audience

There has been so much news lately of how much of a "valuable news source" Matt Drudge is. Let's look at this "valuable" information. Here's two headlines appearing at the top of his page right now:

The original story from Esquire is here. Interesting enough, when you read it you will notice how it is tagged:

Notice that last tag? It says 'humor'. In other words, this piece was a satire piece. Now this story has been up on Drudge for less than 2 hours (3:30pm est), but look at what was added to the article 3 hours before that:

It looks like the field of 2012 GOP candidates are quickly setting up their boogeyman – Sharia law. For years now there has been noise on the right that Sharia law is taking over the country and now that noise is getting louder.

Over at Ben Smith’s blog, he has gathered a sampling of what the GOP 2012 candidates are saying about this. My personal favorite is from Newt:

Newt Gingrich, on sharia: "We should have a federal law that says sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States," Gingrich said to a standing ovation from the audience. The law will let judges know, Gingrich said, that "no judge will remain in office that tried to use sharia law."

Newt’s partly right, except for the fact that he is isolating this law to a single religion – something that would surely fail the Constitution test. Instead a law saying that judges should rule upon the law and the use of any religion in their rulings is grounds for removal from office would be a much better statement and one that would stand up against the first amendment.

Sounds like people were really mad about Hannity not being at the Cincinnati Tea Party tonight:

Several people in the audience shouted “refund!”
[SNIP]
The Tea Party reported about $77,500 in ticket sales. It had budgeted $70,200 in expenses for the event, including security and other costs, officials said. However, there will also likely be extra costs, as the group said in a news release late Thursday that it would honor requests for refunds. It said an e-mail address to request a refund would be set up within 48 hours.

There is a big blame game going on with this also:

Cincinnati Tea Party officials said the idea that they would make money on the event is false.

“The Left drove that story, Fox capitulated to it and left,” said Chris Littleton, a Cincinnati Tea Party spokesman. He criticized Fox for not coming to Tea Party if it had concerns.

Glenn Reynolds is reporting that Hannity’s deal was with the University of Cincinnati:

ANOTHER UPDATE: The Cincinnati Tea Party folks tell me that they had no deal with Hannity — he had a deal with the University of Cincinnati, and they had a deal with the University of Cincinnati, but there was no deal between them.

However a quick look at the UC calendar quickly shows that the event was the Cincinnati Tea Party with Sean Hannity. Also the tickets don’t mention anything about UC sponsoring or arranging the event, just that it was at their arena.

The harassment Democratic members of Congress are receiving while trying to explain healthcare now appears to be a well orchestrated move by right wing groups. Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, two right wing lobbying groups that brought us such hits as the “tea parties” has sent out a memo to supporters which gives pointers such as:

– Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.”

– Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”

– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”

In the dawn of the Gates controversy I was thinking that perhaps someone should call the police. If yelling in your own house is “disturbing the peace”, then yelling and disrupting an informative meeting on one of the most vital issues facing our nation should also be considered such.

A case of little Fox verses big Fox:

The debut show of "Osbournes: Reloaded" could not be seen Tuesday, March 31 by viewers of Cincinnati's Fox19 because the station felt the show was too inappropriate for a potentially younger audience.

Viewers who tuned in at 9:30 p.m. instead heard a message from Fox19's general manager Bill Lanesey.

"After previewing a portion of the program, we did not feel the content was suitable for the time period following 'American Idol,'" Lanesey said. "We estimate that over 100,000 children between the ages of 6 and 11 just finished watching 'Idol,' and we were not comfortable with the idea of exposing those same children to some of the content contained in the Osbourne special.

"We realize that many viewers were looking forward to this program and regret that our decision will prevent you from viewing the special," he said. "It can be viewed anytime after midnight tonight on either fox.com or hulu.com."

Perhaps the people who make these decisions should travel abroad and see what other countries air during their prime time hours. It makes our programming look like TBN. Well that is unless you travel to certain countries – the Muslim ones.

This seems like it is tied to our larger problems as a society. The corporations take it upon themselves to play parent, instead of letting the actual parents do it. Then when kids do act up, we let the police play the role of disciplinarian, instead of the parents. Its creating the problems we are seeing with our youth today.

These Republicans love sinking to new lows. During a debate, Ed Tinsley, a Republican running for NM-2 accused his Democratic rival of wanting to "cut the throats" of our troops. You can view his statement here, which was met with boos by the audience.

Keith Olbermann also caught this outrageous statement and gave Mr. Tinsley the award for worse person in the world last night:

In my earlier post, someone asked a very good question:

I don't really understand how it hurts the Democrats to not have a
nominee yet? It shows how much the Democrats are involved in this
election and wanting things to change.

Let me take a moment to explain further why it's harmful for Democrats to have a long, drawn out nomination for our candidate.

During the primaries the candidates are focusing on winning the nod of their party. That means they are campaigning to the base and trying to rally them behind their platform. This phase of the fight is over for McCain. Now he doesn't have to worry about playing "the most conservative", instead he can focus on getting voters from the Democratic side along with, and the most important, the independent vote.

While McCain is out doing that we will still have Obama and Clinton out trying to cut down one another. Independents won't pay as much attention to that, and everything used by each campaign will get echoed by McCain, who now has a much larger audience.

Now I know some people are thinking "but McCain needs the conservatives". That isn't entirely true. If McCain needed the conservatives so badly, we wouldn't be talking about him being the nominee. McCain has been cleaning house in the latest primaries, so that proves the conservative base isn't as important as once thought. It also means McCain has more time to try and get those conservatives to come over to him, without having to sell out to them. Instead of saying "I am most conservative", he can now say "I am a better choice than the other side".

In elections it's all about equal time. We no longer have that, and every day this nomination process lingers on, the more time McCain has to rally a nation, instead of a base. That's why we need a nominee as soon as possible.

9:15
15 minutes in and everything is about race. I thought we had more issues than just this one. Of course the media is trying to spark another news cycle.

9:20

Hard to make it out but someone was yelling something from the audience about race based questions. It will be nice if someone can catch it and make it out.

So far the three have been very civil to each other. I do like the format and now that other issues are coming up, things should get better.

9:30
We need to start a change drinking game. Every time a candidate says change, take a shot. Wait - I would be passed out by now (and I can drink a lot!)

Hillary and Obama are differing on what the President should do, or how they operate the White House.Obama wants to delegate it more so than Hillary. Hillary's answer to the question seems much more plausible - accepting the accountability of the office and holding to it.

9:33
Brian Williams is asking Obama about internet rumors. Why do these moderators echo these stupid rumors? They are just that - RUMORS. Don't give the people the attention.

9:45
Questioning has turned to the economy. Major concerns over the news that large financial institutions are looking for bail outs overseas. Obama added one of the problems is that we have no energy policy. They all seem to be agreeing on what should be done - including freezing interest rates for 5 years starting now.

Edwards just said he regrets his 2001 vote for the first bankruptcy law. Good move on his part, but the damage has already been done.

9:48
Hillary also said she regrets her vote for the bill, but that is ok because it "didn't become law". Why is it so hard for her to give a mea culpa?

Continue following the coverage here