Two Debates and The Differences

[red states rule]

In the Republican debate we had former Clintonista George Stephanpolus fire hardball questions with a left wing slant to the candidates

Then we had the far left Dem candidates get softballs from liberal hack Keith Olbermann

Then after the debates, we had the liberal nut Chris Matthews who praised the Dems and slimed the Republicans

Fair and balanced coverage the liberal media way

[avatar4321]

The Democrat debate is a joke. They are all promising the same exact stuff. The only difference is Obama is willing to negotiate with our enemies and attack our friends.

And none of them can answer any of the questions. Obama was asked a question about whether he would meet with Barry Bonds. He spent 30 seconds talking and didnt bother answering it.

The only one I saw actually answer a question was Biden I believe. He was asked a yes or no question. answered it. and stopped talking.

[red states rule]

The Democrat debate is a joke. They are all promising the same exact stuff. The only difference is Obama is willing to negotiate with our enemies and attack our friends.

And none of them can answer any of the questions. Obama was asked a question about whether he would meet with Barry Bonds. He spent 30 seconds talking and didnt bother answering it.

The only one I saw actually answer a question was Biden I believe. He was asked a yes or no question. answered it. and stopped talking.

Yet the liberal media thinks all of them can walk on water

Higher taxes, more spending, and surrender to terrorists - that pretty well sums up the Dems positions

[Hagbard Celine]

In the Republican debate we had former Clintonista George Stephanpolus fire hardball questions with a left wing slant to the candidates

Then we had the far left Dem candidates get softballs from liberal hack Keith Olbermann

Then after the debates, we had the liberal nut Chris Matthews who praised the Dems and slimed the Republicans

Fair and balanced coverage the liberal media way

BS. The Republican debaters answered every question with feelgood, talking point fluff the same as the Dems did. When are you going to learn that all politicians are full of piss and wind? They're just out to get your vote and they'll say anything they think will do the job. My favorite was when the republican candidates were asked about health care. Every one of them gave some variation of this answer: I just think we need to think about the folks here at home...and how 'bout our troops! Support 'em! And, and, the flag! Just look at the flag! Vote Republican.

I think you get the jist.

[Sitarro]

BS. The Republican debaters answered every question with feelgood, talking point fluff the same as the Dems did. When are you going to learn that all politicians are full of piss and wind? They're just out to get your vote and they'll say anything they think will do the job. My favorite was when the republican candidates were asked about health care. Every one of them gave some variation of this answer: I just think we need to think about the folks here at home...and how 'bout our troops! Support 'em! And, and, the flag! Just look at the flag! Vote Republican.

I think you get the jist.

So what you are saying is that you didn't want to waste your valuable time watching either debate........that is obvious from your post. While both sides may be full of shit to some degree, the democrats bring it to a hip wader level. None of them have a clue and all seem to be nervous kids right out of high school applying for their first job except for Hillary of course. She comes off as someone who feels she is wasting her time and should have already been annointed Queen, King, Dictator and Czar, all rolled into one.

At least the Republicans were given real questions about governing the country from a real person, not a fake snowman. Ron Paul should have had his nutcase ass at the dem debate, he fits there better, he always seems to be on the verge of crying.:cool:

[bluestatesrule]

Looks like Fred Thompson....better get on the stick...Romney is starting to get traction in Iowa....he scored some points in that last debate....I get the feeling that Thompsons time has come and gone. As for for giuliani? Hey Rudy this is as good as it gets....nowhere to go but down. As for Thompson....he as already had a big shakeup in his organzization....and hell he is not even in the race....and now there are some questions...about his relationship with a pro-choice organization in the past...whoops....does not bother me...but man those right wing bible thumpers in the south can't be too happy to here about that. Don't you miss Jerry Falwell? Well....we still have our old buddy...Pat Roberson. Oh...that's right Fred Thompson was not in the debate.....why is Rudy pulling out of theRepublican Straw Poll this week.? Somehow, some red neck conservative talk show host will find a way to blame the drive by media. They always do.

[Hagbard Celine]

So what you are saying is that you didn't want to waste your valuable time watching either debate........that is obvious from your post. While both sides may be full of shit to some degree, the democrats bring it to a hip wader level. None of them have a clue and all seem to be nervous kids right out of high school applying for their first job except for Hillary of course. She comes off as someone who feels she is wasting her time and should have already been annointed Queen, King, Dictator and Czar, all rolled into one.

At least the Republicans were given real questions about governing the country from a real person, not a fake snowman. Ron Paul should have had his nutcase ass at the dem debate, he fits there better, he always seems to be on the verge of crying.:cool:

No, no, I watched both of them. I really didn't have much choice seeing as how I work here at CNN. What I'm saying is that neither side has anything meaningful to say. The Dems have no answers, only rebukes for the administration, and the Reps have no answers, only rebukes for the Dems and fluffy, patriotic rhetoric. They're all a bunch of rabble-rousers getting fat suckling off the corporate teat. I'm done with them all. The only ones worth a damn are the ones who'll never win. I'm voting for Mike Gravel, but I'm close to not even caring anymore. Nothing will change until we take this country's reigns away from corporate lobbyists.

[Gaffer]

No, no, I watched both of them. I really didn't have much choice seeing as how I work here at CNN. What I'm saying is that neither side has anything meaningful to say. The Dems have no answers, only rebukes for the administration, and the Reps have no answers, only rebukes for the Dems and fluffy, patriotic rhetoric. They're all a bunch of rabble-rousers getting fat suckling off the corporate teat. I'm done with them all. The only ones worth a damn are the ones who'll never win. I'm voting for Mike Gravel, but I'm close to not even caring anymore. Nothing will change until we take this country's reigns away from corporate lobbyists.

I totally agree with you on this. I'm all for kicking out every incumbant and replacing them with people who are not professional politicians.

[Black Lance]

No, no, I watched both of them. I really didn't have much choice seeing as how I work here at CNN.

The liberals works at CNN. Shock and awe.

[avatar4321]

No, no, I watched both of them. I really didn't have much choice seeing as how I work here at CNN. What I'm saying is that neither side has anything meaningful to say. The Dems have no answers, only rebukes for the administration, and the Reps have no answers, only rebukes for the Dems and fluffy, patriotic rhetoric. They're all a bunch of rabble-rousers getting fat suckling off the corporate teat. I'm done with them all. The only ones worth a damn are the ones who'll never win. I'm voting for Mike Gravel, but I'm close to not even caring anymore. Nothing will change until we take this country's reigns away from corporate lobbyists.

yeah! I mean how dare people actually try to tell their represenatives what they think! Its an outrage!

[Hagbard Celine]

yeah! I mean how dare people actually try to tell their represenatives what they think! Its an outrage!

what?

[avatar4321]

what?

exactly what I said. How dare those lobbyests think they have a right to actually talk to the politician and tell them what their constituents want. its just wrong.

We should live in a system where the people have no say and that the politicians just make choices based on what they want to maintain power. that would be so much better.

[Hagbard Celine]

exactly what I said. How dare those lobbyests think they have a right to actually talk to the politician and tell them what their constituents want. its just wrong.

We should live in a system where the people have no say and that the politicians just make choices based on what they want to maintain power. that would be so much better.

Believe me, the people don't have a say. Look at it this way, a corporate lobbyist for say, Exxon Mobil or Halliburton or Wal-Mart or Philip-Morris or some other huge corporation walks into the halls of Congress backed by a checkbook with no bottom, promises millions in campaign donations and buys votes, the people lose. "The People" can't do that because individual people don't have that kind of money or power. Decisions aren't made based on the basis of what's good for the American taxpayer, they're made on the basis of what's good for the politician's pocket and/or campaign. The sh*t they feed US, support the troops this and honor the flag that, is just a bunch of fluff they use to buy our support. We're stuck making the painstaking choice between the proverbial Giant Douche or Sh*t Sandwich and in the end, neither matters because corporate lobbyists still run the show. The US government has become a tool of the Corporations man. There's nothing you can do about it except to cast your meaningless vote, watch your recycled-formula network tv and be blissfully happy in your processed, Wal-Mart sponsored life.

[avatar4321]

Believe me, the people don't have a say. Look at it this way, a corporate lobbyist for say, Exxon Mobil or Halliburton or Wal-Mart or Philip-Morris or some other huge corporation walks into the halls of Congress backed by a checkbook with no bottom, promises millions in campaign donations and buys votes, the people lose. "The People" can't do that because individual people don't have that kind of money or power. Decisions aren't made based on the basis of what's good for the American taxpayer, they're made on the basis of what's good for the politician's pocket and/or campaign. The sh*t they feed US, support the troops this and honor the flag that, is just a bunch of fluff they use to buy our support. We're stuck making the painstaking choice between the proverbial Giant Douche or Sh*t Sandwich and in the end, neither matters because corporate lobbyists still run the show. The US government has become a tool of the Corporations man. There's nothing you can do about it except to cast your meaningless vote, watch your recycled-formula network tv and be blissfully happy in your processed, Wal-Mart sponsored life.

When are you libs going to realize that every group that has lobbiests speaks for the people. It's one of many ways the people communicate with their leaders. They only way to stop it is to stop the people from talking with their politicians.

[Yurt]

The Democrat debate is a joke. They are all promising the same exact stuff. The only difference is Obama is willing to negotiate with our enemies and attack our friends.

And none of them can answer any of the questions. Obama was asked a question about whether he would meet with Barry Bonds. He spent 30 seconds talking and didnt bother answering it.

The only one I saw actually answer a question was Biden I believe. He was asked a yes or no question. answered it. and stopped talking.

The smartest dem I know.....

[red states rule]

Looks like Fred Thompson....better get on the stick...Romney is starting to get traction in Iowa....he scored some points in that last debate....I get the feeling that Thompsons time has come and gone. As for for giuliani? Hey Rudy this is as good as it gets....nowhere to go but down. As for Thompson....he as already had a big shakeup in his organzization....and hell he is not even in the race....and now there are some questions...about his relationship with a pro-choice organization in the past...whoops....does not bother me...but man those right wing bible thumpers in the south can't be too happy to here about that. Don't you miss Jerry Falwell? Well....we still have our old buddy...Pat Roberson. Oh...that's right Fred Thompson was not in the debate.....why is Rudy pulling out of theRepublican Straw Poll this week.? Somehow, some red neck conservative talk show host will find a way to blame the drive by media. They always do.


Libs are scared to death of Rudy. The Dems know they are stuck with Hillary and the only thing they can do is to try and tear down Rudy

Polls show 50% of the voters will NOT vote for Hillary - how the hell are you going to win the election with thise numbers?

Rudy will probably get the GOP nod - and you will be stuck with the Red Queen. The myth of the Clintons will end in Nov 08

[red states rule]

Believe me, the people don't have a say. Look at it this way, a corporate lobbyist for say, Exxon Mobil or Halliburton or Wal-Mart or Philip-Morris or some other huge corporation walks into the halls of Congress backed by a checkbook with no bottom, promises millions in campaign donations and buys votes, the people lose. "The People" can't do that because individual people don't have that kind of money or power. Decisions aren't made based on the basis of what's good for the American taxpayer, they're made on the basis of what's good for the politician's pocket and/or campaign. The sh*t they feed US, support the troops this and honor the flag that, is just a bunch of fluff they use to buy our support. We're stuck making the painstaking choice between the proverbial Giant Douche or Sh*t Sandwich and in the end, neither matters because corporate lobbyists still run the show. The US government has become a tool of the Corporations man. There's nothing you can do about it except to cast your meaningless vote, watch your recycled-formula network tv and be blissfully happy in your processed, Wal-Mart sponsored life.


So liberals like Hillary only take clean graft?

[avatar4321]

Libs are scared to death of Rudy. The Dems know they are stuck with Hillary and the only thing they can do is to try and tear down Rudy

Polls show 50% of the voters will NOT vote for Hillary - how the hell are you going to win the election with thise numbers?

Rudy will probably get the GOP nod - and you will be stuck with the Red Queen. The myth of the Clintons will end in Nov 08

They arent afraid of Rudy. They arent afraid of anyone. They think that Bush has screwed up this country so much that no one would be stupid enough to vote another Republican in. Of course they still cant show how Bush has screwed up this nation but thats another story.

They think its going to be a gimme

[nevadamedic]

In the Republican debate we had former Clintonista George Stephanpolus fire hardball questions with a left wing slant to the candidates

Then we had the far left Dem candidates get softballs from liberal hack Keith Olbermann

Then after the debates, we had the liberal nut Chris Matthews who praised the Dems and slimed the Republicans

Fair and balanced coverage the liberal media way

I still don't understand why the Immigration issue wasn't brought up in any of the Debates yet.

[red states rule]

They arent afraid of Rudy. They arent afraid of anyone. They think that Bush has screwed up this country so much that no one would be stupid enough to vote another Republican in. Of course they still cant show how Bush has screwed up this nation but thats another story.

They think its going to be a gimme

I think they are scared of Rudy. He would have beaten Hillary for the Senate seat if he did not have to address his health issue

The Dems are overplaying their hand and I hope they keep it up until Nov 08

[red states rule]

The liberals works at CNN. Shock and awe.

No liberal media, eh?

CBS Edits Hillary Clinton Quote to Sound Less Divisive, Skips 'Right-Wing Machine'
By Justin McCarthy | August 8, 2007 - 16:03 ET

CBS, the Rathergate network, offered up another misleading report. The August 8 edition of "The Early Show,"at 7:09 AM, edited a Hillary Clinton quote from the August 7 AFL-CIO debate to portray her as a populist.

JOIE CHEN: Front-runner Clinton also came up against sharp elbows with rivals accusing her of cozying up to big-money lobbyists. Before thousands of union members, the New York Senator sought to portray herself as champion of the little guy.


CLINTON: So if you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I'm your girl.


What she actually said was in the context of her preference in attacking the Republicans. The full quote is much more divisive than portraying herself "as champion of the little guy."

"For 15 years I have stood up against the right-wing machine and I've come out stronger. So if you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I'm your girl."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2007/08/08/cbs-edits-hillary-clinton-quote-sound-less-divisive

[red states rule]

and the liberal media will be the biggest doner to the Dems in this election cycle. All the free and favorable press they will get


Couric Praises Pelosi's New Congress for Promises Kept: They 'Worked Much Harder'
By Tim Graham | August 8, 2007 - 17:45 ET

When Nancy Pelosi rose to be the House Democrats’ leader in 2002, Katie Couric said to NBC colleague Ann Curry: "Is it okay to say, ‘You go girl!’?" That cheerleading spirit continued in her Monday "Katie Couric’s Notebook" commentary (featured at her blog Couric & Co.) lauding the new Democratic Congress: "this new crop worked much harder than the last. A big accomplishment was in challenging executive power with oversight hearings on Iraq, Medicare, the Department of Justice, and global warming." She concluded: "Promises, promises. Sometimes they are kept – even in Washington."

That was certainly not the tone of CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather took toward Speaker Gingrich and the new Republican Congress in 1995: "The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative agenda to demolish or damage government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor." Their attempts at oversight were part of a "political carpet-bombing attack."

MRC’s Michael Lanza transcribed the commentary, in which Couric consulted congressional scholar Thomas Mann from the liberal-to-moderate Brookings Institution for help in grading the liberals:

Promises, promises. In January a new Congress swept into Washington promising ethics reform, fiscal responsibility, and a change in direction for the war in Iraq. Now they’re on August recess so how did they do? We called Thomas Mann, coauthor of a book on Congress called The Broken Branch. The mood he said, continues to be ugly on Capitol Hill but this new crop worked much harder than the last. A big accomplishment was in challenging executive power with oversight hearings on Iraq, Medicare, the Department of Justice, and global warming. Stem cell legislation and immigration reform were stymied, but Congress did raise the minimum wage and pass an ethics and lobbying reform bill, designed to inject a healthy dose of transparency into the lobbying process. And funds for homeland security should now go to the cities where the threat is the greatest. Promises, promises. Sometimes they are kept even in Washington. That’s a page from my notebook. I’m Katie Couric, CBS News.


If oversight of the Bush administration on scandals like the squabble over U.S. attorney firings was "a big accomplishment," it's not hard to dig up Dan Rather's incredibly hostile characterizations of the Republican Congress in 1995. In Rather's world, President Clinton was the hero of the tale, and the Republicans were invading Huns, ripping the federal government to shreds:

"This is just for starters on a tough week ahead for President Clinton and his agenda. From another offensive wave on Whitewater to a sweeping rollback of federal regulations on health, safety, and the environment, it's a political carpet-bombing attack, wall to wall, House to Senate."
-- Dan Rather, July 17, 1995 Evening News.


Rather sounded a bit like a presidential press secretary in forwarding the idea that Clinton had reasonable ideas for improving Washington, and his enemies were radicals and extremists out to hurt people:

"President Clinton will outline his version of a plan he says will balance the federal budget in ten years without what Mr. Clinton sees as a radical and extremist Republican plan to gut programs that help the old, the young, and the poor in order to bankroll tax giveaways to the rich. Republicans, of course, see it a different way."
-- Dan Rather before CBS News coverage of President Clinton's budget address, June 13, 1995.


With the tone of Dan's copy, it's quite surprising that CBS didn't feature some Grinch cartoon shots next to Rather's head to underline the evil Republican agenda:

"The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative agenda to demolish or damage government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor." -- Dan Rather on the March 16, 1995 Evening News.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2007/08/08/couric-praises-pelosis-new-congress-promises-kept-they-worked-much-harde

[red states rule]

I still don't understand why the Immigration issue wasn't brought up in any of the Debates yet.

Here is what the liberal said was accomplished in the Dem dabate

They could have taken up less space and said "nothing:


But what did we learn from the 90 minutes of political jousting?

First, Hillary Clinton knows how to play the gender card. Not that she hasn't done that before. She plays it effectively in front of female audiences, but she seems to have a special talent for employing it in front of testosterone-filled audiences of laborites.

She delivered the sound bite of the night, one that captured all the qualities she thinks make her the Democrats' best choice in 2008: toughness, self-confidence and femininity. "For 15 years, I have stood up against the right-wing machine and I've come out stronger," she said. "So if you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I'm your girl."

Not "I'm your candidate" or "I'm the Democrat you're looking for? Instead, "I'm your girl." The line recalled her humorous throw-away line earlier this year when, acknowledging a very warm reception at the firefighters union convention in Washington, she said, "Thank you, thanks so much -- and thanks for last night too." The mostly male audience of first responders couldn't believe what they were hearing.

For the record, Clinton was acknowledging the firefighters' reception the previous evening.

Second, Barack Obama showed his mettle. The other candidates see an opening from Obama's foreign policy pronouncements of the past two weeks. Clinton jumped him two weeks ago over his willingness to meet with leaders of hostile nations during his first year as president, without preconditions.

Clinton and other rivals have seized on comments he made last week about going after terrorists inside Pakistan, if President Pervez Musharraf proves unwilling to act decisively. Chris Dodd took the lead Tuesday night when the subject came up, calling Obama "highly irresponsible" for telegraphing military action that might destabilize the Musharraf regime.

"I think it was wrong to say what he did in that matter," Dodd said.

Obama obviously knew the attacks were coming and seemed not the least bit flustered by them. He is not a natural debater but he certainly does not lack for self-confidence. He believes he is correct on the policy he has enunciated and has a ready-made counterattack: that his critics are the same people that helped get the country into the war in Iraq.

Obama may appear inexperienced to some members of the foreign policy elite, but that wasn't his audience on Tuesday. "We're debating the most important foreign policy issues that we face, and the American people have the right to know. It is not just Washington insiders that are part of the debate that has to take place with respect to how
we're going to shift our foreign policy."

Third, John Edwards is fast becoming the Howard Dean of this race. That's been apparent almost from the start of the year, but with each week it is more obvious. He has toughened his rhetoric and has sought to turn himself into the outsider candidate determined not just to battle for the nomination but to make reforming the Democratic Party a part of his message. All were elements of Dean's campaign four years ago.

Edwards knows his campaign needs a boost - and soon. Clinton has opened up a big lead in the national polls, and Edwards has fallen far back into third place. His campaign in Iowa still has a solid base of support but there is no evidence that he has expanded beyond what he had four years ago, if that. Laborites say he is pressing friendly unions for early endorsements, arguing that he needs their help now, not later.

All of that was on display last night, with Edwards denouncing corporate lobbyists for writing trade treaties that he said hurt workers; challenging Clinton for taking contributions from corporate lobbyists; and claiming he has done more to advance labor's interests in recent years than any of the other candidates.

With Dean's former campaign manager, Joe Trippi, now embedded as one of the most important strategists in his campaign, and with a pair of leaders from the anti-Wal-Mart campaign on board, Edwards has made a strategic decision to try to shake up the race by challenging Clinton and Obama at the same time.

Fourth, Joe Biden is getting tired of listening to John Edwards. When Edwards talked about all he has done for labor in the past two years, walking picket lines, campaigning for minimum wage initiatives in the states, developing policies to address labor's agenda, Biden responded in words dripping with contempt.

"The question is, did you walk when it cost?" he said. "Did you walk when you were from a state that is not a labor state? Did you walk when the corporations in your state were opposed to you? That's the measure of whether we'll be with you when it's tough, not when you're running for president in the last two years, marching on 20 or 30 or 50 picket lines."

Fifth, Dennis Kucinich had a good night. Nobody on the stage offered more of what labor wanted than Kucinich, the most liberal candidate in the field and the one with absolutely nothing to lose. He was the only one to tell the labor audience what most of them wanted to hear, that he would scrap the NAFTA treaty.

All the other candidates hedged - wringing their hands over what trade treaties have wrought, but stopping well short of promising to abrogate the treaty.

Kucinich enjoyed himself and the audience gave him a great response.

Sixth, Bill Richardson did not have a particularly bad night but got lost in the barrages among the other candidates. He is still looking for a memorable debate performance.

Seventh, nobody missed Mike Gravel. The former Alaska senator has become the scourge of the Democratic field. When he failed to fill out a questionnaire requested by the AFL-CIO, the union officials said he couldn't participate. Having one fewer candidate on stage helped everyone.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/08/seven_things_we_learned_from_t.html?hpid=topnews

[red states rule]

I wonder how the liberal media would cover this if a Republican had said this?


Obama Calls Canadian Prime Minister a 'President' - Where is Media Ridicule?
By Warner Todd Huston | August 9, 2007 - 05:43 ET
At the Democrat Party presidential debates last Tuesday, Barack Obama revealed that he didn't know that our Canadian neighbors to the north had a prime minister instead of a president leading them. Yet the MSM has practically ignored this obvious gaffe, with few of them making much of the incident. This is a far cry from how Bush was so virulently attacked for having no foreign policy "gravitas" during the 2000 campaign. But for a Democrat in 2007 it's pass time. Nothing to see here, folks, keep moving.

In response to a trade question during the debate, Obama said he'd "immediately call the president of Mexico (and) the president of Canada" to discuss the issue. Of course, Canada has no "president," and this gaffe further shows Barack's unfamiliarity with foreign nations proving his unsuitability to lead our country during an era where foreign policy will be of prime importance.

But even as Bush repeatedly got nailed, Barack is given a pass.

Now, I found a short snippet on CNN's Political Ticker blog about the gaffe with one titled Obama slip on Canada.

For the second time in recent debates, the mention of world leaders has attracted attention to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

At Tuesday night’s AFL-CIO forum in Chicago, Obama was asked if he would scrap the North American Free Trade Agreement as president. The senator from Illinois said, “I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada, to try to amend NAFTA, because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now.”

The only problem is Canada has a prime minister, not a president.

No, CNN, the "only problem" is not that Canada has a prime minister, but that Obama seems not to even know that our close neighbor has a prime minister, instead of a president.

Other than a few mentions elsewhere and this CNN note -- and a few scattered blog mentions -- about the only media outlets that mentioned this too much were Canadian ones. It isn't surprising that Canada covered it, of course, but it is surprising that the US media so ignored it.

Heck, even the extremist hate site the Democraticunderground took Obama to task for his stupid gaffe with many of the postings there!

Now, let us contrast that with what happened during the run up to the 2000 election when George W. Bush was ridiculed for not knowing the names of four leaders of countries in the world at the time that were considered trouble spots he might have to deal with as president. Andy Hiller, a political reporter for WHDH-TV, sprung this pop quiz on Bush in an interview in 1999. This story was covered extensively b the MSM. Bush was universally called a dolt and unqualified to run our foreign policy.

Yet, Obama goes from wanting to meet with our worst enemies, to bombing our allies, to not even knowing the office of the leader of one of our closest allies and he is given a pass by the MSM?

One word describes it: Hypocrites

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/08/09/obama-calls-canadian-prime-minister-president-where-media-ridicu

[red states rule]

No, no, I watched both of them. I really didn't have much choice seeing as how I work here at CNN. What I'm saying is that neither side has anything meaningful to say. The Dems have no answers, only rebukes for the administration, and the Reps have no answers, only rebukes for the Dems and fluffy, patriotic rhetoric. They're all a bunch of rabble-rousers getting fat suckling off the corporate teat. I'm done with them all. The only ones worth a damn are the ones who'll never win. I'm voting for Mike Gravel, but I'm close to not even caring anymore. Nothing will change until we take this country's reigns away from corporate lobbyists.


Why not have Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or Rush ask the questions?

Stephanopolous (talking head for Bill Clinton), hosts the GOP debate.

Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann (liberal hacks), get to host Dem debates...

Why the double-standard?

[GW in Ohio]

So what you are saying is that you didn't want to waste your valuable time watching either debate........that is obvious from your post. While both sides may be full of shit to some degree, the democrats bring it to a hip wader level. None of them have a clue and all seem to be nervous kids right out of high school applying for their first job except for Hillary of course. She comes off as someone who feels she is wasting her time and should have already been annointed Queen, King, Dictator and Czar, all rolled into one.

At least the Republicans were given real questions about governing the country from a real person, not a fake snowman. Ron Paul should have had his nutcase ass at the dem debate, he fits there better, he always seems to be on the verge of crying.:cool:

A little perspective here.....


You guys are so blinded by your partisanship that you can't see anything good in any Democrat.
Your blind hatred of Hillary Clinton brands you as right-wing wackos. I hope you're prepared to watch Hillary charm enough independent voters and Republican women to win the presidency.
It's interesting that you've embraced Rudy Giuliani as your Great White Hope to keep the presidency. Giuliani's views on abortion, gay rights and gun control would normally make your heads spin. However, I'm pleased to see that you have a pragmatic streak and recognize that Rudy is your strongest candidate.

[Hagbard Celine]

Why not have Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or Rush ask the questions?

Stephanopolous (talking head for Bill Clinton), hosts the GOP debate.

Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann (liberal hacks), get to host Dem debates...

Why the double-standard?

We're talking about the "CNN" debates right? I'll let you put that one together.

[red states rule]

We're talking about the "CNN" debates right? I'll let you put that one together.

It would be one way to increase the ratings for the Dem debates. Over at CNN, you people are in desperate need of something that would attract viewers

Foc News continues to drive your network into the ground