The pressure from the New Hampshire primary seems to be getting to Fox “News”. That’s the trouble with basing your entire cable network on partisan propaganda and labeling it “news” as if people are going to simply buy into it.
In the span of 48 hours we’ve been privy to quite the Fox implosion as the conservatives’ civil war bubbles up.
On the one hand, we see Bill O’Reilly go nuts by shoving an Obama for President staffer and trying to shake down a Secret Service agent. On top of that, we’ve also witnessed the network’s bias turn inward as Ron Paul was excluded from the Fox sponsored debate Sunday night despite the fact Rep. Paul is raising money at a steady rate and polling at 10% in the Granite State (both points on which he is actually doing better than the apparently too lazy to actually campaign Fred Thompson, who was invited to the debate).
That debate exclusion led to some high comedy as Paulies protesting Fox outside the event chased down Fox personality Sean Hannity, yelling epithets at him. All the Paul crowd needed to make the witch hunt scene complete were the pitchforks and torches.
But it was the O’Reilly incident which gives us today’s QOTD from Roy Sekoff of the Huffington Post as he guest comments for the conserv-o-partisans’ Mothership itself:
Sekoff: “…and I give him (O’Reilly) credit, cause he didn’t hit
him with a loofah or a falafel.MacCallum: “Alllllright!”
Sekoff: “Oh yeah. You know, Martha, maybe the thing was that he was surprised that when he showed up at an Obama event, it was just like any other event and no one was yelling for their iced tea.”
Anyone else thirsty for some iced tea during this string of spring-like January days?
(h/t Scout Finch)
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 7, 2008 at 11:33 pm
c-rock
Go Ron Paul!
HE is the only choice for Progressives against the war
January 8, 2008 at 11:07 am
robnesvacil
Carl,
You’ve failed (repeatedly) to explain why any progressive would want to vote for an extremist conservative. Just because he is opposed to the war (as are Obama, Edwards, etc.) is not reason enough.
Rep. Paul is perfect for all the paleo-con, non-interventionalists out there. But non-interventionalist progressives have plenty of their own candidates from whom to choose.
January 8, 2008 at 2:47 pm
c-rock
I have,
I have provided more articles on why Progressives support Paul on this blog.
Its the War, its the drug war, its the money in your pocket.
January 8, 2008 at 3:09 pm
robnesvacil
You have provided articles on why Socialists support Paul (which is really bizarre given his propensity to oppose Socialism).
I have provided articles on why neo-Nazis support Paul.
Neither of us has provided articles on progressives doing so.
January 9, 2008 at 2:19 am
dwlawson
Sorry to interrupt with an on-topic comment…
I’m wondering why Bill isn’t filing federal charges against the campaigner for violating his civil rights.
We still have a First Amendment protection of the free press and this 6.8″ jerk deliberately attempts to block the shot with a sly smirk on his face.
I know the white liberal sector doesn’t like to recognize it, but white guys do have civil rights too.
Imagine if Bill had deliberately blocked a BET news crew. I bet Al Sharpton and JJ would be all over it.
However, that said, I think Bill did lose his cool. Responding with violence in frustration is not a good idea. He risks forfeiting the higher ground with that.
January 9, 2008 at 2:20 am
dwlawson
Oh and I don’t think it is a good idea for Bill to use the word Shoot and Shot (meaning filming of course) with so much Secret Service around.
January 9, 2008 at 1:46 pm
robnesvacil
So the campaigner’s First Amendment right to Freedom of Assembly means nothing because Bill O’Reilly’s jerkiness somehow trumps sly smirkiness? BillO did verbally accost a Secret Service agent also — really not a smart move.
Freedom of the Press doesn’t mean he gets to go everywhere he wants and have an unobstructed view. Why not just demand he be allowed up on stage right next to the Senator?
And here I thought you were all for strict word-for-word interpretation of the Constitution. Nowhere in 1A does it say political candidates must allow the press free reign at essentially private events. It says “Congress shall make no law…”. This wasn’t Congress, it was a private campaign function to which people (and news crews) were invited.
As for deliberately blocking a BET crew… would that be before or after ordering iced tea without (surprisingly) the use of foul language? And do you think he’d like a falafel to scrub his back with for relaxation?
BillO’s getting as much mileage out of this as a Jesse Jackson would from your situation. It’s just that people tend to ignore BillO’s nonsense, for good reason.
January 9, 2008 at 11:00 pm
dwlawson
The guy wasn’t assembling, he was obstructing. Is a crowd of KKK outside someone’s home a free assembly? I hope not.
No, I’ve always argued that certain logical extensions of rights make sense. Hence, free press isn’t just about 18th century printing presses, nor is free speech limited to words coming out of your mouth.
Naturally, neither are arms limited to flintlocks.
January 10, 2008 at 2:10 am
robnesvacil
Dave asks, “Is a crowd of KKK outside someone’s home a free assembly? I hope not.”
Funny you should raise that scenario, on two counts.
First (and again), this was a private campaign event, not the public sidewalk outside someone’s private home. Just as the goofs who jump up and down behind on-location reporters for the 10pm news, others are free to jump and down, or simply stand, in front of people who consider themselves to be “on-location reporters” (and I use that term loosely when it comes to folks associated with Fox Propaganda).
Second, anti-privacy “conservatives” are all too happy to protest outside of people’s homes. Take for instance the issue of abortion and activists associated with it. They’ve repeatedly marched through neighborhoods and disrupted daily suburban goings-on in Aurora, clogging sidewalks (excuse me, “obstructing” sidewalks) and the like.
And they’ve even done exactly the type of scenario you depict — assembling last January 20th, 2007, for a “Peaceful and Prayerful Picket” in front of a private home.
I hope not, indeed. These are your allies, Dave.
–
Dave also wrote, “Naturally, neither are arms limited to flintlocks.”
But, according to yourself and others with whom you agree, nukes — even shoulder-mounted field nukes — are out of the question. It’s an odd line you choose to draw, friend.
January 10, 2008 at 7:52 pm
dwlawson
It’s an odd line that your allies choose…such as drawing the line at kids drawing a line drawing of a gun.
However, I notice that your arguments lately seem to be deflecting to the actions of others instead of actually countering with anything.
I guess you got nothing.
January 11, 2008 at 9:52 am
robnesvacil
You brought up the KKK with regards to “free assembly”, Dave. I informed you that your political allies among the “conservatives” are doing exactly as you describe.
You were the one who said “I hope not” with regards to such action… I “countered” that your politically-allied friends already are.
And, PS, this is a blog about the actions of others.