 |
I don't think this is the entire segment - it's 3:58, and pretty mild.
Posted on 08/18/2016 6:12:53 PM PDT by Cats Pajamas
Fox News loves the Bush Administration. That’s why she’s on there.
What heart?
I don’t care about her looks or her hairdo.
She is just plain boring. Vapid. Nonessential.
She bombed on Jeopardy too.
She's a DC girl now (Dumb Cumpster)...
Everything went to hell when Tony Snow died
|
I don't think this is the entire segment - it's 3:58, and pretty mild.
You owe Monica Lewinski an apology.
Pray America wakes
What heart?
This ain’t news. She was for Jeb and then Marco. She has always been never Trump
How did O’Reilly expose her? What did he say? Did he just quote Wikipedia?
Yes, I suppose so.
You are right. Wonderful, kind and fair man. Always seemed upbeat and happy. Miss him.
I used to like Brit Hume but Trump accidentally flushed him out as a spoiled snob.
When and how and where did O'Reilly "expose Bushite lover Dana Perino" ???
(P.S...I had her pegged as Bushie PeRINO when she first arrived at Fox News. So what am I missing in the above post?)
Leni
I’m watching the BOR segment with Dana right now...literally...
I’m still trying to figure out how BOR is “exposing” her for being a Bushie...
Anybody who has watched for years already knows that little factoid...
So what? She’s just saying that it looks like Mr. Trump is not going to win. Right now, it doesn’t look that way to me, either. Dana, like me, got caught up in the Romney hype in 2012 and figured he was going to win. He did not, of course.
I like Dana.
That 2012 excuse is way past it’s expiration.
“How did O’Reilly expose her? What did he say? Did he just quote Wikipedia?”
Yeah, I’d like to know the answer to that too....
Bill O’Reilly challenged co-host of The Five Dana Perino, asking if her defense of polling data showing Trump behind was perhaps a manifestation of an anti-Trump bias.
Perino came under fire when she challenged fellow The Five co-host and Trump booster Eric Bolling for his attempts to dismiss all the polling data in favor of more truthy metrics like rally crowd size and social media followers.
In a series of tweets Wednesday night, Perino defended her decision to believe in polls rather than offer viewers some rose-tinted take on the data pushing a false narrative that the conservative candidate was in the lead.
She clarified her position in a Medium post:
In the 2012 election, Republicans believed that the polls were skewed in Obama’s favor, and did not take conservative enthusiasm into consideration. I was one of them — I believed we were going to win. I believed the polls were wrong.
[…] On election night when President Obama easily won reelection, I vowed to never put myself in that position again. I wouldn’t simply listen to what I wanted to hear. I would instead take the numbers for what they were, because the polling involved specifically in presidential elections has been accurate since 1952.
“The state of the GOP race right now is really bad,” she told O’Reilly, mentioning that Fox News viewers wanted her to stay optimistic in contradiction to the data.
O’Reilly noted Perino’s history of working with the Bush family, and asked about the “bad blood” between the Bushes and Trump. “Does that have anything to do with how you analyze Trump?” he asked.
“I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination it is right to tell people that just because he has really enthusiastic rallies that that means there is going to be a surprise and the polls are wrong,” she told O’Reilly.
—
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.