On the same day that Mark McGwire admits past steroid use, Sarah Palin joins Fox News as a regular commentator.
Like nobody saw THAT coming. Of COURSE she did.
“I am thrilled to be joining the great talent and management team at Fox News,” Palin said in a statement posted on the network’s Web site. “It’s wonderful to be part of a place that so values fair and balanced news.”
Full story HERE
The Mo’Kelly Report is an entertainment journal with a political slant; published weekly at www.eurweb.com. It is meant to inform, infuse and incite meaningful discourse…as well as entertain. The Mo’Kelly Report is syndicated by Blogburst. For more Mo’Kelly, https://mrmokelly.com. Mo’Kelly can be reached at [email protected] and he welcomes all commentary.
33 responses to “Sarah Palin Joins Fox News (And Water is Wet)”
As I like to say, if you are truly fair and balanced, you don't need to keep saying so.
It becomes a case of "Who are you trying to convince?"
Wait a minute. THIS post gets priority over the racist remark of Harry Reid?? Mo, please don't tell me that after all the discussion over Henry Gates and Trent Lott that you poo-poo the Reid scandal.
Where did I intimate I poo pooed the Harry Reid scandal. I CLEARLY said I excuse neither.
There is no Reid scandal.
Does anybody deny that Obama's "whitenized" ethnicity is what allowed this particular "black" man to be elected POTUS?
You ought to have a much bigger issue with the things his own VP said during the campaign.
I posted that on this blog (Biden's comments) and editorialized. I'm not sure I can say it any clearer, both were offensive. I think it took much more audacity (and stupidity) to say what Blago said. And to Walt's point, there's "truth" in what Reid said. There's no truth in Blago's statement. It doesn't make it (Reid's statement) less offensive. But it does make it easier to contextualize.
Going further, the difference between Reid's comments and Trent Lott's is both simple and substantial. Trent Lott endorsed the idea of segregation. That's considerably different than the inappropriate phrase of "Negro dialect." Reid didn't in effect go on record saying he endorsed Jim Crow laws.
Morris,
It's beneath contempt to compare Lott to Reid, and it reveals the methods by which Republicans intend to maintain their coalition: By appealing to stupid, racist, knee-jerk and did I mention stupid, people.
Sadly, there are many of them.
Walt,
You know those are fighting words to our friend Jack Shepard…I'll let him respond to that! 🙂
Harry Reid is as much in touch with this century as Amelia Erhart would be in touch at the shuttle command cockpit controls. For crying out loud, "Negro dialect"??? Negro, Puleeze! ! ! The old geezer still feels it's more palatable and socially acceptable (at least, in HIS circles) to say 'negro' instead of 'Black'.
Harry Reid is a product of his environment. Like Chris Rock said, "All of my Black friends have lots of White friends. All of my White friends have one Black friend"…and, in Harry's case, he's a NEGRO.
Back to Sarah Palin, I expect that she will see Reid's statement as a cry to harken back to the days of old; the America that she grew up in, where you could bus your negroes in for domestic labor, and sundown laws applied. Were those the 'Good Old Days'? You betcha!
Roger,
Way to jump on that bandwagon.
Now: What's your next thought?
Jack thought it inappropriate to "post" this information about Palin but not Reid. The truth of the matter is that the story of Harry Reid was breaking at a time in which I didn't have much time to write and editorialize. You can always tell when I'm pressed for time because I tend to post more articles than editorials. But nonetheless Jack opened the door to further delve into the discussion of "the greater faux pas" or "the greater news item."
By no means would I say Sarah Palin going to Fox is the greater news item. That's just silly. But I didn't have anything fresh to say (that hadn't already been said) about Reid either. To Walt's point, I try to facilitate a discussion that is NOT being had elsewhere. It seems the public and media are unanimous in their "offense" at the Reid remarks. The partisan politics seem to start only in discussion of the punishment that should be levied…if any at all.
I must say there is something categorically funny about Sarah Palin having anything to say about who is or is not "fair and balanced."
The supposed ultra-conservative who takes a job on the ultra-conservative network should at the least refrain from using the phrase "fair and balanced." I don't think I've ever heard Ann Coulter say that. There's not too much to be said about Reid, other than he's out of touch in a racial sense. I do believe there's something to be said about how political stars are born. Not just Sarah Palin who was absolutely unknown and inconsequential not long ago…but also political stars like Carrie Prejean or Joe the Plumber.
Walt:
Next thought: Let's get Harry Reid on "The Colbert Report" so that Stephen Colbert can share HIS Black friend with Harry's NEGRO friend.
Seriously, I think that humor and satire is the only way to gain inroads to the entrenched sentiments polarizing the issue surrounding race. Richard Pryor masterfully did as much as anyone in his era to achieve racial tolerence and understanding, but he did it with the wisdom that seeps in while the heart is softened by laughter.
Try it, Walt. It only hurts when your sides split.
If Jack would like to discuss Reid vis-a-vis Lott, I would
dareinvite him to join this thread.🙂
Jack where are you?! You've been called out!
Roger,
I grew up in the seventies, when we almost got pot legalized and we almost managed to have “white culture” and “black culture” and respect the beauty of both of them.
Then along came Reagan.
I’m quite comfortable with laughing at stereotypes as a way of breaking them down. If you thought that was the point of the “Scared Straight” parody, I missed it.
As for Reid, it’s just wrong to pick on him for a choice of words. He’s allowed to be a little out of touch with that, don’t you think?
Again, let’s not assume that, because we heard a few words come out of somebody’s mouth, that we are now qualified to speak with authority about what is in their mind, their heart, their soul.
Did you see Glenn Becks uctous, oleafinous interview with Sarah Palin? My good gollies, the boy nearly wet his chair as he attempted to cannonize Palin (brain dead) to the other Prozac pounding delusionals that cater to the drivel that passes for content from Fox. Look out 2012, here comes Dumb and Dumber!
Correction: Did you see Glenn Beck's unctous, oleaginous interview with Sarah Palin? (*touch typing in the dark. 3 point deduction)
Beck and Palin…now there's a pairing.
I watched her little stint with Bill'O…whoa.
I didn't see this coming- not this early. I thought she would have to work harder and longer at building her image back before she became a regular face on tv, and eventually got her own show after a couple years.
I really don't get it. Why so soon? Her public image has taken a bruising after all those campaign workers came out to discredit her book. By joining FOX, she gets a platform to rebuild her credability, but it seems risky to do that- for both Palin and FOX- before she really got a firm grip on her PR.
The problem is going to be that she is so wooden in unscripted situations. She uses awkward phrases and seems to not be sure what point she is trying (read "should be making") a lot of the time.
She is so aware of her role as "ConservaBabe" that she has to make sure her hair is as perfect as her answers.
It is absolutely a no-win situation.
What happens in the Republican Party these days is that all of their brightest lights are forced to the margin, because this is a party which is inside-out: You have to prove how narrow your constituency is before you can be accepted.
It's a big problem and Palin is in some ways the "bubble" which has to burst before this party comes to its senses and stops allowing itself to be identified in social terms by the most stringent and marginal positions, and in political terms by its unabashed love affair with big business and the practice of buying political favor.
Other than that, it's a great move.
Sarah Palin will do for Fox News and cable broadcast jounalism what Rush Limbaugh has done for conservative talk radio: create a "black hole" where the collective intelligence of America is sucked away to a void in an alternate dimension…which Sarah can see from her front door!
Seriously, Sarah is perfect for this job. All you need is an opinion (check) and a shameless insistence to assert it regardless to the facts or consideration of one's own credibility (check and mate).
Sorry for the delay. I only comment when I have time to do so, and if you don't feel a story of this magnitude is worthy of commentary at the time it breaks, I certainly shouldn't feel the need to comment. Ahem.
I have always felt that Trent Lott was crucified because of the interpretation that other people plastered onto his words without ever knowing what he truly mean because, like the Gates incident, we do not know what is in his heart or soul.
As I said with the Gates incident, we will never have 100% truth, 100% facts. Those who choose to form an opinion — and therefore place their belief in — something they do not know to be 100% truth, risk forming a belief based on a lie.
If you form your belief system based on a lie, then you live in a fantasy, and not the real world.
With Lott, there is no way to know what he truly meant. Any reasonable, NON-RACIST, person could interpret what he said as simply saying something nice to a guy on his 100th birthday. That the country has lots of problems and had Strom been elected President in 1948, then those problems wouldn't exist today (because of his governance). Because Strom happened to be a Segregationist at the time does not mean he would've governed in a racist manner. Lott simply may have been referring to Strom's other characteristics that would've made him a good President.
Do we know that Lott intended this meaning? No. Therefore, placing faith in that interpretation is to risk believing in a lie.
Those who CHOOSE to interpret Lott's words through another prism — a racist one — risk the same.
Therefore, my official position on the matter is that we are not in a position to judge Sen. Lott. He committed a political sin (which is different) by poorly choosing his words. He paid the price.
With Reid, he used an outdated term for African-American. I would defend him equally, by saying that his poor choice of words does not necessarily reflect a racist heart. It reflects poorly chosen words. Choosing either interpretation is, again, to risk placing faith in a lie. We do not know his heart.
What I find interesting, however, is that the political sin is equivalent. Lott resigned his post. Reid did not. What that says about our political system is the more interesting debate.
As for Roger's comments, to insult Fox News yet leave MSNBC untouched says to me that there is bias on his part. I mean, has he ever seen Keith Olbermann's psychotic rants against Bush? Of course, I don't know Roger. I can't see into Roger's heart. 🙂
Trent Lott's comment:
The platform of Strom Thurmond/Dixiecrats – "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."
There is nothing to "misinterpret," nothing that has been hidden from plain view. We don't need to be soothsayers or psychic to understand the intent of the remarks. Trent Lott was singing the praises SPECIFICALLY of the segregationist candidate…his stated words. He wasn't singing the praises of Strom Thurmond the "politician," the "civil servant"…but the "segregationist" (his words).
Lott makes it very easy. Segregationist is a very, very specific description, in the same way a car is red or blue. We're not talking shades of fuscia or sky blue.
It is a stated endorsement of segregation, which believe it or not qualifies as a racist legislation by definition. Legislated racial hierarchy.
Reid's comment, although HIGHLY offensive and ignorant is not in the same bucket. Trent Lott didn't resign until 5 years after the remark and his resignation was unrelated to the remarks. So if everything is to be "fair" you can call for the resignation (for unrelated reasons) of Reid sometime in 2015.
(Since you want to make a direct comparison of the two).
I might also add that Reid's inference was also very clear: that white Americans might not be so scared of a black President who is light-skinned and does not speak in any alleged "dialect".
At best, it reflects a rather foolish perspective on people's perceptions of how Whites view Black candidates. At worst, it is a virulently racist statement.
But we don't know what he meant, so we can't judge.
But again, I find the lack of any punitive actions to be the more interesting topic.
A factual correction is in order. What Lott said in 2002 was this:
"
When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either.
"
Also, Lott resigned his Senate leadership position in the immediate public aftermath of those comments. He resigned the Senate 5 years later to avoid being subject to a new law forbidding lobbying activity for two years after leaving office.
Jack may be technically correct, but I have nevre met anybody who wasn't fairly sure what Lott when he meant "followed our lead". He meant segregation, and he therefore meant that social ills can be traced to integration.
That's not an unusual position for a white, southern, conservative politician to hold, but by 2002 it was a very fringe view. Fifteen years earlier it was, if not a mainstream view, then at least a defensible one. Political winds shifted and Lott got caught with his sails down.
Reid is simply an oaf. For all we know, he was trying to avoid using a slang term that might insult somebody, so he used the most "proper" words he could find.
Lott's record on legislative issues regarding racial disparity was consistently conservative, consistently anti-reform. Reid is a reliable liberal vote on such issues. Black folks are not even a little confused: Lott may not have been a "racist" but he was certainly a segregationist; Reid is a little out of touch but basically supportive of racial equality and redress of past disparities.
Reid lost his Senate leadership position because he played politics badly. Reid was simply expressing the obvious and did so awkwardly. Sure, some might want to see him step down as well, but probably out of a misunderstanding of what was really at the heart of both situations and an emotional need to "get even". I still believe they went after Clinton to get even for Nixon.
But to suggest that Reid was wrong about the state of acceptance of a black president says a lot more about Jack than Reid. Jack wrote:
"
At best, it reflects a rather foolish perspective on people’s perceptions of how Whites view Black candidates. At worst, it is a virulently racist statement.
"
Jack's the foolish one if he thinks an ethnic black along the lines of Jesse Jackson could be elected president today. It took a "whitenized" black candidate to break down the door, and I don't know too many people who dispute that. As for the second half of that inference, all the adjectives in the world won't bring that baby to life.
Up there where it says “Reid lost his Senate leadership position”, please insert “Lott” in place of “Reid”.
Mea culpa.
I don’t necessarily disagree, Walt. And I certainly cast a sidelong glance at Lott’s comment. But at the end of the day I refuse to judge either him or Reid. We simply do not know his heart. Interestingly, everyone was quick to call lott racist but not so quick to either accept or believe his apology or explanation of what he said.
They didn’t go after Clinton to get even. They went after him because they saw an opportunity.
An opportunity to get even.
Sez me.
You’re funny Walt, but there is some truth in the statement. It may have been 20 years, but you look at the names of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, et al…the Republican side surely had long memories. I don’t think you can look historically at the impending (likely) impeachment of Richard Nixon and the havoc it wrought on the Republican party (practically handing the Oval Office to the Democrats and Carter in 1976) and not think that the Republicans didn’t innately understand what the Clinton scandal could mean to buoy Republican prospects.
Not so coincidentally, it led to a lightly-regarded Texas governor becoming a 2-term president. We may quibble about the underlying intent of the Clinton impeachment proceedings, but we shouldn’t disagree about the long memories of Republican leadership in both the House and Senate.
I never forget that they will go to the mattresses at any and every opportunity to do so.
Ah but those liberals, always playing the “holier than thou” card.
So it’s even.
Guys, it’s rank speculation. I just don’t see the value in bothering with it. Who cares?
Jack,
It’s all in your perspective. I don’t care until somebody else does. If somebody tries to compare the two, which I find beyond comprehension, then I care.
If nobody tries that stunt, then I don’t care.