Think Progress

Imus To Beck: Hannity And Limbaugh ‘Hate You’

This morning, Don Imus had his first show on the Fox Business Network, where he hosted Glenn Beck. At one point they joked about how their friendship might turn sour, with Beck commenting, “If I’m found dead in the streets, it’s either Van Jones or Don Imus.” Imus then asked Beck about his successes and highlighted some of the underlying tensions in the conservative movement:

IMUS: So you’re on the cover of Time magazine, your book’s number one I’ve noticed this week.

BECK: Yeah. It’s gone well.

IMUS: Sean Hannity, Rush, they both hate you.

Beck: No. No, they don’t.

IMUS: They all hate you.

BECK: No they don’t, no they don’t. Why must you stir up the hate?

IMUS: You’re telling me Rush is happy you’re on the cover of Time?

BECK: Yeah, I actually got a note from Rush.

IMUS: What did Rush say?

BECK: “I hate you.” (LAUGHTER) No, you know what? Rush has been really very gracious. The whole time, he has. He really has.

Watch it:

While Imus was mostly joking, there have been disagreements on the right over how much prominence Beck should have. Last month, Limbaugh said that he found attempts to “rally people” — like Beck and his 9/12 Project do — “cheap and disingenuous“:

“I don’t rally people and haven’t since the first year of my radio show,” he wrote to POLITICO. “At that time, all local talk hosts were attempting to prove their worth by getting people to cut up gasoline credit cards, call Washington, etc. I thought it was cheap and disingenuous. The few times I did, early on, suggest people call Washington, the reaction to it from the media was that the response was not genuine (I shut down the House switchboard) because people only did what they did because ‘Limbaugh told them to.’”

Beck’s recent suggestion that “John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama” created a surge of anger to from conservatives, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and radio host Mark Levin. Former Bush administration officials Peter Wehner and David Frum have also lamented the influence Beck is having on the conservative movement.

The conservative movement may have to deal with a lot longer if some of his fans have their way. At a book signing in Worcester, MA this weekend, 500 people lined up in the rain to see the Fox News personality. When he arrived and greeted the crowd, one man yelled out, “Glenn Beck for president!”

VIDEO: Mission Accomplished For Conservatives Who Rooted Against America »

Although the United States sent a high-powered delegation to make a last-ditch effort to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) ruled out the Windy City today. Of the final four cities — which also included Madrid, Toyko, and Rio — Chicago received the fewest votes. In his speech to the IOC in Copenhagen today, President Obama tied the American dream to the Olympic spirit in his pitch for the United States:

[Chicago is] a bustling metropolis with the warmth of a small town; where the world already comes together every day to live and work and reach for a dream — a dream that no matter who we are, where we come from; no matter what we look like or what hand life has dealt us; with hard work, and discipline, and dedication, we can make it if we try.

That’s not just the American Dream. That is the Olympic spirit. It’s the essence of the Olympic spirit. That’s why we see so much of ourselves in these Games. That’s why we want them in Chicago. That’s why we want them in America.

Always looking for a way to bring down Obama, conservatives not only criticized the President’s 15-hour trip, but also spent this week denegrating Chicago, downplaying the Olympics, and rooting against America. The criticisms have included mocking “fat people” in Chicago, gushing that Rio is just plain “awesome,” and saying that Chicago is too violent and doesn’t deserve the event. Watch a compilation:

So how will all these conservatives who have been rooting against the United States react now that their rhetoric has become reality? On Twitter, former Bush spokesman Scott Stanzel cautioned Republicans against gloating: “Note to GOP officials/consultants – resist the temptation to pile on about Chicago losing the Olympic bid just because Obama made the pitch.” His message didn’t reach RedState’s Erick Erickson, who immediately wrote:

Hahahahaha. I thought the world would love us more now that Bush was gone. I thought if we whored ourselves out to our enemies, great things would happen. Apparently not.

Bringing the Olympics wasn’t about cronyism. Besides U.S. pride, it was about an event that could have generated $22.5 billion in economic activity and the equivalent of 315,000 new full-time jobs in America.

Transcript: More »« Less

Hannity Cites Single Chicago Gang Violence Incident To Wonder If The City Doesn’t Deserve The Olympics »

Conservatives have been piling on President Obama this week for his decision to take a short trip to Cophenhagen, Denmark, to pitch Chicago as the site of the 2016 Olympics. Yesterday on an RNC conference call, for example, chairman Michael Steele said that “at a time of war,” Obama’s trip was “not necessary.”

Last night on Fox News, Sean Hannity devoted his top segment to hitting Obama over the Olympics. He brought up a tragic incident in Chicago where an innocent 16-year-old boy died after getting caught in gang violence crossfire. Hannity said the murder had turned “political” in light of Obama’s Copenhagen trip — even though the two are completely unrelated and no one else has tied them together:

HANNITY: This is absolutely chilling. Well, now the story has turned political. This Thursday President Obama will travel to Denmark to support Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. But in light of this tragedy and all of the pressing issues facing the country, is the president making the right move?

One of Hannity’s guests was former Bush White House press secretary Dana Perino, who agreed that the killing had become “part of a political issue.” She admitted that “this type of school violence, unfortunately, happens all over America,” but quickly added, “But as I read today that this is not the first child that’s been murdered this school year in Chicago.”

Hannity also tried to compare Obama’s Copenhagen trip to sending more troops to Afghanistan, saying that since the President was able to make the first decision so quickly, he should similarly make a snap decision about the war. Watch it:

CNN’s Lou Dobbs made a similar argument yesterday, saying, “The president is heading off to Denmark later this week to try to sell Olympic officials on Chicago, but many say the president’s focus on Chicago should have more to do with stopping the worsening violence in that city.”

Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made a jab at Steele and the other Olympics critics, asking, “Who’s he rooting for? Is he hoping to hop a plane to Brazil and catch the Olympics in Rio? Maybe it’s Madrid.” Former Massachusetts governor and head 2002 Olympic Organizing Committee Mitt Romney also endorsed Obama’s decision to go to Copenhagen, saying “I think the people in the IOC want to understand the level of the commitment of the host country. … And nothing says that like having the presence of the leader of that country and, particularly, the case of Barack Obama.”

(HT: News Hounds)

Transcript: More »« Less

Rove And Hannity: By Calling For Action On Climate Change, Obama Is Taking A ‘Jab At America’

Yesterday, President Obama delivered a speech at the U.N.’s climate change summit, saying the U.S. is “determined to act,” that “the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing,” and “the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.”

Last night on Fox News, host Sean Hannity and former Bush adviser Karl Rove predictably mocked Obama. It’s “his mandatory jab at America,” Hannity said. “I love the blame America first,” Rove piled on. The anti-Obama duo then moved into global warming denier territory:

HANNITY: You know, we just came off one of the coolest years on record. [...]

ROVE: In 2006, only one major industrial economy in the world actually grew and at the same time reduced the absolute level of greenhouse gas emissions put out. Guess what that country was, Sean? The United States of America. He should be heralding our leadership in reducing greenhouse gases by applying technology and market economy to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.

Watch it:

Actually, 2008 was the coolest since 2000, not “on record,” as Hannity claimed. In fact, according to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis released in January, last year was likely the ninth warmest on record. The warmest ten years have all occurred since 1997. Moreover, the study said that we should expect the warmest year on record within the next few years:

NASA climate scientists released a new analysis today showing 2008 was the coolest year on record since 2000 but warned a new high temperature record could be broken in the next couple of years. [...]

“It still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years,” the authors said.

Rove’s global warming denier claim is slightly more sophisticated than Hannity’s but also highly misleading. While overall emissions dropped from 2005-2006 in the U.S., 2007 saw an increase from 2005 emissions. The 2006 decline was mostly due to a mild winter rather than as a result of any Bush administration policies as Rove suggested. Moreover, the U.S. wasn’t alone in seeing a drop in greenhouse gas emissions that year; the European Union’s emissions also dropped slightly during that same period.

Hannity: I Say ‘Czars’ Because It’s The Term The Obama Administration Uses

Last night, Fox News host Sean Hannity made good on his promise to obsessively focus on taking down high-ranking Obama administration officials. He spent almost his entire show talking about President Obama’s so-called “czars,” even featuring a segment called “Land of the Czars.”

At one point, Hannity stopped to address why he and other conservatives call them czars: “mostly because the White House itself does.” To prove his point, he played a montage of four clips by Obama and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs using the term “czars.” Watch it:

This was an incredibly weak montage. A look at the full context of these clips:

– On July 13, Obama did use the term “Drug Czar” when referring to Gil Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

– Hannity’s March 11 clip of Gibbs saying, “I think I’ve been asked in this room any number of times if the czars in our White House to deal with energy and health care had too much power” was in response to a reporter’s question. In fact, the first person to use the term “czar” in that briefing was Fox News reporter Major Garrett.

– At the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association dinner in June, Obama was joking when he said, “ABC is planning a series called ‘Dancing with the Czars.’” It was part of his comedy routine at the dinner.

– Hannity’s fourth clip was taken from the same March 11 press briefing as his second clip. In fact, it was in response to the exact same question, and came just a sentence later.

So basically, all Hannity could come up with is one legitimate use by the Obama administration of the term “czars.” All the others were in response to a reporter’s question or when the President was joking at the media’s overuse of the term.

It’s the media, not the White House, that is driving the term. A search of the White House website finds that the only time Obama actually uses the term “czar” is in reference to Kerlikowske. This position, of course, isn’t new; George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan all had drug czars. The rest of the results for “czar” on the White House website are from reporters’ questions or responses to those questions.

Additionally, many of the positions being referred to as “czars” are actually long-standing positions — not ones instituted by Obama. Others have already been confirmed by the Senate.

Hannity: Starting Now, My ‘Job’ Is To ‘Get Rid Of Every Other One’ Of Obama’s Czars

Yesterday, tens of thousands of people gathered in rural West Virginia for the coal-powered “Friends of America Rally.” The point of the event was to rail against the Waxman-Markey clean energy legislation. Massey CEO Don Blankenship, the driving force behind the rally, said that “America itself” was at stake if the bill wasn’t stopped.

Fox News personality Sean Hannity was one of the rally’s keynote speakers, and he took the opportunity to gloat about Van Jones’ resignation. He vowed to the audience that he would get rid of “every other one” of Obama’s so-called czars:

HANNITY: Do you want another czar?

CROWD: No!

HANNITY: I don’t think so. By the way, we got rid of one, and my job starting tomorrow night is to get rid of every other one. I promise you that!

Watch it:

Hannity’s pledge is part of a larger right-wing campaign. Glenn Beck has announced that Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd, and Carol Browner are his next targets and asked his followers to dig up all the dirt they can on them.

Republican lawmakers are trying to argue that Obama should be barred from appointing more advisers until the administration addresses their constitutional concerns. Yesterday on Fox News, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) said that all of Obama’s advisers should have to go through the same vetting and approval process through the Senate as Supreme Court nominees and Cabinet secretaries. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) has said that the “president should suspend any further appointments of so-called ‘czars’ until Congress has an opportunity to examine the background and responsibilities of these individuals.”

The conservative strategy is to bring the executive branch to a screeching halt. Republicans in the Senate have tried to hold up key Obama nominees in what amounts to ideological witch hunts and self-interested horse-trading. Additionally, several of the so-called czars have actually already been confirmed by the Senate.

Bachmann Lies About Census’ American Community Survey, Claims It Doesn’t Ask About Citizenship »

As ThinkProgress has previously noted, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has been fearmongering about the 2010 Census and bragging that she plans to break the law by refusing to answer it. “I know for my family, the only question we will be answering is how many people are in our home. We won’t be answering any information beyond that,” said Bachmann recently.

On Sean Hannity’s radio show yesterday, Bachmann continued to attack the Census, repeatedly insisting that people should go to her website to “see the Census form for themselves.” Listing off a few questions from the American Community Survey (a long-form survey sent out to one in 40 households each year) that she considers invasive, Bachmann claimed that it doesn’t ask “are you an American citizen”:

BACHMANN: Twenty-eight pages. Sean, you know the one question they don’t ask? They don’t ask, “are you an American citizen?” They don’t ask if you’re here on a visa or when it expires. We have no real idea how many illegal aliens are in our country. But wouldn’t you think, here they are asking every personal question about our lives, they could at least ask if we’re an American citizen? They don’t bother to ask for that. That’s why I think people need to read this census for themselves. If you go to my website, michelebachmann, you can read it.

Listen here:

In fact, the American Community Survey does ask about U.S. citizenship and it has since 1890:

Additionally, though Bachmann repeatedly directed Hannity’s listeners to her website, michelebachmnann.com, in order to view the Census questions, the questions aren’t actually available on her website. A press release on her congressional website, however, does encourage citizens to read the Census and ACS questions. Apparently Bachmann has yet to take her own advice.

Transcript: More »« Less

Hannity: We Should Take Note Of Only The Bad Things Anonymous Lawyers Have Said About Sotomayor

Last night, Fox’s Sean Hannity continued his attack against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor using cherry-picked quotes about her from a profile of Sotomayor in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which relies on anonymous quotes from lawyers who have tried cases in her court room. Hannity used the quotes to characterize Sotomayor as “agressive,” “out-of-control,” and, “nasty”:

HANNITY: [W]hat do the lawyers who have appeared in her courtroom think of her judicial temperament? Well, not much. The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary solicits commentary from practicing attorneys about our federal judges. Now here’s what some lawyers who have argued before Judge Sotomayor had to say about her. Quote, She is a terror on the bench. She is overly aggressive, not very judicial. She behaves in an out-of-control manner. She is nasty to lawyers.

Hannity then turned to Jay Sekulow from Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice and Andrew McCarthy of the National Review to confirm his extremely distorted view of Sotomayor. Watch it:

Had Hannity wanted to present a “fair and balanced” view of Sotomayor’s reputation, he would have noted that lawyers quoted in the edition of the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary from which he drew his statements also had many positive things to say about Sotomayor. Indeed, they said she was “very smart,” “very intelligent,” “an exceptional judge overall,” and that “she has a very good commonsense approach to the law.”

Additionally, as Rob Kar at PrawfsBlawg found, the 2000 edition of the Almanac painted, on balance, a much more positive image of Sotomayor than the more recent edition that Hannity quoted. Indeed, the 2000 edition lacks any description of her being a “terror” or “out-of-control.” Instead, she is described as “not rude in any way, but she’s exacting,” “professional,” and “all business”:

Lawyer’s found Sotomayor to be demanding. “I think she’s fine.” “She can be tough. She’s not rude in any way, but she’s exacting.” “She’s all business.” “I’ve never had any problem with her, but I know some lawyer’s don’t care for her temperament.” “She can be tough as nails, but, in truth, I think some lawyers give her a hard time or are threatened by her. She’s very accomplished and clearly smart, and, in truth, I think they’re intimidated. She has always been decent enough to me.” “She’s professional. She’s not quite as friendly or as approachable as some of the other circuit court judges are. She’s a little more stern.” “She’s very smart and well-prepared, and she expects lawyers to rise to her level. She has very little tolerance for lawyers who can’t match her intellectually.”