Much like FOX News, I am idealogical but not partisan

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I dislike a lot of Democrats. I sometimes disagree with Democratic stances. And in primaries I vote for only one candidate, meaning that I like one Democrat more than another Democrat.

My thinking is informed by conviction. One could call those convictions idealogical. And if the Democratic Party and Republican Party switched positions I would switch parties without looking back. I don't root for the uniform.

So yes, I am idealogical but not partisan.

But the fact remains that I have never voted for a Republican over a Democrat for any office, ever, and am unlikely to do so in the future.

But I'm not partisan, mind you.

If it comforts Jon Stewart to think that Fox News is idealogical but not partisan (as he tried to explain to Rachael Maddow) then that's his business. But I would like to see the list of Democrats that Fox News has supported in races versus Republicans.

(The only evidence that FOX is not partisan is that they are so blind to party labels that they have, on about one hundred occasions, "accidentally" identified Republicans involved in moral or criminal scandals as Democrats.)

[Cant trust em]

1. I'm not ideological or partisan. I just always wind up voting for the democrat.

I do listen to all arguments and some of them are compelling. However, the good arguments are almost always outweighed by the terrible arguments.

Maybe someday there will be some magical republican that can wrap up a package of ideas, leadership and dynamism that will allow for me to vote R. Sadly, I don't think that day will be coming for at least a generation.

[PBS Poll-435]

2. I am very partisan, however I voted for 1 Republican in 2008 and 1 in 2010

Our County TA-C in 2008

and

Texas Comptroller in 2010



But every other office, of course, Democratic.

[qazplm]

3. his explanation for that was a little weird

he said he believed that because he thought that Fox would back a democrat like lieberman when it suited them, but that doesn't make them non-partisan, it just makes them calculating.

[mzmolly]

7. Calculating .... in a partisian

way at that. ;)

[oldlib]

4. I voted for a Republican.

Back in the late sixties and early seventies, California had a Republican Senator, Tom Kuchel. The Democratic Party and I thought that Tom did a good job and I voted for him on at least two occasions. I have never voted for a Republican since that time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. I vote issues, not party or politcian.

I've never voted Republican simply because I don't agree with them on the issues. I usually vote Democratic as a "lesser of two evils" option but have no hesitation in voting 3rd party or writing in a candidate if the nose holding is too painful.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[mzmolly]

6. What's also interesting, is that JS mentioned support of the tea party as an example of Fox

being bound to ideology vs. party. However, the tea party candidates ran on the Republican ticket. They are not a third party.

Great points KandH! :kick: and R.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

8. Rachel didn't hit back on this, but for being "non-partisan," Faux could've fooled me.

Newscorp. gave over $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.

And nearly all major contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination has a show or an active role on Faux.

Jon is either an idiot or being willfully ignorant.

[Dragonfli]

9. Rachel didn't want to beat up on him, it was obvious. She was being kind

because he is a comedian and not a politician and she likes him.
I think she was too kind but I understand why.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

10. Explaining the facts isn't beating up on him. I think Jon is severely misinformed...

...or at least is pretending to try hard to be diplomatic so as not to be seen as "partisan" or too impartial. Either that, or he's not too up on what's going on in the political world. If the latter is in fact the case, then I'm glad he doesn't consider himself news.

[Dragonfli]

11. I agree with you, but she was obviously being kind, I would not have been.

I think there is no excuse for his rationalizations, also I think comedian or not his bullshit in that interview is damaging to the truth.
I wish she felt the same way, but she gave him a pass for the reasons I stated (at least IMO).

Sometimes she is way too nice especially considering she does her homework and knows exactly how to answer shit like that with facts.

Maybe because he was sick, in any event it was obvious the kid gloves were on. I was just pointing out the obvious.