Faux News Strikes again. The following story is hot off the press about Fox News folks being too firmly entrenched in the various conservative political movements. I am not aware of any scandals but why would I be? I keep Faux News on a lot. I consider it to be a fairly good source for what ^&*() is going to hit the fan next which I need to keep the blog up.
On another note, Jon Stewart seems to be running a one man show with the same objective. Stewart is calling them out left and right. He makes fun of the hypocrisy he sees. Maybe that is the best way. I watch. It is like turning your face away from a train wreck. I can’t do it. See Jon Stewart’s Punching Bag, Fox News. (New York Times)
So, my challenge is, for the conservatives here to disprove this story. I know that Media Matters is scoffed at because it is liberal. You all help me understand if these ethic nightmares are valid or not. There is not a soul who isn’t aware of my opinion of Fox News. I am biased. No fair shot from the Moonhowler.
Media Matters: Fox News’ ever-expanding ethics nightmare
Another week, another handful of ethical scandals that should permanently sink Fox’s claim of being a legitimate news organization.
To recap: Last week, they gave us twin scandals starring Fox News stalwarts Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. “Furious” Fox News execs pulled Sean Hannity from his planned show filming/fundraiser for the Cincinnati Tea Party after numerous news veterans and watchdogs called foul.
O’Reilly spent last week reminding us of his willful ignorance by repeatedly falsely asserting that “no one” on Fox promoted the falsehood that “jail time” was a penalty for not buying insurance under the health care reform bill. He was outrageously wrong.
Though Howard Kurtz reported that Fox plans to “keep a tighter rein on Hannity and others” in the wake of the tea party scandal, we remain skeptical. Fox has a long history of promising change in the wake of damaging ethics scandals, then failing to deliver on those promises.
Indeed, despite cancelling Hannity’s tea party event, Fox News has yet to cancel a planned appearance by Fox Business host John Stossel at a paid event for a nonprofit organization with very close ties to the energy industry. If history is any indicator, Fox will hold its breath and hope that everyone forgets about the Stossel fundraiser.
Of course, this being Fox News, Stossel’s planned fundraiser wasn’t even the cable channel’s biggest ethics scandal this week.
While a great deal of attention has deservedly been given to Rupert Murdoch’s statement that Fox News “shouldn’t be promoting the tea party,” the rest of his comment — “or any other party” — is equally notable. So, how’s Fox’s supposedly frowned-upon promotion of that “other party” — the GOP — going? In a word: lucratively.
As we detailed last week, Fox News hosts and contributors have raised millions of dollars for Republican candidates and causes using PACs, 527s, and 501(c)(4) organizations.
In a follow-up report this week, we detailed the massive scope of Fox’s fundraising for the GOP:
In recent years, at least twenty Fox News personalities have endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or causes, or against Democratic candidates or causes, in more than 300 instances and in at least 49 states. Republican parties and officials have routinely touted these personalities’ affiliations with Fox News to sell and promote their events.
In their defense, they did miss Wyoming.
Were Fox an actual news organization that cared about journalistic standards, all of these ethics scandals would be excellent fodder for its weekly media criticism show, Fox News Watch. Unfortunately, as we noted last weekend, they ignored the O’Reilly and Hannity scandals in favor of such pressing stories as media coverage of the new Oprah bio. Forthcoming coverage of the Fox Newsers’ fundraising seems unlikely.
Media Matters reporter and senior editor Joe Strupp pointed out that while Fox News Watch was once a source of legitimate media criticism, the show has increasingly transformed into yet another megaphone for GOP talking points. Strupp quoted former Fox News Watch host Eric Burns (no relation to Media Matters President Eric Burns) saying: “The show was getting to be more and more of a struggle to do fairly. There was a progression of interference to try to make the show more right-wing. I fought very hard against it.”
As Media Matters President Eric Burns pointed out on MSNBC this week, “When you have a famed, well known Republican hitman — Roger Ailes — running a news network, this is what you’re going to get.”
Fox News has a slightly different take, however. As Fox News Watch put it in the promo for its segment on Ailes’ new ratings high, “Fairness plus balance equals success.”
Take note, CNN.
“Fair and balanced” my left buttcheek! Fox Noise is nothing but conservative entertainment.
I don’t get it. Because Fox has what amounts to an Opinions/Editorial staff they’re Faux?
I think people are able to seperate between the actual FoxNews part and the commentary part.
The entire field of journalism actually is to blame. We just don’t have ‘good’ journalists any more. We don’t have hard hitting investigators. We don’t have Woodward and Bernstein we have Maddow and Hannity. But, I give those two a pass because they don’t promote themselves as ‘reporters’ or journalists. I see them both for what they are – entertainment.
Do people on the left not see the same thing? Can ‘they’ not see where news ends and entertainment begins?
Not on the left so I don’t know. I think there are serious journalists.
I just think that the lines of fact vs opinion are far too blurred on Faux News. O’Reilly is opinion based on Tues. when you turn him on, you should know you are getting opinion of current events. However, Fox and Friends is another matter. From 6- 9 am there is nothing but ‘news’ and current events with commentary. They are not nearly as well researched as O’Reilly and the opinions flow. That isn’t news. But many people take it as news.
That morning segment is all against the current administration, Pelosi and Reid. They make no bones about it.
I don’t follow left or right leaners. I just want news. I don’t want to attach a name to it or know how the delivery person of my news votes. I just want news. Unfiltered news. If I want an opinion, then I can go search for how someone else feels about it…getting some opinion and commentary.
Sorry to see Bill Moyers retiring from his PBS show. A criticism I have
of many interviewers is that use guest as props and don’t allow
them to present complete thoughts or even answer questions before
the host rudely butts in – The Foxies are the worst but not the only ones.
Moyers is a professional and knows when to talk and when to listen,
apparently an art in decline. Bill Moyers left us more informed and he
will be missed.
What “scandal”? They are commentators with a particular slant who make no bones about it. You don’t have to be a proverbial rocket scientist to be able to discern between a straight news show, which should be objective , i.e. fair and balanced, and political commentary. No one will come to break your legs if you don’t watch Hannity or Beck. The problem as I see it is that many who do not agree with their views just can’t seem to stand the thought that they even have access to the airwaves. My own opinions of Mathews, Maddow, and Olbermann are pretty doggoned low; but never would I even dream of trying to get their viewpoints removed from the airwaves or claiming that their commentary and related activities were some sort of “scandal.” It’s politics. It can get rough and tumble sometimes. Thicken the skin. And, if you see these commentators make statements you know to be in error, call them out on it. That’s the way this game is played.
Should our news stations be making the news or reporting the news? Fox often makes the news. I think that is wrong.
News should’t be politics.
I have far more distain for Doocy, Killmeade and ‘rectchin’ Gretchen than I do for Glenn Beck. Why? Because Beck is at least who he says he is. The morning foxies pretend to be news and then roll their eyes, make snide comments about their adversaries, and distort the truth.
Tell me the president did whatever. Let me make up my own mind if tis good or bad. Or have an end of the news opinion piece or something other than peppering the news with their silly arsed opinion. Wolverine I wish you are right about the rocket scientists. I know far too many people who live by whatever that station says. Those people are filled with misinformation. That goes far beyond just hearing something you don’t want to hear.
Conservative commentators are being criticized for supporting conservatives??? I don’t get the problem. Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman could go to every democratic fundraiser thrown and I would not care. In fact I guess I assumed that they already did do that.
Now if Shep Smith signed on to go on the campaign trail with candidates as a spokesperson I would be concerned. Is there anyone in America that didn’t know Hannity, O’Reilly, and Beck are conservatives? Is there anyone who didn’t know Stoessel is a libertarian?
To me this sentence sums it up best “As Media Matters President Eric Burns pointed out on MSNBC this week”. Media Matters…MSNBC, that says it all, on the flip side of the coin.
And speaking of such things…I got an email from someone sending me another comment off of another blog. Once again, someone is attempting to stir something up by saying we had the inside scoop on the new AZ laws. You know, that is just someone trying to cause a dust up. We haven’t taken a strong stand on the AZ law since we are still learning about it.
What people don’t realize is, we eventually find out who is trying to stir up stuff. People talk. Much of what goes into a blog goes on behind the scenes. We know that people often talk to themselves on blogs, if you get our drift. There are also people who are at ‘cross purposes’ and who do ‘cross pollinating.’ We are aware.
Word to the wise…don’t carry false tails or tales between us and other blogs. If we want a dust up, we know how to cause one. It serves no purpose. Live and let live.
@anona
I don’t want the reporters supporting candidates. Maybe its just me. Too much cross pollination. Why not just become the Republican News Channel? The elephants or something rather than the foxies.
And get rid of the fair and balanced joke. They aren’t and they know they aren’t.
Again, its the hypocrisy.
I guess I still don’t get it. Is the point being made that networks should put a ‘warning label’ on shows like Countdown or Hannity labeling them as opinions and not ‘news’. I mean, shouldn’t we just assume that the American people are smart enough to know the difference?
Said another way do we need to put a tv warning label on SNL’s Weekend Update to tell people that it ain’t news just in case they might, on a remote chance, think that it is?
MH, speaking as a centrist, what news channels do you watch then? Maybe I can be persuaded to watch something else.
“Kill your television.”
In college, that was the only bumper sticker I had on my Ford Escort.
Then one day I happened to say, “Television is opium for the masses.”
It caught on with some English and art majors.
Now that I am older, I acknowledge television has its uses. But if the stuff on there is useless, I return to my former matras.
Fox isn’t worth my time or attention.
Consider it DOA.
Marin, I actually like the 11 oclock network news shows for real news.
You are asking a question that leads to ‘What do we do about it?’ Not sure. I would say it is up to Fox to get rid of its ‘fair and balanced’ logo for starters. Until they change and start being honest about who they are, bloggers and people like Jon Stewart will mimic and make fun of them.
Many people who watch think that the other networks are lying and that only Fox is telling the truth. Seriously.
Same. I watch the 10pm news (Fox on local channel 5) as I like the anchors, the pace and the format.
Well, the answer to the ‘what do we do about it?” question is simple. We watch tv in a free market. The news network that is the most slanted will probably only win with the demographic most likely to veer that way and will utterly fail in attracting the wide market of viewers.
In addition, the sources themselves (newspaper, television, blogs, etc.) all compete in that free market. As people gain trust or lose confidence in the types of media (and the underlying newspaper, network, or blog) then they’ll gain or lose viewers.
Local newspapers have been shutting down all across America. We can say that it’s a facet of the economic market but why are some failing over others? Could it be that people have lost confidence in some print media over others? That maybe the key buyers of newspapers have been turned off by soft/hard coverage on certain topics and have motivated those customers to turn elsewhere?
So, we really have two questions here. By what metric do we compare media organizations and how do we quantify fair and balanced?
Now, I’m not a fan of FoxNews (the tv channel) but I spend everyday on FoxNews.com. I also spend time on MSNBC.COM (refuse to watch the channel), CNN (for fast national coverage but not really on discrete facts), WSJ and Politico.com. I figure that range gives me the best chance to make up my opinion on something. Of course I check blogs (I’m a fan of this one as the topics change, debate is civil and there are some smart people on the left and right and some libertarians (shouts out to y’all!).
Fox isn’t that bad. If I had the pull at work to watch tv on my desktop – I’d probably tune FoxNews but would watch Bones or re-runs of Firefly instead of watching the talk programs.
To be honest – why watch any of them? Maddow, Olbermann, Hannity, Rush..? I can form my own opinion without someone trying to tell me how to think.
Exactly. Now some things I might need to research, but I don’t want to be told how or what to think. However, there are a lot of people out there who do. One of my dinner friends told me her sister believes everything she hears on Fox News and thinks all the others are lying.
I know `10 people who say they only watch fox news. Well….people shouldn’t tell me that. Because I then think their knowledge base is very slanted.
There is nothing that can be done about fox news other than people laughing at it and exposing the the way they do business. There are a whole lot of people out there who want to be told what and how to think. There are people who get mad because they don’t hear what they want to hear. What can I say!
Again, you are doing exactly what you say Fox is doing. You say that Fox is slanted and then you say that anyone that listens (solely) to them have a limited knowledge base because of that slant.
Would you say the same of MSNBC? ABC? CBS? I’m hearing you be very critical of Fox but would you be willing to lobby the same criticism at any other network? Why or why not?
Your portrayal of FoxNews is slanted at best and misinformed or malicious at worse.
I blame public education and our teachers for that failure…the failure of children to think and growing into adults that need to be spoonfed what to think and feel because they lack critical reasoning skills.
The press brought on its own demise in the 90’s when they decided that they didn’t want to call balls and strikes anymore and they wanted to pitch. In full disclosure, as a Republican myself, I immediately took to Fox years ago because in my view (as myopic as it may have been) there was finally a news outlet that wasn’t out to always destroy the Republicans or at least put them in the worst light possible. The media is an interesting creature. It can directly promote its position or it can indirectly promote it by omission. Do I think that Fox is “fair and balanced”? in their reporting or coverage? of course not. There is a larger overall meaning to that motto that gets missed. Having Fox on the air, at least makes the media at large in its totality a bit more “fair and balanced”. By the ratings they get it appears a good portion of America tired of the constant “america is bad” slant of the MSM throughout the 80’s and 90’s.
Marin, that is bass-akward logic and I am not going to play. What if what if what if.
I don’t know anyone who says they only listen to ABC or MSNBC. I know hordes of people who say they only listen to Fox. (and I mean Fox News, not channel 5) And I think they only have limited knowledge because they are basing that knowledge on what a slanted ‘news’ station says. And if Fox News is anyone’s only source of information, I stand by my OPINION.
Additionally, fair and balanced isn’t my logo. I am entitled to think Fox News is a horrible organization that pretends to be a news organization am I not? I believe they are a tool of Republican Party. That would be fine if they just said that. The Republcians and the Democrats are both entitled to their own news organizations, as long as they say up front that is what it is.
Tom, I think at this point it is hard to tell which came first, the chicken or the egg. How many people now get swept in because they think they have a neutral station?
I am trying to decide if I agree with you about the media before the 90s. I don’t know because I didn’t watch cable news back then. I do know that Bill Clinton was vilified everywhere, even before he was inaugurated by the right, but I can’t remember the delivery system. I am an Independent. Back in those days I was going from Daddy Bush to Bill Clinton. I also had a different interest in politics in the 80s than I do now.
The press has always been able to control and manipulate the information that is disseminated. Before cable, there were the three main networks that got to choose which stories would be put on the air, how they would be portrayed and which ones weren’t “newsworthy”. This gave them an enormous amount of power. With the advent of cable and satellite, the 24 hour cycle began and those with the money to fund their particular viewpoints began doing so.
Early on, I was a big fan of Chris Matthews, even though I knew his personal political background, he always seemed like a standup guy to me and enjoyable to watch. Over the years, with dismay I watched him go over the edge and drop any facade of objectivity. It’s funny you mention the Clinton impeachment. I think that’s when the veneer came off for the media. The press, (and the electorate) turned into two armed camps, each bent on the destruction of the other at all costs. The Republicans were determined to destroy Clinton as payback for Nixon. The Democrats were determined to destroy Bush (43) as payback for Clinton. Now, the Republicans are determined to destroy Obama as payback for the shoddy treatment given W. In the meantime, we are destroying our country from within as was predicted by Kruschev in the 60’s in the famous “shoe pounding” speech. Politics has devolved into a “we won-get over it” zero sum game that creates an atmosphere of revenge and reprisal at all costs.
Even at the local level here in PWC we have seen this. The current chairman is either revered or reviled, not much gray area. It can be said that he brings that on himself, either intentionally or not but the fact is that we as a society seem to have little castles on our heads;flying our flags with the drawbridge up. My side is good, your side is bad. I’m a true American, you are not. We care about people, you hate. The funny thing is, that when Congress talks, it’s one millionaire trying to convince you that they care more about poor people than the other millionaire. Think about that for a second…..Almost all politicians on every level have successes and they have failures. They do good things and bad things. We as a society lose any type of intellectual credibility when we refuse to recognize this fact. Bill Clinton did good things, he did bad things. Same with Bush. Same with Obama, Warner, Kaine, McDonnell, Stewart etc. etc.
We have elevated the position of President to that of a King in which one individual is solely responsible for everything, good or bad. We’ve done the same thing here locally at times. I’ve read many things over the past few years about Stewart that either blame him for the nationwide foreclosure crisis or give him credit for single handedly taking on the Federal govt regarding the illegal immigration issue. A County Supervisor. Ridiculous. Both of these are intellectually lazy and laughable. The press is no different. If the party you espouse is in power, you are on defense. If your party is out, you are on offense and the fact is that we all lose in this quid pro quo game of destruction. Until we get serious about the business of good governance in this country, it will continue to be a parlor game, a bloodsport that will lead to our ultimate demise as a nation. It starts with elevating the level of debate from schoolyard taunts and opposition research exposes to thoughtful, mature intellectual debates about the differences of opinion and how compromises can be made to begin achieving some things to make the future brighter for our children.
To pontificate even further, I think it really started in the early 90’s with CNN’s Crossfire. This show really put into place the labels and impressions of people that we still hold today in the media. On the right they chose the bombastic Pat Buchanan and on the left they put up the effeminate Mike Kinsley. Night after night, this was like watching a lion and a wildebeast on the Discovery channel. The impression was clear, Republicans were America loving, anti-communists and the Democrats were weak egghead apologists. This trend continues today with caricatures like Beck and Alan Colmes. Sure, throughout the years there were guys like Bob Beckel who didnt fit the mold but for the most part the battle lines were drawn at that point and remain for the most part today.
My father, who passed away long ago never really considered himself either. When asked, he would say, “I’m an American and I support the President. He’s the only one we’ve got right now.”. Although he was raised a Georgia Southern Democrat, if anybody would have tried to tell that WW2 and Korean Vet that being a Democrat meant he was a pantywaist liberal communist they would have won an all expense paid trip to an emergency dental procedure.
Men like Reagan, Eisenhower and even Jefferson couldn’t get the Republican nomination anymore, they would be RINO’s. Sam Nunn, and Tip O’Neill would be derided as Blue Dogs. Years from now when we look back and wonder what the hell happened, it will be that common sense, civility, and statesmanship lost out to my way or the highway, I won you lost, all wrapped in the guise of I love my country more than you do. If the adults don’t stand up and take charge, i fear for the future.
Tom Andrews, good points. The polictics of today make average Americans enemies of each other. The hate within the country – for our fellow countrymen – is more palpable than it is for any foreign nation.
I’m a left-leaning Independent, though a bit of a fiscal conservative, and I find that I can’t support the Republican Party. I may support local candidates but as long as the national party is driven by extremists, it won’t get my vote. I’ve been waiting for the moderates to stand up and be counted. The Democrats have my support on social issues, but I’d like to see the spending reined in. Where is the moderate middle? Independents probably nudge out Republicans and Democrats in numbers and have the ability to throw elections but there is no party representing them at this point.
Censored,
Very good questions. Anyone who objectively studies elections can tell you they are won between the 40’s like a football game. Meaning that neither side can win with just their base. Most of the electorate is somewhere in between the 20 points on either edge. That is why politicians must pander to the base to win a primary (especially a convention) and then they immediately sprint to the center where the votes are.
If a credible third “Independence” Party could be established it would do very well. However, the entrenched power and money in both politics and the world of media would quickly set out to squash any nascient movement. The “Tea Party” is obstensibly a reaction to government spending and deficits and an available option for those opposed to this administration to voice their opposition to its policies. This is their right. As was it Code Pink’s right to boisterously protest against the wars. However, protest movements tend to give off more heat than light and will eventually burn themselves out because one simply cannot be against something without providing real, tangible and doable solutions to fix what is being protested.
The fact that the Tea Party has garnered so much attention by the MSM points to it’s appeal. As a real political movement with staying power, I don’t see a future in which it can become a real credible force. If common sense, non-idealogically driven “independents” could somehow gather together and resist the power of the three machines ( R, D, and MSM) and create a party built upon finding solutions to our problems rather than destroy others it could catch on. We must look to the future. We all wonder why we keep driving the car into the ditch year after year. It’s because we are driving with blinders on and staring in the rear view mirror, concentrating on our narrow view of what is past rather than trying to concentrate on what is ahead of us.
Unfortunately, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. The loudest among us shoutdown the ones with manners. Until those that feel lost without a political home on both sides can band together in an independence party that will accept and embrace the fact that we all dont have to march in lockstep on every issue, but as long as the ultimate goal is the betterment of our nation for future generations, we will be stuck in a system that is now like two rams that have butted heads to the point that their antlers are now stuck together and they can’t go anywhere but refuse to give any ground to repair the situation.
I believe Censored speaks for many of us. We are the middle and I know we are out there but neither party quite fills the bill.
Tom, I think you are all over this problem. Odd, you pulled out the chairman as an example. Maybe he is just the buffoon to best illustrate the problem. He runs down to Stafford and makes threats to direct the employees of PWC to not enroll people in Medicaid 3.5 years from now. He was going to issue a resolutiion voting on this anarchy. He was going to put employees at risk of breaking federal law, all to the yea bubbas, stomps and atta boys of a cheering crowd. I believe that might be the video where he called the President of the United States a socialist.
Then he runs back to his base the next week and hands out a flyer at a Tea Party rally about opting out. Then by the time he gets to his promised resolution he has become a declawed house cat, to quote my partner in blogging crime.
Stewart is now asking for a resolution to get his CXO to do some investigative cost analysis over the next 3.5 years? What a joke. He must have forgotten he is a Republican. He doesn’t need a resolution to give a directive to the CXO that seems pretty much what any county would do, just to see what the hiring needs were going to be. I thought Republicans were all about less government.
I agree, vilifying him for national issues like the foreclosure crisis and the 2008 financial crisis makes him larger than life. However, he certainly wasn’t around shoring us up for the inevitable. One has to wonder how PWC became the foreclosure capital of Virginia.
And when you run for chairman, you take the heat. I often forget the party of the others. Most of the time, (operative word being most) they work for the county rather than for the party.
Many people here on this blog are Independent.
Lots of after thoughts here….
Tom, I do remember Crossfire and I do remember the principle players. You are right. I don’t think the media has made good choices in picking liberal leaning representatives. Holmes and Kingsley just don’t cut it. Holmes doesn’t even make a good liberal. I would rather see the pitbull Carville out there making the liberal plea. There are all sorts of good people to represent the democrat/liberal/blue dog side now but it is sort of late.
They trotted them out long after Buchanan was out there, O’Reilly, or Hannity both making a larger than life presence. The blonde, cleavaged, long legged foxies don’t have to do much but make a negative remark about Obama and nod their heads. Point taken.
The Democrats should have learned from Joe Kennedy. Did I just say that the Democrats have squandered the past 60 years setting their own style down?
Well, regardless, I believe Fox is totally unethical and I rarely watch msnbc. I can’t stand Chris Mathews. Rachel Maddow is who she is. I actually like her but I wouldn’t give her an A in journalism. As for the Faux News? Laugh at them while they control election after election is about the only choice out there.
The good thing is, the Republicans will do an uber sweep this fall. However they will puff up and strut around too much, just like the AG is doing. They will overstep their bounds and get sent back to where they came from.
All this could be avoided if the moderates of both parties had a chance of being elected. party bosses just wont allow it. They are the die-hards.
I only bring up the Chairman because it seems to be a topic that most people really take to heart and brings the larger political philosphical discussions closer to home. 🙂
At the risk of sound like a Stewart shill (if I haven’t already crossed that threshold LOL) it should be noted that the latest headlines reported that crime is down in PWC and we are now the 16th (14th by some estimates) richest county in the country. I think he should get as much credit for that as he took heat for single handedly destroying the housing market (sarcasm added) I think accountability is extremely important in politics and in life, which means there are times when we need to grudgingly admit that our opponents have done some good with as much gusto as we point out deficiencies.
i agree, the Republicans will do well this year, and of course will follow the pattern and over reach and read too much into their “mandate”. happens every time……..
If we have dropped from 14th to 16th riches, he won’t want to take credit for that.
No one here, meaning the blog administrators, have ever said that the foreclosure crisis was the fault of Stewart. We have often wondered aloud if we were hit worse by it because of the immigration resolution. We came to no conclusions.
Corey certainly did not execute the entire immigration resolution by himself. He had lots of help. In fact, there for a while they were fighting over who wrote it. It seems that at least 4 people wanted to take credit for it. I wonder if they would have been so quick to go to court when things started heating up like they surely will in AZ.
And yea it does happen….re Republicans over-reaching. That is because they give the far right too much power. If they stuck with their moderate Republicans, all would be fine in all probability.
Fascinating exchange here. You just do not see this amount of detailed postings on most other blogs.
The over-reaching seems to be universal. The current administration with majorities in both houses seems to have fallen prey to the same thing as many before them have. It’s almost like there is a mentality where “we have to get our stuff through before it swings back again”-historically both sides.
You are correct regarding the immigration resolution. Corey didnt even write it, Stirrup wrote it but Corey did champion it and ride it to reelection however, it must be noted with the most emphasis that it was voted for unanimously twice-by all on the board even Principi and Jenkins. Twice-unanimously. Obviously Stewart gets the heat because he stands in front of the cameras and takes credit but this was not a dictatorial edict rammed down everyone’s necks by one guy. Oh well, enough about the past, we have enough future issues to keep us debating forever…
Yes, it was a unanimous vote. Supposedly supervisors had to vote yes so they could re-address it. Maybe someone can explain that to me. I had always thought it was a cop out.
And yes, the Democrats are doing their version of the Republican thing. I call it choking..like a team going out there who should be winning and if there is a mistake to make, they will make it. And if I might be so bold, too many in each party need to keep their flies up.
One reason Corey gets the heat is because he sees a mic and he has to open his mouth. He ought to let someone else be the fall guy. He did some pretty dispicable things during that time. I think the worst was trying to bully Chief Dean and then handing over private emails to a local blogger so those supervisors could be vilified. That to me was totally unprofessional.
Tom, I am not really sure who wrote that Resolution…the original. Stirrup introduced it but I think it was fed to him. Mike Hethmon says he wrote it in the video. I have also heard Robert Duecaster say he wrote it. I am missing a 4th person. I used to know.
The final version is but a paper tiger of its original form, thank goodness. There were definitely problems in PWC. However, pitting the communities against each other wasn’t the way to handle it.
Re the unanimous vote on the resolution: I believe Roberts Rules dictates that one must be on the winning side to reintroduce the subject. That’s how it became neutered – because the potential nay-sayers initially approved it and then had the ability to bring it up again for alteration.
Thanks Censored. I never did get it staright in my mind why that had to happen.
Just a funny fact to point out while all of the Fox bashing continues… again. More people watch the Cartoon Network than watch MSNBC and CNN combined.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/cable_network_rankings_fnc_2_msnbc_26_cnn_32_hln_37_in_prime_155302.asp
Hello, I am glad you find it amusing that I continue to bash Fox News for its lack of ethics. Tell me, to you think it is ethical to distort the news?
Interesting that you have such animosity towards MSNBC and CNN. It is no wonder you have the limited political scope we have seen here if all you watch is that schlock OPINION station that calls itself fair and balanced. It is neither.
You just explained alot. Thanks.