John McCain and the Mother of all Flip-Flops

[suedanim]

John McCain, flip-flopper (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/07/johnmccain.uselections2008)

McCain used to oppose the Bush tax cuts, and his embrace of them now is blatant pandering to conservatives

It's economy week, as both candidates will travel around touting their economic plans. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/us/politics/07memo.html?ref=todayspaper) Barack Obama starts in North Carolina, and John McCain in Colorado.

We've been talking a lot about flip-flops in the past week, some of them real, most of them imaginary. But I've been astonished at how few people have mentioned the obvious mother of all flip-flops in this campaign so far – John McCain's embrace of the Bush administration tax cuts.

In 2001, McCain was one of just two Republican senators to vote against the tax cuts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/24/AR2008042403456.html). "I think it still devotes too much of it to the wealthiest Americans," he said at the time. And now? Well of course big tax cuts are the anchor of his economic plan. But what tells us more about the man is where and how he indicated the change.

It was last December at a sit-down with the Wall Street Journal editorial board (http://schotlinepress.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/john-mccains-wall-street-journal-editorial-board/) when McCain first made unequivocally clear that as president, he would fight to make Bush's tax cuts permanent (some are set to expire in 2010). Boy, now that's courage. Remember the story of the French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, who saw a crowd marching through Paris and reportedly said (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/there_go_my_people-i_must_find_out_where_they_are/221026.html): "There go my people, I must find out where they are going so I can lead them"? Thus, McCain to Paul Gigot (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pgigot/bio.html): Tell me where to go, master, and I will lead you there!

This week, McCain will travel the country explaining why these tax cuts – which so disproportionately are doing exactly what the 2001 McCain said they would, benefiting the very wealthiest Americans to the tune of nearly a half-trillion dollars (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm) - have to be made permanent. This is not a nip or a tuck or a refinement. This is a blatant and complete reneging on past principle.

I'm not sure, however, about the politics of Obama spending the week calling McCain on this. The politics of tax-cutting is tricky for Democrats, and even though Obama has proposed his own package of middle-class cuts, the idea that Republicans will lower people's taxes and Democrats will raise them is pretty hard-wired into the body politic. So it might be that a critical mass of voters would react to McCain's flip-flop on this by thinking, hey, I don't care, as long as I get a tax cut, fine with me.

There are signs that that dynamic is less powerful now than it was in 2000 or in 1980 – recall how Obama stood his ground, with respectable results, in opposing the federal summer gas-tax holiday that McCain and Hillary Clinton had supported during the Indiana primary. But it's still risky ground for Democrats.

Other aspects of McCain's plan seem even less serious. He's going to balance the budget by the end of his first term (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11553.html) by cutting spending and cracking down on entitlements? That sounds lovely, but it's just nonsense.

The federal deficit is projected – assuming the Bush tax cuts are extended, which McCain of course assumes – to total $443bn by 2013.

Obama economic adviser Jason Furman estimates that reaching that number in cuts would require cutting every federal department, including defence, by one third.

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Furman is exaggerating and the real amount of necessary cuts is 25%, or even 20%. John McCain has been in Congress long enough to know that that is totally impossible. On top of that, McCain pledges to "reform" Social Security as a way of saving money. A Republican promising to reform Social Security is sort of like an ivory black-marketer promising to see to it that elephants are treated more humanely.

Why is McCain proposing things that are, as he surely knows, irresponsible (the tax cuts), chimerical (the budget cuts) and potential political suicide (rethinking Social Security)? The answer is straightforward. Conservatives don't trust him, and he feels he has to win their trust. That's bad policy, and it's not even good politics. The man who once said he knew little about the economy is now proving it.

[lily]

As I said before, McCain seems to be getting a pass from the press. I guess it's more important that Obama decided not to take tax money for his campaign, than getting tax money from the rich. Oh well.......it's free air time and with Obama's oratory skills it's as good as a campaign ad.

Sad, a Democrat handed over one of the biggest surpluses in history and a Republican is now going to hand back to a Democrat the biggest defeciet in history.

[william the wierd]

What is needed is a Value Added Tax that exempts a shortlist of necessities say groceries, children's clothing and non-cosmetic medical/dental expenditure. I see no proposals for that.

[lily]

Wouldnt that be more of a state thing? I know food isn't taxed in my state.

[dgun]

http://flakmag.com/misc/images/wafflehouse.jpg

[BoogyMan]

Sue, I thought flip-flops were just a change of mind? Those WERE your words. It is interesting that you keep posting about flip-flops when you give your own favored politician a complete pass.

[4Reaganomics]

just words, just speeches

An Obama flip flop is a change of mind and a McCain flip flop is dishonest and immoral

thanks for holding the same standards across the spectrum, we appreciate it

[suedanim]

Sue, I thought flip-flops were just a change of mind? Those WERE your words. It is interesting that you keep posting about flip-flops when you give your own favored politician a complete pass.

:clapper: Good one boogey... Except.. Apples and Oranges. I just don't equate the two as equal. How can I? How can you?

A man's changes his mind about TAKING taxpayer money to fund his campaign, while another changes his mind about cutting taxes on the rich, first opposing the Bush plan, saying it isn't fair to enrich the richest with those tax cuts, but now... it is fair.

The tax cuts issue is HUGE. We are in massive debt, the dollar in trouble, in a recession and unemployment rising... and McCain thinks tax cuts on the wealthiest is NOW a good idea to keep in effect? NOW? It hasn't worked to improve the economy in George's tenure in office, what makes McCain think this is a good time to make matters even worse?

With little reduction in spending proposed outside of cherry picking social programs to be slashed, much to the detriment of working poor, children, elderly, disabled, mentally ill and homeless and retaining, even expanding corporate welfare benefits and tax cuts for the rich, treating their entitlements as... sacred .. McCain and his economic plan are proven scandalous and cruel beyond belief. But then, we should all expect that from Phil Gramm, his economic guru.

[ECW]

A man's changes his mind about TAKING taxpayer money to fund his campaign, while another changes his mind about cutting taxes on the rich, first opposing the Bush plan, saying it isn't fair to enrich the richest with those tax cuts, but now... it is fair.

Note that he did not criticize McCain's plan to protect the wealthy, only the fact that you pointed it out as a change in his principles. Who is to say that this will be the last time he changes his mind? McCain might turn around after the convention and oppose the tax cuts and then a week before the election change back again. He "changes his mind" like a Viking takes a bath: at least twice a year whether he needs to or not.

McCain and his economic plan are proven scandalous and cruel beyond belief. But then, we should all expect that from Phil Gramm, his economic guru.

Calling Phil Gramm an economic guru (after the mess he helped to create with the mortgage crisis) is like calling Condi Rice Miss America. Please.

[dgun]

An Obama flip flop is a change of mind and a McCain flip flop is dishonest and immoral

I'm glad we understand each other.

Let's be honest, politicians say whatever they need to say to appease the poll Gods.

Like last week when the Supreme court ruled that a state cannot execute anyone except for murder. Or that was the ruling more or less.

Obama and McCain both condemned the ruling, because the case dealt with a child being raped and there is no way to be intelligent about it because the general public is quite ignorant and the opposing candidate would take the opportunity to bash the ever living crap out of the other if either had said different.

Of course, I would be stunned if in fact both of them don't secretly agree with the ruling. The ruling was quite correct. It would set an obscenely absurd precedent to give the buffoonish demagoguing cretins that make up State legislatures a broad mandate to execute people for crimes other than murder.

[PostmodernProphet]

as I recall it, when he spoke against the tax cut at the time of passage he said that he wouldn't vote for it unless there was a commitment from Congress to cut spending along with it......don't you wish THAT idea had been followed through then......

[BoogyMan]

:clapper: Good one boogey... Except.. Apples and Oranges. I just don't equate the two as equal. How can I? How can you?

A man's changes his mind about TAKING taxpayer money to fund his campaign, while another changes his mind about cutting taxes on the rich, first opposing the Bush plan, saying it isn't fair to enrich the richest with those tax cuts, but now... it is fair.

The tax cuts issue is HUGE. We are in massive debt, the dollar in trouble, in a recession and unemployment rising... and McCain thinks tax cuts on the wealthiest is NOW a good idea to keep in effect? NOW? It hasn't worked to improve the economy in George's tenure in office, what makes McCain think this is a good time to make matters even worse?

With little reduction in spending proposed outside of cherry picking social programs to be slashed, much to the detriment of working poor, children, elderly, disabled, mentally ill and homeless and retaining, even expanding corporate welfare benefits and tax cuts for the rich, treating their entitlements as... sacred .. McCain and his economic plan are proven scandalous and cruel beyond belief. But then, we should all expect that from Phil Gramm, his economic guru.

You have provided little more than the standard left wing line that the tax cuts are bad here Sue, and you have done it on the heels of having defined a flip-flop as "just a change of mind." I am not a big McCain supporter, but you set the standard and refuse to hold both major candidates to it. The hypocrisy bell is once again ringing loudly.

[ECW]

as I recall it, when he spoke against the tax cut at the time of passage he said that he wouldn't vote for it unless there was a commitment from Congress to cut spending along with it......don't you wish THAT idea had been followed through then......

Then the first republican congress in a generation proceeded to show us what runaway spending was all about. Now that fiscally responsible Democrats are back in charge, he's "changed his mind"?

Yeah.

Right.

:lmao:

[Wndrtch]

John McCain, flip-flopper (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/07/johnmccain.uselections2008)

McCain used to oppose the Bush tax cuts, and his embrace of them now is blatant pandering to conservatives

It's economy week, as both candidates will travel around touting their economic plans. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/us/politics/07memo.html?ref=todayspaper) Barack Obama starts in North Carolina, and John McCain in Colorado.

We've been talking a lot about flip-flops in the past week, some of them real, most of them imaginary. But I've been astonished at how few people have mentioned the obvious mother of all flip-flops in this campaign so far – John McCain's embrace of the Bush administration tax cuts.

In 2001, McCain was one of just two Republican senators to vote against the tax cuts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/24/AR2008042403456.html). "I think it still devotes too much of it to the wealthiest Americans," he said at the time. And now? Well of course big tax cuts are the anchor of his economic plan. But what tells us more about the man is where and how he indicated the change.

It was last December at a sit-down with the Wall Street Journal editorial board (http://schotlinepress.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/john-mccains-wall-street-journal-editorial-board/) when McCain first made unequivocally clear that as president, he would fight to make Bush's tax cuts permanent (some are set to expire in 2010). Boy, now that's courage. Remember the story of the French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, who saw a crowd marching through Paris and reportedly said (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/there_go_my_people-i_must_find_out_where_they_are/221026.html): "There go my people, I must find out where they are going so I can lead them"? Thus, McCain to Paul Gigot (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pgigot/bio.html): Tell me where to go, master, and I will lead you there!

This week, McCain will travel the country explaining why these tax cuts – which so disproportionately are doing exactly what the 2001 McCain said they would, benefiting the very wealthiest Americans to the tune of nearly a half-trillion dollars (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm) - have to be made permanent. This is not a nip or a tuck or a refinement. This is a blatant and complete reneging on past principle.

I'm not sure, however, about the politics of Obama spending the week calling McCain on this. The politics of tax-cutting is tricky for Democrats, and even though Obama has proposed his own package of middle-class cuts, the idea that Republicans will lower people's taxes and Democrats will raise them is pretty hard-wired into the body politic. So it might be that a critical mass of voters would react to McCain's flip-flop on this by thinking, hey, I don't care, as long as I get a tax cut, fine with me.

There are signs that that dynamic is less powerful now than it was in 2000 or in 1980 – recall how Obama stood his ground, with respectable results, in opposing the federal summer gas-tax holiday that McCain and Hillary Clinton had supported during the Indiana primary. But it's still risky ground for Democrats.

Other aspects of McCain's plan seem even less serious. He's going to balance the budget by the end of his first term (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11553.html) by cutting spending and cracking down on entitlements? That sounds lovely, but it's just nonsense.

The federal deficit is projected – assuming the Bush tax cuts are extended, which McCain of course assumes – to total $443bn by 2013.

Obama economic adviser Jason Furman estimates that reaching that number in cuts would require cutting every federal department, including defence, by one third.

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Furman is exaggerating and the real amount of necessary cuts is 25%, or even 20%. John McCain has been in Congress long enough to know that that is totally impossible. On top of that, McCain pledges to "reform" Social Security as a way of saving money. A Republican promising to reform Social Security is sort of like an ivory black-marketer promising to see to it that elephants are treated more humanely.

Why is McCain proposing things that are, as he surely knows, irresponsible (the tax cuts), chimerical (the budget cuts) and potential political suicide (rethinking Social Security)? The answer is straightforward. Conservatives don't trust him, and he feels he has to win their trust. That's bad policy, and it's not even good politics. The man who once said he knew little about the economy is now proving it.

This flip-flop pales compared to the conversion taking place with Obama. Obama is delecately tacting away from his "pull out of Iraq" pledge to his wing-nuts on the Left.

First was his corse change on Iran, next will come Iraq, after he returns from his first visit over there (after he was embarresed by McCain about not meeting US Generals).

Obama is the candidate for change, alright. He changes his policies regularly.

[suedanim]

This flip-flop pales compared to the conversion taking place with Obama. Obama is delecately tacting away from his "pull out of Iraq" pledge to his wing-nuts on the Left.

First was his corse change on Iran, next will come Iraq, after he returns from his first visit over there (after he was embarresed by McCain about not meeting US Generals).

Obama is the candidate for change, alright. He changes his policies regularly.

This thread is not about Obama and its not about me. Please stay on topic.

This thread is about McCain's flipflop on taxcuts for the wealthiest in this country. What does the GOP plan to do with a candidate who intends to be George Bush all over again? Not one Bush policy I can think was successful in eight years.. but McCain embraces them?

What ever happened to that maverick, the straight talk express? His talk can't be straight cause he veers to the right and left or takes a nose dive regularly on just about everything he takes a stand on. Even the right has to be able to see just how unstable this guy is. Seems to me... whatever accusation you can make about Obama, you at least have to make against McCain X100.

It was last December at a sit-down with the Wall Street Journal editorial board (http://schotlinepress.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/john-mccains-wall-street-journal-editorial-board/) when McCain first made unequivocally clear that as president, he would fight to make Bush's tax cuts permanent (some are set to expire in 2010). Boy, now that's courage. Remember the story of the French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, who saw a crowd marching through Paris and reportedly said (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/there_go_my_people-i_must_find_out_where_they_are/221026.html): "There go my people, I must find out where they are going so I can lead them"? Thus, McCain to Paul Gigot (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pgigot/bio.html): Tell me where to go, master, and I will lead you there!

This week, McCain will travel the country explaining why these tax cuts – which so disproportionately are doing exactly what the 2001 McCain said they would, benefiting the very wealthiest Americans to the tune of nearly a half-trillion dollars (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm) - have to be made permanent. This is not a nip or a tuck or a refinement. This is a blatant and complete reneging on past principle.

The McCain maverick on this issue and others no longer exists. Are you really so sure he hasn't had a microchip implanted in his brain? How else can someone make a leap this big?

[suedanim]

You have provided little more than the standard left wing line that the tax cuts are bad here Sue, and you have done it on the heels of having defined a flip-flop as "just a change of mind." I am not a big McCain supporter, but you set the standard and refuse to hold both major candidates to it. The hypocrisy bell is once again ringing loudly.

ANYWAY... What is YOUR pov on McCain's position?

[heyjude]

If he was elected, McCain might very well support getting rid of the tax cuts again. Unlike other candidates for president, McCain doesn't have to worry about re-election. He said he won't run for a second term. That is one of the big reasons Reps are worried about McCain.

I don't believe there would be a weeks difference between when the troops would come home with either of them. Or rather we will build permanent bases in Iraq. Or leave troops there for 100 years. Unless the Iraqis kick us out, and we wouldn't go easily.

55% of Obama's financial support comes from PAC's. He lies when he says he get 90% of his money from small doners. Oh yes, Obama lies. And flip-flops. Just like McCain.

[Wndrtch]

This thread is not about Obama and its not about me. Please stay on topic.

This thread is about McCain's flipflop on taxcuts for the wealthiest in this country. What does the GOP plan to do with a candidate who intends to be George Bush all over again? Not one Bush policy I can think was successful in eight years.. but McCain embraces them?

If you wanted this to only be about McCain, then why did you post it in "Current Events"? It should have been posted in "McCain".

What ever happened to that maverick, the straight talk express? His talk can't be straight cause he veers to the right and left or takes a nose dive regularly on just about everything he takes a stand on. Even the right has to be able to see just how unstable this guy is. Seems to me... whatever accusation you can make about Obama, you at least have to make against McCain X100.

At least McCain is moving in the direction we cons want him to move. Obama is moving away from his base.

This is because both men know that the voting population is more Conservative leaning, than Liberal.

The McCain maverick on this issue and others no longer exists. Are you really so sure he hasn't had a microchip implanted in his brain? How else can someone make a leap this big?

I don't know. I'll write an email to Obama's staff, and see what they say.

[Wndrtch]

I don't believe there would be a weeks difference between when the troops would come home with either of them. Or rather we will build permanent bases in Iraq. Or leave troops there for 100 years. Unless the Iraqis kick us out, and we wouldn't go easily.


We already built a base in Iraq.

[brien]

The difference between Obama and McCain, as John Nance Garner once said; "isn't worth a warm bucket of shit". Flip Flop seems to be the "accusation du jour" for this election and I can't say it is wrong. I have never seen so much "flip flopping" since I used to land Blue Gills on the mud while fishing off shore the lake when I was a boy.

[tony mitra]

Why "Mother" of all flip flops?

Why not father, or brother, or uncle, cousin, second cousin, neighbor, milkman etc ?
Just kidding.
If they are not flipping, they are flopping.

[Wndrtch]

The difference between Obama and McCain, as John Nance Garner once said; "isn't worth a warm bucket of shit". Flip Flop seems to be the "accusation du jour" for this election and I can't say it is wrong. I have never seen so much "flip flopping" since I used to land Blue Gills on the mud while fishing off shore the lake when I was a boy.

At least they are BOTH flopping to the Right. Shows they both know the country is right of center.

[NIOSA]

Obama voted today on the FISA bill, he voted in favor of. A big ol flip flop right there.
"Words have meaning"
Barack Obama

[ECW]

If you wanted this to only be about McCain, then why did you post it in "Current Events"? It should have been posted in "McCain".

Staying on topic is policy regardless of the forum.

Obama voted today on the FISA bill, he voted in favor of. A big ol flip flop right there. "Words have meaning" Barack Obama

Like Sue said, this is about John McCain, not Barack Obama.

This is because both men know that the voting population is more Conservative leaning, than Liberal.

The voting population is sick of conservatives and their money-grubbing sellout of the American people.

They are especially sick of the republican candidate who changes positions on issues like athletes change teams. When the money is right, they move. McCain is just like that. He wants Bush's fundraising base so he whored himself to get it. Happy now?

[PostmodernProphet]

Now that fiscally responsible Democrats are back in charge, he's "changed his mind"?

show me a fiscally responsible Democrat....you don't expect me to believe in the Tooth Fairy as well, do you?......

[ECW]

Bill Clinton.

Thanks for the softball question, Larry King.

[4Reaganomics]

Staying on topic is policy regardless of the forum.



Like Sue said, this is about John McCain, not Barack Obama.



The voting population is sick of conservatives and their money-grubbing sellout of the American people.

They are especially sick of the republican candidate who changes positions on issues like athletes change teams. When the money is right, they move. McCain is just like that. He wants Bush's fundraising base so he whored himself to get it. Happy now?

and Obama didn't whore himself out and sacrifice principles to obtain funding

pot......I'd like to introduce you to kettle

[heyjude]

That was some serious whoring. And saying he would filibuster the FISA legislation, then lining up to violate the rights of the American people. Wow. That was a good one.

[4Reaganomics]

His job isn't to represent leftists interests. His job is to get elected. He is a politician, don't fall for the "change, something fresh" hysteria.

He's a career politician

[ECW]

and Obama didn't whore himself out and sacrifice principles to obtain funding

pot......I'd like to introduce you to kettle

You can call it whoring. I call it not letting the system (which is tilted towards the GOP) play you.

[ECW]

That was some serious whoring. And saying he would filibuster the FISA legislation, then lining up to violate the rights of the American people. Wow. That was a good one.

Yeah. I'm disappointed, too. But if he gets elected and let's his AG go after them on criminal charges, I can forgive his trespass.

[suedanim]

This thread is NOT about Obama... Ths thread.. please stay on topic..is about John McCain's flipflop. If you have beef... which I do...with Obama's vote on FISA start your own damn thread.

Right now... the discussion is about TAX CUTS and McCain's reversal. What happened to that maverick? Who is his master now? Paul Gigot and Phil Gramm, that bleeding heart who calls the American people "whiners" and says Americans are in a mental slowdown recession, apparently are two of his masters, but why?

According to Gramm... the economy problems are all in our heads, quit bitching!!

Paul Gigot... conservative..Wall Street Jounal editor, talk show pundit....and FOXNEWS commentator.

What more can be said? McCain is owned.

Why do you people defend tax cuts for the rich? YOU hardly are beneficiaries of it and look at your damn gas and grocery bill, your house payments!! What are you thinking? Do you so love the wealthy you want to help them be richer? What is that all about? What do you get out of this, seeing your party in power, though you an yours suffer along with the rest of us?

Phil Gramm don't give a shit about YOU! John McCain could care less about you. These people are truly of the longterm, lifetime, old money.... elite class. Do you think they care whether you can afford to get to work cause the gas prices are through the roof and going up? Obviously not...based on Gramm's statements and despite McCains CRAP distancing... Gramm is McCain's primary economic advisor.

Now what?



We've been talking a lot about flip-flops in the past week, some of them real, most of them imaginary. But I've been astonished at how few people have mentioned the obvious mother of all flip-flops in this campaign so far – John McCain's embrace of the Bush administration tax cuts.

In 2001, McCain was one of just two Republican senators to vote against the tax cuts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/24/AR2008042403456.html). "I think it still devotes too much of it to the wealthiest Americans," he said at the time. And now? Well of course big tax cuts are the anchor of his economic plan. But what tells us more about the man is where and how he indicated the change.

It was last December at a sit-down with the Wall Street Journal editorial board (http://schotlinepress.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/john-mccains-wall-street-journal-editorial-board/) when McCain first made unequivocally clear that as president, he would fight to make Bush's tax cuts permanent (some are set to expire in 2010). Boy, now that's courage. Remember the story of the French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, who saw a crowd marching through Paris and reportedly said (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/there_go_my_people-i_must_find_out_where_they_are/221026.html): "There go my people, I must find out where they are going so I can lead them"? Thus, McCain to Paul Gigot (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pgigot/bio.html): Tell me where to go, master, and I will lead you there!

This week, McCain will travel the country explaining why these tax cuts – which so disproportionately are doing exactly what the 2001 McCain said they would, benefiting the very wealthiest Americans to the tune of nearly a half-trillion dollars (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm) - have to be made permanent. This is not a nip or a tuck or a refinement. This is a blatant and complete reneging on past principle.


<H1 class=firstHeading>Paul Gigot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul A. Gigot is a Pulitzer Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize_for_Commentary)-winning conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism) political commentator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commentator) and the editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editing) of the editorial pages for The Wall Street Journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal). He is also the moderator of the public affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_affairs_programming) television series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_program) Journal Editorial Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_Editorial_Report), a program reflecting the Journal's editorial views which airs on Fox News Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel).

</H1>