I am often critical of people on FOX news. Many of their "stars," including Greta and sometimes Hannity, are mainly interested in getting viewers rather than providing solid information. Notice Greta's continual comments on how this-or-that "is really going to raise your blood pressure . . . or get you angry."
Frankly, raising the national blood pressure may cause more heart attacks, but it's not going to remove Obama from power. Organizing, calling our congressional representatives, donating money to conservative causes (e.g., www.sarahpac.com) are what will end the national nightmare.
For FOX or anyone else to suggest otherwise is just game-playing.
Rush gave Greta a thumping the other night when she expressed her silly "hope" that Obama's Stimulus package, which she apparently knows nothing about, will work. Rush basically told her that a vague "hope" is for losers, and he's right.
As for Geraldo, who's a pro-illegals leftist with a history of grandstanding, he should not be on FOX or anything else. Anyone who spend one minute of his or her time watching "Geraldo" needs to find more productive things to do. There is not a conservative bone in Geraldo's body.
There are some great young people on FOX -- one is Patty Ann Browne on the Beck show, another is Greg Gutfield on their weekend late show, and others are Andrea Tantaros and S. E. Cupp -- but there many other big shots interested more in making millions than in winning the battle for America.
Showing posts with label FOX News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FOX News. Show all posts
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Why Some Conservatives Dislike Palin
Why do some conservatives -- including a couple who appear on FOX -- dislike Sarah Palin? Part of its traces back to the time McCain named her as his V-P choice. Both liberal and conservative journalist's got caught with their pants down. Their refrain might have been, "Why didn't anybody tell in advance, so we could have put her on our 'short list'?"
At the Glenn Beck rally in San Antonio, Janine Turner (my long-time heroine) gave tremendous support for Sarah Palin, and the most recognizable signs at many rallies were "ReadMyLipstick" in regard to Sarah and taxes.
O'Reilly cited the Politco poll that showed her with fairly high negatives, but that survey is very suspect since Jonathan Martin, head of Politico, is no fan of Sarah's. Hannity likes Sarah; Beck does (partly because he has a special needs child), and so obviously does Greta. FOX really loves the dour Mark Sanford, who has no chance of being elected to anything outside of SC.
Some at FOX may fear Sarah because she's a (shudder) Republican and governs as a (double shudder) centrist. She's not a gay-basher (far from it), and walks the pro-life path rather than yammer about it constantly. She's not an ideologue, and frankly many on the Left and on the Right are more comfortable with ideologues, who talk the predictable lines. Sarah governs in accord with the state and federal Constitutions -- how novel is that?
Sarah reminds me of Robert Frost's epitaph: "He had a lover's quarrel with the world." As SNL producer Lorne Michaels (a liberal) said about Sarah, she's a model of "graciousness." Most big-time politicians are NOT gracious (or nice). Sarah never said anything negative about HRC before, during, or after the campaign, even though they disagree on various things. She realizes that if it wasn't for Hillary, McCain would not have chosen her for the ticket.
In fact, some of Sarah's strongest supporters are Democrats (current and former) and/or feminists, such as Elaine Lafferty, Camille Paglia, Tammy Bruce, Artemis March, Marnie Delano, Karen Hill, Anne Franklin, Shelley Mandel (head of LA NOW), Kathy (Puma4Palin), S.E. Cupp, and Lynn Rothschild (during the campaign at least). Ironically, a good deal of the feminist support has to do with . . . Todd Palin, the good-looking macho guy who changes the diapers and has no spouse envy.
My constant refrain lately has been: THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH SARAH PALIN. She's a principled human being, a great wife and mother, and an elected official of unparalleled integrity and ability. Some will never forgive her for having those qualities, which make lesser beings feel uncomfortable . . . and envious.
At the Glenn Beck rally in San Antonio, Janine Turner (my long-time heroine) gave tremendous support for Sarah Palin, and the most recognizable signs at many rallies were "ReadMyLipstick" in regard to Sarah and taxes.
O'Reilly cited the Politco poll that showed her with fairly high negatives, but that survey is very suspect since Jonathan Martin, head of Politico, is no fan of Sarah's. Hannity likes Sarah; Beck does (partly because he has a special needs child), and so obviously does Greta. FOX really loves the dour Mark Sanford, who has no chance of being elected to anything outside of SC.
Some at FOX may fear Sarah because she's a (shudder) Republican and governs as a (double shudder) centrist. She's not a gay-basher (far from it), and walks the pro-life path rather than yammer about it constantly. She's not an ideologue, and frankly many on the Left and on the Right are more comfortable with ideologues, who talk the predictable lines. Sarah governs in accord with the state and federal Constitutions -- how novel is that?
Sarah reminds me of Robert Frost's epitaph: "He had a lover's quarrel with the world." As SNL producer Lorne Michaels (a liberal) said about Sarah, she's a model of "graciousness." Most big-time politicians are NOT gracious (or nice). Sarah never said anything negative about HRC before, during, or after the campaign, even though they disagree on various things. She realizes that if it wasn't for Hillary, McCain would not have chosen her for the ticket.
In fact, some of Sarah's strongest supporters are Democrats (current and former) and/or feminists, such as Elaine Lafferty, Camille Paglia, Tammy Bruce, Artemis March, Marnie Delano, Karen Hill, Anne Franklin, Shelley Mandel (head of LA NOW), Kathy (Puma4Palin), S.E. Cupp, and Lynn Rothschild (during the campaign at least). Ironically, a good deal of the feminist support has to do with . . . Todd Palin, the good-looking macho guy who changes the diapers and has no spouse envy.
My constant refrain lately has been: THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH SARAH PALIN. She's a principled human being, a great wife and mother, and an elected official of unparalleled integrity and ability. Some will never forgive her for having those qualities, which make lesser beings feel uncomfortable . . . and envious.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Dumbing Down of American Voters
“It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers. They are constantly – and for the most part sincerely – assured of their greatness.” President Calvin Coolidge, shortly after leaving office (and he never even knew Barack Obama)
The woman knows that Barack Obama's spending plans are going to be paid for by the children to her right . . .
The woman knows that Barack Obama's spending plans are going to be paid for by the children to her right . . .Most hilarious opinion survey in history: Opinion Research did a survey for FOX, and here's one of (many) thigh-slappers it produced. When asked where the government gets its money, 65% said it got it from taxes on wage-earners and businesses. [Note: This weekend I'll be writing more about Sarah Palin and the economy.]
Twenty-four percent affirmed (I love this) "The government has its own money."
Eleven percent said either that it got it from some other source (aliens? payoffs from lobbyists? Christmas gifts?) or that they just didn't know.
I wonder whether to worry more about the 24% that think the government has a night job or the 11% who are just plain clueless.
Just before the last election, the BBC in London had me on their early morning radio show and the subject was "low-knowledge voters." These are people who aren't knowledgable about politics, candidates, the issues -- or, in fact, anything much of social and economic significance.
The Opinion Research survey shows us exactly what the lowest of low-knowledge voters don't know. It could -- and does -- fill all the books in the Harvard Library.
How many of the 36% who think the money government spends comes from some source other than taxpayers are Obama voters? Without more information, I'd hazard a guess that most of them are. As a famous post-election Zogby Poll demonstrated, most of what Obama voters know is true . . . isn't.
It turns out that many "Obama voters" are that only -- and not much more. That was illustrated in the early December run-off for the U.S. Senate seat in Georgia. It was supposed to be a close race between Demcocrat Jim Martin and incumbent Senator Saxby Chambliss, perhaps even closer than the tight November election where neither candidate won the required majority.
In fact, Chambliss in December won by a landslide -- 57% to 43%. Apparently, a great many Obama voters -- tens of thousands (and some estimates are a hundred thousand-plus) -- stayed away from the run-off. They just weren't interested if Obama wasn't on the ballot.
Will something similar happen in other states in the 2010 election, when there will be no Obama running? Could be.
Twenty-four percent affirmed (I love this) "The government has its own money."
Eleven percent said either that it got it from some other source (aliens? payoffs from lobbyists? Christmas gifts?) or that they just didn't know.
I wonder whether to worry more about the 24% that think the government has a night job or the 11% who are just plain clueless.
Just before the last election, the BBC in London had me on their early morning radio show and the subject was "low-knowledge voters." These are people who aren't knowledgable about politics, candidates, the issues -- or, in fact, anything much of social and economic significance.
The Opinion Research survey shows us exactly what the lowest of low-knowledge voters don't know. It could -- and does -- fill all the books in the Harvard Library.
How many of the 36% who think the money government spends comes from some source other than taxpayers are Obama voters? Without more information, I'd hazard a guess that most of them are. As a famous post-election Zogby Poll demonstrated, most of what Obama voters know is true . . . isn't.
It turns out that many "Obama voters" are that only -- and not much more. That was illustrated in the early December run-off for the U.S. Senate seat in Georgia. It was supposed to be a close race between Demcocrat Jim Martin and incumbent Senator Saxby Chambliss, perhaps even closer than the tight November election where neither candidate won the required majority.
In fact, Chambliss in December won by a landslide -- 57% to 43%. Apparently, a great many Obama voters -- tens of thousands (and some estimates are a hundred thousand-plus) -- stayed away from the run-off. They just weren't interested if Obama wasn't on the ballot.
Will something similar happen in other states in the 2010 election, when there will be no Obama running? Could be.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Obama: Architect of Failing Economy
Sarah Palin at age 2 carrying shrimp in each handFinancial expert Troy Dunn says, "It's like donating blood at a morgue." He's talking about the government's stupid decision to throw more cash at hapless AIG. [Note: Later today I'll be discussing why Sarah Palin should replace Obama as President in 2012.]
In coming days, I'll discuss what's gone wrong with the economy -- and what the Obama Administration is doing to make it worse. The reality is that you'll find much more of value here than you will on CNN and the rest of the mainstream media. The MSM continues to find it difficult to ask serious questions about Obama's policies, which are designed mainly to pay off his voters rather than to benefit the nation. (If you come here regularly, please sign up as one of my "followers" -- scroll down the sidebar at the upper right.)
Economics, my friends, is relatively simple, involving a finite number of variables, including: supply, demand, investments, profits, and taxes. Obama is focusing on demand and ignoring the other components. Worse than that, he's looking for scapegoats rather than solutions. It's a tactic disastrously practiced during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration.
Consider Obama's disastrous plunge into class warfare. Yes, many people love to hate "the rich" (whether they're really rich or not). But consider this: Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently spoke out against soaking the rich people in his city. He explained that high-tax, high-cost New York has eight million residents. But a mere 40,000 of the eight million -- one-half-of-one-percent -- provide city tax revenue totaling a massive 63%.
What if one-eighth of those people -- 5,000 -- moved out of the city? That would do serious damage to the city's capacity to provide services. What if one-fourth of them -- 10,000 -- moved out, which they certainly have the resources to do? It would cripple the city's ability to meet the needs of its people.
Is Obama aware of such a situation? He hasn't shown any sign yet that he is. Sarah Palin does understand such realities, and that's one reason she'd be a much better President than Obama. In Sarah's world, which is also my world, a company that operates efficiently, wisely, and profitably can grow and flourish. Companies that perform poorly will flounder and, eventually, fail.
Not so in the political planet occupied by Obama and people like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. They look at companies such as GM and AIG as "too big to fail." Thus, such companies qualify for huge bailouts, which are somehow never quite enough money to change their prospects.
GM says it needs another $30 billion -- with a "b" -- to stay afloat. However, GM is the corporate version of a bottomless pit. Most insightful observers believe the company is headed for bankruptcy. Even that drastic step might not save America's largest automaker. At the same time, the overpaid members of the automakers union seem blissfully unaware of GM's lurch toward oblivion. GM wants to cut nearly 50,000 jobs, but even that probably will not be enough.
GM qualifies as one of Obama's companies that's "too big to fail," but fail it will. "Its auditors have serious doubts about its ability to survive," as one news report just said. Please let it die in peace.
What about insurance Godzilla AIG? So far, it has received a total of about $150 billion in bailout money. Guess what? It will need more, much more. In last year's fourth-quarter, AIG lost a whopping $60 billion. Is it doing better in this year's first quarter? Apparently not.
What's AIG's problem? It insured many of the companies that were up to their eyeballs in the subprime lending debacle. In other words, AIG insured companies that matched it in irresponsibility and bad financial practices. For that, we're supposed to bail it out?
What about the concept that a company like AIG is "too big to fail?" I have news for Obama (and AIG): it is failing. Last fall, its stock price was $20 a share. Today, a share of AIG stock is worth . . . 50 cents. Its terrible performance is one of the reasons owners of shares in all American companies have lost a total of $1.1 trillion -- with a "t" -- in wealth in the past six weeks. Obama is bankrupting the nation.
This morning on FOX News (an island of sanity in a sea of nonsense), self-made millionaire Troy Dunn said this about AIG: "It's not too big to fail." He added, "It has already failed."About throwing additional taxpayers' money at AIG, Dunn observed: "It's like donating blood at a morgue."
If AIG collapses -- actually, when it collapses -- many companies around the world will suffer. Some of the will fail. However, Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke are incapable of saving AIG. They are involved in trying to resuscitate a corpse stiffened by rigor mortis.
Today (Thursday), the stock market is continuing to fall. That's about as newsworthy as saying "The sun came up once again this morning."
Wall Street is sending a message to Obama, who remains tone deaf to the sobering music of the market. Wall Street is saying that it doesn't believe Obama has a clue about how to turn the situation around. In that view, Wall Street is correct.
[Tomorrow (Friday), I'll be writing on how to cure a serious recession, with emphasis on how it's been done effectively in past, specifically in the Administrations of Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. They did so by taking steps the exact opposite of what Obama's doing. A situation where companies aren't allowed to fail becomes one where companies eventually aren't allowed to succeed.]
In coming days, I'll discuss what's gone wrong with the economy -- and what the Obama Administration is doing to make it worse. The reality is that you'll find much more of value here than you will on CNN and the rest of the mainstream media. The MSM continues to find it difficult to ask serious questions about Obama's policies, which are designed mainly to pay off his voters rather than to benefit the nation. (If you come here regularly, please sign up as one of my "followers" -- scroll down the sidebar at the upper right.)
Economics, my friends, is relatively simple, involving a finite number of variables, including: supply, demand, investments, profits, and taxes. Obama is focusing on demand and ignoring the other components. Worse than that, he's looking for scapegoats rather than solutions. It's a tactic disastrously practiced during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration.
Consider Obama's disastrous plunge into class warfare. Yes, many people love to hate "the rich" (whether they're really rich or not). But consider this: Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently spoke out against soaking the rich people in his city. He explained that high-tax, high-cost New York has eight million residents. But a mere 40,000 of the eight million -- one-half-of-one-percent -- provide city tax revenue totaling a massive 63%.
What if one-eighth of those people -- 5,000 -- moved out of the city? That would do serious damage to the city's capacity to provide services. What if one-fourth of them -- 10,000 -- moved out, which they certainly have the resources to do? It would cripple the city's ability to meet the needs of its people.
Is Obama aware of such a situation? He hasn't shown any sign yet that he is. Sarah Palin does understand such realities, and that's one reason she'd be a much better President than Obama. In Sarah's world, which is also my world, a company that operates efficiently, wisely, and profitably can grow and flourish. Companies that perform poorly will flounder and, eventually, fail.
Not so in the political planet occupied by Obama and people like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. They look at companies such as GM and AIG as "too big to fail." Thus, such companies qualify for huge bailouts, which are somehow never quite enough money to change their prospects.
GM says it needs another $30 billion -- with a "b" -- to stay afloat. However, GM is the corporate version of a bottomless pit. Most insightful observers believe the company is headed for bankruptcy. Even that drastic step might not save America's largest automaker. At the same time, the overpaid members of the automakers union seem blissfully unaware of GM's lurch toward oblivion. GM wants to cut nearly 50,000 jobs, but even that probably will not be enough.
GM qualifies as one of Obama's companies that's "too big to fail," but fail it will. "Its auditors have serious doubts about its ability to survive," as one news report just said. Please let it die in peace.
What about insurance Godzilla AIG? So far, it has received a total of about $150 billion in bailout money. Guess what? It will need more, much more. In last year's fourth-quarter, AIG lost a whopping $60 billion. Is it doing better in this year's first quarter? Apparently not.
What's AIG's problem? It insured many of the companies that were up to their eyeballs in the subprime lending debacle. In other words, AIG insured companies that matched it in irresponsibility and bad financial practices. For that, we're supposed to bail it out?
What about the concept that a company like AIG is "too big to fail?" I have news for Obama (and AIG): it is failing. Last fall, its stock price was $20 a share. Today, a share of AIG stock is worth . . . 50 cents. Its terrible performance is one of the reasons owners of shares in all American companies have lost a total of $1.1 trillion -- with a "t" -- in wealth in the past six weeks. Obama is bankrupting the nation.
This morning on FOX News (an island of sanity in a sea of nonsense), self-made millionaire Troy Dunn said this about AIG: "It's not too big to fail." He added, "It has already failed."About throwing additional taxpayers' money at AIG, Dunn observed: "It's like donating blood at a morgue."
If AIG collapses -- actually, when it collapses -- many companies around the world will suffer. Some of the will fail. However, Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke are incapable of saving AIG. They are involved in trying to resuscitate a corpse stiffened by rigor mortis.
Today (Thursday), the stock market is continuing to fall. That's about as newsworthy as saying "The sun came up once again this morning."
Wall Street is sending a message to Obama, who remains tone deaf to the sobering music of the market. Wall Street is saying that it doesn't believe Obama has a clue about how to turn the situation around. In that view, Wall Street is correct.
[Tomorrow (Friday), I'll be writing on how to cure a serious recession, with emphasis on how it's been done effectively in past, specifically in the Administrations of Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. They did so by taking steps the exact opposite of what Obama's doing. A situation where companies aren't allowed to fail becomes one where companies eventually aren't allowed to succeed.]
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
How to Confront Palin Haters
Note: Note: on Jan. 20, 2009, the posts on this site will diverge from those on my other site: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com. This "Draft Palin" site will continue to focus on the future presidency of Sarah H. Palin. The other site (SteveMaloneyGOP) will concentrate on calamitous presidency of Barack H. Obama. I hope you'll visit both sites.
Sarah Palin: Ready to Ride Her Way to the White House?
Sarah Palin: Ready to Ride Her Way to the White House?I've had an interesting discussion with Silvia, a member of TeamSarah, dealing in part with "friends" who mindlessly repeat the smears made against Sarah that originate from the endless Obama Campaign and are spread through "hate-sites" such as The Daily Kos and Moveon.org. Here are Silvia's comments:
I admire Gov Palin because she has the executive experience she's built from the ground up. I connect to her experience as a mother as well.
Recently, I argued with a friend who 'claims' to have heard on Fox News that Gov Palin increased funding for special needs education AFTER her nomination. Now this liberal friend despises Fox, yet he was able to walk away [and retain] that lie. The real record was on CNN, where they cited the factcheck website. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html)
WE NEED TO GET THE GOVERNOR'S RECORD OUT THERE, not her personal stuff but her ACCOMPLISHMENTS. That remains a major challenge.
Silvia
My response:
Silvia, you make excellent points, and I'll try to use your comments on my blog (http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com/) -- and respond to them.
Obama managed to run with no accomplishments, including his laughable tenure as a "community organizer." As for your friend, I think such people need to be "beaten up" (metaphorically). If they're spreading lies, they should be informed that's what they're doing -- and perhaps asked why they're so gullible. When Sarah's media critics throw a stone, we need to respond with an avalanche of boulders.
Ask your friend who she thinks it is (hint: Axelrod handles the smears/lies and they come through The Daily Kos) that's providing her with such misinformation?
People like to feel comfortable with their illusions. Let's make them uncomfortable. Sarah herself is doing that now, with her comments about "class" and the dismissing of Katie Couric as a narcissist and Obama shill. When such people are confronted aggressively, they fold quickly.
I admire Gov Palin because she has the executive experience she's built from the ground up. I connect to her experience as a mother as well.
Recently, I argued with a friend who 'claims' to have heard on Fox News that Gov Palin increased funding for special needs education AFTER her nomination. Now this liberal friend despises Fox, yet he was able to walk away [and retain] that lie. The real record was on CNN, where they cited the factcheck website. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html)
WE NEED TO GET THE GOVERNOR'S RECORD OUT THERE, not her personal stuff but her ACCOMPLISHMENTS. That remains a major challenge.
Silvia
My response:
Silvia, you make excellent points, and I'll try to use your comments on my blog (http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com/) -- and respond to them.
Obama managed to run with no accomplishments, including his laughable tenure as a "community organizer." As for your friend, I think such people need to be "beaten up" (metaphorically). If they're spreading lies, they should be informed that's what they're doing -- and perhaps asked why they're so gullible. When Sarah's media critics throw a stone, we need to respond with an avalanche of boulders.
Ask your friend who she thinks it is (hint: Axelrod handles the smears/lies and they come through The Daily Kos) that's providing her with such misinformation?
People like to feel comfortable with their illusions. Let's make them uncomfortable. Sarah herself is doing that now, with her comments about "class" and the dismissing of Katie Couric as a narcissist and Obama shill. When such people are confronted aggressively, they fold quickly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
