Fox's O'Reilly Can't Apparently Use Footage From His Own Network: Chuckie Schumer "Doesn't Care" About the "Fairness Doctrine"?

Fox's Griff Jenkin's played "chase the politicians" on Capitol Hill Thursday for Bill O'Reilly. As much fun as it was to watch Chuck Schumer speedwalking down a Washington corridor, there was more information available. Why does O'Reilly tell only part of the story? Are we too dense to pay attention long enough?

On Thursday's O'Reilly Factor, the "No-Spin master" did another half story on an issue. I'm becoming more convinced than ever, that either Bill thinks his viewers have the attention spans of gnats, or he has one of the worst research teams in the media business, who don't even seem to know how to use the internet.

In any case, the half story this evening regarded the Conservative Speech Suppression (aka "Fairness") Doctrine. He sent reporter Griff Jenkins, to Capitol Hill to do one of those amusing deer-caught-in-the-headlights segments where a reporter chases politicians or other miscreants with a bright light and tries to stick a microphone in their faces whilst they proceed to look like the speedwalker in the banned Mr. T Snickers commercial.

Griff's mission was to question lawmakers about their position on the Doctrine. During Mr. Bill's "Talking Points Memo" the audience was treated to the surgically frozen smile of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The second lawmaker to be questioned, and to his credit, the only one of the three who actually stood still, was New Mexico Senator Ted Bingham.

Sen. Schumer of New York, was the third "contestant" and the one which most reminded me of the speedwalker. It's just too bad Griff hadn't brought along the tank, the Snickers, or, Mr. T.

Ok, let's just pause a second an enjoy the visual on that one. [Pausing....visualizing....] Who among us wouldn't love to watch Mr. T machine gun Chuckie Schumer with Snickers bars?

I can't embed the O'Reilly video here, but "Talking Points" is the default listing that comes up on the O'Reilly portion of the Fox site. Click the title for the November 20 "Talking Points Memo" 'Will Fairness Doctrine be reimposed?'

Of course the "Fairness" Doctrine is an important issue and the comments and reaction to reporters' questions on the issue are interesting and informative viewing.

But, as has become obvious to me, and perhaps I'm just slow-witted or too willing to give the benefit of the doubt, it seems that Bill O'Reilly only tells part of most important stories.

Towards the end of his "Memo" O'Reilly commented that he spoke with Schumer sometime after Grif attempted to speak with him on Thursday afternoon, and Schumer said he "didn't care about the issue, nor should he". O'Reilly labeled this response as "a ruse".

According to Merriam-Webster online:
ruse (noun): a wily subterfuge

Is anyone else tired of tap-dancing? Mr. Schumer's statements to Bill were neither a "subterfuge" nor "wily".

Let us call things what they actually are. When a feathered, beaked creature quacks, we call it a duck. When someone says something that is not true, we call it a lie.

And Chuckie Schumer did lie. On November 4, Election Day, on Foxs News Channel, Schumer equated talk radio with pornography. Perhaps after the imbecility of those comments, the estimable Mr. Schumer decided he'd better stop "caring" about the Fairness Doctrine, really quickly. He is right about one thing (kind of like a broken clock, it is accidentally right twice day) he shouldn't care.

As if the pornography analogy were not enough, Chuckie has additional reason to continue to distance himself from the issue. Apparently he's taking heat from people. I mean real people, not just people with pointy heads and huge egos.

On Monday, November 17, Mark Levin received a call to his radio show from a woman named Carla, from Brooklyn, New York.

[You can listen to the Monday Mark Levin show by clicking HERE. The conversation with Carla occurs about 48 minutes into the broadcast (as long as that version doesn't contain commercials, like the Podcast).]

Here is a transcript of the conversation:

Carla: Hi. I am so glad to talk to you and I'm also kind of nervous because I don't want to end up like Joe the Plumber. Um, I had, an, let's just say, an altercation with Charlie Schumer in the airport, at La Guardia, on Saturday night, that was pretty extensive and kind of -

Mark: Well, wait a minute, by "altercation" you mean a discussion.

Carla: Well, yeah, a heated discussion, about the Fairness Doctrine. I was deplaning, he was ahead of me, there was a fawning Democrat chick, who came over to him, and was like all over him and I had heard what he had said on, I think it was Fox News, on Election Day, I had heard his comments, about uh, about talk radio, and about the Fairness Doctrine which really repulsed me. So, I saw him there and he had this big smile on his face.

And I just said to him, "Don't you dare try to take my talk radio away from me."

And he said to me, "I'm not trying to take your talk radio away from you, but we can't allow people to be nasty and rude and, and say things that aren't true."

And I said, "Are you kidding me? That's what our democracy is about. Our democracy is messy." I said, "Our democracy is about being able to be nasty and rude and sarcastic, and wrong when we want, and say opinions that may be wrong when we want. That's what makes us different than Europe."

And he, he just started lashing out at me. He told me how ignorant I was. And that they were not going to permit -

Mark: Wait a minute, wait a minute. So in other words, so in other words, he was shrill, and rude, and vile.

Carla: Well, he was obnoxious and shrill, and it was attacking my intelligence and uh, and my I.Q., [Mark: Gee whiz.] and I was dumb. And I told him that there was a very good country that believed in his philosophy and it was called Red China and it sounded like he was talking right out of, uh, Mao's Red Book, and that that was not what our country was about and that our democracy was unique in that we allowed our discourse to be messy. And that we allowed our discourse to be wrong when it's wrong. And that's the nature of democracy.

Mark: Well, let me tell you something. You're a patriot, uh, I wish more people would engage like you; politely but firmly, confronting the Left. Uh, and you're not stupid, he's a moron. And let me tell you Carla, what, what's really upsetting Schumer. You know what it is, Carla?

Carla: No. I didn't notice anything upsetting him, he looked pretty smug.

Mark: It's me. Because he doesn't like me, my mocking him. I know it gets under his skin because he thinks he's greater and better than the rest of us. That's why I mock all of them, to knock them down two or three notches. But when he says, "shrill" and all of that, he's talking about me. Because he doesn't like me 'cause I'm in his face, because I've challenged him, because I've urged him to come on this show, because I know he's coward. But he's a menace, he's a menace to this country, he's a menace to this society, he's a menace to the judiciary. I think he should call a hearing. I think he should invite me and a couple of the others, we'll come up there, and I'd be more than happy to testify under oath, assuming of course, that he would swear in, too, so he could be punished under penalty of perjury. I'd be more than happy to do that, Schmuckie. I'd be more than happy to educate you about the First Amendment, political speech, and if you don't like it, it's none of your damn business. I'd be happy to educate you, Schmuckie. What do you think of that, you dope?

And Carla, you're I.Q. is twice of his. So you're I.Q.'s about 140.

Carla: Yeah, well, I told him. I said I will fight to the death, for my, for my talk radio, for anyone else, to be obnoxious, to be as loud and as nasty as they want. Because -

Mark: But is he not the most obnoxious member of the Senate?

Carla: Of course, of course he is. But I said the point of our democracy is that we don't censor our tones, we don't control our tones.

Mark: Well, of course, of course, you're right. And you're extremely intelligent. But he wants to do by brute government force what the Constitution doesn't allow him to do. You see, the Founding Fathers had dealt with people like Chuck Schumer; they'd dealt with people who would punish people dared to say things they didn't believe in. They tried to squelch dissent, they tried to squelch free speech and that's why, when they, when they passed the Bill of Rights, the very first one included the right to free speech, uh, and they would be appalled by Chuck Schumer. But Chuck Schumer doesn't give a damn. He's a power hungry menace. Thank you, Carla, God Bless You, and good job. You take care.

So, Bill O'Reilly devotes a "Talking Points Memo" to the topic, featuring Sen. Schumer, who had very recently (Nov. 4) made an ass out of himself on the issue. O'Reilly who works for the same network on which Schumer made his ridiculous statements, doesn't play the tape. That's getting your point across effectively, that's following up. It's about as effective coverage of the issue as O'Reilly's was of Obama.

But there was additional information available regarding New Mexico's Sen. Bingham. Although he was polite and forthright enough to stand still, to not play duck and cover, he is on record elsewhere, letting everyone know exactly where he stands on the issue of the Fairness Doctrine, with more detail and more in-depth information than the twenty seconds Griff spent with him.

In late October, Bingham was interviewed on New Mexico radio station, KKOB, on this issue. You can read more about this HERE and listen to an audio clip of it.

Read More......

Mark Levin Speaks with Bob Bennett about Keating 5 and Iran-Contra

For the complete broadcast which includes this interview, follow this link.

Mark Levin (Levin): Well, I want to welcome Bob Bennett to the show. Bob Bennett is one of the most exceptional and successful lawyers in the nation. He's represented everybody from Bill Clinton to Caspar Weinberger. He happens to be the older brother of a man I deeply admire and who is a terrific radio host, Bill Bennett. How are you, sir?

Bob Bennett (Bennett): Fine, Mark, how have you been?

Levin: I'm very well. Do you remember meeting me a few times?

Bob: "Oh, I remember, absolutely."

Levin: I was the handsome one, remember?

Bob: You were the good looking one, I remember that.

[laughter]

Levin: Well, first of all, your book, In the Ring: Trials of a Washington Lawyer. We've linked to that on marklevin.com. It's a terrific book and that is why I want to talk to you.

Bob: Thanks, Mark, yeah.

Levin: You have a chapter on the Keating 5. And Bob, this is very important, now, because, people are bringing up, i don't want to drag you into politics, but people are bringing up William Ayers, and suddenly this Keating 5 thing pops up again. Why don't you tell us, give us a thumbnail sketch of what happened there and what was the deal about John McCain.

Bob: I'll stick to the public record. What my role was - I was hired by a bi-partisan Senate Ethics Committee to investigate what was known as "The Keating 5". And in essence, what it was, was that there was something called the Direct Investment Rule which Charles Keating was opposed to. What it did was it basically said that Savings and Loans, which he owned one, couldn't, were limited in where they could invest their money. Senator DiConcini scheduled a meeting with several Senators to meet with the head of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and pressure them.

And, Senator McCain attended that meeting. And one thing led to another and the Ethics Committee conducted an investigation. And I investigated it for a long, long time, well over a year. For the purpose of determining whether or not the Senators, including McCain, violated any standards, rules, ethical prohibitions. And at the end of the investigation, I concluded that Senator McCain and Senator Glenn should be exonerated, that is, that there should be no further action against them, but that was rejected by the Committee and there were some twenty-six days of public hearings.

As you know, Mark, 'cause on the occasions we've met, I- we argued some. I'm a Democrat, as you know. But, I had to call it the way the evidence dictated, and I called it that John McCain did nothing wrong. How Heflin, who at the time, was the Chairman of the Committee, was very concerned that there be twenty-six days of hearings with only Democrats in "the docks", so to speak, so my recommendation about exonerating Senators Glenn and McCain was rejected and we went forward. But... it's....and at the end of the day, it was pretty clear, from all the evidence, that there was no violation by Senator McCain.

I'm sorry to be so long but that's in a nutshell, what happened.

Levin: Well, it's important, because it's a long time ago, we have five and a half million people listening and we gotta get this right, Bob. And, it seems to me, that based on what you're saying, based on what I've read in your book, and what you've said before, frankly, that he was thrown into this for political reasons, and it's being raised again, you don't have to answer the last part, I'm commenting, it's being raised now for political reasons. John McCain is not an unethical man, can you, can we agree on that?

Bob: Let me say this: from all the evidence, he's not a friend of mine, although I guess, in the spirit of full disclosure, years after the Keating case, just this past year, he hired me as a lawyer, to represent him in connection with this dispute about lobbying he was having with the New York Times. But, at the time I made my findings, I was totally independent, and I'm not a surrogate of his in this political.... You know, I represent too many people on both sides of the aisle. But the direct, that as background, I certainly saw nothing in my investigation that would call into question, John McCain's ethics. When he learned that there had been a referral to the Justice Department by the regulators, uh, he withdrew from any assistance to Keating and in fact, got into a big argument with Charles Keating, who called McCain "a wimp", which did not sit well with the Senator. So, I certainly, based on my investigation in that case, saw nothing to call in to question John McCain's ethics.

Levin: And you've represented, you're right, people of all political stripes and so on. Let me askyou a little bit about that if i could segue.

Bob: Sure.

Levin: Casper Weinberger, you represented him in the Iran-Contra matter. I represented Attorney General Meese. Now, what kind of a man for you, was Casper Weinberger?

Bob: Oh, I think he was the tops. I mean, I have never seen such prosecutorial abuse in my life as I saw in the Weinberger case as I saw in, by former Federal Judge Lawrence Walsh. It was a terrible abuse of power. You know, Weinberger was the former Secretary of Defense and yet, Walsh was, I was about to say he was so close to me as you are now, but we're not very close we're on the phone [laughter], but I was about three feet away from the man, and he, Walsh, basically said to me and my partner, Karl Rauh, he said, "If you'll turn on Ronald Reagan, we'll give you a no jail-misdemeanor plea." I left the meeting shaking my head and I said to Carl, who was the former U.S. Attorney in Washington, "Do you belive what we just heard? This guy's gunning for Ronald Reagan." And it was one of the most incredible experiences I've had in my life. Weinberger was just a class act and a real statesman. You know, I didn't agree with him on a lot of things, he was a conservative Republican and I'm a democrat. But he was one terrific human being.

Levin: As a side note, I remember having to go into the vault there in the Justic Department, you know, our hands were tied there lots of times, weren't they Bob?

Bob: Yeah sure.

Levin: And reading some of the Grand Jury stuff, which we're only allowed to read, and we could use it, but we had to write it down by hand [Bob: Yeah, right] or whatever, and I remember going back to Ed Meese and saying, "These bastards are trying to indict you. I said, "I can't believe it." And they wanted to indict Schultz, and they wanted to indict Weinberger. I said, "My God, these guys are getting out of control."

Bob: Well, you know, Mark, Weinberger thought he was a cooperating witness for Walsh, you know, being Secretary of Defense and having all of the government [inaudible], it wasn't unusual for him to get requests, and for five years, he thought he was a cooperating witness because if you remember, he was opposed, vehemently opposed to the sale of arms to Iran, and he then got a target letter. I really appreciate you mentioning the book, In the Ring. I do have two chapters in the book, one is dedicated in the book to the Keating 5 and a chapter in the book dedicated to this Weinberger case.

Levin: Do you still represent Bill Clinton?

Bob: No, no, that matter is over with.

Levin: I don't mean...I mean, if he needs something, does he still call on Bob Bennett, or does he have a bunch of lawyers?

Bob: You know, I wouldn't tell you if he did, Mark.

Levin: Ok.

Bob: You know, If I could just make a point, because you mentioned it earlier on, I just hope that Senators Obama and McCain stick to the issues and I'm really worried, I know you feel [Mark: Not really.] as I do, that this politics of personalization, these politics of personal destruction, is awful and I just hope they just get on and discuss the issues.

Levin: Well, you know, hope is what it is, my friend.

Bob: Yeah.

Levin: One of these days, a nice thick steak, how do you like your steak done?

Bob: Well, I like it, I prefer it on the well done side.

Levin: I do, too.

Bob: If you talk to any real, you're going to get calls, this is the only thing you're going to get calls on [laughter], I'm told real cattle people, they won't eat their steak raw or rare, they want it done, they really don't want it rare or raw, I'm so curious...

Levin: I've had lunch a couple of times with Bill in years past. How does he like it, well done or doesn't it?

Bob: As long as it doesn't bite back, Bill likes it. [laughter]

Levin: Ok, folks, get this book. It's a fascinating book: In the Ring: The Trials of a Washington Lawyer. It's got a chapter right there on the Keating 5, a chapter on Weinberger, and a there's a lot more than that.

Read More......