From the Fox Nation:
From the April 20 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
From the Washington Times' April 20 editorial, titled, "Obama's secret shame":
At last week's nuclear summit, President Obama said it is a vital U.S. national security interest to reduce conflict, "because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into them."
Our question is: What's not to like? The United States has been one of the most beneficent global powers in the history of mankind, a beacon of freedom and a force for good for most of its history. But not everyone agrees - not even the current occupant of the White House.
The basic undercurrent of Obama foreign policy is that the United States is a fundamentally flawed country that has a lot to answer for. Witness ill-advised policies like rushing to try to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to push terrorist trials into civilian courts and to brand CIA interrogation methods as torture. When the president's wife, Michelle Obama, famously informed the nation that, "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country," the statement should be taken as literally true. In these quarters, pre-Obama American history is a catalogue of violence, exploitation, bigotry and injustice.
At some level, the president may feel a sense of shame that the United States is a global superpower. But Mr. Obama is the commander in chief, like it or not.
Dick Morris, who has made a career out of dishonestly trashing the Clintons, suddenly and conveniently claimed on Monday night's Hannity that then-Attorney General Janet Reno threatened President Clinton in early 1997 by saying that if he didn't re-appoint her as attorney general, she was "going to tell the truth about Waco." After host Sean Hannity said, "I don't remember you telling this story before," Morris replied, "No, it's never been said before." Morris went on to say: "I know that he told me -- Clinton told me -- that I couldn't not appoint Reno because she would have turned on me over Waco. That's the phrase he used."
Flyers' hockey owner Ed Snider has just picked up another right-winger. This one won't help Philadelphia finally win another Stanley Cup, though.
The sports mogul and long-time backer of conservative causes says he's a major investor in a new cable TV network that may have an even more difficult task than bringing hockey's crown back to Philly, and that is toppling the right-wing ratings champ, the Fox News Channel.
The Snider-funded RightNetwork -- with a looser approach to conservative topics, including a so-called comedy show and a jocular frontman in sit-com star Kelsey Grammer -- is hoping to come to your cable box as early as this summer.Snider -- whose investment in RightNetwork is personal and not linked to his role as chairman of Comcast-Spectacor, which already owns the locally popular Comcast Sportsnet on cable as well as the Flyers, 76ers and the Wachovia Center --had earlier posted a statement.
"We're creating a welcome place for millions and millions of Americans who've been looking for an entertainment network and media channel that reflects their point-of-view. RightNetwork will be the perfect platform to entertain, inform and Connect with the American majority about what's right in the world."
Snider, 77, a longtime backer of programs related to the queen of self-centeredness, libertarian philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand, has been more public in his support of conservative causes in recent years. He was a major donor to a now-defunct group called Freedom's Watch that supported the disastrous terrorism and Middle East policies of then-President George W. Bush, and his decision to invite then-GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin to drop the puck at the Flyers' 2008 drew a mix of cheers and boos.
Now, in entering the crowded and competitive world of politics on cable TV, Snider and his partners in the RightNetwork may have taken on a tougher mission, economically, than getting the 76ers back to the playoffs.
Ed Arke, who chairs the communications department as Messiah College in Grantham, Pa., said it will be difficult to convince conservatives to change the channel away from Fox News and its star line-up of Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity. "Fox in particular, is a very personality driven network," Arke said. "They recruited star-power when they initially went on the air and had the benefit of having a stable of recognizable talent as they were building audience. 24/7 cable news can't survive on the promise something big is going to happen."
Like any cable start-up, the prospect of success for a venture like RightNetwork depends to some extent on the quality of shows but also its ability to get the nation's cable and satillite providers to carry it in a good spot on the dial. As for programming, the proposed line-up on RightNetwork -- as posted for a preview on its website, rightnetwork.com -- is slanted more toward what could be called "conservative entertainment" and away from the newsier approach of Fox.
There is, for example, a right-leaning comedy show, "Evan Sayet's Right 2 Laugh," with standup comics making predictable jokes about President Barack Obama's teleprompter and buying an Obama coin "because any collector will tell you a coin is worth a lot more when there's an obvious mistake on it."
There's also a reality show called "Running" about six novice conservative candidates, and "Politics and Poker" with bombastic new-media star Andrew Breitbart, who hasn't had much luck with videotaped ventures as of late.
The previews are introduced by "Cheers" and "Frasier" star Grammer, one of Hollywood's best-known conservatives, who hails the network as "all that's right in the world."
There was considerable discussion yesterday -- fueled by some confusion in initial news reports -- over whether Snider and the network would receive backing from another Philadelphia institution -- Comcast Corp., which is currently seeking approval for its majority stake in NBC-Universal. Comcast Corp. issued a statement late yesterday that it is not an investor in RightNetwork and that it is evaluating the content of the new channel for possible addition to its channel lineup, as it would with any other start-up cable network.
At least 100 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 for white people." Here are his April 19 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
There's no question that Sean Hannity was, is, and will continue to be an unethical, lying hack. He's a determined and gifted prevaricator, a Republican National Committee spokesman posing as a cable news host, and in a moment of exquisite Schadenfreude for the Democrats and progressives he makes an ample living demonizing, he was exposed as such when his Fox News masters decided it was finally time to yank on the leash and end his pay-for-bray involvement with the Cincinnati Tea Party.
It was embarrassing for Fox News, and probably confusing for Hannity, who likely assumed he had carte blanche to use his considerable media presence to boost Republican and conservative politics. But for all the reporting on how Fox News executives are furious with Hannity and plan to exhaustively investigate the situation, count me as extraordinarily skeptical that the network will do anything to punish Hannity.
In an April 17 Washington Post article, National Review Online blogger Ed Whelan issued a bizarre attack on Solicitor General and potential Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. The Post reported that as dean of Harvard Law School Kagan strongly criticized the military's discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The Post quoted Kagan saying in an email to the Harvard Law School community: "I abhor the military's discriminatory recruitment policy. [It is] a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order." The Post then quoted Whelan's attack on Kagan's comments, saying that Kagan used "strikingly extreme rhetoric" that should be reserved for something like the Holocaust:
For someone who has been so guarded on so many issues, she used strikingly extreme rhetoric. Moral injustice of the first order' would seem fit for something like the Holocaust.
This is one issue that provides some jurisprudential clues as to how much her reading of the law will be biased by her policy views. If she is the nominee, that is an angle that I would press.
One could argue that discrimination against a group of Americans who only wish to fight for and serve their country begs to be criticized with strong language. But for someone who pals around with conservative extremist Glenn Beck with no complaints -- you know Beck, the guy who shamelessly invokes Holocaust imagery against anyone who undermines his paranoid narratives -- Whelan may not be the best judge of what constitutes "strikingly extreme rhetoric."
Whelan also wants you to know that he has "zero interest in exploring, much less opining on "the religion of court of appeals judge and potential Supreme Court Nominee Diane Wood. Oh no, such "classification of individuals along crude" religious lines, is "one of the ugly aspects of the diversity game." But Whelan wrote these things in an April 16 blog post that appears to only have been written in an attempt to cast doubt on Wood's religion.
Three weeks ago, Media Matters reported that Fox host John Stossel is scheduled to keynote an upcoming fundraising luncheon for a "research" organization with heavy ties to the energy industry and whose research and representatives have repeatedly appeared on Fox.
The organization, the Institute for Energy Research (IER), says on the event's website that Stossel will keynote the June 4 luncheon in Houston. IER confirmed to Media Matters today that Stossel will still be speaking at the event. IER said it had arranged Stossel's appearance through a speaker's bureau and had not been in touch with Fox. Last fall, The New York Times reported that "a Fox spokesperson said all speeches given by employees require approval from the network."
Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund lambasted Wall Street reform legislation for setting up a fund to pay for future bailouts -- an utter falsehood -- and for allowing the government to liquidate failing firms, which is the opposite of a bailout. Thus, in fewer than 40 words, Fund managed to expose right-wing attacks as completely hollow efforts to derail efforts to strengthen Wall Street regulation.