Does the election spell the end of FOX News dominance

I love how Paul Begala gets left out of these conversations. He is more left leaning than ANYONE, including O'Reilly. At least O'Reilly has one or two comments that bash his own party. Paul just personally insults anyone republican and raises funds for the democratic party. Pretty objective hire, I would say.

I just hope Stewart and Colbert can stay on air if there isn't a republican in the white house in '08. Not much to talk about anymore

 

Paul Begala has never tried to present himself as a centrist, unlike O'Reilly, and since Crossfire was mercifully killed by Jon Stewart's appearance, I'm pretty sure he has no signature show to call his own, cowboy. It's sort of like having Robert Novak on the air. Pretty much everyone already knows where they stand.

 

Fox News' stock and trade is building and promoting straw men.

No reason to believe their business is going anywhere. There's a lot of gullible folks out there.

 

"I remember people used to say, 'What are you going to do when Clinton leaves?' And I'd say, 'I'm really OK not having to make another intern blow job joke in my life.' And it'll be the same with these guys. I'd much prefer these guys to leave than to have to continue to make Lord Vader jokes about Cheney. I have great faith in institutional absurdity. ... I'd rather make fun of somebody who is wearing their humble beginnings on their sleeve (Obama) than somebody whohas created a situation where casualties are involved. So the idea that somehow it's easier now - it's not. Because right now it is a comic box lined with sadness."

-- Jon Stewart

 

Begala's at least honest about his politics, but his fuckbuddy Carville's act is wearing very thin. How can anyone with a sexdrive and a gram of self respect get into a bed knowing Mary Matalin will be there?

 

I love James Carville, but that's a legitimate question for which I have no answer. ???

 

I'm stumped as well.
They've done less work on rebuilding New Orleans than they have on that woman.

 

Sigh. That's nice. I hope you use numbers more constructively in your sports writing job. (I doubt it.) The only way that something like sixth-year-election trends is significant is to look at a proper sample, not "what happened last time," which is, at the end of the day, statistically insignificant in terms of establishing a trend. So you go back to FDR's sixth year, say, and work your way forward. Then you have a pattern worth looking at.

 

No, you don't have to go back to FDR, even though that's what the Weekly Standard piece and the Ann Coulter column, whichever you cribbed your argument from, do largely because they're both truthless tools out to fool people. All you have to do is go back to 1958 to discern a very obvious trend:
1958: 49 seats
1966: 47 seats
1974: 49 seats
1986: 5 seats
1998: 5 seats

And then this year.
The only reason to go back to FDR is to phony up an "average" gain that means nothing, given the demographic and gerrymandered changes of the modern electorate.
But thanks for playing, really.

 

No incumbent democrat lost.

Go find the last time that fucking happened.

 

what exactly is "conservative" about the GOP? its massive trade and budget deficits? its contempt for science and separation of church and state? its obsession to get rid of the inheritance tax? its refusal to husband the environment? its habit of labeling political opponents as "unpatriotic"? or its habit of labeling opponents of war as "cut and run" cowards? anything "conservative" about that? seems radical and mean-spirited to me.

 

Actually, Cynthia McKinney, the incumbent racist Congressbitch from Georgia lost in the primary.