Roger Ailes for President? Er, Maybe Not So Much

posted by John Nichols on 10/23/2009 @ 2:35pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (48)

Subscribe Now

It would be difficult to concoct a Washington fantasy more delicious than this one: Barack Obama declares "war" on Fox News and Fox boss Roger Ailes counters by signaling that he will challenge the president in the 2012 election.

This is William Randolph Hearst, Citizen Kane stuff--great fodder for political junkies.

But Ailes is not going to be president, nor even the Republican nominee for president.

Ailes has taken himself out of the running -- saying he "can't take the pay cut" -- but only after a day of wild speculation about his potential candidacy.

The speculation about Ailes was not entirely the stuff of parody. It was rooted in a measure of political and media reality. But only a small measure -- sort of like the notion that former Bloomberg L.P. chief operating officer Mike Bloomberg as mayor of New York City?

Ailes does, in fact, know politics. He's a veteran Republican political strategist who engineered Ronald Reagan's 1984 "morning-in-America" reelection campaign and George H.W. Bush's 1988 "kinder-gentler" win.

Ailes is, as well, the media whiz who helped get CNBC and a predecessor to MSNBC up and running before building the Fox News Channel (which he has served as chairman and CEO since 1996) into the conservative messaging center that it has become.

That got some political players and pundits talking about Ailes as presidential timber, according to the Washington-insider website The Politico.

"Friends and associates are encouraging Fox News chief Roger Ailes to jump into the political arena for real by running for president in 2012," the site reported Friday.

Veteran pollster Frank Luntz, a mastermind of Newt Gingrich's 1994 "Contract With America" campaign, was one of those talking up an Ailes candidacy. "I have known Roger Ailes for 29 years," chirped Luntz. "No one knows how to win better than Roger."

Perhaps, but "Roger's" wins have been for others -- Reagan, Bush Sr. and his current boss, Rupert Murdoch -- not himself.

At 69 and with a look and style that says "Dick Cheney," Ailes does not fit the image that even the most delusional Republicans say they're looking for in a challenger to a young and vigorous Barack Obama.

Besides, Ailes is a behind-the-scenes man who, frankly, gets along better with Democrats -- and even some liberals -- than his fans or critics care to acknowledge.

Famously, Ailes tried to ease tensions with the White House earlier this month when he met privately with presidential adviser David Axelrod (and 2008 Obama campaign manager). As The Politico notes, "The meeting was not a success."

The wrangling between the White House and the news network Ailes runs has turned into great theater -- and a great boost for Fox. That fed the speculation about an Ailes run in 2012.

Ailes had enough of a sense of humor, and marketing, to let the talk swirl for a day.

But when the speculation and guessing was done, Roger Ailes let it be known that he would not be America's Silvio Berlusconi. While Italian conservatives may have opted for an aging media mogul as their standard-bearer, American conservatives were never going to do so.

In fact, the character of the Republican Party is much more cautious than conservative parties in other countries. That's why even Sarah Palin, the party's immediate former vice presidential nominee and a media "star," trails more traditional contenders in polls anticipating the race for the party's 2012 nod.

Palin's book, Going Rogue: An American Life, will undoubtedly outsell Mitt Romney's upcoming tome, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.

But books sales aside, the latest Rassmusen poll of likely GOP voters, tells us that only 18 percent favor former Alaska Governor Palin. Former Massachusetts Governor Romney is at 24 percent. But the leader is the more classically conservative Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor whose easy style most closely mirrors that of party favorite Ronald Reagan.

And what of Reagan's former campaign strategist?

Rassmusen did not include Roger Ailes' name in the poll.

And the Fox CEO will thank him for that.

This "Ailes for President" boomlet entertained Washington insiders for a day. But it was never going to take the Republican Party -- let alone the country -- by storm.

Comments (48)

obama would destroy ailes in a debate

Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 2:47pm
obama would destroy ailes in a debate

Posted by darladoon at 10/23/2009 @ 2:47pm

My God you are thick. You really don't get it. Alies knows he can't win. But as a candidate, he is not hampered by McCain Feingold. Where Dems can only contribute $1000 for electing Obama, Republicans can give $2000 to defeat him. That's $1,000 to the Republican candidate and $1,000 to Alies for negative adds against Obama.

If Obama fixes all of his attention on Alies, the Republican Candidate would have a cake-walk into the oval office.

I posted a link to Jonah Goldbergs analogy to the Christmas tsunami and the 1992 election. He said he heard a macabe discription of beach goers in Sri Lanka standing on the beach perplexed as the ocean receded completely unaward of the tidal wave that was to follow. In 1992, that was the Perot tidal wave that cost Bush Sr. the election. Goldberg said the receding of support in the polls is similar to the receding ocean in Sri Lanka.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/23/2009 @ 3:45pm
DTBFT, read the last paragraph.

Posted by Denise29 at 10/23/2009 @ 4:05pm
Thanks, Johny Nichols! For promoting Fox & its brilliant Chief!

I didn't realize that Ailes is practically on the same level as most Presidents and far, far higher than the Chicago `community organizer' Halloweening as a President.

Posted by Happy at 10/23/2009 @ 4:18pm
Consider Charles Foster Kane's opponent: an unscrupulous politician who couldn't win on the merits, but publicized evidence of Kane's marital problems. Kane was defeated.

Of course this was fiction.

Posted by Mistral at 10/23/2009 @ 4:23pm
Well, I'll BEE,,,,,,hehehehe! The Legacy Networks actually have some traces of survivalist DNA left in them........like Rush said today on the radio, highlighting Magic's throwing C. Deeds under the bus in VA........perhaps these old networks aren't quit willing to play possum, NOW!

Administration Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

FOXNews.com

Friday, October 23, 2009

Posted by Happy at 10/23/2009 @ 5:08pm
Ailes elected President? I'm not buying it.

Up against a former community organizer with 3 years experience in the Senate? Nah, Ailes, with his vast executive experience running a successful business simply wouldn't stand a chance.

And I don't believe our Teleprompter-in-Chief has ever "destroyed" anybody in debate, unless you count when he made Hillary look a little a bit foolish. But then, she was making herself look foolish. All he had to do was sit back and look "common-sensical".

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/23/2009 @ 5:08pm
I agree, Huckabee is the only serious Republican candidate, now, with that said, he will repackage himself under the new "Conservative" party title. Why?, because the word "Republican" has become toxic, and they (Republicans) know it.

The word "Republican" is synonymous with Bush.

In time, over the next several years, the new Conservative party title will pick up steam. Current elected Republican politicians and aspiring ones will see this as an opportunity for a new start, a way to liberate themselves from the toxic word "Republican".

The new "Conservative"party will be finally free of Bush 43.

But hey, thats just my opinion. We will wait and see.

Posted by rrichie12177 at 10/23/2009 @ 5:59pm
Every time I see a conservative trying to paint Obama as a radical, I can't help but chuckle. Forget radical, he isnt even a liberal. Barack Obama is a middle of the road milquetoast centerist Democrat. Anybody who says otherwise is just exposing how crazy/and or far to the right they are.

Posted by nickname at 10/23/2009 @ 6:04pm
Palin / Ailes 2012!

Make it happen, folks!

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/23/2009 @ 6:10pm
I guess Nichols just needed to fill out a Friday column, but this one's pretty weak stuff. There is no possibility that Ailes will ever be a candidate.

While we are still about a year away from seeing any candidate list form, it will still have Huckabee, Jindall, Pawlenty, Palin, and Romney as the early top runners. I look for either Ron Paul or someone willing to carry his libertarian mantle as a surprise dark horse.

There is ZERO chance of a moderate Republican being considered. That is good for American politics because the people deserve to have contrasting views put forth, especially in selecting a president.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 7:07pm
I don't know what's happening to me, but for some unfathomable reason I find myself agreeing with some of anisocialist's posts, lately. Is this one of the trademarks of schizophrenia or Alzheimers? Or is it a ying/yang thing....... or a Mobius strip...... that the far left (me) and the far right (anti) are coming full-circle and agreeing every now and then? Maybe both parties are starting to realize they've been had, used, manipulated and controlled by some very powerful Roger Ailes types with a massive agenda.

Posted by DejaVu at 10/23/2009 @ 8:56pm
I'm sure his vetting would goes as well as Bernie Kerik's.

Posted by snowball777 at 10/23/2009 @ 9:33pm
<i>There is ZERO chance of a moderate Republican being considered. That is good for American politics because the people deserve to have contrasting views put forth, especially in selecting a president.

Posted by antisocialist at 10/23/2009 @ 7:07pm </i>

I'm not sure that's entirely good because I don't think you have to have extremes to have contrasting voices put forth. Even if you have two moderates in an election, for instance, that doesn't mean you never have clashing principles. It just means that both candidates recognize what many of the extreme wings of their party simply cannot see: the importance of balance and the recognition that maybe, just maybe, the other guy has legitimate points.

Posted by Thrawn at 10/23/2009 @ 9:49pm
no, no, no.

a MUCH better choice:

"It seems to me then that the only hope of getting any of these problems is to get ourselves a national candidate who on the one hand is a mainstream politician and on the other is willing to embrace the notion of an open protest against the Democratic Party doctrine. We need for someone who has some legitimacy with both the media and the Democratic Party constituents themselves to come out and publicly campaign to re-seize the Party from the Wall Street interests that have come to dominate it. We need someone who understands the finance stuff (which automatically reduces the pool of possible applicants to a small handful), will know the difference between real regulatory reform and a dog-and-pony show, and will not be likely to fill a cabinet with bankers from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

The question I have lately is, why not draft Elizabeth Warren to run for president? And I don't mean in 2016, I mean in 2012."

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/10/22/elizabet h-warren-for-president/

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2009 @ 10:19pm
not that it matters:

"CNN Poll: GOP favorable rating lowest in a decade Posted: October 23rd, 2009 11:54 AM ET

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Republican Party's favorable rating among Americans is at lowest level in at least a decade, according to a new national poll.

Thirty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, with 54 percent viewing the GOP negatively.

According to the poll, 53 percent have a positive opinion of the Democratic Party, with 41 percent holding an unfavorable view. The survey indicates that favorable ratings for the Democrats have dropped 5 points since February, with the Republican number slipping 3 points."

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2009 @ 10:24pm
PALIN/AILES '12!

" OBAMA TO SKIP CLIMATE-CHANGE SUMMIT

President Obama will likely not attend the Copenhagen climate-change summit in December, opting instead to give an acceptance speech for his Nobel Peace Prize that will outline his environmental goals."

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2009 @ 10:27pm
The repubs need to start hyping JC Watts. That's right, they need to make a ham-fisted, blatantly obvious, tokenist, capture the diversity-flag move. Jindal won't cut it. Not ethnic enough.

It'll work.

Posted by gangpapist at 10/23/2009 @ 11:51pm
attention america!

"On March 3, 2009, the German Federal Constitutional Court declared that the electronic voting machines used in the 2005 Bundestag elections for the German national parliament were outside of the bounds of the German Constitution.

They reasoned that electronic voting is not verifiable because citizen votes are counted in secret. It obscured a technology inaccessible to all but a very few initiates. Most importantly, the German high court noted, electronic voting machines don't allow citizens to "reliably examine, when the vote is cast, whether the vote has been recorded in an unadulterated manner" Mar. 3, 2009."

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/24/2009 @ 12:16am
Amusing, but ... "sort of like the notion that former Bloomberg L.P. chief operating officer Mike Bloomberg as mayor of New York City?" And that's not so amusing. Mike Multibillions just bought himself an illegal 3rd term as NYC mayor not because he's so enjoying the job, but because he needs a political platform from which to buy the GOP '12 nomination. Watch.

Then watch him pick a white Southern male as his veep nominee.

Mike has the $$$ to buy just about whatever he wants.

2012: The Great Manager vs. the Failed Leader.

That's how Ailes -- his & Murdoch's support bought -- will position it. And at the rate Obama is going, he's playing right into the game.

Afghan escalation, anyone? No Wall St regs, anyone? Continuing job losses, anyone?

Not a pretty sight.

And even uglier if Mike Multibillionaire succeeds in buying himself the White House.

I hear what you're muttering ... never happen, a man of the Hebrew persuasion.

And what was that being muttered -- laughed out loud some quarters -- back in Feb.'07 ... about a Black Man in the White House?

Posted by sloper at 10/24/2009 @ 12:51am
Every time I see a conservative trying to paint Obama as a radical, I can't help but chuckle. Forget radical, he isnt even a liberal. Barack Obama is a middle of the road milquetoast centerist Democrat. Anybody who says otherwise is just exposing how crazy/and or far to the right they are.

Posted by nickname at 10/23/2009 @ 6:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

What we need in 2012 is a Democratic candidate who will challenge Obama (if he runs)from the left. Someone who has shown that they are not afraid to take on the right on the public option, corporate wellfare for Wall St., creating jobs rather than big bonuses for CEO's, and in particular, not afraid to take on the neocons on their foreign policy agenda which does not serve the interests of the United States. The Republicans seem to be degenerating into the lunatic right, by 2012 they will appear to be mere lunatics.

Posted by trueleftist at 10/24/2009 @ 06:19am
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by YourJomamma at 10/24/2009 @ 06:44am
Sloper might be on to something with the Bloomberg prediction. As noted, he just steamrolled the voter-approved term limits law and is on his way to a third term. He left the GOP to call himself an "independent." He has the money, natch. He has the powerful friends. Big Biz loves him. Certainly They Who Control All Things like him.

By 2011, with 20% unemployment, Obama will be seen as weak and a sell-out, the Republicans will nominate a bland corporatist like Romney, a third party will go with Palin... and a man known as a super-duper finance manager will have a strong advantage. The hillbillies will split their votes, true progressives will vote for O with great reservation if at all, and Prince Bloomberg will squeak by with enough votes to be the next President.

My predictions are always wrong, but I do think our mayor has his eyes on Pennsylvania Ave.

Posted by Citizen54 at 10/24/2009 @ 08:07am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/23/2009 @ 3:45pm

Newsflash: Even the inordinately long Presidential election cycle doesn't start until two years before election day.

Posted by DejaVu at 10/23/2009 @ 8:56pm

I occasionally agree with antisocialist, too. There are a number of topics: drug laws, bailouts for corporations, etc. where he is sane. But then, you get to his let's "defend" ourselves at a moment's notice by being the policeman of the world and Israel - and the insanity begins.

Posted by gangpapist at 10/23/2009 @ 11:51pm

Not to mention that Jindal has about as much personality as Urkel.

Posted by trueleftist at 10/24/2009 @ 06:19am

You heard it here first. Obama will run in 2012, and there won't be a Democratic primary worth talking about - particularly no challenge from the "left".

Perhaps you should pin more of your hope on direct action or local electoral politics - because the Presidency is sewn up.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/24/2009 @ 09:39am
Seems like a number of posters and people on both sides are starting to realize that it's our financial system that's rotten to the marrow, not necessarily capitalism. The problem is, the financial mobsters who everything are the only ones who understand their racket and extortion systems and have enough influence to run the political machine as well.

Perhaps the first step is getting some leaders from outside the Goldman / Citibank mob. Maybe, say, people who have actually DONE something with their lives. That ain't gonna be easy, but if enough people wake up to who the real problem-kids are, maybe democracy and capitalism CAN co-exist. (Just not our twisted version of it, please.) Capitalism doesn't require us to be slaves to a small group of banksters, but Fox and Mr. Ailes and our political process seem to ensure that we always will be.

Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" paints a very clear picture of the political / financial machine that has been so successful at subverting real capitalism, based on the marketplace of ideas and innovation, not on who controls the money. But as long as the media machine can control the debate and our perceptions of who we are and want to be, we're stuck, to put it politely.

Posted by DejaVu at 10/24/2009 @ 10:51am
What we need in 2012 is a Democratic candidate who will challenge Obama (if he runs)from the left. Someone who has shown that they are not afraid to take on the right on the public option, corporate wellfare for Wall St., creating jobs rather than big bonuses for CEO's, and in particular, not afraid to take on the neocons on their foreign policy agenda which does not serve the interests of the United States. The Republicans seem to be degenerating into the lunatic right, by 2012 they will appear to be mere lunatics. Posted by trueleftist at 10/24/2009 @ 06:19am

If you are looking for a liberal to run that would push Obama more to the left, I'd suggest someone like Alan Grayson. If you are looking for a liberal who could win, well that's not so easy. It's probably not even possible.

Most people I meet tend to be on the liberal side, but the right has demonized that word so much people don't identify themselves as one. Despite what the pundits tell us the majority of the country does lean to the left.

Posted by nickname at 10/24/2009 @ 10:57am
I've said it before, here and I'll say it again. The word 'liberal' as a political label came from European labor movements of the mid-19th century, meaning someone who supported liberal rights for the working class. Then along came propagandists for things like 'neo-liberalism', meaning endless privileges for corporations and free-market crooks.

It's absolutely mind-boggling how the fascist-right has been able to twist the labor vs. bankster debate into a pretzel......

Posted by DejaVu at 10/24/2009 @ 12:47pm
I've said it before, here and I'll say it again. The word 'liberal' as a political label came from European labor movements of the mid-19th century, meaning someone who supported liberal rights for the working class. Then along came propagandists for things like 'neo-liberalism', meaning endless privileges for corporations and free-market crooks.

Posted by DejaVu at 10/24/2009 @ 12:47pm

That would make you wrong on multiple occasions.

<Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed by the middle of the nineteenth century in England, western Europe, and the Americas, which provided a coherent vision of how society should be organized. Central to the classical liberalism of the nineteenth century is a commitment to the liberty of individual citizens. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly were core commitments of classical liberalism, as was the underlying conception of the proper role of just government as the protection of the liberties of individual citizens. Also central to classical liberalism was a commitment to a system of free markets as the best way to organize economic life.

The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as modern liberalism. Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government and object to the welfare state>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 2:26pm
Well, anti, as usual your hubris is exceeded only by your myopia. Your Wiki definition merely proves my point. After the original term 'un liberal' was used by the French in the Napoleonic era labor-movements, it may have been later re-adapted by the British, with the qualifier 'classical' added at some point, I don't know. But nice try.

I'll try to dig up my source, but it's an actual author who not some Wikipedia con.

Posted by DejaVu at 10/24/2009 @ 4:12pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 2:26pm |

And this squares with your militaristic stance exactly how?

"But war, although the greatest of consumers, not only produces nothing in return, but, by abstracting labour from productive employment and interrupting the course of trade, it impedes, in a variety of indirect ways, the creation of wealth; and, should hostilities be continued for a series of years, each successive war-loan will be felt in our commercial and manufacturing districts with an augmented pressure."

Prescient lad, that Richard Cobden.

Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 6:07pm
Most people I meet tend to be on the liberal side, but the right has demonized that word so much people don't identify themselves as one. Despite what the pundits tell us the majority of the country does lean to the left.

Posted by nickname at 10/24/2009 @ 10:57am

Reminds me of something I once read about the 1972 election between Nixon and McGovern. The editor of "The New Yorker" was heard to exclaim afterwards, "How did Nixon win? I don't know a single person who voted for him."

Nixon won 49 states to McGovern's one. Apparently, the editor of "The New Yorker" considered the literary circles she traveled in to be representative of the nation at large.

It would appear that she suffered from a misconception.

Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/24/2009 @ 6:40pm
"We have been here before. The analogous moments that most easily come to mind--moments of economic turmoil and political realignment--are 1933 and 1981. And so the 44th president has the chance--only the chance; success is not at all certain--to follow in the tradition of the two men who defined politics in the last 70 years: Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. FDR's transformed the role of the state, shaping reality for presidents from Truman to Carter. Then, after 1981, the eponymous Reagan Revolution politically replaced the ethos of the New Deal. Bill Clinton's announcement of the death of big government was, in its way, the apogee of Reaganism.

But we are now living in a post-Roosevelt, post-Reagan universe. What comes next will not be post-partisan, because faction is an intrinsic human impulse. Nor, for the same reason, will it be post-ideological. The question, rather, is what new ideologies--or what new permutations of perennial ideological impulses--will form to order our politics in the face of asymmetrical warfare, religious extremism, and an intensely globalized economy. That is a developing story that no cable channel is likely to cover very well."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/219359

It's looking more and more like it's going the same old STUPID vs EVOLVED parties.

Here's hoping there's more evolved than stupids.

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/24/2009 @ 6:58pm
It's looking more and more like it's going the same old STUPID vs EVOLVED parties.

Here's hoping there's more evolved than stupids.

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/24/2009 @ 6:58pm

I would think it's actually constitutionalists vs Euro Democratic socialists

Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 8:00pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 8:00pm </i>

And who knows, maybe some of them will see Congress' exclusive power to declare war as something other than a rubber stamp. I should hope that a serious constitutionalist would recognize that giving Congress the power to declare war was never meant to imply that the President had the power to make war (i.e. that Congress' power was just to sign off and make it official). To suggest that the people who had just fought a king would give the President vast control over when the military is deployed is bizarre to say the least.

Posted by Thrawn at 10/24/2009 @ 9:14pm
Key exception is I don't associate with snobby, poetry reading, elitists. Yet most of the people I know their ideals lean towards the left. In a lot of cases people don't even realize they are left leaning. Conservatives are just much better at PR. A large majority of the Republican base votes against their own self interest, due to the right wing PR machine. It doesnt help that the majority of elected Dems are A) spineless, and B) not the least bit liberal.

Posted by nickname at 10/24/2009 @ 9:14pm
Bloombucks has changed his political party registration 4 times in last 9 years: Dem, GOP, Indie, and back to GOP last winter. There's a man you can trust. He's now coasting on the GOP line to his illegal 3rd term, having just spent $85 million of his personal $16 billion on the mayoral non-race. And the NYTimes endorses him as of right now.

BTW: much of his loot is managed by ... GoldmanSachs, who have the brief since '07 to come up with the plan for turning $2 billion liquid for Bloomberg's presidential run.

He'll buy the GOP nomination, paying off left & right, flooding the airways with infomercials & ads. The Great Manager vs. the nice but Failed Leader.

Posted by sloper at 10/24/2009 @ 10:48pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 8:00pm |

Tom-ay-to tom-ah-to.

Posted by snowball777 at 10/24/2009 @ 11:15pm
Has anyone ever seen this guy? WOW! He looks exactly like my vision of a fat bilious curmudgeony steamy human turd.

Sorry, but that's my impression. And he always appears to be chewing on a rotting bit of fat or something. You know, like he has a chewy bit of the lunch he ate hours ago that he just can't give up yet.

Sorry about the mental picture....

Posted by chaoszen at 10/25/2009 @ 1:44pm
Seeing him was a little like Mike Malloys description of Dick (Shooter) Cheney as he criticized Obama's "dithering" on Iraq at some bogus award ceremony the other day.

Malloy described Cheney as looking rather "Ruddy" at the award ceremony. And looking like he had just consumed a jewish or muslim baby in order to replenish his life force..

There is just something repugnant about these people that you just can't put your finger on. (Not that you would want to)

Does anyone else see this? Or is it my imagination?

Posted by chaoszen at 10/25/2009 @ 2:00pm
My predictions are always wrong, Posted by Citizen54 at 10/24/2009 @ 08:07am | ignore this person | warn this person

you got that right.

Bloomie for pres? preposterous. notachance.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/25/2009 @ 5:01pm
Posted by Thrawn at 10/24/2009 @ 9:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person

they did not even imagine a standing army.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/25/2009 @ 5:03pm
Key exception is I don't associate with snobby, poetry reading, elitists.

and they don't associate with you. poetry is too good for a ninkulturni such as you. get lost.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/25/2009 @ 5:05pm
Uh I was responding to the comment about the insular liberal existance. By pointing out that left leaning people are not all snobs or New York socialites. I'm not sure why that got your panties in a bunch, maybe you should write me a poem about it.

Posted by nickname at 10/25/2009 @ 7:23pm
you win some, you lose some. pardon.

Posted by emile duBois at 10/25/2009 @ 9:53pm
The repubs need to start hyping JC Watts. That's right, they need to make a ham-fisted, blatantly obvious, tokenist, capture the diversity-flag move. Jindal won't cut it. Not ethnic enough.

It'll work.

Posted by gangpapist at 10/23/2009 @ 11:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Surprised you would buy into the leftist propaganda surrounding J.C. Watts?! He was honest, christian, and a dedicated conservative American citizen (and my representative for two terms). Don't tell me you didn't buy Clarence Thomas's biography either!

Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 12:21am
Posted by gangpapist at 10/23/2009 @ 11:51pm |

It'll work...right up until the knuckle-draggers start asking about his birth certificate.

You 'misunderestimate' the Pug 'base' (pun intended).

Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 10:42am
'Hodding Carter III, an official in the Carter Administration and now a syndicated columnist, recently characterized Clarence Thomas's performance as similar to that of the "'chicken-eating preachers who gladly parroted the segregationists' line in exchange for a few crumbs from the white man's table."...' -- The Atlantic -- February 1987 -- Juan Williams

Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/26/2009 @ 11:40am
"Central to the classical liberalism of the nineteenth century is a commitment to the liberty of individual citizens. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly were core commitments of classical liberalism, as was the underlying conception of the proper role of just government as the protection of the liberties of individual citizens. Also central to classical liberalism was a commitment to a system of free markets as the best way to organize economic life...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism Posted by antisocialist at 10/24/2009 @ 2:26pm

Thanks for debunking Foxes' Liberal/Conservative Labels.

Other Conservatism: "2.1 Liberal conservatism 2.2 Conservative liberalism 2.3 Libertarian conservatism 2.4 Fiscal conservatism 2.5 Green conservatism 2.6 Cultural conservatism 2.7 Religious conservatism" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

Focks News Conservatism:

Roger's Sexual Conservatism: primarily defined as No Gays, No Abortion, DO as I SAY - NOT as I DO Family Values. (Kinky O'Reilly OK.)

Roger's Economic Conservatism: protecting the Status Quo, giving big tax breaks to the rich. (Halliburton OK) Let a few get rich on IDOL etc.

Roger's Religious Conservatism: at this point Conservative Judeo/Christianity is all we need. (NO MUSLIMS)

As far as I'm concerned, that's it & they are bogus. All other Roger positions are LIBERTARIAN & built on a LIBERAL philosophy of "no societal" restrictions as listed above. HA! HA!

The telling quote from Roger's WAY (What Ails You) that he is not interested in running for president cuz he "can't take the pay cut" or more likely "won't take the pay cut" is the most revealing of all. Roger's playing the Monopoly Game & holding 4 Hotels on Park Place & Boardwalk.

Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/26/2009 @ 7:29pm