Brit Hume Should Be Press Secretary for President Bush
       Although many persons are excited about the possibility of Tony Snow becoming Press Secretary for President Bush, they must also consider what Brit Hume could do to any reporter who dared to approach the White House to snivel and complain.
       If anyone does consider that, they would quickly realize it’s mandatory that Hume become the spokesman for the entire administration. That would not be the same as being Press Secretary for Bill Clinton, who did nothing but talk incessantly, all day long, to everyone.
       President Bush needs a spokesperson who will clearly articulate the President’s views when facing a hostile press corps. President Bush is a “task” person who spends his time studying and making policy. He’s not a “people” person like Bill Clinton who’s constantly talking.
       Everyone tells President Bush that he must forcefully articulate his views, but that is not the way a thoughtful person operates. Bush himself studies the issues which are rapidly changing in today’s world, which has been at war since we were attacked in 2001.
       If this President spends his time explaining, who would be setting the policy? It is only commonsense that the President should continue to set the policy and hire Brit Hume to explain it to the world.
        To the contrary, the Beltway Boys, Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke, agreed on Fox on Saturday evening that Tony Snow will be the new spokesman for the President. While we agree that Snow would make an excellent runner-up, we believe that no one has the unique experience of Hume.

Would Brit Hume Make this Sacrifice?
       We first raised the possibility on March 7, 2006, that Fox News was dumping Hume. But we were not yet sufficiently knowledgeable to understand that Brit should leave Fox immediately and join the White House. We’ve done a lot of research since and realize that Hume has absolutely no future at Fox.
       If he makes the switch to the White House, Hume will be more than 65-years-old when he retires after proudly serving his country and its President. What a climax to a brilliant career!
       We wondered aloud in March whether money had become the only goal for Rupert Murdoch, the Australian founder of Fox. But we have learned that it is much worse than we realized. The entire Murdoch empire is destined for imminent destruction and there is no one who can save it.
        Murdoch himself can’t do so. Although he is 75-years-old, he just married his third wife (30-years-old) in 1999 and has two children with her. His second wife is his most significant partner. He married her in 1967 and had two sons and one daughter before a bitter divorce occurred after he married the 30-year-old in 1999. Murdoch married his first wife in 1956 and had one daughter.
       Needless to say the arguments among his three wives and their children concerning money have caused huge problems for Murdoch’s parent company, “News Corporation”, which has many stockholders and reports total assets at the end of 2005 at $55 billion and annual revenue at $24 billion. (Click HERE for Portfolio Information)

Brit Hume Is Not Even an Ant in this Huge Company
       Although Brit Hume looks like an important star in the world of Fox News, the reality is much different.
       If one begins at the website of this gigantic $55 billion company called “News Corporation” and searched its website at www.newscom.com, you’d have great difficulty locating the office of Hume. You will wander through many alleys before finally arriving at his tiny office.
       From the homepage at www.newscom.com you must first choose “Cable.” The other choices are undoubtedly much more profitable to the company:
Filmed Entertainment
Television
Direct Broadcast Satellite Television
Magazines & Inserts
Newspapers
Books
Other
Even in the field of “Cable,” Brit is not prominent. The others in that grouping beside the “Fox News Channel” are the following. (We capitalize them exactly as the News Corporation does.)
Fox Movie Channel
Fox College Sports
Fox Sports Enterprises
Fox Sports En Espanol
Fox Sports Net
Fox Soccer Channel
Fox Reality
FUEL TV
FX
National Geographic Channel
U.S. & Worldwide
SPEED
Stats, Inc.

Coming at a future date:
What does the unknown power at Fox have planned for Chris Wallace? It was obvious last night that Wallace did not choose the members of the panel. Both he and the guests were laughing out loud at the outlandish comments of panelist Juan Williams. Hume was incredulous at the statements made by Juan, as was the entire panel. It was obvious that Wallace was not the person who chose the panelists for his show. It was also questionable whether he picked the guests for his initial interviews.

Both the guests for the initial interview last night by Chris Wallace were not friends of Ronald Reagan as claimed by Foxnews. Obviously Leon Panetta, Clinton’s Chief of Staff was not a friend of Reagan, nor was Kenneth Duberstein, who was a very liberal Republican appointed as Chief of Staff by the James Baker clique, which was sent in by the liberal establishment to control Reagan during his final years of office. It was sickening for any conservative to watch Duberstein in action.

Has the 42-year-old Shepard Smith already been tapped as the new star to replace the aging Hume? Is that why Smith’s New York-based show is receiving money and talented producers while Hume’s Washington-based show is languishing without adequate aides? Is Smith really a conservative or is he merely on the fast track to stardom?

How did Shepard Smith get the following acclaim from Fox: “Recently recognized as the second most trusted news anchor in the country.” They don’t reveal what actually happened. According to a USAToday article in April 2003, a TV Guide poll showed that Tom Brokaw was first at 22% while Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and Smith were virtually tied at 16-17%. Smith got 16%. The votes for Smith were obviously intended for Fox News, not for Smith as a person. What kind of chicanery occurred that did not give Brit Hume any votes at all? No one voted for Brit?

Where does neo-conservative Bill Kristol stand in all this with his always-smiling face, lots of money from his father (neo-conservative Irving Kristol) and his partnership with Fox News in the The Weekly Standard, which continues to get free advertising on Fox News without any attribution? Kristol does not hide his dislike or disdain of Hume because Kristol knows he has his father’s money behind him.

If Brit leaves, who will control the Boston Globe’s Nina Easton and the other radical-left “Fox News All-Stars” who have been thrust upon Hume by some unknown producer at Fox?

Can we compare the responsibility of Hume at Fox to that of Walter Cronkite at CBS in the 1960s?