Who SHOULD be McCain's running mate??

[ScottT]

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?

No dice, DemPlans.

You're either flat-out lying, or you didn't pay attention. Go look at JKersting's post. He wrote "AMONG the most bias neutral program".

EXACT QUOTE.

Your sanctimony is getting nauseating.

[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?

No dice, DemPlans.

You're either flat-out lying, or you didn't pay attention. Go look at JKersting's post. He wrote "AMONG the most bias neutral program".

EXACT QUOTE.

Your sanctimony is getting nauseating.

SHEEZ! HE CHANGED IT AFTER I CALLED HIM ON IT! EVEN HE ADMITTED IT. But if you look at my original response, I had ALREADY QUOTED HIS ERRANT ASSERTION. Pay attention yourself.

[DemPlans]

I guess I should edit my post and say AMONG the most bias free.

Pay attention indeed.

[DemPlans]

And the original, UNEDITED quote...only change is emphasis.

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.

[dick_fitts]

Do any of you guys here know how we could start a website to encourage McCain to nominate J.C. Watts as his veep?

Matter of fact, Watts just lives right over here next to me in Oklahoma. Maybe I could call or write him and plead with him to throw his name into the pot. You think?

Is there a way we can get Sen. McCain to realize how much sense this makes?

[DemPlans]

Do any of you guys here know how we could start a website to encourage McCain to nominate J.C. Watts as his veep?

Matter of fact, Watts just lives right over here next to me in Oklahoma. Maybe I could call or write him and plead with him to throw his name into the pot. You think?

Is there a way we can get Sen. McCain to realize how much sense this makes?

Thankfully, someone bringing this back on topic...thanks.

Here's an interesting interview re McCain + Watts teaming up. It doesn't state the year, but it's from the 2000 campaign. History repeating itself?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121722

"Congressman Watts, you and Sen. John McCain make an unusual political duo. Why are the two of you teaming up?

One, John and I are friends. Two, we think we can help bring people into the party and draw them into our effort in November. There's many things that John did in his campaign that I've been doing over the past five and a half years to grow our party and to get more people involved in the process. Anyone looking at new models — dealing with poverty, making sure our kids have the best education possible, making sure we pay down our national debt, having a strong national defense and bringing about tax relief and tax fairness for working people — they'll have a seat at the table."

[dick_fitts]

Do any of you guys here know how we could start a website to encourage McCain to nominate J.C. Watts as his veep?

Matter of fact, Watts just lives right over here next to me in Oklahoma. Maybe I could call or write him and plead with him to throw his name into the pot. You think?

Is there a way we can get Sen. McCain to realize how much sense this makes?

Thankfully, someone bringing this back on topic...thanks.

Here's an interesting interview re McCain + Watts teaming up. It doesn't state the year, but it's from the 2000 campaign. History repeating itself?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121722

"Congressman Watts, you and Sen. John McCain make an unusual political duo. Why are the two of you teaming up?

One, John and I are friends. Two, we think we can help bring people into the party and draw them into our effort in November. There's many things that John did in his campaign that I've been doing over the past five and a half years to grow our party and to get more people involved in the process. Anyone looking at new models — dealing with poverty, making sure our kids have the best education possible, making sure we pay down our national debt, having a strong national defense and bringing about tax relief and tax fairness for working people — they'll have a seat at the table."

Interesting, indeed. Thanks for the article. And I'm glad you mentioned that it was from the 2000 campaign. Other than the fact that Watts hasn't been an Oklahoma congressman now for a few years, it would have been hard to tell any difference between now and then had you not mentioned that.

I really like the GOP's chances with Watts as the veep -- especially given McCain's crossover appeal to independent and swing voters. Watts would serve as a great anchor on the Right who would likely attract the Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs back into the GOP fold.

Best of all, though, I see Watts' proven track record of having gotten things done on the House floor as being anathema to someone like Obama, whose rosy speeches wouldn't completely measure up against. And also, because Watts was always bullied by the Black Caucus and the NAACP as an "Uncle Tom" merely because he identified with the philosophy of the GOP, nominating him as McCain's veep could seriously point out the hypocrisy of the ideology of the Democrats who once bullied him.

It's win-win for the GOP with Watts. Guaranteed.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

Dem-

If you have a problem with Bush 43 talking to Bush 41, do you, as the fair-minded standard bearer of your party, similarly have a problem with Hillary talking to Bill on a regular basis?

Just curious.

I await your fair-minded response.

[DemPlans]

Dem-

If you have a problem with Bush 43 talking to Bush 41, do you, as the fair-minded standard bearer of your party, similarly have a problem with Hillary talking to Bill on a regular basis?

Just curious.

I await your fair-minded response.

Huh? When did I say I have a problem with that? I wish they WOULD talk more. Bush 41's book recommended against invading Iraq as there would have been a quagmire.

And don't worry...I don't think Bill and Hillary talk that much... Certainly not "pillow talk"

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

You cited a lengthy interview of President Bush by Brit Hume as being an example of FNC's conservative bias.

I merely wanted to know if you'd consider, say, DNCTV- otherwise known as MSNBC- having an equally milquetoast interview of Bill and Hillary Clinton as being indicative of that channel's liberal bias.

Or for that matter Katie Couric's haigographic interview of Hillary Clinton. No less an authority on liberal media bias than Bernard Goldberg called that interview "embarassing".

I just want to know where "fair-minded" folks draw the line.

[DemPlans]

You cited a lengthy interview of President Bush by Brit Hume as being an example of FNC's conservative bias.

So how does that translate to "If you have a problem with Bush 43 talking to Bush 41, do you, as the fair-minded standard bearer of your party, similarly have a problem with Hillary talking to Bill on a regular basis?"

Anyway, you're right. It was a lengthy interview. A shiny, happy, fluff-filled interview, with the Commander in Chief, during a time of war. To waste it fawning over the President of the United States was embarrassing.

I merely wanted to know if you'd consider, say, DNCTV- otherwise known as MSNBC- having an equally milquetoast interview of Bill and Hillary Clinton as being indicative of that channel's liberal bias.

Gee, aren't MSNBC and Hillary having a fued right now? BTW, I am NOT on Hillary's side, on this or a lot of things. Remember, I'm the one who criticizes my own party.

And the better question is, if FOX interviewed Hillary or Bill Clinton, would they be softball questions? Oh yeah, Chris Wallace did interview Bill. And it was quite a bit less fluffy. Mind you, I'm not critiquing Chris... but when you have President Bush for a rare interview, and to waste the time with such an empty, meaningless interview... I mean Larry King asks tougher questions!

Or for that matter Katie Couric's haigographic interview of Hillary Clinton. No less an authority on liberal media bias than Bernard Goldberg called that interview "embarassing".

Katie Couric is out of her league, and I'd fire her if I was in charge. My kids watch an old DVD of her on Sesame Street, and I'd say that's a fine place for her.

I just want to know where "fair-minded" folks draw the line.

I believe the media has a responsibility to speak 'truth to power'. Here's an interesting note. I normally post sources, but this time, I want you to guess who wrote it...

"And I hope we hear from other important journalists who can most afford to speak up. Most of all, I hope they will have the guts to speak truth to power, to tell their bosses that putting mindless fluff on the air is selling out and that in the long run, is not good for journalism or business."

[ScottT]

You cited a lengthy interview of President Bush by Brit Hume as being an example of FNC's conservative bias.

So how does that translate to "If you have a problem with Bush 43 talking to Bush 41, do you, as the fair-minded standard bearer of your party, similarly have a problem with Hillary talking to Bill on a regular basis?"

Anyway, you're right. It was a lengthy interview. A shiny, happy, fluff-filled interview, with the Commander in Chief, during a time of war. To waste it fawning over the President of the United States was embarrassing.

I merely wanted to know if you'd consider, say, DNCTV- otherwise known as MSNBC- having an equally milquetoast interview of Bill and Hillary Clinton as being indicative of that channel's liberal bias.

Gee, aren't MSNBC and Hillary having a fued right now? BTW, I am NOT on Hillary's side, on this or a lot of things. Remember, I'm the one who criticizes my own party.

And the better question is, if FOX interviewed Hillary or Bill Clinton, would they be softball questions? Oh yeah, Chris Wallace did interview Bill. And it was quite a bit less fluffy. Mind you, I'm not critiquing Chris... but when you have President Bush for a rare interview, and to waste the time with such an empty, meaningless interview... I mean Larry King asks tougher questions!

Or for that matter Katie Couric's haigographic interview of Hillary Clinton. No less an authority on liberal media bias than Bernard Goldberg called that interview "embarassing".

Katie Couric is out of her league, and I'd fire her if I was in charge. My kids watch an old DVD of her on Sesame Street, and I'd say that's a fine place for her.

I just want to know where "fair-minded" folks draw the line.

I believe the media has a responsibility to speak 'truth to power'. Here's an interesting note. I normally post sources, but this time, I want you to guess who wrote it...

"And I hope we hear from other important journalists who can most afford to speak up. Most of all, I hope they will have the guts to speak truth to power, to tell their bosses that putting mindless fluff on the air is selling out and that in the long run, is not good for journalism or business."

Gee Dem, you did a lot of responsive bloviating there.........but as it relates to his actual question, you failed to answer it.

Are MSNBC & Catie Couric "biased" toward Democrats as YOU claim FOX is "biased" toward the GOP?

Should be easy enough to answer.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

Of course FNC would ask Hillary or Bill tough questions.

That makes Fox News Channel the "illegal immigrants" of the news industry- they ask the tough questions other networks just won't ask.

Admittedly, the other networks set the bar abysmally low.

Good thing too because Democrats can barely reach even that low bar.

[dick_fitts]

Bumping this mother, just 'cause I've been reading a lot of columns lately in various newspapers by writers who, for whatever uninformed reasons, seem to think that Mike Huckleberry will make the most sense as the McCain veep. And every time I read one of said columns, I can't help but cry a little bit.

Please don't let Huckleberry tear up the GOP any more than he's already done, Sen. McCain. You have NO chance of winning the White House if you nominate him.

[MrSinatra]

i disagree.

i think huck represents at least a third of the party, and more importantly, empassioned volunteers.