Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 7, 2010

FOX NEWS MAKES ITS OWN 'DAISY' AD.... In one of the most famous campaign commercials of all time, LBJ showed a little girl picking at a daisy, followed by images of nuclear explosion. The point wasn't subtle -- that Goldwater guy could kill us all.

Today, Fox News borrowed a page from the "Daisy" playbook, suggesting a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia could lead to the nuclear annihilation of the United States.

Anchor/activist Megyn Kelly, en route to a commercial break, noted that President Obama is en route to Prague. "[C]ritics are asking, will the new deal leave the U.S. defenseless until it's too late? Coming up, next hour," Kelly said.

At that point, Fox News cut to footage of a nuclear explosion and giant mushroom cloud.

Two quick thoughts here. First, the arms deal with Russia is a pretty big deal, but it's not that big a deal. No sane person could possibly believe that the treaty could "leave the U.S. defenseless." The U.S. will still have a large arsenal, with the capacity to destroy the planet many times over. For Kelly to say this on the air is painfully ridiculous.

And second, how is anyone supposed to do parodies of Fox News when the Republican network airs madness like this with a straight face?

Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

fear fear fear
fear fear fear

get with the program, steve

Posted by: neill on April 7, 2010 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

So is BHO pledging that he would never use nuclear arms against Kenya, even if it becomes necessary?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: Al on April 7, 2010 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, I thought that was a clip from the Michele Bachman - Sarah Palin Event this afternoon. Or maybe I was hoping....

Posted by: whichwitch on April 7, 2010 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Everything Obama does is meant to destroy us. It's not enough that he's wrong, it's that he's evil.

The Right has never been known for its subtelety but they're not even bothering with the dog whistles anymore.

Posted by: walt on April 7, 2010 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

There is nothing new about the President saying that we will not initiate a first strike. The American nuclear defense system has always been based on the assumption that the other side would shoot first. Our weapons are so deep and so diverse that a first strike wouldn't stop a massive retailiation. I believe they will remain diverse and numerous after the treaty.

I have said it below and I will say it again, people today don't have a clue what nuclear war means. They are nuts if they think a nuclear war can be won. Given Americas overall technological superiority in conventional arms, I am pleasantly surprised the Russians are interested in taking any steps to disarm.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 7, 2010 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
- F. Roosevelt, 1933

We have nothing to offer but fear itself.
- Republican Party, 2010

Posted by: KTinOhio on April 7, 2010 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, stop ripping us off!

signed, The Onion

Posted by: David W. on April 7, 2010 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

"[C]ritics are asking, will the new deal leave the U.S. defenseless until it's too late? Coming up, next hour,..."

Which critics are asking? Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

Of course, the opinion programs of Fox News have nothing to do with the hard news programs on Fox News.

Posted by: Chris on April 7, 2010 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

Noun, verb, 9/11.

Nauseating...

Posted by: stevio on April 7, 2010 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

" Will Fox News leave huge portions of the U.S. population ill-informed, fearful and defenseless until some of its ignorant listeners do something horrible? Stay tuned. More after the next teabagger rally."

Posted by: In what repect, Charlie? on April 7, 2010 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

The planet can't possibly be destroyed enough times, Benen. Not if a person is a real patriot.

Posted by: JW on April 7, 2010 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

>> the Republican network

I like that, and intend to start using it as often as possible. It's a very clean, factual statement and a great talking point, all rolled into one.

Posted by: Churchyard on April 7, 2010 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Combine Faye Dunaway's character, Diana Christensen in "Network", and Sterling Hayden's General Ripper in "Dr. Strangelove" and you end up with Megyn Kelly.

The Attack of the Lying Fascist Blondes.

Posted by: John Thullen on April 7, 2010 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, as I understand it, the American/NATO plan during the Cold War was to keep the possible first use of nukes as a definite possibility. This was guard against what was supposed to be a large Red Army advantage on the ground, especially in Armor.
--“If the Red hordes ever pour through the Fulda Gap, we just might need to nuke them.”

Posted by: m.carey on April 7, 2010 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

No sane person could possibly believe that the treaty could "leave the U.S. defenseless."

Fox news is not addressing the sane people.

Posted by: Bobo Teh Clown on April 7, 2010 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Roger Ailes is such a douche. You just know he signed off on that one.

A civilized person doesn't wish for the demise of anyone...but with Ailes, I'd make an exception.

Posted by: LL on April 7, 2010 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

It's too bad that entertainment shows pretending to be news shows aren't required to give disclaimers at the top of each hour.

Posted by: nerd on April 7, 2010 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

"I am pleasantly surprised the Russians are interested in taking any steps to disarm." - Ron Beyers

Half the Russian nukes probably don't even work, so this would be a cheap way for them "catch up".

Posted by: Marko on April 7, 2010 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

m.carey, you are probably right, but our defenses were built on the assumption the Russians would shoot first. That is why we always had defenses in depth. Land, air and especially sea. The Russians might knock one or two systems out but there was no way they could handle all three with any assurance they would not suffer a massive retaliation.

A single boomer shooting mulitple warheaded rockets was enough to insure the end of the Soviet Union's military along with most of its civilians.

No, the US always assumed the Russians would shoot first.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 7, 2010 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't this one of the shows that Fox classifies as a "news program" whenever someone criticizes it for the crap that's on Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc.?

Posted by: Andrew on April 7, 2010 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

I must begrudgingly give kudos to Kelley. She really sold it with her wide eyed and terrorized slasher movie scream queen performance. Who knows? Maybe she'll land a juicy role in Halloween XXXIV or something.

Posted by: JoeW on April 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Marco, you assume, like a lot of youngsters, that a nuclear exchange is winnable. You overlook the reality that if we ever achieve zero nukes, the Russians would be unable able to resist the American military. If the world should have learned anything during the recent Iraqi wars it is that "target" the best word to describe Russian military equipment when confronting the American military.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 7, 2010 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

No, I do not think a nuclear war is winnable, and I wouldn't feel too comfortable with Zero Nukes either. But I also don't think Russians would just "give anything away" unless they had to. YMMV

Posted by: Marko on April 7, 2010 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

Gawd Damn, they're actually trying to revive the Red (Nuclear) Menace, again????! Guys, that is so 80's!

Posted by: Trollop on April 7, 2010 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

"Gawd Damn, they're actually trying to revive the Red (Nuclear) Menace, again????! Guys, that is so 80's!"
Posted by: Trollop on April 7, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Coming up with something new requires creativity.
Creativity requires intelligence.
The current crop of Publicans -- that 20%± that will still admit to being Publican -- have no intelligence.
Thus...

I'll leave deriving the conclusion as an exercise for the reader.

Posted by: smartalek on April 7, 2010 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

There actually WAS a time when a nuclear war was survivable. It was the very brief period between 1947 when the USSR exploded it first A-bomb and 1954 when the H-bomb was developed.
Survivability would simply have been due to the scarcity of atomic weapons; only those already in existence could have been used as the ability of either side to make any further bombs would have been quickly destroyed. Whether through direct targeting, contamination, or because the electro-magnetic pulses had fried all the electrial wiring neede to run the machinery, most of the industrial/transportation infrastructure would have been unusable.
For those who ever wondered, that is why the US had so many air bases around the world - to allow attacks on Soviet bombers BEFORE they reached the continental US. Bombers were needed because ballistic missiles were as yet undeveloped.
Even with the limited number of warheads available to both sides however, casualty estimates ranged from 10% to over 50%, depending on whether one only counted those immediately incinerated/irradiated or also included those deaths from starvation, disease, etc. after the last bomb fell.
Duck and cover, indeed!

Posted by: Doug on April 7, 2010 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

Does anybody know who is the individual at Fox that has the position and the direction to allow this kind of BS to be aired on Fox? It would be interesting to know. Where do the orders come from and what is their background. He/She obviously has some kind of demented agenda and can lie with the very best. It must be some kind of art form to them.

Posted by: fillphil on April 7, 2010 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

No sane person could possibly believe that the treaty could "leave the U.S. defenseless."

I just listened to John Bolton make this case on Laura Ingraham. Of course your statement still remains true, but it should be noted that yes conservatives are making this case.

Posted by: blank on April 8, 2010 at 12:33 AM | PERMALINK

Third, the military regards these weapons as unuseable.

Posted by: bob h on April 8, 2010 at 6:03 AM | PERMALINK
We have nothing to fear but fear itself. - F. Roosevelt, 1933
We have nothing to offer but fear itself. - Republican Party, 2010 Posted by: KTinOhio on April 7, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Perfect!

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on April 8, 2010 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

"a great man once said we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Now you're supposed to be afraid. It's patriotic, even...color coded..."

Randy Newman

Posted by: Noam Sane on April 8, 2010 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly