Considering the abject failure that Newt's "shutdown" was during Clinton's first term, why would they even be considering it as a possible "positive" for conservative gains in terms of the legislative process they claim to be championing?
You'll notice that Perino is still in her "press secretary" mode for the conservative movement, as she punctuated her statements by saying any form of shut-down would have to be addressed from a "communications" standpoint.
There wasn't a Fox"News" during the bulk of the Clinton administration, and Bill would likely have had a more difficult time seeking a second term had the conservative noise machine had the platform it does now. In that respect, Perino is likely speaking from a more accurate perspective, as the modern conservative movement is going to see a potential governmental shutdown quite differently than they did 15 years ago.
But what liberals/progressives know is that even though the conservative message is louder and will be heard by more this time around, the realities and consequences behind any shutdown will largely remain the same as they were back then.
Showing posts with label Conservative Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservative Media. Show all posts
Monday, January 3, 2011
The Conservative Minor League
Looks like John Roberts is getting "called up" from CNN to join Fox"News".
No, really....
While Roberts had the ability to be a straight news reporter and leave his bias behind on virtually every occasion, one has to wonder why Fox would consider him for a "senior correspondent" position, as Fox's desire for ratings trumps their need for accuracy and honesty since Roberts' show "American Morning" had a massive decline in viewership over the last year.
What's the angle being played here? You know there has to be one.
One has but to look at CNN's recent history and you'll notice that they are giving a complete pass to conservative's hyperbolic rhetoric and generally ignoring any opportunity to hold those same people accountable.
Hell, they hired right-wing reactionary hack Erick Erickson for fuck sake.
Is Roberts going to be used as a pawn in the "people are fleeing liberal media outlets" meme that will surely be bolstered from this? More than likely, yes.
There is most certainly a bizarre logic behind this job placement that will ultimately only benefit those that write the talking points memos for Fox on-air personalities and the top executives - as there will likely be enough John King supporters out there that will tune in to see his first "field reports" to see how he differs from his CNN persona.
And that ultimately begs the question, doesn't it - is John King going to be a new man of his own desire once within the confines of Fox"News" payroll or his he going to be told that he has to be one?
No, really....
Former CNN “American Morning” anchor John Roberts is expected to join FOX News Channel as a senior national correspondent, based in Atlanta.
He will be reporting on major domestic and international stories for the network.
In December, CNN announced that Roberts would be departing “American Morning,” and would instead be moving to the network’s Atlanta headquarters to be closer to his fiancee, CNN dayside anchor Kyra Phillips.
While Roberts will be in Atlanta, he will not be with CNN.
While Roberts had the ability to be a straight news reporter and leave his bias behind on virtually every occasion, one has to wonder why Fox would consider him for a "senior correspondent" position, as Fox's desire for ratings trumps their need for accuracy and honesty since Roberts' show "American Morning" had a massive decline in viewership over the last year.
What's the angle being played here? You know there has to be one.
One has but to look at CNN's recent history and you'll notice that they are giving a complete pass to conservative's hyperbolic rhetoric and generally ignoring any opportunity to hold those same people accountable.
Hell, they hired right-wing reactionary hack Erick Erickson for fuck sake.
Is Roberts going to be used as a pawn in the "people are fleeing liberal media outlets" meme that will surely be bolstered from this? More than likely, yes.
There is most certainly a bizarre logic behind this job placement that will ultimately only benefit those that write the talking points memos for Fox on-air personalities and the top executives - as there will likely be enough John King supporters out there that will tune in to see his first "field reports" to see how he differs from his CNN persona.
And that ultimately begs the question, doesn't it - is John King going to be a new man of his own desire once within the confines of Fox"News" payroll or his he going to be told that he has to be one?
Monday, December 6, 2010
Shaping Perceptions
It's this sort of reporting that makes anyone that has never had to take unemployment benefits think that those that have are lazy and honestly don't care about getting a new job.
Again, here's a topic discussed by two people that have likely never had to deal with the realities of being unemployed and having to find a way to make ends meet with what you get through unemployment insurance - something that we all pay into every pay period through state taxes.
Not only am I seriously doubting Kelly's claim that she knows someone that is refusing to take work because they make more in unemployment compensation, but William's statement that unemployment insurance creates a culture of laziness and unwillingness is completely unfounded and wildly inaccurate.
One can't but laugh at Kelly's statement regarding her "acquaintance", considering the fact that I don't know many people that would pass up an entry level position at Barnes and Noble that paid - presumably after taxes - $400 per week. Then again, I'm going with the notion that Kelly doesn't associate with many people below her own pay grade. And I'm fairly secure in the notion that Fox pays their more inflammatory employees more than others.
It's amazing, to many, that Fox and their easily lead automatons are more than willing to call those that have to rely on unemployment assistance lazy, unmotivated, and irresponsible. Having had to rely on these benefits myself recently, I can assure you that they are in no way an incentive to stay unemployed. Depending on the job that you lost, your bi-weekly benefit check would likely not cover anything more than the basics: rent, at least half your bills - dependent on where you live and what you have, and might allow you a modest allowance for groceries. Anything outside that is pretty much out of the question.
I'd like to see Megyn Kelly and Juan Williams spend 6 months on unemployment just to see how they fare. Of course, this would only require them to lower themselves just slightly, as they belong to a station of people that are paid far too much for their very limited skills. But, such is life in conservative America in 2010.
Again, here's a topic discussed by two people that have likely never had to deal with the realities of being unemployed and having to find a way to make ends meet with what you get through unemployment insurance - something that we all pay into every pay period through state taxes.
Not only am I seriously doubting Kelly's claim that she knows someone that is refusing to take work because they make more in unemployment compensation, but William's statement that unemployment insurance creates a culture of laziness and unwillingness is completely unfounded and wildly inaccurate.
One can't but laugh at Kelly's statement regarding her "acquaintance", considering the fact that I don't know many people that would pass up an entry level position at Barnes and Noble that paid - presumably after taxes - $400 per week. Then again, I'm going with the notion that Kelly doesn't associate with many people below her own pay grade. And I'm fairly secure in the notion that Fox pays their more inflammatory employees more than others.
It's amazing, to many, that Fox and their easily lead automatons are more than willing to call those that have to rely on unemployment assistance lazy, unmotivated, and irresponsible. Having had to rely on these benefits myself recently, I can assure you that they are in no way an incentive to stay unemployed. Depending on the job that you lost, your bi-weekly benefit check would likely not cover anything more than the basics: rent, at least half your bills - dependent on where you live and what you have, and might allow you a modest allowance for groceries. Anything outside that is pretty much out of the question.
I'd like to see Megyn Kelly and Juan Williams spend 6 months on unemployment just to see how they fare. Of course, this would only require them to lower themselves just slightly, as they belong to a station of people that are paid far too much for their very limited skills. But, such is life in conservative America in 2010.
Origins Of Speciousness
Fox"News" has been all about trying to show that the Bush Era Tax Cuts not only didn't add to the deficit, but the economy they were designed to save in the first place - which they didn't - is going to be thrown into further turmoil if they aren't extended.
Here's Dana Perino still thinking she's Bush's Press Secretary putting forth the clearly false narrative that it's the Democrats fault that the Bush Tax Cuts had an expiration date.
Considering that Republicans held majorities - albeit slim ones - in both Houses of Congress at the time this legislation was put forth, Perino's assertion essentially falls flat. And even though there would be required a certain amount of Democratic votes, the timeline of the cuts was already in the initial legislation.
The reason for this was twofold:
First, their needed to be a sunset provision in order to prevent the deficit from exploding to such an extent that the Republican could clearly be blamed for it. Not that that would matter, seeing as how upward of 86% of our debt was created by Republicans anyway.
Secondly, it was to create the alleged "trap", as Republicans are at least smart enough to know that they and their policies can't stay in power and intact forever. It was a near perfect tool to use during a Democratically controlled Washington - be it the White House or one or both Houses of Congress. Ultimately, the blame cannot and shall not fall at the feet of those that created the issue to begin with.
Here's Dana Perino still thinking she's Bush's Press Secretary putting forth the clearly false narrative that it's the Democrats fault that the Bush Tax Cuts had an expiration date.
Considering that Republicans held majorities - albeit slim ones - in both Houses of Congress at the time this legislation was put forth, Perino's assertion essentially falls flat. And even though there would be required a certain amount of Democratic votes, the timeline of the cuts was already in the initial legislation.
The reason for this was twofold:
First, their needed to be a sunset provision in order to prevent the deficit from exploding to such an extent that the Republican could clearly be blamed for it. Not that that would matter, seeing as how upward of 86% of our debt was created by Republicans anyway.
Secondly, it was to create the alleged "trap", as Republicans are at least smart enough to know that they and their policies can't stay in power and intact forever. It was a near perfect tool to use during a Democratically controlled Washington - be it the White House or one or both Houses of Congress. Ultimately, the blame cannot and shall not fall at the feet of those that created the issue to begin with.
Redefining The Enemy
While most of us are looking at the WikiLeaks document dumps as nothing more than affirmations of what we already thought, conservatives are using them to create a new definition of who our enemy is.
Enter Newt.
It's a rather difficult situation to deal with, on a variety of levels. While Newt, and many like him, think that the Obama administration should easily be able to shut down WikiLeaks, they showcase their complete ignorance of not only the internet - something that they have been doing a great deal of - but of how Americans can legally go after people that distribute leaked information in favor of going after those that actually leaked the information.
So if conservative swallow whole this new narrative that Assange is an "enemy combatant" ( read: terrorist ) then does that mean that Sweden is now a haven for terrorists, as PRQ - an internet company based there - is the current host of the website? What of the others within WikiLeaks ranks? After all, Assange is simply a spokesperson. Are conservative more concerned with making an example of a single person or are they truly wanting to shut WikiLeaks down for good? But that begs the question, is there something they fear will come to light that will hurt their image?
Enter Newt.
It's a rather difficult situation to deal with, on a variety of levels. While Newt, and many like him, think that the Obama administration should easily be able to shut down WikiLeaks, they showcase their complete ignorance of not only the internet - something that they have been doing a great deal of - but of how Americans can legally go after people that distribute leaked information in favor of going after those that actually leaked the information.
So if conservative swallow whole this new narrative that Assange is an "enemy combatant" ( read: terrorist ) then does that mean that Sweden is now a haven for terrorists, as PRQ - an internet company based there - is the current host of the website? What of the others within WikiLeaks ranks? After all, Assange is simply a spokesperson. Are conservative more concerned with making an example of a single person or are they truly wanting to shut WikiLeaks down for good? But that begs the question, is there something they fear will come to light that will hurt their image?
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Because It's All His Fault
I'm wondering what planet Lou Dobbs has been on for the past 18 months.
Apparently Dobbs missed the widely reported fact that Obama was playing both sides of the Park 51 issue, but it's expected that he would make comments about the suit against the Arizona immigration law because, after all, this is Lou Dobbs we're talking about.
But let's not forget that this isn't a new line of attack from the conservative movement.
I'm guessing that this will pick up a little more steam as the elections draw closer. Pretty soon we'll be treated to ads from conservative candidates that connect Obama to everything from the Monica Lewinsky affair all the way to Laura Ingraham's and Sarah Palin's Fox"News" programs being a complete disaster.
Apparently Dobbs missed the widely reported fact that Obama was playing both sides of the Park 51 issue, but it's expected that he would make comments about the suit against the Arizona immigration law because, after all, this is Lou Dobbs we're talking about.
But let's not forget that this isn't a new line of attack from the conservative movement.
I'm guessing that this will pick up a little more steam as the elections draw closer. Pretty soon we'll be treated to ads from conservative candidates that connect Obama to everything from the Monica Lewinsky affair all the way to Laura Ingraham's and Sarah Palin's Fox"News" programs being a complete disaster.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Grammar Choices
And the typical conservative response continued on Hannity last night.
And while Obama obviously didn't use the phrases "sorry we fucked this one up", or "better luck next time guys", Hannity and the two "pretty girls" from the Fox"News" prop closet had to point out that the word "victorious" wasn't used, one has to ask the question - what do conservatives consider to be a victory?
Think about it; they have all sorts of ways to define a loss, a failure, a disaster, or even a pointless and futile exercise - but not once will you hear them define what a victory is. But we do get the sense that Hannity thinks what is going on now is a "victory" for America and Iraq.
So continued violence, suicide bombings, unease and displeasure with what America has done to their country by many Iraqis, a literally fractured government, waste of billions of American taxpayer dollars, and the loss of thousands of American lives is a victory?
And while Obama obviously didn't use the phrases "sorry we fucked this one up", or "better luck next time guys", Hannity and the two "pretty girls" from the Fox"News" prop closet had to point out that the word "victorious" wasn't used, one has to ask the question - what do conservatives consider to be a victory?
Think about it; they have all sorts of ways to define a loss, a failure, a disaster, or even a pointless and futile exercise - but not once will you hear them define what a victory is. But we do get the sense that Hannity thinks what is going on now is a "victory" for America and Iraq.
So continued violence, suicide bombings, unease and displeasure with what America has done to their country by many Iraqis, a literally fractured government, waste of billions of American taxpayer dollars, and the loss of thousands of American lives is a victory?
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Degrating What They Endorse
In which we see Megyn Kelly do her best concern trolling.
One has to marvel at the rank hypocrisy of Kelly, considering the fact that her and Fox are continuously going to bat for the Tea Baggers that espouse the same type of idiotic prattling that Tancredo is displaying here.
One has to marvel at the rank hypocrisy of Kelly, considering the fact that her and Fox are continuously going to bat for the Tea Baggers that espouse the same type of idiotic prattling that Tancredo is displaying here.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
The Percentages Of Misdirection
A challenge all too easy to meet
And while it will be easy to show that none of what Beck has postulated has come to pass ( like people's computers being hacked if they used the CARS website, the FEMA internment camps, death panels, the government didn't take over health insurance companies, no one has attempted to kill Beck or remove his program from television, no bureaucrat is standing in the way of you and your doctor - you get the point ) I'm wondering why he didn't go into the detail that he whined wasn't presented by his opposition in proving his 85% accuracy rating.
And while it will be easy to show that none of what Beck has postulated has come to pass ( like people's computers being hacked if they used the CARS website, the FEMA internment camps, death panels, the government didn't take over health insurance companies, no one has attempted to kill Beck or remove his program from television, no bureaucrat is standing in the way of you and your doctor - you get the point ) I'm wondering why he didn't go into the detail that he whined wasn't presented by his opposition in proving his 85% accuracy rating.
The Cost Of A Response
Conservatives hate talking about the Bush Tax Cuts, considering that they completely failed at what they were designed to do.
The fiscal reality that conservatives are completely ignoring is that these tax cuts will be disastrous to the country, as they have been since they were enacted.
As an exit observation here, it's readily apparent that Chris Wallace's producers told him that he needed to do a bit of "concern trolling" and not challenge John Kyl too much. After all, he clearly let him blubber on and completely dodge the question while filibustering about peripheral issues.
The fiscal reality that conservatives are completely ignoring is that these tax cuts will be disastrous to the country, as they have been since they were enacted.
As an exit observation here, it's readily apparent that Chris Wallace's producers told him that he needed to do a bit of "concern trolling" and not challenge John Kyl too much. After all, he clearly let him blubber on and completely dodge the question while filibustering about peripheral issues.
Conservatives Ratings Fetish
She just reiterates what I've been saying for a long time.
I've gotten into quite a few debates with conservatives on Twitter regarding their love for high ratings and their inability to understand that a higher Neilson score and the accuracy of the alleged reporting are mutually exclusive. To put it another way, conservatives believe that the more Fox"News" viewers there are, the more truth they must be telling.
This. Is. Not. True.
To follow conservative logic, as Rachel Maddow correctly points out, if your rating score is high, then your program - no matter what the subject matter - is proportionately true. So is there really a talking sponge under the sea that hangs out with a star-fish and has wacky adventures with celebrity guest stars? Of course there isn't. That's like saying since O'Reilly claimed that there wasn't a homeless Veteran problem that there isn't one.
Fox"News" enjoys it's ratings success largely due to the very nature of modern Americans. We are voyeuristic in nature. We crave entertainment, confrontation, and programming that is sensational. The consumerist nature of Americans is tapped into by Fox on virtually every program they air. It's info-tainment porn. We tune into Fox because of who they are and how they act. It's the proverbial car wreck that you slow down to take a look at, the fight in the school-yard that you know you can stop but are having too good of a time standing back and watching unfold.
The reality of it is that people watch Fox"News" for a variety of reasons. I would speculate that it's a minority within the country that watch Fox purely for informational purposes.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I've gotten into quite a few debates with conservatives on Twitter regarding their love for high ratings and their inability to understand that a higher Neilson score and the accuracy of the alleged reporting are mutually exclusive. To put it another way, conservatives believe that the more Fox"News" viewers there are, the more truth they must be telling.
This. Is. Not. True.
To follow conservative logic, as Rachel Maddow correctly points out, if your rating score is high, then your program - no matter what the subject matter - is proportionately true. So is there really a talking sponge under the sea that hangs out with a star-fish and has wacky adventures with celebrity guest stars? Of course there isn't. That's like saying since O'Reilly claimed that there wasn't a homeless Veteran problem that there isn't one.
Fox"News" enjoys it's ratings success largely due to the very nature of modern Americans. We are voyeuristic in nature. We crave entertainment, confrontation, and programming that is sensational. The consumerist nature of Americans is tapped into by Fox on virtually every program they air. It's info-tainment porn. We tune into Fox because of who they are and how they act. It's the proverbial car wreck that you slow down to take a look at, the fight in the school-yard that you know you can stop but are having too good of a time standing back and watching unfold.
The reality of it is that people watch Fox"News" for a variety of reasons. I would speculate that it's a minority within the country that watch Fox purely for informational purposes.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Framing The Narrative
I'm wondering exactly what type of "judge" Andrew Napolitano was prior to being hired by Fox"News". But let's get right to the heart of this..........
Yeah, Glenn Beck, "great explainer of history". It's a shame that people actually buy into that idea.
Anyway.
Beck and Napolitano are eagerly framing the new narrative that there will be riots in the streets and that liberal/progressives will be targeting conservatives with violence should Republicans make gains in November. Beck specifically is making these accusations in direct correlation with minorities while trying to insist that the case against the New Black Panther party isn't about racism. It's a typical example of conservative fearmongering and double-speak.
Another aspect of this is that conservatives like Beck are setting the scene for what will happen after the midterm elections in order to further the notion that liberals/progressives are out to destroy the country. What Beck is doing is so transparent and predictable that it's almost pointless to talk about it. He's prepping the mouth agape conservatives that look to him as some solar messiah to believe that no matter what happens in November, liberals/progressives are going to act in violent concert against America and all that it stands for. That is, what Beck thinks it stands for.
There is a moment in this clip where Beck talks about the "lame duck" session on Congress and what legislation may be passed or not. This has just recently become a conservative talking point, that there shouldn't be anything done by Congress immediately following a midterm election. What kind of point of view is that? Should car companies not do anything to improve their line of vehicles put out into the market the previous year simply because the new model year line is about to be released? It's a very revealing look into not only the laziness of conservative ideology, but how they are more than willing to create a storyline that is designed to do nothing more than inflame, frighten, and smear.
Yeah, Glenn Beck, "great explainer of history". It's a shame that people actually buy into that idea.
Anyway.
Beck and Napolitano are eagerly framing the new narrative that there will be riots in the streets and that liberal/progressives will be targeting conservatives with violence should Republicans make gains in November. Beck specifically is making these accusations in direct correlation with minorities while trying to insist that the case against the New Black Panther party isn't about racism. It's a typical example of conservative fearmongering and double-speak.
Another aspect of this is that conservatives like Beck are setting the scene for what will happen after the midterm elections in order to further the notion that liberals/progressives are out to destroy the country. What Beck is doing is so transparent and predictable that it's almost pointless to talk about it. He's prepping the mouth agape conservatives that look to him as some solar messiah to believe that no matter what happens in November, liberals/progressives are going to act in violent concert against America and all that it stands for. That is, what Beck thinks it stands for.
There is a moment in this clip where Beck talks about the "lame duck" session on Congress and what legislation may be passed or not. This has just recently become a conservative talking point, that there shouldn't be anything done by Congress immediately following a midterm election. What kind of point of view is that? Should car companies not do anything to improve their line of vehicles put out into the market the previous year simply because the new model year line is about to be released? It's a very revealing look into not only the laziness of conservative ideology, but how they are more than willing to create a storyline that is designed to do nothing more than inflame, frighten, and smear.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Racial Ignorance Of The Right
Full credit to my dear Twitter pal GottaLaff for some further material for this post.
--------------------------------------------
So there's absolutely no racism within the Tea Party or any facet of the conservative movement - none? Really?
What about this?
.....or this, from a man who is directly attributing his "success" to the Tea Baggers?
...........what about this, or this, this, this, this, this, this, or a host of other perfect examples.
So what do Fox"News" favorites Sean Hannity and Sarah "I can barely finish anything I've started unless I'm paid A LOT" Palin have to say about this?
There's is this palatable and oddly humorous shade of irony in Sean Hannity calling for people to completely ignore the well-documented racial animus within the Tea Bagger crowd since he was the one thathosted Duane "Dog The Bounty Hunter" on this program to provide covering fire for him when he dropped the dreaded N-bomb in a way that would make even Mel Gibson genuflect in horror.
But let's look at Palin's framing of this.......
She's essentially framing her thesis that the Tea Party shouldn't be held accountable because they see Obama as either "not white enough" or "just black enough that he scares us". Does it get any clearer than this?
The greater point of all of this is that NO ONE within the conservative movement are distancing themselves in any fashion from the clearly defined racism, racial animus, and race-baiting from the Tea Baggers simply because it would require them to do something that they continually espouse but virtually never do - hold people accountable.
--------------------------------------------
So there's absolutely no racism within the Tea Party or any facet of the conservative movement - none? Really?
What about this?
.....or this, from a man who is directly attributing his "success" to the Tea Baggers?
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
...........what about this, or this, this, this, this, this, this, or a host of other perfect examples.
So what do Fox"News" favorites Sean Hannity and Sarah "I can barely finish anything I've started unless I'm paid A LOT" Palin have to say about this?
There's is this palatable and oddly humorous shade of irony in Sean Hannity calling for people to completely ignore the well-documented racial animus within the Tea Bagger crowd since he was the one thathosted Duane "Dog The Bounty Hunter" on this program to provide covering fire for him when he dropped the dreaded N-bomb in a way that would make even Mel Gibson genuflect in horror.
But let's look at Palin's framing of this.......
She's essentially framing her thesis that the Tea Party shouldn't be held accountable because they see Obama as either "not white enough" or "just black enough that he scares us". Does it get any clearer than this?
The greater point of all of this is that NO ONE within the conservative movement are distancing themselves in any fashion from the clearly defined racism, racial animus, and race-baiting from the Tea Baggers simply because it would require them to do something that they continually espouse but virtually never do - hold people accountable.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Greatest Fox Cat-Fight Ever
In which Kirsten Powers has me, then loses me REALLY quick.
Powers has always been one of the "Democrats" on Fox"News" that is really just another blonde with a a Democratic label pasted on her dress. Some style and little if any substance. But here, she really got under Megyn Kelly's skin by correctly stating that J. Christian is nothing but a conservative activist with a history of misleading statements, as well as the fact that this singular case is the Fox"News" way of perpetuating the "scary black man" narrative.
And then Powers completely tanks it in the end.
Was there a producer off camera telling her to tone it down? Was she suddenly filled with this question of whether or not this could cost her her job? Both are likely but I'm not even going to speculate on it any further than that.
The larger point of this segment is that Kelly is continuing to prove herself nothing more than another "pretty blonde" on Fox that is willing to parrot fringe conservative talking points, invite on a completely discredited "whistle blower", and then do her best 'Sean Hannity In A Skirt' impersonation in that hopes that it will garner some of his attention and hopefully lead to a second debate with Powers on his show. I'm thinking it will probably just lead to some supplication from Hannity and more inflammatory rhetoric and race baiting from a man that learned his trade from the king of race baiters - Rush Limbaugh.
Powers has always been one of the "Democrats" on Fox"News" that is really just another blonde with a a Democratic label pasted on her dress. Some style and little if any substance. But here, she really got under Megyn Kelly's skin by correctly stating that J. Christian is nothing but a conservative activist with a history of misleading statements, as well as the fact that this singular case is the Fox"News" way of perpetuating the "scary black man" narrative.
And then Powers completely tanks it in the end.
Was there a producer off camera telling her to tone it down? Was she suddenly filled with this question of whether or not this could cost her her job? Both are likely but I'm not even going to speculate on it any further than that.
The larger point of this segment is that Kelly is continuing to prove herself nothing more than another "pretty blonde" on Fox that is willing to parrot fringe conservative talking points, invite on a completely discredited "whistle blower", and then do her best 'Sean Hannity In A Skirt' impersonation in that hopes that it will garner some of his attention and hopefully lead to a second debate with Powers on his show. I'm thinking it will probably just lead to some supplication from Hannity and more inflammatory rhetoric and race baiting from a man that learned his trade from the king of race baiters - Rush Limbaugh.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Christie's Backpeddle
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is having to do some serious damage control after comments he made regarding immigration reform that caused some conservative to do a double spit-take and start making excuses.
So guess where little Chrissy Po ran to for cover?
( click here for video from Hannity's Fox"News" program )
Considering that Christie is already being floated as a possible Presidential candidate in 2012, I’m not surprised that Fox”News” is providing a platform for him to spin his comments. Christie's statements dovetail quite nicely with what conservatives claimed was a call for blanket amnesty from Obama, and that didn’t set well with conservatives. This is spin in its purest form.
Some righties, Ace among them, are shrugging this off, which I kind of understand. For one thing, conservative rock star though he be, Christie’s still a Republican leading a deep-blue state. We may want to believe he’s Reagan reincarnated but there’s probably a little of Rudy Giuliani in that political DNA. For another thing, he’s wisely chosen not to be too specific about this issue so the quotes end up being ambiguous. What kind of path to citizenship, precisely, does he have in mind? No idea, which is just how he likes it, I’m sure. And of course, he gets the “true conservative” benefit of the doubt that grassroots righties always extend to GOP icons until they say or do something irretrievably RINO-ish. Palin used to be the paradigm example: If she said something sketchy, like, er, about supporting a path to citizenship for illegals, excuses would immediately be offered that she was misquoted or the media was out to get her or (more credibly) that she was only saying that under duress from the McCain campaign, etc. Ever since she endorsed Maverick in Arizona and Fiorina in California, my sense is that people are a bit (but only a bit) stingier towards her in that regard. Christie is still in the full flush of his “the next Reagan?!” buzz, though, he gets the full complement, which means this shouldn’t make too many waves. I think.
So guess where little Chrissy Po ran to for cover?
( click here for video from Hannity's Fox"News" program )
Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) on immigration reform: "The federal government has to get in. They have to secure our borders and they have to set up common sense rules to give people a pathway to citizenship."
Gov. Christie said the state of New Jersey itself can do "very little" to fix this problem, however.
On people who enter legally: "[They] have to be given a pathway to become citizens."
On those who enter US illegally: "My view is that they need to get on the back of the line."
Christie says they should return to the country of their origin "if practical."
"I don't think that you're going to be able to say every person who is in this country illegally is going to go back to their country of origin. That's not going to happen. But, I don't think, Sean, that people who are here illegally should be able to cut [in] the line in front of people who are doing the process the right way," Christie said.
Considering that Christie is already being floated as a possible Presidential candidate in 2012, I’m not surprised that Fox”News” is providing a platform for him to spin his comments. Christie's statements dovetail quite nicely with what conservatives claimed was a call for blanket amnesty from Obama, and that didn’t set well with conservatives. This is spin in its purest form.
Ignorance On A Global Scale
Love the "prom hair" Laura.
In case you were wondering, the economy is already "global". I'm no economist - and Michelle Bachman most definitely isn't - and I already knew that.
This is what happens when people that have no clue what they are talking about open their ever gaping maws even wider - they get to shove their feet in just a little farther.
In case you were wondering, the economy is already "global". I'm no economist - and Michelle Bachman most definitely isn't - and I already knew that.
This is what happens when people that have no clue what they are talking about open their ever gaping maws even wider - they get to shove their feet in just a little farther.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
The Face Of Indoctrination
This sort of thing really troubles me.
What does an 11 year old really know of the world outside of what his parents teach them?
This isn't to diminish the mental prowess of some kids. After all, there have been children as young as 13 to graduate from Harvard, but they aren't the ones being hauled into the Fox"News" studios to talk about political bias in the media or schools. Kind of makes one wonder if kids like Sam are simply trotted out in front of the cameras to further the narrative that the world is unfair to conservatives.
More to the point, if Sam is so passionate about the alleged unjustness of what has happened to him, he isn't nearly as fired up as this kid. Honestly, he seems a bit unsure of himself. Perhaps that his conscious whispering to him that what he's doing isn't entirely honest.
But this is a win/win for Fox"News" and the kid ( or should I say, his parents ) considering the fact that if the teacher, the school principal, or the school board superintendent were to come on to refute Sam's specious claims, they would be roundly criticized for attacking a child. That's what makes this whole spectacle disgusting - Fox"News" uses a child to further their agenda and claims that there has been no response from those accused of wrong-doing knowing full well that if there is a response they can readjust their narrative to show abuse of a child.
And I thought that conservatives were against indoctrination.
What does an 11 year old really know of the world outside of what his parents teach them?
This isn't to diminish the mental prowess of some kids. After all, there have been children as young as 13 to graduate from Harvard, but they aren't the ones being hauled into the Fox"News" studios to talk about political bias in the media or schools. Kind of makes one wonder if kids like Sam are simply trotted out in front of the cameras to further the narrative that the world is unfair to conservatives.
More to the point, if Sam is so passionate about the alleged unjustness of what has happened to him, he isn't nearly as fired up as this kid. Honestly, he seems a bit unsure of himself. Perhaps that his conscious whispering to him that what he's doing isn't entirely honest.
But this is a win/win for Fox"News" and the kid ( or should I say, his parents ) considering the fact that if the teacher, the school principal, or the school board superintendent were to come on to refute Sam's specious claims, they would be roundly criticized for attacking a child. That's what makes this whole spectacle disgusting - Fox"News" uses a child to further their agenda and claims that there has been no response from those accused of wrong-doing knowing full well that if there is a response they can readjust their narrative to show abuse of a child.
And I thought that conservatives were against indoctrination.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Unsupported Linkage Request
Because you just know that Fox"News" is going to try and frame the G20 Summit their way.
This is something that conservatives are doing and have been doing for some time. I can recall the 2006 riots in Paris and how people like Hannity and OReilly devoted countless segments trying to link them and the liberal/progressive movement in America.
Here's my question for Varney - can you cite specifics on how Obama is allegedly demonizing business? I'm guessing by "business" he really means holding Wall Street accountable, but that's just a guess.
This is something that conservatives are doing and have been doing for some time. I can recall the 2006 riots in Paris and how people like Hannity and OReilly devoted countless segments trying to link them and the liberal/progressive movement in America.
Here's my question for Varney - can you cite specifics on how Obama is allegedly demonizing business? I'm guessing by "business" he really means holding Wall Street accountable, but that's just a guess.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Right From The Jump
You know conservatives around the country were just itching to say this if Obama fired McCrystal.
And had he let McCrystal stay, there would likely had been talk of Obama not being able to control his commanders, thereby being unable to lead in a time of war. These people are really that predictable, I assure you.
I'm just waiting for the new conservative talking-point about how this is also seen as Obama's fault as it was him at appointed McCrystal to his position - meaning he's not very good at picking the right person for the job. Perhaps that a bit of a stretch, but conservatives are becoming more and more creative with ways to blame Obama for virtually everything.
I for one think that this showed true leadership on Obama's part. He removed a person that apparently wasn't taking his job all that seriously and took corrective action and put in place a man that could get the job done. However, Petraeus doesn't come without some problems for some within the liberal community - conservatives are already crowing about his new role in Afghanistan and are revamping the "victory in Iraq" nonsense.
As Commander In Chief, Obama did his job and did it well. We need military leaders who aren't going to let partisanship invade their job duties when they are representing this country.
And had he let McCrystal stay, there would likely had been talk of Obama not being able to control his commanders, thereby being unable to lead in a time of war. These people are really that predictable, I assure you.
I'm just waiting for the new conservative talking-point about how this is also seen as Obama's fault as it was him at appointed McCrystal to his position - meaning he's not very good at picking the right person for the job. Perhaps that a bit of a stretch, but conservatives are becoming more and more creative with ways to blame Obama for virtually everything.
I for one think that this showed true leadership on Obama's part. He removed a person that apparently wasn't taking his job all that seriously and took corrective action and put in place a man that could get the job done. However, Petraeus doesn't come without some problems for some within the liberal community - conservatives are already crowing about his new role in Afghanistan and are revamping the "victory in Iraq" nonsense.
As Commander In Chief, Obama did his job and did it well. We need military leaders who aren't going to let partisanship invade their job duties when they are representing this country.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Alternate Realities
The terrorists are getting our money, but don't even think about alternative energy.
That's essentially what Beck is saying here.
Remember when Bush began talking about alternative fuels? Remember all those ads out from oil companies talking about how they were on the forefront of alternative fuel research? Not long after that, most oil companies - including BP - shifted from advocates of alternative ( suicidal )energy and cut those programs back seriously in 2009.
So what is Beck saying? Is he in favor of dangerous practices, dangerous drilling in deep waters untested? Does he suddenly not care about our imports of oil from the Middle East? I'm not entirely certain that even he knows, as his paycheck often obscures what this country really needs. After all, the desire for conservatives to see Obama ( and by extension the country ) fail greatly outweighs their love for America.
Which one is it then: dangerous oil drilling, importing from the middle east, or alternative sources? The message over the last 3 years has become so muddled that not many people can tell now.
That's essentially what Beck is saying here.
Remember when Bush began talking about alternative fuels? Remember all those ads out from oil companies talking about how they were on the forefront of alternative fuel research? Not long after that, most oil companies - including BP - shifted from advocates of alternative ( suicidal )energy and cut those programs back seriously in 2009.
So what is Beck saying? Is he in favor of dangerous practices, dangerous drilling in deep waters untested? Does he suddenly not care about our imports of oil from the Middle East? I'm not entirely certain that even he knows, as his paycheck often obscures what this country really needs. After all, the desire for conservatives to see Obama ( and by extension the country ) fail greatly outweighs their love for America.
Which one is it then: dangerous oil drilling, importing from the middle east, or alternative sources? The message over the last 3 years has become so muddled that not many people can tell now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Playlist Of Doom
