It ain't easy running against Fox news ...

Rachel shows how hard it is to run in the Republican 2012 primaries without help from the "fair & balanced" network, also known as "Republican Party TV." Iowa is being called "the Murdoch primary." Just ask Ron Paul... or Newt Gingrich. Even buffaloons such as Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain got more air time and positive props than those two- even as they led the polls. What a way to run a party!

(Of course they're all wack-a-doodles who never had a chance against the deeply boring, establishment-anointed Mitt Romney, the conservative-come-lately whose slow and steady is winning the race. The only Republican we ever feared as a real competitor to President Obama in this bevy of boffos was Jon Huntsman, and he's never not been in the single digits).  

Comments

[Puget Sound Blathers]

Fox News is dominant among the Republican crowd but it has been losing share.

Check this out from AP

"NEW YORK (AP) - It was a good year in the ratings for cable news networks. Or a rough one. It depends on your perspective.
Fox News Channel continued its dominance, with an average viewership that exceeded CNN and MSNBC combined in prime time and for the entire day, the Nielsen ratings company said Wednesday. Fox typically had 1.87 million viewers in prime time this year. The top 13 programs in cable news all aired on Fox.

Yet Fox was alone among the cable news networks in losing viewers—down 8 percent in prime time and 5 percent for the full day, Nielsen said. The 2010 midterm election year was particularly engaging for Republicans, who make up a big part of Fox's audience.

CNN was up 17 percent in prime-time viewership with a revamped lineup that includes a double dose of Anderson Cooper and Piers Morgan replacing Larry King. CNN is third behind Fox and MSNBC in prime time but second for the day as a whole.

CNN's rivals acknowledge its gains but are quick to point out that last year represented CNN's worst year ever in the ratings.

MSNBC can take pride in surviving the exit of its most popular prime time personality, Keith Olbermann, who defected to Current. The network is up 2 percent over last year in its prime-time average, Nielsen said.

However, MSNBC is down 11 percent for the 8 p.m. time slot, which Olbermann occupied. Along with the continued popularity of Rachel Maddow at 9 p.m., MSNBC is showing rating gains at 10 p.m. because it replaced the Olbermann rerun that used to air at that time with an original show, currently hosted by Lawrence O'Donnell.

HLN, the former CNN Headline News, is up 20 percent over last year, with its popular blanket coverage of Casey Anthony's trial a big factor.

NBC had a rare win in the prime time rankings, with its Sunday night football programming leading the way."

[Tommy008]

Palin and McCain would have beat Obama if the financial meltdown hadn't occured in late September, kiling their momentum ( they were winning). Look at the way Romney and his organization just took down Gingrich. He most likely will beat Obama, unless Obama pulls a miracle economic recovery out of his hat He is a man who doesn't deserve to be re-elected due to abject failure. John Rothman, probably now doing a closed circuit broadcast from a Bay Area nursing home lobby ,would say never mind, just vote for him because he has a D after his name. People aren't buying that horseshit anymore.

[Erictheeditor]

Palin and McCain were leading until Palin started talking.

[ExPatBrit]

So Trump, then Gingrich now Romney, Tommy you are such a flirt!

A kind of aloof out of touch rich guy from MA, what could go wrong? Ask President Kerry, I guess.

Romney agrees with everyone on everything, not necessarily simultaneously though.

Sarah could still jump in and Mitt could become a born again evangelical christian before next week.

[I yamma man]

Romney will have a hard time- his base, if nominated will not be excited, many will stay home as they did with Bob Dole, John McCain and GH.W. Bush. He is a Mormon. He has been all over the place on every issue, and he is a robot whose alleged personality can't hold a candle to the personal firepower Obama can wield.
I'm not worried about Obama, I'm concerned about a Repubican Congress which would mean mean gridlock for four more years. Big shit needs to be done, and the Congress is busted. Divided gov't sucks.

[Tommy008]

hahahaa the Brit can laugh away, tittering all the way to November ... I just witnessed Romney destroy Newt with his superior organization , opposition research and attack ads. Romney is actually a better debater than Newt.....i realize now that Newt's ego is as big as Obama's.....I remember a couple weeks ago Newt stating as uncontestable fact that he was obviously going to "be the mominee". The silly women voters of America will vote for matinee idol Romney over the funky looking, and overly thin "Ears" Obama, just as they voted for Kennedy over Nixon after the debates. Obam will get flustered inthe debates and try to go snide, arrogant and mean, losing his phony hipster patina.

[ExPatBrit]

Tommy when you were administering a virtual BJ to Newt on this blog several weeks ago, I pointed out Mitt was the chosen one.

Please try to keep up!

I see you are finely dialed in to the needs of the average women voter. You sound like quite a catch, must be fighting them off.

[Tommy008]

Obama is the robot, completely "at sea" without his beloved teleprompter. But keep trivializing Romney, stoking your false sense of electoral superiority . Honest Dem. analysts, not the leftist Obama shills on this board, are admitting that Romney is the one candidate they and the White House think could beat Obama. Thats what they say in public. In private they are saying that it is more likely to happen than not, once he's nominated and bests Obama in 2 out of three or all three debates. But keep it up= frankly i like it that way, you leftwing ideologues yukking it up over Romney, and whistling away with false confidence. Newt was a very confident man a few weeks ago, before he had his ass handed to him by the Romney machine.

[Tommy008]

Obama is setting records as Persident. Records for number of rounds of golf as sitting Persident. Michele left early for their 4 million dollar Hawaii Xmas vacation, not satisfied with staying in Washingtom until her man was finished with his business, thus wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers money with a needless extra plane trip. Let'em eat cake!

[Tommy008]

"the chosen one"..... what, did the Trilateral Commuision or the Bilderburgers or Carlyle Group or all three get together and anoint Romney? It's called outworking, outstrategizing/ad campaiging and out fund-raising your opponents, not being anointed or "chosen" by some mysterious powers. HAHA Brit,haha Brit.......

[ExPatBrit]

Mitt has been running for President for 8 years, it's his turn after all.

If not a lot of LDS people are going to be very pissed off.

Like Dole and Kerry, sacrificial lambs - "it is written".

I don't fear Romney for President, he is a DRINO but he's probably competent. Would prefer Huntsman though .

2016 will be the republicans year, with tax cuts promised for all.

Rinse repeat!

[sparky]

Oh please let Palin and Trump decide to jump in..please please please.

[Johnny Sombrerro]

yum yum, more buckets of paint for the GOP to step in...

[Mike D]

On the surface Romney is less wacky than the other candidates, but he hasn't been fully vetted by the media like the others. The best tool Dems have are the words of any current Republican once he/she starts explaining their positions in detail. Romney's ideas are just as extreme and unpopular as the other GOP wackadoodles' - he just hasn't been forced to defend them under the spotlight yet.

The more voters hear Republicans talk the less they like them. That's why every candidate's bubble has burst so predictably.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

jeez, you'll have a hard time painting him as an extreme wackadoodle.
Romney is fairly mainstream with most folks in the nation. if he can get elected as a Repub in Mass, he has the ability to appeal to the center of this country.

[RQ]

As you like to say, PSB, "spot on."

[Mike D]

"Corporations are people my friend". Yeah real mainstream there PSB. Extensive polling shows the public overwhelmingly against tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, restrictions on abortion, etc etc etc. The public is basically against the entire GOP platform.

[Mike D]

I'll give you this - if Romney is able to successfully pull the wool over everyone's eyes and convince them he doesn't believe in all those terribly unpopular things, then yeah, he has a good chance of winning. All he needs to do is avoid the media up until election day. ;)

[Puget Sound Blathers]

"Corporations are people my friend".

actually, that is fairly mainstream among legal folks. it's been settled law for quite awhile.

in regards to your other points, romney will be able to position himself appropriately. either the republican party platform will be mainstream or it will be a regional party. same with the dems.

[KS]

Mr. Obomba did a wonderful job in pulling the wool over the eyes of many. McCain played right into his hands, by giving him the benefit of a doubt and ignoring his extremist ties, in fact he disparaged those who brought them up.

Romney is a politician but also has successful business experience (of course depending on who you ask) and knowledge of how the economy works. The independents are going to determine the outcome of this election. If the economy improves little as predicted and he makes this election a referendum on Obomba and stands strong against the smears and the verbal excrement being hurled at him by Axelrod and the rest of the Chicago pols, he can win, but it won't be easy but plenty dirty !

[Puget Sound Blathers]

as RD says, 'spot on' KS

If we are looking for a business perspective, Romney will be a better candidate.
It will come down to the economy. Will people look at Pres Obama and want four more years or will the folks want a change at the top and go with a business perspective.

[RQ]

This election will be about economics and who is in a better position to turn things around. Romney will be very convincing as he speaks to his experience in the private sector and working successfully with a democratic congress in MA and Obama will...well, his record so far will speak for itself.

But I'll give you this - if the economy shows significant signs of life between now and election time, Obama will likely get another 4 years.

Either way, until we get rid of the dysfunctional politicians in DC (read: just about every last one of them), whoever wins will have a tough time getting anything done.

[Johnny Sombrerro]

Yes, he will have to explain Romney Care while denouncing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

RQ, I agree 100 percent with what you said.
Johnny, I think he'll have more trouble with the primary then the general election in regards to Romney Care.

[KS]

Correct, RQ - the economy will probably have more to do with the outcome than anything else, but if it doesn't improve much - Obamacare will be the albatross hanging around the Democratic cabal's neck.

[Mike D]

"Obamacare" doesn't kick in until 2014, but... good luck with that anyway.

The economy is improving, albeit slowly, but it would be much more improved if Republicans hadn't set historical records for obstruction and filibusters. Romney won't be able to blame Obama for bad policies when he wasn't really able to pass anything. We're actually still running on the fumes of the ineffective Bush/GOP policies (tax cuts, deregulation, starve the beast) which current Republicans refuse to let Obama change.

[KS]

I would call it check & balance - which is the result of divided government. Now the Democrats are setting records for obstructions in the Senate by refusing to take up over 2 dozen bills passed by the House since the GOP gained control of the House. It will all be Bush's fault according the Dems right up through 2020 - that excuse has already old and doesn't play that well east of Lake Washington.

Bad policies - Dodd-Frank & Obamacare, passed in 2010 before the midterm elections. You seem to have selective memory loss. A majority of Americans call these bad policies. Facts are stubborn things.

[Mike D]

"I would call it check & balance"

So you admit that the suffering economy continues to run under Republican policies, like tax cuts, spending cuts, no stimulus, etc. Good! We're making progress.

You can try to blame it on Obama, but he has not been able to change those policies, to replace them with progressive policies. Therefore the blame rests squarely on the heads of the Republicans and their failed ideology.

As for Dodd-Frank, care to share with us why it's so bad? I mean other than it causes "uncertainty" and hurts the Job Creators' fee-fees? Because that's just unprovable speculation (read: bullshit)

[Tommy008]

Chris Mathews is such a buffoonish old ass- a self-hating white man who constantly tries to make the opposition to Obama a racial thing, as he did on tonight's Hardball show. He kept saying how the Repubs are dead serious about getting rid of Obama, and aer rapidly coalescing around Mitt Romney . He's right. But he also doesn't mention the hordes of Independents and Democrats who want this guy out of fo office yesterday. He's always conjuring up his cartoon version of events- those evil racist Republicans. Mathews the jackass is Elmer Fudd- trudging along in the snow with his shotgun, and his dumbass hunter's hat, with the big earflaps, looking for those "wascally, wacist Wepublicans".

[Tommy008]

Pat Cadell and Doug Schoen, two longtiome Democrat pollsters and consultants, are urgung a write-in campaign for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. Cadell, who worked for Jimmy Carter, is extremely concerned about how Obama spends his days now. According to Cadell, he is now basically just campaigning and going on vacations- nothing much else. Mathews would call these two racist Republicans, except - they're Democrats. Sorry, Chris, you jackass.

[truthseeker]

"that is fairly mainstream among legal folks. it's been settled law for quite awhile."

Cite evidence of that if you can.

As for Romney, he was gov when the economy was doing well. I think Bain will catch up with him. It is settled opinion that putting people out of work is now out of favor.

[Puget Sound Blathers--truthseeker]

you can go both by statute or case law for over 125 years.

"U.S.C. §1 (United States Code),[15] which states:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
This federal statute has many consequences. For example, a corporation is allowed to own property and enter contracts. It can also sue and be sued and held liable under both civil and criminal law. As well, because the corporation is legally considered the "person," individual shareholders are not legally responsible for the corporation's debts and damages beyond their investment in the corporation. Similarly, individual employees, managers, and directors are liable for their own malfeasance or lawbreaking while acting on behalf of the corporation, but are not generally liable for the corporation's actions. Among the most frequently discussed and controversial consequences of corporate personhood in the United States is the extension of a limited subset of the same constitutional rights.
Corporations as legal entities have always been able to perform commercial activities, similar to a person acting as a sole proprietor, such as entering into a contract or owning property. Therefore corporations have always had a 'legal personality' for the purposes of conducting business while shielding individual stockholders from personal liability (i.e., protecting personal assets which were not invested in the corporation).
The stronger concept of corporate personhood, in which (for example) First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been asserted by corporations, is often traced to the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (118 U.S. 394)."

with that said, it does create some anomalies and for purposes of business it could be revisited. but as to the question of whether it is mainstream or settled law you'll have a hard time disproving that statement.

[KS]

So you admit that the suffering economy continues to run under Republican policies, like tax cuts, spending cuts, no stimulus, etc. Good! We're making progress.

Back in 2009, Republican policies were jettisoned for statist policies - were you unconscious then ? Bush was also a progressive (light compared to Obama), as he expanded government with virtually no spending cuts but tax cuts. Spending cuts must exceed tax cuts for smaller Federal government that has grown into a monster. Bowles-Simpson created a viable plan for economic recovery, but Obama and the Democrats thumbed their nose at it and the Republicans have not paid enough attention to it yet. The problem with Dodd-Frank is that it is now almost impossible to obtain a loan for one; the regulations are too restrictive and do nothing about privatizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Read Investors Business Daily for more evidence.

Progressive policies are the main problem. I can cite you a number documents that state this, but you would not want to believe it, as you seem to be in denial. You have been worshiping at the altar of Krugman, who has been wrong on the economy, trying to propagate the progressive myth, which is nothing but big obtrusive government and redistribution, which turns us into the EU. Screw that ! With all due respect, you can take your progressive policies and shove it !

[Truthseeker]

Citing a case that is flawed isn't evidence of settled law. Why did John Roberts have to "actively" maneuver a case to finally "settle" it? Nor does that case actually address other aspects of "personhood" which is why his activist legislating from the bench continues to be contentious. It isn't that simple.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

Citing a case that is flawed isn't evidence of settled law. Why did John Roberts have to "actively" maneuver a case to finally "settle" it? Nor does that case actually address other aspects of "personhood" which is why his activist legislating from the bench continues to be contentious. It isn't that simple.
Posted by: Truthseeker | December 30, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Truthseeker,
In general when the Supreme Court decides a case and subsequent Courts rely on it AND it is then put in the Federal Statutes you can pretty much rely on it as settled case law.
Get yee to a law school and take a few classes if you are in doubt.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

LMAO, the Supreme Court settled the matter back 1125 years ago.
It'll take a lot more than Al Gore and Media Matters bloviating about it to 'unsettle' that law.

[Johnny Sombrerro]

1125 years ago? wow. Which law school should one go to?

[Puget Sound Blathers]

Good Catch, Sombrero. Now work on context.
Obviously that would be 125 years.

[truthseeker]

Settled case 125 years ago. Like Dred Scott?

[KS]

Nope that would be in 1886 and Dred Scott was more like 151 years ago. And your point was ?

[truthseeker]

Settled case. Get it?

[Puget Sound Blathers]

KS
spot on. poor truthseeker, et al have a problem with the concept of stare decisis or the fact that it is such well settled law that it was also incorporated into the federal statutes.

oh well, these concepts aren't covered in Judge Judy so you can understand why they keep whiffing on it.

[Puget Sound Blathers]

Settled case. Get it?

Posted by: truthseeker | December 30, 2011 at 07:11 PM

Good luck with that line of legal reasoning, 'Professor'...

[truthseeker]

"Settled" is a label which may or may not be the case. Just as occurred in Citizens United, a hundred years of "settled law" was overturned. Where's your "stare decisis" in that? Dred Scott was overturned.

And the 1856 railroad case is flawed in that the justice wrote in correspondence that his court reporter misstated the finding. At least, that was the justice's take.

Overlooking the complexity of our system of jurisprudence doesn't make you right. Nor does name calling. Good night.

[Mike D]

"Just as occurred in Citizens United, a hundred years of "settled law" was overturned."

Sounds like judicial activism to me.

Oh wait - that was a conservative ruling! I forgot it's only activism when it's a ruling that conservatives don't like. Oops.

[Johnny Sombrerro]

Corporate Personhood"? there hasn't been 150 years. It didn't become overt until the 1980s.

This was no accident – the rules of the market underwent profound changes that led to the upward redistribution of trillions in income over the past 30 years. The rules are set by Congress – under a mountain of lobbying dollars – but they are adjudicated by the courts.

"A 2007 study by University of Chicago law professor Thomas J. Miles and Cass R. Sunstein looked at the tendency of judges to strike down decisions by federal regulatory agencies, and found a similar trend. The Supreme Court's "conservative" justices were again the most likely to engage in this form of "activism," while the "liberal" justices were most likely to exercise judicial restraint.

The most notorious case of activism by the Roberts court was its ruling in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, which overturned key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, rules that kept corporations -- and their lobbyists and front groups (as well as labor unions) --- from spending unlimited amounts of cash on campaign advertising within 60 days of a general election for federal office (or 30 days before a primary)."

[sparky]

IOKIYAR!! Still waiting for Scalia and Thomas to recuse themselves from the Health Care Affordability Act...Kagan has already recused herself from hearing the Arizona immigration case. Of course when Scalia was asked to recuse himself from a case involving Cheney, he was insulted and said "I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned." So I wonder if he will feel the same way if Kagan refuses to recuse herself from the health care case!

[BlackRhino]

More rope guys?

Posted by: BlackRhino | September 18, 2011 at 01:13 AM

It’s looking awful precarious for you. Do you have anything new to wow us or are you still running the same old dingbats?

[KS]

Why should Scalia recuse himself from the Obamacare individual mandate case ? Never heard that one outside of perhaps Media Matters/Daily KOS. Sounds like your partisanship is showing again, Sparkles.

Why should there be any question that Kagan must recuse herself in this case ? She was directly connected with the passage of the bill and was shown to be elated when it passed - good Gawd, this denial by the left is ridiculous. If she thinks she can make amens by recusing herself for the AZ immigration case, she is a bigger political hack jurist than I thought. A weaker case could be made for Thomas recusing himself, but only considered if Kagan is recused.

[BlackRhino]

Someone’s off their meds… Take a deep breath KS and reread what you just wrote.