Category Archives: fox

Bill O’Reilly Sexual Harassment Retirement Party

Bill O'Reilly

Bill O’Reilly joined Roger Ailes in enforced retirement on Wednesday. Both were accused of sexual harassment.

Not to worry though. CNN Money says O’Reilly’s golden parachute falls just a little south of the $25 million contract he recently signed. That compares to his former boss’s $40 million bail out.

Bill O’Reilly Sexual Harassment Charges Lift All Boats

Also, there’s a trickle down payout effect. The NYT says O’Reilly and Fox paid about $13 million to various women who accused him of sexual harassment. He admits nothing.

Still, Fox gave him the boot.

Killing Putin

putin

In his Super Bowl interview with President Trump, Bill O’Reilly accused the Russian President of killing people. Trump’s response? “You think our country’s so innocent?”

That made me think of one of my favorite exchanges between Michael Corleone and Kay Adams:

Michael: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.
Kay: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don’t have men killed.
Michael: Oh. Who’s being naive, Kay?

Except Trump is president, not a mob boss. Now who’s being naive?

Putin

Anyway, I got the idea for this cartoon from a Holman Jenkins column in the WSJ.

His assessment of  Trump’s comments was, “unwise, spoken by somebody with a thin grasp of his circumstances.” But he went on to say, “Trump, clumsily, was actually keeping up a longstanding U.S. policy of covering up for Mr. Putin.” Then Jenkins detailed the Ryazan bombing plot by Putin security thugs to frame Chechen terrorists. It rarely gets mentioned by American officials. Jenkins thinks that’s because everybody wants to make a deal with Putin.

He concludes, “Read a certain way, Mr. Trump’s comments make him the first U.S. president to address Mr. Putin’s real nature.”

BTW: Not climbing on the assassination chic bandwagon or anything here with the title. Just having a little fun with a commentator’s line of books.

 

Never Trump Media

media

A common thread among the elite media seems to be that Trump is so bad anything goes to stop him. Which is interesting, since The Donald brags that his electoral success so far comes from free media coverage.

Howard Kurtz picked up on the NeverTrump media movement in his August 9 Media Buzz column titled Media justify anti-Trump bias, claim he’s too dangerous for normal rules. Howie says some in the media “are flat-out making the case for unfairness—an unprecedented approach for an unprecedented campaign.”:

Liberal investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald recently told Slate that “the U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president”…

Now comes Jim Rutenberg , in his first season as media columnist for the New York Times. He’s a good reporter and I give him credit for trying to openly grapple with this bizarre situation.

But Rutenberg is, in my view, trying to defend the indefensible:

“If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”

Then there’s Michael Goodwin in this New York Post column titled American Journalism Collapsing before our eyes:

The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent.

And here’s historian Victor Davis Hanson:

The media somehow outdid their propaganda work for Barack Obama and have signed on as unapologetic auxiliaries to the Hillary Clinton campaign — and openly brag that, in Trump’s case, the duty of a journalist is to be biased.

NeverTrump Media

Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic isn’t having it. He explains why it’s difficult to cover Trump. Trump says provocative things like “Obama founded ISIS”. That’s not literally true – you can look it up. So what did Trump mean by it? That answer involves judgement and interpretation:

His strategic gambit was always and precisely to have things both ways.

By insisting that Barack Hussein Obama “founded” ISIS, knowing full well that his use of the word was unusual, inapt, and likely to mislead, then doubling down again and again when asked to clarify, Trump—who began in national politics by questioning Obama’s birth certificate—could again appeal to the part of his base that believes America is led by a secret Muslim foreigner who is allied with America’s Islamist enemies. And as even Trump acknowledged at the end of his interview with Hewitt, Trump willfully chose less accurate, more outrageous words to generate attention.

Having deliberately provoked with the repeated false statement that Obama founded ISIS, and deliberately inflamed with his reluctance to say he was speaking figuratively when asked to clarify, one Trump objective was achieved; having had things one way, he could move on to pretending, at the end of his Hewitt statement, that he was really just saying Obama had lost the peace all along, though he had directly rejected that notion moments earlier when Hewitt presented it.

Then, the next day, Trump sent out a Tweet with yet another contradictory explanation: He didn’t literally think Obama was the founder of ISIS; nor was he simply trying to express that Obama’s policies gave rise to ISIS; rather, when he said Obama founded ISIS, he was being “sarcastic,” but the media doesn’t get sarcasm.

All this deliberate, mendacious gamesmanship puts journalists in a very tricky position. If they merely report what Trump literally says, they’re accused of hyper-literalism. If they report what he reallymeans, judgment and interpretation are required.

Trump the Gardener

Another rich guy with “rice pudding between the ears” comes to mind. Maybe Trump is really Chance the Gardener (Peter Sellers character in the 1979 movie Being There):

President “Bobby”: Mr. Gardner, do you agree with Ben, or do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives?

[Long pause]

Chance the Gardener: As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.

President “Bobby”: In the garden.

Chance the Gardener: Yes. In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.

President “Bobby”: Spring and summer.

Chance the Gardener: Yes.

President “Bobby”: Then fall and winter.

Chance the Gardener: Yes.

Benjamin Rand: I think what our insightful young friend is saying is that we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we’re upset by the seasons of our economy.

Chance the Gardener: Yes! There will be growth in the spring!

Benjamin Rand: Hmm!

Chance the Gardener: Hmm!

President “Bobby”: Hm. Well, Mr. Gardner, I must admit that is one of the most refreshing and optimistic statements I’ve heard in a very, very long time.

[Benjamin Rand applauds]

President “Bobby”: I admire your good, solid sense. That’s precisely what we lack on Capitol Hill.

I like to watch.

Guccifer

guccifer

An unemployed Romanian taxi driver named Marcel Lehel Lazar goes by the handle Guccifer. In his spare time he hacks the email of famous people. In 2013 he read email sent by Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary’s home brew account. For his troubles Lazar has been arrested and extradited to the U.S.

In a recent prison interview he told Catherine Herridge, of Fox News, that he hacked Hillary’s server. “It was easy,” said Guccifer.

The thinking is if a Romanian cab driver can do it, maybe the Chinese, Russians, and others can do it too.

So, while “Lucifer in the Flesh” is out of the presidential race, Guccifer is still a factor.

Update 07/07/16:

FBI Director Comey testified to Congress today that Guccifer admitted to the FBI that he lied about hacking Hillary’s server.

Presidential Package

presidential package

Of all Donald Trump’s flaws, he chose to defend the size of his um.. hands on national television. The day after the Detroit debate “Little Marco” criticized The Donald for bragging about his presidential package. It was Rubio who started the whole thing by claiming Trump had small hands – and less.

The Republican Reality show has become too gross even for Jerry Springer:

“They ought to run a crawl along the bottom of the screen, [saying] ‘This is NOT a debate for junior high school class president’, Mr Springer told the Financial Times.

“Clearly they could be on our show, but now they’ve gone off the deep end, and we would start bleeping out some of what they’d say,” said Mr Springer.

Does Presidential Package Stand up to Scrutiny?

On the upside, moderator Chris Wallace did a nice job holding Trump’s feet to the fire using charts to show that his tax plan doesn’t add up. Not that it mattered.