Fox News losing its lead over rival cable networks.
Fox News “has seen its once formidable advantage over CNN erode in this presidential election year, as both CNN and MSNBC have added viewers at far more dramatic rates.” The New York Times reports:
CNN has added 170,000 viewers a night, on average, when compared with the last presidential year, while Fox has shed about 90,000, according to Nielsen. (MSNBC, which added 181,000 viewers in that audience, much of it courtesy of gains by “Countdown With Keith Olbermann,” still lagged in third place, with 303,000.)
Fox News “has seen its once formidable advantage over CNN erode in this presidential election year, as both CNN and MSNBC have added viewers at far more dramatic rates.” The New York Times reports:
CNN has added 170,000 viewers a night, on average, when compared with the last presidential year, while Fox has shed about 90,000, according to Nielsen. (MSNBC, which added 181,000 viewers in that audience, much of it courtesy of gains by “Countdown With Keith Olbermann,” still lagged in third place, with 303,000.)
A Fox News spokeswoman, Dana Klinghoffer, refused “several requests” for comment about the channel’s ratings and strategy.
Kristol: ‘Republicans are much more open to strong women.’
On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol sarcastically decried “the horrible sexism and misogyny that the Democratic primary voters demonstrated” towards Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). “It never would have happened in the Republican party,” claimed Kristol. “Republicans are much more open to strong women.”
On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol sarcastically decried “the horrible sexism and misogyny that the Democratic primary voters demonstrated” towards Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). “It never would have happened in the Republican party,” claimed Kristol. “Republicans are much more open to strong women.”
Face The Nation: Lieberman Says Obama’s Plan For Iraq Would Give Iran and Al Qaeda Control
McSame’s BFF Sen. Joe Lieberman appeared on Face The Nation to talk up McCain and his plan for Iraq, using those same old tired Republican talking points, which as we all know, are less than factually-based:
McSame’s BFF Sen. Joe Lieberman appeared on Face The Nation to talk up McCain and his plan for Iraq, using those same old tired Republican talking points, which as we all know, are less than factually-based:
SCHIEFFER: That of course begs the question if he’s ready to be president. Do you believe that Barack Obama is not ready to be president?
LIEBERMAN: Let me put it affirmatively, which is what I really mean, because ultimately, we rarely make a choice between perfect and terrible. John McCain is more ready to be President, on foreign and domestic policy, because of his extraordinary experience. And it’s good experience. It’s experience where he’s had the guts to do what’s right for his country, including in Iraq, where he opposed the administration’s policy for a long time. The surge was implemented by President Bush, it’s now working. Senator Obama, unfortunately, like a lot of the Democratic leadership, continues to take a position that we ought to withdraw, which to me is “retreat, accept defeat” even though the new policy is working. I hope that Barack Obama goes to Iraq and frankly, I hope he changes his position, because if we had done what Senator Obama asked us to do for the last couple of years, today, Iran and al Qaeda would be in control of Iraq. It would be a terrible defeat for us and our allies in the Middle East and throughout the world. Instead, we have a country that’s defending itself, that’s growing economically, where there’s been genuine political reconciliation and where Iran and al Qaeda are on the run. And that’s the way it ought to be.
SCHIEFFER: You’re saying if we had done a drawdown, as Senator Obama had suggested, that Iran would now be in control of Iraq?
LIEBERMAN: Yeah, and here’s what I mean: And it’s not just Sen. Obama, it’s generally the leadership of the Democratic Party. On this issue, I respectfully but deeply disagreed. Because, they were saying a year ago, two years ago, Iraq was lost. They were saying…they were proposing amendments that would have ordered our withdrawal, a retreat of our forces, to begin and end rather rapidly. If that had happened, in Iraq today, there wouldn’t be an Iraqi government, there’d be chaos, there’d probably be genocide, definitely civil war. And the main beneficiaries of that would be Iran and al Qaeda. Instead, al Qaeda is on the run, and on the verge of a terrible defeat, one of our most significant victories over them since 9/11, maybe the most significant. Iran is being pushed back. And just a couple of weeks ago, Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq went to Tehran and Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader Khamenei pleaded with Maliki, “don’t enter into a long term strategic agreement with America,” and he said, “sorry, folks, I want to have good neighborly relations with you, but the Americans are our friends. We appreciate what they’ve done for us and we’re sticking with them.”
No comments:
Post a Comment