From the January 21 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
From Jim Hoft's January 21 Gateway Pundit post:
It seems like forever.
A year ago President George W. Bush left the White House. Since that time the unemployment has nearly doubled, the national deficit has tripled, government has grown in leaps and bounds, and the current president has blamed his predecessor for every problem he has encountered. President Obama even blamed George Bush for the Coakley loss yesterday in Massachusetts.
Don't expect to read anything this honest in the US papers...
George W. Bush liberated 60,000,000 Muslims from tyranny- More than any leader since World War II.
The Telegraph gives an honest review of the Bush years.
Jules Crittenden adds that it is also with tremendous grace that George Bush has accepted his designated role as villain, fall guy, punching bag.
Today again we thank President George W. Bush.
We learn from the Washington Examiner's Tim Carney that former Washington Times managing editor for digital Jeffrey Birnbaum is joining a Washington lobbying firm, BGR Group (known as Barbour, Griffith & Rogers), to head its PR division. Birnbaum -- who left his job in the recent WashTimes implosion -- will continue to write a column for the Times, as well as appear on Fox News as a contributor.
Given that, as Carney noted, BGR Group has numerous high-profile clients such as foreign governments, defense contractors, and pharmaceutical companies, this looks to us like a conflict of interest waiting to happen. Indeed, we've long documented TV talking heads and other conservatives not disclosing their financial interests in the causes they're speaking about.
The onus here is on both ends -- Birnbaum to disclose any conflicts of interest, and The Washington Times and Fox News to make sure he does.
(P.S. Given that Birnbaum left The Washington Post in August 2008 to work for the Times, it's absurd for Carney's headline to read, "Who else at the Washington Post is auditioning for a K Street job?" Just another example of the Examiner's right-wing bias, it appears.)
From The Fox Nation:
Eighty advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his January 20 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
From the Fox Nation, accessed on January 20:
Discredited Internet entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart rallied his Big Journalism, Big Government and even Big Hollywood troops today to mark the one-year anniversary of Obama's inauguration by publishing not one, but eight separate paeans to former President George W. Bush.
Remember how great things were a year ago this time? Well, Breitbart's crew does.
The head honcho himself proclaims: "After the MSM's relentless assault, the President still stands proud." (Bear in mind, he's not talking about the current president, who is still standing proud after Breitbart's lame campaigns against him.) Breitbart writes:
[T]he simple fact was that media deliberately and malevolently sustained a false caricature of Bush in its pages and on its broadcasts in order to bog down the leader of the free world when he needed all the help he could get, and a time when the country was in great danger.
Again, he's not talking about now, or his own attacks on Obama.
The most absurd screed goes to J.S. Shapiro, who writes that "America betrayed President Bush." You see, America owes George W. Bush.
Here's the Twitter-ized version of the rest of the posts:
Bush was a fearless leader in perilous time who was hamstrung by attacks from Left and media. And Obama is now following the Bush doctrine.
Oh, and somehow "class died" the day Bush left office because he had been hated for eight years because he is "openly Pro-Life." (Gary Graham wins the award for the most incomprehensible ode.)
Scott Brown Win 'Stunning'? Only to Out-of-Touch Media
And here's the argument they make:
[I]f you've been paying attention to the growing tide of anger and resentment against Washington elitists who have lost touch with their constituents, then Brown's win was not stunning, but a logical outcome. Unfortunately, many of those who task themselves with bringing us the news each and every day seem to be as out of touch with their audience as the Washington elites they cover.
OK, so the media are out of touch for labeling Republican Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts special Senate election as "stunning." Sure, I'll bite.
Now, check out the opening paragraph from an item posted yesterday on BigGovernment.com, Big Journalism's sister site and one of Breitbart's three "Big" websites [emphasis added]:
One would think the repudiation of the President Obama's direct personal plea would make him the biggest loser in the wake of Tuesday's stunning victory by Republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special Senate election. But one would be wrong.
Oh my. It's bad enough to be "out of touch," but to be called out as such by your own colleagues? How embarrassing ...
Politico's Ben Smith writes:
As the left makes the counterintuitive argument - which it lost in 1994 - that Democrats' real problem is caution, not overreach, John Judis makes the more straightforward case: It's all about the independents.
But, contrary to Smith's suggestion, the two positions -- that the "Democrats' real problem is caution, not overreach" and that "It's all about the independents" are not mutually exclusive. And contrary to his suggestion, "independents" are not some static universe of voters in the "center" who can only be unhappy with Democrats if Democrats "overreach."
Indeed, Judis does not seem to subscribe to the views Smith ascribes to him. Judis writes "Obama's declining approval can be attributed to the rising rate of unemployment and that the only way he could have prevented, or eased, the fall in his popularity would have been to get Congress to adopt a much larger stimulus program last winter."
That sure doesn't sound like a contradiction of the view that the "Democrats' real problem is caution, not overreach."
Smith's construct adopts the tired assumption that in order to appeal to "independents," Democrats must jettison progressive ideals. But it's rarely anything more than that: an assumption. Much of the time, Democrats can better appeal to "independents" through clear articulation of a progressive agenda, and -- this part is important -- successful implementation of the same. Just consider last year's stimulus: Had it been larger, as many economists said it should have been, the economy might now be in much better shape. Surely we can all agree that if that were the case, Democrats might well enjoy more support from independents?