I watched both of the most recent presidential debates on CNN. I'm not enamored with any of the candidates that both parties have fielded, but I decided to watch with an open mind. There was a definite difference in tone between the two debates. During the Democratic debate, the candidates were largely asked softball questions. It hardly seemed that they were being put on the spot (although at times they put themselves in difficult positions). To use a baseball analogy, the questions were set up on a batting-tee for the Democrats, & they had the opportunity to hit them out of the park. The only challenging question dealt with NAFTA & was directed at Hillary Clinton. She danced around the question as best she could, & got away with it.
The Republican debate was much different. Many of the questions seemed specifically designed to put the Republicans in a difficult position. One example involved a youtube user asking the candidates how they could believe in the Bible & support death penalty at the same time. I thought Mike Huckabee provided the best answer to this very difficult question. Why weren't the Democrats asked a difficult question like that? The best example was the gay retired military officer asking about homosexuals serving openly in the armed forces. It turns out that this man served on a steering committee for Hillary Clinton. I wonder if CNN would have pointed this out if Bill Bennett hadn't mentioned it during the post-debate analysis. Again, the Republicans did their best to answer the question.
I guess this is why the Democrats won't have a debate on the Fox News Channel. They'd have to answer real challenging questions there, & that's the last thing in the world that they want to do. I'd love to see someone ask Hillary Clinton the following question: "Mrs. Clinton, in 1996, the country of Sudan had Osama Bin Ladin & they were offering him to us. Your husband, who was president at the time, said no. Given the events of the past six years, do you wish that he had said yes?" The Republicans had the courage to go on the Clinton News Network. If the Democrats truly want to lead this country, shouldn't they have the fortitude to appear on a news network that leans to the right?
Anyway, I guess I'll just have to hope that Lou Dobbs changes his mind & decides to run for president.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Do you work for Fox News?
You even used their motto. Lol.
I don't work for Fox News. I did use their slogan, but I also said that they lean to the right. There's nothing "Fair & Balanced" about Fox News. They're the car-chase reporting network. However, CNN does lean to the left.
I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment.
I would say that Fox leans to the center. It is just that the center is so far to the right of the other networks that it gives the illusion of being right.
Fox does have some conservative commentators like John Gibson. But they are balanced by the likes of Gretta and Geraldo who certainly are not conservative.
Britt Hume is right of center but in his panel discussions he usually has Mort Kandracke who is a left of center moderate and either that lady from NPR or Juan Williams who are both effective spokespeople for the left.
Sean Hannity is balanced by Alan Colmes and they get equal time.
Bill O'Reilly certainly hates the FAR left but he is no conservative. I'd call him a slightly right of center moderate.
Shepard Smith seems to be apolitical. It is refreshing not to see any bias in a news caster.
I can't think of any issues where Fox really pushes the right point of view.
I agree with what you're saying. It seems that since recently there is so much being reported on Bush (on CNN specifically and how the majority of the American population does not support him) the news networks seem to be treating the Democrats easier. I think they believe that if they cater to the supposed majority of the population (the ones that don't support the current President) they will get more viewers and higher ratings.
It's all a push to get the democrats elected, and I agree, it's not fair.
___________________________________________________________________
"Is it true, said Candide, that people in Paris are always laughing?"
-Voltaire
That's very true.
Rarely do they talk about Democrats who accuse Bush of wanting our soldiers to get their heads blown off, or idiotic Harry Reed who called 49 of his fellow senators today "puppets" effectively removing their individuality and intelligence in one fell swoop. Right, because he's a brilliant critical thinker himself. *laughs hysterically in Harry Reed's face* That's like the pot calling the kettle black.
The truth is, the journalists are (by a GIANT margin) liberals themselves.
There is no suprise that they're pushing the two most liberal democrats and the two most liberal republicans.
They've only NOW started to talk about Huckabee, and then only because once they poll people who don't live in New england or california, they find out that Rudy and Clinton aren't all that popular.
I agree that he is the most conservative on social issues like abortion and marriage. He is also good on guns which I know is important to you.
But he is the most liberal Republican on fiscal and taxation issues. He is essentially pushing the same "compassionate conservativism" (aka socialism) that President Bush has pushed except that Hucklebee is not a tax cutter like Bush.
His position on illegal immigration is identical to Bush's and that damns him in my eyes. Under no circumstances would he get my vote,
And then there is his Willie Horton moment when he pushed for the parole of that rapist who then raped and killed another girl. A similar thing allowed Dukakis to be painted as soft on crime and that is never perceived as conservative.
From my perspective Hucklebee is an evangelical socialist and is essentially the inheritor of the Bush agenda. I can't stand the thought of another 4 years of essentially Bush governance.
Ugh he pardoned Horton. Let him free claiming there wasn't enough evidence against him and he shouldn't have been convicted in the first place. The original victim was a distant cousin of Clinton's too; poor thing, double whammy.
I figured that post would get your attention. But my post must have been awful because you managed to get some of the facts wrong. lol
Willie Horton was a murderer pardened by Gov Michael Dukakis who went on to murder again. I called this a "Willie Horton" moment because that incident played a big role in wrecking Dukakis's Presidential bid back in 1988. Republicans called him soft on crime. Republicans should judge Hucklebee with the same yardstick and we are hypocrits if we don't.
The rapist who Hucklebee pardoned was a piece of scum named Wayne Dumond. There is a certain sad poetic justice in the fact that anybody that was related to Bill Clinton got raped. Bill certainly was accused of that behavior often enough. But it was too bad it was not Bill himself who got violated.
Hucklebee did not actually pardon him but he leaned heavily on the Parole Boad to give him parole. In any case the effect was the same; he was released back into society and he raped and killed again.
Only two good things happened in this whole story. 1) We learned how Hucklebee feels about crime and punishment which is useful information and better that we know now than after we vote. 2) And that worhtless piece of scum got castrated by vigilantes after the first rape. I am confused as to how he was capable of the second rape. In any case he at least got a little bit of the justice he deserved.
He should have been executed and then that second crime would not have happened. He had been sentenced to life plus 20 years which made him ineligible for parole but Hucklebee's bleeding heart predecessor had commuted his sentence downwards to the point where he was eligible for parole. Don't believe anybody who tries to tell you that life in prison protects the citizenry like the death penalty. If they are not dead, all to often these scum get released to resume their violence.
Here is the best link I have:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTcyMTM5YzRiMzVjMjA3MGEwMjUwM2Y3NGJ...
I will never understand why we are expected to waste our tax dollars on worthless monsters to live, so that some people can feel like they "did the right thing." As a victim of rape, I can honestly say I'd rather he be dead and not in jail, so I'd never have to worry about him getting out and doing it to somebody else. Not that I was the one to put him in jail; I was too young and froze for 3 years. Just long enough for that scumbag to do it to somebody else, and she was brave enough to put him away. Fucking asshole... may he burn in hell should hell exist.
Here's a big difference:
The Democrats got upset at Tim Russert when he asked a softball question that put Hillary on the spot of actually having to be honest for a moment.
Yet CNN stocked the Youtube debate full of Democrat Supporters posing as 'undecided republican voters' . . . asking questions specifically designed to make republicans look bad (kind of like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?")
one 'undecided republican voter' has other youtube videos on her youtube account showing her in an "Edwards 08" t-shirt.... another works for CAIR, another is a self-declared Obama supporter, another was in the Clinton camp... and so on.
Here is another thing that REALLY shows how slanted things are:
The republicans will go on CNN and be run through the ringer like that.... the Democrats refuse to go on Fox News (which I'd consider to be a moderate news organization... all of their real conservative people are always paired with REALLY left leaning folk... And one of their big names, Bill O'Reilly is a moderate.)
Yet no one calls the Dems on that... some even call them 'brave' for refusing to go on Fox.
Since when is running away considered brave? (Of course, Bill was a Draft dodger, so maybe the left does view running away as brave.)
Hero of the Day Award! Woo! You win! ^_^ (There's no prestige yet, but there will be...)
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion