Barack Obama

The Wall Street Journal Uncovers Obama’s Enemies List

Posted by on February 1, 2012 at 3:46 pm. 4 Comments :

When Rupert Murdoch bought Dow Jones, the parent company of the Wall Street Journal, most observers were properly concerned about how he would go about destroying the paper’s legacy. The speculation leaned toward obvious predictions of more overt bias inserted into the news pages, as well as dumbing down the articles by shortening them and diluting the journalistic content with tabloid sensationalism and a reliance on dubious sources. But I’m not sure anyone predicted this:

Today’s issue of the Journal contained an article purporting to reveal President Obama’s “Enemies List.” The author, Theodore Olsen, paints a disturbing picture of a vengeful White House bent on destroying innocent, patriotic Americans who want nothing more than to run a business, create jobs, and bring energy to America.

The ominous list that has Olsen so upset seems to have only two names: Charles and David Koch. And coincidentally, Olsen, an attorney, represents the Koch brothers. So the Wall Street Journal handed over their editorial page to the Koch brothers’ lawyer for the purpose of accusing the President of carrying out some sort of vendetta against them.

For a lawyer, he doesn’t try very hard to make his case. The article alleges several times that the President has personally, or via his direction, made the Kochs “targets of a campaign of vituperation and assault.” However, he doesn’t provide a single example to support his claim. The article begins…

“How would you feel if aides to the president of the United States singled you out by name for attack, and if you were featured prominently in the president’s re-election campaign as an enemy of the people?”

The only problem is that that never happened. If Obama ever uttered the name of the Koch brothers, I can’t find it. It would not surprise me if they were mentioned by aides, but most likely while defending the President against attacks on him. I challenge Olsen to present his evidence that anyone in the White House ever characterized the Koch brothers as enemies of the people.

On the other hand, the Koch brothers created and bankrolled the Tea Party, an AstroTurf, corporate funded, pseudo-movement, that incessantly disparages Obama as a communist, a Nazi, a Muslim, an atheist, a Kenyan, and a Manchurian agent whose mission is to deliver America to its enemies and/or Satan. The Kochs are also the money behind numerous think tanks and organizations whose purpose is to destroy the presidency through propaganda or outright manipulation and suppression of the vote. One such organization is the American Legislative Exchange Council which drafts bills and then pays GOP legislators to carry them in state houses across the country.

Olsen attempts to inoculate the Kochs from criticism by portraying them as merely private citizens going about their business. The absurdity of that depiction is downright surreal. To suggest that because the Kochs do not hold public office, that they are not an integral part of the political landscape in America, is akin to suggesting that because Charles Manson did not hold a weapon, that he is not guilty of murder. The Kochs are the masterminds and financiers of the most prominent attack groups on the right that are trying to bring the Obama administration to a crashing end. It is a role they assumed voluntarily and enthusiastically.

Olsen’s article drops names of some historical villains that he asserts have something in common with Obama. He cites Richard Nixon, who actually did have an enemies list and abused the power of his office in order to punish the people on it. But Olsen cannot seem to find even one example of Obama doing anything similar. He just brings up the Nixon name to deceitfully tie it to the President. Then Olsen does the very same thing with Joe McCarthy, who orchestrated a campaign of red-baiting that ruined the lives of countless innocent people. Again, Olsen offers nothing to show any connection to Obama. He just likes to use their names in the same sentence in the hopes of having the infamy rub off.

The article continues with ad hominem use of contentious rhetoric like “the exercise of tyrannical power” and “stand up against oppression” to falsely convey the impression that Obama is attempting to “demonize and stigmatize” the Kochs. But nowhere does Olsen justify such language.

Like many conservatives, Olsen holds a perverse definition of free speech wherein conservatives are permitted vast leeway to spew any and all slander that they like, but if the other side seeks to respond they are guilty of stomping on the rights of the right-wingers. If the Kochs want to play the political game, and by the evidence of their prodigious spending they obviously do, then they cannot complain when the victims of their assaults fire back. The Kochs are not waifs who wandered unaware onto a battlefield. They know what they are doing and they have vast resources to plot their designs on society. They even have the support of the Wall Street Journal who will publish the screeds of their attorneys on the editorial page as if it were there personal diary. What more do they want?

Message to the Kochs: Either stop disseminating self-serving propaganda and fomenting hostile division in America, or be prepared if your victims decline to roll over, or STFU.

Retch Against the Machine: Sarah Palin vs. Stalinist Cannibals

Posted by on January 29, 2012 at 9:47 am. 7 Comments :

Now you’ve done it. Yeah you, you Republican presidential primary contenders. You’ve gone and made Sarah Palin mad. This is a day you will live to regret. After all, Palin is still the leader of a fearsome army of Facebook fanatics that worship her despite the fact that she hasn’t done a damn thing since she lost the campaign in 2008 and quit her job as governor half way through. That’s over three years as a professional slacker, leeching off of her PAC contributors and phoning in her insipid commentaries to Fox News.

Palin’s latest Facebook harangue is aimed squarely at her fellow Republicans vying for the GOP nomination. And she doesn’t like what she’s seeing. The tirade titled “Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left,” commences with a blistering assault on the lack of civility that she has always cherished:

“We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.”

Yes, the Rogue Warrior is not about to sit still for the Republican establishment, which embraced the Tea Party so tightly, and has elevated Reagan to sainthood, as they sink down to the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent. The woman who charged that her opponent was “pallin’ around with terrorists” would never behave so abysmally.

Palin invokes the sacred creed of Reagan’s “11th Commandment” which deemed that Republicans never speak ill of other Republicans. To sane outsiders that always seemed to be a call for self-censorship, but to GOP partisans it was simply an edict to coordinate their propaganda and speak with one robotically undifferentiated voice. While Palin says that she has “no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign,” she never explains how to tumble roughly in a campaign limited to reciprocal pleasantries.

Palin further asserts that she has never before seen the equivalent of this past week’s political brawl in a GOP primary race. For a woman who could not answer a question about what she reads, I suppose we can forgive her for not knowing about some famous incidents in the not-to-distant past. For instance when George H. W. Bush called Reagan’s economic plan “voodoo economics.” Or when his son George W. Bush spread rumors that John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child. Or when McCain likened Mitt Romney’s position on waterboarding to Pol Pot’s. Palin even resorts to the sort of incivility about which she is complaining in this Facebook post:

“What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque rewriting of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.”

Stalin-esque? Palin is comparing Republican criticisms of Gingrich to a brutal dictatorship that was responsible for the deaths of millions of its own people. And she wants to lecture others about the politics of personal destruction? Then she throws in an Alinsky reference for good measure even though there is nothing in her remarks that is associated with any “tactic” advocated by Alinsky. Right-wingers just like to say his name every few minutes. Following that they like to pretend that they are anti-establishment crusaders. Palin asserts that…

“…this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party.”

The poor pitiful Tea Party is being persecuted by the big, bad GOP establishment. You know, the one that created it, funded it, and pandered to it during the last election cycle. And it’s now up to Palin to defend the Tea Partiers who are nothing more than a widely disliked, far right faction of her own party. She expanded on that whining in an appearance on the Tea Party Network (aka Fox News) where she inexplicably connected herself to the leftist punk rock band Rage Against the Machine. And her manner of raging means “vote for Gingrich.” The former members of Rage are surely retching upon hearing this.

Fox Nation

But Mama Grizzly isn’t through yet…

“[T]rust me, during the general election, Governor Romney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.”

There’s Alinsky again. But more to the point, Palin is at once advocating prolonging the primary contest so that Romney’s record can be picked apart by Republican rivals, while lambasting the party for “crucifying” Gingrich. She really needs to pick an argument and stick to it. But the best part of Palin’s Facebook frenzy comes at the close:

“We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008.”

If she didn’t see it 2008 it was because she was blinded by the right. Her campaign was amongst the harshest purveyors of attacks on Obama that ran the gamut of absurd allegations casting him as a communist, a Muslim, a Kenyan, and more. But now she questions whether the GOP establishment would ever employ such harsh tactics against Obama. Furthermore, she resorts to portraying Romney as the establishment’s favorite son and even uses the phrase “chosen one.” Hmm, where have we heard that before?

Finally, in this Facebook offensive Palin helpfully admits that Fox News is not the fair and balanced news enterprise it pretends to be. She reminisces wistfully about “a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News.” I wonder if her boss, Roger Ailes, minds that she is spilling her guts about the intentional bias of the network that employs her. And I wonder if he minds that she is bashing the party that the network was created to promote.

Fox Nation vs. Reality: Viewers Tuning Out Obama?

Posted by on January 26, 2012 at 12:14 am. 2 Comments :

OK, let’s face it. No one expected Fox News to express even the weakest praise for President Obama’s State of the Union speech. Never mind that 91% of Americans who watched the speech approved of the proposals presented in it. Fox has a reputation of knee-jerk negativity to uphold, and they didn’t disappoint. Here is a selection of some of the articles posted on Fox Nation following the speech:

  • SOTU- Too Long, Too Partisan, Too Barren of Policy
  • Obama Milk Joke Bombs at SOTU
  • Opinion: Obama State of Union Proposals Evasive, Irresponsible
  • Opinion: After Three Years, It’s Time to Admit President Obama Has Failed
  • Obama Plagiarized His SOTU…from Himself

And my personal favorite: Daniels (R) Delivers Poetic Pro-American Response to Obama SOTU. This title deftly depicts Daniels nightmarish rendition of the nation’s state as “poetic,” while simultaneously implying that Obama’s speech was anti-American. If you missed it, Daniels’ poetry included recasting the poor as “soon-to-haves” (which must be a great relief to them), and quipping that Steve Jobs had a fitting name (which made me wonder if “Steve” means “Chinese” in Mandarin).

[Update] Jon Stewart’s Daily Show perfectly characterized the Daniels response:

Finally, Fox Nation posted an item that suggested that the country is tiring of the President and offered as proof the low ratings for the speech’s broadcast.

Fox Nation

The Fox Nationalists cited an article in the New York Times that noted that…

“The State of the Union address Tuesday night was seen by 37.8 million television viewers, according to figures released by the Nielsen company, by far the fewest who have watched President Obama give the address.

“The number was down from 42.8 million last year, 48 million in 2010, and 52.3 million for the president’s address to Congress during his first year in office in 2009.”

Had Fox bothered to go back just one more year, they would have discovered that George W. Bush’s last State of the Union speech was viewed by only 37.5 million people in 2008, slightly less than Obama’s speech on Tuesday. But we really can’t expect Fox to report that fact because it wouldn’t jibe with the fiction they are trying to foist on their audience.

Fox Nation Review Of Obama Ad Riddled With Falsehoods

Posted by on January 19, 2012 at 11:53 am. NO Comments :

The Obama campaign just released its first advertisement of this election season. It focused on his record of ethics and energy independence, specifically addressing the phony allegations from “secretive oil billionaires” (the Koch brothers?).

It did not take long for Fox News to start its attack on the ad by posting two articles this morning on Fox Nation that lamely attempt to refute it. The first article sported the headline: “Obama’s First Ad Riddled With Falsehoods.”

Fox Nation

Here’s the funny part. When you click on the article it takes you to a page that does not cite a single example of a falsehood from the ad. In fact, it even links to a Brookings Institution report that affirms what the ad says about “clean economy” jobs.

The closest the Fox Nationalists get to a falsehood is the claim that PolitiFact rated Obama’s campaign promise to toughen ethics rules a “promised kept.” That’s actually true and the ad cited a January 29 posting as proof. However, PolitiFact revisited the issue two months later and reversed their decision because the administration had granted some waivers to the rules in order to seat a few appointees who did not comply completely with the new rules. But the claim in the ad was still correct as referenced.

The next item Fox raised had something to do with Solyndra. But all they wrote was that it was a company that went bankrupt. They don’t address in any respect what that has to do with anything in the Obama ad being untrue. It seems they just like to keep saying it.

Then came the Brookings Institution piece. Obama’s ad notes that the clean energy industry supports 2.7 million jobs. Brookings confirms that. Fox doesn’t dispute it. So where is the falsehood?

The second Fox Nation article linked to a column in the Washington Post that gave Obama four “Pinocchios” due to the same PolitiFact discrepancy noted above. It also provided a link to the PolitiFact page tracking Obama’s promises. The most striking thing about that is that out of 25 promises listed, only 6 were designated as broken. And even that number is suspect because some concerned matters that were out of the President’s control. For instance, they rated Obama’s promise to repeal the Bush tax cuts as “broken,’ despite the fact that it was the Republicans in congress who feverishly obstructed Obama’s efforts, and continue to do so. I think that a broken promise is when someone goes back on their word to do something. That is not the case here and it could even be said that the President kept the promise because he got the Republicans to agree to let the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year.

If Fox is going to accuse Obama’s campaign ad of being “riddled with falsehoods” it would be nice if they tried just a little to back up the claim. But that isn’t how Fox works. Since they are not encumbered with being actual journalists, they can just make stuff up and trust that their dimwitted audience won’t bother to do any research on their own. It’s not an honest way to do business, but it’s easy and it helps to spread the disinformation that is the reason for Fox’s existence.

Rupert Murdoch Tweets Up A Storm For SOPA

Posted by on January 16, 2012 at 2:05 pm. NO Comments :

New Twitter user, Rupert Murdoch, has been busily cramming his support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) into 140 characters. His advocacy for SOPA is a thinly disguised scheme to squeeze out more profits for his company at the expense of free speech and a vibrant, innovative Internet environment. His latest use of social media to advance his personal interests began with a Tweet aimed at President Obama:

Murdoch Tweet

Now Murdoch is attacking “Silicon Valley paymasters” as thieves. Whatever happened to the valiant, capitalist, entrepreneurs who represented the high principles of free market patriotism? All that goes away if you challenge Murdoch’s control over any aspect of his perceived empire. And Google has long been an enemy of Murdoch’s. His next Tweet targets Google directly for advertising and lobbying:

Murdoch Tweet

This is an ironic complaint since it is pretty much the News Corp business model. Murdoch’s Fox Nation is almost entirely comprised of “stolen” content. He aggregates news stories from other sources, slaps his logo on them, and sells his advertising. As for lobbying, Since 2003 News Corp has spent about $45 million dollars on lobbying – twice what Google has spent. Murdoch’s frenzy to out spend, and out maneuver, Google must be having an effect on his mental state, because this next Tweet descends into incoherence:

Murdoch Tweet

Well, who isn’t angry at Optus (the second largest telecommunications company in Australia)? Like most telecom entities it is just another giant corporate … oh … Hang on there. Apparently Murdoch meant POTUS (President of the United States). But that doesn’t make any sense because the only people angry with Obama over SOPA are the opponents of the bill. Maybe backing censors and opponents of free speech is another of the frequent miscalculations by Murdoch. He would be well advised to defer to Obama who recently addressed this issue saying:

“We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global internet.”

But if Murdoch wants to continue supporting SOPA and Tweeting his lame, self-serving thoughts on the matter, the Internet community will welcome his participation in a free and open dialog, even though he wouldn’t return the favor.

US News & World Report Gives A Lesson In Dishonest Polling

Posted by on January 10, 2012 at 1:02 pm. 4 Comments :

If you are looking for a reliable way to conduct a poll that will provide bad news for a designated adversary, US News & World Report has a helpful example of how to accomplish your goal. All that’s necessary is to select a few unrelated questions that leave respondents with little leeway to actually express what they feel. For example, here are the questions that appeared on the poll that US News published yesterday:

As we enter the presidential election year of 2012, what potential news event do you fear the most?

  • President Obama wins reelection: 33%
  • Taxes will increase: 31%
  • Iran will get a nuclear weapon: 16%
  • Obama will lose reelection: 16%
  • North Korea will attack South Korea: 4%

How did the US News pollsters decide which potentially fearful events would appear in the poll? They have little correlation to one another, and even less correlation to the issues that Americans are actually concerned about. The top issues in almost every poll are jobs and the economy, none of which were represented in this poll.

Instead, the pollsters included two mirror images of a question about President Obama, and three responses about things that no one thinks are likely to occur. Consequently, it should not be surprising that the response from those fearing Obama’s reelection would draw the third of the country that are already committed opponents of the President. [Note: 67% of respondents do NOT fear Obama’s reelection most] The other responses are just filler designed to make the responses to the presidential question stand out. Even the response for those who are most afraid of Obama NOT being reelected is deliberately misleading. Most Obama supporters are fairly confidant that he will be reelected and, thus, would not select the option indicating that they fear that he would lose.

On the basis of this intentionally fraudulent survey, US News publishes an article with a headline that falsely declares “Americans, 2-1, Fear Obama’s Reelection,” which, even by the results of this phony survey, is not true. According to their own results only 1 out of 3 said that. But that doesn’t stop Fox News, and other biased entities that have no integrity, from re-posting the article. Fox Nation’s headline is “Obama Re-election Is Americans’ Top Fear.” Sure it is, except for all the other fears that weren’t included in the survey.

That’s how it works folks. Pay attention, because these charlatans are out to swindle you. They simply don’t care about making truthful representations. The only thing they care about is advancing their agenda at all costs. These are not bona fide news enterprises. I”m still trying to figure out if they are secretly published by The Onion.

Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Non-Poor Non-Tax

Posted by on December 29, 2011 at 4:02 pm. NO Comments :

After just publishing my year-end Fox Nation retrospective of their stupidest posts, they come out with a new one that definitely would have made the list.

Fox Nation

The assertion that President Obama has okayed a tax on the poor is blatantly false. Not only is this not a tax on the poor, it isn’t even a tax. It requires a special kind of audacity for Fox to manufacture a story alleging that Obama wants to tax the poor when his administration has been fighting right-wingers for three years to enact tax relief for the poor and middle classes, and a small increase on upper income earners. Even worse, it is the right who actually have advocated for raising taxes on the poor.

What the Fox Nationalists are talking about is simply a legal opinion issued by the Justice Department that “allows states to authorize Web-based, non-sports gambling within their borders.”

This would seem to be the sort of free market, libertarian initiative that Fox and their right-wing audience would support. It grants authority to the states to decide their own course. It relies on the personal responsibility of citizens to make choices for themselves. It benefits businesses seeking to expand and create jobs. It raises revenues without raising taxes. So what’s the problem?

The problem is that President Obama’s administration implemented it. If Obama advocated a flat tax of 9% for every person and enterprise, Republicans would immediately oppose it and call for tax increases. If Obama announced that he re-registered as a Republican, the GOP would become Democrats overnight. These radical contrarians might as well stop pretending and just adopt this as their theme song:

Fox Nation’s Extra Special Stupidest Lies About Obama In 2011

Posted by on December 28, 2011 at 8:46 am. 2 Comments :

In compiling another retrospective of the soon to be completed year, I thought I would present a list of all of the lies featured by the folks at Fox News for 2011. Turns out that there isn’t enough bandwidth on the Internet for that. So I sought to narrow down the list by only including the lies that appeared on Fox Nation, the Fox News web site and community of glassy-eyed disciples. That was still too voluminous. So I filtered it even further by selecting just the lies that appeared on Fox Nation that concerned President Obama. That didn’t narrow it down much further. Finally I chose to feature only the lies that appeared on Fox Nation, concerned President Obama, and were really, really stupid. Since that was a more subjective criteria I was able to shorten the list to a manageable and entertaining length. So without further ado here are…..

Fox Nation’s Stupidest Lies About Obama In 2011

Fox Nation - MarxistCollege Mate: Obama Was an ‘Ardent’ ‘Marxist-Leninist’
In this article the Fox Nationalists rely on the testimony of one person who now admits that he was never a “college mate” of the president. It is a wholly uncorroborated account that smears Obama as a Marxist despite the contrary accounts of virtually everyone else that knew him, including those cited by the article’s dubious source.

Fox Nation - Christmas Tree TaxObama’s New ‘Christmas Tree Tax’
This was not actually a tax at all, and wasn’t proposed by Obama. It was a fee requested by the National Christmas Tree Association during the Bush administration, passed by a Republican controlled Senate and House, and was co-sponsored by John Boehner.

Fox Nation - OhioUgly For Obama In Ohio
To support this declaration, Fox Nation referenced a poll by Quinnipiac University that shows Obama out-polling every leading Republican challenger at the time. Obama beat Cain 47–39, Romney 45–41, and Perry 47–36. I can see why Fox thinks that’s ugly. Apparently they also thought no one would click through to read the actual poll.

Fox Nation - StocksStocks Tumble Worldwide After Obama Speech
Despite the deceptive headline, the article states that it is actually the “speculation congress won’t pass” the President’s proposals that contributed to the market decline. In other words, the markets favored Obama’s plan but declined due to the obstruction of the GOP Congress. And it even said just that in the text below the photo.

Fox Nation - UnpopularNYT Poll: Obama More Unpopular Than Tea Party
In truth the New York Times poll reported just the opposite – that Obama was viewed favorably by 48% with the Tea Party at only 20%. What’s more, Obama was viewed favorably by slightly more people than viewed him unfavorably, while the Tea Party was viewed unfavorably by twice as many people as view it favorably.

Fox Nation - Palin Bus TourObama Copies Palin, Plans Bus Tour
In their own photo accompanying the article about how Obama allegedly stole the idea for a bus tour from Sarah Palin (as if she were the first), there is an “Obama 08” poster in the window of Obama’s bus proving that he was doing bus tours long before Palin’s 2011 excursion. Did I mention that this was their own photo?

Fox Nation - White WomenAP: Obama Has A Big Problem With White Women
Here we have the Fox Nationalists attributing a repulsively racist headline to the Associated Press However, the AP’s actual headline was: “Economic worries pose new snags for Obama.” And the article’s focus was also on polling concerning economic issues like jobs, housing, and gas prices. So Fox had to purposefully stretch the story to fit their predetermined racist theme.

There was so much more dishonesty and deception disseminated by Fox News this year that it could not possibly be recounted in full. But these are some of the most egregiously idiotic. Sometimes Fox spends considerable energy and effort to construct their falsehoods. They hire specialists like Frank Luntz and partisans like Karl Rove to deliberately mislead their naive viewers. But these examples show that at other times they don’t even seem to be trying. Their own texts and images expose their deceit. Lucky for them their audience is too dumb and too deluded to detect the vast quantities of bullshit that Fox passes off as news.

The Annual Fox News Tradition Of Bashing The Obama’s Holiday Greeting

Posted by on December 19, 2011 at 4:07 pm. 7 Comments :

It’s that time of year again. The time when winter’s chill nips at your nose and poinsettia blooms abound. The time when children’s laughter echos through the streets and families come together for joyous feasts. And the time when Fox News lambastes the President and his family for not celebrating the holiday in the manner that they think good American, Christian, patriots ought to.

Fox Nation Christmas

What would the season be without Fox News dredging up this absurd and insulting story as they do every year? It is a tradition that really makes the holiday complete. And this year it is extra special because they brighten it with the cheerful words of Sarah Palin who calls the Obama’s holiday greeting “odd” and “strange,” and, in the spirit of the season, she complains that it doesn’t reflect the…

“…American foundational values illustrated and displayed on Christmas cards and on a Christmas tree. […] It’s just a different way of thinking coming out of the White House.”

Indeed, the current residents of the White House are so “different” than the rest of us. They look different and think different and pray different, but mostly look different. And they express their warm wishes to the nation differently than other “normal” presidents like, for instance, George W. Bush, whose Holiday greetings also didn’t mention Christmas:

Click to enlarge:

Along with the Bush family, Rupert Murdoch declined to mention Christmas in his greeting to the tens of thousands of people who work for him. And Fox News itself aired “Holiday” greetings to their television viewers.

But the cherished holiday tradition of bashing a family for choosing to include people of all faiths (or none) in their hopes for joy and peace and well being, is reserved only for the Obamas. It’s that special treatment Fox saves for those they hate during this season of love.

[Addendum] To complete the hypocrisy, Fox has unveiled their own Christmas card that Palin might also consider lacking the “American foundational values.” In fact, it is downright mean-spirited as it delivers a message of competition and acrimony.

Fox News Christmas Card

The card mockingly depicts the Fox sled (drawn appropriately by sheep) as winning the race against ABC, NBC, and CBS. What a heartwarming tribute to the birth of their savior, a man of peace and acceptance, who beseeched his followers to love their enemies. And in addition to being self-serving and tasteless, the card is also a barefaced lie. The highest rated program on Fox News (The O’Reilly Factor) has about half the audience of the the lowest rated network news program (CBS Evening News). So the Fox sled should be in the rear, if they cared about telling the truth.

Republicans Reveal Their Top Priority For America In Iowa Debate

Posted by on December 17, 2011 at 12:38 pm. 5 Comments :

At a time when the nation faces some formidable challenges on critical matters of economics, employment, national defense, health care, etc., the Republican candidates for president met in Iowa to debate the issues that they regard as most important to voters and the country.

Leading off the Fox News sponsored debate, Fox anchor Bret Baier summarized just what issues the GOP held as their highest priority, and it wasn’t any of those enumerated in the paragraph above.

Bret Baier: We have received thousands of tweets, Facebook messages and emails with suggested questions. And the overall majority of them had one theme: Electability. People want to know which one of you on this stage is able to be in the best position to beat President Obama in the general election. And that’s the number one goal for Republican voters, obviously.

So there you have it. The number one goal is not restoring the nation’s economic health. It is not creating jobs or strengthening the middle-class. It is not Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Al Qaeda, or any other source of international hostility. It isn’t even Republican pet causes of guns, gays, God, or repealing ObamaCare. The number on issue is electability. Republicans are focused squarely on the singular issue of evicting the Kenyan socialist from the White House, to the exclusion of all other principles or positions. Just like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said shortly after Obama was inaugurated.

Taking this theme to heart, the debate continued with a series of question that addressed nothing substantive other than the candidate’s prospects for beating President Obama next November. Here are the first seven questions asked at Thursday’s debate:

Bret Baier: Speaker Gingrich, since our last debate your position in this race has changed dramatically. You are now physically in the center of the stage, which means that you are at the top of the polls, yet many Republicans seem conflicted about you, They say that you’re smart, that you’re a big thinker. At the same time many of those same Republicans worry deeply about your electability in a general election saying perhaps Gov. Romney is a safer bet. Can you put to rest, once and for all, the persistent doubts that you are indeed the right candidate on this stage to go up and beat President Obama?

Megyn Kelly: Cong. Paul, you have some bold ideas, some very fervent supporters, and probably the most organized ground campaign here in Iowa, but there are many Republicans, inside and outside of this state, who openly doubt whether you can be elected president. How can you convince them otherwise, and if you don’t wind up winning this nomination, will you pledge here tonight that you will support the ultimate nominee?

Megyn Kelly: Sen. Santorum, no one has spent more time in Iowa than you. You have visited every county in the state. And yet, while we have seen no fewer than four Republican candidates surge in the polls, sometimes in extraordinary ways, so far you and your campaign have failed to catch fire with the voters. Why?

Chris Wallace: Gov. Romney, I want to follow up on Bret’s line of questioning to the Speaker because many of our viewers tell us that they are supporting Newt Gingrich because they think that he will be tougher than you in taking the fight to Barack Obama in next fall’s debates. Why would you be able to make the Republican’s case against the President more effectively than the Speaker?

Chris Wallace: Cong. Bachmann, no one questions your conservative credentials, but what about your appeal to Independents who are so crucial in a general election? If you are fortunate enough to become the Republican nominee, how would you counter the efforts by the Barack Obama campaign to paint you as too conservative to moderate voters?

Neil Cavuto: Gov. Perry, by your own admission you are not a great debater. You have said as much and downplayed debating skills in general. But if you were to become your party’s nominee you would be going up against an accomplished debater in Barack Obama. There are many in this audience tonight, sir, who fear that possibility and don’t think you’re up for the fight. Allay them of their concerns.

Neil Cavuto: Gov. Huntsman, your campaign has been praised by moderates, but many question your ability to galvanize the Republicans, energize the conservative base of the party. They’re especially leery of your refusal to sign on to a “no tax hike” pledge. How can you reassure them tonight.

Nothing is more revealing of a party’s intentions than what they themselves place at the forefront of their campaigns. And nothing could be more clear than the fact that Republicans simply do not care about issues or the welfare of the American people as much as they do about their own selfish quest for power.

What’s more, the debate sponsor, Fox News, and other right-wing spokesmodels concur with the GOP’s directive on beating Obama above all else. That’s why the questions were littered with words like “worry,” “doubt,” “fear,” and “leery,” to describe the electorate’s mood toward the GOP frontrunners. And the debate amongst Republican elites is raging at an unprecedented pace. Rush Limbaugh thinks Romney is a milquetoast candidate. Glenn Beck called Gingrich a progressive (a pejorative for Beck) and the one candidate he would not vote for. Even Fox’s Chris Wallace slammed Ron Paul saying that a win by Paul in Iowa would discredit the state’s caucuses.

So what we have here is both the candidates and the media fixated on electability. All they talk about is the horse race and not the underlying issues. And of course, the reason for that is that they don’t care about the issues, only the power that comes from political control. And now they have confessed this obsession unabashedly.

Unfortunately for these polito-Narcissists, they aren’t quite smart enough to craft accurate predictions of who is or isn’t electable. They will undoubtedly make the wrong choice and their anointed candidate will suffer an embarrassing defeat. But to be honest, that’s an easy call for me to make because any of the current GOP candidates would be the wrong choice. They are all presently losing to Obama in national polls, and that’s quite a feat considering Obama’s low favorability ratings. The best thing that’s happened for Obama’s reelection prospects is that he’s running against this batch of pathetic Republicans.