Fox News figures use CPAC platform to attack Obama, make inflammatory comments
On CNN's Reliable Sources, Howard Kurtz noted that Fox News hosts and contributors played a prominent role at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and asked, "Is this what Fox News contributors and hosts should be doing?" Indeed, numerous Fox News figures -- including Glenn Beck, who gave the conference's keynote address -- spoke at CPAC and used the platform to attack President Obama and Democrats and to make outrageous and inflammatory comments.
Fox News figures use CPAC platform to attack Obama and make outrageous comments
Beck: "Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution." In his CPAC keynote speech, Fox News host Glenn Beck claimed that "[p]rogressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution, and it was designed to eat the Constitution -- to progress past the Constitution." Beck further suggested that a liberal "minority" has "hijack[ed]" America and asserted that an "[e]conomic holocaust is coming."
Gingrich: The "radical left is a secular, Socialist machine" that will destroy America. In his CPAC speech, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich claimed that the "radical left is a secular, Socialist machine" that will destroy America.
Santorum suggested that military officers have been "indoctrinated" to support repeal of DADT. In a question-and-answer session at CPAC, Fox News contributor Rick Santorum suggested that military officers have been "indoctrinated" to support the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law banning gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military. Santorum further claimed that "political correctness is reigning in the military."
Bolton: Obama "doesn't care that much about national security." In his CPAC speech, Fox News contributor John Bolton claimed that Obama "doesn't care that much about national security." Bolton further said of Obama, "We will not let you reduce American sovereignty. We will not let you make America vulnerable."
Fox News personalities blanketed CPAC throughout the weekend. In addition, Fox News personalities Mike Huckabee, S.E. Cupp, Tucker Carlson, Monica Crowley, Andrew Napolitano, and Fred Barnes addressed CPAC audiences throughout the conference.*
Kurtz: "Is this what Fox News contributors and hosts should be doing?"
Kurtz notes Fox figures at CPAC, asks, "Is this what Fox News contributors and hosts should be doing?" On the February 21 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, Kurtz said: "Glenn Beck has a very popular show on Fox. ... Some of the others who spoke at the conference -- Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Tucker Carlson, John Bolton -- they're all Fox News contributors. Is this what Fox News contributors and hosts should be doing?"
I'm sure glad that MMA is so gutsy as to post it here and have a real debate. Oh wait, you didn't, never mind.
and no one except the right wing drooling class is even thinking about impeachment as the rest of us know that obama has done absolutely nothing to warrant impeachment. and if you want to say obama lies in his speeches please give us an example of said lies.
i will say to you sir in the words of frank grimes "if you were born in any other country you would have starved to death a long time ago"
The GOP favorite Romney came in 2nd and the teabagger favorite came in third (not even being able to break double digits).
So, while conservatives had their incestuous, masturbatory gathering, making each other feel warm and fuzzy by reading from the same script, not one single person emerged as a clear cut leader. Now, you connies may be proud that you don't have a central leadership figure, but good luck with that when it's time to start backing candidates and the incestuous relationship turns to infighting amongs the various conservatives factions (remember NY-23?). And you'll really need good luck in 2012 if you morons can't even decide that you'll back the person you voted for and decid to boo him instead (see results of the straw poll).
I fixed your typo, whatithink.
It all might might make more sense if you look at the Cons or the Republicans more generally as being first and foremost phobic of the Democratic Party. For them the war is not in Afghanistan, it's in "the homeland'. Al-Quaeda is the far enemy for them, we are the near enemy and the more important.
Until their radio dominance is diminished greatly, the D's stand very little chance to function as they used. That has seemed obvious to me for many years now, and so I have to believe they see it too. Frankly I don't think the Democratic Party wishes to change the status quo in this regard. As it is, they can say we gave it the old college try without being on the line for any real change, while extending their open palms to the grateful and benefited powers that be.
Unfortunately, the Democrats don't have the spine to take advantage of this. I blame this partly on the mindset of conservatives but also on the Democrats. I wrote somewhere else that the one thing conservatives have mastered, which the Democrats have no clue about, is the soundbite. Conservatives can take a complex issue and boil it down to a 5, 10, 20 word soundbite. Is it full of crap? Most times, yes, but, more importantly, it's remembered by the people that hear it. Meanwhile, Democrats try to counter with long winded arguments, arguments which a lot people turn off after the first few minutes because it's dull, boring and, sometimes, condescending. A prime example of this is a recent poll taken that most people do not know that taxes have gone down for 95% of the country since Obama became President. The conservative message machine actually have peope convinced their taxes have gone up. What should have been a slam dunk, message wise was bungled by democrats.
Anyways, this isn't the place to write an essay on what I think. Suffice it to say, it was fun watching CPAC in the way that sometimes it's fun to watch a movie when you know exactly what's going to happen so you don't really have to think too much because their are no plot twists.
Why Sarah P.? BECAUSE of her ignorance, not despite. And not just ignorance, but an obvious disinterest in correcting it. They reject the social order wholesale, which her "go f' yourself and your fancy book learnin'" attitude epitomizes. They want the whole society; all the various nationally based socioeconomic hierarchies upended and reformed afresh, or eliminated. .......... Scott Brown? By taking Ted Kennedy's old seat, Brown defeated in their minds what Ted Kennedy stood for. They stormed the Kennedy castle and thereby struck a blow against what he represented to them. Liberalism yes, but worse he was of money and yet cared for those without it, which embarrassed them. He was a traitor to his economic class which so many have deluded themselves that they're also in. And he was, for many, not really one of them by their definition of what America is and how they self-identify themselves relative to it. -- "how dare this outsider, presume to influence OUR country."
But they sabotage themselves by adamantly adhering to an ideology that has neither room for flexibility nor tolerance for it, which causes them to drive the very people that could possibly achieve something.
They're not about ideology in a thoughtful "what's the best public policy for the country AS THINGS STAND NOW." sort of way. They want to break up America as it exists. They will adopt whatever tactic or whichever temporary ideological facade seems best suited to help do so, at the time, as external circumstances change.
Unfortunately, the Democrats don't have the spine to take advantage of this.
As I said in my first comment, I suspect the Dem Party really doesn't want to go against the R's in a substantive way. I agree about the D's marketing of their positions relative to the R's being not so hot. You see it, I see it. They're pros; don't you think they see it also?
First off, this posting by MMFA covers how multiple FoxNews employees and commentators misled and attacked, not just Beck, so your comment that we should watch "the full speech" is ridiculous. Second, no one has ever said that everything that Beck said is flawed or that everything he said furthers the conservative agenda, so why should a media criticism site publish the whole speech? MMFA shows the specific sound bites, with context, that abuse the truth by distorting facts, outright lying, or by omitting relevant data!!!
MMFA and posters here would be thrilled to have a real debate on any subject with factual information. Too bad that you aren't willing to do that - you've demonstrated no willingness to have that fair debate with THIS comment.
Bunch of sick punks!
but the republicans are going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place if they keep up some of the rhetoric. minnesota governor tim pawlenty [supposed moderate] told the convention: "patriots in this room and patriots across this country are rising up. and we have a message for liberals. we're planting the flag on common ground and if you try to take our freedoms, we will fight back".
and ron paul, who won the presidential poll: "government is the enemy of liberty". i'm not surprised to hear that at the conference, but i don't think i can give my vote to someone who would promote such rhetoric. and beck seems to forget that the "minority" he claims is running the country won the election. surely that has to account for something?
I still find it a little surreal to see the same people who were using the phrase "Bush Derangement Syndrome", towards legitimate criticism about actual problems, going off on their wild and paranoid fantasies about Obama.
They do, but you're not supposed to say it.
Yes, yes, yes! It distresses me that more and more often I think that many of those who are anti-government are really anti-American.
Like the guy at CPAC (I'm sorry, I'm forgetting his name right now) who said that if he lost his election, he's going to start cleaning his guns. Basically threatening violence if he lost - so you people in his district had better vote for him!
Upon hearing what he said, I couldn't help but think that he must really hate democracy, and therefore America. After all, isn't democracy one of the great aspects of the country itself? And isn't part of democracy knowing that for every winner there's a loser, and that loser might be the one you backed (or you, yourself)? That's part of the price we pay to have a democracy.
I wish certain conservatives would just accept the fact that they lost and get over it. Then maybe we can get something done.
This isn't even a conversation. Most people have never felt the government being so intrusive or large than in the Bush administration.
When conservatives talk about "small government", they usually only mean "regulation," and even THEN, there's many variables involved in what they consider "bad regulation". For example, if the government wants to intertwine with a corporation, or help stifle innovative, "competition" products, they're fine with that. For example, if the government wants to throw every road block in the way of green energy, that's fantastic. Regulate away.
<sarcasm>
Reactionaryism is the opposite of progressivism.
Democracy is the opposite of Empire.
Thanks, Glenn, but I'll stick with my analysis that the "Secret Team" of ruling-elite corporate/financial/militarist Empire controlling our country ---- by hiding behind the facade of its TWO-PARTY, 'Vichy' sham of democratic government ---- is the real cancerous tumor metastasizing inside our body politic.
Here's an idea, Glenn, let's submit our two analyses to the CIA (which you should like) and see if they find that 'progressivism' or the high GINI income inequality of economic oppression and distrusted governments that come with Empire create the greatest danger of civil unrest, social disobedience, and ultimately revolution.
In an ironic turn of events, I'm already quite sure that the CIA data and experience (as well as all historians) shows that guileful and corrupt hidden imperialism (claiming to be popular democracy) is the greatest cancer to all nations --- rather than progressivism. This sure was the case in the British, Nazi, and Soviet Empires.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
2
weather its in the bible or not being gay is wrong just examine your body then the other sex.I bet most support for obamanation is women beceause if you watch tv or read a magazine or any media you cant "
If you don't realize how bad your post was, so incomprehensibly bad, you may want to mix some black into your decendants to improve the line.
I would vote for Ron Paul in a heart beat.
The Republican Party is too chicken to let Ron get the nomination.
They will probably try to go to the middle of the mess route and push a progressive like McCain on us again.
You have the blood of thousands of Americans on your hands.
The answer to this question is YES. This is exactly what Fox should be doing because this shows exactly what Fox is. They don't even bother to try and hide it anymore. Oh, unless someone says something about them doing it.