Archive for January, 2016

In the FOXhole

Foxes are known to be……well, foxy.  They can also be vicious, if you are a squirrel or other small animal, especially if they catch you in their foxhole.

And, now, it appears that the “foxes” at FOX news are pretty dangerous, too, especially to Republican candidates.  For, in the FOXhole, there are dangerous critters.  Dangerous critters like the moderators who believe that THEY are the focus of the show and that THEIR opinions are most important and that THEY have the right to decide what Americans want to hear from the candidates.

Their “he said, what do you say about what he said” approach in the debates  is really not helping voters understand where candidates stand on the issues.  And, their “got’cha” questions are downright obnoxious, and particularly destructive to a debate that was meant to highlight the candidates’ stances, NOT whether the moderators could catch the candidates off guard.   Plus, apparently, even the FOX crew now believe that they have the right to argue with candidates and candidates’ opinions, ala Candy Crowley when she defended Obama even though the facts supported Romney!  It’s crazy.  It’s journalism at its worst.

But most annoying of all is the overbearing and arrogant attitude of the moderators.  The smarmy looks and comments by Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace did NOT leave an impression of even-handedness.  Nor did it help when Kelly had a montage of ONLY TWO of the candidates to “prove” they were changing their stance on a given issue.  Wallace’s smart-aleck response to Ted Cruz and his disallowing Cruz to respond when Cruz’ name came up, only highlighted how the moderators were out of control.  And, today, I see everyone patronizing the moderators and saying what a great job they did.  Of course, the people who are complimenting those moderators all have a vested interest in the debate being a success.  As for me and MY house, we thought the debate was a disaster for FOX and anyone who hoped to learn something about the candidates.   And, as Lombardi, my husband’s favorite coach,  used to say,  “What in the hell is going on out there?”

Where were the objective reporters ferreting out the facts?  Where was the opportunity for the candidates to constructively analyze issues?  Where were the concerns of the American voter represented?

Oh, that’s right.  Your best reporter, Catherine Herridge, is tackling the Hillary Clinton scandals.  Too bad because her journalistic standards would have been a beacon of light in that dark forum last night.

I finally have to admit that FOX no longer is our favorite channel.  We are tired of watching the FIVE at FIVE promote themselves and their books.  We are aghast at the comments by many of the moderators, like Kelly and Wallace, who too often insert their personal grudges and opinions into what should be a factual discussion.  In short, we are just plain angry that FOX, which claims to be fair and balanced and was our last hope of accurate reporting, has become just another channel with an agenda….that agenda being to promote its personnel and not the Truth.

So, thank goodness for the Drudge Report, Breitbart News, and a host of other online news outlets which can inform us on many issues because we don’t expect to crawl into the FOXhole again.   There are too many nasty critters in there!


It’s a CRYING shame!

Crying is a natural human reaction to many different events.  Babies cry when they are tired, wet, hungry, lonesome………..or, just to get attention.

The rest of us often cry for the same reasons, or maybe for joy, shock………..or, just to get attention.

President Obama is no different than the rest of us and, I assume that like me or my family, he cries in private, too.  Usually, though, he has not cried in public.  He didn’t cry when Al Quiada beheaded a journalist, nor the multitude of others similarly murdered.  All those Christian men lined up on a beach and systematically and ruthlessly beheaded were not enough to make Obama cry in public.  The massacre at Charlie Hebdo did NOT make Obama cry.  The random and relentless assassination of Parisians did NOT make Obama cry.  Even his cause celebre of climate change did NOT make him cry.

But, gun control?  Well, that made him cry.

He pretended that he wants gun control to stop the tragedies that occur when someone guns down helpless people in restaurants, or any public place.  Those horrendous occasions cause all of us to cry.  The difference between Obama and most of us is that we don’t blame the gun.  We blame the person shooting the gun.  Murdering a group of people is always a cause for grief, but it does not make us want to ban the weapon.  After all, when suicide bombers drive into a United States barracks, setting off their bombs and killing our sons and daughters, Obama does not call for us to ban cars, or limit who can have a car……..NOR does he cry!

I believe that his tears in this particular public forum did come partially from sadness.  The loss of loved ones is absolutely a reason to cry.  But, I also believe that he went out of his way to cry for political purposes.  Why is there this pessimistic view of Obama’s tears?   Because he did NOT cry for other mass tragedies, it is out of character for him to cry in this instance.  The obvious conclusion is that his tears served some ulterior purpose and, I believe that purpose was to create the impression that gun control is so important that even the President of the United States cries   in public about it.  Trying to appear emotionally engaged on an issue is not a new tactic for Democrats.  Remember when Hillary Clinton cried in public,?  Her poll numbers went up, thanks to the media reporting those tears as proof that Hillary was a “truly wonderful and emotionally engaged woman”.

Ironically, when another politician cried in public, he was insulted and derided for not being able to control his emotions.  The media claimed that THAT politician was an immature hack and unqualified to hold his position.  That politician, of course, was Republican Representative Boehner, the Speaker of the House.

Why is it that both men, and Hillary,  cried in public and, yet, the media’s reaction is so different?

Obama was lauded for feeling so deeply about an issue.  Hillary tears were proof that she was not the robot she appeared to be.  Boehner was characterized as a buffoon and, according to the media, his lack of control of his feelings made him not worthy to hold the Speakership.

The plain truth is that the media never lets a “tragedy go to waste”, as Rahm Emmanuel once infamously said.  And, politician’ tears are just so useful in advancing a point of view.

It’s no wonder that the American electorate increasingly believes that the media has leaned so far to the left and Lieberalism that the media no longer recognizes honest men and women nor honest emotions.  The media manipulates issues, reports, and even TEARS to enable Lieberals to continue taking more power, money, and control of our lives.  Lieberals do NOT believe in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness………….unless THEY can define those Constitutional guarantees.   They now even “define” tears.

So,  it’s no wonder that the American electorate senses that we need a new President, like Trump or Cruz, or Rubio, or Christie, or Fiorina.  We need men and women in politics who are honest….honest with themselves and honest with us.  We do NOT need another President who manipulates policy or their public persona to gain political stature, as the Obama and the Clintons have done on multiple occasions, or who use emotions to further their agenda.

It’s too bad that the Democrats can’t find at least one, solid, honest person to run for President.  They rely upon a woman who has been involved in scandal after scandal, from Whitewater, to Foster’s death, to the multitude of women whom have been sexually abused by Governor and then President Clinton and, the women who have been consistently abused by Hillary in her attempts to disguise, hide, and minimize her husband’s sexual perversions.

It’s easy to understand a baby’s tears and even for us to understand and empathize with adults crying.  And, if those abused women cry, we would surely understand.  But, to see Obama or Hillary get teary eyed in public is just an obvious, and sickening, ploy for political gain.  Whether the media can bring themselves to couch the big O’s or the Big Hill’s tears as just another useful tool in their political tool box is unlikely.  More likely is that the media will laud them for their tears and pretend that the tears makes these politicians real people.

We should not fall for that lie.  If we do, THAT would be a real CRYING SHAME!

 


  • Archives

  • Copyright © 2006 - 2019 Repubanter. All rights reserved.
    Powered by Sousek Computing.