If you’re a regular On The Record watcher you know that the show frequently begins with a clip from Rush Limbaugh, even though Fox likes to tout host Greta Van Susteren as their liberal commentator. But on Tuesday (7/30/13), On The Record outdid itself with “balancing” Van Susteren’s liberal views: an entire hour of Limbaugh. Given how few questions Van Susteren asked, how she failed to challenge the conservative hate coming out of his mouth, it must have been like Christmas in July for Fox viewers. Think the “fair and balanced” network will be hosting Michael Moore or Jesse Jackson or Randi Rhodes for a full hour of spouting off on prime time? Don’t make me laugh!
Apparently, devoting the hour to Limbaugh wasn't enough. FoxNews.com showcased the segments, too.
Van Susteren introduced the first segment, which lasted more than 19 minutes, by saying, “In a rare interview, Rush tells us President Obama likes scandals.” Her first “question” to Limbaugh was little more than an invitation to attack Obama over one of her favorite memes: “President Obama says the scandals are phony. Why do you think he says they’re phony? Because he believes it? Or is there a strategy?”
That was also an opportunity for Limbaugh to promote his “Limbaugh Theorem” which Fox has been hyping.
The theorem is little more than an accusation that American voters ignorantly re-elected President Obama because they like him personally and didn’t pay attention to all those scandals the likes of Fox and their Republican allies have been doing their best to throw at him.
Here is a man whose policies have done great damage to this country (a banner on the screen helpfully repeated that line), policies that have done great damage to the economy, have done great damage to the American culture, to the American psyche. …And what has always amazed me is how he’s not attached to any of it. He has an agenda, he’s been implementing it. But what I call the low-information voters, who voted for him and other Democrats, do not associate Obama’s policies and agenda with the condition of the country. …That’s always befuddled me. I’ve never, never known a president to be immune from economic circumstances in an election as he was in 2012.
Limbaugh continued by saying, “It all became clear" to him after reading a New York Times article (yes, a New York Times article) that said most people disapprove of “the Obama agenda.”
My theory is that Obama has positioned himself as an outsider, not attached to anything that’s happening. What he has made happen, he positions himself as opposed to it and against it, and fighting for everybody else to overcome what he has done. And that’s one of the reasons why the constant campaign. So he doesn’t appear to be governing. So he doesn’t appear to be part of Washington. He appears to have this mysterious, powerful bunch of forces that are opposing him and stopping him from creating jobs. And stopping him from giving people proper healthcare. And stopping him from making their home values go up. And he’s constantly out there fighting it. And he does that by constantly campaigning and never seen to be governing.
There’s plenty you could criticize in President Obama’s governing style. But to accuse him of making up a “mysterious, powerful bunch of forces” blocking him is hardly credible given the Republicans’ obstructionism. Yet Van Susteren sat in rapt silence throughtout as though Limbaugh were some kind of political oracle.
Call all radio programs across the nation and remind the masses of his detainment over Viagra.
And another one from Murdoch:
And guess what, everybody? Pt 2 of the Rush infomercial is Friday! He’s going to open up about his personal life!
Interviews like this must be pointed out, for all those who would consider van Susteren anything other than a right wing host who’s comfortable with even the most extreme rhetoric that Fox News can muster.
Greta Van Suckup is normally unchallenging when the subject is a Repug. And when the subject is a teabagger icon like OxyRush or the Whore of Babble-On Palin, Van Suckup is invisible. Toss out a fluff question and then sit back and watch OxyRush or the Whore bloviate endlessly.
I’ll say it again. Just because she doesn’t bloviate pompously like Hannity or O’Reilly doesn’t make her not a right-winger.
As I said below, it’s absolutely relentless GOP-TV start to finish. On the rare occasion she has a guest who doesn’t toe the GOP party line, like that FBI guy who made a fool of her the other night about the Benghazi investigation, she freaks out.
“The Clinton thing” referred to is her hosting of a very good legal analysis show on CNN before she went to Fox that was mostly preoccupied with the Paula Jones suit against Clinton and all that followed. She wasn’t particularly pro-Clinton, but she is a defense lawyer who knows her stuff on what’s kosher and what isn’t in the legal system, so she regularly called people on their BS. The GOPers didn’t like that, so decided she had to be pro-Clinton.
“O’Reilly asked Van Susteren if she was a liberal or a conservative, “because with the Clinton thing, people felt that you were liberal because you defended him.” “It depends on the issue,” she responded. “And I’m not dodging you … but you know, I call it like I see it.”
Greta likes to keep us guessing, or doesn’t feel it’s important that she reveals her political affiliation. It doesn’t matter to me really. What does is their insistence that the show is “fair & balanced.”
One of several tricks they use is the call screener wants to know what you want to say to give the host time to prepare (which I understand and think is fair) but then they put you on hold for over an hour and while you wait and wait it can make you feel nervous and/or inpatient while the host has the advantage of being in his daily comfort zone. Each time I felt I managed to have a civil conversation without being insulting to him and when I was making my points while disagreeing with his he or his producer would use the old radio trick of cutting off the caller while Rush goes on for about two minutes to create the illusion to the audience that he has the final word leaving the caller speechless, when you can’t respond because they hung up on you.
In any case, the only way in which she “balances” Hannity et al is in temperament, although she’s been going on agitated rants more and more often in the last year.
And I don’t know who got the idea she’s “close to” the Democratic Party. She isn’t and never has been. As a genuine feminist, she’s a fan of Hillary Clinton’s, but then she’s also a big fan of Sarah Palin, to whom her husband has been an adviser of some sort for years, for the same reason.
Please don’t enable the Foxist propaganda and lazy media meme that Van Susteren is somehow either “liberal” or even “fair and balanced.” She’s not and never has been.
So who’s said she’s “liberal” other than you?
In a way, It’s kinda sad that FOX’s liberal prime time host (or so they claim) never gets to put any liberals on her show. Think about it. If she is truly a liberal (I disagree), and feels it’s important to have a fair & balanced debate on the issues, then it makes one wonder just how happy she is about being at FOX. Personally, it would drive me crazy having to listen only to conservative viewpoints for 10 years straight with the occasional non-conservative guest. How boring! They would have to pay me a heck of a lot more than they are paying her.
Imagine him against a trained journalist that knows how to give a tough interview.
She’ll never challenge Rush for obvious reasons. Just once I would like see Rush in a real interview and not the typical Fox News ass kissing while he purposely continues to avoid the danger of talking with a real journalist that would have the possibility of any real confrontation that would expose that the empire has no clothes and ruin the fantasy to those who believe he’s invincible.