TheCenterLane.com

© 2008 – 2017 John T. Burke, Jr.

Has Fox News Destroyed the Republican Party?

Comments Off on Has Fox News Destroyed the Republican Party?

It was more than two years ago when ABC News televised Terry Moran’s interview with David Frum, former speechwriter for George W. Bush.  On March 23, 2010 – the day after the interview – the ABC News website ran this piece by David Schoetz, which included an embedded video of the interview.  As we can see from the article, Moran’s interview with Frum was right on target:

Among the comments Frum made to “Nightline” was the assertion that “nobody ever won an election by spitting at his political opponents” and that “anger trapped the [Republican] leadership.”  But it was this exchange, which you can see starting at the 2:20 mark, that is generating some buzz today: Moran: “It sounds like you’re saying that the Glenn Becks, the Rush Limbaughs, hijacked the Republican party and drove it to a defeat?”  Frum: “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.  And this balance here has been completely reversed. The thing that sustains a strong Fox network is the thing that undermines a strong Republican party.”  Our report posed the question: Will Democrats pay a price for pushing through health care at any cost? Or are Republicans the ones in trouble for the way they chose to fight?  We know where Frum stands.

As the battle over Obamacare began to reach a boiling point, Fox News televised a discussion between Bill O’Reilly and Charles Krauthammer on September 26 entitled, “Is Ted Cruz the new leader of the Republican Party?”  Krauthammer was less enthusiastic about Cruz than the fawning O’Reilly.  Krauthammer pointed out that the battle Cruz was waging against Obamacare was doomed and that Cruz was simply attempting to position himself as the next GOP Presidential candidate.  As an aside, I find it curious that those who tout the sanctity of the Constitution are so willing to ignore Article Two, Section 1, which states (in part):

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Here is what Wikipedia provides concerning the controversy over this issue:

As Cruz was born in Canada, various commentators from the Austin American-Statesman[97] and the Los Angeles Times,[98] discussed Cruz’s legal status as a natural-born citizen. Because he was a U.S. citizen at birth (since his mother was a U.S. citizen who lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years as required by the Nationality Act of 1940), most commentators believe Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States.[10][99][10][100] After hearing that according to legal experts he is a dual citizen of Canada and the U.S., Cruz announced on August 19, 2013 that he would renounce his Canadian citizenship.[101]

I enjoyed the last sentence, which stated, “After hearing that according to legal experts he is a dual citizen …”  One would have thought that Cruz might be a legal expert himself, since he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School.  In any event, any plans Cruz had made for the Presidency were certainly destroyed by the government shutdown fiasco.  Of course, Cruz will always remain popular with his hard core supporters, despite the fact that he has alienated the Republican Party itself, and he has no chance of getting elected – even in the unlikely event that he should become the GOP nominee.

Cruz will always be haunted by his recitation of Green Eggs and Ham during his pseudo-filibuster, which Krauthammer aptly pointed out was simply an attempt to upstage the filibuster conducted by Rand Paul over the use of drones.

The bigger question concerns the devastation this fiasco has caused for the Republican Party.  As David Frum pointed out, the hero worship Fox News brings to the wingnuts of the GOP empowers those characters, making the GOP a party of extremists.  Although a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 74 percent of Americans disapproved of the way Congressional Republicans handled the budget crisis, the more important issue concerns the extent to which the GOP has sustained long-term damage as a result of this episode.  If it causes Republicans to become unelectable, they will have Fox News to blame.


 

wordpress stats

A Loner Named Loughner

Comments Off on A Loner Named Loughner

In the aftermath of the attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the fatal shootings of six other bystanders (including Federal Judge John Roll), a huge debate has erupted over the motives of the gunman (who left notes admitting his intent to kill Congresswoman Giffords).  The accused killer, Jared Loughner, is now being subjected to a great deal of scrutiny to ascertain whether he may have been motivated (to any extent) by Sarah Palin’s now-infamous midterm election campaign advertisement featuring a map with crosshairs over those Congressional Districts whose Representatives who were being “targeted” by SaraPAC (one of whom was Rep. Giffords).  Palin’s defenders and apologists have contended that there was nothing unusual about the rhetoric used by Palin throughout the 2010 campaign, during which time Palin attempted to establish herself as an influential “power broker” within the Republican Party.

Among the most specious defenses of Palin was the assertion made by SarahPAC staffer Rebecca Mansour, who claimed that the crosshairs on the map identifying the Congressional Districts of targeted Democrats were actually “surveyor’s symbols”.  Amanda Terkel of The Huffington Post had no trouble exposing the dishonesty of that claim.

In order to determine whether Jared Loughner’s videotaped shooting spree was politically motivated – or whether he was politically aligned with any group, a close analysis of his YouTube page can be helpful.  (Loughner also had a page on MySpace, which has been removed by that organization.)  Take a look at what can be gleaned from a review of Loughner’s YouTube page and ask yourself whether some of this stuff reminds you of anyone famous:

  1. He apparently did not expect to survive this event because his upload entitled, “Hello” began with the statement that what followed were his “final thoughts”.
  2. He constantly addressed his intended audience as “listener”, suggesting that he may have been emulating someone with a radio program.
  3. He opposes the use of fiat money, preferring instead, the use of currency based on gold or silver.
  4. He is an abstruse advocate of citing the United States Constitution in discussions of subjects that involve no Constitutional issue (e.g. the tuition at Pima Community College).
  5. On his YouTube page, Loughner uses his “electronic blackboard” to explain his theories about how the American public is being subjected to mind control.
  6. He is critical of what he describes as the poor grammatical skills of the people in District 8, while at the same time personally exemplifying the potential validity of that claim.
  7. He is apparently obsessed with transitive relations.  Nearly every assertion posted on his YouTube page is couched in terms describing some sort of transitivity.  Most noticeable among these was what I refer to as his “Transitive Law of Moneyprinting” — which must have scared the hell out of Ben Bernanke:

If you create one new currency then you’re able to create a second new currency.

If you’re able to create a second new currency then you’re able to create a third new currency.

You create one new currency.

Thus, you’re able to create a third new currency.

Any guesses as to who Jared Loughner’s hero might be?

It obviously does not take a licensed clinical psychotherapist to realize that Loughner is suffering from some sort of Axis II personality disorder.  Nevertheless, that does not excuse whomever may have been responsible from giving this guy that extra nudge from the realm of the delusional to the ranks of the homicidal.

Despite the claims of Sarah Palin’s apologists that the controversial “crosshairs” campaign advertisement was part of a “normal political discourse”, consider the following:

—  Representative Giffords complained about the ad during an interview conducted by Chuck Todd on MSNBC.  Here is what she said about the ad:

We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list.  But the thing is the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun site over our district.  When people do that they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that action.

In spite of the eerily prescient objection raised by Representative Giffords, Palin and her minions refused to remove the ad.

—  Two versions of the “crosshairs” ad remained posted on the Internet for 65 days after the mid-term elections were concluded.  This raises the question of whether Palin was attempting to provoke what Sharron Angle might describe as “a Second Amendment solution” to the continuing political viability of Representative Giffords.  The “political discourse” was over on November 4, 2010.  Why did SaraPAC wait until Gabrielle Giffords was actually shot in the head before a decision was made to take down the ads?

—  Regardless of whether Jared Loughner was motivated by the “crosshairs” ad campaign, the BBC News reported this interesting bit of information provided by the Pima County Sheriff:

Sheriff Dupnik said the congresswoman had been threatened by someone with a gun during her re-election campaign in November, adding that there had been other threats.

It should come as no surprise that Palin’s apologists are now criticizing Sheriff Dupnik for laying blame where it properly belongs.  Because Loughner had a history of smoking marijuana, Team Palin is now attempting to characterize Loughner as a “Leftist”.  Nevertheless, in the event that any of Loughner’s writings might reference an entity known as Aqua Buddha .  .  .  you know what will happen.

Prior to this tragic event, many astute conservatives, such as George Will, had pointed out that Sarah Palin was in over her head with her attempts to become a Presidential candidate.  Although elections often become “beauty contests”, the Republican Party’s cynical decision to actually put a former beauty contestant on their national ticket in 2008 didn’t work out too well.  Experience as a beauty contestant does not necessarily qualify one for a position of political leadership.  I have always considered Sarah Palin to be a gumball.  At this point in her political career, Palin has gone from being toast to toxic.  I cannot imagine why any political candidate with an I.Q. above 80 would want to have anything to do with her.  In the aftermath of the Tucson killings, Palin’s cherished “brand” may have no greater value than that of Lehman Brothers.

Let’s all hope that Gabrielle Giffords has a successful recovery and that the grieving relatives and friends of those slain in this tragedy can regain the strength to continue enjoying their lives to the fullest extent possible.


wordpress visitor


Much Ado About Nothing

Comments Off on Much Ado About Nothing

May 28, 2009

The media feeding frenzy over President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court provides us with yet another reason why so many newspapers and news magazines are going broke:  They beat stories to death.  There has been quite a bit of hype in the run-up to Obama’s announcement of his choice.  News outlets have been salivating in anticipation of a protracted, partisan brawl with visions of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, dancing in their heads.  A visit to the RealClearPolitics website for May 27 provides the reader with an assaultive profusion of articles concerning the Sotomayor nomination.

There are a couple of simple dynamics at work here.  With his nomination of Judge Sotomayor, President Obama has set out a trap for partisan Republicans, hell-bent on opposing any nominee selected by the Democrat for the high court.  Once these “attack dogs” pounce on Sotomayor, they reinforce the public perception of the GOP as the Party of White Men.  They would not only alienate female voters but they would also antagonize Hispanic voters.  This is exactly why you won’t really see that much of a fight over her nomination.  On the other hand, a political “has been” such as Newt Gingrich, sees the Sotomayor nomination as the perfect opportunity to keep his fat face in front of the cameras, without any apparent regard as to whether his remarks could exacerbate the GOP’s image problem.  The “hard right” media outlets and other authoritarian activist groups have instinctively responded by filling in the blanks on their pre-written scripts to include Sotomayor’s name as well as the necessary touch-ups to relate their  remarks to this particular target.  One smear fits all.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet  . . .  It’s all a waste of your time.  You need only read one story about the Sotomayor nomination and it was written by Mike Allen of Politico.  Relying on confidential Republican sources, Mr. Allen reports that “the GOP plans no scorched-earth opposition to her confirmation”.  At this point, I should advise you that the hissing sound you are hearing is all the air coming out of the tires for those pundits, hoping to expand this story into an epic drama and an eventual book deal.  It’s not happening.  As Mike Allen reported:

“The sentiment is overwhelming that the Senate should do due diligence but should not make a mountain out of a molehill,” said a top Senate Republican aide.  “If there’s no ‘there’ there, we shouldn’t try to create one.”

The news media shouldn’t try to create one, either  . . .   but they will anyway.  What else are they going to discuss?  You’re already sick of the American Idol stories.  So what they’re left with is the economy.  They hate that subject because the public and their own reporters are too dumb to understand it.  Besides … it’s boring and it involves math!  Never mind the fact that you’re going broke.  Just smoke your “green shoots” and believe in a “hope rally” for the stock market.

It’s always refreshing when someone such as Mike Allen undermines the mainstream media hype machine by sticking to the simple truth of a story.  In this case the simple truth is that the story itself is quite simple.

Joining The Supremes

Comments Off on Joining The Supremes

May 4, 2009

On April 30, Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his intention to retire after the current court term recess in June.  Many were surprised by this announcement.  Since Justice John Paul Stevens is 89 and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 76, most Supreme Court watchers expected one of those two jurists to be the first to retire after the election of President Obama.  Those who know Justice Souter all concur that he hates living in Washington, D.C. where he is a reluctant member of the capitol’s “elite”.

Watching Friday’s news programs, I was amused by the mad scramble by those on the “hard right” to organize their opposition to the confirmation of Preisdent Obama’s nominee to the high court.  Obama has not yet even announced whom he intends to nominate, yet these reactionaries are already against that person.  So, the fun begins  . . .

Once the President makes the nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee begins the confirmation hearings, wherein the candidate will become incessantly badgered about his or her views on abortion, gay weddings, gun control and whether the court should “intervene” by overturning patently unconstitutional laws enacted by a bought-off (Oops!  — I mean “lobbied”) Congress.  The Judiciary Committee then issues its report and the full Senate votes to either confirm or reject the nomination with 51 votes.

This process became a spectator sport back in 1987, when Ronald Reagan nominated the Amish-looking, Robert Bork.  The Democrats immediately launched a full-on battle against the nomination, considered by many as a bit over-the-top, since it involved scrutiny of Bork’s video rentals.  This particular judicial confirmation resulted in the use of the word “Bork” as a verb.  Since that time, getting “Borked” described any situation wherein a political appointee became the target of a partisan attack during the confirmation process.  Nevertheless, Bork’s view that the Constitution provides no guarantee of an individual’s right to privacy, justified much of the ire against him.  During the confirmation hearings, he criticized the decision in Roe v. Wade.  Dumb idea.  Since that time, Republican nominees to any Federal Court do all they can to avoid providing straight answers to questions dealing with a woman’s right to determine whether she will carry a fetus to term.

The most entertaining confirmation hearings came along when George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court in 1991.  By that time, Bush appointee David Souter had already begun to disappoint the “hard right”.  The administration wanted to be sure they had a hard-line conservative this time and in Thomas they found the prefect candidate to replace the court’s first African-American Justice, Thurgood Marshall, who retired.  The excitement began when the committee heard testimony from Anita Hill, who had worked for Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  Ms. Hill testified that while working at the EEOC, she was sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas on several occasions.  The most memorable portion of her testimony concerned a remark by Thomas that his favorite porn video was a feature entitled:  Long Dong Silver.  Although Hill’s testimony ultimately did not block the confirmation of Thomas, people began lining up at adult book stores to purchase copies of the overnight classic.  I always wondered whether a certain chain of seafood restaurants also might have benefited from that aspect of the proceedings.

At this point, many Republicans likely assume that President Obama will nominate an ultra-liberal judge to counter-balance the far-right members of the court:  Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.  News outlets are already abuzz with speculation concerning the most likely nominee.  The betting is heavy that Obama will nominate a woman for this vacancy because a man (Samuel Alito) was appointed by George W. Bush to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, one of only two females on the court when Bush took office.  Some pundits expect Obama to nominate someone from a minority group to add a little more diversity to the court.  As a result, many of these people expect Judge Sonia Sotomayor from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to get the nod.  My prediction is that the President will select Judge Diane Wood from the Seventh Circuit.  She shares Obama’s experience as an instructor at the University of Chicago Law School and she has a solid background.

Nevertheless, we can expect quite a bit of showboating once the confirmation process begins.  It might not be as much fun as the Clarence Thomas hearings  .  .  .  but who knows?

Let the games begin!

The World Holds Its Breath

Comments Off on The World Holds Its Breath

January 19, 2009

All over the world, people are waiting with abated breath as the Obama Presidency begins.  Some thought it would never happen.  I have often wondered whether, at the last minute, the Bush-Cheney junta might decide that it does not want to give up its authority.  Would they contrive some sort of “national security emergency” as a pretext for declaring martial law and suspending the Constitution?  Such a tactic would be entirely consistent with what we have seen for the past eight years.  Surely, there must be some provision buried in the so-called “Patriot Act” allowing the Bush-Cheney regime to continue, despite the expiration of its Constitutionally-prescribed existence.  Constitutional restrictions to unlimited executive power have been ignored by the outgoing administration for the past eight years.  Why should now be any different?  My skepticism on this matter will continue until Barack Obama completes his recitation of the Presidential Oath.

In the mean time, there are those who question whether President Obama will really deliver on his promise of change.  From the liberal side of the political spectrum, plenty of opinions have been published (by reputable commentators) expressing apprehension as to what likely will happen and what actually may not happen during Obama’s tenure in the White House.

On January 18, Salon.com featured an article by David Sirota entitled:  “Obama Sells Out to Wall Street”.  Mr. Sirota expressed his concern over Obama’s accelerated push to have immediate authority to dispense the remaining $350 billion available under the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bailout:

Somehow, immediately releasing more bailout funds is being portrayed as a self-evident necessity, even though the New York Times reported this week that “the Treasury says there is no urgent need” for additional money.  Somehow, forcing average $40,000-aires to keep giving their tax dollars to Manhattan millionaires is depicted as the only “serious” course of action.  Somehow, few ask whether that money could better help the economy by being spent on healthcare or public infrastructure.  Somehow, the burden of proof is on bailout opponents who make these points, not on those who want to cut another blank check.

Discomfort about another hasty dispersal of the remaining TARP funds was shared by a few prominent Democratic Senators who, on Thursday, voted against authorizing the immediate release of the remaining $350 billion.  They included Senators Russ Feingold (Wisconsin), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire), Evan Bayh (Indiana) and Maria Cantwell (Washington).  The vote actually concerned a “resolution of disapproval” to block distribution of the TARP money, so that those voting in favor of the resolution were actually voting against releasing the funds.  Earlier last week, Obama had threatened to veto this resolution if it passed.  The resolution was defeated with 52 votes (contrasted with 42 votes in favor of it).  At this juncture, Obama is engaged in a game of “trust me”, assuring those in doubt that the next $350 billion will not be squandered in the same undocumented manner as the first $350 billion.  As Jeremy Pelofsky reported for Reuters on January 15:

To win approval, Obama and his team made extensive promises to Democrats and Republicans that the funds would be used to better address the deepening mortgage foreclosure crisis and that tighter accounting standards would be enforced.

“My pledge is to change the way this plan is implemented and keep faith with the American taxpayer by placing strict conditions on CEO pay and providing more loans to small businesses,” Obama said in a statement, adding there would be more transparency and “more sensible regulations.”

Meanwhile, there is worldwide concern about what Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can accomplish in the foreign relations and anti-terrorism arenas.  As discussed in an editorial from the January 18 Times of London:

Mr Obama’s biggest immediate challenge is in Afghanistan.  The president is hoping a troop surge, which he opposed in Iraq, will work. However, the prospect of a military solution in Afghanistan is remote and he may learn that the hard way.  In the meantime, he has to hope Iraq does not flare up again and that the Iran nuclear question remains one for diplomacy rather than military conflict.  His drive for a Middle East peace deal is not the first by a US president and nor will it be the last.

As the sun finally rises over the Obama Presidency, there are still plenty of clouds in the sky.  Does this mean we are in for more turmoil?  Some people might take this as a sign that it’s about to start raining money.