Alan Colmes - the smartest commentor on television?

I was at my weekly pool league game yesterday when the topic of the departure of Alan Colmes from Hannity & Colmes came up. Several people were surprised at the move, and a couple claimed that it’s just what they would expect from Fox News.

Putting aside the far-left promoted misconceptions of Fox News for a moment, I thought about why this might be happening right now. And I also remembered a recent Word of the day from Stephen Colbert – which was on love lost and love found (highly pro-Obama). And I came to a conclusion that was interesting.

I expect that Stephen Colbert will lose his show, and so will several liberal commentators in both television and radio. Also Sean Hannity will lose his #1 rating, and possibly his time slot. The reason is because Democrats now lead the Congress and Presidency. It’s just that simple. After years of promoting liberal issues (Colmes), and (liberals) demonizing in the most personal way President Bush, they are getting out of the way.

Comedians and political satirists on the airwaves have flourished since the 2000 election of President Bush. Besides the fact that he is as eloquent as a stroke victim (no offense meant to those that have suffered this) it was the fact that President Bush won (liberals still say stole) the election by the slimmest of margins. It was taken as a personal slam by many liberals, and they never forgot it. Most of liberal media was motivated by this to attack President Bush on every issue and front they could cover.

For those that chose comedy and were less venom filled than the extremes, there was success. That led to huge moves forward by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as examples. They had an easy target, and they had the support of many liberals. But the most extreme individuals were shunned.

But now there is the media promoted, near flawless (according to many liberal pundits) President Obama. The popularity of this elected official is enormous. As such he cannot do anything but fail these ridiculously high standards placed in front of him. And liberal commentators are realizing that when he fails to keep up to the lofty expectations they will have to critique him harshly. None of them wish to do that.

Add to this the fact that as an African American critique of President Obama will be seen with an eye towards race and race relations. That is an issue America has yet to come to terms with. It’s the dirty secret that everyone knows and few acknowledge. As such comments about President Obama in the negative, from those that lauded him prior to the election will be seen as especially harsh. And that can’t be good for ratings or future career prospects.

So the smartest move is to get out of the way. To let the focus fall on conservatives that oppose the liberal plans of the Democrats. That any opposition will look as if it is entirely partisan (and some of it will be). Thus they can return at a later point and look like shiny defenders of the realm. It’s an interesting political plan, if I am correct.

The problem is that some cannot get out of the way. Like Colbert. And thus he will suffer. Since his television program is meant to mock conservative views, in an Administration of liberal programs he will be hard pressed to mock the Administration and keep the support of his followers. Comedians with similar objectives will face a similar problem. Many will fail as they are too far to the extreme to balance in the new environment.

Alan Colmes may be one of the smartest political pundits the Democrats have. By leaving the #1 rated program on the #1 rated news channel BEFORE President Obama enacts any of his programs (though not before he has broken several campaign promises) he leaves on top. He will continue to support President Obama and the Democrat policies, as an occasional and maybe regular pundit, but that’s not the same.

This will make the views of Sean Hannity seem even more extreme (not to say that several of his views are not already). And it might make some room for critique of President Obama and the Democrat-led Congress to be taken only as partisan. It will definitely make his return, on a more liberal focused program, seem more fair and bi-partisan. Thus Colmes will win big.

All of this makes me see one thing. The news media is far too political and commercialized. There is no room for objective analysis anymore. We have already heard several organizations declare how they slanted their coverage to promote President Obama in the election. Going forward there will be the continuation of this, to the detriment of the public they are supposed to be serving. All in the name of ratings.

And those that critique the politicians, have equally been partisan. Whether it’s David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Chris Matthews, or whomever. But their reward will be the loss of much of these ratings. At least at first.

Television and news media coverage of politics are about to change. Many liberals won’t like what it turns out to be. Neither will conservative be thrilled by the media response. In effect, over the next 2 years the public will lose as will the media. If I am correct, Alan Colmes saw this outcome and stepped out of the way. That makes him the smartest commentator on television at the moment.

Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman to return to cable television - 2.20.2008.1

Ok, time to re-focus. As is obvious I have been spending a huge amount of time on the Presidential election of late. From my I Love America That’s Why I Vote! campaign to the multiple posts on all the candidates and vote results [all found at VASS] I have expressed by belief that this election will critically impact all Americans. To that end I am promoting voter registration, and following everything about the candidates.

But, I have not forgotten the core purpose of this blog. So let me get back to those basics.

The first thing I want to touch on is Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman. He is getting back on cable television. Roughly 4 months after his tirade of the N-word and his, in my opinion, pathetic ‘save my job’ apology he will be going back to work.

The A&E cable network has stated

"Since the premise of "Dog The Bounty Hunter" is about second chances - we have decided to give him one."

That’s a load of crap. Lest I misunderstand the program, which I admit to having never seen more than 30 seconds of, it is the reality-styled coverage of a bounty hunter capturing fugitives from the law and forcing them to face the legal system. There is no second chance but forced responsibility. A responsibility that I feel ‘Dog’ Chapman has sought to avoid. And A&E is going to reward that evasion.

When the story first broke I stated

“The mindset that allows the use of the N-word and other disparaging terms against people of color is the issue. It’s that mindset that is angering. He isn’t upset with the words he uses, he is angry if others find out he uses these words. He knows he’s wrong, and doesn’t care.

That is racist. To cowardly use terms to disparage and degrade people, but not be willing to let anyone of the race in question to hear it is racist. Add to this that in the presence of his minister of 7 years, who is Black, he would not use this term but has no problem saying other curses in front of him adds to his deception. He is more than just racist; he is the hidden racist that acts in secret, in a way similar to the KKK.”

Obviously I did not accept the apology made to gain public sympathy. I did not accept his faulty reasoning. I did not excuse his actions. I still don’t to this day.

But I also stated that he should not lose his job. My reason for this has nothing to do with Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman and everything to do with the First Amendment and the fact that it was a private conversation that was made public without his knowledge. It is those factors alone that prevent me from decrying the actions of A&E.

But that does not mean I will support his return.

I hope this program fails miserably. In fact I would suggest that if you did watch this program you discontinue to do so. A message needs to be made, and diminutive ratings would be a nice step in that direction.

I will say it again, I think Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman is a racist. He is the sort of racist of the worst type. One that would smile in the face of an African American – like his preacher of 7 years – and them stab them in the back when no one is looking (and Mexicans and women as well). He is a cowardly racist that deserves no sympathy for his actions.

Let him go back to work. He was duped into being recorded without knowledge. That is a low blow. But his own admissions on national television (speaking with Hannity of the Fox News program Hannity & Colmes) were that this word and other defamitory demeaning comments were used by his cast and co-workers regularly. Thus the failure of his program would be apt justice.

The N-word is not a common plesantry. It’s not a term that is positive for any group of people to use. It promotes the perception that far to many in America are ready to support, that African Americans are lazy, ignorant, repugnant less than human creatures. That is the impression that the N-word has meant for centuries, and it has not changed as ‘Dog’ Chapan so clearly proved.

A&E is counting on the fact that Americans, of all colors, have short memeories. ‘Dog’ Chapman is counting on the same thing. This blog, and I, do not forget easily the use of a word that is meant to equate my family, friends and myself as less than feces.

So the question is do you?

Dog Chapman apologies on Hannity and Colmes Part 3 - 11.7.2007.2

Concluded from Dog Chapman apologies on Hannity and Colmes Part 2...

And lastly the interview ends with his written public apology, and his claim he would rather die than inflict pain on the Black community. Some how I doubt that. Had that been true he would not use, nor allow use around him, of the n-word. He would not have spit out the bile and malicious wording that is now the testament of his thoughts. Again I say his apology sounds hollow and as false as a poorly tuned piano.

But that is not the end of his annoying attempt to get back his lucrative television show and audience. The last thing he mentions is his efforts to get in touch with God and to go to a gravesite of African Slaves and to place a gravestone for each of them buried there.

I’m sorry but my anger cannot be bought so cheaply. My anger that has grown immensely as I hear him continue to speak. Now he thinks that telling me he is going to get in touch with God, and that this should excuses his intent and actions? That his taking the out that all entertainers and celebrities are using now, treatment for deplorable actions, is going to gain sympathy? Not with me.

And to even mention the graves of those Africans that were taken from their homes to become less than furniture enrages me. How dare him. Placing grave markers will not buy my anger off. Providing due respect for the lives of human beings is something everyone should do. America didn’t for over a century, and the paltry hollow actions of one White man who has compounded that insensitivity will not make up for it.

I mentioned that I expected Dog to seek some kind of ‘aid’ for his words. He has done so. I expected that he would apologize in public. And now he has. I did not expect him to lose his cable television show for the private phone call, but having heard his apology I am glad at A&E’s decision.

As I said to a friend about this whole incident,

“He may not be a racist, but he does a damn good job of acting like one.”

Dog Chapman apologies on Hannity and Colmes Part 2 - 11.7.2007.1

Continued from Dog Chapman apologies on Hannity and Colmes Part 1...

Has this guy grown up in America?! Has he not lived enough years to recall the 70’s and know of the 60’s? Has he been in a coma? Of course he knew it caused pain. I have no doubt that while he was in prison on his murder conviction he heard someone use the word, and knew it was used to create pain. I’m sure he was aware enough of the vile nature of the n-word that he never used it in front of his Black reverend, Rev. Storey. Had he a real separate meaning, or thought it had no effect I’m sure he would have had no problem using it in front of the reverend. But he hid that aspect of himself, meaning he knew.

The interview then jumps away from his words, and his hollow apology (I felt), to discuss his son’s birth. What the Hell did that have to do with anything? It was an attempt to gain sympathy. It was an attempt to show his humanity. Nice try, to bad that humanity seems reserved to people of his own color.

But that was not enough for Dog Chapman. He goes on to blame the Enquirer for offering money for recordings or video of his actions. It was their fault for enticing his son to get this recording. And it was the fault of the girlfriend for being around his son and possibly being a bad influence on him. That is he thought she was encouraging his son to behave badly, according to rumors he heard of his son acting badly. Notice that the rumors did not say she did that, but he assumed it. Again this is distraction and an attempt to gain sympathy.

Something that is important to note. If Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman was so sorry, why did he wait to apologize? The conversation was from March of this year. I realize this was a private conversation, so I can understand the lack of public apology. But why not apologize to Rev. Storey? Why not seek atonement for God, or within his religion? Because if he had, Rev. Storey would never have had to say “I’ve never heard him use that word.”

Perhaps the most insulting part of the interview is when Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman announces that he ‘now knows that he is not Black.’ That he had thought he was Black, and accepted by African Americans as one of our own. That bull is the worst attempt at sympathy I have heard in maybe decades. “Now I know I’m not Black”, like looking in a mirror for his entire life never gave him a clue. Like being Black is something you can purchase in the store and wear like a pair of jeans. Like the daily strife, injustice and inequality I and others have lived is a commodity that he can pick up and gain sympathy for when he acts badly.

‘Hey I’m sorry for shooting that guy, but I had my ‘African American’ jeans on. My Bad.’

Concluded in part 3...

Dog Chapman apologies on Hannity and Colmes - 11.6.2007.2

So I was watching Hannity & Colmes tonight and listened as Duane ‘Dog' Chapman tried to apologize and explain his phone conversation with his son. I can sum up my thoughts of his interview in a few words. Dodging blame, lame, and insufficient.

To start with, Dog starts the conversation with the comments that he was sorry for using the N-word and that he knew it was wrong. But nearly in the same breath he admits that he uses the word. This at least is consistent with his phone comment. But he tries to excuse this use of the n-word by stating 5 times in the first segment that he has a different definition of the word than the general public.

Now take that in for a moment. He tries to lessen what he said by using an excuse that the n-word has a separate meaning than the one that is acknowledged as the potentially most insulting word in the English language. He emphasizes this 5 times in 10 minutes. But not once does he offer what his meaning might be. Not once does he attempt to explain that he has ever used the word in any way other than to degrade, belittle and insult African Americans.

Towards the end of the show he does mention that he has used it as a form of common greeting. Yet that does not mean, nor does it seem to be implied, that this is how he uses the term all the time. It does not seem to be the way that he feared being taped using the word. That does not seem to imply the way that the others working with him use the word. And it still does not give the type of definition he wants to claim his use of this word conveys.

Plus there is the admission that when he did use the word as a greeting, or at other time, he would not say it out loud. He would not do this because

“I’d get beat up for it.”

Again he confirms that his meaning is the meaning we think it to be. That he knew exactly how his words would be understood and that he wanted that.

To the detriment of Sean Hannity’s interview, he was never asked to explain that meaning he supposedly had. In fact it was accepted that he could have a meaning separate of the historical, or the one used by youth today. But I interject that his use of the term in that phone conversation held a single meaning, and it was the historical and only meaning that the n-word has. And it was that meaning that he admittedly knew he was using both in the phone conversation and with his colleagues, in my opinion.

But the next thing Dog Chapman says in the interview really ticked me off. He says that he thought he could use the n-word. That he could say it as some African Americans do. That he had no idea that using the word, as he did in the phone call, could inflict pain to Blacks.

Continued in part 2...