The Tuesday, July 29 episode of the Late Show with David Letterman, during which the “Top Ten Signs Barack Obama is Overconfident” was produced, but then edited out from what aired for time -- yet accidentally posted with video for a day or so leading to charges, after the text and video were removed from the Late Show site, that CBS spiked the list -- will re-run tonight (Wednesday).
So tune in to see if the list is restored to the show (doubtful), or the show airs again as it did the first time (most likely). Letterman read the list for the studio audience immediately after the second ad break and just before guest Kevin Costner. As originally aired, the show went straight from the ad break to Letterman introducing Costner.
My August 6 NewsBusters item. “Non-Scandal: CBS/Late Show Did Not Spike Anti-Obama 'Top Ten,'” explained the allegations and the reality. I since updated that post with an image of the list as published in the August 11 e-mailed Late Show Newsletter: “From the Home Office in Wahoo, Nebraska...An Exclusive Un-Aired Top Ten List Edited from the 7/29/08 Broadcast: 'Top Ten Signs Barack Obama Is Overconfident.'” Image here is of the list in last week's newsletter. Go below the break to see a larger version.
As I explained in my earlier post:
The list, prepared for, and presented on, the Tuesday, July 29 show was, as happens many times each year, edited from the program because later interview segments with Kevin Costner and/or Bob Sarlatte ran long. The purpose of the Late Show site is to post highlights from the show and since Letterman's reading of it did not air on the program as broadcast on CBS the list should not have been posted. Yet it was put up, along with video of Letterman reading it (hence why there is [was] YouTube video of it that makes it appear the list did air on the show), by mistake. When that error was realized the list, and matching video, were removed -- as they should have been.
It is not unusual -- I'd guess about once a week -- for a “Top Ten” list which Letterman plugs as coming up after a commercial break to not air. Sometimes that's because he sees the final version of the list during the break and rejects it; other times he reads it but it is cut for time since killing it in post-production is a quick way to reduce the show length by 90 seconds to two minutes without having to chop up an interview session....
A Letterman staffer confirmed my assumption the list was cut for time, did not air and thus was taken down from the Web site per standard policy....National Review's Byron York posted this Tuesday on NRO's The Corner:
...I linked to the Top 10 list on the "Late Show" website, but not long after my item was posted, I got a number of emails telling me the list had disappeared from the site. The suspicion was that the "Late Show" had pulled the controversial item. I've been meaning to call CBS to find out, and today I finally got around to it.A spokeswoman told me there was nothing unusual going on -- the list, she said, was never actually aired, having been cut from the July 29 program because the rest of the show was running over time. "It was edited out for time, and what happened was that the web guys put it up there before they got a list of the material that was edited out," the spokesman told me. Once the web guys got the word, the list was taken down, in the same way that previous Top 10 lists that had been cut for time reasons were taken off the site. But the spokesman assures me it will appear in an upcoming issue of the "Late Show" newsletter.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The "Top Ten List"
August 20, 2008 - 16:36 ET by NorthCoasterThe list was edited out of what aired on TV. The "Top Ten List" is one of the most popular features of the Letterman show. Believe the reason given and I'll sell you a bridge.......
Me too NC... I happen to
August 20, 2008 - 16:40 ET by bigtimerMe too NC...
I happen to have one of those bridges for sale....anybody?!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
I guess you'd have to go
August 20, 2008 - 19:49 ET by balboaI guess you'd have to go back over the hundreds of episodes in the past year and see how many times a popular regular feature was cut from the show for time.
Good luck!
Yeah, we need PROOF, dammit!
August 20, 2008 - 20:04 ET by Indiana JoeBal, it's amazing the lengths you'll go to just to deny that the MSM is in puppy-love with the O-man.
On the other hand, wild charges and outright falsehoods are okay if it's Bush or McCain you're hunting. You know, the facts are wrong, but the story's right.
For the love of Benji....
Indiana
August 20, 2008 - 20:07 ET by balboaSorry, not a big fan of the liberal MSM conspiracy Kool-Aid.
And when have I ever accepted "wild charges" and "outright falsehoods" about Bush or McCain? I think I've been very fair to both of them.
Kool-Aid?
August 20, 2008 - 20:52 ET by Indiana JoeI guess it's unavoidable that the term "kool-aid" has been used by everyone that wants to deny something. But after all these years, all the polls, all the books written by insiders, and all the admissions about newsrooms' staffers, their party affiliations, their voting records and everything else, to just dismiss the obvious bias of most media outlets is true denial.
I have a saved doc with about 20 quotes from news people admitting media bias, but I just set up a new machine (pretty sweet), and can't get to it. But it's here somewhere, I got it from a link in an NB post.
So you never bought into the "Bush lied, people died" chants? The blasting of the carrier's "Mission Accomplished" sign? The Rather report, until it was proved to be a set-up job? Dumb, drunk, coke-head, liar, none of it? Ever? At all? Or do you have "proof" of some of these things?
I'm sure you think you've been "very fair." I think I'm "very fair." Everyone thinks they're "very fair." But not everyone is.
How much "proof" do you have that there was no yellowcake in Iraq, ever? Or "proof" that Saddam didn't try to buy some in Africa? How much "proof" that those chemical warheads didn't exist, didn't matter, were old, etc? But we need incontrovertible PROOF that a less-than-flattering Obama bit was cut for reasons other than those stated? You seem to have some strange priorities for what requires "proof."
Now, I'm off to bed. I can't stay up to see if they show the list tonight. But I'm sure they won't, if only because it's easier to just play the original tape. But I believe it was cut for political reasons. You obviously don't. Guess we'll never know who drank the kool-aid.
I really didn't mean to
August 20, 2008 - 21:01 ET by balboaI really didn't mean to imply that you were a big Kool-Aid guy. What I meant was that I don't believe that every single time something like this happens, it's the result of someone wanting to take a stab at conservatives or to help liberals. I don't believe it. I believe there are actual circumstances that lead to a rational reason for an event.
So you never bought into the "Bush lied, people died" chants?
No.
The blasting of the carrier's "Mission Accomplished" sign?
Stupid idea. I think it's a valid criticism, whoever the fault ultimately rests with.
The Rather report, until it was proved to be a set-up job?
I never really paid attention until the faked documents emerged.
Dumb, drunk, coke-head, liar, none of it? Ever? At all? Or do you have "proof" of some of these things?
I think Dubyah had some good times in his past. I haven't seen anything that shows he has fallen back into poor habits or that he drinks any more than any other normal person. Never thought he was dumb. Thought he was an incredibly bad public speaker.
IF Indiana Joe did produce
August 20, 2008 - 22:48 ET by needleIF Indiana Joe did produce his list of “about 20 quotes from news people admitting media bias”, would such confessed biases be admissible, so far as you are concerned, as valid “circumstances that lead to a rational reason for an event”?
For what it is worth Bernard Goldberg mentions in his book
Bias that CBS Moonves admitted to Bernard that CBS was biased. Does that count? The rest of Goldberg’s book was an exposition of just what exactly Moonves’s CBS bias was all about.
BTW, I am off to bed too. It's late for me.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
At the time..
August 20, 2008 - 16:58 ET by CobraMan"A Letterman staffer confirmed my assumption the list was cut for time"
That's a reasonable explanation. I have no doubt that, at the time, Letterman's staff realized that this list wouldn't be received very well by Obama's supporters and they wanted to protect Letterman from having to defend himself from bogus charges of racism.
He's a better candidate and will make a better President
August 20, 2008 - 17:08 ET by AnotherMikeWhy is it so difficult to accept his popularity? I suspect because we've had such a divided nation for so long... We're used to disagreeing.
You know, high approval ratings ARE important.
Once he's elected and starts turning the country around in a positive direction, I'll expect you all to support him. Not blindly, patriotically.
We're all Americans here.
Whice one?
August 20, 2008 - 17:30 ET by CobraMan"Why is it so difficult to accept his popularity?"
Which one, Obama or McCain? They're neck and neck in the polls.
"I suspect because we've had such a divided nation for so long... We're used to disagreeing."
That's an incorrect assumption as the majority of Americans agree on the majority of the "issues." It's only the politicians who are “divided,” and that's been true for most of America's history.
"You know, high approval ratings ARE important."
Be honest, "high approval ratings" are only important to people who sell advertising. Most people don’t choose a leader based their general popularity. We choose them based on their qualifications.
"Once he's elected"
You mean IF he's (whoever he may be) elected. Popularity ratings do not indicate an election success. Just ask Al Gore and John Kerry about that.
"I'll expect you all to support him. Not blindly, patriotically."
And I'll expect the same of you about President Bush, our CURRENT President.
Thank you for your reply
August 20, 2008 - 17:56 ET by AnotherMikeI'll give you a poll in direct opposition to any poll you site; they're inconsistent and increasingly unreliable. The only thing that matters is the electoral college, and if you can look at map and give me a reasonable scenario that McCain gets to 270, I'll hear out your 'horse race' argument.
Like it or not, Bush used to have a huge approval rating. Including mine. He's managed to chip that away with every day in office and decision he's made. This has forced the majority of Amerians further and further to the extremes than they would like to be, or have ever been... Left and right.
Patriotic support, again, is not blind.
Good post.
August 20, 2008 - 18:30 ET by FoolicanI'd like to know what "extremes" Bush has been pushing. So far, I think the extremes have been as a result of measures required following the 9/11 disaster, which I'm sure any moderately conservative president would do in his position - perhaps with more troops or more unilateral enforcement.
Thanks
August 20, 2008 - 19:08 ET by AnotherMikeIt's not Bush pushing extremes, it's to the extreme degree of which people are either agreeing or disagreeing.
For example, federal funding of a controversial study may have it's opposition, but it won't spawn far-left sites like Kos.
I don't know about you, but I think we could do without anything too biased one way or the other.
As for the war, that's a much larger discussion. And having lost a family member to a warehouse explosion in Taji October 4, 2006, one that I've abandoned the willingness to engage in.
Follow your own logic
August 20, 2008 - 18:42 ET by CobraMan"I'll give you a poll in direct opposition to any poll you site; they're inconsistent and increasingly unreliable."
You don't even follow your own logic. How can anyone "look at a map" and give you "a reasonable scenario" this far in advance of the general election WITHOUT resorting to those same "inconsistent and increasingly unreliable" polls? You can't. We don't even know who will be on the tickets yet as the nominees haven't been finalized and the VP's haven't been chosen.
The only poll that counts is the election poll, correct? Until those votes are cast and counted, it’s all guess work. If you want me to guess, I'm guessing on McCain. Feel free to guess on whoever you want. It really doesn't matter. Elections are not won by guesses.
New voter registrations and...
August 20, 2008 - 19:25 ET by AnotherMike...voters changing parties is not speculation.
And those numbers are in.
Don't count on stats and polls, count on the votes that are cast
August 20, 2008 - 20:12 ET by CobraManYou can't rely on stats like the number of new voter registration numbers and cross party registrations, as you can not tell why someone registers for a party, or switches parties. They may have done that simply to manipulate the opposing party's nomination process.
You also can’t rely on the number of registered voters in each party as people can, and have, voted for the opposing candidate. Remember the “Reagan Democrats.” Those were all registered democrats who voted for the opposition. so much for "the numbers."
The only “poll” that counts is the voting poll and the only “stats” that counts are the final vote counts for each candidate. Humans are far to unpredictable to rely upon extrapolation of any existing data as an accurate means of predicting their future actions.
Yeah... keep counting on
August 20, 2008 - 20:46 ET by JerryYeah... keep counting on those republicans who crossed over to vote for Hilary in the democrat primaries.
The sad fact is, the more people find out about the part-time senator from Illinois, the better that frumpy McCain looks. If we had a halfway decent candidate running, Obama would be in for a beating worse than the one Mondale took.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Is this map ok?
August 20, 2008 - 18:43 ET by Crimsonfistedhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10
WhatAMaroon
Another Kos Kid?
August 20, 2008 - 19:00 ET by CobraMan"This has forced the majority of Amerians further and further to the extremes than they would like to be, or have ever been..."
Where do you get your ideas, the Daily Kos? Most Americans are NOT on ether extreme of the political spectrum, they're moderates, and the only ones Bush has "forced" to the extremes are his opponents, the same people who never liked him to begin with. He's been doing that since day one.
In regard to his current popularity, almost all presidents face a drop in popularity towards the end of their final term. In most cases, that popularity will increase again after they leave office. This is what happened to Reagan, remember? During his last term, his “poll” numbers were dropping continuously. Yet, today, the majority regards him as a Great President. This is a perfect example why you shouldn’t depend on the polls. They don’t represent the entire population, they’re unreliable, and opinions are prone to individual variance dependent upon current conditions.
So, I disagree with you..
August 20, 2008 - 19:51 ET by AnotherMike..and I’m all of the sudden one of those whackos from the Kos??
I made the exact same point about inconsistency and unreliability in poll numbers in a previous post on this story. My conclusion has very little to do with polling numbers.
To expand on your Reagan example – Bush Sr. was elected after Reagan. So far, what’s happened this election season? There was the first woman and first black man competing for the Democratic nomination… How bad do you have to screw up people’s perception of you and your administration for your presidency to result in that!?
I loved a lot about Reagan. And Bush, Cobra, is no Reagan.
Hmm, interesting...
August 20, 2008 - 20:16 ET by Indiana JoeAll this other stuff aside, there's quite a statement in that post, to wit:
"There was the first woman and first black man competing for the Democratic nomination… How bad do you have to screw up people’s perception of you and your administration for your presidency to result in that!?"
Now, a question, if I may. Are you saying that having the top two contenders for the opposition be black and female is something that must reflect poorly on Bush's performance? That it couldn't happen if Bush had performed better? You know, kind of a "you stink so bad that a skunk would be an improvement" sort of comparison? Because, honestly, that's what it sounds like. If so, I don't think that comparison reflects well on your opinions of blacks and women.
If not, then what do you mean by it?
Just asking.
I was wondering that myself.
August 20, 2008 - 21:41 ET by CobraMan"what do you mean by it?"
I was wondering that myself.
AnotherMike basically said that the Democrats are so upset at a White Male REPUBLICAN President that they'll even nominate a Black Male or White Female DEMOCRAT for President! That doesn't make any sense at all!
Yes
August 20, 2008 - 23:05 ET by AnotherMikeThat's exactly what I'm saying.
Both women and blacks were granted the right to vote within the last 150 years. Not one black person or woman has had a legitimate chance of being nominated to represent their party in the history of our country until now.
Yes, I'm saying if Bush did not perform so poorly, no Barack Obama. Maybe, maybe Hillary, but only because voters would liken her to her husband and want him back.
CHANGE, as the slogan of Obama's campaign, does not just mean party.
This has nothing to do with my opinion of blacks and women. As a former Bush voter and supporter, this is a discussion I've had many times with both, and has never been seen that way.
"you stink so bad that a skunk would be an improvement"
A stick in a jar would be an improvement, and I'm thankful Bush has broadened the horizons of the American people to accept a leader that doesn't 'fit the mold.'
Incorrect Assumption
August 21, 2008 - 00:49 ET by CobraMan"Not one black person or woman has had a legitimate chance of being nominated to represent their party in the history of our country until now."
That's an incorrect assumption on your part. ANYONE who's eligible to run for office has a legitimate chance. Failing to be nominated or elected doesn't lessen someone’s legitimacy for office, it just means that they failed to convince enough people to support them. Obama may have a greater chance for success than other black candidates in the past, as an example, but that doesn't increase his legitimacy for office.
Nixon lost the first time he ran for President. Did this lessen his legitimacy for office? No, as he was elected president in a later campaign. Reagan failed to receive Republican the nomination the first time he tried. Did this lessen his legitimacy for office? No, as he later became a two term president. American history is full of similar examples.
NEVER assume that someone’s color, gender, or religious affiliation is an impediment to a legitimate candidacy. Modern America doesn't work that way.
"A stick in a jar would be an improvement"
Maybe in your opinion. I feel completely different.
Bush has done an incredible job considering that he's faced the largest amount of coordinated obstructions by the Democrats and their supporters that I have ever witnessed. It started with their bogus "selected and not elected " charge in 2000 and it has increased daily since then.
The MSM has been compliant in this obstruction and they have done everything in their power to portray the President as a fool, and idiot, and a criminal since he first ran for President in 1999. The amount of vitriol they have flung against the President of the United States is disgusting and I am ashamed of, and for, them all.
President Bush, you faced the worst that the press and the Democrats could use against you, as well as a lot of foreign governments celebrities, and media, and you have stood strong and resolute in your commitment to this great country which elected you to lead them for the last 8 years. I commend you for your strength of character and I am PROUD to call you SIR!
It seems that way
August 20, 2008 - 20:21 ET by CobraMan"I’m all of the sudden one of those whackos from the Kos??"
It seems that way since you spent several posts espousing their talking points one by one.
When you make totally unverifiable, and completely biased, claims like Bush is forcing people to the extremes, that the country is devided, that "once he's elected" Obama will "turn the country around" and other, similar, statements, it suggests to me that you heard these ideas from someone else and didn't really think about them before repeating them. Since it is the Kos Kids who usually make these claims, it is reasonable to speculate that you heard it from them. That’s why I asked.
No one is Reagan but Reagan
August 20, 2008 - 20:59 ET by CobraManStop comparing Bush to anyone else as it reflects poorly on your cognitive abilities. Each of us is unique in their abilities, their accomplishment, and, yes, even their popularity. Just because someone isn't popular, it doesn't mean they are not effective and doing a good job.
There's something you need to understand about popularity. "Popularity" is not a quantitative measure, it is a perceptive measure. It is not a measure of someone's effectiveness, it is a measure of how people FELL about someone else. A measure of how much they are liked, not how well they are doing. It's your OPINION of someone at any given moment, and nothing more
Also, popularity is perceived through more than direct observation of someone’s action, it’s also perceived by the PORTRAYAL of those actions in the public itself. In other words, how others describe those actions to you.
The Media has the biggest effect on shaping public opinion. If the majority of “reports” you hear from the media are negative, the majority of your opinion for the subject of those reports will be negative as well. This is what I call the Public Persona effect, also referred to as The Media Effect. Since very few people personally know a public official, we can only base our opinions of them on their Public Personas, the image they project in the public arena. Everyone’s Public Persona will be displayed mainly in the media. Since very few people have control over how their persona will be PORTRAYED by the media, the media has the ability to manipulate that persona as they see fit. This gives them the ultimate power to shape the public's perception of anyone.
If you’ve noticed over the last 8 years, the media has been HIGHLY critical of President Bush and his policies. This has had the direct effect of lowering his popularity, in direct proportion to the amount of negative press he’s been getting. The only time Bush’s popularity has risen was when the public has had a chance to observe him DIRECTLY without media interference. So, what does this tell you? It should tell you that Bush’s negativity is mainly due to the media’s habit of purposely manipulating his Public Persona in order to lower his popularity.
The media is now doing just the oppose with Obama, their manipulating HIS Public Persona in order to raise his popularity. Unfortunately for Obama, the public has the chance to DIRECTLY observe his actions as he is on the campaign trail and is available for public scrutiny. Every time that happens, his popularity drops.
Positive
August 20, 2008 - 18:06 ET by iveseenitallAmericans can thank President Bush for 7+ years of safety and a great economy. I, personally, saved thousands in taxes over these years. It's in my bank, not the government's.We can be glad that North Korea has finally abandoned its nuclear ambitions. Test scores in American schools are up. All Americans know that Iraq is under control. That war is over thanks to the surge that Barry and his buddies opposed. But we must be vigilant. Communism is certainly not the answer to our continued sucess as the greatest nation on earth. Come together behind our next president, John McCain. And continue to fight all the weak "liberals" who know nothing but petty politics and division. Sadly,they will always be lurking about.
NEVER, NEVER trust a "liberal"
This is an online discussion site...
August 20, 2008 - 18:51 ET by AnotherMikeShow some creativity.
This is a comment section
August 20, 2008 - 19:07 ET by CobraManThis is a comment section of an online publication, not a public discussion forum like the Conservative Underground. Show some intelligence.
It's also not a campaign website
August 20, 2008 - 19:57 ET by AnotherMikeUsing point-by-point stump speeches as your argument makes you a hack; I don't care who you're voting for.
Vague statements about
August 20, 2008 - 20:24 ET by Indiana JoeVague statements about people's failures is also part and parcel of many a stump speech.
The poster listed a few facts, some personal, some public. If that qualifies as some sort of hackish, talking-point parrotting, then what shall we discuss?
Who's campaigning? Us or you?
August 20, 2008 - 21:15 ET by CobraMan"Using point-by-point stump speeches as your argument makes you a hack"
Who's using "point-by-point stump speeches" in their arguments? I'm not sure about you, but I have NEVER made a "stump" speech as I have NEVER run for public office.
"I don't care who you're voting for."
Yes, you do or you wouldn't make statements like "stump speeches" or "When Obama is elected” and “positive direction.“ It’s obvious that your campaigning for Obama. Don’t insult our intelegence by claiming that you are not.
Am I cutting and pasting talking points?
August 20, 2008 - 23:16 ET by AnotherMikeThere are plenty of things I disagree with both candidates about and I'm more than willing to criticize both on those issues.
I do think McCain is a terrible candidate this time. He's not the John McCain who I supported and got smeared into the dirt in 2000. I don't love Obama, but I'll definitely vote for him. I'm sure we all have a person in mind who would be better than either of these guys, but we only get two choices. Well, two that have a shot anyway.
By the way, your two quotes were part of the same sentence.
you tell me
August 20, 2008 - 23:44 ET by CobraMan"Am I cutting and pasting talking points?"
I’m not sitting next to you so I can’t answer that. You tell me, are you? Or are you repeating things that you may have read or heard somewhere else? That’s a real possibility too as we all use information derived from other sources in order to make an argument.
It could be that what you are saying is independent of someone else's points of view, in which case I say Good for You! Not that it’s going to change things much. I STILL believe you’re campaigning for Obama, even though you may not realize it, and you haven’t offered any evidence to the contrary, to my satisfaction anyways. It’s very possible that you don’t recognize that your posts bare a striking resemblance to someone who’s campaigning strongly for a particular candidate and that all your subsequent posts are attempts to justify your choice. But don't worry about it as there‘s nothing wrong with that, that‘s just a part of human nature.
As for who you’re going to vote for and why, thank you for sharing this, but I fail to see how it’s relevant to David Letterman and the Top Ten List which is the actual topic of this article. I do enjoy a debate though, so I look forward to further debates with you.
"By the way, your two quotes were part of the same sentence."
And you point is, what? That was a compound sentence. It dealt with two subjects, making an argument and casting a vote, did it not? After all, a semi-colon (;) indicates a separation of subjects (hence the “compound” description). Since there are two subjects involved, it's proper to use two separate quotes in two separate arguments or statements.
Thanks, Cobra. I've enjoyed it as well.
August 21, 2008 - 00:08 ET by AnotherMikeYou know, you're right... I got off topic there by a mile. I guess that's why I enjoy comment sections!
I think that my original point was simply that a popular candidate will seem to be handled with kid gloves by the media. I think Obama's unprecedented coverage makes his job of campaigning more difficult, but there's no doubt he's the favorite. I do believe he's the better candidate and that he'll be the next President. If that's campaigning for him, it's unintentional. I don't pay particular attention to any one "side" more than the other, I just try to get as much information as possible and stay away from television propaganda. I can't help but think we've all been lured into a giant reality show with this election. At the heart of this whole circus is the country I love and it's future in the balance.
There I go off topic again!
Thanks for the banter, Cobra. You're a good egg.
BTW, don't let people throw you
August 21, 2008 - 00:04 ET by CobraManBTW, don't let people throw you. This site, like a lot of others, is a great place to acquire and practice your debating skill. The feedback from others can be very educational. You seem to be genuinely interested in debating here, but you need to cognizant of the fact that a lot of people have experience in debating skills and tactics., some more than others. Read their responses carefully and dispassionately and you’ll pick a lot of good debating skills.
Another thing you need to be careful of is the impressions of you that your statements or arguments convey. That statement about Bush being so incompetent that he is driving Democrats to nominate someone is a case in point. Not only was that statement nonsensical, it included elements that can be considered extremely insulting to people. To be honest with you that post makes you look like a ignorant bigot. Most people tend to ignore a bigot and some will reflexively insult them just to get them to leave. Be VERY careful about making statements like that in the future..
Other than that, I hope you enjoy visiting here and I hope you continue to debate with myself and others. It can be a very rewarding experience, win or lose.
Going forward, in reverse?
August 20, 2008 - 17:51 ET by CobraManBTW, "turning the country around" is not a "positive direction" as you claim. It is a negative direction as the country ends up going backwards! We want to go forward and not backward.
Cobra...
August 20, 2008 - 17:57 ET by Clear thinkerExactly. Progressives have mis-led people by thei name. It should be Re-gressives!
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goal
"Announces his running mate will be...
August 20, 2008 - 18:29 ET by needleMichelle O."
Michelle – one of his “most trusted advisors,” as he told Rick Warren – as his running mate would have a slightly high chutzpah factor than Andy Dick.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Really?
August 20, 2008 - 18:32 ET by FoolicanConsidering that Barack has no agenda, I think Michelle would be the brains of the White House if that occurred. Not that it's a good thing.
Deja vu?
August 20, 2008 - 20:25 ET by Indiana JoeWhy does that scenario seem SO familiar?
:^D
IJ... Just one of the
August 20, 2008 - 20:38 ET by bigtimerIJ...
Just one of the reasons they aren't going to get near the WH.
Hillary would be child's play compared to Aunt Ester.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
LMAO, bt!
August 20, 2008 - 20:58 ET by Indiana Joe"Aunt Ester!" I love it!!!
That one could stick!
This is an online discussion site...
August 20, 2008 - 18:49 ET by AnotherMikeShow some creativity.
... said the guy who posted
August 20, 2008 - 19:04 ET by hydrodynDM... said the guy who posted the exact same statement twice.
hydro.....if you have noticed....
August 20, 2008 - 20:01 ET by BEGRUNThe's a "johnny one note".
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
He's also a newbie. Five
August 20, 2008 - 20:26 ET by Indiana JoeHe's also a newbie. Five weeks and change.
<yawn>
Figures....................
August 20, 2008 - 21:00 ET by BEGRUNT"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
You first, Mike. :-)
August 20, 2008 - 21:53 ET by R D Helm-Dave.
Vote None of the Above in '08!
I didn't think Dave had
August 20, 2008 - 21:38 ET by CJK51I didn't think Dave had enough of an audience anymore, to warrant this kind of fuss. He used to be funny back in his "Late Night" days on NBC, but he's just become a cranky, extremely unfunny old man (he always was a terrible interviewer, even in his prime). Although that unintentionally makes him funny when he criticizes McCain's age, considering Dave seems like he could use a big glass of prune juice, a lot more.
Wait a minute....
August 21, 2008 - 07:28 ET by Uncle DonDave Letterman is STILL on?