Think Progress

Fox News: Palin’s ‘Telepalmer’ Notes Were A Clever Plot To Call Attention To Obama’s Teleprompter »

As ThinkProgress reported on Saturday night, paid Fox News contributor Sarah Palin was caught using “hand”-written notes during a Q & A session at the National Tea Party Convention this weekend. Ironically, during the appearance, Palin also criticized President Obama for using a teleprompter during speeches.

On Fox & Friends this morning, the hosts defended their colleague’s Telepalmer notes. Carlson suggested that it was a brilliantly clever plot to draw attention to Obama’s use of a teleprompter:

CARLSON: I think she did it on purpose. I think she did it on purpose, yeah. Because it’s an exact opposite of reading off the teleprompter with a script written for you with every word in a sentence and here’s she’s just taking crib notes on her hand. It makes her look like she can just talk off the cuff and she just jotted down a few couple notes before she went out to give a big long speech.

DOOCY: I think she did it because she probably does it a lot. I do that all the time. [...]

KILMEADE: But to sit there and look at, and do the interview and look down at her hand, I think that is — like you said before, Gretchen — folksy, absolutely, down-to-earth, I can identify. But if you’re going to write on your hand, why not just say, ’staffer, hand me a card.’ And then it would be okay.

CARLSON: Nah, like I said, I think it was on purpose. But anyway, we we may never know.

Watch it:

Event organizers admitted the questions were “pre-screened,” but a Palin spokesperson said the former VP candidate had not seen the questions ahead of time. Still, as Huffington Post’s Stefan Sirucek points out, Palin’s “extra help” in front of a friendly crowd is especially ironic because Obama wasn’t using notes of any kind during a recent unscripted Q & A with House Republicans. Obama has also recently held several town halls, where he took questions from the audience and spoke at length without notes.

Transcript: More »« Less

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Mocks Sarah Palin By Writing ‘Cheat Sheet’ On Her Hand

On MSNBC’s Daily Rundown this morning, Andrea Mitchell reported that “one of the most interesting things” from Sarah Palin’s appearance at the Tea Party Convention this past weekend was the notes written on her hand. “Very clearly,” Mitchell observed, “were some cheat sheets.”

Mitchell then mocked Palin by displaying her own hand, which had some handwriting on it. Holding up her hand for the camera, Mitchell joked that she wrote some things down “just in case I didn’t remember” what she wanted to say:

Mitchell’s joke then segued into an interesting conversation about the press corps’ treatment of Palin. Host Chuck Todd — seemingly wary of taking a jab at Palin — attempted to defend her by arguing, “We’ve all done notes.” Mitchell responded by astutely noting Palin’s hypocrisy in attacking Obama for using a Teleprompter. “So she takes all these snarky shots at Barack Obama,” Mitchell said, leaving Todd to complete the sentence, “she undermined it a little bit.”

“If Mitt Romney had notes on his hand, wouldn’t we take it pretty seriously?” Mitchell asked. Todd responded, “She has different rules.” Watch the segment:

Hannity Claims Bush Never Played Golf During Wartime: He Was ‘Far More In Touch’ Than Obama

Last night on Fox News, Sean Hannity criticized President Obama for inviting famous guest chefs to cook at the White House, claiming the President is “out of touch” with regular Americans. “He’s jetting around to Broadway on vacations on our dime!” Hannity complained. “He is so far out of touch with what is going on,” said former Bush adviser Nicolle Wallace.

Both then reminisced about the days when a president was in office who was “far more in touch” with regular folks: President George W. Bush:

HANNITY: George Bush who you worked for did not play golf while this country was at war. He didn’t want the families of loved ones serving, well, that they may have lost the loved ones seeing him on a golf course.

WALLACE: Yes, I mean…

HANNITY: He seemed to be far more in touch.

Watch it:

Toward the end of his presidency, Bush said that he had given up golf to show “solidarity” with the troops. But Hannity’s assertion that Bush never played golf “while this country was at war” just isn’t true:

Bush claimed he quit playing golf on Aug. 19, 2003, when U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello was killed in Iraq. Yet, the AP reported two months later that Bush had spent a “cool, breezy Columbus Day” playing “a round of golf with three long-time buddies.” And during the 2008 presidential campaign, Bush attended a high-dollar golf fundraiser for John McCain to “greet the foursomes.”

Then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice wasn’t willing to give up her golf game for the troops. Perhaps Hannity thinks she’s also out of touch.

Exclusive: Bush Lawyer Debunks Limbaugh’s Claim That Professors Wrote Obama’s Law Articles

In her interview with Rush Limbaugh which aired today, Fox News’ Gretchen Carlson asked the hate radio host what he thought of President Obama’s State of the Union address last week. “The State of Obama speech,” Limbaugh interjected, adding that he thought it “was defensive, petulant, immature, childish, sarcastic. He’s clearly angry, that he’s been rejected.”

Limbaugh — who had called Obama the “affirmative action candidate” during the 2008 campaign — claimed that Obama didn’t do his own work when he was a student:

LIMBAUGH: I think this is the first time in his life that there’s not a professor around to turn his C into an A or to write the law review article for him he can’t write. He’s totally exposed and there’s nobody to make it better. I think he’s been covered for all his life. The fact that his agenda failed this year is the best thing that could have happened to this country.

Watch it:

Of course, Limbaugh has absolutely no basis to make this claim. Politico reported that Obama “left a scant paper trail,” and there is only one unsigned Harvard Law Review article that has been attributed to him. But as Bradford Berenson — a lawyer who worked in the Bush White House and served with Obama on the Harvard Law Review — told ThinkProgress, Obama did not write abundantly because he served as the editor who reviewed other students’ writings. Berenson added that Limbaugh’s charges are “not accurate”:

These charges are not accurate. As a 2L [second year law] student, Barack wrote the same amount as all of his 2L peers, although by policy of the Harvard Law Review, no student writing is signed or attributed to individual authors. As a 3L, it is true that he did not write, but that is because he was the President of the Review. Because the President does so much editing, including of all the major faculty articles, he is not expected to author original pieces himself and almost never does so. I saw Barack hunched over manuscripts editing articles on many a late night at Gannett House. He simply could not have been elected President if he was not regarded by his fellow editors as being among the best legal writers and legal minds in his class.

Obama “quickly distinguished himself as a top student” at Harvard Law, where he was “chosen through the strength of his writing and grades to serve as one of 80 student editors on the law review.” In his second year, he was elected the first black president of the Review.

One fellow student recalled Obama’s leadership as the Review’s top editor. “When he sent [my article] back, it had lots of tiny print all over it and I was just furious,” she said. “My heart just sank. But it was accompanied by specific examples of how parts could be made better. He wound up getting an enthusiastic response from a very tired writer.”

The President is the author of two best-selling books, both of which he wrote himself.

ABC Panelists Criticize Ailes’ Evasion Of Why Fox News Cut Away From Obama-House GOP Conversation »

As ThinkProgress reported last week, Fox News was the only major cable news network to not show the entirety of President Obama’s conversation with House Republicans at their annual retreat. Fox cut away from the event 20 minutes early and instead began attacking the President for “lecturing” to the lawmakers.

Yesterday on ABC’s This Week, Arianna Huffington challenged Fox News President Roger Ailes about this decision:

HUFFINGTON: Roger, you clearly are in ratings, but if you are in ratings, can you explain to me why FOX went away from the meeting the president was having in — why did you go away, 20 minutes before the end?

AILES: Because we’re the most trusted name in news.

Guest host Barbara Walters cut off the conversation though, since the show was over. However, discussion on the topic then continued in the green room, even though Ailes wasn’t present. Both Huffington and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman criticized the network for its hypocrisy:

HUFFINGTON: Their framing of the President is that he’s radical, that he’s taking us down a dark, fascist or Bolshevik future — depending on the day. And there he was, rational, charming, and in full command of his facts. So the narrative fell apart and so the cameras stopped showing what was happening.

KRUGMAN: Yeah, I mean it’s — I thought it was actually quite funny except it has real consequences. There you have Roger Ailes, with this powerful, popular news network, whining about how the media are unfair to Republicans. I mean, he is a powerful person in the media — and of course, you know, “Fair and Balanced” is truly Orwellian and we know that. So it’s clear that Fox — I felt like yelling to him, “you can’t handle the truth,” because that was what was actually happening on the Fox coverage.

Watch it:

Transcript: More »« Less

Ailes Defends Beck’s Incendiary Rhetoric: ‘He’s Talking About Hitler And Stalin’ Killing People, So It’s ‘Accurate’

Shortly after President Obama’s inauguration, Fox News anchors and media personalities began attacking his administration and its policies. The White House fired back, calling Fox the “communications arm of the Republican Party.” Today on ABC’s This Week, host Barbera Walters asked Fox News CEO Roger Ailes if the White House and his network have “kissed and made up.” “We’re fine,” he said but added one caveat. “Well I’ll pick a fight if you want. I’d be happy to get into one.”

Arianna Huffington then called out Ailes, particularly because of Fox News host Glenn Beck’s radical rhetoric, talking about people “being slaughtered.” But Ailes dismissed the criticism, saying Beck was “probably accurate”:

HUFFINGTON: But Roger it’s not a question of picking a fight and aren’t you concerned about the language that Glenn Beck is using which is after all, inciting the American people. Three’s a lot of suffering out there as you know and when he talks about people being slaughtered, about who is going to be on the next killing spree.

AILES: He’s talking about Hitler and Stalin slaughtering people so I think he was probably accurate.

HUFFINGTON: No he was talking about this administration.

Watch it:

For months, Beck has been linking progressivism to both communism and fascism. But more than just highlighting the atrocities committed by Hitler and Stalin, Beck has directly linked them to the progressive movement. “Progressives want you dead,” Beck said just this month. Beck once said that progressive “vampires” have the “taste of blood” and are going to “start getting more and more violent.”

Beck also recently aired a “documentary” on “the atrocities of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara — ‘the true unseen history of Marxism, progressivism and communism’ as Beck described it.” It turns out the film wasn’t all that “accurate,” as Ailes claimed. History professors called it a “complete lie” and that Beck “lives in a complete alternative universe.”

Indeed, Beck also once likened himself to “Israeli Nazi hunters,” saying that “to the day I die, I am going to be a progressive hunter.”

CBS Allows Focus On The Family Advocacy Ad During Super Bowl, But Bans Gay Dating Site Ad

In recent weeks, CBS has been taking heat over its decision to allow Focus on the Family’s pro-life ad, featuring Heisman winner Tim Tebow, to air during the Super Bowl. The right wing quickly rushed to the defense of Focus on the Family. Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin urged CBS to “just do the right thing. Don’t cave. Have the backbone to run the ad.” This week, the far-right American Family Association (AFA) launched an action alert asking people to let CBS know they support the ad.

CBS revealed that it is open to accepting other “responsibly produced” advocacy ads, besides the Focus on the Family spot. “We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms,” spokesman Dana McClintock said.

However, yesterday CBS announced that it had rejected a commercial for a gay dating site called ManCrunch.com:

“After reviewing the ad, which is entirely commercial in nature, our standards and practices department decided not to accept this particular spot,” said CBS spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs. “We are always open to working with a client on alternative submissions.”

Elissa Buchter, a spokesperson for the site, called CBS’s rejection “straight-up discrimination.” A letter from CBS said that the ad was “not within the Network’s broadcast standards for Super Bowl Sunday.” The commercial “shows two men excitedly watching the game, before their hands brush as they both reach into a bowl of chips. Suddenly, the two begin making out, much to the shock of a guy sitting close by.” The New York Post concluded that the ad is “no more racy than nearly any beer commercial not starring the Budweiser Clydesdales.” Watch it:

CBS’s decision to accept the Focus on the Family ad was controversial because most networks have a policy of banning advocacy ads during the Super Bowl, and have rejected ones by groups such as MoveOn.org and PETA in the past. Last year, NBC rejected a 30-second public service announcement about marriage equality to run during the Super Bowl.

Andrew Sullivan writes, “In the past, issues ads were deemed non-kosher – but if it’s a Christianist and virulently anti-gay organization behind the ad, it appears to be ok. But if it’s a humorous commercial ad for a gay dating service, CBS says no. … There is one reason this ad was denied. Its gay content was deemed offensive to football fans, while an anti-abortion issues ad wasn’t. That’s called blatant discrimination and if it doesn’t lead to aggressive protests I’ll be very surprised.”

Fox Cuts Away From Obama-GOP Conversation In Order To Get A Head Start On Attacks: He Was ‘Lecturing’

President Obama held a candid, face-to-face conversation with House Republicans today at their annual retreat in Baltimore. After Obama gave his remarks, he had to answer tough questions from Republican lawmakers about health care, the budget, taxes, and other issues. Although the riveting exchange lasted over an hour, both CNN and MSNBC aired the entire event.

However, at 1:11 p.m. ET — when there was still 20 minutes left to go — Fox News decided to cut away and begin its commentary. Anchor Trace Gallagher’s immediate reaction was that Obama was being too “combative” and “lecturing” — like he was at his State of the Union address. Correspondent Bret Baier agreed, saying there was “a little bit of that,” but conceded that there was a “decent…give-and-take on the specifics.” Watch it:

Unsurprisingly, Fox is echoing a Republican talking point. Several Republicans complained that Obama was lecturing them in his State of the Union speech:

– “I felt like he was admonishing Congress and certainly lecturing Republicans, accusing us of being an obstructionist party, when what it is we’re about is trying to focus on the issue, which is control the spending and let’s go about creating an environment for jobs.” — House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

– “The address was ‘more of a lecture, I thought, in tone,’ [Cornyn] said, but Obama ‘gives a great speech.’” — Rep. John Cornyn (R-TX)

– “In a word, ‘lecture’ [is what I thought of Obama's State of the Union speech]. I think there was quite a bit of lecturing, not leading in that, as opposed to Governor McDonnell’s follow-up comments, quite inspiring his connection with the people. He absolutely gets it, he understands government’s appropriate role.” — Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, 1/27/10, Fox News

Not only did Fox cut away from the Obama-GOP exchange, but the network then brought on Rep. Peter King (R-NY) — who was still in New York “because of the whole 9/11 controversy with the trials” — about 10 minutes later to start commenting on Obama’s performance. A look at what was happening on all the networks at that time:

O’Reilly Gripes That Haiti Benefit Organizers Are Ignoring Him — After His Network Refused To Air The Event

Last night on his Fox News show, Bill O’Reilly bashed the Hope for Haiti Now global benefit, which aired live on Jan. 22. The telethon has so far raised $61 million in donations from the general public for Haiti relief efforts. O’Reilly said that he had concerns about how the money was going to be distributed, and the fact that the telethon “could not or would not supply us a spokesperson” to go on his show was “not a good sign”:

O’REILLY: Factor Follow-up segment tonight, getting charity to Haiti. As you may know, a TV telethon last Friday raised nearly $60 million to help the folks at Factor, but now comes the hard part: getting the money to the people who are suffering. Now, we tried to get someone attached to the telethon to speak with us tonight. We were not successful, and that is not a good sign. [...]

I want to be very careful in this discussion. I want Americans to be charitable to the Haitian people. I think they need it. I, myself, have given money to that island nation for a long time. We called up the telethon, which was based out of MTV, and said, Look, we just need somebody to just run through the process where the money goes, how it’s distributed, what the time frame is, all of that. We’ve got DVD albums in play. We’ve got all kinds of stuff coming in.

They could not or would not supply us a spokesperson tonight. And that just worries me.

Watch it:

As Crooks and Liars points out, O’Reilly griping that the Hope for Haiti organizers are ignoring him rings hollow, considering that Fox News was one of the few networks to not air the benefit concert; both CNN and MSNBC did. Ironically, today on Fox News, Neil Cavuto did a whole segment praising the benefit, saying that it made him wonder whether “the best way to raise aid for all the disaster victims is from celebrity-hosted television shows and not from the government trying to get it from taxpayers.” Too bad his network didn’t agree.

Ed Schultz Tells Robert Gibbs He’s ‘Full Of Sh*t’ And ‘You’re Losing Your Base’

Last night, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz spoke at Minnesota progressive talk radio AM950’s Blue State Bash at the Minneapolis Convention Center. During his remarks, Schultz revealed that he recently had a testy confrontation with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (Gibbs appeared on Schultz’s show this past Thursday). “Mr. Gibbs and I had quite a conversation off the air the other night,” he revealed:

SCHULTZ: I told him he was full of sh*t is what I told him. … And then he gave me the Dick Cheney f-bomb. … I told Robert Gibbs, I said “And I’m sorry you’re swearing at me, but I’m just trying to help you out. I’m telling you you’re losing your base. Do you understand you’re losing your base?”

Watch it (video posted by TheUptake):

Schultz also noted that April 7 will be his first anniversary of his TV show, a date that coincides with Sarah Palin’s scheduled appearance on behalf of Michele Bachmann in Minnesota. Schultz — resides in Minnesota — made this pledge to the audience:

If all of you here will make a commitment to me tonight that if I bring my TV show right across the street from where they’re doing their rally, you’ll all show up. [applause] That a deal? Ok, we’ll do it. [...]

We need to get rid of Michele Bachmann. [applause] Any congressional member who thinks that members of Congress should be investigated for their anti-American views doesn’t understand what voting is all about.

After Fox Classified Her Show As Opinion, Van Susteren Attacks WH For Saying It’s Not ‘Traditional News’

Last October, then-White House communications director Anita Dunn chastised Fox News, saying it operates as “either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.” Yesterday in an interview with the New York Times, her successor, Dan Pfieffer, agreed. “I have the same view of Fox that Anita had which is that Fox is not a traditional news organization,” he said.

Pfieffer’s comment has sparked outrage with at least one Fox News host. Writing on her blog this morning, Greta Van Susteren challenged the White House to appear on her show to “prove” that it is not a traditional news program:

I challenge the White House to come on ON THE RECORD at 10pm and debate ME about ON THE RECORD at 10pm. If they are certain about their swipe (which includes ON THE RECORD at 10pm since they say all of Fox) – they should have the courage and strength to prove it. I am responsible for 10pm so I am eager to talk to them about our work at 10pm – an hour included in their swipe. I will be fair, polite but strong. I expect them to be the same. I will be armed with facts about ON THE RECORD at 10pm – not swipes.

But if Van Susteren is going to challenge anybody on the “fair and balanced” merits of her program, she may have to debate those at her own network. The New York Times reported that Fox itself doesn’t consider Van Susteren’s time slot — 10 p.m. on weekdays — to be “news”:

Fox argues that its news hours — 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. on weekdays — are objective. The channel has taken pains recently to highlight its news programs, including the two hours led by Shepard Smith, its chief news anchor. And its daytime newscasts draw more viewers than CNN or MSNBC’s prime-time programs.

“[They’re] not news!,” Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart said reacting to the Times report at the time, adding, “This is according to Fox News! Those people, the ones featured in promos about how fair and balanced Fox News is are not news!”

Fox’s Gretchen Carlson Suggests Fox Viewers ‘Make A Call To Massachusetts’ To Help Scott Brown Win

On Sunday, Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard posted a clip of CNBC’s Jim Cramer claiming that stock market could respond with “a gigantic rally off a Coakley loss and a Brown win” in the Massachusetts Senate special election. Sheppard’s post was picked up by the Fox Nation and the idea of Brown victory boosting stocks morphed into conservative conventional wisdom, with the Drudge Report boasting, “stocks jump on Mass. race fallout?”:

On Fox and Friends this morning, host Gretchen Carlson introduced a segment claiming that a Brown win would boost 401(k)s by suggesting that viewers should work to get Brown elected. “Well, you may want to make a call to Massachusetts and get some people out to the polls,” said Carlson. “That’s because our next guest, and a friend, says that your portfolio could look much better if Scott Brown wins.” Watch it:

During the segment, Fox featured a chyron declaring: “What can Brown do for you? — A boost in your 401K may be in the cards.” As ThinkProgress has pointed out and Media Matters has documented, Fox News has boosted the campaign of State Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), who has also benefited from the support of Wall Street investors.

Perhaps appropriately, Carlson’s “fair and balanced” advocacy for a Republican candidate comes just as Fox is chafing at White House Communications Director Dan Pfieffer for telling the New York Times that the network has “a point of view; that point of view pervades the entire network.”

Carl Cameron Gets Chummy With Brown Supporters, Ducks Question Of Fox News’ Ethics

As Media Matters has documented, Fox News has boosted the campaign of State Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), the Republican running for special election to the U.S. Senate today. On multiple occasions, Fox News has provided a soapbox for Brown to solicit money and volunteers, and Fox News hosts have appealed for viewers to support Brown’s campaign.

At a Brown campaign rally last night, ThinkProgress observed Fox News campaign reporter Carl Cameron — who has shadowed Brown this weekend — relaxing after the speech with Brown campaign volunteers, hugging staffers, and autographing Brown for Senate campaign materials. But when ThinkProgress approached Cameron to question him about Fox News’ journalism ethics, he ducked and ran away from the event:

TP: When Scott Brown goes on Fox News and he solicits volunteers and –

CAMERON: Dude, I’m on a deadline. I can’t –

TP: Doesn’t that raise ethical questions?

Watch it:

Rather than discussing Brown’s stances on policy (like privatizing Social Security, regulating Wall Street abuses, or why he voted to cut emission standards if he doesn’t believe carbon emissions cause climate change), Fox News has simply served as a forum to generate national support for the Brown campaign:

– On the Jan. 12 edition of Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, Brown said, “people can go to BrownForUSSenate.com, they can learn more about that and how to help with donating and volunteering.”

– On the Jan. 11 edition of Fox News’ On the Record, Brown told Fox viewers where to find his campaign’s “money bomb right now that’s hitting.”

– On Jan. 8 edition of Fox News’ Hannity, Brown told Fox viewers, “If people are kind of fed up…they can go to brownforussenate.com.”

Fox News contributor Dick Morris, whose political action committee Republican Trust PAC has run ads in support of Brown, has also fundraised on-air in support of Brown. This morning, Fox Nation and Fox Business are running with headlines about how a “Brown win could cause huge stock rally.”

Fox Thinks Winter Chill Disproves Global Warming; Experts Disagree

In recent days, conservatives have seized on the cold snap gripping the southeast region of the country to cast doubt on global warming. “Hey Al Gore: we want our global warming, and we want it now,” said Newsbusters’ Mark Finkelstein. In his newsletter today, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich wondered about “Al Gore’s explanation for this miserable, persistent chill,” and the National Review’s Mona Charen claimed that the “cold snap has spurred the ‘warmists’ to spin control.”

For the past week, Fox News host Neil Cavuto has been giving a daily “Fox News global warming alert,” which consists of him telling viewers how cold it is. “It is still cold,” Cavuto said yesterday, adding that it’s “not your recent garden variety global warming.” “It’s freezing across the entire globe,” Cavuto shouted on Saturday. Former Nixon speechwriter and actor Ben Stein responded, “Maybe somebody in the government will wake up and say, ‘Hey, it’s colder. It’s not hotter.’ Maybe all this talk about global warming needs to be rethought.” Watch a compilation:

Of course, a short-term cold snap in a few isolated regions does not disprove global climate change. In fact, the cold snap appears unrelated to climate change. As the AP reported, “experts interviewed…did not connect the current frigid blast to climate change,” instead pointing to “arctic oscillation”:

In the atmosphere, large rivers of air travel roughly west to east around the globe between the Arctic and the tropics. This air flow acts like a fence to keep Arctic air confined. But recently, this air flow has become bent into a pronounced zigzag pattern, meandering north and south. If you live in a place where it brings air up from the south, you get warm weather. In fact, record highs were reported this week in Washington state and Alaska. But in the eastern United States, like some other unlucky parts of the globe, Arctic air is swooping down from the north.

Temperatures in “most places” are actually “above average for this time of year.” Record high and low temperatures are set every year, but there have been consistently more highs than lows in recent decades, as the National Center for Atmospheric Research demonstrates:

The last decade was the hottest decade on record by far, and 2009 was also one of the hottest years on record. Climate Progress’ Joe Romm notes that this decade will likely have even higher temperatures.

Let The Cameras Roll

Our guest blogger is John D. Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

My colleagues Igor Volsky and Matt Yglesias have eloquently argued on ThinkProgress that C-Span’s cameras should not be allowed to film the final negotiations between the House and Senate as they hammer out health care legislation that President Obama will soon sign into law. While I respect their arguments, I take a very different view. I have long believed that openness and transparency are essential bedrock measures for ensuring public accountability of our government. Letting C-Span cameras into health care conference meetings will keep negotiators honest, give the public an opportunity for input, and allow the process to be more collaborative.

Open government and citizen access to information is a first principle of liberty in a democracy that has to be defended — even when it’s unpopular or deemed unhelpful in the short term. It is my experience that corruption in government begins at the moment when officials in power believe no one is paying attention. The scrutiny of traditional journalists, citizen journalists, and other interested Americans serves as a powerful disinfectant for our legislative process and restores confidence in our participatory democracy.

Critics have argued that the presence of cameras is likely to produce political posturing and grandstanding by politicians. And indeed, with the cameras rolling, Republicans have said health care reform is a bigger threat than terrorism, claimed that seniors would be told to “drop dead,” and even called the President a liar. But I’m glad cameras were there to capture those demeaning comments. They have helped all Americans gain a better understanding of the unwillingness of some on the right to engage in a rational debate.

The presence of cameras has also produced some beneficial outcomes. For instance, C-Span cameras exposed House GOP efforts to silence members of the Democratic Women’s Caucus when they tried to speak on the floor. The cameras also shamed Senate Republicans when they tried to filibuster the debate by forcing the reading of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ single-payer amendment.

Democrats have nothing to fear from an open debate. They are working to expand affordable coverage to 31 million uninsured Americans, lowering premiums, ending the insurance industry’s denial of pre-existing conditions, and ensuring women will no longer be charged much more for the same coverage as men. When the House and Senate meet in the coming weeks to discuss this historic legislation, I would humbly urge them to let the cameras roll. We can handle the truth.

Members of Congress should not forget that they are representing actual Americans who stand to be either benefited or harmed by the choices they make. It’s my view that if the American people are allowed to bear witness to the conference negotiations, the most important health care reform in decades will be stronger for it. And the American public will rightly feel that they helped bring it about.

A Self-Described ‘Wiser Lou Dobbs’ Supports Legalizing Undocumented Immigrants

Former CNN anchor and anti-immigration reform crusader Lou Dobbs appeared on the O’Reilly Factor last night with an interesting announcement. Dobbs told host O’Reilly that he supports immigration reform with a path to citizenship and also lamented his “combative nature” during the 2007 immigration debate. Dobbs continued insisting that his position on immigration hasn’t changed, explaining that he simply overemphasized border security in the past to the exclusion of legalization and that a “wiser Lou Dobbs” has emerged who is committed to promoting both:

DOBBS: I think the essence of the legislation of 2007 is right: pay a fine, learn English, commit to assimilation in the United States, and begin a path to citizenship…there should also be another guest worker program. [...]

O’REILLY: You sound very moderate. As you said, “I’m the tougher guy here.” Why do you think Hispanics come after you so hard?

DOBBS: I think in part — one thing is my own stupidity. I put forward a statement: rational, effective, humane policy…the emphasis became in the debate of my combative nature the issue of border security first and foremost, versus reforming immigration policy. I’m saying the same thing, but I’m keeping it absolutely combined.

O’REILLY: So you’re a kinder, gentler Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: I’m a wiser Lou Dobbs.

Watch it:

Politifact found “no point-blank case” in which Dobbs has explicitly opposed legalizing undocumented immigrants, however he did repeatedly refer to the immigration legislation he praised last night as an “amnesty bill” during the 2007 debate. Dobbs also slammed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and President Obama during the 2008 presidential race for supporting “[guest worker] programs that bring in cheap foreign labor at the expense of American workers.” Last month, the anti-immigrant group Americans for Legal Immigration PAC announced it was dropping its support of Dobbs, citing a perceived change of views that “deeply offended his base.”

Despite his new proclaimed emphasis on border security and legalization, during the beginning of the segment a supposedly “wiser” Dobbs told O’Reilly that a recent bill introduced by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) is nothing but a “a list of what the open-borders amnesty crowd wants.” Gutierrez’s bill would establish an earned legalization program with requirements similar to those proposed by Dobbs and also includes several provisions aimed at beefing up border security.

Cross-posted at Wonk Room.

Hate Radio Host Neal Boortz Challenges Keith Olbermann To A Health Care Debate

Yesterday, Think Progress reported that hate radio host Neal Boortz used his Twitter account to ridiculously claim that Congress’s health care legislation will end up killing more people than a terrorist attack.

Last night, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann responded to Boortz, referring to him as part of the “lunatic fringe” that is intent on portraying health care reform as lethal, despite the fact that it’s a lack of proper health care coverage that kills 45,000 Americans every year:

OLBERMANN: Each day it seems the lunatic fringe finds a new way to permit its adherents to view the rest of us as a little less than human – we don’t count as much as they do, ordinary Americans don’t matter. Newest example, hate-radio-host Neal Boortz yesterday: ‘Obamacare will do more damage’ he said, ‘ than a successful terrorist bombing of an airliner and kill more people as well.’ So, rather than count how many things are wrong with that statement, or how many times Neal Boortz must have been abused for him to wind up so dehumanized for him to say such a thing, let us answer it on his terms. What would you do, sir, if terrorists were killing 45,000 people each year in this country?

Watch it:

Today, Boortz responded to Olbermann by vulgarly calling the MSNBC host a “prepuce” and then challenging him to a direct debate on whether Congress’s health care legislation will kill more people than a terrorist attack:

Boortz is presumably anxious to have a larger forum to disseminate his hateful rants. He has previously referred to New Orleans residents as “parasites,” has labeled welfare recipients as “human parasitic garbage,” and has suggested that lower-income Americans shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Matthews: Politico Serves As The Drudge-Like ‘News Conduit’ For Dick Cheney

Last month, Politico conducted an “interview” with former Vice President Dick Cheney. As ThinkProgress noted at the time, the paper’s top reporters — Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen — transcribed Cheney’s attacks on Obama without challenge, criticism, or rebuttal.

Indeed, Cheney has been using Politico as his print version of Fox News. In May, Politico’s Allen was leaked an “exclusive” preview of Cheney’s attacks on Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo. Again in October, Allen “broke news” that Cheney was attacking Obama’s Afghanistan policy. And just last week, Allen again reported a Cheney attack on Obama’s handling of the Christmas Day terrorist incident that was released “in a statement to Politico.”

Does Cheney “have a thing with Politico?” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked Politico’s Jonathan Martin today on Hardball. “He uses you like he’d use Drudge or somebody,” Matthews charged. A stunned Martin had no response for why Cheney has been so willing to give Politico “exclusives.” “You’d have to ask the Vice President, Chris,” Martin responded, “I’m not sure.” Matthews kept pressing the issue:

MATTHEWS: I mean, he’s got his own news conduit.

MARTIN: You know, we aggressively report on both sides.

MATTHEWS: It’s not reporting. He feeds you this stuff. … I do like Politico. He’s feeding you guys this crap. [...]

What’s he call up and say? “I got a hot one for you, Jon. Can you take — what’s your email address?” Is that what he does?

Watch it:

Fox Business’ Imus Mocks And Fact-Checks Fox’s Brit Hume, Reports That He’s Wrong About Buddhism

On Fox News Sunday yesterday, Brit Hume offered some candid ecumenical advice to Tiger Woods as he deals with his marriage infidelities:

HUME: He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, “Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

This morning, Hume’s colleagues on the Fox Business network decided to do a little digging into his claims. The Don Imus show crew reported that Hume doesn’t quite have his facts straight on Buddhism:

IMUS: Well, we checked this morning and unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately if you are a Buddhist, there is a path to recovery and redemption. Right? Well yes there is. The idea of redemption — nirvana under Buddhism — is achieving the state of being freed from greed, hate, and delusion.

Imus’ co-host Charles McCord tried to defend Hume by arguing that he was merely stating that Buddhism didn’t offer “the kind of path to redemption”; rather, it’s a different path. Imus responded, “But wouldn’t one infer from what he said…is that there was no path to redemption?” “You could,” agreed McCord.

Appearing later in the show, Fox Business anchor Dagen McDowell began mocking Hume. “He might as well have just let out like an Ernest Angley-style ‘be healed!’ and ‘to the Lord, for he is good! Put your hand on the TV!” Watch a compilation:

Imus noted that Hume’s colleagues on the panel — including “the nut from wherever he’s from — [Bill] Kristol” (who is not Christian) — appeared to be stunned into silence and “looking at their shoes” while Hume proselytized.

Fox News Host Promotes Newt’s Call For Profiling: ‘Profile Them! What’s Wrong With That?’

Yesterday, Newt Gingrich joined the right wing’s hysteric attacks on President Obama regarding Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s failed attempted to blow up a U.S. airliner over Detroit, calling for more “profiling” and “discrimination” and saying that the Obama administration is more interested in “protecting the rights of terrorists” than “protecting the lives of Americans.”

This morning on Fox News, Gingrich tried to clarify his comments. “We have to be prepared to profile based on behavior, not ethnic profiling, not racial profiling but look at people’s behavior,” he said. Later, host Alisyn Camerota signed on to and promoted Gingrich’s plan:

CAMEROTA: I haven’t heard a single person talking about any kind of racial profiling. It doesn’t say “Muslim” on a passport. [...] But anybody who travels all the time recognizes how ludicrous it is to frisk your grandmother. She’s not the risk. But somebody who’s let say been in Yemen in the past year. I’d say profile them. Profile them! What’s wrong with that?

Co-host Dave Briggs asked, “Should we body scan everyone at the airports?” “I’d say yes,” he said answering his own question, adding, “If it keeps me and my family safe, go ahead an invade their privacy.” Watch it:

Yesterday on NPR, even former Bush Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said profiling is a bad idea, calling it foolish, particularly in Abdulmutallab’s case:

CHERTOFF: I’m going to argue that this case illustrates the danger and the foolishness of profiling because people’s conception of what a potential terrorist looks like often doesn’t match reality. In this case we had a Nigerian, for example, not a person from the Middle East or from South Asia. If you look at the airline plot of 2006, two of the plotters were a married couple that were going to get on a plane with a young baby. The terrorists understand that the more they vary the kind of operative they use, the more likely they’re going to be able to exploit prejudices if we allow those prejudices to guide the way we conduct our investigation.

“I think it’s not only problematic from civil rights’ standpoint, but frankly,” Chertoff said, “I think it winds up not being terribly effective.”