Sarah Palin Warned Everyone in 2008 That Russia Might Invade Ukraine if Barack Obama Wins Election

Townhall.com:

In October 2008, then-Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin warned that Putin, having been motivated by Obama's lack of response to the Russian invasion of Georgia, would proceed to invade Ukraine if then-Senator Obama was elected to the presidency.

After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next.

Foreign Policy dismissed this warning as "strange" and "far-fetched."

As we've said before, this is an extremely far-fetched scenario. And given how Russia has been able to unsettle Ukraine's pro-Western government without firing a shot, I don't see why violence would be necessary to bring Kiev to heel.

Yesterday, Russia invaded the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine and seized control of two airports.

Seems as though Palin's prediction wasn't too far-fetched after all. 

RELATED:  Russian Parliament Grants Putin Permission to Invade Ukraine

Study Finds That Conservative Women Are Happier Than Liberal Women

Of course they are. A belief in traditional values, self-respect, dedication to family and community, celebration of country, responsibility, self-reliance and initiative as opposed to a Godless agenda that primarily focuses in individualism will do that to you:

Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, has found women’s secret to happiness: be conservative.

Political junkies might be interested to learn that conservative women are particularly blissful: about 40 percent say they are very happy. That makes them slightly happier than conservative men and significantly happier than liberal women. The unhappiest of all are liberal men; only about a fifth consider themselves very happy.

Brooks’ findings come from the University of Chicago’s General Social Survey, a survey of Americans conducted since 1972, which the author says has produced consistent and reliable findings for decades.

In the New York Post, Ramesh Ponnuru writes about another interesting discovery relating to the “happiness” spectrum:

“Women who say they have turned down a promotion or made some other work sacrifice for the sake of their families report high happiness levels.”

I guess that debunks feminists’ insistence that women should put their careers first. Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg wrote a book called Lean In, encouraging women to reach for more leadership roles at the office. This is something to be admired, of course, but not to the extent that it engenders maternal neglect. 

One writer at the New York Times loved Sandberg's book, explaining how it encouraged women not to “hold themselves back” in their careers. So, apparently choosing to be a more visible mother instead of overseeing more employees is “holding one’s self back?” 

Yes, children can often produce just as many headaches as a day at the office, but the difference is the former can be cured with a hug. Instead of focusing on children as burdens, we should focus on the joy they bring to growing families. The bond between a woman and her child is stronger than any bond she can have with her office cubicle. 

This is just one of the differences conservative women seem to understand. 

The Washington Post is casting doubt on Brooks' theory, but to some, the writer's research may not be all that surprising – especially considering some liberals nowadays always seem to be angry about something and offended by everything. 

RELATED: Opinion: Happiness takes faith, family, friends and work

Australian Conservatives Oust Left-Wing Government

WSJ.com:

Australia's incoming Prime Minister Tony Abbott said his conservative administration would move quickly to cut taxes and take swift action to boost the slowing economy as a long mining boom fades.

Sticking closely to the campaign script that won him Saturday's national elections, Mr. Abbott also used his first day as prime minister-elect to restate his promise to scrap an unpopular tax on carbon emissions and to curb the rising tide of asylum seekers. 

Australia elected its first conservative government in six years this weekend, the Liberal National coalition, which handed Kevin Rudd's Labor party its heaviest defeat in decades. The country faces a decelerating economy as the resources boom, fed by industrializing Asia's demand for its raw materials, begins to cool.

"There is border security, there's economic security, and the people expect quite rightly that the incoming government will build a strong and prosperous economy," Mr. Abbott said in a statement Sunday after a briefing from top civil servants. "A very early item of business is scrapping the carbon tax." 

Mr. Abbott has pledged to spend billions on constructing new roads to stimulate growth, even while seeking ways to cut government spending and pay down debt as promised in the election campaign. 

The Liberal Nationals also promised to dispose of the mining tax — a levy first introduced by Mr. Rudd that sought to curb the "excessive" profits of some iron-ore and coal producers. Mr. Abbott also vowed to help the nation's struggling manufacturers by peeling back other taxes and corporate bureaucracy. 

Still, reviving the economy may prove more difficult than Mr. Abbott, who has sought to appeal to voters by mixing populism with traditional conservative values, would have liked. 

Already, economic growth has cooled from the rampant pace set at the height of the mining boom, and is expected to moderate further as China's demand for bulk commodities wanes in tune with its slowdown.

Official figures show Australia's $1.5 trillion economy expanded by 2.6% in the second quarter from a year earlier, compared with 3.7% growth in the same quarter of 2012 and 4.4% in the first quarter of that year.  

RELATED: Victory Down Under: Australian conservatives oust left-wing government

Study Says MSNBC Coverage Almost Entirely Opinionated, While Fox News Includes More Factual Reporting

Branding everything Republican with a "racist" boogeyman, pushing through the anti-God, morally-bankrupt, white, liberal agenda and making sure blacks and Hispanics forever stay on the Democrat plantation...that's MSNBC in a nutshell:

True to its motto, MSNBC has been leaning forward. To the point that its opinionated programming far outweighs its “factual reporting,” according to a new Pew study. While Fox News, too, had more opinionated programming, the network had a much smaller discrepancy between opinion and straight reporting.

The study — which came as part of Pew Research Center’s annual “State of the Media” report — states that opinionated programming comprised 85 percent of MSNBC’s airtime (versus 15 percent of “factual reporting”). Meanwhile, Fox News had opinion 55 percent of the time, with 45 percent straight news.

Of the three cable networks, CNN was the only one where reporting dominated commentary, with 54 percent straight coverage. Since 2007, the study notes that while the networks used to rely “on significantly distinct formats five years ago, the three rivals now look strikingly similar.” 

To compile the report, Pew looked at a half-hour of weekday daytime programming for the first five months of 2007 and 2012, and the first 30 minutes of “general-news focused” evening programs. They “analyzed 6,472 stories over the course of 267 hours of cable programming.”

RELATED:  More Opinions, Better Ratings: Maddow, MSNBC Shouldn’t Be Ashamed Of What The Network Has Become

Joe Scarborough Scolds Paul Krugman For Being a Pompous Jerk and Sighing Like Al Gore

Newsbusters.org:

As NewsBusters reported earlier, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough had quite a heated discussion about the budget, debt, and the economy on PBS's Charlie Rose Monday evening.

Near its conclusion, Scarborough actually scolded Krugman for pompously behaving like a sighing Al Gore (video follows with transcript and commentary)

RELATED: The Deficit Debate: Joe Scarborough And Paul Krugman Face Off, Get Heated On Charlie Rose

Conservative Dr. Benjamin Carson Criticizes Barack Obama To His Face

RELATED: ‘That Guy Has A Lot Of Guts’: The Five Panel Celebrates Conservative Doctor Who Criticized Obama To His Face

Politiks As Usual: In The News 2/4/13

Washington State Considers Final Gender-Neutral Language Bill

Obama Encourages Boy Scouts Of America to End Ban On Gays, Gov. Perry Says Keep It

Why I'm Canceling My Sports Illustrated Subscription

ObamaCare Will Cost Your Family at Least $20,000

Gallup: Conservatives Outnumber Liberals in 47 Out of 50 States

Only Truth in ‘True Life’ is MTV’s Contempt for Conservatives

Wanda Sykes on Super Bowl: 'I'm Gay...Not Rooting for San Francisco Is Like Booing Africa'

White House Brandishes Obama Skeet-Shooting Pic for Reporters

Mother’s Blog Demonstrates Aggressive Atheist Arguments

The Top Ten Reasons Hillary Must Be the Next President

Freedom Of Speech, Religion And Chicken Sandwiches: Respecting Differences Of Opinion

Mediaite.com:

Chick-fil-A is in the middle of a media firestorm after its president, Dan Cathy, told the Baptist Press his company was “guilty as charged” for supporting the traditional family last week. Cathy was labeled a bigot by some, but reading Cathy’s quotes reveals there was nothing hateful in what he said.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit,” he said. “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

Cathy is president of a company that believe “in the importance of loving your neighbor as yourself.” “While my family and I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, we love and respect anyone who disagrees,” he said. In light of these statements, the loaded term “bigot” seems a bit harsh. Of course, you can easily argue the term “supportive of the family” is a coded phrase that implicates that Cathy is not supportive of gay marriage. But it raises the question of whether someone can be pro-traditional marriage without being anti-gay.

Despite not supporting gay marriage, former Republican presidential candidate and Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman will be honord by the LGBT rights group Equality Utah in September at their annual Allies Dinner. While governor, Huntsman did say he supported civil unions for same-sex couples and legislation that protected gays and lesbians from discrimination in the workplace, however. But Brandie Balken, executive director of Equality Utah, told the Salt Lake Tribune honoring Huntsman wasn’t about a particular position he took.

“It’s much more about a person’s presence in the community and ability to create cultural and attitudinal change and truly their presence and their outward demonstration of Equality Utah’s values,” Balken said.

So both Chick-fil-A and Huntsman support traditional marriage, but the former is facing boycotts and the latter is being honored by an LGBT rights group. Everyone is allowed to their own opinion and freedom of speech, and Chick-fil-A hasn’t done anything illegal. There haven’t been any instances of the company discriminating against its employment or customers because of their sexuality at this time. But while we’re afforded freedom of speech, we don’t have the freedom from the consequences of our speech as illustrated by individuals boycotting Chick-fil-A.

The issue of people of faith not supporting gay marriage for religious reasons is reminiscent in some ways to the argument over contraception earlier this year. The ultimate compromise in a debate over a contraceptive coverage policy allowed religious hospitals and universities the freedom to not offer contraception if it violated their religious beliefs. Polls showed a majority of Catholics supported the compromise.

In dealing with issues many feel are moral issues, seeking a compromise and respecting those with differing views is more helpful than throwing around the word “bigot.” Nevada’s Sen. Harry Reid, who converted to Mormonism while in college, offered a solution when he first voiced his support of gay marriage.

“My personal belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman. But in a civil society, I believe that people should be able to marry whomever they want, and it’s no business of mine if two men or two women want to get married,” Reid said.

Like the debate over contraceptive coverage, gay marriage is a theological issue for some. But as Reid said, living in a civil society means that sometimes people will chose to do things with their lives that you wouldn’t chose to do with yours. Whether that means supporting traditional marriage or supporting gay marriage, respecting people of differing opinons and seeking solutions is more helpful than fighting hate with hate.

Really now, the anti-Christian, no-morals-to-speak-of, radical Left is mad that the owner of a privately run, Christian, chicken joint supports traditional marriage...yunno, like most Americans do. Therefore, taking a page from the Saul Alinsky playbook and of course, using the race card, they're even calling those who still believe in the historical definition of marriage being between a man and woman "bigots" while threatening Chick-fil-A with gay "kiss-in"'s and boycotts. Right, and so self-righteous these loons are they actually believe that that kind of stuff will get Christians to finally put down their bibles and listen to the creeds from hypocritical, smug, anti-God, white social liberals instead.

RELATED: Rahm backs down: We never said we’d block Chick-fil-A from Chicago, says spokesman

5 Ways Liberalism Destroys Virtue

Townhall.com:

The more completely a person, group, or organization embraces liberalism, the less virtuous it becomes. It's almost like a mental sickness in that respect. People or groups who are lightly infected can soldier on without having it eat them alive. However, the deeper the sickness goes, the more it changes them. Eventually the liberal disease inside of people can grow so much that it warps their morals, their religious beliefs, and their way of thinking until they can no longer tell right and wrong. This destruction of virtue is a natural consequence of the fundamental beliefs that go along with liberalism.

5) "When one becomes a liberal, he or she pretends to advocate tolerance, equality and peace, but hilariously, they’re doing so for purely selfish reasons. It’s the human equivalent of a puppy dog’s face: an evolutionary tool designed to enhance survival, reproductive value and status. In short, liberalism is based on one central desire: to look cool in front of others in order to get love. Preaching tolerance makes you look cooler, than saying something like, 'please lower my taxes.’" -- Greg Gutfeld

Doing the right thing is often tough. It's hard to take money you could use yourself and give it to charity. It's difficult to hold to a position that you think is best for the country even though some people will think it's "mean." It takes self-denial to ask that the government spend less today so that future generations will still be able to enjoy the American Dream.
Liberals don't have that sort of moral courage. They advocate giving away other people's money and call it being charitable. They take positions that are terrible for the country because they're afraid of criticism and call it bravery. They're willing to sell future generations of Americans into debt bondage so they can have a little more comfort now and they pat themselves on the back for their compassionate "investments."
Liberals aren't actually charitable, courageous, or compassionate; they just claim to be those things by virtue of the fact that they're liberal. In fact, that's one of the major selling points of liberalism: being able to think of yourself as moral and good without the trials and sacrifice that go along with actually being moral and good.

4) "There are no bad guys on the left. There are only people who’ve been driven to desperation by conservative evil." -- Allahpundit

Liberals begin with the proposition that conservatives are unwitting dupes at best and evil at worst while other liberals are on the side of the angels. This leads them to excuse just about any and every behavior from killing cops (Muhammad Abdul Jamal), to terrorist bombings (Bill Ayers), to treason (Jane Fonda) as long as the perpetrator has the right beliefs and is useful to the movement. When you think that the only real crime is disagreeing with your ideology, you can make a hero out of a drunken, disreputable coward who left a woman to die in a tidal pool or even come up with justifications for why it's fine for the Department of Justice to help Mexican cartels get weapons they used to kill more than 300 people as part of some misguided political stunt to encourage gun control.

3) "Liberals have created, and the minority leadership has exploited, a community of dependent people, unaware of the true route to prosperity and happiness: self-reliance and self-investment. Instead, people are told that America is unjust, unfair, and full of disadvantages. They are told that their only hope is for government to fix their problems. What has happened is that generations of people have bought into this nonsense and as a result have remained hopelessly mired in poverty and despair — because the promised solutions don’t work. And they will never work — they never have." -- Rush Limbaugh

Individuality is a necessary condition of morality. When you embrace tribalism based on race, gender, and sexual orientation as the Left does, you inevitably end up embracing a tribal mentality as well. Everyone in your tribe is on "your side” and other people are viewed as "enemies." Most people don't apply the same ethical standards to their enemies as they do to their tribe. That's why we're fine with sending Predator Drones to kill terrorists in Pakistan, but we would riot in the street if the same policy were put in place to target people accused of murder in New Jersey.

RELATED:  Why Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals

Lawrence O'Donnell's Girlfriend Tamron Hall Cuts Conservative’s Mic When He Calls Out Media Coverage of Romney “Bully” Story

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

HotAir.com:

It’s Tim Carney of the Examiner, unable to resist pointing out on air how our very serious media parlays a moronic one-day distraction into a moronic two-day distraction. Day one: Feign outrage over a non-story about something Romney did 50 years ago that’s being pushed for political advantage. Day two: Cite the fact that people are now talking about the non-story as proof that it’s a story worth talking about. Carney hits the first point at the beginning of the segment and then, at around 4:00, hits the second, and it’s all downhill from there. In fact, watch the second vid below to see how the segment ended. Hall didn’t simply dismiss him at the end of the first clip; they kept him around and put him back onscreen at the end of the interview with his audio cut as some sort of visual reprimand. This is what happens, I guess, when you note precisely how the media carries Obama’s water on the unofficial network of Hopenchange 2012.


After you’re done with this, go over to Mediaite and see how another MSNBC show covered the Romney “bully” story today. Maybe that’s why Carney spoke up; maybe he’d been watching the network feed while waiting for his guest shot and could take no more.


Update: An important footnote from Carney per the charge that he was off-topic: “The question I was sent for the Romney bullying segment was ‘Does the story matter?’ So I was answering it, not dodging.”

RELATED: MSNBC host thoughtfully demonstrates what "bullying" looks like

Paul Krugman Pompously Insults Ron Paul And His Supporters

Mediaite.com:

As you may recall, Monday afternoon on Bloomberg TV’s Street Smart, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman got into a heated debate with Congressman Ron Paul. This morning, after he presumably received a great deal of criticism from Paul fans and/or read the general web buzz that declared Paul the victor, Krugman took to his blog to insult the congressman and his fans:

…[P]eople react based on their prejudices. If Ron Paul got on TV and said “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say — his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down; I don’t think my supporters are quite the same, but opinons may differ.

What pomposity. Mr. Krugman’s fans couldn’t possibly be as voracious as Paul’s because Krugman’s are high-minded New York Times subscribers.

Of course opinions will differ. Krugman’s followers can often be just as sycophantic. You have to be sorely out-of-touch to assume that your followers could never be fanatical like some of Ron Paul’s admirers.

But what’s even more unnerving about Krugman’s post is the way he describes Paul’s rhetoric as “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” This is how I imagine Nobel laureate Krugman hears all of his opponents. Dr. Paul, willing to engage a well-known popular economist, brings up serious points about monetary policy (points that have long been made by Nobel laureates like F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman), and Krugman behaves like the child with his fingers in his ears: “Nah, nah, nah, I can’t hear you!”

Krugman, nose firmly pointing upward, describes his debate with Paul as “the perfect illustration of a point I’ve thought about a lot, the uselessness of face-to-face debates.” But contrary to what Krugman may think, the general consensus about the “Paul vs Paul” segment was that it was a truly thoughtful discussion, a refreshing break from the usual talking-heads banter.

He continues on:

Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there’s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?).

No one will call Dr. Paul on it, because he was right about spending cuts after World War II. From 1944 through 1948, the federal government cut spending by roughly 75%. I don’t know how that could be at all ambiguous to Mr. Krugman.

But it seems as though Mr. Krugman feels he is above the shallow art of talking-head debates, and we should all be thankful he came down to our level for roughly 13 minutes of what us little people considered “thoughtful television.”

So if he has such disdain for the process, why did he bother participating?

So why did I do it? Because I’m trying to publicize my book, which does have lots of data and facts…

There we go.

RELATED: Ron Paul Battles Paul Krugman On Bloomberg TV

Paul Ryan Accuses Barack Obama Of Inciting Class Warfare

Source

RELATED: Paul Ryan Takes On Elizabeth Warren And The 99 Percent

Snide Witch Contessa Brewer’s Attempt To Discredit GOP Congressman’s Economic Expertise Backfires

More of this please, especially when it comes from a snide, leftist ideologue posing as a journalist like Contessa Brewer:

Republicans are quickly learning that MSNBC might be the network where they can best make a splash by forcefully challenging the network’s hosts. Yesterday Congressman Joe Walsh took on Chris Matthews in a no holds barred memorable showdown, and this morning Republican Congressman Mo Brooks left Contessa Brewer nearly speechless when he swatted down an implication from her that he didn’t know anything about economics.


The awkward moment for Brewer took place during this exchange:


Brewer: “You’re simplifying the issues that were on the plate of the nation at that point. I mean we were looking at going – averting a Depression at that point, everyone the Fed chairman . . .
Brooks: “Well I disagree that we were going into a Depression, but go ahead.”
Brewer: “Do you have a degree in economics?”
Brooks: “Yes Ma’am I do, highest honors.”


Brooks’ biography backs up his educational claim, in that he “graduated from Duke University in three years with a double major in political science and economics, with highest honors in economics.” Brooks also scored some political points defending the House Republicans budget plan as something concrete, unlike the “speeches and talk in generalities, which is what the President and the White House staff, along with the Senate, are doing.”

RELATED: “Do you have a degree in economics?”

Wisconsin Recount Says Conservative Justice Prosser Won Election

Of course, like a typical leftwing sore loser, Kloppenburg can still take whatever's left of her case to court, but then you'd look like Al Gore and that's just plain ugly:

A grueling statewide recount concluded Friday that Justice David Prosser defeated challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg to win another 10-year term on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a race driven by the debate over Republican Gov. Scott Walker's efforts to curb the union rights of the state's public employees.


The recount that began on April 27 ended Friday afternoon after Waukesha County officials finished tallying their last remaining precincts. Unofficial results showed Prosser had 752,697 votes — 7,006 more than Kloppenburg's 745,691.


State election officials plan to meet on Monday to verify the results. Kloppenburg will then have five days to challenge the results in court.


Kloppenburg issued a statement Friday before the final results were released saying her campaign would review recount records and decide whether to appeal. The statement said the campaign had uncovered "numerous anomalies and irregularities," but did not elaborate. Her campaign raised concerns early during the recount about finding Waukesha County ballot bags unsealed and bags with identification tags that didn't match inspectors' logs.


Prosser spokesman Brian Nemoir issued a statement saying Waukesha County took the extra time to ensure the recount process was transparent and accurate, leaving Kloppenburg with no basis for a challenge.


"The time has come to move on, confident in both our electoral system and Justice Prosser's re-election," he said.

Jon Stewart To Bill O’Reilly: ‘There Is A Selective Outrage Machine Here At Fox’

A couple of years ago I couldn't stand Jon Stewart, but now that he's playing fair calling out BS on both sides of the political spectrum, count me as a fan. O'Reilly does get one good shot in there about Comedy Central being totally Left (unless you want to count "South Park" but that's a reach), but other than that Stewart wipes the floor with him on an issue conservatives had no business getting into in the first place.

Source

Condoleezza Rice Takes Lying Liberal Lawrence O'Donnell To The Cleaners On Saddam Hussein And Iraq

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I mean, did O'Donnell really think he could get away his normal leftist, bully tactics on a woman of high magnitude like Condi Rice? Did he and leftist minions at MSNBC not do their research? I mean the woman's not only the former Secretary of State, but a university professor and Hoover fellow. Not since George Pataki (who's really good at taking down lefties in public debates) have I seen a liberal get taken down like this by a conservative. Rice called out O'Donnell on his lies, schooled him on just how much of a threat Saddam Hussein really was and finally, for good measure, basically told him what a hypocrite he is in comparing liberal support for Libya vs. Iraq. This interview is must-see viewing for any Republican seriously trying to get elected President in 2012. Really now, this is How To Take Down A Self-Righteous Liberal 101.

Andrew Breitbart Blasts Leftwing Bias Of MSNBC

Mediaite.com:

Internet provocateur and cultural-political curator Andrew Breitbart is currently on a rather major promotional tour touting his new book Righteous Indigination. Part of his rhetoric has focused on what he has called the “Democratic media complex,” so it seemed an odd image to see Breitbart actually on MSNBC this afternoon, as host Martin Bashir sat down with the network’s nemesis, in what turned out to be a very entertaining clash interview.


RealClearPolitics sums up the confrontational exchange:


MSNBC’s Martin Bashir asked Breitbart to denounce several racist items, even one that had nothing to do with him. When Bashir accused Breitbart of being connected to racist writer Kevin Pezzi, the interview hit the fan.


Breitbart finally had enough of the equivalent to badgering a witness on the stand and called Bashir out. “You didn’t read my book, Media Matters read it for you,” he told Bashir. Bashir laughed the accusation off, but the Pezzi story was prominently featured at Media Matters’ website.


“Every point that you offered is straight out of George Soros’ funded and John Podesta’s led Media Matters. You are playing the rule of being duped by John Podesta and Eric Boehlert and Media Matters. Every time I appear on MSNBC, or a lot of times, there is Eric Boehlert from Media Matters to be right there. Those are talking points straight out of Media Matters,” Breitbart told Bashir.


Credit to MSNBC for booking Breitbart, and for rightfully challenging him on a number of reasonable points. However, Bashir appeared aloof and above-it-all in a manner that seemed to support Breitbart’s charge of media elitism. For a more in-depth interview, please check out Breitbart’s Frances Martel, though there is much less frustration and ire in the Mediaite interview, than the sit-down with Martin Bashir…which you can watch below, courtesy of MSNBC:

Radically Leftist Group Media Matters Admits Obsession With FOX News

What's funny about this is that they really seem to think they have a chance to bring down the nation's No. 1 news channel, much less make a dent in 'em. But as we've learned in recent past, not many people outside of Media Matters seem to care what they think. Why? Because most non-liberals know bullshit when they see it:

The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.


The group, launched as a more traditional media critic, has all but abandoned its monitoring of newspapers and other television networks and is narrowing its focus to Fox and a handful of conservative websites, which its leaders view as political organizations and the “nerve center” of the conservative movement. The shift reflects the centrality of the cable channel to the contemporary conservative movement, as well as the loathing it inspires among liberals — not least among the donors who fund Media Matters’ staff of about 90, who are arrayed in neat rows in a giant war room above Massachusetts Avenue.


“The strategy that we had had toward Fox was basically a strategy of containment,” said Brock, Media Matters’ chairman and founder and a former conservative journalist, adding that the group’s main aim had been to challenge the factual claims of the channel and to attempt to prevent them from reaching the mainstream media.


The new strategy, he said, is a “war on Fox.”


In an interview and a 2010 planning memo shared with POLITICO, Brock listed the fronts on which Media Matters — which he said is operating on a $10 million-plus annual budget — is working to chip away at Fox and its parent company, News Corp. They include its bread-and-butter distribution of embarrassing clips and attempts to rebut Fox points, as well as a series of under-the-radar tactics.


Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Fox’s top executives but on a series of midlevel officials. It has hired an activist who has led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid Glenn Beck’s show. The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox to file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy or other causes. And it has hired two experienced reporters, Joe Strupp and Alexander Zaitchik, to dig into Fox’s operation to help assemble a book on the network, due out in 2012 from Vintage/Anchor. (In the interest of full disclosure, Media Matters last month also issued a report criticizing “Fox and Friends” co-host Steve Doocy’s criticism of this reporter’s blog.)

Neil Cavuto Tells Chris Matthews To Shove His Condescending Comments About Chris Christie Up His Ass

Source

Megyn Kelly Spars With Anthony Weiner On Obama's Deal For Tax Cuts

Mediaite.com:

It seems you just can’t shake the cool from Fox’s Megyn Kelly. We know, because on America Live today, Rep. Anthony Weiner gave it his best shot.


In a eleven minute segment that started as a discussion of President Obama’s deal on tax cuts, a very testy Weiner criticized the president for “not fighting hard enough.”


But as the conversation drifted to the estate tax, Weiner seemed to have no patience for Kelly herself, interrupting, sighing, looking away, clapping his hands and clearly crossing the line into condescension:


KELLY: You mentioned the estate tax twice, so I do want to ask you about it. The argument from the other side is that it’s a morally corrupt tax. I don’t have a five million dollar estate–I’d like to some day–but if I work all my life and I pay my taxes on my income and then I die and I want to pass on what would be great if it were a five million dollar estate to my kids, why should I pay the government again? Why should there be a 35 or 45 or 55 percent tax on that again?


WEINER: You aren’t paying anything in that case because you’ll be dead.


KELLY: The estate is, and that’s less for my children.


WEINER: The only question is… look.


KELLY: No, you’re not… Answer my question. How is that fair?


WEINER: Megyn, Megyn… Megyn, you’re going to have to let me answer the question. We’re going to have a conversation that gets us anywhere.


KELLY: Go ahead.


WEINER: The only question here is not whether or not there should be a tax on that, the question is where the limit should be and how much should…


KELLY: No, I’ll ask the question and you’re not answering. Just tell me how it’s fair.


Weiner, who never did answer that question, opted to pause, look around the Capitol and clap his hands before returning to camera and asking, “Ready?”


You get the feeling Weiner might’ve walked off after the interview and kicked a garbage can. And yet through it all, Kelly kept cooler than most of us can even get on vacation. It’s a clip that’s definitely worth a look, from Fox: