Uncertain Allies

In 2005, minister and theologian Wayne Stiles argued "We will always struggle with temptation in this life. But God has not left us alone in the struggle. He has provided all we need to defeat sin and Satan (Ephesians 6:10-18, 1 John 4:4). He noted

More than thirty years ago Flip Wilson kept America in stitches with his television characters “Reverend Leroy,” the friendly, pompous pastor of the “Church of What’s Happening Now,” and “Geraldine Jones,” the sassy African-American woman in a miniskirt. Whenever Geraldine would impulsively buy a dress—or do anything she shouldn’t—she excused her urge by uttering the line she made famous, “The Devil made me do it!”

America laughed at Geraldine for her obviously lame excuse. In fact, to say, “The Devil made me do it,” became the rage all over the country. Of course, we all know that the Devil wants us to sin, but everybody knew the truth.

Scofff all you wish, but this applies to the Iran war, in which a few influential far-right figures are claiming "the devil made me do it"- or rather, "the devil made President Trump do it."

In hisletter resigning as director of the National Counterterrorism Center and "subsequent remarks", Joe Kent

has claimed that President Donald Trump was “led to believe” that military action against Iran would be swift and effective, alleging that Israel played a key role in shaping that perception.

Kent said that following protests in Iran earlier this year, Israeli officials pitched the idea that targeting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) would pave the way for protesters to take control. According to him, the plan was presented as a limited and straightforward operation, similar to past regime-change expectations in other conflicts.

“In essence, we were told we would be greeted as liberators — that strikes on the IRGC would allow protesters to take over,” Kent said, describing the proposal as overly optimistic.

On March 27, Megyn Kelly

criticized right-wing politicians and commentators for “pushing” President Trump to launch military operations against Iran.

“As this goes south, we need to know exactly who talked him into it and what representations were made to convince the president that this was a good idea,” Kelly said.

The former Fox News host specifically named Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “first and foremost” and said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was “equally to blame.”

Kelly also slammed conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro for “pushing this war” on his show and said radio host Mark Levin was “chief among” the right-wing advocates for military action against Iran.

“There were very prominent activists on the right who were frothing at the mouth for this thing,” Kelly said. “And now that it’s not only going poorly, but the president’s poll numbers are in a precipitous free fall, we'd love to see more accountability.Who? Who promised him what?"

Then on March 30, Fox News host Laura Ingraham

called into question whether President Trump understands the “complexity” of the U.S. military operation in Iran.

The host used her opening monologue on “The Ingraham Angle” to talk about how, despite the April 16 deadline set by the president, Trump faces complications to his calls for negotiations with the Iranians amid his threats of further escalating the conflict.

“Now, knowing what little time we have and how quickly this can spiral out of control, we still have a lot of questions,” she said. “For instance, was the president fully briefed about the risks of all of this from the beginning? And was he then able to take it all in and understand the complexity of this? How complex it could actually get, and further possibilities of casualties or other damage –– the difficulty of dealing with these people? Or was he told this would be relatively quick, in and out?”

So alpha "please, Mr. Trump, no more winning" male was told that the war would be a quick enter and exit, or he was pushed or talked into going into Iran.  However, when this war end- and however it ends- Donald Trump will take credit for not only a "victory" but for attaining peace.

Kent, Kelly and Ingraham are opposed- sort of- to the current war against Iran. But they're also apologists for the President. They can turn on a dime by supporting Trump. and probably will, on another important issue or perhaps even this one.

They are, thankfully, not Tucker Carlson. However, it is almost (almost) as true of them as it is of Carlson, of whom it has been said that he "is one of the clearest examples of how the 'enemy of your enemy' is not in any reliable way your friend".

Share |

Americans Last

I suppose tomorrow I need to destroy m unexpired D size Duracell batteries manufactured in the USA.

There is a split in MAGA land, one aside from disagreement over Israel, the high cost of living, and release of the Epstein files. Though less visible and contentious, it goes to the heart of what Donald Trump is.:

Incredible exchange on H1B visas.

Laura Ingraham: “We have plenty of talented people here.”

Trump: “No you don’t.”

Sometimes I love Trump. He’s in many ways so much better than the movement of resentful losers that he leads. pic.twitter.com/K4hveTDoY9

— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) November 12, 2025

That segment from Laura Ingraham's interview of President Donald Trump on Fox News on November 12, 2025 illustrates a difference in attitude toward the American people.

DT: No, you don't have- you don't have certain talents and people have to learn. You can't take people off an unemployment line and say "I'm going to put you into a factory where we're going to make missiles or I'm going to put you into-

LI: Why did we ever do it before- when you and I were growing up?

DT: Well, I'll give you an example. In Georgia, they made it because they wanted illegal immigrants, uh. They had people from South Korea. They made batteries all their life. You know, making batteries is a very complicated- it's not an easy thing to- it's very dangerous, a lot of explosions, a lot of problems. They had like five or six hundred people, early stages to make batteries and to teach people how to do it. Well, they wanted them to get out of the country- you don't need that here, Laura. 

I know you and I disagree on this. You can't just say a country's coming in, they're going to invest $10 billion to build a plant and you know, take people off an unemployment line who haven't worked in five years and they're going to start making their missiles. It doesn't work that way.

Bless her heart. Laura Ingraham apparently was under the misapprehension that Trump's trade policy, characterized by off-and-on, bobbing and weaving tariffs has had something to do with expanding the USA's manufacturing basis.

It never was. The "what's in it for me" President may have varied motives for the games he has played with trade, including blackmailing or rewarding some businesses. Less than a month into the tariffs, Pro Publica reported 

.... the White House released a list of more than a thousand products that would be exempted.

One item that made the list is polyethylene terephthalate, more commonly known as PET resin, the thermoplastic used to make plastic bottles.

Why it was spared is unclear, and even people in the industry are confused about the reason for the reprieve.

But its inclusion is a win for Reyes Holdings, a Coca-Cola bottler that ranks among the largest privately held companies in the U.S. and is owned by a pair of brothers who have donated millions of dollars to Republican causes. Records show the company recently hired a lobbying firm with close ties to the Trump White House to make its case on tariffs.

Whether the company’s lobbying played any role in the exemption is unclear. Reyes Holdings and its lobbyists did not respond to questions from ProPublica. The White House also did not comment, but some industry advocates say the administration has rebuffed requests for exemptions.

Perhaps Trump has been eager to impose a high tariff against a nation and then after negotiations, lower them, proving again that he's the awesome dealmaker he always claims to be. The President does see the world as a zero-sum game, in which everything begets a winner and a loser. If a leader elsewhere is hurt or harmed, Donald believes, he is helped by the same degree.

But it has nothing to do with a country Donald clearly doesn't like. Whether he's calling the USA "evil," its people generally "fat, bloated, and disgusting," or dishonoring deceased or active members of the Armed Services, he has made contempt for Americans clear. 

And now, while millions of Americans- with Trump's help- are losing access to food they can afford:

Just a little confused. Why would you take an 'America First' Oval Office and redecorate it in a very obvious European style? It's 18th-century French Rococo, a style born in Paris during the reign of Louis XV (1715–1774). Nothing American about this at all. This is for a king. pic.twitter.com/3ueFuD2RmZ

— Now The End Begins (@NowTheEndBegins) November 11, 2025

Maybe the key is in "nothing American about this at all."  Donald makes policy based on what helps him and his family., with extra points if it hurts others. Tariffs never had anything to do with rebuilding the country's manufacturing base because Donald Trump has about as much regard for American workers as, well, nations of the Middle East have for Palestinians.

Share |

It's the FBI, Not the Congressional Progressive Caucus

Deceitful! Duplicitous! Underhanded! (Also, standard operating procedure.)

Chatting with writer Julie Kelly, who identifies as "Ultra MAGA," Laura Ingraham refers to a New York Times article headlined  "FBI Had Informants in Proud Boys, Court Papers Suggest."

Ingraham shows a clip from a hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee in which Louisiana Republican Clay Higgins asks FBI Director Christopher Wray "Did you have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters inside the Capitol on January 6 prior to the doors being open?"

Once Wray replied "again, I have to....," Higgins interjected "should be a 'no'."

Grateful to Laura Ingraham for covering these mind blowing developments related to Jan 6: https://t.co/Y9sF6d8Sax

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) November 16, 2022

Well, of course he did. In the article cited by Ingraham, we learn

The F.B.I. had as many as eight informants inside the far-right Proud Boys in the months surrounding the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, recent court papers indicate, raising questions about how much federal investigators were able to learn from them about the violent mob attack both before and after it took place.

The existence of the informants came to light over the past few days in a flurry of veiled court filings by defense lawyers for five members of the Proud Boys who are set to go on trial next month on seditious conspiracy charges connected to the Capitol attack....

In a sealed filing quoted by the defense, prosecutors argued that hundreds of pages of documents related to the F.B.I. informants were neither “suppressed” by the government nor directly relevant to the case of the Proud Boys facing sedition charges: Enrique Tarrio, the group’s former leader; Joseph Biggs; Ethan Nordean; Zachary Rehl; and Dominic Pezzola.

If the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not use these methods, it might as well shut down. As one of hundreds? (thousands?) of examples, consider that sometime before his death, FBI Special Agent James Ingram recounted the success of the agency in undermining the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s. He stated

[W]e infiltrated the Klan in many ways. We had female informants. … And we had police officers that were informants for us...

When you look back, the FBI can be proud that they stopped the violence [of the KKK]. We had the convictions. We did what we had to do from Selma, Alabama to Jackson, Mississippi to Atlanta, Georgia....

In the words of Special Agent Rollins, “…the FBI broke the back of the Klan in Mississippi. And eradicated it…

Although that was before Ingraham's time, she should know that the FBI is not in the habit of conspiring against the right-wing and its causes. To the contrary, in the runup to the 2016 election

On October 24,  a smiling Rudy Giuliani told Fox News “We got a couple of surprises left... I call them early surprises in the way we're going to campaign to get our message out, maybe in a little bit of a different way. You'll see. And I think it'll be enormously effective."

There was no discernible change in campaign message or tactics but The New York Times on November 3, 2016 recounted that

Since August of 2016, Rudy Giuliani has publicly claimed that F.B.I. agents were telling him that Mrs. Clinton should have been criminally charged for the email server.

“It perplexes numerous F.B.I. agents who talk to me all the time,” Mr. Giuliani said during an August interview with Chris Cuomo on CNN. “And it embarrasses some F.B.I. agents.”

Two days later, CNN revealed

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani now denies that he was told by FBI agents that the bureau was reviewing newly discovered emails potentially related to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server before the review was publicly revealed.

Earlier, he had suggested that he was told by FBI agents about the review before it became public.

Giuliani, a top Donald Trump surrogate and adviser, told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room” Friday that the FBI’s announcement “came as a complete surprise, except to the extent that maybe it wasn’t as much of a surprise.”

“I got it all from former FBI agents. Tremendous anger within the FBI about the way, number one, Jim Comey’s conclusion (to not recommend criminal charges in July) and, number two, the way they believed they were being obstructed by what they regard as a pretty corrupt Obama Justice Department,” Giuliani said. “Cutting off a grand jury investigation, cutting off subpoenas.”

But earlier Friday, Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, said he had “heard about” a forthcoming FBI announcement before it became public.

“This has been boiling up in the FBI. I did nothing to get it out. I had no role in it. Did I hear about it? Darn right I heard about it,” Giuliani said on “Fox and Friends.” He continued, “I can’t even repeat the language I heard from the former FBI agents.”

A week earlier – before Comey’s disclosure to Congress – he told Fox News there was a “pretty big surprise” coming, though he did not provide further details. He told Blitzer the surprise was an upcoming advertising campaign: “I knew that was going to come as a big surprise.”

I don't, and didn't, buy it. (A DOJ investigation was inconclusive.) No dramatic "upcoming advertising campaign" materialized. However, as a former US Attorney for the Southern District, Giuliani had a lot of friends in the FBI's New York field office and three days after he tipped off Fox News, Comey said that emails relevant to the investigation of Clinton's private email server were discovered on the computer of the estranged husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin. 

A few days later, the FBI director explained that he met with agency investigators (who) "said we found a lot of new stuff," but that most of the emails were ones previously seen. Clinton was cleared. Nonetheless, by then the inaccurate announcement that new, relevant emails had been found already had been "enormously effective."

With Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives beginning in January, there will be investigations, including of the FBI and probably of its role in the insurrection, to feed the GOP rage machine, undermine President Biden, and pave the way for a new Trump presidency.  There is much to question of the agency's operations, including in the 2016 election and its willing failure, and subsequent coverup, to investigate credible allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.  

If Republicans want to investigate the FBI, Democrats should insist that there be a real, comprehensive inquiry. Hoist the GOP by their own petard.

 

Share |

When Attempting To Commit A Crime Isn't A Crime

If you haven't already heard this, you have to see it or believe it.  Trump TV prime-time host Laura Ingraham on Thursday evening stated (as seen beginning at :18 of the video below)

Of course, Nancy, it's in the Constitution. We can read. The President can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors but even assuming the Democrats' strained and ridiculous interpretation of the facts- and I do not assume them- but just for the sake of their argument, attempted bribery isn't in the Constitution.

Now here is the truth is stranger than fiction fact: Laura Ingraham is a lawyer.

It's hard to believe but according to her Wikipedia page, after working in the Reagan Administration, she

earned a J.D. degree and Ingraham went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City. Ingraham began her media career in the mid-1990s.

Maybe working for Clarence Thomas accounts for her ignorance of the law. Otherwise, she would understand the strong nexus between bribery and solicitation of a bribe. Those who are strict constructionists would understand "the general federal bribery statute applies to persons who “demand” or “seek” anything of value for the purposes prohibited by the statute." Scholars taking a wider, historical view would recognize

In short, the Founders’ conception of bribery—and thus the scope of that term in the Constitution—cannot be understood with reference to modern federal statutes and the interpretation of those statutes by modern courts. As Tribe and Matz explain, “[T]he Framers were concerned with abuse of power, corruption, and injury to the nation. At no point did any delegate link the ultimate safeguard against presidential betrayal to intricacies of a criminal code... the Founding generation understood bribery broadly, as covering the corrupt abuse of power to obtain personal benefit.

A more legalistic interpretation would suggest

The difference between an attempt to bribe and the actual passage of money or property as a bribe is of little practical importance where the definition of the crime includes an attempt to commit it. This was true at common law and is often true under statutory definitions of bribery. However, separate statutes may be enacted to proscribe a bribery and an attempt to bribe and different punishments may be prescribed for the separate offenses.

"Attempted bribery isn't in the Constitution," Laura Ingraham, University of Virginia Law School 1991, claims. She doesn't explain why attempted bribery isn't a high crime or misdemeanor. It's just another "alternative fact" of, by, and for supporters of Donald Trump.

Share |

Wall Money

Trump wins.

Donald Trump hasn't won yet, may not yet win, and shouldn't win, because there is only one way he squirms out of the Trump Shutdown successfully declaring victory.

After President Trump on Tuesday signaled support for short-term funding for the government without money for his beloved wall, conservative author and political commentator Michelle Malkin complained on "Fox and Friends"

Well, I'm not going to sugarcoat it and I'm not going to spin it. I wish I could but this was a cave, a blink, and all you have to do is look at- you quoted it, Steve- the exact, precise words that President Trump used.

And now look at what the White House is forced to do- and yes, to answer Brian a couple of seconds ago, yes, we have to hold the Republicans, especially Mitch McConnell, who's been in office since 1981 and never has been able to get this deal done because he's afraid of a shutdown. But now look at what the White House is forced to do, scrounge around for 600 million dollars in the defense budget in order to fund a puny 100 miles. It's as if border security is an afterthought and for Nancy Pelosi....

Malkin was only one of several GOP talking heads who would not have forgiven if the President and the GOP House not recklessly chosen to shut down the federal government over the border wall.

Whether funding is increased or reduced for other border security measures and whether the wall will deter illegal immigration is secondary. They are determined to beat the Democratic Party by getting funding for construction. Therefore, on Thursday Trump reversed course, the House fell in line, and the Trump Shutdown ensued.

Afterward, Budget Secretary Mick Mulvaney and Vice President Pence met with congressional leaders and members of Congress were sent home for Christmas break. Then

Mulvaney put the onus on Democrats, saying the White House is now offering to open the government for less than the $5 billion in wall funding Trump had demanded. Democrats say the wall is immoral and would be ineffective, and they are instead offering to keep the border-security funding at the current $1.3 billion, with money going to fencing and other security measures, but not for a wall.

“We moved off of the 5. We hope they move up from their 1.3,” Mulvaney said during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.”

Mulvaney refused to offer specifics, but a Democratic aide said the White House offer was for $2.1 billion for border security, including new fencing, plus an additional $400 million fund for other Trump immigration priorities....

Despite near-unanimous opposition to the wall, Democrats have said they are willing to negotiate on funding for other border-security measures. And the administration’s recent shift in focus from a concrete wall to a fence-like barrier made of steel slats offered a slight glimmer of hope for room to compromise.

Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and their ilk are demanding, in Homeland Security Nielsen's lingo, "wall."  President Trump promised he'd be "proud" to shut down the government over the wall and Fox News' Doocy stated “If there’s not a shutdown, he’s going to look like a loser."

But if Trump gets any money for something he can call a "wall," he will brag that he broke the Democrats, and that includes his "artistically designed steel slats."

A compromise with Republicans is impossible. He will get wall-like money and declare victory. Or he will not get wall money, the right-wing talk show will erupt, and the part will be riven.

"Do we succumb to tyranny of talk radio hosts?” asked outgoing Tennessee Republican senator Bob Corker.  We do, if Democrats succumb to the lure of a "compromise" spun by Trumpists as a victory.

                                                  MERRY CHRISTMAS

Share |

It's "Don't Rock The Vote"

Steve M quotes (emphasis his) Laura Ingraham in Wednesday's controversial commentary, "The Left's Effort To Remake America," in which the conservative Republican contended





Because in some parts of the country, it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn’t exist anymore. Massive demographic changes have been foisted on the American people and they’re changes that none of us ever voted for and most of us don’t like. From Virginia to California, we see stark examples of how radically in some ways the country has changed. Now, much of this is related to both illegal and in some cases legal immigration that of course progressives love.

Most criticism went elsewhere. Former New York Times and Washington Times reporter Heather Timmons slammed "divisive and racist words (which) could incite more hatred towards immigrants in the US. Morning Joe regular Donnie Deutsch remarked "I have a call to action to advertisers as far as to Laura Ingraham's message. Someone gets thrown off the air for saying the N-word- this is more reprehensible, you're basically saying we should be white." And S.E. Cupp maintained

To many, that sounded racist. That's because it is. She isn't complaining that the country's getting older or younger, richer or poorer, that we're having more or fewer children or moving to the suburbs. She's complaining that people who come to America from other countries -- even legally -- are making this country unrecognizable to her. Indeed, to "us."

Who "us" means is also clear: Fox News viewers, who are predominantly 65 and older and white. I know many of those viewers, and I'm sad to say that message probably resonated with a lot of them.

However, Ingraham singled out Virginia and California rather than saying "throughout the country" or specifying Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Nebraska, Iowa- other states which have seen a major influx of refugees and/or immigrants.

Those six states are either marginally, or solidly, Republican, while California is overwhelmingly Democratic and Virginia increasingly so.

The main concern of Ingraham, who has two Russian-born children, probably is voting, a message resonating with the Trump Administration, which

is expected to issue a proposal in coming weeks that would make it harder for legal immigrants to become citizens or get green cards if they have ever used a range of popular public welfare programs, including Obamacare, four sources with knowledge of the plan told NBC News.

The move, which would not need congressional approval, is part of White House senior adviser Stephen Miller's plan to limit the number of migrants who obtain legal status in the U.S. each year.

Details of the rulemaking proposal are still being finalized, but based on a recent draft seen last week and described to NBC News, immigrants living legally in the U.S. who have ever used or whose household members have ever used Obamacare, children's health insurance, food stamps and other benefits could be hindered from obtaining legal status in the U.S.

Those immigrants would not be booted from the USA but until and unless they became citizens, would not be permitted to vote. That applies to visa holders and.... what do we have here?

Despite his rhetoric that immigration hurts American workers, President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club is seeking to hire 61 foreign workers for the 2018 winter season, according to the Labor Department.

Trump’s “Winter White House” has applied to hire 21 cooks from other countries to work at the resort from October to May. The Palm Beach, Fla., club also wants to hire 40 foreigners for wait-staff positions.

The seasonal workers would be required to return to their home country once their H-2B visas expire.

Sometimes, foreigners are fine with this crowd, as long as they cannot vote.

Donald J. Trump is a Republican. Stephen Miller is a Republican. Laura Ingraham is a Republican. They may have multiple motives, even including animus to individuals based on their, well, cultural backgrounds. But what they want most is the election of Republicans.It's an obsession as old as Richard Nixon and Anna Chenault, Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush, and Kris Kobach. 

Share |

We'll Find Out If The Door Swings Both Ways

It is now April, 2018, and hence the right (or left) time to return to a period 48 months ago, and then 24 months ago, to two events recalled by Steve M. Four years ago we read from the Washington Times' Cheryl K. Chumley

Former CEO Brendan Eich, who’s been with Mozilla since its creation and actually helped found the company’s charitable offshoot foundation in 1998, announced this week he’s stepping down from the role over a flap generated by a $1,000 donation he made to a California campaign that sought to ban same-sex marriage in the state.

Mr. Eich made the donation five years ago, but his promotion to CEO brought the issue to the forefront once again. And the ensuing outcry from the gay rights crowd and certain Mozilla employees on social media ultimately pushed him to abandon the leadership post.

But now conservatives are striking back.

Mr. Shapiro has started a movement — complete with petition — to get as many Internet users as possible to “uninstall or cease using Mozilla,” he wrote on his website, TruthRevolt.org, replacing his traditional news content with simply the call-to-arms, Raw Story reported.

“Pardon this interruption of your TruthRevolt experience,” the message continued. “Mozilla recently forced its CEO, Brendan Eich, to resign over his personal support for traditional marriage. The firing followed a vicious smear campaign against Eich by dating website OKCupid, in which OKCupid blocked Mozilla users from visiting their website.”

Two years later there was this, from a blog post by Chumley:

A petition to boycott Target over its transgender bathroom policy has generated huge interest ...

Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and of the Christian international relief organization Samaritan's Purse, struck back hard on Facebook at Target over its recently implemented transgender policy, saying men who use women's bathrooms is a danger to the most vulnerable in society.

"I agree with the American Family Association – this policy encourages sexual predators and puts women and children in danger," Graham wrote. "A man shouldn't be able to enter the women's restroom or dressing room because he says he 'feels like a woman today.' That's ridiculous."

And now two years later still, Laura Ingraham criticized young pro-gun safety activist David Hogg, who called for a boycott of her program and took an unexpected vacation after companies took Hogg up on his challenge. The Huffington Post reports that Ingraham returned Monday night and at the end of her program

said she would launch a new segment called “Defending the First” meant to promote free speech and counter a “dangerous epidemic” she said was being sponsored by liberals.

“The left will brook no dissent, and they will militarily police the borders of their stale orthodoxy,” Ingraham said. “We will expose the enemies of the First Amendment while showcasing those brave voices for making a difference.”





Bill Maher (video below) notes "you shouldn't be doing this by teams, you should be doing it by principle." If Laura Ingraham truly is joining Maher, Salman Rushdie and others in promoting the values of free expression and liberal democracy, she ought to be welcomed. But she would then have to condemn efforts by the right- as well as the left- to shut down speech, popular and unpopular.  It's extremely unlikely she will- but if I'm surprised, I'll join the few others who will defend her.







Share |

Less Than Total Victory

On March 31, Robert Reich had a good- but for him, disappointing- take on the controversy in which

Last Wednesday morning, Laura Ingraham, Fox News’s queen of snark, tweeted that David Hogg – a 17-year-old who survived the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, and has been among the eloquent advocates for gun control – “whines about” being rejected by four universities he applied to. She linked to an article from the Daily Wire calling him a “gun rights provocateur.”

Shortly after Ingraham’s attack on Hogg, he called for Ingraham’s advertisers to boycott the show. Within days, a slew of them did just that.

As advertisers peeled off, Ingraham tried to take back her comment, saying the “spirit of Holy Week” motivated her to apologize for “any upset or hurt” she might have caused Hogg “or any of the brave victims of Parkland.”

Hogg rejected the apology. “She only apologized after we went after advertisers,” he told The New York Times. He then tweeted to Ingraham that he’d accept her apology “if you denounce the way your network has treated my friends and I in this fight. It’s time to love thy neighbor, not mudsling at children.”

If truth be told, Hogg, while pursuing a righteous cause, at least confirmed Ingraham's charge that the young man is a whiner. She did not "mudsling at children"- she threw mud at an individual (an eloquent, mature individual) who chose to engage vigorously in the political arena.  Still, as Reich would undoubtedly agree, any day without Laura Ingraham is a day with sunshine. He recognizes

 ....corporations have to keep their consumers content all the time.

Selling satisfactory products and services is necessary but often not sufficient. Customers also want to feel good about the brands they’re buying. At the least, they don’t want to associate themselves with mean-spirited vitriol. 

Liberty Mutual, the giant insurer, called Ingraham’s comments “inconsistent with our values as a company, especially when it comes to treating others with dignity and respect.” Nutrish, a pet food brand, said Ingraham’s comments “are not consistent with how we feel people should be treated.” TripAdvisor explained that Ingraham’s comments “cross the line of decency.” 

Such explanations sound as if these companies chose to drop Ingraham’s show in order to be socially responsible. In truth, they’re just being smart at doing what they’re set up to do – make money. When it comes to consumer products, cruelty doesn’t sell.

Reich realizes "companies aren't being socially responsible" when they "have quickly ended commercial relationships with famous people acccused of sexual harassment and abuse," but instead "don't want to sully their brands." He argues, convincingly, that

Companies are spending huge amounts seeking to connect their goods to consumers’ values. They know more about those values than anyone. Which suggests that Americans may have had enough cruelty – coming from Laura Ingraham, from Fox News, from Donald Trump, from the Harvey Weinsteins of the land, from whomever. 

Many companies, especially Liberty Mutual- which does not market to the Trumpian demographic- will exhibit a social conscience. However, others may discover that their consumers' values don't align with those of Liberty Mutual, Robert Reich, David Hogg, or myself, but instead those espoused by Donald Trump. These individuals do not define cruelty as antagonism toward minorities, gays, or even young liberals. 









The left may observe that it is being hoisted by its own petard if= more likely, when- conservatives decide to play by the same rules. Admittedly, abstaining from consumer boycotts like the one initiated by Hogg are unlikely to deter the right from using the same tactics it disgracefully and successfully applied against the Dixie Chicks. Still, the left should be (as is Reich) restrained in its glee.

We cannot be anywhere near certain, for instance, that after a brief absence, Ingraham's advertisers don't return. Further, there should also be a more abstract, global, and potentially more dangerous concern about going down this road. This boycott and others are begun by persons conscientously dedicated to an ideological viewpoint. However, ultimately, the sanctions are implemented by corporations, which means that corporations are playing the major role in determining what voices are silenced.

Today it is Laura Ingraham's on the right. Tomorrow it may be someone on the left, more tolerant and compassionate, even less vitriolic.  Arguably, that is the free market of ideas, and a  net gain. However, voluntarily turning more power or influence over to major corporations comes with a whole lot of dangers, now unforeseen but potentially perilous.




Share |

The Laura Ingraham Minstrel Show

Writer Nick Greene explains that on Thursday night Trump TV's Laura Ingraham was

disparaging LeBron James’ “barely intelligible, not to mention ungrammatical, take on President Trump.” Ingraham cued up a short clip from a video James, Kevin Durant, and Cari Champion made for the James-owned media platform Uninterrupted, a venture Ingraham dismissively referred to as an “ESPN podcast” despite it not being on ESPN and not being a podcast. In that clip, James says Trump “doesn’t understand the people, and really don’t give a fuck about the people,” while Durant adds that “our team, as a country, is not ran by a great coach.”

Greene  observes "if you’re offended by their words then you should probably look for one of those safe spaces that Fox News is always talking about." Mocking the athletes, Ingraham had begun

"I'm 'numb' to this commentary, 'like' must they run their mouths like that? She added

Unfortunately, a lot of kids, and some adults, take their ignorant comments seriously.  Look, there might be a cautionary lesson in Lebron for kids. This is what happens when you attempt to leave high school a year early to join the NBA and it's always unwise to seek political advice from someone who gets paid $100,000,000 a year to bounce a ball.

LeBron James is not paid $100,000,000 a year to "bounce a ball" (or that much per year).  There are millions of youngsters- let alone NBA players paid at the league's minimum salary- who can "bounce a ball."  There may be 2 or 3 individuals in world history who can bounce a ball so well while playing at the level LeBron James does, and has done.

It got worse, however, as Ingraham continued "Oh, and Lebron and Kevin, no one voted for you.  They voted for President Trump to be their coach."

Ingraham began by claiming "here's a barely intelligilble, not to mention ungrammatical, take on President Trump," a curious remark from someone unaware that "here's" is not a proper contraction. The phrase is "here is," which would be unremarkable from anyone not slamming a couple of guys for an "ungrammatical" take.

But that's not the only error from someone concerned about the mastery of English grammer of Mr.James and Mr. Durant. No one voted for President Trump, though some people will if he's still around in November, 2020. They voted for Donald J. Trump or corrupt business tycoon Donald J. Trump, for there was no President Trump at the time.

And of course the American people didn't elect Donald J. Trump. The electoral college selected him, no small distinction for someone unpopular at the time, unpopular now, and who himself kept arguing the election was "rigged."  (Ironically, Trump had a point given the intervention by the FBI and the Kremlin against his opponent, though the election was not quite "rigged.")

Denying any "racial intent," Ingraham issued a statement which read in part

In 2003, I wrote a New York Times bestseller called “Shut Up & Sing,” in which I criticized celebrities like the Dixie Chicks & Barbra Streisand who were trashing then-President George W. Bush. I have used a variation of that title for more than 15 years to respond to performers who sound off on politics. I’ve told Robert DeNiro to “Shut Up & Act,” Jimmy Kimmel to “Shut Up & Make Us Laugh,” and just this week told the San Antonio Spurs’ Gregg Popovich to “Shut up & Coach.

She doesn't believe it's possible for a guy who has won five championship rings as a coach to assert his First Amendment right while coaching reasonably successfully. Oddly, among the celebrities Ingraham doesn't believe should "shut up" is Ted "Obama, he's a piece of shit, and I told him to suck on my machine gun" Nugent. She should, however, tell the one-hit wonder to "shut up and sing." (On second thought, please spare us.)

Ingraham concludes by lecturing James and Durant to "keep the political commmentary to yourself or as someone once said 'shut up and dribble,'"   likely provoking Durant's response "to me, it was racist." That might be a little harsh for someone who merely wants to be entertained, who may be nostalgic for some predominantly southern, but clasically American, pre-1960 song-and-dance:









Share |

The Pendulum Swings Again

The jig is up. Master propagandist Kellyanne Conway won't admit it but gave Chris Cuomo an opportunity to explain it (beginning at approximately 13:00 of the video below) when he interviewed the Counsel to the President on Wednesday night.

Cuomo began "and you had the President walk into that meeting and say "Look, the wall, can be different things in different places. I'm open to- I'll agree to whtever you guys come up with." After Conway  replied "You realize part of it is mountainous," the intense but controlled Cuomo responded

No, no, not what I realize. Do you realize when the President was promising it's going to be a big, new wall all across. I'll build in in a year. People said exactly what you're saying now and he shook his head in definace and said "no, not me, that's these other guys. They're saying they're going to compromise. Not me- big, brand new wall." That's what he said- it's not a metaphor. It doesn't mean a fence, it doesn't mean sensors. It's a wall. 

That's what he said- it's not a metaphor.  It doesn't mean a fence, it doesn't mean sensors. It's a wall. He changed. He changed at the meeting- Republicans say it, Democrats say it.

The unflappable Conway, exposed as the flunky who defends whatever Trump says minute-to-minute, admitted

You know what's changed? That he has said in order to do a deal on DACA it includes a wall it includes an end to chain migration. It includes an end to the visa lottery system and what bothers a lot of folks out there-it seems including you- is that you're going to get the main tool out of the  way if he surprises you and actually does a deal on DACA. ....





Donald Trump's words have changed. He hasn't changed over the course of  the past two-and-a-half years, in the period since the Voice of the Common Man, accompanied by a trophy wife, announced his presidential candidacy at the $1.5 billion, 58-story skyscraper he owns.

He hasn't changed over the past two years, in the period since the then-primary candidate vowed "I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words."

Nor has he changed since September 1, 2015, after he first promised to build a great, geat wall on our southern border, and well before othr times he has repeated that. He had met with Hispanic Chamber of Commerce President Javier Palomerez, who stated

The Donald Trump I sat with today was hospitable, he was a gentleman. He listened much more than he spoke. He asked questions.

We continue to disagree, particularly on the wall. We agreed on this notion of mass deportation of 11 million people. And we continued to agree on the fact that we will not use Trump properties.

Hw peobably has not changed since February 2016, when he made to the New York Times editorial board off-the-record remarks which apparently contradicted his public statements, widely speculated to be about immigration.

Donald Trump probably has never believed in a wall. He did not believe in it while speaking to illegal immigration-advocate Palomarez, but does advocate it when speaking to his nativist base. It doesn't matter, because all Trump believes in is himself and his views change upon a whim, depending on whom he is speaking to.

His public position has transitioned in the past couple of days. However, now that his openness to deal with Democrats on immigration has been exposed, the President probably will have contradicted that position by the time this has been posted.

He will reverse course, for a time, because he has no point-of-view at all. He has advocated a "big, beautiful wall," opposed a wall, supported it, and now is open to a deal so he can say he has succeeded where no President ever has. He has evolved, devolved, and evolved again. Intimidated, he will back down in light of criticism from his cultural right, including that from talk-show host Laura Ingraham, who- neither deaf nor blind- on Wednesday night warned

I’m going to wait and see what the final DACA proposal looks like. But if it does not include a wall – a real wall, not a see-through wall, expect a political revolt from the base, which means losing the House and maybe even the Senate. And by the way, [ending] chain migration — absolutely necessary".... He promised them a wall — a big, beautiful wall. And unless it’s built, unless chain migration is ended, I fear, Mr. President, your most ardent supporters will write you off as just another politician who said something you really didn’t mean.




Share |

Suck It Up

Newt Gingrich is right.

I haven't said that before, and hope I never have to again. But these are strange times, indeed.

On Friday night President Trump unoficially campaigned for US Senate candidate Roy Moore by speaking, 59 miles east in Pensacola, Florida before an exuberant crowd in the Mobile, Alabama media market.

Appearing in the Florida Panhandle, in which the President is very popular, gave Trump the opportunity to promote Moore in a state- Alabama- in which the President is very popular.  It was a gift to the media and, especially, to the people of the United States of America.

Whatever Donald Trump's ignorance or emotional state, he can read polls and understand political strategy.  This race has been over for a few weeks now, once Moore stablized his support and his numbers after an initial dropoff due to his courtship, or failed courtship, of underaged females.

Yet, if polls are to be believed- which in this case they shouldn't- the outcome Tuesday probably will be close, and is quite uncertain. 

Thankfully for all, when the final tally is in, the media will be able to flatter the people of Alabama- and by extension, the American people- by suggesting that Trump made a difference. Though unpopular nationally, he is not only popular in Alabama but is, still and significantly, President of the United States of America and (not really) leader of  the free world. Voters will be said to have been aroused by the strong support he gave to his fellow conservative Republican, which compensated for (alleged) outrage at immoral behavior.

Ultimately, Roy Moore will have won because it's very difficult for a liberal or even moderate to beat a conservative or even moderate in Alabama, which may have become the most reliably Republican state in the Union. However, there will have been an additional reason, obscured by the convenient intervention of the President, for the victory of a man dubbed a "child predator."

We should have noticed when after candidate Trump's numbers declined following release of the Access Hollywood tape, they bounced back and Trump ultimately went on to a stunning victory.

Nevertheless, we didn't understand then and- whatever our recognition now- will not acknowledge it after Moore's victory.  (If Doug Jones pulls it out, I'll concede error, and be shocked. So will Trump be shocked but he won't admit it: "I wasn't even in Alabama!")

The additional reason will be: people don't care. Oh, of course, some people do care- but they already were planning to vote for the Democrat, in a situation very similar to that of the presidential race.

Disturbingly, it's Newt Gingrich who apparently understands. As a loyal Republican, he won't admit that Moore won because people are relatively unconcerned about sexual misbehavior. But he does realize that the outrage of those in the political class is not matched by actual human voters.

Ignore (if you can), the ex-congressman's evocation of the term "'lynch' mob," which should be used roughly as scarcely as "Nazi," "Holocaust," "slavery," or "Hitler." Conversing with Laura Ingraham, he cites a "weird puritanism," and starts making sense (beginning at 5:46 of the video below) with

Al Franken was a comedian. Comedians often do weird things. He was in the entertainment business. He was doing the kind of things people in the entertainment business do. Now, maybe I'm wrong but I haven't seen anything they say he's done since he was a senator.

The pont is, we're in one of those weird American moments when running around lynching people feels good...

(Representative John) Conyers had a lot of good reasons to reture, but on the other hand- no hearings, no witness. This is Venezuela, this is Cuba, this is every third world banana republic.

That may be a bit of hyperbole but is a reasonable observation, as is

I think they do it because they get together at a cocktail party, look each other in the eye and go "oh, my God, can you imagine...." 

I mean, we're in an age which by any reasonable, I mean, this is cultural anthropology to me. This is when the natives go nuts.





Gingrich went with "cocktail party" because his party of elitists is always anxious to paint the Democratic Party as the party of elitists.  However, he realizes what most people in the public eye won't admit.  It's beyond difficult for a man (to a lesser extent, a woman) to be in a situation- especially a public situation- with a woman and suggest "this really has gotten out of hand" or "we should consider the cirumstances" or even "not all crass behavior is alike."

Many people- and this includes voters- believe one of those three things, a combination of them, or at least something else which propels them to believe the current outrage far exceeds the odiousness of the behavior.

Most of those individuals will vote Republican. It is not that these folks think Trump never abused women or that Moore never atttempted to abuse girls.  They are smarter than they sometimes appear to those of us on the left- and even when not, believe some of the behavior did occur.

They believe, however, that the actions are being exploited by the left for political gain, which they would not believe if they thought that this behavior were as noxious as the media and individuals in public life clearly believe they are. In that case, they would regard the uproar and condemnation as justified or at least not brazenly, politically exploitative.

Folks are being excoriated, fired or forced to resign or otherwise penalized, for acts ranging from the brazenly criminal to the insignificant, committed recently or in the distant past.  If the likely happens Tuesday, Roy Moore will become one of 100 individuals serving in the more esteemed legislative body of the most prestigious and powerful nation in the world.  Thirteen months earlier, Donald J. Trump was elected President of the United States of America and still is President of the United States of America.

A backlash is coming. It is coming because the reality for many people is: they just don't care.



Share |

Trying To Hit That Sweet Spot

John Ellis Bush has been all over the map on illegal immigration.

As Politifact has noted, in 1994 he opposed a border fence, but was for deportation.   In 2006, he supported a broad guest worker program and citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.  In 2009, he was in favor of legalization and citizenship, but in a separate statement, supported only legalization.  In 2012, it was a path to citizenship "or a path to legalization." The following year, he advocated "a path to permanent legal resident status" because "A grant of citizenship is an undeserving reward for conduct that we cannot afford to encourage."

Now an all-but-declared candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, John Ellis Bush may have settled on the latter position. On Friday in a question-and-answer format (Bush, below) at the Conservative Political Action Conference, he remarked

The plan also includes a path to legal status. I have not seen anybody- and I know there's disagreement here. Some of these people are angry about this and look, I kind of feel your pain. I was in Miami this morning- it was 70 degrees, so.   The simple fact is there is no plan to deport 11 million people. We should give them a path to legal status where they work, they don't receive government benefits, where they don't break the law, where they learn English and where they make a contribution to our society. That's what we need to be focused on.









Legal status, legalization, residency: all terms used at one time or another by John Ellis Bush, and each a (slightly) different way to say: "you can come here and work but you're not going to be able to vote or get any benefits of American citizenship because you're just not up to our standards."

That's John Ellis Bush trying- thus far unsuccessfully- to thread the needle. The popular base doesn't want any concessions whatsoever to illegal immigrants (Laura Ingraham, below) and Bush thinks they will be mollified if he wants to deny them under all circumstances the right to vote (Democratic). Meanwhile, he knows that his numerous big money donors like the idea of letting immigrants (legal and illegal) in and having them compete with American citizens for jobs.








It's hardly surprising that the former Florida governor, the preferred candidate of the 1%, is sympathetic to increasing immigration as long as the entrants don't gain the dignity or the bargaining power of citizenship. In an article in Salon, Philip Cafaro explains the task for progressives to chip away at growing income inequality:

Harvard’s George Borjas, a leading authority on the economic impacts of immigration, contends that during the 1970s and 1980s, each immigration-driven 10 percent increase in the number of workers in a particular economic field in the United States decreased wages in that field by an average of 3.5 percent. More recently, studying the impact of immigration on African-Americans, Borjas and colleagues found that a 10 percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group reduced the wages of black workers in that group by 4 percent, lowered the employment rate of black men by 3.5 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate of blacks by almost a percentage point....

In recent decades, mass immigration arguably has harmed poorer workers and increased economic inequality in the United States. But this should not surprise us. By importing millions of poor people into the United States and setting them in competition with other poor people for scarce jobs, we drive down wages and increase unemployment among those who can least afford it. Our current era of gross economic inequality, low wages and persistently high unemployment seems like precisely the wrong time to expand immigration.

Arguably, today, progressives concerned about American workers should advocate reductions in legal immigration. After all, immigration can go up as well as down. Just as Congress increased immigration levels in the 1960s, 1980s and 1990s, it could decrease immigration levels today, at a time when tens of millions of Americans are unemployed and the majority suffers from stagnating wages. Perhaps a moratorium on non-essential immigration is in order, until the official unemployment rate declines below 5 percent and stays there for several years in a row, or until real wages for the bottom half of American workers increase by 25 percent or more. Tightening up labor markets worked post-World War II, during the golden age of the American labor movement. It can work again today (just ask the American Medical Association, which lobbies vigorously against accrediting foreign doctors).

There is good reason the AMA lobbies against bringing in foreign doctors, and a good reason John Ellis Bush is in favor of bringing in people to perform work for low-wage work in farming, building maintenance, food preparation, and other fields. They have good reason- for themselves and for the people they represent. For the rest of us- especially if immigrants don't get a clear, streamlined path to citizenship- it's a bad deal.

And in St. Louis today, it was 37 degrees. So.

Share |

Walker Leading The Red Meat Primary

Perception is reality, some people say. Actually, perception isn't reality. If it were reality, it would be spelled "reality.".

So Scott Walker recently claimed

I have two sons. … I know all of you as parents feel the same way. I want a commander-in-chief who will do everything in their power to ensure the threat from radical Islamic terrorists will not wash up on American soil. We will have someone who leads and ultimately will send the message that will protect American soil but “Do not take this upon freedom-loving people here or anywhere around the world.” We need a leader with that kind of confidence. If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world.

Some conservatives, astonishingly and boldly, criticized Walker's remarks. Once and possible future GOP candidate Rick Perry noticed "These are Americans (and) to try to make the relationship between them and the unions is inappropriate.” The National Review's Jim Geraghty found Walker's comment "insulting to the protesters, a group I take no pleasure in defending," one which "earned plenty of criticism but is "not ISIS." "The protesters in Wisconsin, asserted Geraghty, "so furiously angry over Walker’s reforms and disruptive to the procedures of passing laws, earned plenty of legitimate criticism. But they’re not ISIS."

The Republican critics, though bold given their audience of elites which believes pro-union protesters may be worse than ISIS, at least did not argue they would harm the Wisconsin governor's presidential prospects. Meanwhile, Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall stated "Walker managed to come off as offensive, callow and silly, all at the same time" while Firedoglake's GS Wright maintained "Walker either genuinely thinks unions are truly as wicked as ISIS or is incapable of articulating himself without saying something dumb and offensive."

Skepticism of Walker's comment as strategy extends even to those who ostensibly defend the governor.  John Dickerson of Slate argues the Walker argument

"is reductionist foreign policy aimed at protecting every free country across the globe is a little trickier than that- and it's a logical fallacy, but it's not a comparison.The logical fallacy is that strength in one category can be transferred to another. (You may know its cousin: If we can put a man on the moon … ) It’s also a familiar candidate gambit.

He adds, nevertheless, "At the start of his CPAC remarks, Walker said that President Obama 'thinks we grow the economy by growing Washington.' That’s not exactly a complete and fair rendering of the president’s views. Walker has just now gotten a taste of what it’s like being president."

And if he keeps doing this sort of thing, he may get halfway to president (in a sense, more than halfway) by winning his party's nomination. Steve M. quotes Laura Ingraham at CPAC (in video below, beginning at approximately 4:20) stating

But we have to realize, my friends, you go into battle with the political system you have. And we already know that the media and much of the donor class is hostile to conservatism. And guess what? That's been true for a very long time. They were joking on MSNBC this morning about Scott Walker's comment yesterday....

My friend Craig Shirley reminded me of this. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was campaigning—I think it was before the New Hampshire primary -- and he said, I know how to deal with the Soviets. I can bring them to the negotiating table. After all, I had to deal with the old studio chiefs in Hollywood. And the media, just like they did with Scott Walker, went after him. Oh, how could he compare dealing with the studio heads? And Ronald Reagan basically said, 'I have a sense of humor, and you don't.









Recognizing what the GOP has become, SM comments

Even if Ingraham is trying to help Walker to do a climbdown, she's saying his remark is being pounced on by the same sorts of evil media liberals who hated and underestimated Reagan, the greatest human being who ever walked the earth. 

How the hell does that comparison leave Walker with any lasting damage as far as rank-and-file Republicans are concerned? If you say Walker joked the way Reagan joked, how does he lose face with the voters he seeks?

SM believes Walker is hitting the sweet spot with the GOP voter base. And if he is doing so, it appears, he is accomplishing it without alienating members of the donor class with no talk of "legitimate rape," without saying their gay daughter should not be able to marry her friend, and without even suggesting any specific military response to ISIS (or any terrorist group). SM continues

By the way, I can't find Shirley's anecdote online. I searched a number of ways, including within the texts of Shirley's voluminous history of the 1980 campaign. My search skills may be failing me, but if I'm right, this never actually happened.

Then again, Reagan liked to make up stories that "proved" his point, didn't he? Reagan was criticized in the media for this, but it never seemed to do him serious harm.

Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) was the master of anecdote, some truthful and some made up, the latter no obstacle.   As of now, the only Republican contemplating a presidential run who has been at all courageous or "tough" (as Donald Trump would put it) is Rick Perry.  But his party's voters aren't looking for a candidate who will call out another politician for blasting middle-class and working-class people.  They're looking for someone who is certain who the villains are, and that they're all the same.






Share |

If A Stopped Clock Is Right Twice A Day, Laura Ingraham Can Be Right Once A Month

During the roundtable (actually, rectangular table) of Fox News Sunday on (when else?) Sunday with host Chris Wallace, this relatively insignificant faceoff (video, below) transpired:

WALLACE: Let's turn to the president's foreign policy and his speech this week at West Point. Mr. Obama set new limits on the use of U.S. force in the world. This in the same week that he announced that he's going to pull all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by the end of 2016 when he will have left office. Here is the president of West Point.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: U.S. military action cannot be the only or even primary component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Laura, is there something there that you can glean from the speech that is -- that you can call the Obama doctrine?

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I've been searching. I think the response from the cadets, the graduating class of West Point is very telling. I did listen to the entire speech. And there is little in the way of response. And it's very uncomfortable. And look, I think he is reflecting to this extent the viewpoint of many in the American public who are weary of all these military engagements. And I think more resisting to military engagements six years in, seeing the world as chaotic as it is now, Africa, Middle East and beyond. So it's true. I don't think that we are clambering (ph) to go to war. However, the idea that the president goes to West Point and says, look, we've never been stronger relative to the rest of the world, I'm sorry. That doesn't even pass the straight face test. Just on an economic front. Forget on our declining influence around the globe. So, I thought it was a very odd speech. And it was not well received. And that didn't surprise me at all given the tenor and the tone.

WALLACE: Bob, what did you think of the speech? And when you look at our intervention in Syria, our lack of intervention and role, or rather our intervention in Libya, a lack of intervention in Syria and how we play in Ukraine, is there a coherent, a cogent Obama foreign policy?

BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, there is so much talk. And I don't think talk solves lots of these problems. In foreign policy, you're trying to do two things, comfort your friends and scare the hell out of your enemies or your potential enemies. A speech like this does not have that effect. Because he said we're in effect lowering the threshold to use the military. Sometimes it is best to just be quiet and not try to theorize and not try to explain here. And I think this is the explaining is just not working. At the same time, there are two jobs the president has. And that is to protect the country and avoid unnecessary wars. And if you look at the record, you have to give Obama some credit. He's protected the country and we have not had another war or unnecessary war.

INGRAHAM: To be protective -- Benghazi diplomatic mission on 9- 11-12, I mean we kind of failed on that regard, don't you think, Bob?

WOODWARD: Well, you're underscoring my point that this will never go away, at least with you.

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: I actually don't think - I don't think it's funny when an ambassador is murdered.

WALLACE: On that somewhat cheap shot, we're going to have to leave. Thank you, panel. See you next week. Up next, our "Power Player of the Week," Fox's Bret Baier on his son's special heart and his family's inspiring journey.

Salon's Elias Isquith was not in a fair and balanced mood as he commented

Laura Ingraham’s obsession with the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi has become so comically extreme that even the Washington Post’s usually mild-mannered Bob Woodward is winning laughs by mocking her — and on a Fox News panel, no less.

It's not completely clear from the transcript, but a viewing of the video makes evident that Wallace, who began to respond during the laughter and before Ingraham's final statement, was referring to Woodward's remark as the "somewhat cheap shot."

Can we be honest?  Wallace (far more so, Isquith) was being overly generous to Bob Woodward.  The GOP has found little that would call into serious question the performance of the Administration on that day, and much of the caterwauling clearly is political posturing. But Ingraham, on this occasion, didn't sink to that level, merely arguing "we kind of failed in that regard."

That is not an offensive or even bold statement (nor piercing commentary) but an observation, and an obvious one stated in respectful, almost passive, fashion.  If Woodward could not resist responding, he might have simply reiterated that the nation has been kept safe and avoided unnecessary wars under this President. Perhaps he might have slipped in a cliche, as in  "it wasn't the high water mark for this Administration." Better yet, he could have taken his own advice of a moment earlier when he observed "Sometimes it is best just to be quiet and not try to theorize and not try to explain here."

Share |