The Annual White House Correspondents Dinner, sponsored by the White House Correspondence Association took place last evening; available to the General Public on C-SPAN and cable news outlets such as FOX. In the past, the purpose of the dinner has been to poke fun at the sitting president, allow the sitting president to mock himself and his close associates, and overall, an opportunity for those covering the White House to “let loose a bit” and announce the incoming Association President. A comedian or comedienne generally delivers a diatribe of jokes, about the President, a roast so to speak. Politicians from both sides of the aisle are in attendance as well as a few celebrities, and certain members of the Presidents cabinet and close advisors.
The past dinners have been amusing and the Presidents gracious in their delivery, however, last evenings dinner took a sharp turn from the tradition, when Obama hosted his first of four such events.
Obama can be a funny guy, it appears that he is likable, yet, the majority of his “routine” was spent demeaning the opposing political party, which, was a departure from prior events. Additionally, comedienne Wanda Sykes, had very few references to the President, rather spent time attacking the following individuals: President George Bush (of course), Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh – the jokes were crude to say the least. For example: on Limbaugh’s statement that he would see Obama’s policies fail (specifically referring to Socialism), Sykes compared Limbaugh to the 21st hijacker, brought up his battle with drug addiction, and ended with (paraphrasing) “I hope his kidneys fail”. On the President: Sykes noted that going to bet a burger with Biden might be a mistake, and was most likely proposed by Nancy Pelosi (funny – until), a Hillary Clinton supporter (in reality Pelosi campaigned the hardest for Obama and took every opportunity to undermine the Clinton campaign.) The only “roast” delivered by Sykes to the President was should he (paraphrasing) “mess up: they would blame the half-white guy” – also, not particularly funny.
That said, the adoration of the press, (Hollywood, is a given), has reached new heights, an after dinner review by Politico correspondents, Amie Parnes and Carol E. Lee entitled “Obama's star shines brightest at WHCD” – is nauseating in its blatant worship of an elected official. The problem with a press that is so blinded by political ideology and a charismatic (to the press) leader is obvious – the occupation, which is to be a watchdog for the people, is no longer able or capable of functioning in that role. This does not, of course, apply to all journalists, and to those who are true to their profession (or calling), are still asking hard questions, although those non-partisans are few and far between. Unfortunately, the once-respected occupation, is now viewed by half of the American public, as merely partisan - and this perception has played a significant role in the loss of subscriptions and viewership for the organizations for which they work. The reason that he Internet is often credited for the demise of said organizations, is that those lost subscribers prefer to read unbiased (or possibly biased) blogs and new sites that do not openly pander to a given political ideology.
To gain perspective C-SPAN has a video archive of past events, from 1993 forward. One can note the difference in both the delivery by the given Presidents, and the attitude of the Press (Note: these videos are full length):
2006 WHCD – George W. Bush
1998 WHCD – Bill Clinton
2009 WHCD – Barack Obama
The outgoing Association President is Jennifer Loven, of the Associated Press, she will be replaced by Edwin Chen of Bloomberg News.
Showing posts with label Rush Limbaugh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rush Limbaugh. Show all posts
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Obama Focus: Rush, Healthcare, Abbas - While Rome Burns?
Image - Nero from metalingo.com
Although the economy and the downturn on Wall Street has a good portion of the country in jitters, the current administration is busy dealing with a threat bigger than a few bankers in crisis – the Republican brand. Over the past few days, new coverage regarding radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, has eclipsed the conversation on the economy, possibly even overshadowing Obama’s desire to get the ball rolling on Health Care Reform. This focus on Rush, according to Politico, has been purposefully contrived by members of the administration in an effort to tarnish the Republican Brand. To wit: “Good Luck with that!”
The contrived showdown, between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the President, over budget cuts and pork in proportions never imagined, is yet another added distraction – that will, in the end, result in a signature to all programs in a budget that is sure to haunt generations to come in the form of taxes, taxes and more taxes.
Therefore, the question remains, will the tactic of trying to create a “boogeyman” in the form of a popular radio talk show host, help the DNC and the Obama administration cover their behinds and secure a Democrat Congress majority in 2010? Recall the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”, which, without the struggles that are taking place in middle American today, failed miserably – It is incomprehensible how someone who had attended ivy league schools (granted grades were never released) would appear to be blind the fact that, at this point in time, tactics to detract from a bigger issue – might not work – It is, after all, the economy stupid.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Obama Team Advances Rush Limbaugh As GOP Leader – Limbaugh Aids DNC Strategy
This past week, RNC Chair, Michael Steele made remarks on CNN’s D.L. Hughley show (see You Tube Video Below) that we’re taken somewhat out of context by, talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh and a “feud” of sorts ensued. Michael Steele, in answer to Hughley’s assertion that Rush Limbaugh was the “head of the GOP”, was dismissed by Steele, who referred to Limbaugh as an entertainer, additionally noting that his remarks were “incendiary” and sometimes ugly. Limbaugh, who had spoken at CPAC (an ultra conservative “rally” of sorts - not the RNC Convention), focusing on basic tenants of conservatism, and the “socialist” motives of the Obama association, brought the house down, which prompted the media, aided by Mr. Limbaugh, to anoint Limbaugh as a “leader” within the Republican Party.
Steele, is correct in his assertion that Limbaugh is an entertainer and in the give and take with Hughley noted that there was no difference between remarks made regarding Obama and those made by Democrats during the Bush administration. If one were to look objectively at the interview, one would understand that Steele was doing his job, fending off assertions that Limbaugh, not Steele, was the Head of the RNC (which, note to Limbaugh: the RNC is the Republican Party), not Mr. Limbaugh. Limbaugh, who is not out of line in outlining that conservatism and liberalism are diametrically opposed, speaking out against a “socialist” driven agenda that is being advanced by the Obama administration, was out of line in asserting that Mr. Steele had made a mistake in calling him an entertainer, not the Leader of the Republican Party. One can bet the house that Limbaugh’s ratings have gone through the proverbial roof the past few days, over a conflict that has, in large part, been manufactured by Mr. Limbaugh himself. It is not so much about power, rather it is about ratings. To be fair, Limbaugh, for his part, is sincere in his beliefs, fairly well researched and in his daily diatribes delivered from his Palm Beach studio, giving a voice to conservative think that is otherwise missing in other media formats. However, his language is often contrived and inflammatory, because the man has a sense of humor, and he is “right” on many issues that are near and dear to the hearts of conservatives. Mr. Limbaugh should have been less petty (he is, after all, an entertainer), and instead of attacking Steele for pointing out truisms, he should have attacked the source, the Obama administration and the DNC.
In a clear departure from the norm, the Los Angeles Times, ran an excellent analysis of the “Limbaugh as GOP Leader” theory being promoted by the Obama White House in order to create the illusion that Limbaugh is the head of the GOP. This tactic failed miserably in the 1990’s, with the “vast right wing” conspiracy theory advanced by the Clinton’s. With the exception of those on the “left”, (or 30% of the population), moderates, independents and conservatives do not view Limbaugh as either the head of any party, nor a threat, rather a “conservative talk show host”.
In lending credence to the “fear Rush” mantra coming from the White House, Mr. Limbaugh is not giving credit to Michael Steele, RNC Chair, who is a proven grassroots organizer (GoPAC), and duly elected head of the RNC (otherwise known as the Republican Party). Steele has kept the RNC in the spotlight by appearing on a variety of talk shows, repudiating the bailouts, the Obama administration budget, and basically out-“Rushing” Rush. The difference is that Steele does so with a certain bit of gravitas that is not the bluff and bluster of most conservative talk shows. Both men play critical roles (Steele in leadership and Limbaugh in cheerleading) and giving credit where credit is due; Steele is the bigger man, showing true leadership and political skills in issuing an “apology” to Limbaugh. The quote, here from the AP :
One has to admire Michael Steele; he’s battling bruised talking head ego’s and the DNC. In the analysis of the Obama strategy to create “fear of Republicans” by touting the “Limbaugh as Leader “scenario, the Los Angeles Times, has done a great service to conservatives, giving insight into the true nature of the “Leader of the Free World”. With elections just around the corner (2010), the administration and the DNC understand that time is critical; each week since Obama took office, his approval rating has taken a step down; within the past week, having dropped another point to 58%. One would think that is a fairly decent approval rating, however, losing points on a daily basis cannot bode well for the “leader of the Democrat Party”, and should this trend continue, George Bush, upon leaving office, will have had a higher approval rating than Obama. Given that the majority of the Republic of the United States considers themselves as either moderate or conservative, there is trouble brewing in 2010 in the fight to maintain the Congress and the Senate, without a majority, the President will be stymied.
Without the public buying into “the economy is not my fault, it is George Bush’s fault”, (This public understands that Wall Street’s failure directly affects pension plans held by those who earn less than $50,000 a year, they also understand that for every action taken by the administration, Wall Street has reacted, dropping lower.), the blame will fall squarely on the shoulders of the Democrat brand. The strategy to paint “the evil” of conservatism, failed in the past, as well as bank bailouts and extreme budgets and a “nanny” state (see Carter administration.) Rush would be providing a great service to the RNC (the Republican Party) if he took the time to admit that “Steele” is correct, and become a bit “incendiary” over the “scheme to make him Leader of the Republican Party by the Obama administration. Should that occur, it would be a rallying call to both Conservatives and Moderates within the party, rather than “sheer entertainment”.
Steele, is correct in his assertion that Limbaugh is an entertainer and in the give and take with Hughley noted that there was no difference between remarks made regarding Obama and those made by Democrats during the Bush administration. If one were to look objectively at the interview, one would understand that Steele was doing his job, fending off assertions that Limbaugh, not Steele, was the Head of the RNC (which, note to Limbaugh: the RNC is the Republican Party), not Mr. Limbaugh. Limbaugh, who is not out of line in outlining that conservatism and liberalism are diametrically opposed, speaking out against a “socialist” driven agenda that is being advanced by the Obama administration, was out of line in asserting that Mr. Steele had made a mistake in calling him an entertainer, not the Leader of the Republican Party. One can bet the house that Limbaugh’s ratings have gone through the proverbial roof the past few days, over a conflict that has, in large part, been manufactured by Mr. Limbaugh himself. It is not so much about power, rather it is about ratings. To be fair, Limbaugh, for his part, is sincere in his beliefs, fairly well researched and in his daily diatribes delivered from his Palm Beach studio, giving a voice to conservative think that is otherwise missing in other media formats. However, his language is often contrived and inflammatory, because the man has a sense of humor, and he is “right” on many issues that are near and dear to the hearts of conservatives. Mr. Limbaugh should have been less petty (he is, after all, an entertainer), and instead of attacking Steele for pointing out truisms, he should have attacked the source, the Obama administration and the DNC.
In a clear departure from the norm, the Los Angeles Times, ran an excellent analysis of the “Limbaugh as GOP Leader” theory being promoted by the Obama White House in order to create the illusion that Limbaugh is the head of the GOP. This tactic failed miserably in the 1990’s, with the “vast right wing” conspiracy theory advanced by the Clinton’s. With the exception of those on the “left”, (or 30% of the population), moderates, independents and conservatives do not view Limbaugh as either the head of any party, nor a threat, rather a “conservative talk show host”.
In lending credence to the “fear Rush” mantra coming from the White House, Mr. Limbaugh is not giving credit to Michael Steele, RNC Chair, who is a proven grassroots organizer (GoPAC), and duly elected head of the RNC (otherwise known as the Republican Party). Steele has kept the RNC in the spotlight by appearing on a variety of talk shows, repudiating the bailouts, the Obama administration budget, and basically out-“Rushing” Rush. The difference is that Steele does so with a certain bit of gravitas that is not the bluff and bluster of most conservative talk shows. Both men play critical roles (Steele in leadership and Limbaugh in cheerleading) and giving credit where credit is due; Steele is the bigger man, showing true leadership and political skills in issuing an “apology” to Limbaugh. The quote, here from the AP :
"I respect Rush Limbaugh, he is a national conservative leader, and in no way do I want to diminish his voice," Steele said in a statement late Monday. "I'm sure that he and I will agree most of the time, but will probably disagree some as well, which is fine.”
"The Democrats are doing everything they can to find ways to take people's attention off of their massive 36-billion-dollar-a-day spending spree that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have embarked on. To the extent that my remarks helped the Democrats in Washington to take the focus, even for one minute, off of their irresponsible expansion of government, I truly apologize."
One has to admire Michael Steele; he’s battling bruised talking head ego’s and the DNC. In the analysis of the Obama strategy to create “fear of Republicans” by touting the “Limbaugh as Leader “scenario, the Los Angeles Times, has done a great service to conservatives, giving insight into the true nature of the “Leader of the Free World”. With elections just around the corner (2010), the administration and the DNC understand that time is critical; each week since Obama took office, his approval rating has taken a step down; within the past week, having dropped another point to 58%. One would think that is a fairly decent approval rating, however, losing points on a daily basis cannot bode well for the “leader of the Democrat Party”, and should this trend continue, George Bush, upon leaving office, will have had a higher approval rating than Obama. Given that the majority of the Republic of the United States considers themselves as either moderate or conservative, there is trouble brewing in 2010 in the fight to maintain the Congress and the Senate, without a majority, the President will be stymied.
Without the public buying into “the economy is not my fault, it is George Bush’s fault”, (This public understands that Wall Street’s failure directly affects pension plans held by those who earn less than $50,000 a year, they also understand that for every action taken by the administration, Wall Street has reacted, dropping lower.), the blame will fall squarely on the shoulders of the Democrat brand. The strategy to paint “the evil” of conservatism, failed in the past, as well as bank bailouts and extreme budgets and a “nanny” state (see Carter administration.) Rush would be providing a great service to the RNC (the Republican Party) if he took the time to admit that “Steele” is correct, and become a bit “incendiary” over the “scheme to make him Leader of the Republican Party by the Obama administration. Should that occur, it would be a rallying call to both Conservatives and Moderates within the party, rather than “sheer entertainment”.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Daily Newspapers Slump - Missing the Obvious – Alternative News Outlets vs. Ideology
John Gapper, at the Financial Times ponders the question: “Who will Mourn Local Newspapers?” - and in yesterdays article laid out the case against “bad journalism” produced by blogs and talk radio. He also bemoaned the fact that journalist feel the general public is not as well served by these new outlets. He closed his article with the hope that the demise of the local daily papers will “strengthen the editorial position of the remaining elite: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, the Financial Times etc.”
Therein lays the problem that continues to be overlooked by those “elites” who would guide the populace rather than report the news. One has to look to ratings in terms of right vs. left, over a period of time, to understand that the rise of “alternative news”. Twenty years ago, the daily newspapers and network broadcast news enjoyed a virtual monopoly; there simply were no other sources available. Today, conservative talk radio and the Fox News Network dominate their respective rankings. Rush Limbaugh, for example, enjoys a week cume (equivalent to a newspapers circulation) of 14.25 million, compared to the top ranked NBC evening news of 8.34 million. Comparing apples to apples, conservative talk radio is enjoying relative prosperity while more left leaning radio networks like Air America and
NPR are either clawing out of bankruptcy or facing layoffs.
It would behoove those “elites” who feel that the Internet and conservative talk radio are to blame, to get a grip on reality. In another financial times blog, Gideon Rachman is adamant that the problem lies with ”Internet slime” and those “gun-toting…..bit of the United States” (Conservatives). This situation has now dissolved into intense denial and anger. The crux of the matter is simple. Ideology has no place in journalism with the exception of an editorial page in a newspaper (or a segment on the nightly news, etc.). The last four general elections have shown a country that is deeply divided – right vs. left. When a news outlet, be it a newspaper, broadcast news network, cable news network or radio talk show, caters to one segment of the population only (or candidate as was the case in the last election), they are bound to lose circulation, “cume”, and viewership to those outlets that offer another “editorial” point of view. Should, by some miracle, what has become known as the Mainstream Media, wake up from its stupor and begin to report, while defining editorial (be it conservative or liberal) as such, confining it to a specific segment, they just might stand a chance of winning back a share of that audience.
Therein lays the problem that continues to be overlooked by those “elites” who would guide the populace rather than report the news. One has to look to ratings in terms of right vs. left, over a period of time, to understand that the rise of “alternative news”. Twenty years ago, the daily newspapers and network broadcast news enjoyed a virtual monopoly; there simply were no other sources available. Today, conservative talk radio and the Fox News Network dominate their respective rankings. Rush Limbaugh, for example, enjoys a week cume (equivalent to a newspapers circulation) of 14.25 million, compared to the top ranked NBC evening news of 8.34 million. Comparing apples to apples, conservative talk radio is enjoying relative prosperity while more left leaning radio networks like Air America and
NPR are either clawing out of bankruptcy or facing layoffs.
It would behoove those “elites” who feel that the Internet and conservative talk radio are to blame, to get a grip on reality. In another financial times blog, Gideon Rachman is adamant that the problem lies with ”Internet slime” and those “gun-toting…..bit of the United States” (Conservatives). This situation has now dissolved into intense denial and anger. The crux of the matter is simple. Ideology has no place in journalism with the exception of an editorial page in a newspaper (or a segment on the nightly news, etc.). The last four general elections have shown a country that is deeply divided – right vs. left. When a news outlet, be it a newspaper, broadcast news network, cable news network or radio talk show, caters to one segment of the population only (or candidate as was the case in the last election), they are bound to lose circulation, “cume”, and viewership to those outlets that offer another “editorial” point of view. Should, by some miracle, what has become known as the Mainstream Media, wake up from its stupor and begin to report, while defining editorial (be it conservative or liberal) as such, confining it to a specific segment, they just might stand a chance of winning back a share of that audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
