HMB’s AB1991 representative Lanny Davis joins Fox News

Posted by on Mon, June 16, 2008

Half Moon Bay’s representative for AB1991, Lanny Davis, has joined the staff of Fox News, reports Alex Koppelman in Salon.

Davis has been trending Fox News’ way for some time now, first as a supporter of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman during his reelection fight in 2006 and then as a Clinton surrogate this year. During one appearance he made on the network in May, under prompting from conservative radio host Laura Ingraham about allegations of bias against Clinton, Davis said he "now know[s] what it feels like to be a Republican" and added that, in his view, Fox was the most balanced of the cable networks. Separately, Davis told the Politico’s Michael Calderone that one appearance he made on rival CNN was "the worst experience I ever had on television."

And Davis fits with the general pattern of Democratic guests on FNC. In an article I wrote last year about so-called Fox News Democrats, who often seem to be picked by the network to make Democrats look bad, I discussed Davis’ general attitude on the network, where he often appeared as what I termed an "enabler." "This category of guest", I noted, "is ‘on-screen to prove to viewers that even Democrats agree that a radical left wing dominates the Democratic Party, not to mention the media.’" Davis was a prime example of this phenomenon.

NOTE: You can see Lanny’s famous performance on Fox over at Talking Points Memo.

Fits with the idea that 28 out 32 Republicans in the State Assembly voted yes on AB 1991, while only 18 out of 48 Democrats voted yes.

The guy behind the HMB City Council’s truth squad now states that he thinks Fox is the most fair and balanced network. Perfect.

At least Lanny Davis remains loyal to the people who made him famous.  That is a lot better than Dick Morris or George Stephanoplous who have sold out the Clintons. 

As far as biased news stations go,  MS-NBC takes the cake.  Wow, Kevin are we ever going to agree on anything?

Well Steve, I guess I would agree that Lanny Davis has remained loyal to the Clintons. But I can’t see why anybody would consider that to be a virtue, given the basic nature of the Clintons, and their obvious problems with telling the truth. Birds of feather…

Check out this great video collection which illustrates the point about the Clintons quite well:

I appreciate Lanny’s loyalty.  It’s an admirable quality.  But why would any rational adult believe what he’s saying?

And why would the City of HMB shell out so much $$$ for a hired shill whose judgment is so obviously impaired?  Other cable news organizations are biased, but only Fox News has asserted (in a Florida Appeals Court)—and won—the right to lie in their “news” programs!  They won by asserting that the FCC’s policies against the deliberate distortion of the news were not ‘laws,’ so the plaintiffs’ whistleblower lawsuit was without merit.

OK, so Fox News says there’s no law against lying on the news.  That’s OK.  But why on earth would *any* rational adult believe what they’re saying??

Lanny Davis and Fox News: A Perfect Match.


Thanks for starting my day off with a smile. We are actually agreeing,  first loyalty and now the Clintons.  Its only a matter of time till I convince you of the virtues of Fox and Beachwood with Fox being the easier sell.

Despite what you think of Davis’s former boss,  these guys are the masters of spin and they are democrats so they took Sacramento by storm.  I don’t think Karl Rove would have been as effective.

And of course CBS and the NY Times aren’t credible either so maybe we should get our news from Jon Stuart.

HMB has a budget deficit to operate and maintain its sewer system - where is it finding the money to pay for the Davis PR push?

Does anyone know how much HMB has spent on the Beachwood PR effort?  And since it probably was not in last years budget, where is it coming from?  Is it in next years budget?

The LAFCo report shows HMB spending $95,877 more to operate its sewer system than it receives in revenues and over $588,000 more in capital improvements than it gets in revenues for its capital improvements.  Next year the deficits are even bigger:  A deficit of for $122,000 operations and maintenance; a deficit of over $1,385,000 for capital improvements.

How can it afford to give a reduction in connection fees to Mr. Keenan?

AB 1991 is a bad bill whether you’re a liberal or a conservative. It’s a bad bill whether you watch Fox News or MSNBC.

AB 1991 is a bad bill whether or not you love your mother.

AB 1991 is a bad bill. Let’s not lose focus on that issue.

Fox? News?????

I’ve never understood the contempt displayed towards Fox News. Seems silly to me to complain about them when there are so many others to choose from.

Instead of insulting those that do watch Fox News—which appears to have more viewership than similar cable news outlets with a greater distribution—why wouldn’t one assuage their superiority by declaring which news outlets they trust rather than complaining about the one they probably don’t watch anyway?

Just wondering. Perhaps someone can ‘splain it to me.

Fair question and point: ‘watched’ and ‘trusted’ News: BBC, Bloomberg, PBS


Glad to see that the contempt here isn’t just limited to brokers and local business people who try to point out the many great reasons to live here.

Its amusing to see the anger here towards democrats like Davis (and Clinton) who are shrewdly moving AB 1991 through Sacramento.  I can understand the contempt for Fox even though they are more balanced than many of the other stations.  People seem to be jealous of success.

I guess these blogs let people vent their frustrations.  And its cheaper than therapy.

What about us local business people who don’t shill for overdevelopment? Who point out that some local resources and infrastructure are already pushed past sustainable limits, making life here more trying than it needed to be? Who point out that with overpopulation, some of what was good in the past is no longer here, and some of what good is here now won’t be here in the future? Who, in some cases, depend on the coastal values being destroyed by hit-and-run development and all the problems it brings for their customers?

Or do you only include certain kinds of businesses that benefit from wrecking a place by selling a myth to uninformed newcomers who can’t yet see what is going on?

Are you just waking up to criticism of long-time scumbuckets in the Democratic Party? Why would someone be jealous of scuzzy people like those criticized unless they sickly define “success” as the ability to get paid big bucks for conducting scams? As in the familiar HMB attitude “As long as I get mine, I don’t care what the specifics or consequences or your frustrations are”?

It’s a mistake to get your news from *any* cable news outlet.  John Stewart has made a career of mocking what they do and how they do it. However, Fox News is the worst of a bad lot.

I do get the impression that when people talk about how much they love this beautiful place, some are talking about the sense of a small town in a relatively natural environment and some are talking about ocean-accessible real estate.

Time out… at least we KNOW what Fox News stands for. The real travesty is the major networks… let me start in order of liberal biasm: CBS, NPR, CNN, NBC, ABC, and so on. These are blatant left outlets, unfortunately under the guise of “mainstream media”. Why is Fox constantly atop the charts, because roughly 50% of the country is fed up with what has been decades of “neutral guised” but biased media. Spare me. Why did Air America fail… because KGO, KCBS, et al are already liberal/Democrat outlets… thusly the health of Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage.

Indeed, Steve nailed it… “People seem to be jealous of success.” I think the right said enough is enough, we are tired of Dan Rather (caught red handed… errr blue handed), Couric, Blitzer, etc… etc… etc…

If Lanny Davis joined NPR than all would be fine I assume… amidst the hypocrisy.

I think once you make the distinction between news and opinion, you’ll see how silly it is to proclaim Fox News as “the worst of a bad lot.”

Not that I don’t despise Hannity and Savage. Those are the two worst proponents of the conservative cause ever.

In my view, PBS is government propaganda by definition, and I hate seeing my tax dollars used to fund them.

Kevin, if all the networks you named are “liberal” or “blatant left,” as you assert, why did they all wholeheartedly support the invasion of Iraq, even though hundreds of thousands of Americans were taking to the streets in protest?  Why did they fire anyone who dared question the administration’s case for the invasion (i.e., Phil Donahue, who had the most highly-rated show on MS-NBC)?  Why did they air the administration’s paid propagandists and let them spout their pro-war talking points without any challenge?

Let’s suppose, for a minute, that there actually *is* a “liberal bias” in the major networks.  If that were true, then *why is it* that the owners of these networks, who support Bush, contribute heavily to the GOP, and have an enormous investment in defense contractors, have so little influence over the networks that they own & manage?

There is no “liberal bias,” Kevin.  Instead, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave us unprecedented media consolidation.  7 media conglomerates now own the TV & cable networks, radio stations, newspapers, and news magazines.  They get their political talking points from the GOP & think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, etc.

BTW, if you think that Air America “failed” because they ran out of money and went Chapter Whatever, then Fox News also “failed” when they ran out of $$$ & needed a huge infusion of cash in their early years. 

Progressive talk radio is doing just fine, despite the overwhelming media consolidation.  Locally, KKGN (AM 960) is excellent, and Thom Hartmann’s 9am-12pm show consistently beats Rush Limbaugh in SF & many other markets, even though KKGN, like many other progressive stations, is only 5kW (while KGO, KNBR, KCBS are 50kW).

Corporate & right-wing opinions are presented as the political “center,” while moderate capitalists are dismissed as a liberal fringe group.  Kevin, in a reality-based frame of reference, the media is *far* to the right of the populace.

If we don’t get our news from cable outlets that have the time to devote more to segments,  should we get the Weekly Reader?  In case you didn’t get it,  Jon Stuart was a joke.

Fox is by far the best and balanced but I constantly flip between CNN, MSNBC, PBS and local news for humor.  Limbaugh, Dobbs and O’Reily are very informative than comes Hannity.  Savage,  while entertaining, is over the top and Oberman is a jealous sore looser and is totally biased.


‘There is no “liberal bias,” Kevin.’

‘There is no “liberal bias,” Kevin.’

Of course there is, Dan. So sayeth Bernie Goldberg. Tim Russert was concerned by media bias as well.

Other than a bunch of corporate or right-wing pundits repeatedly saying that there’s “liberal bias,” there’s simply no evidence that it exists.

However, a simple reality check, in my previous post, shows that if it does exist, the executives who manage those networks are painfully inept and should be fired!

Show me the evidence!

What would be the point?

Despite ample evidence that media bias exists at the networks (just like at any other news outlet) and common knowledge of human nature, you’ve already made up your mind on the issue.

Besides that, neither this issue nor your opinion on it are worth the effort required to compile the evidence.

Now, one news outlet may be more biased than another, but to assert that some outlets are bias-free is very difficult to justify.

To turn the tables, show me the evidence that they’re not biased!


I never said anything about the existence of bias.  I never asserted that any news or infotainment organization is UNbiased.  Of course bias exists, and it’s a part of human nature.

I was specifically challenging the widely-held notion that the bias of the major media networks is “liberal.”

My mind is far from made up.  If you can show me some evidence that this media bias is liberal, I’ll have to give it some careful consideration.  In my line of work, as well as my political views, I can’t afford to be closed-minded.

One quick example:  The media networks enthusiastically supported the invasion of Iraq, and continue to support the occupation of Iraq.  People who promote an anti-occupation position are not allowed to speak unless they’re countered by a pro-occupation opinion; however, pro-occupation opinions (i.e., from the Administration) are routinely presented without challenge.  Despite this, polls show that >58% of Americans are against the occupation.

If there were “liberal bias,” don’t you think you’d see more anti-war / anti-occupation opinions & material??

OK, your turn…


I know they are influential among people who slouch on their couches after work, with their eyeballs rolling down their face into their beer (love that line, wish it was mine), but are people trying to get actual news of what is going on in the world really relying that much on American corporate media, newspapers as well as TV? Outside the Internet, guess we’re stuck with it for local and regional news, but do you folks really believe that stuff on the networks?

If so, take two Noam Chomskys, go to bed, and watch Bill Moyers’s expose of media behavior in the leadup to the Iraqi war.

Which brings me to my whine of the day. What happened to the BBC and the German English-language news on local middle-of-the-night PBS TV? I get my most reliable news from overseas news sources on the Internet—still somewhat biased but way more professional—but I liked those TV programs for their ability to induce sleep without selling some commercial product to my subconscious.


Re-read what you wrote and you’ll see why I thought you were denying the existence of a liberal media bias. Reading your response, I’m not sure where you stand.

Given the drastic decrease in violence in Iraq, the recent successes of its military, and the advances by its government, the coverage you seek could easily be called biased.

Steve Hyman wrote,

> Fox is by far the best and balanced
> but I constantly flip between CNN,
> MSNBC, PBS and local news for humor.
> Limbaugh, Dobbs and O’Reily are very
> informative than comes Hannity.
> Savage, while entertaining, is over
> the top and Oberman is a jealous sore
> looser and is totally biased.

(Just wanted to see that in print one more time; thanks, Steve, I owe you.)

> Given the drastic decrease in violence in Iraq, the recent successes of its military, and the advances by its government, the coverage you seek could easily be called biased.

And that information comes to us from… the Administration, via the Major Media.

Yes, there’s been a decrease in violence—partly because we (US taxpayers) are **paying** Sunni militias NOT to fight us, and partly because several militia leaders have declared a unilateral cease-fire.

If Iraq is doing so well, why are there MILLIONS of Iraqi refugees in Syria & neighboring countries?

So now we hear that the Iraqi government, with a U.S. gun to its head, is awarding NO-BID contracts to all of the pre-nationalization oil companies (Exxon, Chevron, BP… but NOT Gazprom or any Chinese oil companies who had development agreements under Saddam.)

And it was all about WMDs, right?

You might hear “news” on Fox & the major media outlets, but its only what the Administration & its sponsoring corporations want you to hear.  If you want “the rest of the story,” you have to go find it.  (Hint: the truth usually doesn’t have the blessing of corporate sponsorship.)

Try adding these to your reading, so you can at least see some of the stories that your current sources aren’t covering:

Dan Blick—Yawn.

Aw, c’mon, Francis!  I realize it was a tough choice—between providing some evidence of “liberal bias,” or resorting to the old, reliable personal attack.

From the way you were talking, I thought you had plenty of good ammo.  Oh well…  So sad…

Better luck next time, eh?


Dan—Carry on with your thread hijacking. I prefer to keep the focus on AB 1991, which is a very bad bill no matter what you choose to believe about news outlets.

Francis, on AB1991 we agree!  It’s a bad bill.



I see that the [status][1] of the upcoming 1991 committee meeting has changed from “postponed for a week” to “Hearing canceled at the request of author.”



But I see the hearing date remains for 06/25/08. I wouldn’t trust that “cancelled” just yet. Without further clarificatin, it could mean the 6/18 date was cancelled, using that language instead of “postponed.”

A call to Yee’s office should clear it up.