While Fox News continues to dominate the news market in ratings (while losing out to Jon Stewart), they were also the only cable news network to actually see their numbers decline in 2011:

Yet Fox was alone among the cable news networks in losing viewers — down 8 percent in prime time and 5 percent for the full day, Nielsen said. The 2010 midterm election year was particularly engaging for Republicans, who make up a big part of Fox's audience.

CNN was up 17 percent in prime-time viewership with a revamped lineup that includes a double dose of Anderson Cooper and Piers Morgan replacing Larry King. CNN is third behind Fox and MSNBC in prime time but second for the day as a whole.

CNN's rivals acknowledge its gains but are quick to point out that last year represented CNN's worst year ever in the ratings.

MSNBC can take pride in surviving the exit of its most popular prime time personality, Keith Olbermann, who defected to Current. The network is up 2 percent over last year in its prime-time average, Nielsen said.

An 8% loss for prime time translates to a lot of money for the big advertising time slots. It would be interesting to see a deeper analysis of what could be the cause here. Fox has maintained the same prime time line-up for quiet awhile now, so perhaps people are just getting tired of hearing the same old Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. On the other hand, perhaps people are just finally getting tired of being spoon fed a bunch of b.s.?

There was one other loss worth mentioning here. MSNBC did see their 8:00 time slot drop 11% after the departure of Keith Olbermann. They still managed to fair well though with Rachel Maddow continuing her rise and the 10:00 hour no longer being a rerun of Countdown.

All this makes you wonder what we might see in 2012. I'm sure the ratings overall will increase with the election upon us, but will CNN and MSNBC see a bigger increase than FOX? We'll find out this time next year.

We are one week from the Iowa caucuses and things don't look good for the GOP:

If I were running the Iowa Republican Party, I would be seeking to vastly increase the turnout at the Jan. 3 caucuses. After all, those who turn out can be recruited to help in future Iowa Republican campaigns. I would be especially interested in attracting new young voters; the median age of 2008 caucusgoers was nudging up toward 60.

Yet despite polls showing that Republicans are enthusiastic about the coming campaign and determined to defeat Barack Obama, Iowa Republican insiders are predicting that turnout will not exceed and may not even reach the 119,000 of 2008, when Republicans were dispirited about their party's chances. Puzzling.

Low turnout is indicative of an enthusiasm gap and also coincides with what recent polls have shown us - a Republican base that isn't that excited about the election. Sure Republicans want to see President Obama voted out of office, but the problem is who they are going to replace him with?

Can they stomach 4 or even 8 years of Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney?

Would it be better to suffer through another 4 years of President Obama, at least knowing what they got, then spend that 4 years regrouping to find a better candidate?

If I were a betting man I would place my money on the second option. 2016 doesn't seem that far off, but 2020 does. If the GOP ends up putting a Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich in the White House that means the Democrats could come out with Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden in 2016, then the Republicans may likely be screwed until 2024.

The GOP is facing a real dilemma right now and that dilemma could end up really helping President Obama. The key take away from all of this is to not watch who wins the upcoming primaries, but rather check out the key turnout number. That will be the best indicator of what will happen in the fall.

Newt has constantly denied that he once supported Mitt Romney's health insurance mandate in Massachusetts, but the wayback machine has something else to say about that. Here's a letter written by Newt in April of 2006:

The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.

We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. Individuals without coverage often do not receive quality medical attention on par with those who do have insurance. We also believe strongly that personal responsibility is vital to creating a 21st Century Intelligent Health System. Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers.

The Romney plan attempts to bring everyone into the system. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle, but the details are crucial when it comes to the structure of this plan. Under the new bill, Massachusetts residents earning more than 300% of the federal poverty level (approximately $30,000 for an individual) will not be eligible for any subsidies. State House officials had originally promised that there would be new plans available at about $200 a month, but industry experts are now predicting that the cheapest plan will likely cost at least $325 a month. This estimate totals about $4000 per year, or about 1/5 of a $30,000 annual take-home income.

Continue reading »

Newt Gingrich invoking Pearl Harbor in comparison to his not appearing on the Virginia GOP primary ballot wasn't the first time he has done such a thing. It turns out that last year Newt invoked that day of infamy for something completely different:

On a day when Americans remember the lives that were sacrificed during the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Gingrich reminded us all what this momentous occasion is really all about when he chirpily tweeted, “The 69th anniversary of the japanese [sic] attack is a good time to remind folks of our novels pearl harbor and days of infamy newt.”

Newt did later delete that tweet, but not before the Twitterverse saw how he wanted to exploit such a tragic day in American history for his own personal gain. This really speaks a lot about someone who wants to be President and does beg the question - where is Rudy Giuliani?

Early Saturday morning the Virginia GOP announced that Newt Gingrich didn't secure enough signatures to be placed on their Super Tuesday primary ballot. Newt wasn't alone in this. It turns out that most of the GOP field failed to do this, leaving Va. Republican voters with a choice between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

So what caused this problem? Well if you ask the commenters at Tea Party Nation, it turns out they have figured it out (registration required):

I never knew that President Obama and the unions had such power that they could actually go in and take over the Virginia GOP like that. Rather amazing if you ask me.

OK, let's step back from conspiracy land and look to see who is really to blame. Here's what Newt said in his statement:

Continue reading »

This is something I never thought of, the stronger hand of our government, at the behest of the Patriot Act, actually hurting us on the tech front. It turns out that is exactly what is happening:

Cloud computing is a gold mine for the U.S. tech industry, but American firms are encountering resistance from an unexpected enemy overseas: the PATRIOT Act.

The Sept. 11-era law was supposed to help the intelligence community gather data on suspected terrorists. But competitors overseas are using it as a way to discourage foreign countries from signing on with U.S. cloud computing providers like Google and Microsoft: Put your data on a U.S.-based cloud, they warn, and you may just put it in the hands of the U.S. government.

Cloud computing is a huge boom right now. Instead of having to buy one big server, you get little slices of servers all over the place and they can work together as one. Think of it as turning a computer into an actual service, where you use what you need and only pay for that.

Need more power? Not a problem as the cloud will instantly grow to what you need.

To the layman this might not seem that important, but it is. Cloud storage is actually becoming common in smart phones. Instead of having to buy larger memory cards, you can store your documents on a cloud drive and access them from anywhere. The technology is still relatively new, so expect it to grow rapidly. as matter of fact, expect it to grow a lot:

Continue reading »

Appearing on RT's CrossTalk, Cliff Schecter and tea party leader Mark Williams got into a heated debate over foreign policy. When host Peter Lavelle brought up the fact that President Obama is actually more of a hawk on foreign policy than many give him credit for, Mark Williams immediately went into the typical right-wing meme that President Obama hasn't done anything on foreign policy:

Williams: Again, he's not a hawk after all. The fact that Osama bin Laden is dead. The fact that Qadaffi is dead. These were all ready in the works. We've been fighting al Qaeda since 2001 and actually before that covertly. So this is nothing that Obama went out and did. It's not like he's Rambo, ripped off his shirt, stuck a knife between his teeth and went out.

This is a President who goes around the world, apologizing for this country, apologizing for the American people, apologizing for what we have done in the world. Bows before foreign leaders. Bowed before the Saudi king. He even bowed before a mayor in Louisiana.

This is a guy who has no foreign policy. What he does have is a thirst for and lust for the use of power.

Schecter: That's patently ridiculous. I guess in Mark's world it would be preferable if we had a President who declared victory in Iraq and got up on an aircraft carrier and pumped his own chest before thousands of Americans died in a war that wasn't planned out, where Paul Wolfowitz said "oh the oil will pay for the whole thing and the rest". That's ridiculous.

You know I can bring back pictures of George W. Bush walking, holding hands with the Saudi leaders and frankly if anyone bowed down to the Saudi's it was the Bush family, it wasn't Barack Obama.

From there Williams goes into the standard right wing meme of "but Bush isn't running for President". This is rather ironic from a party that constantly invokes Reagan and Carter to say that bringing up a former President is somehow dodging the debate.

But what really gets me about this whole exchange is the bowing issue. Apparently on January 20, 2009, America made a major change in that our President should no longer travel overseas. Every time Obama makes a trip to a foreign country the right starts into their faux outrage mode. That faux outrage is always exacerbated if Obama shows respect by bowing or kissing or showing the traditional form of respect that is part of that country's culture. This started only two months into the Obama presidency when he bowed before the Saudi King, yet the right never once exhibited the same outrage when George Bush did the same thing or even kiss the Saudi Prince.

It was great seeing Cliff back on the talk shows fighting the standard right wing attack lines. He can take them down like no other. If you would like to see more of Cliff's appearance on CrossTalk, check out the full episode on YouTube.

Right wing talk radio host, Bill Cunningham, is a well known name in Cincinnati and nationally. His show on 700 WLW is heard by an estimated 200,000 listeners daily. He also hosts a weekly, syndicated show, "Live on Sunday Night, it's Bill Cunningham", which is carried by 300 stations nationally and is a regular guest on Hannity.

In 2008, Cunningham made big waves during a campaign rally for John McCain when he constantly referred to Barack Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama". That eventually lead to John McCain having to apologize for what Cunningham was saying.

Cunningham admits being a Republican, which made his endorsement of John Kasich, the Republican running for Ohio Governor against incumbent Ted Strickland, no surprise in 2010. Now Cunningham is having a serious case of buyer's remorse and on his show yesterday, Cunningham said he would lead a "peasant uprising" against the Governor if he doesn't start changing his politics.

Continue reading »

UPDATE: Fresh election thread just below.

Join us below the fold to follow our coverage of tonight's election results with our live blog.

Continue reading »

A Tea Party favorite for the U.S. Senate in Ohio has just been indicted by a grand jury for unlawful conduct with a minor:

A New Lebanon man, running for a U.S. Senate seat in Ohio, has been indicted by a Montgomery County grand jury on sex charges.

Eric Deaton was indicted on one count of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. He is accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a 15-year-old girl between March 2006 and March 2007.

Perry Township police said Deaton met the victim at a church where Deaton served as an elder.

Deaton, who is due in court September 14, faces up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine if convicted.  This isn’t stopping Deaton though. He’s staying in the race and insisting that this is some big political setup:

“I think this is politically motivated,” said Deaton, blaming the indictment on his decision to run for political office.

“The powers that be don’t like that,” said Deaton, who said he intends to stay in the race.

Deaton has been pretty much an unknown in Ohio politics, well that is until now. He has only received a handful of endorsements, but one of those endorsements really sticks out:

Vote Family Values

Perhaps it’s just a day of major irony, but looking at the front page for Vote Family Values, I couldn’t help but notice one of their top news stories:

“Christian Teens and Hands-On Politics”? It sure sounds like Deaton took that way to literally.