"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." (Thomas Jefferson)
Move on -- nothing to see here or that is what Fox News would like us to do. After the Fox News debacle of a debate in Florida dubbed the Roger (Ailes) Reality Show there is nothing I wouldn't put past Roger Ailes and Fox News today or in the past that is underhanded that I wouldn't put past Ailes and Fox News.
Fox News switched polling companies this spring to a more liberal leaning pollster which now makes their polls as worthless as their debate hosting.
How many small business' has News Corp put out of business due to their tactics over the years. We have a hunch that Floorgraphics is the tip of the iceberg.
News Corp. Hacked Ad Company
It’s not just News Corp.’s tabloids that allegedly used hacking to get what they want. In 2003 News Corp.’s News America Marketing division hacked into the computers of Floorgraphics, its competitor in the market for floor-based advertising. In its ultimately successful attempt to break into the floor-billboard market, News Corp. hired a disgruntled former Floorgraphics employee to orchestrate the company’s efforts, which included hacking into Floorgraphics’ computers and viewing its future ad campaigns. When Floorgraphics sued News America, the company admitted to the hacking, but said it had been unable to locate who was responsible.
The FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office are now taking a new look at the Floorgraphics case.
What do Lee Terry (R-NE) and Edolphus Towns (D-NY) have in common? They are the sponsors of HR 3035 which would open up cell phones to telemarketers and Robo Calls. Why? If someone makes a mistake and answers their cell phone without looking, they will be paying for the minutes used and these two think that is okay.
More intrusion into our every day lives is all I can see. There are so many marketing calls already to my phone that I have to wonder what it would be like if the "Do Not Call" actually worked. When they left out asking for contributions as a do not call, it left a whole segment ready to make calls. Between calls for political donations to my landline and snail mail filling up my mailbox, I cannot fathom what my cell phone would be like if this bill goes through.
"While many hoaxes have circulated in the past about cell phone numbers being opened up to telemarketers, it now may actually happen. A bill, HR 3035 (PDF), has been introduced in Congress, that would create numerous exceptions to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which banned autodialed and prerecorded robot calls to cell phone numbers. If passed, HR 3035 would permit a wide range of autodialed and prerecorded calls to cell phones that are currently prohibited, and would preempt practically all state laws providing similar protections. This is being applauded by debt collectors and banks (PDF) ... as if the bailouts weren't enough, now they get to make you pay for their calls to you."
Rick Perry apologizes for 'heartless' comment on immigration question By Justin Sink - 09/28/11 03:21 PM ET
Rick Perry said Wednesday that he was sorry for saying at last week's Republican debate that those opposed to providing an in-state tuition break to the children of illegal immigrants "did not have a heart."
“I was probably a bit over-passionate by using that word and it was inappropriate,” Perry said in a interview with Newsmax. “In Texas in 2001 we had 181 members of the legislature – only four voted against this piece of legislation – because it wasn’t about immigration it was about education.”
But Perry stood by his argument that building a fence along the entire Mexican border was unwise. The Texas governor said that the fence would likely be expensive, ineffective, and violate the property rights of those who owned land on the border.
“In the metropolitan areas where the fencing actually can play a positive role, absolutely,” he said. “But you have to have boots on the ground… having an obstacle without observation is no obstacle at all. So just the idea of building a fence and saying, ‘That will take care of it, let’s just build a fence,’ has never worked in the history of mankind.”
Other candidates seized on Perry's support of the tuition credits - and arguments against a fence - in an attempt to discredit him at the debate. Michele Bachmann argued that taxpayer dollars shouldn't benefit those here illegally, while Jon Huntsman suggested his position on the fence might be "treasonous." But while Perry walked back his 'heartless' comment, he insisted that his experience as governor of a border state best prepared him to handle immigration issues.
As Texas governor, a border governor, you have to deal with these issue, you can’t just talk about them and say, ‘Oh, let’s build a wall from Brownsville to El Paso and that will take care of it.’ We have to live with reality," Perry said.
He also reiterated criticism of the federal government for what he considers a failure to protect the southern border.
"We wouldn’t be having these conversations today, whether it’s about in-state tuition for illegal immigrants or whether it’s the Arizona law or whether it’s voter-ID which we passed in Texas, or sanctuary cities and the banning of those… None of those would come up if the federal government had simply done its job through the years to secure our borders," Perry said.
What a shock -- a candidate that actually admits when they are wrong instead of spinning. Actually we are not shocked out of Governor Perry because he is not a person who spins but tells it like it is. Our other candidates could take some lessons on what it is like to admit you made a mistake.
This is even more amazing that the other candidates jumped on Perry about education for illegals when the bill goes back to 2001 which was Perry's first year as Governor after George Bush became President. Only four people out of 181 voted against this bill. That is ten years ago and it now became a major part of the debate but Romneycare did not?
Fox people sure did their research to make sure the questions they were asked were going to start a squabble among candidates. What a despicable organization Fox has become in these debates. Refuse to call them a News Organization because they have become part of the news today. Ailes has done a good job in making tons of money for Fox which trumps ethics.
Maybe if the candidates for President had ever visited the border of Texas, they would understand about the border fence not being built in some wide open areas and through the centers of lakes. They are one-note candidates -- build the border fence and all will be well. Shows how little this group of candidates except for Governors Perry and Johnson, understand the problems on the border. It is not a quick fix and requires the Federal Government to send as they say 'boots on the ground' not 'boots behind a desk' which Obama is unwilling to do.
We are finding out daily how much the 'insiders' of the Republican Party are dissatisfied with our current candidates for President because Fox News and some websites like the Weekly Standard keep pushing it so much. First, they have probably figured out that their chosen one Romney is not doing near as well as expected and second the 'insiders' don't want someone from outside their arrogant circle. Voters on the other hand seem to be pretty satisfied with their choices.
The bottom line, then, is that there is a difference between an electorate that is undecided and an electorate that is unhappy with its choices. It may turn out that GOP voters would welcome a new candidate -- few voters will ever tell a pollster that they don't want any more choices -- but that does not mean they are dissatisfied with what they have now. The much-discussed dissatisfaction, such as it is, is concentrated among Republican party insiders, not voters.
Just who are these 'insiders' of the Republican Party or as a lot of us call them 'establishment', 'country-club' or 'Rockefeller Republicans.' IOTW, the members of the Republican Party who consider themselves the elitist insiders and who supported President George HW Bush over President Reagan in 1980. Most have some ties back to the Nixon White House. "Who is a Rockefeller Republican?" The American Spectator has the best definition to date I have seen:
The Rockefeller Republican became immutably identified as someone whose philosophical moorings and political instincts lay not in the Constitution but rather with the American progressive movement and the liberal Establishment that movement had become. Or, as Rockefeller's longtime intra-party rival Ronald Reagan once described the problem to Time magazine:
"I think the division of the Republican Party grew from pragmatism on the part of some, the Republicans who said, 'Look what the Democrats are doing and they're staying in power. The only way for us, if we want to have any impact at all, is somehow to copy them.' This was where the split began to grow, because there were other people saying, 'Wait a minute. There is great danger in following this path toward Government intervention.'"
Reagan never left any doubt as to the fact that in his use of the word "some" he was decidedly including Nelson Rockefeller.
Note this is from a earlier debate but is apt:
But Rockefeller was wrong. He had misjudged conservatives completely.
Which is precisely the pattern of misjudgment that Mitt Romney is exhibiting with every increasing moment he spends campaigning for the very Republican presidential nomination that eluded Nelson Rockefeller.
From the first time we heard about Romney considering running in 2008, we immediately put him in the 'Rockefeller' wing of the Republican Party. His Dad who ran for President was good friends with Bush 41 and the rest of the establishment from the Nixon years. When Romney wanted to give a major speech on his Mormon religion, Bush 41 immediately opened up the Bush Library at A&M for the speech. Did any other candidate get the same treatment? Not at all.
The one thing that is very odd was Senator Jim DeMint endorsing Romney in 2008 who was the 'establishment' candidate and then he goes out in 2010 and supports some candidates who never should have been running they were so far out of mainstream conservatism. Why? Who was DeMint carrying the water? His choices helped ensure that Republicans did not take the Senate as he used the Tea Party Express (TPE) to work the states for the primaries giving us some odd candidates. Does that mean that TPE is working for someone other than the rank and file Tea Party members? Food for thought but when you connect dots that seems to be what you are finding.
When first reading the article that was sent to me, I didn't look that closely at the picture that accompanied the article, but I have now. See if you see a problem with the picture being used for an article written last night:
First of all, Governor Pawlenty has dropped out of the race, and second, Rick Perry, John Huntsman, and Gary Johnson are not included in the photograph. Don't you think when you have an article about voters being pretty satisfied with Republican candidate choices, that you would have a current picture? BTW, this is the fault of the copy desk not the author of the article but the question comes to mind 'WHY' would the person insert this article that leaves out candidates?
Recent efforts to coax New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie into running for president are the latest example of continuing dissatisfaction among some Republican insiders with the existing GOP presidential field. "Unhappy with field, GOP courts Christie," reports MSNBC. Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, called Herman Cain's victory in Saturday's Florida GOP straw poll "a vote of no confidence" in frontrunners Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. "These are very weak frontrunners," Kristol said, urging Christie to enter the race as he had earlier hoped that Mitch Daniels and Paul Ryan would run. John Heilemann, author of the '08 campaign bestseller Game Change, says the feeling is particularly strong among top Republican donors. "There's no doubt that there is a clamor in a lot of the Republican donor class, in this city [New York] and other cities right now, for Chris Christie," Heilemann said Tuesday. "It's deafening."
There's no doubt the talk is accurate. Some Republican elites, not just members of the commentariat but also big GOP money men, are in fact unhappy with the field. But what about the voters? Is dissatisfaction with the Republican field widespread among the people who will actually decide the next GOP presidential nominee?
Not really. "I do not know of any widespread unhappiness," says pollster Scott Rasmussen.
"Our polling shows that the vast majority of Republicans still are not certain how they would vote, but that's a sign that it's still very early in the process, not a sign of unhappiness."
"I'm not sure I've seen any," says Republican pollster David Winston. "There is this sense that since we haven't gotten to a clear, decisive winner, then that means there must be dissatisfaction.
But it could mean that people are still thinking it through."
Anecdotal impressions support what the pollsters say. I have been in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida in recent weeks and talked with a lot of voters. While a few are unhappy with their choices -- there are always some voters who feel that way -- there just does not seem to be much overall dissatisfaction with the field. Voters realize there is no perfect candidate in the race -- that might be an understatement this time around -- but that doesn't mean they believe there is some perfect candidate out there over the horizon, waiting to enter the race.
State-level polling also does not suggest that dissatisfaction is widespread among Republican voters. A recent Suffolk University poll of New Hampshire voters found that 68 percent say they are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the field, while 30 percent say they are very dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied. Breaking down those numbers, 16 percent say they are very satisfied and 52 percent say they are somewhat satisfied with the field. Among dissatisfied voters, 19 percent say they are somewhat dissatisfied, while 11 percent say they are very dissatisfied. Rasmussen says that 11 percent -- the number of people who are most intensely unhappy -- is a very, very small number.
"I am somewhat irritated with the desire to pick a winner now," says Rasmussen. "Most voters still have the quaint notion that the election will be held in 2012, not 2011…My view of the GOP race is that Romney has won the establishment semi-finals by beating Pawlenty and Huntsman. Now, the outsider candidate has to be selected. GOP voters would prefer to vote for an outsider, but want to make sure it's the right outsider, and no one has closed that sale yet. Establishment Republicans (and some Democrats) seem puzzled that GOP voters aren't flocking to Romney, and that's probably causing some of the stories you're hearing about."
The bottom line, then, is that there is a difference between an electorate that is undecided and an electorate that is unhappy with its choices. It may turn out that GOP voters would welcome a new candidate -- few voters will ever tell a pollster that they don't want any more choices -- but that does not mean they are dissatisfied with what they have now. The much-discussed dissatisfaction, such as it is, is concentrated among Republican party insiders, not voters.
There is no better example than how the Republican insiders/establishment are not conservative then their pushing Governor Chris Christie (NJ) to run. As we highlighted in the article below, Christie is not a conservative on most issues. The video from his campaign in October 2009 looks like a Democrat video with all the references to Obama but yet this is the man the insider/establishment wants?
Look at it more in-depth and you discover that Fox News is a willing accomplice with the insiders/establishment types but then Ailes goes back to the Nixon years right along with their group. Is that the tie that binds them all as part of the Rockefeller wing which has become very diminished over the years? That group controls a lot of wealthy donors who want to keep the soft money policy in place, but they don't come close to controlling the votes of rank and file Republican conservatives.
Cannot believe after all these years, we are still seeing that same group from Nixon along with some of their sons trying to control an election once again. Their idea that someone is 'entitled' to run is so wrong in so many ways and what gave us Bob Dole. They want to give us a throw-away candidate so in the next election we can elect someone of their choosing.
When President Reagan was nominated in 1980, it put a massive roadblock in their plans. What did the Nixon group do -- threaten not to support Reagan if he didn't choose George HW Bush for Vice President who was one of the leaders of the Rockefeller wing. That may have been one of the worst mistakes Reagan ever made.
Now this same group is once again trying to choose our nominee. Fortunately, it is not going to happen so they won't get their wish to have a weak candidate so that Jeb Bush can run in 2016. Time for the Rockefeller Republicans to understand they may be wealthy but they do not control the Republican Party at the local level. We can can actually think for ourselves and don't need some guys in a board room telling us how to vote.
If you want an establishment candidate, vote for Romney who is supported by the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party led by Bush 41 with the help of Karl Rove. If you want a candidate who is one of us, conservative, and has a track record of jobs for Texas, then your candidate is Rick Perry. Very simple -- Rockefeller insider types versus the conservatives of the Republican Party. As the sons and daughters of parents who supported Barry Goldwater and then Ronald Reagan, we are now saying to the elitists to get on board or get out of the way as the day of their picking our candidates will NEVER happen again. No more moderate liberals who flip flop need apply to run for President of the United States under the Republican banner.
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!
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 MACKINNONPosted 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."
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.
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 Show
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 partpolitical 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.
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.
When you think that Obama cannot go any lower he manages to do just that with his joke about Governor Perry and the Texas Wildfires. It is getting even more obvious that he is not President of anyone who doesn't believe in what he believes. We are just to be tossed aside.
All you have to do is see Obama's reaction to the blue states with that 'huge' Category I hurricane with declaring it a disaster area before it happened compared to any disaster in Middle America that takes forever to get FEMA involved. Time after time Obama has taken months to declare a disaster area in our part of the Country and several times he has turned down the request to make the Governor's go back with an appeal. His obvious hatred of Red States shows but we are more willing to show him what we think of him and his jokes at the expense of those who lost their homes this year due to wildfires at the ballot box in November 2012. In facs the amount of homes lost due to wildfires this year in TX, NM, AZ, and OK far exceed the homes lost to that "gigantic" Category I hurricane.
While at a highdollar fundraiserSan Jose, California, President Obama ridiculed Rick Perry:
"You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change." Obama said to laughter and applause, and added, "No, no, it’s true!"
“It’s outrageous President Obama would use the burning of 1,500 homes, the worst fires in state history, as a political attack,” Perry spokesman Ray Sullivan said. “This from a president whose nation is financially suffering and his solution is taking more money away from families by raising taxes on families and small businesses.”
Obama once again shows his lack of class which seems to be a habit. Typical Obama with a Government shutdown looming at midnight on the 30th of September that he would be out fundraising using AF One to fly around the Country again. Is the DNC reimbursing the Air Force or is this a question the Obama media refuses to ask?
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?
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.
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!
Had to read The Daily Beast to find what I have been thinking about this race. I have made no bones about it that I don't find Romney a likable person. When he was here in Oklahoma in 2008 at a Town Hall, I found his taking questions only from his Oklahoma paid staff or fellow Mormons disgusting. He has been running for President we know since he left office as Governor of MA after one term in January 2007 which is over four years with no real job and plenty of time to hone his debate skills. Would almost bet he wormed his way in to take over the Utah Olympics which was not hard with the money the Romney family gives to the Mormon Church in order to run for Governor for one term and then President.
In 2008, his time table went off the track as he was repudiated in the primary in favor of Senator McCain. The reasons we found him unlikable in Oklahoma were the same reasons that he lost elsewhere -- too liberal for most Republicans and not the least bit personable.
Once some of us found out in 2008 that Romney was backed by Bush 41 with the help of Karl Rove, we knew he was the establishment Republican candidate and frankly I have had all of them I want to see and that includes the Rove candidate Gov Chris Christie of NJ. When Rove founded Crossroads it was to help candidates but only his establishment type candidates. Others need not apply.
Now we hear the chatter that Indiana moderate Governor Mitch Daniels who worked for Bush 43 wants another candidate in the race who happens to be Rove candidate NJ Governor Christie. Another Rove candidate in the race -- who next Walker of Wisconsin? Daniels has been calling major donors of the GOP to ask them to sit on the sidelines until Christie decides. Rove was a major play in Christie's win for NJ Governor. Guess Rove and Bush 41 are seeing that Romney may not be the answer. We have news for him neither is Christie -- he is too moderate for most of us.
If you are in Oklahoma, you have seen this play out before in the 2004 Oklahoma Senate race with Dr. Coburn. Rove and others in DC cut off Dr. Tom's fundraising in DC as they didn't want him in the Senate because they were afraid he would oppose some of the Bush agenda that was spending too much money on unnecessary programs. The Oklahoma grassroots rose up and told the establishment in DC and OK that we wanted Dr. Tom who won a 3-way primary outright.
One of his opponents even sent out a mailer with a picture of him on the White portico with President Bush in the PRIMARY. Didn't work but it showed that Rove didn't want Coburn. We sent Coburn to DC in spite of Rove and the Bush establishment. Remember in 2010 when Rove got Romney to endorse Kay Bailey in the TX primary for Governor which struck a lot of people odd until you realized she was the Bush Establishment candidate being run by Karl Rove.
Some call Rove a genius, but I prefer underhanded and someone who won't think twice to lying and cheating to tank a candidate he doesn't like. That candidate for years has been Rick Perry and in 2000 it was John McCain.
If you look at Romney's endorsements, you see fellow Mormons, people connected to the Mormon Church by a family member, or a candidate who received big money from Crossroads when they ran in 2010. Pawlenty endorsed Romney AFTER Romney agreed to help him retire his campaign debt. A lot of his staff went to Perry which speaks volumes.
Was wondering when some of the writers at Politico would get back on the Romney bandwagon as some of them worked for him. Detest this Republican establishment mentality that it is someone's turn to run. Who are the Bush 41 Rockefeller establishment people to tell the rest of us who are candidate is going to be. They did it in 1996 before we had the internet. Frankly if I had a do over, knowing what I know now, I might have supported John McCain in 2000. Know what Rove did to McCain in South Carolina was underhanded and it cost him SC. Rove is no conservative but an opportunist who was part of Bush 41 going against President Reagan.
Have said all along that no one from 2008 had any business running, and have not changed my mind.
If Governor Perry gets the nomination and wins the general, this will be the first President since Dwight Eisenhower not to have a group of Bush 41 people in the Administration. Do the research and you will discover that the Bush 41 Rockefeller establishment types have been around since the days they spent in the Richard Nixon years.
Who can possibly really like Romney? He’s like your boss, or the regional supervisor who comes by the office a few times a year. You tolerate him and suck up to him, but the experience is completely phony and awkward. I don’t know him and might have him wrong, but I’d just bet you a dollar that he doesn’t have many real friends. He has partners and associates and a swarm of acolytes who suck up to him because he’s rich. But he comes across as wooden, insincere (in a harmless rather than malevolent way), and totally emotionally unavailable.
Romney reminds me of a programmable droid and that is not a compliment -- feed him the information and out comes his comments. That doesn't even include his membership in the Mormon Church which I cannot get myself to ever vote for someone Mormon again. The Church is way too involved in their campaigns and in getting fellow Mormons on board. We know that from here in Oklahoma!
All in all, the Daily Beast has done a better job of covering this campaign with Romney and Perry then the so-called conservative sites that want everything perfect from a candidate. I think someone doing well in a debate is a waste of time because that doesn't say they can govern. Way too many debates this election and they are still bringing up Gardasil.
If this Fox News debate wasn't a set-up against Perry since Rove works for Fox and their commentators have been after Perry, then I am missing this boat. It was just too programmed to not think that some candidates had a good idea of the questions. The ganging up on a fellow Republican in the debates shows a school yard approach and is demeaning to the candidates pulling that crap. Republican candidates tend to complain about gotcha questions from reporters when they are using the same mentality. These are not honest debates to find out where candidates stand on issues but debates throwing daggars at the frontrunner and helping the Democrats. Romney came across as the school yard bully who has nothing to offer except rhetoric and the fact he is very rich.
It’s Time to Buy Rick Perry Stock
Mitt Romney’s debate “win” won’t erase his evil socialistic Massachusetts history or make him any more likable—and by November 2012, Rick Perry just might not be too extreme or too Texas, says Michael Tomasky.
The conventional wisdom is dumping hard on Rick Perry. Politico blared Friday, in the wake of his fumbling debate performance, that he might already be “Texas toast.” This tells me now is exactly the time to buy Perry stock. The reasons are simple. First, the likelihood that Perry will iron out the wrinkles and become a better debater and candidate over time is greater, and maybe far greater, than the likelihood that Mitt Romney will become more acceptable to conservatives. Second—well, let me save No. 2 for later.
On point one, go read Redstate.com, the house organ of Wingnutistan, where the headline says it all: “Perry Loses the Debate; Romney Wins but Remains Unacceptable for Conservatives.” That still strikes me as the bottom line here. Perry will study his briefing books and refrain from accusing, however accurately, his core constituents of heartlessness. But Romney can’t undo his evil socialistic Massachusetts history. The Redstate blogger wrote: “I don’t care if Perry is soft on immigration and tried to mandate a vaccination through executive order. Romney is the father of socialized medicine in America!”
The conventional counterargument, of course, is that the establishment will circle the wagons around Romney. This might happen. Even Washington conventional wisdom ends up being correct every once in a while. But I can mount a highly plausible counter-counterargument for why it may not. Nothing has happened in these past two and a half years to suggest that this Republican establishment will buck or stand up to the hard right in any way. All we’ve seen these past two years is establishment Republicans accepting one extreme demand after another.My case then extends to the question of who will make up the GOP primary electorate. In my last piece in The New York Review of Books, I cited a very interesting article from National Affairs by Henry Olsen of the American Enterprise Institute. Olsen divides GOP primary voters into two camps—“dispositional conservatives” and “ideological conservatives.” The former, as you’d expect, are less extreme and somewhat less likely than the latter to boo a gay soldier. Olsen writes that the GOP has always chosen the “next in line” candidate because most primary voters have been dispositionals, and he thinks that will hold this time. I’m not as sure. The number of ideologicals has surely grown. If Olsen’s right, then Romney, a next-in-liner if ever there was one, is probably the guy. But if he’s wrong, then there’s every reason to think this logic won’t necessarily hold.
Lastly, my case hinges—and here’s the second reason I’m buying Perry stock today—on the plainly observable fact that Mitt Romney is a really uninteresting and unappealing human being. Now, here, I’m really departing from the CW, because it is usually said by pundits that Romney has more crossover appeal than Perry, and polls tend to support this, although the differences so far are fairly marginal in most polls I see. Perry is said to be too extreme and too Texas. All that might be right.
On the other hand, Perry strikes me as more likely to pass—among Republicans—the old “do I want this man in my living room for the next four years?” test than Romney is.. .. Perry? Well, I find him repugnant, of course, but I’m an East Coast liberal. I’m trying to look at this through others’ eyes. And I think he’s the kind of person Southerners in particular but conservatives everywhere, except maybe in the Northeast, can take a shine to. At least he seems to have some shards of personality.
Out of curiosity, I just Googled “Barack Obama September 22 2007” to see how things were going for him at a similar juncture. Interestingly, he floated a proposal that day to remove the cap from Social Security payroll taxes (then $97,000, now around $107,000). That obviously went nowhere. Jesse Jackson was attacking him for not being vocal enough. A few days before, he skipped an AARP debate in Iowa, the only Democrat to miss it (undoubtedly a few pundits wrote him off for that one). A poll in Iowa a couple of weeks later showed Obama in third place, behind both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
So don’t get carried away. This nomination might not be decided until next May.
This is one Republican conservative who has totally had it with the Bush 41 establishment along with Karl Rove and sincerely hope after this election they find something else to do. If this is about getting Jeb in the race in 2016, this former Bush supporter will work 24/7 for any other candidate. Frankly this entitlement mentality of Bush 41 smells and along with their soft money policy.
Time for new blood in the Republican Party that is not in any way shape or form involved with Bush 41 and who he wants in office. Let this be a new day in Republican politics -- we did it with Dr. Coburn in 2004 to send him to DC and the grassroots can do it again to Bush 41 and Rove to tell them you don't pick our candidates -- those days are gone! This dog and pony show of Rove needs to be closed once and for all. If conservatives don't realize what is happening, then they had better wake-up that Karl Rove is no friend of conservatives and in fact, neither is a lot of Fox News.
Arrogance of NRA is simply stunning - for an organization who used to be about gun safety now the bottom line for gun/ammo manufacturers trumps all as the NRA lobbies for them.
According to Think Progress, “NRA: Practice Range” is billed as a “network of news, laws, facts, knowledge, safety tips, educational materials and online resource” for the organization.The National Rifle Association released a new app on Sunday that includes a gun range equipped with coffin-shaped targets, and the option for players to simulate using a military-grade sniper rifle.
The app includes what it calls “9 true to life firearms,” and allows players to download an MK-11 sniper rifle setting for 99 cents. The rifle can shoot 750 rounds per minute.
Dems/GOP Fighting -- Will they Finally Work Together for the Country? Will replace this image when they do. (11/07/2012)
Quotes
"We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society, but that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this." President Barack Obama, Newtown, CT, 12/16/2012
******
"I don't think that the way to correct a spin from the left is to try to impart a spin from the right.... [A]n information flow distorted from the right would be just as much a disservice as distortion from the left. What we really should be after... is accurate information. And I don't see what any conservative or anybody else for that matter has to fear from accurate information." M. Stanton Evans
******
Former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY)
“For heaven’s sake, you have Grover Norquist wandering the earth in his white robes saying that if you raise taxes one penny, he’ll defeat you,” he told CNN back in May. “He can’t murder you. He can’t burn your house. The only thing he can do to you, as an elected official, is defeat you for reelection. And if that means more to you than your country when we need patriots to come out in a situation when we’re in extremity, you shouldn’t even be in Congress.”
******
"We are are an American family and we rise or fall together as one nation.
John Stuart Mill was a 19th century political philosopher:
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." John Stuart Mill.
Raw Story 
Posts
