Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

"Two Minutes of Hate" Dedicated to Republican "Unfriendlys"

Reported by Janie - August 18, 2006 -

During last night's "Special Report" (8/17) the entire "Two Minutes of Hate" (AKA "Grapevine") segment was dedicated to Democrats, and those considered "unfriendly" to the Bush Administration.

Hume started off with a Fox "favorite", Jimmy Carter:

Carter's Concern

"Jimmy Carter says he's concerned that Arab hatred of the United States will only continue to grow given the Bush administration's support for what he calls Israel's "unjustified attack" on Lebanese civilians.

Carter tells Germany's Der Spiegel: "I don't think Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon."

He adds: 'What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza.'

Comment: Fair and Balanced? Why not mention Conservatives that agree with or are on the same wave length as Carter? It's only newsworthy when a Democrat makes a statement Fox doesn't agree with?

Hume next set his sights on Ned Lamont:

Tables Turned?

"Connecticut Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman — who's now running for re-election as an independent — now leads the man who beat him in the Democratic primary by 12 points in a poll of likely voters of both parties.

Lieberman tops liberal Democrat Ned Lamont 53 percent to 41 percent in a new Quinnipiac poll, winning the support of 75 percent of Republicans.

Meanwhile, Lamont is working hard to recast himself as a more moderate Democrat for the general election. In a Wall Street Journal article, Lamont says he believes in employer-based universal health care, which would '[provide] tax benefits to small businesses so they can provide insurance without risking bankruptcy.'

But Lamont blasted Lieberman for the same tax benefit plan three months ago saying, 'He generally has not embraced a lot of the Democratic goals.'

Comment: Hume implies that Lamont is not "moderate" by claiming Lamont is attempting to "recast" himself for the impending election. Does simply being against the war make you "far left" these days? What is Hume basing his judgment on? There's nothing to insinuate that Lamont isn't moderate except the far right's talking points.

At the same time Hume is painting the picture that Lieberman is moderate, when in fact he is much further to the right.

And of course, Hume is misrepresenting Lamont's stance on employer-based universal healthcare.

Lamont's stand from the WSJ article: "That's why I believe in an employer-based health-care system that covers everyone, and providing tax benefits to small businesses so they can provide insurance without risking bankruptcy."

And three months ago, Lamont had this stance:

"Employers should be required to pay their fair share for insurance for all full-time employees, and that all uninsured children must be covered. The federal government must provide subsidies to those who can not afford health care and help small employers buy into a pool to reduce costs and protect against catastrophic expenses. We have not made universal healthcare affordable and available to all Americans. This must change. A basic health benefit is the right of every American."

Source: Campaign website, www.NedLamont.com May 2, 2006

Doesn't sound like Lamont has changed his opinion in the last three months at all!

On to Iraq war critics:

Iraq War Flip-Flop

"The White House is pointing the finger at commentator Joe Klein of TIME magazine, saying the critic has completely reversed himself on the war in Iraq.

In this week's issue, Klein writes that the president's 'disastrous decision to go to war transformed Iraq into a terrorist Valhalla.'

But just before the war, White House official Pete Wehner notes that Klein told NBC's Tim Russert that war was 'the right decision,' saying: 'Saddam Hussein has to be taken out.'

Klein argued that: 'The message has to be sent because if it isn't sent now it empowers every would-be Saddam out there and every would-be terrorist out there.'

Comment: So changing your mind four years later, after seeing that Saddam had no terror ties and no WMDs, after seeing how poorly managed the war has been run, is wrong in the eyes of Fox? Hypocritical even? No wonder this country is moving backwards, reassessing a situation is anathema to Fox and the GOP!

And last, but certainly not least, the judge that ruled the NSA warrantless wiretapping was unconstitutional yesterday:

Scandalous Past?

"The judge who ruled against the NSA secret surveillance program was accused of 'judge shopping' a suit against the University of Michigan Law school in 2002 to preserve the school's affirmative action admissions process.

The Wall Street Journal reports Judge Anna Diggs Taylor tried to take the case away from Judge Bernard Freedman — who was suspected of being critical of affirmative action — and replace him with someone more favorable to the school's position.

She dropped that attempt only after Freedman publicly condemned her 'highly irregular' efforts.

Comment: According to Conservative John H. Fund, there's a bit more to the story that should have been included in any "fair and balanced" report. While it might not exonerate the charges, full disclosure would have been appropriate rather than the quickly thrown together hit-piece on Diggs Taylor.

"That judicial scandal began when the University of Michigan filed a motion to consolidate two separate challenges--one involving the law school and one involving undergraduate admissions--on the theory that they were companion cases. Observers suspected the university wanted to push Judge Friedman out so Judge Patrick Duggan could hear both cases. Anna Diggs Taylor, then the District Court's chief judge, established a highly unusual two-judge panel to hear the motion. Judge Friedman asserted his authority under long-established procedural rules to keep the case and excoriated Judge Taylor for what he viewed as an effort to transfer both cases to Judge Duggan. Judge Duggan in turn later ruled in favor of the university in the undergrad admissions case."

What? No Republicans do anything that warranted a story yesterday? Of course not - this is Fox!