Sarah Palin

Many criticize the “revolving door” between politics and lobbying. It is not uncommon for Congressman to become lobbyists, and lobbyists to run for Congress. But with the announcement yesterday that Sarah Palin will contribute to Fox News,the question remaining is whether or not a “revolving door” in news networks is occurring.

To be sure other news networks have prior politicians as contributors, if not hosts. MSNBC has Joe Scarborough, former Congressman, as a host of Morning Joe. They also have Pat Buchanan as a regular contributor. CNN has James Carville as a contributor as well. Even ABC News is famous with George Stephanopoulous, a former worker under Clinton, now as co-host of Good Morning America.

But Fox News is unique in the sense of how quickly the “revolving door” occurs. Mike Huckabee had a failed bid for the President in 2008, less than a year later he had his own show. And now Palin, just under a year after Obama’s inauguration, has signed on as a “contributor”.

What perhaps is most shocking, however, is the yet unanswered question of what if Palin runs in 2012? If she begins as ”contributor” and gets promoted into a series or show, how would that affect her run? Would she simply push policy on her program or would she push her bid for president? And if she does what does that mean for efficacy in the news room? We have been so quick to criticize opinion in the news room, and rightly so, we have perhaps forgotten to guard against a larger threat – the creation of an entire news network  that has one sole purpose – get their party elected to office.

To be sure what comes out of Palin’s multi-million multi-year deal remains unknown. But for those who think it is a sign of her uninterest in running, she might just simply be going rouge.

President Obama

I am an outspoken supporter of President Obama. I think his accomplishments in his first year are historic and will be remebered as such. Be that as it may, President Obama has been extremely disappointing in his handling of the Christmas Day plot. It began when it took him 3 days to hold a press conference on it. And although Bush took 6 days when the Reid attempt occurred, that doesn’t mean Obama get’s a pass. When he announced that he would be reviewing the security failure for a week I thought, ok, he is going to handle the issue just like when Air Force One flew overhead NYC unannounced. He will issue a review, find out who is responsible, and can them.

That hope was dashed when he released the findings of the review and, once again, refused to fire anyone. This after his deputy National Security advisor John Brenhen held a press conference himself and said that he had “failed” the President. And while I understand the Presidents decision because of it being a collective failure, I do not accept it.

When someone fails to blow up a plane only due to a heroic crew and faulty detonator, someone has to get fired. It may not necessarily be fair, but it is defiantly necessary. Usually when something of this size happens they have the good sense to resign. And if they don’t the President has enough sense to fire them anyway. Let’s hope we don’t find out this played out like when Rumsfeld offered his resignation and Bush refused it. If that is the case well…all I can say is I have already had enough memories of Bush.

When Barack Obama was running for president at times it felt he did so under Lincoln’s shadow. Much was written of their biographic similarities. Obama, although born in Hawaii, found his political roots in Illinois. He served one term in the Senate, while Lincoln served one in the House. And, as both rose to national prominence, they were relatively young and politically inexperienced.

Their biographic similarities aside they also shared personal ones.  Both shared a passion for reading and prolific writing. And although Lincoln was not known for speaking, both rose to popularity through the greatness of the speeches they wrote.

During the campaign Obama knew of the similarities drawn. Rather than shy away he embraced them, often quoting Lincoln throughout the campaign and his subsequent election. He announced his campaign on the steps of the old state capital in Springfield, where Lincoln served.  His inauguration theme, “A New Birth of Freedom”, was taken from a line from the Gettysburg Address. And throughout his inauguration echoes of Lincoln could be seen. Taking the same train route to D.C. Lincoln took; he would begin the festivities with a speech on the steps of the Lincoln memorial. And he would take the oath of office on the Lincoln family bible.

This was all noted by the media, and frequently. But, a year into his presidency, what has yet to be written upon is how similar Obama governs, and his popularity reflects, that of the late president.

President Lincoln wasn’t filled with a populist rage; in fact he was quite the opposite. Whether it was his suffering of melancholy or personal preference in governance Lincoln often took the approach of extreme preparation that Obama so heavily favors. He famously said that if he had eight hours to cut down a tree, he would spend six hours sharpening his ax.  President Obama uses the same approach, one that garnered him praise during the campaign but has brought criticism during his time in office.

Further Lincoln was not viewed as the savior of the Union during his service, although that is largely the adopted view today. Hated by the south and a source of frustration for the north, Lincoln often made decisions that garnered him not only criticism but hatred from those who disagreed. He received an extremely high volume of death threats for his time, and his decision to go to war with the southern states over secession was less then popular. His signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed the slaves, was considered as unconstitutional as the civil war he was fighting by many in the south, and even some in the north.  His decision to govern in now appreciated greatness often brought him nothing but ridicule and hatred at the time. It would, ultimately, cost him his life when he was assassinated on April 14, 1965 while attending a play at Ford’s theater.

To be sure Obama’s biographic and personal similarities to Lincoln abound, and I would argue his governing style echo’s Lincoln’s as well. His desire to spend six hours to sharpen his ax before attacking a problem has drawn him fierce criticism. And his decision to pass the federal stimulus package, order the bail-out of GM, and now push towards compilation of the first universal health care bill has been ridiculed by his critics, and often called unconstitutional in nature. His decision to govern in greatness, much like Lincoln’s, has been meet with more criticism then compliment. And, like Lincoln, when history is written, I believe it will be his greatness not the scorn for it that will be remembered.

Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giluliani

The term liar is used often, and often incorrectly in politics. Lying is not simply changing your mind, it is a deliberate misstatement of fact to progress one’s hidden agenda. It is for that reason I do not use the term often, and why I am ready to say that former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani is a liar.

Last night Giuliani appeared on Larry King Live and lied when he said that the president took 6 days to respond to the recent Christmas Day plot. He lied when he also said that the attempt by Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, occurred after 9/11 when it occurred months after it. Those lies can be seen here courtesy of Think Progress. And this morning he lied when, on Good Morning America, he said that “No domestic terror attack happened under George Bush, we had one under Obama.” Apparently he forgot about the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil 9/11, he forgot about the anthrax attacks, and he forgot about the Richard Reid shoe bomber incident that he lied about the night before. That interview, per Huffington Post, can be seen here.

What is more troubling is that, unless a Republican is on a hot-seat no-bull cable show like Hardball, the Rachael Maddow Show or hell even Anderson Cooper, they don’t get called on it. To be fair interviewer George Stephanopoulos did say that he “wasn’t quite right” when he asserted that claim and pointed out Reid and 9/11. But he didn’t do it in the interview, he waited till his blog post. But a statement as bold as that doesn’t qualify as something that “isn’t quite right”, it qualifies as lie. This isn’t a policy issue, 9/11 happened on the morning of Sept 11, 2001. It’s a fact. Reid happened months later on December 22, 2002. It’s a fact. And to omit those facts either shows that he doesn’t know what he is talking about or that he is lying. I give Giuliani more credit than ABC does, he’s a liar.

Gov. Ed Rendell

Moments ago, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell wrapped up an interview with MSNBC’s David Schuster. While discussing the prospects for Democrats in the upcoming 2010 mid-term elections he offered amazing insight in what may be occurring with the Democratic party…principle.

During the interview, Rendell said that in terms of health care or other major issues “some things are worth losing for.” And while he made the point that it is 10 months until the 2010 mid-terms, a lifetime in politics, it showed some real muscle from a party that has been criticized for being unable to stick together for much of anything.

When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the greatest legislation pieces of history, he famously said “I fear we have lost the south for a generation.” And he was right. Since the passing of legislation, Republicans have held an almost unbreakable grip on the Southern states.

Rendell’s interview, along with the fact that Democrats are willing to get health care reform passed no matter the political perils, show that a similar principled fight may be occurring. And like the passing of Social Security, Medicare, and even the Civil Rights act of 1964 the Republican party is once again the party of “no”. It shouldn’t be forgotten that each of these major pieces of legislation where largely opposed by the Republican party at the time, and all barely survived the legislation process.

To be sure the final health care bill, which is now just a matter of time, is largely imperfect. It does not include a public option and there where some seemingly deals made with the devil to get it passed. But it, like the two largely forgotten bills that passed before the famous Civil Rights act of 1964, is a necessary and historic framework that will allow even more dramatic changes to occur to usher in a truly universal health care.

Rendell is right, some things are worth losing for. I for one am pleased there are some leaders willing to lose for them.

A recent piece that ran on ABC’s online section of  The Note here pointed out that Democrats are dropping like flies on their decisions not to run for re-election. The Fox Nation, a website run by Fox News that only further proves they really aren’t a news station, buzzed with excitement over the news here. Apparently several key democrats, including Chris Dodd as of today, have decided not to run for re-election. Republicans point that this is because Democrats are afraid of devastating defeats and would rather retire, and the article on ABC seems to push that narrative in some sense. But is it really correct? Well, actually not.

A recent article by Huffington Post here points out that in fact more Republicans have decided not to run for re-election then Democrats so far this year. According to the article so far 6 Republicans in the Senate and 14 in the House have decided not to run. That is in comparison to 2 Democrats in the Senate and 10 in the House.

To be sure with some pretty large names among the Democrats list such as Dodd, the focus on the Democrat retirements most likely will be stronger than that on the equally important Republican ones. Even though Republican defections could be more important as they show the far-right getting bolder in pushing public officials away from re-election, which actually may cost Republicans seats when it comes down to vote. Nonetheless the article by ABC, and pushed not surprisingly by Fox Nation is a fail of journalism as it fails to report that if Democrats are dropping likes flies, then Republicans might simply be falling over dead.

Polls are the most meaningless meaningful tools in politics. They can be used to spin narratives, push public policy, and even impact public opinion. To be sure polls are done and used so often as political weapons it is hard to understand what polls, if any, truly represent American views and, if they ever do, what that even means or should mean for political leaders or the policies they pursue.

Of these, one of the most known is the daily presidential approval rating by Gallup.  Right now it puts approval for President Obama at 51%. This, according to Gallup and a follow up Politico piece, represents the second-lowest approval rating for a president enterting his second year. The only one lower is, strangely enough, Ronald Regan with 49%.

And even more interesting is that President Bush, who many consider a monumental failure, had the highest with 84% as 9/11 had occured just months earlier. Among other top pollers were his father, at 80%. As well as Kennedy, Eishenhower, and Nixon rounding out the top 5.

What this shows is just how exactly meaningless these polls are, at least in terms of public policy or political survivability. Republicans bounce all over Obama’s “low” approval numbers as a rejection of him. But they similarly preach the demi-god nature of Regan, who had almost idential ratings his first year. So does that mean Regan was really bad, or that Obama is secretly good. And Bush, who even Republicans acknowledge as a failure, had the highest rating at this time in his term. Even Nixon made it into the top five, and he resigned in disgrace.

It reminds us of the meaingless meanging of polls. They are meaningful because they can impact public perception of leaders through an almost group think. They can even impact public policy if such leaders take head of them.  But they are meaningless because they fail in any ability to predict much of anything past the question they are designed to answer.

President Obama’s approval rating is just that, his approval rating right now on January 6, 2010. It holds no more and no less meaning then that. It can’t predict what his approval rating will be tomorrow, much less two years from now. It can’t predict whether or not he will get re-elected, or if his policies will ultimately be accepted as successes or failures. And, like Bush, Clinton, Regan or any past president I really don’t think he cares all that much about it. And he really shouldn’t.

President Obama speaks during a press conference today after meeting with his national security team.

Recovering from his inital fumbled response to an attempted Christmas Day attack on a U.S. airliner, President Obama spoke today on new steps being taken to protect the homeland from future attacks. He laid out new screening techniques and technologies as well as verifying that anyone coming from a list of 14 countries of interest will be subject to “pat-down” searches when entering the United States. And, most importantly, he admitted the system failed.

As  impressive as his recovery has been, and as much as it has thrown Republicans off their attacks, he missed a key opportunity to do something truly presidential: fire one of his own appointees.

While it would have provided significant ammunition to the Republican party, the firing of Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano would have proven not only fair, it would have also shown President Obama is willing to make the tough decisions when someone he appointed screws up. It would only further the narrative that he is the Anti-Bush America was waiting for. Unfortunately, President Obama brought his B game rather than his A game.

RNC Chair Michael Steele

In an interview with Fox News yesterday RNC Chair Micheal Steele had a major slip up. When asked whether or not Republicans were poised to take control of the House, Steele replied he wasn’t sure.

When asked why, he went even further and said the question isn’t just whether they were able to but if they were ready to.

This morning Republicans where fuming, albeit privately, about Steele’s seemingly freudian slip. And they should be. Since his institution as RNC Chair, Steele has been controversial. And this latest slip proves why he should go, even though I love the fact he is still here.

Under the Communications Act and FCC guidelines a station’s license may be revoked for “…false statements either in application or in the statement of fact…” And like with any law, a narrative must be established for a claim to be made. After watching Fox News closely since the election of Barack Obama, it has been.

It is important to remember that in court it isn’t what you know but what you can prove. And while statements by Beck or Hannity may be juicy, they won’t be enough to revoke Fox’s license. What can be used is the audacity Fox has in calling itself a news network as well as recent, deliberate, video editing and airing errors.

On October 29 the Daily Show ran an episode entitled “For Fox Sake” during which host Jon Stewart skewered Fox for its coverage of the Obama administration. During the episode Stewart referenced an article in which Fox News declared their news cycle runs from 9am to 4pm and from 6pm to 8pm. That equals..9 hours a day.

That is nothing short of publicly acknowledging that they are not a news network. Having only 9 hours of news coverage, they are making false statements of fact on what they really are…an opinion and commentary network.

While it is not be enough to revoke their license,it feeds a narrative. A narrative that is completed with the doctoring of footage and using of old footage as new. A clear violation of section code.

On May 5 Fox News was busted for cropping President Obama at a press conference to take his comments out of context. Huffington post has an article about it here. On November 10 Sean Hannity used old footage from the 9/12 rally to pass off as a Michelle Bauchman rally. Jon Stewart took it to task here. On November 14 Greg Jarret used stock footage from a campaign rally for McCain/Palin in 2008 and passed it off as the crowd for Palin’s new book tour. Media Matters shows us here. And on December 17 Fox edited video of Howard Dean to make him appear as to support Tea Party protestors when he did not. That video can be found here. And more video editing and use of old footage can be found here and here.

Fox News has been caught no less than 6 times in the last year using either old footage or footage that has been cut to be out of context and push a false story lead. That combined with their admission they truly aren’t a news network adds up to one simple fact: they need their FCC license revoked. If it was simply the fact they run opinion all day and not news it would warrant them having to change their name and take “News” out their broadcast. But with the doctoring of video, Fox News is in clear violation of FCC code and must have their license revoked.