Just freaking incredible.
Okay, now that is about right, not so bad.
Say what? Welcome to that strange place that Twilight Zone never found.
Just freaking incredible.
Okay, now that is about right, not so bad.
Say what? Welcome to that strange place that Twilight Zone never found.
(no, not ‘out–foxing‘) | 8/18/2017
What the left at large has done to Fox they are now trying to do to the White House, and the West Wing in particular, with the same fervor. Just the way Leftists claimed several top scalps already at Fox and more on the list, they are running the same play against the Trump White House.
Steve Bannon is gone from the White House — a mark the left has targeted all along. That only encourages Leftists rather than quells their demands, as it always does.
Immediately after Bamnon’s exit, they moved on to demanding scalps of Sebastian Gorka and Stephen Miller. Well, there are others but they are the next priorities. This is how the left operates, we’ve seen it enough times. Adding to the list of firings.
That will start a daily narrative, “how can they remain?” The clock is now ticking. Of course what the left really wants is to cut off any and all support from Trump. They want Trump himself. But they’ll settle for some top advisors to start with, one at a time.
Let’s see if they get any Republicans to echo their call. The Marxist left is getting skilled at this. I expect the same results. Even many Republicans agreed with O’Reilly and other firings. Now toward the administration where Republican voices matter, I expect them to cave. Mitt Romney was one of the first to jump right on the Charlottesville statements. You know Mitt, as an example, can go along with an anti-statue agenda. Spineless. Basically Mitt will go along with anything the left wants or demands.
This will also show which side Trump is on. I imagine he will give the Left a few scalps here and there, maybe to appease them, maybe because it is convenient, maybe for other senior officials. (Jared, Ivanka, McMaster, Kelly, Cohen) But the left is never satisfied.
So Trump will be Foxed. Whether he goes along or not is the question? But I think I know which way the Republicans in Congress will go though. (what do they ever get for it?) Do they split the party? It all comes down, at some point, to the Swamp scoreboard.
It always seems inevitable, how the people come along to support an organization so far and then, at crunch time, it turns away from the people who helped build its popularity. That is a lot like Fox: we came, we saw, we conquered, and then comes a pivot point, like the Murdoch sons throwing in a monkey wrench.
Yet the point is this agenda of the Left won’t stop. It will continue until it finally meets a wall it cannot penetrate, whether it is on Marxist groups, politics in Congress, or on White House staffing arrangements. No one asks why the left should get to choose who fills these positions — or who works at Fox? Arrogance is thy name of the Left.
Then there is the overreach problem of the Left.
Will ‘Foxing the White House’ work and succeed?
Right Ring | Bullright
So the heat is on in the cheese state, but that is not what you hear from media.
By Lisa Hagen — March 31, 2016 | The Hill
Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are in a dead heat in Wisconsin just days before the state’s primary, according to a new poll.
A survey released Thursday by the left-leaning Public Policy Polling found that Cruz leads with 38 percent support, with Trump right behind at 37 percent — within the margin of error.
John Kasich follows with 17 percent.
In a head-to-head matchup with Trump, Cruz leads by a wider margin, 49 to 41 percent. The poll found that 51 percent of Kasich voters would support Cruz if the Ohio governor left the race, while 19 percent would move to Trump.
Trump is the only one of the three with a negative favorability. The businessman was seen favorably by 45 percent of voters, and unfavorable by 48 percent.
Kasich was 52 percent favorable and 30 percent unfavorable. Cruz was 50 percent favorably and 36 percent unfavorable.
Cruz and Trump are in a tight race in the Badger State, although polls disagree on how close it is. A Marquette Law School survey released on Wednesday showed the Texas senator leading Trump by 10 points.
The poll was conducted from March 28 to 29 and surveyed 768 likely GOP primary voters. The margin of error was 3.5 percentage points.
Is there a little contamination in Wisconsin? Why are those Fox polls the only ones cited? At this rate, by Tuesday they could have Cruz pushed to 65%.
Yet a PPP survey shows “Trump has most committed voters.” Among Trump supporters, 80% will definitely vote for Trump and of Cruz supporters, 66% say they’ll definitely vote for Cruz.
Jeb Bush told a reporter that early polls don’t really matter.
“These polls really don’t matter,” Bush said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” “They don’t filter out the people that aren’t going to vote. It’s just…an obsession, because it kind of frames the debate for people for that week.”
Let me translate: “they don’t filter out people that aren’t going to vote” — means polls are skewed by people who will not be voting. Why pay any attention to that, or those people? In typical elite-speak he stepped in the dodo.
He adds he expects his poll numbers — the ones he doesn’t care about — to rebound as he cranks up his ad campaign. Those TV ads that will influence the people who won’t vote.
There was an old Helen Reddy song “You and me against the world.”
You and me against the world,
Sometimes it feels like you and me against the world,
When all the others turn their backs and walk away,
You can count on me to stay.
Remember when the circus came to town
And you were frightened by the clown,
Wasn’t it nice to be around someone that you knew,
Someone who was big and strong and looking out for
You and me against the world, …/
That’s certainly what it feels like now. Trump rolled out his campaign and it seemed to take on an awareness. However, what it really showed is how far we have to go, and how much establishment really is against (opposed) to conservatives. You can say what you want how conservative Trump really is or not but he took on the face of conservatism and drew the fire — right or wrong
It only proved what an agenda they have against conservatives or only reminded you, either way. As if all anyone had to do was mention illegals and crimes to light everyone on the left on fire. All the advocacy groups sneered — media, liberals (is there really any difference), establishment, even some corporate concerns. The outrage was swift and fierce. Much of those real problems are directly a result of Obama’s policies, but who cared about that? They wanted Trump to pay for such statements. Contracts were shredded, endorsements held hostage, deals lost, boycotts and all the rest ensued. Media balked.
Sometimes our memories will have to get us through.
Case in point this race. As much as things change, politically and otherwise, one realizes how much they remain the same. This is as much an us vs. them paradigm as it is a disagreement on issues. It’s an institutional one, the establishment verses the people or voters. It really is that basic. They’ll have us believe that it is only on this issue or that one, but it’s a far bigger problem. And that is what they want us to do, get bogged down saying we are wrong or “out of touch” on a particular position. The default is to support the establishment, across the board, on all these issues. That will eliminate problems.
George Will recently has been making the case all by himself on what the establishment thinks of Trump. They want him gone. But they want all that noisy support of his gone too. Will called himself and his fellow cohorts the adults in the room. Anti-establishment, dissenter types are welcome in the Party, he says, but that it needs to be on their terms. As far as I’m concerned, Will can go back to ABC now.
Beyond comparing Trump to George Wallace and saying that he does not belong near the nuclear football, and his supporters are Birchers and nuts, he also let fly:
Will also compared Trump to primal scream therapy, a fad from the ’60s in which patients just yelled to make themselves feel better. “He’s a one-trick pony. ‘I’m rich, everybody who disagrees with me is stupid, and all our problems are simple. Put me in power.’”
“One trick pony [pot meet kettle] and everyone who disagrees with me is stupid, and all the problems are simple,” sounds like the elitist establishment GOP. Yet we are the ones called angry?? How has that establishment GOP been working for you? Not. One trick pony: ‘you must support McCain or doomsday’, “you must elect Romney, he’s the only one…’. Soon to be you must support Jeb Bush and the dynasty or lose.
There is an astounding amount of groupthink among the Washington set – the journalists, pundits, lobbyists, consultants, politicians, and dealmakers. These types of folks – the George Wills and the Steve Schmidts and the Karl Roves and the rest – don’t like new ideas. They don’t want anybody rocking the boat. As a result, anyone who threatens to do so, who seek to inject fresh perspectives into the ossified mold of Washington political society, will be viewed with fear and mistrust, and will be demonized and ostracized. This is especially the case when the ideas being injected happen to be popular with the masses (such as ending illegal immigration) but unpopular with the “elites.”
But then it went further than just ridiculing and attacking Trump, they had to go straight at his supporters, or anyone unwilling to join the attack against him. This is the typical establishment style and M/O. It’s herding the cattle into one chute, as opposed to a renegade chute that may stray from the ranch.
So tell me again, how it’s “you and me against the world.” This is a concept Christian conservatives are very familiar with. They understand, at least, that we are in the world but not of the world. We are to be salt and light in the world. A very different thing than being owned by the world or, in this case, by the GOP establishment elites.
RightRing | Bullright
Fox was in a scramble post debate. Roger Ailes seems to have calmed the waters, but not the fears. I know, maybe Bill O’Reilly will come to Fox’s rescue with “Killing Fox”?
11 Aug 2015 | Breitbart
In recent days, Ailes got a glimpse of what a Trump-less Fox News would look like. On Sunday, Trump called in to the four other public-affairs shows; this morning he gave interviews to Today and Morning Joe. Inside Fox, this was alarming. Inside Fox, this was alarming. “This thing with Megyn got way ahead of Roger and bigger than he must have thought,” one Fox personality said. “Roger wants this to blow over,” another source added. “He’s upset that conservatives are mad at Fox.” Online, Ailes also took flak. Both the Drudge Report and Breitbart News carried pro-Trump headlines. [more]
Well, all I can say is you play with fire, you get burned — not if but when. They sought to appease the Left and take advantage of the exuberant ratings Trump gave them. It’s now clear even MSN cable knew that going into the debate. Eugene Robinson told MSNBC host that “Megyn Kelly throws a mean punch” about a week before the debate.
Fox wanted to show how tough and relentless they could be against conservatives to their skeptical, flash-mob of viewers. It worked MSM was thrilled, including the NY Times. But Roger wasn’t happy with results — well, except the ratings part — and Trump marginalized Fox. Ratings were nice while they lasted.
Here is a hint to Fox: if you really want to prove something positive in the greater news media, to viewers and would be skeptics, then suppose you find an anchor(or pundits) who actually break the liberal wall of talking points progressives erect? For instance: Tuesday after the debate Megyn, promising not to mention the Trump dust up, broke the news Hillary’s server was being seized and that Clinton had top secret info on it. What to do? So she had Obama adviser Bill Burton on letting him waltz over her with his scripted talking points. Was she not prepared… being that the server is such a new story and all?
Why not show Fox is capable of breaching that liberal sound-bite wall, a much more constructive, respectable task? Sensational ratings are not the answer to systemic failures in politics and media. I think we learned that. Though they can’t seem to crack the code of Democrats’ talking points, something done daily on the Internet.
Give them a trial to cover, they’re on it. Give them a car chase and they are all about that with live eyes in the sky. But put progressives’ talking points memo of the day in front of them, in black and white, and they can’t seem to dissect it no matter how many resources at their disposal. [/off rant] Or maybe they just don’t want to?
Truth, not fair and balanced, should be the goal. Seems when Fox reports and we decide, Fox doesn’t like what we decide.
Ordinarily I might not be as critical of Megyn Kelly. But then there is nothing ordinary, really, anymore. This is not an ordinary election, these are not ordinary times, these are not ordinary people involved either. The circumstances here are not ordinary at all. It is serious stuff too.
But then as I criticized Candice Crowley for her moderator failures, I also am critical of Megyn Kelly’s. Fair is fair. She sensationalized the program and turned it more into reality TV than an episode of Celebrity Apprentice. Or maybe that was the role she thought she was playing? She begs for that comparison. The only reason the record number of people/viewers means anything is the heightened interest in the process. But not to Fox. Maybe Fox did well with sponsors, ads and eyeballs, or bottom lines. Good for them. Cha-ching cha-ching! But that doesn’t change the fundamental purpose of the event. Then they doubled down on that theme afterward by high-fiving each other.
That is just inappropriate behavior — no matter how well the event went or not. We had the coverage of Katrina non-stop. We had the Gulf War coverage, originally in 91-92 Even that was not sensationalized this way, as a historic major achievement. Need I mention 9/11? We didn’t see this much self-congratulation over those. No, instead they, Fox, became an inseparably integrated part of the story — a major one. Even the CNN Crowley incident, and their defense of her, was not this sensationalized by their own network.
Media covered natural disasters, riots, trials and OJ Simpson. Yet this was over the top, especially concerning a serious debate in above serious times. They turned it into their personal reality side show. Ironic that Trump was at the center of it. If they did want to cover all the candidates, with a modicum of equality, they failed focusing their attention on Trump and then themselves — personally and as a news organization. They put themselves front and center. They over-engineered it.
Then Fox complains about the viewers’ outcry after, as another news story. Poor Fox victims. It was not just one question or the one answer, it was laced through with the same sensational theme. And we don’t really need extra sensationalizing in this current reality. We have quite enough already. Then to turn that all into some success for Fox, I don’t understand that logic.
I think we are witnessing a media meltdown. When they can’t cover a major event like this without turning it into some side-freak show, then we are in a tailspin. Instead of discussing solutions to problems, they are busy compounding more layers of problems on top, mediopolizing. We evidently can’t even have the semblance of an objective process. We expect it from much of lamestream, Fox has just gone the way of the limousine media. Yet, its funny that their big problem is Trump. After South Carolina in 2012 you would have thought they would have been self-conscious of that. No, rather they played it up into a reality circus.(who knows where their research came from) Is viewer numbers and their TV personalities all they care about? Winners – Fox, at what cost? Losers – we the people, especially conservatives and Republicans. But P/C will rule with Democrats. They pander to Dems so they can still get interviews from them.
On a previous post Lafayette Angel came up with an idea of doing debates ourselves. That’s a heck of an idea. I could see conservatives doing that — not like CPAC or summit — it seems possible and attractive. Go around them. Then I had the thought it really wouldn’t affect media because they would critique it how they always do anyway. Just that they would not control the process. And why can’t we do focus groups, too? I think Lafayette Angel has something there. I’d like to say, “media, you’re fired!”
If Trump offended someone, then Fox broke their heart over objectivity. So they didn’t see this coming, like 10 miles away? Dumbass award goes to Fox.
RightRing | Bullright
Hours after the debate, it was clear Fox was boasting about having a record number of viewers tune in to the debate. I imagine on Thursday night there were lots of things people could have be doing. But we knew the numbers were going to be big even before it, judging by the political interest so far. Why? We knew that too.
Fox tries to pat itself on the back for the debate coverage, which is pretty self-serving. I mean the nation is a train wreck: Obama just nuked us with an Iran deal, sanctuary cities are failing the citizens in them, riots and racism abound, inner city crime is spiking, terrorism even at home is on the rise, stagnant economic growth, scandal palooza, distrust in government and leadership, with a record number of candidates … and Fox is worried about the number of viewers it gets watching the first debate? Give it a break. Who is doing reality TV here, Fox or Trump? I think its the former.
This was not supposed to be a long post. I wanted it short. I don’t get what I want. But how can you do that with these continuing circumstances in this primary?
Everyone knows that Trump has been a boon for the campaign. We cannot measure what interest would be without him? You can’t do it. In fact, Trump brought in lots of viewers because of statements they cannot stifle, against their desires, and what has been happening in the last couple months.Like him or not he exploded interest, not a bad thing considering we always hear how few people are actively engaged in the process. So it is revealing that the very guy who brought in record numbers of viewers would also be the subject of attacks, even from media who have been gunning for him as a non-serious candidate from the beginning. What you’d expect. Trump has been their Golden Calf.
But then it goes to a different level. The opening question was about pledging allegiance to the GOP Party — an evolution in progress, controlled by some powerful interests. It was talked about already and they knew the answer. This was about getting him in front of a record millions of people to decline a pledge not to run on another platform. About making that the opening question, to force him to make a stand everyone already knew. They could have even worked it in somewhere else. It was the lead.
It was reminiscent of Newt in South Carolina where the opening is the gotcha personal question. By design we had an over-engineered debate from the onset. Then hardly allow him to explain why not. Trump was on the stand testifying. Now I am not a great fan or Trump supporter, you don’t have to be. But one cannot deny what he already brought to the table and contributed, at his own expense. So the gotcha was front and center. Who knows what Fox expected to accomplish?
What’s in a pledge?
I see the reason he should not swear to it based on principle. Why take it off the table? And why do that without getting something in return? Sounds like the opening act of Obama’s negotiation with Iran. You don’t give away your chips. But the word leverage should not be used. It’s negotiation 101. Others have reneged on the pledge. Others do not want to take pledges on many things, as a rule. I thought the estabos, as I call them, were against pledges? Think Grover Norquist. Politicians and RNC certainly oppose pledges when we demand their loyalty. Secondly, at this stage with the RNC, and what they have done over the past 5 years, what good is their word? So pledge to stand behind an organization; and pledge unwavering loyalty to a Party apparatus we can’t trust. Logical?
Now Fox is trying to kick the Golden Calf that brought the attention to this process and debate, as hard as it can. At the same time they pat themselves for the interest in the process as if it were their doing. And they were quick after the debate to congratulate themselves. Twenty four hours later and they are still bragging about it. Frank Luntz wasted no time afterward, showing his focus group was pissed at the pledge decline. But if explained in Trump’s terms, can they understand why pledging unwavering loyalty is such a problem?
In fact, it is part of the reason we are here. We have a disconnected Party leadership problem. Even Ted Cruz said multiple times that we conservative Republicans keep winning elections, and then leadership of the GOP fails us. It’s true. We elected the majority in Congress, then we elected the majority in the Senate. Did you see John Boehner or Mitch McConnell have a problem with taking that leadership role? Nope. They could have refused we would pick another. Now they run the RNC like its their private liberal lite committee, even holding it and the process hostage against the will of the people. Do we get mad? Sure. Do they care when we do? Nah.
So in that backdrop, along comes Trump who criticizes all the pols for being self-serving, career pols. Accurate? Relevant? Sure is. Now the first question on the docket in the first debate was will you swear unwavering loyalty to the Party — not to oppose it? Trump declines. The real point here is how do we know we can trust the RNC? We’ve been screwed and sold down the river so many times.
It is not like Democrats, who have ultra-left wing progressives determine the agenda. Obamacare, Iran, appointments, IRS, EPA, Keyestone Pipeline, drilling, energy, spending, executive orders, sanctuary cities, illegals, amnesty. It’s not the first time we’ve heard scuttle about a 3rd Party. Its been an active part of the Tea Party conversation. Does the Tea Party want to work with the GOP? Sure. Does the RNC want to work with the Tea Party candidates? Not so much. See how this works? We don’t need a GPS to see there are problems with this paradigm of theirs. So there is a reason that topic exists.
Now to just wipe that all off the table as if it does not exist? Can you? It should be the fear in the GOP that they are going the way of the Whigs. It should be a growing concern in the RNC that they are losing touch with the base or people. These Tea Party and disgust symptoms are only reminders that it needs to pay attention and show some loyalty to conservatives who make them and can break them. Ones they need to turn out to support their candidate. But now after the people develop a consensus and get behind someone with momentum, who actually speaks up; then all of a sudden it’s, wham, “we really need a pledge here.” Yep, they need a pledge and we need a credible Party with chutzpah.
RightRing | Bullright