Rush and Bill

Successful comedians who talk politics are all left wing. There is not a single, successful standup comedian who talks conservative. In fact, even the putatively “blue collar comedians” make fun of the right wing core. You know you’re a redneck if….

It’s not like the right wingers haven’t tried. The most “successful” attempt was supposed to be the Right’s version of the Daily Show, the1/2 Hour News Hour. It was embarrassingly bad. Really painful to watch. They used unrealistic canned laughter trying to make the most witless comment seem hilarious. There was also a Youtube show called NewsBusters. Equally bad. If it wasn’t for canned laughs, they wouldn’t have no laughs at all. 

If there was a single right wing comedian in the United States who was slightly funny poking at the Left, would he not have a show on Fox? Of course. They just can’t find one.

Successful talk show pundits like Limbaugh, on the other hand, are all right wingers. The Left made an attempt with Air America, but it went bankrupt. Couldn’t even make ends meet. 

Talk shows are powered by anger. No one is angrier than a Tea Partier. 

In a way, anger and humor are the two sides of the same coin. They are both valid means of political expression. They are also ways of dealing with the emotions of politics. Yelling and laughing are both cathartic. 

Why is there no money in conservative humor? Some argue that humor tends to be an attack on the big guy. It is unseemly to attack the little guy, and therefore, not funny. Some say poking fun at the establishment is just funnier because the establishment is stuffier.

But I believe it is solely a function of readily available material. Religion. Sexual hypocrisy. Palin. Bachmann. Perry. Cain. Trump. Gingrich. Santorum. Not only does the right wing keep supplying material, they even create conspiracy theories to explain why they keep supplying material. Limbaugh got Fluked, they say, because he was set up by the Democrats. And they prove it showing her associations with Democrats. She pals around with Democrats.

I don’t have anything against anger. I think it is a rational response to much of our political system. The Left uses it too. Humor and anger are two ways to emotionally express our plight. But they are very different. Humor comes from truth. It is the recognition of a surprising connection that causes the laugh. If you do not agree with the connection, you do not laugh. 

While anger can come from the truth, it can come from lies as well. In fact, angry people will forgive lies, even when they see them. The dishonesty that comes from anger is not always intentional. One may become blind with rage. One does not become blind with laughter.

Another difference is that laughter is much harder to create. Those with no sense of humor have trouble with this distinction. Glenn Beck once bragged that he could do his show with only two writers, while Jon Stewart had 15. Really. He thought his show was comparable to The Daily Show, and he thought that the more he talked, the more he had to say. 

This is the difference between Limbaugh and Maher. Maher is making money being funny. When he directs a negative naughty word toward Palin or Bachmann, the point of the jab is not the naughty word. When he called Palin a “dumb twat,” (the audience gave a friendly groan) he was connecting to her long history of embarrassing ignorance, a characterization that was, first and foremost, established by women, Tina Fey and Katie Couric. In doing so, Maher distinguished other women, those who are laughing with him, from Palin. Those women who laughed with Maher were elevated. This is the opposite of misogyny. 

Limbaugh called Sarah Fluke a slut and a prostitute, and then he continued calling her a slut and a prostitute for three days. You do not get more laughter by repeating the same joke for three days. Thus, it was not humor. Furthermore, he was calling all women sluts if they engaged in recreational sex. And he was lying to do it. He lied about Flukes’s testimony, and he lied about his own views. So far as we know, Rush Limbaugh is either shooting blanks, or he has never engaged in procreational sex. Either way, Rush would be a slut, except there is no such thing as a male slut.

There is a very simple way to determine whether either or both are misogynists. Let the women decide. If they boycott the products advertised on Maher’s show, then he must change his ways. But women do not consider Bill Maher a misogynist. If they did, we would have heard about his abuse of women before Fox decided to defend Limbaugh by attacking Maher. The uproar against Rush was powered by social media, not the mainstream media. 

Maher does not want a feminist jihad to destroy Limbaugh with an advertiser boycott, because he knows how unfair such an effort can be. But I think he would agree that Limbaugh makes way too much money for what he does. So let’s compromise. Keep Limbaugh on the air, but let’s reduce his salary to somewhere in the 99%.

So now Louis C. K. quit the Radio & Television Congressional Correspondents Dinner, apparently because Scientologist Van Sustern started screaming he is a misogynist, too. She is not afraid for women. She is concerned about having another national showcase for humiliating humor at the expense of Fox News. She wants the media to find a conservative comedian as its representative. 

After thorough research, I suggest Fox favorite, Brad Stine. Look him up on Youtube. Try to watch 10 minutes. You will be begging for few “twats” and “bimbos.”

Peggy Noonan: Republican Hoper

In her Wall Street Journal column of June 25, 2011, Peggy Noonan again expresses hope for the Republican Party in the presidential race of 2012. She is still dying to find a good reason. 

In her April 14 column, entitled “Obama Is Likely to Lose,” Peggy cited polls showing the effect of the economy on Obama’s numbers. All the GOP has to do is nominate someone who is not “strange, extreme, or barely qualified.” She was sure Republicans would eventually come to this position, as they have always done so in the past. That week, the Republican frontrunner was Donald Trump.

In her May 13 column, Peggy chose to highlight three potential candidates, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, and Newt Gingrich. She pushed Christie, nudged Daniels, and relegated Newt to future cabinet status, where he will clearly be useful given all of his genius ideas. Christie and Daniels have since refused to run, and while Newt is still in, it is only for the cheap advertising to sell his books and DVDs.

On June 11, in her column entitled “Someone Had a Good Week,” Peggy reluctantly resigned herself to Romney’s eventual victory in the primaries. She predicted he would overcome his health care past by boring the electorate with detailed analysis, and assured us that his religion would not be a problem. Since that time, a Gallup Poll showed that 18% of Republicans and 27% of Democrats say they will never vote for a Mormon.

The following week, Peggy saw hope in own her sigh of relief after the New Hampshire debate. In her column “Republicans Return to Reality,” she said she was pleasantly surprised that the candidates did not embarrass her. She was especially relieved about Michele Bachmann, who did not come across as obviously “strange, extreme, and barely qualified.” And when T-Paw did not measure up, Mitt held on to his image as the middle-of-the-road frontrunner.

This week, Peggy is hopeful because a Gallup Poll shows that 50% of Republicans are strategic voters, i.e., they favor a candidate who has the best chance of beating Obama, while only 44% favor a candidate who matches their views on the issues. Why this poll gives Peggy comfort is a bit mystifying. Here is Gallup’s “Bottom Line.”

Americans' reluctance to support a Mormon for president has held close to the 20% level since Gallup first measured this in 1967, and long after historical biases against voting for blacks, Catholics, Jews, and women have dwindled.

Currently, 18% of Republicans say they would not vote for their party's nominee if that person happened to be Mormon. This may be less troubling for Romney in the GOP primaries, where the vote could be highly fractured anyway, than in the general election, where -- should he win the Republican nomination -- he would need nearly complete support from Republicans to be competitive with President Obama….

Does anyone seriously believe Romney will get “nearly complete support from Republicans” after adding in his record on health care, abortion, and gay marriage? While it is true that he has held the “correct” positions for a while now, can he convince almost all Republicans that he is true Red? Will the 44%, who prefer a candidate who is unlikely to beat Obama, vote for the candidate who is most likely to beat Obama, because he is most like Obama?

If we slice this poll another way, only 27% of the “strategic voters” think that Romney is the one most likely to beat Obama. Sixteen percent think that Sarah Palin has the best chance, 9% think Cain is the man, 6% favor Santorum, and 4% each for Newt and Bachmann. In other words, according to that poll, about 40% of the Republicans think that a “strange, extreme, or barely qualified” candidate is better strategically than Romney. 

I would like to remind Peggy of the town hall meetings which were infected by Tea Baggers in 2009. The “debates” were very close to physical fights. Were any of those people fighting for Romney Care? Under what scenario do these people become Romney supporters in the general election?

Michele Bachmann gave the Tea Party response to Obama’s State of the Union address, because she thinks the author of the Ryan Plan is too moderate. If Romney is the Republican nominee, I see a tea party candidate. 

He who forgets history is doomed to rewrite it.

So I was talking to my retired English professor friend at the YMCA, and he commented that MSNBC is the same as Fox News, just opposites politically. 

I replied, "Fox News lies. MSNBC does not. The liberals really believe what they say."

He said, “What about Rachel Maddow. She is the same as Hannity.

I said, “ Maddow believes what she says. Hannity lies.

He said, “Oh she does the same thing.”

I said, “ Give me one example.”

He said, “What, I’m being cross-examined?” 

I am a lawyer. I said, “I can give you an example of Hannity lying as he facilitated Palin’s lying, and very slickly at that. Almost as if it had been scripted.”

And I described this interview:

Palin: Todd's isn't a registered Republican..
Hannity: He's part of that group that wanted to secede from the Union. (doing quote sign to mock the suggestion.)
Palin: (Laughing) Oh, yeah. Supposedly. Right. But, um...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOg5cOKQd1I&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The Professor replied, “Just because he belonged to the AIP does not mean he believed in everything they said, nor does it mean that the AIP advocates the same thing now, that it advocated when it started.

Confident that he was wrong, since AIP stands for Alaska Independence Party, I picked up my iPad and demonstrably looked for the AIP Wikipedia article, and I found:

"Since its founding, the AIP has radically changed with respect to the issue of secession. At present, it does not support secession, though, at its founding, it did. "

I said, “I guess I was wrong. Maybe Hannity didn’t lie.”

Being proven wrong puts a knot in my stomach, and as the day wore on, I kept thinking about the phrasing of that quote. It just seemed odd that a reliable article would say a group had “radically changed.” And the sentence structure seemed odd. So I went to the AIP site, and I found its “Basic Questions” page. It began:

Q: What is the Alaskan Independence Party?

A: An Alaskan political party whose members advocate a range of solutions to the conflicts between federal and local authority; from advocacy for state's rights, through a return to territorial status, all the way to complete independence and nationhood status for Alaska.

It continued:

Q: If Alaska were independent, what would happen to my social security check, federal pension, or military retirement?

A: People receive these checks around the world, regardless of their place of residence. In most cases eligibility for such checks would not be affected by Alaskan independence.

In other words, you shouldn’t worry about not getting money from the Feds. The only difference is you won’t have to pay in.

Then this:

Q: Didn't we vote for statehood already?

A: The vote for statehood was invalid because the people were not presented with the range of options available to them. Further, the federal government has since breached the contract for statehood on numerous occasions in over a dozen serious and substantial instances.

***

Q: Would I lose my U.S. citizenship?

A: Depending on the form of independence, several forms of citizenship would be possible, including the retention of U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship. However, considering the moral, educational, and economic decay of the U.S., Alaskans' who hold themselves to a higher standard might very well decide to at least maintain an arm's length distance from a country in decline.

In other words, there has been no radical change; the AIP still advocates secession.

Then, I read in Wikipedia that the founder, Joe Vogler 

disappeared under suspicious circumstances in May 1993, just weeks before he was scheduled to give a speech to the United Nations on Alaskan independence, sponsored by the government of Iran. 

Bizarre as that image may be, it is the date of his death that is the point. Todd Palin joined the AIP in 1995. In other words, even if AIP has “radically changed,” how likely is it that it had done so within 2 years of its founder’s death? 

Besides, the Palin/Hannity lie wasn’t just that Todd Palin was not a secessionist. Palin/Hannity claimed that Todd’s chosen political party was never secessionist. And their underlying lie was that the Lamestream Media was lying about Todd and the AIP. 

Returning to the Wikipedia quote:

Since its founding, the AIP has radically changed with respect to the issue of secession. At present, it does not support secession, though, at its founding, it did.

It appears that a Palin advocate has altered the history of AIP on Wikipedia, just as they tried in the Paul Revere incident. The next question is, how much more history have the Palinistas rewritten?

Schoolmarm, Madam Back Mitt for Sheriff

It is official. The search for a new sheriff is over. Despite the stagecoach rumors, Christie and Daniels never even showed up. Huckabee is making too much money preachin’ in that big church at the edge of town, and let’s face it, he could never handle a six shooter. Michelle Bachmann don’t know how to saddle a horse. Gingrich shot himself in both feet, so his wife took his gun away. Pawlenty's too skinny. Some say Santorum rides side-saddle. Sarah Palin is in a wild west travelin show, doin’ ridin’ tricks, shootin in the air and ringin’ bells. Herman Cain? C’mon. He talks good, unless you really listen, but he has never even ridden a horse. Besides, he can’t command the respect of the deputies. He just don’t look right, if you catch my drift. We all like Ol' Ron Paul, but you can’t scare Obama and his men by ridin' that old nag and carryin' that big lance.

Now, word is that crazy rancher, Rick Perry, has been spotted on the rise outside town, sitting tall in the saddle, just watching. Can’t tell from here, but he might be headed this way. He looks good from a distance, but people say he and his drunken hands have been making trouble in other towns.

Some say we have to act before Perry gets here. So schoolmarm, Peggy Noonan, and local saloon madam, Ann Coulter, have joined forces and resigned themselves to the city slicker, Mitt Romney, as the best hope for bringing back law and order in 2012. 

Miss Noonan began her resignation speech by asserting that Romney just had his first good week. This may not be a good sign, as he's been running since 2005, but Miss Noonan’s excitement is unrestrained. “He had a reasonable announcement speech followed by a lot of national interviews.” And although Sarah Palin upstaged him by making a stop a few miles up the road just to suck attention from this announcement, this only served to display the contrast between “Crazytown [and] the man of sober mien.” 

Madam Coulter, on the other hand, loves Crazytown. But she doesn’t want her to run, because she knows Crazytown can’t outdraw Obama. How do you get a “fabulous” potential candidate not to run? Tell her, “You won’t be happy as president. Even Senator is much more fun. Stick with the wild west show. Trust me.” We all know Miss Palin is too proud to handle the truth. 

But there are rumblings on the right about Coulter’s endorsement of Romney. She has been doing interviews to hawk her new pamphlet, Demonic. (This one attacks the Left and touts the moral superiority of the Right.) When she visited right wing radio stations on her tour, historically favorable territory, she was attacked for supporting Romney in 2008. She responded by comparing their attacks against Romney to birtherism. At the 2011 CPAC, Coulter changed her tune, announcing, “I’ll put it in a nutshell. If we don’t run Christie, Romney will be the nominee, and we will lose.” (Coulter loves Christie’s theory for belt-tightening--make the fat cats fatter.) But she has since changed again, and even claims to be confident that Romney will win, because, as she puts it, anybody can beat Obama with this economy.

I don’t mean to imply that Coulter is head over heels for Romney, particularly given his Achilles heel of Romneycare. As she put it, “Romney isn’t a disaster.” But Coulter sometimes makes statements casting doubt on her commitment, as she recently distinguished the personal attacks inflicted by liberals on Palin from the substantive attacks conservatives make, by stating, “We don’t like Obama because of Obamacare.” Is this not a case of cognitive dissonance, or does she really believe Romney “tricked liberals into voting for him?”

The question is whether the real GOP will support Romney in the general election. There are the additional problems of Romney backing abortion rights, adoption by gay couples, and science showing man-made global warming. But, as Miss Noonan recognizes, the most important problem may be that he is a Mormon.

Miss Noonan is upset that Piers Morgan interrogated Romney on his religious beliefs. “It's not something we do in America. Because we still have a little class.” Noonan is dishonest in her suggestion that religion is not important to Republican voters. It is the most important thing to many. But she is correct in the sense that most American reporters probably think it is inappropriate to question the religion of a politician. But Morgan is British. Most Brits are agnostics. They believe in evolution. The mainstream media in Great Britain assume most intelligent people are nonbelievers. Thus, Tony Blair was roundly attacked by the British press for using his religious beliefs as guidance in governance, especially on Iraq. In preparation for this interview, Morgan undoubtedly learned a little more about the Mormon religion, and while an atheist will find all religious beliefs incredible, he will likely find the Mormon beliefs even more incredible. In other parts of the world, fundamental beliefs, especially when they are aberrant, are fair ground in an interview.

Miss Noonan says Catholics like her don’t have a problem with Mormons. She begs the evangelicals to take the same position, since “...[I]t is absurd and ignorant not to support a political figure only because” he is, in the words of Ann Coulter, a member of a “wacky religion.” Miss Coulter agrees. But Miss Noonan and Miss Coulter seem to ignore a couple thing about evangelicals. First, they are absurd and ignorant. Second, the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible, and evangelicals don’t like that.

The most successful play on Broadway today is The Book of Mormon, which is described by its creators as “an atheist's love letter to religion." I assume it will be made into a movie. While not overly offensive to the Mormon elders so far, the creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, also make a cartoon called South Park, which had a slightly harsher episode portraying the beginning of the Mormon religion. The refrain through the episode was, “Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb,” as in, Mormonism was created by a con-man from New York in 1830, and his claim to divine inspiration can fairly be described as so ludicrous that it could fool only those who are, well, very dumb. This episode is probably the primary source of information on Mormonism for those under 30. If Romney becomes the Republican nominee, this South Park episode could go viral among evangelicals. Cats and dogs, living together.

But the schoolmarm and the saloon madam have, for the time being, agreed. We can have peace in town. All we have to do is get the church ladies and the cow hands together on Saturday night. And to do that, we just have to agree on the place, the food, the drink, and the entertainment. Should be no problem.

Peggy Noonan: Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton.

Obama cannot hide his contempt for far right politicians. They know he does not like them in a very personal way. The problem is partly experiential. Obama's upbringing wasn't provincial enough.  Bill Clinton, on the other hand, grew up among Southern racists, and understood them, even liked some of them. Peggy says this enabled Clinton to fake it, and therefore able to create personal relationships with the likes of Newt Gingrich, and get things done. 

It seems like only yesterday when Newt and Bill worked together, hand in hand, to prevent the government shutdown, end the Whitewater investigation, not to mention the attempted impeachment. 

But it isn’t just experience that distinguishes Obama from Clinton. Obama’s nature is the problem in the current debt-ceiling fight. He cannot get Republicans to compromise, because he can’t get warm and fuzzy with them and cajole them, because he is

...different, not a political practitioner, really, but something else, and not a warm-blooded animal, but a cool, chill character, a fish who sits deep in the tank and stares stilly, at other fish.

So how can Obama overcome his predaceous, cold-blooded, pre-reptilian essence? By giving in to the Republicans by slashing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. If you can’t con them, join them, she says.

Here is the problem, according to the Catholic scold. We cannot default, so the debt limit has to be raised. But we have to look responsible by reducing the deficit when we do it. There are two ways to reduce a deficit--cut spending and increase revenues. Therefore, we cannot raise the debt limit without making cuts of $2.4 trillion. Why? Where? Peggy never really says. But if Obama does what the Republicans want, a crisis will be averted. In fact, if Obama capitulates, he will go down in history as The Crisis Averter, who can claim to be a centrist, and work in good faith with the Republicans. 

What about reducing the deficit by raising taxes on the wealthy? Scarlette Noonan replies, “I can't think about that right now. If I do, I'll go crazy. I'll think about that tomorrow.” (Ok, she really said, “...fight that out later.”)

Maybe I'm a liberal, but I have to ask, why cut spending today, and talk about taxes tomorrow? Because, Peggy says, “the polls are all over the place.” Really? Some recent polls show public support for ending Medicare in order to keep the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy? Peggy Noonan has trouble getting through a column without some prevarication, but this is such an obvious whopper, one wonders if she has an editor. Of course, there is no citation to any such study. 

Let me be clear. All recent polls show overwhelming support for raising taxes on the wealthy rather than cutting the social safety net. So, Peggy really wants Obama to give in to the Republicans in Congress even though they are on the wrong side politically, so that he will be on the wrong side, too. 

Now I understand the metaphor. Obama the fish sat there staring, motionless. The warm-blooded, Republican fish stared back. Finally, the Republicans, being warm-blooded, couldn’t stand it anymore, and they started moving, slowly and individually at first, then schooling, faster and faster, up and around, then suddenly up, out of the water, with the Ryan Plan. They got netted in New York 26. This caused people to talk, and the more people talk about killing Medicare, the more people hate it. Cutting the safety net landed the GOP in the fish net.This could end the GOP as we know it. Someone needs to save it. 

If only a mammalian politician, like Bill Clinton, was President. He could trick the Republicans back into reality. He could save them by getting them to compromise. But since Obama is incapable of human emotion, and therefore, unable to really connect with Mike Pence, the only way to save the GOP is to give Mike Pence everything he wants.

If he doesn't, Peggy says, Obama will go down in history as the president who inherited a Republican-created mess, and “made things worse” by not continuing their policies. 

Really. That’s what she said.

I was having post-golf dinner with a buddy, who is fairly intelligent for a Christian conservative, and he mentioned the John Edwards indictment. I responded that John Ensign will probably be indicted, too. He asked who Ensign was. 

“He just resigned in a sex scandal involving Tom Coburn,” I responded.

Blank look.

I said, “You are aware of the special election in New York yesterday?”

“Of course.”

“Do you know why there is a special election?”

“No.”

“Craigslist? Shirtless picture? Tranny sex? Any of this ring a bell?”

Blank look.

Maybe I'm a liberal, but in my opinion, a lawyer, with 19 years of education, who considers himself well-informed, should know when a United States Senator resigns in disgrace, for any reason, but especially if it's for Tranny sex. When we go on our annual golf trip, this friend always puts Fox News on, so I suspected there might be a connection. So I went to Foxnews.com and ran a search for John Ensign. The search produces a selection of videos on top, with text stories listed below. The text stories were fairly appropriate, listing the referral to DOJ and possible Sharron Angle run to replace him, as well as other articles on the scandal. 

But the four video thumbnails in the search results were of Ensign on tax cuts, John Edwards’ sex scandal, tornado damage to Joplin, MO, and the sex charges against the former head of the IMF. 

There is a link above these thumbnails for “more videos of John Ensign,” so I clicked. Through the first three pages of 10 videos each on “John Ensign,” Fox News had no videos of John Ensign except the first one showing his interview on tax cuts, and another dealing with the “tax compromise.” It wasn’t until the fourth page of videos that the sex scandal was mentioned, and even then it was a clip from 2009 followed immediately by three favorable videos of Ensign interviews on tax and budget issues. 

I figure this must be a problem with the algorithm, finding “John” instead of “John Ensign,” so I did a search only for “Ensign.” This time, the first page of video results has the video from 2009, but the rest are Ensign interviews repeating various Republican talking points. I click on the next page, and 4 more videos are presented. That is all there is. There were no videos of the Ensign scandal, his resignation, his successor’s appointment--nothing, except a side mention in a segment on Governor Sanford hiking the Appalachian Trail. 

Maybe there is a problem with the Fox News search engine, I thought, so I ran a search for Fox News video on Youtube, Google, Bing, and Yahoo. Each produced numerous videos on Ensign’s sex scandal. Almost all of them were from other networks. But I could see in the thumbnails that a couple of the videos were from Fox. I clicked. They were local Fox affiliate reports. No actual FoxNews videos to be found.

How about former Congressman Chris Lee? The results were eerily similar. Headlines on FoxNews search results show coverage of the sex scandal in text, but when it comes to video, it is almost a total blackout. There is a mention of Lee in one video, but it is a piece on the election to replace him. 

I decided to be more specific in my FoxNews.com search, so I ran “congressman chris lee scandal.” No videos come up on that topic. Instead, I got videos on medicare and “Efforts to Stem the Hiring of Illegal Immigrants,” “Herman Cain Talks Campaign Strategy,” and “Deadly Twister Rocks Arkansas Town.” 

I type "Chris Lee" in Google, and the first suggestion for completion is "Shirtless." I put "Chris Lee" in Bing, Youtube, and Yahoo--nothing but sex and consequences. 

My conclusion from this study is that the public is interested in sexual misconduct by Republicans, and Fox News fails to satisfy this interest. Either those who watch Fox News are sexually and/or politically aberrant, and Fox News has chosen to appeal to an aberrant group, or Fox News has chosen to conceal such news, in spite of its viewers' normal desires. 

Or perhaps Fox News has decided, on principle, to avoid titillation in favor of hard news. 

Naah.

Fox News and Republican Sex Scandals

I was having post-golf dinner with a buddy, who is fairly intelligent for a Christian conservative, and he mentioned the John Edwards indictment. I responded that John Ensign will probably be indicted, too. He asked who Ensign was. 

“He just resigned in a sex scandal involving Tom Coburn,” I responded.

Blank look.

I said, “You are aware of the special election in New York yesterday?”

“Of course.”

“Do you know why there is a special election?”

“No.”

“Craigslist? Shirtless picture? Tranny sex? Any of this ring a bell?”

Blank look.

Maybe I'm a liberal, but in my opinion, a lawyer, with 19 years of education, who considers himself well-informed, should know when a United States Congressman resigns in disgrace, for any reason, but especially if it's for Tranny sex. When we go on our annual golf trip, this friend always puts Fox News on, so I suspected there might be a connection. So I went to Foxnews.com and ran a search for John Ensign. The search produces a selection of videos on top, with text stories listed below. The text stories were fairly appropriate, listing the referral to DOJ and possible Sharron Angle run to replace him, as well as other articles on the scandal. 

But the four video thumbnails in the search results were of Ensign on tax cuts, John Edwards’ sex scandal, tornado damage to Joplin, MO, and the sex charges against the former head of the IMF. 

There is a link above these thumbnails for “more videos of John Ensign,” so I clicked. Through the first three pages of 10 videos each on “John Ensign,” Fox News had no videos of John Ensign except the first one showing his interview on tax cuts, and another dealing with the “tax compromise.” It wasn’t until the fourth page of videos that the sex scandal was mentioned, and even then it was a clip from 2009 followed immediately by three favorable videos of Ensign interviews on tax and budget issues. 

I figure this must be a problem with the algorithm, finding “John” instead of “John Ensign,” so I did a search only for “Ensign.” This time, the first page of video results has the video from 2009, but the rest are Ensign interviews repeating various Republican talking points. I click on the next page, and 4 more videos are presented. That is all there is. There were no videos of the Ensign scandal, his resignation, his successor’s appointment--nothing, except a side mention in a segment on Governor Sanford hiking the Appalachian Trail. 

Maybe there is a problem with the Fox News search engine, I thought, so I ran a search for Fox News video on Youtube, Google, Bing, and Yahoo. Each produced numerous videos on Ensign’s sex scandal. Almost all of them were from other networks. But I could see in the thumbnails that a couple of the videos were from Fox. I clicked. They were local Fox affiliate reports. No actual FoxNews videos to be found.

How about former Congressman Chris Lee? The results were eerily similar. Headlines on FoxNews search results show coverage of the sex scandal in text, but when it comes to video, it is almost a total blackout. There is a mention of Lee in one video, but it is a piece on the election to replace him. 

I decided to be more specific in my FoxNews.com search, so I ran “congressman chris lee scandal.” No videos come up on that topic. Instead, I got videos on medicare and “Efforts to Stem the Hiring of Illegal Immigrants,” “Herman Cain Talks Campaign Strategy,” and “Deadly Twister Rocks Arkansas Town.” 

I type "Chris Lee" in Google, and the first suggestion for completion is "Shirtless." I put "Chris Lee" in Bing, Youtube, and Yahoo--nothing but sex and consequences. 

My conclusion from this study is that the public is interested in sexual misconduct by Republicans, and Fox News fails to satisfy this interest. Either those who watch Fox News are sexually and/or politically aberrant, and Fox News has chosen to appeal to an aberrant group, or Fox News has chosen to conceal such news, in spite of its viewers' normal desires. 

Or perhaps Fox News has decided, on principle, to avoid titillation in favor of hard news. 

Naah.