RAGGED THOTS

Your humble bloghost made his return to Fox News Channel's overnight sensation, "Red Eye" on Friday night (Saturday morning). The following clip is the opener and first segment. Surprise, surprise! Herman Cain continued to be a topic of major media interest:




Here is Andy Levy's hilarious "halftime show".




And be sure to catch yours truly geeking out at the very end.

Labels: Fox News Channel

RAG will make his debut appearance on Fox News Channel's "Red Eye With Greg Gutfeld" tonight -- meaning 3 AM Tuesday morning (12 midnight on the West Coast).  We'll be talking the, ahem, whitewashing of "Huckleberry Finn," the "host" of issues surrounding Doritos, Arnold Schwarzenegger's commutation problems among other fun topics.  Insomniacs, tune in! The rest of you -- TVR time!! 

Labels: Fox News Channel, Greg Gutfeld, Red Eye

One year after the exuberant optimism that accompanied Barack Obama's historic election, the nation's mood is considerably different.

Conservatives and Republicans are both furious and disappointed that the admittedly liberal senator elected last year has hardly proven to be an individual with whom they can find much ballyhooed "common ground." But it isn't a big surprise that the opposition will just dismiss the efforts of the party in power. It's the broad middle of the spectrum, however, that has the greatest reason to be disappointed in Obama's first year. The broad middle is willing to be patient on the big issues -- the economy, war, Guantanamo, terrorism, etc. Obama might get an "incomplete" in those areas, but that's fine. Solving all these big issues isn't going to be done overnight. However, it is in Obama's biggest promise that he has, sadly, proven to be a failure -- that of bringing a change of tone to Washington.

Sure, bipartisanship is a two-way street. The White House can make a reasonable claim that congressional Republicans haven't been eager to work with Obama on big issues. Only three GOP senators signed onto the economic stimulus package earlier this year. One of those -- Arlen Specter -- has since become a Democrat. It's beginning to look like the health care legislation -- if it ever gets out of the Senate -- will not have a single Republican on board. So, Obama can say that he tried to extend a hand, but was rebuffed. And he certainly didn't ask for the Tea Party movement to turn him into the living embodiment of socialism.

However, responsiblity for much of the increased tension and rancor that still exists in Washington, DC, has to be laid at the feet of the administration -- and the president himself. Some of the tension was created by accident: Obama's calling Henry Louis Gates' arrest by Cambridge Police Officer James Crowley "stupid" did short-term damage to Obama's "post-racial" brand. But that was, if anything, a slip of the tongue at the end of a lengthy press conference.

But it's Obama's overt partisanship that has been most distressing. The White House early on decided to start picking fights with those opposing its plans. Rush Limbaugh went after the administration with full guns blazing so taking him on might have been expected -- even though declaring him the Republican Party's "leader" might have been laying it on thick. But then, Fox News? The Chamber of Commerce? The insurance industry as a whole? And with all the big issues on its plate, how is it that the White House still manages to plunge itself into obscure congressional special elections in upstate New York? Or pulls out all the stops to get one governor re-elected?

During the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt relished identifying and castigating political foes. Wealthy himself, he didn't might mixing it up with what he saw as the members of a wealthy privileged class trying to prevent him from establishing a New Deal. But Roosevelt wasn't elected on a rhetorical platform of overcoming political and ideological differences. Obama was.

Instead, in a city where one doesn't have to work too hard to produce enemies, Obama and Co. seem almost eager to find more. One year ago, the nation elected a seeming agent of reconciliation -- not just across racial lines, but ideological and political ones as well Perhaps the nation was a bit naive to believe that all partisanship would suddenly come to an end.

But the president could and should have done more to work to that goal and help fulfill the public's belief in him. With three years to go before his re-election, Obama still has much time bring about the policy changes that he promised.

Alas, it's already too late to fulfill the change in atmosphere.

Labels: Barack Obama, Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh

Up early on Wednesday morning to talk about the Baucus health-care bill:

Labels: Bernard Whitman, Chris Stirewald, Fox and Friends, Fox News Channel

As most people have heard, Alan Colmes, long-time jousting partner to Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity announced this week that he's leaving Hannity & Colmes after 12 years. Well then, the question arises, who should be Hannity's new partner in crime? TV Newser lists the most likely candidates (feel free to vote if you like -- or care).

My money is on Kirsten Powers (full disclosure: I've known Kirsten for a few years and she writes a semi-regular column for the New York Post). Kirsten is attractive and blonde (two important qualities for Fox -- though Hannity is, obviously, not blond), a smart Democrat (Clinton administration vet), but not a hardcore party-liner (a fact that might turn off some liberals). She leaned toward Hillary during the primaries and often took the media to task for, in her view, sexist coverage (of both HRC and Sarah Palin). The handful of times I've seen her filling in for Colmes, I've thought she puts up a good verbal jousting with Hannity.

Anyway, between Brit Hume retiring and Colmes leaving H&C, it's obvious that Barack Obama is not the only change coming to the political world.

Labels: Alan Colmes, Fox News Channel, Kirsten Powers

Hmm...

Maybe this explains this? Last Sunday, Chris Wallace launched an "Obama Watch," counting how many hours it had been since Obama ostensibly promised that he would appear on Fox News Sunday.

Wallace's reaction on "Fox & Friends" to what he deems "Obama-bashing" may reflect a fear on his part that any small shot he had at getting Obama might be slipping away. And, the ratings suggest that -- media swooning over the man aside -- viewers like tuning in to see and hear Obama. Through most of the campaign season, Democratic debates have been getting higher ratings. The one-on-one showdowns betwen Clinton and Obama have been the highest rated on CNN, MSNBC and ABC (the pre-New Hampshire debate with John Edwards) when they've aired.

Thus, the Democrats decision to boycott FNC for debates has hurt during a highly political year. Obama's solo tour suggests that, frankly, he is the attraction --not just the opportunity to see another Obama-Clinton debate.

"Fox News Sunday" needs an Obama appearance -- if only to boost it's ratings. And if he has to chastise his cable brethren to do it, he will.

Labels: Barack Obama, Chris Wallace, Fox News Channel

Given obvious professional conflicts here, all I will say regarding coverage of this particular GOP debate in New Hampshire is that I agree with both Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan.

Josh's polling chart makes the point very strongly -- as does the fact that Paul was either first or second in raising money in the final quarter. Furthermore, this is a state tailor-made for his particular message.

Labels: Fox News Channel, GOP 2008 President, media, Ron Paul

So what if the news channel confuses a partisan hack with an indicted crook?

Labels: Fox News Channel, John Conyers, Rep. William Jefferson

Okay, given whom I work for in my day job (New York Post which, like the Fox New Channel, is part of the News Corp media conglomerate), I shouldn't be weighing in on this at all: The folks at headquarters might not want me making a comment -- and critics of Fox News will undoubtedly accuse me of just shilling for "The Man."

So, with all these caveats out of the way, the reason given Friday for the Democratic presidential candidates pulling out of the August debate co-sponsored by the Fox News Channel really doesn't make sense.

Now, let me be clear here: If the Democrats believe the channel is biased and won't report things said in the debate fairly or it will "set them up" in some way -- fine, it's their choice (though I can't recall a similar situation where Republicans cancelled a debate or event despite how they believe media institutions cover them).

But this is weird:

They said a comment by Ailes during a Thursday night speech to a group of radio and television news directors indicated the network was biased against their party.

"It's true that Barack Obama is on the move," Ailes said, deliberately confusing the Illinois senator's name with that of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. "I don't know if it's true President Bush called [Pakistan President Pervez] Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?'"

Now, to be candid, this isn't the first time I've heard Ailes make a version of this joke. The other times were in what could be considered "friendly" environments -- other executives and colleagues of his whom one would generally think shared his politics.

Which is why my mouth dropped the first time I heard the joke. Obama isn't the target of the joke: George W. Bush -- and his lack of intelligence -- is. The only way the joke is funny is with the understanding of the president being so dumb that he has to call the president of Pakistan for help in tracking down "Obama."

So, if the Kos and Kompany are using this joke as evidence of Fox bias, that's gotta be some of the thinnest gruel that I've ever seen.

Again, I'm hardly someone to be deemed "un-biased", but I sorta-kinda no how a joke is set up and delivered. Of course, that's gotten me into trouble before.

So it goes.

(Thanks to Fred in the Open Thread comments section for reminding me of this.)

Labels: Barack Obama, Daily Kos, Fox News Channel, Roger Ailes