I will not even pretend to say I was surprised to see the Rev. Al Sharpton show up on television to be interviewed after the shockingly-sudden death of Michael Jackson, who was one of the great entertainers of all time. In the back of my mind, I was wondering when Rev. Sharpton would make his first appearance on the airwaves to have something to say about the life and death of Michael Jackson. But, then I began to wonder, when would the Rev. Jesse Jackson show up? It was not long before Rev. Jackson had shown up to essentially serve as spokesperson for the family of Michael Jackson. I could see the photograph that accompanied the Associated Press story with Rev. Jackson standing with Joe Jackson, father off Michael Jackson (that’s a lot of Jacksons).
I know a lot of people will come out and criticize Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton (both men certainly have earned their share of legitimate criticism over the years). I was hardly surprised Rev. Sharpton quickly found a television camera. But, perhaps Rev. Jackson might have been sought by the Jackson family or had offered to serve as a spokesperson for the Jackson family. To some extent, how his role came about as a sort of spokesperson for the Jackson family is a bit unclear to me.
While I know Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton both crave the spotlight (we’ve seen evidence of that over and over again), personally, I am going to give Jesse a pass on this one. I think, at least in this case, it appears Rev. Jackson is doing a noble deed for the family of Michael Jackson (even if he does get something out of it for himself: the spotlight he seems to enjoy).
If Jesse is able to bring the family of Michael Jackson a little comfort and support during this tragedy then I have no problem with it.
Many reporters on the left, and some reporters from the so-called mainstream media, are throwing a it about a question that the Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney was allowed to ask President Obama during a White House press conference. This is another one of those manufactured controversies from individuals on the right wing and from individuals from the mainstream media overcome by a powerful sense of jealousy.
Here is the exchange during the press conference:
OBAMA: Since we’re on Iran, I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
OBAMA: Nico, I know that you and all across the Internet, we’ve been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?
QUESTION: Yes, I did, but I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian. We solicited questions on tonight from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating online. And one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn’t that a betrayal of — of what the demonstrators there are working to achieve?
OBAMA: Well, look, we didn’t have international observers on the ground. We can’t say definitively what exactly happened at polling places throughout the country.
What we know is that a sizable percentage of the Iranian people themselves, spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It’s not an isolated instance, a little grumbling here or there. There is significant questions about the legitimacy of the election.
And so, ultimately, the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States.
And that’s why I’ve been very clear, ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government.
What we can do is to say, unequivocally, that there are sets of international norms and principles about violence, about dealing with the peaceful dissent, that — that spans cultures, spans borders.
And what we’ve been seeing over the Internet and what we’ve been seeing in news reports violates those norms and violates those principles.
I think it is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that — that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it.
The White House apparently was following that Nico Pitney was communicating with individuals inside of Iran as that country’s turmoil was all over the media. White House spokesman Bill Burton came out with a response: “We did reach out to (Nico) prior to press conference to tell him that we had been paying attention to what he had been doing on Iran and there was a chance that he’d be called on.”
This is a totally overblown story spun out of very little. There is no evidence that the president knew what the question was going to be (even if he had an idea what the subject matter might be). I could care less if he wanted to take a question about the situation in Iran from a reporter that the White House felt was in contact with people on the ground in Iran.
Pitney asked a question that was a hell of a lot better than others I’ve heard asked at presidential news conferences.
One of the popular compliments to make about former North Carolina college basketball star Tyler Hansbrough (drafted by the NBA’s Indiana Pacers) echoes in the ears of people who love and follow basketball: He plays so hard. Hansbrough does play hard and he brings a high level of intensity to the basketball court. Hey, we all saw it so often when he was at the college level playing for the Tar Heels in one of the best college basketball conferences in the nation.
That being said, two things about the Tyler-Hansbrough-Plays-So-Hard compliment:
It almost implies that other guys do not play hard. A lot of guys play hard, but you aren’t drafted in the NBA just because you play hard.
It takes away from what I believe is a strong skill set Hansbrough possesses and takes away from his athleticism (better than a lot of people give him credit for).
Hansbrough has so many people talking about how hard he plays that they ignore the fact that he is both NBA athletic and NBA skilled. I believe Tyler Hansbrough is going to be a solid NBA player for a lot of years.
Conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, who has a strong following (indicative of some sick people out there), shows us some of his true colors right here.
In the news, recently, we’ve seen two individuals Sen. John Ensign (downplayedby the talkers on right-wing media outlets like Fox News) and Gov. Mark Sanford go down to marital infidelity. So, what does right-wing talk show nut Michael Savage do … he finds some way to make their infidelity out to be something that is President Obama’s fault. If you listen to Savage, he seems to be indicating that this is some kind of plot from Obama to take down two of his potential rivals for the 2012 presidential election. Savage, the Republicans need very little help destroying themselves for 2012. Sanford and Ensign join others (like Gov. Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich) who are perfectly capable of destroying their own candidacies.
Here is what Savage said: ”Obama’s team is taking out potential rivals one after another.”
Again, the Republicans are doing a good job of taking themselves out. In these cases, their problems are self-inflicted wounds.
After whining like a child about coverage of the death of Michael Jackson, conservative radio nut Michael Savage then went on to attack First Lady Michelle Obama with this comment: “(Michelle Obama) is the worst dressed first-lady in history of the country.” Savage again proves to be a low-class individual and it’s amazing to think that so many people actually listen to the garbage this bigot offers on a daily basis.
I have to admit, I am a little skeptical of 6-foot-11 Austin Daye, of Gonzaga. He has a tremendous upside, but needs to get with Arnie Kander and put on some weight and add some strength. DaJuan Summers, out of Georgetown, could turn out to be a solid pick for Detroit. Both Daye and Summers come from programs where you figure they were well-coached players. Detroit also added a Swedish front-court player in JonasJerebko, who is 6-8 and about 230 pounds (that's pretty good size). Time will tell if he pans out for the Pistons.
The Pistons later added Chase Budinger, of Arizona, with the 44th pick. Honestly, I was pretty excited when the Pistons picked up Budinger, who I felt was a steal to come up with so late in the draft. Budinger has good size, he is athletic, he can shoot and he played in the Pac-10 Conference. He has the physical tools and the skill set to be an NBA player for a lot of years. I think the Pistons might have missed the boat dealing him to Houston for pretty much nothing.
We will not know much about this draft for several years (as is sometimes the case for a lot of drafts).
I think Austin Daye is a feast-or-famine pick. In all likelihood, he will either develop the strength to play at the NBA level or he will be pushed around for a lot of years showing flashes of a high skills set, but without the physical tools to play at a consistent level.
Summers has the body and athleticism to be a factor for the Pistons at some point.
Jerebko is a player I don't know a whole lot about outside of the video we all saw during ESPN's draft-night coverage.
I am more interest to see what the Pistons are going to do with free agency now that ESPN's Chris Broussard was on the air this morning speculating the Pistons (and team president Joe Dumars) are targeting Utah's Carlos Boozer and Orlando's Hedo Turkoglu.
JACLYN SMITH: "Farrah had courage, she had strength, and she had faith. And now she has peace as she rests with the real angels."
CHERYL LADD: "She was incredibly brave, and God will be welcoming her with open arms."
KATE JACKSON: (said she would remember Fawcett's) "kindness, her cutting, dry wit and, of course, her beautiful smile. Today when you think of Farrah remember her smiling because that is exactly how she wanted to be remembered, smiling."
Farrah Fawcett will be missed tremendously and I will always remember her courageous battle against cancer at the end of her life.
MADONNA: "I can't stop crying over the sad news. I have always admired Michael Jackson. The world has lost one of the greats, but his music will live on forever! My heart goes out to his three children and other members of his family. God bless."
LISA MARIE PRESLEY: "I am so very sad and confused with every emotion possible. I am heartbroken for his children, who I know were everything to him, and for his family. This is such a massive loss on so many levels, words fail me."
CHER (on CNN): "I am having a million reactions," said Cher. "When I think of him, I think of this young boy, this teenager I first met … He was a great teenager, optimistic and adorable." She also praised his talent. "He was a great singer. You can't write him off as just a pop [star]. He was a genius like Ray Charles … He had a gift… He was able to connect with people."
WHITNEY HOUSTON: "I am full of grief."
USHER: was "deeply saddened" by the loss and paid tribute to Jackson's legacy. "May God cover you Michael. We all lift your name up in prayer. I pray for the entire Jackson family particularly Michael's mother, children and all his fans that loved him so much. I would not be the artist, performer, and philanthropist I am today without the influence of Michael. I have great admiration and respect for him and I'm so thankful I had the opportunity to meet and perform with such a great entertainer, who in so many ways, transcended the culture. He broke barriers, he changed radio formats! With music, he made it possible for people like Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama to impact the mainstream world. His legacy is unparalleled Michael Jackson will never be forgotten."
I just don’t have the words to express how painful it is to learn that the great Michael Jackson is dead at 50 years old. I am just blown away. I grew up listening to his music and admiring his talents. He was just plain brilliant.
He was a brilliant entertainer who died far too young.
Rest in peace, Michael Jackson … you left us way too soon.
The more I think about it, it’s sad to think that someone who has done so little for civil rights (Clarence Thomas) replaced someone so great (Thurgood Marshall) who did so much for civil rights. It’s almost unforgivable that George H.W. Bush, in 1991, nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court to replace one of the important figures in black history, Thurgood Marshall.
Here is a lengthy excerpt from Wikipedia:
Marshall won his very first U.S. Supreme Court case, Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940), at the age of 32. That same year, he was appointed Chief Counsel for the NAACP. He argued many other cases before the Supreme Court, most of them successfully, including Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948); Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950); and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). His most famous case as a lawyer was Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the case in which the Supreme Court ruled that “separate but equal” public education was unconstitutional because it could never be truly equal. In total, Marshall won 29 out of the 32 cases he argued before the Supreme Court.
During the 1950s, Thurgood Marshall developed a friendly relationship with J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 1956, for example, he privately praised Hoover’s campaign to discredit T.R.M. Howard, a maverick civil rights leader from Mississippi. During a national speaking tour, Howard had criticized the FBI’s failure to seriously investigate cases such as the 1955 killers of George W. Lee and Emmett Till. An FBI informant reported that Marshall had “no use for Howard and nothing would please him more than to see Howard completely crushed.” Ironically, two years earlier Howard had arranged for Marshall to deliver a well-received speech at a rally of his Regional Council of Negro Leadership in Mound Bayou, Mississippi only days before the Brown decision. [4]
On June 13, 1967, President Johnson appointed Marshall to the Supreme Court following the retirement of Justice Tom C. Clark, saying that this was “the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man and the right place.” Marshall was confirmed as an Associate Justice by a Senate vote of 69-11 on August 31, 1967.[5] He was the 96th person to hold the position, and the first African-American.
Meanwhile, Thomas fought against civil rights and continues to fight against civil rights.
In an 8-1 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Justice Clarence Thomas cast the lone vote against a key provision of the Voting Rights Act on Monday (June 22).
The Court, in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder (PDF link) declined to overturn the 1965 Voting Rights Act that has often been challenged by conservative critics as unnecessary. Instead it avoided the “difficult” question about the constitutionality of the law. But the Court did allow a tiny Texas municipality to be exempted from a requirement to provide advance notice before making changes to its election procedures.
In his dissent, Thomas seemed to argue that the Voting Rights Act is no longer necessary because the explicit racial segregation of the Jim Crow era is gone.
”The violence, intimidation and subterfuge that led Congress to pass Section 5 and this court to uphold it no longer remains,” Thomas wrote. He admitted that in 1965, “Congress had every reason to conclude that States with a history of disenfranchising voters based on race would continue to do all they could to evade the constitutional ban on voting discrimination.” But, Thomas added, “The extensive pattern of discrimination that led the Court to previously uphold Section 5 . . . no longer exists…And the days of ‘grandfather clauses, property qualifications, ‘good character’ tests, and the requirement that registrants ‘understand’ or ‘interpret’ certain matter,’ are gone.”
Some things change, but other things remain the same.
It hurts to think this man replaced the great Thurgood Marshall.
I would encourage readers to check out one of my favorite blogs on the Web, Field Negro. In one blog I just took an opportunity to read, Field takes on Clarence Thomas for yet another inexplicable slap in the face to black people.
Here is an excerpt:
Some sister must have really done Clarence wrong back in the day, because that Negro seriously hates his people. I bet he vowed to get the entire Negro race back for those black folks who dissed him in his early life.
Honestly, how could Uncle Clarence be the only one of the Supremes to vote against not scrapping a certain provision of the Voting Rights Act? (He even went against his closet lover, Antonin Scalia, on this one) A provision which pretty much insured that certain states would not be messing with the civil rights of minority voters? Has this Negro taken leave of his senses? Does he just do this kind of shit to get attention? Folks, believe me, in spite of what some folks in certain states would have you believe, that provision is still needed today. Those pesky little literacy tests could come back faster than you can say Jig Clarence, Jig.
The infamous Hal Turner, a Neo-Nazi commentator through various mediums, finds himself in some hot water again these days:
CHICAGO, June 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/– Hal Turner, an intermittent Internet radio talk show host and blogger, was arrested today by FBI agents at his home in North Bergen, N.J., on a federal complaint filed in Chicago alleging that he made Internet postings threatening to assault and murder three federal appeals court judges in Chicago in retaliation for their recent ruling upholding handgun bans in Chicago and a suburb.
Turner, who has had an association over the years with Fox News conservative host Sean Hannity, was cuffed up by the Feds.
Yeah, it was interesting when all of those people slammed Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and the Obama Administration for the release of the report on extremism.
Gun-related violence: “Heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms…may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements.”
Harold Charles “Hal” Turner is an Americanwhite nationalist and white supremacist from North Bergen, New Jersey. He runs his program, The Hal Turner Show, as a webcast from his home once a week, and depends on donations from his listeners. He quit the show in July 2008 and resumed in April 2009. In August 2008 his website also closed down, though he retains a blog, though currently that presence was shut down by his host, Google’s Blogger, for violations of terms of service.
These right-wing nutjobs are going crazy finding ways to pour salt on President Obama. The following was in a letter from Republican Women of Anne Arundel County (Maryland) President Joyce E. Thomann:
Obama and Hitler have a great deal in common in my view. Obama and Hitler use the “blitzkrieg” method to overwhelm their enemies. FAST, CARPET BOMBING intent on destruction. Hitler’s blitzkrieg bombing destroyed many European cities – quickly and effectively. Obama is systematically destroying the American economy and with it AMERICA. First the banking/investment industry, next private enterprise (GM and Chrysler) and now HEALTH CARE. And he is working on grabbing more of the American economy with his environmental extremism!
We too CAN fight back. Contact everyone you know. Start a blitzkrieg of our own. Shut down the Capitol switchboards and the White House switchboards! Say NO to the Obamination of Obama Care!
This just goes to show how crazy some of these right wingers are when it comes to President Obama. It makes you wonder what has caused them to quickly hate him as much as they do.
They’ve hated him from the beginning (even when they knew nothing about him other than the very basics.
This is just plain nutty.
It’s almost like a box of crayons.
What is it about a black man in the White House that makes Republicans see red (especially after eight years of Bush-Cheney)?
It’s a sad day to those of us who were fans of actress Farrah Fawcett.
Farrah Fawcett, the “Charlie’s Angels” star whose feathered blond hair and dazzling smile made her one of the biggest sex symbols of the 1970s, died Thursday after battling cancer. She was 62.
She played some memorable roles and certainly left an impression on the world that will be remembered by her family, friends and fans for years to come.
As DJay said in the movie Hustle and Flow, “You know it’s hard out here for a pimp.”
G. Gordon Liddy turned into a pimp as he turned out Jesse Lee Peterson to once again serve his primary purpose in life – attacking black people (including President Obama) to keep conservative white extremists from getting their hands dirty.
Thanks to Media Matters for America for again exposing Peterson.
The lengths to which Fox News will go to demonize President Obama (in any way possible) never ceases to amaze me. Fox had Peter Johnson Jr., who was described as a Fox News Legal Analyst, on the air to trash President Obama by mischaracterizing a comment he made about doctors and patients exploring their health care options in regard to surgery vs. pain killers. Johnson ran with it and tried to portray President Obama as wanting the government (this is the tired Fox News anti-Obama narrative) to control whether old people live or die. The president was talking about procedures that will not or may not help a patient (a procedure that might be unnecessary). He was talking about arming doctors with knowledge that will help them make a more informed decision about health care. This is not about government control (but, that does not fit the Fox News strategy of painting President Obama as a socialist, a social engineer, as a person who wants the government to control everything, etc.).
Here is a quote from Johnson while appearing on the right-wing show Fox and Friends:
“Is that what this plan is about? To save money by killing old people?”
Johnson takes the president’s words and spin them to have the worst-possible meaning he could manage. Such comments are irresponsible and reprehensible. It’s amazing a legitimate news network (if you consider Fox a legitimate news network) would allow someone to come on, distort words and use fear against old people.
Protesters in Iran largely have been put down by the government in an aggressive and violent fashion in the wake of a highly-controversial and disputed election that it appears will keep Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his position as president of Iran. Many on the far right of the political spectrum wanted President Obama to speak out strongly against the government of Iran for the election results and to support the protesters. President Obama did express support for the rights of the protesters to express their views (contrary to what you will repeatedly hear from those on the right who see virtually nothing positive in our president). President Obama was wise not to make an irrational move and entangle the United States too deeply in an Iranian affair (as much as many people were angry by the disputed election results and the way the protesters were put down). A rush to judgement by President Obama would have made it even easier for Ahmadinejad to demonize the U.S. even more and rile up those who still dislike or hate the U.S. due to the policies of previous administrations (most notably the George W. Bush presidency).
TEHRAN (Reuters) – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Barack Obama on Thursday of behaving like his predecessor toward Iran and said there was not much point in talking to Washington unless the U.S. president apologized.
(EDITORS’ NOTE: Reuters and other foreign media are subject to Iranian restrictions on their ability to report, film or take pictures in Tehran.)
Obama said on Tuesday he was “appalled and outraged” by a post-election crackdown and Washington withdrew invitations to Iranian diplomats to attend Independence Day celebrations on July 4 — stalling efforts to improve ties with Tehran.
“Mr Obama made a mistake to say those things … our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously (former president George W.) Bush used to say,” the semi-official Fars News Agencyquoted Ahmadinejad as saying.
“Do you want to speak with this tone? If that is your stance then what is left to talk about … I hope you avoid interfering in Iran’s affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it,” he said.
You can see that Ahmadinejad is trying to turn the comments from President Obama into a distraction from what is taking place on the streets in Iran and what took place during the election. That, I believe, is precisely what President Obama saw coming from some in the Iranian government.
COLUMBIA, S.C. – South Carolina’s governor once cited “moral legitimacy” when he was a congressman voting for President Bill Clinton’s impeachment. He became a darling of fiscal conservatives over his ideological opposition to federal stimulus cash.
I wonder if Bill O’Reilly will mention this on his show or if he will just proceed with an one-sided attack (joined by Karl Rove and Bernie Goldberg) on the so-called liberal press.
I wonder if Bill O’Reilly and others will call out that “moral legitimacy” hypocrisy.
This also is a good example of why we shouldn’t put politicians on a pedestal.
After the media (liberal and conservative) pounded former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, I look up and see this is what it appears Fox News conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly has on tap for tonight’s edition of The O’Reilly Factor:
The O’Reilly Factor
The media & Mark Sanford! Is the liberal press celebrating the Governor’s scandal? Both Bernie Goldberg & Karl Rove have reaction and analysis!
With Bernie Goldberg and Karl Rove, two hardcore conservatives (teaming with O’Reilly, who makes it three conservatives), as analysts the segment already appears destined to have little credibility and zero balance (as advertised here).
Was the conservative press celebrating John Edwards’ affair when he was being pounded relentlessly (and still is)? I doubt you’ll hear Bill O’Reilly presenting such a topic with three left wingers.
Leave it to O’Reilly to spin a scandal that stains the conservatives into an attack on liberals. Maybe O’Reilly will begin talking about the John Ensign scandal, too.
The Phoenix Suns have agreed to assist the Cleveland Cavaliers’ pursuit of an NBA championship by handing them Shaquille O’Neal for Sasha Pavlovic, Ben Wallace and some money. From the Phoenix perspective, this seems to be a salary-cap trade. Shaq makes like $21 million a year so bringing in Ben and Pavlovic will give them some salary relief and possibly put the Suns on course to be a player in the free-agent market in the near future. The new question is this: How much will the acquisition of Shaq help the Cleveland Cavaliers move closer to winning an NBA championship? In my mind, Cleveland was going to be maybe the third-best team in the Eastern Conference next season behind Boston (presuming they return a healthy Kevin Garnett) and Orlando. Will Shaq alter Cleveland’s up-tempo style of play? LeBron James can co-exist with pretty much any kind of player, but it will be interesting to see how Mike Brown adjusts the offense to accommodate Shaq who doesn’t run the floor the way he used to, but still is a beast in the paint.
Jesse Lee Peterson, a man who repeatedly makes racist attacks on black people, has a home on Fox News. Fox welcomes Peterson because he does their dirty work. As a black man, Fox News power people bring on Peterson to attack black people while they sit back and keep their own hands clean. It’s laughable how some of these Fox News hosts bring Peterson on their program and then act surprised when he says vicious, hateful and racist things about black people. Truly, Peterson is invited on Fox News programs for no other reason than to verbally attack black men and women, in general, and President Obama, in specific. Peterson is like those blacks who turned on their own people and kidnapped them into slavery, sold them into slavery or caught them and returned them to slavery. He is little different than a slave catcher. Peterson happily prostitutes himself out to Fox News as he takes great pleasure in stereotyping and attacking black people.
Here are some comments made by Peterson during a recent episode of Glenn Beck’s Fox News program:
PETERSON: Barack Obama is no different than Jeremiah Wright, the NAACP and others … They hate white Americans and they especially hate the white man. This is why Obama said he believed in the redistribution of wealth. They want to take the power away from the white man and give it to the people who they think deserve it … and it’s the people of color. This is a dangerous man and he should not be trusted.
Fox News is disgraceful for putting this low-life of a man on the air. The worst part about it is that Peterson is either too stupid or doesn’t care that he is only useful to them when he’s attacking black people.
Jesse Lee Peterson is the classic, modern-day house slave. Like the house slave, he is only good to his master when he is doing the dirty work against black people. Also, like the house slave, when he can no longer serve that purpose, he will be put back in with the rest of the slaves.
Media Matters for America, a watchdog group, has done a fantastic job of driving the right-wing nuts by exposing their sins to the public. But, as you might expect, the right wingers don’t seem to have a whole lot of love for Media Matters.
Chris Chelios, a long-time member of the Detroit Red Wings who appears to be moving on to play at least one more season of professional hockey, has been great to the city of Detroit. His contributions go beyond the gritty hard work we saw from him night in and night out on the ice for the Wings during his 11 seasons with the winged-wheel on his chest. It was difficult for a lot of fans of Detroit to embrace him, after coming to dislike him for all of those years when he played for the Chicago Blackhawks. But, he won over the fans of Detroit – blue-collar fans who respect and admire players with great work ethic and players who are willing to do the dirty work.
Detroit– The always quotable and approachable Chris Chelios met withthe media on Wednesday to talk about his career with the Red Wings, which has come to an end.
Though Chelios, 47, was informed by the Wings on Monday that they would not bring him back for an 11th season in Detroit, the defenseman reiterated his desire to play somewhere next season.
A few of the topics Cheliostouched on as he met with reporters at his downtown Cheli’s Chili Bar …
Chelios brought business to downtown Detroit when a lot of people ran away. He believed in and supported Detroit when a lot of people did not.
Chris Chelios is one of the great Red Wings and, perhaps more significantly, he has been a great Detroiter.
One last thing … it’s unbelievable to see a guy still playing in his mid to late 40s. He’s not the same player he was, but he’s still pretty good.
It’s not exactly a well-kept secret, but Detroit Pistons President Joe Dumars told Detroit Free Presswriter Vince Ellis that he is looking at the front court for some help. According to the article, the trading of young big man Amir Johnson has not impacted that draft philosophy. The Pistons are looking to strengthen the front court. While this is not a particularly deep draft (withlots of obvious high-end players), the Pistons think they can get a quality player with the 15th pick of the first round.
So with that in mind it appears that the Pistons’ first-round pick will come from one of these five candidates: Louisville forward Earl Clark, Gonzaga forward Austin Daye, Louisville small forward Terrence Williams, Wake Forest power forward James Johnson and Ohio State center B.J. Mullens.
We’ll see what happens, but the Pistons need to become younger and more athletic and dynamic up front. We’ll see how the trading of Amir and this draft help begin to shape the Pistons in the future. The Pistons need youth, but the also need athleticism and toughness up front.
Elisabeth Hasselbeck, one of the hosts of ABC’s “The View,” seems to have gotten herself into a little trouble related to alleged plagiarism.
BOSTON – The author of a health book has sued Elisabeth Hasselbeck, accusing the co-host of ABC’s “The View” of plagiarism.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Massachusetts, alleges that Hasselbeck lifted “word for word” content from a book written by Susan Hassett, a self-published author on Cape Cod.
Hassett said in the lawsuit that she sent Hasselbeck a personal note and copy of her “Living With Celiac Disease” book as a courtesy after the television celebrity disclosed she had the illness last year.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
In the same story, there is this excerpt:
Hasselbeck said in a statement that the allegations are baseless and she worked “diligently and tirelessly” on the book and was disappointed by efforts to discredit her work.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford can kiss goodbye any chance he had at securing the Republican nomination for president of the United States of America.
COLUMBIA, S.C. – During a Wednesday news conference at his office in Columbia, Gov. Mark Sanford admitted to having an extramarital affair — information that surfaced after his recent, secret trip to Argentina.
The married father of four emotionally apologized to his wife and staff, saying, “I’ve let down a lot of people.”
Sanford said he met the woman almost eight years ago, but “about a year ago, it sparked into something more than that.”
The governor said his wife and family have known about it for the past five months.
He also announced that he was resigning as chairman of the Republican Governors’ Association.
Earlier, the South Carolina governor told a newspaper he was in South America, not hiking the Appalachian Trail as his staff had told the public to explain his sudden absence. He said he “wanted to do something exotic” to unwind after losing a fight over federal stimulus money.
Gov. Sanford is already ducking calls for his resignation as governor of South Carolina. Some people are even talking impeachment.
When will some of these hardcore conservatives wake up and realize that we need to work to stay out of the business of another country? Our military already is spread thin thanks to, among other things, conflicts going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. North Korea is stand out out there as an unknown potential threat and then there’s Iran. With our own eyes, thanks to various forms of media (including social media like Facebook and Twitter) we’ve seen the violence that has erupted since the highly-disputed (due to what many people feel is possible widespread voting corruption) reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran. Protests immediately erupted in Iran and, as expected, the government has tired of these protests and begun to put them down, violently so.
This brings me to a blog written by Greg Gutfeld (posted at Big Hollywood). Like a good number of conservatives, Gutfeld is whining because President Obama didn’t respond strongly enough or soon enough to suit his tastes.
Here is part of what Gutfeld wrote in a blog titled “The Bystander in Chief”:
“We don’t know how this thing is going to play out.”
Somehow, that statement doesn’t blow your mind like “hope and change,” but that’s exactly how Obama feels about Iran.
For Gutfeld, that is not good enough. What does Gutfeld want: missile strikes, ground troops, a nuclear bomb? Who knows? President Obama is not one of these hardcore right-wingers who want to invade every country that even looks like it is stepping out of line. The president is a man who wants to proceed carefully and now run into Iran with a cowboy hat on, bomb first, and ask questions, later (of those who survive).
“We don’t know how this thing is going to play out.”
Which, as you know, is a stance that has never stopped our President from immediately re-imagining health care, trying to end enhanced interrogations, or reducing carbon dioxide emissions via something ridiculous called cap and trade legislation.
I want a president who is concerned about issues more directly related to the American people. Issues like health care may not be so important to Greg Gutfeld, but they are to others who are barely making ends meet. We may not solve the health care crisis, but it’s a better issue than getting involved in the affairs of Iran (which will come back to bite us in the butt as some in that country will use it to further demonize the United States of America as evil and self-righteous meddlers). President Obama is trying to erase that false image of the United States that exists abroad.
“We don’t know how this thing is going to play out.”
I imagine you can use that excuse on pretty much anything. Except when it comes to press conferences. Which is why Obama does him. And now that our President has recognized that he’s potentially on the wrong side of history – he gave us a press conference designed to blunt criticism, as opposed to blunting the persecution of innocent people.
He’s on the wrong side of history, huh? I don’t think the American people see it that way. I certainly don’t think they see it that way after the previous eight years.
“Bearing witness,” as Obama calls it, is all it takes, apparently. But I’m not so sure. If you were being mugged, you’d really like a cop to shoot the bastard, instead of bearing witness. If you’re lugging five bags of groceries up four flights of stairs, “bearing witness” does no good. Lend a hand, champ.
Ugh, where does all the violence come from? President Obama is working to change things for the better and clean up the mess left for him by the previous administration. Of course, it makes it difficult with the Grand Obstructionist Party standing in his way and doing everything within its power to trip him up. President Obama is trying to lend a hand to working-class and poor people through health care reform, champ. It’s too bad Republicans won’t settle for simply bearing witness instead of obstructing. This is why the GOP has gone from champs to chumps.
So I disagree with Obama – we’re not seeing a “debate” in Iran. We’re seeing a brutal, ruthless crackdown. Something tells me that stopping that is more important than reducing carbon emissions to fight a questionable threat.
Look, I like the fact that he’s finally – although reluctantly – stepping up, but I wish Obama felt as immediately outraged about Iran as he did over the murder of an abortion doctor.
So, now we see what this is all about … our conservative friends are still whining about the murder of Dr. George Tiller (allegedly at the hands of an anti-abortion extremist). Just as Fox News correspondent Major Garrett asked a stupid question about the president’s response, so too does the rest of Fox News continue running down the football field with the ball – in the wrong direction. When you commit football suicide and run out of the back of the end zone … we’ll take the two points.
“We don’t know how this thing is going to play out.”
It would have been closer to Obama’s real concerns, if that quote ended with “for me.”
No, “for our country” is a better way it might end. The last thing we want to do is further damage the reputation of the U.S. worldwide and put more troops in harm’s way in another country. We did enough of that during the Bush-Cheney years in the White House.
The New York Times has a story written (based upon recently-released tapes) that give insight to former President Richard Nixon’s views about abortion and about abortion related to interracial relationships and rape.
Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster “permissiveness,” and said that “it breaks the family.” But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases, such as interracial pregnancies.
“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding: “Or a rape.”
Fox News reporter Major Garrett, questioning President Obama during a press conference, followed conservative talking points in questioning the president about an alleged slow response to the controversy in Iran. President Obama spoke out several times as the election controversy and subsequent crisis developed. Garrett’s question was based on a false premise (established largely on a foundation of right-wing bias).
The trade was supposed to send Rajon Rondo and Ray Allen to the Pistons for Tayshaun Prince, Rodney Stuckey and Richard Hamilton. It’s an interesting proposal on some level, but it would seem like the Pistons would be givingup a lot should this trade actually be pushed through. I doubt this would be a trade that would materialize, but it would not be as bad a deal for the Pistons as some people might want to think. You get a young, true point guard. Ray Allen would give you salary cap relief and you still keep yourself in position to be a big player in the free-agent market. The trade value for Tayshaun and Rip probably will never be any better. All that said, I probably would shoot this trade down if I were Pistons president Joe Dumars. It’s a lot to give up (three starters for two starters). Rip and Allen sort of cancel each other out. On top of that, you’d essentially be trading Tayshaun and Stuckey for Rondo. That is a lot … A LOT!
There is enough hate in this blog entry from notorious hater Debbie Schlussel to almost warrant the Southern Poverty Law Center’s attention. This blog entry was noted by Media Matters for America, and you soon will see the hatred, sexism and racism in this blog.
I don’t know about you, but when I entered the polling booth on Election Day, back in November of last year, Michelle Obama’s name wasn’t anywhere on my ballot. No mention of her or of Michelle LaVaughn Robinson or of Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Hussein Obama Idi Amin Dada.
Now, she’s the new pimp for Obamacare. And it has echoes–very, very scary echoes!–of Hillarycare. It’s like deja vu with a bigger booty. Well, since we’re comparing with Mrs. Clinton, maybe even that’s the same, too.
By the end of this excerpt, it’s hard to tell if she’s talking about healthcare or yearning to get a piece of ass.
OK, I guess she’s talking about healthcare.
The anger in this blog is palpable, but then again … it is Debbie Schlussel. It’s important to cite blogs like this because it gives insight into what is in the hearts and souls of some of our nation’s haters.
Media Matters for America has audio of Tammy Bruce trashing President Obama and Michelle Obama. This is the same Tammy Bruce who said “we have trash in the White House” in reference to Barack and Michelle Obama. So, bashing the president on personal and political levels is nothing new to her.
Here is an excerpt from a Huffington Post story to help put Bruce’s stunning hatred of the Obamas in some perspective.
Discussing the first lady’s visit to a Washington D.C. classroom last week, Bruce incredulously recalled Obama’s story about wanting to get A’s in school and called out her use of a “weird, fake accent.”
“That’s what he’s married to,” Bruce said. “…You know what we’ve got? We’ve got trash in the White House. Trash is a thing that is colorblind, it can cross all eco-socionomic…categories. You can work on Wall Street, or you can work at the Wal-Mart. Trash, are people who use other people to get things, who patronize others, who consider you bitter and clingy…”
That brings me to one of the latest comments of hate from Bruce toward the Obamas.
Bruce: Michelle and Barack Obama are “unhappy people” who project their “hostility and bitterness” onto country.
Bitterness and hostility are two of the attacks so often used against black people. That’s quite the sad comment from Bruce. Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black … oops … maybe the pot did call the kettle black, but using different language.
I suspect Tammy Bruce was speaking more about herself than about President Obama and Michelle Obama.
Normally, I would not spend a whole lot of time commenting on the comments that (usually) anonymous people leave on blog sites. Fox Nation, the blog arm of the Fox News empire, has had continuing issues with hateful language on its blog site (as posted by readers). News Hounds has a blog entry about a series of racist comments directed at Roland Martin who, probably most notably, is a CNN commentator. Martin was critical of Sarah Palin in a column he wrote. As David Letterman discovered, not much gets the righties tighties in a bunch more than virtually any criticism of Sarah Palin. For the record, Martin is black (but you will see that quick when you see some of the racism directed at him by some cowardly and racist Fox Nation visitors).
Over the years, I’ve heard Bill O’Reilly be very critical of blogs like Daily Kos and Huffington Post for nasty comments posted by visitors. But, it seems people like O’Reilly are very silent about O’Reilly (unless he has done a segment that I’ve not seen criticizing Fox Nation).
Robert Bork is still bitter after all of these years and he was at his player-hater best (or worst) in an interview with Newsweek (where he trashed U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor with the same tired Republican talking points). The article is interesting as Bork takes some of her comments out of context and spins them in the worst way possible to demonize her. It’s kind of sad that Bork still seems to be carrying all that anger inside of him after all of these years.
Here is an excerpt from the Bork interview that struck me (even though it does not have much to do with Sotomayor):
My general impression of them is quite good. The justice up there who I most admire is Clarence Thomas. I notice that when he and Scalia differ—it’s not that often, but when they do—I tend to agree with Thomas.
There goes Judge Bork’s credibility. Time to flush the toilet.
Bill O’Reilly, a conservative commentator on Fox News masquerading as an “objective” talker, proved a point that I and a lot of other people have made about the inability of Fox News to give President Obama much of a fair shake in its coverage of this administration. O’Reilly and other Fox News people have been whining about President Obama’s comments about Fox News attacking his administration. To be fair, President Obama made those comments on CNBC in reference to a question about the media being too soft on him (so, it was not just some random bashing of Fox News for no rhyme or reason). Anyway, O’Reilly has jumped into the fight to defend Fox News (no big surprise there). To analyze President Obama’s comments one would expect O’Reilly to bring on a diverse panel of commentators to have a fair and complete discussion of the issue to truly let the people see both sides and decide on their own. Right? Wrong. O’Reilly brings on two conservatives (Dick Morris and Bernie Goldberg) to parrot his sentiment as they went arm-in-arm gallivanting around in an oasis of conservatism. Where were the liberals to truly have a thoughtful discussion on the topic? They were missing in action as three Fox News conservative employees joined forces to bash the president in a completely biased fashion.
News Hounds has a nice report. I would encourage you to visit their site and to read their blog entry on this topic very closely.
Fox News host Chris Wallace oftentimes struggles to conceal his right-wing lean relating to discussions that are supposedly unbiased. Once again, Wallace lived up to this reputation as he hosted a segment discussing President Obama’s popularity and his popularity with the media. Consider these two exchanges posted by Crooks and Liars writer Nicole Belle.
CHRIS WALLACE: So let’s go over the record, and let’s put it up on the screen. CBS is running an interview today with Barack Obama , “An American Dad.” ABC is running coverage throughout the day on Wednesday of President Obama’s health care plan including a prime-time town hall. NBC just ran two specials, “Inside the Obama White House.” Tom Brokaw was named this week to a presidential commission. And Newsweek has put Mr. Obama on the cover 19 times since 2004. Steve Hayes, how do you explain all of that?
STEVE HAYES: A lot of people call Newsweek now “Obamaweek” because they’ve put him on so often. Look, I mean, clearly, his joke about rolling over and finding Brian Williams is more than just a joke. I mean, I think the sense is – and you’ve provided evidence that it’s true – that he’s in bed – the media are in bed with Barack Obama.
That’s clever, Hayes.
First off, Fox News spent a lot of time in bed with President Bush, Vice President Cheney and, during the 2008 campaign, with Republican candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin. Plus, Barack Obama sells right now and popularly so (much to the obvious annoyance of conservatives like those in power at Fox News). The media is supposed to cover news events, but the media also needs ratings and to make sales. President Obama is hot right now and he moves product. Fox News, as another example, capitalizes on President Obama by spending ample time criticizing nearly his every move.
MARA LIASSON: On the other hand, some of those numbers are reflective of — look, Bill Clinton had an incredibly chaotic first 100 days. There was a pratfall every other day to cover. George Bush was the result of — I’m assuming that was the first term — was the result of…
WALLACE: Yes.
LIASSON: … a contested election. And Barack Obama came in as a real majority winner. He has a big majority in Congress.
WALLACE: Oh, come on, don’t you think some of it is because he’s got liberal ideas?
Liasson is correct in the points she makes. People felt that Bush had stolen the election (whether you agree or disagree) and Clinton had some struggles coming out of the blocks. Still, it’s unbelievable naive to ignore the history we’ve seen in this country with the presidential election of 2008. We elected a young and charismatic president. He is the first non-white male to be named president of the United States of America (he is the first black man to serve as president). We witnessed history. We’re witnessing history. Wallace, like so many on Fox News, is obsessed with perceptions of liberal media bias while ignoring their own bias in reporting so consistently against President Obama. Look how much time Fox News spends on President Obama.
Republicans set the pace during the previous eight years when they had George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in office.
The Web site Big Hollywood has a blog from Chuck DeVore, who is running against Sen. Barbara Boxer in 2010. Now, some of you probably know where this is going already. As some of you also may recall, I was critical of Sen. Boxer for what seemed an arrogant lack of respect toward Brigadier General Michael Walsh this week during a hearing on Capitol Hill. While I think Sen. Boxer could have displayed a little more respect for the environment Gen. Walsh is coming from, I do draw the line with this blog below:
Barbara Boxer’s snippy confrontation with Brigadier General Michael Walsh on Capitol Hill on June 16, 2009 (Don’t call me “Ma’am,” call me “Senator”) wasn’t a display of a lack of proper military respect for Boxer, it was an open display of contempt from Boxer towards the people who serve in the military. That the Senator’s contempt was open and obvious shows Boxer’s lack of acting skills – most liberals have mastered the art of at least acting like they respect the men and women in the armed services.
That is a bunch of bull, and it’s sad when some of these conservatives come out and try so hard to portray some liberals as being against the military. Look, Sen. Boxer (in my opinion) made a bad choice with her words, but that is not indicative of “contempt from Boxer towards the people who serve in the military.” To make a comment like that makes you question the writer’s agenda.
Speaking of the writer’s possible agenda:
Here is DeVore’s bio from Big Hollywood:
Chuck DeVore is a California State Assemblyman and candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010. He retired from the Army National Guard at the rank of lieutenant colonel and served as a Reagan White House appointee in the Pentagon. He co-authored the novel China Attacks.
I think DeVore could have made his point without making such a blatantly outrageous comment about Sen. Boxer’s feelings for the military. To exploit the military for political gain is wrong.
Right or wrong, a current presidential administration generally blames the previous administration for problems they inherited. In the case of President Obama, he has probably been too nice about the problems he inherited from the previous administration. For example, some officials in the administration of George W. Bush blamed President Bill Clinton’s administration for 9/11. To me, that is laughable since Bush was inaugurated in January and the terrorist attacks happened on Sept. 11, 2001 (and there had been warnings, during Bush’s young administration, about Osama bin Laden).
That leads me to this from a column blog written by Greg Gutfeld:
So in a talk before a local business group, former President George W. Bush finally responded to all the mud thrown at him the previous five months. In the speech, Bush defended his policies regarding enhanced interrogation and rejected the idea of government-run health care. And to top it off, he said the new White House dog sucks.
Well, that dog part isn’t true, but it doesn’t matter. Because I already know how this is going to be played by the media – a group who takes any criticism toward Obama as a personal insult. After all, Obama isn’t just the man. He’s their man. I’m sure right now, Chris Matthews is taking an extra dose of meds to control the “thrill.”
I don’t have any problems with the way President Bush has been critical or expressing his disagreement with President Obama. I think President Bush has been respectful in his disagreement and I find no fault with that. I do find fault with a hack like Vice President Dick Cheney and his approach to trashing President Obama. Cheney’s post-White House behavior is beneath the dignity typically displayed by former presidents and vice presidents.
But, then again, Cheney is at least being consistent.
Bill O’Reillyis setting the stage for crying and complaining about the negative reactions to his demonizing of Dr. George Tiller, an abortion doctor who performed legal and private procedures for women. O’Reilly repeatedly cited that some people refer to Dr. Tiller as “Tiller the baby killer.” O’Reilly did slip up and call him “Dr. Killer” once and at least one other time referred to him director as “Tiller the baby killer.” He had a teaser on his show highlighting his attention to cry more about others in the media who have and continue to be critical of him as O’Reilly continues to bash the dead Dr. Tiller.
It’s hard to believe or take seriously anything coming from Fox News “analyst” Karl Rove (a man with apparently a very short memory or very selective memory), who was President George W. Bush’s right-hand man for so years. Daily Kos has put together a video highlighting Fox News lies and dishonesty in trying to demonize ABC News for having great access to President Obama when Fox News had unprecedented access to President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Fox News reporter Griff Jenkins, better known as one of the cowardly Fox ambush journalists (I use that term lightly), got a bit of a taste of his own medicine and didn’t like it too much. Adam Green of the Web site Open Left turned the tables on Jenkins and put the tuxedo-clad Fox reporter in what clearly was an uncomfortable position (as he over and over again tried to divert attention and change the subject). In cowardly fashion, Jenkins went into boxer mode as he utilized the bob-and-weave technique to dodge questions. Fox News has a long and dubious history of these bush-league tactics (including tough guy Jesse Watters stalking, ambushing and attempting to intimidate Think Progress blogger Amanda Terkel.
President Obama will be on ABC news during a prime-time special that is being called “Questions for the President: Prescription for America.” Right wingers are already whining about it and some have referred to it as an infomercial for the president and asserted that he will not be challenged. This is the kind of prejudice that makes no sense. The Republicans need to stop whining and work a little bit harder to get their alternative plan (if they have one) for health care reform. Taking shots at the President’s plan while not offering an alternative one seems to serve no useful purpose. Republicans can take a platform of their own and get their own message out and their own plan out. But, that is kind of difficult to do when you’re whining about the media.
Here is part of the Fox News report:
Opponents of President Obama’s proposed health care reform are blasting ABC News for refusing to air opposing ads during a prime time special next Wednesday, just as a new study finds ABC News coverage of the president’s health care plan is favorable by a ratio of 3 to 1.
The prime time special — called “Questions for the President: Prescription for America” — will be a nationally televised event during which Obama will answer questions presented by audience members selected by ABC News. The network has refused to accept advocacy ads during the hourlong show.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele accused ABC News and anchor Charles Gibson of making Obama’s case for “nationalized” health care “without any opportunity for opposing views to be aired.
That is quite a statement for something we’ve not yet seen.
More from the Fox story:
In a fundraising e-mail aimed at raising nearly $100,000 to buy air time for a counterprogram, Steele said the RNC’s request to add its views to the debate during the special was “flatly rejected” by ABC News.
“What are the Democrats and their media allies afraid of? The truth?” he asked in a fundraising letter to supporters. “That is outrageous! And we will not take it!”
But ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider told FOXNews.com that it has been a “longstanding” policy not to accept “advocacy” ads.
Schneider explained that the policy was established decades ago and only local ABC affiliates air issue ads.
If ABC is truly being consistent (with its ad policy), then Republicans should quit whining. It sounds as if they can go to local affiliates and do what needs to be done. That should be their approach if they are truly interested in something other than creating a controversy out of nothing … or, a nontroversy. In this country, to the victor goes the spoils. The Democrats won big in November and they have the bigger megaphone (just as Republicans did when George W. Bush was in office the previous eight years).
Swatting a fly that invaded his air space did not sit well with some people. I guess it’s no surprise that PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is upset with President Obama quick hands that put down a pesky fly.
From Fox News:
WASHINGTON — The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants the flyswatter in chief to try taking a more humane attitude the next time he’s bedeviled by a fly in the White House.
PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.
“We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals,” PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. “We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals.”
You’d think PETA has bigger fish … to fry … oops, forget it.
The feisty California lawmaker felt the need to remind an Army brigadier general of that fact Tuesday during a hearing before her Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, where the military officer testifying had the apparent gall to call Boxer “ma’am.”
Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was testifying on the Louisiana coastal restoration process in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. He began to answer one of Boxer’s questions with “ma’am” when Boxer immediately cut him off.
“You know, do me a favor,” an irritated Boxer said. “Could say ’senator’ instead of ‘ma’am?’”
“Yes, ma’am,” Walsh interjected.
“It’s just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it, yes, thank you,” she said.
“Yes, senator,” he responded.
Wow, that is kind of hypersensitive (and perhaps arrogant) on the part of Sen. Boxer.
Steve Doocy, of Fox News, is back on the attack against President Obama. This time, however, ABC is the pawn caught in the middle of the controversy. ABC has tremendous access to President Obama for a big interview it apparently will air. Doocy called ABC the “All Barack Channel.” Like several other hypocrites at Fox, Doocy has the nerve (I was going to say audacity) to criticize ABC for its coverage of President Obama after Fox had tremendous access of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Doocy has a history of smearing the president (or, is it just a bias?). He was a part of a false report advanced by numerous conservatives (including many on Fox News) that said President Obama attended a Muslim school, a madrassa. Normally, I would not spend much time fussing over a false report, but this one seems to have been driven by an ideological bias against Barack Obama (when he was a candidate for the presidency).
WOLF BLITZER: CNN did what any serious news organization is supposed to do in this kind of a situation. We actually conducted an exclusive first-hand investigation inside Indonesia to check oout the school that Barack Obama attended as a little 6-year-old boy.
From the January 19, 2007, edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends First:
DOOCY: When people find out this stuff, they’re going to go, “Why didn’t anybody ever mention that that man right there was raised as — spent the first decade of his life, raised by his Muslim father — as a Muslim and was educated in a madrassa?”
KILMEADE: Yeah, is that a problem? Evidently, when he was a little kid, he went over to Indonesia and went to a madrassa. He — in his two best-selling books, he doesn’t really mention this in detail, says, you know, I went to — mostly raised secular but went to a Muslim school, went to a Catholic school, and then a little bit later on, he would become a Christian, almost like a born-again Christian. But Barack Obama had a father born in Kenya who was a Muslim.
[...]
DOOCY: Is it ancient history or do you think madrassa matters? Josh joins us from Colorado. Good morning to you, Josh.
CALLER: What’s up?
DOOCY: What do you think?
CALLER: I think that, ultimately, this will probably be one of the main reasons he’s not elected.
DOOCY: Just the fact that his father was a Muslim, he was raised as a Muslim for awhile, and went to a madrassa school in Jakarta?
CALLER: Right. I mean, where — you’d think that could possibly give him, you know, better insight on the enemy, maybe he doesn’t really consider terrorists the enemy.
DOOCY: All right, Josh.
KILMEADE: Well, we’ll see about that. Yeah, Josh says that. Larry from Tennessee, where do you weigh in?
[...]
CALLER: Hi, good morning. Yes, I think it does matter. The fact that he omitted it must mean that he feels that somebody is going to have an opinion, and President Bush certainly comes under scrutiny, so why shouldn’t he?
KILMEADE: Well, he didn’t admit it. I mean, that’s the issue is that –
CARLSON: Well, she said he didn’t.
KILMEADE: Yeah, says he didn’t come out, and say, look, I was — was over in Indonesia for five years was — or roughly five years, went to a madrassa. And there is some reports that Wahhabism was the curriculum there –
DOOCY: Yeah.
KILMEADE: — which is a problem because they start with “We hate America” and work their way back from there.
DOOCY: Well, the way it was framed in one of his biographies, he said quote, “I was sent first,” this is in Indonesia, “to a Catholic school and then to a predominantly Muslim school.” He doesn’t say, “I went to a madrassa, where they taught Wahhabism.” He simply says, “I went to a predominantly Muslim school.”
From the January 19, 2007, edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: And in today’s Insight Magazine, which is a publication of The Washington Times, they talk about how Barack Obama, raised as a Muslim by his stepfather, also who was a Muslim, eventually an atheist, in Jakarta, Indonesia. And, you know, what have we heard about — coming out of the madrassa schools over in Indonesia? This is huge.
KILMEADE: It’s big about his background. It’s also interesting. He had two best-selling biographies. It did not come up — was not directly addressed. He also — they also found out that some of the characters in his biographies are composite characters, which he did not say up front. And if you think that Barack Obama is under some scrutiny now, just picture what’s going to be happening if he continues to lead over in Iowa and in New Hampshire, like he’s doing in two of the polls.
Fox News has spent most of this week crying about the coverage President Obama is getting from the media (I know, that’s not exactly breaking news). This is the same network that had practically a direct line to the White House (and tremendous access to President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney) … not too unlike the Batphone that allowed Batman and Commissioner Gordon to stay in direct contact.
Here is the summary of a Media Matters story:
SUMMARY: Fox News hosts and guests have criticized a scheduled ABC exclusive broadcast from the White House, but they failed to mention the extraordinary access Fox News had to President Bush and other officials, using those opportunities to lob softball questions and provide a platform for Bush administration talking points.
Media Matters has displayed some examples of the very positive treatment Bush and Cheney received from Fox News during their tenure.
Here is a sample that involves Bill O’Reilly:
On the October 16, 17, and 18, 2006, editions of The O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly airedportions of his October 16 interview with Bush, which consisted of such “tough questions” as whether Hillary Clinton is “soft on terrorism,” whether “the anti-Bush press” is responsible for popular opposition to the war, and whether Bush was aware that critics “are trying to destroy you.” O’Reilly also asked Bush, “[Y]ou work hard, right?” In his introduction to the October 16 interview segment, O’Reilly stated that “[b]ecause every presidential interview is finite,” he would concentrate on “what is happening now.” Absent from the interview, O’Reilly stated, would be any questions that “look back,” because, “What good does it do to rehash WMDs?” According to the on-screen text, “Looking back doesn’t do anybody any good.”
Here is a more general Fox News sample:
On October 13, 2007, Fox News aired “Dick Cheney: No Retreat,” which was described as “an exclusive interview” with Cheney and teased as “a rare glimpse into the life of the vice president.”
Here is a sample involving Brett Baier:
On February 2 and February 3, 2008, Fox News aired a documentary titled “George W. Bush: Fighting to the Finish,” after, as Fox itself described, “FOX News’ Bret Baier was granted unprecedented access by George W. Bush as the president begins the final year of his extraordinarily consequential tenure.”
10) Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, for falsely claiming a hate-crimes bill that adds gay, lesbian, and transgender Americans to the list of protected groups would also protect those who commit incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, bestiality, and a host of other perversions.
9) Fox News’ Sean Hannity, for hosting “Internet journalist” Andy Martin, who once called a judge a “crooked, slimy Jew, who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race.”
Syndicated radio host Neal Boortz, for describing welfare recipients as “human parasitic garbage lining up to get their applications to loot.”
7) Fox News conspiracy-theorist-in-chief Glenn Beck, for describing Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court as, “Hey, Hispanic chick lady! You’re empathetic. … You’re in!”
6) MSNBC’s resident cranky uncle, Pat Buchanan, for saying prior to Sotomayor’s selection that he wanted Obama to pick a Supreme Court justice “who has real stature, impresses people” but thinking instead that Obama would pick “a minority, a woman and/or a Hispanic.”
5) Syndicated radio host Jim Quinn, for repeatedly calling NOW the “National Organization of Whores.”
4) Cincinnati-based radio host Bill Cunningham, for allegingthat “Obama wants to gas the Jews.”
2) Fox News’ irrepressible mega-star Bill O’Reilly, for repeatedlyquacking that the legalization of gay marriage could lead to folks marrying ducks.
And No. 1, the conservative movement’s de facto leader, Rush Limbaugh, for sayingof Obama, “We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles … because his father was black.”
Syndicated radio host Neal Boortz, for