The Name "Fox News" Is a Form of False Advertising

I decided to follow through with what I've saying on social media about the very name Fox "News" being a form of false advertising, and I filed this formal report/complaint to the Federal Trade Commission) which investigates instances of False Advertising: 

The Fox News Channel ubiquitously advertises itself as Fox "News". But since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Fox has broadcast Russian propaganda about the war, not just news. On March 18, 2022, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Russia Today (a Russian TV network): 'If you take the United States, only Fox News is trying to present some alternative point of view" about the Russian invasion of Ukraine.' Americans who are seeking the news are being victimized by False Advertising every time they see or hear the name Fox News. A more truthful name for this cable channel would be ?Fox Russian Propaganda".

The Loudest Voice 1.1: Fox Launch

The Loudest Voice just launched on Showtime tonight, with an episode about the launch of Fox News.  Or, more specifically, about how Roger Ailes (stunningly portrayed by Russell Crowe) launched Fox News, and with just about everyone else on the screen (the screen of The Loudest Voice) kicking and screaming.  That includes owner Rupert Murdock, and just about everyone else in Ailes's orbit.

First, a few words from me about Fox News.  Although I've strongly disagreed from the outset with its politics, I've admired their green rooms (I've been a guest on O'Reilly, etc), and, more importantly, the savvy they've shown in how to present a news opinion show.  It wasn't the least bit surprising to me when they jumped to first place in cable news, leaving CNN and MSNBC in the dust.  This state continued until Trump and his awful Presidency drove up viewership of both Fox competitors, especially MSNBC.

But I digress.  I was never on the inside of Fox News.  I knew Fox News just as a viewer and as an occasional guest on one of its prime time shows.  So I have no idea how truthful or not this story of Ailes and the begetting of Fox News is.  But it certainly conforms to what I do know.

Not only did the green rooms have a great assortment of bagels, juices, and teas, but the corridors were buzzing with an energy I never saw when I was a guest on CNN or MSNBC.  You could tell when you got a peek at the control rooms that the people who worked on Fox knew they were part of a revolution in news presentation, and loved it.

Of course, as we'll see in weeks ahead, not everyone at Fox continued to love it or had reason to love it.   But that's a different part of the story, and there's no denying that Fox utterly dominated cable news in the first decades of its existence, in an age right between the hegemony of network television and the rise of social media.   The Loudest Voice offers a crucial and compelling picture of just how this came to be.

====

FYI, here's a list of my television appearances.

And here's an example of me and O'Reilly:

I'm Glad Brian Williams Will Be Back on Television

That's right, I'm glad Brian Williams will be back on MSNBC, where he started, rather than being exiled from news reporting and anchoring forever.

I get that he did something wrong in his braggadocio misremembering of several news events of which he was not a part.  But that wasn't as bad, as, say, the racist comments made by Imus on the radio a decade ago, or even Dan Rather's misreporting of the George W. Bush evasion-of-the-draft story, if indeed that was misreporting.  But Brian Williams' exaggerations were not a misreporting of a news story, just of his own direct involvement in it.  And although people who tell us the news should be held to a higher standard of truth-telling than the average person, it's worth noting that exaggerations of personal experiences are as common as saying you loved a popular movie when you slept through it, as in fact at least one famous movie critic was reported as frequently having done.

As for MSNBC, they can use all the help they can get.  Despite their highly intelligent and articulate anchors - especially in the evening - they've been consistently in last place in the Fox, CNN, MSNBC lineup for a while now.  They were outrightly dumb to get rid of Keith Olbermann, the most energetic, iconoclastic person ever on their air.  And the tick-like constant reference to their "Pulse" statistics - to show what their viewers are thinking - is a drag on more than one of their shows.   But whatever its problem, MSNBC will be well-served with Brian Williams and his sage, incisive, sometimes satirical analysis -- especially with the 2016 Presidential campaign already in gear, and William's astute political sense.

Rachel Maddow, the best person on MSNBC and for that matter on any news network, last night took a point of personal privilege and said how happy she was that Brian Williams was returning and being given a second chance.  I couldn't agree more. Now, if MSNBC got back Olbermann, I'd bet at least even money that they'd overtake at least CNN once again,

Bill O'Reilly Hit Piece on Fordham University

Did you see the classic, textbook piece of propaganda Bill O'Reilly did about Fordham University last night?   Here's a link if you missed it.  O'Reilly starts off saying Fordham "banned" Ann Coulter from a speaking engagement on the campus, then he explains what in fact happened (she wasn't banned), and wraps up with Jesse Watters in front of Fordham with a slapdash compilation of video interviews with students taken out of context to make them look bad and have Fox's viewers get a laugh at their expense.

Here are the facts of the Ann Coulter matter:  Fordham University's Republican Club, a student group, invited her to speak.  Fr. Joseph McShane, President of Fordham University, wrote the Club and university community a strong letter criticizing the invitation of Coulter to Fordham.   The Republican Club considered the points made in the letter and decided to rescind its invitation.

Note that the University President has no direct power over students, not even indirect power.  The president doesn't grade students, or evaluate their progress towards graduation.  The first is done by professors, and the second by professors and deans.  One dean in particular - the Dean of Students - could have banned Coulter from campus, or refused to allow the proposed student event - but that did not happen.   The students decided not to invite her.

No one's First Amendment rights were violated.  No government official prevented Coulter from speaking.   Fr. McShane's expression of opinion not only violated no one's rights, but was morally justified.   Presidents of universities should speak out about issues affecting the university.  And, in fact, he was right to be concerned about Ann Coulter.  She has called Barack Obama a "retard," John Edwards a "faggot," and characterized our immigration policy as designed to reduce the percentage of white people in the American population.   The First Amendment protects her right to say and write such things without government interference.   It does not give her the right to say that in a university community, which strives to teach tolerance and respect for diversity.   One could argue that Fordham University would have indeed been justified in banning Coulter, or any purveyor of epithets and racist reasoning.  And, yet, Fordham showed tolerance by not banning Coulter.

Why then did O'Reilly characterize the Coulter affair as a banning?   Because, like all clever propagandists, he knows that big lies stick, even after the purveyor of the lie quietly explains what actually happened.   O'Reilly last night explained that Coulter wasn't actually banned, because he wants to be on record as presenting the facts when he's called on lying about Coulter being banned.  Like all propagandists, he wants both the benefit of his lie and protection from its consequences.

As for the Watters piece, we've seen this technique over and over again on Fox: ambush people on the street, ask them questions, call upon them to give details, and then splice it all together to show how uniformed they are.   But the young woman who said Coulter was a racist was right (she also happens to be one of my students).   She couldn't cite an example on the spot, but she was right nonetheless.   Don't believe me?  Look up Coulter's article on Wikipedia.  Even Watters could have done that, had he been interested in the truth.

The facts in this case have been out there for a month, regarding Coulter's invitation to Fordham, and longer regarding her abusive language.  But Fox and O'Reilly are not interested in truth or even facts.  Poorly researched and reasoned - O'Reilly at one point wrongly says that a public university would have gotten into big trouble had it banned Coulter (not true) - O'Reilly's segments have devolved from being pointed, politically abrasive presentations, which are valuable in our body politic, to sad examples of how to bungle and mispresent a story for a quick round of ignorant applause.

Why CNN and Fox Wrongly Reported the Supreme Court Health Care Ruling

The initially incorrect reporting by Fox and CNN of the US Supreme Court health care ruling yesterday will go down in history and long be cited in journalism courses along with Dewey beating Truman in 1948 according to the infamous Chicago Tribune banner headline and other examples of premature breaking news.  It was the most enjoyable part of the ruling other than the ruling itself.

But why did this happen?  The superficial answer, true enough, is that neither Fox nor CNN read far enough in Chief Justice Roberts' opinion to see he was upholding the mandate in the Affordable Health Care law as a tax, after rejecting its constitutionality under the commerce clause.

But there are deeper reasons.

CNN has fallen to a weak third place in the 24/7 all-news cable line-up.  It attracts not only the lowest number of viewers but likely staff and interns at all levels who would rather be someplace else.  Marshall McLuhan observed this sinking ship phenomenon in media when major newspapers began going on strike in the 1960s - they were going on strike, temporarily shutting down, McLuhan noted, as prelude to their permanent shut down, because fewer people were reading them, anyway.  Lack of audience and lack of production acumen feed one another in a vicious, downward, mutually destructive cycle. McLuhan not only saw the decline of newspapers in response to the screens of television, but accurately foresaw their decline in response to 21st century social media, which are now also challenging cable.

CNN is not about to shut down, but it is already in this cycle of decline, and needs to take special care not to feed it.

Fox, still in first place in cable news land, made the miscall for a very different reason.   Fox, despite its "fair and balanced" moniker, has long seen and reported the world through right-wing glasses.   Its top talent - Shep Smith, Bret Baier, and even Bill O'Reilly - can and do have independent views.  But its staff at all levels wears ideological blinders.  Fox not only misread the Supreme Court decision by stopping too soon in its reading, but likely did that because that's what the Fox people who did the reading wanted it to say.   They read as much as they needed to confirm their hopes.  Seeing support for one's views can be a powerful source of distortion when encountering new material.

I suppose the same could be said for MSNBC, which didn't want to see the ruling strike down Obamacare and reported the ruling correctly.   On the other hand, Pete Williams, who brought the opinion to MSNBC air, is one of the sharpest legal reporters in the business.  Given the decline of CNN and the ideology of Fox, it is unlikely he'd be anywhere other than reporting for MSNBC.

Fine Interview of Obama by O'Reilly

I said - actually Tweeted - this yesterday, about Bill O'Reilly's brief interview of Barack Obama before the Superbowl:  Obama did very well.  He came off as informed and articulate.  He gave clear answers to O'Reilly's tough questions.

I would say exactly the same about the longer segment of the interview just aired on The Factor.  Obama provided reasoned and astute answers to O'Reilly's series of questions ranging from Afghanistan and Iraq to why Obama hasn't been doing more about the economy. Obama's answer on the economy was instructive - the President cited some of the many things he's in fact been doing.

Of special significance to anyone who enjoys media analysis - which would include me - was Obama's response to O'Reilly's question about what the President thinks of Fox News.   Obama allowed that although he (correctly) saw Fox as a news operation that disagreed with his policies, Fox was nonetheless a legitimate news station.

Unsurprisingly, the interview has received fire from both sides.  O'Reilly read an email from a conservative who wondered by O'Reilly would interview such a "loser".  O'Reilly's response, with a smile - because Obama's the most powerful person in the world - was graceful and of course well-taken.  Meanwhile, Lawrence O'Donnell was busy denouncing O'Reilly and the interview over on MSNBC, aggrieved at the number of times O'Reilly interrupted the President.  I had no trouble at all following the conversation.

Indeed, I think all of the interview's critics, from right and left, were busy watching the scripts in their own heads than the interview on the screen.   Kudos to both President Obama and Bill O'Reilly for bringing us an engaging presentation of the President's policies.

Shepard Smith Speaks Up and Does the Right Thing - Once Again

I've been saying for years that Shep Smith, who anchors the Fox Report on Fox News, is a class act. He did an heroic job - along Anderson Cooper of CNN, Geraldo Rivera of Fox News, and other reporters on the scene -- in holding the Bush government to account for its disgraceful Katrina response. Smith smacked down Joe the Erstaz Plumber last year, when the "Plumber" was waxing ignorant about Obama and Israel. And last night, Smith did this:



Smith's stubborn integrity - in the above case, apologizing to his viewers for the blatantly unbalanced Fox coverage of the New Jersey gubernatorial campaign, with a beaming Shannon Bream interviewing only the Republican candidate - shows the error of dismissing all of Fox News as worthless or worse. The reality is a lot of that operation is hopelessly right wing, but a professional on camera can still do the right thing.

And, in some ways, that's more valuable than blanket denouncements of Fox from the left and the White House. Given the political attitudes of the audience that Fox has attracted, a few words from Shep Smith can do a lot more to shake up their view of the world, and see it more clearly, than all the ranting of Keith Olbermann (who, coincidentally, wasted yet another few minutes of his show tonight lashing out at a Fox Entertainment television show, 24).

Hannity's Triumph of the Will

Just caught a glimpse of Sean Hannity on Fox tonight - I thought I was watching a remake of Triumph of the Will.

Apocalyptic "Omen" music playing in the background ... Democrats pressing for the stimulus package, proud when it passed ... Republicans heroically standing up against it ... fighting against -

Socialism in America!

Images bathed in red, Hannity raving on about socalism, except -

Socialism is the government nationalizing, owning, taking over industry. No private ownership, no corporations, no private enterprise.

How is the stimulus package anything like that, close to it, even moving towards it? The government is loaning money to the auto companies and the banks. When it makes money available for building of infrastructure, that money will be going to companies such as Caterpillar, which will be hiring more workers, etc.

No government ownership.

Words have meaning. As George Orwell made frighteningly clear in 1984, the path to totalitarian strangling of liberty and decency resides, in significant part, in striping language of its meaning - war is peace, freedom is slavery - with an eye towards confusing the public.

No, this country is not moving towards socialism at all.

But displays such as Hannity's are about as far as I've ever seen anything on American media veer towards Nazi and Communist modes of propaganda.

Throwing the Shoe at the First Amendment

It's hard not to burst out laughing when you see the first part of the journalist throwing two shoes at George Bush at a press conference in Baghdad today, but the second part has some horrible echoes of assassinations (see the video below), and the incident raises some serious questions about the First Amendment.

Muntadar al-Zeidi, the shoe-thrower, is an Al-Baghdadia television correspondent, according to AP as reported by Bloomberg News. Muntadar al-Zeidi was taken into custody, and Fox News reported this afternoon that Al-Baghdadia and other Iraqi journalists have called for his release, on grounds that his shoe-throwing is protected under the First Amendment.

To begin with, it serves little purpose to note, as Fox commentator Julie Banderas said to her colleague Gregg Jarrett, that Iraq has no First Amendment. That's true, but the far more important point is whether shoe-throwing constitutes a kind of speech or press, and therefore deserving of First Amendment protection, if Iraq did have a First Amendment, or if a similar incident happened here.

The answer, I would say, is clearly no. Throwing a shoe may indeed be a political statement, but it is also a form of assault, as Banderas did correctly observe. If the shoe is steel-tipped, it could do serious damage - like taking out an eye.

Here's a handy check list:

"This is the farewell kiss, you dog," al-Zeidi said when he threw the shoe. Protected under the First Amendment.

"This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq," al-Zeidi said as he was being led away. Also protected under the First Amendment.

Throwing a shoe - or, in this case, two? I don't think so. Throw the book at him.

MSNBC & ABC Call Pennsylvania for Obama; CNN, Fox, CBS Say Too Close to Call

Two of the five major television networks have just called Pennsylvania for Obama - MSNBC and ABC. The three other major networks - CNN, Fox, and CBS - say it's currently too close to call.

If MSNBC and ABC are right, then Obama is extremely likely to win the election. Kerry won Pennsylvania in 2004. If Obama has now won that state, then all he needs to do is pick off one or two other states in which Bush won in 2004 - and there are many. McCain's last ditch Pennsylvania strategy failed.

Fascinating how the networks differ in their calls.

But I'm thinking two out of five networks calls will be enough for Obama to be President.

More soon.

Kudos to Shep Smith for Smacking Down Joe the Ersatz Plumber

I didn't get a chance say this night, with all the excitement of that great Obama-Clinton rally at midnight in Florida, but I wanted to give a shout-out to Shep Smith on Fox for the way he took on, smoked out, and smacked down Joe the Plumber on his ignorant statement about Obama and Israel yesterday.

Someone told Joe the Deadbeat Contractor - he's not a licensed plumber - that he was entitled to have a quotable opinion not only about rusty pipes and maybe making ends meet, but on foreign affairs! Actually, not someone, but John McCain, Sarah Palin, the RNC, and every Republican we've been seeing on television. But as we saw on Shep Smith's Studio B on Fox yesterday, Joe the Plumber probably knows less about foreign affairs than Sarah Palin.

At a campaign rally yesterday, Joe the Plumber was asked if a vote for Obama would mean "death to Israel". He plumbed his vast knowledge of world relations, and said, yes, that was a point that he had to agree with. The man in the crowd asked if he could shake the Plumber's hand.

Shortly after, Shep Smith asked Joe why he would endorse a statement like that. Smith pointed out that Obama has repeatedly said he would be Israel's unswerving defender as President. Joe's answers varied from Joe's opinion didn't matter, to we should look at Obama's actions not words about Israel. And what actions were that? Obama's willingness to talk with the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As Keith Olbermann later pointed out on Countdown - last time I checked, saying you would be willing to talk to someone is speaking ("saying") as distinct from "acting" (actually going to meet with someone).

But kudos to Shep Smith for taking on this blowhard would-be plumber. I've been saying for years that Fox News is not evil incarnate on television. They have a Republican, right-wing bias, which I strongly disagree with, just as MSNBC has a progressive bias which I endorse and enjoy. But not every anchor or commentator on Fox News is Sean Hannity. And last night, Shep Smith was (cue Keith Olbermann voice) one of the best persons in the world.




Added 28 October 2009: See also Shep Smith Speak Up and Does the Right Thing - Once Again

Olbermann and Matthews No Longer Anchoring Special MSNBC Election Coverage: Pros and Cons

It's being reported all over that Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews will no longer be anchoring special election coverage on MSNBC. In terms of what's ahead in this political season, this means we won't see them anchoring election night or debate coverage. They will both continue in their Countdown and Hardball shows.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I've criticized Olbermann's tirades on everything from 24 to Hillary Clinton and Bill O'Reilly. Matthews is not as extreme, but he had problems talking about Hillary Clinton, too - and I noticed that as an Obama supporter. In the Democratic and Republican convention coverage, Olbermann dissed Joe Scarborough on the air, and Matthews and Pat Buchanan went at it tooth and nail.

The last two incidents get at why I feel more than one way about MSNBC's change of anchors. I agree politically with everything Olbermann said to Scarborough, and everything Matthews said to Buchanan. Further, a leftist tilt at MSNBC balances the rightest tilt at Fox News, which is certainly not "balanced" on its own.

In the end, I guess MSNBC did the right thing, though. There is a distinction between an anchor and a commentator, one which Fox News respects by not putting its commentators - such O'Reilly, Hannity, and Colmes - in the anchor chair. Our politics is indeed better served when we can get some semblance of objectivity in our anchors and let the commentators have at it.

But if this signals a retreat by MSNBC from the Democratic leanings of its commentators, I'll be sure to complain loudly about that, too.

Republicans Bash Media for Covering Palin, Who Gives Sarcastic Speech at GOP Convention

Joe Klein has an important post on his Time blog in which he details Republican attempts in the past few days to make the media back off their legitimate political coverage and vetting of Sarah Palin.

Klein concludes -

There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God."

Klein has not only called attention to important truths about Palin, but about a perennial Republican technique that goes at least as far back as Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew: when things get rough, attack the media.

We heard a lot of that tonight at the Republican convention. Giuliani gave one of the most energetic speeches of his career, in which he lashed out at the "left wing" media. Does that include Fox News? (At least his speech was comprehensible, in contrast to Huckabee's.)

And Sarah Palin in effect gave two speeches tonight. One introduced her life and family - fair enough. The other offered a stream of sarcastic comments about Barack Obama, including a jab at the media: "If you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone."

Will people fall for this? Not likely, even though it's worked at times in the past. But there wasn't a word about foreign policy experience in Palin's speech tonight. Media criticism may get the Republican base cheering, but it's not much of a qualification for someone who would be Vice President to a 72-year President.



See also: Pat Buchanan Shows His True Colors to Chris Matthews ... A DA (Not) and a Democrat (Not) Address the Republican Convention

And Coverage of Democratic Convention:

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day Four: Obama Deliver's New Kind of Speech: Calls McCain on "Temperament" ... Al Gore: The Two Lines of History Converge

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day Three: America Moves Up - Obama Nominated! ... Biden Hits McCain on Everything from Afghanistan to Amtrak

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day Two: Patrick Buchanan on MSNBC: Hillary Will Campaign Hard for Obama, But Won't Shed Tears If He Loses ... Hillary Speaks Powerfully at Democratic Convention, in a Scene for the Ages

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day One: Olbermann to Scarborough on MSNBC: "Jesus, Joe, Get a Shovel!" ... Ted Kennedy at 2008 Democratic Convention: JFK Would Be Smiling ... Michelle Obama's Speech: Bringing Home America

Superb Speeches by Bill Clinton and John Kerry - Mindless Networks Carry Only Clinton's

Bill Clinton and John Kerry just gave two outstanding speeches at the Democratic National Convention. The arrogant cable networks carried only Bill Clinton's. Once again, CSPAN comes through as the true American herald.

Bill Clinton received minute after minute of thunderous applause when he walked out on stage - he deserved every bit of it. His speech was masterfully on target, explaining what Americans have lost under Bush, and why Obama and Biden are what's needed to get it back and move forward. Clinton's praise of Biden was especially meaningful, given that, on the basis of Bill's irrefutable logic, Hillary might well have been chosen as VP candidate. It was pleasure to see Bill Clinton address a crowd again. As always, his intelligence and commitment shone brightly.

Cut to the talking heads on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox. But on the small inset screen on our TV, who do my wife and I see but John Kerry. He was never a mesmerizing speaker, but, hey, he gave it a close run four years ago, and we wanted to hear what he had to say.

John Kerry probably gave the best speech of his career tonight. I actually liked it even better than Bill's. Kerry took apart the Republicans and John McCain in a way no one at the convention has done so far, in a step-by-step presentation of logic and evidence. I'm looking forward to more of this from Joe Biden.

But kudos to John Kerry for stepping up and delivering a powerhouse punch. And boos to networks for ignoring him. Cable news, here's a clue: a Presidential candidate from just four years ago is always likely to be more of value than your best talking heads.

And I'll be back after Joe Biden's speech...




See also: America Moves Up - Obama Nominated!

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day Two: Patrick Buchanan on MSNBC: Hillary Will Campaign Hard for Obama, But Won't Shed Tears If He Loses ... Hillary Speaks Powerfully at Democratic Convention, in a Scene for the Ages

Infinite Regress Democratic Convention Coverage from Day One: Olbermann to Scarborough on MSNBC: "Jesus, Joe, Get a Shovel!" ... Ted Kennedy at 2008 Democratic Convention: JFK Would Be Smiling ... Michelle Obama's Speech: Bringing Home America

Hillary Does Fine on O'Reilly

Kudos to Hillary Clinton for doing a fine job in her interview on Fox News by Bill O'Reilly. And kudos for Bill O'Reilly for having Hillary on his show.

That's right. I'm a Barack Obama supporter, and no great friend of Fox News or Bill O'Reilly - on whose TV show I've appeared three times* - but I think it's good for our democratic process for people running for President to appear and talk and be interviewed on television as much as possible.

Fox News has millions of viewers. O'Reilly's Factor is its leading show. Cutting this out of the process was a disservice to both the candidates (who have done this, until now) and the American people.

Hillary Clinton offered poise, humor, and tough facts in her responses to O'Reilly. It was a great interview. I'm looking forward to the second part of the interview tomorrow.

Barack Obama was wise to initiate Democratic contender appearances on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace this past Sunday.

Both candidates would be wise to continue this. It is only counterproductive to cede Fox News to the Republicans.

=======================

*YouTube clip of my first appearance on O'Reilly several years ago

Spirited Republican Debate on Fox in South Carolina Tonight: Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul Come Out Best

A crisp, spirited Republican debate in South Carolina earlier tonight - one of the best so far, as good the Republican debate on ABC on Saturday - and Fox included Ron Paul, which it didn't do on Sunday.

Fred Thompson was the best he's been so far, responding with a sharp mix of passion, clarity, and humor. He took Mike Huckabee to task for being a Democrat in Republican clothing. Even though I agree with Huckabee's "Democratic" positions about education, etc., I had to admire Thompson's performance.

Huckabee, for his part, however, was also excellent. He came through again as likable and sincere, as well as vivid and saber-rattling in his response to the Iranian gunboat incident - warning Iranians and anyone that if they attack American boats, the next thing they'll be seeing are the gates of hell. (Thompson got in a good line about the Iranians being close to seeing the virgins they think await their heroes in the afterlife.) Again, I don't agree at all with this jingoism, but it was good Republican television.

As for what I do agree with, Ron Paul was incisive and right on target in his comparison of the Iranian gunboat incident with the Gulf on Tonkin incident off the coast of North Vietnam in the 1960s. Lyndon Johnson used it to push the US into an escalated (undeclared) war in Vietnam. But, as Ron Paul correctly alluded to, it turned out later that this incident had been set up and provoked by Johnson precisely for the purpose of increasing US military action in Vietnam - or, starting up a full-fledged (undeclared) war.

Ron Paul was also clear in disassociating himself and his candidacy from the 9/11 "truthers" - those who think that the U.S. brought down the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.

Likely Ron Paul was so effective tonight because he was finally given some time to speak and make his points.

But the Southern weather agreed with all of the candidates. Guiliani was forceful in his defense of his immigration policy in NYC - how can you question the immigration status, he asked, of someone who is giving the police information a rape or a murder? You don't need a green card to commit those crimes, he added.

Romney sparred well, but once again came up with a science fictional, computational metaphor - making some point about three-dimensional chess (the first I ever saw of three-dimensional chess was when Spock was playing it on Star Trek). I don't know, it's a different series, but I'm still thinking Cylon...

And McCain was pretty good, too - though, in general, he seemed to assume the position as the most tired candidate, held until tonight by Fred Thompson.

***
After the debate: Ron Paul won the telephone poll, and of course Hannity didn't believe it. At least, this time, he knew better than to come up some story about Ron Paul's supporters voting multiple times.

A lot more debates in both parties coming up this month. It's good to see that they're getting sharper and more focused as the campaigns progress.

I'm Withdrawing My Support of Ron Paul's Candidacy

I am withdrawing my support for Ron Paul. I have been urging, since last March, that people should support the best candidate in each of the two parties, and Ron Paul was far and away my choice among the Republican contenders.

My reasons for that support remain. Ron Paul's respect for our Constitution, and his opposition to our undeclared war which follows from that, and his support of the First Amendment which also stems from his standing up for the Constitution, are still among the most crucial issues of our day. Ron Paul's positions on those issues are better than any other candidates' positions in either party (including the positions of Barack Obama, whom I am supporting for the Democratic nomination).

But I nonetheless can no longer support Ron Paul's candidacy. The reasons are presented in some detail, with citations, in this Wikipedia entry entitled the Ron Paul Report newsletter controversy. This newsletter, published under various, slightly different titles for decades, but always under Ron Paul's name, contained racist and homophobic remarks utterly repugnant to me. Here's a sample from The New Republic article:

The January 1991 edition of the Political Report refers to King as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and a "flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate."

A February 1991 newsletter attacks "The X-Rated Martin Luther King."

An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" would be better alternatives--and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."

Gays

In the course of defending homophobic comments by Andy Rooney of CBS, a 1990 newsletter notes that a reporter for a gay magazine "certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist."

The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."

Ron Paul, to his credit, has taken "moral responsibility" for such comments, explaining that they were written by ghostwriters and did not represent his views. Reuters yesterday carried an official statement by Ron Paul that further said he did not directly edit the offensive newsletters.

Nonetheless, he also has failed to identify said ghostwriters, let alone vociferously denounce them, and sue them for every penny.

What would you do if a newsletter under your name, authorized by you, published such comments - or any comments that you vehemently disagreed with?

Whatever Ron Paul did, however much he disagreed with those comments, his response was not enough. Not enough for a person who is seriously putting himself forth as a candidate for President.

To be clear, I will continue to hold arrogant media such as Fox News to account for abusing Ron Paul's candidacy and the democratic process by excluding him from debates. And the same to ABC News and other mainstream media for belittling his levels of support.

And I will think about whom I can now support as the best Republican.

But it can longer be Ron Paul. Much as I admire his clear thinking and courage in speaking up for the Constitution, he should have done more in speaking out about and denouncing the scurrilous, sickening comments in the newsletters published under his name.

See also this angry, understandable reaction from another Ron Paul supporter: Ron Paul's Betrayal of America

Hillary Edges Out Obama in NH: Why, As An Obama Supporter, I'm Not Too Unhappy

Well, Hillary Clinton edged out Barack Obama in the New Hampshire Democratic primary tonight. Although I'm an Obama supporter, I'm not really too unhappy about this, because:

1. I was moved by Hillary's emotional moment yesterday - I like seeing humanity in our Presidential candidates - and I was infuriated by the small-hearted, soulless response of some conservatives such as Bill Kristol on Fox News.

2. I think a woman in the White House would be almost as powerful a correction of an historic American injustice as an African-American President.

3. I like seeing pollsters and pundits proven wrong in their confident predictions - it shows that, in the end, the American people not the media decide who will serve in our public offices.

Meanwhile, Obama can hold his head up high. He won in Iowa and came in a close second in New Hampshire. He gave another great, inspiring speech tonight. I would be very happy with an Obama-Clinton ticket, and almost as happy with a Clinton-Obama combination.

As for the Republicans, I was disappointed that Ron Paul did not best Giuliani for 4th place, but Ron Paul did come close - which shows, once again, the dangerous folly of Fox News in excluding Ron Paul from Sunday's debate, and including Fred Thompson, who came a distant sixth in New Hampshire's Republican primary tonight.

Fox made this decision based on the national polls ....

Hmmm ... polls ... not worth all that much as valid measurements of voters, are they...

See also

Hillary's Tears

I'm Voting for Barack Obama

High Point of Fox Republican Debate Without Ron Paul: Ron Paul Supporters Carrying Signs Outside the Window

Well, I broke down and took a look at the Fox Rump Republican Presidential debate tonight - without Ron Paul, who got 10% of the Iowa vote - and I thought by far the most significant moment came when Ron Paul supporters walked by with nice big signs of protest outside the window, and Brit Hume and company analyzed what had happened during the 90-minute debate in New Hampshire.

I also kept an eye on the CNN replay of the excellent ABC debate from last night, so first a little comparison of the Republicans on the two nights:

1. The ABC (on CNN tonight) debate was obviously more fair and representative, since it included Ron Paul.

2. It was also far livelier, and therefore better in giving the American people a good idea of what the candidates think.

3. It also just looked better - the lightning, the seating, the general kinaesthetics of yesterday's debate was easier, more enjoyable and instructive, to look at.

As was the case last night, I thought Romney did the best in the Republican debate tonight. He was the most informative and on-point.

One interlude between Thompson and Huckabee struck me as worthy of a little attention. Thompson jumped on Huckabee for Huckabee's statement last week that Musharrif should not "continue" martial law. Huckabee has been attacked for this statement as showing ignorance that martial law had already been lifted in Pakistan.
Well, although it's true that "reinstated" might have been a better word than "continued," it's also the case that reinstatement is really a form of continuation, so Huckabee's statement is not as ignorant as Thompson and Huckabee's critics like to pretend.

***
Back to the replaying of yesterday's ABC debate on CNN tonight. I again want to congratulate ABC for that great moment in which candidates from both parties met on stage, and CNN for the daring move of rebroadcasting this debate.

Many commentators have pointed out that Obama may not have been feisty last night, but he was Presidential. Seeing some of Obama's responses again - such as his joke about watching the Redskins game along with the Republican debate - I would have to agree....

I predict that history will continue to be made on Tuesday in New Hampshire, with Obama amassing an even more impressive victory than in Iowa.

---

The Plot to Save Socrates

"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

more about The Plot to Save Socrates...





Read the first chapter of The Plot to Save Socrates .... FREE!

CNN To Rebroadcast ABC Debates Tonight - Sticks It To Fox

Tonight: CNN will rebroadcast last night's Republican and Democratic ABC Presidential debates. This is a brilliant move for several reasons:

1. The debates were among the best so far. The Republicans often look as if they they're on life support, but we were as lively as I've seen them last night. All of the Democrats were fine. See my analysis last night.

2. CNN's move sticks it to Fox, which is hosting a rump session of the Republican candidates tonight - with a shortened field of candidates that excludes Ron Paul. Bizarre and inexplicable and outrageous, given Ron Paul's 10% showing in the Iowa caucuses.

Anyone who missed the debates last night would certainly do much better to watch them on CNN tonight than look at Fox's sham.

Frankly, I saw the debates last night, and will likely watch CNN, anyway...

---

The Plot to Save Socrates

"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

more about The Plot to Save Socrates...





Read the first chapter of The Plot to Save Socrates .... FREE!