Sarah Palin to Fox News

[ABM]

they aren't even close to being fair and balanced. It's silly to keep that lie going.

That's what I'm saying: They're highly conservative. The letters (and many others) are highly liberal.

Viola! Balance.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I got home early today and got to see some of Glenn Beck's show for the first time. I was somewhat impressed at the quality of his arguments and how he had video clips to back it up.

What was unbalanced about what he said today about the similarities b/w what's going on in Venezuela and what's going on here? Or why we're all fired up about Che, Mao and Stalin (shades of the Oliver Stone thread)? Or are people here talking out of their ass (shocker of shockers)?

 

[ABM]

I got home early today and got to see some of Glenn Beck's show for the first time. I was somewhat impressed at the quality of his arguments and how he had video clips to back it up.

What was unbalanced about what he said today about the similarities b/w what's going on in Venezuela and what's going on here? Or why we're all fired up about Che, Mao and Stalin (shades of the Oliver Stone thread)? Or are people here talking out of their ass (shocker of shockers)?

I'm strongly considering going to the Bold Fresh Tour event, which will be simulcast via Lloyd Center 10 theater (and Clackamas Town Center) in Portland.

 

[Paxil]

I consider myself conservative non-politically... never had a ticket don't do drugs blah blah blah. At one time I voted replublican because I believe the were more inline with my religious beliefs... plus I was in the military and at the time the republicans were dumping a lot of money into some hugely expensive defense projects.

Now... even though my basic beliefs and values haven't changed... I vote democrat. Rebublicans just did too many things to benefit big business, the rich and hurt the environment. It is funny but my values are pretty in line with a lot of my republican friends... I just view what the parties are doing differently.

Many of the shows on Fox and not news at all... and stations have the right to have commentary... but it seems the most slanted of any station I have ever seen... yet says 'fair and balanced'. I *know* many networks have commentary that may be against a given parties polication views... but I have never seen so much of it in one place as with Fox.

Rush Limbaugh for president? Is that a joke? People like him for his anti-democratic views... but all he is is a critic. When Bush was in office he wasn't very popular was he... because he isn't good at anything other than criticising.

Anyway... I used to have to watch some O'Reily etc at the gym when working out and they are entertaining in a way... like professional wrestling.

If the Republicans can offer solutions instead of criticism... then I could see myself voting that way in 2012. I haven't really seen anything along those lines though. It is soooo much easier to be critical... just ask Mixum. =)

 

[santeesioux]

This is the only "news" channel i watch, the other ones are too biased

http://www.nwcn.com/


Oh, scratch that, i guess i watch Red Eye on Fox News once in a while when i'm up then.

 

[hasoos]

The title to this thread should have been "Another Borderline Retard to be employed by Fox News."

 

[Mediocre Man]

Please, MSNBC and CNN are just as bad, if not worse, than Fox. They are just as unbalanced towards the left as Fox is towards the right. Liberals just hate Fox because it's the only station that has an opinion other than their own.

Personally I'm not a fan of the current Republican party, but it's the religious stuff, their stance on gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortions, that sets me apart from them. I think their opinion on illegal immigration is dead on, and I wish they would fight the bailouts and stupid taxes more.

I agree with this post 100%

 

[mook]

Why does Fox News exist other than to make money/get good ratings?

Of course getting higher ratings is a good thing.

Ed O.

It's certainly a good thing for Fox News. Maybe he was questioning whether it was a good thing for the Republican Party.

Fox seems to be driving Republicans further and further to the right. When was the last time anybody talked about moderate or *gasp* liberal republicans.

I just don't see it as a long-term winning strategy. Parties don't grow by excluding more and more people who fail to pass purity tests.

I'd really like to see a third party emerge with the Tea Party folks. And a true Green party on the left. Wishful thinking, I guess...

 

[maxiep]

When was the last time anybody talked about moderate or *gasp* liberal republicans.

About the same time anybody talked about moderate or *gasp* conservative Democrats.

 

[mook]

The Blue Dog coalition?

 

[Denny Crane]

It's certainly a good thing for Fox News. Maybe he was questioning whether it was a good thing for the Republican Party.

Fox seems to be driving Republicans further and further to the right. When was the last time anybody talked about moderate or *gasp* liberal republicans.

I just don't see it as a long-term winning strategy. Parties don't grow by excluding more and more people who fail to pass purity tests.

I'd really like to see a third party emerge with the Tea Party folks. And a true Green party on the left. Wishful thinking, I guess...

There's a lot of talk about being a big tent party, but there's a lot of merit in having a clear distinction between the two parties so you know what to expect when you vote for one or the other (or not!).

The appealing thing to me about the tea party movement is that it is grass roots and it seems to be focused on public policy and not morality. FWIW.

 

[MrJayremmie]

grass roots

Not fully.

 

[maxiep]

The Blue Dog coalition?

You mean the ones who--when it really counted--have backed every single one of President Obama's measures? Where are the brave Democrats who are willing to buck this President?

 

[mook]

The appealing thing to me about the tea party movement is that it is grass roots and it seems to be focused on public policy and not morality. FWIW.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with the tea party movement. It reminds me of the Ross Perot movement of 1992 (before people realized he was batshit crazy). Mad as hell at the powers that be....

I think that right now the group has a broader appeal because it doesn't have to get into the details of legislating morality. For now it's simply enough to be anti-Obama, anti-Republican establishment, anti-Democrat, anti-government. If they do make some headway and start to really get organized, the old problems of christian right vs libertarian right will again rear its head, and morality will become a huge factor.

Anyway, I do wish the public policy side of the tea party movement success. I disagree with them on many issues, but at least it isn't taking major stands on abortion and gay rights. It'd be great to have a right wing party in this country that wasn't so deadset smug about having god on their side.

 

[mook]

You mean the ones who--when it really counted--have backed every single one of President Obama's measures? Where are the brave Democrats who are willing to buck this President?

Obama's measures are not at far left fringe of all possibilities. I think Obama would've preferred to be far more left wing than he has been. The reason he hasn't, at least in part, is because of the Blue Dogs.

So no, they haven't taken major public stands to vote down legislation he favors. But they surely had a hand in its formation.

 

[maxiep]

Obama's measures are not at far left fringe of all possibilities. I think Obama would've preferred to be far more left wing than he has been. The reason he hasn't, at least in part, is because of the Blue Dogs.

So no, they haven't taken major public stands to vote down legislation he favors. But they surely had a hand in its formation.

Is it your belief that the Republicans only will vote for items on the far right fringe?

 

[Natebishop3]

They should create another third party and stick all the baby boomers and aging hipsters into this party. It will be called:

The "Get off my lawn!" Party

 

[BlazerCaravan]

About the same time anybody talked about moderate or *gasp* conservative Democrats.

1992?

 

[deception]

There's a lot of talk about being a big tent party, but there's a lot of merit in having a clear distinction between the two parties so you know what to expect when you vote for one or the other (or not!).

The appealing thing to me about the tea party movement is that it is grass roots and it seems to be focused on public policy and not morality. FWIW.

grass roots? laughable.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_tea_party_movement_whos_in_charge.php

Here is the organizational landscape of the April 15 tea party movement, in a nutshell: three national-level conservative groups, all with slightly different agendas, are guiding it. All are quick to tell you that the movement is a bottom-up affair and that its grassroots cred is real.

They are: FreedomWorks, the conservative action group led by Dick Armey; dontGO, a tech savvy free-market action group that sprung out of last August's oil-drilling debate in the House of Representatives; and Americans for Prosperity, an issue advocacy/activist group based on free market principles. Conservative bloggers, talk show hosts, and other media figures have attached themselves to the movement in peripheral capacities. Armey will appear at a major rally in Atlanta, FreedomWorks said.

All three groups vehemently deny that the movement is a product of AstroTurfing--fake grassroots activism organized from the top down--as some on the left have claimed. They will tell you that citizens-turned-activists, upset with President Obama's economic agenda and the financial bailout, have been calling them, asking for help and how they can organize protests on Wednesday. The movement, they say, is entirely organic: they are mostly providing help and resources to this new class of outraged conservative free-market populists, some of whom are their own members and some of whom are outsiders to politics with whom they've never communicated before--not even on an e-mail list.

FreedomWorks and dontGO seem to have taken ownership of the bulk of this coordination. The homepage of FreedomWorks' website now offers visitors a Google map of protests taking place across the country. They say they know of 600 Tax Day protests for which they are providing resources. The group has used its e-mail list to augment the work of dontGO, which created the website www.taxdayteaparty.com in February. dontGO, which was formed as an online rapid response team during the House of Representatives oil drilling debate last year, says it is "tracking" 700 events under its aegis. Americans for Prosperity says it has 24 state chapters that are organizing events. Overlap between all those numbers is quite likely: FreedomWorks told me a lot of its activity has been clueing its members to other protests in the area, so protesters can cooperate and conglomerate their events.

The movement is not tied to the Republican Party, group spokesmen said, despite a report that at least 10 House Republicans will be speaking at events across the country. Eric Odom, founder of dontGO, has infamously turned down a request from Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele to speak at the group's Chicago event.

Spokesmen for all three groups said they are not aware of any contact (other than the Steele incident) between their groups and federal-level Republican politicians, at the national level at least; Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), however, will speak at an Americans for Prosperity-organized event in Wisconsin, a spokesman for that group said. His appearance was organized by the group's Wisconsin chapter, Policy Director Phil Kerpen told me.

The three groups each want something different out of the protests.

FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon sees them as an opportunity for the right to catch up to the left in terms of grassroots activity, incorporating the activist-network model used most effectively by MoveOn.org.

"Activists in general have learned a lot from the last election," Brandon told me. "You'd see 50 MoveOn.org people standing outside a gas station. We feel just as strong about our issues."

Progressive groups have employed that strategy in support of the same economic agenda the tea party protests seek to overturn: groups like ACORN and Americans United for Change have utilized their e-mail lists of supporters to organize field events across the country in support of the stimulus.

And in copying the left's model, Brandon says, FreedomWorks is no more guilty of AstroTurfing than MoveOn is.

"If you look at MoveOn's model...if you consider that AstroTurfing, I'd probably have to say that we're AstroTurfing," Brandon told me. But if critics assume the organization is top-down, he said, "they're gonna underestimate us."

FreedomWorks will place volunteers at some of the events to collect e-mail addresses and try to grow the group's network of activists. In the same way the Iraq war helped liberals recruit new activists, Brandon hopes Obama's economic agenda will fill conservative e-mail lists and coffers with new support.

dontGO founder Odom, on the other hand, does not see a parallel between his group and liberal ones like MoveOn. His vision for the movement is much more libertarian and revolutionary

"Their agenda was to get these individuals elected. Our agenda is to declare war on incumbency and long term power," Odom told me.

Hence the rejection of Steele's request. The goal is "not to promote Republicans at all," Odom said. "I voted for Bob Barr."

"I think April 15th is going to provide an environment in which a completely new movement comes out of that [conservative response to Obama's economic agenda]...new networks, new groups...the birth of a completely new base," Odom said.

As far as Fox News's promotion of the tea parties, promising coverage on Tax Day (and Glenn Beck's encouragement of viewers to attend), Odom said: "I love it. I think it's a very wise business plan. It's about ratings, that's what's going on now. Many people are looking for coverage."

(Indeed, the tea party protests have generated an epistemological problem for observers: most of the coverage has happened on conservative blogs, and it's always hard to tell whether the accounts are accurate, given that the bloggers back the protests, and there's a seed of doubt, sometimes, as to the authenticity of photos. Of course, now the same is true of Fox News, but at least they will have video cameras spread out across the country.)

Americans for Prosperity says it mostly wants to call attention to Obama's economic policies; ostensibly, at least, it does not have broader designs for the conservative movement or the size of its own e-mail list.

"We just think it's a great opportunity for average Americans to show up and make our voices heard," spokesman Erik Telford told me.

All three groups acknowledge that the reported energy behind the tea party movement doesn't have a particularly narrow focus. They're protesting the stimulus, the budget, the financial bailout (signed by President Bush), and more, they say. They also acknowledge that some will show up not out of economic rage, but out of pure opposition to Obama.

When Fox News's cameras start rolling on Wednesday, we will finally find out what the movement consists of. The only problem is the Heisenberg effect of Fox's cameras.

 

[Denny Crane]

It'll be interesting to see what happens with the tea party movement. It reminds me of the Ross Perot movement of 1992 (before people realized he was batshit crazy). Mad as hell at the powers that be....

I think that right now the group has a broader appeal because it doesn't have to get into the details of legislating morality. For now it's simply enough to be anti-Obama, anti-Republican establishment, anti-Democrat, anti-government. If they do make some headway and start to really get organized, the old problems of christian right vs libertarian right will again rear its head, and morality will become a huge factor.

Anyway, I do wish the public policy side of the tea party movement success. I disagree with them on many issues, but at least it isn't taking major stands on abortion and gay rights. It'd be great to have a right wing party in this country that wasn't so deadset smug about having god on their side.

grass roots? laughable.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/the_tea_party_movement_whos_in_charge.php

It's clearly grass roots, and unlike the Perot movement, there isn't any one or two or even three guys you can point to as "THE" leader. It's reminiscent of the actual anti-war movement from the 60s - a general sense that the war was wrong, mob mentality in their form of protest, and several fringe (like SDS) groups that were actually organized but not very big in real numbers. You wouldn't call Tom Hayden "THE" leader of that movement, would you?

It's not at all surprising that people really disliked the republican spending, wanted "change," and are furious about both the amounts and nature of the kind of spending going on. It used to be "democrats tax and spend" and "republicans borrow and spend" but we're getting it both barrels now - tax and borrow and spend at unprecedented levels.

They're motivated not by Dick Armey, but by their shared fury at what's going on. Anyone like Armey or Palin who appears at these things are taking advantage of a free PR opportunity.

It was clearly moronic to diss this movement early on, and it's even more moronic to discount them now (after the NY house race). It only makes them madder ;-)

 

[deception]

It's clearly grass roots, and unlike the Perot movement, there isn't any one or two or even three guys you can point to as "THE" leader.

It was clearly moronic to diss this movement early on, and it's even more moronic to discount them now (after the NY house race). It only makes them madder ;-)

i love them because they splinter the conservative vote e.g. what happened in new york or what happened in 92. that means more of president obama and i know that makes your day.

 

[Denny Crane]

i love them because they splinter the conservative vote e.g. what happened in new york or what happened in 92. that means more of president obama and i know that makes your day.

There was no primary in the new york special election.

 

[deception]

There was no primary in the new york special election.

i know but the tea baggers told them not to vote for the republican, the republican left the race and the democrat won- the same thing. the tea baggers are fracturing the opposition to the democrats and im alright with it but the real losers are fair, balanced conservatives whose voices are being marginalized by these nutjobs.

 

[Denny Crane]

The tea party people nearly elected a 3rd party candidate. That's quite impressive. If there were a primary, the left-leaning republican wouldn't have been their candidate.

 

[deception]

The tea party people nearly elected a 3rd party candidate. That's quite impressive. If there were a primary, the left-leaning republican wouldn't have been their candidate.

do they have a realistic shot of unseating a mainstream (centrist) president in a national election, especially in light of the changing demographics? here's what we know about tea baggers- they are white, many are retired, not very educated, clustered together in rural parts of america and they didnt vote for obama the last time around. oh btw, they didnt impede the president in 08 so how are they going to make traction in 2012? new citizens (mexicans), black ppl, professionals and yuppies have all summarily rejected the tenets of tea bagging- they have a base and thats all they have.

 

[STOMP]

That's where Fox brings the "fair and balanced" part. That is, in comparison/relation to the liberal alphabet networks.

huge corporations own the other networks... I wouldn't call Disney or GE's interests "liberal." Words change their meaning sometimes and become labels... like how the GOP is still referred to as "Conservatives" when there is little that is conservative about the way that they govern

anyhoo... unless there is a disaster or major happening, I rarely ever watch network news. I'd much rather use the internet and get to the point/crux on issues I care about

STOMP

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

unless there is a disaster or major happening, I rarely ever watch network news. I'd much rather use the internet and get to the point/crux on issues I care about

but how will you know what your opinion is without having the stories filtered through an echo chamber of talking heads?

 

[REDIVIDER]

when palin speaks i am reminded of bsing essays in high school - she makes up stuff that sounds sort-of-ok but is largely empty. this may not differ from most contributors, hers has more of an 'i'm bsing' sound to it

'fair and balanced' is just their tagline. no news show is 'fair and balanced.' or worth watching beyond cheap entertainment value

 

[REDIVIDER]

huge corporations own the other networks... I wouldn't call Disney or GE's interests "liberal." Words change their meaning sometimes and become labels... like how the GOP is still referred to as "Conservatives" when there is little that is conservative about the way that they govern

anyhoo... unless there is a disaster or major happening, I rarely ever watch network news. I'd much rather use the internet and get to the point/crux on issues I care about

STOMP

it is not only about who owns the network or media company, but the people who work in the network and media industries. i recall reading something like 65%-70% of workers in media are to the left. thus the media will tend to slant left, from the top down and bottom up. fox is the only alternative on television, which is why its ratings spank those of other individual networks

 

[barfo]

It was clearly moronic to diss this movement early on, and it's even more moronic to discount them now (after the NY house race). It only makes them madder ;-)

Great. I hope they get so mad they elect democrats all over the country like they did in the NY house race. Go teabaggers go!

barfo