Republican Mitt Romney will not run for president in '16

[lifeincnx]

Not worry. If you were able to decipher her meandering, word-salad speech given at the Iowa 'Freedom' Summit,with a heard of other GOP hopefuls who will never be President, Sarah Palin said not once but twice she may run in 2016. Christmas came early.

[Chicog]

I am a Romney fan and it was a tragedy that he was not elected in 2012, but I think that he made the right decision and I am glad that he decided not to run. The democrats had already slimed him so badly with lies and distortions in the last election, that no matter what a good, competent leader he is, I don't think that he could have won.

I just have to laugh in disbelief. Do you suffer from confirmation bias, or did you just not see a single attack ad aimed at Obama?

[Chicog]

Think again. Fox News does not conduct its own polls and the respondents are chosen at random. They are not Fox News viewers. They are as accurate and reputable as any other major poll.

The Fox News Poll is directed by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research ®. The poll is conducted via telephone among a nationally representative sample of approximately 900 registered voters. Of the completed interviews, roughly 650 are conducted with respondents on landlines and 250 with respondents on cell phones.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/07/fox-news-poll-methodology-statement/

At least they are honest for those that can be bothered to look closer.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and question order can influence poll results.

[Donnie Brasco]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Bottom line is that no one really likes Romney. I rarely hear anyone say anything good about the guy.

And you look at things "objectively"? What a joke. The latest poll had Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney dead even. Somebody must like him. alt=rolleyes.gif>

That's from a FOX News poll - so you're right, somebody does like Romney.

Think again. Fox News does not conduct its own polls and the respondents are chosen at random. They are not Fox News viewers. They are as accurate and reputable as any other major poll.

The Fox News Poll is directed by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research ®. The poll is conducted via telephone among a nationally representative sample of approximately 900 registered voters. Of the completed interviews, roughly 650 are conducted with respondents on landlines and 250 with respondents on cell phones.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/07/fox-news-poll-methodology-statement/

If a polling organization doing work for Fox News submits results that don't correspond with the Fox world view they are NOT asked back to do another.

It's like anything else.

[Donnie Brasco]

The problem with polls is that they don't necessarily assess the "likeability" of a candidate. Romney's high ratings are more about his perceived ability to defeat Hillary, not that they liked him. Of course the same can be said about Democrats and Hillary.

Exactly what I was thinking as I was reading your response. I have never found Hillary particularly likable - even when I voted for her husband. From what I have seen, she is not a good speaker and does not have a lot of charisma either.

Hilary Clinton is an ill-informed political monster.

Bush'll beat her in 2016 and I will win my $1000 bet.

[Donnie Brasco]

He never had a chance so a wise decision.

What worries me is who will be pulling the strings if Bush ever became President.

I'll tell you who will be pulling the strings.

It'll be the same bunch that has ALWAYS pulled the strings since Kennedy was murdered in Dallas.

The Banks, the Military-Security-Intelligence Complex and the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee.

They'll ALL be running their jive through a compliant media cartel (owned by six large US corporations)

Ordinary Americans are allowed to fantasize about having some kind of political say in this.

They DON'T.

[Traveler19491]

Unfortunately, an inordinate amount of posts on this forum, most especially when dealing with politics, quickly descend into name calling and insults. But the Thaivisa warriors on here, secure in their anonymity, are too happy to sling mud. I would hazard a guess that, were we all sitting around a table and sharing a few beers, our discussions might become animated, perhaps even heated, but the level of juvenile behavior exhibited on here is amazing. Is it not possible to disagree about politics, or any other subject, without acting like a bunch of prepubescents at a Valentine's Day dance, arguing over some girl we both want to dance with? Good god. Whatever happened to civil debate? It is extremely unlikely that my liberal views are ever going to change the minds of the conservatives on here, or anywhere else for that matter. Likewise, the Tea Partyers haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of changing mine. So why not discuss things like adults, state our views, give our supporting evidence, and then debate. Not whine. Of course I'm probably just exercising my fingertips with this post.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Traveler19491

[Chicog]

I am a Romney fan and it was a tragedy that he was not elected in 2012, but I think that he made the right decision and I am glad that he decided not to run. The democrats had already slimed him so badly with lies and distortions in the last election, that no matter what a good, competent leader he is, I don't think that he could have won.

I just have to laugh in disbelief. Do you suffer from confirmation bias, or did you just not see a single attack ad aimed at Obama?

Are you really ignorant enough not to know the difference between a political advertisement and a dishonest media claiming to be objective, but shilling for one candidate?

Please don't make me laugh. The media didn't invent Mitt the Twit embarrassing himself in London, sneering at the poor, acting like a frat boy with his $10,000 bets and being caught avoiding paying his taxes.

It's called reporting.

Although in fairness it's incredibly difficult to tell the difference between Fox News and a political advertisement.

[Ulysses G.]

Unfortunately, an inordinate amount of posts on this forum, most especially when dealing with politics, quickly descend into name calling and insults. But the Thaivisa warriors on here, secure in their anonymity, are too happy to sling mud.

Give me a break clown. Go back to school and come back when you can post something intelligent.

[Traveler19491]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Unfortunately, an inordinate amount of posts on this forum, most especially when dealing with politics, quickly descend into name calling and insults. But the Thaivisa warriors on here, secure in their anonymity, are too happy to sling mud.

alt=whistling.gif>

Give me a break clown. Go back to school and come back when you can post something intelligent.

A not inappropriate comeback, Ulysses. However, if you've read all of my posts you would note that I later went back and apologized for that unfortunate lapse in judgement...which I don't recall ever seeing you do.

[Jingthing]

I don't think he would have won the nomination this time though he is acting like he would. He harmed his reputation, such as it was, with this little game he played of running and then not running.

[inbangkok]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Unfortunately, an inordinate amount of posts on this forum, most especially when dealing with politics, quickly descend into name calling and insults. But the Thaivisa warriors on here, secure in their anonymity, are too happy to sling mud.

alt=whistling.gif>

Give me a break clown. Go back to school and come back when you can post something intelligent.

A not inappropriate comeback, Ulysses. However, if you've read all of my posts you would note that I later went back and apologized for that unfortunate lapse in judgement...which I don't recall ever seeing you do.

Unfortunately, an inordinate amount of posts on this forum, most especially when dealing with politics, quickly descend into name calling and insults. But the Thaivisa warriors on here, secure in their anonymity, are too happy to sling mud. I would hazard a guess that, were we all sitting around a table and sharing a few beers, our discussions might become animated, perhaps even heated, but the level of juvenile behavior exhibited on here is amazing. Is it not possible to disagree about politics, or any other subject, without acting like a bunch of prepubescents at a Valentine's Day dance, arguing over some girl we both want to dance with? Good god. Whatever happened to civil debate? It is extremely unlikely that my liberal views are ever going to change the minds of the conservatives on here, or anywhere else for that matter. Likewise, the Tea Partyers haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of changing mine. So why not discuss things like adults, state our views, give our supporting evidence, and then debate. Not whine. Of course I'm probably just exercising my fingertips with this post.

Civil ?
I've tried "civil" with this guy.

ULysses G by his posts alone proves himself an Israel Firster and a vicious anti-Islamic propagandist.

Any opinion or (worse) any FACTS that contradict UG's point of view is smeared as hate speech when he takes it to "moderation"

He NEVER misses a shot at Arabs or those who oppose the Zionist agenda.
Just going by the frequency of his posts on the topic one might even opine he is obsessed with his role as a Zionist spokesman.
Nothing wrong with that I suppose if this were an Israeli forum.
It's not.

When posters like UG can consistently get away with their unfounded attempts to marginalize and SMEAR those who hold opposing views and we have people calling other posters batty civil debate is indeed extremely difficult.

He seems well-protected on this site.

As I already stated, he is and aggressive ideologue. It is generally not possible to reason with people like this......much less have a civil discussion. The proof is in the pudding concerning his daily posts.

When someone brings something up of even presents a simple FACT that does not correlate with his ideology, he either ignores it, or at times simply doubles down............

Edited January 31, 2015 by inbangkok

[Donnie Brasco]

I am a Romney fan and it was a tragedy that he was not elected in 2012, but I think that he made the right decision and I am glad that he decided not to run. The democrats had already slimed him so badly with lies and distortions in the last election, that no matter what a good, competent leader he is, I don't think that he could have won.

I just have to laugh in disbelief. Do you suffer from confirmation bias, or did you just not see a single attack ad aimed at Obama?

Are you really ignorant enough not to know the difference between a political advertisement and a dishonest media claiming to be objective, but shilling for one candidate?

Please don't make me laugh. The media didn't invent Mitt the Twit embarrassing himself in London, sneering at the poor, acting like a frat boy with his $10,000 bets and being caught avoiding paying his taxes.

It's called reporting.

Although in fairness it's incredibly difficult to tell the difference between Fox News and a political advertisement.

The Banks were just fine with what Mitt did on that campaign because he was never meant to win.

The Banks ran Obama a second time because he exceeded their expectations.

Relax UG, we'll get Bush in 2016 and everyone who has a dog in the fight knows it.

Now just what the Bush III puppeteers have in mind is another thing entirely.

But you can be SURE it'll be firmly vested in violence, murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why break with tradition ? It IS a dynasty, after all.

[Ulysses G.]

Although in fairness it's incredibly difficult to tell the difference between Fox News and a political advertisement.

Of really? It sounds like you know very little about Fox News, other that what you have heard on Media Matters. Maybe you should try watching Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace sometime and see if you can tell the difference then. What a great show.

Wallace is a registered democrat and has won every major broadcast news award for his reporting, including three Emmy Awards, the Dupont-Columbia Silver Baton, the Peabody Award, the Sol Taishoff Award for Broadcast Journalism - which was awarded to him by the National Press Foundation - and the 2013 Paul White Award for lifetime achievement and service to electronic journalism. Wallace has been characterized as an "equal opportunity inquisitor" by The Boston Globe, "an aggressive journalist," "sharp edged" and "solid" by The Washington Post and "an equal-opportunity ravager" by The Miami Herald.

There are a number of news programs on Fox that are similar to this, but IMO Fox News Sunday is the best one.

Mediate named him Best Sunday Show Moderator for 2014.

The only Sunday moderator who is reliable interrogator of those in power is Fox's Wallace. As we wrote earlier this year, we admire his ability to "devote 15 minutes to debating the actual policy implications of Obamacare with Ezekiel Emanuel one week while holding tea partiers feet to the fire over self-destructive electoral tactics the next." Slippery politicians and talking-points-slinging pundits beware of Wallace.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/mediaite-awards-2014-we-pick-the-years-very-best-in-media/#5

[2fishin2]

Fox News is the laughing stock of America. Even we dont like it

[inbangkok]

Are you really ignorant enough not to know the difference between a political advertisement and a dishonest media claiming to be objective, but shilling for one candidate?

Please don't make me laugh. The media didn't invent Mitt the Twit embarrassing himself in London, sneering at the poor, acting like a frat boy with his $10,000 bets and being caught avoiding paying his taxes.

It's called reporting.

Although in fairness it's incredibly difficult to tell the difference between Fox News and a political advertisement.

The Banks were just fine with what Mitt did on that campaign because he was never meant to win.

The Banks ran Obama a second time because he exceeded their expectations.

Relax UG, we'll get Bush in 2016 and everyone who has a dog in the fight knows it.

Now just what the Bush III puppeteers have in mind is another thing entirely.

But you can be SURE it'll be firmly vested in violence, murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why break with tradition ? It IS a dynasty, after all.

How are you so sure about this? You have some inside knowledge?

[Donnie Brasco]

Although in fairness it's incredibly difficult to tell the difference between Fox News and a political advertisement.

Of really? It sounds like you know very little about Fox News, other that what you have heard on Media Matters. Maybe you should try watching Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace sometime and see if you can tell the difference then. What a great show.

Wallace is a registered democrat and has won every major broadcast news award for his reporting, including three Emmy Awards, the Dupont-Columbia Silver Baton, the Peabody Award, the Sol Taishoff Award for Broadcast Journalism - which was awarded to him by the National Press Foundation - and the 2013 Paul White Award for lifetime achievement and service to electronic journalism. Wallace has been characterized as an "equal opportunity inquisitor" by The Boston Globe, "an aggressive journalist," "sharp edged" and "solid" by The Washington Post and "an equal-opportunity ravager" by The Miami Herald.

There are a number of news programs on Fox that are similar to this, but IMO Fox News Sunday is the best one.

Mediate named him Best Sunday Show Moderator for 2014.

The only Sunday moderator who is reliable interrogator of those in power is Fox's Wallace. As we wrote earlier this year, we admire his ability to "devote 15 minutes to debating the actual policy implications of Obamacare with Ezekiel Emanuel one week while holding tea partiers feet to the fire over self-destructive electoral tactics the next." Slippery politicians and talking-points-slinging pundits beware of Wallace.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/mediaite-awards-2014-we-pick-the-years-very-best-in-media/#5

Fox started touting Wallace's political affiliation when Combes retired as from his exhaled position as Fox's liberal punching bag. Hell, they had to do something to keep on keeping on as a fair and balanced network.

If Chris Wallace wasn't Will Ferrel's inspiration for Ron Burgundy he should have been.

Oh wait.

I'm being unkind.

Perhaps it was Hannity, yeah, maybe 5natii, or pundit/hottie Anne Coulter, or that horrific suck-up Michelle Malkin, or Bully/billy O'Reilly or hey, I know, speaking of Asian hotties, how 'bout Rupert Murdock's Tony-banger wife, Wendy Deng. She be looking for a job now riiiiight ?

Where is Mike Wallace now that America really Really REALLY needs him ??

[Publicus]

I am a Romney fan and it was a tragedy that he was not elected in 2012, but I think that he made the right decision and I am glad that he decided not to run. The democrats had already slimed him so badly with lies and distortions in the last election, that no matter what a good, competent leader he is, I don't think that he could have won.

I just have to laugh in disbelief. Do you suffer from confirmation bias, or did you just not see a single attack ad aimed at Obama?

Are you really ignorant enough not to know the difference between a political advertisement and a dishonest media claiming to be objective, but shilling for one candidate?

The thesis of a "dishonest media" is glib because it seeks to deflect responsibility for one's own behaviors.

It is trite, i.e., boring, because the claim is made with daily regularity.

It is mundane because the mind that leans on it is lazy and and takes the evasive approach.

It is banal........

[Donnie Brasco]

Are you really ignorant enough not to know the difference between a political advertisement and a dishonest media claiming to be objective, but shilling for one candidate?

Please don't make me laugh. The media didn't invent Mitt the Twit embarrassing himself in London, sneering at the poor, acting like a frat boy with his $10,000 bets and being caught avoiding paying his taxes.

It's called reporting.

Although in fairness it's incredibly difficult to tell the difference between Fox News and a political advertisement.

The Banks were just fine with what Mitt did on that campaign because he was never meant to win.

The Banks ran Obama a second time because he exceeded their expectations.

Relax UG, we'll get Bush in 2016 and everyone who has a dog in the fight knows it.

Now just what the Bush III puppeteers have in mind is another thing entirely.

But you can be SURE it'll be firmly vested in violence, murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why break with tradition ? It IS a dynasty, after all.

How are you so sure about this? You have some inside knowledge?

You (actually not only "you" but we can start with you need to research the differences and distinctions between knowledge, proof and (our old friend) EVIDENCE, first.

Then I'd like you to tippy-toe through an evening course at the local skills exchange if they have one where you live.

CSUN (Google) has a nice page on logical fallacies and flawed argumentation that you'll pretty well have to know your way around.

Then you need to learn the difference between fractional reserve lending and that nonsense you have been fed all your life about Banks making their profits on the spread between what they pay Mrs. Higgins in interest for her savings and what they charge you for a loan.

It's not MY job to educate you.

BUT

Otherwise you aren't really "up-to-speed".

As for the Bush's being a dynasty ??V???N (dhuhhh ?)

Just have a wander around the Oriental's back so is next time you are visiting the Cuban Consulate.

There's more. But I doubt you'll even get down there or even educate yourself.

How's all THAT sound ;-?)

[Publicus]

The problem with polls is that they don't necessarily assess the "likeability" of a candidate. Romney's high ratings are more about his perceived ability to defeat Hillary, not that they liked him. Of course the same can be said about Democrats and Hillary.

Exactly what I was thinking as I was reading your response. I have never found Hillary particularly likable - even when I voted for her husband. From what I have seen, she is not a good speaker and does not have a lot of charisma either.

Hilary Clinton is an ill-informed political monster.

Bush'll beat her in 2016 and I will win my $1000 bet.

Let Bush eat cake....bought by your agent on his substantial gain.

[inbangkok]

The Banks were just fine with what Mitt did on that campaign because he was never meant to win.

The Banks ran Obama a second time because he exceeded their expectations.

Relax UG, we'll get Bush in 2016 and everyone who has a dog in the fight knows it.

Now just what the Bush III puppeteers have in mind is another thing entirely.

But you can be SURE it'll be firmly vested in violence, murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why break with tradition ? It IS a dynasty, after all.

How are you so sure about this? You have some inside knowledge?

You (actually not only "you" but we can start with you need to research the differences and distinctions between knowledge, proof and (our old friend) EVIDENCE, first.

Then I'd like you to tippy-toe through an evening course at the local skills exchange if they have one where you live.

CSUN (Google) has a nice page on logical fallacies and flawed argumentation that you'll pretty well have to know your way around.

Then you need to learn the difference between fractional reserve lending and that nonsense you have been fed all your life about Banks making their profits on the spread between what they pay Mrs. Higgins in interest for her savings and what they charge you for a loan.

It's not MY job to educate you.

BUT

Otherwise you aren't really "up-to-speed".

As for the Bush's being a dynasty ??V???N (dhuhhh ?)

Just have a wander around the Oriental's back so is next time you are visiting the Cuban Consulate.

There's more. But I doubt you'll even get down there or even educate yourself.

How's all THAT sound ;-?)

Whoa! What a rant when I was just joking around. But I was specifically referring to you being so sure of Bush in 2016, which you did not answer in the least bit......

[Donnie Brasco]

The Banks were just fine with what Mitt did on that campaign because he was never meant to win.

The Banks ran Obama a second time because he exceeded their expectations.

Relax UG, we'll get Bush in 2016 and everyone who has a dog in the fight knows it.

Now just what the Bush III puppeteers have in mind is another thing entirely.

But you can be SURE it'll be firmly vested in violence, murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why break with tradition ? It IS a dynasty, after all.

How are you so sure about this? You have some inside knowledge?

You (actually not only "you" but we can start with you need to research the differences and distinctions between knowledge, proof and (our old friend) EVIDENCE, first.

Then I'd like you to tippy-toe through an evening course at the local skills exchange if they have one where you live.

CSUN (Google) has a nice page on logical fallacies and flawed argumentation that you'll pretty well have to know your way around.

Then you need to learn the difference between fractional reserve lending and that nonsense you have been fed all your life about Banks making their profits on the spread between what they pay Mrs. Higgins in interest for her savings and what they charge you for a loan.

It's not MY job to educate you.

BUT

Otherwise you aren't really "up-to-speed".

As for the Bush's being a dynasty ??V???N (dhuhhh ?)

Just have a wander around the Oriental's back so is next time you are visiting the Cuban Consulate.

There's more. But I doubt you'll even get down there or even educate yourself.

How's all THAT sound ;-?)

Whoa! What a rant when I was just joking around. But I was specifically referring to you being so sure of Bush in 2016, which you did not answer in the least bit......

Apologies if my post was over-reactive.

Tired of wooly-headed argumentation and smear-festing with certain posters here. And the way some of these guys are all too ready to mock and smear anyone whose background and whose education might afford them the luxury of a guess . . . . An educated guess, mind you that the next US president will be Jeb Bush.

I wasn't ranting (although your choice of that word is a cheap shot in itself)

I meant all that stuff, however.

I am not in the business of answering a lot of questions on matters BASIC to a fundamental understanding of how the political process really works as opposed to how the owners (the REAL OWNERS) of the USA want you to believe it works.

Check out that stuff and get back to me if you are really interested in these matters.

And you, too will soon be confident enough in your own views to take a long range bet on a Bush III presidency.

I sure as Hell don't WANT one but that doesn't stop me from betting on a sure thing.

[Chicog]

Although in fairness it's incredibly difficult to tell the difference between Fox News and a political advertisement.

Of really? It sounds like you know very little about Fox News, other that what you have heard on Media Matters. Maybe you should try watching Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace sometime and see if you can tell the difference then. What a great show.

I used to watch a Wallace on MSNBC and I'm not going to dispute his particular bias, however I work on Sundays so don't get to see this show. But of course it represents a tiny part of Fox's output. By the way, Maddow is equally tiresome.

However, I'm sorry to disillusion you, but I have access to and watch at any given time Fox, MSNBC, Sky News, BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN, Press TV, Russia Today, and various other Asian news channels; Fox is surpassed by only two of them in cheerleading their owners' ideals.

Added:

Makes interesting viewing....

The last line is the most telling!

Edited January 31, 2015 by Chicog

[Thakkar]

After software upgrades, Mittbot 2.1 has become sentient and fears the shame of another defeat.

T

[inbangkok]

The Banks were just fine with what Mitt did on that campaign because he was never meant to win.
The Banks ran Obama a second time because he exceeded their expectations.

Relax UG, we'll get Bush in 2016 and everyone who has a dog in the fight knows it.

Now just what the Bush III puppeteers have in mind is another thing entirely.

But you can be SURE it'll be firmly vested in violence, murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Why break with tradition ? It IS a dynasty, after all.

How are you so sure about this? You have some inside knowledge?

You (actually not only "you" but we can start with you need to research the differences and distinctions between knowledge, proof and (our old friend) EVIDENCE, first.
Then I'd like you to tippy-toe through an evening course at the local skills exchange if they have one where you live.
CSUN (Google) has a nice page on logical fallacies and flawed argumentation that you'll pretty well have to know your way around.
Then you need to learn the difference between fractional reserve lending and that nonsense you have been fed all your life about Banks making their profits on the spread between what they pay Mrs. Higgins in interest for her savings and what they charge you for a loan.

It's not MY job to educate you.
BUT
Otherwise you aren't really "up-to-speed".


As for the Bush's being a dynasty ??V???N (dhuhhh ?)
Just have a wander around the Oriental's back so is next time you are visiting the Cuban Consulate.

There's more. But I doubt you'll even get down there or even educate yourself.

How's all THAT sound ;-?)

Whoa! What a rant when I was just joking around. But I was specifically referring to you being so sure of Bush in 2016, which you did not answer in the least bit......

Apologies if my post was over-reactive.

Tired of wooly-headed argumentation and smear-festing with certain posters here. And the way some of these guys are all too ready to mock and smear anyone whose background and whose education might afford them the luxury of a guess . . . . An educated guess, mind you that the next US president will be Jeb Bush.

I wasn't ranting (although your choice of that word is a cheap shot in itself)
I meant all that stuff, however.
I am not in the business of answering a lot of questions on matters BASIC to a fundamental understanding of how the political process really works as opposed to how the owners (the REAL OWNERS) of the USA want you to believe it works.

Check out that stuff and get back to me if you are really interested in these matters.

And you, too will soon be confident enough in your own views to take a long range bet on a Bush III presidency.

I sure as Hell don't WANT one but that doesn't stop me from betting on a sure thing.

Not a cheap shot. It was a rant and you are beginning to behave and resemble the very people you are claiming to be tired of.

Mind you..... You are not aware of other people's background or credentials either...... Just food for thought. Believe me when I say I definitely don't need you answering basic and/or fundamental questions about politics or government...... I do just fine in that field....... Edited February 1, 2015 by Scott

[chuckd]

Lots of anger on this thread today. Somebody get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

[Jingthing]

I can't really understand getting emotional about Mitt running or not running.

[bendejo]

Not worry. If you were able to decipher her meandering, word-salad speech given at the Iowa 'Freedom' Summit,with a heard of other GOP hopefuls who will never be President, Sarah Palin said not once but twice she may run in 2016. Christmas came early.

I think Sarah had a few tokes before hitting the stage that day.

[bendejo]

Lots of anger on this thread today. Somebody get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

That's especially rough when your bed is next to the window.

[Pinot]

Although in fairness it's incredibly difficult to tell the difference between Fox News and a political advertisement.

Of really? It sounds like you know very little about Fox News, other that what you have heard on Media Matters. Maybe you should try watching Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace sometime and see if you can tell the difference then. What a great show.

Wallace is a registered democrat and has won every major broadcast news award for his reporting, including three Emmy Awards, the Dupont-Columbia Silver Baton, the Peabody Award, the Sol Taishoff Award for Broadcast Journalism - which was awarded to him by the National Press Foundation - and the 2013 Paul White Award for lifetime achievement and service to electronic journalism. Wallace has been characterized as an "equal opportunity inquisitor" by The Boston Globe, "an aggressive journalist," "sharp edged" and "solid" by The Washington Post and "an equal-opportunity ravager" by The Miami Herald.

There are a number of news programs on Fox that are similar to this, but IMO Fox News Sunday is the best one.

Mediate named him Best Sunday Show Moderator for 2014.

The only Sunday moderator who is reliable interrogator of those in power is Fox's Wallace. As we wrote earlier this year, we admire his ability to "devote 15 minutes to debating the actual policy implications of Obamacare with Ezekiel Emanuel one week while holding tea partiers feet to the fire over self-destructive electoral tactics the next." Slippery politicians and talking-points-slinging pundits beware of Wallace.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/mediaite-awards-2014-we-pick-the-years-very-best-in-media/#5

No one should ever watch Fox News. "Chris Wallace" and "great show" in the same sentence? He is to journalism what a Chevy Vega is to automobiles, Rob Schneider is to acting. Try turning off Fox News occasionally. To actually praise Chris Wallace, a pathetic example of what journalism is about, is pathetic. Really, unplug the TV. Go for a walk.