Judge Not: Newt Gingrich Adds Another Zany Plank To His Platform

GOP frontrunner Newt Gingrich continues to adopt some of the most lunatic positions from the right-wing fringe. First it was calling child labor laws “truly stupid.” Then it was calling Palestinians an “invented people.” Now Gingrich wants to go after judges he doesn’t like.

Newt Gingrich

Gingrich was questioned about his prior comments that he would, as president, eliminate judges and courts that he regarded as overstepping their authority. As an example he suggested that the entire Ninth Circuit could be done away with. On Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer noted that Gingrich’s proposal would violate the Constitution, and asked the former Speaker how he would enforce this. Would he send the Capitol police to arrest such judges? Gingrich replied…

“If you had to. Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. marshal.”

This may go down in history as one of the stupidest, and most dangerous, statements from a presidential contender. The notion that a president could unilaterally punish judges for decisions with which the president disagrees is fundamentally unconstitutional and anti-American. Such power would mean that judges would have to live in fear of losing their job if they displeased the White House. It would mean that they could not decide cases on the merits, but would have to decide based on the political repercussions of their ruling. That would, in effect, make the judiciary an irrelevant appendage of the White House, rather than an independent and impartial administrator of the law.

It will be interesting to see how Gingrich’s Tea Party supporters respond to this repulsive stance. The Tea Party has always tried to portray itself as opposed to big government and the encroachment of power by government institutions. There is nothing more representative of a power grab than one branch of government asserting that it has the authority to eliminate another branch. And that’s exactly what Gingrich is proposing.

But I wonder if Gingrich has thought this through. If President Obama were to adopt Gingrich’s view today, he could have Justices Thomas and Scalia arrested and thrown off the bench. Then he could appoint two new judges to take their place. Somehow I don’t think that’s what Gingrich had in mind? In fact, were Obama to try that he would be swooped on by outraged Republicans and Tea Partiers and castigated as a traitor.

And if it wasn’t disgusting enough that Gingrich would propose something so contrary to American values, Fox Nation characterizes this as Gingrich criticizing “Anti-American Judges.” That’s a loaded term that implies that any judge that makes a ruling that a president doesn’t like is anti-American and, therefore, subject to impeachment. Of course, it’s the policy advanced by Gingrich, as well as the spin given to it by Fox, that is anti-American, not the judges that Gingrich yearns to impeach.

[Update] Fox Nation doubles down with a second column on Gingrich’s dictatorial aspirations. This one sports a curious headline that lamely tries to tar Bob Schieffer of Face the Nation as having been “jacked up” by Gingrich and calls the program “Slay the Nation.”

Fox Nation

Also note that on the morning following the death of Kim Jong Il, the Fox Nationalists place this rehashed story at the top of their web site above a much smaller link to a story on the deceased leader of North Korea.

Republicans Reveal Their Top Priority For America In Iowa Debate

At a time when the nation faces some formidable challenges on critical matters of economics, employment, national defense, health care, etc., the Republican candidates for president met in Iowa to debate the issues that they regard as most important to voters and the country.

Leading off the Fox News sponsored debate, Fox anchor Bret Baier summarized just what issues the GOP held as their highest priority, and it wasn’t any of those enumerated in the paragraph above.

Bret Baier: We have received thousands of tweets, Facebook messages and emails with suggested questions. And the overall majority of them had one theme: Electability. People want to know which one of you on this stage is able to be in the best position to beat President Obama in the general election. And that’s the number one goal for Republican voters, obviously.

So there you have it. The number one goal is not restoring the nation’s economic health. It is not creating jobs or strengthening the middle-class. It is not Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Al Qaeda, or any other source of international hostility. It isn’t even Republican pet causes of guns, gays, God, or repealing ObamaCare. The number on issue is electability. Republicans are focused squarely on the singular issue of evicting the Kenyan socialist from the White House, to the exclusion of all other principles or positions. Just like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said shortly after Obama was inaugurated.

Taking this theme to heart, the debate continued with a series of question that addressed nothing substantive other than the candidate’s prospects for beating President Obama next November. Here are the first seven questions asked at Thursday’s debate:

Bret Baier: Speaker Gingrich, since our last debate your position in this race has changed dramatically. You are now physically in the center of the stage, which means that you are at the top of the polls, yet many Republicans seem conflicted about you, They say that you’re smart, that you’re a big thinker. At the same time many of those same Republicans worry deeply about your electability in a general election saying perhaps Gov. Romney is a safer bet. Can you put to rest, once and for all, the persistent doubts that you are indeed the right candidate on this stage to go up and beat President Obama?

Megyn Kelly: Cong. Paul, you have some bold ideas, some very fervent supporters, and probably the most organized ground campaign here in Iowa, but there are many Republicans, inside and outside of this state, who openly doubt whether you can be elected president. How can you convince them otherwise, and if you don’t wind up winning this nomination, will you pledge here tonight that you will support the ultimate nominee?

Megyn Kelly: Sen. Santorum, no one has spent more time in Iowa than you. You have visited every county in the state. And yet, while we have seen no fewer than four Republican candidates surge in the polls, sometimes in extraordinary ways, so far you and your campaign have failed to catch fire with the voters. Why?

Chris Wallace: Gov. Romney, I want to follow up on Bret’s line of questioning to the Speaker because many of our viewers tell us that they are supporting Newt Gingrich because they think that he will be tougher than you in taking the fight to Barack Obama in next fall’s debates. Why would you be able to make the Republican’s case against the President more effectively than the Speaker?

Chris Wallace: Cong. Bachmann, no one questions your conservative credentials, but what about your appeal to Independents who are so crucial in a general election? If you are fortunate enough to become the Republican nominee, how would you counter the efforts by the Barack Obama campaign to paint you as too conservative to moderate voters?

Neil Cavuto: Gov. Perry, by your own admission you are not a great debater. You have said as much and downplayed debating skills in general. But if you were to become your party’s nominee you would be going up against an accomplished debater in Barack Obama. There are many in this audience tonight, sir, who fear that possibility and don’t think you’re up for the fight. Allay them of their concerns.

Neil Cavuto: Gov. Huntsman, your campaign has been praised by moderates, but many question your ability to galvanize the Republicans, energize the conservative base of the party. They’re especially leery of your refusal to sign on to a “no tax hike” pledge. How can you reassure them tonight.

Nothing is more revealing of a party’s intentions than what they themselves place at the forefront of their campaigns. And nothing could be more clear than the fact that Republicans simply do not care about issues or the welfare of the American people as much as they do about their own selfish quest for power.

What’s more, the debate sponsor, Fox News, and other right-wing spokesmodels concur with the GOP’s directive on beating Obama above all else. That’s why the questions were littered with words like “worry,” “doubt,” “fear,” and “leery,” to describe the electorate’s mood toward the GOP frontrunners. And the debate amongst Republican elites is raging at an unprecedented pace. Rush Limbaugh thinks Romney is a milquetoast candidate. Glenn Beck called Gingrich a progressive (a pejorative for Beck) and the one candidate he would not vote for. Even Fox’s Chris Wallace slammed Ron Paul saying that a win by Paul in Iowa would discredit the state’s caucuses.

So what we have here is both the candidates and the media fixated on electability. All they talk about is the horse race and not the underlying issues. And of course, the reason for that is that they don’t care about the issues, only the power that comes from political control. And now they have confessed this obsession unabashedly.

Unfortunately for these polito-Narcissists, they aren’t quite smart enough to craft accurate predictions of who is or isn’t electable. They will undoubtedly make the wrong choice and their anointed candidate will suffer an embarrassing defeat. But to be honest, that’s an easy call for me to make because any of the current GOP candidates would be the wrong choice. They are all presently losing to Obama in national polls, and that’s quite a feat considering Obama’s low favorability ratings. The best thing that’s happened for Obama’s reelection prospects is that he’s running against this batch of pathetic Republicans.

The Donald Trump/NewsMax Debate: What No One Is Talking About

Donald Trump

Ever since it was announced that Donald Trump would be moderating a debate between the Republican presidential primary candidates, the focus of the press and pundits was centered on the absurdity of a clown like Trump being taken seriously in that role. After all, he is charlatan who pretends to be a successful businessman, but in reality he is fraud who has presided over four bankrupt enterprises and rescued his floundering career by becoming a TV game show host.

GOP luminaries from George Will to Karl Rove to RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, have all dismissed Trump a distraction, a joke, or worse. And consistent with his pugilistic personality, Trump fired back with a barrage of petulant insults. More importantly, the candidates themselves have shunned Trump and his Narcissistic endeavor. Huntsman, Paul, Romney, Perry, and Bachmann are all officially out. When Bachmann gave notice on Fox News she complained to Gretchen Carlson that…

“…[Trump] was also on television saying that he was leaning toward one candidate. Even if he was leaning towards me it suggests the idea of bias and I just don’t know if that’s necessarily the right format.”

And just to illustrate how clueless the characters on Fox News are, Carlson responded to Bachmann saying…

“That’s interesting, because I had not thought about the latter part of what you just said as being possibly a conflict of interest if he actually is leaning towards one candidate.”

Yes, Gretchen, that is interesting (I mean the part about you having thoughts). And while Huntsman and Paul spoke candidly about their reasons for sitting out the debate, Romney, Bachmann, and Perry all polished their snub by lavishing the Donald with flagrant flattery and shameless adulation. Nevertheless, it has become glaringly apparent that Trump holds no sway with either the public or the political players. The roster for the much ballyhooed debate (mostly ballyhooed by Trump himself) is now set with only Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum participating. That should make for some compelling TV drama. However, it is unlikely to result in the fulfillment of his prediction that “We will get, probably, the highest ratings of any debate.” Such grandiose hyperbole can only come from the ego of Trump.

But lost in the sublime comic relief of all of this Trumpling is any substantive review of his partner in this debasement of debate. NewsMax is a popular conservative magazine and web site. Popular among the curmudgeon crowd of over-65 conspiracy nuts, that is. Its editor, Chris Ruddy, is the author of a book that advanced the scurrilous lie that Bill Clinton’s aide, Vince Foster, did not commit suicide as all available evidence proved, but was – murdered! When Ruddy could not get his employer, Rupert Murdoch of the New York Post, to go along with this fable, Ruddy struck out on his own with the help of another right-wing media baron: Richard Mellon Scaife. It ought to be a warning sign if Murdoch is uncomfortable with your lunatic ravings.

Scaife is a stalwart anti-communist who seems to believe that anyone to the left of Barry Goldwater is a Trotskyite. His largesse extends to a who’s who of rightist foundations like the American Enterprise Institute, David Horowitz’s Freedom Center, and the Heritage Foundation. He is similarly generous to organizations that oppose public education, unions, and global warming science. But he is best known for bankrolling the investigations of sex scandals and drug-running plots that he was convinced Clinton was engaged in back in Arkansas.

So in addition to the embarrassment of being associated with Donald Trump, the two remaining participants in his debate must also account for their connection to NewsMax and Scaife. This is about more than just Trump’s ego and Birtherism. It also extends to extremist delusions about murdered White House staffers and drug traffickers. Even worse, NewsMax once published an article that was a thinly veiled call for a military coup against the Obama administration. Or as it is referred to legal circles – treason.

Santorum doesn’t have much to worry about because he isn’t going anywhere anyway. But Gingrich is the current GOP frontrunner (and the likely beneficiary/victim of a Trump endorsement), and he should be asked to comment on the appropriateness of aligning himself with these controversial figures. Sadly, it may be too much to expect the media to hold Gingrich’s feet to the fire when they haven’t even bothered to report that there is a fire. While it may be tempting to fill the airwaves with the Tales of Trump, that is only half the story. NewsMax and Scaife are as much a part of this ludicrous debate as Trump and deserve a little attention as well.

[Update] Trump spoke with Don Imus on the Fox Business Network this morning and delivered some deeply depressing news. Imus asked Trump if the debate would be going forward with only Gingrich and Santorum participating. Trump said, “I don’t know. I have to look into it.” Aside from being an enormous insult to Gingrich and Santorum, canceling the debate would eliminate one of the most eagerly anticipated comedy events of the holiday season. Come on, Donald…stick with it.

Donald Trump’s Presidential Apprentice Primer

Donald Trump

Pretend billionaire and megalomaniac, Donald Trump is making the media rounds to prop up his Apprentice spin-off program: The Republican Presidential Primary Debate, or Presidential Apprentice. The announcement last week of this momentous event has been met with near universal yawns. Already two candidates (Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul) have declined the invitation. The only candidate who has accepted to date is Newt Gingrich.

True to his character, Trump attacked Huntsman (who is in third place in New Hampshire polling) and Paul (who is in third place in Iowa polling) as joke candidates. If they were truly joke candidates, however, they would be headlining Trump’s circus. As it stands, only Gingrich is set to appear. That is most likely because the new front-runner is broke, has no staff, and desperately needs the free media that any public appearance provides.

Republican elders are dismissing Trump’s affair. George Will said that the candidates should be presidential and say that “we’re not going to be hijacked and participate in this.” Karl Rove said that it’s absurd for any candidate to participate in a debate moderated by someone who is planning to make an endorsement and has hinted at running as an Independent. He further noted that “It’s gonna be a giant ego trip.”

Should anyone else decide to join Trump and Gingrich, they should be prepared for what they might encounter in a Trump-moderated debate. So I have compiled some of the subjects that Trump has championed in order that the candidates can familiarize themselves with his platform. Studying these areas of interest will give the debaters a leg up on their campaign for Trump’s affection:

1) Obama’s Citizenship: This is without a doubt the cornerstone of Trump’s political agenda. He talks about it at every appearance – including this morning on MSNBC, where he told Chuck Todd that he is still interested in this even if others are not. He has yet to reveal the findings of the security team he sent to Hawaii to investigate the matter.

2) Obama’s Religion: Despite the fact that the President has repeatedly affirmed his devout Christianity, Trump suspects that he is secretly a Muslim and the proof may be on his birth certificate. Never mind that any religious designation on a birth certificate would be irrelevant. Obviously the baby Barack did not select his faith, but the adult has been clear and consistent.

3) Obama’s Authorship: Trump has embraced the WorldNetDaily crackpots who believe that Bill Ayers was the ghostwriter of Obama’s autobiography “Dreams From My Father.” The evidence of this fraud is the observation that both used certain phrases like going “against the current.” Well, that settles that. Trump also believes that Obama was born Barry Soetoro and later changed his name, despite the fact that his step-father Lolo Soetoro didn’t marry Obama’s mother until he was four years old.

4) Obama’s Academics: Trump is fond of questioning Obama’s academic credentials, insisting that he was too stupid to get into Harvard. He says he is investigating this (are they the same investigators he sent to Hawaii?). Of course it is documented that Obama had graduated from Columbia before getting a scholarship to Harvard where he became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude.

5) Foreign Policy: Trump has advocated declaring a trade war with China. He also proposed addressing the deficit by stealing the oil from Libya and Iraq. This is the sort of bravado that Trump likes to display with his own business enterprises, which have resulted in four bankruptcies. In addition he has expressed support for an actual shooting war with both Iran and North Korea. However, with international relations between sovereign nations with standing armies, he may produce even worse outcomes than he has with his failing hotels and casinos.

6) Economic Policy: While he doesn’t have a 999 plan, Trump has proposed a tax increase that might inflame the sensitivities of Grover Norquist and the Tea Party:

“I would impose a one-time, 14.25% tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth over $10 million. For individuals, net worth would be calculated minus the value of their principal residence. That would raise $5.7 trillion in new revenue, which we would use to pay off the entire national debt. […] Some will say that my plan is unfair to the extremely wealthy. I say it is only reasonable to shift the burden to those most able to pay. The wealthy actually would not suffer severe repercussions.”

That actually sounds pretty good. Too bad he has disavowed that plan that appeared in his book, and now thinks he can appropriate billions of dollars from other countries to pay down our debt (he doesn’t say how).

This primer for the Trump debate should prepare the candidates to deal with the peculiar lunacy of the Trump vision for America. It would certainly be enlightening for voters to get a clearer perspective on these important matters.

However, there is a significant obstacle that might prevent this illuminating discourse from proceeding. It is highly probable that no one will show up but Gingrich. There really doesn’t seem to be much incentive to participate in a debate between Christmas and New Year’s Day that is hosted by charlatan whom polls show would harm the candidacies of anyone that he endorsed. With only three weeks to confirm, we’ll know pretty soon if there are others in the race who are as desperate as Newt. In a pinch Trump could always call Meatloaf or LaToya Jackson and see if they would be willing to sign on again.

Newt Gingrich Slams Poor Children – Again

Last week Newt Gingrich floated a ludicrous plan to fire union janitors at schools (putting them on the unemployment rolls and devastating their families) and replacing them with school children. The brilliance of this plan is that, while impoverishing the families of the once gainfully employed janitors, it would simultaneously burden kids with responsibilities that would distract them from their studies. And of course the children of folks in Gingrich’s class would have no such impediments to their education.

Not content with declaring child labor laws “truly stupid,” this week Gingrich compounded his absurdity and insensitivity by insulting the children that he hopes to put to work scrubbing toilets.

“Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works so they have no habit of showing up on Monday,” Gingrich claimed.

“They have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’ unless it is illegal,” he added.

This is the current front-runner for the Republican nomination for president saying that the children of the working poor have only lazy or criminal influences in their lives. Their parents are either bums or crooks.

Obviously Gingrich has never set foot in a poor neighborhood. Had he done so he would have met people who not only show up for work, they do it at multiple jobs. Gingrich has no concept of what it means to struggle to provide for his family. He makes $60,000 to give a half hour speech, yet he maligns poor people as having “no habit of staying all day.” And he spent decades in Congress where they almost never show up on Monday (or Friday either) and take several weeks off every year.

To insinuate that poor families who earn money do so only through illegal activities is not only wrong, it belies a measure of hypocrisy that is monumental. Remember, it was Gingrich who was cast out of Congress in disgrace after having been reprimanded for misusing tax-exempt funds and being fined $300,000. Someone as ethically challenged as Gingrich has no business maligning the integrity of others. Particularly those about whom he has absolutely no knowledge.

Newt Gingrich Admits That Fox News Analysts Don’t Know What They’re Talking About

If there is one thing that Newt Gingrich knows about, it is what Fox News analysts know. He was, after all, a Fox News analyst himself. So it is with direct personal experience that Gingrich reveals that…

“One of the real changes that comes when you start running for president – as opposed to being an analyst on Fox – is I have to actually know what I’m talking about.”

With that succinct comment Gingrich acknowledges that he didn’t know what he was talking about during his many appearances on Fox, and that there was no requirement for such knowledge to be an analyst on Fox. That explains why so much of the analysis on Fox is so wrong so often and why there are so many notably unknowledgeable people on the network.

However, in keeping with his history of ignorance, Gingrich clearly does not know what he is talking about when he says that presidential candidates have to know what they are talking about. Anyone who has seen any of the GOP primary debates know that that isn’t true.

The Newt Gingrich Plan: Fire Janitors And Replace Them With Children

This election cycle has seen some pretty remarkable performances by candidates that seem to have no concept of decency but an abundance of ignorance. Michele Bachmann wants members of Congress to be investigated for treason. Donald Trump pushed Birtherism to new levels, even after President Obama provided the birth certificate the rightist conspiracy theorists had been clamoring for. Rick Perry threatened to lead Texas into secession. Herman Cain distracted the media from his predatory sexual exploits by appearing to have a stroke when asked an easy question about Libya. And all the while Sarah Palin stalked the announced candidates in her tour bus pretending to be considering entering the race while collecting extravagant speaking fees and hawking books.

Now it’s Newt Gingrich’s turn to make an imbecile of himself, and he doesn’t disappoint. At an event at Harvard, Gingrich answered a question about income inequality by declaring that the problem with schools in low-income communities is the union janitors. But Newt has the solution:

Fox Nation Newt Gingrich

“It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid.” […] “Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school.”

This is why Republicans regard Gingrich as their shining intellectual. He pops out brilliant ideas like this with little thought or effort – obviously. Who else would propose terminating the professional maintenance staff, whose duties often include custodial services and facilities upkeep in addition to sanitation, in order to make poor kids clean the schools they attend between their classes? The Gingrich plan is to swap books for buckets and mops. And of course, Fox News helps to advance his nonsense with a feature article.

Gingrich’s innovative approach is one that would put adults who are supporting themselves and their families out of work, thus creating even more poor children to recruit into the work force. It’s sheer genius. Never mind that it would increase the unemployment rolls as well as costs associated with food stamps, housing, health care, and other welfare programs. And while impoverishing the families of the once gainfully employed janitors, it would simultaneously burden kids with responsibilities that would distract them from their studies, making it harder to get a good education and advance to college and the greater opportunities that higher education affords.

Meanwhile, privileged students who would not be similarly encumbered would sail through their academic years into the lucrative careers that are the birthright of their class. And it would ensure that the urchins from the barrios would remain safely segregated from the aristocratic set in the executive suites and suburbs.

Gingrich even goes so far as to champion the low aspirations of fast-food careers for disadvantaged kids and argues that all the successful people he knows “started their first job between nine and 14 years of age.” In that regard he seems to be equating delivering newspapers or selling lemonade to neighbors with repairing heating ducts and scouring toilets for government facilities.

The notion that it would somehow be beneficial to layoff productive adults and replace them with poor children could only have come from an upper-crust One Percenter like Gingrich. It’s absurd to suggest that such rank exploitation would prepare kids to compete with more fortunate peers who spend their formative years learning and shaping more ambitious goals. But it’s the sort of notion that typifies the Republican mindset that views children as chattel and industrious union workers as thugs. And it is affirmed by Gingrich’s stated mission:

“You’re going to see from me extraordinarily radical proposals to fundamentally change the culture of poverty in America.”

No doubt about that. And he isn’t wasting any time. Most American parents would already agree that diverting their kids from schooling to sanitation is a pretty extraordinary and radical proposal. If Newt Gingrich thinks that child labor laws are stupid, just think how stupid our children would become without them.

Lowlights From The Republican Debate

Thank goodness the President’s speech before congress was put off until Thursday. I would not have wanted America to miss this spectacle of GOP brilliance.

Setting aside the predictable skirmishes and automatic spewing of stump speech sound bites, there were some classic moments of insight that can only be attributed to the chronic psychosis of Republicanism. So without further ado…

Biggest Whopper of the Night:

Rick Perry on Obama saying that the border is safer than ever: “Either he has some of the poorest intel in the history of this country or he is an abject liar.”
However, violent crime rates along the U.S.-Mexico border have been falling for years and border cities of all sizes have maintained crime rates below the national average.

Comic Relief (which is pretty much everything else):

Perry flubbed his grasp of border security by calling for patrols with unmanned drones, apparently unaware that such patrols have been in use since 2009, including in Texas.

Michele Bachmann wants to make sure that immigrants seeking citizenship have a basic knowledge of American history. I assume that’s so she’ll have someone to teach her.

To illustrate how unreliable science is with regard to Global Warming, Perry cited Galileo as an example of a scientist who was disputed by fellow scientists. The problem with that is that Galileo was disputed by fundamentalist Christian authorities, not other scientists. You know, the kind of non-scientist, fundamentalists Perry hangs out with.

Ron Paul expressed his dismay with border fences because, instead of keeping foreigners out, they could be used to keep Americans in. He may be the only candidate speaking out in support of expatriates fleeing to Mexico.

Newt Gingrich complained that the debate moderators were trying to foment disagreement between the participants. And as we know, political debates are supposed to be completely free of any disagreements between the candidates.

Herman Cain advocates for the Chilean model of retirement programs. Chile essentially has a program wherein people pay in to private accounts. In other words, Cain wants to privatize Social Security. Which is marginally better than Perry’s plan to abolish the whole Ponzi scheme.

Perry praised Michael Dukakis’ job creation record as governor of Massachusetts saying that he “created jobs three times faster than” Mitt Romney. Romney didn’t disagree.

Bachmann again spoke of her five biological children and 23 foster kids. This time it was to shore up the child labor vote by asserting that what kids need today are jobs. Makes you wonder what she was doing with all those foster kids.

This was great television. I can’t wait for the next debate. We have a couple of promising events on the schedule. One with CNN and their co-host, Tea Party Express. And another by Fox News with questions submitted via Google. What I wouldn’t give for a debate co-sponsored by Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment and the National Rifle Association, with their moderators Ted Nugent and Victoria Jackson. And a special half-time tribute to Ann Coulter.

Fox News To Hire Judgment Day Preacher Harold Camping

Pray for Fox NewsWith his latest prediction of Armageddon behind him, Judgment Day Preacher Harold Camping is looking forward to his new position at Fox News as a politics and religion commentator. The announcement of this addition to Fox’s roster of pundits came this morning from Fox Vice President and Washington managing editor Bill Sammon:

Sammon: We are pleased to begin what we believe will be a long and fruitful relationship with this distinguished observer of American culture, religion and society. Harold has a keen insight into current affairs and a connection to America’s faith-based community. He also has a predictive track record that fits squarely with the team at Fox News.

Sammon is quite correct in that assessment of Camping’s history of forecasting. He is at least as accurate as the stars on the network. For instance:

  • Bill Kristol predicted in 2003 that “American and alliance forces will be welcomed in Baghdad as liberators.” In 2008 he predicted that “Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single Democratic primary.”
  • Glenn Beck predicted an economic collapse in November of 2009 and warned his viewers to “find the exit closet to you and prepare for a crash landing. Be prepared, it’s coming. Most likely after Christmas, you’ll start seeing the effects of what they are doing to the economy.” The Dow is up 25%, and unemployment down 10% since then.
  • Newt Gingrich’s prediction about a post-Iraq war was that “once you don’t have Saddam Hussein in Iraq […] the Syrians will start backing down and the Iranians will start backing down.”
  • Dick Morris predicted the candidates for the 2008 race for president would be Hillary Clinton vs. Condoleezza Rice.
  • Sarah Palin predicted that the result of passage of the health care bill would mean that “my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel.'”
  • Cal Thomas Predicted that “euthanasia is coming. You can call them death panels. That’s exactly what they’re going to be.”

A couple of weeks ago a study was released that showed that most pundits are only right in their prognostications about 50% of the time. The numbers were even worse for conservative pundits who, according to the researchers, were wrong more often than liberals.

Camping, a popular Christian radio broadcaster, could flow smoothly into Fox’s lineup. He shares most of the editorial slant favored by the network’s veterans. When reached for comment he said…

“What? Fox News? Oh yeah. Me and Roger [Ailes, CEO of Fox News] had lunch and discussed the return of Jesus. The world is ending, you know? What date is it? Could someone shut the window?”

That’s why Camping should fit right in with the rest of Fox’s commentators. There is certainly nothing in his past that would indicate that he would lower Fox’s average for accurate forecasting. He might even be a good replacement for the departing Glenn Beck. His areas of interest (politics, morality, the end of all human existence) match closely Beck’s favorite subject matter. In fact, with a little make up, Beck’s audience may not even be able to tell the difference.

Lessons In Right-Wing Media Relations

If you were paying attention to conservatives in the press today you would have received an advanced course their trademark obfuscation and flim flam.

Let’s begin with Newt Gingrich’s masterful recovery from an embarrassing fumble. After dissing fellow Republican Paul Ryan’s budget proposal as “radical, right-wing, social engineering,” Gingrich attempted to blame the media for quoting him correctly. When that fell flat he pivoted to a full mea culpa, apologizing publicly and personally to Ryan. But the piece de resistance was his declaration to Greta Van Susteren on Fox News that “any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood.”

Bravo. Gingrich has just invented the “if you quote me you’re lying” defense. It is so brilliant that even after he is ridiculed for it he can use it again to warn the media not to quote what he told Susteren either. This is a groundbreaking achievement in PR spin that even surpasses Jon Kyl’s infamous “not intended to be a factual statement.”

Jerome CorsiNow let’s move on to Jerome Corsi, author of a book with the world’s worst release timing: “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is Not Eligible to be President” This insightful work of political intrigue just happened to come out shortly after the titular certificate of birth (not that the question hadn’t been answered years ago anyway). But to make matters worse, Corsi was bumped from the Sean Hannity show reportedly because the “issue is no longer in the news cycle.” That’s right-wing talk for “we can’t sell this bullshit anymore.” Watch your head, Corsi, because when you’ve lost Hannity, the next stop in that barrel is the bottom.

Finally we have the queen of media whimpering, Sarah Palin. Despite having sworn off of criticizing the press weeks ago, her bashing continues unabated. In an interview with Sean Hannity (who apparently thinks that she is still in the news cycle) she attempts to defend Gingrich and advises her conservative comrades to steer clear of the “lame-stream media.”

“Candidates need to get their message out through the new social media. Don’t even participate in that goofy game that’s been played for too many years with the leftist lame-stream media.”

I couldn’t agree more. Republicans and other conservatives should sequester themselves in the realm of social media, talk radio, and Fox News. No more pandering to Meet the Press or the Washington Post. Just update your Facebook status with a policy paper on national security. Then Tweet your positions on the economy and health care. I’m sure any respectable Republican could do that in 140 characters or less given that they don’t have to worry about using facts or reason.

In order for this to work, however, the media has to reciprocate. For as long as Palin and other right-wingers confine themselves to conservative media and Internet platforms they control, the rest of the press must ignore them right back. That means no coverage of their Tweets or Facebook posts or interviews with Rush Limbaugh or Steve Doocy. Although exceptions may be granted for mocking the inevitable gaffes and malaprops they will generously provide.

If the right would actually follow through with this threat, and the “lame-streamers” could resist the temptation to hype every belch some celebrity politician emits, watching TV and reading newspapers could become a lot more enjoyable and educational.