It’s not surprising that Missouri Democratic senate candidate Robin Carnahan is running an advertisement that calls her Republican opponent “one of the worst [crooks] in Washington.” After all, Roy Blunt pretty much defines what it means to be a corrupt politician. But it’s a nice touch that she used Faux News footage from 2006 to make her point. The ad shows Fox host Chris Wallace skeptically asking Blunt if he is the right man to clean up Washington as graphics on the screen detail Blunt’s ties to lobbyists, one of whom he was schtupping and another of whom happens to be Jack Abramoff. It’s a solid ad. It’s fair. It’s factual. And it uses the right to hit the right. So, Fox News is suing Carnahan.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday in Kansas City federal court says the “smear ad” infringes on a Fox News copyright, improperly misappropriates Wallace’s likeness, and created a false impression that Wallace had endorsed Carnahan.

“The Carnahan Ad is designed to make it appear as if Wallace – a trusted journalist – is instead speaking as a campaign operative,” the suit says.

The station also claims that the 32-second commercial is misleading because it only contains parts of Wallace’s interview with Blunt.

“Wallace’s tough questions were included, but Blunt’s answers and explanations were not,” the suit says.

The suit, which says that Wallace has won every major broadcast news award, claims the Carnahan ad “intruded upon Wallace’s private self-esteem and dignity; and caused him emotional or mental distress and suffering.”

Fox’s suit asks the judge to yank the commercial from the air and order the Carnahan campaign to pay “reasonable attorneys’ fees” and undetermined monetary damages.

I watched the ad and I didn’t see any suggestion that Wallace was endorsing Carnahan. He merely appears to be eviscerating Blunt. It doesn’t make Wallace seem like a campaign operative, which is actually kind of rare for a Fox News host. It certainly provides no obvious reason for Wallace to be ashamed. He asked appropriate questions. And what right does a cable news anchor have to “private self-esteem and dignity” in relationship to their performance on the air? No one is allowed to criticize them? I hope Wallace overcomes his misguided mental distress and suffering sometime soon.

I don’t have much sympathy for the Teabaggers but I agree with them about one thing. This is wrong:

In 2003, Rep. Blunt divorced his wife of 31 years to marry Philip Morris (now Altria) lobbyist Abigail Perlman. Before it was known publicly that Rep. Blunt and Ms. Perlman were dating – and only hours after Rep. Blunt assumed the role of Majority Whip – he tried to secretly insert a provision into Homeland Security legislation that would have benefited Philip Morris, at the expense of competitors.

In addition, Rep. Blunt’s son Andrew lobbies on behalf of Philip Morris, a major client he picked up only four years out of law school. Notably, Altria is Rep. Blunt’s largest campaign contributor, having donated more than $270,000 to political committees tied to him.

In 2006, Fox News was kind enough to report this and ask Roy Blunt (then the Majority Leader) how in God’s Holy name he thought he could be the face of ethical reform in Congress. In 2010, they are suing Robin Carnahan for asking the same question.

The News Corp PAC has given money to Roy Blunt consistently over the years. So far in this cycle, they’ve made a $2,500 donation to his campaign. They did the same in 2008 and 2006. In 2004, they gave him a 1,000 bucks. They haven’t contributed to Robin Carnahan this year, or ever (as far as I can tell).

So, it’s pretty clear that Fox News is taking sides in this Senate race. They not only have given money to just one side, but they’re suing on Blunt’s behalf to keep public domain footage off the air. Do you think they would be suing if the candidate’s roles were reversed?

Yeah, me neither.

But, remember, you can ‘Restore America’ by electing guys like this:

In 2003, Rep. Blunt helped his lobbyist son Andrew by inserting a provision into the $79 billion emergency appropriation for the war in Iraq to benefit U.S. shippers like United Parcel Service, Inc. and FedEx Corp. The provision required that military cargo be carried only by companies with no more than 25% foreign ownership. UPS and FedEx were seeking to block the expansion of a foreign-owned rival’s U.S. operations. Andrew Blunt lobbies on behalf of UPS in Missouri, and UPS and FedEx have contributed at least $58,000 to Rep. Blunt since 2001.

Members of the House are prohibited from “taking any official actions for the prospect of personal gain for themselves or anyone else.” 5 CFR §2635.702(a). By pushing for legislation benefitting Philip Morris and UPS, and, as a consequence, his then-girlfriend and his son, Rep. Blunt may have violated this provision.

Because it’s okay if a Republican does it.

0 0 votes
Article Rating