Thread: Fox foments faux outrage to fundraise for Romney

Very interesting how this thread has a number of posts on Maddow's style, and not a peep about Fox's pretending to be a news station while pimping for Romney.

C'mon conservatives, don't be afraid to stand up for your side. Let's hear your defense of Fox and O'Reilly.

Originally Posted by Somerville

Always good to see someone who is willing to learn. Interesting that you like Ed Schulz more than Rachel. At times I find him to be a bit much and more driven by emotion than she is. My favourites on MSNBC are Martin Bashir and Rachel. Dylan Ratigan can offer a different perspective that makes me think about my opinions. Chris Matthews, with his ego, drives me up the wall most days but I continue to watch him because occasionally he has some truly intelligent takes on politics but his tendency to talk over people is frustrating. Again, that is something you would never see Rachel doing on her show - she lets her guests complete their statements. Then there is the Reverend Al, even when I agree with him I find it difficult to listen to him. Lawrence O'Donnell often has a unique look at politics due to his long career as a Congressional staff member.

I just think people should watch and listen to those they disagree with, while suppressing the emotional response, in an effort to understand why you disagree with them. When one only listens, talks to, associates with, those who agree with everything you believe, it is unlikely one will ever grow in knowledge and understanding.

I agree that people should watch both sides and then decide...unfortunately most do not...The two Maddow shows I watched she was very much emotional...and in one of them she went on a rant that I totally disagreed with her about. Ed does get emotional, but I thought it to be more passionate about what he believes.
I still watch Foxnews...I do not watch fox and friends at all anymore...that show is pure partisan garbage...from every word they spew to their orchestrated facial expressions. I now watch morning joe at least you get a closer balance of both sides.

Originally Posted by lpast

I agree that people should watch both sides and then decide...unfortunately most do not...The two Maddow shows I watched she was very much emotional...and in one of them she went on a rant that I totally disagreed with her about. Ed does get emotional, but I thought it to be more passionate about what he believes.
I still watch Foxnews...I do not watch fox and friends at all anymore...that show is pure partisan garbage...from every word they spew to their orchestrated facial expressions. I now watch morning joe at least you get a closer balance of both sides.

Thanks for your thoughtful post. Do you know Joe is a former Republican Congressman?

Any comment on O'Reilly's "journalism"?

Originally Posted by leftofabbie

Watch Rachel Maddow expose Fox and Bill O'Reilly as he and Romney's campaign's national financial chair Frank Vandersloot gin up fake outrage to fundraise for Romney.

Watch O'Reilly call President Obama a "political terrorist" because his campaign pointed out that Vandersloot a Romney donor.

Watch O'Reilly claim the Obama campaign lied and smeared Vandersloot as "anti-gay". Except it's not only true that Vandersloot is anti-gay, O'Reilly is responsible for putting that on the record.

Watch them try to paint Vandersloot as a victim, except this same "victimization" is a repeated theme from Vandersloot.

Watch them beg for money for the campaign.

And when you're done watching, please try to make your best case that Fox is "fair and balanced" and not just a tool for the Republicans.

Rachel Maddow - Fox News helps raise money for Romney with fake scandal Part 1 - YouTube

Rachel Maddow - Fox News helps raise money for Romney with fake scandal Part 2 - YouTube

Don't worry, you won't catch the gay. And if you don't like Maddow, tough, Hannity didn't cover this breach of journalistic ethics. Who knows, maybe you'll end up agreeing with this guy...

I Love You Rachel Maddow by Marc Black, interpretation by Blake Farber - YouTube

There is evidence to suggest the Obama campaign outed personal details and attempted to smear political donors to the Romney campaign.

Google result of : "Romney donors smeared"
romney donors - Google Search

Your twists aside, making personal attacks on citizens based on their political donations is low for any candidate, its despicable for a President.

The primary origination looks like its coming from the Blaze-- ‘Team Obama’ Names & Shames Eight Private Citizens For Donating to Romney Campaign | TheBlaze.com

Or possibly from Strassel -- Strassel: Trolling for Dirt on the President's List - WSJ.com

Maddow's problem seems to be how its being covered combined with her perception of it as a non story. She also attempts to target the messenger over and over and doesnt seem to take the time to just cover the basics of the case but focuses on the coverage of the case.

It comes down to an essential question.

Do I believe the President would target those who donate to his political opponents?
Each person needs to answer that for themselves.

Originally Posted by OpportunityCost

There is evidence to suggest the Obama campaign outed personal details and attempted to smear political donors to the Romney campaign.

Google result of : "Romney donors smeared"
romney donors - Google Search

Your twists aside, making personal attacks on citizens based on their political donations is low for any candidate, its despicable for a President.

The primary origination looks like its coming from the Blaze-- ‘Team Obama’ Names & Shames Eight Private Citizens For Donating to Romney Campaign | TheBlaze.com

Or possibly from Strassel -- Strassel: Trolling for Dirt on the President's List - WSJ.com

Maddow's problem seems to be how its being covered combined with her perception of it as a non story. She also attempts to target the messenger over and over and doesnt seem to take the time to just cover the basics of the case but focuses on the coverage of the case.

It comes down to an essential question.

Do I believe the President would target those who donate to his political opponents?
Each person needs to answer that for themselves.

You're overlooking a few things.

First, Vandersloot was outed as a gay bigot when he tried to discredit a gay reporter covering his misdeeds. He made the same claim (almost verbatim) about his victimization months ago. Maddow covers this - with clips of Vandersloot - in the piece. If you watched the piece you should have seen it.

Secondly, it is hypocritical of the right to suggest the Obama campaign is smearing Romney donors simply by naming them. Think "George Soros" if you're having trouble seeing the hypocrisy.

Thirdly, you haven't addressed Bill O'Reilly's claim that naming Vandersloot as a Romney campaign donor is "political terrorism".

Fourth, you haven't addressed Fox using Vandersloot and O'Reilly to solicit campaign donations on air, and what that means to Fox's claim of being "fair and balanced".

Finally, citing Glenn Beck's "The Blaze" as a source ruins any last shreds of credibility you have.

Originally Posted by leftofabbie

You're overlooking a few things.

First, Vandersloot was outed as a gay bigot when he tried to discredit a gay reporter covering his misdeeds. He made the same claim (almost verbatim) about his victimization months ago. Maddow covers this - with clips of Vandersloot - in the piece. If you watched the piece you should have seen it.

Secondly, it is hypocritical of the right to suggest the Obama campaign is smearing Romney donors simply by naming them. Think "George Soros" if you're having trouble seeing the hypocrisy.

Thirdly, you haven't addressed Bill O'Reilly's claim that naming Vandersloot as a Romney campaign donor is "political terrorism".

Fourth, you haven't addressed Fox using Vandersloot and O'Reilly to solicit campaign donations on air, and what that means to Fox's claim of being "fair and balanced".

Finally, citing Glenn Beck's "The Blaze" as a source ruins any last shreds of credibility you have.

I kinda gave you a google search. Stop being silly. Hypocrisy alert, youre using Maddow as a source arent you? Check Strassel's WSJ piece then, shrug...or use the supplied search to get more sources.

The only part of the Blaze that matters to me is the screen cap of Obama's truth team website and the characterization of the donors by that site.

They werent just named.
From Strassel's piece:

About a week after that post, a man named Michael Wolf contacted the Bonneville County Courthouse in Idaho Falls in search of court records regarding Mr. VanderSloot. Specifically, Mr. Wolf wanted all the documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot's divorces, as well as a case involving a dispute with a former Melaleuca employee.

Mr. Wolf sent a fax to the clerk's office—which I have obtained—listing four cases he was after. He would later send a second fax, asking for three further court cases dealing with either Melaleuca or Mr. VanderSloot. Mr. Wolf listed only his name and a private cellphone number.

Some digging revealed that Mr. Wolf was, until a few months ago, a law clerk on the Democratic side of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He's found new work. The ID written out at the top of his faxes identified them as coming from "Glenn Simpson." That's the name of a former Wall Street Journal reporter who in 2009 founded a D.C. company that performs private investigative work.

The website for that company, Fusion GPS, describes itself as providing "strategic intelligence," with expertise in areas like "politics." That's a polite way of saying "opposition research."

When I called Fusion's main number and asked to speak to Michael Wolf, a man said Mr. Wolf wasn't in the office that day but he'd be in this coming Monday. When I reached Mr. Wolf on his private cell, he confirmed he had until recently worked at the Senate.

When I asked what his interest was in Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records, he hesitated, then said he didn't want to talk about that. When I asked what his relationship was with Fusion, he hesitated again and said he had "no comment." "It's a legal thing," he added.

Fusion dodged my calls, so I couldn't ask who was paying it to troll through Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. Mr. Simpson finally sent an email stating: "Frank VanderSloot is a figure of interest in the debate over civil rights for gay Americans. As his own record on gay issues amply demonstrates, he is a legitimate subject of public records research into his lengthy history of legal disputes."

So they ARE targeting him. Whoda thought?

Do you see any Romney based websites mentioning Soros and trying to dig up dirt on him?

As for the campaign donation crap, Ive seen sitting Senators on politcal talk shows talk about their donation sites so this is decidedly not news.

Cmon stop letting Maddow provide all the talking points, go look around and dig into the story. You have not done that.

Originally Posted by OpportunityCost

I kinda gave you a google search. Stop being silly. Hypocrisy alert, youre using Maddow as a source arent you? Check Strassel's WSJ piece then, shrug...or use the supplied search to get more sources.

The only part of the Blaze that matters to me is the screen cap of Obama's truth team website and the characterization of the donors by that site.

They werent just named.
From Strassel's piece:


So they ARE targeting him. Whoda thought?

Do you see any Romney based websites mentioning Soros and trying to dig up dirt on him?

As for the campaign donation crap, Ive seen sitting Senators on politcal talk shows talk about their donation sites so this is decidedly not news.

Cmon stop letting Maddow provide all the talking points, go look around and dig into the story. You have not done that.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. -- Ancient Proverb

no doubt fox "news" is probably campaigning for Romney.

also, MSNBC is a joke.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

It has nothing to do with how smart she is...it's about her attitude..

Bull****. I suggest you actually watch the woman and then judge. Seriously. If anything she's the opposite. She is by far the most respectful of all the pundits. Her interviewing style is light years beyond anyone else. I defy you to find a single instance of her interrupting her guest and talking over them. Which is pretty much standard practice os everyone else.

Originally Posted by Top Cat

Pretty tough watching a woman far smarter than you. Hard to blame you.

What's with the blatant insults?? Not cool, dude.