Conservative Republicans Bought into the Fox News and Conservative Pundit/Writers Koolaid of Lies and Spin

This video is one of the best synopsis of what went wrong with the Conservative media starting with the lies from Fox News which along with conservative pundits/writers created a bubble that some Conservative candidates or Conservative voters refused to leave.  They Conservative media is always right and Liberal media is always wrong.  All Conservatives needed to do was some of their own investigation to know the Conservative media was selling lies and spinning out of control trying to defeat Obama, but it failed as the majority of Americans were able to tell facts from fiction.  Was fascinated by the honesty on Current TV with this Eric Boehlert interview versus Fox News.

Over the last few months, I have found Media Matters to be honest in their critiques of the media because of the research they do into what is being said.  Found the Media Research Center of the right led by Brent Bozell to be less than truthful about what they found leaving out parts of interviews or comments which would take what was said in a whole different direction.  They had been my source for years but then I started doing the research and discovered their coverage of the liberal media was very slanted and not always factual which was a disappointment like so many other things from this election.

Eric Boehlert On The War Room: Fox News Sold Conservatives "A Bill Of Goods" On Benghazi And The Election  

From the November 12 edition of Current TV's The War Room:

This morning this clip from former Congressman Joe Scarborough came out from Media Matters which backs up what Boehlert said in his interview with Jennifer Granholm:

Joe Scarborough Advises Republicans To Recalibrate And "Stop Listening To The Conservative Media Complex"

From the November 13 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

Former Congressman Joe Scarborough was part of the conservative group in Congress elected in 1994 that drove Gingrich nuts because they objected to Speaker Gingrich cutting deal's with Clinton before getting the GOP Caucus consent.  Scarborough is no left wing hack no matter how much some conservatives want to say he sold out.  He has not sold out but when wrong, admits it which is rare in conservative circles.  The attacks on Joe over the years by conservatives have been way over the top but that is how they vent their anger -- over the top without facts.

If you haven't guessed reading this blog by now, this is one former Conservative Republican who has had it with the hard right and their 'my way or no way' attitude which cost elections.  This group came out in force once again in the primaries to give the GOP some really bad hard right candidates -- Akin in MO and Mourdock in IN or Mandel in OH all running for Senate.  Mandel in OH reminded me of a little twerp who didn't have a clue what he was doing or saying as he refused to say what he believed on rape looking to his side for an answer.  Just wanted to wipe the smirk off his face every time I saw him speak.  Akin and Mourdoch should have been repudiated by the GOP but in the end the establishment supported both no matter their Neanderthal comments on rape trying to define what is rape which also the GOP VP candidate Ryan was a part.  Romney did one ad for a Senate candidate which was for Richard Mourdock and never disavowed him.

The Democrats had 23 seats to defend in the Senate and ended up picking up two while the GOP had 10 seats and lost two.  Bunch of Neanderthals running in the GOP along with their supporters cost the GOP the Senate.  Funniest numbers came out of MO where it was supposed to a very tight race with Claire McCaskill up until the election:

With 100 percent of the precincts reporting, McCaskill had 54.7 percent of the vote, Akin 39.2 percent and the Libertarian candidate Jonathan Dine 6.1 percent, while GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney had 53.9 percent and President Barack Obama 44.3 percent. Another way of looking at it: 400,000 more people voted for Romney than for Akin.

Polls were way off in this race and shows that women were not giving straight answers to pollsters as they voted against Akin in big numbers.  Then there is this excerpt from former Bush advisor, Karen Hughes:

Karen Hughes, Former Bush Adviser: If Another Republican Man Talks Rape, I'll 'Cut Out His Tongue'Posted: 11/12/2012 11:30 am EST 

 "And if another Republican man says anything about rape other than it is a horrific, violent crime, I want to personally cut out his tongue," she wrote. "The college-age daughters of many of my friends voted for Obama because they were completely turned off by Neanderthal comments like the suggestion of 'legitimate rape.'" 

While Hughes' language is quite graphic, the underlying advice appears solid. A host of Republican candidates who drew fervent criticism for their comments about rape ended up losing last week.

You would think that the hard right would have learned a lesson, but they are doubling down on the reason Romney lost was that he was not conservative enough which is Bravo Sierra.  America is mostly center right, center, and center left with the hard right totally out of touch with the majority of Americans as they called the rest of us moochers and takers after the election.

We will see shortly if the House leadership will go against the hard right in the House to forge a deal to raise taxes on those making over $250,000.  Time will tell who is running today's Republican Party and then this former conservative Republican who now is a center right Republican will make my decision on what I am going to do -- stay and fight the Neanderthals or throw in the towel and change my registration.  For now I am waiting to see how everything plays hoping to see some leadership come to the forefront and take the GOP back from the Koch Brothers and the hard right.  Don't even think it is a 50/50 chance.

 If the GOP doesn't change, they will forever be the minority party as Texas could go blue in the next few years along with some other states.  Those hard right Neanderthals white males will have no one to blame but themselves along with the conservative major donors like the Koch Brothers,  pundits/writers and Fox News who couldn't tell the truth about the election in 2012 or the President.  Turned out the major donors couldn't buy an election after all.

GOP Delegates are not Happy with Rule Change Pushed by Romney

The chances of Ron Paul people voting for Romney/Ryan are slim to none.  Would expect many of them will end up in the Gary Johnson camp who is running as a Libertarian.  Since he was the two-term well-liked Republican Governor of New Mexico who actually did cut the budget and turn a deficit into a surplus, it is perfect fit for the libertarian leaning Paul supporters.  If Romney thinks after the underhanded tactics he and his people used to keep Ron Paul's duly elected delegates at the state conventions from being seated is going to play well, then they have no clue about the Paulbots who are very passionate about their candidate.

It is not only Paulbots who are mad as tomorrow night at the 6 p.m. press conference, delegates from other campaigns are going to be speaking about the rules changes which are not going over well:

“It’s also Santorum people, Gingrich people, Tea Party people who are not happy with these rule changes that have been shoved through. If that’s the type of corruption that we’re going to be faced with in the party, then what type of corruption are we going to be facing with Romney as president?”   

Romney deserves to lose big for his overbearing tactics when it comes to delegates when he knew Ron Paul had no chance to win.  Shows what he would do to anyone he considered his enemy if he were President.  Reminds me of Richard Nixon which is not someone a Republican candidate should be emulating.  

Couldn't agree more with this delegate, Bill Greene, from Georgia who is saying what a lot of us have been saying that if all you are is against a candidate and in some instances hate the other candidate, you are going lose the election.  Motivation brings out votes and a lot of Republicans are not enthused, motivated, or even like the ticket.  Putting Paul Ryan on the ticket with his hard right stance on issues has made the situation worse IMHO!

What’s clear is that the Romney campaign could desperately use some of the Paul movement’s passion. “I’m very active in the Tea Party—I’ve spoken at a lot of Tea Party events,” Bill Greene, a Paul delegate from Georgia, told me on Tuesday. “And I hear from a lot of Tea Party people that there is almost zero enthusiasm for Mitt Romney. The only thing that’s motivating them at all right now is being against Obama. And just being against something means you lose.” 

Also questioning why Fox News wouldn't let Sarah Palin speak tonight as they cancelled her interview?  That makes no sense since they hired her.  Were they afraid she might say something Romney didn't like?  Sounds like a Karl Rove deal to me.

The Ron Paul Rebellion Fizzles in Tampa
by Michelle Goldberg Aug 29, 2012 11:55 PM EDT 

A group of Paulites walked out of the convention hall Wednesday night. Michelle Goldberg on one of the few intriguing story lines straying from Tampa’s tedious script. 

Last night, as John McCain was in the middle of a speech accusing Obama of weakening American national security, several dozen Ron Paul delegates leapt to their feet and started chanting, “As Maine Goes, So Goes the Nation!” before marching out the door, through the hallways at the Tampa Bay Times Forum, and into the steamy evening. Hungry journalists, myself included, chased after them, happy that something remotely interesting was happening. The fight over the Maine delegation, and the treatment of Paul more generally, has been one of the few bits of drama at a convention that has journalists debating whether it’s the most boring ever, or just the most boring in a couple of decades.

Ron Paul, shakes hands with delegates from his state during the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla.,, Aug. 28, 2012. (Charlie Neibergall / AP Photos)

“Make sure you take this down,” said Christopher Brown, a Paul delegate from Caldwell, Texas. “The entire Ron Paul delegation came here to support the Republican Party and Mitt Romney. And when they didn’t seat our delegates, changed the rules, took away our votes, and didn’t give Ron Paul, a 12-term congressman that’s given his life to defending the Constitution and working for the Republican Party, when they didn’t give him a speaking role, that was it.” 

In the days before the convention, Republican officials, arguing that the delegate-selection process was tainted, stripped half of Maine’s Paul delegates of their credentials and replaced them with loyal Romney supporters. That led Maine’s governor, Romney backer Paul LePage, to skip the convention in protest, and it turned the state into a symbol of Paul-ite anger at the Republican establishment. Then, on Tuesday, the RNC pushed through new rules designed to give the national party greater control over delegate selection in the future. The result was grassroots anger that goes beyond Paul supporters, enlivening a convention that’s otherwise most notable for its listlessness. 

Originally, the Wednesday night walkout was supposed to be bigger, but according to Justin Carro, an alternate delegate from Alaska, the Paul camp urged restraint. “Ron Paul did say he wanted us to be polite and respectful and not boo Mitt Romney,” Carro said. “That we should be cautious in our actions and not destroy the progress that we have made. After discussion with the organization, the decision was made that you can do it if you want to,” but not everyone joined in. 

It’s unlikely, though, that Paul fans are feeling any warmer towards Romney after Wednesday. The video tribute to Paul that the RNC offered in lieu of a speech played early in the evening, as delegates were just starting to wander onto the floor. Later, Paul’s son Rand spoke, but didn’t mention his father’s name; some of Paul’s supporters believe that the Romney camp forbade him to. 

Thus the dissension is likely to continue on Thursday, the convention’s final day. At 6 pm, an hour before the evening’s speeches are set to begin, a group of dissident Republicans are planning a press conference in the Forum to denounce the party’s recent rule changes. “It’s not necessarily just Ron Paul folks who are going to be there,” says Carro, one of the planners. 

(snip)

Excerpt:  Read More at The Daily Beast

 

Chris Hayes: "GOP platform comes out hard against the Lacey Act of 1900"

Last night on Twitter, Chris Hayes who hosts Up with Chris Hayes, a weekend opinion television show on MSNBC.tweeted:

"GOP platform comes out hard against the Lacey Act of 1900"

It was one of those moments where you just sit there and say how far back is this Republican Platform going to take us when the Platform comes out against a Act passed in 1900?  Truthfully, I had no clue what the Lacey Act was so I decided to research to find out why this act was important starting with the initial question "What is the Lacey Act?"

Found this overview of the Lacy Act which has been amended several times to stiffen the act:

The Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3371-3378, protects both plants and wildlife by creating civil and criminal penalties for a wide array of violations. Most notably, the Act prohibits trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, possessed, transported or sold. Thus, the Act underscores other federal, state, and foreign laws protecting wildlife by making it a separate offense to take, possess, transport, or sell wildlife that has been taken in violation of those laws. The Act prohibits the falsification of documents for most shipments of wildlife (a criminal penalty) and prohibits the failure to mark wildlife shipments (civil penalty). The Lacey Act is administered by the Departments of the Interior, Commerce, and Agriculture through their respective agencies. These include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 

The Lacey Act was first introduced by Iowa Congressman John Lacey in the House of Representatives in the spring of 1900. It was signed into law by President William McKinley on May 25, 1900. The original Act was directed more at the preservation of game and wild birds by making it a federal crime to poach game in one state with the purpose of selling the bounty in another. It was also concerned with the potential problems of the introduction of non-native, or exotic species of birds and animals into native ecosystems. Finally, it sought to buttress state laws already in existence for the protection of game and birds. 

The Lacey Act has been amended several times since its inception in 1900. The most significant ones occurred in 1969, 1981, and 1988. The 1969 amendments expanded to include amphibians, reptiles, mollusks, and crustaceans. The maximum penalty was increased to $10,000 with possible imprisonment for one year. Additionally, the mental state required for a criminal violation was increased to "knowingly and willfully;" civil penalties were expanded to apply to negligent violations. 

In 1981, Congress removed the heightened proof standard of "willfully" from the statute, making "knowingly" the standard. This came in response to an increased illegal trade in fish and wildlife both domestically and abroad. Indigenous plants were also added to the protected species. With regard to penalty, the maximum civil fine was raised to $10,000 and a bifurcated felony/misdemeanor scheme was created under the statute based on the conduct of the offender and the market value of the species at issue. Under the felony portion of the statute, the maximum penalty was set at $20,000 and/or five years imprisonment; misdemeanor violations were set at $10,000 and/or up to one-year imprisonment. The amendments also allowed for warrantless arrest for felony violations under the Act and expansion of the role of federal wildlife agents. 

In 1988, the role of guiding or outfitting services were added to cover a new threat to big game species under the ambit of "sale." Prior to the amendment, big game guides who provided illegal hunts were immune to prosecution for violation based on commercial activity. The amendments also created a separate and distinct violation for the intended falsification of documents pertaining to the exporting, importing, or transporting of wildlife, fish, or plants. The felony provision of this part of the act was amended such that one could be convicted if he or she either knew of the import or export of the species or where he or she was involved in the sale or purchase of wildlife, fish, or plants with a market value greater than $350. 

The Lacey Act now stands as one of the broadest and most comprehensive forces in the federal arsenal to combat wildlife crime. With increasing activity in international and domestic wildlife trafficking, the Act has evolved to become an important weapon to protect animals domestically and abroad.

After reading the overview of the act, it made no sense why this act was in the 2012 RNC Platform.  First question that popped in my mind was what is the real reason for this being in the platform.  With a little research, discovered it was about Gibson Guitars who had been raided by the DOJ for violating this act. After first reading the Fox News account which seemed to be a white wash for Gibson Guitars as it was more of an opinion piece which should not shock anyone out of Fox News today.  John Roberts who did the story for Fox News didn't bother to report the facts which were readily available.    

The lack of truth by Fox News anchors and reporters with only a few exceptions like Shepherd Smith in this election is astounding.  Used to rely on reports from the Media Research Center for checking articles until I discovered that their reports were very slanted right and at times contained more opinions then facts.  What is wrong with telling the truth by the conservative media?  Is it because if they told the truth, they would have to admit that Romney/Ryan are an extremely flawed ticket and the 2012 GOP Platform is out of touch with mainstream America.  Went to Media Matters to see what they had to say about this investigation.  Double checked to make sure their report was correct.  Fox News once again used bogus information to report the news without checking basic facts.    

The easiest item to check was the part that Fox said on their broadcast that the owner of Gibson Guitars, Henry Juszkiewicz, was a Republican who has donated to Republican campaigns.  Figured that must be the reason for the Lacey Act being part of the Platform to help out a big donor.  After researching the FEC records for the latest which took all of three minutes, I discovered that he was not a big Republican donor as he had only given $2300 to Mike Huckabee in 2007, donated to a Democrat candidate for Congress in 2011, and the rest of his $48,000+ donations starting in 2007 went to the Consumer Electronics Association PAC.  Why can't Fox News do a basic search to discover if Juszkiewicz really was a Republican donor to various campaigns instead of assuming?  Since 2007, Juszkiewicz gave only $2300 to ONE Republican candidate which makes you wonder who does the research at Fox News.  Why should anyone believe anything they say when they couldn't get that simple fact right?

Here is the real news behind the Gibson Guitar DOJ Investigation which seems to have led to the GOP Platform coming down hard on the Lacey Act of 1900.  Did the GOP Platform Committee use the Fox News reporting calling the investigation political as the basis for that part of the 2012 GOP Platform attacking the Lacey Act?  

Following up on a series of one-sided reports suggesting that the Department of Justice's investigation of Gibson Guitar over charges of illegal logging was unwarranted, Fox News senior national correspondent John Roberts has now explicitly declared: "[T]here doesn't appear to be any illegal logging here."

HEMMER: What do they say is behind all this John?' 

ROBERTS: It is an amendment to the 1900 Lacey Act that was passed in 2008 to help protect against any illegal logging. But there doesn't appear to be any illegal logging here. The Indian government says that they wood that it exported to Gibson and other luthiers across the country is legal. But the U.S. government says "No it's not legal to import into the United States." This of course has created a massive amount of confusion. So much so that the National Association of Music Merchants wrote a letter to the president and to members of Congress complaining about the "unintended consequences of the Lacey Act that we feel are damaging to our industry and the economy." I asked Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee about that. He was a cosponsor of the 2008 amendment. He told me that "some changes may be needed here."

Fox's coverage on the Gibson Guitar's case has been skewed from the very beginning and Roberts' report is the logical culmination of its coverage so far. 

An affidavit filed by career Fish and Wildlife Service official John Rayfield spells out the government's case for searching Gibson property, as Reuters reported on August 25. The affidavit details a recent shipment of Indian ebony wood that was intercepted by Customs officials for possible Lacey Act violations and referred to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Customs entry form listed California importer Luthier Mercantile International as the final destination for the shipment, when in fact, it was bound for Nashville for Gibson Guitars, according to the affidavit. 

But that wasn't the only problem. The affidavit states that the Customs form falsely labeled the wood as veneer sheets and listed a false tariff code "to match the false description." The Indian export declaration also allegedly misrepresented the shipment, classifying it under the tariff code for finished parts of musical instruments. The reason this matters is that, according to the affidavit, veneer sheets (less than 6mm) and finished parts are legal to export under Indian law, but unfinished wood larger than 6mm is not. Juszkiewicz contends that the U.S. government has misinterpreted Indian law. 

But rather than ascertain the facts, Fox has portrayed the case as an attack against Gibson Guitar's CEO Henry Juszkiewicz for his political leanings. In fact, Bret Baier, host of Fox News' Special Report has stated, "There is an element of politics here. The CEO of Gibson Guitars is a Republican who has donated to the Republican campaigns." 

However, Juszkiewicz's political donations do not indicate that he is a major Republican donor. 

The case has also been used as a platform to push GOP talking points on government regulations.

And now Roberts has determined that Gibson apparently did not violate the law. One wonders how he came to that reasoned opinion: Long hours of research into U.S. law? A trip to India to research Indian law on the subject? A close examination of the Fish and Wildlife Service affidavit? 

Or is it just Fox's default position the Obama administration must be wrong, a position that is held by both its opinion and its supposedly "straight news" divisions? 

Source:  Media Matters

Media Matters discovered that Juszkiewicz was not a big Republican donor, took me three minutes, and yet Fox News labeled him as a donor to Republican campaigns and why the Obama Administration was after Gibson Guitars.  More of the lies by Fox News to make Obama look bad?

Found this little gem about Fox News not being allowed in Canada from 2011 which speaks volumes about Fox News and the conservative pundits:

Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canada regulators announced last week they would reject efforts by Canada's right wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news.

The Prime Minster wanted to repeal a law forbidding lying on broadcast news?  Why?  So that they could bring in Fox News and the conservative pundits like Beck, Rush, and Hannity who tend to stretch the truth and at times outright lie.  The bust of Churchill being returned to England by Obama lie comes to mind when it was only moved in the White House and replaced in the Oval Office with a bust of Lincoln.  Bringing Fox News and the conservative pundits to broadcast stations is the only reason that I could think of because it doesn't make sense to repeal a law saying broadcast news people cannot lie on the air.  If only that were true in the United States.   

Romney’s ‘We Did Build This’ Events Feature Businesses Built With Government Subsidies And Contracts (OOPS!)

In my lifetime it is hard to remember a campaign that is so dishonest as that of Mitt Romney and so non-transparent.  What was the RNC and the so-called establishment thinking getting behind his nomination?  Was it the big donors because they (RNC) needed to fund the Convention and campaign?  Have news for them if they had held fair debates, same rules for all states in the primary, and not supported a culture of win at any costs for the Romney campaign including cheating, we wouldn't be at this spot today.  They would have had the money from honest donors who didn't want anything in return.

Anyone who says a businessman does everything on his own without help to build the business is a buffoon.  Romney told Olympic athletes that they had help which they all acknowledge.  He has given speeches about the help businesses receive from the Government and infrastructure.  Guess the businesses in today's Romney World are different because they did in all on their own using their own hands according to this ad:




OOPS!  There is a slight problem:

In “These Hands,” the Romney campaign repeated the out-of-context quote, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else did that.” Jack Gilchrist, the owner of Gilchrist Metal Fabricating in Hudson, New Hampshire, incredulously asks, “My father’s hands didn’t build this company? My hands didn’t build this company? My son’s hands aren’t building this company? …Through hard work and a little bit of luck, we built this business. Why are you demonizing us for it?”  

In context, Obama’s speech was not “demonizing” small business owners but simply challenging the idea that wealthy and successful individuals have never benefited from government services.

And, as it turns out, Jack Gilchrist is no different. The New Hampshire Union Leader reports today that Gilchrist benefited from millions of dollars of government loans and contracts to get his business on its feet: 

In 1999, Gilchrist Metal received $800,000 in tax-exempt revenue bonds issued by the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority “to set up a second manufacturing plant and purchase equipment to produce high definition television broadcasting equipment,” according to a New Hampshire Union Leader report at the time…

Last year, Gilchrist Metal also received two U.S. Navy sub-contracts totaling about $83,000 and a smaller $5,600 Coast Guard contract in 2008, according to a government web site that tracks spending. 

The businessman now famous for the ad admits he did take Government help to build the business. Nothing wrong with that as that is what these programs are for but what is terribly wrong is to represent that you had no help and built the business with only your hands and hands of family members.  Guess his family built the building where  they are located only with their own hands as well.

Fox News and Rush Limbaugh led the Romney camp in the direction they wanted him to go even it was a total misstatement of what the President said due to the editing of Fox News.  It is like Limbaugh is a puppet for Fox News today and Romney is a puppet for Fox News and Rush.  Romney or his surrogates run out to make fools of themselves routinely parroting what Fox News or Rush has to say with no fact checking.  Fox News is about the last place I would quote today.  If you want to find investigative reporting with links, you now have to use more liberal sites.

It is simply mind boggling what has happened to Conservatives who are backing Romney.  They turn into pretzels and refuse to hear anything negative about the man or positive about Obama.  Facts don't matter today.  The people on the right who yelled the loudest about Obama not releasing his college records (he should have released them) are the ones turning into crickets on Romney's tax returns and Bain Capital.  We are not supposed to go after the "perfect" candidate in their minds.

Is this what happens to a political party when it is taken over by the followers of Ayn Rand, who make up a large portion of the far right and Tea Party, along with big donors like the Koch Brothers?  Truth doesn't matter, it is the narrative?

The Romney's "We Did Build This' Events are not exactly what they imagined as the info below points out.  Seems these business people rounded up by the Romney camp did have help which was exactly what President Obama was saying.  The Romney camp has proved Obama's points were correct when you get passed the redacted Fox News/Limbaugh spin: 

Romney’s ‘We Did Build This’ Events Feature Businesses Built With Government Subsidies And Contracts 

By Aviva Shen on Jul 25, 2012 at 3:12 pm 

Today, the Romney campaign is hosting an entire series of campaign events based on President Obama’s misinterpreted comment about small businesses. While Obama’s full speech made a “no man is an island” argument, the Romney campaign has seized on the quote, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that” as evidence of Obama’s disdain for small business owners.

 Romney, ignoring the fact that he has echoed this same sentiment on multiple occasions, organized 24 “We Did Build This” events in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada. At each event, local business owners are speaking about their self-sufficiency in running a business and how government is hindering their growth. 

But, like the New Hampshire business owner showcased in Romney’s attack ad on the issue, many of these business owners have received significant support from the government, a ThinkProgress analysis finds.

• Ball Office Products hosted the “We Did Build This” event in Richmond, Virginia. The company received a loan of $635,000 through the Small Business Administration in 2012, according to USASpending.gov. The company was also awarded a lucrative $52,525 contract with the General Services Administration just a year after its founding.

• Midwest Tape, a media distributor of Holland, Ohio, was showcased at a local event and has been contracted by the Department of Defense since 2008, earning a cumulative $13,659.

• Columbus Truck and Equipment was featured in a neighboring event and has received $6,643 in contracts with the Department of Defense.

• Cranston Material Handling Equipment Corporation, the owner of which spoke Wednesday morning at a campaign event in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, has reaped a total of $61,729 in contracts with the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs since 2007.

• Systems Engineering Co.The owner of Systems Engineering has received a total of $180,200 in DOD contracts, as recently as last year.

• Brady Industries in Las Vegas has received $54,425 in contracts with Veterans Affairs since 2009.

• Pennsylvania business PRL Industries Inc. received a $167,847 contract through the Department of Homeland Security for ship and boat propulsion components for the U.S. Coast Guard in August 2008. Janis Herschkowitz, who spoke on behalf of PRL, Inc. used to be a director of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank, which, defined in Herschkowitz’ own words, was created by Congress “to meet personal, social or business needs, especially in low- and moderate-income communities by forming cooperatives.”

• An Iowa event featured Competitive Edge, Inc. which was contracted by Veterans Affairs for $3,543 to make informational refrigerator magnets.

• J & W Cycles of Missouri was awarded $25,808 in contracts from the DOD and Department of Interior.

• Total Resource, featured in a Sparks, Nevada campaign event, has been a federal contractor since 2010, and received a $11,200 contract from the DOD in 2009.

• Applegate Insulation, which hosted one of the events in Michigan, benefited from an energy saving federal tax credit worth 30 percent of the installation project, up to $1,500.

• Home Instead Senior Care supported Romney in Roanoke, Virginia, even though home health care companies receive 75 percent of their funding from public programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Home Instead franchises in Virginia have received at least $3,613,549 in federal funding through the Department of Veterans Affairs since 2008. Chris Head, who represented Home Instead at the event, has previously lamented the low Medicaid reimbursement rates in Virginia and told the Roanoke Times that he wished state funding had helped save the now-defunct local Mill Mountain Theatre.

• Ed Nagle of Nagle Trucking in Ohio also took issue with Obama’s speech, which mentioned roads and bridges as examples of essential government support. But less than a year ago, Nagle protested an idea to privatize the Ohio Turnpike, noting that the privatized Indiana toll road “has diminished in its quality and it’s become a lot more expensive.”

While the “We Did Build This” event was intended to “allow small business owners the chance to respond to President Obama’s claim,” it is clear that many of these owners exemplify the combined powers of individual effort and government support that Obama — and Romney — have praised. 

Additional reporting by Steven Perlberg.  

Source:  Think Progressive

Once again Romney and his campaign are proving to the American people they will say and do anything for votes even knowing it was a lie from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh that started this.  It is the narrative which the Romney campaign plays by and in the process have thrown truth and honesty out the window with the win at any cost mentality.

Does he have an enemies list like Nixon?

Cain's 9-9-9 Plan for the Rich is DOA

Whoever came up with this plan is rich and wants to get richer is an idea that is taking hold.  This is the problem I have with someone with no Government Executive experience running for President when his last executive experience is 1996.  Cain threw out something that sounds good and then Fox News touts it like it is pure genius.  Then the plan sees the light of day after Fox News made sure Cain was showcased in the Orlando debate and the polls started showing him leading.  That light of day shows the plan hurts the poor and the middle class, but the rich would love this plan as their taxes are cut.

Has Fox News covered how this Cain 9-9-9 plan makes the wealthy richer and hurts the poor and middle class or are they giving him a pass?  Conservatives and liberals are saying the same thing about the plan which means the plan and Cain should be a non-starter because he doesn't seem to have a clue about how Government works.  Most people are shaking their heads that this plan even saw the light of day:

That’s not just the left-wing view. Bruce Bartlett, an adviser in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, says that 9-9-9 is unfair to working taxpayers. “It’s the most upside-down tax plan that’s been put forward to tax the poor and the middle class,” he says. “It’s rather insane it’s gotten as much attention as it has. It’s a waste of my time to attack it.” 

What’s more, Bartlett says of what Cain has made public, “there is not nearly enough information on which to do a serious analysis.” The Cain campaign wasn’t answering questions about it on Wednesday. 

You want to know about Herman Cain and the problems he is facing, then read below. Unlike some conservatives who don’t bother to vet candidates, this former journalist did just that after the Cain 9-9-9 plan and his arrogance in interviews surfaced.  It does not look good for Cain in the long run. He may be the Fox flavor of the month. but he has a long way to go to be the candidate.  With his new found arrogance that only he knows the economy, his candidacy when looked at realistically is a non-starter:

Cain’s Primary Problems Continue to Multiplyby ThinkFirst 

Herman Cain, riding high on a single debate/forum performance in a
FoxNews-manipulated event in Florida has only just started to be vetted,
and it is not going well for him. 

Here are a few of the challenges Cain faces with conservatives and
independents: 

1. 9-9-9 creates a whole new Federal sales tax, on top of State and local sales taxes, and it shifts a lot of the tax burden to the poor and middle-class. 

2. He has admitted that he failed to recognize the 2005 housing bubble when many others were actively warning about it. 

3. He endorsed ex-Massachusetts one-term governor Willard “Mitt” Romney in 2008. 

4. He has no elected experience as an executive dealing with the
real-world process of leadership in a system of shared-powers and
competing interests with an often hostile media. (Like Barak Obama.) 

5. He has no foreign policy experience. (Like Barak Obama.) 

6. One of the keys to his success as CEO of a pizza chain was to close 50% of the restaurants, putting many people out of work. (Like Romney at Bain Capital.) Domino’s resolved their corporate challenges without closing half of their stores and putting all of those people out of work. 

7. He will place the Social Security system at-risk as he eliminates the employer-employee split of 15% and replace it with only 9%. 

8. He fails to explain how he is going to get the 16th Constitutional Amendment that authorizes the Federal Income Tax repealed any time in the near-term future (we will, otherwise, face both Income and Sales taxes at the national-level). 

9. Cain assumes that Congress will voluntarily restrict themselves to a 2/3 vote for any changes – this in a defense against those who worry about incremental increases above the 9%. This reveals a dangerous naivete about the realities of the political system in Washington, DC 

10. He also said he will sign no bill over 4-5 pages. This reveals a dangerous naivete about the realities of the political system in
Washington, DC. 

Source: http://nevils-station.com/qp_files/quam-plures/blog5.php/2011/10/12/cain-s-primary-problems-continue-to-multiply

Howard Kurtz, the journalist, who brought us the details on the Fox Orlando debate being a Fox News set-up is back with this article about the Herman Cain 9-9-9 Plan having no chance.  Once again The Daily Beast has the details missing from some of the so-called conservative sites.  How many of these sites that tout themselves as conservative are really part of the establishment.  We are going to be putting together a list so if you have any suggestions on whether a site should be on or off our list, please email me at truesoft.474@gmail.com.

Kurtz has nailed this plan as a non-starter from the left and the right but when will the truth be told on Fox News?

Cain's 9-9-9 Plan Has No ChanceHoward KurtzOct 12, 2011 9:28 PM EDT 

The ex-pizza executive is getting traction on the presidential campaign trail with a national sales tax. But Howard Kurtz reports that the proposal is tilted against the poor and faces opposition in both parties. Plus, Jill Lawrence on Cain's advisers. 

Herman Cain’s much-touted 9-9-9 plan, which is fueling his surge to frontrunner status, is a radical departure that would generate plenty of problems, from slashing federal revenue to making it more expensive for the poor to buy everyday goods. 

That, at least, is what many economists across the spectrum say after studying the sketchy outlines. But not to worry: senior aides in both parties say such a scheme would have 0-0-0 chance of passing Congress. 

The plan, which became a major focus of Tuesday’s GOP debate in New Hampshire, has the appeal of simplicity. “I can explain it in a minute,” Cain told The Daily Beast. “All taxpayers play by the exact same rules. That’s what people love about it.” The question is whether they will be less enamored once they learn some of the details. 

The one-minute explanation: corporate taxes, now close to 40 percent, would be cut to 9 percent. Federal income taxes, now as high as 35 percent, would be cut to 9 percent. And consumers would pay a national sales tax of 9 percent for all products, on top of any state and local levies—bringing the total in New York City, for instance, to 17.875 percent. (It’s not clear whether services would be included.) 

That’s good news if you’re a big company or upper-bracket taxpayer, but not so much if you’re a low-income working stiff. While Cain denies that his plan would be regressive, the working poor tend to spend most or all of their pay, which would be taxed every time they buy something. Michael Ettlinger, a vice president at the liberal Center for American Progress, says the plan would impose “the biggest shift from the wealthy to the middle class in the history of taxation, ever, anywhere.” 

That’s not just the left-wing view. Bruce Bartlett, an adviser in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, says that 9-9-9 is unfair to working taxpayers. “It’s the most upside-down tax plan that’s been put forward to tax the poor and the middle class,” he says. “It’s rather insane it’s gotten as much attention as it has. It’s a waste of my time to attack it.” 

What’s more, Bartlett says of what Cain has made public, “there is not nearly enough information on which to do a serious analysis.” The Cain campaign wasn’t answering questions about it on Wednesday. 

Daniel Shaviro, a New York University law professor who specializes in taxation, calls the plan “not viable.” For rich people—defined as those who work for themselves and don’t have to take a salary—it essentially becomes an 18 percent total tax on all money. But for poor people collecting a paycheck, Shaviro says, it amounts to a 27 percent tax. “It’s a disservice to public debate to have people think it’s so simple,” he says. 

Then there’s the question of who is covered. At the moment, just under 50 percent of all those filing returns pay no income taxes, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. They would be hit with the 9 percent sales tax. 

But that is a plus, in Cain’s view. “Everybody’s going to pay less taxes,” he insisted in a recent interview. “When you’ve got more people paying taxes, everybody’s got some skin in the game. But because the base is bigger, everybody’s net taxes will go down.” 

That expectation seems to rest in part on the logic of the old Laffer curve, the Reagan-era theory that if you cut taxes, you liberate the economy and more money flows into the Treasury. But “there’s not one iota of evidence to show that that works,” says Bartlett, noting that the Bush tax cuts simply blew a bigger hole in the federal deficit. 

Speaking of the deficit, the former pizza executive claims his plan would be revenue-neutral. BusinessWeek estimated that his approach would have brought in $1.96 trillion, based on 2010 figures, compared to $2.16 trillion in actual tax collections; others say the gap would be far wider. 

Getting rid of the payroll tax, as Cain proposes, would undoubtedly be popular. So would blowing up the capital gains tax, especially for those with big holdings in stocks and bonds, and the estate tax, for those with sizable sums to leave to their heirs. And corporations will love that profits earned overseas can be brought back to this country tax-free.   

Excerpt:  Read More at The Daily Beast

(Page 1 of 2)

Update: Not Running According to Twitter: Is New Jersey Governor Christie a moderate -- Believes in Gun Control and Global Warming

UPDATE, 8/27/11:  All the hoopla by Fox News for Governor Christie getting in the race including getting people in NJ to say he was running this morning has hit a brick wall according to Fox News Twitter:  #Breaking: Sources close to #ChrisChristie tell @FoxNews that NJ governor has decided, once and for all, not to run for president in #2012

What purpose did all the Christie rumors serve?  Were they done to make Romney look more moderate?  More people told Fox News they knew he was running to the stage you were trying to figure out why as the following details how slim of chance Christie would have to win the nomination.

*****

We decided to look into Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey, to see where he stood on the issues since he is the Fox flavor of the week for President.  Conservatives got had once again -- have to hand it to Fox as they are very smooth at selling what they want their viewers to think.   You would think the conservative news sites would be up in arms about the potential for Christie who is moderate on a lot of issues entering the race but it is crickets chirping -- same crickets chirping about how Fox slanted the Orlando debate to make Republicans look bad.

This begs to question how many sites being touted as conservative are an extension of Ailes' Fox News or Rove's Crossroads?

Pretty bad when you have to go to liberal sites to find out the truth -- they are actually willing to tell it like it is.  This comes from the New Republic article, "Chris Christie, Closet Moderate?  Here are some facts:

Nate Silver has an interesting post arguing that Chris Christie managed to become a darling of the conservatives without being as conservative as they think he is. He" supported the assault weapons ban and opposed concealed carry laws." He "stated explicitly that global warming was real and manmade." He "stated [in 2008] that “being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime.” He has "“no issue with same-sex couples sharing contractual rights,” i.e., civil unions, though he does oppose abortion rights and same-sex marriage. He's soft on the "ground zero" mosque (which is actually a couple of blocks away). He declined to challenge Obamacare in court. And he actually put out an Obama-friendly ad during his 2009 gubernatorial campaign.

All this really says, Silver points out, is that Christie is about as conservative as you can get away with being when you're governor of New Jersey. This is, after all, a state so liberal that you aren't even allowed to pump your own gas, lest an attendant be put out of work. But that suggests his natural rival isn't Rick Perry; it's Mitt Romney, whose problem is kind of similar. So if your reason for wanting another candidate in the race is you don't like Romney, root for Christie to get in so he and Romney can split the moderate vote and throw the nomination to Perry. But if your reason fro wanting another candidate in the race is you don't like Perry, then you should root against Christie jumping in. Silver's analysis is somewhat more nuanced than my summary here, but that I think is where it takes you.

We decided to take this one step further and go see what Silver had to say on some of the issues:

Gun Control. New Jersey, a mostly suburban state, tends to take a moderate position on gun control, and Mr. Christie has in the past as well. In 2009, Mr. Christie’s campaign rebutted a claim by his Democratic opponent, Jon Corzine, that he stood with the N.R.A. by pointing out that Mr. Christie supported the assault weapons ban and opposed concealed carry laws. A statement on Mr. Christie’s campaign Web site in 2009 said that he supported New Jersey’s existing gun control laws, which are fairly strict.

The Environment and Global Warming. During the 2009 campaign, Mr. Christie sometimes critiqued Governor Corzine’s performance on the environment from the left, and he won the endorsement of the New Jersey Environmental Foundation, the first statewide Republican candidate to do so in 30 years. 

More recently, however, Mr. Christie withdrew New Jersey from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade program. But while so doing, he stated explicitly that global warming was real and manmade and endorsed the views of the consensus of climate scientists.

Immigration. In 2008, Mr. Christie, then a United States attorney, stated that “being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime.” The statement drew a harsh critique from CNN’s Lou Dobbs, who called for Mr. Christie’s resignation, and is a good bet to make a reappearance in one of his opponent’s campaign commercials should Mr. Christie enter the race. 

Mr. Christie has received an F from NumbersUSA, an organization that favors greater restrictions on both legal and illegal immigration.

Social Issues. Mr. Christie is an opponent of both abortion rights and same-sex marriage, but his campaign Web site in 2009 stated that he had “no issue with same-sex couples sharing contractual rights,” an apparent reference to New Jersey’s existing civil unions law. 

In 2010, Mr. Christie broke with other prominent Republicans by accusing his party of “overreacting” to the proposed construction of an Islamic mosque and cultural center near the ground zero site, although he also criticized President Obama’s position on the issue.

One noteworthy example is a video that Mr. Christie’s campaign released in the closing days of the 2009 campaign. It featured extended and positively framed clips of Mr. Obama, who was more popular then, and interspersed images of supporters of Mr. Christie and Mr. Obama, implying that Mr. Christie would be in the legacy of Mr. Obama’s mandate for “change.”

Most conservatives were opposed to Obama and his policies long before he took office in January 2009 but in October 2009 after he had been in office almost a year, Christie used this ad for his campaign.  I thought Charlie Crist and hugging Obama was bad in FL but this blows Charlie right out of the water.  This ad made my jaw drop that Christie would even consider running as a Republican.  There is no way after this ad, he would get to first base even with Romney.  Romney is a lot more conservative in many ways than Christie but yet Fox News is now pushing Christie.  In fact I was so put off by this ad that I refused to watch the last 30 seconds.  I am having a hard time believing this campaign ad came from a Republican paid for by Republican donor money.

On fiscal issues Christie is pretty conservative or we think he is -- wouldn't bet on that now either after watching this ad.

This article started out to be more about how Fox News trying to sway the Republican Presidential primary to get their candidate who will make conservatives mad and stay home then Chris Christie.  That said we are appalled at anyone who wants to get him in the race as a Republican with this type of baggage.  First his stance on a lot of issues conservatives will never agree, but his ad did it for me completely.  I could never support someone that far left.  Knew he has been praising Obama from time to time since he became Governor but this ad which I have never seen before takes the prize.  If I didn't know better, I would say it was an ad for the Democrat.

Christie being for gun control and global warming is man made are non-starters out in the south and west.  His comments on the mosque and illegal immigration will also strike a lot of people wrong.  Once this ad gets out, his chances with conservatives are nil.  He is the latest flavor of the week for Fox News and Rove so we will see where this goes.

Will conservative sites wake up on what Fox is doing or are they too deeply involved with Ailes, Fox News, and Rove?  Time will tell!

IBD: Conservatives Mustn't Let Media Pick the Candidate

Republicans and Conservatives need to wake up and understand that the headline is exactly what Fox News and the other MSM are trying to do once against in 2012 -- it worked in 2008 so they are back to the well once more.  The debate questions with no real meat seem to point in that direction along with interviews and articles.  

The timing for this article is perfect after the facts came out about the Fox/Google Orlando debate staged to make Republicans look bad especially Rick Perry.  The media received their full wings for unethical reporting in 2008 and are continuing into 2012.  Facts and truth mean nothing to this group of so-called journalists who long ago lost their ethics.  How many of today's so-called journalists are members of the Society of Professional Journalists who are bound by a Code of Ethics or how many know they are unethical so they refuse to join?  This is their Preamble (my bold):

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

Using the standard of the SPJ, Fox News under the leadership of Roger Aisles at the Orlando Fox debate fails on every issue that is bolded in the Preamble.  What is more important to Fox News under Roger Ailes? Ethics or old fashion American Greed?  We vote for Greed.   You need look no farther than Glenn Beck's investigation into the Obama Czars that brought in huge advertising dollars.  Even the advertisers who eventually boycotted Beck gave other shows large ad buys.  Viewers turn into ad revenue which is what Ailes and Fox News are all about.  Wonder if there is an ethical person left at Fox News that isn't part of putting money over their responsibilities to report the news.  The softball questions aimed at some of their guests while others get trashed raises the word 'bias' for their anchors as well.

Latest flavor of the day for Fox News is Gov Chris Christie to run for President.  It was in the NY Post owned by News Corp, on Neil Cavuto, and several articles coming on the heels of Fox News Sunday going after Rick Perry for his performance and statements.  The timing was suspect but now with the revelation by Howard Kurtz that Fox staged the debate to hurt Republican candidates, it is not suspect any more.

McKinnon points out in his IBD article how the mainstream media shaped the 2008 race and from what we are seeing Fox News is leading the charge this time to be the most unethical:

In creating the myth of the "Obama miracle" of 2008, the mainstream media went out of their way not to mention that hundreds of thousands of conservative and Republican voters were plain disgusted with McCain because he was anything but a conservative and could not bring themselves to vote for him. 

To be sure, thanks in large part to the unprofessional and unethical cheerleading by most in the media, Mr. Obama did grow the Democrat vote total substantially from 2004. 

But how many principled conservatives stayed home and why? That has to be part of an honest analysis of the Obama victory.

The article nails what is happening with the media trying to choose our Republican candidate so that the more moderate Republican will make Republican and Conservatives stay home and not vote.  Isn't that just great that now we are faced once again with the national media across the board wanting to choose the candidate they say is the most likely to beat Obama (Romney) when it is just the opposite.

Is Ailes afraid if Rick Perry gets in the White House, the ad revenue at Fox News will drop and conservatives will finally open their eyes that Fox News is no friend of conservatives.  I would rather watch MSNBC who I know leans far left than ever watch Fox News again who is trying to tank a candidate to get in the one they know will lose.

Phony news reports and polls along with a set-up debate by Fox News shows them to be lowest form of media -- absolutely corrupted to where the almighty dollar means more than ethics.  Roger Ailes should be ashamed but he has been part of what is wrong with the America political system since the years of Nixon and now he is in complete control of Fox News.

Conservatives Mustn't Let Media Pick The Candidate
By DOUGLAS MACKINNON Posted 09/26/2011 05:23 PM ET 

Leaving aside the televised, overly scripted, predictable and marginally useful "debates" now taking place between the Republican candidates for president, there are much more important discussions going on between conservatives and independents who are unified in their belief that for the good of the nation, Barack Obama must be defeated. 

Those discussions — taking place across kitchen tables, in lunchrooms, or in neighborhood bars after a week of hard work — are trying to determine which path to follow in the approaching political fork in the road. 

One of those paths will most likely lead to the defeat of Mr. Obama. The other could very well ensure his re-election. 

It is critical for Republicans, conservatives, and independents to remember that from the 2008 GOP field, John McCain had the stamp of approval from the mainstream media. 

In fact, the liberal media worked overtime to resurrect his then all but comatose campaign. Why? 

That same liberal media told us that independents and a good number of Democrats just loved McCain. 

Maybe some did, but exponentially more conservatives and Americans who cherish our vanishing traditional values could not stand him. So much so, they simply declined to vote.
That fact is one of the most purposefully underreported or flat-out ignored reasons why Mr. Obama won the White House in 2008. 

Well over 2 million fewer people voted for the GOP ticket in 2008 compared to 2004. Did some of those votes go to Mr. Obama? For sure. Did many just stay home? Absolutely.
Again, a critically important fact when you stop to realize that Mr. Obama won North Carolina by only 14,000 votes. That he won Indiana by only 28,000 votes. Or that he won Florida by only 236,000 out of well over 8 million cast. 

(snip)

Flashback to 2011 and Republicans are being asked to choose between the liberal-media-approved Mitt Romney — who they insist will appeal to those independent and moderate Democrats in November of 2012 — or the more conservative, less-polished Rick Perry of Texas. 

Anyone who has met Mitt Romney knows he is an incredibly decent person who loves his country.

That has never been in question. What is in question — is Romney the McCain of 2012? 

Shouldn't Republican primary voters really drill down deeper to understand why so many in the liberal media believe Mr. Romney — as they said about McCain in 2008 — will appeal to independents and Democrats? 

While Governor Perry may not quite be ready for prime time — lack of real debate time and overcramming surely contributing — there is no doubt that he is the more conservative between himself and Mr. Romney. 

In the future, he might do well to ignore hypothetical questions, ignore Mr. Romney, and simply speak to his vision for the nation. 

MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official and author of the forthcoming memoir entitled "Rolling Pennies in the Dark." 

Excerpt:  Read More at IBD

McKinnon asks a very good question:  "Is Romney the McCain of 2012?  It sure looks like that is the case.  If Romney gets the nomination, I have heard numerous people say they will stay home and not vote and some of them voted for McCain.  Romney is a 'soft money' person who likes the dollar low as his investments do better but what about the middle class taxpayer who doesn't have all the loopholes?  The low dollar hurts all of us.

Maybe the show "American Greed" should take a look at Fox News.  How many so-called feuds that Karl Rove is supposedly involved with to drive up ratings are even real.  What is the Crossroads/Fox News connections to the Tea Party leaders and their organizations?  When you read an article like Kurtz yesterday
that Ailes and Fox News are pulling away from the Tea Party, it speaks volumes that their money was heavily invested in the Tea Party.  Looks like now they want them gone.  Are they afraid the members of the Tea Party won't swallow the Fox koolaid and will vote for the more conservative in the race instead of Romney who Fox is pushing along with Rove.

It is going to be interesting how many of the so-called conservative sites pick up on the fact that Fox News orchestrated the debate to make Republicans look bad or how many are joined at the hip with Fox News or Crossroads and Rove.

The bottom line is that Greed is driving the media for ratings which equal dollars.  If they can keep Obama for four more years with conservatives furious just think how much Ailes, Murdoch and News Corp along with the other mainstream media outlets will be worth then -- they don't seem to give one thought as what is best for the Country -- only their bottom line.

Howard Kurtz: The Truth about Roger Ailes and the Orlando Debate

Once again you have to go to The Daily Beast to find out the facts because it is obvious that you are not going to get the facts from Fox News now.  When I first went after Fox News during the Gulf War as not being as conservative as they claimed, I was clobbered on site after site but I maintained Fox News was scamming conservatives.  To me anyone cable news or network who kept Geraldo after what he pulled during the Gulf War was not a legitimate news organization.  I can truthfully say it has been confirmed that I was 100% right on Roger Ailes and Fox News owned by Murdoch's News Corp.

Guess Ailes didn't want Pawlenty touting Romney when he already has Rove who pretends he is just a pundit when anyone with a brain knows he is out to tank Perry and will use whatever to ensure that Jeb Bush can run in 2016.  It is not secret and has not been for sometime.

Three weeks after dropping out of the race, Tim Pawlenty showed up to ask for a gig at Fox. But there was a complication: Pawlenty was on the verge of endorsing Romney. “I’m not sure I want to sign you as a paid spokesman for Romney,” Ailes said.

What do some conservatives think of Fox News now that Ailes wants to tank the Republican candidates?  Who does it benefit?  Obama of course and a continuation of soft money so the rich get richer and the middle class takes it on the chin once again.  They want to be able to borrow tons of money at little to no cost.

Was told by several people that this debate was going to be a set-up and sure enough it was.  This is one of the most disgusting things that Fox News has done today and heads should roll but we expect more of the same.  Any conservative that watches Fox News needs to get a clue that Fox News is no friend of conservatives.  Roger Ailes and the rest need FIRED!  Better yet Fox News needs tanked and Murdoch fired!

Republican candidates should refuse to do any more debates until the RNC ensures that the debates are fair and square.  Time for the RNC Chair Priebus to step forward and stand up for the Republican candidates against the likes of the Obama media including Fox News, Roger Ailes, and Rupert Mudoch.

Time to take the gloves off and say exactly how unethical Fox News has become in this election cycle including refusing to hire Pawlenty but keeping Rove on the air with Fox News along with Huckabee who trashes Republican candidates.  Is the reason we are having so many Republican debates is to help Obama and tank Republicans?  Sure looks like it!

Thanks to Howard Kurtz for the TRUTH which is something Fox News knows little about!

Roger’s Reality ShowSep 25, 2011 10:00 AM EDT  

Howard Kurtz 

First, Ailes dialed back the Tea Party talk. Now he’s turning the GOP race into a political X-Factor—and steering the election agenda one more time.  

It was part political spectacle, part American Idol, part YouTube extravaganza, a pure Roger Ailes production—and the latest sign that the Fox News chairman is quietly repositioning America’s dominant cable-news channel. 

Hours before last week’s presidential debate in Orlando, Ailes’s anchors sat in a cavernous back room, hunched over laptops, and plotted how to trap the candidates. Chris Wallace said he would aim squarely at Rick Perry’s weakness: “How do you feel about being criticized by some of your rivals as being too soft on illegal immigration? Then I go to Rick Santorum: is Perry too soft?” 

“That’s going to get some fireworks going,” said managing editor Bill Sammon, grinning. 

When showtime arrived, producer Marty Ryan choreographed the action from a crowded trailer outside the convention hall: he called for a two-shot when Wallace invited Mitt Romney to criticize Perry’s immigration stance, so the audience could watch both men’s agitated expressions. But Ryan barked, “Let’s just be on Perry,” as the Texas governor demanded to know whether Santorum had ever been to the Mexican border, capturing the moment. Afterward, Ailes phoned a top lieutenant: “Tell the team we’ve been kicking ass in these debates.” 

Ailes has always been a master showman—he even gave advice on triple-checking the audio—and Fox’s partnership with Google produced striking videos, graphics, and a backstage smoothie bar. But the real eye-opener was the sight of his anchors grilling the Republican contenders, which pleases the White House but cuts sharply against the network’s conservative image—and risks alienating its most rabid right-wing fans. 

Excerpt:  Read More at The Daily Beast

I am not one to boycott but this time I can state that I will NEVER watch Fox News again and I was one of the people in my community to beg to get them on the air.  I was 100% wrong and the local cable company person who said you cannot trust Murdoch or Ailes was correct.  Should have listened back then.                           

Star Parker: Why the Presidential Debates Aren't Serious

Star Parker today has what is wrong with the media debates and frankly why a lot of voters consider debates worthless.

Have to admit that these are the worst series of debates by the media and some other groups I have ever seen.  Fox News may take the prize for the most worthless debate ever last Thurday night.  The questions that were asked makes you wonder if Fox News wants Obama and the soft money policy of the Fed to continue and are willing to keep the status quo.  Hard to come up with another explanation for the questions.  Why no substance with the questions in the debates?  If I read about Gardasil one more time after a debate, I am going to scream.

CNN polling after the debate and the Orlando straw poll has Perry losing little and still leading -- looks like regular Americans understand more than the Fox media and know that debates and straw polls are absolutely worthess.  Are straw a gauge of support?  Not in most cases as they don't represent most voters but a small handful of people.  Have personal experience to know how unethical they can be as well.  What are the Fox pundits and others going to do now that Perry didn't tank?

Why the presidential debates aren't serious 

By: Star Parker | 09/24/11 8:05 PM | Examiner Columnist 

The presidential debates are looking more like symptoms of our problems than they do like part of the solution.Maximum style, minimum substance. Focus on sizzle, forget about the steak. 

These events are supposed to be about quality information, raising the bar, and producing a thoughtful, informed electorate. But they are being produced to provide entertainment, and we are barely getting that.Technology doesn't take the place of substance. YouTube and real-time polling are not substitutes for thoughtful, provocative questioning. 

Can it really be, after all the heat he has taken on Social Security, that Rick Perry was not pushed on how specifically how he would reform it? 

Can it be, as expert after expert has laid out the long list of failures of Romneycare in Massachusetts and its unquestionable similarities to Obamacare, that Mitt Romney was not called out on his sidestepping and denials? 

Can it be that, on a day where the stock market in our country dropped 3.5 percent and in China by 5 percent, that candidates were not asked what they think is wrong with the global economy? 

Can it be that, when many experts agree that government meddling in housing and mortgages was central to the recent financial collapse, there has not been a single question on why Fannie and Freddie are still standing, propped up by government, and untouched? 

Why, when everyone knows that Rick Santorum is a social conservative, would the question on "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military be directed at him? His answer was a surprise to no one. 

Why wasn't Romney the one questioned on this? 

Why, instead of wasting time on stupid questions like "Who on this stage would you choose as your vice president?" would the question not be asked "Who is your favorite justice on the Supreme Court"? 

Both Romney and Michele Bachmann have said they will repeal Obamacare on day one. 

Shouldn't someone ask what happens on day two? hat would they do to fix our health care system, which clearly has problems? 

With all the focus on Social Security, policy experts generally agree that the problems of Medicare are much bigger and more complex. Yet, there has not been a single question about how to reform Medicare. 

But perhaps even more fundamentally, the cable sponsors of these events have failed grotesquely to bring out the fault lines that divide these Republican candidates and the Republican Party. 

Where are these candidates on Roe v. Wade and the role of law in protecting unborn lives? 

Where are these candidates on preservation on the integrity of traditional marriage? 

With all the talk about states' rights, why are there no questions about the appropriateness of a federal court overturning a popular vote in the state of California -- Proposition 8 -- to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in their state? 

Or the denial of the District of Columbia government to even allow a vote of its residents on this issue before declaring same-sex marriage legal?

Does the collapse of the traditional family in America -- something undeniably happening as we rapidly approach having half of our children born to unwed mothers -- even matter? Should candidates not be forced to weigh in on this? 

The downward spiral into an exclusively technocratic discussion about the economy -- like we're all laboratory mice in a box with politicians pushing the buttons -- obfuscates key differences between these Republican candidates and the two parties. 

It is a symptom of the big problems of our country that we appear incapable of having presidential debates with serious questions. 

Examiner Columnist Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (urbancure.org). She is syndicated nationally by Scripps Howard News Service.

Read more at the Washington Examiner 

Like millions of Americans, I join those ignoring the debates as nonsense.  I was at the airport Thursday night during the debate and looks like from all accounts of regular people that Fox News hit rock bottom.  Don't know what Murdoch and Fox News are up to but anyone who thinks they are a friend of grassroots conservatives need to think again.  If a Presidential candidate cannot stay a member of the Fox Team, why do they have Karl Rove still giving his two cents when he is Romney's adviser trying to tank Gov Perry?  If that is not a conflict of interest or the fact that Crossroads gave major dollars to candidates in 2010 who now are endorsing Romney, I don't know what is.  That's not a story?  Not in the Fox World of Murdoch it seems.

Not only are the debates not serious, some of the questions are downright stupid.  We agree with Star Parker if Perry goes after social security ask him what his plan is and also ask Romney about RomneyCare.  Not these debates as the moderators are asking questions meant to stir up animosity.  There are way too many debates and have yet to see questions on much substance.

On immigration you have a group of candidates who don't have a clue about what goes on with the border states.  Do you hear questions asked about the Hezbollah and the Drug Cartels who are on the border actively working?  Not on your life, you have to concentrate on children and college age students who were brought to this country through no fault of their own.

Shame that a Governor who believes every child in his state deserves a quality education gets clobbered by the anti-illegal crowd.  Education is the path to the future and I am not going to tell some high school senior who has lived here all their life that they have to pay out of state tuition or go back to Mexico when this is the only country they know.  Illegal immigration is against the law but it goes back years and the solution that some come up with to send over 11,000,000 people back is not feasible.  How about the children who were born here?  Are we going to tell them because their parents are here illegally that they can stay but their parents have to go back to Mexico?

Crime along the border is at an all time high which should be the focus right now.  I am not concerned about a roofer who is putting on my roof being here illegally, but I am concerned about the violence on the border and potential for Hezbollah to do real damage in the United States.  Shame the anti-illegal group cares more about a family then they do the real problems on the border.  As we have said many times, that fence along the Texas border will not work but Fox News, some of the candidates, and others don't seem to have a clue.

Star Parker has nailed the problem with the worthless debates we are seeing.  The questions keep ignoring the problems that are faced in this Country as the moderators attempt to tank Republicans.  Why?  Is it to help Obama have four more years of his socialist policy so it will bring in more revenue to the cable news networks with advertisers.  Is this what it is all about?  The almighty dollar that Murdoch will sell his soul along with Soros to get even more money and influence.  Food for thought!