GOP in congress in limbo?

Kevin McCarthy is not the guy, despite what this Fox Business video is saying.  There's more to it than "don't have chaos".  Yes chaos is not good but a sub-par speaker is no better, and long term, it's worse.  Kevin McCarthy could do more to unify the party by acknowledging concerns of those who think he's a RINO.  So far he's done nothing.  That says something.

Let's Go Brandon tone deaf

Rep. Steve Scalise on Fox explains why Let's Go Brandon is tone deaf. C'mon man! Let's Go Brandon is as divisive as was president Obama, if not worse.  Why would he change in the face of an obvious need? 

GOP establishment, Fox is going after Trump

 I'm not sure it's going to work.

Twitter whistleblower and the Elon Musk not-deal

 Fox Business discusses the Twitter whistleblower and it's impact on the Elon Musk situation:

Dictator Watch - Liz Cheney edition

 A Dictator Watch twice on the same day, after years of not having them?  This time it's about an American supporter of Dictatorship, Liz Cheney.  (With some bonus content on AOC and Chris Wallace)

Via Right Side Broadcast Network:

By the way, if you've ever wondered if Dick Cheney was an Establishment Republican, after seeing no rebuke from him after Liz Cheney has repeatedly made an ass of herself over the past few months, (and no hidden rebuke either or she would have at least moderated her staunch Democrat lean), you need wonder no longer.  He's as far left as she is except in his efforts at war profiteering and thus being a military hawk.     

Is woke Fox News now censoring the weather?

 Project Veritas has something coming.  I wonder what it could be.

Arizona should not have been called

Fox was not stupid, they were complicit. That's obviously an opinion, but I think it's based on actual events as they occurred. That's a discussion for another day. But let's take a look at why Arizona may still end up in Trump's column.

Impeachment polling oddities

I was looking at the impeachment polling on Real Clear Politics today and I noticed a couple of things.  I'm normally not a poll junkie.  I watch them, but I don't inherently trust them.  They are easily manipulated.   Without reading the details to each you cannot say for certain that the poll was conducted properly.  I'm not saying any particular poll is deliberately off, but so much can be wrong.  

Overall, president Trump is indeed seeing more people against impeachment than for it. A couple of things struck me, just at a high level.  There's a lot more beneath the surface but I'll keep this simple. 

But there's some odd things in the polls.  Fox is consistently a remove poll. CNN you expect a anti-Trump bias but Fox you'd expect either fair or the reverse.  I find that odd.  

One other thing on the overall polling - The above water average for the president includes Gallup, which polls all adults not just registered voters.  That's concerning since it is a poll that helps his impeachment average.  Conversely none of the polling is among likely voters.  That works in his favor.

Then there's the polling among independent voters.

Independents have Fox once again as a highly pro-impeachment polling outlier.  It makes me think Fox has some polling issues. If you look at ABC/WaPo polling independents are +9 against but their overall polling is only +6.  It has Democrats at +69 for remove and Republicans at +79 against.  

That means that if Independents are +9 to keep Trump, and Republicans are +79 yet overall it's only +6 to not impeach then there are enough Democrats in the poll to pull the average towards impeachment by 3 points from the independents.  That means there are a lot of Democrats in the poll.  A lot.  That's a common way the polls can be skewed.

But none of this accounts for Democrat voters who voted for Trump in 2016.  And even that does not account for how much of that 2016 effect was just anti-Hillary, or the effects of the current economy.

Impeachment is not going to happen.  It's a partisan effort and not poll driven.  But that does not mean it will not have an effect on the election in November.  It may shift voters.  It may cement other voters and and increase the intensity of support for either side.  It's too early to tell that.  But there's a lot of yardage between now and the election and the impeachment will be long in the rear view mirror by then.  Democrats will try to make it otherwise, probably to their detriment.  We shall see.

Is Fox being parceled out?

News Corp HQ

If the downside of conservatism is being averse to change, even good change just because it's change, then as conservatives we need to be aware of that creeping into our thinking.  Innovation is change.  President Trump represents change, so it's not universal.

But apparently Disney is in talks to buy 21st Century Fox, which is of course related to Fox (News Corp) and therefore Fox News and as a conservative who appreciates Fox's take on news events it has me worried. Rupert Murdoch founder of Fox is getting on in years and his son's do not (at least wholly) support the political leanings of their father. Is News Corp going to be the next to be sold to say NBC for example?

Paranoid? Maybe, but when there is no other game in town on the conservative side then a little paranoia is probably healthy. That's not to say there are not dozens of quality conservative alternatives to Fox News; in fact Fox is not my first "go to" for news. Nevertheless it's undeniable that Fox is the only conservative-leaning media source that has the reach of it's mainstream media rival giants CBS, NBC, and ABC specifically.

And it's not to say that News Corp will be next. But if it is, conservative media will suffer a significant blow and I'd argue that the Right should start preparing for an alternative bid or developing an alternative outlet to Fox News. Regardless of possible paranoia that's just good planning. Even the Titanic had a few lifeboats.

Bill O'Reilly is not the headline, Fox News is

Bill O'Reilly got fired by Fox News yesterday for reported misconduct of a sexual harassment nature. I don't care.  I always could take or leave O'Reilly's show. Sometimes he was way off base or frankly, annoying.  A lot of times he got it right too, it should be said.  The problem is his success on Fox and the potential direction of Fox news media. Apparently Rupert Murdoch and his sons have different visions not only for O'Reilly but also for the direction of Fox News,  Fox News has long been the lone bastion of news media for conservatives (by saying that I am lumping conservative stalwarts like Rush Limbaugh or Townhall etc., into other categories - pundits, editorialists or too small to compare with Fox).

The loss of O'Reilly at Fox may matter to ratings for Fox but likely not - unless Rupert Murdoch's sons decide a more centrist direction.  When Megyn Kelly jumped Fox for NBC, Tucker Carlson stepped in and the network never missed a beat. That can be true for an O'Reilly replacement - conservatives need a media outlet with the size and reach of Fox News.  The younger Murdochs would do wise to realize the success of their father's news outlet rests upon it being the sole entity with the heft to stand up to the liberal media behemoth that confronts the right.  To change it because of their own possible political views would be to make Fox a voice among countless others on the left.  

Disappointed conservatives would abandon Fox in droves as it became apparent that Fox is moving to a 'balanced' line-up. Fox is the balance, not just part of the liberal throng.  Should that come to pass, there is a real opportunity for someone like a Breitbart to step up and fill in the void.  I'd do it but I do not have the critical mass necessary to start a broadcast network.

Was it a FOX hit job on Trump?

Last night after the debate, my initial impression was that Fox did not want Donald Trump coming out of the debate still standing.  This morning in response to a comment from Proof Positive, I wrote the following:

...Trump I think blew an opportunity. Fox clearly wanted him to fail, starting the debate with the 'general' question about third party run. If Trump didn't see it coming, it speaks to his preparedness. He could have put his hand up and argued that while he wholeheartedly supports conservative principles, it's a tactical move not to reveal that answer just yet because he feels that the RNC has to prove that they'll treat him fairly.

I'm not saying that's the truth or that the RNC isn't being fair, just that it would have been a more palatable answer for Republican voters and for conservatives.

As for the Fox broadcast, I think more practice would help them stylistically. It really seemed like a sub-par performance. Not horrible, but definitely nothing to brag about. Post debate the Frank Luntz panel seemed like a Trump hit job too, since those opinions were starkly anti-Trump and as you point out, the (faulty methodology) Drudge poll presents a diametrically opposed result.

My fear is not that Trump doesn't get a fair shake but rather that those who control the microphone on the right (i.e. Fox) are going to winnow down the field until their preferred establishment candidate wins out. This morning they highlighted a Ben Carson clip to show he did well in the debate, and it wasn't his closing remarks, which were clearly his best.

I smell a guided predestined outcome. I hope that feeling goes away because I don't like the idea of being a tinfoil hat, conspiracy theorist. - See more at:

It turns out, I'm not alone on this. Reaganite Republican:

Sadly, Fox proved themselves to be absolute GOP establishment hacks they way the were so obviously out to kill Trump last night... the loaded, purpose-engineered questions aimed at him took up a lot of time -were intellectually dishonest- and showed they're trying to hand a GOP 'lead' back to Jeb that apparently Fox News' attack-dogs Kelly, Baier, and Wallace were tasked with retrieving for it's proper owner.

While William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection may have softened his stance, he felt it:

At times I felt the aggressive attacks on candidates were inappropriate, and much of the show was the moderators using oppo-research type facts to get a reaction. Trump was the focus of most of this. That’s not the role of moderators. BUT, when viewed in its entirety over the two hours, I think the moderators achieved a good result.

While that was only a cursory check of opinion, I'm quite certain others noticed it too. As I stated, this is not about fairness to Trump. This is about fairness in general. Don't tilt the playing field in favor of Jeb Bush. If he really is the best candidate, he will win the nomination. If he needs your help to win, Fox I'm talking to you, then he's not strong enough to take on Hillary, the DNC and the mainstream media. Keep your powder dry until the eventual candidate goes against Hillary (or Bernie). Let the Republican voters decide for themselves you paternalistic $@&#%s! Or do you want to be remembered for hosting debates just like this woman on the left?

Talking Points = Debbie Wasserman Schulz

Debbie Wasserman Schulz, a vapid parrot, gets called out for sticking to talking points on Fox by Martha MacCallum.  Yes, talking points need to get out there at times, but she really is robotic and unthinking in her repetition of her mantras.  MacCallum is trying to have a conversation about the state of the Florida race and that's hard to do when you are talking to a billboard.

Via Mediate:

Q: Does this damage Obama?

Apparently the president's team kept this hidden in 2008 during his election run.  Now they don't care.  Why not?  Is it somehow less damaging than before?

First some context via Sean Hannity on Fox, interviewing the Brietbart team who brought this to light.  Who was this guy Obama was endorsing - what did he stand for and why do they think it might matter:

Is this enough to damage Obama in 2012. Not alone. Ogletree thinks it won't matter now. But Breitbart's comment at CPAC last month was that they had videos, plural. This is merely a tease, as is the Breitbart style with these damaging videos. The method is to release them in drips and allow the defenders time to corner themselves in defense of themselves. Remember the ACORN scandal? I don't see that happening this time. Again, not yet. But it does give people time to investigate Bell whom Obama had clearly embraced. And who knows what else Big Government has to unveil?

But does it matter to voters? In the face of high unemployment and record deficits and the previous radical associations by the president, to those who don't like the president this may just be an "I told you so" moment. But for those who support Obamacare, and green energy it may be a "so what?" Until this gets some legs it won't turn any tide of opinion. It doesn't yet have legs.

How does it start to get legs? People need to ask who this professor Bell was. Did he really believe in an American society of permanent racism?  He said he did.

South Carolina GOP Debate #1

Some random observations from the first GOP debate tonight.

I'm not sure the GOP debate will have done much to alter opinions nationally, but I think people in South Carolina who were paying the most attention will probably drift away from Mitt Romney to some degree, and will end up amongst the others, but probably not much support.

Rick Santorum answered a lot of questions well, but was grating in the way he turned answers about his opinion turned into attacks on others like Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich.  I'm not sure that it's appealing to go after 

Newt Gingrich started weak on Bain Capital re: Mitt Romney, but got a lot of applause and a lot of positive tweets on the occasions he talked about the economy and poverty.

Fox News was running a tweet-in on their live web coverage where people could tweet their opinion on whether each response to a question by a candidate was an answer or a dodge. Gingrich did well, Santorum mediocre and Romney poorly after the first hour.  I'm not convinced the general public sees the debates through the same lens as hardcore politically junkies who are tweeting in their feedback.

Mitt Romney attacked McCain Feingold campaign finance reform laws - rightly - as being a disaster.  I wonder how his recent endorser, John McCain feels about that.

Overall, I think Gingrich won, but I'm not sure it was by much. Santorum was decent, Perry did pretty well and Ron Paul was Ron Paul.

Palin is NOT running. Now what?

Word is Palin's out.  It's not a big surprise, although going beyond her own deadline and then announcing on Mark Levin's show I find curious.  Going beyond her self-imposed deadline makes me think she was really considering it up to the last minute.  As for Mark Levin's show - why not Fox, why not on Rush Limbaugh's show.  Why not before the evening news cycle?  It's like a back door exit. Not running may not have helped her credibility but to minimize that, she could have gone out Christie style - being forthright, upfront and facing the music.

The Christian Post says Fox takes it easy on Palin.

I guess The Christian Post  would prefer Fox act like MSNBC.

It’s probably not shocking news to learn that Fox News’ personalities go easier on their colleague Sarah Palin than other networks do. However, what has created a media stir up this week was just how honest two personalities, Greg Gutfeld and Bob Beckel, were when talking about their coverage of Palin on Wednesday. Gutfeld and Beckel, co-host of the Fox News program, The Five, were discussing Palin’s defense of the Tea Party this week. Gutfield announced that he felt awkward when talking about the possible GOP candidate because to him she is “like a coworker.”

But the real question is, as a Christian shouldn't they be doing something other than looking for dirt that they can't even confirm?

This brings up an ethical question, if not problem, that surrounds Fox News. Many commentators on Fox News are not just viewers sitting on the political sideline but active participants as well. Does this pose a conflict of interest in Fox’s coverage of politics? Many on the left have often said “yes.” After all, it is reasonable to see how colleagues would not want to beat up on each other; if for nothing more in order to maintain workplace civility. 

There has been no proof or record that Fox withholds financial assets from employees who “beat up on” Palin.

Who are these people, and are they really a Christian organization and not a communist front?  I mean, I can't prove it, but you know it right?

Sarcasm note for the hard of interpreting:  See what I did there?  I accused them of something I couldn't prove, just like they did.

Pent up demand for conservative products

It's only been 8 months since the 2008 electoral massacre that the GOP suffered. In that time, Republicans have gone through a bewildering range of incidents - the Limbaugh versus Powell chronicles, the Sanford drama, the RINOs versus the base in-fighting, the relief of the Arlen Specter defecting, the spectacle of Coleman versus Franken and it's preposterous conclusion, the Meghan McCain versus anything conservative side show, and now the Palin resignation conundrum.


You'd figure that the GOP is approaching the point of being irretrievably lost. You'd be wrong. The President's over-ambitious agenda, which has it's own lessons for conservatives*, and is ineffectual foreign policy have left him easily within striking distance. Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Harry Reid have all left themselves open for a lot of criticism. And while they may not all be on the bubble individually, they've certainly tarnished the Democrat brand overall.


Both sides have damage to repair. Meanwhile there's a pent up demand for all things conservative, since the ability to do much at all, either in Washington or in the media, is clearly severely limited. What are conservatives to do? Where do we go to find solace or conservative sustenance? There are servings of red meat available from sources like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin et. al. But that doesn't satisfy every need. Conservatives are in a position of relative powerlessness in a time when the country needs a steady rudder. It has led to Tea Parties - conservatives borrowing a page from history and a technique from 60's liberals - mass protests.


But other outlets are needed and there are some obvious choices and they aren't as hard as you'd think. For starters try voting with your wallet. As much as it pains me to say it about an American company, consider boycott GM until it's been fully re-privatized. Any bank that has the burden of TARP funds over it's head (i.e. federal ownership) is a bank that you can consider not banking with. Of course everyone should consider boycotting socialist gas from Hugo Chavez' Citgo. And why would any conservative, unless they are monitoring liberal propaganda should avoid reading the New York Times, and not watch MSNBC.

But it goes further than that. Proactively send your money where conservative values are not betrayed, or at least treated equally. Watch Fox News. Go further just avoiding MSNBC - they're owned by NBC which is owned by GE. These companies are directly or indirectly supporting the destruction f your country. Look where your money is being spent. Do you watch NBC at all? Do you but GE light bulbs?

Protests are one thing, but the truism 'follow the money' is never more true than in an economic downturn or even a recovery. Put your dollars where they don't betray your beliefs. Yes it requires some effort, but it's something you can do in your every day life that ultimately helps or does not betray your principles. Rahm Emmanuel was right - every 'crisis' is an opportunity. In this sense, conservatives have a lot more power than they realize that they simply aren't using.

And don't let the guilt of putting people out of work discourage you. Sure, you put people out of work at Citgo. But the demand doesn't go away - it moves. Those jobs will be needed elsewhere - either with competitors or upstarts who are taking up the slack in demand.

The same holds true for candidates. Contribute and work for conservative candidates. Do not do so for those who aren't really holding true to your ideals, unless it comes down to lining up against a Democrat. Obama has proven a RINO is better than a socialist. Even if it's a matter of degrees*, just try to live your beliefs.

*The lesson to learn is that the ONLY way to succeed is in incremental success. Anything more will result in a serious backlash and is less likely to be permanent. Progress works best in incremental doses. Time is the only solution. Look at the creeping liberalism that has infected America versus Obama trying to get the grand slam all at once. The creeping version is tolerated because each change is relatively small. But when the change is ominous, opposition coalesces against it.

MSM seeds of discontent

Politico is reporting that it looks like the President co-ordinated a question with the Huffington Post's Nico Pitney at a press conference. Even calling on the Huffington Post for a question breaks from tradition, but having knowledge of an upcoming question has the smell of state-controlled media all over it. [NOTE - the update in Politico confirms that there was at least co-ordination on some level - Pitney knew that he might be called on].

But the real 'a-ha' moment with this situation shows up further down in the Politico column by Michael Calderone:

CBS Radio's Mark Knoller, a veteran White House correspondent, said over Twitter it was "very unusual that Obama called on Huffington Post second, appearing to know the issue the reporter would ask about."

So here's the juicy part - the CBS correspondent sounds a little irked. After the Mainstream Media carrying Obama's water through the primaries, the general election through post-inauguration, he's asking questions now from those even further left than the mainstream media. Despite being their darling, the President has perhaps started the process of jilting them.

Ouch. There was a lot of speculation on the right that the media was backing Obama because he was their guy. It was a means of re-establishing their clout. But if he's going to start asking questions of HuffPo 'reporters' then what's next Kos? The press at NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, New York Times et al. might start to see their clout in doubt and threatened by the new media on the left. This in addition to the new media on the right - Fox, Rush, right wing bloggers etc. Combine that threat with their already sinking ratings and in some cases, bleeding of cash - you have the beginnings of a potential rift.

Presidential honeymoons always end. For President Obama it ended early on for the right because of his blizzard of spending. But for the left, he may be causing his own early ending of the honeymoon by revealing his truest friends are further left. Either the mainstream media is going to be angry because they feel they are just as left as HuffPo and will feel used or else they are going to feel used and deceived because of his shift towards friendlier questioning. Either way, the MSM is going to feel a bit of antipathy over this. And if that's the case, the questions are bound to get just a little harder for President Obama.

All I can say is "about time".

The obligatory Inauguration post

If I could describe this lib-fest in one word it would be: Yawn. But since this is an opinion blog that requires more than just one word let me try to detail for you the 'highlights' of what transpired. I started out watching MSNBC because I wanted to get the liberal viewpoint. Unfortunately it froze up before the Oath of Office, and mercifully, I was forced (allowed) to switch to Fox. Interestingly, the cleanest feed I could find was from a blogger in India.

There was a throng of "1,2,4 million" in attendance. The real number is of course not known, but certainly there were a lot in attendance. And almost as certainly the MSM will inflate those numbers so that by 2011, they will be talking about the 20 million in attendance at the day of America's re-birth. And of course what liberal love-fest would be complete without a raft of liberal politicians, liberal stars and poetry? The Inauguration of O, did not disappoint on any of those counts.

I believe the MSNBC broadcast was being done primarily by Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. There were some other comments being made but they may not have been in the broadcast center, but rather field corespondents. The commentary was hyperbolic, it was to be expected. Matthews talked about his tingle. He talked about George Bush being an uninteresting President and someone he would not want to read about in the future, unlike other Presidents.

I believe it was Matthews who also chimed in with "This is not like any other inauguration - you can feel that sense of history." And this little gem; "People are in a democracy and they didn't feel like it a few years ago."  After the swearing in, where Roberts and Obama both misspoke slightly, the Inaugural speech itself was underwhelming. It was a mainly a re-hash of many elements from other speeches. Here is video, so you can hear it for yourself

and part 2;

Sure it had the requisite applause breaks, but there was no astoundingly profound statements from the President, and it seemed more politically tinged in parts than you'd expect from a speech meant to set the tone for a Presidency, especially considering the fact that Obama is supposed to be a uniter rather than a divider. At least according to those on the left, where it's okay to demonize Bush but now that it's there guy, we should all come together and rally around the false Messiah.

There was an additional point worth noting, one that was deliberately leaked to the press beforehand (likely so they could re-iterate the talking points) by the likes of David Axelrod and Colin Powell. the speech by the One, was meant to emphasize the importance of personal responsibility. The reason for that is deliberate. It lowers the impossibly high bar Obama has managed to set for himself through the election cycle. Now that he faces the reality of running something for real - besides a campaign, he cannot possibly live up to the expectations he's set. To be fair, he hasn't really set them - people have set them for him, by buying into the vagueness of his message and applying their own visions, hopes and needs onto them.

By emphasizing the responsibility for Americans to do for themselves, he can spread the blame when he doesn't achieve 100% bliss for every American as 'promised'. Yes We Can will ultimately end up being a disillusionment for many Americans when Obama makes choices that don't mesh with their image of his vision, which is really their own.

Another point in his speech meant to do the same thing was to talk up how terrible the situation is for America. He paints a dire picture of an America doomed. That serves two purposes (1) blame Bush in order to lower expectations about how long it will take to climb out of the mess he inherited and (2) allows him to take credit no matter what happens. If the unemployment rate goes to 10%, he can always say, without my plan to save 4 million jobs, it would have been 12%.

His speech is a clever ploy. because it gives him a lot of wiggle room to go back on any promises and ways to deflect blame for failure. Some people will see through it but his core constituencies who are blinded by their passion of the O, will not, particularly the youth who are clearly gullible enough to have voted for him in the first place.

A couple of other points to consider about the day. Firstly, there were an endless number of balls, and dances between the President and First Lady. While it's the other team, I do not begrudge them their moments. They won, let them enjoy it for a day. There's no need to have ill will on a day that was indeed historic in a superficial way. Superficial because as many are quick to point out, skin color is indeed a superficial thing. The character of a man is how he should be judged, not skin color. I agree. So why the historic importance of black President, besides being the first one? Will it diminish cries of racism? Until now was a black President secretly forbidden? The answers to both of those questions is a firm NO. So superficially, it erases arguments that a black man could never be President.

Having given them their moment their is another point to ponder. Fox was gushing along with the other networks. Many conservatives find that curious. Isn't Fox supposed to be at least Fair and Balanced, if not our voice? David Limbaugh warns against conservatives falling prey to the hysteria. It's a good warning, and there seems to be plenty of conservatives drinking the Kool Aid.

But I think I see the Fox and others' rationale behind not dumping on his parade. If they were to do so, it would give the cards to the Democrats to say that conservatives were never on board from the beginning and there was a preconceived plan to derail Obama from the start. that conservatives are going to disagree with the administration on policy is inevitable. So why allow them more ammunition to blame any failure on post-Bush conservatives as well as Bush? It' going to be a steep uphill battle opposing the agenda of the left, we need to not provide them with any ammunition at all to hammer us back with.

MSNBC's turn in the light of day

Albeit briefly for now.

Mainly Socialists Nonsensical Broadcasting Community. Far worse than CNN.

O'Reilly discusses it.




Scarborough discusses it;



O'Reilly compares Fox to other outlets;



MSNBC is hyperbolic in their lean to the left. They don't balance out Fox, Fox isn't enough to balance them out because they are the fairest network. MSNBM+NBC+CBS+ABC+NYT+... versus Fox. And Fox tries to moderate itself by balancing in liberal talking heads in fairly even numbers.

The real question is, as a conservative - where's OUR Fairness Doctrine? Why do you think we own talk radio? Drive us out of that and we'll find something else that liberals will eventually try deem unfair. But to proclaim unfairness and imbalance on radio is blind at best and anti-freedom, anti-Constitutional and un-American at it's malevolent worst.

More MSNBC garbage to follow (guaranteed).