Tag Archives: CNN

CNN – No Longer King

Founded in 1980 by Ted Turner, CNN was the first station to offer 24-7 news coverage. They changed how Americans got their news and as granddaddy rode the wave of popularity for many years.

My first real encounter with CNN happened at the onset of the First Gulf War. We didn’t have cable but one of our local stations broadcast the station live through the night as Bernard Shaw, Peter Arnett and John Holliman reported from their position. Better than any reality television today; there was no editing. It was raw coverage, the men were caught unexpectedly when the war began and not able to leave the area. So they reported live, for hours and days, on the shelling and gunfire surrounding their hotel. It was riveting. You can feel the tension in these clips:


 

The opportunity to have live international news was so compelling we joined many and signed up for cable.

But now, more than 20 years later, things have changed. No longer king, CNN seen its ratings hemorrhage losing 35-40% of their viewers in the past quarter as listed in the Hollywood Reporter and By The Numbers.

CNN – Prime time viewers – 446,000 (25-54 age group – 129,000)

MSNBC – Prime time viewers – 689,000 (25-54 age group – 217,000)

FOX—Prime time viewers –1.79 Million (25-54 age group – 254,000)

It is worth noting that both MSNBC and FOX also reported lower numbers, but appreciably smaller changes.

Waiting at the airport last week I was reminded of the once powerful station.  Sitting there watching CNN I wondered whether the airport chose to air this station due to popularity or perhaps they were under contract. With ratings in the tank it is apparent that the station was not on due to passenger request.

As Bob Dylan sings, “The times, they are a-changin’”.

What A Shocker! Sandra Fluke Endorses Obama

Liberal activist Sandra Fluke took to the airwaves this afternoon to announce her endorsement of President Obama, which isn’t surprising in the slightest.  Fluke was made famous for her pseudo-congressional hearing concerning women’s health that prompted radio host Rush Limbaugh to chastise her as a slut.  She was also featured because of her op-ed piece that was posted on CNN today with the editor’s noteSandra Fluke graduated cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center and has served as president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice.”  Yes, highlight her academic credentials, but don’t divulge the fact that she’s is a political hack.

The piece itself is the personification of the Obamamania craze that swept the millennial generation into action four years ago.  She details how the president “is committed to rebuilding our economy upon the values of fairness and opportunity and the belief that all Americans, both men and women, must have the rights they deserve..asking Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act to help stop pay discrimination before it starts and close the 23% gap between women’s earnings and men’s earnings…[and] Obama has moved our country forward by working not only to ensure Americans’ prosperity, but also by guaranteeing that our rights are protected and we all have opportunities to succeed. By comparison, Romney has offered only frightening promises to send us backward.”

The succeeding paragraphs bash Romney  in a similar fashion seen in the Obama campaign’s Julia presentation depicting a miserable existence for American women.  If you’ve seen it, you know what I’m talking about.   However, in the interview, CNN’s Carol Costello must have missed the information that stated Fluke she was already a political activist before Georgetown because she hardly grilled her.

CAROL COSTELLO CNN: You were a Georgetown student. Now you’re a full- blown political activist. And you wrote this op-ed for CNN.com. You endorsed the president. 

Do you think people will take your endorsement seriously?

SANDRA FLUKE: Well, I think that they can take it for what it’s worth. I have looked very closely at these policies. And I take very seriously anything that I take a position on. That’s actually why I waited until now to endorse anyone in this presidential election.

I felt that a lot of people were looking to me for my opinion, following these controversies. And I wanted to remain nonpartisan and specifically look at which policies I could support.

 But I have just concluded that Governor Romney must not be looking for the vote of people like me because he’s not taking a stand on issues that are really important to me. Issues like the Paycheck Fairness Act or, you know, so many other things that I’m concerned about.

Later on in the segment, Costello asked  “well, by the same token, Mitt Romney’s favorability rating among women is rising. And if he doesn’t care about these things that you’re talking about, why do you suppose that is?

”

Fluke responded by saying “I think that he’s recently been selected as the Republican nominee. And there’s inevitably a consolidation around a nominee when that occurs, and that’s what we’re seeing. That said, for months now we have seen the president having a considerable lead among women.

And that’s because they know that he is a strong leader for the policies that we care about. Policies like affordable access to education, in terms of student loan rates. And policies like the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Violence Against Women Act.

”

Yes, the Paycheck Fairness Act would help equalize the salaries of those female staffers amongst the women’s wing of the Democratic Senate Caucus who pay them much less than their male counterparts, but that is a hypocrisy analysis for another day.  Concerning unemployment, Costello pressed Fluke by asking “But when you look at the unemployment figures for young people, they are pretty abysmal. Why should young people, the millennial generation, enthusiastically support this president?

”  I found the response lacking to say the least.

FLUKE: Actually, I saw something on ABC recently that things are increasingly — that this is the best time for employment opportunities for young college graduates since this recession started. And I think that the difference between Governor Romney and President Obama is that both of them are very focused on improving the economy for all of us, but President Obama is focused on improving it for all of us, not just for the select, wealthy few, and making sure that we have the rights and protections that we need in those jobs and in that workplace.

COSTELLO: I’m not sure that many college students who have just graduated would agree that the employment picture is looking any brighter.

FLUKE: The ones I have spoken to do actually.

COSTELLO: Really if what do they say? Are they finding jobs? The college students that we talk with are having a difficult time.

FLUKE: Well, I have talked with lots of folks who I graduated with in terms of law school graduates. This is the first year that things are looking up for them and increasing rates. And I am hearing that from graduates across the country.

What was the “something” on ABC?  When I searched the ABC news website, I did find an artitcle titled “College Graduates Enjoy Best Job Market in Years.” However, the piece states that “the unemployment rate for college graduates 24 and under averaged 7.2% from January through April. That rate, which is not adjusted for seasonal factors, is down from the first four months of 2011 (9.1%), 2010 (8.1%) and 2009 (7.8%). For all Americans, the unemployment rate is 8.1 percent.”  How is this good news for college graduates?  Furthermore, if Ms. Fluke was a serious journalist, she could at least name one guy or gal she chatted with about the economy, but I guess hacks don’t have much time to write down names.  They have to post columns and give interviews detailing the Obama agenda under the false pretenses of “remaining nonpartisan.”

P.S. Last time I checked, Romney lead women according to a CBS-NYT poll.

California’s High Speed Folly

Your Tax Dollars!

More news of the stimulus’s failure emerged this week with CBO’s report citing how it may have cost $4.1 million per job, but the story that should be on everyone’s minds concerning the Obama’s agenda is California’s high speed rail project.  Calls for a high speed rail system by the Obama administration have been enhanced given China’s successful completion of their system last summer.  However, if you look at the current California project, the scale of failure is epical and our tax dollars are being poured into it.

In a rare instance, CNN gave a rather insightful report on how this proposed high speed rail is actually three times more than its estimated cost. The railroad project itself seemed sound.  A line from Los Angeles to San Francisco spanning 2oo miles was a palatable initiative for Californians, which is why they voted for a $10 billion dollar bond measure back in 2008.  However, the original estimate was in the ball park of about $34 billion dollars. It is now  projected to cost a monstrous $198 billion dollars.  Additionally, Drew Griffin, CNN Investigative Correspondent, reported that not a single rail has been laid in the four years since the initiative was passed.

This marks another stinging failure of the domestic agenda of the Obama administration.  First clean energy, now high speed rail networks.  It fits nicely into the description George Will aptly made about American liberalism on Charlie Rose last August as”an amalgamation of appetites of parochial interests.”   The project is now revised under the new Chairman of California’s Railway Authority, Dan Richard, but it’s very different original high speed blueprint. Griffin stated:

It turns out, the latest plan could be for a much slower train, not actually the high- speed futuristic cartoon California voters approved four years ago. More of a hybrid that goes slower, makes a few more stops and doesn’t quite deliver the L.A. to San Francisco promise of just a few hours.

And that’s not the half of it. This is about to become really political. California’s high-speed rail has one huge backer — President Barack Obama — and that is where you come in. The administration has pledged $3.5 billion in stimulus money, also known as federal tax dollars, and that’s just so far. Now, California admits it will need even more, tens of billions of dollars more from federal taxpayers to finish it.

But first, you have to start. And that’s where it really gets dicey. The foundational segment, the first stretch of track, will cost at least $6 billion alone and, under the new plan, will connect Fresno to Burbank. It won’t go anywhere near San Francisco. And in the process, will dissect generations-old dairy farms, nut orchards and towns that don’t want it.

That’s not the worst of it.  Apparently, Barack Obama, who continues to be a staunch proponent of this project:

 has pledged $3.5 billion in stimulus money, also known as federal tax dollars, and that’s just so far. Now, California admits it will need even more, tens of billions of dollars more from federal taxpayers to finish it.

But first, you have to start. And that’s where it really gets dicey. The foundational segment, the first stretch of track, will cost at least $6 billion alone and, under the new plan, will connect Fresno to Burbank. It won’t go anywhere near San Francisco. And in the process, will dissect generations-old dairy farms, nut orchards and towns that don’t want it.

However, even with the inflated costs and objections by local farmers, Dan Richard and the rest at the Railroad Authority aren’t giving up.  After all, as Griffin reported, “they’ve already got the promised $3 billion of your tax dollars in federal stimulus. California may not get another dime from President Obama, but it has no intention of giving back the $3 billion already promised or the billions more from California voters.”  This Rube Goldberg project is expected to take ten years to finish.  Who’s lining up to get their first ticket?

Nine out of ten journalists say, “Guilty!”

Audio experts are working around the clock to find more Zimmerman racism hidden in the 9–1–1 tapes. Maybe if they play them backward...

Good news for Neighborhood Watch celebrity, George Zimmerman. The Associated Press reports that in 23 years only 2,000 people have been exonerated after being wrongly convicted of a serious felony.

Each year there are nearly one million felony convictions, over 10,000 times more than the 90 innocent defendants wrongly convicted. The findings are particularly encouraging for Zimmerman as he faces criminal prosecution for second–degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin and simultaneously a trial–by–media for the same offense.

The miscarriage of justice rate compares very favorably with the hospital medical error rate of 18 percent, where presumably the doctor doesn’t have any animus toward the customer, as opposed to prosecutors who do.

And public opinion is starting to come around. A new Rasmussen Reports national survey found 40 percent think Zimmerman acted in self–defense.

This finding is in sharp contrast to a survey of mainstream journalists that found 85 percent believe Zimmerman should already be doing time in Guantanamo.

Then when it appears justice may finally be allowed to take its course, the Washington Post uses a discredited CNN idea to attack George.

You may recall CNN reporter Gary Tuchman examined Zimmerman’s 9–1–1 call and discovered RACISM! Which is to be expected from someone with a white father. Using “one of the most sophisticated audio edit suites in the broadcast news business” CNN heard Zimmerman saying “(bleeping) coons” after technicians “enhanced” the recording.

Naturally to demonstrate even–handed news judgment, the tape was played for viewers about 300 times during the segment. As the reporter intoned, “Listen closely for “coon,” a word only bigots use. Remember it starts with a ‘c’ and ends with ‘oon.’”

Except the word wasn’t “coon.” Two weeks later, with much less fanfare, CNN re–enhances the tape and sure enough Zimmerman was saying “(bleeping) cold.”

How fortunate Zimmerman didn’t have to hide in the weeds to observe Martin. I can only imagine what the media would have done if George had muttered something about being bitten by a (bleeping) chigger.

Which brings us back to the sound–enhancing WaPo and its recording of a witness call, which FBI analysts have already termed “inconclusive.” The WaPo recycles the lie that Zimmerman ignored an order from the dispatcher. And in a nice touch, writes “…cursing under his breath, Zimmerman got out of his truck and began to follow (Martin).” But, thanks to CNN, we know Zimmerman was cursing the weather, a common activity worldwide, and not Martin.

Martin’s father heard the WaPo tape and told police the voice was not his son’s, But that was before lawyers got to him and visions of wrongful death lawsuits began dancing in his head. In contrast, the WaPo’s expert — who wouldn’t have known Trayvon if the kid had approached him at 7/11 and asked for a loan to buy Skittles — imagines Martin yelling, “I’m begging you!” “Help me!” And then, “Stop!”

Since the story was written by two females, I won’t fault them for their lack of expertise when it comes to fight dynamics. But in the real world the person who lands the first punch usually wins. Since witnesses place Martin on top of Zimmerman repeatedly punching him “MMA” style, it’s reasonable to assume his was the first punch.

Someone winning a fight is also not the one calling for help. The puncher is usually concentrating on pounding the punchee. Evidence shows Zimmerman’s back was wet from ground contact and he had a broken nose, two black eyes and cuts on the back of his head, so Trayvon evidently was doing a thorough job.

You can find the recording on the Post website and identifying any one element is like trying to isolate a single razzberry in a Spike Jones recording. One of the edited audio segments purports to be Martin’s “Stop!” But I’ve been in recording studios for 35 years and I hear “Help!” in both recordings, which stands to reason since Zimmerman is losing the fight.

But this is where it gets interesting. The “expert” asserts those 45 seconds aren’t Zimmerman calling for help during the fight, but Martin pleading with Zimmerman not to shoot him AFTER the fighting was over.

So by his reckoning, the fight is concluded. Zimmerman has his gun out. Martin begs for his life for almost a minute and then Zimmerman executes him in cold blood.

But lab results reveal the gunshot was so close it burned Martin’s skin. We know there was a single shot. If the entry wound is low and travels upward, it supports Zimmerman. But even without that information, if the fight was over and Martin was pleading for his life, chances are he would have been backing or running away, putting distance between himself and Zimmerman.

Common sense would dictate waiting for the evidence and using practical experience to evaluate it, but the Post, along with the majority of the media, has already found Zimmerman guilty and they want us to join them.

The Free Lunch Agenda

Conservative commentators and economists, especially George Will, have given lectures and speeches and have written columns about the moral hazard that is rising in the country. If you saw it, I hope you were appalled at the new study that shows virtually half of all Americans do not pay federal income taxes. Forty-nine and half percent of Americans pay no income taxes and receive most of the benefits; thus, they have no vested interest in curbing the size of government of which they are dependent on. Conservatives have known this to be a problem for some time, but liberals ignore the socio-economic consequences. They ignore it because it is an integral part of their  agenda. More people dependent on government equalizes outcome, and you do that by getting everyone to feed on a government program.  President Obama is fully behind this agenda, hence the dark day when Obamacare was passed.

I’m glad that Jack Cafferty of CNN’s The Situation Room mentioned the decrease in tax participation on his blog this past winter.  Nevertheless, the left will stringently advocate that such expansion of government programs and reliance on them are net positives.  We see this with Valerie Jarrett and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney idiotically stating that unemployment checks promotes economic growth.  However, we on the right know that such absurd endeavors offer no incentive for the unemployed to seek employment and that spending of other people’s money to keep them perpetually lethargic is fundamentally unfair.  On ABC’s This Week last January, Austan Goolsbee, the former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors for President Obama, had the temerity to say that the economy had a huge boom last quarter, but is being weighed down by government shrinking too rapidly.  Is the government shrinking too rapidly?

According to MyGovCost.org, which is an affiliate of The Independent Institute, the Obama administration has permanently increased the size and expenditure of government by 16.5% in four years.  In fact, the site states that government expenditure is one-sixth bigger today than originally projected four years ago.  Investors Business Daily revealed earlier this month that government dependency had increased by 23%  in two years!  That is 67 million people reliant on a federal program.  You cannot have a shrinkage of government when 67 million people are added onto a federal program and total federal spending has increased.  Mr. Goolsbee is dead wrong.

This is the left-wing dependency agenda. It’s the delivery of free lunches for 151.7 million Americans.  To make a comparison, the number of people in 1984 who did not pay federal income taxes was at a mere 14.8% or 34.8 million Americans.  If the president wants to talk about the fundamentally unfair landscape of America, he should focus on the people who don’t contribute one cent to the government coffers.  Half pay their fair share so the other half can coast through life.  It is serfdom in all but name.  Yet, the president wants to keep expanding government spending, taxation, and destroy freedom and personal responsibility in the process.  With half of the country not paying any income taxes, it makes the future passage and signage of the Ryan budget into law even more politically treacherous, even though it strives to avert inevitable fiscal disaster.  Without a doubt, the slothful will fight to keep their goody bag as we slowly become a dictatorship of the lazy.

Ai Politics, Kira Davis And Alex Kauffman Discuss The Trayvon Martin Case

In this virtual round table discussion, ConservativeDailyNews.com’s Kira Davis and Alex Kauffman call into Ai Politics’s weekend show (Married To The Game) and talk about the Trayvon Martin case.

All three commenters agree that the tragic story of Trayvon Martin’s death is high on emotion and short on facts.  There are many things that America’s news media seemed to get wrong when it came to informing our public.  As of the time this conversation was recorded, there had been rallies and riots and even rewards for the capture of George Zimmerman, but there were still very few facts, and many questions had gone unanswered.

Kira, Ai, and Alex talk about the media’s shortcomings, the senselessness of the the tragedy, and the opportunism of people who have been involved in controlling the conversation.  Listen to this compelling trialogue as three of CDN’s contributors discuss one of the most polarizing and tragic issues facing us right now.

Click here for the iPhone and iPad version.

[mp3player config=fmp_jw_widget_config.xml file=http://conservativedailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Ai-Kira-And-Alex-Discuss-Trayvon-Martin-March-24th.mp3]

Breitbart.com Shifts the Narrative…Again.

Breibart.com officially began the first phase of their #VetThePrez campaign on the Sean Hannity show Wednesday night. Ben Shapiro and Joel Pollak sat down with Hannity to discuss the release of video showing a young Mr. Obama introducing and embracing controversial Harvard Professor Derrick Bell. Bell is often looked upon as the father of Critical Race Theory, an ideology closely connected to Black Liberation Theory and Marxism.

The chatter on the importance of this revelation has been up and down the spectrum.  Some conservatives see it as a great start to what is surely a larger plan by the Breitbart team.  Others were disappointed that there wasn’t more of a “smoking gun”. I think it was an enormous starting victory in the effort to expose the President’s evolution into who he is today, a complicit media and take control of the narrative surrounding this President…finally. They struck a very heavy body blow. For conservatives none of the information is particularly surprising or moving. However, for a liberal media and electorate who have not regularly discussed Obama’s past, this touches a nerve. How do I know? The dinosaur media is already imploding over this and the race card was thrown on the table almost immediately-a tactic they usually reserve for the final desperate throes of a losing argument. Don’t believe me? Then behold the ensuing media implosion for yourself. If it were a nonissue then that’s exactly how they would be treating it. Watch these videos and then ask yourself if you still believe this is a non-issue. I want to hear from you too on this, so please be sure to leave your comments and opinions below.

The media won this last round with the birth control issue. This is round two in this latest battle and so far it goes to Breitbart. Looks like war, folks. Get yer marchin’ boots on!

And then there’s poor Soledad O’Brien, who almost pops a blood vessel defending this “non-issue”:

And just for fun, let’s watch Michelle Malkin eviscerate Juan Williams over the “non-issue” on Hannity.

 

crossposted at kiradavis.net

Has Santorum Peaked at Just the Right Time?

Wednesday night’s CNN GOP debate from Arizona was important for a couple of reasons: with the Michigan primary and Super Tuesday just around the corner, this may well be the last primary debate of the season.  Also, this was the first debate after the incredible Santorum surge placed him as a solid frontrunner recently.  There was no doubt that there would be a target painted on the Senator as big as Joe Biden’s suspiciously shiny forehead.  Many viewers tuned in just to see how Santorum would fair as the “main target”.

One thing is for certain – being the frontrunner is a lot harder than being the underdog.  As the underdog, Santorum has been tenacious, steady and impressive.  As the frontrunner Wednesday night he seemed slightly nervous and not nearly as confident.  It was not a terrible performance at all, but next to the always consistent Mitt Romney and the king of debates – Newt Gingrich- Santorum had difficulty finding his rhythm.  Of course, there is Ron Paul to consider as well. Please save your hate mail about how no one takes him seriously, Paul fans.  People do take him seriously and that’s his biggest problem.  Moderator John King ended the debate with the question “What is a common misconception the media makes about you as a candidate”- to which Paul answered, “That I can’t win.” He asserted that everyone keeps saying he can’t win and it’s not true.  I know Ronulans applauded that answer, but it made me think that perhaps everyone keeps saying he can’t win because he isn’t winning! So don’t be offended that I often leave Paul out of the mix.  He isn’t on the radar (yet) as far as actual wins go, so in that respect I don’t count him as a viable candidate.  Please direct all of your hate mail to my editor, Rich Mitchell at Conservativedailynews.com.  He loves it.

The real issue in Wednesday’s debate is whether or not Santorum performed well enough to hold on to his dwindling lead in the Michigan polls. A win over Romney in Romney’s own home state could very well permanently tip the scales of this election. Santorum needed to at least maintain his status as a serious contender.  I don’t know if he did that or not in this debate.  This is what I do know: voters are already experiencing severe primary fatigue.  The ups and downs of this process have been unpredictable and draining, to say the least.  I think at this point, with only 4 men left in the race most people have made up their minds about who they want to win.  I’m not convinced that at this point in the race a good or bad debate performance will spell certain doom for any of the candidates, because I believe  voters are tired of the soundbites and they’ve pretty much made their choices.  Santorum voters will see a decent performance by a guy for whom everyone is lining up to smack around, from every angle lately.  Newt voters will find the usual satisfaction in his stellar debate performance – but on a side note, without the debate platforms Newt isn’t nearly as visible or loud in the general media.  Mitt fans will be pleased with his steady confidence and well-positioned attacks on his new frontrunner adversary.  And Paul fans…well, they are nothing if not loyal. No minds will be changed on his end, no matter how good or bad his debates go.

Clearly Santorum has benefited from surging during this relatively long period between debates.  His strength is in the ground campaign and not as a “frontrunner debater”. The rest between debates has given him time to work his ground strategy and voters haven’t had to see him face the direct attacks from his opponents on a national stage.  Had Santorum been surging any earlier it seems very likely the final 4 might be looking a bit different than it does now.  As it stands, Santorum may have peaked at just the right time. We’ll know soon enough.

Be sure to check in with conservativedailynews.com for all the latest in the primary races and campaigns leading up to Super Tuesday.

 

crossposted at kiradavis.net

February 22nd CNN Republican Debate 8pm ET

Overview

Tonight may be the last of the Republican presidential primary debates as Santorum, Romney and Paul declined to appear at the March 1st Georgia debate and MSNBC has cancelled its March 5th event.

Santorum has been riding a huge swell of support and funding after his three state sweep almost two weeks ago. The former Senator is still leading Romney in his “home state” of Michigan and Gingrich in his home state of Georgia. With the media pulling out religious comments from 2008 at a religious school and references to Obama’s theology, tonight’s debate may see whether Santorum can stand behind his words and explain to voters what they mean.

Mitt Romney’ support has been steadily fading since his win in New Hampshire. National polls as well as state polls in Ohio, Michigan and Oklahoma are showing the previous front-runner lagging behind Santorum while holding a lead in Arizona. While Romney does fine in debates, he has rarely been considered the winner due to his “just don’t screw up” debate style.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has been struggling to stay in the fight. Tonight viewers are likely to see Newt being Newt as Santorum and Romney trade barbs. Another great debate performance is likely to give Newt a slight bounce.

Ron Paul has been out of the news since the last set of primaries in the mid-west. He is the only remaining candidate that has failed to win a single primary or caucus and is lagging badly in the delegate count. His debate performances have rarely given him any appreciable bounce in polls and much the same can be expected from this event in Arizona.

CNN Preview

On Wednesday, Feb. 22, Republican presidential hopefuls will face-off for the final debate before a dozen states take to the polls on Super Tuesday. CNN anchor and chief national correspondent John King will moderate the two-hour debate, which will air live from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET from the Mesa Performing Arts Center in Mesa, Arizona.

King, Wolf Blitzer and Erin Burnett will anchor their respective programs live from Mesa on the days surrounding the CNN debate. Anderson Cooper will anchor special, post-debate coverage.

National political correspondent Jim Acosta, senior political correspondent Joe Johns and CNN Radio’s Lisa Desjardins will report from Arizona. In addition, chief political analyst Gloria Borger, senior political analyst David Gergen and CNN political contributors John Avlon, Donna Brazile, Erick Erickson, James Carville and Ari Fleischer will be on site in Arizona to provide insight and analysis across all programming. On the campaign trail covering the candidates leading up to the Arizona and Michigan primaries are reporter-at-large Peter Hamby, political reporter Shannon Travis, and political producers Rachel Streitfeld and Shawna Shepherd.

Where to watch

Cable: CNN

Internet: Live Stream on CNN or On this page once made available.

Participate

Expected twitter tag: #CNNDebate or #AZDebate

GOP Florida Debate: Santorum Wins, Moon Colonists Lose

If Republican voters had only Thursday’s GOP debate in Florida on which to base their votes, Rick Santorum would be our next candidate for President of the United States.  In a debate that was considerably more lively than the Brian Williams-hosted NBC snoozefest last week, Santorum came off as passionate, principled and knowledgeable.  CNN’s Wolf Blitzer moderated the debate and was satisfactory as usual.  Clearly Blitz and the CNN higher-ups were anxious to see Newt and Mitt go after each other on stage.  Goodness knows CNN could use the ratings boost.  They got their wish as the two front-runners spent the first 20 minutes of the debate ripping into each other on various issues, including negative ads and bad investments.  It made for good t.v. and Romney was more animatedthan he’s appeared at any other time in this whole process…but while the Speaker and the Governor were going for the respective jugulars a strange thing happened.  Rick Santorum showed up.  He took every opportunity to point out the uselessness of two big government candidates (as he claims they are) arguing about who is more fiscally conservative and highlighted his extensive knowledge on issues of foreign affairs and threats to the safety of Americans.

Don’t get me wrong – each man on stage had his own moment at times.  Any of these candidates would make a better President than the current Blamer-in-Chief and they all gave adequate reasons why that was true.  However, there was something about the way Romney and Gingrich went after each other Thursday night that came off as..well, petty.  Santorum (and Paul, for that matter) seized the opportunity. As both men were distracted arguing against each other, Santorum made his case for why he thinks he is the candidate with the sharpest contrast to Obama, and therefore most suited to run against him in the general elections.  He laid bare Romney’s greatest weakness – Romneycare; and he chastised Newt on his global warming demons.

As usual, Ron Paul ruled the roost on domestic spending and issues of healthcare.  Ron Paul has a supreme understanding of the disaster of socialized medicine.  He is old enough to remember when medical care was affordable to everyone; he remembers the days when you paid your family doctor when you saw him, from your own wallet, and not through a behemoth third party.  Its Paul’s foreign policy strategy that sinks him as a viable candidate. His “let’s just get to know each better and be friends” approach to despots like Castro and Chavez likely did very little to endear him to Florida voters, many of whom have had direct personal experience with the horrors of the Castro regime.

For the record, I see no problem with discussing issues of space and the race to colonize the moon.  Many people seem annoyed by it, and perhaps rightfully so in the face of the enormous fiscal challenges we are currently facing.  However, I see it as an important discussion.  It speaks to the superiority of American ideas and innovation, something our current President has worked very hard to suppress.  When Newt speaks of going to the moon, he is talking about vision, not practicalities.  I see value in that and so I do not discourage such talk.  I do agree that it is a back-burner issue right now.  We have to ensure there IS an America going forward before we can talk about getting America back to the moon.

Hands down, this debate goes to Rick Santorum.  It’s hard to tell if this stellar debate performance will turn into a bump in Florida for Santorum’s campaign; but if Newt and Mitt have done enough damage to each other in that state, Santorum could gain a surprising turnout come Tuesday’s primary vote.  Florida is a winner take all state, so it seems unlikely that Santorum would win outright, but a strong finish could give the Senator some considerable momentum.  All eyes turn to Florida Tuesday night.  Be sure to check in frequently with Conservative Daily News for up to the minute reporting as the polls close and votes are counted.

SOPA/PIPA: “Fairness Doctrine” Tyranny Coming In The Back Door

SOPA/PIPA is another case of government control over what We the People will be allowed to see or hear on the internet. The “Fairness Doctrine” was thwarted by We the People through the outrage expressed to our elected members of Congress, ironically over the internet for the most part, so they have seemingly decided to come in the back door and “protect” us from unscrupulous vendors. That is great to a point but who is going to protect us from the government? Barack Obama and many members of both political parties consider We the People too stupid to know what is in our best interests.

Instead of going after the ISP’s and search engine companies like Google, why don’t they try a novel approach, something that has never been done in modern history? Why not enforce the laws on the books against fraud? I guess that is much too difficult of a concept for politicians to grasp.

This reminds me of gun violence. How do we solve the problem of violent crimes committed with guns? Someone with my apparent lack of intelligence would suggest we imprison the criminals with very long sentences, or just execute them when the crime calls for such punishment. What is the answer the government comes up with? Well, let’s just take guns away from those not committing crimes so we don’t have to be concerned with them killing the criminals. And when government bureaucrats violate the existing gun laws we can promote them and then use those violations as an excuse to continue on our merry gun ban crusade.

These bills aren’t about protecting We the People or legitimate businesses from criminal activity. That can be done by enforcing existing law. This is about controlling what we see, what we hear, and how citizens communicate with one another. The “Arab Spring” came about as a result of dissidents communicating over the internet through social network sites, instant messaging, and texting. The powers-that-be in our government have seen what can happen when people communicate freely and share information. Open lines of communication are a danger to despots and every dictatorship in the world controls the internet access of their subjects.

I remember Obama giving a speech at a college in which he stated that “information is dangerous”. I have always been taught that information and knowledge are invaluable tools to make our lives better. It seems that Obama and most of the members of Congress weren’t taught the same lessons in their younger years. If they manage to get this legislation through they will be able to control everything that crosses our computers.

As the “Fairness Doctrine” sought to control us and make sure we were exposed to Marxist doctrine, this legislation will be used to prevent We the People from having free access to each other and to the information we need to make decisions beneficial to our lives. We will no longer be able to thwart tyrannical legislation, or regulations dictated by bureaucrats, because we will not know about them unless the government deems them safe for public consumption.

I am not surprised to find out that the biggest proponents of this legislation are the major television networks, and include Rupert Murdoch, owner of FOX News. Why would the owner of a “conservative” news network want to prohibit the free flow of information? Shouldn’t FOX News and its owner be in favor of freedom of the press? I guess the reality that they are losing millions of viewers because they don’t tell the truth, don’t tell the whole story on issues, and ignore any story that doesn’t fit their template has alarmed them to the point that it needs to be acted upon.

Internet news sites such as Conservative Daily News, The Drudge Report, The Post & E-mail, and social network sites pass information much faster, more efficiently, and more completely than any or all of the major media networks. With the advent of internet news the major media companies can no longer slant the news to suit their Marxist ideology, nor can the ignore news that is not to their liking or doesn’t fit their agenda.

The free flow of information is critical to any free society. Once a government controls what information citizens have access to tyranny is right around the corner. Iran, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are all dictatorships that keep their citizens enslaved and in darkness by keeping them from the knowledge of how the rest of the world operates. After the uprisings in 2009 Iran clamped down on social network media to prevent dissidents from organizing more protests and other dictatorships have long been bastions of tyranny by preventing any citizen contact with the outside world, or each other.

Obama and his minions have seen what happens to dictators who allow the free flow of information to their subjects. Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muammar Kadafi in Libya are prime examples of what happens when dictators allow their subjects to communicate without restrictions. I am curious to see what the future brings to these countries when the Muslim Brotherhood takes over and installs the tyranny of Sharia law on their people. Those who took to the streets for freedom may find themselves under the thumb of rulers just as brutal as those they overthrew in the “Arab Spring” uprisings.

Iran is a good example of an uprising that came about because of internet access and how the government acted to prevent it from happening again. Outside contact has been as restricted by Mahmoud Ahmadinijad and the mullahs as it can be and severe punishment awaits anyone caught communicating without government sanction. The very rulers who turned their backs on freedom seeking Iranians in 2009 now seek to impose the very same restrictions on their subjects, namely We the American People.

This legislation, as usual, is not a partisan attempt at subjugation. This legislation is supported by many members of Congress in both political parties, and who I suspect have no idea what is in the bills. Since they don’t have time to read anything they vote on it is incumbent on We the People to find out what is in the legislation and spread the word of warning through internet news and social network sites.

We must stand up once again to protect the freedoms bought with the blood of generations of patriots from the Revolutionary War to today. If we do not have the courage to stand for freedom, the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots since 1776 will have been wasted and future generations will be sentenced to a life tyranny, suffering, and poverty. To this cause I pledge “my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor”; to the cause of freedom for future generations. Every American owes their utmost opposition to this legislation in honor of those who have gone before us and for the freedom of those who will follow us.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
January 19, 2012

We're Mad too Newt!!

Newt Gingrich may be successfully channeling the energy of  Eddie Chiles’ “I’m mad too!” to relate to the Republican electorate.

Frustrated with a sour economic outlook, skyrocketing spending and an over-reaching government, Chiles did a series of Conservative radio commentaries in the late 70’s and early 80’s that resulted in the now famous buttons and bumper-stickers:

Announcer: Are you mad today, Eddie Chiles?

Eddie Chiles: Yes I’m mad. I’m sad for the Americans who are trying to raise a family and trying to buy a home when the liberals in Washington are spending more and more to destroy the American dream. You get mad, too.

For the very first question at Thursday night’s CNN republican candidate debate, John King chose a personal question about the end of Newt’s marriage to Marrianne and the interview she had just given to ABC. Newt’s response was unbridled anger that the journalist was more concerned about a decade old event than the real unemployment picture, massive spending and dysfunctional policies of the current administration – things voters actually care about.

Some saw the incident as Newt being sanctimonious, better-than-thou or grandiose – but didn’t he say to the media what we’ve all been dying to say for so long? If you heard the crowd’s response to how Gingrich handled the question – South Carolina sounded very much like they agreed with the speaker – we’re tired of the media picking our candidates.

ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post .. the list goes on of media outlets that give little attention to the failed policies of liberal democrats, but they are all too quick to jump on a divorce that happened over a decade ago. It has been reported that ABC had been working for weeks to get the interview with Newt’s ex-wife.

Where is the interview with President Obama or the State Department on their irresponsible decision to deny TransCanada the right to build an incredibly beneficial pipeline across the United States? A decision that will likely result in a ton of inexpensive energy going to Asia instead of the United States. Energy prices will “necessarily skyrocket”.

Where is the presser where a New York Times reporter asks Obama how it is that after all the effort, loan guarantees and good-will that the Obama administration has given Brazil , China gets the jump on the amazing amount of oil that will come out of that South American country?

Where is the expose on Barack Obama’s war on domestic energy while appeasing the Taliban?

The media is making a huge deal over Romney’s hesitation to release his tax records, something that will become public record at some point anyway. Where is the pressure for the President to release his college transcripts?

The assault on Republicans (those Conservative and otherwise) while leaving Democrats unscathed is hypocritical at best and dishonest at worst – and we’re not going to take it anymore.

  • Romney: Caymans, tax records, Bain, Mormanism
  • Gingrich: divorces, affairs, ethics fine, ad with Pelosi
  • Obama: …

Newt is more in touch with the frustration that Conservatives have felt for way too long than any of the other candidates. Sure, it’s raw emotion – passion even. Something the other candidates struggle to emit.

Conservatives are frustrated with the Senate’s failure to produce a single budget, the government’s inability to reign in spending, the embarrassing handling of Egypt, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan, no answers immigration…

The right is utterly pissed-off at the use of executive orders and regulatory over-reach to force tax payers to fund “the pill” for anyone that wants it, kill the domestic energy industry, funnel money to green-energy boondoggles and crush companies like Boeing unless then bend to the will of big labor.

Newt’s man-handling of John King, who looked like a school boy being read the riot act by his father, was an embodiment of what we’d all like to do – call out the liars, the cheats, the thieves and hypocrites for what they are. It was a visual metaphor symbolizing the Conservative desire to stand up to the establishment and tell them “You should be ashamed of yourselves!!”

Newt’s emotion may be just the thing to re-electrify Republicans into believing that their voices and their votes actually matter.

King Gets Spanked & Mitt Gets Challenged: CNN GOP Debate Recap

With Rick Perry dropping out of the Presidential race mere hours before the next GOP debate, the stage in South Carolina seemed set to deliver at least a few interesting moments.  Viewers did not have to wait long for fireworks.  The first question out of the gate from CNN moderator John King was directed at Newt Gingrich regarding the now infamous pending interview with ex-wife Marianne Gingrich.  Obviously Newt was ready and it is not an understatement to say that Newt excoriated King.  He scolded King like a child, at one point almost yelling at the CNN host, telling him questions like that were irresponsible, distracting and everything that is wrong with the current Presidential campaign process. It was vicious, glorious and the crowd reacted with enormous enthusiasm. I think I even detected a tear in King’s eye.  I could go on but why when Newt said it so well himself. Take a look.

 

As in the last debate there were no new revelations to be made on each of the remaining candidate’s positions.  The real drama in South Carolina revolved around Newt’s surge and how it would affect Romney. With polls showing the two in a near dead heat, Romney seemed to be on the ropes from the start to prove that he is still a front-runner.  He was not up to the task.  This was clearly Romney’s worst show to date.  Gone was his typical confidence and composure as he stuttered through responses on when he would release his tax returns and Romneycare.  Romney produced many cringe-worthy moments during the debate, but none so noticeable as when he actually referred to his own controversial healthcare legislation as ROMNEYCARE!  No doubt Romney will be chastising himself relentlessly over non-alcoholic, decaffeinated beverages for the next two days. Rule number one in politics: you NEVER repeat the meme your enemy has pinned on you. Yikes!  There was blood in the water on that Charleston stage and all three of Romney’s opponents sensed that.  He was attacked more directly than he has been all season and he did not fare well.  The combined onslaught may just turn out to be Romney’s downfall in South Carolina.  This was not his night.

Santorum started off the evening a bit weak but seemed to pick up steam as the debate progressed.  It was clear that this stage was his last stand. He pulled no punches and went after both Newt and Romney with targeted attacks.  Santorum is polling last in South Carolina now with Perry out of the race.  This is most likely his last chance to seize some of that Iowa momentum and make a case that he is the best choice for the nomination.  Santorum worked hard to establish himself as the best conservative alternative to both Romney and Newt.  It will be up to the voters of South Carolina to decide if he accomplished that or not.  Regardless, Santorum let it all hang out.  If he goes down, it won’t be because he didn’t throw everything he had at his opponents.

Ron Paul was…Ron Paul.  What is left to be said about Ron Paul?  Ron Paul hates the Fed.  Ron Paul hates big government.  Ron Paul is passionate about the constitution.  Ron Paul wants to end all wars/conflicts and all involvement in foreign affairs.  Ron Paul wants to pay down the debt by cutting military action.  You may love Ron Paul.  You may hate Ron Paul.  Whatever your opinion of Ron Paul may be, it cannot be denied that Ron Paul is always consistent in all things Ron Paul.  But Ron Paul won’t win.  Because he’s Ron Paul.  Sorry, Ronulans.  Cue the crazy hate mail in 4..3..2..1.

Newt won this debate in the first three minutes, but his Achilles heel has always been his intellectual arrogance and perhaps that arrogance was a bit too pronounced at points.  Some voters may be turned off by that.  Santorum was a close second.  He fought like a man with nothing left to lose. Even if he goes home after Saturday the man deserves major kudos for going from someone who most Americans had never heard of to one of the final four candidates in a particularly bloody GOP primary battle.  He has earned my respect in this process.

Mitt Romney lost this debate if for no other reason than the expectations have been so very high for him for so very long.  It was a lackluster, stilted performance that will be sure to weaken him as the primaries get underway on Saturday.

The big loser of Thursday’s debate was John King and CNN.  I suppose he had to ask the question he did at the top of the show but surely he walked away from that spanking he received from Newt with some very red buttocks.  Tsk, tsk, CNN…you should have known better.  Newt is not perfect, but he is perfectly articulate. He was ready and you weren’t.  Checkmate.

 
crossposted at kiradavis.net

Trump isn't the only thing stinking at the ION/Newsmax debate

On December 27th, some of the remaining GOP Presidential candidates will be debating on the ION network co-sponsored by Newsmax.

Much of the recent bluster has been about the moderator – Donald Trump, but he’s not the only poor choice Newsmax and ION have made. Former CNN News Division Chief Eason Jordan will be one of the producers of the event.

Mr. Jordan was pressured to resign from CNN in 2005 after making statements that our troops in Iraq were deliberately targeting and killing journalists. At the World Economic Forum, Mr. Jordan said “he knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) who was on the “Will Democracy Survive the Media?” panel with Mr. Jordan.

CNN then furiously spun the comments as having been misconstrued and “taken out of context” by a few bloggers. In the end, Mr. Jordan’s tenure at CNN came to an end.

That’s only the most recent of Eason’s mis-steps. His time in CNN’s Baghdad bureau was tarnished by his cover-up of Saddam’s violent and murderous acts against Iraqis and his own bureau’s staff – all so that he wouldn’t lose his position at the bureau.

Eason is no great model of integrity. Add on Trump and you have a debate more fit to be a circus side-show than a Presidential event.

I don’t blame Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul one bit for passing on this debate. I won’t be watching either – and I haven’t missed one yet.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »