"Every month or so, while conversing with sources at Fox News, I express surprise that Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes are still employed by the network. After all, the two men are reality-based conservative thinkers..."

".... who refuse to capitulate to Donald Trump. Unfortunately, Fox viewers rarely get to hear from them. They are booked by the network's producers so rarely that their contracts could be likened to golden handcuffs. Now they are ditching the cuffs."

I'm trying to read "Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes resign from Fox News, protesting 'irresponsible' voices like Tucker Carlson" by Brian Stelter (CNN Business).

If you're not on any shows, you can make a show out of the spectacle of leaving. And Brian Stelter tries to boost the visibility of this Jonah-and-Stephen-never-capitulate show.

As for "reality-based" — it made me think of Alvy Singer reacting to Duane Hall:

"Well, I have to go now... because I'm due back on the Planet Earth."

As for "golden handcuffs" — this expression implies that they were paid a lot of money to go on Fox News exclusively, essentially paid to remain silent. But was that the deal? And how much money were they paid? Stelter doesn't say.

It's noble, I suppose, to walk away from money — depending on how much money it was and how ignoble it was to take it in the first place. But we're not told!

Here's the Goldberg + Hayes statement. It doesn't say how much money they got from Fox.  Maybe they only walked away from the erstwhile honor of being affiliated with Fox. Now, they judge that association to be detrimental to their stature, and they break it off. If that's the case, there never were any "golden handcuffs," and there's nothing grand about the gesture of walking away.

"Walker Readies Himself as the Candidate of the Mainstream Conservative Movement."

A Weekly Standard headline for an article by Stephen Hayes that is mainly about Michael Grebe, who reportedly will be named Walker's campaign chairman.

I asked Grebe about a New York Times article from last month that purported to explain Walker’s electoral success. With a hint of dark conspiracy, the article suggested that Walker had been an unremarkable and unsophisticated local politician until Grebe and a band of big-money right-wing ideologues plucked him from obscurity in order to advance their schemes....

The article “was a totally unfair characterization of our relationship,” Grebe says, offering several specific examples of ways in which he says the piece was misleading in order to fit the preconceived narrative of its authors. (In one, he says that he responded to a question about first meeting Walker by saying that he recalled it came at a meeting of college Republicans at Marquette University, where the future governor was a student. In the telling of the Times, the insignificant aside became a big moment in Grebe’s grooming of Walker for future manipulation).

"How long do big insurance companies continue to work w/Obama WH to improve #Obamacare while WH blames them for its problems?"

Big question: How long do big insurance companies continue to work w/Obama WH to improve #Obamacare while WH blames them for its problems?

— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) November 3, 2013

Watching the State of the Union with Scott Walker who "offers a Mystery Science Theater-style running commentary."

It's Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, eating roast beef sandwiches and deviled eggs in the finished basement of the Wisconsin Governor's Mansion.

Obama: “Let’s agree, right here, right now, to keep the people’s government open, pay our bills on time, and always uphold the full faith and credit of the United States of America.” (Walker: “To pay your bills on time means you don’t spend more than you have.”)

Much more at the link.

If NPR must now prove it is principled, what a bloodbath is coming!

NPR fired Juan Williams and justified it, via CEO Vivian Schiller, by invoking an official editorial policy:

"[A 'news analyst' has] a very different role than that of a commentator or columnist. News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that's what’s happened in this situation. As you all well know, we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview — not our reporters and analysts....

"... NPR’s ethics code [states]: 'In appearing on TV or other media. ... NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows ... that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.”

"More fundamentally, 'In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists  should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist.'"

Now, NPR is in a position where it must prove that's not a pretext by applying that policy, with comparable severity, to its other on-air personalities. Lefties and righties are getting into this game. The lefties are targeting Mara Liasson. Here's Eric Boehlert at Media Matters:

[I]f you look at NPR's code of ethics, there's simply no way Liasson should be making appearances on Fox....

Liasson is part of the Fox News family. Period. For instance, Liasson appears on the Fox News website as a "Fox News contributor," not as "Fox News contributor to the sorta/kinda serious shows." The only way she'd really be able to defend her continued alliance would be to argue that Fox News in its entirely (i.e. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity) is a serious endeavor worthy of NPR's status. But if Liasson can't defend all of Fox News, then her half-pregnant approach (i.e. she's only employed by a tiny portion of Fox News) just doesn't fly.

On the right, at the Weekly Standard, Stephen F. Hayes points at Nina Totenberg:

Over the past month, in her regular appearances on “Inside Washington,” she has: criticized a ruling of the Roberts Court as scandalous; claimed that Michelle Obama gives people “warm and fuzzy” feelings; called Bill Clinton “the most gifted politician I’ve ever seen;” and lamented that the Democratic Party is diverse enough to include moderates that want to extend all Bush tax cuts....

Her most partisan comment came when Charles Krauthammer pointed out that 31 Democrats in the House had written to Nancy Pelosi to call for extending the Bush tax cuts, Totenberg wished them out of the party. “When a party actually has a huge majority, it has a huge diversity.  And that is part of the problem that Democrats have.  But would I like it to be otherwise?  Of course.”

Hayes goes on, marshaling the evidence. You get the idea. It's open season on NPR news analysts... with 11 days to go before election day. A grisly October surprise.