On The Eric Cantor Loss: Good Thing Or Bad Thing? I Say, ‘Meh!’

Liberals – who operate under the prism that conservatism is evil and that “more conservative” is by definition a bad thing that must surely result in disastrous consequences, are frothing at the mouth over the Brat/Tea Party victory over “establishment Republican” Eric Cantor.

I merely point out that when a Stalinist communist psycho like Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz claims that some kind of right-wing kooks have taken over the opposing party, just look in the damn mirror, nutjob.  I mean, seriously.  This whackjob is further to the left than “the Scream” Howard Dean.  And so by Democrat Party standards, given Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, I can only view it as a GOOD THING when the radical fringe captures your party.

Given the fact that if I woke up on the other side of eternity and saw those three, I would know that I was in hell even before I felt the burning of the hellfire, I don’t take my pointers from these or from any of the many leftist mouthpieces who talk and write for them.

I don’t have a lot of time here – I’m already running late – but it just popped into my head to say my little piece about Eric Cantor’s defeat and what it means for the GOP.

My view is that it likely won’t mean much.

For one thing, given the conservative makeup of Cantor’s district (which is largely why he lost), there is a very high likelihood that the GOP will retain this seat.  So I don’t think it will be a loss in that department.

For another, I don’t mind when a more conservative candidate wins a seat as long as that “more conservative candidate” is capable of winning the seat at issue as a principle.

That said, I for one liked Eric Cantor.  I thought he did a good job.  Maybe I would have voted for Brat had I lived in the district, maybe not.  But I never thought that Eric Cantor was “the problem” with the Republican Party.

I watched Hannity last night on Fox and he was just thrilled about this great victory.  I’ve heard some GOP insiders who are weeping and wailing and throwing ashes over their sackclothed bodies.  I just don’t think it’s that big of a deal either way.  To a great extent, Cantor made a political mistake and took his district for granted as he overfocused on “national party” stuff.  And somebody came in and pulled the rug out from under his feet in a relatively small district.

Lindsey Graham easily won and you just can’t read “national implications” in the Cantor defeat.

Was Cantor to blame for any strategic failure of the GOP?

On my view, it comes down to this: you simply cannot be more conservative than your electorate and you can’t be more conservative than your party’s constituency as a LEADER.

Which is to say that if a Boehner or a Cantor try to run out in front with a conservative attack, they won’t get very far unless a majority of their party is solidly behind them.

To wit: Cantor is resigning as majority leader, and someone else will step in (likely Kevin McCarthy).  And be in the same boat as Cantor was.  And likely therefore make mostly the same decisions.

It will largely be a wash, on my view of things, neither all that good nor all that bad.

Democrats are screaming that Cantor’s defeat kills any chance of “the Republicans reaching out” on a comprehensive immigration deal.  I say just look at what Obama has done to our borders and tell me that’s a bad thing.  In Obama we have a pathologically dishonest fascist who doesn’t bother to follow the law or even consult with – let alone be influenced – by even his own party, let alone by the opposition.  There was never a chance of any deal with such a wicked man.

I DO believe that the Republican Party has to be more of a passionate voice of opposition to the Democrat Party (i.e. the Obama) agenda.  And that MEANS being more conservative.  It also means having a vision, like Ronald Reagan had a vision, and being able to articulate that vision, the way Reagan was able to articulate his vision for America.

If Brat’s victory helps a little bit to move the GOP toward that, then it will be a good thing.

But I’m not holding my breath while I wait.

Like I said, I liked Cantor and I hope he has a future in the Republican Party.  It’s not like he’s dead or anything.

 

Dick Morris Cites Rasmussen Poll: 21% Of Democrats Have Left The Democrat Party Of Hopey Changey

Sure hope this is true:

21% OF DEMS HAVE LEFT PARTY

According to the latest Rasmussen Poll, 21% — more than one in five — Democrats have abandoned the Party since Obama’s election as president. While most have become Independents, identification with the Republican Party has also risen not only since 2008 but also even since the GOP’s 2010 victory.

Rasmussen, who tracks voters’ party identification (self-described) every month, shows that Democratic Party identification, has dropped by eight points (or 21%) since Obama’s election in November, 2008 while Republican Party identification has risen by three points over the same period. Despite speculation in the liberal media that the Republicans in Congress have mishandled their mandate since winning the House in 2010, the Republican edge over the Democratic Party has grown from 1.3% in November of 2010 to 2.7% in December of 2011.

Changes in party identification are the most fundamental – and important – measure of political opinion in the country. They are like tectonic plates that shift beneath the surface of the political earth, sending quakes through the system. A shift of such an order of magnitude will rank high on the political Richter scale in 2012.

So dramatic a shift, totaling eleven points since Obama’s election (Dems down by 8, Republicans up by 3) means that had Obama faced McCain in the current political environment, he would have won by five rather than losing by six.

But even that doesn’t tell the story. Surveys of Independents find that they have long since jumped from the Obama ship. His job approval among Independents consistently ranks in the low 30s. He cannot expect much relief from that corner.

All these stats point to a mammoth upset in the making in the 2012 election, sweeping Republicans into the White House and delivering control of the Senate by a good margin. Already, Republicans are likely to take over Democratic seats in Virginia, Florida, Nebraska, Missouri, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. They may lose in Massachusetts and will probably hold on to their seats in Arizona and Nevada despite the retirement of their incumbents there. That means a GOP dominated Senate by the margin 56-44.

If these data cause Republicans (hopefully wealthy ones) in Washington State, West Virginia, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Minnesota to consider entering U.S. Senate races against the Democratic incumbents in those states, it could cause the GOP to get sixty votes in the Senate. The party identification data indicates that this goal is distinctly within reach if we get good candidates in a few more states.

Don’t listen to the media induced pessimism. A gigantic upset is in the making!

Related posts:

1. REPUBLICAN PARTY BENEFITS FROM OBAMA ERRORS The conventional wisdom holds that the parties in Congress are…
2. FOX NEWS REACHES ACROSS PARTY LINES Is FOX News “an arm of the Republican Party” as…
3. DON’T LET THE DEMS HOLD OUR TROOPS HOSTAGE If the government shuts down will our troops be paid?…
4. DEMS WILL WIN DEBT DEBATE; REPUBS WILL WIN ELECTION In the parlance of Washington, the Democrats are going to…
5. CANDIDATE AND PARTY: THE OBAMA DEFICIT Published on TheHill.com on September 16, 2008 There appears to…

I haven’t found Dick Morris’ prognostications about what is going to happen in politics to be too terribly accurate.  But hopefully we can count on his ability to read Rasmussen polling data.

Government-Funded NPR Tries To Force Mara Liasson Off Fox News To Please White House Ownership

I have to say I find NPR’s thesis rather asinine.  Mara Liasson is presumably an objective journalists by their standards, considering that they hired her and have continued to employ her for years.  And to make it even more ridiculous, she has been part of Fox News since 1997.  But on their view, Fox News having Mara appear on their show to offer her objective opinion in a panel along with others somehow enables Fox News’ “bias.”  All of a sudden, and out of the blue.  And strangely timed to synchronize with the White House attack on Fox News (not to mention the 1st Amendment).

NPR reporter pressured over Fox role
By: Josh Gerstein
December 6, 2009 10:36 PM EST

Executives at National Public Radio recently asked the network’s top political correspondent, Mara Liasson, to reconsider her regular appearances on Fox News because of what they perceived as the network’s political bias, two sources familiar with the effort said.

According to a source, Liasson was summoned in early October by NPR’s executive editor for news, Dick Meyer, and the network’s supervising senior Washington editor, Ron Elving. The NPR executives said they had concerns that Fox’s programming had grown more partisan, and they asked Liasson to spend 30 days watching the network.

At a follow-up meeting last month, Liasson reported that she’d seen no significant change in Fox’s programming and planned to continue appearing on the network, the source said.

NPR’s focus on Liasson’s work as a commentator on Fox’s “Special Report” and “Fox News Sunday” came at about the same time as a White House campaign launched in September to delegitimize the network by painting it as an extension of the Republican Party.

One source said the White House’s criticism of Fox was raised during the discussions with Liasson. However, an NPR spokeswoman told POLITICO that the Obama administration’s attempts to discourage other news outlets from treating Fox as a peer had no impact on any internal discussions at NPR.

Fox News has Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity on their station, it is true.  But unlike Bill Moyers and his ilk, neither of them present themselves as “journalists.”  They offer their opinion on opinion programming.  The clear distinction between “news” and “opinion” becomes another yet another IQ test that liberals simply can’t pass.

To the best of my knowledge, Mara Liasson has never ONCE appeared on either Glenn Beck’s or Sean Hannity’s programs.  She has appeared on Fox News Special Report with Brett Baier and with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.  Unlike the Kool-aid-drinking mainstream media, Mara has been smart enough to understand the difference between news and op-ed, and she has remained on the news side.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media’s malicious and dishonest smearing of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh was apparently NOT “biased.”  CNN’s “fact checking” of an SNL sketch critical of Obama (while hypocritically ignoring months of unrelenting SNL sketch attacks against Sarah Palin) was NOT “biased.”  The mainstream medias’ frequent “reporting” about conservatives “organizing” while simultaneously ignoring PAID liberal activists’ organizing was NOT “biased.”

Take a gander at MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s bias (see HERE and HERE) and then recognize that he is immediately followed by Rachel Maddow (see here and here), who is nearly as bad.  There’s your Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity on steroids.

The mainstream media seem to love bias and propaganda, just as long as it is LIBERAL bias and propaganda.  And anything LESS THAN liberal bias and propaganda sends them into a hissy fit of galactic proportions.

The NPR people have been trying to force Mara Liasson off of Fox at the same exact time that Obama demonstrates his naked contempt for a free press in his attacks against Fox News – even acknowledging that they used the White House attack to attack Liasson – and then display their chutzpah by asserting that the two events had absolutely nothing to do with each other.

I was holding the smoking gun when they found me standing over the body.  But the two events have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

The Obama administration has literally been fascist in its attempt to attack any news outlet that refuses to unquestioningly advance its propaganda.  And the mainstream media have been pathologically tilted to the political left (as Bernie Goldberg details in his book, A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media), but insanely continue to focus on the splinter in Fox News’ eye while ignoring the gigantic log in their own.

You can go back a few years ago and find NPR executives actually admitting they had a liberal bias.

The NPR ombudsman responded to a Pew study that challenged the liberal bias of the mainstream media by saying this:

There is much that can be pointed to as examples of inherent bias in the media — including NPR.

The media — as a class — tends to be remarkably homogeneous. As an NPR editor pointed out to me recently, “How many of our journalists have ever operated a business?” The poll indirectly points to the need for more diversity in our newsrooms — both intellectual and cultural. […]

This poll may have been done correctly, but in this one aspect — questioning the professionalism of journalists — the result will be a disservice to American journalists and journalism. In order to avoid the “liberal bias” accusation, some journalists might feel there is safety in pack journalism and that is likely to have a chilling effect on tough, independent journalism.

The media and its management have an obligation to maintain a skeptical and adversarial role to whatever party is in power. This poll could discourage that by implying that journalists will always let their personal politics trump their professional obligations.

Keep in mind that for much of the 2008 election campaign, and for most of Obama’s presidency, Fox News was basically the ONLY “adversarial” voice.  Fox News has in fact stood alone in avoiding the “pack journalism” that the rest of the mainstream media has pursued.  Which is to say, Fox News has actually done exactly those things that the NPR ombudsman argued that the media had to do.

Nevertheless, in spite of that admission, NPR has continued in its bias.

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough pointed that liberal bias out in the discussion over NPR’s pressuring of Mara Liasson.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well I just want to say, I love NPR and I listen to NPR, but I’ve been listening to reformed, pot-smoking hippies for the past thirty years on NPR with a very substantial left-wing bias – and I don’t care that they eat tree bark like Euell Gibbons, and I don’t care if they are still smoking pot in their sixties. They put on great radio. But for NPR – for NPR, the leadership at NPR to question the bias of Fox News is a joke. They have been biased – again, I still listen to them, because like “The New York Times” they are the best at what they do. But, please, that is a laugh.  NPR –

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: It’s very soothing listening, too.

SCARBOROUGH: It is soothing, it is very soothing.  Just put a mirror to your face, NPR.

Instead of pressuring Mara Liasson to leave Fox – which only reveals your own liberal bias – why don’t you take Joe Scarborough’s advice and put a mirror to your own face instead, NPR?

A few other articles that very relate to the current White House attempt to attack and undermine Fox News and a free press:

More Self-Referentially Absurd Claims Of Fox News Bias

White House Ignores War In Afghanistan To Purse New War On Fox News

Anti-Free-Press Obama Demagogue Anita Dunn A Self-Admitted Marxist

Civil War Within GOP? Democrats Ignore Log In Their Own Eye

I occasionally turned on CNN last night during the elections.  They couldn’t go three consecutive minutes without somebody mentioning the “civil war” within the Republican Party.

Particularly as it became more apparent that the Democrat in the NY-23 race was poised to win the district – as the ONLY Democrat victory in an otherwise complete smackdown by the GOP – pundits speculated on the “fracturing” in the Republican Party.

And, of course, we should listen to these people.  After all, they correctly predicted that the Republican Party was clearly dead after the 2008 elections.  I mean, they obviously know what they’re talking about, right?

A divided party: Progressives threaten Democratic lawmakers
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
11/03/09 2:39 PM EST

MoveOn.org is sending out emails today seeking more contributions for its campaign to defeat any Democratic senator who does not fully  support Obamacare. Yesterday the left-wing activist group asked members to contribute “to a primary challenge against any Democratic senator who helps Republicans block an up-or-down vote on health care reform.” Today, MoveOn reports that it has received $2 million in pledges in less than 24 hours. “It’s a clear sign of how angry progressives would be at any Democrat who helps filibuster reform,” MoveOn executive director Justin Ruben writes in the new email.

“The larger the war chest we can offer a potential challenger, the stronger the signal we’ll send to conservative Democrats,” Ruben continues. “So we’re setting a huge new goal: $3 million in total pledges by the end of the week. That’s plenty to launch a serious primary challenge.”

MoveOn is already planning radio ads targeting Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu and Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln over the health care issue.

MoveOn’s new campaign comes amid much discussion in the political world of divisions among Republicans, with many analysts reading the presence of third-party candidates in New York’s 23rd District and in New Jersey, and coming primary battles in Florida and elsewhere, as proof of deep, and perhaps disastrous, divisions inside the GOP. One publication recently dubbed it a “nightmare scenario” for Republicans. But MoveOn’s new threat of primary attacks on Democratic lawmakers suggests that the story might be a bit one-sided. Democrats who stray from progressive orthodoxy might be in for big trouble — and the divisions inside the Democratic party might be just as big a deal as the problems inside the GOP.

And other names, such as Joe Lieberman’s, need to be added to the list.  Democrats publicly threatened to strip him of his chairmanship if he blocked the liberal agenda.

NY-23 wasn’t so much a civil war within the GOP as much as it was an example of the stupidity of the 11 county Republican apparatchiks who seemingly chose Scozzafava’s name out of a hat, rather than choosing a candidate who in any way reflected the makeup of the party within the district.  And I personally believe that Hoffman’s defeat will cause both the Republican Party and the conservative movement in general to learn some lessons.

Lessons that the morning after clearly reveal that Democrats will not learn.

Barack Obama won Virginia by six points in 2008.  Virginia hadn’t elected a Republican for governor in 12 years.  And both Virginia Senators are Democrats.  It wasn’t a “purple state”; it was a state that was deeply into the process of becoming a BLUE state.  And yet the Republican candidate walked away with the governorship by an 18 point spread.

In New Jersey, it was even worse.  Obama won that state by 16 points.  New Jersey has been a reliably Democrat state for decades.  Republican Christie’s cheat-proof 5-point win is like a political earthquake.

To make the defeat even more alarming for Democrats, the Republican in Virginia won independent voters by a 66-30 margin, and the Republican in New Jersey won them by a 60-30 margin.  Independents are becoming more conservative, not more liberal.

Let’s see.  When was the last time anything like this happened?  Oh, yeah – 1993 – the year before the worst political defeat for either party in history.

Republicans get paranoid about the prospect of an Orwellian 1984 scenario occurring as big government liberals usurp more and more power away from the people and into the government.  If they are halfway smart, Democrats will start getting paranoid about the 1993 scenario happening again.

Update, November 10, 2009:

Kos and Effect

Daily Kos blog founder Markos Moulitsas is telling his fellow liberals to ditch the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee because the money could be going to moderate Democrats who voted against the House health care bill.

Moulitsas writes: “Skip any donations to the DCCC. Their first priority is incumbent retention, and they’re (necessarily) issue agnostic. They’ll be dumping millions into defending these seats. Instead, give to those elected officials who best reflect your values.”

The Politico calls it “a dangerous little challenge to the Democratic establishment… the GOP is loving the Kos post.”

DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen tells Fox News, “It would be a mistake to take any measures that would jeopardize a large and vibrant Democratic majority.”

And, yeah, I’m sure the GOP IS loving the Kool-aid Kos post.  I know it brings laughter and merriment to my heart.

Just another little tidbit to lay to rest the mainstream media-created propaganda that the Republican Party is the one on the verge of meltdown.

White House Ignores War In Afghanistan To Pursue New War On Fox News

Up until the exaltation of The One – may socialist Scandinavians place golden medallions around his neck forever – the Democrats’ spiel on Afghanistan was that it was the right war, the top priority war, the just war, the necessary war, but that the devil Bush ignored Afghanistan while he focused on Iraq.

Iraq, of course, was the unwinnable war (even after Bush won it), and the surge strategy was bound to be a costly failure (even after it worked).

Well, now that Obama – in the words of a leftist “journalist” – “stands above the country” and “above the world” as “sort of God,” well, the “change” the left kept blathering about resulted in a change of focus:

Afghanistan is no longer the “war of necessity,” or the “top priority,” or the “cause that could not be more just.”  Nope.  That war morphed into the war that the White House has declared on Fox News.

White House communications director, Anita Dunn:

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director.

And:

“The reality of it is that Fox often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party,” White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s “Reliable Sources.”

And:

“As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Mind you, every major totalitarian dictator in the world is more “legitimate” than Fox News, as far as the White House is concerned:

White House communications director Anita Dunn also said this:

“What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it’s the way we view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party,” said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. “They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”

Yes, that’s right.  Dunn is referring to CNN — the same CNN that demonstrated that it is so completely in the tank for the Obama agenda that it actually “FACT-CHECKED” a Saturday Night Live skit.

That’s the criteria for “a news network”: complete ideological loyalty.

Obama pretty much pointed that out himself when he addressed White House correspondents:

“Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me.  Apologies to the Fox table.”

Unlike all the other media, Fox correspondents didn’t vote for Obama.  And that’s enough to declare war.  For all must love The One.  No dissension can be tolerated.

Mind you, while the White House asserts that Fox News is evil because it – alone by itself – is not in the tank with Obama, it’s interesting to see that Obama himself is in the tank for SEIU and the hard-core union agenda as he vows to “paint the nation purple.”

We’ve seen this reaction to media criticism by a president before – from the darkest and most evil days of Richard Nixon.  It wasn’t pretty, and it didn’t end well.

Is Fox the media arm of the Republican Party?  Viewers who are flocking to Fox News in droves don’t seem to think so:

Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009’s first quarter was FNC’s 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network’s history — just behind Q4 ’08 and Q3 ’05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

The hardly right-wing UCLA seems to find plenty of bias from all of those journalists that Obama boasted voted for him, rather than Fox:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume” and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

To the extent that Fox News is biased to the right, every single other news outlet is biased toward the left.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs’ study concluded that Fox News was in fact the most fair and balanced network, concluding:

Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly — 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates — 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

Sacred Heart University’s media study discovered that Fox News was the most trusted in the nation:

Researchers were asked which national television news organization they trusted most for accurate reporting. Fox News was named by 30.0% of all respondents – up from 19.5% in 2003 and 27.0% in 2007.

Those named most frequently as the television news organization most trusted for accurate reporting in 2009 included: Fox News (30.0%), CNN (19.5%), NBC News (7.5%) and ABC News (7.5%). Fox News was also the television news organization trusted least. Just over one-quarter, 26.2%, named Fox News, followed by NBC News (9.9%), MSNBC (9.4%), CNN (8.5%), CBS News (5.3%) and ABC News (3.7%).

In fact, it didn’t come all that far from being TWICE as trusted as the runner-up, CNN (the network that fact-checks SNL sketches that are negative to Obama).

So this war – that again seems to be replacing the “just war of necessity” that Afghanistan was SUPPOSED to be is just ridiculous.

It merely shows just how dramatically ideological this administration truly is.

It also explains why former longtime ABC correspondent Chris Wallace said of the Obama administration:

“They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.”

Let’s just take a second to consider what Obama seems to think about the media, as evidenced by his selection of Mark Lloyd to be his FCC Diversity Czar.  Remember that cartoon of dictators that Obama has met with?  Obama’s FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd admiringly said this of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez:

“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.  To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela….The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.”

Just as Obama is now taking Fox News seriously in this country.

But how did Hugo Chavez “take very seriously the media”?

Newsbusters answers that by simply pointing to the facts in Venezuela:

NGOs Warn of Restrictions in Pending Venezuela Law

Associated Press – May 7, 2009

Prominent Venezuelan nongovernmental organizations warned Thursday that a bill being drafted by lawmakers loyal to President Hugo Chavez could be used to financially strangle groups that criticize the government.

Chavez clamps down on broadcast media

Irish Examiner – Friday, July 10, 2009

President Hugo Chavez’s government is imposing tough new regulations on Venezuela’s cable television while revoking the licenses of more than 200 radio stations.

Report: Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez aggressively seizing control of media

Miami Herald – August 14, 2009

An unclassified report lists examples of Venezuelan government efforts to crack down on or seize control of media outlets to stifle criticism.

How’s that for a chronology of authoritarian censorship?

And Obama’s choice for FCC Diversity Czar also had this to say:

[From a 2005 Conference on Media Reform: Racial Justice]: “Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions.  And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem.

We’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.”

It’s nice of Mark Lloyd to acknowledge that there are “good white people” around – just before he announces the need to have a purge of white people from the media.  But Mark Lloyd is a racist who has also said:

“There are few things I think more frightening in the American mind than dark skinned black men. Here I am.”

And Barack Obama also showed what he thought about free speech rights when his selection for FCC Diversity Czar said:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

So we pretty much know where the Obama White House is coming from: the media should be the exclusive tool of leftist propaganda to advance the Obama agenda.  Only Obama voters need apply to be considered as “journalists.”  Free speech is a terribly overrated thing, which needs to be “reinterpreted” to exclude ANYONE who has ANYTHING but a far-leftist revolutionary agenda.  And Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has provided the American left with the model as to how to proceed in that direction.

Obama is dithering around in Afghanistan while our soldiers languish and die for lack of support.  But he seems all to willing to pursue his war on Fox News with a gusto.

In both the war in Afghanistan and the war on Fox News, the threat is to freedom itself.