Published in the June 6 Leader newspaper
I have to say this in support of recently deposed Channel 4 news anchor Larry Conners – until he became the news, I had no clue where he stood on the news.
Conners was recently dropkicked from his job after an ill-advised Facebook posting he made in which he implied – well, he pretty much said – that the IRS was targeting him because he had conducted a tough interview with President Barack Obama.
Unfortunately, his tax problems preceded that interview by several years. Channel 4 forced Conners to make a "clarification" statement, then fired him a week later.
It is not unusual for people in the electronic media to have inflated opinions of themselves and their importance. Large egos are normal, maybe even required, particularly for television and radio talent.
For most of his career that I saw, Larry Conners delivered the news pretty straight. It’s a compliment to him not to know his politics.
So, suddenly, where did all these new friends come from who have rushed to his defense? And why?
It’s because of this: For uber-conservatives, anything that can be turned into a shot at Barack Obama has currency. It is the No. 1 rule in their not-so-secret playbook: "Nothing Obama does or says has value. He is evil incarnate, etc., and whenever we are forced to mention him, the context is always negative. Woe to any of our (former) people who say anything remotely positive about him."
The playbook requires trotting out the usual adjectives – liberal, Kenyan, commie-socialist (two different things, but, hey, we’re rolling), Marxist, scandal-ridden, Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-American, pampered by the (same adjectives) media.
So, if Larry Conners has a problem with the evil one, then Larry is our man!
It’s remarkable that such an embracing of Conners could be done with a straight face while ignoring his obvious detour from the facts regarding his IRS problems.
That’s part of the joy of living in a post-factual society where we believe what we believe, facts be damned.
Conners raised the fever pitch last week by filing a lawsuit against his former employer, allegedly for age, gender and race discrimination.
The race discrimination was claimed because his black co-anchor, Vickie Newton, made more money than Conners even though she was younger and less experienced. The age discrimination was alleged because younger (though not whiter) reporters with less experience got assigned juicier stories, ones he used to get.
Presumably, when Conners was a young stud, they gave those stories to him instead of the more experienced fossils in the newsroom at that time. Also presumably, that was OK with Larry – then.
I was semi-surprised that the suit did not include a charge of hair discrimination because the people who got more money and better stories than the smooth-pated native Texan all had considerably more head cover, too.
This lawsuit clearly is intended to drive public opinion to Conners’ side of the corral where his contemporaries – old white guys, who generally are not Obama fans – can hoot and holler and say, "Hell, yes, Lar. Go get ’em, pardner."
Given that he knew his tax problems were ongoing, why did Conners make the claim he did about being targeted by the IRS because of an interview? Maybe the anchorman felt his tenure was so shaky that it was time to rally a group of people who would stand in his corner as he fought for his job.
If that were Conners’ strategy, where could he find a more dedicated, fervent, committed group of people than Obama haters?
They will hold fundraisers for Conners. They will harass CBS (the Communist Broadcasting System, as they now call it). They will pledge to boycott the station and its advertisers. They will write letters. They will sign and collect petitions. They will light up the Internet and talk radio.
If they believe he is one of them, they will champion Larry Conners and run through fire for him.
They will do all of this because they are obsessed with Obama and because they operate on another ancient principle: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
I’ve watched politics for a long time and have not seen anything this intense, this focused, since the presidency of Richard Nixon, from 1969-1974. Oh, sure, there were Bill Clinton haters and George W. Bush haters, but they were pikers compared with the Obama haters or the Nixon haters.
The left’s national obsession with booting Nixon out of office 40 years ago was every bit the equal of the bloodthirstiness of the right for Obama today.
Nixon obstructed justice in the Watergate scandal, lied about it repeatedly, kept an enemies list and used the IRS to harass his political foes.
Do those charges sound familiar?
Larry Conners, 66, was around for that one, too. He watched the Nixon haters stalk their prey relentlessly until they got him. Nixon resigned in mid-term.
If we old-time country boys learned anything from that era, it was this: When trying to advance a cause, don’t necessarily saddle up the fastest or smartest horse.
Grab the one with the most fire in his eye.
