American constituency, who better to consult than homeboy and O.G. (Original German), Glenn Beck?

That’s who Bill O’Reilly turned to last night on the O’Reilly Factor, and he got his money’s worth. The segment included pleadings from Beck for O’Reilly to use the “M” word (Marxist) about Obama. O’Reilly giggled flirtatiously but succumbed only so far as to declare Obama the most liberal president in America’s history (which is news to liberals).

After listening to the new ad, the pair expressed their shock upon seeing an overt appeal to a targeted demographic group, something they seem to think never happens in advertising.

Beck: I’ve never heard anything like that, Bill.
O’Reilly: In a campaign ad, I haven’t either. I would love to see Mitt Romney’s backup singers though. They probably look like the Osmonds.
Beck: Here’s the problem with that ad. I mean it’s two-fold. In that ad they talk about, you know, we’ve got your back, Mr. President. Isn’t the President supposed to have our back? Isn’t he supposed to be that guy that insures that he’s watching our liberty and our life so nobody comes and kills our family or kills us, and nobody comes and scoops us up off the street in the middle of the night?

First of all, I find it interesting that O’Reilly would surmise that Romney’s backup singers would look like the Osmonds, a quintessentially white family of Mormons. I wouldn’t argue with that, but it’s Beck’s commentary that really demonstrates a fundamental ignorance and hypocrisy.

Beck seems to have missed entirely that the ad is a litany of all the ways in which Obama “has our back,” by enumerating the policies he is pursuing. The only thing that Beck hears is the Motown-like chorus. Even worse, Beck seems to be confusing the role of the president with the role of a bodyguard. His assertion that the President is supposed to protect us from some unidentified assailants is downright looney, however, it fits nicely into Beck’s patented formula of fear mongering. To Beck there is no dark corner of the room that isn’t filled with stalking demons.

Glenn Beck

Seeing as how Beck is also one of the biggest proponents of right-wing criticisms of the so-called “nanny state,” it is curious that he has now assigned the President the responsibility for policing our neighborhoods and protecting us from whoever it is that Beck imagines is threatening to “scoop us up off the street in the middle of the night.” That duty might distract the President from trivial matters like the economy, jobs, and foreign affairs. It might also piss off Spiderman who will surely regard it as an intrusion into his jurisdiction.

Watching O’Reilly and Beck analyze an Obama ad aimed at African Americans is not unlike watching Rick Santorum and Pat Robertson reviewing the DVD release of “Brokeback Mountain.” There is very little of value that one could extract from their analysis. But what’s truly frightening is that Fox’s viewers will sop up their bile and regard it as credible. At least until they are scooped up off the street in the middle of the night.


Bill O’Reilly’s Dementia Shapes His Definition Of Fox News

Bill O'ReillyOn the O’Reilly Factor last night Bill O’Reilly engaged in a discussion of media bias with right-wing “Slobbering” author, Bernie Goldberg. During the conversation O’Reilly launched into a description of the network that has employed him for the past sixteen years. His assessment is typical of the tunnel-blindness that infects Fox News:

“Fox News, I mean, you have a network that basically is different from the establishment network that Mr. [Chris] Matthews was talking about. Takes a much more traditional approach. It has conservative hosts on that have programs. That’s unheard of in the other precincts. Never happens, never has happened, all right — I don’t think anyone would disagree with that, that description.”

First of all, O’Reilly is correct in saying that Fox News is different. There has never before been a national news network that was so closely aligned with the interests of a political party. Fox News is so ingrained into the GOP that they broadcast Republican talking points straight from RNC memos – typos and all.

As for O’Reilly’s assertion that it is “unheard of” that other networks ever employed conservative hosts, is he serious, or seriously delusional? I, for one, would like to disagree with his ludicrous claim that conservatives hosting programs on other networks “never has happened.” And I have actual evidence to back it up.

Currently on MSNBC (you know, the socialist news network) there is a three hour long morning program hosted by Joe Scarborough, a conservative Republican, former congressman from Florida. Can you imagine Fox giving over their three hour morning block to Alan Grayson? MSNBC was also the home of conservative hosts like Michael Savage, Oliver North, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham. Three of those are now Fox News employees. At CNN (you know, the communist news Network), they have had numerous conservatives hosting programs as well. Remember Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, and Glenn Beck? Those last two later jumped ship for shows on Fox.

So obviously O’Reilly is either lying or in dire need of medical attention. How else could he possibly have missed this parade of conservatives on other news networks? Conversely, it is Fox News that has a one-sided ideological bias. They have never had a solo liberal host in their entire history. O’Reilly’s characterization of the media is not only wrong, it’s 180 degrees from reality. Which explains his success on the network that specializes in news reporting that is 180 degrees from reality and the polar opposite of the truth.


Fox Nation’s Lopsided Reporting On Florida Voter Purge

Threats of litigation were flying today between federal agencies and the state of Florida over Florida’s efforts to disenfranchise voters who disagree with the state’s Republican leadership. Governor Rick Scott’s plans to throw people off the voter rolls has been revealed to be a blatant attempt to illegally prevent minorities, senior citizens, and the poor from voting, constituencies that just happen to vote Democratic.

The Justice Department advised the Governor and the Secretary of State (in a detailed letter) that the methods they proposed to use to remove allegedly ineligible names from the voter registration records were both flawed and unlawful. The response from Scott was to announce that he would be suing the feds and that he intended to continue his voter purge.

Fox Nation, however, did not carry a report of this announcement for many hours after it had been made. It was not until a subsequent announcement from the Justice Department that they were planning legal action against the state that the Fox Nationalists finally posted an article on the matter. And, of course, the lede was that the federal government was suing Florida.

Fox Nation on Florida Lawsuit

The intention by Fox was to portray the government as the aggressors in this litigation. That fits in nicely with their narrative of the Obama government being a dictatorial regime that is abusing its power over the sovereign states. And that’s why they didn’t bother to report that it was the state that initiated the legal action.

That’s not all that Fox failed to report. The substance of the dispute between Florida and the DOJ concerns the state’s unlawful purging of legitimate voters. The Tampa Bay Times conducted a review of the state’s proposed list of ineligible voters and found a total of forty non-citizens. Out of those, they identified at most six who “might” have voted. Conversely, they found more than 500 people who were determined to be actual citizens entitled to register and vote. Yet Scott continues to assert a justification for stripping the right to vote from 500 (mostly Democratic) citizens in order to block a half dozen ineligible voters.

The Justice Department is not the only party suing Florida. The ACLU has also filed a suit over the same issues. If you want to help you can sign this petition from MoveOn.org calling on AG Eric Holder to “to block Gov. Scott from illegitimately kicking Floridians off the voter roll.”

On a side note, I wasted a little time perusing the comments attached to the Fox Nation article. In the process I observed some pretty revolting language and overt racism. Here is a representative example of the sort of people who populate the Fox community:

Fox Nation Racism

Judging from the context of the reply, my guess is that the first comment was just a well-reasoned defense of Holder and Obama. The FoxPods, not capable of tolerating that, pounced on it by clicking the “Flag” button to get the comment removed, but not before one disgusting reply was posted. Later, the entire comments section was closed and removed. There were about 300 comments when I was there, but now they are all gone. That tells you something about both the Fox community and the managers of the site.