The American Spectator

Captain America| 11.12.08 @ 9:59AM

Sheppie is refuted by such outlets as Pew Research and the Washington Post.

Mrs. Jackson| 11.12.08 @ 11:21AM

A little touchy, huh?

TaxachusettsMan| 11.12.08 @ 11:42AM

Can Shlep even HEAR anything through all that make-up?

He has to be the most light-weight element on FOX News. Thank God they put him on at 7 PM our time: gives me an hour to get some work done between Brit Hume and Bill O'Reilly!

WendyG| 11.12.08 @ 12:21PM

Shep is the rare annoying presence at FoxNews. We can acknowledge that the GOP needs to rebuild, while also pointing out press bias. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Bob| 11.12.08 @ 1:37PM

Shep is about the ONLY person on Fox who is "fair and balanced". Scapegoating the media for lousy candidates and lousy campaigns is just making excuses. Every time I hear this lame excuse I want to puke. The Republicans should be the party that believes in personal initiative and personal success and doesn't cry when things don't go their way. You guys need to stand up, grow some huevos, and stop being crybabies.

All I hear on this blog are criticisms. What we need in the Republican party are solutions. It's easy to complain, but it takes an adult to find solutions.

Next, you're going to say that I'm complaining. So here's where I think the party should go. Let's call it "Conservative Pragmatism". Ideologies are bound to fail because they are inviolable. We ought to aim for results. For example, taxes can be too low for the amount of services we desire. A "no tax increase" ideology is just stupid in those cases. The key should be reducing spending which might include reducing the size of government. Pragmatism recognizes trade-offs. The same kind of trade-offs all of you make in real life. Did you know that statistically abstinence leads to more abortions? Shouldn't the goal be to reduce abortions and not necessarily promote abstinence?

We in the Republican party need to be adults. If we decide to spend, then we should pay for it. Going to war in Iraq and excluding that expenditure from the budget is NOT the position we should support. If we could significantly lower health care costs by going to a modified single payer solution, shouldn't we give that a try? Isn't the result more important than the ideology?

This is where the successful governors are going. Look at Crist, Pawlenty, Schwartzeneggar, Daniels, etc. Crist, for example, would not support the Terry Schiavo legislation because he thought it was stupid.

So, guys, get a grip. Act like adults. Stop complaining and concentrate on pragmatic solutions.

WendyG| 11.12.08 @ 1:57PM

>>>Shep is about the ONLY person on Fox who is "fair and balanced."

Bob, a statement like this makes me dubious that you are "one of us" as you imply you are in your sentence "We in the Republican party need to be adults." Brit Hume is about as fair and balanced as there is, as is Chris Wallace, to name two. It's just that compared to the left-leaning crazies at MSNBC and the liberal-leaning gang at CNN, CBS NBC, ABC, the NY Times and the Washington Post, etc. Brit may seem more on the right. He's not, in his analysis at any rate. He is truly fair.

Avitar| 11.12.08 @ 2:02PM

There is nothing ridiculous about blaming the media. They have done it before. In a year when the media make up stories out of whole cloth and, over at MSNBC why would Sheppard Smith think the people that you can not fool all of the time would not catch on? MSNBC invents sources for attacks on One of America's finest Governors, but the Fox reporter do not even bother to create a fictional identity for his source. They just assume that we do not realize that the lies were concocted at the Washington Press Club.

Where does Shep suggest we turn to find out if Obama is even a citizen? We have not seen any evidence he is and like Roosevelt's wheel chair, the MSM will die before they look into it. The media avoidance of that wheel chair got us attacked in WWII because the enemies of the US saw the US lead by a weak dieing old man. Thank God for George Marshall. I ask who would come to the rescue if Barack Obama is blackmailed during the next crisis.

Bob| 11.12.08 @ 2:26PM

Wendy, I am a Republican and, thank God, I'm not one of you. I do believe Brit is "fair", but not balanced. He used to be both, but he has gone far to the right. I do agree that Chris Wallace is probably the best journalist on Fox, both in his tough questions and his fairness.

MSNBC has more conservative people on it than Fox has liberals. You have Joe Scarborough, David Gregory, Pat Buchanan and a host of "Republican strategists". I listen to all three cable news channels so I can get a "fair and balanced" point of view.

You, and your friend Avitar, would rather belief unsubstantiated blogs about Obama's citizenship and terrorist leanings than find out the truth. There's as much about MSNBC's reporting that drives me up the wall as Fox News'. However, Fox tells many more lies than MSNBC with Hannity, Fox and Friends, and O'Reilly.

Remember Wendy, that these outlets are in the business of making money, not really reporting the news. So stop complaining and support their entrepreneurship as we Republicans should do.

You and others seem to be arguing for a "fairness doctrine". If you are not, then you should talk about something else.

J David| 11.12.08 @ 2:47PM

Any Alinsky, Roosevelt, or Stalin could tell you that the apparatus of propaganda dissemination (our Fourth Estate MSM)is the first thing to take over when overthrowing a gov't/culture/country. Obama OWNS the ignorant consumers of, and creators of commie-lib MSM. A couple of generations of Welfare-receiving illiterates can't be expected to think beyond the propaganda and the hand-out.

Blog Goliard| 11.12.08 @ 4:00PM

Bob indeed has all the hallmarks of a Republican...that is, the sort of "no friends to the right, no enemies to the left" that brought us President McCain. Why these supposed GOP stalwarts hate the people on their own team most of all is an issue we shall have to leave to the psychiatrists.

(I must, however, congratulate him on the fact that he regularly watches not one, but three cable news channels, and his brain has not melted yet. I can't handle regular exposure to anything apart from "Special Report" once or twice a week myself.)

As for Shep, he's simply a pretty Fox pony, who has missed his real calling in television: hosting "Entertainment Tonight". The less thought any of us give him the better.

Bob| 11.12.08 @ 4:40PM

Blog, you have the kind of skewed perspective that hurts Republicans. In point of fact, being a center right animal, I have far more friends than you -- and it takes friends to get elected. Remember that we center right moderates are the swing vote that puts candidates into the election. You seem to forget that we VOTE in primaries. If you had more friends than us, we would have right wing, intolerant social conservative, wackos that would not get more than 35% of the vote.

Your problem is that you don't realize we do have conservative views for limited government, individual rights, fiscal discipline, and a touch of libertarianism. In fact, as a group, moderates are more fiscally conservative than the hard right like you. We totally disagree on religious issues and believe the government should not tell us how to run our lives (which is the same problem we have with the left wing wackos). Without us, who are becoming independents at an alarming rate, you don't have a chance. Remember, Republicans now account for only 28% of the electorate while Democrats account for 39% of the electorate. You guys need to take a math class. Idealism in the absence of a voting majority is worthless.

ruth| 11.12.08 @ 5:05PM

Hey, Bob, RINOs like you (if you really are a republican) always lose. McCain is just the latest example. You are a soft, squishy moderate, in short--a loser. Your posts are getting nastier and nastier and more irrelevant every day.

WendyG| 11.12.08 @ 5:21PM

For the record Bob, I watch MSNBC some. At least I watch Morning Joe. Yes Joe Scarborough is a Republican. But Pat Buchanan is not. He left the GOP for the Reform Party years ago. And he's definitely a paleoconservative, rather than mainstream. Joe's show is pretty much overrun with libs though. I am sure his cohost is, and most of his guests are. To wit the obnoxious and pompous New Yorker reporter David Remnick, who stunk up the show today with his snide comments about Sarah Palin. These people, Joe accepted, practically kiss Obama's ring every day. But Joe is witty and I enjoy him. So I watch. but Olbermann, Matthews and Maddow? Puleeze. In the tank for Obama. Always was always will be.

Mary| 11.12.08 @ 5:32PM

I think that while most of the media was rooting for Obama, it's a mistake to take up a woe-is-me cry.

The media has leaned center-left for a long time.

If the moderates who Frank Lunz interviews present an accurate picture of the make-up of moderates, they're divided too.

To take from these election results -given the unprecedented confluence of a "pre-emptive," unpopular war, and a terrorized electorate expecting another great depression- the conclusion that the electorate's factions' numbers are set in stone is too early.

From Tony Blankley's latest piece:

It is revealing that the exit polling disclosed that the public self-identified itself as 44 percent moderate, 34 percent conservative and 22 percent liberal, which was statistically identical (45-34-21) to the numbers after Bush's 2004 victory. Moreover, the fact that 20 percent of self-identified conservatives voted for Obama -- or 6.8 percent of the electorate -- shows that if McCain had held all the self-identified conservatives, he would have won the popular vote.

No one can know for sure why any of the approximately 124 million voters voted the way they did. Obviously, there were some conservatives who voted for a liberal. Maybe they were punishing the Republicans. Maybe they just admired Obama as a man. Maybe they liked his tax cut promises (though not his position on abortion). Likewise, there were some liberal Hillary supporters who voted for McCain just because they didn't like the way Obama treated their heroine.

Consider that in 1980, when Ronald Reagan won his first presidential election, the public was self-identified as 46 percent moderate, 28 percent conservative and 17 percent liberal. But by the 1984 Reagan re-election, the public had shifted to 42 percent moderate, 33 percent conservative and 16 percent liberal -- a statistically significant shift to the right. In those four years, Reagan had persuaded 5 percent of the electorate to move largely from moderate to conservative. And that 5 percent has stayed conservative for 24 years, right through the 2008 election. It is that 5 percent that has made America a center-right country rather than a centrist country -- allowing a fairly conservative Republican Party to win congressional and presidential elections most of the time.

That is why it is so vital for both the Republican Party and a newly aroused conservative movement to work feverishly to make the case to the broadest possible public for our right-of-center views during the next four years. Obama has not made his case yet. Just as Reagan won in 1980 in part because a lot of moderates were tired of Carter -- double-digit interest rates, stagflation, Soviets in Afghanistan, Iranian hostage crisis -- so a lot of moderates voted for Obama because of the housing market crash, financial crisis, drop in 401(k) account values, and two wars.

Obama will try to convert those temporary moderate and conservative votes of his into permanent liberal and moderate voters -- just as Reagan did in reverse between 1980 and 1984. If we conservatives can make our case, the election of 2008 will be a blip, just a kick-the-bums-out election. If Obama makes his case, he may have moved the center of political gravity to the left for a generation. Every conservative man and woman, to battle stations.

Social conservatives aren't going anywhere. I don't think republicans can make up that 30-35% loss by a disparate picking off.

I'm not for pandering to anyone, and that includes moderates. When being interviewed they don't strike me as any better educated on the issues than any other voters. And, like other voting blocks, they have their antipathies.

Stand up for what you believe. Give good account for why you believe it. Scrutiny does very few people any favors, and politicians lives are scrutinized. Integrity matters. That doesn't mean you have to have lived a perfect life, but that does mean you don't compound past mistakes by tucking tail and obfuscating.

Most people yearn for solid, moral leadership. They want to be able to believe in their leaders. Abortion/gay marriage support/opposition is strongest at the antipathetic extremes.

It is possible to be pro-life and advance that with the reasonable stipulations to no abortions for minors w/out consent of parents; no state strong-arming of Catholic or Christian hospitals to perform abortions; no Federal funding for abortions.

The fact of the matter is that Christians have little moral weight to throw behind their opposition to gay marriage because had they taken marriage seriously themselves, an advocacy for homosexuality would have been very difficult to advance.

That said, I don't think conservatives would suffer by requiring that homosexuality not be elevated to parity with heterosexuality in the education of their children.

Navigating between the extremes is non-negotiable because deviancy has already been defined down. You work with the circumstances in which you find yourself, and you choose your language wisely, including Scripture.

It's of no use to be a conservative merely for the acquisition of power.

The Founding Fathers knew the Constitution was meant for a moral people. The best thing conservatives can do for themselves is what Senator Jindal said in his interview on MSNBC: stand up for your principles and walk the walk

Mary| 11.12.08 @ 5:34PM

Sorry, make that Governor Jindal.

Mary| 11.12.08 @ 5:42PM

Sorry to spam the thread, but one last thing to remember as it relates to gay marriage:

"For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion - not just Christianity - has defined marriage as a contract between men and women,” Warren wrote. “There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population.”

Above quote is Rick Warren's. You know, the robust Pastor who Obama made his "above my pay grade," comment to. The Robust pastor who invited Obama to his church, and who Obama seemed at ease with.

Obama said on the campaign trail one day:

Today is the day that God has made.

If he can do it, so can we. And the Sermon On The Mount, minus Jesus is minus everything.

Bob| 11.12.08 @ 5:46PM

Ruth -- you call Obama names like Marxist and terrorist and talk about nasty? Social conservatives are the new RINO's. People like me -- the silent Republican voting majority -- are mainstream. Extremists like you are becoming irrelevant.

Wendy -- we agree 100%. Again, David Gregory also tilts right but is very careful to remain centrist. But my main point is that the purpose of these programs is not to be "fair", but to be profitable. The people that run GE/NBC are all strong Republicans -- but their shareholders expect them to make a profit. That's why Roger Ailes started the very right wing and unbalanced Fox News -- because there was a market segment that he could mine successfully. I'm not a politician, I am a strategist and a businessman. Olberman now outrates O'Reilly and Maddow outrates Hannity. That's advertising money in the bank -- and that is what it's all about.

People really don't want fairness, they want to validate their own biased beliefs -- both left and right. I'm less interested in the bigoted ideology of the Ruth's of this world, than to find solutions for the problems we face. I don't evaluate an idea based upon ideology, I've learned in business to evaluate an idea basis results. Politicians, and the people who blog here, are not interested in results if they are not consistent with their ideology. Yes, I believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility which is why I remain a Republican. But I oppose both the international interventionist philosophy of neocons and social conservative/religious interventionist ranting of the social conservatives. I want government out of my pocketbook and out of my house/bedroom/body as much as is practicable. I can't be a libertarian because I do believe that government has a purpose beyond the basics -- but still limited.

That's why I keep an open mind and watch all the news sources because I don't care where the good ideas emanate, I just want successful results.

Blog Goliard| 11.12.08 @ 6:13PM

Bob,

I take issue less with your (and your "moderate" cohort's) stand on the issues than your burning hatred for those on your right. Viz:

"Wendy, I am a Republican and, thank God, I'm not one of you."

Well, that's a way of winning friends and influencing people. Is this how you propose to build a big-tent coalition?

"In point of fact, being a center right animal, I have far more friends than you -- and it takes friends to get elected."

How do you know how many friends I have? Presumptive plus snotty plus nasty is, again, a real winning combination. In how many other ways do you enjoy demonstrating that you're a better person than icky common folk like me?

"Your problem is that you don't realize we do have conservative views for limited government, individual rights, fiscal discipline, and a touch of libertarianism. In fact, as a group, moderates are more fiscally conservative than the hard right like you."

Again with the presumptiveness. You have no idea how fiscally conservative I am; and anyway, any definition of "hard right" that identifies conservatives as less hawkish on taxes and spending than the Chafees and Whitmans of this world is nonsensical. Have you been sucked into the distorted lefty worldview whereby Bush=Right-Wing?

"We totally disagree on religious issues and believe the government should not tell us how to run our lives..."

Then you need to not only blow up Washington, but get rid of the entire criminal justice system--which tells us every day how we should live our lives, and thank God for that. You also will have to rethink the support you likely have for the civil rights revolution of the '60s, not to mention abolitionism the century before. Talk about imposing morality on people!

"Idealism in the absence of a voting majority is worthless."

And of course, the opposite is even more true. As we've seen over much of these past ten years.

ruth| 11.12.08 @ 6:14PM

Come on now, Bob, tell the truth--it will set you free. We know that you are just another nasty liberal troll stinkin' up our website. Open Mind? You've got to be kidding! You are vicious toward conservatives. Go put your knee-pads back on, your hero, Keith Olbermann is on soon.

WendyG| 11.12.08 @ 6:26PM

Bob: I don't know where you are getting your stats re: Fox vs. MSNBC.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/

FNC #1, All Cablers in Top Five Last Week

For the second week in a row, Fox News Channel was the top rated cable channel on all of television in prime time (Live+SD), averaging 3,536,000 Total Viewers. CNN finished in 2nd place with 3,286,000 and MSNBC was in 4th with 2,171,000. All three networks were helped by strong Election Night viewership and gained week-to-week. Headline News was 30th with 615,000.

In total day, FNC was 2nd (1,661,000), CNN 3rd (1,634,000) and MSNBC 9th (1,017,000).

CNN was the top-rated cable news channel on Election Night, but FNC pulled ahead by retaining more in an average of Wednesday-Friday. FNC retained 48% of Total Viewers compared to 29% for CNN and 38% for MSNBC and 36% in the A25-54 demo, compared to CNN's 24% and MSNBC's 32%

Scroll down the page at the link I posted and you'll see that in general, O'Reilly beats Olbermann and H&C;beats Maddow.

WendyG| 11.12.08 @ 6:38PM

Monday and Tuesday of this week Olbermann was clobbered twice each night. Greta really ate his lunch when she had Sarah Palin on. :) The so-hated-by-the libs Palin really pulls in the audience like a champ. Whether it's Saturday Night Live or Greta or a debate, Palin is a major draw.

Interesting, that.

ruth| 11.12.08 @ 6:52PM

Bob is not here to reason with us, he is here to 'teach' us. That's why he is so insulting and condescending when he continuously lectures us. There is no point trying to talk to Bob or to help him understand our point of view. He is not interested. Bob is either on crack or off his meds and has lost his way to Huff Post or MSNBC. Bob, I've got Flaming Liberal MapQuest if you need help findng your way.

WendyG| 11.12.08 @ 7:25PM

>>>>Huff Post or MSNBC....

I'll say to Bob that it's best to avoid Huff Post. What with Huff Post bloggers stabbing their lovers and getting fired from colleges for stealing McCain signs and what not. That's quite a site Zsa Zsa Huffington runs.

ruth| 11.12.08 @ 8:26PM

I think Bob would fit right in, Wendy. They are his homies, and that way he could bask in all his smug, arrogant glory. What do you think, Bobby?

ruth| 11.12.08 @ 8:38PM

Oh, and by the way, Bob, I never called Obomba a terroist. I said his buddy, Bill Ayres was. Of course you probably think the Weather UnderGround was a good, civic minded organization. Right?

Mary| 11.12.08 @ 8:57PM

One last thing on abortion, I think a whole lot of people would support restricting it to the first trimester.

Before RvW, abortion was legal in 17 or 19 States (I can't ever remember which it is), so it's been around for a long time.

Laura Ingraham reported a couple of weeks before the election that Obama referred to a baby born following an unsuccessful abortion as a "temporary life." Think about that phrase for a while. Let it sink in.

It's also important to remember that nature abhors a vaccum, and that includes a values vaccum.

That's why it's important to thirst and fight for truth and justice. They're not outdated moral codes. From the beginning of time people have had to fight to preserve them, and the battle is everlasting.

And one last thing on the media; Matt Lauer conducted a wonderful interview with Governor Palin. He asked her tough questions and she did very well, I thought. You could see him warming up to her family too.

It's really a mistake to make the media the enemy.

Lauer couldn't help but respect Governor Palin because she acquitted herself with grace, even with the likes of that pervert Sullivan crawling up her vaginal canal almost daily.

And good on Trig, he's getting really chubby!

Mary| 11.12.08 @ 9:17PM

Today, from Pew Research:

America’s Favorite Campaign Journalists

As the Pew Research Center’s Weekly News Interest Index has shown, the public followed news about the 2008 presidential campaign more closely than any presidential election in the past 20 years. Americans relied primarily on television news for information about the campaign, and cable TV was the dominant medium. [See “Internet Now Major Source of Campaign News” released October 31, 2008.]

When asked to name their favorite and least favorite campaign journalist or commentator, Bill O’Reilly was named most frequently as the favorite – and as the least favorite. O’Reilly was named by 5% as their favorite journalist or commentator, while 3% each named Tom Brokaw and Sean Hannity. However, fully half could not name anyone as their favorite.

When asked to name their least favorite journalist or news commentator who covered the campaign this year, 60% offered no response. Among those who did name someone, O’Reilly also topped the list (at 6%). Katie Couric of CBS News was named by 5% of the public as their least favorite campaign journalist. In addition, 3% named each of the following: the Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, and Sean Hannity.

WendyG| 11.12.08 @ 10:33PM

>>>>I said his buddy, Bill Ayres was. Of course you probably think the Weather UnderGround was a good, civic minded organization. Right?

There is some truly horrifying information about Ayers' wife that Camille Paglia wrote about in her current column: I quote:

"The mystery of Bernardine Dohrn: How could such a personable, attractive, well-educated young woman end up saying such things at a 1969 political rally as this (omitted in the film) about the Manson murders: "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach. Wild!" And how could Dohrn have so ruthlessly pursued a decade-long crusade of hatred and terrorism against innocent American citizens and both private and public property?"
**snip**
Given that Obama had served on a Chicago board with Ayers and approved funding of a leftist educational project sponsored by Ayers, one might think that the unrepentant Ayers-Dohrn couple might be of some interest to the national media. But no, reporters have been too busy playing mini-badminton with every random spitball about Sarah Palin, who has been subjected to an atrocious and at times delusional level of defamation merely because she has the temerity to hold pro-life views."

Well said Camille.

ruth| 11.12.08 @ 11:25PM

Bob is creepy. He calls me a bigot, yet his messiah pals around with such human garbage as B. Dohrn and B. Ayres. Nice republican, Bob.

Bob| 11.13.08 @ 8:56AM

Wendy, you are correct and I am wrong about ratings. I read an article about the 18-49 demographic which is where Olberman beats O'Reilly. O'Reilly's audience, and Fox News in general, is older and therefore has a larger overall audience. Also, remember that Paglia voted for Obama so I would take her remarks with a grain of salt. She was the one years ago who argued that feminism caused rape.

Ruth, all successful politicians traffic with scurrilous individuals. McCain had a much closer relationship to convicted felons and anti-Semites than Obama did with Ayers. Palin's husband was part of the AIP which advocated secession and she gave speeches to that group. Vogler, the head of the party once said, "I've got no use for America or her damned institutions". Why didn't we hear more about this? And by the way, we both know that when you say "pals around with terrorists", you are calling Obama a terrorist. You are smart enough to realize that, right?

And to set the record straight, I was for Romney at the beginning. I entertained McCain, but he flip flopped on his principles and chose a totally unqualified VP candidate in Palin. I was with Colin Powell, Bill Weld, Ken Duberstein, etc., on this one.

Mary, Lauer did not ask Palin tough questions -- there was no need, she lost. Tough questions test a person's weaknesses. Her weakness is the ability to speak English (like Bush) for which there is nothing to ask, and knowledge about national and international policy issues.

ruth| 11.13.08 @ 10:10AM

Bob, how did you get inside my head and know what I 'was really thinking'? I guess you are a troll with special powers. Who knew? By the way, did you find the Huff Post yet? Your thought police losers are waiting for you.

WendyG| 11.13.08 @ 2:41PM

>>McCain had a much closer relationship to convicted felons and anti-Semites than Obama did with Ayers.

Baloney. Name the anti-semites and/or anti-Israel folks in McCain's camp, or among his associates. However, Samantha Powers, Robert Malley, Chuck Hagel, Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and a host of other Obama supporters (including Jeremiah Wright and the infamous Louis Farrakhan) are known to have at some antipathy toward Israel and/or Zionism and/or Jews.

Here's more. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obama_and_israel.html

Meanwhile:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3613689,00.html

"Poll: Israel votes McCain in US elections
Survey finds 46% of Israelis would vote for Republican nominee if given chance to elect US president; Democrat Barack Obama receives 34% of votes. Almost half of those polled believe McCain would better impact Jewish state."

WendyG| 11.13.08 @ 2:52PM

>>>I was with Colin Powell, Bill Weld, Ken Duberstein, etc., on this one.

A dubious distinction in my opinion. There is no doubt in my mind that Powell voted for and endorsed Obama because as a black man, he felt compelled to. Understandable - I just wish he had been honest about it. As for Duberstein, it is said he was in a pique because McCain did not pick him to be a member of his transition team. Weld seemed like a bandwagon kind of guy. And as for Chris Buckley, who you didn't mention, he's just poking a stick in his deceased father's eye. Classic son-of-a-famous-father stuff.

I wonder how all the radical chic Republicans enjoyed the "brilliant" Obama's first press conference. The one in which he dissed Nancy Reagan and was forced to apologize. Not the brainiest of moves. :)