FIRST A2K STRAW POLL White House 2008

ever heard of rush limbaugh? hows about sean hannity ? fox news ?

please.. i know you guys like to pretend that only centrists and lefties play politics, but really, it only makes you look foolish.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

ever heard of rush limbaugh? hows about sean hannity ? fox news ?

please.. i know you guys like to pretend that only centrists and lefties play politics, but really, it only makes you look foolish.

When did Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hanity become sources of News? Do you include Oprah and Rosie O'Donnel in that same group too?

you don't think they are ? and fox news isn't a "source of news" ?? come on...

as far as oprah and rosie; possibly, but neither one of them appear on a dedicated news channel. no matter to me, i don't pay attention to either one of them..

No one has said that only one side or the other plays politics. Your claim otherwise just makes you the fool.

fishin wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

ever heard of rush limbaugh? hows about sean hannity ? fox news ?

please.. i know you guys like to pretend that only centrists and lefties play politics, but really, it only makes you look foolish.

When did Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hanity become sources of News? Do you include Oprah and Rosie O'Donnel in that same group too?

you don't think they are ? and fox news isn't a "source of news" ?? come on...

as far as oprah and rosie; possibly, but neither one of them appear on a dedicated news channel. no matter to me, i don't pay attention to either one of them..

No, I don't. They aren't any more a source of news than the OpEd pieces are in any newspaper. The only difference is that they are on TV/Radio instead of the papers. And you'll note that I said nothing about FOX News. None of them are any more "news" sources than Larry King or Kelly Ripa. Their purpose is entertainment. On occassion someone they interview says something of interest to the larger world. It happens rarely and when it does it is usually by mistake.

I don't listen to Limbaugh or Hanity either. Does that make some sort of difference?


No one has said that only one side or the other plays politics. Your claim otherwise just makes you the fool.

bush and cheney make this allegation everytime that they don't get what they want without questions.

"the democrats are playing politics with the funding bill" is this month's screed. which of course gets picked up by the right wing news outlets and their cheerleaders.

and ultimately, the end result is "news".

what about "newsmax" ? not news ?

"townhall" ? not news ?

you realize that "the news" about john kerry's purple hearts etc. was broken by hannity on fox news when he had o'neill on a few days before the book and the whole swiftboat thing ?

that's how it got launched.

Edward's haircut came to light because he filed his campaign finance documents and the haircuts were charged (in violation of campaign finance rules) to his campaign. The story was first reported over the AP wire and was picked up in the next morning's issues (Apr 17th) of both the LA Times and the Washington Post.

nimh wrote:

The brouhaha about Edwards' haircuts, Clinton's haircut on the tarmac, Kerry's windsurfing, and Gore's earth-tone wardrobe, came from the Republican campaign and prominent conservative media figures themselves.

It "came from the Republican campaign and prominent conservative media figures themselves"??? Can you cite a source for that?

Edward's haircut came to light because he filed his campaign finance documents and the haircuts were charged (in violation of campaign finance rules) to his campaign.

agita ... and Dubyah..making monkey shines at camera..and of course trigger-happy Cheney!

And the Democrats cry that Bush is politicizing everything every time he comes up with some proposal. So what is your point here? For someone who was complaining about "you guys" and people pretending that only one side plays politics it sure looks like that is exactly what you are doing.

fishin wrote:

And the Democrats cry that Bush is politicizing everything every time he comes up with some proposal. So what is your point here? For someone who was complaining about "you guys" and people pretending that only one side plays politics it sure looks like that is exactly what you are doing.

exactly that political people play politics with everything. republicans and democrats alike.

as far as agreggates goes... isn't that what all news outlets do ? collect stories from all over the place ? organize and present ?

the big difference is that while air america trumpets it's liberalness, fox news and friends announce themselves as fair and balanced, non-elitist and the real news. which they most certainly are not.

if i say "you guys" it's simply because you seem to be on the republican side of most issues.

fishin wrote:

Edward's haircut came to light because he filed his campaign finance documents and the haircuts were charged (in violation of campaign finance rules) to his campaign. The story was first reported over the AP wire and was picked up in the next morning's issues (Apr 17th) of both the LA Times and the Washington Post.

Oh come on, the thing about Edwards and his haircuts has been around for three years already. And the Republicans played it out actively in the 2004 elections.

fishin wrote:

nimh wrote:

The brouhaha about Edwards' haircuts, Clinton's haircut on the tarmac, Kerry's windsurfing, and Gore's earth-tone wardrobe, came from the Republican campaign and prominent conservative media figures themselves.

It "came from the Republican campaign and prominent conservative media figures themselves"??? Can you cite a source for that?

Edward's haircut came to light because he filed his campaign finance documents and the haircuts were charged (in violation of campaign finance rules) to his campaign.

Also, you're cherry picking. You indignantly imply that I'm asserting something outrageous when I say that these brouhahas were actively pursued by the Republican campaign and prominent conservative media figures themselves, rather than just by some lame forum posters, only to ignore three of the four examples I mention. Possibly because we both actually remember, for example, the Bush/Cheney "windsurfing" attack ad?

I dont remember any Democratic "beady eyes" or "chimp face" attack ad...

....Obama is going to blow Hillary out of the water! She should STOP, pandering to Blacks, by talking with a FAKE southern accent! She's all white bread, just needing Black votes! I'm not voting for her, because of that! She's as bad as Imus!

teenyboone wrote:

....Obama is going to blow Hillary out of the water! She should STOP, pandering to Blacks, by talking with a FAKE southern accent! She's all white bread, just needing Black votes! I'm not voting for her, because of that! She's as bad as Imus!

i liked this. shouldn't the majority of americans that are really of a more moderate mind get something once in a while. this constant carving up, labeling and demoing the american electorate is a big part of the problem that we have as a country.

i have a real hard time prefacing every waking thought i have with "as a white person". as far as i can tell, most people of other ethnicities are much to busy trying to get a foot up to futz around with that process as well.

so i'm really more about getting in a president who is "a man/woman of the people" than anything else.

anybody know where we can find one ?

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

teenyboone wrote:

....Obama is going to blow Hillary out of the water! She should STOP, pandering to Blacks, by talking with a FAKE southern accent! She's all white bread, just needing Black votes! I'm not voting for her, because of that! She's as bad as Imus!

i liked this. shouldn't the majority of americans that are really of a more moderate mind get something once in a while. this constant carving up, labeling and demoing the american electorate is a big part of the problem that we have as a country.

i have a real hard time prefacing every waking thought i have with "as a white person". as far as i can tell, most people of other ethnicities are much to busy trying to get a foot up to futz around with that process as well.

so i'm really more about getting in a president who is "a man/woman of the people" than anything else.

anybody know where we can find one ?

If I'm reading you right, the two we've had like that in this century were Reagan and Clinton. Both came with their plusses and minuses, but Reagan wins because a) he didn't govern according to the daily polls and b) he had the vision and the courage to go for it.

So I guess I want a man/woman of the people who has the vision and the courage of his/her convictions--strong defense, national security, solid economic policy, and common sense values--plus sufficient charisma to get the people behind him/her.

Right now nobody is doing that for me as much as I want. The one to watch could be Fred Thompson if he does get in, but we won't know until we see how he stands up to the media anal exams.

so i'm really more about getting in a president who is "a man/woman of the people" than anything else.

anybody know where we can find one ?

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

so i'm really more about getting in a president who is "a man/woman of the people" than anything else.

anybody know where we can find one ?

They don't want to run. They don't have the stomach for the pettiness and I don't think the parties would support them in a Pres. run so they'd be run off by the in-fighting before the race ever gets going.

Obama is probbaly the closest out of the group running. He just needs to come up with some more concrete plans for his "vision".

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

so i'm really more about getting in a president who is "a man/woman of the people" than anything else.

anybody know where we can find one ?

They don't want to run. They don't have the stomach for the pettiness and I don't think the parties would support them in a Pres. run so they'd be run off by the in-fighting before the race ever gets going.

Obama is probbaly the closest out of the group running. He just needs to come up with some more concrete plans for his "vision".

....The one to watch could be Fred Thompson if he does get in, but we won't know until we see how he stands up to the media anal exams.

Foxfyre wrote:

....The one to watch could be Fred Thompson if he does get in, but we won't know until we see how he stands up to the media anal exams.

or the old school republicans, for that matter.

several years ago, i mentioned him to my mother, the life-long super republican, and she gave me back this particular laugh that she used when her thought was "lord help us!".

she lived in tennessee, so maybe she knew something.