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

'Tis the Season of Christians on Fox . . . What Category Would Huckabee Fall Into for Obama Back-Stabbing?

Reported by Julie - December 20, 2009 -

Well, spirits were high on Hannity Friday night (12/18/09). Despite Fox’ and Hannity’s disapproving frowns when Americans criticized President Bush, highly (un)educated Sean Hannity, par usual, set out to tear down President Obama and didn’t seem to make the correlation that a “rocky twelve months” for the President and his Administration meant a “rocky twelve months” for Americans – and that’s nothing to be gleeful about. Hannity also didn’t mention that Republican roadblocks (not being part of the solution, and being a big part of the problem) – and the President’s initial attempts to be bi-partisan – stood in the way of some of the President’s goals. Hannity didn’t, of course, take into consideration the record number of huge issues that the President faced when he took office. But, as is always the case with Hannity, it was more important to him to take swipes at President Obama than to intellectually and intelligently talk about the issues attendant to his tough first year. On hand to help Hannity meet his goals of superior smugness, ultimate gloating, snide asides and ha-ha, nudge-nudge little-boy giggling was Mike Huckabee, Mr. “Family Values,” Fox News contributor, and . . . Christian? In this season of love and giving, what in the world would Jesus say about Huckabee’s harshly unforgiving (but fun-filled nonetheless) session of back-stabbing? With video.

Kicking it off, Hannity proclaimed, “The President was quick to make a number of bold promises to you [fat finger pointing] the American people . . . The President claimed he would close Gitmo within a year but we now know that’s not gonna happen . . . the President claimed he would stop reckless spending and veto all earmarks but . . . signed the Omnibus spending bill this week that contained thousands of pet projects . . . the President claimed his stimulus plan . . . would put Americans back to work . . . unemployment has climbed to record levels . . . At this point in this presidency Barack Obama is one of the most unpopular American presidents in American history . . . .”

Let’s talk about the “unpopular” thing for a minute – I direct you to a Roper Center historical presidential approval survey.


President Obama’s lowest approval rating of 46% is still one of the highest “lowest approval” numbers – definitely higher than any of the last four presidents, including Fox News’ God, Ronald Reagan, who plummeted to a 35% approval rating, and W, who saw a dismal 19% approval rating during his presidency. All of the presidents in the survey except Kennedy saw their approval ratings slip below 50% during their presidencies, and only Kennedy, Eisenhower and Roosevelt had marginally higher “lowest approval” numbers than President Obama. And President Obama’s average approval rating over the past year is 58%, surpassed only by Bush, Sr., Kennedy and Eisenhower.

Enter Huckabee . . . Hannity gushed over Huckabee’s “great year,” plugged the book -- go.

Mr. Christian wasted no time in being Hannity’s kind of funster, saying, “It’s been a great year, and I’ve been able to keep a lot more of my promises than Barack Obama has his.” I’m not sure what kind of promises Huckabee has made, but he’s certainly keeping his promise to Fox News that he will love, honor and obey its right-wing, anti-Obama agenda. Kudos, there.

Hannity asked Huckabee to give the President an “overall grade,” noting that President Obama gave himself a strong B+, and if healthcare passes, an A-.

Huckabee and Hannity shared a BFF chuckle when Huckabee said, “That’s the danger of letting students grade their own papers . . . I would be charitable to give him a C-, I’d probably give him a D+ . . . ,” noting that President Obama had enough “political capital in the bank” when he took office that he should have accomplished greater things.

Huckabee took a stab at “fair and balanced,” saying, “Some of the promises that he made, to be fair to him, are not promises that he can absolutely keep because they depend upon circumstances . . . .”

“Oh, stop,” Hannity cried, clearly horrified that one of his carefully selected guests would waste even one second giving President Obama a fair shake when they could be using that second to degrade him.

Huckabee was quick to point out, “I’m not letting him off the hook . . . some of the promises he made are process promises and he just flat didn’t keep him . . . he’s broken more promises than Tiger Woods and I’m not sure we can give him a Mulligan . . . his approval ratings are absolutely in the tank.”

Okay, now that Tiger Woods comment was a low blow, even for this pair – in a comparison between morally corrupt Tiger Woods and President Obama, the only similarity I can see is that they’re both half black. And President Obama has clearly never expected a “Mulligan,” especially from Fox or, for that matter, any Republican. As for his approval ratings being in the tank, yes, his approval has slipped below 50%, but “in the tank,” in my opinion, would be more like, say, Bush’s 19% number during his presidency, or Reagan’s 35% approval rating during his. Funny, neither Huckabee nor Hannity took the time to evaluate the President’s poll numbers relative to a historical perspective.

With regard to transparency, Huckabee gave the President an F.

As for earmarks, President Obama again got an F from Huckabee.

Huckabee gave the President a “big fat F” on the lobbyists, because he made such a presentation on how he was “going to be so different.”

Hannity brought up his favorite bashing tool, the economy – whatever will Hannity do if the economy continues to improve? – sneering that President Obama predicted a catastrophe and a disaster if we didn’t pass the $787 billion stimulus and here we are with unemployment at 10%. Leading Huckabee, Hannity queried, “F?”

Huckabee softened, saying he would give the President a “D,” because President Obama believed that it would prevent our economy from going over the cliff.

“So his intentions were good,” Hannity said.

“I’m not even gonna go that far,” Huckabee chided. “I’m not being as charitable as you think I am . . . he controls his veto pen, he controls whether he opens up those meetings and lets people in . . . he does not have total command of the economic impact of jobs.”

According to Huckabee, the “best thing” President Obama has done in his presidency was “On a presidential level, his speech at West Point” where he had the “audacity” to go out there and say terrorism is a threat and sometimes war is necessary.

Hannity protested, “But the problem is that he goes to West Point and he’s again apologizing for America . . . he only gives General McChrystal three-quarters of what he wants . . . He’s pulling out in 18 months . . . He mentions war on terrorist but he spent the entire prior eleven months telling us we don’t have a war on terrorism, so I believe it’s political.”

Hannity, as he frequently is when wielding his rabidly anti-Obama sword, is wrong. Simply because the Obama Administration chose different language, perhaps, to describe the war on terror doesn’t mean President Obama doesn’t recognize, and defend against, the threat of terrorism. As noted by Daniel Klaidman of Newsweek, “Dismantling the CIA's enhanced-interrogation program and shuttering Gitmo are substantive reforms that improve our global image. The counterterror policies that remain—including indefinite military detention and warrantless wiretapping—are now on firmer legal footing. Obama's lawyers have sought the input of Congress and the blessing of the courts . . . These changes . . . represent a critical conceptual shift. Under Bush, policy sometimes seemed to be driven as much by a desire to vindicate ideology as a need to protect the American people . . . Obama starts from a different premise: that the tools we rely on to combat terrorism should be grounded in the rule of law and subject to congressional and judicial review. But don't mistake Obama's faith in American values for Pollyannaish optimism. His view of the world is tragic—he understands we're up against a nihilistic enemy. That allows for the possibility of steering the law in ways that may not be entirely consistent with our ideals . . . His is a carefully balanced approach that does not lend itself to pithy slogans. It reflects a melding of hardheaded realism and aspirational idealism that looks to be the hallmark of an emerging Obama doctrine.”

The worst thing the President has done, per Huckabee, was, “The fact the total mismanagement of the economy . . . absolute train wreck . . . [He] does not understand the free enterprise system, does not understand how capitalism works because he’s never participated in it . . . if you’ve never run anything even so much as a snow cone stand . . . .” If we just humor Huckabee for a moment and presume what he says is true – then what was George W’s excuse for creating the economic disaster that President Obama found on his desk when he took office? W, after all, was a businessman: He formed Arbusto Energy, put together a syndicate to buy the Texas Rangers baseball team, and ultimately got rich off the erection of a ballpark in Arlington, Texas – all things, by Huckabee’s logic, that should have kept Bush from creating the “train wreck” that President Obama inherited.

Hannity protested that it goes deeper than that, and he and Huckabee chorused, “His world view.”

Hannity prompted, “His world view . . . he has a deeply radical world view – fair?”

“His world view,” Huckabee said, “Is that government’s job is to basically help people because they’re too dumb to take care of themselves . . . government’s job is to referee the game and do not get involved in the outcome . . . .” Actually, given his past comments, Huckabee no doubt believes that it’s God’s job to “referee the game” – in fact, in January 2008, Huckabee stated that we need to “amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”

Hannity then made clear why he was so gleeful at the President’s declining poll numbers – he believed it to be an indicator that the Republicans were back in the game.

“2010, the Republican Party, if they stand on conservative principles,” Hannity said, dreaming big, “. . . There is a big difference on healthcare, Republicans have been strong, cap and tax, stimulus, Omnibus, on Afghanistan, on the war on terror . . . They are positioned to do very well in 2010 if they stand on those conservative values.” What Republicans have been “strong” on has been opposition without reason – but as reported by Politifact, according to a CBO analysis, the Republican health care plan put forward by John Boehner in November would only “reduce the number of uninsured by only about 3 million people (as opposed to 31 million in the Reid plan).”

Huckabee chided Hannity gently, reminding him that they also “have to be consistent on the issues of sanctity of life and marriage,” and claimed that those issues move Hispanics and African Americans toward the Republican Party. Really? If I’m not mistaken, a majority of Hispanics and African Americans voted for pro-choice candidate Obama in 2008, despite the fact that McCain’s running-mate, Sarah Palin, hammered that whole “sanctity of life” thing and McCain, though at times fuzzy on his abortion stance, stated that he supported the “rights of the unborn”.

Hannity should just cut to the chase from now on and tell viewers that he’s happy as hell that the President isn’t meeting all of his goals, he’s jumping for joy that the President’s approval rating is suffering, and he couldn’t care less about the future of America. Hey, if Americans suffer as a result of President Obama’s inability to meet his goals, it’s well worth it to keep surfing to higher ratings on what Hannity deems to be President Obama’s failures. We all know that Hannity’s faithful would never, ever tolerate even a second spent on President Obama’s successes. Even Bill O’Reilly has Obama-bashing limits.