GOP pros fret over Paul Ryan

archer wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Nah - Fox makes at least a marginal attempt to represent both sides of an issue. A better comparison would be between say TownHall and Huff-n-Puff. You might get me to buy into a comparison between Fox and CNN, but not one between Fox and Huff-n-Puff.

:rofl rofllol rofllol rofllol

You have got to be kidding....you really think FOX makes an attempt to present both sides of an issue? Their blatant partisanship makes Huffington look fair and balanced.

Do you watch Fox or just listen to what the DNC tells you about FNC?

There are moderate liberal reporters on the station including Shepherd Smith, & Geraldo Rivera. And some of their commentators tend more to populism than lock step conservatism, one example Bill O'Reilly, who has condemmed oil companies for price hikes and wants to ban most semi-auto pistols and rifles. They also usually have token liberals on the opinion shows like Bob Bechtel & Alan Colmes to debate the issues.

MSNBC has a couple conservatives on their programs like SE Cupp & Pat Buchanon, oh wait, they fired Pat for actually declaring a un-PC opinion. Like what NPR did to Juan Wiliams.

I have actually watched FOX, so what's your point. Trying to paint FOX as a network that is anything but a shill for Republican party is an exercise in futility. Trying to paint my post as something the DNC told me to believe is dishonest, a lie. pure and simple.

I am a fiscal conservative and social libertarian and review a number of news sources and consider Fox to be slightly to the right on fiscal issues but all over the place on social issues with many talk show hosts supporting homosexual marriage, drug legalization, anti-abortion.
The only host I know who is a strict, by the book, social conservative is Sean Hannity.

They do have a tendency to bash Obama daily for ratings, but he is easy to criticize.

archer wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Nah - Fox makes at least a marginal attempt to represent both sides of an issue.

:rofl rofllol rofllol rofllol

You have got to be kidding....you really think FOX makes an attempt to present both sides of an issue? Their blatant partisanship makes Huffington look fair and balanced.

Now, THAT'S the funniest post I've heard in years...

:rofl rofllol rofllol rofllol
:rofl rofllol rofllol rofllol
:rofl rofllol rofllol rofllol

Everyone knows that FOX is the news of and for the right. Saying otherwise is fooling no one.

Even Ann Coulter agrees with Soulshiner:

Coulter said to Sean Hannity, "The Republican presidential candidate has made a move we disagree with and it makes me so mad because you all at this news network have been working so hard to push for him, yet he continues to go off the message you designed."

There you go again, touting the "wisdom" of your new favorite source rofllol

It's very rare for a spokesperson for the right to admit something like that.

I disagreed with Mitt's choice, but after reviewing the other choices, I think he made a pretty good decision.
Pawlenty, safe, but the man barely won his governor race, and dropped out early in the nomination process.
Christie? I think he would get destroyed by the media and what works in New Jersey doesn't work nationally.
Portman? Safe choice, but wouldn't energize the base.
Huntsman, I don't think 2 Mormons on the ticket would work, but I like Huntsman as a pragmatic leader.
Rubio? I think something came up in the vetting process because Romney needs Florida.
Jindal? I don't think this would do much for the base either.