3/3/09 1:21 PM

Wednesday Links & Open Thread

Latest cable news links [updated through the day]:

Monday's numbers. Weekend numbers. Weekly ranker.

Today's deep thought.

Q&A: Howard Kurtz.

Video: Wolf Blitzer on Leno.

Inaugural: CNN tops 11:00-2:00.

FBN moving up, CNBC not so much.

Two cablers make Obama hero deck.

Mike Tobin's Gaza pix.

Hotline after dark.

Bad form.

Image trumps narrative.

Inaugural thoughts: Geraldo, Joe, Juan Williams.

Cablers air ABC "exclusive".

CNN's synth stunt: exposed.

Inside CNN's control room.

J$P Beck Poll results.

J$P 12-Hour Poll:


Use our valuable bandwidth to post your comments on any and all cable news topics in today's open thread. Standard rules apply.




cee
Guess who are the only two cable news personalities making it into THE BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENTIAL PLAYING CARDS deck?
 
One is the jack of hearts.....
 
the other the five of hearts.....
 
http://www.herodecks.com/Presidential/obama
 
I would think they were better off as the two jokers of the deck.
January 21, 2009, 2:21:33 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
Johnny, the link to the Weekend Rankings doesn't seem to work.
 
And thank you for those kind words. I knew the first time I saw you that you were a good kid and would grow up right and treat all Grannies with good humor.
January 21, 2009, 2:23:09 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
OOPS sorry about that Grammie. I will get to fixin' it ASAP.
January 21, 2009, 2:40:42 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Thanks cee...I think I'm going to steal your link!
January 21, 2009, 2:42:44 PM EST – Like – Reply


cee
You're welcome, J$. Yet another illustration of what we already know about the network with it's heart open for change.
 
You know how much I just love twiddle-dee and twiddle-dum!
January 21, 2009, 2:50:33 PM EST – Like – Reply


HaggisFarmer
Only the F&F (this morning) could gripe about NO channels showing the Bush speech from Texas...The laugh is FNC didn't even show the whole thing. People are now looking to the future....And not wanting to hear from the past.
January 21, 2009, 4:02:34 PM EST – Like – Reply


cee
"People are now looking to the future...."
 
I'll chuckle over that one when Olbermann shoots off a 10 minute segment about the call for torture allegation prosecutions, jokes about Dick Cheney's health problems or gives yet another SPECIAL COMMENT about how Bush should have resigned.
 
Sure, and let us not forget that any time Obama brakes a campaign promise, the "It's Bush's Fault" get-out-of-jail-free-card will be easily displayed through and including 2012.
 
VERO POSSUMUS!
January 21, 2009, 4:33:53 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
Yikes! MSNBC got creamed in the ratings yesterday. Third Place - as usual.
 
Garsh, doesn't Michelle Malkin just look so adorable on Beck right now.
January 21, 2009, 5:07:18 PM EST – Like – Reply


Ashley
cee | 01.21.09 - 4:38 pm | #  
 
and probably a reference to the "Mission Accomplished" banner.
January 21, 2009, 5:16:05 PM EST – Like – Reply


HaggisFarmer
cee | 01.21.09 - 4:38 pm |
 
Looking to the future....Doesn't mean past crimes shouldn't go unpunished.
 
On a side note...This new ISP is the cheetahs bollocks
January 21, 2009, 7:16:36 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Yesterday the newshounds wrote:
 
Wallace isn't sure the oath was taken properly. But he and his panel figured nobody was going to make an issue out of it. Nobody except FOX News...
 
Over a hundred of lock-step comments posted about the stupidity, hatred, and eeevil of it all.
 
News just broke that at 7:35 pm today, President Obama took the oath of office again, in the White House, with John Roberts. They wanted to make sure that he spoke the exact words specified in the constitution.
 
Gotta love them newspoodles. Being wrong is their most important product.
January 21, 2009, 7:51:57 PM EST – Like – Reply


HaggisFarmer
johnny dollar | Homepage | 01.21.09 - 7:56 pm |
 
It didn't really matter....As he became President at exactly 12pm Jan 20th 2009....Nothing needed to be said for that to happen. I'd have thought Wallace/Hume would've known that...But I suppose they were looking for anything to give the Right Wingers hope.
January 21, 2009, 8:08:16 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Apparently Barack Obama and john Roberts disagree with you, and agree with Chris Wallace. Deal with it.
January 21, 2009, 8:13:04 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Well, Johnny, when you decide the validity of an idea based upon your personal feelings about the person who stated it, you're bound to be wrong... once...or twice...or continually...
January 21, 2009, 8:14:21 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Ashley, seeing Malkin on FNC again was a breath of fresh (hot) air! I haven't seen her on Fox for quite a while since BOR chose Geraldo (blecch) over her.
 
Johnny, how quickly the mutts move from offense to defense! My crystal ball (which is NEVER wrong) predicts that they will be playing pure defense for the next 1460 days.
January 21, 2009, 8:14:36 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Deal with it.
johnny dollar | Homepage | 01.21.09 - 8:18 pm | #  
 
Well, since he doesn't seem to know how to read, he doesn't have to deal with anything...
January 21, 2009, 8:19:02 PM EST – Like – Reply


cee
And that bastion of rightwing conspiracy wackos, the SF Chronicle, also had some "experts" weigh in as well....
 
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/20/MNAF15E20I.DTL
 
It seems it was all about, "just in case/not a big deal," Haggi....perhaps you could learn something from such a reaction.
January 21, 2009, 8:23:58 PM EST – Like – Reply


Pegleg Peggy
Haggis is right. According to the Telegraph (UK) among many others: "Constitution law professors said that taking the oath again would be wise, though it was not strictly speaking necessary"...  
"The 20th amendment to the US constitution introduced in 1933 to clarify the rules of succession however states that a new president's term begins at noon on January 20 after a November election. Implicit in the amendment is that the swearing-in is irrelevant".  
 
Re-taking the oath sounds like a wise move to me, not "agreement" with Wallace - unless Wallace advised them that 25 seconds to re-take the oath would spare the Obama administration 4 years of fighting radical right extremists trying to tie them up in legal proceedings claiming that Obama is not a legitimate President. Guess they'll have to find something else...hmmm, let's see, maybe he's not really a US citizen? OOPS! Tried that one already! Darn!
January 21, 2009, 9:03:03 PM EST – Like – Reply


vstol
Quick compilation:
 
President Obama isn’t blaming Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts for slipping up as he recited the president oath of office during Tuesday’s inauguration ceremony.
 
Obama said Roberts actually helped him as he gave the oath, and that he was grateful.  
 
“We’re up there, we’ve got a lot of stuff on our mind, and he actually helped me out on a couple of stanzas there,” Obama told ABC News backstage at the “Neighborhood Ball.”
 
“So overall, I think it went relatively smoothly and I’m very grateful to him.”  
 
Several constitutional lawyers said President Obama should, just to be safe, retake the oath of office that was flubbed by Chief Justice John Roberts.
 
President Obama took the oath of office -- again -- on Wednesday, out of what a White House lawyer described as "an abundance of caution."
January 21, 2009, 9:06:09 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Bottom line: newsmutts wrong.
January 21, 2009, 9:16:30 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
Limbaugh on Hannity. :+:
January 21, 2009, 9:37:11 PM EST – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
OS- it's the difecta! It could only be better with a trifecta including Newt.
January 21, 2009, 9:45:28 PM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
HaggisFarmer | 01.21.09 - 8:13 pm | #  
 
Haggis pick on Hannity or Fox and Friends, but please Hume and Wallace are two of the most even handed newsmen on cable, the have no agenda.
Also Haggis, while I was not a fan of Bush, I did respect the job he done and I was quite interested in seeing him getting back home. Like him or not you still have to respect the office he held.
January 21, 2009, 10:30:21 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
I was quite interested in seeing him getting back home.
 
by baba
 
Ya' don't say?
January 21, 2009, 10:51:15 PM EST – Like – Reply


Grammie
Pegleg Peggy | 01.21.09 - 9:08 pm |  
 
Peg, what happened to your vow to just be a fashion and style critic with us girls?   
 
As usual I have pretty much divided my reading between the blue and red blogs today. I have seen your idea on all the blue blogs to one degree or the other so I know the idea is out there. I have not seen the idea advanced, however, where you seem to think it is: on the red blogs.
 
I have difficulty believing that a rational person would disseminate such an idea unless they had some concrete examples of the people they attribute it to actually doing it. I am very interested in your sources for such an accusation.
January 22, 2009, 1:04:42 AM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
I have difficulty believing that a rational person would disseminate such an idea unless they had some concrete examples of the people they attribute it to actually doing it. I am very interested in your sources for such an accusation.
Grammie | 01.22.09 - 1:09 am | #  
 
Me too. And I'm interested in the notion that the current administration would call the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court out to the WH solely in order to stave off baseless charges and accusations (as you point out, Grammie, so far the only charges and accusations we have seen are from the Left...)
 
As has been reported there were comments from Constitutional attorneys that drove this action. "In an abundance of caution", Obama acted upon those.  
 
But then it could have been the MIRACULOUS intervention of the Divine.  
(and by "the Divine" I mean God. Not Chris Wallace or Karl Rove...)
January 22, 2009, 5:43:07 AM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Re-taking the oath sounds like a wise move to me, not "agreement" with Wallace - unless Wallace advised them that 25 seconds to re-take the oath would spare the Obama administration 4 years of fighting radical right extremists trying to tie them up in legal proceedings claiming that Obama is not a legitimate President. Guess they'll have to find something else...hmmm, let's see, maybe he's not really a US citizen? OOPS! Tried that one already! Darn!
 
Pegleg Peggy | 01.21.09 - 9:08 pm | #  
 
That's quite an accusation to use as pretext for your argument that retaking the oath was a preemptive defense from the Obama Administration. A preemptive action based merely upon the statements of one Chris Wallace...
 
Quite an accusation, indeed, considering all the current and easily documented charges from... leftwing extremists?... saying that the "right wing" Chief Justice tripped up Obama intentionally...
January 22, 2009, 6:40:39 AM EST – Like – Reply


cee
The only people I saw making hay about the flubbed oath were the usual foolish partisan suspects at Daily Kos, at HuffPo, Keith Olbermann (WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD!), Maureen Dowd and Grandpa Biden, (with his silly attempt at humor yesterday...The One was not amused).
 
Simple speculation, without the vitriol and silliness, on the implications of the error was not confined to FOX NEWS as the disingenuous among us here are implying. For the most clear-minded of truth seekers, see my post for the link of yesterday's SF Chronicle as well as Obama's lawyer's, Mr. Craig, comments last evening and see Chris Wallace's innocent speculation be validated.
 
Once again, blind hatred of FOX NEWS leads some down the sad path of absurdity.
January 22, 2009, 8:16:50 AM EST – Like – Reply


cee
I see my link for the SF Chronicle did not work, so.....
 
http://tinyurl.com/8g8hgn
 
"A do-over 'would take him 30 seconds, he can do it in private, it's not a big deal, and he ought to do it just to be safe,' said Boston University constitutional scholar and Supreme Court watcher Jack Beermann. 'It's an open question whether he's president until he takes the proper oath.'"
 
"Charles Cooper, head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel under President Ronald Reagan, said that the oath is mandatory, that an incorrect recitation should be fixed and that he would be surprised if the oath hadn't already been re-administered."
 
###
Wow, others with the same opinion as that evil partisan Chris Wallace at FOX NEWS?!?
January 22, 2009, 9:47:48 AM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Cee,
 
The irony is that Wallace was right. There was question enough about the original swearing in to make Constitutional scholars ponder it and for the Administration want a do-over.
 
Wallace is probably the most knowledgeable and informed (certainly the most even-handed) analyst/anchor on television.
January 22, 2009, 9:51:36 AM EST – Like – Reply


cee
But Cecelia, according to our better angels of democracy, the re-oath was simply done in anticipation of the coming "freeper" law suits arguing President Obama was not legit!
 
It almost seems the left is implying scoffing belief in superstition....knock on wood, you know.  
 
The re-oath will keep the righty boogeyman away!
January 22, 2009, 10:11:56 AM EST – Like – Reply