Yes, folks, this is the kind of journalistic prowess that earns Fox News the title of "fair and balanced."
It should surprise none of us, really, that all 193% of Republicans support Palin, Huckabee, and Romney.
Nor should it surprise us that dividing a pie equally results in the same sized pieces for 70%, 63%, and 60%.
All 193% of Republicans should be proud of this... as should Rupert Murdoch.
Posts
10 comments:
This brings me back to the most intelligent thing fcc ever posted and that was that Fox News was entertainment and not a bona fide news organization.
Yet the right wingers get their pubes all twisted up in a knot when the president refuses to interact with Fox. Like most hypocrites they want it both ways.
The pie really should have been divided among the 57 states to make the numbers truly accurate.
When you add in the US territories the numbers might add up? I actually ran across the Fox News Boycott website. There seems to be some fellow Americans who have it BAD. Flip the channel.
Palin has become “the Big O” equivalent of the Republican Party and is now greatly feared by the DNC. The constant battering of a woman who holds no office only enhances her standing as a very dangerous populace candidate. She is 35 and an American citizen so undoubtedly she is qualified. She is experiencing the bump in popularity not unlike the way Fox as enjoyed its own rise.
I am experiencing a flashback and seem to be reliving ’76-80. I foresee the DNC challenging the incumbent in ’12 possibly with a Clinton.
I don't think the DNC is a fraid of Palin at all, nor should they be. She would be very easy to beat. And hell, let Cheney run, too (like he supposedly claimed to be interested in doing). That'd be one fucked up duo.
And what Clinton would that be, Dragonfly? Bill cannot run; Hillary is on the president's staff; Chelsea won't be old enough? Maybe George?
George already has his theme song("Paint the White House Black") and I have never been that beholden to "Hail to the Chief"(even that sentiment is unConstitutional, the Presidency was supposed to be such a humble position). I really don't see how he could be any worse than the meglomaniacs we get now.
verification word: diabl(o)
That would be Hillary of course. You don't believe she wouldn't give it a try if things become Carter-like do you CSM? She would be the most qualified candidate to defeat a Palin.
I have been quite involved with the DNC in my Washington for years. The DNC is more fearful of Palin than any other candidate out there at the moment.
Its about likeability, not qualification. Big O has proven that point but when the novelty wears off then what?
We don't attack the ones we don't fear.
Have a great turkey day.
Thanks, Mike, you enjoy your Thanksgiving, too!
President Obama is far from being Carter-like, at this point. Of course, it is only 1 year into his term, so things could change. Right now, though, I don't see any viable challengers to a second term for the president. The Rep line is too much "anything the president does is wrong" and that won't win an election. But, like I inferred above, 3 years is a long time.
The Big O is very much like Carter is SO many aspects. His sudden burst on the scene being the first mark of Carterness with the new O. I recall the “trust me” mantra from Carter was quite the hit reminiscent of the Big O with hope and change. There foreign policy is almost undistinguishable. Carter was completely lost during his entire in office and was soft and clueless. The Big O is definitely viewed in the same light. I do respect the Big O for attempting to redefine our image in the world but his tactics are way off. In reality any sign of weakness is a trigger for the bullying elements in the world arena. A soft and friendly image does not make friends as in your college days. It brings aggression and strengthens the confidence of the opportunist in the world arena. It has never worked and it will not work now but I afraid this is his personality just as it was Carters.
Well, Mike, you are, of course, entitled to your opinions. I disagree, at least as of today. Where is this aggression of which you speak? I don't see it. There was more aggression against us in W's first year than in President Obama's first year. And the weakness of which you speak is only in some people's minds. There are no world leaders calling him weak. On the contrary, the world is embracing him, as shown by his Nobel peace prize (somewhat early IMHO, but evidently not in the opinion of those that matter).
Post a Comment