It's Day Two of the Scott Brown Era (at least that's how cablers continue to over-cover the Mass. story), and yet still no "gigantic" stock market rally, as predicted by CNBC's Jim Cramer. In fact, just like yesterday, investors (surprise!) seem quite non-plussed by Brown's win, and for the second straight day stocks are down significantly.
Like, down 200 points already today.
Please note that Glenn Beck remains quite confused because he thought Cramer's oddball prediction about the Brown stock surge "made total sense."
UPDATED: Note the CNBC anchor who thinks the Cramer prediction about a Scott Brown stock market rally was "nonsense."
For all the awful and reprehensible things Glenn Beck says and does, it's rare I find myself disgusted with the Fox News host. But it happened last night.
If you didn't see the show, Beck suddenly found himself concerned for the safety of President Obama:
BECK: Now, why is the president himself in trouble? Well, let me use him [Van Jones] as an example, a 9/11 truther -- another guy surrounding the president. OK, 9/11 truthers. Here's a guy who thought the government was evil enough that it would murder thousands of U.S. citizens. Just blow 'em up. Destroy a building and kill 3,000 people.
Well, gosh, are these people like you? Do you think that? Do you think anyone who does think that we could just kill our own people should be near the president? I mean, he thinks anybody who sits or sat in the chair of the presidency must be evil. He goes to church with a guy who thinks that America intentionally murdered people throughout history. Put yourself in the mindset of a 9/11 truther. You have access to the president of the United States, the guy who has always been evil. You think now that he was on your side, but now, if he goes soft, he's joined the cabal capable of murdering people, he promised you a revolution.
Do you think it's safe to have an individual like that around the president of the United States? Are you comfortable with that?
Well, let me tell you something. You might think this is crazy, oh, that stuff would never happen. Let me show you what was said on left-wing radio today. Thanks to Newsbusters.org, they just posted this. "You crazy blank, you right-wingers, do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your expletive country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are as complicit of the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attack as any one of those expletive 15 who came from Saudi Arabia? Don't you get that?"
As a guy -- I'll tell you some day -- as a guy who has to have unbelievable security because of people like that, let me tell you what these people are capable of.
By the way, in a related story, why did the White House have the hearing today on the gatecrashers? Remember the gatecrashers? They pleaded the fifth. Do you think the White House or Congress had that story planted today, to have those hearings today to bury it in a busy news day while everyone else was distracted?
Please pray for our Secret Service, make sure that they do their job. Dear God, protect our president.
I have no doubt that Glenn Beck does not wish any harm upon President Obama. But this is disgusting and little more than a bank-shot smear of both President Obama and his advisors. He's saying -- in a complete absence of evidence, sense, and decency -- that the president's advisors are crazed would-be assassins, and implicit in the criticism is that President Obama is irresponsible enough to put crazed would-be assassins in positions of power where they have access to him. And then, as if that weren't enough, Beck has the gall to use prayer as a weapon against his political opponents.
It's moments like these when I'm brought back to Beck's attack on President Obama as a "racist" and Fox News' refusal to pursue any punitive action against him. At the time, NBC's First Read summed up the situation perfectly: "There was a time when outrageous rants like this would actually cost the ranters their jobs. But not anymore; if anything, it's now encouraged."
This Wall Street Journal article today plays dumb on a rather epic scale regarding the GOP's almost universal refusal to support any initiative coming out of the White House.
The piece, which surveys the political landscape in the wake of Scott Brown's win, actually provides helpful background by noting that during the previous year Democrats have enjoyed larger margins in the U.S. senate than any party since right after Watergate. The Journal notes that, "recent presidents managed to pass sweeping bills with smaller majorities or even when their party was in the minority."
So what gives with Obama, the Journal article seems to ask. And that's where the playing dumb always begins. Because the Beltway press just refuses to report and comment candidly on what's been unfolding for the last 13 months.
From the Journal [emphasis added]:
But straight party-line votes are a relatively recent phenomenon in the Senate, historians say; interparty coalitions were long the norm.
In the 1960s, Democrats held sizeable super-majorities, culminating in 64 seats in 1968. But that included a deeply conservative faction of Southern Democrats who often voted with conservative Republicans, and bills often passed with bipartisan support and opposition.
Now, however, the majority party has to contend with a routine threat of a filibuster from the minority. "It's a relatively new story that it has become acceptable to filibuster everything in sight," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal Washington think tank.
Here's the word the Journal, like most Beltway outlets, steadfastly refuses to use when describing today's party line votes of no from the GOP: "unprecedented," which, of course, is the accurate term. Because we've simply never seen, in modern American history, a minority party that has decided to proudly oppose everything from the White House.
In the past, if a party had tried that, especially after a new president won an electoral landslide victory in November the way Obama did in 2008, that strategy would have been portrayed in the press as a radical form of obstructionism, and as being out of touch with mainstream politics. But today, the press pretends it's no big deal, like it's normal, and actually blames the White House, as reporters collectively scratch their heads trying to figure out why Obama can't secure GOP votes. Because gee, GOP leaders say they want to work with Democrats, so why won't Dems make it work?
The press plays dumb about the unprecedented obstructionism and then voilà! it's deemed "acceptable to filibuster everything in sight."
in 2009, the GOP adopted a risky and radical political strategy, but the press declined to describe it as either, which has only emboldened the GOP. (i.e. There's no political downside.) Instead, the press continues to pretend that what uber-partisan Republicans are doing it's normal, and then pins the blame on Obama for having failed to build a bipartisan coalition.
It's kind of like a trap, no?
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.
Wow, that is bad: unemployment doubled last year. No wonder voters are so angry!
Fact: When Bush left office, unemployment stood at 7.6 percent.
Fact: Unemployment today is not 15.2 percent, which means it hasn't "doubled." And it hasn't even "nearly doubled."
Fact: Hoft will never, ever correct his glaring error.
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: