Today's starter topic: In an interview with National Review, RNC chairman Reince Priebus discloses that he has set up a committee designed to examine and fix what he believes to be problems within the Republican Party. One of the topics under review is the so-called presidential debates. Priebus believes there were too many of them:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has once again demonstrated that when it comes to budgets, he’s simply not serious and neither is his fellow partisan President Barack Obama. Yesterday, the Republican leader in the Senate Mitch McConnell called for a vote on the budget outline (once again no bill) from Obama. This was immediately killed as a "stunt," which was Reid’s term for it.
Question: Does Reid actually want to pass any budget? He has not allowed a vote on any budget for years and will not propose one himself. Feel free to discuss amongst yourselfs or talk about any other topic you’d like right on this thread.
We know that more Democrats than Republicans have been talking nonchalantly about jumping off the fiscal cliff. But is President Obama one of them? It is a very real possibility.
What's your prediction for how things are going to play out? Should the GOP go along and forget about the automatic budget cuts and tax increases? Sound off in the comments here on this or any other topic you'd like.
Today's starter topic: Just in case the far left tries to resurrect its anti-gun rights agenda, here's an inconvenient fact: According to the FBI, murder victims are more likely to be killed by assailants using parts of their bodies than firearms.
Today's starter topic: Writing at the Ace of Spades site, pseudonymous blogger Gabriel Malor makes the case that policy issues in the campaign were not what won the day for President Obama. Instead, it was trivial, manufactured controversies designed to inflame low-information voters:
The Obama campaign is now spending money in Pennsylvania. Is this a sign of the state becoming closer? Or is this just idle speculation considering the state has often been close but never quite within reach for a Republican presidential candidate?
In Minnesota, polls have been showing a dead-heat for months now. Is the state that prevented Ronald Reagan from having a landslide about to vote Republican? Your call, NBers.
Will you be tuning in to tonight's presidential debate which starts at 9pm ET? If so, please join fellow NewsBusters readers here for a live chat about the contest.
UPDATEII: Our regular chat server has been having problems today. Please click here to visit our chat room for the night. We've also got a live feed of the debate that you can watch on your computer if you can't watch it on TV for some reason. Our version also allows you to rewind and watch segments again just like a DVR.
Today's starter topic: In an essay published in the Wall Street Journal, former senator Phil Gramm and Michael Solon wonder if the unusually large amount of money spent on the welfare state by President Obama is what accounts for his ability to have any chance at all in the coming election. Historically speaking, presidents in office under economic conditions similar to the current ones have invariably lost.
On the other hand, it is just as likely that the nearly abject media coverage that Obama has received for more than 5 years from America's so-called mainstream media is the main reason the election is as close as it is. Which do you think is the greater reason that Mitt Romney isn't running the table?
Will you be tuning in to the second presidential debate tonight? If so, please join fellow NewsBusters readers for a running commentary and discussion of the contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. The debate starts at 9:00 PM Eastern time. We will also be featuring a livestream video of the debate inside this posting
Note: You will need a browser that has Flash to participate in the chat or to watch the video.
Will you be tuning in to the vice presidential debate tonight? If so, please join fellow NewsBusters readers for a running commentary and discussion of the contest between current veep Joe Biden and Republican rival Paul Ryan. The debate starts at 9:00 PM Eastern time.
Note: You will need a browser that has Flash to participate in the chat.
It's a standard campaign technique to downplay a politician's debating strengths shortly before a candidate face-off. That way, if the candidate performs poorly in the debate, it can be shrugged off as "old news." If he does well, it will be played as a surprising show of strength.
This year is no different as both Romney and Obama camps are doing this. One thing Romney cannot count on is a compliant "state-run" media to spin the public after the fact. It does not always work, however, as in the 2000 elections where the media spun them as a win for Democrat Al Gore but most Americans did not see it that way. Do you think that the media spin will be effective this year for President Obama? Let us know in the comments.
Even if an elite journalist is actually committed to being fair, unless he actively fights to overcome the worldview of the vast majority of his colleagues, bias is going to creep into coverage. It’s only natural since reporters are humans.
But what if we had a news media where you actually had questions which were contrary to the liberal Democrat worldview? Hard to imagine, granted, but our friends at Investor’s Business Daily have done just that. Here are just a few that they would like to see asked of President Obama:
Today's starter topic: voter identification. We all know that somehow or another, voter identification laws are supposed to be ageist and racist according to the left. And yet, that means apparently most of American society also has those characteristics. Over at Patriot Update, David Goetsch has a great post talking about the numerous mundane situations in which people are required to show identification. How can society be so “racist” as to require ID so frequently?
Despite all appearances that the attack on the American embassy in Libya was more than just a protest gone violent, the Obama White House is still refusing to call the violence "terrorism." This is looking increasingly ridiculous as more is learned about the background surrounding the attack and Al Qaeda's recent actions:
Despite a pledge to avoid political attacks on yesterday's somber anniversary, the Obama campaign couldn't help itself from injecting negative attacks into its communications, despite a promise that it would do just the opposite: