Defend the rule of law

Paul Krugman has attacked the Supreme Court before they have made a decision. It is part of a troubling development where partisans attack their opponents and trash important institutions of our democracy as collateral damage. Intelligent people should know better. Well, intelligent people who believe in freedom do know better. They know that you should not try to get what you want by trampling on our rights, institutions and constitution.

The issue is badly written ObamaCare legislation. Democrats, who famously did not read the legislation before they passed it, claim that Obama should be able to do what he thinks the Democrats in Congress probably meant to say rather than what they actually wrote down. There is certainly room for disagreement in the ambiguous language and rule of law requires that the authorities follow the law, not what they claim they think the drafter wanted to say but lacked the understanding or eloquence to put into so many words.

One of the tasks of the Supreme Court is to clarify laws. We cannot really know what was in the hearts of the drafters, so we are stuck with the words they left us. Presumably if the courts rule against the intent of Congress, Congress can rewrite and clarify at a later date.

But no decision has been made. Our liberal friends are attacking preemptively and trashing American institutions in the process. It is short-sighted and churlish, but it is getting to be a habit.

We see that same type of behavior, although in more mob-like form, in Ferguson, where mobs want to bypass the rule of law and threaten actions if the law gives a verdict they dislike.

The rule of law protects our liberal friends from overreach by conservative presidents and politicians. It is dangerous for them to strip away those protections, as Democrats in the Senate might soon learn to their sorrow.

Democracy is more than just voting. It includes protection of rights and rule of law. I don't really understand why I have to explain this to liberals right after they got their heads handed to them in an election. They should be more in favor of protections afforded by the rule of law, not less.

In a democracy, the process is important, as important as the result. Liberals should recall this. It is, after all a basis of liberalism, at least the real liberalism.

Posted by Christine & John at November 18, 2014 5:57 PM
Comments
Comment #385687

This is a great post; it gets to the heart of how liberalism wants to run the country. First there are the attacks on the Constitution itself, and then there is the leftist idea of what they determine is right for the country. The SCOTUS move to take this case prior to going through a lower court leads one to believe they must have a motive. This added to the comment I posted in the liberal column creates real problems for the left. Here is the post:

Now this one is very interesting; it continues the thought that Congress has for years (yes, under republican and Democrat presidents) been giving their authority away to the executive branch. I’m interested to how the left will approach this. Jonathan Turley is a liberal law professor and attorney who has decided to represent the US House of Representatives in its law suit against Obama. Turley says this on his blog site:

As many on this blog are aware, I have previously testified, written, and litigated in opposition to the rise of executive power and the countervailing decline in congressional power in our tripartite system. I have also spent years encouraging Congress, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, to more actively defend its authority, including seeking judicial review in separation of powers conflicts. For that reason, it may come as little surprise this morning that I have agreed to represent the United States House of Representatives in its challenge of unilateral, unconstitutional actions taken by the Obama Administration with respect to implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It is an honor to represent the institution in this historic lawsuit and to work with the talented staff of the House General Counsel’s Office. As in the past, this posting is meant to be transparent about my representation as well as my need to be circumspect about my comments in the future on related stories.

On July 30, 2014, the House of Representatives adopted, by a vote of 225-201, H. Res. 676, which provided that

the Speaker is authorized to initiate or intervene in one or more civil actions on behalf of the House of Representatives in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction to seek any appropriate relief regarding the failure of the President, the head of any department or agency, or any other officer or employee of the executive branch, to act in a manner consistent with that official’s duties under the Constitution and laws of the United States with respect to implementation of any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, title I or subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including any amendment made by such provision, or any other related provision of law, including a failure to implement any such provision

We have a liberal Democrat who is willing represent the Congress in a law suit that claims the president has overstepped his authority with executive actions. Turley goes on to say:

I have previously testified that I believe that judicial review is needed to rebalance the powers of the branches in our system after years of erosion of legislative authority. Clearly, some take the view of a fait accompli in this fundamental change in our constitutional system. This resignation over the dominance of the Executive Branch is the subject of much of my recent academic writings, including two forthcoming works. For that reason, to quote the movie Jerry Maguire, the House “had me at hello” in seeking a ruling to reinforce the line of authority between the branches.
As many on this blog know, I support national health care and voted for President Obama in his first presidential campaign. However, as I have often stressed before Congress, in the Madisonian system it is as important how you do something as what you do. And, the Executive is barred from usurping the Legislative Branch’s Article I powers, no matter how politically attractive or expedient it is to do so. Unilateral, unchecked Executive action is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in our constitutional system. This case represents a long-overdue effort by Congress to resolve fundamental Separation of Powers issues. In that sense, it has more to do with constitutional law than health care law. Without judicial review of unconstitutional actions by the Executive, the trend toward a dominant presidential model of government will continue in this country in direct conflict with the original design and guarantees of our Constitution. Our constitutional system as a whole (as well as our political system) would benefit greatly by courts reinforcing the lines of separation between the respective branches.

I know the left hates to hear this; but it’s about the rule of law. We are a nation of laws; of checks and balances. Obama is a Chicago thug who thinks he can rule the nation as the mayors of Chicago for decades.

Obama has changed parts of the ACA law as he has desired. There is a rule of law, as you said. Even a liberal law professor understands what is going on in America. It is interesting that the left’s response was to attack me or attack Turley, rather than discuss the legality of Obama’s actions.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 18, 2014 6:45 PM
Comment #385689

Sorry, I hit send before I blockquoted Turley’s remarks.
His comments can be found at his web site:

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/11/17/the-house-hires-turley-as-lead-counsel-in-constitutional-challenge/

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 18, 2014 6:48 PM
Comment #385690

Some legal analysts have even predicted that Gruber’s comments will be introduced into the SCOTUS case; do to the fact that Gruber said the state run exchanges were necessary. His plan was to pressure the states into complying, and thank God these state governors had enough backbone to not be pressured. He also fudged the numbers given to the CBO, therefore the CBO’s numbers were false.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 18, 2014 6:56 PM
Comment #385692

So the philosophy behind Chevron deference is going to be tossed right out the window?

Legislatures pass laws. Executives enforce laws. Inherent in that power is that the Executive gets to choose how the law will be enforced when it is ambiguous.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 18, 2014 7:05 PM
Comment #385697

I will give you this, I’m not a lawyer; so I guess it remains to be seen what the SC will decide about Obama’s changing of laws. However, I suspect your side will attack the justices rather than accept the outcome. C&J’s link is a good example the left’s attacking the SC by Paul Krugman.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 18, 2014 7:27 PM
Comment #385701

I still think there’s zero chance John Roberts throws out the entire philosophy behind Chevron deference in order to defeat the PPACA. He already ruled the law Constitutional once, so he obviously isn’t willing to subvert the Constitution to satisfy any political pet project opposing the PPACA. Unless perhaps Anthony Kennedy swings to the left…

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 18, 2014 8:06 PM
Comment #385703

Warren

“Inherent in that power is that the Executive gets to choose how the law will be enforced when it is ambiguous.” Within limits. In this case, however, the law actually says the opposite of what the president wants to do. His defense is that what the Congress says is not what they made.

Warren & Sam

Yes, my larger point is attacking the institutions. You can argue the points of the law. Paul Krugman attacked the integrity of the court. The protestors in Ferguson attack the integrity of the law. They are advocating a fascist system, where the leader determines the metaphysical will of the people, which is also his own will, and bypasses the rule of law for the “greater god.” We must condemn them for this.

When we lose our freedom, it will not come from outside conquest or from fierce enemies. It will come from leaders doing good for us by their standards.

Posted by: C&J at November 18, 2014 8:24 PM
Comment #385705

I think for the court to buy the argument would be to interpret the law in a way that defeats its obvious purpose. Nobody can argue that the Democrats intended for the system to be implemented in the piecemeal way it was, and therefore, nobody can argue from original intent that they planned to deprive states of the subsidies if they didn’t create a marketplace or increase the Medicaid rolls. It simply wasn’t anything we could foresee.

Republicans, if they talk about Judicial Activism, will get an earful from me for the next twenty years. Conservative justices have done such violence to the accepted order of things just to promote the GOP’s political cause, and often at the cost of making bad or inconsistent arguments from the bench.

It is part of the rule of law that there be stable, well thought out jurisprudence to guide the interpretation of those laws, and unfortunately, The Judges of the Right Wing have been all too willing to sacrifice long-term integrity in judicial precedent just to help out a party in the short term. From Citizens United, to Hobby Lobby, to the ruling striking down part of the Civil Rights act, The Roberts Court has put its thumb on the scale against the individual rights and individual political power of many Americans. It’s time we get justices in there who understand that this nation needs clarity and participation in its electoral system more than it needs to prop up a has-been party in the throes of demographic decline.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 18, 2014 9:12 PM
Comment #385709
Yes, my larger point is attacking the institutions. You can argue the points of the law. Paul Krugman attacked the integrity of the court.

Case in point, Daugherty’s first comment is to attack to institution:

Conservative justices have done such violence to the accepted order of things just to promote the GOP’s political cause, and often at the cost of making bad or inconsistent arguments from the bench.

To my embarrassment, up until almost seven years ago I had never heard of Saul Alinsky; but it appears Obama knew a lot about him and his “Rules for Radicals”. One of the most important rules is personal attacks. Attacks on whoever opposes the greater goal. Just take a look at the past six years. Not only has the left personally attacked conservatives, but they also attack liberals. Gruber, being a true elitist liberal, has no choice but to arrogantly brag about what they pulled over on the American people. What does the WH do, deny they know him and when that doesn’t work; deny he had anything to do with the writing of the ACA, and that doesn’t work; so spread the info that he’s some kind of nut.

Daugherty’s solution is to pack the court with liberal activist justices; only then will “Fair” determinations be made.

The events with the SCOTUS and Ferguson are symptoms of a greater problem; the left’s implementation of Alinsky’s plan. The implementation needed enemies; the greedy insurance companies. In fact Obama needed many enemies; evil banks, evil corporations, evil conservatives, evil Koch brothers, evil oil companies, and the list goes on and on. The left will never argue the merits.

So here we are, the SCOTUS is about to correct an injustice by another means and so let the attacks begin on the Justices. Stephen Daugherty and other liberals are simply a mouthpiece for the talking points of Obama. Obama sets the stage, i.e. in the 2010 state of the union speech, he blatantly attacked the conservative justices. Obama has set the precedent for many personal attacks, knowing his talking heads will pick up the baton.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 18, 2014 10:03 PM
Comment #385712

Stephen

As I wrote, we could disagree about the merits of the case. I object to the attack on the institutions BEFORE there has even been a decision.

Democrats should be sensitive to this right after losing an election. You all will be on the receiving side of this oppression. I am looking out for you.

BTW - sorry I offended you with the cartoon. I really did not do it consciously. I just thought it was funny. You can make fun of me if you like.

Posted by: C&J at November 18, 2014 10:19 PM
Comment #385716

The left wants to get ahead of the ballgame; attack now, before a decision is made.

Posted by: George at November 18, 2014 10:31 PM
Comment #385717

George, Sam & Stephen

From Alice in Wonderland -

‘It isn’t directed at all,’ said the White Rabbit; ‘in fact, there’s nothing written on the outside.’ He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added ‘It isn’t a letter, after all: it’s a set of verses.’

‘Are they in the prisoner’s handwriting?’ asked another of they jurymen.

‘No, they’re not,’ said the White Rabbit, ‘and that’s the queerest thing about it.’ (The jury all looked puzzled.)

‘He must have imitated somebody else’s hand,’ said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)

‘Please your Majesty,’ said the Knave, ‘I didn’t write it, and they can’t prove I did: there’s no name signed at the end.’

‘If you didn’t sign it,’ said the King, ‘that only makes the matter worse. You must have meant some mischief, or else you’d have signed your name like an honest man.’

There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day.

‘That proves his guilt,’ said the Queen.

‘It proves nothing of the sort!’ said Alice. ‘Why, you don’t even know what they’re about!’

‘Read them,’ said the King.

The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. ‘Where shall I begin, please your Majesty?’ he asked.

‘Begin at the beginning,’ the King said gravely, ‘and go on till you come to the end: then stop.’

These were the verses the White Rabbit read: -

‘They told me you had been to her,
And mentioned me to him:
She gave me a good character,
But said I could not swim.

He sent them word I had not gone
(We know it to be true):
If she should push the matter on,
What would become of you?

I gave her one, they gave him two,
You gave us three or more;
They all returned from him to you,
Though they were mine before.

If I or she should chance to be
Involved in this affair,
He trusts to you to set them free,
Exactly as we were.

My notion was that you had been
(Before she had this fit)
An obstacle that came between
Him, and ourselves, and it.

Don’t let him know she liked them best,
For this must ever be
A secret, kept from all the rest,
Between yourself and me.’

‘That’s the most important piece of evidence we’ve heard yet,’ said the King, rubbing his hands; ‘so now let the jury - ‘

‘If any one of them can explain it,’ said Alice, (she had grown so large in the last few minutes that she wasn’t a bit afraid of interrupting him,) ‘I’ll give him sixpence. I don’t believe there’s an atom of meaning in it.’

The jury all wrote down on their slates, ‘she doesn’t believe there’s an atom of meaning in it,’ but none of them attempted to explain the paper.

‘If there’s no meaning in it,’ said the King, ‘that saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn’t try to find any. And yet I don’t know,’ he went on, spreading out the verses on his knee, and looking at them with one eye; ‘I seem to see some meaning in them, after all. ” - said I could not swim - ” you can’t swim, can you?’ he added, turning to the Knave.

The Knave shook his head sadly. ‘Do I look like it?’ he said. (Which he certainly did not, being made entirely of cardboard.)

‘All right, so far,’ said the King, and he went on muttering over the verses to himself: ‘“We know it to be true - ” that’s the jury, of course - “I gave her one, they gave him two - ” why, that must be what he did with the tarts, you know - ‘

‘But, it goes on “They all returned from him to you,”’ said Alice.

‘Why, there they are!’ said the King triumphantly, pointing to the tarts on the table. ‘Nothing can be clearer than that. Then again - “before she had this fit - ” you never had fits, my dear, I think?’ he said to the Queen.

‘Never!’ said the Queen furiously, throwing an inkstand at the Lizard as she spoke. (The unfortunate little Bill had left off writing on his slate with one finger, as he found it made no mark; but he now hastily began again, using the ink, that was trickling down his face, as long as it lasted.)

‘Then the words don’t fit you,’ said the King, looking round the court with a smile. There was a dead silence.

‘It’s a pun!’ the King added in an offended tone, and everybody laughed, ‘Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first - verdict afterwards.’

‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’

‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.

‘I won’t!’ said Alice.

‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

‘Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) ‘You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’

Posted by: C&J at November 18, 2014 10:42 PM
Comment #385734

So Obama comes out today and invites the American people to get online tomorrow and watch him violate the rule of law by executive order. Here’s a comment from one of the people out there in flyover country in Brooks County, TX:

“Every time he opens his mouth about immigration and what he’s gonna do, there’s a huge negative impact on us that live out here along the border, especially in the rural areas where all the smuggling trails are,” said Vickers.

http://www.krgv.com/news/brooks-county-illegal-immigrants-on-the-rise/

Posted by: George at November 19, 2014 2:38 PM
Comment #385735

Come on George. Vickers is just one vote, probably Republican, those trails probably see hundreds of future dem votes a month.

Posted by: kctim at November 19, 2014 2:50 PM
Comment #385736

This morning I had a real shock. Alan Combs was questioned on Fox News about Obama using EO to create amnesty. Now Alan Combs is as far left as one can possibly go, he is a socialist, he don’t like the ACA because it don’t go far enough. He wants a single payer National HC system. But, and that’s another big “But”, he is asked on Fox News, therefore he will be attack by the left simply for being on Fox News. His comment was that Obama should wait until the new Republican Congress takes control and try to work with them to create immigration reform. These were his words. So I thought, what a strange thing for an Obama lover to say; but then I came across this article in the National Journal, “Obama’s Agenda Threatens to Divide the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton’s ability to win the White House in 2016 depends on the president moving to the middle, not playing to his base.”

http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/obama-s-agenda-threatens-to-divide-the-democratic-party-20141118

By the way, to the left, don’t waste our time by attacking Alan Combs; the guy has better leftist qualifications the Stephen Daugherty.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 19, 2014 3:00 PM
Comment #385746

SJ, oh FFS another conservative touting Alan Combs as the consummate liberal that just happens to collect money from the propaganda arm of the Republican party, yah sure. I suppose you think Bob Beckel is equally liberal? Never mind we know you do. Please remove your head from the Roger Ailes posterior network called Fox and try to find good sources of information. You will not be taken seriously here at WB if you can’t stop quoting that nonsense. Oh and don’t think daily caller, breitbart, limbaugh, hannity, coulter, levin, malkin etc.etc will be accepted with the reverence you think of them, they will not because they are paid shills just like Combs and Beckel.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 19, 2014 4:11 PM
Comment #385748

What important political voices do you listen to Speak, that are not earning money by doing so?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 19, 2014 6:17 PM
Comment #385750

Coombs and Beckel are respected liberal commentators? I thought that they were caricature liberal pinatas on FOX News. I must have been mistaken.

Posted by: Rich at November 19, 2014 6:55 PM
Comment #385751

“Beckel was the campaign manager for Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign. During that campaign he became known as the man who effectively wrapped the Wendy’s slogan “Where’s the beef?” around Gary Hart, Mondale’s opponent for the Democratic nomination.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Beckel

You do remember Walter Mondale don’t you Rich.

Some interesting reading suggestions for my liberal friends would be to research Caesar Chavez and his concern about illegal immigrants destroying the wages and prospects for those here legally.

obama is no friend of the working man whatever color or nationality they happen to be.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 19, 2014 7:30 PM
Comment #385752

I would like to know what part of liberalism that Speak4all, phx8,and j2t2 believe in that Beckel and Combs don’t? I always figured Combs and Beckel were about as liberal as you can get. Please let us know the differences?

Obama is losing the blue collar voters, but who needs them; their just a bunch of white racists.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 19, 2014 9:03 PM
Comment #385754

Sam Jones, Beckel and Combs are associated with the liberals enemy FOX News.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 19, 2014 9:08 PM
Comment #385755

Royal,

Beckel doesn’t deserve any respect or serious consideration. He routinely allows himself to be played for the “liberal” fool on “The Five.” Four conservatives laughing at the sole “liberal.” What a fair and balanced program. What a jerk for participating is such a charade.

Posted by: Rich at November 19, 2014 9:09 PM
Comment #385756

Liberal Democrats are the only species that eat their own offspring.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 19, 2014 9:20 PM
Comment #385757

Royal,

I do not dismiss all liberal Democrats that appear from time to time on FOX. Juan Williams is an excellent and articulate spokesperson for the liberal perspective. But, he doesn’t allow himself to be played the fool.

Posted by: Rich at November 19, 2014 10:23 PM
Comment #385758

I remember when Alan Combs and Bob Beckel both were on Crossfire on CNN. The original, not the remade one that no one watches.

They would hang on to the liberal perspective way after any logic or reason in supporting it was gone.

And, what’s up with Speak4all throwing his liberal comrades under the bus like that? I thought if it had a D the lips were firmly planted!

I guess he liked them before he didn’t like them.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 19, 2014 10:30 PM
Comment #385760

Our liberal friends generally MUST trash liberals who appear on FOX. Their mantra is that conservatives are so narrowed minded that they never hear other perspectives. That is why, liberals say, conservatives watch only FOX, where no liberal perspectives are allowed. Therefore, if there is a liberal on FOX, he cannot be a real liberal, since there are no liberals on FOX.

During the early days of the Soviet Union, the authorities declared there was no hunger or disease in Moscow, so whenever anybody died of hunger or disease, and lots did, they would just repeat that hunger and disease could not have killed them, since there was no hunger or disease in Moscow.

Posted by: C&J at November 19, 2014 10:36 PM
Comment #385761

The left cannot say where their own ideology is any more liberal than Beckel or Combs. Their comments about these guys is hilarious. C&J is correct; their believe that these guys are not liberal enough is based simply on the fact that they are on Fox News. Regarding Juan Williams; he is not as radical as Beckel and especially Combs, yet Rich finds him “excellent and articulate”. Which other cable news programs offer the same balance that Fox News does?

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 20, 2014 9:11 AM
Comment #385764

Oh my, the conservatives here seem to be upset with my inclinations of valid sources of information. SJ thinks I eat people, WW thinks something, something, RF wants to know who I watch, CJ thinks I am a Soviet Union advocate I guess?

I like to watch lots of programs and news sources, I even occasionally watch the propaganda arm of the Republican/Teaparty for comic relief, but mostly now I watch football. I am not sure if that meets with the approval of conservatives here but I really don’t care about their approval.

I am very excited about President Obama’s announcement today and hope to be as pleased with that as I have been with his decisions for the past 6 years.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 20, 2014 10:15 AM
Comment #385766

This may come as a surprise to you, Sam, but liberals don’t evaluate the worthiness of a commentator on the basis of some ideological purity test. Stupid is stupid.

Speaking for myself, my objections to Colmes and Beckel on FOX has little to do with whether they are liberal enough but rather that they have allowed themselves to be portrayed as absurd liberal caricatures, objects of bullying, derision and comedy. They role play in FOX productions. Colmes played the foil for Hannity rants for years. Beckel serves as comedy relief for the four conservatives on the FIVE who treat him as some quirky liberal pet to be played with.

Posted by: Rich at November 20, 2014 10:25 AM
Comment #385767

Unbelievable! Rich, if Colmes and Beckel are so milquetoast why were they on the liberal CNN for so long?

And Speak4all, going against the grain, defying the left by actually taking part in supporting that evil, damaging, un-American, exercise in death, football? Somebody better watch him. He’ll be a conservative before you know it.

Something something. Nice comeback there, Speak4all.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 20, 2014 11:41 AM
Comment #385768

Speak writes; “Oh my, the conservatives here seem to be upset with my inclinations of valid sources of information. SJ thinks I eat people, WW thinks something, something, RF wants to know who I watch, CJ thinks I am a Soviet Union advocate I guess?”

Once again Speak displays his inability to understand what he reads.

My question to Speak was; “What important political voices do you listen to Speak, that are not earning money by doing so?”

The reason for my question was Speaks declaration that all conservative commentators are “paid shills”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 20, 2014 3:15 PM
Comment #385769

Beckel was campaign manager for Mondale. Mondale is considered extremely liberal. Today Beckel is not considered liberal.

What’s the deal here?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 20, 2014 3:18 PM
Comment #385770

Basically Speak4all has thrown Beckel and Colmes under the bus, calling them shills, because they appear on Fox.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 20, 2014 3:26 PM
Comment #385771

RF, as many as I possibly can. You can research that if you like. Beckel, Schmekel. Don’t care. Speaking of understanding what you read, re-read my paid shills comment and see if you can find the words “all conservative commentators”.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 20, 2014 3:29 PM
Comment #385772

For all the bloviating about Fox News, they continue to rack up praise and popularity. I can understand why the Obama administration would hate Fox News. They show the light of day on the shenanigans of the Democrats. The reason for the left on WB to hate Fox News is because Obama hates them. Hence, anyone who works for Fox (left or right) are hated and attacked.

In a Tuesday article, Baltimore Sun media critic David Zurawik examined the reason behind Fox News beating every other TV news outlet in the ratings – including NBC, ABC and CBS – during November 4 midterm election coverage: “…it’s time to think seriously about what that says about Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the state of network news today and the role TV plays or doesn’t play in providing us with reliable, trustworthy information.”

Zurawik offered one possible explanation:

I think one of the reasons for this latest evolution of ratings dominance might be that Fox was a far better watchdog on the Obama White House than any other TV news organization. It took the heat and the blowback from an administration that showed an enmity for the press not seen on Pennsylvania Avenue since the dark days of Richard Nixon, but it stayed the course. And now with viewers seeing the contempt this administration had for them and the truth, they respect what Fox did the last six years.

He warned that competitors overlook Fox’s achievement at their own peril: “Much of the media establishment seems bent on ignoring the incredible ratings success of Fox News….Step One in assessing this sea change is for the media establishment to admit the dominance of Fox News today. Ignoring its success doesn’t make it any less real.”

He particularly took the fellow cable networks to task: “…CNN barely did better than the we-lost-our-credibility-in-our-slavish-devotion-to-Obama MSNBC. That’s pathetic.”

Zurawik called for real analysis of the development:

…we need to start seriously trying to figure out how and why it has come to pass that Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly matter more to Americans on election night than Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, George Stephanopoulos, Anderson Cooper or Wolf Blitzer – way more than the latter two.

After crediting FNC’s success on its status as a “watchdog” on the Obama administration, Zurawik briefly noted the standard attack line against Fox:

Or maybe, it’s what some critics of Fox say: That those who watch the channel only want to hear one side of the story, and that’s all that Fox gives them. The implication here is that Fox viewers are stupid, to borrow an offensive term that Jonathan Gruber, the administration’s $400,000 adviser on Obamacare, used to describe American voters.

He concluded:

You tell me. The answers matter. And we shouldn’t let our biases blind us to the serious media criticism that demands to be done.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2014/11/18/media-critic-fox-news-far-better-watchdog-obama-any-other-tv-news?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=media-critic-fnc#sthash.tbbWgtId.dpuf

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 20, 2014 3:37 PM
Comment #385773

Speaks answers; “RF, as many as I possibly can.”

Yet, he can not name even one unpaid shill (or liberal political commentator) that he listens to. Hmmm…sounds fishy to me.

Unpaid liberal political commentators can be found on WB, but certainly not in mainstream information sites.

I catch Speaks in so many untruths that one would think he would be more cautious in what he writes.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 20, 2014 3:45 PM
Comment #385774

SJ, hang on a second I am trying to receive brain wave instructions right now from the White House on how to respond to you. Hey wait a minute, that tin foil hat you are wearing seems to be interfering with the coded messages that I receive regularly. Oh well, I tried.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 20, 2014 3:45 PM
Comment #385775

RF, you’ve never caught anything that I type. Unfortunately.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 20, 2014 3:47 PM
Comment #385776

It’s sad to see the left limit their input of knowledge to a few leftist cable and web sites. News outlets that have no following.

It’s similar to Obama’s violation of the Constitution later today. Latest polls, since the elections, show 53% of the voters want the new Congress to take the lead, rather than Obama; and 48% of voters don’t want Obama to EO immigration. I’m certainly a conservative, and I certainly have a conservative leanings; that being said, I will say, if Obama goes through with this unconstitutional act, just to please his base, to fulfil his promises to donors, and most importantly as retribution to the American people for rejecting his policies; he will destroy the Democratic Party. Mark my word, this will happen. He’s proven himself a liar, and without any credibility.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 20, 2014 3:49 PM
Comment #385777

Poor Speaks. We know how much he must dislike being unable to answer simple inquiries. He needs to retake the Daugherty political “spin” class.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 20, 2014 4:01 PM
Comment #385778

Reid and Pelosi may be running the minority, but they do not represent the fundamental beliefs of Democrats. We will see Democrats switching parties, or at least voting with the Republicans. The left loves to talk the talking points of “Republicans Blocked” (blah, blah, blah), but it was Reid who completely shut down any ability for the Senate to work. The House passed their own immigration reform which was shelved by Reid; but Obama’s press secretary was on Fox this morning and repeated the same old mantra, “all the Republicans have to do is pass the immigration reform passed by the Senate”; here is the evil truth; if the House passed Reid’s immigration reform, with changes, it would go to conference, and the ruling Democrats would place everything they wanted back into the Bill with no objections, and we would have a Bill that gave Obama everything he wanted. It’s a game, and the freedoms of the American people are at stake.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 20, 2014 4:06 PM
Comment #385779

Poor Speaks. We know how much he must dislike being unable to answer simple inquiries. He needs to retake the Daugherty political “spin” class.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 20, 2014 4:07 PM
Comment #385780

The Democrats on WB are a minority in the Democratic Party. The arrogant bragging of Gruber was the “Kill Pill” of Obama’s agenda. Obama and the left are so furious over what Gruber did, the leftist MSM have tried to completely ignored what Gruber said, and the left on WB have tried to play it down as nothing. If Obama lied to the American people about Obamacare; then the question arises, is Obama lying to the American people about his goal of immigration, or even global warming?

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 20, 2014 4:12 PM
Comment #385781

Oh the humanity!! SJ & RF are only worried about us and how liberalism will be able to prevail. I say don’t worry to much, liberalism has been doing just fine for a long time. I expect it will be flourishing for a long time into the future. But thanks for your concerns.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 20, 2014 4:17 PM
Comment #385782

Royal; Speaks, Daugherty, and the rest of the leftist on WB are so used to spin and double talk, it is impossible for them to answer a question. Their brains won’t allow them to give a definitive answer. I can imagine the scrambled eggs in their skulls when they are asked to answer a question. The thoughts going through their head are, “if I answer “X”, what will be their response, or if I answer “Y”, what will be their response”. Answering definitive questions with definitive answers requires “chess game” thought. They are so intelligent(LOL), they must stay one move ahead of those “pesky Republicans”.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 20, 2014 4:20 PM
Comment #385786

SJ, au contraire. I don’t spend very much time at all contemplating my response to any of your “candyland” type questions.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 20, 2014 4:42 PM
Comment #385787
he will destroy the Democratic Party. Mark my word, this will happen.

Sam is right, the liberal leaders of the democratic party will be their demise. Thomas Sowell is one of my favorite black people and he wrote a very interesting article:

“A Legacy of Liberalism”

By Thomas Sowell - November 18, 2014

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/11/18/a_legacy_of_liberalism_124691.html#ixzz3JeBjVuRi

Posted by: George at November 20, 2014 4:44 PM
Comment #385788

Not true speak4all; since you cannot answer any questions, you are either a very simple person, who cannot comprehend what you read (which I doubt), or you are purposely determining to avoid an answer or trying to find an answer that won’t become a trap. The latter requires “contemplating” a response.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 20, 2014 4:49 PM
Comment #385789

SJ, no, no you misunderstand. I don’t want to answer any of your and almost all of the other right wing commenters questions because, well I am not here to participate in your “third degree” of liberal commenters.

G, liberalism will be here long after you are gone.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 20, 2014 4:56 PM
Comment #385791

Speak4all, so why are you here; to just spout liberal talking points and then spout them again, and then spout them again, infinity…. If you can’t or won’t answer questions on what you spout, then there is no sense discussing anything with you, is there?

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 20, 2014 5:35 PM
Comment #385792

Sam, now you understand Speaks. He can’t answer so he doesn’t.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 20, 2014 5:39 PM
Comment #385793

“Unbelievable! Rich, if Colmes and Beckel are so milquetoast why were they on the liberal CNN for so long?”

Weary,

Alan Colmes was never on CNN, let alone Crossfire. He has always been a FOX product, most notably as the whipping boy for Hannity.

Bob Beckel was on CNN but not on the long running Crossfire. He hosted a Crossfire spin off on Sundays.

Posted by: Rich at November 20, 2014 5:41 PM
Comment #385794

SJ, I am here for your viewing discomfort.

RF, and wrong yet again. Wow you are having some reading comprehension problems today. That’s OK maybe a nap will help?

Posted by: Speak4all at November 20, 2014 5:47 PM
Comment #385795

And so the lies continue:

The Obama administration said it erroneously calculated the number of people with health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, incorrectly adding 380,000 dental subscribers to raise the total above 7 million.

The accurate number with full health-care plans is 6.7 million as of Oct. 15, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services confirmed today, saying the U.S. won’t include dental plans in future reports.

“The mistake we made is unacceptable,” Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said on her verified Twitter account. “I will be communicating that clearly throughout the department.”

The error was brought to light by Republican investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, using data they obtained from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Speaking of Medicaid; 4.4 and 6 of the 6.7 million who signed up for Obamacare were placed on Medicaid.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 20, 2014 6:04 PM
Comment #385796
SJ, I am here for your viewing discomfort.

No you’re not. I will continue to post my comments, but will ignore all responses from Speak4all.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 20, 2014 6:18 PM
Comment #385797

“Today Beckel is not considered liberal.”

Royal,

That’s not the issue. I don’t like liberals who allow themselves to be demeaned and ridiculed on a regular basis by a group of conservatives in a format in which conservatives outnumber liberals by a 4 to 1 basis.

I wouldn’t respect a conservative who routinely subjected himself/herself to similar treatment by a liberal panel.

I realize that these people are paid a considerable sum. However, they are participating in a process designed to marginalize the very principals that they theoretically espouse. I doubt that they fail to appreciate the kabuki dance that they are cooperating with. But, money talks. No respect from me.


Posted by: Rich at November 20, 2014 6:30 PM
Comment #385798

OK Rich. Beckel is a liberal on a conservative TV show which you apparently watch a lot as you know much about what happens on the show.

It is not Beckel who is “demeaned and ridiculed” but rather his liberal positions. It is difficult for anyone to defend rampant liberalism. Liberals on WB can’t get the job done either.

Liberals can’t explain why they crashed in the last election. They can’t explain why obama is so unpopular along with much of the dem political agenda.

How in the hell do you expect Beckel to work magic with a bent wand?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 20, 2014 6:59 PM
Comment #385799

Royal,

Beckel has plenty of ammunition to defend the liberal position on a number of key issues. But, it is a fools errand to try to present such positions in an environment of mocking conservatives. He knows that. But what the hell, it is a good paycheck.

He could point out that:

Conservatives have been very wrong about liberal economic policies pursued by the Obama administration. The US economy. despite the dire predictions of conservatives, is leading all western nations in recovery from the Great Recession. More jobs will be created this year than in any one of the past twenty five years. A recent Forbes article pointed out that despite the conservative mantra that the Obama administration has been anti-business, the empirical data suggests otherwise and that American businesses have prospered during the Obama administration

Conservatives have been very wrong about the US budget deficits. As the economy recovers, those deficits have been dropping like a rock. Contrary to conservative opinion, the deficits resulting from the recession did not strangle the economy. Nations that took an austerity approach are still struggling to recover.

Conservatives were wrong about Obamacare. Despite all the impediments thrown up by conservatives, the system has been implemented with good results. A recent Gallup poll of enrolees found that their satisfaction with the coverage was equal to those with other insurance but that they were more satisfied with the cost. All public opinion is strongly supportive of prohibitions against denial based on preexisting conditions and extending coverage for young adult family members. When you get beyond the poisoned labeling and address the actual specific policies, Obamacare receives much higher satisfaction.

I could go on but there is little point. You hate Obama and that is the bottom line.

Posted by: Rich at November 20, 2014 8:16 PM
Comment #385800

Rich, I stand corrected, but I do have vivid memories of Alan Colmes in the Crossfire. I may have mistaken him for Michael Kinsley, but I thought Colmes substituted as guest host after Tom Braden left.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 20, 2014 8:19 PM
Comment #385801

Weary,

Appreciate your correction. It was Michael Kinsley. Personally, I liked Kinsley very much. Of course, that is a matter of opinion which I suspect differs from yours. But, I guess that is what makes a horse race.

Posted by: Rich at November 20, 2014 8:39 PM
Post a comment