will Fox News lean left?

At last glance, President Bush had the highest disapproval rating, 69%, of a U.S. president in the 70 history of the gallop poll. At was not always this low, in fact, after 9/11, Bush, was in fact one of the most popular presidents as the nation banded together in light of the terrorist attacks.

One organization that gained a lot of momentum following 9/11 and our run-up to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was Fox News, with its right leaning media coverage. Fox News made a living heralding the Bush administration, demonizing liberal elites, the far-left media conspiracy, painting war protesters as unpatriotic, etc. America ate it up, after all, there were terrorists running amuck and boy were we mad. Fox News is a business triumph any way you look at it, they are the number one rated cable news network and subsequently, the advertising dollars have rolled in, and the administration has been especially conciliatory towards Fox News, gracing them with exclusive interviews with President Bush and other members of the Executive Branch which have largely shut off access when it comes to other networks.

I am curious how Fox News will proceed in the coming years. As I mentioned before, President Bush is the most unpopular President in modern history, presidential candidate John McCain while being a Republican is still distrusted and hated by a significant portion of his own party, and Barack Obama (or Hillary Clinton for that matter) seems well positioned to be our next President of the United States. Come 2009, the Executive Branch will most likely be run by a Democrat, the House and Senate will probably still have a Democratic majority, your average American thinks the Republican party is full of out-of-touch idiots, Republicans can't recognize their own party anymore, the economy is in a tailspin caused in my opinion by the deregulation of the housing and credit markets, and politics for the most part have made a complete 180 in favor of anyone who is not associated with the neo-conservatives.

I think with America growing increasingly disillusioned with the right wing, it is inevitable that viewership moves back towards left leaning/centrist MSNBC and CNN. You just don't make money by pursuing an opinion that few people embrace. Next year are people still going to want to hear from Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Nancy Grace, and Glenn Beck drumming us to increasing anti-immigrant fervor, made up facts, blaming Democrats, screaming at people for not supporting the troops, and boycotting companies for ridiculously tenuous ties? No, I don't think so. I think regular Americans will be able to tell that 8 years of majority Republican rule led to failed foreign policy, failed economic policy, uncompetitive wages, job loss, and soldiers being over stretched and under-provided for. I think it's pretty obvious to most people that 8 years of Bush didn't lead to a better America. McCain still seems like he's part of the Bush club.

Fox News is a business; it is still part of News Corporation. How is Fox News going to change and adapt to a shifting American political sentiment? When Scott McClellan comes out and writes a book basically saying, the Bush administration misled us into Iraq, the media didn't hold him responsible, outlets like Fox News facilitated the move to war, are people really going to believe it when Fox News analyst, Karl Rove, comes out and says "oh he's full of it" and the network and White House try to paint him as a disgruntled employee that wants to sell books? Fox News will have to change; otherwise ratings are going to drop like a rock. I think Rupert Murdoch knows this. I am curious what kind of content changes are going to be made, if punches will be pulled back, if zealous right wingers will be pulled out of prime time slots?

Recently, Rupert Murdoch had this to say about Obama and McCain:

[speaking about Obama]. "He's become a rock star. It's fantastic... he may not carry Florida because the Jewish people are suspicious of him and so are the Hispanics... but he'll probably win in Ohio and who knows... he'll probably win [the election]"... Personally I want to meet Obama, I want to know , is he going to walk the walk. If you read his education policy, it's just great, he's got a revolution there, the education system in this country is a total disgrace... He wants a break with the past, I do know that he is a highly intelligent man with a great record at Harvard, at the Law Review, and I just hope he's as good as he promises."

[Speaking about McCain]. " He has been in Congress a long time, and you have to make a lot of compromises... So what's he really stand for?... He's a patriot, he's a friend of mine, he's a decent guy but he's unpredictable. He doesn't know much about the economy, and I say this sympathetically, I think he has a lot of problems."

Murdoch seems to be jumping on to the Obama band wagon, We'll have to wait and see if he directs Fox News to follow in step.

John McCain on Political Expedience

John McCain opposes Senator Jim Webb's updated GI bill citing that his opposition to the bill was the principled and right view and not the politically expedient viewpoint. For your reference the bill is officially titled: WEBB-HAGEL-LAUTENBERG-WARNER G.I. BILL “POST-9/11 VETERANS EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE ACT” (S.22). McCain supports another bill, the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention and Readjustment Through Education Act (S.2938), which I will compare later (at least to some degree).

First some background. Both the S.22 bill and it's Republican alternative S.2938, serve as an updated GI bill in the same scope as the GI Bill that was introduced to our armed forces post WWII. This is especially important at the present time as the military is finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain members during a war that has entered its 5th year.

McCain argues that he knows the military better than supporters like presidential candidate, Barack Obama, and that support for Senator Webb's bill is political and not based on sound reason. He argues that passage of the GI bill will hurt retention by encouraging service members to leave the military to go back to school. This is not a subject I'm going to tackle today, but I do think that McCain's train of thought is short sighted and mistaken. The original Montgomery GI Bill was not created for purposes of retention, the spirit of the bill was to reward our men and women in the military for their service to their country, to avoid a post-war abundance of job seekers, and to stave off a post-WWII depression. Until I write something with more depth, I would refer you to Jim Webb's fact sheet on the subject for now. http://webb.senate.gov/pdf/factsheetgi52208.pdf

Now what is curious about McCain calling this support politically expedient is two-fold.

First, the Senate passed this bill 75-22. 75!! This is in a Senate that has a hard time passing any kind of legislation together. Tell me more. The bill had 58 co-sponsors including:

Daniel Akaka (D)- Chairman of the Committee on Veteran's Affairs & WWII Army veteran
(actually all of the WWII vets in the Senate are co-sponsors, Akaka, Inouye, Lautenberg, and Warner)
Chuck Hagel (R)- Vietnam Veteran
Jim Inhofe (R)- "Mr. Global Warming is a Hoax!" and Army veteran withdrew sponsorship
Richard Lugar(R)- Navy veteran
Arlen Specter(R)- Airforce veteran
John Warner(R)- Navy and Marine Corps veteran, WWII veteran, and former Secretary of the Navy
and of course...
Jim Webb(D)- Vietnam War veteran, Marine Corps veteran, former Assistant Secretary of Defense, and former Secretary of the Navy

Oh I guess I should add that this bill is "endorsed by all major military and veterans’ associations but is opposed by the Pentagon and VA"- Army Times. (The Pentagon and McCain think the bill will hurt retention in the military and the VA thinks it will create too much work for them)

In fact, almost every single Senate member with military experience is a co-sponsor (interesting note, I had no idea such a large number of Senators had military experience). So what McCain is trying to tell me is that all of these Senators that decided to co-sponsor the bill were doing so because of political expedience? All of them. I am supposed to believe that John McCain is one of the few members of the US Senate with military experience that is being principled and not doing it to look good, and not doing it because it's in the best interests of our troops and veterans? I have a hard time believing that McCain has a monopoly on straight talk and truthiness.

The second aspect to McCain's opposition is the fact that he supports a gas tax holiday. Let's talk about political expedience. Not one economist in the country thinks a gas tax holiday is a good idea. The experts, unanimously think it's a bad idea and McCain thinks it's the right thing to do, am I now supposed to believe that the straight talk express is supporting the right move and not the politically expedient one? McCain, politically willing to say anything, showing his age, or secretly right?

do you hate capitalism?

Friday afternoon I was at the Barack Obama rally in the Bank Atlantic Center in Sunrise, FL. To my right hand side, I had some friends from work, a libertarian, a conservative, and a democrat. My friend next to me, the libertarian, repeated something I've heard a lot over the years. When he heard Obama tear into the oil companies over skyrocketing profits and rising prices at the pump, he chuckled, "can't a company make a dollar these days? people just hate capitalism".

I can almost guarantee you wouldn't hear that kind of thing from someone poorer than us, but it's the kind of principled economic stance that you hear from a lot of people that stray further to the right of the political spectrum. I hear it a lot, how can you be mad at a company that is successful? How can you admonish them for doing well? It's not that surprising to hear that though, we're as single person households, in I would estimate the 90th percentile of income in the United States, if not higher. We are successful, we work hard, and nobody should penalize us for making a dollar. That's why, at least I think, I hear a lot of complaints about taxes and tirades of "liberals being against capitalism". Full disclosure, I own ExxonMobil stock and I have since I was 14 (it's not like I don't like to make money).

Unfortunately, cases like Exxon Mobil are different. Their profit is huge. It's not the fact that they make money that bothers me, it's that the way they take care of their business partners, whether they are the land owners, station owners, surrounding community, etc. Taking care of anyone that is not Exxon Mobil is something to be desired.

During Obama's speech, Obama spoke of how Americans need to band together, especially in difficult times; a new age of nationalism and community. During a time when rising gas prices are on the forefront of the American consciousness, what are companies like ExxonMobil doing? Joining forces with the consumer to get through a rough patch? More like diving into a Scrooge McDuck style money pool. Investment into alternative energy? Not really. Directing their millions of lobbying dollars towards something consumer friendly? You're dreaming. Do people like me hate capitalism? No, but it's a little infuriating when normal people can't even make a living selling Exxon Mobil's gas at the gas station. I can tell you where Exxon's 2007 $40 billion profit didn't go.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/24/AR2008052401961.html