Media criticize ABC moderators for "flat-out repulsive" debate performances, "specious and gossipy" subject matter
SUMMARY: Numerous media figures have criticized George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson, moderators of the Democratic presidential debate on ABC, or the subject matter of the event, in part or in whole, as "shoddy [and] despicable," "specious and gossipy," "cringe-worthy," "banal," consisting of "tabloid trivia," "flat-out repulsive," "embarrassing," "seem[ingly] slanted against [Sen. Barack] Obama," "shameful," and "an outrage."
Following the April 16 Democratic presidential debate on ABC, moderated by ABC News senior political correspondent George Stephanopoulos and World News Tonight anchor Charles Gibson, numerous media figures have criticized the moderators or the subject matter of the event, in part or in whole, as "shoddy [and] despicable," "specious and gossipy," "cringe-worthy," "banal," consisting of "tabloid trivia," "flat-out repulsive," "embarrassing," "seem[ingly] slanted against [Sen. Barack] Obama," "shameful," and "an outrage."
Washington Post television critic Tom Shales, in an April 17 article headlined "In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC," described the debate as "another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances." Shales added that the debate "dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia" and "seemed slanted against Obama."
Time magazine's Michael Grunwald, in an April 17 article headlined "The Democrats Play Trivial Pursuit," wrote, "Obama's memoir dripped with contempt for modern gotcha politics, for a campaign culture obsessed with substantively irrelevant but supposedly symbolic gaffes," and added, "Last night at the National Constitution Center, at a Democratic debate that was hyped by ABC as a discussion of serious constitutional issues, America got to see exactly what Obama was complaining about."
In an April 16 article on Editor & Publisher's website, Greg Mitchell wrote, "In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame."
In an April 16 entry on The Denver Post's Off the Record blog, Joanne Ostrow wrote of the debate, "The media has driven the obsession with gaffes, an obsession that cuts against all three presidential candidates. With endless hours to fill, cable in particular fans the flames, keeps petty spats alive and refuses to let go when there's a hint of controversy." She added, "Blame ABC and Charlie Gibson for running a taped question from a Pennsylvania voter of whether or not Obama loves the American flag. This impugning of the candidate's patriotism is a red herring fueled by the network running the debate. Even as it was broadcast, you could feel a national sense of dread over how many hours will be devoted to flag pins in the weeks ahead."
In an April 17 entry on Time's Swampland blog, headlined "A Lousy Debate ... plus Latest Column," Joe Klein wrote, "I was as dismayed with the second half of the debate -- the 'substantive' part -- as I was with the first. The ABC moderators clearly didn't spend much time thinking about creative substantive gambits. They asked banal, lapidary questions, rather than trying to break new ground." [emphasis in original]
In an April 17 entry on the Philadelphia Daily News' Attytood blog, headlined "An open letter to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanapoulos [sic]," Will Bunch wrote, "With your performance tonight -- your focus on issues that were at best trivial wastes of valuable airtime and at worst restatements of right-wing falsehoods, punctuated by inane 'issue' questions that in no way resembled the real world concerns of American voters -- you disgraced my profession of journalism, and, by association, me and a lot of hard-working colleagues who do still try to ferret out the truth." Bunch added, "[Y]ou wasted more than half of the debate -- a full hour -- on tabloid trivia that for the most part wasn't even that interesting, because most of it was infertile ground that has already been covered again and again and again." Bunch asserted that questions "asking Obama whether he thought Rev. Wright 'loved America' and then suggesting that Obama himself is somehow a hater of the American flag, or worse, were flat-out repulsive."
Bunch also wrote, "What I just watched was an outrage. As a journalist, you appeared to confirm all of the worst qualities that cause people to hold our profession in such low esteem, especially your obsession with cornering the candidates with lame 'trick' questions and your complete lack of interest or concern about substance -- or about the American people, or the state of our nation."
In an April 17 column in the Philadelphia Daily News headlined "We're still on the lapel thing? Seriously?" political columnist John Baer wrote, "Maybe it's me but last night's debate seemed too much about the 'gotcha' politics that campaigns and much of the national media thrives on and not enough of the actual problems facing Pennsylvania voters." Baer also wrote, "Somewhere in the back of my mind is this notion that voters, whose economy is crippled by a senseless, seemingly endless war, whose personal budgets are crushed by the price of gasoline and the cost of health care and, for many, college tuition, maybe, just maybe, aren't so interested in flag pins."
It's about damn time someone took them to task.
And Tommy? This one is here because we want to see it here, OK? It's that in the know thing...
(sheepishly responding)
ok, i got it, alright, no worries, over and out.
Media criticize ABC moderators for "flat-out repulsive" debate performances, "specious and gossipy" subject matter
OMG, the alleged CONSERVATIVE media did that????
Guess we can finally put that myth to rest :-)
Once again the two "intelligent" conservatives are morons. Why they get any cred is beyond me.
It is logically possible for the media to be less than 100% conservatively biased and yet still be substantially conservatively biased. Duh.
again, it's the binary thinking of the conservatives ... either there is a 100 percent conservative bias, or there's absolutely no conservative bias ...
Which really fails when you consider that a Kennedy gets into a wreck, or Al Gore III (private citizen) gets pulled over for speeding, and by daybreak, it's the punchline for the "liberal media" ... a militant anti-gay Republican politician is picked up for homosexual solicitation and pleads guilty, and it only makes news MONTHS later ...
Maybe the point was that, after the blogs and messages and e-mails really started railing against the moronic questioning that the "Media" realized that it couldn't ignore the story ...
I remember the Republican debate ... where most questions were framed as how terrible a President Hillary would be ...
I think that no matter which"side" you're on, you can appreciate that this was an embarrassment. It has nothing to do with politics. No, not even the debate - I firmly believe they would have done the same thing to Republicans, and it would have been equally depressing.
This is about the political culture that the media is promoting. It is detrimental to everyone involved.
I don't disagree at all.
Obama is not like your normal politician, in many ways. He doesn't smoothly deflect from these things with the same glib nature and slickness that many do. He flat out tells they they are distracting and basically gives them the what for, they can't stand that. The media is so damn elite in this country, for the most part, they want to run the agenda, they want the buttons they push reacted the way the want them too. Dare somebody not slop down in the mud with them with titillation and scandal and their backs go up and they act all put off by it.
I am glad ABC is taking a beating for their performance last night, maybe they will wake up.
It reallly is amazing to me that when after 21 debates Mr. Obama finally is treated almost as severely as Mrs. Clinton has in the first 20, all his followers scream and whine with fury. What a bunch of crybabies! To suggest that it doesn't matter which "side" we're on but that everyone finds the debate "embarrassing" is nonsense. Every single negative writer, pundit and blogger on this issue is an already committed Obama fan. Name one who isn't. Just one.
No, the fact is that, from Jon Stewart to Tom Shales to Herbert and Robinson and Matthews to the absurdly partisan HuffPo and Kos, the whiners are ALL pro-Obama in the first place. You just can't handle seeing your man be challenged harshly, though you write with glee for months about such attacks on Hillary.
Hypocrites!
DOC, they're not pro-Obama, they're anti-"let's sling mud at a fellow Democrat even though I have hardly any chance of winning the nomination," which is a despicable way to run a primary campaign. It smacks of Republican-lite campaign tactics, and it doesn't sit well with a LOT of people.
Of course, I was pissed when Clinton was asked all the crazy stupid questions too, like "Diamonds or Pearls?" And so was most of the left blogosphere.
Your rantings, while warranted, are not justified.
Soon I'll graduate from 6th grade...
Hooray, Hooray...
OMG, the alleged CONSERVATIVE media did that????
Guess we can finally put that myth to rest :-)
It's not a matter of liberal or conservative, Jeter. A presidential debate should concentrate on MAJOR ISSUES - the economy, the War in Iraq, energy prices, the mortgage fiasco, etc. Gibson and Snuffaluffagus were derelict in their duties last night.
Wiz, the mantra here [from Libs] is the media has a CONSERVATIVE bias. No ifs, ands or buts.
I've never bought that myth. The media swings both ways. THIS proves it. If the media was ONLY biased towards Conservatives, ABC would not have been criticized. But it was. And it deserved to be.
I'm just tired of hearing folks carping about the media being against Liberals, & for Conservatives. It's simply a myth!
That was the point of my post.
Actually, the media has a corporate slant. Back in the '50s and '60s, network news was viewed as a public service - the networks did not expect it to make money. And the result was more objective journalism. But starting in the '70s when Roone Alredge took over ABC News, the news organizations have become profit-driven. In their quest for rations, journalistic integrity went out the window and sensationalism took its place.
BTW, all the major news organizations - ABC, NBC, CBS, CNBC, MSNBC, Fox, and CNN - are all owned by corporations. Which explains their normally right-wing slant. I think ABC was taken to task for last noght's performance because the bias was so obvious.
Remember - debate moderators are supposed to MODERATE. They're not there to serve as judge, jury, and executioner.
The media has more conservative bias than corporate bias.
A corporate biased media would push for policies that benefit corporations rather than republicans, such as removing the burden of employer-provided health care, promoting real sustained job growth, and reigning in reckless speculation.
A corporate-run media would also attempt to increase their audience rather than spew inane drivel aimed at the 28%ers.
Steevee, conservative = corporations = republicans.
Numerous conservative ideas are harmful to corporations.
"A presidential debate should concentrate on MAJOR ISSUES - the economy, the War in Iraq, energy prices, the mortgage fiasco, etc. Gibson and Snuffaluffagus were derelict in their duties last night."
True.
But discussion of these issues benefits Democrats over Republicans. Which is why the corporate media is not going to talk about them much, if at all.
It's all pretty simple. MMFA and Alterman etc. do not like to speculate on motives here, but somebody should. It's called corporate propaganda.
Most rich people are not going to help those less fortunate. They don't care. So why in the world would they be concerned enough to help candidates who might raise their own taxes?
What really bothered me was the reports that Obama did poorly at the debate.
Adam Nagourney proves that the New York Times is way over on the right wing, as far as it's front page is concerned.
Completly Disgusting!
At a time when we should be seeing the Candidates debating issues that are of serious consequence to our Country, we get this kind of crap from the networks. I expect this kind of thing from Fox, but ABC? Gibson and Stephonopolous were shameful. This is what Obama and Edwards have complained about in the past and they are right.
Why have the debate at all? Are there ANY democrats out there that haven't made up their minds yet? We've had far too many debates already, they are becoming useless. The differences between Hillary and Barack are minor at this point. Both want out of the war, more government, government healthcare, spending on global warming, etc. They are the same candidate, they just look different. Both lie, both say what they can to get what they want. Hillary has the advantage now based on her time in the public eye. Obama is easily frustrated and looks awkward and condescending when he's not reading a teleprompter or answering questions he has been trained on.
Both are bad for the country, and McCain is almost as bad. Why oh why do we have only to political parties to choose from?
How about this?
Is this better?
Get 'er done.
Mission Accomplished.
Stay the course.
Both want...more government
If you had an ounce of brain cells, you would see that there is a difference between the two candidates and the two parties. But factoring in your belief that the Dems want more government when it has ballooned to record girth under our Fearless Leader, then I can understand your dilemma.
I thought Obama did the best he could under the circumstances. When you are bombarded with the nonsense questions like he was last night its hard to make any kind of headway. Gibson and Steph. were clearly biased against him last night.
And Clinton? Her performance was shameful as well.
Interesting.
This is what I was expecting to see trashed here today.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/no-whining-about-the-media/index.html?ref=opinion
That article is satire, right?
I'm not sure what it is other than a conservative commentator laughing at the Obama collapse in the making. The moderators were deplorable last night but Obama did not do himself any favors with his responses. I kept waiting for him to stand up to them for asking such inept questions during one of the most important campaigns in recent history but it never happened.
In fact, Obama iterated over and over again (each question for the first 50 minutes) his exasperation with the line of questioning, and pointed directly to the essence of such distractions from solid issues. What did you want him to do? Pull out a baseball bat? Hill on the other hand shamelessly played their game, largely glancing down at her notes with an air of shame and uncertainty, reiterating the gossippy bull and calling them out as "valid issues." Watch it again and take note. I don't think Obama took a beating at all. He performed admirably under such patently absurd circumstances. And aside from Clinton's playing along with the nonsense, I think she also managed to keep the tone generally civil, frank, and intelligent--no small feat when you're stuck in ABC's monkey den.
From the Brooks article linked to;
"We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis."
No, they won't be important, they'll just seem important to idiots who consider them important ,and the idiots who listen to those idiots.Uh oh,Is that a group that's big enough to swing an election?
And touring flag factories exposed Dukakis as... what? A non-factory -tour -taking flag-hater?Cripes, who falls for this BS.
You know the answer. They show up here and expose themselves all the time.
Rumple,
That's not even close to a man who has professed that his electability is probably tied to the War in Iraq not knowing what Petraeus's role is:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/military_mccain_petraeus_041408w/
Can a 71-year old be an infant?
Can a 71 year old be an infant?
Only on Mork and Mindy.
Speaking Monday at the annual meeting of the Associated Press, McCain was asked whether he, if elected, would shift combat troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to intensify the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
“I would not do that unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that,” McCain said, referring to the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
Petraeus took it the way I read it:
“I’ve been sort of focused on another task,” Petraeus said when pressed about whether more troops should be diverted to Afghanistan rather than Iraq."
Gotta like this comment too from the guy who is hitching his wagon to Iraq:
"McCain did not stay for the full Petraeus appearance before the armed services committee, so he might have missed that explanation."
Why would he leave early?
Petraeus, however, made clear last week that he has nothing to do with the decision. Testifying last week before four congressional committees, including the Senate Armed Services Committee on which McCain is the ranking Republican, Petraeus said the decision about whether troops could be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan was not his responsibility because his portfolio is limited to the multi-national force in Iraq."
Since Petraeus has nothing to do withe the decision to send troops after OBL, why would Petraeus be consulted about OBL strategy?
Well, Rumple, I think your bias is showing.
McCain was asked whether he, if elected, would shift combat troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to intensify the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
“I would not do that unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that,” McCain said, referring to the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
To me, that is clearly McCain saying that he would check with Petraeus to see if Afghanistan needed more troops.
If he meant what you said, which is possible, he really needs to be more eloquent.
Rumple,
Why not give everyone the benefit of the doubt then and not just McCain? Petraeus certainly didn't give him the same courtesy.
That was a weak response from Obama - on a question about a topic that close to nobody cares about. Where do you think capital gains taxes is on the priorities for voters? Gibson lied about how many are affected by them, an extremely tiny percentage of voters will be (they don't affect those who own stocks in retirement accounts, which is where most "regular Americans" have their investments).
But yeah, Obama didn't respond well. At least it was a question about policy.
That's a VERY peripheral way to say someone will be "affected". You know as well as I do that Gibson lied when he said (I quote):
"So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"
He was saying that 100 million people would have to pay more taxes due to this, and you know it. He didn't mean anything else. And that was a lie.
"I don't know that's what he meant."
Well, good thing I told you then, because that's exactly what he meant. It is clear from the context - he is talking about the rate of the capital gains tax. He is not talking about stock prices. He is saying that 100 million people would have to pay higher taxes if the capital gains tax was raised. That is a lie.
Now you know.
what was interesting in obama's response, is that Gibson pointed out more than once that when rates go down, revenues go up, and when rates go up, revenues go down. now that is a fact.
but obama didn't care, he just wants to impose a higher tax to make it look as if he's exacting something from the rich, even if it is bad for the treasury.
our exports are booming. what are you talking about? the only thing holding them back is a shortage of containers.
as for the rest of your comment, it is so jumbled and nonsensical. you are as clueless as the big eared guy.
Snoopy's stuff is always jumbled and nonsensical. He just feeds off of the few leftists whackos who can almost put a coherent sentence together. But when he tries to do something on his own it just comes out as gobledy-gook.
snoopy: " A tax break isn't gonna do anything in this situation other than help companies move their manufacturing overseas so they can make crap even cheaper. But other countries, like some of us, prefer quality products." Huh? Lower taxes here will cause manufacturers to move elsewhere? Are you really that stupid?
Since all you have are insults I'd say it's apparent you have no clue. I was pretty clear when I said in this situation they are moving jobs overseas. You apparently have been brain dead the last 7 years, so let me try to help your two synapses understand. The auto industry tanked because they chose not to compete with the foreign autos, the economy has been changing over to a service based economy because manufacturing and design is being moved overseas, and the middle class is disappearing - all thanks to your fuhrer in chief.
The trade deficit is up again, and has been fluctuating slightly for a while, but overall has risen steadily the past few years.
How are out exports "booming"?
They are NOT booming, the only things that have BOOMED are ores slag and ash increased by 4009% since 2001, copper by 200%, aluminum 123%, iron and steel by 241%, MINERAL FUEL, OIL ETC.; BITUMIN SUBST; MINERAL WAX by 225%, zinc by 225%
Not much else has BOOMED. Most are only up by a measly 4.9% since 2001.
oops....first sentance 409% here is the link..
not booming, lol
please explain how keeping cap gains rate low helps to move jobs overseas.
and you are absolutely wrong. reduced taxes alone increases revenues. it has nothing to do with natl debt, or imports v exports. sheesh.
reduced taxes alone increases revenues - Rump
My gosh, people still believe this crap. It's been proven over and over that reduced taxes=increased revenues FOR THE RICH. Oh yeah, you probably also believe more war=peace, black=white, and up=down. Must be quite a trip going on in your brain these days.
please explain how keeping cap gains rate low helps to move jobs overseas.
and you are absolutely wrong. reduced taxes alone increases revenues. it has nothing to do with natl debt, or imports v exports. sheesh.
... reduced taxes alone increases revenues. (Rumplestilststsomthng)
Explain and document.
Not so big on the explaining and documenting.
Good with the declaring and asserting, though.
Please review the following and follow up with your thoughts. I'm sure I'll be posting this again somewhere else so if we miss each other today we can discuss at a future time. I only hope it actually posts as good as it looks in preview.
Go back in time to January 2003, before the Cap Gains tax cut was enacted. Table 3-5 on page 60 in CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook published in 2003 estimated that capital-gains tax liabilities would be $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $125 billion. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/40xx/doc4032/EntireReport_WithErrata.pdf
Move forward a year, to January 2004, after the capital-gains tax cut had been enacted. Table 4-4 on page 82 in CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook of that year shows that the estimates for capital-gains tax liabilities had been lowered to $46 billion in 2004 and $52 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $98 billion. Compare the original $125 billion total to the new $98 billion total, and we can infer that CBO was forecasting that the tax cut would cost the government $27 billion in revenues. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/49xx/doc4985/01-26-BudgetOutlook-EntireReport.pdf
Take a look at Table 4-4 on page 92 of the Budget and Economic Outlook released in January 2006. You’ll see that actual receipts from capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004, and $80 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $151 billion. Subtract the originally estimated two-year liability of $125 billion from the actual liability of $151 billion, and you get a $26 billion upside surprise for the government. Instead of costing the government $27 billion in revenues, the tax cuts actually earned the government $26 billion extra.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7027/01-26-BudgetOutlook.pdf
Rumpeltstilskin wrote:
well, gibson nailed obama on capital gains taxes, and the clueless senator displayed to one and all that he had no clue about how the tax system works. he's an infant.
Well, actually Mr. Gibson spent a good deal of time spinning what appeared to be unsupported personal opinion on the desirability of a low capital gains tax and bullying Mr. Obama into taking him on. You would have thought Gibson was actually one of the debaters. He departed from the role of moderator completely. which, one presumes, is to elicit from the candidates what their views are on issues like taxation.
RUMPLE:
On the contrary, Gibson showed his subjective bias by making statements as FACT without full context.
IF it were true, that every lowering of capital gains taxes brings in more revenue to the treasury, then the MAXIMUM tax bonanza would result from a tax of ZERO. Yet, a tax of ZERO, by definition, would bring in ZERO revenue.
So Gibson is using rightwing talking points, first off.
SECOND, Gibson gave no details of the instances that lowered rates DID bring in more revenue. Like income taxes, the new rate does not spring from a vacuum, there are other "provisions" like extensive loophole closings, which are responsible for the increased revenue.
Without that total context, Gibson made the simplistic claim that EVERY time capital gains tax rates were lowered, it meant MORE money to government, and by so saying was casting anyone who would NOT favor such a cut as ... get this ... being AGAINST taking more money from Americans for the government's use!!!
Pretty amazing. Oh, and DISHONEST, misinformation.
It was outrageous for ABC to continually cut to those adoringly framed shots of Chelsea in the audience while giving little if any such camera time to Barack's supporters.
It was outrageous that the ABC "moderators" focused almost all of their questions on irrelevant crap that had already been addressed far more than it ever deserved.
It was outrageous to have Stephie serve as one of the "moderators." He worked as the Clinton Machine's chief designated White House liar, for heaven's sake! What was ABC thinking? Might as well have gone all the way and had Begala and Serpent Head cowering and snickering behind Barack's lectern and jabbing him with hot knitting needles while he was valiantly trying to turn the whole fiasco into the substantive discussion that it should have been.
Those two meanies. First they got Obama to say that not only would he not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000, but that he would actually cut them.
Then they proceeded to point out that raising capital gains taxes raises taxes on those people. They also pointed out that there are "...a heck of a lot of people making between $97,000 and $200,000..." who would get slammed by the lying scuzz ball Barrack if he does like he wants and removes the payroll tax cap.
He wasn't expecting any real questions, and neither was the hildabeast. Poor little leftists.
apparently he dodged jail time because of prosecutorial misconduct. but obama hung out with, etc. he doesn't wear the flag because he doesn't respect the country.
as for jeremiah wright, when asked if he loves the country, obama said well, he was a marine, and yes he does. well, lee harvey oswald was a marine too (and a damn good shot). and wright refers to our nation as kkkof america, and g-d america. maybe that's tough love.
Rumple are you wearing your flag pin right now? Maybe some of those American Flag boxers they sell at Walmart?
YOU DONT HAVE TO WRAP YOURSELF IN THE FLAG TO LOVE YOUR COUNTRY
Great, Club Gitmo. Good to know we have another dittohead in our midst.
Rush Limbaugh called; he wants his talking points back.
Idiot.
ABC is now part of Fox News' Republican echo chamber.
I don't think Stephanopoulous is a Hillary supporter.
He was once a Bill Clinton supporter(big difference from being a Hillary supporter) but now he is in lockstep with the media's McCain idolizing.
Didn't like the questions by the moderators?
Welcome to world of Conservative Debates. :-)
I'll tell you how - the Republican debates were all about who believed in God the most, who wanted to kill the most Muslims, who hated gays the most, and who was generally the most anti-constitution when it came to basic freedoms and human rights.
Democratic debates are all about false and inflated scandals that have no bearing on issues facing us today.
ABC is far from conservative. They were asking resonable questions. If a conservative candidate had associations with the KKK or people who like to harm our nation there would be heck to pay. Personally I would like to know why Obama has a "friendly" relationship with William Ayers. And why he sat in Rev. Wright's church for so many years listening to his hate speech.
Ok...here is my problem and question. With all the attacks that HC and BO have leveld against one another since the last debate....would the debate hosts be attacked if they did not address these issues...and I use the word issues for lack of a better word.
Also, it did not take long for them to attack one another. Is any kind of REAL debate even possible when you are given 60 seconds to answer a question, and 30 seconds to respond?
I want comedy central to host the next political debate. It would be classic, and more informative than the what we saw last night. Have Stewart and Colbert host the presidential debate. I think it would be the most watched debate ever.
You must be a radical to think that ABC is conservative. That's like the lunatics on the very fringe of the right wing thinking that David Duke is a liberal.
Can't blame them, I guess. Their party has FUBAR-ed everything they've touched.... I'd run like hell from the real issues, too.
Thanks for caring, Thomp., I think I'm ok. Cap-pig suddenly turned into a regular Oscar Wilde. Not the witty repartee part, the sodomy part.
And he was doing so well for about....ok, he was never doing that well.
Col.
If we did stop doing that, what on earth would I do to pass the time?
He might be just fishing for tips on his technic. Not really the place for sexual counciling.
Pay for professional help, street professionals don't count. Though they might be helpful if you explain clearly what you want to learn.
Because of my Vrage (mooring post) ancestry, I am unable associate with any other kind of post. Its a clan thing.
Type a little slower and you can include capitals where appropriate.
Make your case.
Irregular spelling equals iliteracy. In what space time continum?
Don't you usually disappear after being reduced to abuse. Then come back with a different name?
I see a lot of criticism of the debate, but really I liked how well Hillary and Obama did last night.
Honestly, they would be the real dream team in 2008!
And the moderators did a great job last night.
Isn't the money spent on Iraq EXTRA, i.e. if no war the money would not be there to spend anywhere else. It may be affecting the economy if you consider they are printing money they really don't have, but it's not being TAKEN from other spending initiatives.
Furthermore it is not the job of the federal government to bail out homeowners OR lenders.
You are an idiot - billions to war profiteers and nothing for the common man.
You are un-American. Please come back from the dark side.
Isn't the money spent on Iraq EXTRA, i.e. if no war the money would not be there to spend anywhere else
Wow. It's magic.That is a prize winner.
What I find amusing here , after reading many posts, is that in the first debates when Russet and Matthews showed EXTREME bias against Hillary, with question, or actually statements and opinions on such matters of her character and associations and other subjects...No-one said a word...It was alll good as long as they only attacted Hillary. Now the front runner is Obama, and alot of us independents wante to hear about some of these subjects...Ayers, wright, Rezco. And then the attacks on Gibson begin, OMG he actually asked him a question about his "JUDGEMENT" and who he associates with, these are legit questions when asked of Hillary....Why not Obama? Isn't his running points "change" and "JUDGEMENT" and the people he chooses to associate with is fair game on that point. He didn't show judgement on Wright, He even blew that question, almost "dis-owning" the pastor but correcting it by saying "i mean his statements".He still won't denounse the guy, but he'll throw granny under the bus with no reguard for her. This man is un-electable in November. MCCAIN "08"
I guess then that Obama's various relationships are the deciding issue for you. You've vetted all of yours, just in case you decide to run for public office sometime?
Mine is who gets to put up the next couple Supreme Court nominees. Your candidates considers Roberts and Scalia the very models of a modern Justice. I don't.
Tragedy
The Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, whilevisiting a primary school class, found themselves inthe middle of a discussion related to words and theirmeanings.The teacher asked both men if they would like to lead the discussion of the word 'tragedy'.
So the illustrious Rev Jackson asks the class for anexample of a 'tragedy'.One little boy stood up and offered: 'If my bestfriend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a runaway tractor comes along and knocks him dead, that would be a tragedy.''No,' says the Great Jesse Jackson, 'that would be an accident.
'A little girl raised her hand: 'If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy.''I'm afraid not,' explains the exalted Reverend Al. 'That's what we would call a great loss.' The room goes silent. No other children volunteered.
Reverend Al searches the room. 'Isn't there someonehere who can give me an example of a tragedy?
'Finally at the back of the room little Johnny raises his hand. In a stern voice he says: 'If a plane carrying the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton were struck by a missile and blown to smithereens that would be a tragedy.''Fantastic!' exclaims Jackson and Sharpton, 'That's right. And can you tell me why that would be a tragedy?''Well,' says little Johnny, 'because it sure as hell wouldn't be a great loss, and it probably wouldn't be an accident either.'
Some more whining off the Huff post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/what-everybody---pro-and_b_97429.html
Is the cat out of the bag? Eskow laments how ABC and the boy wonder (snuffalufagus) should know better than go after these dems!
All of you defenders of these "tough questions:"
Could you explain to me how flag pins are more important than our 2 wars and health care?
I don't think anyone, anymore will ever consider either Charlie Gibson,or George Stephanopoulos serious journalists ever again. Their behavior was truly repulsive, and their obvious dislike for Obama was quite shocking. What a joke on the American people. I cannot imagine any good, honest journalist who would think that their so called moderating was acceptable. In the future, I think all debates will be scrutinized much more carefully before any candidate participates.