GOP In Disarray?

Not quite, but if this Fox News article were about the Dems it wouldn't be so upfront. Here's the lead paragraph:

Ron Paul has no chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination this year, but he continues to head toward the party’s National Convention with an ardent group of supporters and a second-phase strategy aimed at raising the profile of his libertarian-leaning issues.

Guess what? The same is true for Hillary. She has no chance of winning the nomination. Her only hope is to go to the convention and raise the profile of her issues, and hope like crazy she could walk away with the nomination. Hillary could win every primary contest left and still not catch Obama in the delegate count. Though Ron Paul is but a distant memory. A memory that has every intention, just like Hillary, to play this out till the convention.

To be fair, it's not just Fox News. It's the media establishment. Do we ever click on an article or turn our televisions on and hear that Hillary has no chance at the nomination? No. We hear about the bloody, dirty, rotten battle between the Democrats. However, Ron Paul's chances of winning the GOP nomination aren't that much slimmer to Hillary's Democratic chances. But that doesn't sell. It's no fun to watch two old white men. Could you imagine what that would do to the ratings.




Tags: Ron Paul

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Ideological Stupidity

This is really only the beginning of how stupid our political discourse has become in this country. We have one of the most liberal politicians ever, Joe Lieberman, telling Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano that the presumed Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama, might be a Marxist. Where does the former Democratic candidate and former Democratic VP nominee and new right wing hero warrior get his talking points? Well that would be from none of other than neocon Bill Kristol.

Kristol, a liberal by ideological definition, suggests in his latest op-ed that Obama's statement that people have become bitter with government and cling to religion and guns is similar to Marx's writing that religion is the sigh of the oppressed. Let's review, shall we, what exactly our Grand and Exalted Leader George Bush has done to contraire any thought that Marxism is not an attribute of Conservative Republicanism.

Bush, answering the call by frightened and clinging citizens after the most devastating attack on American soil, created the largest restructuring of the federal government since FDR. In doing so, the very conservative and very small government Republican increased the size and power of the federal government more so than any president of the last 70 years by creating the Department of Homeland Security. No mention from Bill Kristol about Marxism then. When the masses were clinging for government, religion and guns in 2001-2002 Republicans had no problems using Marxism to their advantage.

More recently, after seeing the fifth largest banking lender in the country default on its payments, the very small government and laissez faire president used an old time FDR law to bail out that bank with tax payer money. Not a single mention by Kristol or any so-called Republican about how Marxist it is for the president to use tax payer money to subsidize people who can't pay their bills. It's only when a Democrat talks about struggling people or about people fed up with how things are in Washington do we see the neoconservative-controlled Republican Party mention Marx. All the while intentionally forgetting that George Bush has done more for Marxism than any president since 1932.

Republican Marxist behavior is nothing new and not uncommon at all. There is no reason to believe a single word that is spouted from Kristol or any other neoconservative talking head when it comes to matters of Marxist policies versus political behavior. If they were really concerned with Marxism they would not have voted for George Bush twice.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Another Free Pass

I've been thinking it's a little odd that nothing is said by the media about the polygamist cult in Texas being part of the Mormon Church. At least nothing out front. You really have to dig to find any mention that the cult is a functioning body of the Mormon Church. Wouldn't that be like doing a story on Opus Dei and leaving out the fact that it's Catholic? I just can't help but think that if Barack Obama was a member of a polygamist cult church following that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh would never mention the two together. Mitt Romney, a former presidential candidate and current VP hopeful, gets another free pass by our media establishment.

If Rev. Wright's church had a polygamist sect that treated women like property I seriously doubt Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Neil Cavuto, John Gibson, Neil Boortz, Tony Snow, Karl Rove, Bill Kristol, The National Review and the entirity of the GOP would remain silent like they've done for Mitt Romney.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

An Odd Way of Showing It

Chris Wallace takes Fox News to task over 2 hours of Obama bashing.



I wonder how much longer Wallace is going to be allowed to remain at FNC? I think what gets me about this whole news channel is they consider themselves so fair and balanced-- it's their trademark name. But look at their lineup. Their morning show, which is demonstrated in the clip above, is 3 people who have not one good thing to say about the Democratic front runner. They all might not be Republican, or at least not admit to it, but they are all very vocal about a Democrat not winning in November. Name me one other network that has this kind of morning show. There is nothing fair and balanced about it. FNC begins every day with Obama bashing, so much so Wallace, an actual news anchor, finally has to call them on it.

Fox News isn't going to change. Wallace's little slap on the hand will do nothing to cleanup the garbage Fox promotes. What should be obvious, though, is that FNC is tabloid journalism and only adds to the fantasy world Republicans live in.

*Update:

More very fair and balanced news from FNC's campaign headquarters site.

Good Friday was a very good Friday for Barack Obama, as news of passport breaches in the State Department and a much-sought endorsement from New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson shifted the focus away from the racial controversies that have dogged him for more than a week.

Obama tried to put to rest discussions of race on the campaign trail Tuesday, when he gave a speech addressing his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose anti-U.S. sermons dominated campaign coverage for days.

The Wright controversy proved difficult to shake, however. Obama’s speech did not immediately stop the media replay of Wright’s most heated sermons, and polls indicated the Illinois senator was losing ground because of the focus on the issue.

Difficult to shake? Seems to me the only news source still running endless replay's of Wright's sermons is Fox News.

One gets the feeling after reading this article that Obama breeched his own passport so the press would get off his case about being a racist. There's a wag the dog feel to the whole thing. And where is a quote from an Obama spokesperson? There's one from a Republican strategist and one from a Democratic strategist with ties to Hillary but nothing from Obama. Wouldn't a fair and balanced media source get a quote from the subject of the article? Or if they can't, then they would leave the other two out; that's what journalism is all about. But not Fox News. Ethics has never stood in the way of a good piece of tabloidism.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

It's Called a Recession

I love how the media is so scared to call the economic situation a recession. Instead it's a standstill or a near halt, or a decline, but not a recession.
The economy grows at 0.6% in the final quarter of '07 compared to 3% for the prior three quarters and we're not in a recession? The final quarter of Clinton's tenure in 1999 the economy grew at 1% and Republicans claim Bush inherited a recession and a fledgling economy. But when Bush is in office 0.6% is still growth, because now "[u]nder one rough rule, the economy would have to contract for six months in a row for the country to be viewed as in a recession." Again the rules are conveniently changed to benefit Bush and the neocons.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

A Tale of Two Three Stories (Update)

There's been a lot going on in the last few days. We've had Obama win 10 in a row over Hillary. We've had Obama accused of plagiarism. We've had Michelle Obama ridiculed by the right wing for saying that she is finally proud of America. We've had John McCain trying to weasel his way out of his campaign financing pledge. We've had the Republican nominee accused of some sort of affair with a lobbyist by a story in the NY Times and followed up by nearly every media outlet in the world. We've had the routine indictment of Republican members of Congress. And then we have Fox News doing a gerrymandered poll about who bin Laden and the terrorists want to win the American presidential election.

I wan to focus real quick on the NY Times McCain story and the Fox News poll. Both are perfect examples of what's wrong with American media.

The Times runs a story all but alleging an affair in 2000 between John McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Even if there was no affair, the story makes no secret about some inappropriate behavior and too much closeness between then, and now, presidential candidate McCain and the lobbyist. There are strict ethics between lawmakers and lobbyists. So even without a sexual affair, political favors is just as bad. The Times just hangs all that out there and in my opinion does a very sloppy job of investigative journalism. For a story they worked months on, it's full of loose ends and vague reporting.

On the opposite end we have Fox News. The first people to come to McCain's aid was the neocons running FNC and talk radio. They cried foul, calling the story a political hit job and constantly referenced the NY Times as the most liberal paper in the entire world. Whatever one's views may be concerning FNC and the NY Times what takes place simultaneously as FNC defends McCain from the evil liberals is just as shotty and just as unethical and just as wrong as anything The Times did. FNC conducts a poll and then runs a story stating that the terrorists prefer a Democrat, preferably Obama, to win the American presidency. Then as expected, the right wing neoconservative Weekly Standard, where neocon William Kristol is editor and also writes for the extremely liberal and dangerous NY Times, picks up the FNC poll and runs with it. Now come on, how can Fox News even begin to claim any sort of high ground or objectivity whatsoever in any of its media outlets while calling the NY Times' McCain story a hit job? It wasn't that long ago Fox News ran a story claiming Obama attended a madrassa, which is not true at all. Never did Fox back away from that story and they are still trying their hardest to relate Democrats to terrorists.

One media outlet references a sort of affair and some unethical conduct with a lobbyist, the other media outlet relates the Democratic front runner, along with his entire party, to terrorists trying to destroy our country. If I had to choose which story I would rather be part of, I would pick The Times story because at least then I'm not portrayed as an anti-American, terrorist sympathizing, bin Laden brother Democrat. And that is exactly the effect Fox News wanted from their skewed poll. It's exactly the sort of story Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard wants to circulate and it proves Fox News has no room to call out any other media outlet for political hit jobs.

The Times' story was crappy. I'm not sure how many more times I can go on record saying that John McCain has every right to be mad. But what Fox News is doing is worse. You're either an adulterer or a terrorist. Which one is easier to forgive?

That sadly is the current mode of American media. Meanwhile we still have troops dying in Iraq. We still have $3 gasoline. We still have Bush as president. And we still have no accountability from anyone.

*Update:

The Associated Press picks up the widely circulated false email about Obama having a patriotism problem, hence an insurgent terrorist problem, and runs it as news. To top off how archaically unethical this whole thing is, the AP's source for their internet chain letter "news" is none other than Republican Roger Stone. "Stone you'll remember is the guy who got caught making threatening phone calls to New York Gov. Spitzer's (D-NY) elderly father and last month set up an anti-Hillary group with the acronym C-U-N-T." Surely their's no bias in that story, surely.

This is the state of American media and sadly American politics. Internet chain letters are used as sources for journalists and disgraced Republican psychopaths are used as credible serious sources to back up very credible and very serious email chain letters.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Fox Reports Its Decision

Gas hits $100/barrel again, for no apparent reason again; The Supreme Court sides with the Bush administration that the government can't be sued unless the government says it can be sued; and George Bush is the biggest lame duck ever and none of that can be found on Fox's website major stories. Instead Michelle Obama teeters on un-American, un-patriotic, terrorist activity.

*Update:

Just for the record, I agree with her.

Tags: Michelle Obama, Fox News

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

National Journal: Obama Most Liberal

Surprise, surprise. The very non-partisan, non right wing and very serious National Journal has their liberal rankings out and Barack Obama ranks number one. As expected Fox News and their very non-partisan and serious lineup ran with the rankings as if God had delivered them down from Heaven. Here's the report. I'm going to read the entire thing and probably do an update where I find flaws in their data. Of course then that will make me a partisan, left wing, non serious, freedom hating nutroot.

*Update:

The opening paragraph should be enough to taint National Journal's serious, non-partisan ranking in the media.

The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

Not only is Barack the most liberal person in America but he's also an insurgent. Never should anyone in America vote for an insurgent liberal terrorist. But the highly partisan opening statement won't deter Fox News, Drudge, the drug addicted Limbaugh or even John McCain from equating Obama to a liberal Muslim terrorist. Chalk this up as being the next Republican talking point for at least the next 10 months.

**Update:

This has to be the best part:

Members who missed more than half of the votes in any of the three issue categories did not receive a composite score in NJ's ratings. (This rule was imposed after Kerry was ranked the most liberal senator in our 2003 ratings despite having missed more than half of the votes in two categories.) Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the only other senator whose presidential candidacy survived the initial round of primaries and caucuses this year, did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score. He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59. (McCain's composite scores from his prior years in the Senate, published in our March 2007 vote ratings issue, are available as a PDF.)

I'm not sure I should laugh or cry. Let me get this straight. National Journal changed the rules only after the change in rules would have exempted John Kerry from their rankings during the last presidential election? Am I in a parallel universe? In other words, if the same rules had applied in 2004, Kerry would not have been ranked the most liberal person in the galaxy? Are you kidding me? Since John McCain is probably going to be the Republican nominee and since the rules would take the liberal title away from one of the Democratic front runners, National Journal changes the rules to fit the outcome they're were looking for all along. I haven't even made it to the actual votes they ranked and I'm already about to give up on this crap. How can any reputable media run this as a story? This isn't ignorance, this is intentional fraud and deception. Whose to say that if Hillary gets the nod, National Journal won't go back and change the rules again?

***Update III

Okay, I'm going to try and formulate the logic of their data so if this sounds like I'm thinking out loud it's because I am. NJ took 216 votes, then subjected them "to a principal-components analysis" to compare them to other issues at hand. From there they decided that 10 of the votes would be dropped because they were statistically unrelated to other issues, bringing the sample to 206. But then proceeds to refer to the 267 measures that both Hillary and Obama voted on in 2007, insisting that the two senators only differed on 10 votes.

Hold up just a minute. For Democrats every vote counts no matter if they are present votes or yeas or nays, but for Republicans the rules are changed to exempt the Republican front runner from undergoing voting scrutiny. Not only that, when referring to Democrats, NJ uses all 267 votes, which are not even measured in their sample. Only 206 were even measured and labeled by their standards as to what is liberal and conservative. But when talking about Hillary and Obama, all 267 votes are highlighted to show that really the two candidates, despite their own rankings, are very similar if not the same person. It's like saying, yeah we ranked Obama as the most liberal person to ever live, but if you count all the votes, which we didn't, and only do for Democrats then Hillary and Obama are pretty much the same insurgent terrorist liberal.

It's clear these rankings are preconditioned upon party affiliation and front runner adaptation. By their own sampling analysis, NJ completely refutes their conclusions, or at least shows how preposterous they are.

Other reading: The Carpetbagger Report, Brian Beutler.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Fox Reports

The economy is in a slump, stocks are way down, Bush has the lowest approval ratings since Herbert Hoover, we're still occupying Iraq, with two incumbent Republican Congressmen sitting in prison and you would never know any of this from reading Foxnews.com


*Update:

Nice little commentary from Lou Dobbs.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Reality Versus John Gibson II

Yes, it's big bad, super macho man John Gibson at it again. I'm sure this sounds like a broken record by now, but it's amazing to me how many of these Republican/neoconservative talking head mouthpieces can be easily pointed out for blatant hypocrisy, and yet still allowed to go on the air daily to keep repeating such crap about other people.

The prelude to his latest My Word column says it all: Does Barack Obama think wars are won by refusing to fight them?

Now before I even get into the text of his My Word, can macho man Gibson even be serious? Really, this is all too easy! There is no greater example of someone refusing to fight a war than John Gibson. Born in 1946 to what might have been the two worst parents in the world, Gibson was of more than prime fighting age during the entire Vietnam Conflict and never once did Gibson go fight. When his country desperately needed him the most, Gibson refused to fight. Not only did he refuse he went out of his way to get multiple deferments. When Bill Clinton did this, he was called a draft dodger. When John Gibson and Rush Limbaugh do this, they are considered super serious patriotic American tough men. Refusing to fight a war is your history John Gibson; you are the epitome of everything you hate.

But what in the world is macho man even talking about? Let's look at the Obama quote that he uses to show that Obama supposedly doesn't want to fight.

"...Much of the violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar Province... Sunni tribes... who started to see after the Democrats were elected in '06... you know that, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we're going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias. We should start negotiating now."

Macho man says that this boils down to Obama pretty much stating that wars are won by not fighting them. What wars is he talking about? Does Gibson want more war, maybe with Iran and Syria? The Anbar Province has already been supposedly secured three different times only to have it return to chaos in a matter of months. Obviously fighting hasn't done the trick. Besides, where does Obama say that he doesn't want to fight a war? And where does he say wars are won by not fighting them? Gibson, you're just making stuff up. Obama never says any of those words.

Now if someone wants to argue that Obama is stretching the fabric a little too far with the break in violence is due in large part to Democrats in Congress, then I'm fine with that. But to state that what Obama really meant was that wars are won by not fighting them is garbage, and totally unethical for a journalist. Of course I could easily argue macho man is no journalist.

Johnny boy, let's face it. You missed your war when your country needed you and you just can't face reality.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Reality Versus John Gibson

John Gibson writes in his “My Word” column that he wants the next president to have a disdain for what the rest of the world thinks. In defending his derision, Macho man Gibson makes up a few things along the way to distort his neocon world view, however.

Macho Man writes, "The world wanted us to save them from the Soviets. We did. The world wanted us to do something about Saddam. We did, and then the world decided we did a bad thing because we didn't ask their permission for each and every step in doing what needed to be done.” Can anyone else pick out what’s wrong with this?

In his messed up fantasy world where George Bush is a popular president and Iraq was responsible for 9/11, Gibson must have forgotten that we didn’t contain the Soviets all by ourselves. No far from it. We, America, put together the largest and most powerful alliance in human history with NATO. It was a coalition of 12 nations, five of which began the process on their own without American involvement. Throughout the Cold War NATO membership grew and grew, eventually successfully containing the Soviet Union. None of it was done single-handedly, and the successful containment could not have been possible without the strategic diplomacy that made the NATO alliance so effective. Without help from our allies, “we” never would have won the Cold War.

“The world wanted us to do something with Saddam.” Okay, what “world” is Macho Man living in? If I recall correctly the world protested as we “did something with Saddam.” Can he be serious? If anything it was when we did something with Saddam that we went at it alone and not when we saved the world from the Soviets. Gibson obviously has his versions of reality mixed up. Our traditional NATO allies steered clear of the invasion of Iraq, bringing with us Great Britain and a handful of troops from Poland (who was actually a member of the Warsaw Pact, but that’s a different history lesson for Macho Man John Gibson).

Gibson further alludes himself from reality. “As for paying, well, we pay for the defense of the free world. Has anybody in Europe, except for the British, paid anything in the way of defense for their own populations and borders? No. Has Canada bothered to pony up for its own defense? No.” Johnny Boy, Johnny Boy. Just ask anyone who paid for the first Gulf War. It sure wasn’t big bad America. And why would they want to pay for a second Gulf War when nearly the entire world was against it from the get go. Of course they’re not going to pay for our mistakes. We broke, we fix it. How very liberal of you to want someone else to pay your bills.

To think this is the guy who delivers the news to millions of people every night. Not only the news but he also gets to add his own made up fantasy, circle jerk world commentary in with it. What a wonderful system we have going on here in America.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Bill's Fantasy League

Super tough guy Bill O’Reilly has declared yet another war in his never ending crusade to rid the world of liberalism. Oh Billy boy, what are we to do? This is from a man who has never fought a real war in his entire life. He’s never served a single day in the military and when he was of prime draft age with a red hot war raging in Vietnam, the ever so quick war declarer never made a single effort to volunteer and answer his country’s call. I would think that someone who is so giddy to call for war, whether it is real war or his phony screaming matches, would jump at the chance to actually go to war. But not Bill. He’d rather sit in his powder chair and question everyone else’s patriotism.

This time Bill is fantasy fighting bad teaching. In his fantasy league, which consists of his viewers and the fruitcakes who believe Bill to be the crusader he claims, he wants to put an end to teachers he claims teach “atheism, anti-American hatred; and other ideological positions,” which are according to Bill, “running wild throughout the USA without consequences.” This fantasy war is to be fought in similar fashion to his other previous fantasy wars, expose and conquer.

What’s the main ammunition for this war? Well, it’s exposing people like Dr. James Corbett for spreading far-left propaganda. Spreading far-right propaganda, like America is favored by God above all nations or that silly thing we all learned in school called Manifest Destiny, is okay with Bill; it’s the far-left stuff that needs to stop. Bill claims this propaganda of the far-left promotes religious intolerance which he claims is against the Constitution. Maybe so, but so is promoting religion in general in any public school.

Intolerance is a two way street Billy. And so is war. Onward and upward.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Another Victory

For about two solid weeks now the right has tried their hardest to declare victory in Iraq once again. They’ve went so far as to claim that Iraq is no longer an issue of discussion. It’s over, let’s move on. We win, you lose. We’ve heard this all before, of course.

Now that our involvement in Iraq has lasted longer than our involvement both World Wars, the very serious and patriotic people on the right have grasped at anything to use as proof of our second victory in Iraq. Leading the charge is the very serious, tough guy and expert journalist Bill O’Reilly. As with all things American, Bill O’Reilly gets to decide who is a patriot and who is a pinhead. There’s no in-between. You either love America, like Bill O’Reilly most certainly does, or you hate it, like everyone who Bill doesn’t like does. And this week Bill delivers us the ‘Person of the Year,’ Gen. David Petraeus.

Why might Gen. Petraeus, who is the fifth general to command the multinational force in Iraq in as many years, be the ‘Person of the Year’ you might ask. As Bill puts it, “the person must have done something extraordinary, must be a world player, and must have changed history in some way.” And victory in Iraq is Gen. Petraeus’ standard. Wait; make that a near “possible victory.” Bill’s itching to call it a total victory but not quite yet. For now it’s “possible” that victory is within our grasp or it’s resolutely just as possible that five years from now Bill will still be calling everyone a pinhead who expected a little bit better from our president and his advisors than what we’ve been given with Iraq. Incompetence doesn’t begin to define it.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...