Fox News Does The Right Thing With Gingrich And Santorum

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Huckabee, Media, Money, Newt, Palin

Both Newt and Rick are making presidential rumblings and that means that paying them on a “news” channel is a bad idea…apparently.

From New York Times:

On Wednesday, the cable news channel suspended two paid contributors, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who are both weighing presidential bids.

While the channel’s move seems pre-emptive — Mr. Gingrich is expected to signal his intentions on Thursday — it still leaves Fox with three other potential candidates: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and John Bolton. But those three, according to Fox, have not shown serious intentions to set up presidential exploratory committees.

This is what they had to say…

“We can’t have Speaker Gingrich on our payroll while he is in the midst of an exploratory committee to see if he’s going to run for office,” Dianne Brandi, Fox News’s executive vice president for legal and business affairs, told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s a clear conflict.”

So, Gingrich and Santorum are gone. Now they need to do the right thing with Huckabee and Palin (I seriously doubt Bolton would run). We all know those two are running.

By the way…

No other television networks employ anyone who is expected to run for the Republican nomination.

Do they employ any Democrats?

Just saying…


This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011 and is filed under Huckabee, Media, Money, Newt, Palin. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

7 Responses to “Fox News Does The Right Thing With Gingrich And Santorum”

  1. Tillyosu Says:

    Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Bob Beckel, Pat Caddell, Alan Colmes, Geraldo Rivera, Kirsten Powers, Susan Estrich…

    Do you even watch Fox?

  2. Newsbusters: HuffPo Hypes Anderson Cooper Ratings ‘Surge’ to #16 in Cable News | Katy Pundit Says:

    [...] [...]

  3. kranky kritter Says:

    Palin’s not going to run. Huckabee? We’ll see. He feels and sounds comfortable in his current role. His appeal is somewhat provincial in how its thickness varies. And he is still young enough that he can afford to wait and avoid running against an incumbent, presuming Obama wins, of course. OTOH, the problem with delay is that you may lose relevance and regard. By 2016, he’d be 9 years removed from having been a governor. Romney and Gingrich now suffer this same problem of having dissipated into becoming, well, gadflies for lack of a better term.

    It doesn’t thrill me that Fox has provided soft landings for conservative celebrities, but sadly it’s not all that different from ESPN hiring ex-coaches and celebrity jocks. I don’t like that the line between news and entertainment has become so blurred. But that battle’s been lost and the ship has log since sailed.

    My expectation is that as modern politics and modern media evolves, it’s only a matter of time before we elect a President that won in large part due to his or her celebrity and prominence in some media role and not due to a traditional approach to election: running for and winning progressively more important political offices over time. Learning and paying dues in the trenches.

    We probably won’t see a win soon by someone who utterly circumvented the traditional political path, but it will eventually happen. Before that, we’ll probably see a win by someone who worked in politics long enough to win office and some prominence and who then took a big media position and used that prominence to grow into a greater force. probably in concert with some sort of tightly controlled guerilla-social-media campaign.

    Whether we like it or not, traditional journalistic routes for political coverage are progressively losing prominence and control. Social media are going to play a growing role in further diminishing the traditional mainstream media’s power as gatekeeper. Newspapers (and their e-equivalents) and networks and radio stations no longer have a monopoly on content.

    BTW, don’t anyone mistake me as arguing that this is for the better. I am simply arguing that it is. Inevitable, that is. We’re choosing it via our collective behavior every day.

  4. michael mcEachran Says:

    Yeah, I don’t think Palin is running, either. I don’t think she wants the job – doesn’t pay enough, and quitting as President would be trickier than quitting as Governor. Huckabee wants it, but I don’t think he thinks he can actually win. I don’t think any of them seriously think they can win, unless the economy completely tanks – and the prospects for a double dip recession seem to be fading – which i’m sure is a deep dissappointment for the GOP.

    How often does a failed bid for President get followed up with successful run down the road. Reagan and Nixon come to mind. Any others? Seems like in general, a candidate does not want to be seen to “try-try-again”. Looks bad, right?

  5. kranky kritter Says:

    LOL. Everyone seems to be climbing down from their “what if Palin is the next president” tree. I’ve been saying it wasn’t going to happen for what seems like over a year now. So I wonder what the turning point was, or if maybe one by one people just slowly realized it was silly, that Palin is just not in that league.

    Was it the reality show? Anyway, the preposterousess of President Palin now seems almost as obvious as P{resident Trump. Thankfully.

    Glenn Beck’s ratings are substantially down as well. Have folks cried themselves out, gotten past the rage and denial? And now they’re working at re-orienting their expectations while looking for someone that makes sense beyond simply talking points? Hmm. Atempting idea, but I dunno.

    How often does a failed bid for President get followed up with successful run down the road.

    That’s a good question to use as a vehicle for pointing out that generalizations can lead us astray, From your examples, we know it’s not a disqualifier. So my sense is that if you are a high-caliber candidate, people won’t view you as disqualified for losing unless you lost in a way that left a really bad taste. Remember, Reagan and elder Bush both once ran for and failed to win the nomination. So they “ran for President and lost” in a sense, too.

    Mondale, Gore, Kerry, and Dole lost in ways that left a bad taste. Not that Dole could have run again anyway, of course.

    Anyway, IMO all signs point to a GOP nominee who is now a sitting governor.

    Oh, and one last thing. Santorum? RUFKM?

  6. mw Says:

    I just don’t think she is quite up to the task of being president.

  7. michael mcEachran Says:

    @ KK: ‘LOL. Everyone seems to be climbing down from their “what if Palin is the next president” tree.’

    For the record, I don’t think I was in that tree, but I get your point. I think a lot folks were just freaked out by how many other Americans seemed to be taking her seriously. We do live in era where non-conventional candidates can be successful Reagan, Ventura, Schwartzenegger, Snooky, Palin. Sure it seems silly now… I think what really brought everyone down from the tree was her video after the Nevada shooting. She was so obviously not Presidential – so obviously and so completely obsessed with herself that she couldn’t see that the country was actually focused on the victims and not on her – and it I think her bubble burst at that moment. I think history will show that video address as her high water mark. She does seem silly now and not so scary.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: