O'Reilly and Hannity like the style of union-busting Governor Walker, but for Glenn Beck Madison looks like Armageddon
Fox News hosts are convinced that the ongoing protests by union workers in Wisconsin and the solidarity rallies across the country mark the end of America's labour movement.
Bill O'Reilly
O'Reilly spoke about the "battle in Wisconsin that the far left appear to be losing" and criticised what he felt was biased coverage of the protests by the mainstream media (view clip). He was particularly upset with the New York Times for suggesting that Governor Walker's attempt to strip the unions of their collective bargaining rights (in addition to reducing the take home pay of government workers by an estimated 8%) might provoke a backlash against Republicans and conservatives.
He also took issue with columnist Paul Krugman, whom he described as a "far left zealot", for pointing out that public employees in Wisconsin earn lower wages than private employees. O'Reilly did not contest this statement (because it's true), but he said that it was not a good enough reason for the public sector worker's take-home pay not to be cut by 8%, because, by and large, they have enjoyed better benefit packages than their private counterparts (at least, until now). He also criticised MSNBC host Rachel Maddow for suggesting that Wisconsin was on track to have a budget surplus this year before the Governor granted a new round of corporate tax cuts. He discussed the biased reporting with political commentator Brit Hume.
They are hysterical, but they have good reason to be. Look, if I were a liberal Democrat, I'd be hysterical, too. This is a disaster for the whole Democratic party because they build their power base on union labour, money from the unions, telling the working-class Americans they're getting hosed by the rich ? and this is why President Obama is in such a big ? he's in a really tight spot. Look, President Obama comes out in favour of the unions in Wisconsin ? and he has really not; we understand he's working behind the scene, but he hasn't done it publicly ? and he loses there? His power base starts to crack!
On another segment, O'Reilly interviewed Milwaukee state legislator Robin Voss, a Republican, and suggested to him that as the unions have already agreed to the cuts, maybe the best way to seal the deal would be to take the collective bargaining issue off the table.
That's not really what's in play anymore because the unions have pretty much said we're going to give you the gift box, and they will because they have to. You're going to get the money back. What's in play is Governor Walker basically trying to gut the union, so it can't negotiate in the future. That's why they're [the Democratic legislators] out of town. That's why they won't come back. You'll get the gift box, but the future of the public employee union in Wisconsin. That's the crux of the matter.
Voss insisted that there would be no give on the collective bargaining issue as the state just could not afford to negotiate with unions, and by the end, seemed to have convinced O'Reilly that it would have to be the governor's way or the highway.
Sean Hannity
Hannity interviewed Governor Walker and urged him to stand up to the union thugs and to emulate former Presidents Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge, who back in the day, dealt with troublesome union workers by firing them (view clip). Governor Walker assured Hannity that he would not be backing down, that the budget must be balanced, and that the good times are over for the public sector and they will have to get used to their new reality (of 8% less take-home pay). He also said that he will not be wasting the taxpayers' dollars negotiating with unions and that the unions don't really care whether their low-wage employees can afford the pay reduction or not because they just want to keep collecting their dues payments for their political campaigns.
Whatever about the unions, Hannity certainly didn't seem to rate the 8% reduction in take-home pay being imposed on the Wisconsin low-wage earners as anything worth crying over, which is strange considering his Oscar-worthy outrage when the wealthiest Americans were threatened with a 3.5% tax increase. Anyway, he congratulated the governor on his fiscal prudence and encouraged him to look into firing the striking workers if they do not come to heel.
Later, in the great American panel segment, he discussed the issue with his regular "token liberal" guest Bob Beckel and two conservative guests.
Beckel got Hannity's blood pressure rising early on by saying that the "governor is a union-buster, plain and simple", and that he got what he wanted, the union agreed to his demands and that "there's only one reason for him to take away collective bargaining because he's a union-buster." The panel got even more heated when one of the conservative guests, an NFL union member, shocked both Beckel and Hannity by claiming that "the role of collective bargaining is essential to unions". Once he recovered his breath, Hannity fought back.
I think you're missing a couple of points here ? and the point is, number one: the state is going to go bankrupt; number two: if this is ? what we haven't talked about is the real cause of this problem and you know it's true ? for the unions and politics, there is an unholy relationship between the unions and politicians, and here's how it works. The unions take member rank and file dues, they give it to politicians, politicians pay them back with benefits that the state can't afford and they kick the can down the road and the states now are insolvent.
Beckel reminded Hannity that he is in a union (the same union as Beckel), and that he doesn't seem to be advocating for giving up his union's collective bargaining rights. After this the conversation continued to get more heated and more difficult to transcribe and they finally moved on to a less disagreeable subject (the Iraq war).
Glenn Beck
Glenn Beck's mood seems to darken in direct proportion to the number of Arab countries in revolution at any given time, so he was particularly worked up this week and spent much of his show brandishing a cane, as he boldly defended his much put-upon theory that the communist social progressive movement in America is in cahoots with Islamic extremists in the Middle East whose goal is to have a Muslim caliphate take over the world (view clip).
Beck's fear and concern for the future of the "Republic of America" (we are no longer calling it a democracy) may account for the higher than usual levels of incoherence as he tries to explain why democracy is dangerous.
We just shown you what's happening around the world with cries of democracy. The perfect storm, the economy, war, extremist Islam, the border, energy, political correctness, our enemies within. At some point, America will be so weak our enemies will pounce without coordination.
He goes on to explain why a republic is the better option, because in a republic, you can vote out elected officials that you don't approve of (like President Obama), and vote in elected officials you do approve of (like Governor Scott Walker).
You, in a republic, have a right to protest. It is your first amendment. That is part of a republic. You have to have the courage to state your convictions ? as people on the left are doing finally now as they're coming out with their little hammer and sickle. The Tea Partiers were protesting and standing up for a constitutional republic. That's what they said, follow the constitution. These guys, and everyone else on TV, so thrilled with democracy. Which side are you on?
I'm not exactly sure what sides he's talking about, but I know I'm definitely not on the one that thinks that radical Islamists are behind the union protests in America and the American unions are behind the uprisings in the Middle East.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/23/wisconsin-us-unions
al-Qaida Radio 4 Walking holidays Dorset Higher education Fulham
No comments:
Post a Comment