Posts Tagged ‘fox news’

Obama Shuns Fox News Until He is in Trouble

Mar 15, 2008 Political

The Democrats have not been very Fox friendly in that they have refused to participate in any debates sponsored by the network. Only Democrats in the throes of death or trying to recover from some gaff have made any appearances on the Fox network. Barack Obama froze out all Fox reporters for a report that the network aired in January 2007 about Obama attending a madrassa. The story said Obama attended an extremist madrassa and he took offense because it put him in the Muslim league, a place he started in with his daddy. In any event, Obama did not want anything to do with Fox News and the balance of the Democrats decided that they did not want to debate on Fox opting for more liberal friendly networks like MSNBC or CNN. It should be noted that Republicans have not refused to debate on any network. Which party is afraid?

Interestingly, it appears as if Fox News now serves a purpose to the new Messiah of the Democratic Party. Obama refused to appear there since very early last year and he has refused to allow Fox reporters to interview him but now he is having a bit of trouble because of his racist pig pastor and where does he turn to try to straighten this out? Why Fox News of course. The story of the racist pastor Jeremiah Wright has spread around like wild fire. He hates America, is Afro-centric, blames whites for all the woes in the black community and he called on God to damn this nation. Obama has been going to this church for 20 years, Wright married Obama and Michelle and Obama baptized their children and that means that Obama is part of the church and its beliefs. Obama has never repudiated those beliefs before other than to say he did not agree with a few remarks made by Wright. Now that the tapes of Wright have gotten attention people are not happy with his Islamofascist like hatred for America and his racist remarks about whites.

Read more…

Others:
Stop the ACLU | The Amboy Times | Blog-o-Fascists | Church and State | Right Wing News

Sources:
Breitbart (Fox interview)
CBS
ABC
Washington Post

Big Dog

Tags: , , , ,

Ron Paul Wins Fox Debate

Jan 11, 2008 Political

At least this is what the people who voted by text messaging said. Last night Fox News had a Republican debate that featured all contenders except Duncan Hunter. The debate was pretty feisty at points with candidates attacking each other. Fred Thompson finally showed a bit of spark and he was, in my opinion, the clear winner of the debate and the focus group also believed Fred had won. Mitt Romney had a good night, McCain was solid and Huckabee was strong on domestic issues but weak on Foreign policy as was Ron Paul.

Ron Paul had some supporters in the crowd and he, in my opinion, performed OK for most of the night. There were a few times though, where he looked like an angry, out of control old man. I don’t think the message is that far off but the messenger needs to find a better delivery. He ranted for 90 seconds about rushing to fight with Iran before being told that the others had praised the restraint shown by the military. I think it was a very subtle moment where Brit Hume was able to take him down a notch. It made Ron Paul seem out of touch or as if he was not paying attention. Paul said he could not hear the moderator but I was reminded of Admiral James Stockdale, Ross Perot’s running mate, when I saw that exchange.

At the end of the debate Fox had text messaging voting set up so that people could dial in to vote for the winner. The results that were posted about 45 minutes post debate were Ron Paul ahead with 35%, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee tied at around 17 or 18%. I laughed when I saw those results because there is no way that Ron Paul won the debate and there is no way he is polling that high without the Ronulans voting over and over again.

The post debate text voting was exactly the same as the way Fox allows voting on American Idol which returns very soon. Perhaps Fox was tuning America back up so they could prepare to vote in that show. Whatever the case, Ron Paul was in the lead for one reason and one reason only, multiple text message votes by those who support Ron Paul and his revolution.

But believe me when I say, Ron Paul did not win the debate.

What was Fox thinking?

Big Dog

UPDATE: Several commenters have pointed out that one could only vote once. Another commenter pointed out that Paul supporters were more likely to be young and tech savvy. They are also the same people who will not show up on election day (not in the numbers that the less tech savvy will). Also, there were a number of posts in the Ronosphere telling everyone to be sure to vote. The fact that Ron Paul had more people willing to use a cell phone to vote does not mean he won the debate.

Tags: , , ,

Duncan Hunter Should not be Excluded from Debates

Jan 10, 2008 Political

I wrote a post earlier about Ron Paul being excluded from a debate. Duncan Hunter was also excluded and I commented that anyone who is still in the race deserves to participate in any process associated with the election including the debates. Fox News has decided that they will exclude candidates based upon polling results but they also rely on polling data that excludes certain candidates from the process. Duncan Hunter is such a candidate. If one were to look at Fox’s site he is not listed as a candidate and Real Clear Politics does not list him in their polls, polls which Fox uses when making its determination.

Duncan Hunter is being excluded from the South Carolina debate based upon criteria that Fox set but which Hunter could never hope to obtain if he is not included in the actual polls. Hunter paid $25,000 to be on the SC ballot and until such time as he withdraws from the race he deserves to participate like any other candidate.

The election process requires the people of this country to collect information about candidates and determine which one best defines their beliefs and goals. Part of this process is to have debates which pit the candidates against one another so that we the people can get an idea of where they stand and what they will do as president (or whatever office they are running for). The media should not be filtering these candidates and presenting only those deemed worthy by them.

Duncan Hunter is an honorable man who served this country in the military, who serves in Congress and who supports our men and women in uniform. He has strong positions on ILLEGAL immigration and he is a true conservative. To exclude him from the public forum is to do a great disservice to those who will make an important decision about who leads this country. The election process belongs to the people and not the media.

I say this with regard to any candidate from any party and I feel just as strongly that excluding Kucinich and Gravel (whoever that is) was wrong. There have been low polling people in the past who have not been excluded. Imagine the uproar that would occur if Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson had been excluded when they made their bids. Of course that is hypothetical because the media would never do something like that and offend the race hustlers, but I digress.

Fox News and any other outlet that sponsors a debate should include ALL candidates so long as they are still actively part of the process. To do anything less is an affront to the political process and truly un-American.

For a news organization that claims to be “Fair and Balanced” Fox’s actions appear to be anything but.

Shame on you Fox and shame on you SC GOP for allowing this censorship to take place.

Big Dog

Tags: , , , ,

Hillary Clinton – Honesty

Nov 11, 2007 Political

Yesterday it was reported that the Clinton campaign admitted that it planted a question at one of the Hildabeast’s speeches in Iowa and the campaign stated that it would not happen again. When I wrote about it I asked if they meant they would not get caught again or if they would not do it again like Bill would not molest women again. It appears that they were, in fact, caught again and it was like Bill not molesting women. A minister is alleging that he campaign tried to get him to ask a question about the war. The campaign wanted a question that would show a difference between Obama and Clinton on the way they have opposed President Bush and the funding for the war in Iraq. The Clinton campaign indicates that they did not ask anyone to ask a question and that their campaign person knows the minister and they were just talking.

The problem is, Minister Geoffrey Mitchell claims he does not know Chris Hayler, the staffer in question. Mitchell stated that he has seen Hayler at other events but the two do not know each other. Now we have a problem with honesty here because, obviously, someone is not telling the truth. While Mitchell is an Obama supporter and could make a false claim what motivation would a minister have to do so given how being caught in a lie would hurt his profession and the people he leads? The entity with something to lose here is the Clinton campaign because the incident, if true, would demonstrate a complete lack of honesty on the part of the campaign. They will have told a lie and broken a promise in a 24 hour time period.

We have already seen that the campaign lacks integrity and now their lack of honesty has been displayed for all to see. This, for those who have a problem distinguishing, is an example of dishonesty and I “double dog dare” anyone to show how it s not.

Of course, if Mitchell is the one lying then it is a different story all together.

Source:
Fox News

Big Dog

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

An Example of Clinton’s Lack of Integrity

Nov 10, 2007 Political

Hillary Clinton’s campaign admitted today that it had been caught planting a question from an audience member at one of her campaign stops in Iowa. Clinton called on a young college student who asked a question about global warming and Clinton responded that she gets these kinds of questions all the time from the young people. My question is, if she gets these questions all the time why the need to plant it? Surely if she gets them all the time she would get it at this event.

There are many troubling items in the story. The story indicates that she did not know which questioners she would be calling on so why plant the question? How likely is it she would pick the plant unless she knew who it was? The article indicates:

“But the source of the question was no coincidence — at this event ‘they wanted a question from a college student,’ Gallo-Chasanoff said.” Fox News

The campaign is in defense mode because this might offend Iowans for whom “the caucus is held sacred and the impromptu and candid style of the town hall meeting is held dear, Clinton’s planted question may come as a great offense to Iowans.”

I realize that there are supporters of Clinton who will comment that all candidates do this. I am sure many of them do though she is the only one caught. More importantly, she is supposed to be presenting herself as a different choice for the voters. If she is doing the same thing as everyone else, how different is she?

I imagine there are even those who will say this is not wrong to do or that it is no big deal. I agree that it is no big deal but if I were running I would just address the issue without the questioner. But then again, the Clinton campaign wants to look like it is addressing the everyday concerns Americans (and the Chinese and Europeans) have. I have suspicions that she is not asked this all the time. If there is any doubt that it was viewed as wrong, even by the campaign, they pointed out that they believe it was when they stated:

“…it would not happen again.”

Of course, they might mean they won’t get caught again or they might mean not again as in Bill will not molest women again.

Despite the claims made by others, integrity does not seem to be held in high regard in that camp. Consider this post an example to support the claim (that she lacks integrity).

Big Dog

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Newer Entries »