About Me

Name: RME KRNL
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

Ripped from the headlines...


...of the normally liberal LA Times, no less, November 8, 2009: "Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News"

A Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox News, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again.

Hmmm, I guess the White House's "war" with Fox News is still ongoing, albeit the one in Afghanistan -- you know, the "good" war, the "necessary" war, the one where soldiers are dying? -- is still on "hold." No doubt just another instance of Obama being "nuanced" and "multi-tasking," however.
 
But now the White House war with Fox seems to have escalated in a way, because it's gone from publicly denouncing the most powerful cable news channel as a whole and as a large organization down to contacting and threatening individuals, even if they're Democrats. Makes one wonder just how paranoid and petty Team Obama really is about anyone who criticizes it at all. Well, so much for freedom of speech and maybe the right to freely associate as well.

He said the call had an intimidating tone. The message was, "We better not see you on again." An implicit suggestion, the strategist said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."

White House Communications Director Anita "I love Mao Tse Tung" Dunn said that she had checked with colleagues who "deal with TV issues" and that they had not told people to avoid Fox. This from a woman who lumps mass murderer Mao Tse Tung and Saint Mother Theresa together as her two favorite political philosophers and who does strange things with her tongue when giving a public speech. Maybe that's because it's forked, but I don't know for sure.

So, when she was asked about it, maybe she just checked with those "colleagues who deal with TV issues" that she already knew had not told people to avoid Fox. That way, her statement would be "technically true," don't you see? This president and this White House play that "technically not lying" game all the time. With them, and some other liberals, prevarication by parsing words is not a past-time; it's a passionately practiced procedure.

Oh, and in a related matter:

POLITICO's Michael Calderone reports that President Obama met with several journalists for lunch last Friday at the White House.

The attendees were: CNN's David Gergen, Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Howard Fineman, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker, POLITICO's Mike Allen, NPR/ Fox's Mara Liasson, Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall and New York Times trio David Brooks, Andy Rosenthal, and Gail Collins.
 
(What? You mean Glenn Beck wasn't there? Of course, he's not a "journalist," you know, and rather proudly doesn't claim to be. He's just been digging up and reporting on stuff the "journalists" won't. But, hmmm, so Fox News' Bret Baier and Sheppard Smith had conflicts, too, huh? Imagine that.) 

Administration officials David Axelrod (Senior Advisor), Anita Dunn (Communications Director), Bill Burton (Deputy Communications Director) and Robert Gibbs (Press Secretary) also attended. (Hey, why not? Free lunch, literally.)

The off-the-record lunch lasted about two hours, and included a green salad, halibut and a pear tart for dessert.

How nice! Well, first I'm just "dying" to know what they had to drink with that delicious sounding lunch. Kool-aid, perhaps? And did NYT's David Brooks check out the sharp crease in Obama's pants again -- to make sure he's still going to be an excellent president? No, don't tell me.

Second, I'm wondering why they all met in a government building, ate a meal prepared and served by government employees, at taxpayer's expense, and several government employees (yes, I mean the prez and gang) were present, yet the meeting was "off the record"? I'm guessing that's the only way they could ensure the White House talking points that were passed out would not have to be reported on, but I could just be being cynical again, as is sometimes my wont.

And in addition to Mara Liasson being about the only journalist of the bunch attending who might have an objective bone or two in her body, I also wonder, with Obama meeting so often with members of the media and "off the record" and all, when he is going to meet again "on OR off the record" with, say, General Stan McChrystal who's still waiting for going on three more months now (and with Winter's nonfighting months in Afghanistan closing in) for a decision on that war and who last only had a less than half hour meeting with the Undecider-in-Chief on Air Force One while idling on the tarmac......and that didn't even include lunch, much less a pear tart for dessert.
 
Where ARE Obama's priorities? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

FOX News Is Only An Arm of the Republican Party - Oh, Really?

[Subtitle: And the survey says...]

White House Communications Director Anita "I love Mao Tse Tung" Dunn says that FOX News is "an arm of the Republican Party." And White House Chief of Staff Rahm "run amok" Emanuel and top advisor David "door-to-door salesman" Axelrod say that FOX News is not really news but only opinion. Oh, and add in that Obama Press Secretary Robert "frat boy" Gibbs' best defense that FOX News is only about opinion has been that that's the White House's opinion -- huh? -- and you have a pretty full-on attack against FOX News.

However, a recent survey funded by the nonpartisan League of American Voters revealed some interesting results. These data come from a national telephone survey taken by the Global Marketing Research Center in Melbourne, Florida, during the week of October 13-16, 2009. The survey was taken from a statistically valid national sample of 800 registered voters, 36% of whom said they voted for more Democrats than Republicans, while 32% said they voted for more Republicans and 24% said they voted equally for each party.

It appears that Democratic and Independent voters clearly beg to differ with Ms. Dunn et al. The national survey shows that 46% of those who watch FOX News "just about every day" are -- guess what? -- Democrats or Independents, as are 50% of those who watch it "several times each week" or more. Now, why would that many Democrats and Independents be watching "an arm of the Republican Party" which only deals not in real news but only in opinion? The obvious answer is they wouldn't. They are apparently watching because they are getting "news" from FOX News which they feel they are not getting from other so-called "news" outlets, both TV and print.

Overall, the survey showed that 21% of all American voters watched FOX News every day and 18% watched it several times each week. So, combined, 39% watched the station several times each week or more.

• Among Democrats, 17% watched it several times each week or more

• Among Independents, 46% watched the station several times each week or more

• Among Republicans, 55% tuned in several times each week or more

The survey indicated that 11% of all American voters watched CNN "just about every day" and 20% watched several times each week or more. Combined, 31% watched CNN several times each week or more.

The totals for MSNBC were that only 10% watched just about every day and 8% watched several times each week. Combined, 18% watched MSNBC several times each week or more.

These data, compared to the recent storm of White House criticism, shows the Administration attacks on FOX News in a different perspective. Could it be that Team Obama is concerned about FOX News not because it's "an arm of the Republican Party" but because it is so widely seen among Democrats and Independents?

The frontal assault on FOX News by Dunn and the two top spokesmen for the Administration, plus Obama himself dismissively saying he's not losing much sleep over it all (maybe not, but why then do you send your minions out to do your dirty work?), reveals much less about FOX's operation than it does about just how obsessed this thin-skinned and arrogant president is with his coverage.

He wants it all, or he feels "slighted." Evidently, only absolute adoration, all the time, by everyone is sufficient. How really deeply insecure does one have to be for that to be the case? He's got (and has long had) all the liberal lamestream media in his pocket (or, since they've been behaving like his lapdogs, is that in his lap?), with FOX News having been the only major holdout.

But at least this most recent foray by the Obama attack dogs has coincidentally finally given us something Obama has promised since the campaign but has repeatedly not delivered on -- transparency. The White House attack on FOX News is so transparently just that, an unwarranted attack (as evidenced by the survey cited here), and it has been done with such heavy-handed clumsiness that it mostly shows what amateur hour at the White House from the top down really looks like. A peek behind the Wizard of Oz curtain, if you will, to reveal how small the little man hiding there really is. Thank goodness for small favors.....oh, and some transparency, finally -- albeit coincidental, accidental and unintended. Thank you, Mr. Petty President.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Chairman Mao - increasingly popular among Obumbler's fumblers?

[Sorry for the lack of posts lately, but "I been sick." Will try to get back on track now.]
 
Unless you live under a rock -- but maybe even then, if you have TV -- you've probably heard by now that Obama's White House Director of Communications Anita Dunn (and who "styles" her hair anyway?) said to high schoolers this past summer that Mao Tse Tung -- you know, Red China, the Red Revolution, Little Red Book, prison camps, "re-education" centers, 70 million murdered, brutally repressive regime of the few ruling over the many -- yeah, that Mao Tse Tung -- is one of her favorite political philosophers, to whom she most often turns for inspiration.

(Well, that is, you've heard about this unless you only get your "news" from MSNBC, NBC or the New York Times. Then, whether you live under a rock and have TV or not, you may not have heard a thing about it. Actually, that goes for most of the liberal lamestream media, once again failing to do their job in keeping the American public informed about the whackos in our government.)

Now it comes out that Ron Bloom, Obama’s new manufacturing czar, in speaking to the 6th Annual Distressed Investing Forum, in February 2008, is also a member of Obama's Mao Tse Tung Fan Club:

“Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they are convinced that there is a free lunch. We know that this is largely about power, that it's an adults-only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao, that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it, that if you want a friend, you should get a dog.”  (Emphasis added.)

Wow! Makes you wonder just how many other Mao Tse Tung fans there are among Obama's appointees, advisors, fellow travelers, henchmen and enablers, doesn't it? Let's see, Mao was, ummm, a Communist, right? That's Communist, with a capital "C." You know, those guys who, whether they were internal and domestic or external and foreign, the United States has always seen as enemies to our values, our way of life and our liberties.

So, with Obama already having displayed more of a penchant for czars than the Russian royal Romanoffs could ever have even hoped for and senior Obama advisors and appointees being so fond of Mao, what kind of people does that mean are running "our" government right now? Hmmm, just as Glenn Beck of Fox News said, oligarchy is the term which comes to mind.

Merriam-Webster - Oligarchy:
1. government by the few
2. government in which a small group exercises control, especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also a group exercising such control
3. an organization under oligarchic control

So, taking definition number 2 and applying it to the Obumbler and his coterie of liberal socialist-communist admirers-sympathizers, what's to worry, right? Uh, right?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Spam Is Bad, But White House Spam May Be Okay?

After Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett was alerted last week by some of his viewers that they had received unsolicited emails from the WH, Garrett asked WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about it on Thursday, raising privacy issues. (As it happens, Garrett was later joined by the ACLU, of all groups. Who would have thought the very liberal ACLU and rather conservative Fox News would be on the same side of an issue? Go figure).

Gibbs gave one of his somewhat snarky and arrogant NON-answers and then basically stonewalled Garrett for the next few days as Garrett pursued trying to find out how the WH obtained people's private email addresses and why it was sending them unsolicited emails, mainly about ObamaCare.

Now, finally, the White House has provided its version of what happened. Politico.com's Mike Allen reports that WH spokesman Nick Shapiro said in a statement Sunday night: “We are implementing measures to make subscribing to emails clearer, including preventing advocacy organizations from signing people up to our lists without their permission when they deliver petition signatures and other messages on individual's behalf.” (Italics added for emphasis.)

So, the issue was raised on Thursday and surely could have been answered by someone by sometime Friday but the answer wasn't provided until late Sunday night. Talk about being able to claim credit for finally responding while at the same time trying to bury your answer out of the normal news cycle!

And did you notice that, once again, it's not the White House's fault? Heaven forbid that this White House should ever admit it made a mistake, much less actually and intentionally did something wrong. No, no, no, this time people's private email addresses were obviously but inadvertently obtained by the WH because, while these people didn't specifically opt in to receiving WH emails, they had apparently signed some kind of petition, letter, etc., etc., at some time or other, which some third party organizations (vague and kind of hard to trace, eh?) sent to the WH. So, it was these appropriately amorphous third party organizations' fault, you see -- NOT US! (What kind of ether do these people breathe -- and do they think if they pump enough of it into the news cycle that we will inhale it, too?)

Awww, now see, here I thought I was so "special" because I got three -- yes, THREE -- unsolicited emails from the WH, one from Obama and two from Axelrod. I was just SURE that I had earned a place on SOME kind of WH "enemies" list. Oh darn! Well, guess I'll just have to keep trying.

Just as I can't get over Axelrod's appearance somehow reminding me of a door-to-door salesman of some kind (Fuller brushes? Electrolux vacuums?), Gibbs reminds me of the overly large, overly self-important, overly privileged and overly boorish frat boy I sometimes ran across during my college days. You know the guy -- his daddy made sure he got into the right school and the right fraternity, had the right kind of clothes, the right kind of car and plenty of money, etc., but his daddy couldn't disguise the fact that his little boy wasn't quite as smart as he was arrogant and wasn't quite as polished as he was just plain used to being privileged and pampered.

You may also remember that the WH recently asked Americans to notify it of any "fishy" info, mainly pertaining to health care/insurance reform, that their family, friends or neighbors might casually mention or repeat. Well, the only thing "fishy" to me about the WH explanation of this latest apparent disregard for citizen privacy is that most of the organizations for and with which I've signed petitions, letters, etc., have specifically (in accordance with privacy and anti-spamming laws) stated that your email address may be requested for purposes of notifying you that your petition has been sent or for sending a copy of your letter back to you, etc., but that it will not be published or released to anyone else.

So, how do you explain that, Mr. White House Spokesperson? Anyone?

AFTERTHOUGHT: A poster named roxsteady claimed on Politico.com that Major Garrett and Fox News (I guess, along with the ACLU) were idiots for raising the question of the WH sending unsolicited emails to citizens and sought to excuse the WH by saying it is simply known as SPAM.

But isn't SPAM wrong, even illegal? Why, I think there are even LAWS.....and stuff.....against it. So, roxsteady, are you saying that Garrett, Fox News, etc., are idiots for even asking the questions, but the WH is okay for spamming its citizens, if in fact that's ALL it's doing?

Get a grip and stop excusing the Obama White House for everything. After all, normally AFTER they're CAUGHT, they do enough of that for themselves, usually by blaming someone -- and sometimes it seems, anyone -- else!


 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why am I one of the "chosen ones"?

(Subtitle: Anybody else getting unsolicited emails from the White House lately?)

Well, I am evidently one of the "chosen ones." Within the last month or so, I have received an unsolicited email from Barack Obama and two unsolicited emails from his senior advisor David Axelrod. (I'm secretly waiting and hoping for a personal billet-doux from Rahm Emanuel next. That would give me a trifecta.)

The emails are individually and singly (not one in a multiple listing) addressed to my email address, greet me with the salutation of "Good Morning" or "Dear Friend" and have the WH logo at the top and the standard 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue address info across the bottom.

Now, I can assure you that they didn't get my email address from any of their campaign supporter lists or from any nice letter I've sent the White House lately, but I'm not going to be paranoid about where they did get it -- just curious. It is a little Big Brother-ish, though. 

So, it is just me being "targeted" because I'm already on Obama's "enemies list" and they're trying to persuade me to "come over," or have many -- any -- of you also received these emails? Are they sending them to some of us, or are they sending them to all of us? And if it's only some of us, how are those some being "chosen"?

I now know that at least some other people are receiving these, because Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett was recently alerted to it by some of his viewers and is now pursuing an answer from Obama's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about how people are selected to receive them (and good luck to you with that, Major).

Finally, it all makes me wonder just how desperate the White House is to "get its message out." And why.        


WH Email #1
Subj: My Supreme Court Nominee  
Date: 7/14/2009 10:38:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Good Morning,
Subject: Nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor
From: Barack Obama


WH Email #2
Subj: It's time for a reality check  
Date: 8/10/2009 8:29:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Dear Friend,
Subject: The need for health care/insurance reform and sources to use for the "truth"
Encourages visiting the new www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck web site and helping to "spread the truth" to family, friends, etc.
From: David Axelrod


WH Email #3
Subj: Something worth forwarding  
Date: 8/13/2009 7:56:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Dear Friend,
Subject: 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about health insurance reform, and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now  
Encourages visiting www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck and forwarding email to friends, etc.
From: David Axelrod

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Et tu, Obamicus?

When President Obama was at the G-20 meeting in Europe recently, he apologized for America (again) and said we have sometimes been arrogant, dismissive and even derisive of Europe's leadership in the world.

Then, at a recent town hall meeting in Missouri (prior to his celebratory 100th day so-called press conference that same night), he said that all he was aware of about the April 15th TEA Party protests was that it involved some people waving tea bags around and coverage of it appeared on a TV network that doesn't like him very much.

Well, I think it deliciously ironic that an American president who apologizes, especially while overseas, for America having been arrogant, dismissive and derisive of Europe's so-called leadership in the recent past is himself arrogant and narcissistic, dismissive of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans who participated in the TEA Party protests, and derisive of Fox News, conservative commentators and columnists in general, and anyone else who disagrees with him and his policies, particularly while being so petty and thin-skinned about it all. It's simply unpresidential.

But, Mr. Obama, if America has been arrogant, dismissive and derisive of Europe, what were you being about hundreds of thousands of Americans and the TV news coverage their protests got?

Obama is increasingly showing that he still has style but less and less class. Doesn't he know he was elected to be the president of ALL the American people? Doesn't he know that if he feels he is not my president simply because I disagree with his policies, he runs the risk that I, and many others, will start to think of him as not our president, too?

The outright hubris of Obama, Emanuel, Axelrod, Gibbs, Napolitano, Holder, Pelosi, Reid and many other Democrats and liberals is almost mind-boggling -- as well as infuriating. It's as if they consider themselves above any accountability. Well, an accounting is coming, and 2010 cannot arrive too soon to suit me.

So, et tu, Obamicus? Yes, et tu.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Flaming Liberal Janeane Garofalo on TEA Parties - and the Conservative Limbic Brain?

(ADVISORY: This is long and some of it is sarcastic, so you might want to leisurely read it with a glass of wine or something. And if you're a conservative, please send it to some of your liberal friends. After all, they deserve a good read with a glass of wine, too.)
 
Janeane Garofalo, comedian, actress, left-wing political activist and failed liberal TV talk show host, appeared on MSNBC's Countdown show for an interview by Keith Olbermann (Monsieur Pomposity d' Blowhard and Cornell Agriculture School grad) about the April 15th TEA Party demonstrations which occurred in cities across the country and were attended by an estimated 300,000-plus "ordinary Americans."
 
After Olbermann opened with the following (which I'm sure he thought was deucedly clever and witty), he invited Ms. Garofalo to join him (two peas in a pod if ever there were any). Excerpts follow, with my comments in brackets:
 
Olbermann: Congratulations, Pensacola tea-baggers. You got spunk. And despite the hatred on display, few of you actually violated the penal code. But tea-bagging has now petered out. It ain't what it used to be. And when you co-opt the next holiday, Fourth of July, try to adopt a holiday food that does not invite double entendres, like, you know, franks and beans.
 
[Uh, "...hatred on display," Keith? What facts -- yes, I know they're inconvenient sometimes but you really should back up what you say with them once in a while -- do you have for that, beyond maybe one or two protesters with signs asking about Obama's as yet still undisclosed real birth certificate? And, why is that anyway? Obama could do that at any time, of his own volition, just as he could finally release his college and law school admission and performance records. What does he have to hide? Oh, sorry, I don't want you labeling me as a "hater" too. Back to your clever commentary. "...few of you actually violated the penal code." Aside from your use of "penal" perhaps being an inaccurate allusion to a male body part, actually, Keithster, despite there being hundreds of thousands of protesters at many different protest venues throughout the whole country, there have been NO factual -- there's that pesky word again -- reports of ANY codes, legal or otherwise, being broken. The TEA Party protests were much more peaceful displays of our national rights to assemble and free speech than, say, gays trespassing into churches and disrupting religious services, Code Pink shouting down speakers with whom they disagree, or PETA advocates committing assault and battery by throwing red dye on people wearing fur. "But tea-bagging has now petered out." Oh, I'll bet you were especially proud of that nifty, little double entendre, huh, Keith? What a clever man you are! And, finally, "...when you co-opt the next holiday, ...try to adopt a holiday food that does not invite double entendres, like, you know, franks and beans." Actually, you're straining a bit here, Keith, because tea is a drink, not a food, and even though it might invite double entendres, that doesn't mean that such a clever man as yourself must necessarily engage in them, does it? I mean, you are smart enough to avoid the obvious, however tempting, aren't you? Or so you would have us believe, at least. Oh, and also, here's where your college Ag school English courses may have let you down a little bit, because when you say "...try to adopt a holiday food that does not invite double entendres, like, you know, franks and beans," I'm unsure if you're advocating that franks and beans would, or would not, invite double entendres -- like, you know, what do you mean? Well, more than enough on Mr. Olbermann. That's already the most I've even thought about him in months.]
 
Garofalo: You know, there is nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech they're not quite sure what he's saying. It sounds right to them, and then it doesn't make sense, which -- let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about.
 
[And there's nothing more liberally biased and inflammatory than labeling a bunch of people you don't even know as racists, Janeane. And, by all means, let's do be very honest about what this is about: You don't know what you're talking about. You were right, however, about it not just being about bashing Democrats. It was about bashing Democrats and Republicans alike. And it was very definitely about taxes. Didn't you know the "tea" in TEA Party protests was an acronym for Taxed Enough Already, or did that little factoid elude your intellect? And you also have no idea what the TEA Party protesters may or may not have known about the Boston Tea Party. You weren't at any of the protests, nor did you talk to any of the participants, much less quiz them on American history.]
 
Olbermann: That's right.
 
Garofalo: They don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism, straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And, you know, you can tell these type of right right-wingers anything and they'll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become, it's like showing Frankenstein's monster fire. They become confused and angry and highly volatile.
 
[No, Janeane, you, and other liberals like you, want to make the TEA Party protests about hating a black man in the White House and about racism, so you can discount the protest and the protesters, who, the facts are, were a mix of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, conservatives, liberals, moderates and Libertarians -- ALL angry to one degree or another, yes, but about profligate government spending, growth and taxation without (proper) representation. Does that last phrase sound familiar? It should, with all you claim to know about the Boston Tea Party and all. The Brits unfairly taxed the American colonists without listening to them, so the Americans felt they had no effective representation, that they weren't being heard, much less listened to. And it's a very similar thing with the TEA Party protesters, who have watched the Obama Administration and their so-called Congressional "representatives" vote for more and more taxing and spending, with which the people they are supposed to represent disagree.]
 
Olbemann: Mm-hmm.
 
Garofalo: That guy caused in them feelings they don't know, because they're limbic brain. We've discussed this before. The limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist. The limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it's pushing against the frontal lobe, so their synapses are misfiring.
 
[Now, as you might conclude from the title of this article, this is my favorite part of Garofalo's MSNBC rant -- the "limbic brain" argument. It seems to be a subject on which she fancies herself quite the expert, despite the fact that I can find no biographical data on Ms. Garofalo ever having graduated from college or having taken a psychology, psychiatry or sociology course, much less having a college degree of any kind, except perhaps an honorary (imaginary) one in psycho-babble. (She did attend Madison High School in Madison, New Jersey, subsequently graduating, Class of '82, from James E. Taylor High School in Katy, Texas, after being transferred her senior year. She also studied History at Providence College, a Catholic college in Rhode Island.) What she says sounds good and impressive and therefore persuasive, but she just doesn't know what she's talking about. The closest I could come to her psycho-babble limbic brain argument was this: Merriam-Webster Online does not define "limbic brain" per se but does define the "limbic system" as: "a group of subcortical structures (as the hypothalamus, the hippocampus and the amygdala) of the brain that are concerned especially with emotion and motivation." Well, Janeane, as I have written before, since liberals generally feel and conservatives generally think (just listen to the way each of them talks and you will hear it), I could make the counter-argument that since the limbic system relates to governing emotion (feelings), the "limbic brain" is more likely a liberal, rather than a conservative, "malady." And my counter-argument sounds just as plausible as your limbic brain argument does.]
 
Garofalo: As long as those things are in the collective conscious and unconscious, the Republicans will have some votes, Fox News will have some viewers. But what else have they got? If they didn't do that, who's going to watch, you know what I mean? They've got, they have tackled that elusive clam -- clam, I said "clam." You know, the clam demo, the 18 to 35 clam demo. Klan, Klan, with a "K," demo. But, you know, who else is Fox talking to? I mean, what is it? Urban, older white guys? And the women who suffer from Stockholm Syndrome again. There's a lot of Stockholm Syndrome, is what I'm saying, ultimately.
 
[Gee, there's so much of Garofalo's blatant misinformation and lack of factual substance (otherwise known as BS) packed into this little paragraph that I hardly know where to begin. "...the collective conscious and unconscious"? Who are you pretending to be now, Janeane - Freud, Jung, Nietzsche, who? "...Fox News will have some viewers. But what else have they got? If they didn't do that, who's going to watch, you know what I mean?" Well, no, I don't know what you mean, and you obviously don't know what you're talking about - again, either. First of all, what was all that "...clam demo...Klan, with a 'K,' demo" stuttering about? Were you just having a limbic brain overload and your mouth was simply working faster than your brain? Whose "synapses were misfiring" then? Secondly, I want all female Fox News viewers to know that Ms. Garofalo apparently thinks you cannot think for yourselves, that you only watch Fox News because of the psychological disorder known as the Stockholm Syndrome, which can be defined as: "An extraordinary (psychological) phenomenon in which hostages begin to identify with and grow sympathetic to their captor." It was named for an episode that occurred in Stockholm in August 1973, when an armed Swedish robber took some bank workers captive and held them for six days, after which many of them identified with him and defended his actions. So, while Ms. Garofalo is obviously a free-thinking, outspoken, liberal woman, all of you female Fox News viewers are simply conservative female drones who are held "captive" by Fox News because you have the psychological disorder known as the Stockholm Syndrome. Anyway, here are some more of those, as "Al the Goracle" would call them, inconvenient truths. So far as Fox News, or FNC, goes, TVNewser, an independent outfit which tracks such things, reports the following (I excerpted two random samples):
 
- For Sunday, April 19, in the much desired 25-54 age demographic, Total day: FNC 245, HLN 149, MSNBC 149, CNN 148, and Prime time: FNC 268, MSNBC 178, CNN 168,  HLN 162.
- For Wednesday, April 22, in the much desired 25-54 demographic, Total day: FNC: 391, CNN: 185, HLN: 157, MSNBC: 125, and Prime time: FNC: 667, HLN: 310, MSNBC: 301, CNN: 268.
 
TVNewser again, as of April 28: "Fox News beat CNN and MSNBC combined in every hour from 6am to Midnight in both total viewers and the 25-54 demo for April 2009. FNC had the top 11 cable news programs in total viewers and 12 of the top 15 in the demo. FNC is the #2 network in total viewers on all of cable. From 9am on, every program grew by more than 60% in the demo. The 5pm hour, now occupied by Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in total viewers. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 102% in the demo and up 60% in total viewers. On the Record with Greta Van Susteren is up 75% in demo and up 55% in total viewers. Also in demo, FOX Report is up 75%, Special Report 70%, The O'Reilly Factor 74% and Hannity 64%. (The) Fox & Friends (morning show) has now been #1 for 90 consecutive months, Studio B with Shepard Smith for 80 consecutive months and The O'Reilly Factor for over 100 months."
 
So, Ms. Garofalo, the FACTS are that Fox News has more than just "some viewers" and FNC consistently garnering the most desired demographic, as well as total viewership overall, answers your question about "who's going to watch" - and it's not just "urban, older white guys" as you would seemingly like to believe. In FACT, according to TVNewser's monitoring, FNC not only is being watched by a pretty diverse audience, it is, as one might say, literally beating its competition's brains out in the process.]
 
Ms. Garofalo is bicoastal, living in New York City and Los Angeles, two places which I am sure keep her aware of the real pulse of America, and has this as one of her many personal quotes: "Our country is founded on a sham. Our forefathers were slave-owning, rich, white guys who wanted it their way. So when I see the American flag, I go, 'Oh my God, you're insulting me.' That you can have a gay parade on Christopher Street in New York, with naked men and women on a float cheering, 'We're here, we're (a rhyming word beginning with "q" which Townhall.com won't let me use in this quote)!' - that's what makes my heart swell. Not the flag, but a gay naked man or woman burning the flag. I get choked up with pride."
 
Well, er, okay then, Janeane. I think we know pretty much where you're coming from now.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »