FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpts: "...Obama could be heading for a landslide victory in 2012. How to explain such a turnaround? ...there is one compellingly simple, two-word answer: Fox News."

A Republican supporter sports a Newt Gingrich badge. 'In the days before he broke from the pack, Gingrich topped the Fox News airtime chart.' (photo: Michael Nagle/Getty Images)
A Republican supporter sports a Newt Gingrich badge. 'In the days before he broke from the pack, Gingrich topped the Fox News airtime chart.' (photo: Michael Nagle/Getty Images)



How Fox News Is Helping Barack Obama's Re-election Bid

By Jonathan Freedland, Guardian UK

16 December 11

 

hoever wrote the political rulebook needs to start rewriting it. It used to be an iron maxim that voters' most vital organ was neither their head nor their heart, but their wallet. If they were suffering economically, they'd throw the incumbents out. Yet in Britain a coalition presiding over barely-there growth, rising unemployment and forecasts of gloom stretching to the horizon is holding steady in the opinion polls, while in the US Barack Obama is mired in horrible numbers – except for the ones showing him beating all-comers in the election now less than 11 months away. Even though the US economy is slumped in the doldrums, some of the country's shrewdest commentators make a serious case that Obama could be heading for a landslide victory in 2012.

How to explain such a turnaround? In the United States, at least, there is one compellingly simple, two-word answer: Fox News.

By any normal standards, Obama should be extremely vulnerable. Not only is the economy in bad shape, he has proved to be a much more hesitant, less commanding White House presence than his supporters longed for. And yet, most surveys put him comfortably ahead of his would-be rivals. That's not a positive judgment on the president – whose approval rating stands at a meagre 44% – but an indictment of the dire quality of a Republican field almost comically packed with the scandal-plagued, gaffe-prone and downright flaky. And the finger of blame for this state of affairs points squarely at the studios of Fox News.

It's not just usual-suspect lefties and professional Murdoch-haters who say it, mischievously exaggerating the cable TV network's influence. Dick Morris, veteran political operative and Fox regular, noted the phenomenon himself the other day while sitting on the Fox sofa. "This is a phenomenon of this year's election," he said. "You don't win Iowa in Iowa. You win it on this couch. You win it on Fox News." In other words, it is Fox – with the largest cable news audience, representing a huge chunk of the Republican base – that is, in effect, picking the party's nominee to face Obama next November.

This doesn't work crudely – not that crudely, anyway. Roger Ailes, the Fox boss, does not deliver a newspaper-style endorsement of a single, anointed candidate. Rather, some are put in the sunlight, and others left to moulder in the shade. The Media Matters organisation keeps tabs on what it calls the Fox Primary, measuring by the minute who gets the most airtime. It has charted a striking correlation, with an increase in a candidate's Fox appearances regularly followed by a surge in the opinion polls. Herman Cain and Rick Perry both benefited from that Fox effect, with Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker, the latest: in the days before he broke from the pack, Gingrich topped the Fox airtime chart. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney cannot seem to break through a 20-to-25% ceiling in the polls – hardly surprising considering, as the league table shows, he has never been a Fox favourite.

But it works in a subtler way than the mere degree of exposure. Fox, serving up constant outrage and fury, favours bluster over policy coherence. Its ideal contributor is a motormouth not a wonk, someone who makes good TV rather than good policy. Little wonder it fell for Cain and is swooning now for Gingrich – one of whom has never held elected office while the other messed up when he did, but who can talk and talk – while it has little interest in Romney and even less in Jon Huntsman, even though both have impressive records as state governors. The self-described conservative journalist Andrew Sullivan says that the dominant public figures on the right are no longer serving politicians, but "provocative, polarising media stars" who serve up enough controversy and conflict to keep the ratings high. "In that atmosphere, you need talk-show hosts as president, not governors or legislators."

Fox News and what Sullivan calls the wider "Media Industrial Complex" have not only determined the style of the viable Republican presidential candidate, but the content too. If one is to flourish rather than wither in the Fox spotlight, there are several articles of faith to which one must subscribe – from refusing to believe in human-made climate change, and insisting that Christians are an embattled minority in the US, persecuted by a liberal, secular, bi-coastal elite, to believing that government regulation is always wrong, and that any attempt to tax the wealthiest people is immoral. Those who deviate are rapidly branded foreign, socialist or otherwise un-American.

Some wonder if it was fear of this ultra-conservative catechism that pushed a series of Republican heavyweights to sit out 2012. "The talent pool got constricted," says David Frum, the former George W Bush speechwriter who has been boldest in speaking out against the Foxification of his party. Fox sets a series of litmus tests that not every Republican can or wants to pass.

This affects those who run as well as those who step aside, setting the parameters within which a Republican candidate must operate. What troubles Frum is that it pushes Republicans to adopt positions that will make them far less appealing to the national electorate in November, with Romney's forced march rightward typical. Even if Romney somehow wins the nomination, he won't be "the pragmatic, problem-solving Mitt Romney" of yore, says Frum, but a new Foxified version. It was this process that led the former speechwriter to declare last year: "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us – and now we're discovering we work for Fox."

So far, so bad for the Republicans. Why should anyone else care? Because the Fox insistence on unbending ideological correctness turns every compromise – a necessary staple of governance – into an act of treachery. The Republican refusal, cheered on by a Fox News chorus, to raise the US debt ceiling this summer, thereby prompting the downgrading of America's credit rating, is only the most vivid example. The larger pattern is one of stubborn, forced gridlock, paralysing the republic even now, at a moment of global economic crisis.

The problem is compounded by a wilful blindness towards the facts. Ari Rabin-Havt of Media Matters says Fox has created a "post-truth politics", which is happy to ignore and distort basic empirical evidence. To take one example, Fox pundits constantly repeat that "53% of Americans pay all the tax". In fact, 53% pay all the federal income tax – but many, many more pay so-called payroll taxes. It's hard for a nation to make the right policy decisions if the public is misled on the basic facts. And misled they certainly are. A series of surveys has proven that Fox viewers are woefully ignorant of current affairs, the latest study revealing that it is actually better to consume no news than to watch Fox: you end up better informed.

The extremism, anger, paranoia and sense of victimhood that Fox incubates are all unhealthy for the United States. But it's inflicting particular damage on the Republican party, which could well lose a winnable election because of its supine relationship to a TV network. It turns out it is not liberals who should fear the Fox – it's conservatives.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+99 # MainStreetMentor 2011-12-16 09:42
At this juncture, the ONLY thing that would guarantee a victory for the Democratic Party in 2012 is: A conviction of a CEO of a major Wall Street banking firm.

An announcement of an indictment against a CEO of a major Wall Street banking firm would ignite the imagination of the public who have been financially raped by Wall Street banking.

A “rolling, on-going” investigation, (massively covered in the media), would help build the momentum.

An arrest of such an individual would help assure the backing of the public for the Democratic cause.

A conviction would solidify and guarantee a Democrat victory in the 2012 elections.

But … the fact remains: We’d still have a spineless, weak, rhetoric-spewin g, over-compromisi ng corporate sycophant in the White House. But … even THAT is better than having a RepubTeacan occupy that edifice.
 
 
+46 # Doubter 2011-12-16 11:42
It is getting tiresome to have to choose between "the lesser of two evils."
 
 
+85 # MEBrowning 2011-12-16 11:56
Much as I would love to see that happen, I doubt very much it ever will. The Republicans in Congress are literally bought and paid for by the very people who are trying to bring this country down for their own greedy benefit. The Wall Street perps will never be brought to justice.

The FCC is also to blame for perpetrating the likes of Fox News, Clear Channel and other nefarious media giants who prefer spewing propaganda and inventing crises to providing actual news and information. The FCC allowed conglomerates like Fox and Clear Channel to consolidate thousands of media outlets around the U.S. -- radio, TV, billboards, etc. -- thereby cornering the market on "news." The result is far less local news, blatantly false insinuations, and a gargantuan mouthpiece to foment fear and lies. And the saddest thing is, try to talk to a faithful follower of Fox News. They just don't get how they're being hoodwinked. I know one gentlemen, a survivor of Nazi Germany, who is glued to Fox News every night for two hours and believes nothing he doesn't hear on Fox.

Wall Street CEOS should be brought to justice. But even before that, I would love to see Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes tarred, feathered, and run out of the U.S. on a rail.
 
 
-60 # John Locke 2011-12-16 12:13
Yes Obama will likely win by default, and we will have another 4 devasting years of this imperialist puppet...
 
 
+16 # Billy Bob 2011-12-16 14:43
I don't understand why MainStreetMento r got so many thumbs up and you got so many thumbs down for saying the same thing.
 
 
+20 # Dukester 2011-12-16 17:47
Billy Bob- maybe Diebold is tracking the thumbs up/down.
 
 
+29 # NOMINAE 2011-12-16 17:49
@ Billy Bob

The difference is subtle, but important. MainStreetMento r is essentially saying that Obama is a bum, but he's "our bum".

John Locke apparently considers Obama a "bum" with no other redeeming attributes.

Both are valid and rational perspectives, depending upon their authors' points of view, the expression of which is what these online forums are supposed to be all about.

However, the reason for the dramatic difference in the "thumbs up/down" that you note above is simply that people responding to this article are not inclined to consider, or to even allow, an opinion that does not parrot their own.

Thus, the RSN comment thread that follows most articles becomes an "echo chamber" more similar to, than differentiated from, the very right wing echo chamber that everyone is so understandably unhappy with.

Popular gut-level *sentiments* are applauded, unpopular expressions are boo-ed. Thoughtful discourse itself be damned.
 
 
+2 # Rita Walpole Ague 2011-12-19 08:09
Yes, indeed. Corp. sychophants in W.H. and Congress.

Take off the blinders we must, and recognize that our only HOPE for CHANGE is to say no to candidates from both parties, not merely 'damn a Dem. but vote for them'. Why so?

Your term 'corporate sycophant in the White House' says it all. No mere accident the Faux News is spinning we the sheeple with hype re. OhBombAh's coming landslide. Our villainaire rulers know well that none of the G.O.P. losers they've been distracting us with have a chance in hell of winning. The rulers want their boy, OhBombAh - a continuation of their puppet whore "W" - to return for another four years of more war, war, war for oil, oil, oil, and no real change to the evilrulers' total control of everything and everyone.

Only hope we have? Mass turnout of the 99%ers for an Independent such as Sanders, a non-bought Dem. such as Kucinich, or a fully tested vs. promising third party candidate.

It's far from over - plenty of time before the 2012 election next Nov. to experience a massive surge against the villianaire 1%ers and their candidates, and a recognition that huge ad campaigns, financed by the villainaires, are mere spinning. Candidates for pres. and congress and states offices who say no to such 'Kochsucking' buyouts may just pull it off in '12, providing we can get such 99%er serving people to run and announce their candidacy in a timely nad truthful manner.
 
 
+93 # Bill Clements 2011-12-16 11:11
Excellent piece, Mr. Freedland! So friendly Mr. Fox is actually rabid? Actually, many of us have long ago noticed the drool that comes from Fox News. It has also not escaped our attention that those conservatives who have repeatedly cavorted with the Fox are all exhibiting advanced symptoms of having been bitten, i.e., delirium and hallucinations or, in other words, an extreme unbending ideology. Karma does, in fact, exact it's price eventually.
 
 
+35 # Swamib 2011-12-16 11:12
The Republican Party deserves to deconstruct, and good riddance. But the Democrats are only better by degrees, and not that many degrees at that.

Speaking about "willful blindness toward the facts," progressives need to wake up to the potential for stolen and fixed elections a la 2000 and 2004 (see respected journalist Mark Crispin Miller's work on this). The Republicans -- because they more and more represent an obsolete world view can ONLY win by cheating. We should be aware of this.

And maybe, just maybe, 2012 is the year when we abandon that other party, the Democrats, in favor of a third wave party that combines the most functional aspects of progressive and conservative (freedom and responsibility, pulling the plug on the Fed, replacing the income tax with a tax on speculative transactions). Think it can't happen?

Just watch ...
 
 
+26 # Bill Clements 2011-12-16 11:41
Yes, I agree with you that 1) Democrats are only better by degrees and 2) stolen and fixed elections are a serious threat, not to mention new voting rights restrictions in states like Florida and Tennessee.

Would love to believe we will see a third wave party emerge in 2012 as farfetched as it may seem.
 
 
+10 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-16 16:16
Bill Clements: It can happen but someone like you or another intelligent poster needs to initiate it to make it happen. this is how the Protesters became a movement and people are paying attention.
Who would have believed that TIME magazine would label them as "Most Important" and feature them as they are doing.
 
 
+4 # Bill Clements 2011-12-17 12:08
dorianb: my point was only that, to date, we have not managed to create a viable third party capable of SERIOUSLY challenging this thoroughly broken two party system. However, I am certainly not discounting the possibility of such a thing in the future, despite what seems like formidable odds. On the other hand, we can see, as you point out, that unexpected things do occur. Whether they realize it or not, all three branches of government are doing their part to hasten much needed reforms.
 
 
+15 # bugbuster 2011-12-16 12:03
If memory serves, we have heard the same third-party dream articulated in every presidential election since at least 1976. None has reached double digits at the polls yet. I'll believe the third-party scenario when I see it.
 
 
+19 # bugbuster 2011-12-16 12:06
Excellent points, Mr. Freedland. Public resistance to the influence of Fox News' propaganda machine may be the best predictor of whether there will still be a USA as we know it in 2050.
 
 
+9 # Shipton 2011-12-16 12:12
We can only hope!
 
 
+12 # John Locke 2011-12-16 12:14
yes it is time to abandon the republican and democratic parties and create a peoples party...
 
 
+4 # Dukester 2011-12-16 12:42
Yes Swamib,there is now an alternative to the two parties of corporate corruption/owne rship. Rocky Anderson, former Mayor of Salt Lake City and a prominent Democrat that is defecting from the DINO Party, has announced he is running against Obama and the Repug candidate for Prez. Read up on him and see if he is not the best thing for true Progressives (not DINOs) in a long time and has the guts to speak for working folks. Go Rocky.
 
 
+2 # Headzzzup 2011-12-16 21:22
[quote name="Dukester" ]Yes Swamib,there is now an alternative to the two parties of corporate corruption/owne rship. Rocky Anderson, former Mayor of Salt Lake City and a prominent Democrat that is defecting from the DINO Party, has announced he is running against Obama"

I’m now planning on voting for the Justice Party candidate for Pres. In our “Republic” our elected representatives are only bound to the candidate we have voted for during the initial round of voting. They can then switch to any other candidate – the Justice Party wouldn’t switch to any Repugnantcan candidate. So, we wouldn’t be defeating Obama, but we would be sending a message to those in the government that we truly demand change and the Justice/Peoples party would be launched – possibly to begin the greatly needed shift.

I’m researching that electing the Pres is the way I said above. Comments welcome.
 
 
+5 # chick 2011-12-17 10:07
Headzzzup you most certainly would be helping the Republican party win again.

And then the only way to stop the Republicans would be a civil war. Not like the peacefull movement of the OWS but a bloody real civil war.

Obama has never had a strong Democratic congress to back him up and when he does cave it is because he is thinking of the hundreds of thousands of American that would suffer if he did not give in some things to the Repugs.

What he needs is a strong and powerfull 100% Democrats in the Congress so he does not have to give in some things to the Repugs.
What you people are suggesting will only weaken the Democratic party and enable the republicans to win again and we will start going back to the laws of 1889.

Thank you but no thanks.
 
 
-3 # Dukester 2011-12-17 12:21
Obama is a corporatist in his actions but not in his speeches. The argument that he needs more Dems is bogus. He took more money from Wall Street than McCain and it paid off handsomely for the banksters. Obama voluntarily picked Geithner, Summers, kept Gates, etc. when he came into office with a mandate from voters to stop Wall Street crimes, end the wars, etc. Now he is leading in taking Wall Street contributions/b ribes again. Fool me once.........
 
 
+3 # Dukester 2011-12-16 12:57
Progressive Rocky Anderson is running for Prez as a candidate for the Justice Party.
 
 
+23 # Feral Dogz 2011-12-16 11:30
As long as the !% can buy their get out of jail free cards from whoever holds public office or sits on the judicial benches, it doesn't matter who wins an election. Campaign finance reform and judicial accountability must precede any hope for meaningful change in the disastrous direction our great experiment has taken. As long as those who have the most money get to control "free speech", democracy is doomed and there will be no justice for anyone but the rich.
 
 
+21 # Archie1954 2011-12-16 11:53
Unfortunately the only thing this article tells me is that the great bulk of American voters are simply pliable fools.
 
 
+10 # George Kennedy 2011-12-16 12:00
A Democratic victory of whatever margin in 2012 could be hollow at best. Imagine if the Republicans retain their majority in the House and just capture a few more seats in the Senate. They will still refuse to work with Obama 2 and we will be left to wonder if Obama will finally chose to lead or continue to compromise in an attempt to create a legacy - at our expense. Democrats on the Hill are no match for Republican intransigence and neither is the President. The 2016 campaign will begin the day after the November 2012 elections with a much stronger slate of Republican candidates who will spend the next 4 years assaulting a White House prone to compromise, timidity, criticizing its base. While Obama may be the lessor evil, how much better off will we actually be? Just asking.
 
 
+5 # chick 2011-12-17 10:14
The only way the Republicans will have a stronger party is if some of these people believe voting for a third party is the right thing.

Sorry most Democrats are decent people while most Repugs are horrible people.

If Obama has the support of the congress
Democrats) we will be able to get rid of a lot of those horrible laws they have enacted.

However this can only happen if we do not break up our party and start voting a third party in.

You darn well know the Repugs will vote in droves for all Republicans and that just may be the one to win.

God Forbid.
 
 
+40 # Linda 2011-12-16 12:17
Another idiot Ron Paul supporter who doesn't understand that jumping ship for a third party candidate ,"a Republican at that," would take the votes away from Obama insuring the Republican parties victory .
If Republican's win this election we will be stuck with a Republican Supreme Court for centuries to come .
Some of you sat at home in 2010 and the results were these Tea Baggers in Congress trying to make all sorts of crazy laws while the Republican corporation bought Justices made corporations people essentially able to buy a candidate .
Haven't you learned a lesson from that !Whether you like what Obama has done as president isn't as important as the alternative if you allow the Republican's to win .
We stand a chance of evening up those odds if Obama wins and appoints two more Democratic justices to replace those who will be retiring !
What we need to do is get rid of the Bluedogs and replace them with Liberal Democrats and vote real Democrat's to Congress ,the Senate and governors and mayors in our states . This is how the Tea Baggers came to Washington and changed laws in their states . We have to vote smart not stupid !
The President doesn't make the laws Congress and the Senate does as well as the mayors and governors in the states . If Obama had a clear majority in both houses of left leaning Democrats he would have to move further to the left .
 
 
+25 # julileegal 2011-12-16 14:26
The entire house of representatives will be up for election in Nov 2012. Let's vote all the Tea-bagger-hear tless-Republica ns OUT!
 
 
-18 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-16 16:24
What continent do you live on, Linda? Obama is a failure as POTUS! He is as attached to WS and the "big moneyed lobbyists" and supporters as any Republican. He is the reason the "Tea Baggers" who are fascist morons have come into power. How can you not see this? Voting for the lesser of two evils is a cop out and it's disgraceful that he has brought our country to this alternative. BTW, what about the most recent police state law he just signed???
 
 
+9 # chick 2011-12-17 10:21
I think you are the one living in a different continent.
If Obama had not done when he became president we would have gone over the hill.
If you think he is as Republican as the others how come they don't cheer him? They certainly were for Cain who is also black.

No they came after him because he has tried time again to do the right thing.

If he did what they wanted they would have cheered him and welcomed him, so you are entirely wrong. Do you think he had a magic wand to just turn everything around?

What he need is a strong Democratic Congress behind him, and what some of you are suggesting voting for a third party will just weaken the Democratic party and help the Republicans to win.

God Forbid.
 
 
+12 # Bill Clements 2011-12-17 13:09
From my perspective, a strong Democratic Congress would be a Congress comprised of people like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, etc. Deeply principled individuals with integrity who know why they're there: to serve ALL the people, not just the wealthy 1% and the corporations.

You can not lay all the blame for Obama's failures on a weak Democratic Congress or even Republicans in Congress. Obama the candidate has simply not turned out to be the same person that we see now that he's president.

From the outset, for example, many of us were immediately alarmed and disappointed when we saw him choose the likes of Summers and Geithner (Robert Rubin clones) as part of his economic team. These people have never been committed to jobs and the American worker! On the contrary, their primary concern was Wall Street. Moreover, Obama pretty much ignored those in his administration like Christina Romer and Paul Volker. Watch the documentary Inside Job; it's an eye-opener.
 
 
+12 # MylesJ 2011-12-16 12:34
so how come the three most long term "FOX" candidates got a total of 28% of the Iowa vote??

the most votes were for Ron Paul with 23%. Fox headline then states that Paul had jumped into second place. even when a guy gets the votes he still doesn't win on Fox, whether his name is Gore or Paul
 
 
+39 # Buddha 2011-12-16 12:43
I long for the days of the sane Conservative, guys like Eisenhower. They were pragmatists and charted a course that they saw best for our nation, not one that had to conform to ideological purity and involved no compromise. For example, Eisenhower got our nation to build its interstate highway system. Can you imagine today's anti-government anti-infrastruc ture GOP politician supporting something like this?
 
 
+10 # Glen 2011-12-16 15:12
Sadly, Buddha, those days are gone. The U.S. has been taken over by something more than the system most were familiar with. Even the parties are bogus and a lie. The system has nothing more than game players with ulterior motives beyond the healthy workings of the country as a whole or its citizens.

I continue to mull over the reason for it all, beyond the obvious.
 
 
+6 # X Dane 2011-12-18 01:27
Unfortunately Glen, when big corporations and some very rich people pour out enough money,to get what they want, we all, and the country suffers.

They are NOT Americans for they don't give a damn, that they are weekening the country, and McCain and the other hawks are helping them. Our country is bleeding to death with all the right wing wars, and still they are itching to start a war with Iran.

Our poor men and women in the military are killing them selves at a greater rate than our enimies. It is a tragedy and disgrace,
Of course there is no money for education, so China, India and Brazil are zooming ahead of us. They don't need to fight us, They can just wait and pick up the pieces, when the country crumbles.
 
 
+19 # wfalco 2011-12-16 15:51
Quoting Buddha:
I long for the days of the sane Conservative, guys like Eisenhower. They were pragmatists and charted a course that they saw best for our nation, not one that had to conform to ideological purity and involved no compromise. For example, Eisenhower got our nation to build its interstate highway system. Can you imagine today's anti-government anti-infrastructure GOP politician supporting something like this?


Hell...I long for the days of Richard Nixon. No emphasis on cutting social programs and he was an environmental liberal.
His scandal (Watergate) pales in comparison to what Junior Bush did with Iraq-nearly 4500 Americans dead and untold thousands of Iraqis massacred... for what? Of course I am aware of the atrocities of Vietnam,Laos, and Cambodia on Dick's watch. But he inherited Vietnam.
We fail to realize how far right we have fallen when the Dickster can be viewed as a liberal.
 
 
-10 # Jerry 2011-12-16 12:53
If the Republicans can only get outrageous people nominated, then Obama's insertion of presidential power to disappear U.S. citizens without recourse to the courts into the Defense funding bill was a stroke of genius. With no cogent Republican opposition, the only threat to his presidency was the liberal electorate setting on their hands come election time. His betrayal of American values makes that unlikely if the liberals fear for their own safety if a radical Republican should be elected. It makes it a little more risky for liberals to set on their hands at election time. I wonder if the strategy was ingrained in him by his heritage. Blacks must be outraged by society's denigrating their race, affording them unequal protection under the law. Obama may see exempting U.S. citizens from presidential power to disappear them as treating foreign visitors as second class people, and therefore, as the defender of the powerless, decided to make the proposed power applicable to all. It may be just happenstance that doing so enhances his and future Democrat candidates election potential.
 
 
+12 # julileegal 2011-12-16 14:28
Let's hope the election won't have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
 
 
+14 # bugbuster 2011-12-16 12:53
What we do know is that ideology has a dumbing-down effect of everybody, left and right. Specifically, it predisposes one to overlook or minimize downsides of policies and behaviors by their own ideological kind. It's the same thing that makes one side of the football stadium cheer and the other boo when watching the same play.
 
 
+6 # Tom Camfield 2011-12-16 13:44
Like Clinton, Obama feels our pain. That's where he's coming from. Where are these Republican hopefuls coming from?
 
 
+2 # X Dane 2011-12-18 01:39
HELL,... and I wish they would go back.
 
 
+16 # pernsey 2011-12-16 14:09
"A series of surveys has proven that Fox viewers are woefully ignorant of current affairs, the latest study revealing that it is actually better to consume no news than to watch Fox: you end up better informed."

So true, they are void of facts, and throw out lies as catch phrases that their faithful followers regurgitate back up as facts. Fair and Balanced is an opposite mantra for Fox News really is, they are more apt to be dishonest and void of any facts. They lie...anyone who thinks they dont are being mislead by them and brainwashed. On the upside, maybe the Teabaglicans will have to revamp and get out of the opinion news and back into the real world not the one Rupert Murdoch has created for them, that is now destroying them.

They are in opposite world when Fox News says its:

Fair and Balanced it means we are lying out our asses.

No Spin it means we are spinning everything out our asses.

The real news you can bet they are lying and making things up that will tickle the ears of their faithful veiwers. No truth but just lying out their asses.

Look at Ruperts world...Greedy One Percent Party time, and its not so excellent! Hes crazy like a Fox news report.
 
 
+2 # X Dane 2011-12-18 01:56
He is pernsey, He has all these blond bimbos spewing venom. And people are so mesmerized by them, that they don't REALLY listen to all the lies, it sort of seeps in. They are getting brainwahed.
Or rather their brains are getting annihilated.
 
 
-5 # GeeRob 2011-12-16 14:23
When I vote for Obama next fall, and I will, it will be the first time that I ever knowingly vote Republican.
 
 
+2 # chick 2011-12-17 10:30
GeeRon I cannot understand you. How in the Dickens can you call Obama a Republican.

The Republicans would love him and back him all the way. You know darn well they do not. And not because he is black (they so loved Cain until his (sexy woman appeared). But because he has fought for the 99%. Some times caving in on some things only to get the good things passed because that was the only way he could could get it.
 
 
+9 # futhark 2011-12-16 14:42
By pushing duds like Newt and Willard "Mitt" Romney toward the Republican nomination, Fox is guaranteeing a win for Obama, no matter how little change he effects or how little hope he really offers.
 
 
+5 # BradFromSalem 2011-12-16 15:03
As John Lennon sang,

"I'm sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

I've had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of Tricky Dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope

I'm sick to death of seeing things
From tight-lipped, condescending, mama's little chauvinists
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth now

I've had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of Tricky Dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
It's money for dope
Money for rope "

The Tricky Dick is not as dated as one may think, in fact the line was truly prophetic. Ailes first proposed the concept of privately owned propaganda based TV as a mean to manipulate the masses.
 
 
+11 # Dukester 2011-12-16 19:01
Thom Hartmann tells of how Rupert Murdoch went to Dick Nixon (to pitch the propaganda RW news)and suggested calling it "GOP News", but it ended up as Fox News (really closer to Faux News).
 
 
+7 # tomo 2011-12-16 22:23
I don't think the Guardian has a clue to the underlying dynamic of American politics. The oligarchy that sponsors American elections will do all it can--which is almost guaranteed to be enough--to see that the candidate who will be most compliant to the oligarchy will be inaugurated at the White House in 2012. No one in all previous American history has turned over the keys of the federal treasury to the oligarchy as Barack Obama has. Barack Obama will be inaugurated in 2012.
 
 
+3 # RMDC 2011-12-17 12:47
Tomo is right. Whoever is installed in the Whore House in 2012 will be the worst of all possible candidates for the 99% of the world's people. That's called American democracy.
 
 
-3 # RMDC 2011-12-17 12:44
I don't buy this argument about Fox. It is a vicious pack of jackels that can can only snarl and yip.

The big banks are backing Obama because he can keep the liberals in the population and congress quiet and in line. If there were a republican in the Whore House, there would be 10 times the protest and a real rebellion might actually be at hand. The liberal imperialist keeps the same policies going but gives some appearance of decency and legitimacy to the same old murder, theft, aggression, and corruption.

The big banks, CIA, and Pentagon are working for the same strategy they pulled off in 1996 when the Republican nominated a viagra charged up Bob Dole to run against Bill Clinton. The fascists wanted Clinton because he was doing their work and keeping the whole world quiet about it. The senile but erect Bob Dole was the perfect loser, someone who referred to himself in the third person.

So we will get another republican loser who will go down to Obama. But Obama deserves to be dumped because he is a tool of the fascists on Wall Street and the Pentagon. He campaigned by raising people's hopes that the really horrible policies of Cheney could be reversed. Obama has not reversed any of them. He has made them even worse than Cheney ever could have because Cheney had no credibility or legitimacy. Dump Obama. Who cares what republican replaces him? Let the full scale rebellion begin against a Newt.
 
 
+5 # tm7devils 2011-12-17 12:45
# julileegal 2011-12-16 12:28
Let's hope the election won't have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
****************************************
It's a common mistake, but I need to call your attention to the fact that you used an incorrect word - since 2000(or earlier) SCOTUS is known as the "Subprime" Court...and it will be known as such until the three remaining members that are traitors(Thomas , Scalia and Kennedy)quit or are replaced...hope fully by people of higher moral & ethical character!
 
 
0 # noitall 2011-12-18 12:51
What about the other two that comprise the majority? Are they conservative-le aning lemmings?
 
 
+1 # noitall 2011-12-18 13:15
Even if Obama ran on the Republican ticket he'd win. Given the number of Repubs that are sick of the current Republidiots; those Dems that are so sick of Obama's lies and broken promises that they'll probably not vote or vote for 'Alfred E. Newman'; those delusional diehards that love Bama and will vote for him regardless, "because of the good that he's BOUND to do in his last term"; he'll win a lot of support from both "parties" (believe it or not) with his signing of the XL Pipeline and his "strong Homeland Security posture"; from both parties (many Dems still see OWS as a bunch of minorities, hippies, and lazy kids skipping school to screw in tents), and his cowtowing to the "don't tax the poor rich folk" crowd. One thing for sure, it would have little effect on the disappointing (and cowardly fearful) 'Democrat Party'. If the unlikely, impossible, happened, who would the Dems run? Hillary? Biden? One thing you could bet, you wouldn't get anything different; the lowest common denominator, good cop/bad cop, the same bland, inane 'TV shows' will continue to crank out as re-runs.
 
 
-2 # flippancy 2011-12-20 08:41
If you bother to checkfacts, you'll see that Obama has actually fulfilled most of his promises and the ones he hasn't are a result of Republican filibusters.

Very nearly 100% of all our economic problems were caused by Republican policies, the very same ones that caused the panic of 1893 and he great depression. The slow (but steady) job creation has been held down by Republicans filibustering 44 jobs creation bills from the Pelosi House.

Certainly Obama has his faults, mostly from either weakness in standing up to the corruption of the entire Republican party or his continuing Bush policies. So, fault him for that, but understand that every Republican is infinitely worse.

The only way we will ever recover is to make certain that Republicans have no say in anything political until they have purged the wingnut component and the corrupt politicans who filibuster everything and who consistently vote FOR pollution and against tax increases on the 1%. In fact the 1% were surveyed and 68% of them said the taxes should be raised, so the only people they're representing are the Kock brother corrupt element.

There are only 5 reasons to vote Republican: Ignorance, stupidity, Insanity, bigotry and greed.
 
 
+1 # mrsmartcus 2011-12-19 16:14
Will Comedy Central become the source of information of choice, out foxxing the conservative id[iot]ologues?
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN