We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

One day of Fox and Friends on the 2008 election for President of the United States of America

First Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, came on. Senator Lieberman, said that Republican John McCain was the best person on the struggle with radical Islam and national security issues generally, so he would be supporting him to become President of the United States – specifically by helping in the New Hampshire primary.

This was a big story as Joe Lieberman, is not only a long standing Democrat but was Democratic party candidate for President back in 2000, and ran for the Democrat nomination for President in 2004. However, both Senator Lieberman, and Senator McCain said that the political parties should work together to solve domestic problems. Which rather misses the point that people do not agree on what to do or not do – which is why they are different political parties in the first place.

Later Fred Thompson came on. He talked about the various things he had worked on in his days in the United States Senate and his lifelong conservative record, but he did not really attack anyone. When specifically asked why people should vote for him rather than Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson did say that people should look at Governor Huckabee’s record and compare it with his.

This is no good at all – the Iowa Caucus is on January 3rd, it is bit late to still be relying on responsible voters doing research. Fred needed to say something like the following:

“I have a more conservative voting record than John McCain here are the stats….. and I have produced serious plans for a flat tax and for entitlement reform – he just talks about earmarks. And as for Mike Huckabee, he is a liar who claims to have cut taxes when in fact he had one of the worst records on tax and government spending of any Governor in the United States – an F grade from the Cato Institute”.

But it is not Fred Thompson’s nature to talk like that – which means….

Then in a first for Fox and Friends, Senator Hillary Clinton came on. It seems the death-to-Fox campaign is over, at least till after the election.

Senator Clinton informed the viewers that she would not only end the war in Iraq, but that she would also, if elected President, cure autism and cancer. On autism Senator Clinton stated that she had “worked for many years” on a cure and would get it done if elected President. And on cancer Senator Clinton told the story of how a lady suffering from cancer had come to one of her campaign events.

“All her hair had fallen out because of the treatment, but she had painted her head in my support – she had put all her faith in me, and when I am elected President I will not let her, or all the other people who place all their faith and dreams in me, down”.

No one on Fox and Friends seemed to regard Senator Clinton’s claims to be able to cure autism and cancer and to give everyone else all their hopes and dreams as in any way odd. I guess the Senator just meant that she would throw more taxpayers money at all these problems – but that is not what she actually said.

It was also mentioned on Fox and Friends that Newsweek had a lead story – this being that Mike Huckabee’s son had killed a dog in 1998.

So ended a few hours in the campaign.

25 comments to One day of Fox and Friends on the 2008 election for President of the United States of America

  • Oh yeah, and Ron Paul just raised $6 million dollars in one day of campaigning, which is a record in all political fund-raising totals in all political races, in all of the history of the United States.

    It seems after ignoring him, then attacking him, the MSM is back to ignoring him again. Heaven alone knows what they’ll do if he actually has the temerity to win any of the primaries.

    I would love him to win New Hampshire and Iowa, just to see what excuses Fox employs to avoid talking about it. How about this: “Top-tier candidate Mike Huckabee beat all the other top-tier candidates in today’s Iowa caucus and some other kooky second-tier guy spoiled Fred Thompson’s day by stealing his vote and temporarily edging out the other candidates.” Don’t bet against it.

  • Cynic

    Thompson apparently is running low on funds(Link).

  • R C Dean

    On autism Senator Clinton stated that she had “worked for many years” on a cure and would get it done if elected President.

    And here I thought she was a lawyer, not a clinician. You learn something new every day!

  • RC Dean, I find your lack of faith… disturbing. She does not have to be a clinician, the Blessed Hillary is going to cure autism and cancer by the laying on of hands!

    Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Side.

  • Autism and cancer are small potatoes. Compare with Al Gore inventing the internet without being a computer professional, not to mention saving the world from AGW as we speak without having a clue in science.

  • RAB

    When she becomes President, Hilary plans a Dolly Parton like theme Park, called the Arkansas Oracle.
    It could be bigger than Lourdes.
    It will be run by hubby Bill (well you’ve got to get him out of the way somehow, to avoid ugly comparisons!)
    You will queue for hours to consult the Oracle(Bill) and then kiss his ring.
    This will cure all earthly ills, especially his.
    An earlier prototype has been known to transform humble interns to international superstar status.
    All wishes shall be granted for everybody forever!

  • R. Richard Schweitzer

    There may be (probably is) a general misconception abroad of what has come to be the function of political parties in the U.S.

    They no longer have their former compositions

    Once composed of coalitions of viewpoints, they morphed into coalitions of ever-diversifying interests, as the politically ambitious individuals mastered the techniques of constituency building and manipulation.

    The parties of today have become more coalitions of those individuals oriented to maintenance of their constituencies (and their ephemeral objectives) than to representation of viewpoints.

    We observe: The increasing need to “search for candidates;” and, the effects of the replacement of “conventions” with plebiscite primaries.

    No institutions are yet arising to fill the former role of parties.

    R. Richard Schweitzer
    s24rrs@aol.com

  • renminbi

    RAB : to be cured by Bill I think you might ,if female ,have to kiss something other than a ring.

  • RAB

    Gosh do you really think so Renminbi !
    I really should Intern-alise my comedy a bit more 😉

  • Paul Marks

    Actually Fox and Friends did report that Ron Paul had raised a record amount of money in one day – beating his own record.

    On political parties:

    It is true that some Republicans spend more than most Democrats – Mike Huckabee, one of the worst Governors of any State in the Union during his time, is a good example.

    However, generally speaking “party” still means something – for example on tax and regulation.

    Of course parties were always loose and made up of different groups and interests in the United States – not the group of people bound together by honourable principle as Edmund Burke tried to define “party”.

    But then even the Rockingham Whigs, Burke’s own party, broke up over the French Revolution – and the division was there before the Revolution. For example, Burke opposed a free trade measure with Ireland because the measure also taxed Ireland – Charles James Fox (then de facto head of the Rockingham Whigs due to the death of Rockingham himself) opposed the measure because he opposed free trade.

    In the United States the Democrats have not been the free market party since the terrible Convention of 1896 – but they were not really more statist than the Republicans (as a body) till the New Deal -and even long after the New Deal it was still a complicated matter. If anything things are clearer now than they used to be, although that is not saying much.

    The Republicans contains people who want smaller government, and people who do not.

    But the Republican party contains few people who have an ideolgical commitment to leftism.

    If anyone doubts this, ask yourself how many Republican Senators or Congressmen would be welcomed by academics at mainstream universities.

    They may be corrupt S.O.B.s – but they are not actually evil (as these academics are – just as the media people, and other such, that they produce are).

    As Perry points out, Senator Hillary Clinton believes that government has special powers, as long as the correct people are in charge. The Senator also pointed this out in the interview, claiming that FEMA could solve all problems caused by fire or flood if only she appointed those in charge of it.

    An honest belief that government is society (that civil society has no independent existance apart from government) and that the head of the government can solve any problem by an act of will…..

    Well this is rather worse than Republican earmarks.

    Although this does not mean that people should settle for any scumbag the Republicans produce as a candidate – the person should be at least partly human. They should have record of opposing at least some statism in some areas.

    If they have a record of increasing taxes or thinking up new entitlement programs they are not acceptable.

    “What do you know, you are not even a citizen” – anyone who tries that line shows he has no thoughts worth examining.

  • Paul Marks

    It will come as no surprise that I do not support Mike Huckabee’s poltics.

    I also do not think much of his as man. There is a word for someone who goes around saying how he “cut taxes” when he greatly increased taxation – and that word is “liar”.

    However, even I think that “Newsweek” was desperate in leading with the Mike Huckabee’s son killed a dog in 1998 story.

    I have seen a few copies of Newsweek recently, by chance, and it is a publication written by scum.

    There was an article that sneared at the Pope for being a Catholic (what is supposed to be – a Druid?), and implied that he was an anti Asian racist.

    There was also a big article, front page, doing some pop psychology on Rudy G. – claiming that his bringing upbringing in a “family of cops and crooks” led to racism and other nasty things.

    “So why do you not write a post attacking Newsweek, like you do the Economist”.

    Because Newsweek does not pretend to be pro free market – it is a magzine written by leftists, but also it is written for leftists.

    It does not pretend to be the same magazine that once had articles by Henry Hazlitt, or even the same magazine that once had articles by Miton Friedman.

    The move from Hazlitt was a decline not just because Hazlitt was an Austrian School man and Friedman was a Chicago School man – but also because Milton Friedman was only given half of Hazlitt’s copy, he had to share with some leftist member of an Economics department. So the story of the decline of Newsweek is a long one.

    These days the only way that someone like Henry Hazlitt or even Milton Friedman would be mentioned in Newsweek is if they were going to be smeared as racists, or child abusers, or whatever. The journalists who make up the Newsweek staff are good examples of the product of modern schools and universities – their opinions are knee jerk leftism, and their standard tactic is the implied smear. But that is normal for the modern mainstream media.

    Complaining because Newsweek, or the rest of the mainstream media in the United States, are leftist, would be like complaining because water is wet.

    They are what they are, people undertand that and (increasely) do not spend money on them.

  • Evan

    Nitpick: Lieberman was Democratic party candidate for Vice President back in 2000; Gore was Democratic party candidate for President.

  • Plamus

    All in all, for good or for bad, IMHO, Huckabee seems to be the closest thing to a repeat of GWB… He’s betting the house (no pun) on winning the nomination, and would likely lose the general election, if nominated, against either Hillary or B. Hussein O.
    [drama queen outburst] Some of us fled Eastern Europe to escape the bright future of communism – where are we to go now, Singapore? [/drama queen outburst]

  • Jacob

    They may be corrupt S.O.B.s – but they are not actually evil.

    A very good distinction!
    Corrupt S.O.B.’s just want some stolen money for themselves, lefties want to dominate, and manage to ruin the whole society. They are in an entirely different class.

  • Well, RAB, now you have gone all Mid-western on us:-P

  • RAB

    I thought Arkansas was in the South?

    What Paul says about Universities turning out a self perpetuating left leaning P C loving ruling Elite is very true.
    I came across these creapy bastards the other day.
    Anyone know more about them?

    http://www.commonpurpose.org.uk/home.aspx

  • I was talking about Wisconsin.

  • RAB

    You ol’ flatterer you!

  • By George he’s got it!:-)

  • Cynic

    I will laugh loudly if Huckabee wins in Iowa. If he wins the GOP nomination outright, I’ll laugh even more. He’d be a disaster, but more and more I am led to believe that the GOP deserve people like him. He is doing so well in Iowa because he is a total moron, which goes down well in a state full of them. If you think I am being unfair, look at who is in 2nd place in the polls. That’s right, Romney. Another jackass.

  • Paul Marks

    Often I dispute some of Cynic’s conclusions – however his last comment leaves me with no come back.

    Paul holds his head in despair.

    Evan – yes I have heard of Albert Gore Jr.

    The problem is I am dyslexic and dyspraxic – and, more importantly, very lazy.

    So I missed out the word “Vice”.

    RAB.

    Yes I went for a whole briefing on Common Purpose, given by a former Royal Navy intelligence man.

    Unfortunately he was insane (a common problem with ex intelligence types).

    However, Common Purpose is clearly a very naughty organization.

    People from all levels of government and related organizations (and politically connected private companies) also work for Common Purpose and it does have a socialistic (if not fully socialist) agenda – it is also wildly pro E.U. and P.C.

    The amount of taxpayers money that finds its way into Common Purpose is very large – especially if one counts their use of government offices (local and national) and the time of politicians, civil servants and local government officers (during office hours).

  • RAB

    Thanks Paul.
    That’s what I love about Samizdata.
    Ask a question and someone is bound to know the answer.
    Common Purpose smell like a cult to me.
    Same modus operandi as Scientology or Exegesis, but without the religious bullshit and full of Utopian dreams of their own.
    They dont seem very egalitarian though. The message seems to be “Fuck the rest of you! We are only interested in the LEADERS. Zee rest of you will follow!”

  • Michiganny

    What Paul says about Universities turning out a self perpetuating left leaning P C loving ruling Elite is very true.

    Some people might just disagree with you, and say Wall Street/HF/PE have more sway over this country than, say, Women’s Studies majors. Or is it Cornel West who makes a couple hundred million every year?

    We all like to laugh at people sipping fair trade coffee inside their Volvos, but I would imagine the guys who ride helicopters to dinner also laugh a little at Ron Paul’s statements.

  • RAB

    Michiganny. You are confusing how many with how much, who and why.
    It is perfectly possible to be fabulously wealthy and very very wrong. To use your money in ways you think beneficial but are actually very negative. To support causes that cause misery for millions, but from which you expect exemption because of your wealth and your “Rightness”.
    In two words
    George Soros.

  • Paul Marks

    Michiganny at least 60% of the money that Wall Street people contribute to politics goes to Democrats – and it is not all because the senior Senator goes around saying that Capital Gains Tax (etc) will be even higher if they do not pay contributions to Democrats (why is that not extortion?).

    It is also because school and university do not have no effect at all on business people – and the main stream media do not have no effect either.

    Someone can be very rich and leftist.

    And it not just George Soros.

    Have a study of Goldman Sachs sometime (all the leftists who have been associated with that outfit).

    And if we just restrict things to rich individuals (on or off Wall Street) how about Peter Lewis, Bill Gates (whatever a certain man who used to be around here says – the money trail speaks louder) and ….. soft wear billionaries, and Warren Buffet, and Marc Cuban, and Mrs Kerry (O.K. the lady got the money by marriage to Heinz, but money is money) and so on and so on.

    Oh by the way – if we are talking about mega rich organizations.

    Harvard and the other top universities certainly come into that group. Their investments are huge (they do not pay the various taxes that individuals pay).

    RAB

    Yes Common Purpose loves the leader principle.

    They also love “diversity” as long as everyone believes what they tell them to believe,

    As normal with their kind, diversity does not include diversity of political opinion.