However, his recent tango with the birthers movement made his ratings take a nose dive and, well, CNN showed him the door as a result.

So that’s why this interview with Jon Stewart isn’t necessarily puzzling, but it is a bit sad. Just 9 short months into this presidency and Dobbs actually thinks that Obama is continuing Bush’s policies? Sure, there are a few things he hasn’t changed, but it’s hard for me to believe that Dobbs doesn’t appreciate that these things aren’t simply going to happen overnight…especially with two wars and a massive economic crisis happening…especially since Dobbs himself says he’s an incrementalist. (ahem!)

In short, where is this paranoia (that must have fueled Dobbs’ birther flirtation) coming from?

In any event, take a gander…

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

I’ll ask the question that Stewart asks in the interview…do independents think that our country and our standing is that fragile? Because if Bush didn’t destroy it in the last 8 years, why do indies all of a sudden think that Obama’s going to do it by passing health care reform and rebuilding our infrastructure?

What say you?

Why oh why oh why oh why?

They gave her an incredibly easy way to ignore the more substantive arguments against her legitimacy as a candidate and focus on their dumb decision to run with the above nonsense.

And this isn’t just coming from her corner. It’s coming from Media Matters and other voices in the liberal blogosphere.

As they put it…

Newsweek offers some interesting analysis of Palin and her appeal in its November 23 issue. Unfortunately, its sexist treatment of Palin’s physical appearance distracts from any legitimate arguments the magazine and its contributors wish to make.

It’s such a stupid decision it boggles the mind. You run a original head shot of her in this situation, not rerun some picture from Runner’s World.

Jon Meachum is calling the shots over there, and his response to all this is inane…

We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do.

We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard.

Yeah, so when’s the last time they ran a photo of any other politician wearing shorts?

Good lord…

I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Here’s the reality….

1. The story already ran. The debate was whether or not to rerun it.
2. From Drudge’s own story…
   

   The Chicago Olympic Committee told FOX Chicago that its broadcast “would harm Chicago’s chances” to be awarded the games.

   The station’s news director ordered staff to hold fire after the report aired once last Thursday morning, claims a source.

   In other words, it was an internal decision. Still, you might be saying, “But there was external pressure.” Yes, this is called public relations. This happens every single day in numerous different ways. But, again, the story had already run so the newsworthiness of running it a second time was obviously questionable.

3. At least one high profile right wing blog is trying to tie it to Obama for this…Malkin:
   

   In our latest edition of Olympics Crony Watch…the silencing of dissent. Hey, it’s the Chicago way.

   Drudge reports that WFLD-TV has been ordered not to broadcast an anti-Olympics segment again.

   Meanwhile, as I noted last week, the president himself will now join cronies Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama to personally lobby in Copenhagen for Chicago’s bid.

   Note Malkin says ordered, which is a lie. Also, saying that this is a “crony” watch and then lumping the President’s visit in with this story by calling him, his wife and his adviser a crony…nice touch Michelle.

Ahhh, yet another day in the blogosphere paradise…

There’s a difference between sensationalism and lying…and the above is a lie. The US has known that Iran had a second “secret” nuclear plant since at least 2002-2003.

Here’s more from The Policy Page:

The truth is that Iran only decided to reveal the existence of the uranium enrichment operation to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) when it discovered that at least three countries had already known about the plant for a number of years.

Indeed, the United States not only knew about the facility, our intelligence had already learned that the plant was too small to be used to produce nuclear energy (Iran’s professed purpose for their nuclear program) and would likely only have value for producing nuclear weapons – one to two bombs per year. American intelligence also knew that the plant was about three months from being completed to the point where they could begin operating centrifuges inside the location.

But hey, never let the truth get in the way of an opportunity to bash Obama. That would be bad for business.

Moving on…

What’s weird is his reason for not answering the question. Basically, he says there’s no way he can define “white culture” without getting himself in trouble. And that begs the question…why make a statement that claims Obama has a deep seated hatred for it? I mean, if you’re defending white culture, why would there be any reason to not define it?

Check out this cringe inducing video…

Let me clue you in to what Beck means when he talks about white culture: money. Because by making these idiotic claims he can tap into a small, but dedicated base of folks who think that the white culture is under attack from all sides and they’ll buy his books, watch his TV show and listen to his radio screeds.

In the end, Beck’s certainly no dummy, but if he’s not smart enough to navigate a simple interview with Katie Couric, well, he’s probably not long for this media world.

( Editor’s note: If you come over here and start claiming things about Beck that aren’t true or defend Beck with a bunch of vulgar language and throw insults around, your comment will be deleted. Do us all a favor and just don’t comment. )

Well, now we’ve got an analog to that and it comes in the form of this shameful screed by one of MSNBC’s newest commentators…

The Republicans lie! They want to see you dead! They’d rather make money off your dead corpse! They kinda like it when that woman has cancer and they don’t have anything for her…My God, Democrats, what’s wrong with you?! You can’t deal with these people, at all!

Isolated incident? Well, here’s more Ed unplugged a while back…

MSNBC is becoming unwatchable these days. I still like Hardball and Morning Joe, but good lord…what the hell is wrong with these people?

(h/t: NewsReal)

“The role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality. My hunch is that he is a comet blazing across the media sky right now—and will soon flame out. Whether he does or not, he isn’t the face or disposition that should represent modern-day conservatism. At a time when we should aim for intellectual depth, for tough-minded and reasoned arguments, for good cheer and calm purpose, rather than erratic behavior, he is not the kind of figure conservatives should embrace or cheer on.”
- Pete Wehner in Commentary magazine

Obviously I agree, and not just because I think Beck is a hack.

We need REAL, honest debate and the Becks of the world (Hannity, O’Reilly, Malloy, Rhodes) are only their to make a fast buck off of people’s ignorance. These folks aren’t truth tellers. They merely 21st century snake oil salesman, only this time they’re bottling impotent partisan rage and saying that you can make a difference if you just scream loudly enough.

Well, we’re seeing where all this screaming is leading and it’s not good…especially online. The internet is lousy with thousands of garbage blogs that do nothing but parrot Beck’s lunacy and the net effect is a very, very small minority that gets attention from the media because they’re simply too crazy to ignore.

And that’s why conservatives need to run away from this guy as quickly as they can. Because while he may be responsible for a drop in Obama’s popularity numbers, he’s doing absolutely nothing to bolster yours. You still are less trusted than Democrats in never every category and you’re not going to win elections on the basis of deficit reduction alone.

In any event, fair warning. Don’t say we didn’t tell you so.

And yet this will become the highest rated show on cable television. Guaranteed.

*sigh*

Updated:
Some folks in the comment section have told me that he was just playing a joke, misspelled it on purpose, etc.

Yeah, that’s why in the first clip he spelled Oligarchy and in the second clip below he’s spelling Oligarch.

Yeah…right…what happened to that Y the next day?

Good times.

Just got word from the net that they bumped it up given Teddy’s death last night.

If you want to see a preview, click here.

Shocking, I know.

Ed’s post is here — and it is indeed some very good writing.

Allahpundit responds:

For the rare distinction of having earned Olbermann’s blessing, let me be the first to say to Ed: You are the RINO king. Enjoy the throne of shame; if you need me, I’ll be at the bar adjusting to my new role as Hot Air’s “true conservative.”

Ed then chimes in, very graciously:

I’m sure people would like me to be a jerk about this, but I’ll say thank you to Keith instead for the kind words. We’ll be arguing again tomorrow, and for the … rest of eternity, probably, but I’d prefer to return graciousness with graciousness.

Look-ee-here! We’ve got no less than three fierce partisans talking about (to?) each other with some dignity and respect (and some humor).

If these three dudes can get along, maybe there is hope for the rest of us…

[cross-posted at ThePajamaPundit.com]

For the first time in a decade!

Still think David Gregory was the right choice NBC?

From Huff Post:

It’s an ominous sign for David Gregory, who was called upon to take over NBC’s long dominant Sunday morning show following Tim Russert’s death from a heart attack last year. While it’s only one Sunday in August, “This Week” has been steadily gaining ground since the beginning of the year.

The ABC show had 2.8 million viewers on Sunday, compared to 2.77 million for “Meet the Press,” Nielsen said. CBS’ “Face the Nation” with Bob Schieffer had 2.3 million viewers and “Fox News Sunday” with Chris Wallace had 920,000.

Some say Stephanopoulos’ strategy of taking the show on the road more often is helping with the ratings, and that very well may be true. But, again, I think it’s Gregory. He plays MTP too fast and loose and appears to be more of a pundit than a moderator. Stephanopoulos has that calm, steady demeanor, but still asks tough questions…ala the late, great Tim Russert.

In any event…paging Chuck Todd…

Perhaps CNN will take note and boot him? After all, it seems the cable newsers will allow nearly anybody on air if it’ll boost ratings.

But once ratings drop, well, sayonara.From New York Observer:

Mr. Dobbs’ first began reporting on Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories on the night of Wednesday, July 15. In the roughly two weeks since then, from July 15 through July 28, Mr. Dobbs’ 7 p.m. show on CNN has averaged 653,000 total viewers and 157,000 in the 25-54 demo. [...]

Mr. Dobbs’ ratings over the past two weeks, during the height of the “birthers” controversy, are also down significantly compared to his overall numbers during the second quarter of 2009 when he averaged 769,000 total viewers and 222,000 in the 25-54 demo.

Is Dobbs’ credibility forever tainted by this birthers nonsense?

Yes, I know the reason. But still…

MSNBC laments…

What’s most amazing about this episode is that what Beck said isn’t a fireable or even a SUSPENDABLE offense by his bosses. 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.

Of note, after Beck’s tirade Fox actually did put out a statement…

During Fox & Friends this morning, Glenn Beck expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel. And as with all commentators in the cable news arena, he is given the freedom to express his opinions.

What utter and complete nonsense.

It’s one thing to give political commentators the freedom to express opinions. It’s another thing to allow them to spread lies. And let’s not beat around the bush here…Beck is a shameless liar. Because there’s no way that he thinks that Obama has a “deep-seated hatred” for white people. This is for ratings and it’s an absolutely disgusting display.

And just in case you forgot…take a trip down the crazy memory lane that is Beck circa 2009…

If you fall for any of Beck’s shenanigans, you’re a fool. Plain and simple.

Moving on…

I think that they are all correct in their assessments.

I do want to highlight one thing that Willie Geist touched upon. Around the five minute mark, Geist posits the idea that, had some commentator on the left made a similar comment about George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, that Mika et al. might not have been as upset. I think that is an eye-opening question and should be given some thought.

Personally, I think Beck is way out-of-line for his comment if for no other reason than Barack Obama was raised by white folks. His mother and grandparents, about whom he writes and talks at great lengths, were far and above the largest contributors to his upbringing. So, for Beck to merely suggest, much less bluntly state as fact that the President has a ‘deep-seeded hatred for white people or the white culture’ is nothing short of irrational.

I do wonder whether Lawrence O’Donnell is correct; will Glenn Beck own up to his statement? Will he admit that he accused the President of racism? Or, as O’Donnell suggests, will Beck claim that he never made the remarks?

[cross-posted at ThePajamaPundit.com]

The A.P. continues to come up with one dumb idea after another.

I have more on this craziness over at True/Slant.

So their argument is basically, “Because Universal Health Care brings about more diversity, it’s more likely to attract terrorists because Muslims will fit in and not be noticed. Best to have private practices where white, Christian doctors make up the majority. That way they’ll spot the Muslims who are likely to be reading jihadist web pages at work.”

Fox News: Breeding Ground For Morons?

Apparently, The Washington Post is completely abandoning the idea of hosting exclusive salons with power brokers – an idea which erupted into scandal last week when a marketing flyer indicated lobbyists could pay for access to Post reporters.

Now, the paper has apologized blaming the flyer on a marketing snafu but taking responsibility for the bad idea of hosting exclusive dinners:

Our mistake was to suggest that we would hold and participate in an off-the-record dinner with journalists and power brokers paid for by a sponsor. We will not organize such events. As publisher it is my job to ensure that we adhere to standards that are consistent with our integrity as a news organization.

I’m glad the Post has apologized for their questionably ethical idea. But I do wonder what would have happened if POLITICO and other news organizations hadn’t broken the story. I guess it’s a good thing that there are watchdogs watching the watchdogs.

The Washington Post has found itself embroiled in an ethics scandal involving a poorly conceived money-raising venture that the paper has moved fast to cancel and excuse:

Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive “salon” at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

Word of this leaked after a flyer distributed to lobbyists made its way into the hands of POLITICO. Post editors claim the flyer originated from the marketing department and no editor or reporter ever agreed to attend an event where lobbyists and government officials could pay for access to the editorial staff. This may be true, but it’s hard to believe such a major undertaking was planned and marketed without the knowledge of the paper’s top brass.

In fact, Weymouth has admitted the paper is looking for new ways to make money:

“We do believe that there is a viable way to expand our expertise into live conferences and events that simply enhances what we do – cover Washington for Washingtonians and those interested in Washington,” she said. “ And we will begin to do live events in ways that enhance our reputation and in no way call into question our integrity.”

Sounds to me that the Post would very much like to leverage its role as a local powerbroker in order to stave off its mounting business losses. But even if no member of the editorial staff were to attend pay-for-access events hosted by the Post, is it really a good idea for a newspaper to be charging members of a community for the opportunity to meet one another? Should the Post really be facilitating and profiting from events where lobbyists and politicians can schmooze?

I don’t think the answer to that is obvious. I firmly believe we still need a professional print news media and understand that untraditional revenue sources will likely be needed if newspapers are to survive. I just question whether or not the newspaper as local powerbroker/elite salon operator is really going to preserve the kind of journalistic integrity we want out of the print media. At what point does keeping the local power players happy outweigh the factual reportage of the news?

Clearly the Post is still working out the kinks in their new moneymaking scheme. We’ll see if they find a way to prop up their bottom line without sabotaging their core mission.

And when I watch the following inanity, I genuinely wonder if the folks at Fox News simply don’t care anymore about being anything but a mouthpiece for the RNC.

By the way, I count more than twice as many notable Republican politicians who were former celebrities than Dems. Actors include Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred Thompson, Ronald Reagan and Sonny Bono. Sports stars include Tom Osborne, Steve Largent, Jack Kemp and Jim Bunning. Can you name anybody on the Dem side except for Bill Bradley, John Glenn and now Al Franken? I can’t think of anybody else who was genuinely well known other than those folks, but feel free to add others in the comments section.

But hey, whatever. It’s Fox.