Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Why I No Longer Watch FOX News, Part 1: 2008 Elections & Ron Paul

Once, before the days of BLOG, this blog author was a Fox Fanatic. Why? Because Fox News said what was pleasing to the ear. They paid lip service to everything that seemed to be good and right. Sometime around 2002, though, signs began to appear that made this blogger doubt the 'Fair and Balanced' motto.

The initial response to Fox News was positive. Finally, people who didn't believe in big government interfering in your life had a news source. But that wouldn't last for long, if it was ever true.

To begin, let's skip forward to the most heinous act, and probably the straw that broke the camel's back for most former Fox News viewers: forward 6 years, to an election cycle, one in which a new president would be named due to the incumbent having served the maximum of 2 terms. Surely Fox would be a champion against the intrusive big government statism that had permeated the congress, and even the Presidency, for a large part of the last 20 years.

It wasn't to be.

Instead, Fox News led a campaign against conservatism in the 2008 Presidential election. Big spenders, tax proponents, and those with NO understanding of National Security were all paraded around like chickens painted to look like peacocks. Fox gave any statists with large government aspirations a shot, practically coronating Mitt Romney, the author of Romneycare, in 2007.

One of the worst missteps Fox News took was marginalizing a man who was arguably the most qualified candidate, and unarguably the father of the modern tea party era. Of course, we're talking about Ron Paul. The way Fox News treated him was disrespectful to say the least, and despicable.

One Fox News moderator attacked, accusing Paul of wanting the country to take orders from al Quaida, a horrendously irresponsible error. Dr. Paul quipped back, "We should take our marching orders from the Constitution." Another one of their allegedly 'impartial' talking heads, instead of moderating the debate, also attacked Dr. Paul, asking him if he had any 'electability'.

How little class the grade school children at Fox have. The questions weren't even worded cohesively.

On the topic of electability, it should be said that Ron Paul had the most of all in the GOP field of 2008. Here are a few points the apparent dolts from Fox should have considered about Ron Paul:

* in the Iowa Caucuses, Ron Paul finished only 3 points behind McCain, the eventual nominee. Ronald Reagan, himself, finished 2 points behind G.H.W. Bush in the 1980 Iowa Caucuses and went on to win the nomination. No one said Reagan was 'unelectable' due to his performance in the Iowa Caucuses. Paul finished 6 POINTS AHEAD of Giuliani in the 2008 Iowa Caucuses, yet the big-government Giuliani was still considered 'electable' by Fox News.

* Paul had a greater connection to historical conservatives and their positions than any other candidate in 2008, garnering the endorsement of Barry Goldwater, Jr., touting endorsements from the man most quoted at all the debates, Ronald Reagan, when Dr. Paul ran for Congress, among many other overwhelmingly conservative connections and endorsements.

* he has never voted to raise taxes, unlike 'tax hike Mike' Huckabee, the 'Mayor', McCain or their ilk.

* he did well or won the Fox News text polls, which, in spite of the talking heads discounting them AFTER the fact, were touted due to the inability to vote more than once.

* he had a greater understanding of economics than any of the candidates, and embarrassed them during the debates, making John McCain say he'd have to ask Jack Kemp to help him answer the question.

* he had a greater understanding of national security than any of the candidates, and embarrassed Giuliani by giving him a reading list to counter his ignorant call for Dr. Paul to 'say he didn't really mean that,' which is a statement I haven't heard from an adult since I was a child.

* he has become the hero of conservatives, many of whom held record-breaking tea party fundraisers back in 2007 for his candidacy, which launched a modern conservative revival.

Dr. Paul was not included in some Fox Debates due to 'polling numbers', although he had received more votes during the election season than some of the candidates included in the debates. While it is widely known that the debates are the first serious look a lot of people get at candidates, the polling numbers prior to the debate were used to determine who would attend.

Fox News also had a little group of people at each debate they implied were randomly selected to be a focus group. They gave them all little knobs, and asked their opinions after the debate. Frank Luntz, the statist pollster who has admitted he asks questions to get the answer he wants, not the truth, hand selected these groups. Turns out, one guy was 'randomly selected' to be in two different focus groups at two different debates! Another was a known statist activist. Good job of impartiality, Fox. I think that's what they call putting in a ringer, for future reference.

Fox, and other networks, slammed the proto-Tea Party movement for raising over $10 million dollars in 2 days on the anniversaries of the Boston Tea Party and Guy Fawkes attempt to blow up British Parliament. A Parliament which would, after taxing and oppressing us for another 150 years, declare war on us after we declared independence.

Now, Fox pretends to have been some sort of incubator for the whole Tea Party thing, which they've FOUGHT since it's inception.

These were the main events that ended your faithful blogger's viewership of Fox News. It hasn't been on in the house, since, although it's Business sister station has a couple of hours a week when a certain Judge is on.

Next, I'll cover the embarrassing moments following the D.C. sniper, and how disillusionment with Fox began.

Labels: ,