Despite reports that "don't ask, don't tell" will be tackled in President Obama's State of the Union address tonight, the initial line-up of cable and broadcast network hosts and commentators offering analysis after the speech includes only one openly LGBT figure, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
From Mediabistro's TVnewser:
|Wolf Blitzer and Campbell Brown will anchor coverage leading into the address along and post-response analysis along with John King. Soledad O'Brien will report on polling data and Jessica Yellin will moderate a focus group in Ohio. Anderson Cooper will report and anchor "AC360" from Haiti at 11pmET. Larry King will be live at 12amET.|
|"O'Reilly Factor" will end at 8:55pmET and Bret Baier will anchor the address, the Republican response, and analysis live until 10:30pmET. Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, Joe Trippi, and Bob Beckel will contribute. Carl Cameron and Major Garrett will report. Greta Van Susteren will be live for "On the Record" until 11pmET. Sean Hannity will be live from 11pmET until midnight.|
|Starting at 9pmET, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Rachel Maddow will anchor coverage of the address and response. Live editions of "Countdown" and "Rachel Maddow" will air at 10:30pmET and 11:30pmET|
|Fox Business will have coverage from 8-11pmET anchored by Neil Cavuto from the Newseum. Elizabeth MacDonald will host "Fixing America" beforehand and John Stossel will lead a "town hall" discussion afterward.|
|CNBC special coverage begins at 7pmET with Larry Kudlow in D.C. followed at 8pmEt by "President Obama 1 Year Later," which will be anchored live by John Harwood and Carl Quintanilla from Washington. CNBC will carry the address with and have reaction until 10:30pmET.|
|C-SPAN will begin special coverage at 8pmET with "a historical look at Presidents in their first year in office" followed by the address and response. Coverage will conclude at 11pmET. C-SPAN2 will air live reaction from Representatives and Senators from the Capitol.|
|ABC News' Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos anchor coverage of the address and response from D.C. with Jake Tapper, Jon Karl, and Martha Raddatz contributing. Sawyer will anchor "World News" from Washington and Terry Moran will anchor "Nightline," also from D.C., live at 11:35pmET.|
|Katie Couric will anchor coverage of the address and response at 9pmET as well as CBS' "Special Report: State of the Union" afterward. She will be joined by Jeff Greenfield and Bob Schieffer, with Chip Reid and Nancy Cordes reporting. Harry Smith will anchor "The Early Show" from Washington, D.C. tomorrow morning.|
|Fox News' Shepard Smith will anchor special coverage for FOX broadcasting starting at 9pmET. Chris Wallace will join for analysis and Shannon Bream will report from Capitol Hill.|
|Brian Williams will anchor from DC for NBC News with David Gregory. NBC News correspondents Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd, and Kelly O'Donnell will also contribute.|
|Jim Lehrer anchors PBS' broadcast of the address and response at 9pmET followed by analysis from Mark Shields.|
Since we probably won't see much in the way of LGBT voices tonight, Pam Spaulding from Pam's House Blend brings us some reactions from LGBT leaders to President Obama's comments on DADT.
From a January 27 post on NBC News' First Read blog:
Why tamper with Landrieu's phones?
Posted: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:49 PM by Mark Murray
From NBC's Pete Williams
A law enforcement official says the four men arrested for attempting to tamper with the phones in the New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) were not trying to intercept or wiretap the calls.
Instead, the official says, the men, led by conservative videomaker James O'Keefe, wanted to see how her local office staff would respond if the phones were inoperative. They were apparently motivated, the official says, by criticism that when Sen. Landrieu became a big player in the health care debate, people in Louisiana were having a hard time getting through on the phones to register their views.
That is, the official says, what led the four men to pull this stunt -- to see how the local staffers would react if the phones went out. Would the staff just laugh it off, or would they express great concern that local folks couldn't get through?
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 27 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
From the Fox Nation, accessed on January 27:
Andrew Breitbart continues with his best who's-James-O'Keefe? routine in the wake of the prankster's arrest in New Orleans, where O'Keefe and his conservative pals allegedly went undercover as telephone repairmen and were charged by federal authorities after entering Sen. Mary Landrieu's Louisiana office.
Breitbart, who championed O'Keefe's ACORN work at every chance he's had over the last four months, who's been helping to raise money for O'Keefe's previously established defense fend, who routinely holds O'Keefe up as a role model for the new type of activist "conservative journalist" that Breitbart wants to empower, and who in the past has insisted that reporters who wanted to pose questions to O'Keefe had to ask them through mentor-Breitbart, now acts like he hardly knows the guy. (RW talker Hugh Hewitt tried to help Breitbart build his wall of deniability: "HH: Did you talk to him about bugging any offices? AB: No." Priceless.)
Indeed, O'Keefe was clearly star-struck by the all the right-wing media doors doors that were opened by his dubious ACORN caper, which he filmed with Hannah Giles. And O'Keefe clearly believed that more outlandish acts would help his RW media career [emphasis added]:
The more bold you are, the more opportunities will be open to you. The less bold you are, the less opportunities in life will be open to you. The less calculated risk you take in college, the more you're going to be looking for a job.
But the more you put yourself out there and you take those calculated risks--the contrary of what people actually think is going to happen--you're actually going to get opportunities. Especially with someone like Hannah [Giles], who is a college student in Florida, you know, everyone telling her 'Oh, don't dress up like a [explicit]. Don't do that, you're going to ruin your career.'
Well, now she's working for Andrew Breitbart! And she's a journalist for Breitbart doing investigative journalism for the new site BigJournalism. So, I would encourage everyone to take on the challenge in college of being as assertive as you can possibly be in going after the truth.
The good news for Breitbart is he (claims) he knew nothing about O'Keefe's master plan for New Orleans, even though, yes Breitbart pays O'Keefe a salary. (Ouch.) But the idea that Breitbart, or Fox News, or the entire GOP Noise Machine, which vouched for, celebrated and encouraged O'Keefe and his shoddy brand of "journalism" for months can now turn around and say they have nothing to do with him, just doesn't compute. Why? Because O'Keefe's alleged recent actions in New Orleans, where he treated journalism like a joke, and treating an elected Democrat like a common criminal, are in prefect sync with the ethos of today's "conservative journalism."
And make no mistake, O'Keefe views himself as a journalist:
I focus on content more than labels. I happen to call what I do shoe leather journalism and not advocacy journalism. So, I would consider it just journalism.
"Just journalism"? See, that's the problem. It's not just journalism to dress up in a costume, go undercover, videotape people surreptitiously (esp. if local laws forbid such action), capture hidden camera footage, and then post the raw clips online or give it to Fox News to hype. It's not journalism to pretend to be somebody you're not, record people without telling them, and then hit the play button so everyone can watch.
Has 60 Minutes or 20/20 ever aired an undercover sting story that consisted of nothing more than 18 minutes of raw footage? Of course not. Journalism means putting information in context, letting 'the other side' have a say, etc. And of course it's not journalism when legitimate discrepancies arise about the videos for film makers to then refuse to release all the unedited clips. And it's not journalism to deceptively edit out exculpatory material without telling anyone.
But with the Breitbart model, wildly promoted by Fox News, none of that fairness stuff matters. Instead, vilification is the driving force and facts are optional. That, in turn leads "conservative journalists" to allegedly hatch B-movie plots to finagle their way into a senator's office and mess with her phone.
Teddy Roosevelt was possessed of a certain kind of toughness, famously beginning a 1912 campaign speech by saying: "I don't know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot; but it takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose." As such, I'd be kind of afraid to pick a fight with the man, even though he's been dead for nearly a century.
Glenn Beck, on the other hand, has no such fear of the ol' Rough Rider, and is increasingly devoting his on-air resources to tarnishing the reputation and legacy of America's 26th president. Last night, for example, Beck played a game on his show called "Who said it?" in which he matched supposedly damning quotes to the famous "progressive" who uttered them. Among the quotes was Roosevelt's purported exclamation: "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!" Beck took this quote, along with a few others, to proclaim: "Anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-Constitution -- that's what progressives are."
As with most of Beck's revisionist history, this is in need of some context and vigorous fact-checking.
In May 1902, anthracite coal miners in Pennsylvania went on strike, demanding higher wages and shorter hours. Employers refused to deal with the unions, and coal production essentially ground to a halt, sending coal prices through the roof. Roosevelt, as president, intently followed the strike's progress, knowing that he had no authority to intervene, but growing increasingly concerned as winter approached that the short supply of coal -- America's primary source for heat at the time -- would lead to "untold misery ... with the certainty of riots which might develop into social war."
Roosevelt's view was that he, as president, was steward of the national welfare, and that the coal shortage threatened that welfare. As Rutgers history professor John Whiteclay Chambers wrote in The Tyranny of Change: America in the Progressive Era, 1890-1920, Roosevelt believed the president "should intervene in the economy when necessary to contain the most destructive aspects of assertive wealth and provide some protection for its victims. Without strong presidential leadership and some reforms, mounting discontent might explode into widespread militance and even class conflict." [Page 175] Chambers also noted that Roosevelt's interventionist philosophy was tempered with a desire to "preserve American corporate capitalism as it was evolving by regulating it in the public interest."
It was in this context that Roosevelt was alleged to have said: "To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!" It wasn't an expression of the "anti-Constitution" philosophy Beck attributes to Roosevelt, but rather an acknowledgement by Roosevelt that he considered the threat of widespread fuel riots to be so serious that he would knowingly violate the bounds of his authority by intervening in the coal strike. And Roosevelt did intervene, inviting both labor leaders and employers to the White House for mediations in October 1902, and subsequently threatening to seize control of the mines. The threat worked, and the strike was soon resolved.
As the Labor Department's history of the 1902 coal strike makes clear, Roosevelt knew the risks he was running:
He recognized that under ordinary conditions he had no right to interfere in the strike. But Roosevelt was not the kind of man to "sit by idly" while "misery and death come to the great masses of people in our large cities." He told his Attorney General and Secretary of War that strong action might be an "evil precedent," but he would run the risk of impeachment rather than expose the Nation to chaos.
One can debate whether or not Roosevelt was right to knowingly exceed the limits placed on the executive office in the interest of national welfare, but it's ridiculous to suggest that this one quote from Roosevelt shows that he was, or that progressives in general are, "anti-Constitution."
The laughs just keep coming in the wake of the O'Keefe arrest yesterday. Andrew Breitbart, when he wasn't tweeting about "fisting," lashed out at the nastly, liberal "MSM" for falsely reporting that O'Keefe and pals had been arrested for trying to "bug" Sen. Mary Landrieu's office.
Not True! Breitbart insisted:
But there is absolutely no allegation in the criminal complaint that "wiretapping" or "bugging" is any part of this case, just the charge that O'Keefe and the others entered Sen. Landrieu's office in New Orleans "for the purpose of interfering with the office's telephone system."
Breirtbart went on to suggest the WashPost would have to issue a retraction for suggestion O'Keefe tried to "bug" the office.
But oops, look at how the conservative site Pajamas Media typed up its O'Keefe report:
Conservative activist James O'Keefe has been arrested by the U.S. Marshal's Service for allegedly attempting to bug the offices of U..S. Senator Mary Landrieu. Also arrested were Robert Flanagan, the son of a federal prosecutor, and two others.
Insert punchline here.
From a January 27 post on National Review Online's blog The Corner:
I am shocked by the reports of this behavior. I am well aware that following the law is an integral part of being a good investigative journalist. I take that responsibility and accountability very seriously. I certainly hope these reports are untrue.