Who SHOULD be McCain's running mate??

[DemPlans]

Second, why the constant need to demonize Democrats?

All I do is point out their agenda.

But now that you mention it...if my agenda was what theirs is- socialism, collectivism, weakness on military issues, etc.- then I suppose to point out their agenda is "demonizing" it.

Oh, so that's not demonizing? No wonder the GOP is losing members and Democrats are gaining.

Consistently, my complaints have been about specific people in the Bush Administration. I point out the failings of Democratic figures too.

Only in the sense of "yeah, that's true...let's attack more Republicans!"

As opposed to "Let's defend the guys who are actually in charge, while something can be done about it, because people did bad things before"?

I also applaud folks like McCain who, rightly, suggested a surge much earlier, when it could have done the most help, and was critical of Rumsfeld.

So did just about every Republican/Conservative here- including myself.
To have done so is not exactly going against the grain...not here anyway.

I WAS CRITICAL OF RUMSFELD HERE AND roundly criticized for it. Rumsfeld and this administration has weakened our military (national guard units and equipment unavailable, Walter Reed, reduced VA benefits, stop loss backdoor draft, ongoing troop redeployments, reduced downtime, trillions spent)

I have NO PROBLEM with Conservatives... I wish there were more of them in this administration...

As do I.

As in Fiscal Conservative...no deficit spending. No tax increase on our children.

Considering some of the first posts in this thread were to run J.C. Watts or Lyn Swann if Obama was on the ticket show some shallowness as well.

You have to look to motivation there.

Indeed. Lyn Swann was a great receiver, but couldn't even win in Pennsylvania. The motivation is transparent.

Personally, I'm neither Black nor a woman. But my choice wasn't Edwards. Most white male Republicans vote for white males, so does that make them shallow?

Can you point to an exit poll in which a white male Republican said he was voting for a white male Republican because he was a white male Republican?

I also can't find any exit poll showing Black Republicans voting for a Black Republican President.

As you admit, there isn't a great deal of difference in the candidates when it comes to the issues, so we have the luxury of being shallow, as you put it.

Yeah...a white female Socialist versus a black male Socialist. Tough choice that.

Nice non-demonizing there.

I realize the GOP would prefer that the Democrats were in the same kind of disarray they are facing.

With white females supporting Hillary by 66% to 23% and blacks of both sexes supporting Obama 80% to 15%, you ARE in disarray. Looks like you've got yourself a real "(un)civil war" going on in Blueland.

Women and African-Americans have run before but this time there are a lot of women and african americans who are excited to get behind someone who happens to be of their category, but is also someone they prefer as President. We have a luxury of choices. But in the end, Bush and his enablers have guaranteed the increase in Democratic registrations and voters at the expense of GOP, and in all likelihood President Obama or Clinton. Worst case, someone they don't even want with McCain. Congratulations.

[JKersting]

Hate to tell you this Dem. The GOP had a net gain in membership the fourth quarter of 2007.

If you are going make a claim, at least be factual.

[DemPlans]

Hate to tell you this Dem. The GOP had a net gain in membership the fourth quarter of 2007.

If you are going make a claim, at least be factual.

I've posted source after source, and respectfully ask that you do too. Net gain relative to what, the third quarter? Relative to Democrats? How is the rate versus 2004?

[JKersting]

Hate to tell you this Dem. The GOP had a net gain in membership the fourth quarter of 2007.

If you are going make a claim, at least be factual.

I've posted source after source, and respectfully ask that you do too. Net gain relative to what, the third quarter? Relative to Democrats? How is the rate versus 2004?

Too lazy to do a Google Search?

Here you go. It is second hand. Rasmussen's site is not the easiest to navigate. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319726,00.html

I did make a mistake. It was December, not fourth quarter. My apologies.

[JKersting]

Here is the PRIMARY SOURCE.....but with updated info showing a down skew for January. Updated last week, excuse me for not keeping up.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends

[DemPlans]

Here is the PRIMARY SOURCE.....but with updated info showing a down skew for January. Updated last week, excuse me for not keeping up.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends

Beautiful. I cite sources all the time, and actually get hassled for it. Then you post an unsubstantiated claim (which you later admit was wrong) and call me lazy. I respectfully call you on it, and after researching it, you admit you were wrong! But I'm the one who's lazy? Here's proof from YOUR OWN CITATION as to what I've been saying. And this is just registrations. Democratic turnout has been even more impressive, as I've reported, backed up with sources (states, dates, numbers, percents, from February, i.e. up-to-date). But I'm sure you'll try to spin this as a positive for the GOP.

"The gap between the parties now shows a 5.6 percentage point advantage for the Democrats. That’s up three-and-a-half points from December and is the largest advantage enjoyed by Democrats since last March. The current advantage for the Democrats is much larger than it was in either 2004 or 2006."'

Maybe the problem isn't "keeping up" but in which source you use. You initially got your info from Brit Hume / Fox News. Their headline for the Fox report was "The Political Party More Americans Are Signing Up For", referring to the GOP. But the Rasmussen research report headline was "Number of Democrats In Country Hits Four-Year High During First Month of Election 2008". Fair and balanced indeed. But I guess FoxNews claims to be independent, too.

[ScottT]

Here is the PRIMARY SOURCE.....but with updated info showing a down skew for January. Updated last week, excuse me for not keeping up.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends

Beautiful. I cite sources all the time, and actually get hassled for it. Then you post an unsubstantiated claim and call me lazy. I call you on it, and after researching it, you admit you were inaccurate. Here's proof from YOUR OWN CITATION as to what I've been saying. And this is just registrations. Democratic turnout has been even more impressive, as I've reported, backed up with sources. But I'm sure you'll try to spin this as a positive for the GOP.

"The gap between the parties now shows a 5.6 percentage point advantage for the Democrats. That’s up three-and-a-half points from December and is the largest advantage enjoyed by Democrats since last March. The current advantage for the Democrats is much larger than it was in either 2004 or 2006."'

Maybe the problem isn't "keeping up" but in which source you use. You initially got your info from Brit Hume / Fox News. Their headline for the Fox report was "The Political Party More Americans Are Signing Up For", referring to the GOP. But the Rasmussen research report headline was "Number of Democrats In Country Hits Four-Year High During First Month of Election 2008". Fair and balanced indeed.

Oh, I see.......FOX News is in on it, too. Brit Hume is just another one of those "Bush enablers".

[DemPlans]

Oh, I see.......FOX News is in on it, too. Brit Hume is just another one of those "Bush enablers".

Well since you mentioned it. If the shoe fits. That's where Bush goes when he wants a friendly interview.

Here's Brit minimizing the risk to our soldiers: 'On Aug. 26, Hume reported that "U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California, which is roughly the same geographical size." California has 6.6 murders a day, he said; U.S. troops have been incurring about 1.7 deaths a day. The problem: California has 34 million people, but there are 145,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq. "Admittedly it was a crude comparison, but it was illustrative of something," Hume says.' - Washington Post

Here's the hard-hitting Hume at work in a typical Bush interview:

HUME: Tell me one thing. How often do you talk to your dad?

BUSH: You know, probably once every two weeks.

HUME: Really? Because I think a lot of people would imagine that you guys would be in touch constantly.

BUSH: No, I'm in touch constantly -- you mean like in terms of asking him...

HUME: Oh, yeah, calling up, saying, what about the Saudis, you know, you've dealt with them, what about them, and what should I do here, dad? You had a war with Saddam Hussein (search). What about that? I mean, sort of, you can understand how people would imagine that.

BUSH: No, I can understand. First of all, I talk to him really as son to father. I am worried about the fact that he is worried about me. You know you a very good question, did I take criticism of him or me easier, and the answer is, I take criticism of me easier.

(CROSSTALK)

BUSH: Now it's reverse. He reads everything -- he listens to everything, and I know he agonizes over every, you know, every tough word. And...

HUME: So you end up calling to comfort him?

BUSH: I call him to comfort him, really, yeah absolutely. And let him know that, you know, I'm doing good, don't worry about me. Seriously. And the -- but in terms of advice on how to make decisions, the best advice to get is from people like Rice and Powell and Rumsfeld and Cheney and Tenet and Snow and Evans and Card. I mean, the people that are actually living these issues on a daily basis. It doesn't hurt my dad's feelings, because he knows that they are more up to speed than he is. He does not get the daily briefs. He does not know all the insides and outs of what's going on here.

HUME: What about your brother Jeb? How often are you in touch with him?

BUSH: Maybe once a month.

HUME: Really? That few times. That's very hard -- a lot of people would find it very hard to believe.

BUSH: Seriously.

HUME: Fellow politician, right? Finger on the pulse of a bit state.

BUSH: We're busy. Understand that. So when he makes a phone call, it's really not to spend a lot of chit-chat time. I do spend time with my brother Marvin and my sister Dorothy.

HUME: But they're right here, too.

BUSH: Right. And they come up for the weekends, to Camp David (search) with us. And it's a good chance to be with them. I love to be with my family, but we are not pick up the phone chit-chat people that much.

BUSH: I've hurt my knee, and...

HUME: How bad is it?

BUSH: It's bad enough that I cannot run.

HUME: What is it? Is it...

BUSH: It may have been a little meniscus. I might have torn it a little bit. I pulled my calf, then I hurt the meniscus, and I am hoping to find a lot of sympathy around here, but I haven't found any yet.

HUME: Looks like you hit the wrong town.

BUSH: Wrong place, exactly. Maybe I ought to go up to Capitol Hill...

HUME: Oh, yeah, that's a hotbed up there. What are you doing for exercise?

BUSH: Exercise. Elliptical (ph). Jim Ryan (ph), here at the White House during a t-ball game, I believe it was, suggested that I go to the swimming pool back over there and run in the pool, put a little floaty on and run.

HUME: Did it work?

BUSH: Yeah, it has, it's good exercise.

HUME: How often do you do it?

BUSH: I do it about three times a week now. And lift weights.

HUME: ... putting green out here.

BUSH: Yes.

HUME: Now, who put that in?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98111,00.html

[ScottT]

Oh, I see.......FOX News is in on it, too. Brit Hume is just another one of those "Bush enablers".

Well since you mentioned it. If the shoe fits. That's where Bush goes when he wants a friendly interview.

Here's Brit minimizing the risk to our soldiers: 'On Aug. 26, Hume reported that "U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California, which is roughly the same geographical size." California has 6.6 murders a day, he said; U.S. troops have been incurring about 1.7 deaths a day. The problem: California has 34 million people, but there are 145,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq. "Admittedly it was a crude comparison, but it was illustrative of something," Hume says.' - Washington Post

Here's the hard-hitting Hume at work in a typical Bush interview:

HUME: Tell me one thing. How often do you talk to your dad?

BUSH: You know, probably once every two weeks.

HUME: Really? Because I think a lot of people would imagine that you guys would be in touch constantly.

BUSH: No, I'm in touch constantly -- you mean like in terms of asking him...

HUME: Oh, yeah, calling up, saying, what about the Saudis, you know, you've dealt with them, what about them, and what should I do here, dad? You had a war with Saddam Hussein (search). What about that? I mean, sort of, you can understand how people would imagine that.

BUSH: No, I can understand. First of all, I talk to him really as son to father. I am worried about the fact that he is worried about me. You know you a very good question, did I take criticism of him or me easier, and the answer is, I take criticism of me easier.

(CROSSTALK)

BUSH: Now it's reverse. He reads everything -- he listens to everything, and I know he agonizes over every, you know, every tough word. And...

HUME: So you end up calling to comfort him?

BUSH: I call him to comfort him, really, yeah absolutely. And let him know that, you know, I'm doing good, don't worry about me. Seriously. And the -- but in terms of advice on how to make decisions, the best advice to get is from people like Rice and Powell and Rumsfeld and Cheney and Tenet and Snow and Evans and Card. I mean, the people that are actually living these issues on a daily basis. It doesn't hurt my dad's feelings, because he knows that they are more up to speed than he is. He does not get the daily briefs. He does not know all the insides and outs of what's going on here.

HUME: What about your brother Jeb? How often are you in touch with him?

BUSH: Maybe once a month.

HUME: Really? That few times. That's very hard -- a lot of people would find it very hard to believe.

BUSH: Seriously.

HUME: Fellow politician, right? Finger on the pulse of a bit state.

BUSH: We're busy. Understand that. So when he makes a phone call, it's really not to spend a lot of chit-chat time. I do spend time with my brother Marvin and my sister Dorothy.

HUME: But they're right here, too.

BUSH: Right. And they come up for the weekends, to Camp David (search) with us. And it's a good chance to be with them. I love to be with my family, but we are not pick up the phone chit-chat people that much.

BUSH: I've hurt my knee, and...

HUME: How bad is it?

BUSH: It's bad enough that I cannot run.

HUME: What is it? Is it...

BUSH: It may have been a little meniscus. I might have torn it a little bit. I pulled my calf, then I hurt the meniscus, and I am hoping to find a lot of sympathy around here, but I haven't found any yet.

HUME: Looks like you hit the wrong town.

BUSH: Wrong place, exactly. Maybe I ought to go up to Capitol Hill...

HUME: Oh, yeah, that's a hotbed up there. What are you doing for exercise?

BUSH: Exercise. Elliptical (ph). Jim Ryan (ph), here at the White House during a t-ball game, I believe it was, suggested that I go to the swimming pool back over there and run in the pool, put a little floaty on and run.

HUME: Did it work?

BUSH: Yeah, it has, it's good exercise.

HUME: How often do you do it?

BUSH: I do it about three times a week now. And lift weights.

HUME: ... putting green out here.

BUSH: Yes.

HUME: Now, who put that in?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98111,00.html

There you have it, folks........DemPlans's "smoking gun" on "biased", "GOP-friendly", "Bush-enabling" Brit Hume & FOX News.

Of course, Hume was the same guy that Bill Clinton lauded as being fair & impartial to him during a White House press meeting while he was still president. But DemPlans sees through it all.

[JKersting]

Here is the PRIMARY SOURCE.....but with updated info showing a down skew for January. Updated last week, excuse me for not keeping up.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends

Beautiful. I cite sources all the time, and actually get hassled for it. Then you post an unsubstantiated claim (which you later admit was wrong) and call me lazy. I respectfully call you on it, and after researching it, you admit you were wrong! But I'm the one who's lazy? Here's proof from YOUR OWN CITATION as to what I've been saying. And this is just registrations. Democratic turnout has been even more impressive, as I've reported, backed up with sources (states, dates, numbers, percents, from February, i.e. up-to-date). But I'm sure you'll try to spin this as a positive for the GOP.

"The gap between the parties now shows a 5.6 percentage point advantage for the Democrats. That’s up three-and-a-half points from December and is the largest advantage enjoyed by Democrats since last March. The current advantage for the Democrats is much larger than it was in either 2004 or 2006."'

Maybe the problem isn't "keeping up" but in which source you use. You initially got your info from Brit Hume / Fox News. Their headline for the Fox report was "The Political Party More Americans Are Signing Up For", referring to the GOP. But the Rasmussen research report headline was "Number of Democrats In Country Hits Four-Year High During First Month of Election 2008". Fair and balanced indeed. But I guess FoxNews claims to be independent, too.

Dem, you are dumber than I thought. First, Rasmussen no longer has the original story on their website. So, since I can't pull that up, you attack my source. Fox Derangement Syndrome at it's finest. You did not look at the information clearly, did you.

Second, I had the HONESTY THAT YOU HAVE NEVER HAD to admit that I made a mistake. Rather than accept that, you attack. To which my only response is to refer to what Dick Cheney said to Patrick Leahy. I'll play Cheney!!!

Third, I am not spinning anything for anyone. You cannot say the same. You admit that. That costs you credibility.

Oh, and back to Fox News for just a second. Two well known liberal institutions, University of Missouri and UCLA, did a join study on media bias. I have posted links to that report several times on this site, I will not do it again. You can do a Google Search, unless you are too lazy as I suspect. Maybe it is too intellectually dishonest. Anyhow, back to my point. That study looked at 20 media sources. "Special Report with Brit Hume" was determined to be among the most bias neutral program.

So back and stick with NPR, CNN, and the New York Times. Continue to get your media from sources that are known to be biased, therefore, inaccurate.

At least when I make a mistake, I have the BALLS admit to it. More than I can say for you.

Again, I will steal Dick Cheney's words to Patrick Leahy and direct them from me back to you!! Look that up!!

[DemPlans]

Dem, you are dumber than I thought.

So YOU made the mistake (yes, it's nice of you to admit it) but I'm dumb.

And you called me lazy for not being able to find what you admit didn't exist and/or was inaccurate.

To which my only response is to refer to what Dick Cheney said to Patrick Leahy. I'll play Cheney!!!

We all know Mr. Cheney's proclivities... But I will honor the Civility Forum.

Third, I am not spinning anything for anyone. You cannot say the same. You admit that. That costs you credibility.

I'd rather admit my political position and have people like Tiffany, and on occassion, Weapons, admit I'm fair/correct on issues, than claim to be independent... and not be.

Oh, and back to Fox News for just a second. Two well known liberal institutions, University of Missouri and UCLA, did a join study on media bias. I have posted links to that report several times on this site, I will not do it again. You can do a Google Search, unless you are too lazy as I suspect. Maybe it is too intellectually dishonest. Anyhow, back to my point. That study looked at 20 media sources. "Special Report with Brit Hume" was determined to be the most bias neutral program.

Hey, I simply used YOUR source, Rasmussen. And I gave a very specific example of Brit's bias re minimizing the danger to our troops. But it's unanswered. And, not to be lazy, I looked at that report. PBS, ABC, and CNN WERE RANKED LESS BIASED THAN BRIT HUME! WRONG AGAIN!

"The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third... The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News."

So back and stick with NPR, CNN, and the New York Times. Continue to get your media from sources that are known to be biased, therefore, inaccurate.

Your own citation placed PBS and CNN (plus ABC) ahead of Fox but why let that stop you.

Again you prove that you can claim to be independent but still be inaccurate.

At least when I make a mistake, I have the BALLS admit to it. More than I can say for you. Again, I will steall Dick Cheney's words to Patrick Leahy and direct them from me back to you!! Look that up!!

Nice and civil. And independent of course.

[JKersting]

Re-read the report. It cited SPECIFIC SHOWS. I thought you picked up on that. And where is Aaron Brown now? Sorry I did not say ONE of the most centrist. Excuse the hell out of me. BUT you attacked my source and implied that "Special Report" was not credible. I guess I should edit my post and say AMONG the most bias free. Where were anything from NPR, NBC, CBS or current CNN programing?

Now, lets look at the other shows. Lehrer is good, no question. Aaron Brown is no longer on CNN. ABC's Good Morning America is morning television crap. I mean, no offense, but that is the crap that you get on morning television. I have it on in my studio every morning (because they lost the trade deal on DirecTV) so I see the content. Hard to rate a program with puff pieces and cooking tips with real news programs.

I thought I was being civil. I didn't actually post Cheney's words.

[JKersting]

Now, back to Rasmussen. Clearly you didn't read beyond the headline. If you had, you would have seen that I was RIGHT about the FOURTH QUARTER OF 2007!!!

Let me CITE!!

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/party_affiliation/summary_of_party_affiliation

Just because I used "Special Report with Brit Hume" as my source, doesn't make it so. Don't worry about admitting you are wrong. That is the beauty of being a partisan. Partisans would rather spin than admitting they made a mistake.

Read, comprehend, ask questions for clarity.

[DemPlans]

Re-read the report. It cited SPECIFIC SHOWS. I thought you picked up on that. And where is Aaron Brown now? Sorry I did not say ONE of the most centrist. Excuse the hell out of me. BUT you attacked my source and implied that "Special Report" was not credible. I guess I should edit my post and say AMONG the most bias free.

I see that you did make that edit, NOW. IF YOU HAD POSTED ACCURATELY THIS WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE. YOU WROTE ""Special Report with Brit Hume" was determined to be the most bias neutral program."

A STRAIGHT OUT FALSEHOOD. I called you on it. You were wrong. Now stop blaming me for your error. As you mentioned, you've referred to that report frequently. The readers of this board have been done a service by having you corrected. You can attack me all you want, but the record has been corrected and we should all appreciate accuracy.

Where were anything from NPR, NBC, CBS or current CNN programing?

And now you blame me because YOUR CITATION IS OLD?

[DemPlans]

Now, back to Rasmussen. Clearly you didn't read beyond the headline. If you had, you would have seen that I was RIGHT about the FOURTH QUARTER OF 2007!!!

Hey, I said that you "admitted you were wrong". Which is correct. And based on the URL you pointed me too, titled "Number of Democrats In Country Hits Four-Year High During First Month of Election 2008", how could you call it the opposite way if you're "independent"?

Let me CITE!!

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/party_affiliation/summary_of_party_affiliation

That's a different URL than your previous citation, but still, it proves my point. GOP registration is down, compared to Dems. I've been saying that all along, and the best you can spin is that last quarter wasn't as bad as it is now. I'm talking about NOW. My turnout citations were all from February.

Don't worry about admitting you are wrong. That is the beauty of being a partisan. Partisans would rather spin than admitting they made a mistake.

Like Bernard Goldberg, I worry more about the media folks who claim to be independent than the partisans who are honest about their affiliation. Maybe I'll add THAT to my signature...