Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan

One of the most frustrating things about Kamala Harris' repeated assertions during the Brett Baier interview, was this notion she was trying very hard to convey that Donald Trump is not putting the interests of the America people first in his campaign. 

What? Where have you been?

Trump has talked about the devastating blow to American families that inflation has caused. He has talked about the border. He has talked about the economy. And he has talked about the need to reduce high prices at the gas pump.

"Donald Trump has no plans," she kept saying.

Only the reality is that Trump has had plans all along, including many of which he had already implemented during his first four years. Policies and plans that were mostly effective and worked, by the way, no matter how badly Harris wants to convince the American people they didn't.

Brett asked her specifically regarding the economy, "Why do you think most people say they trust Donald Trump more than you when it comes to the economy?" And once again she skirted the question, instead bashing Trump as well as citing Nobel laureates and the Wall Street Journal as sources to say, "They trust our plan."

Which is essentially, the same plan the Biden administration was wanting to pursue—Harris is really just an extension of that even if she somehow wants to try to separate herself from it, while at the same time telling The View she wouldn't change anything the Biden administration did during their four years in office.

Again, am I the only one completely confused here?

I go back to what I have said before. Who was in office these past four years? Was it Donald Trump? Or was it Joe Biden and Kamala Harris? She acknowledges we have all these challenges and problems that need to be fixed. But it wasn't Trump who was in the White House when they happened and now, she's the one with the better ideas to get us out of it?

Brett asked her another very poignant question about her saying over and over again that her presidency would turn the page. "You've been vice president for the past four years. What are you turning the page from?"

Where I find her "answer" is remarkable is how she framed it, basically trying to suggest we are needing to get away from divisiveness, pointing fingers and passing blame, and trying to take people down instead of lifting them up.

Wait a minute. Would that be like accusing a political opponent of crimes? Of insurrections? Of trying to jail him? Of having wall to wall endless negative coverage comparing Donald Trump to Marxists and fascists and Adolph Hitler himself? 

She says Donald Trump's rhetoric instills fear in people's minds. So, what does saying that he will become a dictator, wanting to use federal law enforcement agencies to jail dissenters, take down democracy or whatever other evil plans he supposedly has—all of which are patently untrue, by the way—do to not instill fear in people's minds?

She is basically saying that we need to turn the page ahead against all the things her administration has been front and center of for the past four years, orchestrating all along.

At the end of the day, the fact is, Harris has nothing new to offer the American people and she's trying as hard as she can to erase the last four years and somehow pin all of America's woes on Trump. There's no other way of putting it. 

The question is, who's really buying it?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take One: Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border
Take Two: Brett Baier Puts Kamala Harris Into Deer in Headlights Mode with Immigration Question
Take Four: The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border

From the very first question Brett Baier asked in his interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, he had to be as wholly frustrated with her "answer" as I found myself, and that I think a good many Americans would be frustrated with as well.

She did not answer it.

What she did was completely go around it. She kept bringing up the bipartisan bill, and yet the question was not about what they wanted to do nine months ago. It was about what decisions they made on day one, within hours of taking their oath of office, that caused the border issues that have now become a top concern for many Americans, that were clearly a result of their decisions, not Donald Trump's.

She kept wanting to try to hammer it home. "We have a problem." Yeah, sure, that's great to recognize that. But why is it that you can't recognize that it was the decisions of the Biden administration that made the problems big problems? What she's talking about fixing is something that, it is clear, her and Joe Biden broke.

And what of the very stinging question Brett asked her about the border patrol and the bill? "They supported it. But they also just endorsed Donald Trump and said you've been—quote—a failure with border security. Why do you think they said that?"

"I think they're frustrated," Kamala Harris told Brett. 

Yeah. Okay. But why? If your policies, as Harris suggests, were to address the border issues how come the border issue has only gotten worse? How many times, when even Democrat governors and mayors came out and said, "We've got a problem here," did Harris go out alongside Joe Biden and repeatedly tell the American people that the border was secure when clearly it wasn't?

They are her words. "I think they're frustrated." But Brett also reminded her that the Biden administration rescinded 90 Trump border patrol policies, and in the interview, she tried to make the claim that Trump's border policies did not improve things at the border. But the reality is, that doesn't seem to jive with what the border patrol believes to be the case.

If rescinding Trump's policies were an effective strategy on the border issue, wouldn't the border patrol then be endorsing Kamala Harris instead of Donald Trump? Instead, they are "frustrated." But apparently not at the man whose policies they know would be reimplemented on day one if Donald Trump were to be elected.

She was literally talking in circles in spite of herself, and the reason is, she has no answer. And that's part of the reason she was trying so hard to dance around it. They rescinded Trump's policies because they disagreed with them. The plan failed. They are responsible for it. They lied repeatedly to the American people about the issue. And now they simply want it to go away and make it appear that Trump is playing poltics now with the border, when all along the very reason they nixed Trump's border policies was because of politics. Not what would have been in the best interests of the security of our border and the American people.

The bill was nothing more than a last-ditch effort to make it appear they were taking the border issue seriously. But of course, we know that was simply a trick. One that in other circles, she's been able to get away with performing. But Brett wasn't letting her have her "moment" to pour on the spin.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take Two: Brett Baier Puts Kamala Into a Deer in Headlights Mode with Immigration Question
Take Three: Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan
Take Four: The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

What is Truth and the Silencing of Conservatives

It often becomes, to me, a confusing area of contention. Why does it seem that the only people being sought after to silence is targeted to silence only those who speak from the right? Granted, there may be no actual data to support the claim, so let's just call it an observation, shall we?

But you have to admit, it does seem a bit obvious. The right IS the target.

I will even grant you that most of the time there's "something" behind the silencing. Or at least, that is the impressive that wants to get left after the silencing occurs. 

Why is that, and again it seems, that the left can say anything it wants, call anything it wants to truth, and have their say and no one gets to question that? But when the right says something, everything is questioned. And in the minds of those asking the questions, and ultimately doing the silencing, there is no room for questioning the questioner. 

You will remember around 2017 Bill O'Reilly, then the top-rated cable news show host on television, was boost off the air amid sexual harassment allegations. Okay, sounds justified, right? Sure, according to all of the allegations and reports he was a bit of a fox in the den of Fox News. 

But was he? Or was he simply pushing back too hard and getting too big of an audience for his clearly conservative viewpoints? Maybe. Maybe not. It does seem odd that Fox News would want to remove a host who was clearly a large part of their bread and butter without at least good cause.

Or was the left just pushing too hard? Were the other things Fox News was concerned about that they used Bill O'Reilly as an opportunity to quiet the potential bigger onslaught?

Tucker Carlson, the latest target, was removed from their airwaves with his last show airing Friday, April 21st—which at the end of the show he told audience he would see them on Monday. So, it was a quick development over the weekend following the settlement of the Dominion voting machines defamation lawsuit.

Lou Dobbs was also recently cancelled, and he happens to be another one among those named in the filing against Fox News.

Before I go any further, might I remind people that there were many hosts on other networks who were offering up false information and lies galore during the entire Russia Collusion farce. Who fact-checked? Who offered redactions? Who corrected the record?

Why was no one sued for defamation in those cases? Okay, no one brought the suits. But should someone have? Maybe. Should calls to action have been encouraged? Probably. Should it have been important to set the record straight and tell the news straight? Would it even have been a good idea to maybe offer up apologies?

I mean, say what you want about the claims regarding Dominion sort of accusing Dominion of being the source for stealing an entire election from the American people. But one could easily argue that the entire left wing media news organization which is comprised of NBC, CNN and even media giants like Google and Facebook might have had more to do with rigging an election than Dominion ever was if the claims made against them by Tucker Carlson and others were true.

Whether it was about issues surrounding the election or the supposed insurrection of January 6th when it was supposed that angry conservative Trump supporters sought to storm the capital and overturn an election, the mere fact is that conservatives were literally silenced and shut down from having anything to say to potentially open a dialogue, even if was just to ask questions and see where those questions might lead.

Donald Trump was at the forefront of course. A former sitting president was literally kicked off of Twitter. And others followed him—all conservatives. All of them cited for supposedly spreading misinformation and lies.

Based on who's truth? I mean, that should be the question of the day, right? Who's truth is the Imperial truth and who gets to decide what that is? Why is always so immediately assumed the right is at the helm of harmful misinformation?

We have people out there who can openly debate that a woman exists for Heaven's sake. Isn't that patently false? Is it even an argument? Apparently it is. They can freely say that a woman cannot be defined by old outdated standards. But can we, the right, openly deny their truth?

No. We can't. Even if we are not silenced for that speech, surely we are made into pariahs for it. We're called liars and racists and homophobes, we're called out of touch and out of sync with the times. We are called imaginiationists (a word I just made up) instead of realists. We're labeled as bigots.

To be completely honest what I take issue with more than anything is the very use of the word misinformation. Frankly, I think it gets tossed around too readily and too easily—and of course it's the right being accused of it time and time again.

As I asked before, "Based on who's truth?"

Who are the fact checkers? The media of course. And what makes up the largest portion of the media? Liberals. The left. They are the ones cracking the code of truth and anyone who questions the person supposedly setting the record straight is simply spreading more misinformation and denying the truth. The truth they decide.

Now TikTok is up in arms and running a bit scared by the truth seekers of the world—particularly the United States government.

They say they have a team of individuals of more than ten thousand people scanning through the media being offered by members to root out the evils of hate speech and information. And who gets targeted? Not the woman sitting in her bath robe sipping on a cup of coffee in a live stream getting to voice her opinions about men and women not existing in the world and defending her use of the word cis to redefine non-transgender people, who before the word existed in the imaginations of the left, simply described men and women. No. She gets to keep talking even if she is offensive to tens of millions of people who disagree with her.

The ones getting silenced and banned and shut down are the ones who voice their opinions other than what the left has already predetermined to be the truth. A guy can be banned for a week for simply suggesting that president Biden may not actually be running the country. Not because he stole the election. But because maybe he does not have all his faculties and can't be in charge.

Granted, it's an opinion. Just like suggesting a man or a woman is somehow now a cis is an opinion. But of course the left are the ones who decided that there is a difference between fact and opinion. Saying a man cannot be a woman, even if biologically that's a true statement, is not allowed. It's misinformation that could potentially be harmful of disrespectful to others.

Never mind the harm or disrespect imposed on someone who thinks otherwise.

Will it ever change? Who knows? I can say that more people seem to be pushing back more than ever. Even coming from both sides—although of course most of the push back is coming from the right and those middle ground people who call themselves independents.

No one sought to silence that crazy democrat congresswoman Maxine Waters from California for shouting, "Impeach 45," with no basis for impeachment other than she disliked the president, or called her out for potentially inciting violence during the Derek Chauvin trial telling protesters to "get more confrontational." No one held Chuck Schumer to the fire for saying there would be "hell to pay" if Roe v. Wade would be overturned which sent a madman nearly to the door of Supreme Court Justice Cavanaugh wishing to murder him.

But people Mike Lindell and Tucker Carlson will be targeted and silenced. Donald Trump himself will be hounded by baseless accusations and investigations, impeachments and indictments. And rather than stack the courts the media and whoever can find any dirt to dig up will go after a Justice like Clarence Thomas and try to physically remove him from the courts.

It is literally a case of the fox minding the chicken coop here and people need to start paying better attention to what's really going on. The misinformation is happening not just on the right—in fact, I would strongly contend that the lion's bulk share of it is actually coming from the left. 

The left, by the way, who have become literal masters of fictional tales selling their books as gospels of truth and verifiable and undeniable correctness to the masses for wide consumption, also bearing the arms against anyone who might question their truths so that they may pounce swiftly and unleash their terrorism of their own defamation and destruction of character—hopeful that eventually all real truth might finally see its own abolishment so that the only thing ever labeled as truth is what they badly want you to believe.

Kid Rock Bitch

You will always have to remember that one unique thing about conservatives, is that we don't look the other way when someone on our side says something not quite right, nor do we condone such actions.

For us, that's one big separation from liberals who tend to defend their side even in the worst of times.

So, when Kid Rock on Fox & Friends on Friday called Joy Behar a bitch on live TV, not only did the host, Steve Doocy, who was with him at the time at Kid Rock's new restaurant in Nashville ask him to apologize for the remark, he also apologized stating that Fox News did not condone the remark, nor did they stand by it.

I commend Fox News for doing the right thing.

Should Kid Rock now be barred from future guesting on Fox News? Maybe. I mean, the remark was crude, and frankly unnecessary. I have always said of politics, when it gets ugly, that is when we need to call it out no matter what side it pertains to, and say, "Hey, that's not right."

Let's also not forget that not only has Joy Behar, but several other members of The View's cast made very crude remarks about republicans and President Trump. 

But two wrongs don't make a right. Right? I mean, that's what most of us have been taught.

No matter what anyone thinks of Joy Behar, the cast of The View, or liberals in general, it's just a line that should not be crossed. Of course Kid Rock is going to get some backlash for the comment. But let's also be fair and say that the left will hold him way more accountable for the remark than anyone on the left who has ever made crude remarks.

It's just the way it works.

Joy Behar did offer an invitation for Kid Rock to come onto their set and "have a beer" with them. Will he go on? I don't know. So far he has not responded to the invitation. Should he go on? I think he should. If nothing else it can be an opportunity for Kid Rock to at least get his point across about why conservatism works and liberalism does not. He probably wouldn't be able to get through to anyone anyway. But hiding from the remark, and hiding from the liberals it was aimed at is also not a good idea.

I should point out that the remark does not rise to the level that a severed Trump head joke did recently. So, I don't think that a move should be made by Fox News to not allow Kid Rock on the show ever again.

A New Fox News?

PERHAPS THERE DOES INDEED NEED TO BE A "NEW" FOX NEWS IN THE NEWS MARKET. I thought I would never have said it, since Fox News has been a long-running, and quite frankly refreshing addition—in my opinion—the the news media. Especially when you consider that reporting has gone out the window, and most other "news" networks have become nothing more than the LIBERAL RAGS that their paper counterparts have become.

Think Washington Post, the New York Times, and of course there are local fare I am personally familiar with like the St. Louis Post Dispatch and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

I will grant you that it has been more difficult to watch Fox News for me since the departure of Bill 

O'Reilly. But Hannity remains, and he is a force to be sure. I'll be honest with you, I had my reservations at first about Tucker Carlson, but lately I tend to think he's holding his own and doing actually what I consider to be A DAMN GOOD JOB.

Fox & Friends is, of course, still standing as the #1 rated morning show in America, and that happens to be a good thing.

Thank you to Steve Doocy, Ainsley Earhardt, and Brian Kilmeade for keeping it real. 'Nuff said!

But here's the thing. Unless you have been parked under a rock somewhere, there HAS been talk that Disney is in talks to BUY FOX NEWS. Now, when you think of Disney what is the first liberal thought that comes to mind.

ESPN.

Now, you mean to tell me with a straight face that if Disney does in fact buy Fox News that somehow the ideology of Disney, and what they've turned ESPN into won't trickle into Fox news reporting, programming, and the CULTURE of people they'll put on the air?

I say this despite the obvious FAILURE of other liberal networks like MSNBC, CNN, and ESPN notwithstanding and my sense of business that why would you want to take a highly successful business model and highly profitable network into the realm of low ratings and low profits and falling viewership?

Well, it MAY WELL sound like a bit of conspiracy theory...but if they can silence the conservative voice of Fox News, they can make the other liberal networks more "relevant."

Arrive on scene Peter Thiel, a strong supporter of President Trump, and a co-founder of the PayPal empire. Not only does he feel that there is market for it, but all suggestions seem to indicate he also feels there is a need for it even if he has not come right out and said so.

Reportedly, Peter Thiel is looking into launching his own conservative network to compete with, and perhaps to rival behemoth Fox News.

What makes the whole thing more real? We have now learned that Thiel had some concerns earlier on, and was actually beginning to talk to former Fox guy, and now dead, Roger Ailes about the possibility, and even was suggesting they could pull over guys like O'Reilly and Hannity to the new network. Based on the "conversations," and the planned meeting that was to occur to occur just before Ailes died at 77, there is some indication that Ailes may have even been slated to head the thing.

What makes the whole story more interesting recently are the revelations about Steve Bannon, and the Mercers, who FUNDED Breitbart, and who are also supporters of Trump, who have now broken financial ties with Bannon based on his recent association with Michael Wolff who is publishing a Trump disparaging book with Bannon practically at the helm of it all. The Mercers are tied to Thiel.

Either way, I do have some serious concerns about Disney taking over Fox, and if they do, I think it may be just the right time to launch something to at least serve as a secondary source. But if Fox falls victim to liberalism as so many networks have under control of what is obviously a liberal company...

We can't get a new, conservative network up and running fast enough.

What do you think of Trump pulling out of the last Fox News debate before Iowa?

In a word? Puerile. Look, I like Trump. I think he'd make a perfectly fine president if he does exactly what he says he will do—well, aside from some of the crazier things like getting Mexico to pay for that wall which he will not be able to get done. He won't be deporting anyone either honestly. But this is the sort of thing Trump does that always irritates me, and that is his constant need to make personal attacks which I think simply overshadows his real message and aim. Want to make America great again? I want to let you do that. But that means we need to be substantive. It means we need to be able to take a few dishings out of insult and injury. We need to be thick-skinned. We need to avoid resorting to name calling.

I think what Trump was hoping to do by rallying for the vets cause and funding the Wounded Warriors Project in lieu of the debate was to detract from the real reason he is supposedly not attending the debate.

Megyn Kelly will not be removed as a moderator.

And to me if I may put it so bluntly that is simply childish. It really, really is. Look, one thing we know about Trump—and again I need to make it clear I like Trump, but I also have to be honest with myself here—is that he is a man who gets things done. But he is also someone who is used to getting what he wants. Often times Trump is likely the most powerful man sitting in any board room, or sitting at any negotiating table. He's used to having people nod and do his bidding because they want a piece of the offered prize. They want the opportunity to do business with the mogul. And in some ways that may work well in business, but when it comes to politics, and when it comes to dealing with world figures, and especially when it comes to dealing with the American people, you have to be able to accept that you cannot always win, that you will not always have people on your side on a given issue, and that that's okay. That's a part of the beauty of our system. We have enough trouble with a whiny crybaby in the White House who wants what he wants, and doesn't care if anyone agrees, and uses the mighty pen to push things through other channels against the will of the people, and frankly outside the foundations laid out by our founding fathers.

Trump's antics sometimes inadvertently pares him to what will be considered eventually as the worst president America has ever known—Barack Obama. And I don't think the American people want that anymore, that kind of leadership (and I am using the word leadership very loosely here folks). Perhaps calling Obama a dictator is too harsh, but given the opportunity I think that is exactly what Obama would be. I think it is without question. But Trump's antics in these kinds of matters at least suggests he may have the same attitude.

"Fuck them (the Congress). If they don't go ahead with my plans I'll simply go around them because they are too stupid to understand why it is so important, why it is so grand an idea..."

I can actually hear loud and clear Trump saying something exactly like that. I really can. And if I heard as much from Obama, which even if he has not said the same thing directly his actions certainly imply it more often than not, my jaw would drop. I'd be outraged and appalled. And quite honestly, terrified.

To be quite honest Obama does terrify me, and with the chance that Hillary Clinton might make her way into the White House despite all common sense and logic—I am shitting my pants at a rate far faster than my underwear supply can keep up!

All I am saying here is that enough is enough with the name calling, with the personal attacks, the all night Twitter sprees insulting one for their face, their weight, their whatever. It is simply detracting from what could quite possibly be a remarkable story about a man who conquers the world and restores the country in what could be described as an era of greatest divide since perhaps the Civil War.

Mr. Trump. We've had enough of having a fuck-up in the White House. We've had enough of having a president who has distanced nearly every single foreign leader from us. We need someone strong and strong-willed. But just like the guy with the biggest muscles in the room is not as strong as the guy with the biggest brain, bully with intelligence. Not with insult and low-brow comments. It's as ineffective as the guy with the muscles in the room simply punching someone in the face to get his point across.

Go to the debate. Stand your ground. Be a man. Show us you can do that. Show us you can stand proud even in a situation that may be uncomfortable. Show us you can be mightier than your strongest opponent. After all. Come on. This is Megyn Kelly for God's sake. How the fuck are you going to deal with Putin? Assad? ISIS? Big world issues?

If you cannot deal with Megyn Kelly maybe the naysayers and haters have a point that you may not be as suited to be president as I and others like me would like to believe. Just saying.

Trump's Hidden Agenda Regarding Fox News

Do not underestimate Donald Trump, and I mean this in all seriousness. Do not underestimate Donald Trump. The man has a proven track record of business prowess and business sense. He pays attention, and this is an all important thing to note. What is he trying to accomplish with his presidential run? He wants to win his way to the White House. It is that simple. It is perhaps the last big notch in his belt. And he may just do it. Sure, of course he wants to make America great again. But the real answer here is that while doing so he wants to go out of this world with a bang. Let's face it. Making it to the White House is perhaps the greatest accomplishment any man in the world can do, and if Donald Trump can do it, it seals his legacy forever.

Trump is speaking to the People. Of course he has enemies. He creates many of them of his own making. The Hispanics for example. But his latest stunt is very telling. He has now dissed Fox News. Who hates Fox News more than anyone in the world? The liberals. The democrats. I said in an earlier post that one of the things that fascinates me about Donald Trump is that he can run with a conservative message and as a republican, but yet still be as far removed from the republican party as one can be. He does not cow-toe. He disregards the establishment. He rolls with his own punches and tells it like it is. He makes no apologies for his positions. I think that the way he is conducting his campaign, the word republican may not even really be in the heart of the discussion about him. It's simply Trump. Somehow he is able to simply be one man running for the presidency, and people are paying attention to him rather than his association with the GOP.

It is absolutely brilliant really and I think you have to give him credit for that.

So, is Trump truly outraged by the coverage by Fox News of his campaign? Is he truly disregarding Fox News as a reputable news source? Or is he simply playing to the swath of voters on the other side of the fence who may otherwise not consider voting republican? What he is essentially trying to say in his campaign is that he is not one of them. He's dissed the party. He's dissed the other candidates running against him. He's dissed the leadership in all parts of the government. And now he's dissed what everyone on the left believes is a news organization that acts like an arm of the republican party and conservatives.

One thing about good business, and great businessmen is calculation. None of these men or women in business are necessarily making decisions on the fly. There is a thought process behind every thing that gets decided. The aim is the gain. The profit. And I happen to think this is exactly what Trump has in mind and is doing when it comes to his run for the White House. His decision to distance himself from Fox News is a calculated decision intended to put him further away from his association with the GOP, plant himself more firmly in the eyes of liberals and democrats as a choice, and of course walk away with the keys to People's House.

I am not going to count my chickens before they are hatched and say Trump has won the race. But I am still watching this whole thing go down with great fascination.

FOX FORBIDDING HANNITY TAPING AT TEA PARTY EVENT WAS RIGHT DECISION

Fox News' recent decision to forbid Sean Hannity from taping his popular nightly show from a Cincinatti tea party event, after learning that the event's organizers were charging attendees for a chance to be closer to the Fox News talking head during the taping, is a good one in my opinion. According to various reports, attendees were being charged between $5 and $20, depending upon how close to the Fox star they wanted to be, for the opportunity. Media Matters, a liberal media outlet, cited that Hannity was also directing supporters through his own personal website to a link where they could buy tickets to attend the rally.

Even Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp., which also owns the Fox News channel, got in on the discussion, telling reporters that he felt it was not appropriate for Fox News to be associated with any current movement.

That assertion makes perfect sense to me. News media is there to cover an event. Not to drive one. If anyone need any proof of this, one need look no further than nearly the entire coverage by liberal media circles of the presidential campaign of Barack Obama.

Fox News prides itself on being fair and balanced, and while there are plenty of people on the left who like to try and portray Fox as an "arm of the republican party," as had been strongly suggested by the Obama administration back when the big war with Fox was underway, it is simply not true. Anita Dunn, on the White House communications team, practically was made famous by making this very claim—we won't even get into the Chairman Mao comment, but it clearly erases any credibility on her part if you ask me.

It is important, in my view, that media remain as biased as it possibly can. Wherever there are people involved, you will always have some ideology injected into the discussion, and into the news coverage. That's undeniable. And clearly guys like Sean Hannity are no strangers to being involved with a particular political party—certainly that will have some bearing on their commentary. But they also clearly label themselves for what they are. Commentators. Not journalists.

But having Hannity directly associated with the tea party movement via Fox News pushes the envelope. And if you think about, I'm inclined to even offer Hannity a little bit of a shame on you for this one. Don't you think MSNBC and all the other left wing loons like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are going to eat it right up if they actually tape a television show at a conservative event?

Quite frankly, I'm thinking as well that if MSNBC were to tape a show from an obvious left wing group, no matter what it was, Fox News would as well find that to be an affirmation of bias. Why would we want to be associated in the same light?

MORE OPINION BY SPRINGBOARD:
TOYOTA AND TIGER HAVE A LOT IN COMMON
Religion Is Not Necessary
Just Say No To NoKo