FRANK RICH IN TODAY'S NYT ON CNBC'S ANIMUS FOR OBAMA

I have posted here about the evident bias of many CNBC hosts and reporters against Obama and his plans for the economy, taxes and health care. Here is a link to my post several days ago.

On the same topic, here is Frank Rich writing in today's The New York Times about the meanies on CNBC railing against Obama's plans for health care reform, banking regulation and cutting tax deductions for the wealthy:

"Last week Jon Stewart whipped up a well-earned frenzy with an eight-minute “Daily Show” takedown of the stars of CNBC, the business network that venerated our financial gods, plugged their stocks and hyped the bubble’s reckless delusions. (Just as it had in the dot-com bubble.) Stewart’s horrifying clip reel featured Jim Cramer reassuring viewers that Bear Stearns was “not in trouble” just six days before its March 2008 collapse; Charlie Gasparino lip-syncing A.I.G.’s claim that its subprime losses were “very manageable” in December 2007; and Larry Kudlow declaring last April that “the worst of this subprime business is over.” The coup de grâce was a CNBC interviewer fawning over the lordly Robert Allen Stanford. Stewart spoke for many when he concluded, “Between the two of them I can’t decide which one of those guys I’d rather see in jail.”

"Led by Cramer and Kudlow, the CNBC carnival barkers are now, without any irony whatsoever, assailing the president as a radical saboteur of capitalism. It’s particularly rich to hear Cramer tar Obama (or anyone else) for “wealth destruction” when he followed up his bum steer to viewers on Bear Stearns with oleaginous on-camera salesmanship for Wachovia and its brilliant chief executive, a Cramer friend and former boss, just two weeks before it, too, collapsed. What should really terrify the White House is that Cramer last month gave a big thumbs-up to Timothy Geithner’s bank-rescue plan.

"In one way, though, the remaining vestiges of the past decade’s excesses, whether they live on in the shouted sophistry of CNBC or in the ashes of Stanford’s castle, are useful. Seen in the cold light of our long hangover, they remind us that it was the America of the bubble that was aberrant and perverse, creating a new normal that wasn’t normal at all."

Frank Rich is right on about the sophistry yelled and screamed at viewers by CNBC market "gurus." I don't know who is the worst on CNBC, they are all pretty bad. Rich did not name others exhibiting symptoms of equal irrational Obama animus. How about mean Michelle Cabruso Cabrera who asks why her tax dollars should help Detroit as if Detroit caused its own demise by being mostly black. Or Maria Bartiromo who condemns Obama for wanting to make the tax code fairer because it will raise taxes on those who make more than 250K, which certainly includes herself and her multi-millionaire spouse. Or Joe Kernen who believes government should stay out of the free market place unless his own 401k is on the line, in which case, he's all for government bailout.

To be fair, there are several CNBC hosts who come across in favor of fairness and rationality, such as John Harwood and Steve Liesman. But these guys are in the minority. Most of the others on CNBC seem to be bitten by the Republican sourness bug and so suffer from the "what's in it for me" syndrome.

With all this anti-Obama Republican venom spewed on CNBC, I find myself watching less and less.

FRANK RICH, LIGHTEN UP ON MOVE-ON.ORG

Frank Rich in his column (subscription required) in today's The New York Times takes a swipe at the Move-on.org democrats who ran the "General Be-tray-us" ad. Lighten up, Frank. By the way, have you taken a close look at the ad? It actually poses a question, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

Okay, I agree it is a bit juvenile to play around with someone's last name. However, Gen. Petraeus is a public figure and has inserted himself into the political arena by being a spokesman for George Bush.


Furthermore, I submit Move-On is asking a legitimate question. Is David Petraeus going to serve merely as Bush's political hack and front man, or is he going to tell the truth that the War in Iraq is beyond winning, a bloody result of the catastrophic mistake of Bush's foreign policy?

Or do critics of Move-on.org including Frank Rich think citizens should never criticize generals or army officers who wear lots of ribbons? This reminds me of the reaction of churchmen when someone criticizes their doctrine or their life style. They react by accusing the critics of disrespect for authority. Here we get the same reaction from people, mostly Republicans, who again cry disrespect.

Remember the generals report to civilians in the United States, and they are servants of American civilians. When those civilians ask hard questions of the generals, please don't be like the church authorities and try to squelch the criticisms in place of answering the complaints with reasoned arguments.