Fox News Pundits Savage Romney

While Fox News still can’t seem to say enough bad things about President Obama, they haven’t exactly been uncritical of Mitt Romney lately. In fact, the criticism of Romney has been downright jaw-dropping considering where it's come from.

On today’s Fox News Sunday, the panel was unanimously critical of Romney, including host Chris Wallace, an obvious Romney supporter – or at least he plays one on TV. Yet, as the panel criticized Romney for not being clear enough on what actual policy alternatives he’d enact and for not discussing Afghanistan during the convention, Wallace noted that Romney is “losing ground,” “not campaigning with a bold agenda” and asked – with obvious disapproval – why Romney had “absolutely no plans” to give a major foreign policy speech before the debates.

Fox News contributor Bill Kristol was more explicit, saying, “It’s crazy not to address it.”

But all that was almost complimentary compared to what the Wall Street Journal writers said yesterday on the Journal Editorial Report.

They highlighted how Romney had lost significant polling leads over Obama on economic issues. Panelist Jason Riley called many of Romney’s woes “self-inflicted” and cited his refusal to release his tax returns as an example. Riley added, “You can sympathize with (the public) in thinking maybe he’s trying to hide something here.”

The group later tore apart one of Romney’s recent ads attacking China as one cause of our economic woes. They found it unlikely to “drive votes,” said it let Obama “off the hook” and called it “an ad from a weak campaign.”

Panelist Kimberley Strassel continued, “When you have to resort to talking about American anxiety, whipping up the voters over, you know, ‘the China meance,’ you’re not on offense. You’re not out there making your case for your own presidency. And I think it’s a bit disturbing that they have gotten to this at this point in the campaign.”

Although I don’t expect to hear this kind of talk on Hannity any time soon, hearing it anywhere on Fox News says more about the kind of trouble their candidate is in than any poll numbers can.

Do you like this post?

	Tweet

Showing 14 reactions

Robert Urban commented 2012-09-17 19:31:18 -0400 · Flag

Just as an aside. If you have seen the film ‘Inglorious Bastards’ I think that someone should ask “When you leave Fox you’re not gonna have your ‘FOX NEWS’ chyron in the corner wherever you go are you?” Forehead ‘FOX’ tattoos might be a good punishment as scars would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Robert Urban commented 2012-09-17 19:17:53 -0400 · Flag

Personally I think it is a combination of circumstances that is causing this shift in, ehh, lets just call it “reporting”. The fact that they (Fox on air Personalities) see that they are backing a loser, and are facing the not so long from now loss of the Murdoch ‘American Broadcasting License’. They are abandoning a sinking ship and trying to build up SOME kind of credibility, full well knowing they will ALL be looking for new jobs in the ‘Liberal Media’ in a short time. This is not to be misconstrued as ‘they are being responsible journalists’. It’s still an ’ I will sell my soul and will pander for a job as I have absolutely NO self respect for my OWN ideals’ mentality. Much like the candidate they have been campaigning for.

mj - the same one commented 2012-09-17 17:11:41 -0400 · Flag

@bemused: “Further evidence of a train wreck in progress.
It ainât pretty but it certainly is mesmerizing.”

Yes — I love the smell of rightwingnut desperation in the morning!

_~

Panelist Kimberley Strassel continued, âWhen you have to resort to talking about American anxiety, whipping up the voters over, you know, âthe China meance,â youâre not on offense. Youâre not out there making your case for your own presidency. And I think itâs a bit disturbing that they have gotten to this at this point in the campaign.â

Kim, where have you been? That’s been the rightwingnut GOP strategy since the Eisenhower Administration: always scare the voters into being afraid of the “other” — whether the “other” is the communists in the ’50s, the blacks demanding civil rights in the ’60s, the communists {again} in the ’80s, the immigrants in the 2000s, or the Muslims in the ’10s . . .

.

patrick tolle commented 2012-09-17 14:12:40 -0400 · Flag

Fux noise has got to do this. As another poster says it gives them distance and plausible deniability in the face of the inevitable, plus Rmoney is doing the things that are an absolute cardinal sin in lower wingnutistan.He’s losing and by and in doing so he’s betraying conservatism.Plus he’s making Fux Noise look bad in the process.

bemused commented 2012-09-17 10:53:41 -0400 · Flag

Actually, I think the tone IS the substance, here.

There’s rarely been much “substance” on Fox where anything less than total fawning servility has always been tantamount to treason, heresy. Murdoch’s tweets mentioned in the previous thread provide a credible answer for this unheard-of propensity of the foxies to levy any sort of criticism at their obligatory hero: a disillusioned Murdoch is using his whip on Romney and that whip is FNC.

Further evidence of a train wreck in progress.
It ain’t pretty but it certainly is mesmerizing.

W mace commented 2012-09-17 09:31:50 -0400 · Flag

Agreed. And the comments here are more along the lines of “What can we advise this rather mediocre candidate (albeit, the one we really really want to win) to help him turn is candidacy around?” His lackluster performance hurts the overarching Fox theme of Obama as a weak figure, a failure, a goose ready to be plucked. That is why I think Ellen mistakes the tone for the substance: Only when Fox criticizes Romany on issues of policy (his economic policy, his neocon foreign policy), will the description ‘critical of Romney’ have any meaning. And note: You will hardly find a hint of even tactical criticism on Fox’s stable of daily shows.

Thx4 Fish commented 2012-09-17 08:26:59 -0400 · Flag

They can’t help attacking Romney. Anything less than very aggressive campaigning is considered weak. But so far Romney’s aggressive attacks have not worked so well. He’d do better not listening to Fox, but it seems to be the only channel he tunes to.

Ellen commented 2012-09-17 03:11:43 -0400 · Flag

Aria,

I disagree. I think Fox News Sunday has been pretty darned supportive of Romney. Check out Wallace’s suck up interview with him right before the convention.

truman commented 2012-09-16 22:55:01 -0400 · Flag

Mitt’s magic underwear seems to have lost its magic. On the night of his election defeat, Fux Noise will trash him endlessly as a fatally flawed candidate.

Kevin Koster commented 2012-09-16 22:00:51 -0400 · Flag

I think you’re seeing the Fox pundits preparing themselves for the inevitable. With these positions, they can comfortably discuss the Election on the day of and the day after without that moment of having to come clean with the viewers.

This is why the behavior of Hannity and Dick Morris will likely only become more entertaining all the way up into November. I expect that Greta will continue to flack for Romney until the situation becomes obvious after the debates, and then she’ll join that chorus. O’Reilly is more of a wild card. My instincts say that he’ll start castigating Romney after the first debate, for not following whatever course O’Reilly would have preferred. I expect him to get more and more skeptical with the pro-Romney guests until November.

Average American Patriot commented 2012-09-16 21:37:04 -0400 · Flag

Not at all.

It is the 3rd quarter, bench sitting, couch ranting.

Fox could not pick anyone but the “electable” gNOpig.

Imagine the whole Fox gNOpigs had been supporting Santorum or Newt to end up supporting Mittens.

Now, it is the 3rd quarter in the game and those idiots at Fox are trying to manipulate Mittens into THEIR moves.

- Mittens! Drop new-kular bombs across the world!
- Mittens! Forget the economy!
- I am the second coming of St. Ronal Raygun.
Well, not me. But my second fiddle.
- Gosh. I have nothing to hide!

The Fox gNOpigs know they are done and are just preparing for the aftermath.

Joe Marsh commented 2012-09-16 21:36:21 -0400 · Flag

“I donât expect to hear this kind of talk on Hannity any time soon…”

Absolutely right Ellen. Not anytime soon, in fact, Slanthead will keep spinning (and lying) for Romney right through Election Day, right up to when the polls close!

And then when the results start coming in, and he loses big to Obama, Hannity will disavow Romney big time. He’ll do it in his usual Third Reich style: “He vas a miserable candidate… he deserved to loose!”

Hannity did exactly that with d’Amato in 1998, and Lazio in 2000 NY races for U.S. Senate. They were heroes and saviors right up until the polls closed, then scumbag Hannity spit on them with his patented contemptuous vile!

Aria Prescott commented 2012-09-16 20:48:09 -0400 · Flag

Quite a few people on their weekend ticket hate Romney. I mean hate him. Chris Wallace never passes up a chance to slam him.

It’s the weekday crowd that would give Romney a pass on anything.

Berick Tomes commented 2012-09-16 20:42:33 -0400 · Flag

Kristol notes that the GOP didn’t discuss foreign policy at their convention, and the Democrats did a lot at theirs. Saying, ‘look who got the bounce’ to suggest Romney ought to go big on foreign policy.

What this misses I think is that the Dems could talk about foreign policy because they have a record to run on, and their policy is seen as being competent and successful. The reason Romney and the GOP had to steer well clear of that is because they ALSO have a record… and it is the exact opposite.

Talk about foreign policy all you want, but if its the same as under G W Bush, (and it will be because its the same advisors pushing the same memes) then people will rightly conclude that it will fail again. That soil has been salted for the right, and they really ought to leave well alone.