Majority Punditry In Midst of Identity Crisis

This is an objective observation about the slow demise of objective news.

Liberal punditry has scored some big time victories this decade. Not only has their voice been made legitimate, but they have taken once-straight-news organizations,most notably MSNBC, and made them their own. Conservatives are left with talk-radio and FoxNews, which has never sought to be objective, and therefore has always lacked a degree of credibility, as far as most are concerned.

The Fairness Doctrine, once ballyhooed by the Left as necessary to counter the formerly dominating Conservative punditry on the radio, with the likes of Limbaugh, especially, has been aptly dropped; They've staked their claim on television and blogs, as blogs are typically driven by a younger crowd and younger crowds often lean leftward.

But in order for these people to establish a reign, they're going to have to appeal to a minority they soundly oppose. Which is of course nonsense.

Watching Hardball last night was anything but Hardball.

The openly biased Chris Matthews, whose contract was extended past the next presidential election, tossed softballs up to fellow Democrats about the salvation of Obama's budget, in between talking about how happy and glowing he is all of the time these days (not kidding, he said that).

My favorite line: "The economy. Republicans don't have a plan. Democrats have one. Back after this."

Well, that's newsworthy.

If it were really hardball political analysis, he might be more concerned with how this Democratic majority will handle the budget and all of its ambitions agenda points and not how the Republicans will be powerless to stop it. The bit about the GOP isn't news; It's olds.

Olbermann has been particularly hackable. Bush and his cronies remain in the headlines, showing you how pointless Olbermann's headlines are. "BREAKING NEWS" isn't a question of whether or not Bush was the worst President ever. I'm not even sure breaking news should be a question to begin with. Sure, George W. Bush was terrible. But there's nothing else to be done about it. He's out. Obama's in. Obama's in the White House. Bush doesn't even have a house, he lives in a Dallas condo.

Same goes for Maddow and the rest. Lamenting over the past is not news. In fact, the news isn't even their business anymore.

And therein lies their deal with the devil. By abandoning objectivity, they have sought to merely be weapons of the minority plight, which is all well and good, until you become the majority.

Want to know why O'Reilly is all over Olbermann's 'Worst People in the World'? Because he's thrashing Olbermann in the ratings. The conservative voice, while not necessarily missed just yet, merely a few months out of the Bush era, will continue to grow.

You heard nary a peep out of Rush Limbaugh during the Republican dominance of the early century. These days he's being labeled as the face of the whole franchise, which only helps his cause.

I started this as some kind of vocal plea for these "news" anchors to get over Bush and start being real journalists about the current President. But that won't work. I think it's the ebb and flow. They'll be down again, just like they were during the Clinton years, while conservative radio surged.

Then they were back up during their Minority Glory. I suspect the cycle will roll on.

Limbaugh vs. Obama Leaves Little For the Imagination

So there's been a dust up in the wee-hours of President Barack Obama's four-to-eight year tenure in the Executive branch, though not between legislators, as he has sufficient ammunition in both the House and the Senate.

It's between Obama and Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talking head of radio and early 90's lore.

Apparently on Rush's program, while lamenting the $825 kajillion stimulus that irks most conservatives, he went so far as to say that not only does he hope the stimulus package fails, but that he wants Obama himself to fail.

"My response? My response is only four words," Limbaugh spouted. "I want him to fail."

When the President began addressing a collection of House Republicans — who unanimously voted against the package — Obama quipped, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

That'll show 'em.

Now the media is really charging this thing up to make it a much-ballyhooed heavyweight slug match between the forces of the Right and the Left. Maybe it's because there's no one left in active governance who can pose a formidable challenge to Obama and his Leftward Legion. Maybe it's because Rush is just that type of explosive personality who will generate discourse and viewership.

Maybe there just hasn't been a decent heavyweight boxing match in years, a decline possibly brought on by the advent of UFC cage fighting or perhaps the growing gargantuan and therefore sluggish size of current heavyweight boxers. Why does Radio Shack ask for your phone number when you buy batteries?

I don't know. But I digress.

There are not only problems with the fight, but a fundamental flaw in the fight to begin with. It's a real cart-before-the-horse thing, only now the carriage is flying at about 88 miles per hour. And there's plenty of blame to go around on both sides.

First off, for the Rushians (MOTHERLAND!!!). What the hell, man. This was just a stupid thing to say. Limbaugh is a very influential person. I'll even take that further; he's really, genuinely funny. He often makes great points, and was a bludgeon for the Newtonians who took charge of the Legislature in 1994.

But the stimulus package is about more than just President Obama. The President of the United States has thrown all of his chips in on this economic package for the good of the American people. This is not an endorsement of that plan; I think it does lack a certain rigidity you'd expect when throwing skyscrapers full of money at a problem. But this is the apparent way we're going to go, or at least something like it, as even the GOP's idea still throws billions and billions and billions of dollars at the problem.

But the result is serious, either way. American well-beings hang in the balance, and to call for this plan, for the Presidency to fail is bush-league. Vote against him, call for others to vote against him, do everything you can to bend the powers-that-be to what you may have rationally concluded is the best course of action. But to hope that Obama fails?

Had Matthews or Olbermann called for Bush to fail in Iraq, although a depression isn't as serious as war, Limbaugh would have been up in arms. Both deal in livelihoods.

But then Obama had to give this guy a credible voice. In my line of journalism, I've run across a number of constructive criticisms and vicious complaints, often an indistinguishable line. The best course of action to malevolent complaints and fits of irrational ill-will is to ignore completely. Just walk away; they're only words after all.

Then the usually tame and inclusive Obama sent a divisive cheap shot to the capable faculties of House Republicans. No one wants to be told they aren't thinking for themselves, or that they're being manipulated by a larger puppeteer. It's quite a shot to the ego, especially if the puppeteer is a radio talk show host. And let's face it — the Legislature isn't filibuster proof. If Obama really wants to be bipartisan, which I believe he honestly does, such remarks aren't warranted, and only give credibility where it is apparent credibility is undue.

So now this thing is a big talking point mess, which is to say a mess of BS. Media hither and yon are really talking up this brouhaha, ad naseum and ad barf-eum. But the end result cancels out; Rush will spew whatever is on his mind (be it his own thought or his own need to simply grab attention), Obama will slip up and get divisive, but only every once in awhile, and the stimulus package will either work or it wont, regardless of what anyone has to editorialize about it.

The two cancel out each other. End result: Nothing much. Kinda makes you wonder what the last 62 column inches were all about in the first place.