Jesse Watters Crashes GE Shareholders Meeting

Posted by on April 23, 2009 at 12:50 pm. 16 Comments :

The reigning weasel of news hackery, Stuttering Jesse Watters, is striving mightily to surpass his personal worst. At the GE shareholders meeting, Watters, who did not identify himself as Bill O’Reilly’s attack troll, or even as an employee of Fox News, commandeered the microphone and began lobbing antagonistic questions at GE brass.

Paul Bond’s column in the Hollywood Reporter reports that Watters asked GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt about Janeane Garofalo’s recent appearance on Countdown. There were reportedly several other “shareholders” who rose to ask questions regarding MSNBC’s alleged editorial slant to the left.

It seems somewhat suspicious that a spontaneous collection of objectivity-conscious investors would arise to complain about one of GE’s most successful assets – and one whose success can be directly tied to the work of Countdown’s Keith Olbermann. Would these shareholders prefer that the network had not increased its audience and revenue by record margins over the past couple of years? One complaint focused on Olbermann’s failure to challenge Garofalo’s remarks. Bond then recounts that…

“Immelt told the assembled he takes a hands-off approach to what is reported on the company’s news networks, which prompted a shareholder to criticize him for not managing NBC Uni more effectively.”

That’s a rather curious complaint. Would they prefer that Immelt intervene in the editorial decisions made by NBC’s news production teams? Were he to do so, they would probably complain that he doesn’t permit the journalists to do their jobs impartially. On the other hand, they may indeed have a preference for corporate executives who dictate the editorial content for their networks. Witness their affection for Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, who run a tightly partisan operation at Fox News.

Needless to say, this affair will likely end up on the O’Reilly Factor soon, and O’Reilly will use it in yet another attempt to bash GE (his proxy for Olbermann) and assert that Immelt should be fired for his poor performance. As usual he won’t acknowledge that both News Corp and GE’s stocks have declined about 60% in the past year. And he won’t call for Rupert Murdoch’s resignation either.

Update: As I predicted, O’Reilly spent the first ten minutes of his show tonight on Watters’ adventure in Orlando. Most of it was the typical tripe O’Reilly is famous for, but there was one moment in his Talking Points that was priceless:

“This is obviously a major story. When a powerful corporation which controls a major part of the American media may be using its power and the airwaves to influence politics in order to make money from government contracts.”

He is talking about Fox News, isn’t he?

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Shepard Smith Doesn’t Give A Rat’s Ass

Posted by on April 23, 2009 at 11:58 am. 4 Comments :

I just can’t let this go by…

Shepard Smith is the Fox anchor most hated by entrenched Fox viewers. This video is a good example of why. Smith takes a principled stand against torture and in favor of living up to our national values when he says:

“We are America. I don’t give a rat’s ass if it helps. We. Are. America. We do not fucking torture. We don’t do it.”

This is video from Fox’s Strategy Room, which is a webcast that takes place when the network goes to commercial. So this was never on the air. I think the most embarrassing part has nothing to do with Shep’s language. It is when Trace Gallagher says that he is not saying that torture is right or wrong. That doesn’t seem like something that a moral person would be ambiguous about.


All Of A Sudden Fox News Cares About Privacy Rights

Posted by on April 21, 2009 at 5:20 pm. 4 Comments :

For the past eight years, there have been so many intrusions to the civil liberties that Americans are promised by the Constitution that it’s hard to recount them all. Amongst the most significant are the Patriot Act, the removal of Habeas Corpus protections, and Wireless Wiretapping.

Now there is a bill in Congress that poses a new threat to privacy and to the independence of the Internet. The Cybersecurity Act of 2009, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, seeks to create a new federal authority to respond to threats that may emanate online. It gives the President the power to shut down critical systems in an emergency. It also gives the Commerce Secretary authority to access any and all data it chooses from public and private networks.

While there is a real need to shield our electronic networks from lurking villains, this bill is written far to broadly and it gives the government too much discretion for defining when it would be invoked.

Here’s the funny part: James Osborne of Fox News has written an article that takes the administration and the Congress to task for stepping on the privacy rights of citizens. They never seemed to be too interested in the Bush administration’s incursions into privacy as enumerated above. But now such moves are viewed as power grabs that are on assault on civil liberties. Osbourne’s article doesn’t include any historical context on the liberties Americans have already been forced to forgo, but he does warn that…

“…the proposal to give the U.S. government the authority to regulate the Internet is sounding alarms among critics who say it’s another case of big government getting bigger and more intrusive.”

One of those critics cited in Osbourne’s article is Lee Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I have to give Osbourne credit for including a response from the EFF, a veteran of Internet rights advocacy. On the other hand, Osbourne leans far more heavily on the views of the Business Software Alliance, an industry lobbying firm that, not surprisingly, thinks that business should play the dominant role in efforts to secure the Internet and protect citizens privacy. Presumably that is because they have done such a great job of it in the past (yes, that’s sarcastic).

The last thing we need now is for an industry that is motivated solely by profit to be responsible for systems that impact our national security and personal privacy. The solution can only lie in a cooperative effort that includes business, government, and the public. There is a even a place for Fox News in so far as they are inclined to provide information on this serious matter. It would just be nice if they weren’t so weighted to a tyranny of the corporation. It would also be nice if they could demonstrate some consistency by exhibiting a little concern for privacy violations incurred by the previous administration.


Rasmussen’s Guide To The Political Class

Posted by on April 21, 2009 at 2:05 am. 7 Comments :

Scott Rasmussen is to polling what Rush Limbaugh is to objective reporting. That is to say he has no scruples other than to serve up a pre-mashed helping of right-wing propaganda. Whenever the Democratic agenda gains favor, or Obama’s popularity is rising, you can count on Rasmussen to deliver a survey that reports precisely the opposite. For this reason, he is a frequent guest on Fox News. They surely appreciate that when he walks into the studio he brings with him a version of reality that conveniently skews to their prejudices.

Now Rasmussen has introduced an innovative new index that tracks the variances between what he calls the Mainstream public and the Political Elite. In a recent example of this breakthrough, he reports that the Tax Day Tea Parties were viewed favorably by 51% of “Americans” but only 13% of the Political Class shared that view.

So you may be wondering how Rasmussen determines who is an Elitist and who is a Mainstream American. He does this by conducting a comprehensive psychological regimen of inquiry to create a detailed profile of a respondent’s subjective tendencies. I am including here the questions that make up his comprehensive study – all three of them:

  • Generally speaking, when it comes to important national issues, whose judgment do you trust more – the American people or America’s political leaders?
  • Some people believe that the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Has the federal government become a special interest group?
  • Do government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors?

Answer two of more of those questions affirmatively and you are a Mainstream American. Answer two or more in the negative and you are a Political Elitist. What could be simpler? Or more simple minded?

The good news is that, despite the fact that I am one of the most politically oriented people you could ever hope to meet, according to Rasmussen I am a Mainstream American. I would answer both the second and third questions with a firm “aye.” As for the first question, I do not so much disagree with it as I am confused by it. I don’t know how to compare the judgment of America’s political leaders to that of the American people. Is there an authority to whom I can refer to ascertain the American people’s judgment on any issue? And aren’t America’s political leaders a reflection of the people’s judgment? No matter – I am still squarely Mainstream as measured by Rasmussen’s index.

The problem here is that Rasmussen is using this index to draw distinctions between the two groups and characterize them as significant. Never mind that the Political Class he defines occupies a mere 7% of respondents. With this gimmick he can report nonsense like the Tea Party numbers above. After all, who really cares if 13% of the 7% of Elitists don’t like tea? If he surveyed 1,000 people, then we’re talking about 9 who fall into that category. That’s 9 out of 1,000, or less than 1%.

This has absolutely no statistical value whatsoever. The only purpose it can possibly serve is to create an imaginary group against which to compare other results whose significance you wish to artificially enhance. This permits Rasmussen to imply that an invented class of people have decidedly different values than the rest of us. And since his test for what constitutes a Mainstream American is so broad, the whole process is worthless, and worse, it’s phony. He may as well have asked…

  • Generally speaking, when it comes to important national issues, whose judgment do you trust more – Mr. Rogers or the KKK?
  • Some people believe that the federal government has become a special interest group that tortures kittens and feeds their remains to crocodiles. Would you oppose the federal government feeding dead kittens to swamp beasts?
  • Do government and big business often work together in ways that pad the campaign accounts of politicians and deregulate the affairs of corporations?

Those that do not answer in the affirmative are Poopyheads and may not play with the rest of us Americans. We all owe Rasmussen a debt of gratitude for revealing to us the stark differences that are hidden amongst our nation’s people. He is a master at exposing the vast, make-believe divides that were meant by divine providence to keep us apart and at each others throats. Heaven forbid we might all be more alike than we assumed.


The Case Against White House Press Briefings

Posted by on April 20, 2009 at 2:48 pm. NO Comments :

Ana Marie Cox posted a brief item today about the reportorial brain power that’s wasted at White House press briefings:

“It’s not that the reporters covering the president are bad at their jobs. Most are experienced journalists at the top of their game — and they’re wasted at the White House, where scoops are doled out, not uncovered. The day of a typical White House correspondent consists, literally, of waiting to be told things.”

That’s an excellent point. Why would news organizations want to assign their top talent to staged briefings where they would have almost no opportunity to break a significant story? The only problem with Cox’s article is that it is at least two years too late.

In May of 2006, I posted an item based on the musings of NYU journalism professor, Jay Rosen. The article addressed comments made by Bush Chief of Staff, Josh Bolton, who seemed to be considering ending the White House briefings. Rosen pointed out that ending the briefings was a two way street that could just as easily be exercised by the press. All they would have to do is stop showing up. Rosen went further to propose what is still an appealing alternative.

“Send interns instead to occupy the seats without asking questions or filing reports. That means no correspondents at the two daily briefings, none on the President’s plane, none at his public appearances. (Except for foreign trips where other heads of state might speak.) Let the White House publicize itself.”

If not interns, junior reporters would certainly be able to perform the stenographic services required in the briefing room. They could even ask pretty decent follow-up questions when necessary. In the meantime, the newsroom all-stars could be out raking up muck like they are supposed to be doing; like they were trained to do; like we, the news consumers, want them to do. Should anything of consequence occur (i.e. the President introduces his new puppy), it could be texted to a more experienced hand without even leaving the chair. But when was the last time something important was divulged in one of these gatherings?

Certainly the White House manipulates these briefings for their own purposes, but in a sense, that’s their job. They are political by definition. The press, however, have a thoroughly different job – to coax transparency from government officials who are usually adverse to volunteering it. But rather than fulfilling that mission, much of the White House press corps is more concerned with scoring invites to cocktail parties and dinners with the same officials they are supposed to be covering.

All too often, White House press events are exploited by ego-driven reporters who like to see their mugs on TV. For this reason they frequently pose questions that are artificially provocative in order to raise their buzz quotient. At the other end of the spectrum are the partisan hacks that seek to make a name for themselves by embarrassing the press secretary or the President. Just last week, this guy asked a question with a comically false premise that was dripping with derision:

“Tomorrow is tax day and a number of conservative groups are organizing these so called “tea parties” across the country; there are going to be grassroots uprising revolts against the administration’s policies so far. Is the President aware that these are going on and do you have any reaction to this?”

[By the way, if anyone knows who this guy is, please leave his name in comments. I have been unable to identify this Jeff Gannon wannabe] … [Update: This may be Jim Geraghty of the National Review]

As for the notion of reassigning cub reporters to the briefings, it’s still a good idea, but not one likely to be implemented any time soon. Too bad. It’s shame we have to watch the people who ostensibly earned the top positions in their field, sitting in rows like school children being lectured by the teacher. And if they really are the best, then who does that leave to do the real work of pounding the pavement and looking under rocks? It’s a system that rewards mediocrity.


Fox News Calls Market Gains A Tea Party Rally

Posted by on April 19, 2009 at 1:19 am. 1 Comments :

As the economy sputters along, trying to find it’s way out of the ditch dug by George W. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress, Fox News is trying to find new ways to blame Obama for our hardships and to deny him any credit for good news. And just when you thought that it couldn’t get any more blatantly biased, Fox News rises to the occasion.

For several weeks, Fox has used the phrase “Obama Bear” to describe the stock market when it heads down. At the same time they refer to it as a bear market rally when it goes up. So it should come as no surprise that on the April 18, broadcast of Fox’s “Bulls & Bears,” the host, Brenda Buckner, ups the ante by opening the show with this:

“Call it a tea party rally. Wall Street’s sure partying, up six weeks in a row. The bulls came out about the same time these guys started to shout, saying no to big government, big taxes, and big bailouts. Will that keep investors saying yes to stocks?”

In an absurd flight from logic, Buttner is asserting that the Fox-sponsored, Republican rallies last Wednesday played a role in the market’s performance for six weeks prior to their even being held. Buttner then asks guest Eric Bolling whether it is a coincidence that “the market comes back the same time Americans fight back against big government.” Of course, he obligingly agrees that’s the case, despite the absence of any shred of evidence that Wall Street gives a damn about the plaintive wailing of a bunch of tea bag waving, anti-tax, gun-toting, evangelical, Glenn Beck disciples, who still can’t accept that they lost last November. So Buttner continues with her obsequious line of questioning with this one for Gary B. Smith:

“I mean, part of the tea party was having voices heard. For so long, all we were hearing about was nationalizing banks and socialism and all that. Just having this out there, does that help Wall Street? Does that help the bulls?”

Once again Smith exuberantly concurs, without foundation, that the very existence of the tea parties is what is helping to steer us clear of “this socialist path” that America is on in his twisted imagination. Whereupon Buttner turns to her third guest, Ron Ianieri, to inquire as to whether the voters will kick the bums in Washington out when the next elections roll along. Considering the sustained positive polling for Obama, and the concomitant collapse of support for the right, this question seems to be rooted more in her fervent yearning for such an end, than in reality. And this is where it gets dicey. In answering the question, Ianieri wandered off the reservation:

“My only problem is, is that although I’m very happy to be an American, and I really am touched by this patriotism, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with the market rally — nothing.”

Uh oh.

At this point you might think that someone didn’t get the morning memo. And you would be right. In fact, as Ianieri was completing his comments, he was interrupted by Tobin Smith who frantically asked…

“Did you get the name of the post here we’re doing?”

Ianieri replied that he did, but it was too late. The cat was already out of the bag and halfway up the neighbor’s tree, chewing on a nestfull of baby robins. The day’s proscribed message had been muddled. The directive to switch from branding upticks on Wall Street as bear market flukes to Tea Party rallies had been thrown off track for a revelatory moment.

The rest of the segment was more of the same and Media Matters has the video. I only wish someone could come up with the “name of the post” that Smith was talking about. I’m sure it would be enlightening. Not that we didn’t already know that Fox News distributes talking points to their hosts and commentators. But we rarely see them admit it so openly on the air.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Even Conservatives Think Glenn Beck Is Nuts

Posted by on April 17, 2009 at 8:54 pm. NO Comments :

To most liberals and Democrats (and Americans), it goes without saying that Glenn Beck left sanity behind a very long time ago. His Acute Paranoia Revue, now daily fare on Fox News, is a testament to just how damaged the human brain can become when not given proper care.

Beck has distinguished himself by fantasizing about strangling Michael Moore and calling everyone who believes in global warming a socialist. But that just skims the surface of his sickness. Since landing at Fox he has devolved further into that bleak void of mindlessness than experts thought possible. Earlier this week a guest on his show lost consciousness on the air. Perhaps he was afraid that Beck might douse him gasoline and set him on fire, as he pretended to do to a guest last week.

Now, the master of the “Fear Chamber” is starting to arouse alarm in his fellow conservatives. Beck’s fixation on imagery that associates President Obama with Communism and Fascism (an ideological impossibility), along with his exhortations to rise up, fight back, and put a stake through the heart of the vampires in government, is making some devoted right-wingers decidedly nervous.

Charles Johnson runs a website called Little Green Footballs. For many years it has been regarded as one of the Internet’s most rabidly rightist destinations. But here is what Johnson is saying about Beck and Fox News now:

April 7: This turn toward the extreme right on the part of Fox News is troubling, and will achieve nothing in the long run except further marginalization of the GOP-unless people start behaving like adults instead of angry kids throwing tantrums and ranting about conspiracies and revolution.

April 15: They’ve taken a real turn to the hard right, and Glenn Beck, I think, is kind of riding that wave. I don’t know if he’s necessarily going to incite violence, but I do think it’s irresponsible. It kind of drags down the discourse to a level that I, for one, am not comfortable with.”

April 16: [re: Beck] as if being an alcoholic, weeping, ranting, creationist talk show host who idolizes John Birchers and Ron Paul is a real accomplishment […] Glenn Beck is a punk.

Beck seems to be getting spooked by his own rhetoric. He has begun making plaintive pleas to his viewers to dissuade them from acting out violently. He even held up a photo of Martin Luther King as he called for a peaceful overthrowing of the tyrants that are bent on destroying America.

What do you suppose gave him the impression that he needed to dial down the crazy on his audience? Do you think he is the sort of fellow who would succumb to criticism from lefties that he has been to reckless? Do you think he is afraid that the Department of Homeland Security might label him an extremist? Or is it more likely that he was admonished by his bosses who, while in agreement with his rants, are more worried about civil liability should the network be linked to a McVeigh-ish loner who shares Beck’s delusions?

Whatever. You know that when the proprietor of Little Green Footballs gets twitchy standing next to you, it is fairly certain that you have exceeded your quota of cuckoo.


A Tale Of Two Tea Parties

Posted by on April 16, 2009 at 3:24 pm. 1 Comments :

Now that Tax Day has come and gone, we can take an objective look at what all the excitement over the so-called “grassroots” Tea Party movement has wrought.

For an alleged phenomenon that was sweeping a nation of angry revolutionaries, it has left us with no more than a resounding thud. Nate Silver has produced what appears to be the only comprehensive estimate of national attendance, based on authoritative sources like law enforcement and local reporting. His figures conclude that about 262,000 people gathered in over 300 cities across the country to wave tea bags and denounce taxes. That is pretty close to the estimate by the conservative Pajamas Media (sources not disclosed), who place the figure slightly higher at 278,000. Considering the fact that twice as many people will attend a Major League Baseball game on a typical Saturday, every weekend, that doesn’t seem like much to brag about.

Unfortunately, they can’t even blame their failure on their favorite foes. While they fretted for weeks about the Soros-backed ACORN busing in scary community organizers to disrupt their tea bagging, there were no reports of such sabotage. So after failing to preemptively construct an excuse for their flop, they are now accusing the media of neglecting to provide coverage. In truth, the media assigned a fairly appropriate amount of coverage to something so insignificant. And since this was a project that was wholly owned by Fox News, why should the rest of the press go out of their way to give more exposure to their competitor’s programming?

What’s more, it may be unprecedented in the history of public protesting that a major TV network acted as the national coordinating committee and PR agency for a partisan movement. Fox News executed a wall-to-wall campaign promoting these events and their own participation in them. They shamelessly recruited viewers to take up the cause and sent their biggest stars out as enticements. They worked closely with the Astroturf event sponsors and the Republican Party, and provided them with valuable air time to market their “spontaneous” uprising. Advocates and organizers were frequent on-air guests in the days leading up to the 15th. The actual value of all of the accumulated advertising is difficult to estimate, but if a 30-second ad costs about $10,000, and the Fox promo ran once an hour for a week (a modest assumption), that would come to over $1.6 million of free promotion. And that doesn’t include interviews with the party planners conducted during their programming. You know…political product placement.

So what did they get for that investment? Here is a photo of a few dozen rather bored looking revolutionaries at a Tea Party held in Los Angeles, CA., the nation’s second most populous city.

Contrast that with the success of another demonstration in Los Angeles just two years prior, protesting the war in Iraq:

That anti-war rally drew over 6,000 people without the help of the #1 cable news network. More than a million participated nationwide. It was a bona fide grassroots operation populated by citizens with a sincere and deeply felt grievance against their government, not unlike those who attended the Tea Parties. Nevertheless, Fox News not only didn’t contribute to the event’s promotion, they barely covered it while it was in progress – except to disparage the participants as unpatriotic and shiftless. There was no Sean Hannity in Chicago interviewing Michael Moore. There was no Glenn Beck on stage with Neil Young in San Francisco. The Tea Partiers, however, received over four hours of live coverage of their comparatively inconsequential congregations. That’s a lot of broadcast real estate for something that has almost zero news value.

Throughout the build up to, and the coverage of, Tea Party Day, Fox News played the role of cheerleader. They portrayed the protesters as loyal citizens with a justifiable outrage at what they viewed as the government’s usurpation of authority. They praised their courage for denouncing the President and the Congress. That lies in stark contrast to the Fox News characterization of anti-war protesters and Bush opponents as dirty hippies and terrorist sympathizers. Fox routinely asserted that those examples of free speech were unpatriotic and that failure to support the President was akin to treason.

In one respect I have to give them credit. Some of those who used to holler at dissidents to “love it or leave it,” are now demonstrating a measure of consistency. The governor of Texas has broached the notion that his state may be interested in seceding from the union. The state senate in Georgia is following his lead. Sarah Palin’s Alaska has long had a thriving secessionist movement. The cries of “America First” during last year’s presidential campaign were apparently just a ruse. As soon as they are on the losing side of an election they can’t get out of the country fast enough. If that’s what they really want, they can go with my blessing. So long as they let California go as well.

It is a disturbing reality of modern media that an entity like Fox News exists purely to package their partisan agenda in an attempt to influence society’s opinions and policies. But on the plus side, look at how miserably ineffective they turned out to be despite having the biggest megaphone in the cable news arena. If this is the best they can do with millions of dollars and weeks of preparation, maybe it isn’t all that disturbing after all.


Some Tea Party Tidbits You May Have Missed

Posted by on April 15, 2009 at 4:43 pm. 8 Comments :

The Tea Baggers must be proud of their little parties. Even though attendance has fallen far short of their expectations, they were able to get their message out thanks to their media sponsor, Fox News. Media Matters has compiled a nice little montage of videos from various Tea Vee sources:

But there was so much more. For instance, Joe the (fake) Plumber had this to say at a Michigan TP:

“Let me give you another extremist view, ‘In God We Trust.’ Say that too loud in some parts of America and you will be shot. It’s terrible.”

Joey the P didn’t bother to specify what part of the country that would be. I can’t think of any place where militant atheists are knocking off folks who quote from currency. However, I can think of whole regions (I’m looking at you southerners) where fanatical gun enthusiasts revel in making violent threats directed at liberals, minorities, or anyone they view as different. Amongst those southerners is Texas governor Rick Perry, whose tea party address sounded more like a call for a new Confederacy:

“We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that.”

If Texas wants out of America, I say let them go – and take the rest of the south with them. I’m sure they’ll be very happy in their theocratic utopia, railing against imagined threats of Socialism – or worse, as Cody Willard from Fox Business News demonstrates by urging us to fight the Fascism that’s permeating the country:

Glenn Beck’s Acute Paranoia Revue took to the road to host the Alamo’s tea fest. The entire hour featured musical accompaniment from the Motor City Jackass, Ted Nugent, who famously taunted Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Barack Obama to “suck on” the end of his assault rifle.

Neil Cavuto attended a lame rally in Sacramento, CA, where he interviewed a girl who appeared to be about nine years old. He tried valiantly to put words in her mouth to the effect that she was there as a committed protester, not because her parents made her be there. But she defiantly refused and, at the end of the segment, she shouted at him that she was really there because she got to cut school. Nice try, Neil.

Cavuto and Beck devoted two full hours of live programming to the Tea Bagging. That’s a huge chunk of broadcast real estate. And it isn’t over. Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Greta Van Susteren have yet to air. Hannity and Van Susteren previously announced that their programs would be live with the TPers.

I’m sure there are going to be an untold bounty of both comical and disturbing episodes erupting in the hours and days to come. But these were a few that I didn’t want to let get away. Fox News will begin spinning the days events into a fantastical misrepresentation of reality this evening. At least the truth about Fox’s role as the PR agency for the Republican Party (and the Tea Party) is becoming better understood by more people. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has summoned the courage to honestly portray today’s events:

“[W]e call call it astroturf, it’s not really a grassroots movement. It’s astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.”

That’s it in a wingnut shell.


Fox News: Get Ready To Tea Party

Posted by on April 15, 2009 at 1:24 am. 4 Comments :

The astroturf-roots charades that Fox News has been reporting as “Tea Parties” are almost here. Tomorrow is the big day and Fox has been ramping up their promotions. It has been well documented that these shams were conceived and executed by major players in the Republican Party and affiliated partisan advocacy groups like FreedomWorks. But now Keith Olbermann has put together a brilliant montage that shows just how hard Fox has been working to make these events successful.

The giddy elation these people project is reminiscent of a six year old being told that tomorrow the family is going to Disneyland. This has to be the high point of the year for these pathetic souls. The anticipation with which they are dripping seems to fill them with ecstasy. They apparently have gotten over their fear that ACORN’s Soros-backed community organizers are lurking in the shadows waiting to pounce just as their festivities get under way.

The White House is reacting to the day of revolting right-wingers in a particularly appropriate way:

QUESTION: Thanks, Robert. Tomorrow is tax day and a number of conservative groups are organizing these so called “tea parties” across the country; there are going to be grassroots uprising revolts against the administration’s policies so far. Is the President aware that these are going on and do you have any reaction to this?

ROBERT GIBBS: I don’t know if the President is aware of the events. I think the President will use tomorrow as a day to have an event here at the White House to signal the important steps in the economic recovery and reinvestment plan that cut taxes for 95 percent of working families in America, just as the President proposed doing; cuts in taxes and tax credits for the creation of clean energy jobs.

We’ll use tomorrow to highlight individual and instances in families that have seen their taxes cut and I think America can be — Americans will see more money in their pockets as a direct result of the Making Work Pay tax cut that the President both campaigned on and passed through Congress.

First of all, the reporter who asked the question needs to be schooled on what constitutes a “grassroots uprising revolt.” When the organizing principals are political insiders like Dick Armey and Ari Fleischer, and the PR is run by Fox News, it is beyond absurd to describe it as grassroots. More to the point, though, it’s nice to see that President Obama is not devoting much attention to this. The Tea Baggers can throw their pity party in the vast wasteland of their imaginations.

For those of you contemplating joining in on the Tea Bagging, I have this word of advice: Be careful out there. The crazy is extra thick.

Update: President Obama: For too long, we’ve seen taxes used as a wedge to scare people into supporting policies that actually increased the burden on working people instead of helping them live their dreams. That has to change, and that’s the work that we’ve begun.