This evening on the Situation Room, Blitzer had on retired Army Colonel Bill Badger, in order to tell the story of his part in the takedown of Jared Loughner. I can't find any video of it, but Badger's composure and recall of detail in retelling the story makes the segment worthwhile on its own. As the interview is wrapping up, the Colonel makes use of his brief moment of fame to actually try and make something good come out of this travesy:
BLITZER: Colonel, do you own or carry a gun?
BADGER: No.
I have got a 21-year-old son. And when he was born, my wife made me get rid of .38. I had one up until that time.
But, you know, if I could say something right now, that something is drastically wrong with what's going on in our United States right now. And when an individual is turned down to get into the military and then can be -- is able to go out and buy a .9-millimeter Glock pistol, and he had one of the -- or his clips were the extended clips that were limited to law enforcement only, and, you know, that -- or somebody has to put a stop to that.
BLITZER: Colonel Bill Badger, retired U.S. Army, thanks so much, not only for joining us. Much more importantly, thanks for doing what you did Saturday morning in Tucson. We appreciate it very much.
BADGER: Wolf, and thank you. And keep up the great work.
Doubtful this will put the whole issue of "maybe doing something to stop this happening again" into serious discussion but having a 74 year old Army veteran cool enough to disarm a maniac even after being shot in the head himself speak out in favour of better gun control is a pretty decent opening for the topic. Between him and the Sherriff, some sterotypically right wing figures have stepped up to speak for sanity.
The recent firing of Juan Williams by NPR for comments made on the Fox News and his affiliation with that network has created an interesting sidebar to this now all too familiar affair. The renewed scrutiny of NPR for its alleged liberal bias has resulted in an interesting byproduct. That byproduct is an increased level of attention now being paid to Fox, its parent the News Corp., and its wealthy conservative CEO, Rupert Murdoch.
The practice of allowing candidates to solicit campaign contributions while appearing on Fox News is a significant departure from what is generally considered television news broadcasting. Mr. Murdoch has abided this practice along with his own well-publicized million dollar contributions to Republican campaign organizations and other efforts to promote positions on the far right. That raises a fundamental question: Is Fox a legitimate news organization or has it morphed into something between a news organ and a political action operation even to the point of being considered a shill? A shill is defined as: "a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty." A political action committee is defined as:"a type of political committee organized to spend money for the election or defeat of a candidate." Mr. Murdoch has a record of promoting conservative ideas no matter what the cost. He has continued to prop up the conservative "The New York Post" in spite of its staggering losses to the tune of between $15 million to $30 million. According to Business Week magazine: "The Post has lost so much money for so long that it would have folded years ago if News Corp. applied the same profit-making rigor to the tabloid as it does to its other businesses." What then is the purpose of the continued support of a newspaper the commentary of which often resembles old-fashioned agitprop? There can only be one logical explanation and it's because the Post represents Mr. Murdoch's primary organ for presenting the conservative line in what is one of the bluest regions in the country and he is willing to spend whatever it takes to do so.
The argument that Fox News has become somewhat of a political operation is more than apparent when one examines the following evidence. Former Ohio Republican Congressman and now candidate for Governor, John Kasich, appearing during prime time on "Hannity" was given time to solicit campaign contributions while on the air saying:" If you have extra nickels or dimes, please send it our way." According to Brian Stelter of the New York Times this is not the first time Kasich has used an appearance on Fox to raise money for his campaign. Quoting Stelter: "The channel was the subject of an election complaint in Ohio because Mr. Kasich was able to ask for money and display his Web site address during an interview in August on "The O'Reilly Factor," Fox's biggest prime time talk show. Mr. Kasich used to host a weekend show on Fox, and Mr. Murdoch has called him a friend." Moreover Stelter points out that Fox employees have engaged in more direct political action both on and off the air: "Sometimes the most outspoken of the Fox hosts go out and raise money directly. Mr. Hannity has headlined several fund-raisers for Republicans this year. And just last week, Mr. Beck donated $10,000 to the U. S. Chamber of Commerce to defend it against criticism from President Obama - and challenged his radio listeners to donate as well." Beyond these various forms of political action is the fact that several likely candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination are presently on the Fox payroll or regularly appear on the network, including Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.
When you look across the political spectrum to Fox's chief rivals: MSNBC, CNN and NPR you see several object lessons in how competing news organizations have different values. Political action at MSNBC, for example, is much more constrained, to the point that there is very little deviation from what could considered legitimate news reporting and commentary. Again quoting Stelter: "All this political activity has spurred at least a little bit of hand-wringing at the channels. NBC News, which operates MSNBC, recently reiterated its rule that employees may not engage in political activity, but said it had carved out an exception for some MSNBC hosts." To date whatever exceptions exist at MSNBC, they are not even remotely close to the on the air solicitation of funds, public activities related to fund raising by network commentators or the employment of prospective presidential candidates on the network's payroll which is presently the case at Fox. At NPR political activity of any variety is virtually nonexistent. In the final analysis what we have witnessed at Fox News is the evolution of a news organization into something beyond what is commonly considered political reporting and commentary into something short of a political action committee, a sort of quasi-political news organ if you will. That said shouldn't the Fox News Network scrub the subtitle of "Fair and Balanced" from its headline banner seeing as it can no longer legitimately make that claim in light of the fundamental transformation that has taken place within the Fox organization?
The day was Sunday, August 1, 2010. Former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan appeared on Meet the Press. When asked to discuss the Congressional debate on tax cuts, the man known to move markets, a person who leans to the "Right," offered a decisive decree. In direct disagreement with Republican officials and the profitable corporations that fund countless political campaigns, Mister Greenspan declared, "Look, I'm very much in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money. And the problem that we've gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money, and at the end of the day, that proves disastrous. And my view is I don't think we can play subtle policy here on it."
This statement was as a slap in the face to corporations, or more correctly to the tycoons who head these firms. Multi-millionaire media moguls might understand this best. These television and radio Executives experience firsthand that influence over an industry can translate into influence over an outcome. Cable News Network Chief Officers are among those who actively make use of this truth. Tax cuts expired? "Never;" say network Administrators and the newscasters such as Allan Chernoff, who do their bidding.
Once you label me you negate me. ~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard [Danish Philosopher 1813 to 1855]
The much acclaimed Roland Martin, a Cable News Network Analyst, reacted to a partial report. Apparently, Mister Martin, acknowledged for his insightful and provocative assessments, heard but a bit of an edited video and responded on a national stage. Admittedly, barely informed, and unaware of the background, the CNN Correspondent spoke of his antipathy for what he defined as a racist reality. The frequently featured Journalist offered his fervent judgment of Federal Department of Agriculture Director Shirley Sherrod's actions, none of which occurred. On Tuesday, July 20, 2010, late in the afternoon, given an opportunity to listen to and speak with the object of his scorn, Shirley Sherrod, the righteous Roland Martin refused to open his mind and ears. Mister Martin avowed racism is racism regardless of when it occurs or if it is repeated years later. The consequence, tears and fears flourished. These were my own.
CNN/Opinion Research released earlier today a new telephone survey of U.S. adults on immigration. One forced choice question asking respondents to indicate what they thought the main focus of the U.S. government ought to be with respect to the immigration issue, appears to contradict findings that a number of other public opinion surveys have reported over the past two years. Some may wrongly interpret the CNN poll as showing surprisingly high support (60%) for deportation of "illegal" immigrants and low support for a pathway to citizenship (38%). Recent surveys conducted by CBS News, AP, Pew Research and others find support for legalization or a pathway to citizenship to be in the high 50%s and support for deportation to be just above 30%. Why does the CNN appear to be different?
In 2004, the United Church of Christ produced a television commercial promoting its inclusive approach to organized faith. The ad showed two nightclub-style bouncers guarding the rope line of a church as they denied entry to a gay male couple, several people of color, and a man in a wheelchair. By contrast, a white family of four had no problems getting through.
"Jesus didn't turn people away" was the ad's tagline, but CBS did, turning down the commercial which was intended for broadcast during that year's Super Bowl. The 30-second spot apparently violated the network's policy of "prohibiting advocacy ads, even ones that carry an 'implicit' endorsement for a side in a public debate."
In 2004, the United Church of Christ produced a television commercial promoting its inclusive approach to organized faith. The ad showed two nightclub-style bouncers guarding the rope line of a church as they denied entry to a gay male couple, several people of color, and a man in a wheelchair. By contrast, a white family of four had no problems getting through.
"Jesus didn't turn people away" was the ad's tagline, but CBS did, turning down the commercial which was intended for broadcast during that year's Super Bowl. The 30-second spot apparently violated the network's policy of "prohibiting advocacy ads, even ones that carry an 'implicit' endorsement for a side in a public debate."
If you liked Adam Bink's post a while ago, featuring a bold strong Alan Grayson, you'll LOVE Grayson's appearance on CNN's Situation Room.
The insurance company lobbyists won't be donating to Grayson anytime soon, but we can!
Today is the last day of the national fundraising quarter, which political insiders use to judge which candidates are strong. Grayson is a top Republican target in 2010.
As the debate over public health care and insurance reform has raged this August, I have seen much via the cable news outlets about how President Obama has not been able to get his message across the great partisan divide. The media has been far more interested in giving a platform to those which it describes as the "fringe." They inevitably follow up with: "Where is the clear message from President Obama?" At no time does one ever see the media turn the light upon itself and ask itself if it is doing the responsible thing. It is the very agency that should be bringing clarity to the discussion. It is the very agency who has been entrusted with the public airwaves for this very purpose.
Out of all the polls we see paraded across MSNBC, CNN etc., we have yet to see a poll rating how Americans feel the media is living up to its obligations to actually inform us. We see polls that show that Americans don't really understand the discussion, but very little regarding those who present this discussion to us. I find this to be very curious.
If these "news outlets" put half as much effort into bringing clarity to the public health care debate as it does on presenting every little bit of trivia surrounding the death of Michael Jackson, then I would imagine these other polls that we're seeing would reflect a more informed public. Of course, it doesn't help that some of the interests that oppose health care reform are the MSM's biggest advertisers. It is rare that the MSM will bite the hand that feeds it. Unfortunately it leaves the American public starving for real information to make critical choices.
Republican sore loser Norm Coleman's endless and pointless appeals will not accomplish a victory for Coleman. But ol' Normie can be proud that he has accomplished one thing: his name has become synonymous with "sore loser" to the point that "pulling a Norm Coleman" has entered the lexicon meaning "acting like a sore loser." To wit:
Larry King: 'I'm not a sore loser. I'm not gonna pull a Norm Coleman'
Here's evidence that Minnesota's post-election battle for U.S. Senate has permeated pop culture. Al Franken and Norm Coleman were cited this week by contestants in another competition that attracted millions of partisans: the race between movie actor Ashton Kutcher and news juggernaut CNN to be first to gain one million followers on Twitter, the social-media phenomenon. ...
Here's a video clip of Kutcher on "Larry King Live" tonight (King's "Norm Coleman" comment comes at the 5:00 mark):
KING: I'm not a sore loser.
KUTCHER: No, you're not.
KING: I'm not gonna pull a Norm Coleman and take this to the courts.
KUTCHER: You have been gracious, very gracious.
While Coleman sore-losers it up, Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee have introduced a new effort: NormDollar.com, "A Dollar a Day to Make Norm Go Away." Very simply put, commit to contributing just one dollar per day for every day that sore loser Norm Coleman refuses to concede. (HT: MPP)
I don't know if this effort was inspired by Open Left's AdamGreen's post laying out a very similar fundraising strategy a little over a week ago, but it is exactly the correct approach to take to provide Republican leadership in Washington with adequate disincentive from continuing to fund Coleman's endless appeals. You also have the option of chipping in a bit of change directly to the Franken Recount Fund.
Chris' note that the big media sites were refusing to acknowledge Obama being above 270 EC votes by any reasonable polling analysis methodology was an important point. For whatever reason, reality is setting in with most of them, and they are being forced to update with Obama being over 270.
First, the non-corporate media projection sites updated counts:
Twice this week two major media outlets proved themselves mistaken on the Employee Free Choice Act - let's take a look at CNN and USA Today's misrepresentations of this important bill. For those not in the know, the Employee Free Choice Act is a bill supported by virtually every Democrat and some Republicans; it would remove barriers for people who want to join unions at work by embracing the democratic principle of "majority sign-up."
In a blog post and brief TV segment this week, CNN published a "fact check" on a line in John McCain's new stump speech in which he claims Barack Obama wants to "take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections." CNN's "fact check" says that McCain's claim is true. Except they're just as wrong as McCain.
Despite the stage-managed non-release of his medical records back in May, McCain's complicated health history continues to crop up as a campaign issue in these final weeks of the election season. This weekend, in a new, two-part series called "Fit to Lead" (as in, "Is the next president....?"), CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta "uncovers the health secrets of presidents past....and future."
The debut episode will follow Dr. Sanjay Gupta as he investigates the health and medical fitness of past, present and future presidents.
Dr. Gupta will interview former presidential press secretaries Ari Fleischer (George W. Bush), Joe Lockhart (Bill Clinton), Ron Nessen (Gerald Ford) and Jody Powell (Jimmy Carter), as well as three presidential physicians, as part of his inquiry into what it takes to be medically fit for the presidency.
The other day, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann told us that we don't need Nancy Pelosi to save the planet. Jesus has it
covered. Here's what she said:
"[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said that she's just
trying to save the planet. ... We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet - we didn't need Nancy Pelosi to do that."
STATE BLOGS
