New York Appeals Court Dismisses Dan Rather’s Suit vs. CBS
This should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the whole sorry “Rathergate” affair… A New York State Appeals Court has dismissed Dan Rather’s $70 million wrongful termination suit against CBS:
A New York state appeals court on Tuesday dismissed former TV newsman Dan Rather’s lawsuit against CBS Corp in which Rather claimed he was made a scapegoat in a scandal over a 2004 report on then-President George W. Bush’s military record.
The ruling on Tuesday by a panel of judges of the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division said Rather’s $70 million complaint should be dismissed in its entirety and that a lower court erred in denying CBS’s motion to throw out the lawsuit.
Rather, 77, sued CBS in 2007 after his career collapsed following a 60 Minutes II report on the Pres. George W. Bush’s Vietnam-era military service. The report relied in part on documents that could not be authenticated and that appear to have been generated using modern word processing software rather than a typewriter in the 1970s.
More from the Los Angels Times:
In its ruling, issued more than five months after the parties argued the case before the appellate division, the court reversed Judge Ira Gammerman’s decisions on the case.
“This Court finds that the motion court erred in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and therefore we find the complaint must be dismissed in its entirety,” the ruling said.
The appellate division found that Gammerman should have dismissed Rather’s breach of contract claim against CBS, rejecting the anchor’s argument that he was warehoused by the network constituted a violation of his deal.
“This claim attempts to gloss over the fact that Rather continued to be compensated at his normal CBS salary of approximately $6 million a year until June 2006 when the compensation was accelerated upon termination, consistent with his contract,” the court wrote. Rather’s contract did not require “that CBS actually use Rather’s services or broadcast any programs on which he appears, but simply retains the option of accelerating the payment of his compensation under the agreement if he is not assigned to either program.”
The appellate division found that Rather failed to support his claim that CBS damaged his future business opportunities, saying “it would be speculative to conclude that any action taken by CBS would have alone substantially affected his market value at that time.” And the appeals judges wrote that he could not sue for breach of fiduciary duty because CBS did not owe Rather a fiduciary duty.
The appellate division wrote that Rather had no grounds on which to claim fraud, dismissing his argument that he is making substantially less money at his current job at HDNet than the $4 million annually he believed he could have made at CBS as speculative and irrelevant. And the anchor failed to prove that the fall-out from CBS’ handling of the Bush story curtailed other job prospects.
Ouch, that amounts to total repudiation of Rather’s claims… One would hope Dan Rather save himself further humiliation and just fade quietly into obscurity, unfortunately, that’s not his style… He’s apparently planning to appeal the decision.
Golf Analyst David Feherty Apologizes for Pelosi Joke in Dallas Magazine
Fox News is reporting that CBS Sports Golf analyst David Feherty has apologized to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for a joke in a Dallas magazine:
PONTE VEDRA BEACH, Fla. — CBS Sports golf analyst David Feherty apologized Sunday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for a morbid joke that went bad in a Dallas magazine.
Feherty, one of the most popular golf analysts for his sharp wit and self-deprecating humor, was among five Dallas residents who wrote for “D Magazine” on former President George W. Bush moving to Dallas.
“From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this though,” Feherty wrote toward the end of his column.
“Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there’s a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death.”
Feherty, a former Ryder Cup player who grew up in Northern Ireland, has gone to Iraq over Thanksgiving the past two years to visit with U.S. troops, and he created a foundation to help wounded soldiers.
Sure, Mr. Feherty’s joke was in bad taste but it was no worse than comedian Wanda Sykes jokes about September 11th and Rush Limbaugh at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.
For the record I’m not excusing David Feherty, it was a bad joke… I’m just curious when Ms. Sykes is going to apologize to Rush Limbaugh?
Diana West: Its George W. Bush Not Rush Limbaugh Who is the Real Enemy of Conservatism
When I wrote my election postmortem I listed “Bush fatigue” as one of the reasons why Republicans lost in November. Diana West takes that theory one step further in her column today and says out loud what a lot of us having been thinking:
Forced to the ramparts to defend Rush Limbaugh against the spurious, low-down attacks of the Obamedia-plus-hangers-on, conservatives are letting the real enemy of conservatism slip away. That enemy would be George W. Bush, whose stealth political legacy is a tectonic lurch Left for what is popularly thought of as “conservatism.” The resulting chaos–crisis, in fact–is exactly what the new collectivist-in-chief has seized on, not to change America’s direction, but to accelerate its Leftward shift. This continuity is what conservatives are failing to appreciate and assess, much to the detriment of their own coherence and political message.
West is entirely right, George W. Bush’s brand of neo-conservatism has done serious, and possibly lasting, damage to the Republican party and to the conservative movement. We can’t simply ignore his legacy or the effect it has had on the Republican Party or the conservative movement. We need to confront it and repudiate the out of control spending and leftward lurch that defined the Bush years.
H/T: Michelle Malkin.
The Bush Legacy
I was flipping through the worthless rag that passes for our local paper this morning when I came across this joyous little piece of hate in the Letters to the Editor:
A Reign of Error has finally ended
It has been said by others that “the highest patriotism is love of one’s country deep enough to call it to a higher standard.”Now that an eight-year Reign of Error is ended, an American Renewal can, at torturous last, begin.
And if W’s large evangelical base is correct about the existence of a hell and a heavenly quid pro quo, dear W will be warm, now, in Texas and then, later, forever be considerably warmer than he might like.
John Katz
RIDGEFIELD
Oh Lord, BDS — Bush Derangement Syndrome is a live well in Ridgefield.
There’s plenty of room for criticism of George W. Bush’s record as President… There is, however, no need for the kind hate filled rhetoric used by Mr. Katz.
Newsmax.com has detailed two part examination at the Bush legacy:
Bush’s Legacy: Conservatives Were Betrayed
“This administration has had a good, solid record, and I’m very proud of it. I tell people I leave town with a great sense of accomplishment and my head held high.”
—George W. Bush, Jan. 13, 2009As the 43rd president waves goodbye to Washington, relatively few Americans share his proud assessment of his own presidency.
George W. Bush leaves the White House with one of the lowest approval ratings in history. According to Gallup, only Richard Nixon and Harry Truman, who suffered the double whammy of a bad economy and the unpopular Korean War, had lower approval ratings when they left the White House.
Today, Bush’s legacy to his successor is two unresolved wars, a global image that is deeply tarnished, and the greatest economic crisis in modern times.
Conservatives who backed Bush in two successive elections have little to show for their efforts. Bush, in fact, has decimated the Republican brand.
Bush oversaw the greatest increase in discretionary social spending in history as the federal government usurped new powers in its war on terror. He placed the United States on a global interventionist path for the elusive goal of “democracy.” Ronald Reagan would not be able to recognize the party he knew, which espoused limited government, protection of personal liberty, and the idea that the U.S. should lead globally by example rather than by force.
The best that can be said of President Bush is that he kept America’s homeland safe. During his watch, we did not experience another terror attack on U.S. soil after Sept. 11. Read the rest…
Part II:
The Bush Legacy Part II: Trillions in Deficits For Years to Come
As Barack Obama assumes the mantle of the presidency and duties of the office, he has inherited from his predecessor a federal government that has a staggering national debt of more than $10 trillion, a ballooning federal deficit this year estimated at $438 billion – and a government that recently assumed responsibility for some $5 trillion of the nation’s consumer debt.
The irony is that George W. Bush, who billed himself as a conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, leaves a legacy of profligate federal spending, record debt and an economy in shambles.
A broad range of conservative thinkers, surveying the political and economic fallout of the two Bush terms, are openly voicing their concerns that it may take years for the Republican Party and the nation to repair the damage Bush policies have inflicted.
“Bush has added a staggering $32 trillion to unfunded government liabilities future generations of Americans will have to bear,” wrote the London Sunday Times’ Andrew Sullivan, a maverick conservative who described Bush’s economic policies as “fiscal madness.”
The huge spending increases came despite the fact that fellow Republicans controlled Congress for six of Bush’s eight years in office. And Bush did not veto a bill of any kind, including spending, until July 2006, and left office having cast the fewest vetoes of any modern president.
Ultimately I think history will judge George W. Bush relatively well in the war on terror his record on domestic issues was at best mediocre.
LAT: Reagan Wouldn’t Recognize This GOP
Former congressman Mickey Edwards wrote provocative Op Ed titled “Reagan wouldn’t recognize this GOP” in the Los Angeles Times a couple of days… It’s worth reading. I agree with Edwards’ central point which point which is that the contemporary Republican party has lost its way.
Where Edwards loses me is here:
The Republican Party that is in such disrepute today is not the party of Reagan. It is the party of Rush Limbaugh, of Ann Coulter, of Newt Gingrich, of George W. Bush, of Karl Rove. It is not a conservative party, it is a party built on the blind and narrow pursuit of power.
Not too long ago, conservatives were thought of as the locus of creative thought. Conservative think tanks (full disclosure: I was one of the three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation) were thought of as cutting-edge, offering conservative solutions to national problems. By the 2008 elections, the very idea of ideas had been rejected. One who listened to Barry Goldwater’s speeches in the mid-’60s, or to Reagan’s in the ’80s, might have been struck by their philosophical tone, their proposed (even if hotly contested) reformulation of the proper relationship between state and citizen. Last year’s presidential campaign, on the other hand, saw the emergence of a Republican Party that was anti-intellectual, nativist, populist (in populism’s worst sense) and prepared to send Joe the Plumber to Washington to manage the nation’s public affairs.
The problems faced by the Republican party aren’t the fault of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or the grass roots of the party. Conservatism is alive and well on main street, where its failed is in Washington… The party’s leadership and of its political consultants have abandoned the principles and ideas that made Ronald Reagan successful and replaced them with a brand of populist, politically expedient “republicanism” that has more in common with the Democratic party than it does with conservatism.
If republicans are going to have any chance in 2012 or in the 2010 mid-terms the party leadership has rediscover core its core conservative principles and begin crafting policy ideas rooted in those principles.
H/T: Hot Air.
Other McCain has a slightly different take.
Harry Reid: George W. Bush ‘the worst president we’ve ever had’
From CNN’s Politcal Ticker blog:
As the nation prepares for the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, a leading Democrat is not letting up in his criticism of President George W. Bush.
“I really do believe President Bush is the worst president we’ve ever had,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
With all due respect Senator I think your historical compass is a little out of whack… I’m no fan of the Bush Administration but I wouldn’t go so far as to call him “the worst president we’ve ever had”. That honor without a doubt belongs to Herbert Hoover.
Personally, I’d rate Bush well ahead of James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Calvin Coolidge, Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon.
Ultimately I think history will judge Dubya well in the war on terror but his record on domestic issues is mediocre.
Big Shoes To Fill
In a little less than a month Barack Obama will take the oath of office and become the 44th President of the United States. In some respects he’s going to have some pretty big shoes to fill…
From the Wall Street Journal:
The President Comforts a Marine Mom
By William McGurn, Wall Street Journal, December 23, 2003
This Thursday morn, Julie McPhillips will awake to the great hope that is Christmas Day. And amid her joy for the Savior born of woman in a Bethlehem stable, she will offer two prayers.
The first will be for her son, Lt. Brian McPhillips, killed in action in April 2003 as the First Marine Division fought its way into Baghdad. The other will be for the man on whose orders Lt. McPhillips was sent to Iraq: George W. Bush.
You see, Julie McPhillips knows a side of the president that never seems to make it into the newspapers. Since a meeting in the Oval Office a few years back, the two have exchanged letters, many written in the president’s hand. Through the sadness that binds them together, they look eye to eye and let their hearts do the talking. Read the rest…
And from the Washington Times:
EXCLUSIVE: Bush, Cheney comforted troops privately
Met with thousands of war injured, kin out of spotlight
By Joseph Curl and John Solomon, Washington Times, Monday, December 22, 2008
For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White House. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark.
Their mission: to comfort the families of soldiers who died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and to lift the spirits of those wounded in the service of their country.
On Monday, the president is set to make a more common public trip – with reporters in tow – to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, home to many of the wounded and a symbol of controversy earlier in his presidency over the quality of care the veterans were receiving.
But the size and scope of Mr. Bush’s and Mr. Cheney’s private endeavors to meet with wounded soliders and families of the fallen far exceed anything that has been witnessed publicly, according to interviews with more than a dozen officials familiar with the effort.
“People say, ‘Why would you do that?’” the president said in an Oval Office interview with The Washington Times on Friday. “And the answer is: This is my duty. The president is commander in chief, but the president is often comforter in chief, as well. It is my duty to be – to try to comfort as best as I humanly can a loved one who is in anguish.”
Mr. Bush, for instance, has sent personal letters to the families of every one of the more than 4,000 troops who have died in the two wars, an enormous personal effort that consumed hours of his time and escaped public notice. The task, along with meeting family members of troops killed in action, has been so wrenching – balancing the anger, grief and pride of families coping with the loss symbolized by a flag-draped coffin – that the president often leaned on his wife, Laura, for emotional support.
“I lean on the Almighty and Laura,” Mr. Bush said in the interview. “She has been very reassuring, very calming.”
Mr. Bush also has met privately with more than 500 families of troops killed in action and with more than 950 wounded veterans, according to White House spokesman Carlton Carroll. Many of those meetings were outside the presence of the news media at the White House or at private sessions during official travel stops, officials said.
The first lady said those private visits, many of which she also attended, took a heavy emotional toll, not just on the president, but on her as well. Read the rest…
Previous:
Son of a Bailout – Bush Gives Auto Makers $17.4 Billion
President Bush this morning morning announced a $17.4 billion bailout plan for auto makers. Under the terms of the plan GM and Chrysler would receive $13.4 billion in loans in December and January, with another $4 billion likely available in February.
The deal is contingent on the companies’ showing that they’re financially viable by March 31, 2009, if they can’t the loan will be called and all funds returned to the Treasury.
Autos Bailout Fact Sheet
The following is a release from the Bush administration detailing its bailout for the car industry:
Fact Sheet: Financing Assistance to Facilitate the Restructuring of Automobile Manufacturers to Attain Financial Viability
Purpose: The terms and conditions of the financing provided by the Treasury Department will facilitate restructuring of our domestic auto industry, prevent disorderly bankruptcies during a time of economic difficulty, and protect the taxpayer by ensuring that only financially viable firms receive financing.
Amount: Auto manufacturers will be provided with $13.4 B in short-term financing from the TARP, with an additional $4 B available in February, contingent upon drawing down the second tranche of TARP funds.
Viability Requirement: The firms must use these funds to become financially viable. Taxpayers will not be asked to provide financing for firms that do not become viable. If the firms have not attained viability by March 31, 2009, the loan will be called and all funds returned to the Treasury.
Definition of Viability: A firm will only be deemed viable if it has a positive net present value, taking into account all current and future costs, and can fully repay the government loan.
Binding Terms and Conditions: The binding terms and conditions established by the Treasury will mirror those that were voted favorably by a majority of both Houses of Congress, including:
- Firms must provide warrants for non-voting stock.
- Firms must accept limits on executive compensation and eliminate perks such as corporate jets.
- Debt owed to the government would be senior to other debts, to the extent permitted by law.
- Firms must allow the government to examine their books and records.
- Firms must report and the government has the power to block any large transactions (> $100 M).
- Firms must comply with applicable Federal fuel efficiency and emissions requirements.
- Firms must not issue new dividends while they owe government debt.
Targets: The terms and conditions established by Treasury will include additional targets that were the subject of Congressional negotiations but did not come to a vote, including:
- Reduce debts by 2/3 via a debt for equity exchange.
- Make one-half of VEBA payments in the form of stock.
- Eliminate the jobs bank.
- Work rules that are competitive with transplant auto manufacturers by 12/31/09.
- Wages that are competitive with those of transplant auto manufacturers by 12/31/09.
These terms and conditions would be non-binding in the sense that negotiations can deviate from the quantitative targets above, providing that the firm reports the reasons for these deviations and makes the business case to achieve long-term viability in spite of the deviations.
In addition, the firm will be required to conclude new agreements with its other major stakeholders, including dealers and suppliers, by March 31, 2009.
Putting aside the obvious question of why are the taxpayers being asked to throw good money after bad yet again… Key provisions of this deal, wage concessions, changes in work rules and the elimination of the jobs bank are non-binding. Second there’s nothing in this deal about the legacy costs and/or the government regulations that are choking these companies.
This is nothing more than an expensive joke on us the tax payers.
George W. Bush: “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free market system”
Huh? What? With all due respect Mr. President what you’re doing is akin to using hand grenade to kill and ant.
Allahpundit has the video over at Hot Air.
Creeping Socialism: Bush Defends Citigroup Bailout
I’m at a loss for words here… From the AP via Michelle Malkin:
President Bush argued Monday that the government’s dramatic rescue of Citigroup was necessary to “safeguard the financial system” and help the economy recover, and he said there could be more such moves if other institutions need help.
Bush said he approved the action, recommended by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, while flying back to Washington on Sunday evening from meetings in Peru with Pacific Rim leaders. He said he also spoke with President-elect Barack Obama on Sunday night, part of what he has promised will be “close cooperation” between his administration and the Obama camp.
Referring to the Citigroup rescue, Bush said, “We have made these kind of decisions in the past. We made one last night. And if need be we will make these kind of decisions to safeguard our financial system in the future.” Read the rest…
They say the definition of insanity is when you keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results… We can’t keep printing money and think we can inflate our way out of this crisis.
If you haven’t read Christopher Woods Op Ed “The Fed Is Out of Ammunition” in today’s Wall Street Journal you should. While I disagree with his suggestion that we return to the gold standard – not that it’s a bad idea, I just don’t think we can get that Gennie in back the bottle at this point… Woods does an excellent job of explaining why the current bailout circus is doomed to fail.
Loading ...