Just how far to the left is ABC's George Stephanopoulos?
Well, on Sunday's "This Week," while discussing the presidential campaign with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the former Clinton aide actually cited the liberal website Daily Kos.
I guess we now know what George is reading while he's prepping for the show.
To set this up, Stephanopoulos and Gingrich were discussing how wide open the GOP presidential race looks, and the possibility of a brokered convention, when the host actually said with a smile on his face:
The website Daily Kos, which supports Democrats, is actually urging Democrats to cross over and vote in the Republican primary. Vote for Mitt Romney, so that the Republican race is wide open, and it takes them forever to come up with a nominee.
Isn't that special? Not only does MSNBC have a disgraceful primetime host that relies heavily on the Clinton front organizations Media Matters and Think Progress for his material, but now the Washington Bureau Chief for ABC News has let the cat out of the bag that he's a Daily Kos reader.
Liberal media bias? What liberal media bias?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
After all the time he spent
January 13, 2008 - 13:57 ET by motherbeltAfter all the time he spent carrying water for the Clintons, that ABC could even pretend to pretend that this man has a shred of credibility as a non-biased journalist is just shameful.
Do you think they would give, say, Mary Matalin, the same benefit of doubt if she were hosting a news show?
"Mary Matalin? The one who worked for Cheney, and Bush, and Bush 41? Oh, sure, but she's done with that, she's nonpartisan now."
Not even in your wildest dreams.
Motherbelt is right...
January 13, 2008 - 14:01 ET by ThalpyMotherbelt is right-again. We would be just as well served on the ABC news by Sandy Berger.
If the big 3 wanted to show
January 13, 2008 - 14:33 ET by NortonalecIf the big 3 wanted to show balance there would not be enough time during the week to off-set Matthews, Russert, Williams, Olberman, Stephy and every talk-show panel that has three libs to every one conservative.Did I forget anyone?Nortonalec
Motherbelt is
January 13, 2008 - 15:21 ET by motherbeltMotherbelt is right-again.
Again? You mean I've been right before?? Wow! LOL
Thank you sir, you are too kind!
Could it be that
January 13, 2008 - 14:34 ET by stratmanCould it be that Staphylococcus was not just reporting but spreading the word for Leftists to vote Republican in the primaries to mess with the process?
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Stephanopoulos. Come read NB's suggestions on the air..
January 13, 2008 - 15:42 ET by Gary HallPerhaps next week, we'll hear this from George:
Dear Mr Shephard It seems
January 13, 2008 - 16:26 ET by KeithDear Mr Shephard
It seems that in your appropriate zeal to condemn the link between the liberal Stephanapolous and the Daily Kos, you missed the forest for the trees. Republican talkers like Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh continually assert that the MSM and the DEMS are pushing allegedly liberal Republican's like McCain and Huckabee in order to "set them up for a trouncing"! I think that calling someone liberal, who is anti-sodomy and anti-abortion, just because you disagree with their immigration or tazx policy is ABSURD. Especially when you have the liar Romney who was both pro-SODOMY and pro- ABORTION his ENTIRE LIFE, now heralded as a "conservative" because he promises tax cuts!
Here we have the liberal nutbags over at the Kos preferring Mitt Romney and yet that escapes your condescension. It seems that when it comes to Huckabee the only thing that matters is what he said or did during his time as the Governor of a liberal state. His promise to not raise taxes is RIDICULED by the conservative punditry because of his penchant for raising them while Governor. I think that this is fair actually. What is UNFAIR is to take a LIAR like Mitt ( my daddy marched with King) Romney at HIS recently adjusted word all because he promises to be beholden to the moneyed interests that the JUDAS REPUBLICANS hold dear. Those "Judas" Republicans I'm speaking about are the ones who KNOW that Romney is PRO-CHOICE that his wife is PRO CHOICE and that his alleged conversion to Pro-Life is a lie, they just want their, 'Thirty pieces of silver", like JUDAS. Similarly are those phonies who know that Mitt Romney PROMISED TO ENLARGE THE TENT OF THE SODOMITES in this country, by kneeling at the altar of the homosexual lobby and SWEARING fealty to them!
Surely McCain for all his liberal economic tendencies is better than a lover of sodomites and abortion? Surely Huckabee who's stance on the issues just stated couldn't be any firmer or CONSISTENT, is better than a LIAR like Mitt Romney? But it seems that Romney gets the benefit of his newfound positions on core issues of morality but Huck doesn't get the same credit for relatively unimportant new positions like tax cuts or minor differences in approach to the 12 million illegals the REPUBLICAN PARTY let into this country! They all say they'll "close the borders" so it's really about what to do with the ones who are still here. The more strident among you, conveniently forget their complicity in these people being here, while the more practical, remember.
Actually seeing all this makes me glad that I left the Republican party after Bush tried to nominate his grandmother (lol) to the supreme court. How come you don't wonder why the liberals want Romney? Surely you don't believe that they just want chaos in the party, knowing the momentum that Romney would then carry? Couldn't this be as simple as them feeling that their candidates would beat him, because of said inconsistencies of record?
YOU are the LIAR about Mitt! By the wayAre you a serial killer?
January 13, 2008 - 16:44 ET by Daniel BakerAnyone who doesn't agree with you is the enemy?
Wasn't Mitt Romney
January 13, 2008 - 17:13 ET by KeithWasn't Mitt Romney PRO-CHOICE? Wasn't he PRO-GAY? Perhaps you should go to YOUTUBE and watch him swear allegiance to both of those causes. I haven't called anyone the "enemy" except liberals. I simply said that those who place moneyed interests over morality are like Judas! And I'll say it again if you want me to!
Keith ... Mitt Romney was pro-choice while knowing it was a sin
January 13, 2008 - 23:40 ET by Daniel BakerAs a member of the clergy he would counsel people not to get an abortion, but he felt that it should be safe and legal for people who would hurt themselves by doing it themselves. I don't agree with that thinking, but he thought it was the right way to go.
As for pro-gay he has been against discrimination in the workplace, but always against gay marriage.
An example, I don't see you advocating a bill agains fornicators, so you must be pro-fornication.
As for your lies Mitt did not raise taxes, and saying you saw your dad work hard for a living doesn't mean you had to go to work with him.
Bullcrap. Daniel that's all
January 14, 2008 - 03:48 ET by KeithBullcrap. Daniel that's all that is, BULLCRAP. A DEAD BABY IS A DEAD BABY. Mitt Romney can tell YOU all that garbage and it seems that you're silly enough to believe it. But I SAW the passion in his eyes as he VOWED to protect a woman's right to kill her child. He wasn't kicking and screaming and no amount of revisionist history will change that. Don't you dare tell me what I must be for, am I a friggin' politician? FEE'S are the same as taxes if you have to PAY THEM. You're just another lyin' spinner. WHAT ABOUT HIS PRO SODOMY STANCE! Oh, ran out of spin for that one huh?Funny how you forget his support for faggotry in your little diatribe! He's a lying cult member who's cult is ANTI-CHRIST. He teaches his followers that they too can be God's, the same sin that Satan, Joseph Smiths "angel", was kicked out of heaven for! What about the sodomy dude?
Keith...
January 13, 2008 - 16:56 ET by Clear thinkerOk, so you don't like Huck being called a liberal.
How about RINO, does that work for ya?
And before you get mad cause I'm picking on Huck. Mitt, John and Rudy share the same moniker.
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
I don't want anyone to be
January 13, 2008 - 17:22 ET by KeithI don't want anyone to be called a "liberal" simply because they gave tax increases and want the illegal aliens that THEIR PARTY allowed into this country to be treated humanely. When have the economic interests of this party replaced the moral interests as the proof of who is, or is not, a conservative? Glad I left and became an Independent!
I think that the mark of liberal should be placed on those who are MORALLY LIBERAL, like RUDY, and MITT. Why do I think this? Because the liberals will welcome you into their tent, even if you're fiscally conservative, as long as you want to kill babies and enlarge the tent of the sodomites in our country. But they will savage you with every last ounce of hatred in their bodies, if you object to killing babies or if you call a sodomite a sodomite! These are the determining factors by which they gauge their hatred or lack thereof, for you. As they should be the determining factors for you as well.
Didn't Reagan raise taxes? Didn't he give amnesty?Wasn't he STILL a conservative? And spare me the fake rationalizing about why he did either of these things, I've heard it all before debating Levin. It's all garbage. Governors have to GOVERN as Reagan DID. Most effectively I might add. But NONE of that was used against him to call him a RHINO. So I think it is unfair to do so now with others.
Keith, calm down. There's
January 13, 2008 - 18:26 ET by Gary P JacksonKeith, calm down. There's not a heck of a lot a President can do about "sodomites", or even abortion. Not a fan of abortion. It's murder. But the only impact a President can have is in appointing judges. Haven't herd Romney's take on that. Rudy has been very vocal on the subject, as has Thompson. (not that he had to be)
As far as homosexuality, that's between them and God. As long as the public at large isn't having a person's sexuality shoved in it's face, who cares. Again, the only impact a President can have is as a moral leader. No one is ever going to make homosexuality illegal. At least not in America.
So far, Mitt Romney is the only one, in either party, who has talked about the importance of strengthening families. The dims talk a good line, but their entire strategy, being the good communists they are, is to weaken the family. They've almost single handedly ruined the black family with their policies. Their whole pitch is to get you to give them control of your life!
The things most important to Republican voters include national security, fiscal responsibility, and illegal immigration. Abortion is also important, but in these times, I'm sure the other issues trump that. The candidate that best articulates their stand on these issues will be the nominee.
One thing about it, Huckabee, and McCain won't be the nominee. The only thing McCain's record even suggests he'll be right on, is national security, but while I understand it, his stance on "enhanced interrogation" troubles me. This is the guy, who would close Gitmo, thus bringing terrorists to US Soil, and we all know the legal ramifications of that.
Huckabee, is a member of an extinct breed, the conservative democrat. The only reason he has an R beside his name is because he would have no place as a dim. He's wrong on taxes, wrong on immigration, and I doubt he would be the best at national security.
While it sounds good, Huckabee's national sales tax plan would be a mistake. It would hurt the poorest among us. The ones who pay no taxes now. Oh sure, he has some sort of "pre-bate" plan, but my God, that will cost a lot of money to do. And what if a person either starts a year at the lower level income level, qualifying for a check, and ends up making more money than expected, or has a good job, and loses it, or gets sick? They didn't qualify for the check, and now have to deal with a sales tax too!
He says part of that check would help with taxes on groceries! That shows me how little this plan has been thought out. Why have a rebate or pre-bate because of groceries? Wouldn't it just be a heck of a lot easier to just not tax them at all? That's how we do it in Texas. (we have no income tax) Think about it, it's all about control. Huckster's plan is a disaster waiting to happen.
The real easy answer is to not only lower the income tax, corporate tax, and capital gains taxes permanently. Along with that, kill the death tax, and simplify the tax code. Filling an individual tax form out should be simple enough that anyone who has a high school education could do it. Close up the loopholes, simplify the code, and move on to the next deal. Oh, and one more thing wrong with the sales tax, what about mortgage deductions? Think of what the loss of that would do to home sales in an already weak market!
Keith, like it or not, Rush and others are spot on regarding McCain and Huck.
Rush is a stupid drug addict
January 14, 2008 - 04:29 ET by KeithRush is a stupid drug addict and isn't "spot on " about anything. So what if Romney has been talking about 'strengthening the family , that's just talk now that he's trying to fool people into thinking that he's a conservative. DUH! What was he saying about it when he was Gov? He was promising to protect homos and a woman's right to kill a child. And you can shove the spin on why he did that where the sun don't shine, baby. Cause in the end, a dead baby is a dead baby.
You people are trying to change the meaning of what a conservative IS. Now you're saying it doesn't matter if he's PRO-CHOICE? OR PRO GAY? Then what the hell has this party stood for all of these years? Why is being ANTI-ABORTION in the parties plank? It sure as hell doesn't talk about TAX CUTS!
Homosexuality is between them and God? As long as nobody shove's it in anyone's face, blah blah blah? Are you stupid? They are INDOCTINATING OUR CHILDREN INTO THE GAY LIFESTYLE IN SCHOOL MORON! The words MOTHER and FATHER have been STRICKEN from California text books by the REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR. Get your head out of your butt and read a newspaper, why dontcha? That's all homos do is try to shove their filth down your throat, buy a vowel and GET A CLUE! As we speak there are a multitude of bills IN CONGRESS that would make speaking out against the homosexual lifetstyle a CRIME! The liberals in Europe have already done this as well as the liberals in Canada. There are Christian pastors in JAIL in Canada for preaching that it's a sin, this prompted the liberals here to usher in a whole new wave of "Hate Crime" bills that amount to legislating THOUGHT and you think it's between someone and GOD. Man how blasted ignorant can you be?
Dude, I ain't wasting no more of my life with people like you. BUH-BYE. Please don't respond I've stopped listening to you. ICU for what you are.
Keith, I want to listen but
January 13, 2008 - 18:43 ET by tracheostomyKeith, I want to listen but you're throwing too much at us too fast and all at once.
Can you please organize your thoughts more coherently before writing them down? I look at your posts and I don't even know where to begin.
From my POV, it just looks too tangential to figure out where you're going with this. Please. Can you take it one point at a time, one subject at a time?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Dear Tracheostomy, My
January 14, 2008 - 04:17 ET by KeithDear Tracheostomy,
My point was that there are those who are trying to change the meaning of the word conservative. They are doing this because of the moneyed interests to whom they are beholden. Mitt Romney is a liar and has always been Pro-Choice. He is on record VEHEMENTLY stating this position as he is on video championing gay "rights". Those who seek to believe his newfound moral conservatism are the same who doubt McCain's new immigration stance, i.e that he'd close the borders and deport the criminal illegals. They are the same one's who drag out tape of Huch begging for tax increases despite the fact that he now has taken a pledge to not raise taxes. My point was which of these two issues shows more about a man's character, killing babies and advancing a sodomite agenda, or raising taxes?Which of these issues goes to the core of an individuals belief system and shows him for what he is? I believe it's the moral issues that define a man. I know that Ronald Reagan was a conservative despite the fact that he raised taxes and I know that he was still a conservative when he gave the illegals amnesty. My point Trake was that those who seek to tar McCain and Huch as LIBERALS are those who couldn't give a rip about Shwarzenegger outlawing the words MOTHER and FATHER from California textbooks as long as they get a tax cut. Since that was precisely the reasoning of JUDAS ISCARIOT I call fiscal conservatives who are moral despots, Judas Republicans. That plain enough for ya?
I left the Republican party after Harriet Meyers and Dubai. Because it showed me that Bush, isn't like me. He goes to a "church" with homo bishop for God's sake, how liberal is that? How disgusting is that? So, that said, I have no use for those who are ONLY fiscally conservative. I make lot's of dough so I'd like to hold onto it as much as the next guy, but not at the expense of my children's future. Mitt Romney was practically SILENT after radical homosexuals were caught teaching GOLDEN SHOWERS and FISTING to kids as young as 11yrs old, in his state. That is not my idea of a "conservative", I don't care how much money he lets me keep.
Keith
January 13, 2008 - 18:52 ET by Noel SheppardKeith,
I think you've misinterpreted why Kos posted this suggestion at his website (emphasis his):
As such, Kos isn't recommending this out of disdain for Huckabee or any other candidate. This is about dragging the nomination out as long as possible.
Furthermore, I very highly doubt Stephy brought this up because he likes Romney. After all, the conventional wisdom is that the Dems want Huckabee in because they think he's the most beatable of the Reps in the race. So, why would he do anything to help a GOP candidate with better chances of defeating Hillary or Obama? ns
PS Keith - its economy and national security
January 13, 2008 - 20:17 ET by Parker1227Abortion will never be outlawed nationally. The best we can do is persuade women that it should be a last choice but that it must also be done before the second half of gestation - if at all.
And gay people will always be with us - like it or not. I think we just have to learn to put up with their antics - as they've been putting up with straight people for a long time.
Whether or not abortion will
January 14, 2008 - 04:33 ET by KeithWhether or not abortion will be outlawed is not the issue. The issue is do you have a president who supports a culture of life or death? It makes a difference. As for gay people being tolerated if you think that 's all they want then you're beyond silly. Read up a few of my posts and learn what the radical homosexual agenda is really up to. Putting up with sodomites worked out just fine for Sodom by the by.
So you think they would tell
January 14, 2008 - 03:54 ET by KeithSo you think they would tell you their real strategy? I didn't miss anything, I never do. I said that I was aware of their stated reason to "cause chaos" I simply didn't believe it that's all. I posited the theory that they might be lying, call me crazy.
Keith - what is true compassion?
January 13, 2008 - 19:56 ET by Parker1227Is is helping able-bodied people to take responsibility for their own lives, or is it stripping the most successful in society of half or more of their earnings so that the Dems can have 30 pieces of silver (each) to purchase the votes of the ever growing dependent class in the U.S.
Never mind that by puritanically punishing the rich, you are also punishing the job creators and thus insuring that there will be no jobs available even if any of the dependent class decide (or are convinced) to start contributing.
I have no problem with tax
January 14, 2008 - 03:59 ET by KeithI have no problem with tax cutters Parker1227, I simply resisted the notion that tax cuts and immigration are the bellwether for conservatism that's all. If you read the posts carefully you'll see that I place more importance on MORALITY and stopping the homosexual filth from poisoning my kids than I do MONEY! Did you know that the filthy moron Arnold Schwarzenneger just signed a bill outlawing the use of the words MOTHER and FATHER from California textbooks? Well he did. Funny how none of the morally compromised yet "Fiscal conservatives" chose to do shows about that huh? That's why we need a President that has morality that exists outside of his WALLET.
NB accusing someone of the very thing they are doing
January 13, 2008 - 16:36 ET by Daniel BakerYour editors picks has the same highlighted reference. I really despise the thinking behind Steppy saying it. which is that Romney is dead after Michigan, so I can maybe convince some people to vote against him.
I don't know the editor's choice motives, but since they usually highlight only controversial stories about Romney it is probably the same.
DB
January 13, 2008 - 18:57 ET by Noel SheppardDB,
I'm not sure who added this to the Editors' Picks, but I wouldn't attach too much of a hidden agenda to it. Bob Owens (Confederate Yankee) is an NB contributor, and a highly-respected member of the "family." Furthermore, it is an interesting issue, dontcha think?
For the record, I hadn't seen Bob's post, or that one of the editors here linked to it. As you can see, I've been a busy beaver writing this weekend. I hope this clears up the confusion for you. ns
What's to stop
January 13, 2008 - 17:51 ET by 10ksnookerRepublicans for voting for Obama?
Criminal Complaint?
January 13, 2008 - 19:29 ET by Del Dolemontehttp://beam.to/kosfr...
George Clintonopolous
January 13, 2008 - 21:49 ET by mattmWhat a cake-walk job he has. Take your marching orders from your former bosses (Bill and the Pill), any get your talking points from the Daily K-OZ.... incredible!
So, why doesn't
January 14, 2008 - 03:06 ET by lumpythe Republican party make hay out of the fact that the Dem candidates gather at the kos conventions? All some watchdog Republican has to do is pull out the most hate-filled and egregious kos diaries and confront the D. candidates with them. Just the other day there was a diary advising people to not support the troops; a few weeks ago, one that equated US troops with jihadists; and of course, plenty of blasphemous Christian-bashing diaries; last week a diary written by kos himself asking his readers to come up with inflammatory nicknames for Bush-- and believe me, there were some really vile ones along with comments suggesting that he be assasinated.
I don't understand why more isn't made of this. It would be like the R's gathering at a neo-Nazi convention.
The Dem candidates need to have this shoved in their faces.
Wow...
January 14, 2008 - 05:25 ET by JSchulerSo if you are aware that the major left-wing blog is calling on Democrats to vote in the Republican primaries then you must be a regular reader of the Daily Kos? Wow. By that logic, everyone who has posted here is a Daily Kos reader and, by implication, a raving leftist.
In the future, can you limit yourself to reporting actual cases of media bias, instead of twisting yourself into pretzels to invent false outrages? This crap hurts your credibility.