The Fox News Candidate

If you were running for the Republican presidential nomination, whose support would be worth the equivalent of many millions in campaign dollars?  Newt?  Nah.  Bush?  Ha.  Try Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News and former media adviser to Richard Nixon.

Mr. Ailes was the media consultant to Mr. Giuliani’s first mayoral campaign in 1989. Mr. Giuliani, as mayor, officiated at Mr. Ailes’s wedding and intervened on his behalf when Mr. Ailes’s company, Fox News Channel, was blocked from securing a cable station in the city.

This year, they were tablemates at the White House correspondents dinner, which Mr. Giuliani attended as a guest of Fox’s parent company, the News Corporation.

The festival of back-scratching continues with Giuliani's presidential campaign.  Despite Fox claims of impartiality, Giuliani has certainly been getting his turn as the scratchee.

So far this year, one political journal found, Mr. Giuliani has logged more time on Fox interview programs than any other candidate. Most of the time has been spent with Sean Hannity, an acknowledged admirer of the former mayor, according to the data compiled by the journal, known as The Hotline.

Should Rudy ever get the opportunity, I'm sure Roger -- and Rupert -- have a few ideas about how he might pay them back for their favoritism.

With all the rope that Ailes is tossing Giuliani, the wonder is not that the Democratic presidential candidates won't conduct a debate on Fox, the wonder is that the Republican candidates will agree to debate on a network that already has it's champion.

•  Bet they didn't spend much time discussing

  his dubious family values.

  by TheFatLadySings on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:34:23 AM PDT

  •  Bingo! This is the best news I've heard in awhile

    All 3 of the top tier Democratic presidential hopefuls have just one marriage apiece. Mr. & Mrs. 6 marriages between them Giuliani is way over the top in terms of the 'family values' party, and will work beautifully to bury that hypocritical mantra permanently.

    by phoenixdreamz on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:12:52 AM PDT

    •  It's too bad that right wing authoritarian

      personalities don't really mind contradiction. They can absolutely simultaneously know that he has had six marriages and is the strongest family values candidate in the race.

      My feeling is that the independents, who are our real target in 2008, won't be swayed by such attacks. I'm pretty sure they have no such illusions and would more likely vote for republicans because they believe they would be better against terrorism or something like that.

      by Serpents Sorrow on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:59:19 AM PDT

      •  It's true

        as evidenced by the fact that Bill O' can sell a book titled Culture Warrior and still be a known sexual deviant.

        With that said, I'm tired of Democrats going on about the environment and still flying around in private planes.

        The main difference is that we perceive personal lives to be personal and policies to be public.  For instance, I don't believe in the war, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to pay taxes as a result.  We all need to work to de-fund the war as a matter of policy.  Still, our personal actions need to inform our policy decisions, so I say: Democrats, stop flying around in those damn planes all the time!

        by Paying Attention on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:54:02 AM PDT

  •  Or 9/11

    That's a touchy subject with Giuliani and he avoids bringing it up.

    by RequestedUsername on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:16:13 AM PDT

    •  watch / rent

      guliani time
      it convinced me he's the one candidate the war criminals can trust unconditionally

      by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 01:39:56 PM PDT

  •  Edwards says "Rudy is Bush on steroids"

    This is a perfect discription of Rudy that I ever heard and democrats should start using it everytime they refer to PhonyRudy.

    PoliticalWire is reporting it as a Quote of the Day:
    "What Giuliani is, is George Bush on steroids."

    -- John Edwards, quoted by Rolling Stone.

    by Observer on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:44:12 AM PDT

  •  The Problem is They Won't

    Bush was a trainwreck in Texas. But the mass media didn't mention it. Bush was "elected" (or close enough for Shock & Awe). And then, even when he was a known trainwreck from his first term, he was "reelected". All with the knowing complicity of the corporate mass media.

    The rest of the corporate mass media will not be covering Giuliani's many crippling problems. They'll be covering the cheap, easy story of "America's mayor", over and over again. Because Giuliani isn't just a more competent fascist than Bush. He's a New York fascist, already in deep with the corporate mass media headquarters here.

    Giuliani will get an ever better promotion from the corporate mass media, as he already has, than Bush ever did.

    Never rely on "it can't get any worse" with these Republican fascist spokesmodels. It will always get worse.

    by DocGonzo on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:19:42 AM PDT

•  Does this mean that Fox news bias...

  ... finally hits home for the GOP?  Now it's not just Democrats who are feeling the unfairness.

  by jhe on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:35:10 AM PDT

  •  That's probably too much to hope for. . .

    . . . maybe the fundies will see who Fox "News" really works for though. Remember, Giuliani is in a tough spot because he supports abortion rights and doesn't sufficiently hate homosexuals enough.

    by daveinchi on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:42:05 AM PDT

  •  GOP, perhaps, but ...

    ... don't expect the FoxSpews viewers to know the difference.  To the ill-informed viewers, GOP=good, all others=bad.  If FoxSpews likes Rudy, then by fiat he must be the best candidate!  It's already been decided by someone else, and the viewers only want to be led by the nose.

    by MikeTheLiberal on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:04:50 AM PDT

•  This is good news, right?

  We already know that Rudy is going to run a one-issue campaign, so tin-foil hattery aside, it should keep the tactics on our side pretty simple.  Key is to make sure the Fox base remains narrow.

  by Liberal Protestant on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:35:24 AM PDT

  •  It also means

    That we may have won the battle with Democratic politicians and spokespersons not to appear on Faux News.  If Ailes and Giuliani have such a close relationship, it makes political sense to marginalize both.  It's a wonderful opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.  By presenting a unified front the Democrats can create a public message of Faux as right-wing propaganda, and also trash Rudy by claiming that he is a tool of Ailes and Rupert Murdoch.  

    I think it is critically important to at last pressure the Democratic Party to maintain the message and not do anything to legitimize Faux News.  That means no participation in political coverage or debates, no interviews, no nothing.  Delegitimize them - we know it scares Faux News, and it has the added benefit of screwing Rudy.

    by ivorybill on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:03:32 AM PDT

    •  asfd

      That we may have won the battle with Democratic politicians and spokespersons not to appear on Faux News

      Are you kidding me?
      Democrats are on Fox each week!

      Here is a list from the last few weeks:
      Senator Dian Feinstein
      Senator Russ Feingold
      Senator Bayh
      Senator Carl Levin
      Rep. Van Hollen

      If Fox sponsors a debate between the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee are you going to advocate the Dem nominee to not attend?
      Do you honestly think they won't??

      And what of those who have taken donations from Fox employees? Won't they look like hipocrites?

      by AJsMom on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 12:28:59 PM PDT

      •  Not yet

        You are right that we have not won yet in terms of keeping Democrats off of Faux News.  It does, however, make sense for a Democratic nominee to refuse to participate in a debate sponsored by Fox.  It also makes political sense to tie Rudy to Fox and boycott both.

        by ivorybill on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 02:15:23 PM PDT

        •  Then what will happen

          is that Fox will find out who at CNN (or any other sponsor of a debate) is supporting the Dem candidate and then point out that the candidate will go on the network that is supporting them and avoiding a network that is not.
          How is that going to look to MODERATE Dems?
          How is that going to look to the Repub voters who are looking for a change and looking our way?
          It will look stupid and petty.
          Mr. and Mrs. Middle American will think, Jesus if they will only go on networks that support them and avoid the one who doesn't, how in the hell are they going to deal with entire COUNTRIES that are hostile?
          And if you think that middle America won't think that way, I got a bridge to sell to you.

          by AJsMom on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 02:53:57 PM PDT

        •  Ivory

          You didn't answer my question though:

          If Fox sponsors a debate between the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee are you going to advocate the Dem nominee to not attend?
          Do you honestly think they won't??

          Do you honestly think they will refuse to participate?

          by AJsMom on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 02:55:28 PM PDT

          •  I think they might agree to debate on Fox

            But I wish they wouldn't.  I think that the fact that Rudy and Roger Ailes have such a close connection is cover enough for a Democratic candidate to back out of any Fox-sponsored debate. And I would advocate for them not to participate.  Fox news is just in another category altogether.  MSNBC is fairly right-wing, but they do have some balance and that would be a better choice, or any of the main networks NBC, CBS, ABC, or of course public television.  But it would be legitimate to freeze Fox out and refuse to participate.  

            by ivorybill on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 03:02:45 PM PDT

•  The hiring of Tony Snow

  Should have erased all doubts about the deep and thorough ties between Fox News and the Republican party.

  But hey, Fox isn't legally bound to tell the truth, so we can look forward to glowing stories about Rudy's lifelong marriage to one woman, how he singlehandedly captured 20 terrorists planning on blowing up midtown, and how our Constitution never actually had a bill of rights.

  by zenbowl on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:35:43 AM PDT

•  does this mean the right wing

  of the GOP accepts rudy even though his record is to the left of much of the fox audience and the party mainstream these days? that would be very interesting.

  by scanman1722 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:36:12 AM PDT

  •  The right wing is a bunch of

    authoritarian social darwinists.  Murdoch has the money and the power, so what he and his boys say goes. The only task for the bootlicker contingent is to say "yes sir" and fall in line.

    by sagra on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:55:35 AM PDT

•  Rudy? He's...

  

  by blueyedace2 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:36:14 AM PDT

•  The Hate Channel

  My personal nomination for what Fox News should be rebranded as.

  Other choices considered and rejected:

  • The War Channel
  • America's Stupidest Network
  • Cable Stupid News
  • The Distraction Network

  Fox News has become toxic and their influence is eroding - if they want to endorse Giuliani, that's fine with me.

  by CA Libertarian on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:36:59 AM PDT

•  Republicans are so

  1.  2006

  2.  boring in their hackneyed and out-of-touch talking points

  3.  narrow-minded in their business/religion obsessions

  4.  NOT the future of this country

  5.  divorced from reality

  6.  mean-spirited

  7.  easily distracted from humanness

  8.  slavish in their insistence on Bush's relevance to the needs of the world

  9.  stupid when it comes to recognizing incompetence

  10. limited in their capacity to grow as individuals and as a party

  that it is really unpleasant to pay attention to them.  But pay attention one must.

  by concernedamerican on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:38:03 AM PDT

  •  Narrow minded?

    I was scrolling through the threads and was struck by your post.  It looks like you put a lot of thought (?) into this.
    As a moderate I enjoy seeing both sides of the issues, and unless we fence off the blue and red states, we have to get along no matter what your party.  I do take offense at your characterization and stereotyping.
    One comment and one question for each of your points that is not a cliché, if you don’t mind

    1. 2006

    2. Boring in their hackneyed and out-of-touch talking points (what talking points, all of them?  Or just the ones you don’t agree with?)

    Is immigration, homeland security boring?

    3. narrow-minded in their business/religion obsessions.  (If one is obsessed, it goes to follow that he/she is narrow minded)

    Obsessed with ensuring my tax dollar does not go to illegal aliens in the form of welfare/medical/dental/housing benefits?

    4. NOT the future of this country (The far right is not the way, just as the far left is not)

    5. Divorced from reality (Cliché)

    6. Mean-spirited (Cliché)

    7. Easily distracted from humanness (???)

    8. slavish in their insistence on Bush's relevance to the needs of the world (far right, not all)

    9. stupid when it comes to recognizing incompetence (and just what would you suggest ALL of the right do about it, when the Democrat congress can’t?)

    10. Limited in their capacity to grow as individuals and as a party (Yeah, right)

    Overall, I am glad I came to this site.  I have had to do some research in a couple of areas, after I seen something that I didn’t agree with.  But that’s the point.  Listen to all views and make informed decisions.  American first, moderate second.

    Regards

    by pritchdc on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 03:07:28 PM PDT

•  Giuliani (Fox Party)

  That's more appropriate, right?

  We have a legitimate "manchurian candidate" afterall.

  by Omen on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:38:08 AM PDT

•  Hint: google "Roger Ailes Lee Atwater" [ nt ]

  by BenGoshi on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:38:43 AM PDT

  •  another old timer. politics started before blogs?

    ;)

    rmm.

    by seabos84 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:43:19 AM PDT

    •  Somewhat.

      First political event:  remember a "Democrats for Nixon" meeting at my parents' house in 1972.  Yes...

      Handed out flyers for "Ford/Dole" in '76 (this current
      crop of GOPers makes them look utterly Abbie Hoffmanesque!).

      Two short stints on Capitol Hill (82, 89), one Rep and one Dem.

      Governor's office fellowship in '86.

      Campaigned for Dukakis in '88.

      Headed up county campaigns for Bill in '92, '96, and for a gubenatorial candidate in '98.  Kerry poll attorney in Fla in '04.

      That's the short version...

      BG
      _________________________________________________

      by BenGoshi on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:54:23 AM PDT

      •  i remember '68 when I was 8 and my

        old man would argue with anyone anywhere anytime about what a no good crook nixon was. we lived in Massachusetts, so, it was hard to find people to argue with, but my old man managed.  his generation in my family were all in the stuff of the day.

        I've never been as involved as your c.v. - I typically do enough to feel like I tried to make a dent in the mess, AND

        to get invited to the election night party.

        I volunteered for Dukakis in '88 on Sunday before the election - I was living in Boston, working as a cook in fine dining - and ended up Allston - Brighton coordinator.

        My phone started ringing off the hook real real real early, as all these little old ladies were calling ME to get their ride to vote ... I had numerous calls from people with big titles promising all kinds of support - I had various people show up and do it for 1 or 2 hours, and various bunches of college kids who showed up, found out where the party was and disappeared.

        1, ONE, fellow who worked all day - the weather was shitty - this guy was from

        I'm not kidding

        this guy was from Beirut or Gaza or the West Bank, one of those HOT spots, he wasn't Jewish, and he wasn't a citizen, and he drove little old ladies with Irish last names to polls all day long.

        we each had a copy of the ... the red map? ... and he'd call me from pay phones after he dropped them off at home, and get the addresses of next bunch of little old ladies to ferry.

        that was a good day.

        oh yeah, by the time I got to the party down town it was looking grim. that party sucked.  

        hopefully the 2008 election night parties in Seattle will be fun.

        rmm.

        PCO 36-1392
        Seattle.
        http://www.liemail.com/...

        by seabos84 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:13:17 AM PDT

        •  Four for your dad

          i remember '68 when I was 8 and my old man would argue with anyone anywhere anytime about what a no good crook nixon was. we lived in Massachusetts, so, it was hard to find people to argue with, but my old man managed.

          I'll bet your dad had the bumper sticker that read, "I'm from Massachuetts; Don't Blame Me!"

          by MikeTheLiberal on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:47:38 AM PDT

•  In another story Rupert Murdoch bought the

  Wall Street Journal.

  The decline of mass news media in America continues.

  Thank God for the internet.

  by SleepingWillow on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:39:15 AM PDT

  •  I'm happy so many sources are reporting this

    I wrote an earlier diary this morning about how the article also states that the candidates are afraid to call out Fox and Rudy for their relationship becuase of backlash potential. Still, this is exactly the kind of story we need to show our friends who watch Fox to show them how corrupt and in- bed with the right this network really is.

    by TimCbrowne on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:41:26 AM PDT

  •  It's not only mass news media that's declining.

    The entire nation is getting to be unrecognizable.  I hope you don't have to rely on our health care system, roads and bridges, or much of anything else.  

    by trinite on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:44:46 AM PDT

•  Fox and Giuliani deserve each other.

  They're both liars and opportunists.  The only thing they believe in is self-promotion and money, lots of it.

  by trinite on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:40:12 AM PDT

  •  don't forget power

    oh and the beleif the serfs shoudl know their place  oh and how the bill of rightrs is "quaint" and.... and....

    by Love and Death on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:57:11 AM PDT

    •  Yes, and money buys power.

      I think I would vote for anyone on the Dem. ticket to make sure Giuliani never sits in the oval office.  I don't think this man knows what integrity means.

      by trinite on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:23:03 AM PDT

•  John Edwards is calling for Dem candidates

  to recognize Fox News' decade of assaults on Dems and the Democratic Party - and to return campaign donations from News Corp.

  by annefrank on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:40:15 AM PDT

  •  Heh, heh. Directed that one at Hillary.

    Smart move, John.

    by Hesiod on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:48:18 AM PDT

  •  Wow, missed that

    Here in NY (News Corp HQ) one constanty hears "Hillary" and "Obama" but they intentionally leave out Edwards. It's always bothered... Nice to hit back at the source

    by splatterboy on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:32:40 PM PDT

•  Godfather Ghouliani & Fox were made

  for each other.
  It'll be a good source of humor, though. Anyone taking it seriously should have their head examined.

  by rogerdaddy on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:41:00 AM PDT

•  Ailes was part of RayGun's Lie Factory

  some of my memories from 1984:

  • cooking for 7.50?/hr. in boston
  • when talking politics with the well credentialed (there are a few in boston - they are easy to find) and I'd talk about RayGun's masterful lies and soundbites, I'd get pooh-pooh'd as some kind of under-educated unwashed turnip cleaner who didn't really understand how complex the world was, is, has been, will be ...
  • noble, selfless, smarter-than-everybody Dems getting their asses handed to them by these lying bastards.

  rmm.

  about this quote below - I googled 'ailes reagan' and it took me a minute to find this article -- for you hard core 'Prove It' junkies.

  http://www.usnews.com/...

  "...but it was with the 1984 Reagan campaign that Ailes really hit his stride. The Great Communicator was in trouble: Democrat Walter Mondale had done serious damage in the first debate, and Reagan's team was panicking. "The key to my success is having everybody in the room, when something goes wrong, saying, 'Get Ailes in here--he'll fix it.' If people want you in the room when things are going wrong, you'll succeed," Ailes says. Mondale went down, and Ailes was back in 1988, as one of the architects of then Vice President George H. W. Bush's vicious--and ultimately successful--campaign against Democrat Michael Dukakis."

  by seabos84 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:41:40 AM PDT

  •  Reagan started the decline.

    That's when we began to see homeless people and mentally disturbed people on the streets.  We only have money for wars and "incentives" for the corporate giants.  The rest of us have to make up our own incentives.

    by trinite on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:49:19 AM PDT

•  Ask 'em!

  Great point. Somebody ought to get the others on record, make them ponder.

  Quibble: It's "its" in that context, near post's end. "It's" = "it is." "Its" = possessive.

  by htsmatt on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:44:02 AM PDT

•  Rudy?

  You mean the bumbling authoritarian who sometimes stretches the truth and sometimes feigns ignorance to make himself look good?
  

  by I on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:44:19 AM PDT

  •  I can't decide....

    scary or hysterical...
    hmm.....

    by netguyct on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:45:27 AM PDT

•  When I saw Faux in the title, it reminded

  me if you did not see it last night (not the show as I believe it was pre empted due to breaking news), Chris Dodd appeared on Faux and o'lielys show.  The highlight IF it ever airs will be this gem

  Finally, O'Reilly ended the interview abruptly by saying that Dodd "was no Joe Lieberman."

  No word if Dodd thanked him for those kind words.

  For full disclosure, I am NOT a Chris Dodd supporter, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but I do hate and despise orally.

  by Oliver W Holmes the 3rd on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:44:36 AM PDT

•  New Slogan

  Fox Chooses - You Vote - Rudy

  by egarratt on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:44:37 AM PDT

  •  Slight Amendment

    Fox Chooses - You Vote - 9/11! - Rudy

    by misfit13b on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:35:20 AM PDT

    •  So much better

      I like it.

      by egarratt on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:30:31 AM PDT

•  I'm sure the Fairness Doctrine

  stands a chance of being a plank in the Giuliani campaign with this news!
  /snark

  by netguyct on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:44:42 AM PDT

•  Republicans don't have much choice

  unfortunately for them.  

  Fox is the Broadway for Wingnuts.

  by recontext on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:45:16 AM PDT

•  Snap.

  You had to say it.

  But it's true. All of them in the Fuxd Noise Nutworks bubble. All the cats in my hat. Sigh. They all had a big meeting with Duhhbya too.

  by skiddlybop on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:45:53 AM PDT

•  Who would you rather have in US office?

  The evangelical conservatives who graduated from Regent Law, or the Fox News contributors and financial backers suggested here?  

  Seriously, I can't decide!

  by Romaniac on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:46:28 AM PDT

  •  i'd have to say the evangelicals from Regent

    In general:
    The evangelicals don't hide what they are tryign to do, and they are incompetant.

    The Financial order guys are very smart and competant, and smart enough to hide their true goals... (smart... but evil)

    by Love and Death on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:02:16 AM PDT

    •  So far, stupid leads evil 1-0, any other takers?

      by Romaniac on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:06:11 AM PDT

      •  well I don't want

        incompetant running my country! We already have that and it sucks!

        by arkylib on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:07:58 AM PDT

        •  No, we have evil

          speaking through an incompetent mouthpiece that thinks it's in charge. That's about as bad as it could possibly get.

          by kyril on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:38:35 AM PDT

  •  If I had to pick

    I'd pick the evangelicals to actually be in office (behind the scenes working for the Faux-based folks, they're dangerous, but once you force them out into the open everyone can see how stupid they really are).

    by kyril on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:06:53 AM PDT

    •  Stupid jumps to a 2-0 lead over evil!

      That that CheneyCo

      by Romaniac on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:12:36 AM PDT

      •  I vote for evil

        It's in my self-interest.  The fundies want to stone me to death for my sins.  The evil ones just want my $$.

        by Van Buren on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:06:53 AM PDT

•  The other GOP candidates should file...

  ...FEC complaints against Fox. It's obvious Fox News (R-New York City), is in the tank for Giuliani.

  Just as they are in the tank for Hillary (in the Democratic primaries, at least) -- on Rupert Murdoch's Orders.

  Murdoch wants to make sure that no matter who wins, he's got an ally in the White House.

  "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."

  by Hesiod on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:47:31 AM PDT

  •  If only

    The other Republicans are so scared of Fox and it's ability to get the message out to it's base (far better than the current Repubs in that respect) that they'll just bend over and take this, just like all the other cases of blatant, out- in- the- open corruption that they see and do nothing about. They don't want the O'Reilly smear amchine visiting them on their front steps, nor Hannity telling his drones how "liberal" they are becoming, or Brit Hume's snide asides at their expense. Chalk it up to the GOP allowing for too long influences from outside their mainstream to twist them so out of shape that they no longer control their own talking points any more.

    by TimCbrowne on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:51:38 AM PDT

•  Interesting that polling matches BigMedia wishes

  Hmmmmm.

  Coinkidink?

  I think not.

  by Mad Mom on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:50:33 AM PDT

•  DevilsTower - Hillary is the Fox News candidate

  Murdoch and News Corps execs have sponsored fundraisers for Hillary and according to FEC the Murdoch family has donated thousands to her and only one other candidate - $200 to McCain. Murdoch is on the board of Clinton's Global Initiative.
  The Clintons and Murdoch are a Team.

  by annefrank on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:50:37 AM PDT

  •  I was wondering ...

    just how long it would take you to show up and make this claim.

    Apparently no matter what is placed in front of you, you can't loose the "Hillary sold her soul to Murdoch" meme, can you?

    by emsprater on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:32:26 AM PDT

    •  Why do you oppose the facts?

      by annefrank on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:42:35 AM PDT

      •  I've seen it, too

        I know she's received funding from NewsCorp campaign dinner earlier in the year.

        When Forbes comes out and supports Clinton as the best candidate for business, then electing her is four more years of "more of the same."

        by MikeTheLiberal on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:44:43 AM PDT

        •  Yep! Big Business is betting on Hillary

          and continuation of Bu$hCo. CNN

          by annefrank on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:21:05 AM PDT

      •  Maybe it's ...

        because your "facts", like statistics, can be distorted into some very baseless lies.  You should have been a propaganda writer for the GOP, annie, because you spin like a freakin top.

        by emsprater on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 01:22:52 PM PDT

      •  Not to pimp the msm again

        But when it's in the New Yorker...

        RE: emsprater - annefrank's correct
        try doing a little research on your own

        Murdoch’s Game
        Will he move left in 2008?
        by John Cassidy
        October 16, 2006

        FTFA:The fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton took place on July 17th, at News Corp.’s midtown tower, which houses the Post and Fox News. Among the News Corp. executives who attended were Roger Ailes, the veteran Republican operative who runs Fox News, and Col Allan, the pugnacious, Australian-born editor of the Post. Clinton spoke for about twenty minutes, and then took questions..."

        TFA:
        http://www.newyorker.com/...

        by splatterboy on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:51:28 PM PDT

        •  Ah, but anne....

          has gone over the deep end and connected the dots to come up with Hillary is doing Murdoch's bidding.

          She has no proof, and nothing more than what you have shown to make her leap of logic, yet she has.  Meanwhile, so have some of you other "good" folks.

          I thought guilt by association, or worse yet by presumed actions not proven went out with McCarthy.

          Apparently not.

          by emsprater on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:36:21 PM PDT

•  Hannity and Guliani on the same screen?

  That there's some must miss TV.

  by sagra on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:51:43 AM PDT

  •  Corporate patches needed..

    It has long been suggested that Congress Critters wear corporate patches that indicate who sponsors them, just like NASCAR drivers. I think candidates should wear them too. Rudy could wear a hardhat with the Fox logo and a big 9/11 in the front. It makes it so much more simple for the Fox viewer with limited information, which is all Fox viewers.

    by upperleftedge on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:13:41 AM PDT

•  Giuliani and Thompson: Creepy 2nd wives club

  Interesting sidelight that Giuliani and Thompson campaigns have gotten a lot of publicity lately for the interference...er...contribution of their wives in the campaigns.  Staff shakeups and departures demanded by the wives.

  Fred Thompson's 'trophy wife' runs the show.

  Giuliani's Princess Bride

  Ironic considering the attacks on Hillary as a "pushy" first lady by Fox News and the combat radio crowd who all prefer their women submissive, non-voting, non-working, non-talking roles.

  Republicans are going to have some real "hold your nose" candidates vs. the Clinton or Obama choice of the Democrats. Another irony is how big an asset their spouses are, Michelle Obama and Bill.

  Hard to imagine the national embarrasment of Judith Giuliani or Jeri Thompson as First Lady. Be interesting to see how the Republicans theme of "family" and "sanctity of marriage" and "moral values in the White House" play out.

  by Alinghi2010 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:01:37 AM PDT

•  Ailes ails

  He's peaked, FOx has peaked, Rudy's peaked, The repubs are going to have to go away and reinvent themselves if theyve got any interest in becoming a national party again. They may Rudy for the nomination as an expression that theyve got a northeast base but its a lie.

  Bye bye guys thanks for ruining the country

  by Randolph06 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:07:53 AM PDT

•  dear good god... that's a toxic combo

  America's Mayor and America's news station

  Rudy... this guy is another taunter... loving that his unethical behavior is out in the open so he can rub our faces in it

  these people have turned me into a supporter of the NRA's position on the second amendment... sorry, but i can't help but think those damned NRAers were right all along...

  now how about that???? would never have believed it myself...

  by pfiore8 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:09:03 AM PDT

•  That's a match made in Hell

  stamped, signed, sealed, delivered straight to the brains of the Wingnut Right.

  by kyril on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:09:53 AM PDT

•  Sorta OT, but Giuliana related...

  I shared this on an OT a few days ago, but I don't think many people saw it.  It's good for a guffaw or two:

  Somewhere, Jefferson is suffering a spasm

  Guess who carries with him a copy of The Federalist Papers, the 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay during the debate over ratification of the Constitution?

  "I have a marked-up copy of it, and whenever I get into difficulties trying to figure out my answer to something, I usually read it," Rudy Giuliani told the Los Angeles Times.

  by Terre on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:15:37 AM PDT

  •  Giuliana????

    Damn.  But that's funny too.  sheesh  :o)

    by Terre on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:16:56 AM PDT

•  There's a lot of fun stuff in the NYTimes story

  including a priceless IOKIYAR recollection:

  Yet the relationship between Mr. Ailes and Mr. Giuliani is of the sort that led Mr. Ailes to grouse about CNN during the Clinton administration. Rick Kaplan, the president of CNN at the time, and President Clinton were established friends. Mr. Ailes, asserting the cable channel’s coverage of the president was altogether too warm, called it the "Clinton News Network."

  The graphic accompanying the article also is interesting: it shows which networks focus on which candidates.  MSNBC, for example, seems to have given most face time to Biden and Dodd, which seems a bit odd to me.

  by NoMoJoe on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:42:54 AM PDT

  •  That's because

    They're the only network who's seen fit ti actually try to interview and profile the non- Clinton/Romney/Rudy/Obama candidates. Or acknowlege that they're even there to begin with.

    by TimCbrowne on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:12:32 AM PDT

•  Giuliani the Fox candidate.

  Oh boy. This is a beaut. I see it now ads, posters, men in Fox suits, Tally ho!

  by otto vb vs on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:47:26 AM PDT

•  Hannity an "acknowledged admirer"?

  That is a polite way of putting it.  The backs of Hannitys kneecaps must be scarred from where the buckles on the kneepads keep digging in.

  by rlamoureux on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:02:20 AM PDT

•  is the Minneapolis mayor a Democrat?

  because I think he gave Rudy 'the finger' when he was interviewed about the bridge collapse.  He was responding to the praise for the incredible coordination in the emergency response of the city and he said ' we put alot of time, training and money into making sure we have the BEST communication system in place for our first responders"

  this is not what rudy did in NYC, instead Rudy bought a BAD system for the NYC first responders, a system that did not allow firefighters and police to communicate, a system that failed NYC's first responders on 9/11...a system that OTHER CITIES had already rejected as 'unreliable'  and NYC's first responders died because of the system Rudy put in place.

  NYC is no better off under Bloomberg.  We still are devoid of an adequate first responder communication system...thank goodness Minneapolis is not.

  by KnotIookin on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:16:06 AM PDT

•  Why dont democrats ever bring him up in speeches?

  its obvious that he is the executer behind faux news' propaganda machine. They obviously know that they are crooked, ie: their withdrawal from the debate. but why dont they extend this information to the general public. By that I mean the old people like my parents/grandparents that watch that crap and take it as the gospel.

  by highvoltage81 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:44:07 AM PDT

•  "Ghouliani". that has a real ring to it

  who will take advantage of that low hanging fruit?

  by jackinthebox4 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:44:23 AM PDT

•  President Ghouliani

  Should Rudy ever get the opportunity [to use Ailes/Fox propaganda support of his campaign]

  Of course Ghouliani already has the opportunity and is exploiting it. He's the #1 Republican frontrunner, has been for months. This story documents how Ghouliani is already soaking up the free Fox airtime.

  When will the DailyKos denial, that Ghouliani is the biggest Republican threat, finally collapse? Every month it's some new flimsy excuse. No one cares. He's "America's mayor": that's the firm image Americans take away. He was elected twice in Democratic NYC, so Democrats (especially new refugees from the Republican Party) will find a way to vote for him. As I've been posting  on DKos for years.

  I could go on and on. But he's got the image, the money, the longstanding leads and momentum. DKos has nothing but denials and wishful thinking. Is this going to be like impeachment, where DKos spends years waiting for the obvious to become too much to deny? Like Iraq became for the rest of the country?

  There ain't gonna be no Katrina to take down the Giuliani campaign in some act of god. If DKos, progressives, Democrats, the country, don't take Giuliani only seriously right now, the lead time to destroy his undeserved image will be squandered.

  My worst nightmare is posting on DKos in November 2008 "I told you so" when Giuliani is elected.

  by DocGonzo on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:03:18 AM PDT

•  Fox Opinion Channel

  Just reminder. It's not a news channel. It's an opinion channel. Please refer to it as such.

  Fox Opinion Channel

  by 10012 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:13:19 AM PDT

•  Being endorsed by

  the Fox Propaganda Network is the kiss of death.

  Oh how I hope Rodger Ailes endorses all of these GOP canidates.

  by jackieca on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:24:15 AM PDT

•  If Ghooliani Wins --

  My mother and I are leaving the country for awhile.  

  by Boca Babs on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:25:32 AM PDT

•  Fox -- The Rudy Network

  Seems fair.  They have all that money, why not spend it on the guy they want in?  Of course, when he gets trounced in '08 by (pick any one of ours), and the stats come out on favoritism vs "fair and balanced," well, there may be a network name change in the offing, to:  "Fox -- All Theatre is Political".

  by MoronMike on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 01:25:42 PM PDT

•  Hey, don't make fun of ol' Rudy ...

  He's the most credible of the candidates that the GOP's got ... and I really mean that!

  by RevJoe on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 02:46:24 PM PDT

•  Radical Christian FOX

  Each time I hear/see those FOXy-guys like: B. O'reilly & J. Gibson talking/preaching on behalf of Christianity I keep wondering what they mean by "radicals"?

  by Gaza on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:09:03 AM PDT