The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

I don't feel confident of any predictions at this point. I think we all know those who are positioning themselves for a possible run. If the past is precedent some won't gain any traction & will end up not declaring at all; others considered unlikely now will look fairly formidable in a few months.

I believe everything depends on how the next eight months or so play out. Will the Republicans in Congress be able to focus the public mind on the right key issues? Will they handle the opportunities ahead without self-destructing? Will the President and the Democrat Senate leadership end up looking as obstructionist as they have accused the Republicans as being? Or will they manage to set the agenda with some bi partisan needed actions ? We face a much changed political situation and the players are just at the statring line - hard yet to tell how things will play out on either side of the political aisle.

I'm not very enchanted with any of the obvious Republican contenders, and am hoping for something new and better to emerge. We'll se as the situation unfolds.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I don't think past is precedent in terms of what is plotted forth in the next 23 months. An example was in the article I posted before. Some candidates will be able to use Fox news to maintain high media visibility and protection (under the guise of contract) without having to formally enter the race. Nobody ever wants to be the first in the pool. Fox news is creating a never before ability for Republicans to wear their bathing suits without jumping in.

Other than that, you offer some input on how the GOP's actions will effect their ability to win. I think what we are still trying to figure out is who will be on the ticket (or at this point, what kind of candidate or dynamic will be).

Even though, you don't like who has been proposed, who are you personally interested in?

A
R
T

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

I don't know, Finn. He is so damned ubiquitous around Charlottesville. If there is a tv camera on, Larry will run towards it, without really knowing why the camera is there. The local media fawn over getting his take on things.

I can get that.

0 Replies

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

public figures, regardless of gender or position, exist for the sole purpose of being mocked

I'm all in favor of mocking public figures.

Comparing someone to Hitler or Stalin and calling for their assassination isn't mockery in my book.

Obviously if public figures can't handle mockery or extreme vitriol they can always step out of the public spotlight.

If it's mockery they can't stand then good riddance, but I don't see how anything remotely positive is accomplished by driving someone out of the public square with base hatred.

In any case, public figures retreating to a private life certainly doesn't obviate the corrosive presence of the malignant in our society.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

i'm not a big fan of assassination talk, but everything else i see as fair game

0 Replies

@failures art,

Given that Media Matters' very existence is based on criticisim of Fox, it's difficult to take anything from that source seriously.

Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, Santorum, and Boltan all express ideas that appeal to a large swathe of Fox viewers. It makes perfect business sense to hire individuals who you believe will draw consistently high ratings.

These individuals running for the presidency, I'm sure, was not a condition of their employment agreement with Fox.

Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich all entertained presidential aspirations before they were employed by Fox. If they believe these aspirations can be served by appearing on Fox, and they continue to draw viewers to Fox, what is the dilemma?

Fox is always careful to identify those whom they pay to appear on their news programs as, at least, "Fox Contributors." The distinction is readily understandable to anyone with a brain.

I can practically guarantee you that if and when these individuals declare their campaigns, they will sever their business relationship with Fox. If they take long to declare because they want to maintain the financial compensation and exposure Fox provides, then they will be running a risk that others will not.

There are, by the way, many Democratic or liberal figures who are paid "Fox Contributors." If one of them decides to run for public office will Fox be accused of some sinister plot?

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Given that Media Matters' very existence is based on criticisim [sic] of Fox, it's difficult to take anything from that source seriously.

Another one of Finn's frequent lies. Media Matters exposes all manner of right wing lies. That it's so damn busy points to how natural it is for Repubs/conservatives to lie.

They could have a researcher or two working full time just for you, Finn.

Who is 'Boltan'?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Comparing someone to Hitler or Stalin

When the shoe fits ... .

Reagan was the equivalent of either Hitler or Stalin in his callous disregard for human life. If he had had a freer rein there's no reason whatsoever to think that he would have stopped at 40 or 50 thousand slaughtered Nicaraguans.

A number of US presidents were the same with regard to Vietnam/SE Asia. They of course were responsible for at least half the number of the Holocaust.

Having proxie dictators do the slaughter doesn't make one any less a Stalin/Hitler.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Reagan was the equivalent of either Hitler or Stalin in his callous disregard for human life.

What mixture of medications are you experimenting with today?

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

waterboy, You're not on medication, but your brain is calcified and almost dead. You can't accept facts when they are presented.

Reagan's disregard for human life is a fact.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I understand that MM is a very liberal org. I almost didn't post it because I thought there would be this exact criticism. However, forget who they are an read what they are saying and observing. I think there is relevant points to pull out in terms of the question at hand: Who will be the Republican nominee for 2012?

What they are saying is that Fox news will in many ways set the pace and tone of the nomination. The example they gave with Palin and how she has been successfully sequestered away is a good example of how this has a real effect on the campaigns.

It's an airtight echo chamber and that will set some Republicans out from others in major ways. Do you disagree?

A
R
T

3 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

I understand that MM is a very liberal org. I almost didn't post it because I thought there would be this exact criticism. However, forget who they are an read what they are saying and observing. I think there is relevant points to pull out in terms of the question at hand: Who will be the Republican nominee for 2012?

What they are saying is that Fox news will in many ways set the pace and tone of the nomination. The example they gave with Palin and how she has been successfully sequestered away is a good example of how this has a real effect on the campaigns.

It's an airtight echo chamber and that will set some Republicans out from others in major ways. Do you disagree?

A
R
T

I still believe it is Fox paranoia and the desire to cast Fox in as bad a light as possible.

Fox hasn't sequestered Palin away. Clearly Fox is not the only forum she chooses for the rendering of her opinions.

If she, or any other candidate, tries to use Fox as their only forum, they will lose. Such an outcome won't provide any concievable upside for Fox.

Once Romney and other non-Fox employees declare, you can bet they will have as much air time on Fox as the candidates who were once employed by them.

You forget, perhaps, that for some time Democrats refused to appear on Fox, despite open invitations. If I were them I probably wouldn't want to appear with O'Reilly or Hannity, but liberal politicians who appear on Fox News Sunday or the daily evening news show are not roasted over a bed of flaming coals while their conservative counterparts are fanned and fed bon bons.

The fact that there is an identifiable conservative network which has been very successful is bound to have some impact on Republican primary elections, but hardly anything remotely diabolical.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Did you read the article? Palin is sheltered. Her contract with FOX gives her a way to decline de facto to hardball interviews on the other networks. It's message control.

Do you really think the criticisms of Fox are invalid? Last year it was demonstrated exactly how intertwined the GOP is with the management of the station. This does have an effect, and shouldn't be taken lightly.

What it means for the topic at hand is that a select few are given a safe media platform to promote while other Republicans will have to seek out other news outlets (which are more critical) to maintain an equal media presence.

Do you not see how that effects the nomination?

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

I understand that MM is a very liberal org. I almost didn't post it because I thought there would be this exact criticism.

You seem to have a great deal of trouble posting/stating the truth and it's obvious that you're afraid of the criticism.

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

I understand that MM is a very liberal org. I almost didn't post it because I thought there would be this exact criticism. However, forget who they are an read what they are saying and observing. I think there is relevant points to pull out in terms of the question at hand: Who will be the Republican nominee for 2012?

What they are saying is that Fox news will in many ways set the pace and tone of the nomination. The example they gave with Palin and how she has been successfully sequestered away is a good example of how this has a real effect on the campaigns.

Do you believe that MSNBC will "help set the pace and tone" of the political debate? If it doesn't it will certainly not be from a lack of effort. Perhaps the only difference is that Fox appears to reach a wider audience for its polemics.

The objectivity of the American media has never really been what works so hard to pretend. All their talk about journalistic integrity is a bunch of self-serving bunk. Fox is different from the others only in the direction of its obvious bias and in the size of the audience it attracts.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Yes I read the article and I'm sorry if it didn't ring as true for me as it did for you.

If Palin is controlling her message in the way you suggest then that is her strategy, not Fox's.

I think criticisisms of Fox are invalid when spewed by the folks who have, for so long, enjoyed the ideological support of the mainstream media. Because Walter Cronkite looked and sounded like your favorite uncle doesn't mean he wasn't a committed liberal. He admitted that he felt it was his duty to do what he could to bring an end to the Vietnam War.

If you were against the Vietnam War (as I was) then Walter was just alright!

Unfortunately, Walter assumed a role of objective Speaker of The News, and so by taking a stand betrayed the role that brought him so much admiration.

He had every right to be against the Vietnam War, but he would have been a far more admirable person if he had made it clear to America that his reporting on the war was, in this way, biased.

This notion that Fox is "giving" a select few candidates a "safe forum" for their views is just nonsense.

What evidence exists that criticisim of Palin has reduced since she became a paid Fox Contributor?

What evidence exists that Fox is selecting the candidates who might benefit from exposure on its network and denying others the same opportunity?

Do you really think that Mitt Romney has been denied an opportunity to be a frequent presence on Fox?

If there was any reason to believe that Fox is discriminating between Republican candidates in terms of providing air time, I might buy your premise, but there is not.

Again, Romney, for whatever reason, has decided that he doesn't need a year long forum at Fox. There is every reason to believe that Fox would love for Romney to appear on their news shows, and none to suggest that they have banned him. Once he declares his candidancy, Fox will go overboard in seeking him to appear on their shows, and he will comply.

This idea of a "safe media platform" is ridiculous.

Obviously, Fox viewers are less disposed to criticizing Palin, Huckabee et al than are MSNBC viewers.

So what?

If you or Media Matters can provide anything approaching evidence that Fox is trying to manipulate elections rather than simply cashing in on the popularity of certain public figures, I might entertain your goofy claims, but you cannot.

I appreciate that you are making an effort to maintain a non-partisan stance in this thread, but it keeps seeping in at the edges.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If Palin is controlling her message in the way you suggest then that is her strategy, not Fox's.

from the article:

Quote:

During this non-"official" period, the Fox candidates can also cite their Fox contract as a reason to decline appearances on other news organizations who may offer a tougher environment than Fox (a low bar). Indeed, Politico reported that "C-SPAN Political Editor Steve Scully said that when C-SPAN tried to have Palin on for an interview, he was told he had to first get Fox's permission -- which the network, citing her contract, ultimately denied. Producers at NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC all report similar experiences."

But it was Fox's choice, not Palin's. Fox was the one that denied other outlets access, not Palin.

You are correct that an individual like Mitt Romney is not denied access to Fox, but their status is not the same as say Huckabee in terms of media platform.

Quote:

What evidence exists that criticisim of Palin has reduced since she became a paid Fox Contributor?

I can't prove anything. I think that the alternative would be that for Sarah Palin to maintain her level of media exposure without Fox would mean having to go in front of more critical audiences. By virtue of having softball interviews, it's allowed from less fallout than I what I perceive to be the alternative.

Quote:

What evidence exists that criticisim of Palin has reduced since she became a paid Fox Contributor?

I can't prove that. My theory is that by having media shelter on Fox, she's been given a path of least fallout. That is to say, if she didn't have Fox, to maintain her level of media exposure would require going in front of more critical audiences.

Quote:

If you or Media Matters can provide anything approaching evidence that Fox is trying to manipulate elections rather than simply cashing in on the popularity of certain public figures, I might entertain your goofy claims, but you cannot.

Funny that you mention it. MM actually leaked internal emails proving that the RNC was directly involved in the daily news narrative. They gave specific examples of how Fox anchors were scolded if they used the wrong phrases during the HCR or GCC segments. I think elections are no different.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Do you believe that MSNBC will "help set the pace and tone" of the political debate? If it doesn't it will certainly not be from a lack of effort.

No. I don't think they will. Certainly not for the GOP. I see MSNBC as almost irrelevant to conservatives on assisting them in finding a candidate in 2012.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

That what is new info, then?

I'm not surprised that she's an inept hunter. I'm not surprised that she's been exposed as an inept hunter. I think it's interesting that there's an op-ed about what an inept hunter she is in USA Today, which is not exactly a lefty-liberal newspaper.

errrr, USA Today does seem quite left-end on the American scale

and the whole thing in the 0p-ed about her shooting is whack - I didn't see the episode with the caribou - but I did see one with her at target practice with a new gun - she was good - very good

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

She is good - Sarah is very good, just not the best choice for 2012... 16 or 20 for sure, but not 12.

0 Replies

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know