Libs Go Nuts Over Fox News

[red states rule]

Hume: Shrewd of Edwards to Spurn Debate Since Fox Cannot Be at War With Him
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on March 11, 2007 - 09:50.
As the Managing Editor of Fox News Channel's Washington, DC bureau, you might have thought Brit Hume would have taken great umbrage at John Edwards' high-profile decision to spurn a debate of Dem presidential contenders that Fox had organized for August in Nevada. The Edwards pull-out ultimately led to a cancellation of the debate by the Nevada state Democratic party. Edwards had come under pressure from liberal netroots and organizations such as Move.on, which had organized a petition drive calling for cancellation of the debate.

But in a fair-and-balanced comment reflecting an appreciation of real politik, Hume has praised Edwards' move as "shrewd" -- at least in the short run. During the panel discussion on this morning's Fox News Sunday, Hume observed:

"Edwards is really the key political player in this. And when you think about it for a minute, in the short term this is probably a shrewd political move by him on a couple counts. One is that it separates him from the other candidates on this, at least briefly, it pleases the wing of the party that is active and important in the nominating process, and what Edwards knows is that while he may be at war against Fox News, Fox News is not and cannot be at war with him.

"He knows, and his people know, that Carl Cameron and Jim Angle and Major Garrett and you Chris in interviews and I as a news anchor on a nightly program are going to continue to treat him in the same fair way that we've always treated him, and we must do that. Now, he might get roughed up by some conservative commentators on Fox, but he'll be defended by liberal commentators on Fox as well. So in the short term, this is probably good politics. In the long term, I have my doubts but that remains to be seen."

There was a light moment at the end of the segment. NPR's Juan Williams criticized his fellow liberals for cancelling the debate, saying that it ran counter to the liberal spirit of openness. "I think it's crazy to tell people to shut up," said Williams. When host Chris Wallace observed that Juan was "fired up" over the issue, Juan replied "I sometimes have this argument with Brit Hume. I think he's trying to shut me up."

Brit jokingly interjected "shut up, Juan," much to the general mirth as you can see from Chris Wallace's reaction.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11340

 

[Avatar4321]

First of all Fox News is not a critical and hostile media toward Dems. Fox News reports the facts, and if a Dem tries to spin or ignore facts - they host points the "oversight" out

Unlike CNN compared VP Cheney to Darth Vader, Fox is a balanced network

I think that makes my point even further though. They only percieve it as being hostile or critical. They could have Alan Colmes running the debate and they would still be against it because it's Fox.

 

[red states rule]

What I gather form the Fox hating left is, any Democrat who appears on Fox News is not a "real" Dem

Allen has been savaged for being on the Fox News payroll

 

[red states rule]

Will Liberal Media Stand Against Left-Wing Anti-Free Press Mob?
Posted by Rich Noyes on March 12, 2007 - 17:13.
It’s probably not that surprising that some on the far Left were complaining that the Fox News Channel was going to host a debate between the Democratic presidential candidates in Nevada later this year. They were probably completely unaware that Fox News co-hosted (with the liberal Congressional Black Caucus Institute) two Democratic debates during the last presidential campaign.

What is surprising is that former Democratic Senator John Edwards, who smilingly participated in both of the Fox debates in 2003 (picture at left), decided that he could not participate in a debate hosted by Fox. “I said, ‘Why are we doing Fox?’ I said, ‘No, tell them no,’” Edwards told the Washington Post’s Dan Balz.

The idea that Fox runs biased debates is a bum rap. Four years ago, Brit Hume moderated the first debate on September 9, with questions posed by NPR’s Juan Williams, TheBeehive.org’s Farai Chideya, and BET’s Ed Gordon, three liberals The second debate on October 26 was hosted by Gwen Ifill (who later served as moderator of the vice presidential debate between Edwards and Dick Cheney), with questions asked by FNC reporter Carl Cameron and WJBK-TV anchor Huel Perkins.

There’s no record that any of the 2003 debate participants, who included very liberal candidates such as Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and the Reverend Al Sharpton, had any complaints of bias.

It is not exactly clear why Edwards, who was an enthusiastic participant in Fox’s debates in 2003, suddenly found it impossible to participate this year, but the Post noted that Edwards is running a much more stridently left-wing campaign this year than he did four years ago.

After Edwards backed out, the Nevada Democratic Party seized on the thin reed of a comment by Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes — a joke that basically mocked President Bush for supposedly being unable to distinguish Barack Obama from Osama bin Laden — to cancel the debate entirely.

The letter co-signed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the top Democrat in Nevada, oddly suggested that to let Democratic candidates debate on Fox’s airwave was to endorse Ailes joke, which they misinterpreted as a slight against Senator Obama (who said for his part he wasn’t bothered by the joke):


“Comments made last night by Fox News President Roger Ailes in reference to one of our presidential candidates went too far. We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments. In light of his comments, we have concluded that it is not possible to hold a Presidential debate that will focus on our candidates and are therefore canceling our August debate. We take no pleasure in this, but it is the only course of action.”
Edwards and Reid, of course, are ratifying the quite illiberal campaign by left-wing activists to declare Fox “a right-wing misinformation network,” not a legitimate source of news.

Writing Saturday on the HuffingtonPost.com, Melinda Henneberger documented the high-fives lefties were giving each other after the debate’s cancellation:


Robert Greenwald, director of the movie Outfoxed, called the move a “victory for truth and journalism.” Some 280,000 people have viewed Greenwald’s new YouTube film "Fox Attacks: Obama" — located with the petition at www.FoxAttacks.com. "By standing up to Fox's right-wing smears," Greenwald said, "the patriotic grassroots, Netroots, Senator Reid, Senator Edwards, and the Nevada Democrats have all worked together to protect one of the most important elements of a free society - the press."

And Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Civic Action, said he hoped the decision would "set a precedent within the party that Fox should be treated as a right-wing misinformation network, not legitimized as a neutral source of news."

Journalists who care about their profession should be appalled by such reasoning and repudiate the campaign to silence their brethren at Fox News, but the debate cancellation has so far been given relatively slight coverage from the other networks. And some of those journalists who work for other news organizations need to ask Senators Edwards and Reid whether or not they share the far Left’s belief that the Fox News Channel is nothing but a GOP mouthpiece.

It's impossible to imagine that the establishment media would be so silent if conservatives or Republicans were working to ostracize a liberal media outlet.

CNN, by the way, will host a Democatic debate in Nevada in November, so Democrats are choosing to bypass the top-rated cable news outlet in favor of one with less than half the audience.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11370

 

[red states rule]

It might behoove the GOP to approach the most respected/logical members of the internet news consortiums from the left and right, asking if they'd be willing to prepare for and hold a debate. Uh duh, the answer would be, how soon?

Then take out advertising on MSM, cable, radio news programs. Podcast it of course. My guess is radio would be more than willing to air it live.

Heck the ones who watch the debates to begin with are those interested, those already familiar with internet news.

'Free Speech' Dead at CBS 'Evening News'...
Posted by Ken Shepherd on March 13, 2007 - 00:35.
...among other format changes under the new Rick Kaplan era.

PublicEye editor Brian Montopoli passed along the usual talking points senior management in broadcast news outlets always give when they are trying to save a sinking ship. You know the drill. "This time, more hard news. We swear!"

Unfortunately Montopoli left out some hard news in his own March 12 blog post:

He failed to address Kaplan's Clinton ties nor Kaplan's post-Memogate defense of Dan Rather.

We at NewsBusters did, just check the links in the preceding paragraph
http://newsbusters.org/node/11379

 

[red states rule]

Pardon me while I choke........................


Bill Maher Calls Democrats ‘Wussies’ [sic] For Pulling Out of Fox News Debate
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 13, 2007 - 12:01.
Please forgive the slightly vulgar headline, but HBO’s Bill Maher was Larry King’s guest on CNN Monday evening. As one would expect, the controversial comedian pulled no punches concerning his views about current events, and seemed to have the term in question quite on his mind.

For instance, Maher suggested what Ann Coulter really meant with her remark at CPAC about John Edwards was the following: "[It's code word for the Democrats are -- I hope I can say this -- you said faggot -- pussies.”

A tad later, Maher once again used this term to describe the left when he castigated Democrats for pulling out of the scheduled debate in Nevada due to the host station being Fox News. Maher declared emphatically, “They're pussies!”

In order for the context of his remarks to make sense, a partial transcript of this sequence follows for your entertainment pleasure (h/t Hot Air with video available here):

MAHER: You have to think like a right-winger. First of all, it's interesting to note that she made that comment in front of that right-wing convention. She was not booed. There was actually a moment of ooh and then they all burst into applause. It went over like a cross on fire.

They actually liked that comment. And to people, normal people, you know, people who think like human beings, it was just confusing.

It was like why is John Edwards gay?

He's good looking.

OK, is that equivalent with gay?

No. And then she explained it and I kind of thought about it and I see what she's saying, is that, no, she really meant to say -- what she was trying to say, it's code word for the Democrats are -- I hope I can say this -- you said faggot -- pussies.

Can I say that?

KING: That's code word for -- I never read that. That never came through.

MAHER: No. No, but that's what they mean, is that he's a faggot because he thinks and speaks in complete sentences and reads whole books and doesn't just go off to war without thinking about it twice. And he cares about poor people and the environment, you know, poof stuff, Larry.

KING: Do you still like Ann Coulter?

MAHER: I haven't talked to her in so long. I don't know if she still likes me.

KING: Really?

She used to come on your show a lot.

MAHER: A lot. Yes.

KING: Would you have her back?

MAHER: Yes, I'd have -- of course I'd have her back. I mean I like her -- I like what she says less and less. I never agreed with her. But she never was like out there. But this was a joke, in her defense.

KING: Right.

MAHER: I mean she was making a joke.

KING: A bad joke.

MAHER: I don't know. You know, for that crowd, it was apparently the right joke.

KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

MAHER: As a comedian, I know that's the crowd it got a...

KING: The Democrats have pulled out of the Fox debate.

MAHER: Well, and this is why she has a point.

They're pussies, OK?
Do you remember when Bill Clinton went on with Chris Wallace a few months ago?

KING: Yes.

MAHER: And he showed everybody in that Democratic Party how it should be done.

KING: Get mad.

MAHER: He took on Chris Wallace.

These guys were like oh, no, Fox News, un-nnh, no, I'm sorry, we can't do that. We -- we didn't like the joke.
KING: Well, were they mad at a bad joke, right?

MAHER: They were made at a -- who cares what they're mad at? Instead of withdrawing, which says to everybody in the country oh, typical Democrats. They don't call people out, they just walk away. They don't raise the bet.

Go on there. It's just Chris Wallace. If you can't stand up to Chris Wallace, can you stand up to the terrorists, let alone the Republican Party?

KING: So, a mistake, in your opinion?

MAHER: Yes.

KING: OK.

MAHER: Take it to their house. Win an away game.

I couldn’t agree more, Bill.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11389

 

[red states rule]

I think that makes my point even further though. They only percieve it as being hostile or critical. They could have Alan Colmes running the debate and they would still be against it because it's Fox.

Another example of the liberal media and how they ignore facts

CBS and NBC Pursue Gonzales and Rove, But ABC Raises Clinton and Lack of Illegality
Posted by Brent Baker on March 15, 2007 - 21:03.
ABC's World News separated itself from the media pack Thursday night. Though ABC's coverage was keyed to how e-mails supposedly show that Karl Rove was at “the center” of early 2005 discussions about replacing all 93 U.S. attorneys, anchor Charles Gibson pointed out how “these U.S. attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire them at any time. So did anything really get done that was wrong?” Jan Crawford Greenburg answered, in a broadcast network evening newscast first, by informing viewers of how “President Clinton, in fact, fired all the U.S. attorneys when he came into office from the previous Republican administration.”

Meanwhile, NBC and CBS continued the obsession on the story for the third night in a row. NBC Nightly News anchor Campbell Brown breathlessly teased her lead, “The prosecutor purge: Did the idea of firing all U.S. Attorneys start with inner circle adviser Karl Rove? If so, what now?” The CBS Evening News led with two stories on the subject, starting with Jim Axelrod on Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher's call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign. Next, Bob Orr looked at how Gonzales “was tangled in controversy" before becoming AG. “As the President's chief lawyer, Gonzales sanctioned the widespread use of warrant-less wiretaps,”Orr thundered, thus “allowing the government to snoop on Americans without court orders.” Plus, “he also approved the so-called 'torture memo'” and “under Bush-Gonzales policies, prisoners were allowed to be held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay with no access to U.S. courts,” policies reflecting an “attitude,” Georgetown law professor David Cole charged, in Orr's words, which “led directly to the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.”

(My transcription of the CBS Evening News was impeded tonight by college basketball which aired instead of the CBS Evening News on the CBS affiliate in Washington, DC, so I had to transcribe from the Web-cast.)

The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video for the March 15 coverage on ABC's World News. Anchor Charles Gibson announced:


"The Bush administration launched a new defense of its controversial decision to fire a handful of U.S. attorneys without making the reasons immediately clear. Today top White House aide Karl Rove said several of the prosecutors had been fired because they did not make administration policy their top priority. And he said the critics are motivated by politics."

Karl Rove, before a group in Alabama: "Now, we're at a point where people want to play politics with it. And that's fine. I would simply ask that everybody who's playing politics with this be asked to comment about what they think about the removal of 123 U.S. attorneys during the previous administration, and see if they had the same superheated political rhetoric then that they're having now."

Gibson: "What Rove didn't say but we now know from White House e-mails released just tonight is that Karl Rove was more involved in the firing of U.S. attorneys than the administration has previously acknowledged. ABC legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg joins me now from Washington. Jan, I had a chance to read this e-mail that you first learned about today, and it does show that a lot of people at the White House, very early on, were discussing the firing of U.S. attorneys, including Rove, but do they show there was political motivation involved?"

Jan Crawford Greenburg, a former Chicago Tribune Supreme Court reporter who recently joined ABC News: "Well, the emails that were released tonight show that Rove was at the center of these discussions from the beginning along with Alberto Gonzales. These emails took place a month before Gonzales was confirmed as the Attorney General. Now, Rove was asking whether any decisions had been made about whether to fire the U.S. attorneys, whether they should just target certain ones, so these emails show he was in on that from the beginning."

Gibson: "But to come back to the point the White House makes, was anything necessarily wrong? These U.S. attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire them at any time. So did anything really get done that was wrong?"

Greenburg: "Well, that's exactly right. And President Clinton, in fact, fired all the U.S. attorneys when he came into office from the previous Republican administration. Of course, a President can fire U.S. attorneys when he chooses. The problem for the White House now and the Justice Department is that these e-mails seem to suggest the White House, at least that's what Democratic Senators are saying tonight, the White House hasn't been forthcoming with how this whole plan began, and they show that Rove was in on it from the beginning."

Gibson: "This issue consumes Washington, and there will be many hearings on this with Karl Rove called to testify?"

Greenburg: "Karl Rove is unlikely to testify. The White House right now is discussing whether any White House officials will go up in the Hill and try to explain their role in the matter. The White House believes that goes to the core of separation of powers and executive privilege issues. So they now, there's a large contingent of people in the White House who think that they should not allow Rove or former White House counsel Harriet Miers to testify about those discussions. But as this email shows today, it will be difficult for them to resist because Democrats are stepping up the calls to hear from them."


My Wednesday NewsBusters rundown: “ABC and CBS Lead Again with Fired Attorneys, Paint Them as Victims of Bush Politics.” And my Tuesday posting: “Nets Didn't Care About Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Lead With Replacement of 8.”

http://newsbusters.org/node/11452

 

[red states rule]

I think that makes my point even further though. They only percieve it as being hostile or critical. They could have Alan Colmes running the debate and they would still be against it because it's Fox.

Stephanopoulos's Double Standard: 'Something Smells Fishy' in Bush Firings, But...
Posted by Rich Noyes on March 16, 2007 - 12:31.
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos grilled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys on Wednesday, telling him that “something does seem fishy here,” suggesting that the Bush White House was punishing U.S. Attorneys who were not pursuing a GOP-friendly agenda.

But as a White House spokesman back in 1993, Stephanopoulos faced exactly the same question over President Clinton’s decision to fire U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens along with the other 92 U.S. Attorneys. “There is also a tradition of permitting prosecutors to remain on cases until current cases are completed,” a reporter told Stephanopoulos in a March 25, 1993 briefing. Referring to the investigation into House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski for embezzling money from the House Post Office, a reporter asked, “Is there any intention to keep Jay Stephens until the Rostenkowski case is finished?”

From the podium, spokesman Stephanopoulos coolly replied, “I don't think so, no.”

In his political memoir, “All Too Human,” Stephanopoulos relayed the attitude Clinton insiders had toward Stephens, who said in March 1993 he was within 30 days of finishing the Rostenkowski investigation. (With Stephens off the case, the indictment came 14 months later, in May 1994.) Hearing that Stephens had been named by a government agency to look into the Clinton’s Whitewater land deal, Stephanopoulos recalled his rage: “How could a Clinton hater like Stephens possibly conduct an impartial investigation? This is unbelievable! He has a clear conflict. How could it happen?”

Stephanopoulos voiced his outrage to Treasury Department official Josh Steiner, who told him there was no way to remove Stephens from the case. Stephanopoulos’ seeming attempt to affect the Whitewater investigation actually earned him a trip to the grand jury room, although he was never indicted.

MRC analyst Scott Whitlock took down Stephanopoulos’s accusatory questions to Gonzales from the March 14 Good Morning America:


Stephanopoulos: "But Mr. Attorney General, something does seem fishy here. Five of the eight who were dismissed were involved in high profile political corruption cases. Four were going after Republicans accused of corruption or had gone after Republicans. One was being complained about because he wasn't going after Democrats aggressively enough. So it really does appear here, at least, like you singled out prosecutors that weren't with the program."

Stephanopoulos: "And if it turns out that evidence of political interference does comes up in these e-mails and other communications, will you resign?"

Now back up to March 25, 1993, when the roles were reversed, with Republicans charging that the Clinton White House had fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in part to stall the Rostenkowski investigation. Here’s the relevant portion of Stephanopoulos’s White House briefing (unfortunately, the Federal News Service transcript retrieved via Nexis doesn’t include the names or news organizations of the reporters asking the questions):

Q It has been the custom in the past for holdover US attorneys to stay on until their successors were nominated or even in place. Why was that not done in this case?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, in this case, we thought it was most appropriate to make sure that everybody was clear from the start that the President would be making his own choices. There will be interim appointments in the meantime, largely from the career service.

Q There is also a tradition of permitting prosecutors to remain on cases until current cases are completed. In that case --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: I don't know if -- I don't think that's true.

Q People in the field say that that is a tradition. And Jay Stephens --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: And there are many others who say it's not.

Q -- Jay Stephens believes that there should be a presumption that he remain on until the Rostenkowski case is finished. Is there any intention to keep Jay Stephens until the Rostenkowski case is finished?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: I don't think so, no.

Q Well, don't you have some concern that this might either damage that case or --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Not at all. We expect -- not at all. We expect it will go forward. We expect that the investigation will continue to go forward. We expect that a good career person will be there in the interim until the President's appointment is in place and the investigations certainly will go forward.

Q Are you contradicting what Dee Dee said yesterday, that Janet Reno did not mean that all the US attorneys should clear out their desks immediately, that --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: No. There's a possibility that some won't have to do it immediately, I believe. I know that there is at least some people who are in the middle of trials right now who will not be replaced, but I think the bulk of them will be replaced over the next several weeks.

Q Well, we got the clear impression that we were being told yesterday that we had misinterpreted Reno's remarks, that while they were asking for letters of resignation, that it wasn't a wholesale clearing out all at once.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, we've asked for the letters of resignation. We will be looking at these at a case-by-case basis. I think the presumption should be that the US attorneys in place will go. There might be special circumstances where some will stay.

Q How soon, what kind of timetable are you talking about?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, we're working on it right now.

Q Why isn't Stephens a special circumstance?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, there are investigations going on across the country. This is one of many investigations. We expect that it will continue with the career people in place.

Q (Off mike) -- worried at all about a question of appearances here with so prominent a Democrat, and the focus here? I mean, don't you think --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: We are confident -- we have confidence in the career attorneys at the US Attorneys Office to continue this investigation.

And here’s how Stephanopoulos recalled the U.S. Attorneys firings and his attitude toward Stephens on page 247 of “All Too Human.” Stephanopoulos was explaining his phone call to Josh Steiner, a call that was later investigated by Special Counsel Robert Fiske as a possibly improper attempt to influence the Whitewater investigation (emphasis in the original):

“I got something else off my chest to Josh. I had heard that Jay Stephens, a former U.S. attorney, might have been appointed by the RTC [the Resolution Trust Corporation, the agency created to deal with S&L failures] to investigate the finances of Whitewater, and I couldn’t believe it was true. When Clinton took office, he had followed the practice of his predecessors and asked each U.S. attorney, including Stephens, to submit a pro-forma resignation. Instead of quietly submitting his resignation letter like his colleagues, Stephens had called a press conference and gone on Nightline to accuse Clinton of ‘obstructing justice,’ saying that the president was trying to derail his investigation of Democratic congressman Dan Rostenkowski. How could a Clinton hater like Stephens possibly conduct an impartial investigation? This is unbelievable! He has a clear conflict. How could it happen? I blew up at Josh and demanded to know how such an unfair choice came to be made and wether the decision was final....”
So if Stephens should be regarded as “a Clinton hater” for publicly challenging his removal from a sensitive investigation of an important House Democrat, and therefore had “a clear conflict” that meant he was too prejudiced to be trusted with an investigation, what would Stephanopoulos say about fired U.S. Attorneys like Washington state’s John McKay, who are going on TV to complain about their removal? Are they obvious “Bush haters” who are so prejudiced that their complaining should be dismissed out of hand?

Or are we to trust that Stephanopoulos has purged every partisan instinct from his body, and is unencumbered by any kind of "clear conflict" that should worry conservatives today?
http://newsbusters.org/node/11466