Mike Huckabee Quits His Fox News Televangical Show To Explore Presidential Bid

2015 is only four days old and already there are at least three potential candidates explicitly expressing their aspirations to run for the Republican nomination for president in 2016. There’s Jeb “Shrub” Bush, Dr. Ben “Strangelove” Carson, and now former preacher, Arkansas governor, and Fox News evanga-pundit, Mike Huckabee.

Mike Huckabee 2016

Huckabee’s path to the nomination would be blazed through the evangelical frontiers of the electorate and populated by social issues like marriage equality and reproductive freedom. As befitting a man of the cloth, Huckabee is devoted to faith-based governing and would echo Ronald Reagan’s famed inarticulate call to “Tear down that wall.” Except that he’d be talking about the wall between church and state.

Huckabee rejects evolution science in favor of creationism. He also regards Climate Change as a hoax and has hosted the Senate’s Pope of Denial, Jim Inhofe, on his Fox program. It is notable that while Huckabee now agrees with Inhofe, in 2007, before the Tea Party doctrinaires demanded total ideological compliance, he declared that “One thing that all of us have a responsibility to do is recognize that Climate Change is here, it’s real.” A few years later, and a stint on Fox News, and that responsibility, along with reality, has disappeared.

Perhaps the most foreboding thing about a Huckabee candidacy is his affinity for wild conspiracy theories that mirror those disseminated by Glenn Beck. News Corpse covered his certifiably deranged commentary in 2011 when he went full birther by stating as fact that President Obama had grown up in Kenya. Here is an excerpt from that article:

Huckabee: If you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather.

Let’s stop for a moment and analyze this nonsense. First of all, there is ample evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, including a birth certificate authenticated by the state. Secondly, there is no evidence to support the contention that Obama has any animosity toward the British. Thirdly, Obama’s father left the family when he was two years old, hardly enough time to influence him on foreign affairs, even if Huckabee’s assertions about Obama’s family were correct. Obama was subsequently raised by his mother and her parents who were from that mysterious, alien locale known as Kansas. So Huckabee’s thesis is riddled with holes and makes no sense whatsoever.

Where on earth would Huckabee get an idea like this? There’s really only one person who could manufacture such a fancy of dementia; only one mind so diseased: Glenn Beck. It was Glenn Beck who first popularized the notion that Obama hated the British because his grandfather (whom he did not know) had been imprisoned in England for his efforts to secure Kenya’s independence from the British crown. Gee, what other country did that? By Beck’s logic every American must also hate the Brits because they fought us in a brutal and deadly war of independence.

There is ample reason to oppose a Huckabee candidacy based solely on his extreme Christianist views. But when you add the sort of nonsense that fuels the fringiest wingnut outposts inhabited by the likes of Beck, Alex Jones, and the WorldNetDaily crowd, the only place for Huckabee in the political realm is on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club or as target of the Daily Show.

Get the ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

Fox News Feminism: A Lot Of Hotness On The Couch This Morning

In recent weeks Fox News has been promoting a new book by a trio of conservative women who purport to have an inside track into “What Women Really Want.” The authors, Gina Loudon, Ann-Marie Murrell, and Morgan Brittany, comprise the Internet video non-sensation, Politichicks.

Fox News

The PolitiChicks contend that modern feminism is hurting women and does not represent their interests. But it’s hard to take them seriously when they appear on Fox & Friends with an introduction by co-host Anna Kooiman saying that there are “A lot of ladies, a lot of hotness on the couch this morning.” Not a lot of wisdom, or a lot of dignity, or experience, or intelligence, but that all-important component of feminine identity, hotness. Now try to imagine three men promoting a book on the male agenda in American politics being described that way. Kooiman went on to assert that “Feminists claim they help empower women, but are they really suppressing them? Our next guests say yes.”

The whole segment, and a similar one on Fox’s Huckabee program, conveyed much of the same offensive attitude. Their basic contention is that a women’s movement is no longer necessary because “We earned the right to vote. We have equality in the workplace.” Well, one out of two is pretty good for a Tea Partier. But despite the book’s title claiming to reveal what women want, the discussion on these programs was primarily about what they don’t want, most of which, according to the PolitiChicks, was the liberal brand of feminism. For instance, Murrell said that…

“[Feminism] has nothing to do with empowering women anymore. Everything they’re about now is from the head down. It has nothing to do with women’s brains or their hearts.”

First of all, Murrell might want to take a refresher course in anatomy, because the heart happens to below the head. As for her assertion about the focus on issues that involve women’s bodies, there is some truth to that. But that’s only because the men in power have been so insistent on forcing their decisions on them with regard to their health care and reproductive freedom. It is a proper area of concern for women’s advocates. Continuing to enumerate the things women don’t want, Loudon offered that…

“Women don’t want to be objectified, and what the feminist movement has successfully done is sexualize women instead of feminizing women.”

Indeed, objectification is a dehumanizing act, but it’s one that feminists have fought against from the start. What Loudon means by “feminizing” women sounds very much like a contradiction that would result in further objectification. Particularly when you pair it with her later comment that…

“It’s time for women who really want to be women, who want to be feminine, who want to be what God designed them to be.”

Apparently Loudon has a fixed notion of what women are and what God intended when he built them from Adam’s spare rib. That sort of intransigence conflicts with her accusation that it’s “old feminism” that puts women in shackles. What could be more confining than a divinely dictated state of being? And if that weren’t bad enough, Murrell added that…

“[Feminists] are like cave women waiting for a caveman to bonk them on the head and drag them into the cave by the hair.”

With that comment you have to wonder if Murrell has ever met a feminist. These authors keep going back and forth between advocating choices for women (including forsaking a career to stay at home and raise kids), and confining them to narrow gender roles that have long ago been discarded as sexist. And they don’t seem to recognize the irony in their positions as they advance choice, but not in all things. As an example, Brittany correctly noted that…

“Women want less government in their lives, they want to make their own decisions, they want freedom to choose for their children, for their families.”

However, that doesn’t apply to reproductive choice. In that case the PolitiChicks defend big government’s role in making the most personal of decisions for women, who cannot be trusted to decide for themselves with the counsel of their doctors and their family. They even support forcing women to undergo unnecessary and invasive procedures and endure arbitrary waiting periods and patronizing lectures. That is not a position in accord with small government or free choice.

The hypocrisy and disrespect that is represented by these so-called feminists does nothing to improve the status of women in America. It does not end discrimination, or wage disparity, or harassment, or the welfare of children. What it does is advance the agenda of extremist, right-wing Christianists who seek to impose their beliefs on the nation’s women, and men too, for that matter.

The PolitiChicks are being aided and abetted by Fox News who are providing them with a platform to deliver their partisan sermons. But if they think that this is the way to appeal to women voters who have been staunchly supporting Democrats, they will be sorely disappointed. Their method of reaching out to voter constituencies by advocating positions that are detrimental has not worked for Latinos or African-Americans, or seniors, or students. And it won’t work on women either. They are all much smarter than Republicans give them credit for, and they won’t fall for this wingnut propaganda.

For more nutcase Foxisms…
Get Fox Nation vs. Reality. Available now at Amazon.

Fox News Host Mike Huckabee And Ted Nugent: Let’s Hunt Democrats

In yet another example of the right-wing’s incendiary rhetoric promoting violence, Fox News host Mike Huckabee invited NRA board member and washed-up schlock-rocker Ted Nugent onto his radio show to engage in a dialog about the issue that matters most to the Teabagging community: Destroying Democrats.

Glenn BeckIt didn’t take long before the pair diverted their conversation about the joys of killing defenseless animals, to their undisguised lust for Democratic blood. Nugent began by singing the praises of his dog Gonzo…

Nugent: He really is a mystical, wonderful, huntin’ dog.
Huckabee: Well, maybe we ought to turn him loose on some Democrats and see if he can hunt them too.
Nugent: Well, there’s a lot of varmints out there.

This is typical of the way that conservatives seek to dehumanize their ideological foes. It is evident in the recent comments of GOP Rep. Steve King who compared undocumented immigrants to dogs and mules. It is evident in the Republican references to Democrats as slave masters. And it was displayed again today when Glenn Beck spoke in his customary delusional style about progressives that he imagined were sneaking into the bedrooms of children to smother them with pillows.

This sick obsession with characterizing people with whom you disagree politically as subhuman or murderous monsters has been going on for the entire term of Barack Obama, coincidentally the nation’s first African-American president. But I’m sure there is no connection.

Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

Benghazi-Gate: The Feverish Fixation Of Fox News On Finishing Off Obama

The compulsive, gnawing yearning is palpable. Fox News is so obsessed with terminating the presidency of Barack Obama that they are veritably bursting at the seams of their shrunken skulls. They are dripping with flop-sweat over the self-manufactured prospect of evicting from the White House the man they failed twice to defeat democratically.

Fox News

It is truly an embarrassing demonstration of puerile covetousness as Fox’s leading mouthpieces gush inane and irrelevant comparisons that only serve to advance their deepest desires for political payback. Having realized that the American people refused to go along with their electoral smear campaigns, Fox is now throwing a tantrum as a desperate tactic to get what they crave so furiously.

The daft predictions served up by Fox are not only ludicrous and unfounded, they are as far removed from the comparable historical associations they are trying to jam into the public mind as is imaginable. The tragedies that took place in Benghazi are not impeachable, and they are not remotely similar to the Watergate scandal that brought down Richard Nixon. Nevertheless, Fox has been pushing this theme, without success, since nearly the day after Benghazi erupted.

Fox Nation

As I wrote last September, after Fox had embarked on a massive campaign of propaganda and lies (something that Fox Nation lives for), there is nothing analogous about Benghazi and Watergate.

Ever since the mid-1970’s scandal that drove Richard Nixon from office, partisans have been attempting to slap a “gate” at the end of any controversy. But it should be remembered that Watergate was not simply some government gaffe. It was an intentionally criminal act that included breaking into Democratic headquarters, paying off accomplices for their silence, and lying to investigators from law enforcement and congress. All of that unlawfulness was in pursuit of personal political benefits to the Nixon White House and reelection effort.

What occurred in Libya was tragic, but it was certainly not the result of someone in the White House pursuing personal gain. Nor was there any hint of corruption or clandestine plots to sabotage a political foe. Nor were there any attempts to covertly mask unlawful activity. In other words, there is nothing in this story that remotely resembles Watergate.

Nothing has changed since then. There has been no new evidence. There have been no new revelations. Even the hearings being held today offer nothing censurable. The affair was exhaustively reviewed by an independent board led by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen, career public servants who worked in the administrations of both Republicans and Democrats. And the myths proffered by right-wing pundits and politicians have been repeatedly debunked. Consequently, all of the hubbub produced by Fox and their congressional comrades is a conspicuous waste of time when the country has critical issues to resolve.

So all of this yammering about driving Obama from office is just the wishful thinking of whiny Republicans who couldn’t get what they wanted at the ballot box. The American people rejected them forthrightly, so now they are whimpering about it and demanding that their cries be heeded. They want an impeachment and, damn it, they will hold their breath until they turn red to get it.

Like so many other things in the GOP run House, their motives are purely political. They will hold the nation hostage to defend tax breaks for billionaires. They will harm the economy, even resulting in a downgrade of the nation’s credit rating, in order to make points with Teabaggers. They will filibuster executive appointments and judges and even bills they previously sponsored, if it will hurt the President. And now they are making irresponsible calls for impeachment that are not based on any credible facts.

This is the sort detachment from reality, and the American public, that has cost them two elections and lost them seats in both houses of congress. And it comes at a time when there are more urgent and pressing matters of importance to the American people. The Republican Party and their PR division at Fox News are betraying the people. It is interesting to note that no one would celebrate the downfall of Obama more than Al Qaeda. Obama is the man who terminated their leader. If it were possible to impeach Obama, which is highly unlikely, the GOP and Al Qaeda could save considerable expense by pooling their resources and throwing a joint party to commemorate the realization of their fondest shared dreams.

Full Panic Mode: Mitt Romney Is Showing Desperation Re: Bain, Taxes

This past week has seen a flurry of reporting about Mitt Romney’s lack of candor with regard to his tenure at Bain Capitol. First he says that he retired in 1999. Then, when SEC documents prove that he claimed to be in charge through 2001, he says he was merely on a leave of absence. Then more evidence reveals that he gave sworn testimony that, while he was running the Olympics, he was still making trips and decisions at Bain. Finally, his campaign released a statement that insists that he had “absolutely no involvement” with Bain after 1999, and dismisses the documents that contradict that saying…

“Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney’s departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999.”

For a time? There is no justification for such a transfer to result in failing to properly report the firm’s management for three years. It would only take a simple amendment to a previous filing to alert the SEC of a management change. The only plausible explanations for not doing so for three years are either neglect or deceit (neither of which are particularly attractive traits in a presidential candidate). During that prolonged period of time, companies considering doing business with Bain would have been materially misled had they relied on the representations in the SEC filings. In many cases businesses consummate transactions based on the perceived reputation of the managers. An associate who concluded any business with Bain during this time might be dismayed to learn now that the assurances given him as to who was in charge were false. That could make Bain and Romney liable for damages in any deals that went south.

No wonder Romney refuses to disclose his taxes the way almost every other presidential candidate has since his father set the standard some 40 years ago. So what has Romney decided to in response to this hail of bad publicity?

First he floats the name of Condoleeza Rice as a potential pick for his running mate. I’m going on record here as saying that the chances of that happening are less than zero. Rice has been adamant about her aversion to politics and has declared unambiguously that she would not take a spot on the ticket. What’s more, her selection would infuriate Romney’s pro-life base. But this discussion fueled by a ridiculous post on the Drudge Report is Romney’s way of diverting attention from his many financial woes, and also his embarrassing performance at the NAACP conference. Fox News came to the rescue on this by promoting the Rice speculation, including a particularly absurd segment on Your World with Neil Cavuto:

Cavuto: Word is that former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is not only on Gov. Mitt Romney’s veepstakes list, she’s on top of it for now. And considering that she’s not the only Bush cabinet official on it, maybe the Bush stigma is over. To Gov. Mike Huckabee on a list that he’s actually rumored to be on himself. What do you think of this?
Huckabee: Personally, I really don’t think there’s that much of a Bush stigma going into this election because people want to defeat Barack Obama. I think that George W. Bush, were he on the ticket, would win the election this year. And he certainly would have the enthusiastic support of Republicans. […]
Cavuto: But Condoleeza Rice is attached to one of the more controversial, to put it mildly, the whole Iraq war.

Wow! They really have some chutzpah to assert that there is no Bush stigma. But to go even further and declare that Bush could actually win an election is bordering on derangement. Especially when Cavuto himself notes that Rice is stigmatized by her connection to the Iraq debacle, but he doesn’t seem to place any responsibility for that on Bush. I repeat…Wow!

Following the Rice diversion, Romney has scheduled a series of news interviews with five news networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, AND Fox) for tonight. With the exception of Fox, this is an almost newsworthy announcement on its own. Romney has permitted only a handful of interviews outside of his Fox News comfort zone. So to suddenly make appointments to run the mainstream media table reveals just how serious Romney regards his current predicament. He is in a full panic and hopes that by spinning furiously on a Friday night (when the fewest people are paying attention to news) he might be able to pacify the peasants with torches and pitchforks, and make it to the safety of next week.

Judging by the snowballing reports that continue to discover new cracks in Romney’s stories, it seems unlikely that his diversionary tactics will succeed. If he wants this to subside, he needs to come clean about Bain and release the tax returns he is so obsessed with concealing. Otherwise he will just be prolonging the pain and creating more opportunities for enterprising journalists to uncover more of the dirt that is undoubtedly there.

Lashing out wildly at Obama, calling him a liar without providing any substance to back it up, and attempting to manhandle the press, might gain him some points amongst those already on his side, but it isn’t going to stop the bleeding and, in the end, it will only make him seem weak and pathetic, lost and desperate, which is what he is.

Mike Huckabee Channels Glenn Beck

One of the Fox News in-house presidential candidates, Mike Huckabee, was the guest today with radio Birther Steve Malzberg. In the course of their conversation Huckabee veered off into uncharted territory with a new and ridiculous claim that Barack Obama had grown up in Kenya.

Sure we’ve had Birthers claiming for more than two years now that Obama was born in Kenya, but even those delusional morons never said that he was raised there as well. Huckabee’s journey into Wingnutia was in response to a question from Malzberg about whether he would like to know more about Obama. Huckabee answered:

“I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, very different than the average American. […] If you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather.”

Seriously? This is the caliber of the candidates who are being put forth by the Republican Party and their PR agency Fox News. And Huckabee is often held up as one of the more reasonable of the batch.

Let’s stop for a moment and analyze this nonsense. First of all, there is ample evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, including a birth certificate authenticated by the state. Secondly, there is no evidence to support the contention that Obama has any animosity toward the British. Thirdly, Obama’s father left the family when he was two years old, hardly enough time to influence him on foreign affairs, even if Huckabee’s assertions about Obama’s family were correct. Obama was subsequently raised by his mother and her parents who were from that mysterious, alien locale known as Kansas. So Huckabee’s thesis is riddled with holes and makes no sense whatsoever.

Where on earth would Huckabee get an idea like this? There’s really only one person who could manufacture such a fancy of dementia; only one mind so diseased: Glenn Beck. It was Glenn Beck who first popularized the notion that Obama hated the British because his grandfather (whom he did not know) had been imprisoned in England for his efforts to secure Kenya’s independence from the British crown. Gee, what other country did that? By Beck’s logic every American must also hate the Brits because they fought us in a brutal and deadly war of independence.

The source for Beck’s mythology about Obama and his upbringing was “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” by Dinesh D’Souza. Beck hosted D’Souza on his show last year where they frolicked through the fantasy world of Obama’s aborning rage. But Beck’s psychoanalysis of the President reveals more of Beck’s own psychosis than anything else. On one occasion Beck dedicated a whole program to Obama’s ancestors and how it turned him into a pinko-loving Marxist bent on destroying western civilization.

Now Huckabee is picking up the crazy baton and waving it furiously for attention. Well, he has our attention. Let’s hope he uses it to announce that he will run for president in 2012, because other than a Palin/Steele ticket, I can’t think of anything more entertaining. How about Huckabee/Trump?

[Update:] Huckabee responded to this idiocy through a spokesman exactly as I expected. He said…

“Gov. Huckabee simply misspoke when he alluded to President Obama growing up in Kenya. The governor meant to say the president grew up in Indonesia.”

That is a brazen lie. In his original comments Huckabee said that Obama’s having grown up in Kenya was what shaped his view of the British who once held Kenya as a colony. That would have made no sense at all if he meant to refer to Indonesia. If you swap out Kenya for Indonesia his original statement is gibberish.

There is no way he “simply misspoke” unless he thinks the Mau Mau Revolution was an Indonesian affair and that Obama’s Kenyan grandfather was persecuted by the British for something to do with Indonesia. It’s absurd, and it’s an obvious lie.

O’Reilly, Hannity, And Beck: What Recession?

The economy continues to spiral downward in the U.S. and the world. Nearly a million Americans have lost their jobs just this year. Trillions of dollars in value have been lost in retirement and pension funds. Home foreclosures long ago surpassed all-time highs. Close to 50 million Americans have no health insurance. But why focus on the negative?

In some quarters there is good news and unreserved celebration. That’s because there is an unshakable bull market in Fox News Pundits (Or should I say bullshit market?). In just the past few weeks Bill O’Reilly signed a four year contract extension for more than $10 million annually. Sean Hannity re-signed a multimillion dollar per year contract for TV, plus another $20 million for his radio show. Glenn Beck will receive millions more for his new Fox hackfest. Neil Cavuto’s income leapt when he was promoted to managing editor of the Fox Business Network (the “Business-Friendly Business Network”) In addition, Mike Huckabee, Judith Miller, and Karl Rove, were all hired on as Fox contributors within the last year.

So when you hear the elitists at Fox dismiss the severity of this downturn, when you hear them say that things aren’t really so bad, remember that what they are really saying is that things aren’t really so bad for them. It’s easy for them to be stoic in the face of adversity when they are raking in more millions every year. Their mansions and limos and vacation villas are as glamorous as ever.

They have absolutely no sense of the loss or pain or sacrifice that the rest of us are suffering through. And yet they will continue to pretend to speak for us. They will push their phony arguments as fighting for the average Joe (Six-pack, Plumber, Blow, or whatever). They will soft-peddle the crisis and project blame on the lazy, and the irresponsible and, of course, on Barack Obama. Just minutes ago Cavuto did just that, saying that the markets were reacting to Obama’s comments on “spreading the wealth.” For confirmation, Cavuto then turned to well known financial experts Joe the Plumber and Ted Nugent. Seriously!?! That’s the sort of ludicrous financial analysis you can expect from Fox.

For the record, a little over a year ago Cavuto, disputed reports of the economy’s weakness saying that he “[didn’t] believe a word of it.” Bill O’Reilly, recently asserted that the market was tanking because traders were pricing in a presumed Obama victory in November. He also foolishly claims that the drop in the stock prices of GE and the New York Times affirms his positions opposing them. But the stock of Fox News’ parent company, News Corp., has fallen even farther than either of them, so whatever O’Reilly thinks is wrong with GE and the Times, it is even more wrong at Fox. Here’s the real reason for the market’s decline.

In the end, these disingenuous con men have no frame of reference for what ordinary Americans are experiencing. They only have their comforting wealth and their rightist agenda that is focused exclusively on enriching themselves and their friends. And anyone who believes that these impostors are advocating on their behalf is terminally naive.

Free For All: The Media’s Gift To Political Advertisers

In the days leading up to the March 4 primaries in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island, millions of residents of those states (and of America) saw a now infamous advertisement from Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

However, the “Red Phone/3 am” ad was mostly seen by viewers of news programs that broadcast the commercial for free. In effect, the media is providing millions of dollars worth of in-kind contributions to candidates in the name of reporting on the content of their ads.

It didn’t begin with Clinton.

The most famous example of a “free media” bonanza is the Daisy Girl ad for Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 presidential campaign. Today it is one of the most notorious political advertisements in history despite the fact that it actually aired only once in paid media.
During the 2004 Democratic primary, a group called Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values produced an ad showing Osama bin Laden and accusing Howard Dean of not having the experience needed to fight terrorism. They spent only $14,000 to run the ad just 16 times in two small markets. However, it generated four days of attention from national news outlets.
Also in 2004, the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, a front group with funding from Republican partisans, spent less than a half-million dollars to run an ad for one week, in only three states, slandering Democrat John Kerry’s war record. The uproar resulted in more than three weeks of nationally televised rebroadcast and debate.
More recently, Gov. Mike Huckabee orchestrated a press conference where he showed an ad attacking Mitt Romney. He then announced that he had no intention of paying to air the ad. The event was merely a brazen attempt to garner some publicity for a spot without having to actually spend anything on airtime.

These tactics are now a routine part of campaign strategy. Politicians and interest groups know that they can manipulate news providers to do their work for them. Television, in particular, is susceptible due to its ravenous appetite for pre-produced video programming.

So what should be done about it? It would be unwise to implement some sort of legal mandate to regulate how news media cover campaign advertising. It is entirely legitimate to report on the content of political ads, their veracity, and their strategic goals. However, it wouldn’t hurt to apply some journalistic ethics to the editorial judgment. That means assessing the newsworthiness of any piece that includes such ads. Also, there is no need to broadcast them repeatedly to make a point. They know that the campaigns are manipulating them. Why do they let them get away with it?

Here are a couple of other measures editors ought to consider when confronted with this.

  • Don’t bother to report on any ad that has not exceeded a defined threshold of paid impressions. In other words, if the campaign doesn’t make a significant purchase of air time for their own ad, it isn’t news.
  • If the ad is shown it should be confined to a small percentage of the screen with a video watermark over the whole piece labeling it is a campaign ad. This would serve to blunt the promotional value of the airing and focus on the news value.

Implemented voluntarily, this would not infringe on journalistic freedom or civil liberties. Journalists should not allow themselves to be exploited by campaigns or interest groups. They have no obligation to assist in promotional activities. They need only to report what is actually newsworthy. By maintaining a professional detachment they will produce a better product and provide a better service to the public.

Huckabee Calls On Bloggers To Stop The Presses

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.”