Media conservatives baselessly declare poll finding majority support for public option "fraudulent," "rigged"
Numerous conservative media figures have attacked a recently released ABC News/Washington Post poll that found that 57 percent of respondents supported "having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans," with Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich reportedly claiming that "this poll was deliberately rigged and produced a result that's fundamentally false" and that "It's a typical Washington Post effort to slant the world in favor of liberal Democrats" and Rush Limbaugh calling the poll "totally fraudulent." Additionally, Fox News' Gretchen Carlson suggested that the poll should have referred to a "government-run option," and Fox News' Steve Doocy suggested the poll should have instead asked about the "government taking over the health care situation in this nation" - terms similar to the preferred language Republican pollster Frank Luntz has identified for the use of opponents of the public option and health care reform.
ABC/Wash. Post poll found 57 percent of respondents support new government-created health insurance plan
Poll: 57 percent support public option, 40 percent oppose. From the ABC/Washington Post poll, conducted October 15-18:
ABC News polling director: Poll is "in accord with most other recent good-quality surveys measuring political partisanship." Responding to Gingrich's attack on the poll, ABC News polling director Gary Langer wrote:
To examine Gingrich's concern, consider the partisan self-identification reported in other recent publicly released polls rated as airworthy by ABC News standards. They range from 18 to 27 percent Republican, averaging 21 percent -- almost precisely the same as our estimate.
Another place to look is at our own ABC/Post polls this year, to see if our 20 percent estimate is an outlier. Not: Per the table below, it's almost identical to the 21 percent Republican self-identification in our last poll, and very near the 23 percent average we've seen across our polls this year:
[...]
Nor is this out of pattern with the long-term trend in political partisanship in this country.
Media conservatives: "[P]oll was deliberately rigged"
Gingrich: "[T]his poll was deliberately rigged and produced a result that's fundamentally false." According to a post on the website of Salt Lake City radio station KSL, Gingrich said on air: "I think this poll was deliberately rigged and produced a result that's fundamentally false." KSL reported that Gingrich also said: "It's a typical Washington Post effort to slant the world in favor of liberal Democrats." [KSL.com, 10/20/09]
Not new for Gingrich to attack poll results he doesn't like as "deliberately rigged." According to The New York Times, in 1995, when Gingrich was speaker of the House, he responded to a CBS News/New York Times poll finding that respondents disapproved of Republican plans for tax and Medicare cuts by saying, " 'This poll is a disgraceful example of disinformation. ... What we get are deliberately rigged questions that are totally phony that come out the morning of the vote' on the House's tax and spending bill." [The New York Times, 10/27/95]
Limbaugh called poll "totally fraudulent," accused Post of "kiss[ing] ass." On his radio show, Limbaugh said of the poll, "It made me so mad because I knew it was fraudulently reported and fraudulently probably compiled." He later that Washington Post editors had seen President Obama and his allies "denouncing Fox News" and wondered, " 'What can I do here to kiss ass with the teacher?' ... Well, very simple. How do you earn the approval of Obama? How do you please him enough to get access? Well, you do a poll. You do a poll on his favorite issue, health care, and you jimmy up the results, and you make it appear that the American people love the public option of your health care plan. And all it took to bring that off was a rebalanced sample: more Democrats, less Republicans." Limbaugh subsequently stated: "It's a totally fraudulent poll." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/21/09]
HotAir.com's Morrissey: ABC, Wash. Post no longer "more concerned about accuracy over political points of view." Morrissey wrote of the poll: "The sampling comprises 33% Democrats, as opposed to only 20% Republicans. That thirteen-point spread is two points larger than their September polling, at 32%/21%. More tellingly, it's significantly larger than their Election Day sample, which included 35% Democrats to 26% Republicans for a gap of nine points, about a third smaller than the gap in this poll. Of course, that's when they were more concerned about accuracy over political points of view." [HotAir.com, 10/20/09]
Doocy on poll: "[H]ey wait a minute, the deck is stacked." Discussing the poll on Fox & Friends, Doocy stated: "[Y]esterday, when we saw this -- it's The Washington Post/ABC poll -- it made us go, 'What? That's -- that's bigger than the margin of error.' Fifty-seven percent of you favor a public option, 40 percent of you are opposed to a public option. So, if you read, however, the small print, you realize, hey, wait a minute, the deck is stacked." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 10/21/09]
Carlson: "[Y]ou'd think at least they would try and get the same amount of Democrats and Republicans ... to be fair and balanced." Also on Fox & Friends, Carlson stated of the poll: "[T]here's so much in polling -- let's face it. There's so much in the way that you ask the question as well. I mean, the way that you put words together can sometimes sway the way a person answers a question. But on its face, you'd think at least they would try and get the same amount of Democrats and Republicans so that they at least were trying to be fair and balanced." Similarly, Doocy stated: "[W]hy doesn't everybody just say, 'OK, we're going to talk to 33 percent Republicans, 33 percent Democrats, 33 percent independents'? Why don't they just do that? Why don't they do that? ... Is it too easy?"
Fox News asserted: "A Partisan Poll: More Democrats Sampled Than Republicans." While Fox & Friends was discussing the poll, one of the graphics Fox News ran stated: "A Partisan Poll: More Democrats Sampled Than Republicans":
Fox News graphic asserted: "Slanted Sampling: Party Affiliation Effects [sic] Poll's Results":
Fox & Friends host suggested poll should have used anti-public option language
Doocy suggested poll should ask: "[A]re you in favor of the government taking over the health care situation in this nation?" After noting that the ABC/Washington Post poll asked, "Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?" Doocy stated: "On its face you think, "That sounds pretty good." So you can understand why it would be more positive than negative." Carlson then responded: "As opposed to just saying, 'Do you like the government-run option?' That would be more straightforward." Doocy replied: "Right. Or, 'Do you -- are you in favor of the government taking over the health care situation in this nation?' " [10/21/09]
Pollster Luntz suggested health reform opponents use term "government takeover." In a memo titled "The Language of Healthcare 2009," Luntz asserted: "You'll notice we recommend the phrase 'government takeover' rather than 'government run' or 'government controlled' It's because too many politician say 'we don't want a government run healthcare system like Canada or Great Britain' without explaining those consequences. There is a better approach. 'In countries with government run healthcare, politicians make YOUR healthcare decisions. THEY decide if you'll get the procedure you need, or if you are disqualified because the treatment is too expensive or because you are too old. We can't have that in America.' " [Rule Five in Luntz's "THE 10 RULES FOR STOPPING THE 'WASHINGTON TAKEOVER' OF HEALTHCARE"]
Fox News asserted poll questions were "murky," "questionable." During the Fox & Friends segments discussing the poll, Fox News ran graphics asserting that the poll questions were "murky" and "questionable":
Fox & Friends suggested ABC/Wash. Post health reform finding is an outlier, but it is in line with several polls
Doocy: "[A]ll the other polls, you know, it's within the margin of error or it's a dead heat." Doocy stated: "[T]he key, [co-host] Brian [Kilmeade], is to read the fine print. You go in and figure out, OK, if so many -- because all the other polls, you know, it's within the margin of error or it's a dead heat." Later, Doocy said: "Of course, when it comes to the public option, it seems like every major polling outfit has asked people, 'Are you for it or are you against it?' And, for the most part, the big polls are pretty much neck and neck or within the margin of error. And that's why yesterday, when we saw this -- it's The Washington Post/ABC poll -- it made us go, 'What? That's -- that's bigger than the margin of error.' "
Several polls are in line with ABC/Wash. Post poll on public option. Contrary to Doocy's assertion that no other polls have shown significant support for the public option, CBS News polling director Sarah Dutton stated in an October 20 blog post: "While the debate in Congress over including a 'public option' in health care reform legislation continues, Americans' views on a government-administered health plan are clearer: more than half support it. Recent CBS News Polls have shown that a majority of Americans consistently supports a public option." Dutton later added: "And although support has dropped ten points since June, 62 percent favored it in an early October CBS News Poll, while just half as many, 31 percent, opposed it." Dutton also stated, "Recent polls conducted by other media and polling organizations also find a majority in support of a public option," and cited an August CNN/Opinion Research poll and a September Pew poll. Additionally, an October 8 Quinnipiac University poll asked: "Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?" The poll found that 61 percent of respondents supported such a plan, while 34 percent opposed it.
Transcript
From the October 21 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
KILMEADE: All right. Yesterday, we mentioned a poll coming out of The Washington Post and ABC. And also a Rasmussen poll. They were asked about the public option. Hey, America, what do you think, now that we've debated it to this point. We're in the fall. Are you for it or against it? Well, I was surprised by this poll --
DOOCY: That -- shocking.
KILMEADE: -- because the WABC [sic: ABC]/Washington Post poll said 57 percent of you -- yes, you watching -- are for it, 40 percent are against it. I'm thinking, wow, that is a dramatic change and so different from the Rasmussen poll.
DOOCY: So, the key, Brian, is to read the fine print. You go in and figure out, OK, if so many -- because all the other polls, you know, it's within the margin of error or it's a dead heat. But for it to be so -- you know, how did the public opinion swing so much? In the fine print, you discover they actually interviewed many more Democrats than Republican. The answer was 51 for, 39 against. Well, 33 percent of those -- those who responded were Democrats. And only 20 percent were GOP. Point spread of 13.
CARLSON: I thought when you did polls that you were supposed to try and get an even mix.
DOOCY: You probably should. They don't.
CARLSON: I mean, because there's so much in polling -- let's face it. There's so much in the way that you ask the question as well. I mean, the way that you put words together can sometimes sway the way a person answers a question. But on its face, you'd think at least they would try and get the same amount of Democrats and Republicans so that they at least were trying to be fair and balanced.
KILMEADE: Right. And can I further illustrate your point?
CARLSON: Please.
KILMEADE: Happy Days -- Fonzie was trying to lift Richie's confidence.
DOOCY: OK.
KILMEADE: And he wanted to go ask out a girl.
DOOCY: Right.
KILMEADE: And he walked over to her at Al -- at Arnold's.
DOOCY: Right.
KILMEADE: And he said, "You don't want to go out with me, do you?" And of course she said no. Even if she liked him, she didn't like the way the phrase was -- didn't like the way Richie asked the question.
DOOCY: The word structure.
KILMEADE: Exactly. The same thing could be happening with polling.
CARLSON: You know what? I love that analogy.
KILMEADE: Do you remember it?
CARLSON: I --
DOOCY: It doesn't make any sense, but it's great.
CARLSON: I'm just going to do this because we're not supposed to shake hands.
KILMEADE: Right. Oh, because of the swine flu.
CARLSON: Yeah. We're not supposed to touch.
KILMEADE: Evidently, I could be a carrier.
DOOCY: Mm-hmm.
CARLSON: I guess so
DOOCY: We all could be.
CARLSON: All right. So let's look at the question then and let you decide how you think these words were put together. Here's how the question was presented in the poll: "Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?" Well, that's a little different than, "Do you support the government-run option or not?"
DOOCY: Yeah, so -- and that sounds very innocuous right there, so you can figure that out. But it does show the disparity between the -- you know, why don't they just -- why doesn't everybody just say, "OK, we're going to talk to 33 percent Republicans, 33 percent Democrats, 33 percent independents"? Why don't they just do that? Why don't they do that?
KILMEADE: Well, they --
DOOCY Is it too easy?
CARLSON: Good question. We need to go back to Happy Days to find the answer to that question.
KILMEADE: Yeah, absolutely.
[...]
DOOCY: Of course, when it comes to the public option, it seems like every major polling outfit has asked people, "Are you for it or are you against it?" And, for the most part, the big polls are pretty much neck and neck or within the margin of error. And that's why yesterday, when we saw this -- it's The Washington Post/ABC poll -- it made us go, "What? That's -- that's bigger than the margin of error." Fifty-seven percent of you favor a public option, 40 percent of you are opposed to a public option. So, if you read, however, the small print, you realize, hey, wait a minute, the deck is stacked.
CARLSON: Well, apparently, there's a sampling error of sorts, because they actually polled more Democrats than Republicans to get that result. So you take a look here, they -- they talked -- 33 percent of the people that they spoke to were Democrats. Only 20 percent of the people they spoke to were Republicans. That's a 13-point spread. So, no doubt, when you figure that more Democrats support a government-run option more than Republicans, then that's why you would get that 57 percent in support of it, which would make it different from so many of the other polls out there.
KILMEADE: So, if you're not busy enough, and you feel as if you want to add more time to your life, get a microscope out, and every poll you read, look underneath -- and you have to go down -- this is me going down -- and see the fine print at the bottom, because you want to know if you should actually pay attention to this poll, because I did not see the science in this poll, and the first thing I said when I walked in on Monday was, "Did you what -- The Washington Post poll?"
CARLSON: Yeah, that's what I said too.
DOOCY: Holy cow
KILMEADE: What they came out and how different it is from the Rasmussen poll. You want to know how polarizing? When you only get 20 percent of your sample of Republicans, nine of every 10 Republicans is against it.
DOOCY: Sure.
KILMEADE: So you know exactly what you're getting if someone puts up their hand and says, "I'm on the right."
DOOCY: Plus, also, it's the way that the poll -- the pollsters massage the question and come up with a question. They can pretty much steer you into a certain way. For instance, here is a question regarding the public option. And it is simply, "Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private insurance plans?" On its face you think, "That sounds pretty good." So you can understand why it would be more positive than negative.
KILMEADE: I --
CARLSON: As opposed to just saying, "Do you like the government-run option?" That would be more straightforward.
DOOCY: Right. Or, "Do you -- are you in favor of the government taking over the health care situation in this nation?"
But why don't you tell us how many people go into medical bankruptcy in France, Canada or Sweden where healthcare is a right?
Zero.
80 frickin' percent of medical bankruptcies in this country occur to people with insurance, so don't try and talk about how great insurance companies are in this country.
And save your no choice crap for someone who hasn't had coverage denied by insurance bureaucrats because it hurt the profit margin.
You make me sick you disgusting corporate death cartel shill.
And putting in a public option will not mean the government controls your health care. Doctors will control what is done under the public option. Under the private plan, the insurance companies will continue to control what medical treatments people receive.
And probably a sizable percentage of those extremely happy people probably haven't had to use their insurance lately and/or have their employer paying for most if not all of their premiums.
I want everyone to get decent health care, regardless of how much they have in the bank, because I think being healthy is a basic human right. As such, it shouldn't be subject to the whims of the majority. I frankly don't give a damn if the vast majority of people who have health insurance are happy with a system that denies coverage to millions of the less fortunate. A system that doesn't provide health care for everyone doesn't work, is immoral, and is unacceptable regardless of how "popular" it is.
Show us the language in ANY of the legislation that CONCRETELY says that. Read it. I guarantee you, you won't find it.
You see, T-Bone, I can still be content with own coverage while also thinking the system is broken for millions of American who do not and never will make 6 figure incomes. See how that works? It used to be the American way to think of your fellow citizens first. Somewhere along the way it became the Republican thing to think of the wealthy and the corporations first. Maybe someday when you guys are all alone out in the political wilderness you can ponder when those ideas changed.
They remind me of the Borg on Startrek.............
The sad thing is that you know their complaint is going to gain traction amongst people who don't consider little tidbits of information like that.
It does not do us much good, however, to ignore the fact that there is an enormous almost 40% of the population which identifies "Independent." Sadly, I would imagine that a large number of these are individuals who are disillusioned with the Republican because they either consider them too weak against Democrats or consider them to be just another "big government party." As scary as it might sound, there are a huge number of people on the right that consider the Republicans to be "Democrats Lite." I'd be curious to see the growth numbers for parties like the Libertarians and the Constitution Party, as well as in fringe parties we don't normally pay attention to.
Independent doesn't necessarily mean "moderate"... it can also mean "to the right of the Republicans."
More importantly, Rasmussen polling (sic) has been repeatedly proven to be conducting biased polling. So comparing to Rassemussen is a false standard.
mmfA uses Rasmussen Poll to bolster point
It's Debating 101.
I myself am glad that I registered with a party, so that I can vote in the primary elections. Why would I opt out of political power?
believe that any party has all the answers.
The way I see it the Republican Party's base is so far to the right that they want to impose their Fundamental Christians beliefs on everyone in this country which is against the Constitution; they have gone to far.
The Republican Party believes that there should not be any government regulations on any corporations and that is how we got into this crisis to begin with and they don't want to do anything about it.
I can not keep up with all the mailings from these political parties.
I believe that Government funded elections would keep the elected officials doing the will of the people.
I am sure that if the Senate was polled, they would find out that 60 respondents were registered Democrats and 40 were registered Republicans.
damn you biased polling
58 were registered Democrats, 40 were registered Republicans and 2 were registered Independent.
Let's take a poll regarding the question, "Should gay marriage be legalized in all states, and gay rights equalized with all rights enjoyed by heterosexuals". We'll call enough people nationwide at random, but reject enough heterosexuals until we have polled 2,500 each (straight and gay) for a total polling base of 5,000. "Fair and Balanced", rght?
Then we'll report the poll as indicating: "An overwhelming majority of the people nationwide (X% as opposed to Y%), support gay marriage and full gay rights."
How would F&F then report the polling methods? Are these people (F&F) that stupid!? Or do they knowingly sacrifice any shred of journalistic integrity they may have, in order to "smoke" and INFLUENCE as many of their viewers who are (that stupid)? And Faux News network is not biased and does not have an agenda?
IF the poll used the words "public option" it would go down in FLAMES.
EVERY SINGLE POLL I have looked at that supports a public option,
the poll questions are dis-honest and/or worded poorly!
Here is a poll question I would like to see.
If you get sick would rather be on private insurance or public option?
I think I know how most would answer
How about this question: "if you can't afford health insurance and your child gets sick, which would you rather do- make an appointment with a doctor and get both immediate and long-term care for your child, or go to an emergency room and wait in line with your child behind people with gunshot wounds and other sick children?"
"I think I know how most would answer."
House members are accountable to the voters in their district only, senators are accountable to the voters in their state only. Various geographical areas of the US have various opinions on various political issues. Sometimes, you cross over to the next district, you go from liberal hippy land to confederate flag-waving land.
With that in mind, senators and representatives wish to get reelected, but many of them come from places that do not like the idea of a public health option. The fact that nationwide, a majority of Americans support it, is unfortunately irrelevant.
Not to mention the fact that since Democrats, nationwide, are the same way (with lots of demographics voting for them) makes the public option very hard to pass. I'm not making predictions, but that's just how it seems.
Agreed. Abe (Republican)freed the slaves and the Repubs pushed thru the Civil Rights Act in the 60s. The Demoncrats opposed both.
Of course you probably are not aware it is the Dems who are the richest fat cats in Washington (doesn't hurt to have a 100 grand stashed in your freezer like that Democrat Congressman either).
Yes. And nothing has changed in the past 150 or so years to cause the parties to trade places on certain issues. It's not like the South migrated en masse to the Republican party in the wake of the Civil Rights movement or anything like that...
And are you honest to god stupid enough to think that Republican politicians are somehow more egalitarian than Democrats? I'm going to give you a hint - they're all rich fat cats. You don't run for office unless you have some financial padding to support you. The difference is that it is possible to be rich (even super rich) and realize that your wealth and well being are contingent on the well being of others in the society you live in as well as that society's stability. Democratic policies, time and again, bolster up the common good and the good of the middle class while Republican policies tend to wreck havoc on both.
Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Pres. Lincoln would not be welcomed in today's GOP. The GOP center resides in what was then the confederate states and what was then the GOP center does not have 1 Republican Senator.
Go figure.
The original Civil Rights bill was introduced by John F. Kennedy. In case you forgot, Kennedy was a Democrat. The bill was finally signed by Lyndon B. Johnson--a Democrat.
Better go back to your history books!!!
Dixie Crat (sic)
Two more words:
Southern Strategy
Look 'em up.
Oh yes, it was so much better when old people were just left out in the cold with no money and no health care. Too bad the government screwed that up!
The programs are not the problem. The funding of the programs are the problem. Might I suggest we eliminate the cap on FICA and Medicare taxes and we start indexing benefits? These 2 alone would go a long way to fixing the problem.
Exactly. Why is it that every dollar I make over a certain amount ($102,000?) I no longer contribute to the system? That makes no sense, even from someone who would be paying the extra taxes. Why would a progressive tax benefit the rich at the cost of the poor?
The reason we have a progressive tax structure is because people who make a lot have more discretionary income and can better afford to help support the government. There becomes a point, and it's higher than $10,000, where one has no discretionary income. In many communities, it's around $40,000 for a single person or around $80,000 for a family.
There's a ceiling on benefits. In order to somehow relate the amount of money one might get in benefits, there has to be a correlating ceiling on the amount that is taxed.
Imagine the numbers if they would simply call it what it should have or may still end up as...
Medicare For All!!
My guess is that the "I want it" numbers would be somewhere in the 85%-90% range?
The Fever Swamp is bubbling with rage and sewage.
There's a slight chance that the American people may be starting the slow, painful process of extricating their heads from their asses.
But less Republicans does not mean less conservatives. I mentioned this before and I'll say it again - I personally believe that a lot of conservatives have grown disillusioned with the Republican Party and are going the "Independent" route - not as moderates but rather further to the right. There is strong sentiment among many of these people that the Republicans are not "conservative enough" and I am curious how many defections are going in that particular direction. I imagine the numbers are sizable.
Just as the Democratic Party is not as far left as one can go on the political spectrum, the Republican Party is certainly not the limits of the right.
I have a strong feeling that things are going to get a lot more ugly, not better.
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be correct."
To paraphrase Oliver Cromwell,
Oh never-mind, I think we all have a fairly good guess as to whom it might have been?
Your reformulation is still hopelessly liberally-biased. Said nazi/communist program wouldn't kill "citizens," it would kill helpless innocent grandmothers, disabled children, and registered Republicans. AND require people to get abortions and sex change operations.
Now it's accurate!
Social scientists don't like to be accused of bias when they write questions, so they take great care to attempt to ensure the question is neutral. it doesn't always happen so sometimes they will tweak it afterward if the question creates skewed results which causes them to throw out the poll. However, once a question is used a couple of times, the question won't change for fear of tampering with the poll and creating results that cannot be compared to other polls.
This process is quite unlike the poll question that Doocy suggests which was probably written by Roger Ailes, which only took him 15 seconds to write on a cocktail napkin.
The Fonz is someone they can all relate to, as he dropped out of school and was a functional illiterate because he hated to read books.
Fox news does only negative news of this Administration, they are the Republican talking news heads. They only want President Obama to fail, they forget who put us in this crisis to begin with. The base of the Republican party is not going to elect anyone. These people have made the Republican Party so far right that they want to forget about the Constitution and have this country run by the fundamentalist christian party.
GOOD POLL fer sure!!
By the way, government is already in health care. Veterans, seniors, low-income people, all have a government-run system. You should ask them how they like their "government-run" health care.
Perhaps it is you who should do the asking (go outside of your circle of Republican friends and Fox noixe to get a "fair and balanced" opinion. Try it - take off the blinders and see the world as a whole rather than just bits of pieces. Who knows - you might become enlightened and like it.
I love receiving government run healthcare(Tricare for Life/Veterans)! Sorry to disappoint you Fox news viewers who believe only Conservatives serve this counrty. Liberals serve their country too. I support The PO not because I'm Liberal, I support it because it's the right thing for our country.
Looking at the history of government programs, which do you all think is more probable to happen? And be honest.
The costs may be more, but the benefits certainly outweigh them.
Care to answer NY Rep. Weiner's question: What do the insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care?
- Death Panel
- Death Tax
- Death Wish
Make it a "death tax", and you remove the idea that only rich people who have estates get this extra tax.
Of course, it IS only rich people who get this extra tax applied to their inheritances.
(Heavy sarcasm alert)
Randy
They got all these blond-haired women that look like they've been stamped out of the same mold, and you know what it reminds me of? You know the movie "Schindler's List," at the concentration camps they had these women who were like "nurses," and they all looked the same, and they were there to meet the doomed inmates coming in on the trains? It's like that. This is what Fox News is like. They got all these female news reporters making commentaries and they all look just like that, like they got boards or steel rods or something rammed up their rear ends. They all got the same uniforms on. I guess my point is, if we ever have a fascist state in America, Fox News is exactly what I would imagine the state-run media to be, something spouting all these crazy, pseudo-scientific theories, while sending all the "liberals" and "progressives" to the gas chambers.
Too harsh? I don't think so. I have lived long enough to recognize evil and the devil when I see it, and Fox News fits it to a tee.
Fox has no clue! Keep ignoring independents and moderates, or in some instances, mocking them, and stop pandering to your base and maybe you will realize the truth. Not everything is a liberal conspiracy.
--------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word