Election

Donald Trump’s Presidential Apprentice Primer

Posted by on December 5, 2011 at 2:09 pm. 2 Comments :

Donald Trump

Pretend billionaire and megalomaniac, Donald Trump is making the media rounds to prop up his Apprentice spin-off program: The Republican Presidential Primary Debate, or Presidential Apprentice. The announcement last week of this momentous event has been met with near universal yawns. Already two candidates (Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul) have declined the invitation. The only candidate who has accepted to date is Newt Gingrich.

True to his character, Trump attacked Huntsman (who is in third place in New Hampshire polling) and Paul (who is in third place in Iowa polling) as joke candidates. If they were truly joke candidates, however, they would be headlining Trump’s circus. As it stands, only Gingrich is set to appear. That is most likely because the new front-runner is broke, has no staff, and desperately needs the free media that any public appearance provides.

Republican elders are dismissing Trump’s affair. George Will said that the candidates should be presidential and say that “we’re not going to be hijacked and participate in this.” Karl Rove said that it’s absurd for any candidate to participate in a debate moderated by someone who is planning to make an endorsement and has hinted at running as an Independent. He further noted that “It’s gonna be a giant ego trip.”

Should anyone else decide to join Trump and Gingrich, they should be prepared for what they might encounter in a Trump-moderated debate. So I have compiled some of the subjects that Trump has championed in order that the candidates can familiarize themselves with his platform. Studying these areas of interest will give the debaters a leg up on their campaign for Trump’s affection:

1) Obama’s Citizenship: This is without a doubt the cornerstone of Trump’s political agenda. He talks about it at every appearance – including this morning on MSNBC, where he told Chuck Todd that he is still interested in this even if others are not. He has yet to reveal the findings of the security team he sent to Hawaii to investigate the matter.

2) Obama’s Religion: Despite the fact that the President has repeatedly affirmed his devout Christianity, Trump suspects that he is secretly a Muslim and the proof may be on his birth certificate. Never mind that any religious designation on a birth certificate would be irrelevant. Obviously the baby Barack did not select his faith, but the adult has been clear and consistent.

3) Obama’s Authorship: Trump has embraced the WorldNetDaily crackpots who believe that Bill Ayers was the ghostwriter of Obama’s autobiography “Dreams From My Father.” The evidence of this fraud is the observation that both used certain phrases like going “against the current.” Well, that settles that. Trump also believes that Obama was born Barry Soetoro and later changed his name, despite the fact that his step-father Lolo Soetoro didn’t marry Obama’s mother until he was four years old.

4) Obama’s Academics: Trump is fond of questioning Obama’s academic credentials, insisting that he was too stupid to get into Harvard. He says he is investigating this (are they the same investigators he sent to Hawaii?). Of course it is documented that Obama had graduated from Columbia before getting a scholarship to Harvard where he became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude.

5) Foreign Policy: Trump has advocated declaring a trade war with China. He also proposed addressing the deficit by stealing the oil from Libya and Iraq. This is the sort of bravado that Trump likes to display with his own business enterprises, which have resulted in four bankruptcies. In addition he has expressed support for an actual shooting war with both Iran and North Korea. However, with international relations between sovereign nations with standing armies, he may produce even worse outcomes than he has with his failing hotels and casinos.

6) Economic Policy: While he doesn’t have a 999 plan, Trump has proposed a tax increase that might inflame the sensitivities of Grover Norquist and the Tea Party:

“I would impose a one-time, 14.25% tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth over $10 million. For individuals, net worth would be calculated minus the value of their principal residence. That would raise $5.7 trillion in new revenue, which we would use to pay off the entire national debt. […] Some will say that my plan is unfair to the extremely wealthy. I say it is only reasonable to shift the burden to those most able to pay. The wealthy actually would not suffer severe repercussions.”

That actually sounds pretty good. Too bad he has disavowed that plan that appeared in his book, and now thinks he can appropriate billions of dollars from other countries to pay down our debt (he doesn’t say how).

This primer for the Trump debate should prepare the candidates to deal with the peculiar lunacy of the Trump vision for America. It would certainly be enlightening for voters to get a clearer perspective on these important matters.

However, there is a significant obstacle that might prevent this illuminating discourse from proceeding. It is highly probable that no one will show up but Gingrich. There really doesn’t seem to be much incentive to participate in a debate between Christmas and New Year’s Day that is hosted by charlatan whom polls show would harm the candidacies of anyone that he endorsed. With only three weeks to confirm, we’ll know pretty soon if there are others in the race who are as desperate as Newt. In a pinch Trump could always call Meatloaf or LaToya Jackson and see if they would be willing to sign on again.

Newt Gingrich Slams Poor Children – Again

Posted by on December 1, 2011 at 4:18 pm. 5 Comments :

Last week Newt Gingrich floated a ludicrous plan to fire union janitors at schools (putting them on the unemployment rolls and devastating their families) and replacing them with school children. The brilliance of this plan is that, while impoverishing the families of the once gainfully employed janitors, it would simultaneously burden kids with responsibilities that would distract them from their studies. And of course the children of folks in Gingrich’s class would have no such impediments to their education.

Not content with declaring child labor laws “truly stupid,” this week Gingrich compounded his absurdity and insensitivity by insulting the children that he hopes to put to work scrubbing toilets.

“Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works so they have no habit of showing up on Monday,” Gingrich claimed.

“They have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’ unless it is illegal,” he added.

This is the current front-runner for the Republican nomination for president saying that the children of the working poor have only lazy or criminal influences in their lives. Their parents are either bums or crooks.

Obviously Gingrich has never set foot in a poor neighborhood. Had he done so he would have met people who not only show up for work, they do it at multiple jobs. Gingrich has no concept of what it means to struggle to provide for his family. He makes $60,000 to give a half hour speech, yet he maligns poor people as having “no habit of staying all day.” And he spent decades in Congress where they almost never show up on Monday (or Friday either) and take several weeks off every year.

To insinuate that poor families who earn money do so only through illegal activities is not only wrong, it belies a measure of hypocrisy that is monumental. Remember, it was Gingrich who was cast out of Congress in disgrace after having been reprimanded for misusing tax-exempt funds and being fined $300,000. Someone as ethically challenged as Gingrich has no business maligning the integrity of others. Particularly those about whom he has absolutely no knowledge.

Newt Gingrich Admits That Fox News Analysts Don’t Know What They’re Talking About

Posted by on December 1, 2011 at 1:23 am. 1 Comments :

If there is one thing that Newt Gingrich knows about, it is what Fox News analysts know. He was, after all, a Fox News analyst himself. So it is with direct personal experience that Gingrich reveals that…

“One of the real changes that comes when you start running for president – as opposed to being an analyst on Fox – is I have to actually know what I’m talking about.”

With that succinct comment Gingrich acknowledges that he didn’t know what he was talking about during his many appearances on Fox, and that there was no requirement for such knowledge to be an analyst on Fox. That explains why so much of the analysis on Fox is so wrong so often and why there are so many notably unknowledgeable people on the network.

However, in keeping with his history of ignorance, Gingrich clearly does not know what he is talking about when he says that presidential candidates have to know what they are talking about. Anyone who has seen any of the GOP primary debates know that that isn’t true.

Idiot Watch: Fox News Contends That Obama Wants Economic Slide

Posted by on November 27, 2011 at 1:51 pm. 1 Comments :

Fox News Sunday hosted Liz Cheney to discuss the economy and Barack Obama’s role in deliberately sabotaging it. The conversation descended into a surprisingly moronic set of conspiracy theories that would make Glenn Beck’s doughy chest heave with pride. And of course, it was a discourse that utterly abandoned known facts.

Wallace asked Cheney whether it was a problem for Republicans that they are portrayed as “fighting for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy but willing to let the payroll tax cuts for the middle class disappear.” Cheney evaded that question entirely in order to serve up an inane conjecture that defies coherent logic:

Cheney: The President basically seems to have made the calculation that he’s gonna let the next thirteen months of the American economy slide for the sake of his own political benefits.

The reason Cheney evaded the question is because she knows that overwhelming majorities of the American people support letting Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy expire, and they also support the extension of the payroll tax cut. So she was forced to resort to inventing a distraction to defend the GOP’s indefensible agenda.

However, with her back up against the wall, Cheney latched onto an absurd assertion that President Obama wants the economy to suffer in order to enhance his reelection prospects. She apparently subscribes to the theory that poor economies are the best way to boost political campaigns. That’s a theory that only makes sense to a party that takes candidates like Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich seriously. It exposes a level of ignorance that is mind boggling.

In addition to the delusional nature of Cheney’s political analysis, she is also factually miles from reality. The pretext for her comment was her assertion that Obama has done nothing to address problems associated with unemployment and the deficit. She alleged that Obama had not engaged the Super Committee to assist in shaping a compromise. However, there was a White House proposal before the Super Committee had even convened its first meeting. That proposal offered a four trillion dollar reduction in debt achieved through both new revenues and entitlement cuts.

As for employment, Obama has already implemented initiatives to spur hiring of new employees in the form of credits for hiring the long-term unemployed and veterans. He has proposed restoring the nation’s infrastructure which would not only improve the environment for commerce, but would employ thousands. Republicans opposed those initiatives, as well as every other plan to help American families recover from the GOP-made catastrophe.

All sane observers know that delaying economic recovery would be the worst thing that could happen for Obama’s reelection campaign. In fact, the only beneficiary of a bad economy is the Republican Party and they have been openly hostile to any method of healing the country’s economic woes. Representative of their point of view is this image of an anti-recovery conservative who would rather hurt his neighbors and his country than to see Obama get credit for improving the economy. A real patriot would be hiring now in order to get the nation back on solid footing. But that is not how Republicans think.

Almost from inauguration day, the GOP has sought to kneecap the administration by opposing its policies and personnel. They have engaged in a record number of filibusters and created a degree of partisanship that is unprecedented. They have even opposed their own proposals after they were endorsed by Obama. It is an intentional tactic aimed at producing a national crisis, both economically and politically, to alienate voters and drive a wedge between different factions of the American people. It is a cynical and destructive crusade of division that has been exacerbated by a media that feasts on controversy and discord. Ted Koppel put it well in a recent article in Broadcasting & Cable:

Ted Koppel

“One day, most Americans will point at us in the news media and say, ‘Why didn’t you tell us? Why did you encourage all that partisan bile and venom? Why did you feed us all that trivial crap, when so many terrible things were converging?’ And no one will be happy with the answer. Least of all those of us who offer it. ‘What we gave you,’ we will say, ‘is what you wanted.'”

Sad, but true. And while Koppel gets some credit for saying it now, you have to wonder where he was when Bill Clinton was being impeached over a sex scandal; when Fox News launched as “fair and balanced”; when George W. Bush invaded Iraq and portrayed his opponents as traitors; when candidate Obama was accused of “pallin’ around with terrorists”; and when the Koch brothers financed the deliberately divisive Tea Party.

The media’s exploitation of melodrama and the Republican’s embrace of willful ignorance have united to create one of the most unstable eras of American history. It’s going to take a concerted effort to undo the damage, but it is not too late if conscientious citizens demand more of both the media and Washington.

Lyin’ Ass Bitch: Michele Bachmann Appears on the Jimmy Fallon Show

Posted by on November 22, 2011 at 2:17 pm. 4 Comments :

You gotta love this. When Michele Bachmann was introduced on last night’s Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, The Roots, the show’s house band, played a particularly appropriate number as she walked out onto the stage:

Yep, that was “Lyin’ Ass Bitch” by the incomparable Fishbone. This was an inspired selection by The Roots that went undetected by Bachmann. However, Glenn Beck took note and was overwhelmed with apoplexy. He called Fallon a “despicable human being,” and insisted that Fallon fire the band, saying…

“Fire them! You won’t. You know why? Because you’re a girl.”

Way to go, Glenn. The best insult you can come up with is one that shows contempt for all women? And this is what you use for your defense of a woman running for president. Would Bachmann also be incapable of terminating an employee? What would your pal Sarah Palin say?

Beck claimed that he never would have done such a vile thing. He said that he wouldn’t even do that to Michelle Obama or George Soros. But Beck’s phony indignation is repudiated by the fact that he has been far more repulsive in his attacks. He routinely insults Michelle Obama’s appearance and refers to her as a dictator just because she advocates healthy diets for children. And speaking of children, Beck has called the Obama kids stupid. And after apologizing for that he called John McCain’s daughter, Meghan, fat.

As for George Soros, Beck produced a three day series on his Fox News show dedicated solely to Soros whom Beck labeled the “Puppet Master,” an old Nazi slur for Jews. Beck also falsely accused Soros, a Holocaust survivor, of sending fellow Jews to the gas chambers. Soros was nine years old at the time.

And then there’s Beck’s comments on President Obama. Beck has called the President a liar, an idiot, a racist, and a traitor. While the Fallon show, a comedy program, merely played a few bars of a song with a provocative title without ever mentioning the title or the lyrics, Beck has used explicit language to express his repulsive thoughts and he did so on a so-called “news” network.

Does Beck really think that his direct and repeated insults are less abhorrent than a suggestive musical introduction for Bachmann? It should also be noted that this morning Beck made an announcement on his radio program that, although he does not endorse candidates, he would vote for Bachmann, and then he spent several minutes explaining why she is now his choice for president.

This disgusting little hypocrite continues to prove that he has no moral center whatsoever. He behaves like an emotionally stunted delinquent who mocks people he despises but shrinks back into a defensive crouch if anyone should mock him or his idols. I can’t wait for him to appear on Fallon’s show. The band wouldn’t even have to learn a new song. Beck is at least as much a lyin’ ass bitch as Bachmann.

If All Political Ads Were Made Like Mitt Romney’s Ads

Posted by on November 22, 2011 at 10:27 am. 1 Comments :

Yesterday perennial GOP presidential frontrunner-up, Mitt Romney, released an ad that contained an unambiguously dishonest soundbite. The ad played a clip of President Obama saying…

“…if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

However, that clip was taken from a speech in 2008 where Obama was quoting a John McCain campaign spokesman. Here is full quote in context:

“Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

Political advertising is an activity that has seen more than its share of lies and deliberate distortions. But this perversion of reality will go down as one of the most brazenly disreputable misrepresentations on record. And to compound the deceit, Romney is defending his ad saying…

“Now, the tables have turned. … President Obama and his team don’t want to talk about the economy and have tried to distract voters from his abysmal economic record.”

So not only does Romney have no regrets about his false representation, he absurdly asserts that Obama isn’t talking about the economy. Of course, anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention knows that Obama has talked about almost nothing but the economy. Does Romney really expect voters to believe his nonsense?

Well, if they believe Fox News then he has a chance. Fox viewers will believe anything they are told. That’s why it would be great to see this alternative version of Romney’s ad played on Fox News:

The Newt Gingrich Plan: Fire Janitors And Replace Them With Children

Posted by on November 20, 2011 at 11:01 am. 7 Comments :

This election cycle has seen some pretty remarkable performances by candidates that seem to have no concept of decency but an abundance of ignorance. Michele Bachmann wants members of Congress to be investigated for treason. Donald Trump pushed Birtherism to new levels, even after President Obama provided the birth certificate the rightist conspiracy theorists had been clamoring for. Rick Perry threatened to lead Texas into secession. Herman Cain distracted the media from his predatory sexual exploits by appearing to have a stroke when asked an easy question about Libya. And all the while Sarah Palin stalked the announced candidates in her tour bus pretending to be considering entering the race while collecting extravagant speaking fees and hawking books.

Now it’s Newt Gingrich’s turn to make an imbecile of himself, and he doesn’t disappoint. At an event at Harvard, Gingrich answered a question about income inequality by declaring that the problem with schools in low-income communities is the union janitors. But Newt has the solution:

Fox Nation Newt Gingrich

“It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid.” […] “Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school.”

This is why Republicans regard Gingrich as their shining intellectual. He pops out brilliant ideas like this with little thought or effort – obviously. Who else would propose terminating the professional maintenance staff, whose duties often include custodial services and facilities upkeep in addition to sanitation, in order to make poor kids clean the schools they attend between their classes? The Gingrich plan is to swap books for buckets and mops. And of course, Fox News helps to advance his nonsense with a feature article.

Gingrich’s innovative approach is one that would put adults who are supporting themselves and their families out of work, thus creating even more poor children to recruit into the work force. It’s sheer genius. Never mind that it would increase the unemployment rolls as well as costs associated with food stamps, housing, health care, and other welfare programs. And while impoverishing the families of the once gainfully employed janitors, it would simultaneously burden kids with responsibilities that would distract them from their studies, making it harder to get a good education and advance to college and the greater opportunities that higher education affords.

Meanwhile, privileged students who would not be similarly encumbered would sail through their academic years into the lucrative careers that are the birthright of their class. And it would ensure that the urchins from the barrios would remain safely segregated from the aristocratic set in the executive suites and suburbs.

Gingrich even goes so far as to champion the low aspirations of fast-food careers for disadvantaged kids and argues that all the successful people he knows “started their first job between nine and 14 years of age.” In that regard he seems to be equating delivering newspapers or selling lemonade to neighbors with repairing heating ducts and scouring toilets for government facilities.

The notion that it would somehow be beneficial to layoff productive adults and replace them with poor children could only have come from an upper-crust One Percenter like Gingrich. It’s absurd to suggest that such rank exploitation would prepare kids to compete with more fortunate peers who spend their formative years learning and shaping more ambitious goals. But it’s the sort of notion that typifies the Republican mindset that views children as chattel and industrious union workers as thugs. And it is affirmed by Gingrich’s stated mission:

“You’re going to see from me extraordinarily radical proposals to fundamentally change the culture of poverty in America.”

No doubt about that. And he isn’t wasting any time. Most American parents would already agree that diverting their kids from schooling to sanitation is a pretty extraordinary and radical proposal. If Newt Gingrich thinks that child labor laws are stupid, just think how stupid our children would become without them.

Sarah Palin On Herman Cain

Posted by on November 15, 2011 at 1:37 pm. 12 Comments :

Sarah Palin[Editor’s Note: Please accept my apology for any mental image the headline of this article may have inadvertently caused]

Sarah Palin has taken great pains to cast herself as a new kind of feminist. Her crusade for a version of conservative feminism has spawned a movement of “mama grizzlies” who she regards as the defenders of traditional values. So it is interesting to look back a few months and recall how Palin stepped forward to fulfill her role as a women’s advocate.

When the Anthony Weiner story broke, Palin was quick to judge the congressman who had done nothing illegal and did not even have any physical extra-marital encounters. Nevertheless, Palin pounced on the scandal with a harsh condemnation complete with a sexually suggestive pun. Here is what Palin said about Weiner:

“From henceforth after his personal indiscretions were disclosed, he was going to be rendered impotent basically there in Congress and he wasn’t going to be effective…Obviously it was the right thing to do. Day late dollar short though, I think he should have resigned right when all of this came to light.”

However, Palin’s assessment of the Cain scandal, which does involve potentially criminal behavior and was described by the victim as physical, has not raised the same measure of indignation. Here is what Palin said about Cain:

 

That’s right. Palin has not bothered to comment on a case of alleged sexual harassment and, perhaps, assault. Even though she previously disparaged Cain as the “flavor of the week,” she cannot bring herself to make a statement on behalf of a victimized woman. Palin’s silence on this matter is deafening. If she expects people to give consideration to her views, she would be well-advised to express them.

Of course, it may not be her fault. Since bowing out of the GOP primary, Palin has all but disappeared from public view. The press is finally giving her the level of attention that she has always deserved – none. Since she is not an expert on any social or legal matter, and she holds no position of authority, her opinions are no more valid than any other media celebrity. So we should not expect to hear from her again unless she is appearing on a panel with Paris Hilton and Charlie Sheen.

Fox Nation vs. Reality: On Obama And History

Posted by on November 7, 2011 at 11:06 am. 1 Comments :

See Fox News Update Below

The latest mutation of reality by the folks at Fox Nation presents another fun house ride through Fantasyland. Check out the headline posting on Sunday night:

Fox Nation

The posting links to an article at the Moonie Washington Times that purports to have analyzed presidential elections and arrived at the following conclusion:

“Of all the presidents since World War II whose job-approval scores were lower than 50 percent one year before Election Day, only one went on to win a second term.”

On the surface, that’s an accurate conclusion. However, taking a closer look at the analysis reveals that the brilliant minds at the Washington Times calculated the electoral fates of all of the low-scoring incumbents – all three of them (Nixon, Ford, and Carter). Consequently, the conclusion is meaningless from a statistical point of view. It would be just as accurate to say that:

Of all the presidents since World War II whose job-approval scores were lower than 50 percent one year before Election Day, all were reelected except for two.

Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? It certainly doesn’t sound nearly as desperate as Fox’s version that predicts Obama as a loser. Fox’s version also leaves out this commentary by Larry Sabato that was included in the Washington Times article:

“Presidential approval one full year out is not helpful in determining what will occur in November 2012.” Mr. Sabato said.

The only opinion in the article that affirms the conclusion in the Fox Nation headline is from the article’s author, Dave Boyer. And he offers no support whatsoever for that opinion. In fact, Boyer’s opinion is contradicted by his own reporting. He quotes Sabato as saying that the predictive value of approval ratings is only significant in the summer and fall months just prior to the election, not so much a year away. So not only is there not enough statistical data to draw a conclusion, the data they are using is irrelevant.

Nevertheless, Fox Nation composed their own headline that exacerbated the flaws in the Washington Times’ reporting. And the Fox Nationalists proved once again that they can’t tell reality from fiction. Or more accurately, they choose to present fiction as fact.

[Update: 11/7/11] Not surprisingly, Fox News has adopted the false premises described above. Megyn Kelly led off a segment this morning on the electoral history of low approval rated incumbents saying that in fifty years only one was reelected. Of course she neglected to note that in fifty years only two failed to win reelection. She might also have said that in the entire 235 year history of America an African-American presidential incumbent has NEVER lost reelection. So there you have it. Numbers don’t lie (but Fox does).

This is an excellent example of how bogus stories bubble up from disreputable sources like the Washington Times to mass media outlets like Fox News.

Fox News Fiasco: Pollsters Forget To Lie

Posted by on October 30, 2011 at 9:23 am. 4 Comments :

Heads Are Gonna Roll. When Roger Ailes gets a hold of the polls just published by Fox News you can expect to see blood in the hallways of the Fox executive suites. There will be outrage at the pollsters who permitted the results to be released without first twisting them to reflect the Fox viewpoint. And there will be fury at the anchors and editors who botched their mission to infect public opinion with their distortion of reality.

Take a look at these results from polling data this week:

On the question of favorability, President Obama scored higher than any of the top candidates for the Republican nomination:

Obama 48% Romney 40% Cain 33% Perry 23%

On the question of which issues are most important, it was the economy by a mile. Social issues barely registered:

Economic issues, such as taxes, government spending 76%
National security issues, such as military, foreign policy 8%
Social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage 6%

On whether the respondent would be enthusiastic/pleased with the election of each candidate, again Obama trounced the Republicans:

Obama 37% Romney 21% Cain 23% Perry 17%

On the question of tax tax reform, a graduated tax was preferred by a wide margin over a flat tax or a national sales tax:

Graduated Tax 39% Flat Tax 35% Sales Tax 12%

On the question of immigration, respondents favored allowing citizenship for immigrants who came to this country as children:

Allow citizenship 63% Oppose citizenship 31%

It’s starting to look like the American people aren’t as repulsed by this Kenyan, Marxist administration as Fox wants them to be. From the same poll (released the next day) these results painted a similar picture.

On the question of Obama’s approval compared to that of Congress:

Obama 43% Congressional Democrats 29% Congressional Republicans 22%

On the question of support for the President’s jobs bill that Republicans filibustered:

In favor 48% Opposed 44%

On the reason for the economy not improving under Obama:

His ideas are good, but he hasn’t been able to get them implemented 52%
His ideas are bad, and too many of them are being implemented 37%

Imagine that. The American people are pretty well informed despite Fox’s attempt to mold them into cretinous zombies. These are not the sort of numbers that Fox News has been working so hard to manipulate in order to cast the President as an incompetent socialist bent on destroying everything America stands for. However, the pollsters did work in a few questions that only Fox would ask. The overt bias in these inquiries is exceeded only by their utter stupidity. And even on these the responses did not follow the Fox line. For instance:

How concerned are you that the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations will eventually turn into street riots? (Did Fox ever ask that about gun-toting Tea Baggers?)

Very/Somewhat concerned 47%
Not very/Not at all concerned 51%

Do you think the Occupy Wall Street movement is anti-capitalist, or not? (Way to spike the punch, guys. The Occupiers are not anti-rich, they are anti-corruption)

Yes it is 37% No it isn’t 46%

Would you rather see your child grow up to be a Wall Street executive or an Occupy Wall Street protester? (Does Fox think that’s an actual career goal?)

Wall Street executive 48% Occupy Wall Street protester 26%

And to top it off, Fox asked what Obama should do about his stolen TelePrompter: Replace it with another, use note cards instead, speak off-the-cuff, or stop giving speeches? Now that is a question that really gets to the heart of the nation’s concerns.

Who are Fox’s pollsters? They must have scoured junior high schools across the nation looking for Nelson Muntz types to lead their research department. And after putting in all that hard work and expense that can’t even get a good “Ha ha,” out of it.