 |
| Greased Lightning Bias |
Try as I might, the Associated Press's bias is outpacing my best efforts.
No sooner do I extensively examine their weak week that was than I am delivered more media manna from Heaven, on video no less.
[Thank you very much, DaBird -- loved your work with the Celtics.]
Below the fold, the Reporter (a term we use exceedingly loosely) Glen Johnson explosion:
Now it is not that Johnson is pressing Romney, that is fine, energetic reporting is all very well and good. We, in fact, root daily for far more of it.
Johnson interrupting Romney is the epitome of uncouth, and pretty low class, but that is not the problem either.
The problem is with what Johnson says towards the very end of the tape:
"He (Romney) shouldn't stand there and tell a total falsehood".
This is true; indeed, no candidate should.
But this leads one to think of the myriad questionable tales with which we are regaled at all hours of the night and day by the likes of Hillary Rodham Clinton over the last fifteen years:
- WhitewaterGate
- TrooperGate
- AsiaGate
- TravelGate
- FBIFileGate
- AsiaGate II - With Norman Hsu
- CattleGate
- EdmundHillaryGate
- IDidNotKnowtheMonicaStoryWasTrueUntilTwoWeeksAftertheBlueDressGate
- ... and on and on and on ...
... and one can not help but wonder to where the AP's, and the media's in general, exuberance flees when she is before them astride the podium.
When Senator Clinton addresses the rabble, it is cotton candy all around from and for the press.
If only we saw some of this tenacious, righteous reportorial indignation directed her way at some point, at ANY point.
But alas and alack, where does wishing get one?
Well, for starters, in bookstores everywhere.
—Seton Motley is Director of Communications for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Romney's a charmer, I'll
January 17, 2008 - 21:54 ET by tracheostomyRomney's a charmer, I'll give him that. Sure, I'm more in favor of an "angrier" candidate, but if nothing else, his method of dealing with that chump Johnson was nothing short of. . .Reaganesque.
:hands over mouth:
>_< - I didn't just say that. . .
-PJ
Support a policy of fair play in debate. Tell TruthMonger he owes me a steak!
Hmmm....
January 17, 2008 - 21:57 ET by BigBWhy is it that when ever I see one of these turd pumps, I think to myself..."I just bet he got beat up alot when he was growing up"?
You see other LiBTArds like Allen Colmes or Bill Maher or Markos Mommies Boy...you just know they spent the first 17 years of their lives getting their lunch money stolen....AND NOW THE WORLD IS GONNA PAY!!!
Now, this might sting just a little bit.....
Hmmmm a point
January 17, 2008 - 22:20 ET by Lame CherryI would submit that these little males were probably the bullies as kids being the faster growing kids until about age 14 and then the other kids passed them up..........and they have been sore ever since.
Their first lesson was ended with a ripping their shirt off, eating dirt and being thrown in the girls bathroom...........after that Bill Maher and company chose "newspaper reporter credits" as they found out they could seek revenge and be turds without anyone beating on them.
All of these males are quite ugly and the only reason they are having sex now is because of their bank account and the only reason they are not being beat to a pulp is they only pick on Mitt Romney types.
Believe me, Bill Maher KNOWS just like every wife beater knows just who it is in a room they can pick on and who will bust their teeth out.
Predators always know who is the hunter in the room.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
"When Senator Clinton
January 17, 2008 - 22:16 ET by ckc1227"When Senator Clinton addresses the rabble, it is cotton candy all around from and for the press."
It's not just Hillary, it's for all the dem candidates.
""He (Romney) shouldn't stand there and tell a total falsehood".
He's right, but, if falsehoods concern him so much, the dems have enough flying around right now to keep him busy for a lifetime. When will these guys get around to calling them on it?
AP-What can ya say?
January 17, 2008 - 22:20 ET by d1carterThis video says it all. What an arrogant a clown!
I agree d1, as my long
January 18, 2008 - 05:45 ET by ConservativeRexI agree d1, as my long deceased meemaw stated.."there's no accounting for taste".
Objective journalism, anyone??
January 17, 2008 - 22:29 ET by PrairieSkyDoes anyone remember back in the day, when most journalists, whatever their particular political or ideological bent, managed to be professional enough not to get into an argument with a candidate concerning an issue, while they are supposed to be doing their job, which I thought was reporting, not commenting or challenging? I can't understand how anyone can see this and still believe that the press is not biased. There it is folks...in living color, for all to see.
Google This
January 17, 2008 - 23:58 ET by Del DolemonteGoogle search "Associated Press Ethics", and you will get 2 or 3 separate links to their so-called "standards"
Michael Moore wannabe
January 17, 2008 - 22:34 ET by stratmanMichael Moore wannabe pr*ck.
Absolutely disgusting.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Glen Johnson: No class, all
January 17, 2008 - 23:30 ET by motherbeltGlen Johnson: No class, all A$$.
Glen Johnson with Mitt Romney vs. Brian Williams with Her Royal Clintoness.....is there a middle ground somewhere?
Big Lizards take...
January 18, 2008 - 00:39 ET by ChriswelLMore detailed analysis at Big Lizards.
http://biglizards.ne...
-cs™
Hey Mitt...
January 18, 2008 - 01:36 ET by BritcomThe next time Glen Johnson gets in your face... just point at him and yell, "GUN!!"
He will never bother you again.
People Still Take AP seriously?
January 18, 2008 - 02:26 ET by reasonsjesterThe AP, aka the Associated Perjurers, ot the Ambivalent Polarizers, also known as the Assinine Pocketpool-players, the Association of Pinko-commies, the Analyst's Purgatory, the Apocalyptic Peons, the Alleged Press, the Anticonservative Proselytizers, the Archenemy of Patriots, the Atheistic Phonies, the Accumulated Plagiarizers, the "Academic" Pissants, the Aggravated Prozac poppers, the Arbitrary Piddlemakers, the Allies of Pederasts, the Aloquacious Poor-me-purveyors, the Anarchy Peddlers, the Abortion Pushers, the Antiwar Pacifists, the All-knowing Parental-figures, the Arbiters of Political-correctness, the Annoying Peaceniks, the Al-qaeda Propagandists, call 'em what you will have lost all respect from serious people for years now. Why Fox News continues to run AP articles, I have no idea. A note relating to the post: The AP guy is annoying, just like the rest of his buddies.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
Typical lib "journalist".
January 18, 2008 - 02:56 ET by Gary P JacksonTypical lib "journalist". It's all about him, HE is the most important person in the room. It just so happens a leading candidate for the Presidency of the United States is speaking. It's all about little Glen Johnson! What a Prick.
You mean THAT Glen Johnson?
January 18, 2008 - 03:12 ET by BingoHoly cow! Lest it go unremarked upon, Glen Johnson is one of the "chosen 3" Kerry toadys authorized access to KERRY'S military records! I wasn't aware until just now that he was bird-dogging the Romney campaign.
If anyone gets close enough to this (cough) "journalist" creep, ask him whether Kerry imposed any stipulations prior to his (Johnson's) authorization to access Kerry's records.
GET THE CRUD ON RECORD! (AND ON VIDEO FOR EXTRA CREDIT!)
Man you people are so in the
January 18, 2008 - 03:08 ET by KeithMan you people are so in the tank that Romney standing there LYING doesn't even bother you. All you want is your tax cut's huh? Pro-baby killing, pro-homo, doesn't even make a dent with you all huh? As long as he promises your thirty pieces of silver you folks are just fine! If being in the strategy for a debate, upon which candidacies are uplifted or possibly lost, isn't a high level meeting, what is? Romney is a flip flopping LIAR and the truth is not in him. Fees are taxes if you're the one who's gotta pay 'em, wake up and put down the cult flavored Kool-aid!
Whale sh**
January 18, 2008 - 06:41 ET by BritcomThis is a political campaign. The root of politics is "polite". We all know that Romney splits hairs with his terminology, and we all know his record, but that is his affair, he thinks he can get elected by promising to repent of his sins, but that doesn't give unprofessional pukes like Johnson license to verbally abuse and harass a candidate who is attempting to answer his question. Johnson didn't like the answer he got and he was trying to extract the answer he wanted from Romney. Romney went above and beyond the call to accommodate the piece of sh** in a much more polite way than I would have. Johnson was attempting to start a fist fight with Romney and he should have been ejected for it.
Romney standing there LYING
January 18, 2008 - 08:45 ET by motherbeltRomney standing there LYING doesn't even bother you.
What was the LIE, Keith?
"Advisors" do not "run" the campaign. The paid staff do. Advisors "advise." Look up "advise" in the dictionary. Then look up "run."
And no, advisers are not "potted plants." Potted plants don't "advise." They just sit there. Romney never said he was a silent observer. He said he's an "adviser."
Once again, Keith, what is the LIE?
Mitt Romney lied about every
January 18, 2008 - 17:44 ET by KeithMitt Romney lied about every relevant social issue just to FORM his friggin' candidacy. Pro-gay, Pro choice, now Anti-Abortion and anti-faggotry! He has continued his lying on the campaign trail ( I saw my daddy march with King), ring a bell? He has lied by saying that he didn't raise taxes, more Clintonism, he raised FEES by 500 million. A "Fee" is the same as a "Tax" if you've got to pay it bud.
Now he gets caught in a bold face lie by INFERENCE, trying to suggest his "purity" as it relates to lobbyists as opposed to others. When he gets called on it, he immediately, like you, grabs a dictionary and starts a semantic debate. By splitting hairs over whether an "advisor" is a campaign "runner" you do yourself a disservice of Clintonian proportions. "Is", does indeed have a multiplicity of meaning but you were hardly willing to give that other liar a break. No tax cuts huh? Everyone knows that Romney was trying to imply that Lobbyists hold no sway with him yet one of his advisors is a lobbyist. Bullcrap to you and your dictionary definition. This is the same lying piece of crap that pulled out a dictionary over the word "saw" if you'll recall. As in I "saw" my Daddy marching with King. It's amazing to me how you Judas Republicans, "tax cuts please, morality not necessary", can swallow this man's load of horse crap.
You know that he's lied on EVERY major issue, like abortion, you know that he was caught ON VIDEO supporting abortion AFTER his alleged conversion over some stem cells! Doesn't bother you a whit. You know that he was promising to be a BIGGER friend to the homo's than Teddy Kennedy! Doesn't bother you a whit. Even after he lied about what his Friggin' church believes, when all you alleged Christians had to do is go on their friggin' website to expose his lies and....doesn't bother you a whit. For the Kool Aid drinkers to stupid to do the work themselves, his cult DOES believe that Jesus and Satan are BROTHERS! And his cult also believes that they will BE LIKE GOD ONE DAY, a sin for which Lucifer was expelled from heaven if memory serves, and it always does. This guy makes Al Gore look truthful. Hope you enjoy your thirty pieces and may they gall you as they did Judas.
If I may say something in this matter
January 18, 2008 - 08:06 ET by BobAnthonyAP...last two letters in the word crap, which is what I think of the corrupt, corporate communist press, and that includes AP!
Seton, Maybe Romney
January 18, 2008 - 09:54 ET by LeonSeton,
Maybe Romney shouldn't have:
1) Taken a cheap shot at McCain
2) Accused of McCain of having lobbyists run his campaign, while lobbyists run his own campaign (i.e. Ron Kaufman)
3) Cried when his cheap shot backfired due to his own incompetence.
Leon, take my advice to
January 18, 2008 - 10:08 ET by motherbeltLeon, take my advice to Keith, above. Look up "advise" in the dictionary. Then look up "run."
Then come back and tell us what Romney "lied" about.
PS before you jump down my throat, I don't know if McCain has lobbyists "running" his campaign. That's not what I'm talking about here.
mb, McCain does have lobbyists
January 18, 2008 - 10:10 ET by RJ"running" his campaign, according to the liberal folks on Morning Joe.
"I really like Mike Huckabee." -uber lib Mika Brezinski
MB, He lied. He took a
January 18, 2008 - 10:10 ET by LeonMB,
He lied. He took a cheap shot and paid the price for it. The guy's an idiot.
If you're going to attack someone for having lobbyists involved in your campaign, than you better make sure you don't have a single one in any position, running it or not!
In other words
January 18, 2008 - 10:21 ET by AgnosticIf your a Republican not only must you tell the whole truth all the time but everything you say must mean what liberals think it should mean. He said 'running his campaign' if a lobbyist is not running his campaign he didn't lie. I still give him -2 points for peeking into the abyss.
Disclaimer - Romney is tied for a close third on my list of candidates.
Of course if your a democrat you can lie if you can come up with a plausable excuse; especially, if the media will buy it and sell it for you.
Agnostic, It's just
January 18, 2008 - 10:27 ET by LeonAgnostic,
It's just stupid on his part. Why expose yourself to the attack? It just shows his lack of political saavy.
He tried to take a cheap shot and got burned.
Leon,
January 18, 2008 - 10:35 ET by AgnosticI agree that is why the -2 (figuritively of course) but calling him liar if in fact he didn't lie about this issue is a cheap shot as well.
As far as political saavy; take a look at the candidates on both sides and tell me how much are we to expect.
Fair Enough Ag, I
January 18, 2008 - 10:41 ET by LeonFair Enough Ag,
I apologize for calling him a liar. He didn't lie, he just forgot to think and look ridiculous.
Agreed that there is not much saavy, but Mitt is the worst. Although what could you possibly expect from a guy that flip flopped on every major social issue. He's still getting his talking points down.
Oh, so when did you decide,
January 18, 2008 - 10:36 ET by motherbeltOh, so when did you decide, Leon, that "advising" is the same as "running" a campaign? I would submit that former president Clinton is "advising" his wife's campaign. I would bet you anything she will deny that he is "running" it.
Oh, I see, now your word for it is "involved." Well that changes things. Keep moving those goalposts, Leon.
MB, The semantic
January 18, 2008 - 10:44 ET by LeonMB,
The semantic arguments around here are venturing into the absurd.
Kaufman, while not TECHNICALLY running his campaign, is a senior advisor that has known Mitt for a long time and obviously carries a lot of clout within his campaign.
Mitt's attack on McCain exposed him to the retort.
Do you disagree that he should have kept his mouth shut considering one of his top guys is a lobbyist?
"Senior Advisor?"
January 18, 2008 - 10:59 ET by RJNot according to Joe Scarboro. He said he took a recent tour of the Romney headquarters and Kaufman was nowhere to be seen among the Senior Staff. No desk, no presence of any kind.
Scarboro went on to say that his experience in politics has been that politicans' "senior staff" ALWAYs hang out in the same area.
RJ, Perhaps, but he was
January 18, 2008 - 11:08 ET by LeonRJ,
Perhaps, but he was still in debate prep sessions, and who knows how many other meetings. Furthermore, he's a long time friend of the Romney's, so I'm sure he has some access to Romney's ears.
Ultimately, the point is, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Given that having "some access"
January 18, 2008 - 11:19 ET by RJis a long way from "running" a campaign, I think it's hardly living in a glass house to comment on the Senior Staff positions of lobbyists in McCain's campaign.
RJ, You can only attack
January 18, 2008 - 11:22 ET by LeonRJ,
You can only attack McCain effectively if you have ZERO lobbyists working on your campaign.
It's most certainly living in a glass house.
leon, it's not "all or nothing"
January 18, 2008 - 11:28 ET by RJin this or most other things....but of course you and Johnson have every right to claim that there's no difference. :^)
Ok RJ, Your semantic
January 18, 2008 - 11:32 ET by LeonOk RJ,
Your semantic wrangling and definition dancing is a supreme waste of time.
Romney accuses McCain of having lobbyists on his campaign while he himself has lobbyists on his campaign. That's it. That's all that happened. Mitt looked stupid, get over it.
Leon..I think you got it...
January 18, 2008 - 11:34 ET by vrwc13"Ok RJ,
Your semantic wrangling and definition dancing is a supreme waste of time."
v
"…you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." -the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
ha. Here comes the second of The Three Amigos
January 18, 2008 - 11:41 ET by RJGalloping in to support his pal. Can Cool Arrow be far behind? :^)
"I really like Mike Huckabee." -uber liberal Mika Brezinski
→ Ta dah
January 18, 2008 - 11:48 ET by Cool ArrowNope
I ♣ My Seal
Good show Cool...
January 18, 2008 - 11:55 ET by vrwc13btw: Cool, Leon, isn't it break time? Meet ya at the water cooler!
v
"don't argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience". Binxly
→ Sure vrwc
January 18, 2008 - 11:59 ET by Cool ArrowDid anybody watch "Grey's Anatomy" last night?
Who's gonna win American Idol.
OK, break's over. Back to work, I guess.
I ♣ My Seal
Cool, that's
January 18, 2008 - 12:03 ET by LeonCool,
that's hilarious.
Can you believe what Mary's wearing today? Those shoes! Gawd!
HEY! Who put cool-aid in the water cooler?
January 18, 2008 - 12:05 ET by vrwc13HEY! Who put cool-aid in the water cooler?
v
Well, THAT was predictable
January 18, 2008 - 11:39 ET by RJ...when leon sees his position weakening, he typically tries to cover by reverting to insults. :^)
→ Come on, RJ
January 18, 2008 - 11:45 ET by Cool ArrowWe both know Romney, with a lobbyist working in his campaign should not have criticised McCain for having a lobbyist in his regardless of rank or pay.
It's not something to be semantically comfortable with.
I guarantee you, Mitt learned something from that little skirmish and he doesn't feel particularly good about it.
I think we need to be honest in our assessments even when it doesn't really flatter candidates we support.
I ♣ My Seal
As I said earlier, Cool
January 18, 2008 - 12:00 ET by RJJohnson's attack is just a continuation of the AP's negative obsession with Romney. It's a phony, made-up controversy.
So, speaking of "honest assessments", from my side of the isle it looks as if you Three Amigos are just latching onto something that agrees with your own predilections.
"I like Mike Huckabee." -uber lib Mika Brezinski
just latching onto something that agrees with your own predilect
January 18, 2008 - 12:04 ET by vrwc13...or is RJ upset anytime someone points out Romney getting a little stain on his perfect suit?
v
...o.k. Leon, your turn...then Cool...
Boys! Boys! Don't fight!
January 18, 2008 - 12:12 ET by RJThere's plenty of time for each of you Three Amigos to play the part of the Stupid Sidekick as many times as you like. ;^)
RJ, Does your husband
January 18, 2008 - 12:17 ET by LeonRJ,
Does your husband know about your Romney crush?
I must commend you. Once you find someone you like, you are an extreme apologist. If I were a candidate I would love to have sheep around like you.
Sad, creepy, juvenile leon
January 18, 2008 - 12:25 ET by RJSlap him around verbally and he heads to the bathroom stall with his "laptop" to fantasize again about turning men into housewifes. It's the only way he can feel "superior." ;^)
Ha. Yeah RJ. You really
January 18, 2008 - 12:26 ET by LeonHa.
Yeah RJ.
You really showed me on this thrad! Haha.
I did, leon
January 18, 2008 - 14:31 ET by RJIt's easy to tell when that happens, because you predictibly revert to your insults and creepy misogynic fantasies. :^)
RJ, If I was your
January 18, 2008 - 14:40 ET by LeonRJ,
If I was your husband, I would be so sick and tired of having to step over all your Mitt collages scattered around your bedroom.
ha. Creepy leon's back in the bathroom stall
January 18, 2008 - 14:54 ET by RJ...with his laptop and and his fantasies.
What's the source of your need to turn men into women, leon? Is misogyny the only thing that makes you feel "superior?" ;^>
Dear Mitt, Your love is
January 18, 2008 - 15:00 ET by LeonDear Mitt,
Your love is the anchor that gives my spirit license to soar.
Love,
RJ
PS you don't know me but you should ;^>
leon's misogyny
January 18, 2008 - 15:09 ET by RJSeriously, leon, your misogynistic need to turn men into women is a clear indication of feelings of inferiority and a cry for help. You should consider therapy.
Scarbourgh himself said the
January 18, 2008 - 12:04 ET by taterScarbourgh himself said the MSM has this hatred of Romney. Of course Shuster and Mika were quick to say no no they don't hate Romney.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
→ RJ
January 18, 2008 - 12:14 ET by Cool ArrowI'm not arguing Romney lost the semantic argument. To my thinking he certainly won it.
My point is that the hint of hypocrisy is there in a certain measure given that Romney focused on a lobbyist "leading" the McCain campaign while Romney had a lobbyist "in" his campaign.
I'm only saying it was not a smart barb to throw at McCain. Certainly you're not saying it was? Are you?
I ♣ My Seal
Cool
January 18, 2008 - 12:18 ET by RJI'll agree to the extent that Romney is held to a higher standard than the other candidates. He's going to have to be more aware of that.
Romney is held to a higher standard than the other candidates.
January 18, 2008 - 12:24 ET by vrwc13...must be his suits. Brooks Brothers, Clavin Klein, or Mens Warehouse?
v
→ RJ
January 18, 2008 - 12:36 ET by Cool ArrowEspecially now that he knows the AP is dead set on trashing him. This was no shot across the bow. It was an attempt to sink him.
I ♣ My Seal
Excellent point, Cool!
January 18, 2008 - 12:44 ET by RJThat puts a perspective on why Johnson was so unrelentingly aggressive. He was hoping to get a "blow-up" reaction from Romney and thus kill his campaign. Bastards.
Thanks Cool, You're spot
January 18, 2008 - 12:05 ET by LeonThanks Cool,
You're spot on. Perfectly stated.
Good catch Leon...I agree. v
January 18, 2008 - 12:07 ET by vrwc13Good catch Leon...I agree.
v
→ Thanks Amigos.
January 18, 2008 - 12:15 ET by Cool ArrowGMTA
I ♣ My Seal
Finally ! Some intellectual
January 18, 2008 - 17:51 ET by KeithFinally ! Some intellectual honesty!
The semantic arguments
January 18, 2008 - 13:36 ET by motherbeltThe semantic arguments around here are venturing into the absurd.
Your semantic wrangling and definition dancing is a supreme waste of time. -Leon
And yet....it is Leon who claims that the fact that "advises" means the same as "runs."
Okay, I've had it with your
January 18, 2008 - 17:54 ET by KeithOkay, I've had it with your silliness. The word ADVISE means "suggest what to do" the word runs means, "tell what to do" happy? You're just as full of it as Romney ,kill a baby today but not tommorrow, is.
→ Leon
January 18, 2008 - 11:20 ET by Cool ArrowYour last post (above) is where you should have jumped in.
Little to argue with there. It would have been valid for the reporter to ask the question: "Governor Romney, are you saying there are no lobbyists in your campaign?"
Instead the reporter left himself open to semantic parsing where Romney had a lot of rightful leeway.
I ♣ My Seal
Fine Cool, I suppose that
January 18, 2008 - 11:26 ET by LeonFine Cool,
I suppose that makes sense, however, I feel like we're drilling down way too far. This semantic parsing seems to be a blog phenomenon for people that have nothing to talk about.
Sometimes it makes more sense to take a step back and look at the overall situation. What happened at the core was Romney attacked McCain for having lobbyists on his campaign while he himself has lobbyists on his campaign. That's what happened. The distinction between running and advising is pointless.
→ Leon
January 18, 2008 - 11:34 ET by Cool ArrowRest assured even those who are supporting Romney are wishing the connection between Coughman and Romney had not been noticed.
It's not a direct hit, but glancing blows don't feel too good either.
I think it's probably naive to think any given candidate is free of lobbyists as it's great to get in on the ground floor.
I think Romney made a mistake bringing up the lobbyist thing, but it doesn't blow him out of the water, and he's still a good candidate in my book.
I ♣ My Seal
Cool, I agree that it
January 18, 2008 - 12:08 ET by LeonCool,
I agree that it doesn't blow him out of the water, it was just a bad move.
However, I disagree that he's a good candidate. I find it hard to believe a guy that flip-flopped on every major issue so he could run for President. Not a whole lot of integrity as far as I'm concerned.
But you are correct, this event will not be his downfall. It just goes to show what can happen when you engage in cheap mudslinging.
→ Some agreement
January 18, 2008 - 12:19 ET by Cool ArrowI'm concerned with the flip-flopping too. But I'd vote for Romney.
The only way to prove he won't flip back is to demonstrate the behavior, which can't likely happen since he doesn't hold an office at present.
I ♣ My Seal
Cool, If I were a
January 18, 2008 - 12:23 ET by LeonCool,
If I were a Republican and I really wanted to win, I'd do this:
President: McCain
Vice President: Paul
McCain is picking up a lot of steam as the chinks in these other guy's armors start to show. He's much more seasoned and he's a good guy. People respect him. He'll get the nomination hands down.
Now you've got popular McCain that will draw a large amount of votes, if you throw Paul in there, you're literally guaranteed at least another 10% of the general population.
If I was on the RNC that's what I'd be pushing for.
Romney unfortunately will not be able to overcome America's dislike/fear/confusion concerning Mormons or his recent, CONVENIENT fundamental flip flops on major issues.
Leon...someone put kool-aid in the water cooler again..
January 18, 2008 - 12:28 ET by vrwc13Paul for VP? You got to be kidding. The tin-foil hat gang would having him sitting in the Oval Office before you could say "now who will replace Paul as VP?"
v
→ Back to the Water Cooler
January 18, 2008 - 12:32 ET by Cool ArrowI'd be more worried about Shamus McAnus replacing Ru Paul.
I ♣ My Seal
→ Puh leeze Leon
January 18, 2008 - 12:30 ET by Cool ArrowI'd love to see a return to most Jeffersonian values, but it would take more than a Libertarian President to make it work.
McCain, however is off the map when it comes to acceptable candidates for me. He reminds me, with his many hyphenations, of a too often married heiress: John McCain-Feingold-Kennedy. Those last two husbands say a lot about McCain.
I ♣ My Seal
Cool, McCain has been
January 18, 2008 - 13:32 ET by LeonCool,
McCain has been rising steadily in all polls. He's got this one in the bag. I predict victory in South Carolina. As far as I can tell, he's the only acceptable candidate
Think about it:
1) Fred's out after SC
2) Rudy's been out
3) Huckabee's a complete weirdo
4) Duncan may as well be invisible
5) Romney's a manufactured conservative that has flip flopped on every single major social issue (which seems to me to be insurmountable - how could you trust a guy like that who changes his principles based solely on convenience)
6) Ron Paul's got cult status, but couldn't win as President
If you realistically whittle the list down, the only acceptable candidate with a real chance to win is McCain.
The only reason I'd propose Paul for VP is because you are guaranteed a sizable portion of the general population's vote. 10% is nothing to sneeze at. And they will all vote, as we've seen from their rabidness concerning donating, interneting, and poll participating.
→ Ouch Leon
January 18, 2008 - 13:38 ET by Cool ArrowI know deep down the chance of a Republican winning is slim at this point. But I'm hoping I'm wrong.
It's just that I can't see McCain as a Republican. Don't see much diff between him and Hildebeast.
I ♣ My Seal
Cool, I think you have a
January 18, 2008 - 13:43 ET by LeonCool,
I think you have a valid argument of course, but I just think he's the only guy with a real chance to win. His cons are much fewer than any other candidate as far as I can tell.
Furthermore, for all of the complaints you may have about him, it's impossible to not respect the guy. Sure he's made some political mistakes, but he's a bona fide hero. That goes a long way in my mind.
I agree that the Republicans don't have much of a chance this year, but I also don't know who the heck could win on the Democrat side either.
What I'm most interested in seeing is who comes out to vote this year. My feeling is that this might finally be the year where the younger generations hit the polling booths. The internet has really raised awareness as has the addition of a young, rock start style politician like Obama.
→ Young voters
January 18, 2008 - 13:51 ET by Cool ArrowYoung African Americans have already pulled their elders, kicking and screaming, out of the Clinton plantation and into the 21st Century. Even Jester Jackson has finally fallen in line behind Obama.
This I see as extremely positive for the future. The days of patronizing condescension may be coming to a close. The cost may be an Obama Presidency like that of Jimmy Carter. And the reward may be a second coming of Ronald Reagan.
The question is: can we afford another Carter Presidency?
The answer is: NO, not really.
I ♣ My Seal
A decorated hero?
January 18, 2008 - 19:23 ET by reasonsjesterYeah, and Hitler was a decorated corporal in the first world war. One's military record is not enough to qualify for higher office. Some of McCain's ideas are socialist and/or anti-constitutional (McCain-Feingold), and that is what makes him unacceptable as president. After all, politics is supposed to be the realm of competing ideas on how to run the country. Charisma is supposed to be tangential.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
McCain = Dole
January 18, 2008 - 20:49 ET by BritcomMcCain doesn't have a chance to win, he's another Dole and as history
shows the Clinton Campaign machine just plowed right over Dole. McCain
can't win in the general election. He needs to be eliminated EARLY.
Yeah but only a SPINELESS
January 18, 2008 - 17:55 ET by KeithYeah but only a SPINELESS WEASEL "parses" semantically. And only those of similarly weak character support it.
Its all semantics baby
January 18, 2008 - 19:18 ET by reasonsjesterUnless you plan on arguing with finger puppets.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
Also Seton, You
January 18, 2008 - 10:04 ET by LeonAlso Seton,
You say:
"He (Romney) shouldn't stand there and tell a total falsehood".
This is true
Exactly. You should have stopped there. Johnson was 100% correct for stating this.
Where you lost me, is when you try to validate Romney's lying based on what you perceive to be Hillary's lying. What does Hillary have to do with yesterday's Romney meltdown? Why would you even bring it up? It makes ZERO sense.
How long are you guys going to stick to the 'well he did it too so it's ok' argument?
Are you blind....he brought
January 18, 2008 - 10:15 ET by taterAre you blind....he brought it up because Hillary has wayyyyy more falsehoods in her past that could be brought up by AP journalist, but it never happens. Now we get what I would assume is a 'gotcha' tactic by the AP for a republican running for president...and as Joe S called it a non-story.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
It's amazing to me how you
January 18, 2008 - 10:18 ET by LeonIt's amazing to me how you all have selective amnesia concerning the unbelievable amount of heat the Clinton's got from the press while in office.
It's not a gotcha tactic. Mitt lied and Johnson pointed it out. What should he have done? Allowed Mitt to push his lies so he could cheaply attack another candidate? Why?
selective amnesia
January 18, 2008 - 10:31 ET by AgnosticIt is not selective amnesia for me I remember how they made fun of McDonald stops and for just being too wonderful a president to allow him to get bogged down in those nasty scandals. However, they did run a poll and found out that the majority of people thought his infidelity problems were between him and his wife and afterward they never let it go. They attacked Clinton by calling Starr every name in the book and even ripped apart every one that brought an accusation against the Clintons to keep the pressure on the Clintons (it’s not supposed to make sense). How President Clinton must have suffered the atrocities.
In truth I do think he spent a good deal of time very nervous that the media would stop focusing on Monica and one of the things that wasn't polled to find out if it was okay to disseminate might get out.
You really are insane,
January 18, 2008 - 12:48 ET by mattmYou really are insane, Leon. Clinton was PROTECTED by the media. They got him elected. Of course some negative stuff came out...but that was only because there was so much they couldn't cover it all up.
The thing the media got pissed at him about was that he did so many stupid and embarassing things that it ruined their plans of installing him as the reincarnation of JFK.
If it hadn't been for the advocacy and protection of the media, Clinton would never have won a 2nd term.
If you watched how they covered Reagan and Bush I compared to how they practically advertised for Clinton it was obvious.
"Unbelievable amount of heat"??? What's truly unbelievable is that you actually believe what you're saying.
Hey mattm... Don't you
January 18, 2008 - 12:55 ET by bigtimerHey mattm...
Don't you love how Clinton has been enhancing his legacy lately?
I do!
LMAO...
...and to top it off, like you inferred, here the msm has done their best to recreate the real history of the impeached ex President and this is the thanks they get every time he opens his yapper, squints his eyes and points that finger lately....he is the gift that keeps on giving for some of us conservatives out here in the real world.
"Get your paws off me you Damned dirty APe!"
January 18, 2008 - 10:30 ET by CrashSo, AP are sending out editorialist as reporters? If they want to determine whether or not a candidate has lobbyist running their campaign the "reporter" should do the research and write a report on their findings. It didn't seem to bother the AP that Tom Daschle's wife was an active lobbyist during his days as Senate Majority Leader.
Crash, the AP has been going after Romney
January 18, 2008 - 10:35 ET by RJfor awhile now. In Michigan, they were pretty upset when he won. The "reporter's" behavior was just an extension of their obviously negative attitude.
I have seen this tape
January 18, 2008 - 12:25 ET by bigtimerI have seen this tape played over and over and over...
Good golly Miss Molly the msm have tried forever to denounce and destroy Romney...showing this ad nauseam isn't going to fit their agenda, they really need to get some new material.
BT -- maybe Mitt should have
January 18, 2008 - 13:04 ET by Jack BauerBT -- maybe Mitt should have a Clinton moment and pretend to cry!
LOL Jack... Well we know
January 18, 2008 - 13:09 ET by bigtimerLOL Jack...
Well we know how that would work out.
Myself I wished he would really get angry and show it with the idiot twits in the msm...I don't think these politicians with an 'R' behind their name have any idea how much they would gain with the real voters out here if they would just do that...just once.
Actually JB he's done it
January 18, 2008 - 17:58 ET by KeithActually JB he's done it twice already! Once over his racist churches alleged acceptance of Blacks and again over something more run of the mill, i forget, i don't pay much attention to LIARS.
A different perspective on the Johnson attack on Romney
January 18, 2008 - 12:50 ET by RJCool Arrow just suggested in another thread that the AP's Johnson may have attacked Romney, not as a "shot across the bow, but as an attempt to sink his campaign.
Looking back on Johnson's unrelenting aggressiveness and offensiveness, I agree with that.
The AP has been running a negative campaign against Romney for awhile, now. Johnson and the AP were hoping to get a "blow-up" reaction from him, thus effectively killing his campaign.
A "Macaca" moment? v
January 18, 2008 - 12:59 ET by vrwc13A "Macaca" moment?
v
No, more of a Dean moment
January 18, 2008 - 13:05 ET by RJTrying to show him as being "out of control" or "snapping."
→ Macaca
January 18, 2008 - 13:11 ET by Cool ArrowEverybody wants to be the next Woodward/Bernstein. Regardless of how you feel about them, they are the gods to this crush of ill-educated "journalists"
This was an attempt at a Rather/Nixon moment.
"Mr. Rather are you running for anything?" "No Mr. President, are you?"
Romney handled the situation well.
I ♣ My Seal
Glen or Glenda?
January 18, 2008 - 13:07 ET by Jack BauerI can't think of anything more guaranteed to fire up conservative/Republican primary voters than for a member of the Dis-Associated Press to start bad-mouthing a candidate.
Keep it up Glenda, and you'll get Mitt the nom!