« Into the Final Stretch in Pennsylvania | Main | Kerry Notching Swing State Newspaper Endorsements »
Friday, October 08, 2004
Weekend Debate Open Thread
Posted by DavidNYCI decided to ignore my own advice about not scheduling two callbacks on the same day - big mistake. I'm zonked. Anyhow, here's a new open thread for your chatting pleasure.
Also, the Boston Globe is still looking for voters in swing states who have switched political affiliations (or at least voting intentions). So if you're a recovering Republican & you'd like to talk to the media, shoot me an e-mail (davidnyc -at- swingstateproject.com) and I'll put you in touch with the Globe.
P.S. The AP wrote a story about Jeff's campaign manager for-a-day plan, and it's been picked up by thirty papers. Sweet!
P.P.S. And you can discuss the debate here, too. Is it just me, or is George Bush yelling?
Posted at 06:12 PM in General | Technorati
Comments
I feel for you, I remember those days. One
call back is exhausting enough. Getting
asked the same questions 10 times in one
day is hell.
Posted by: The Other Rod at October 8, 2004 07:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bush yelled all night, and I thought he was going to jump up and bite Gibson's head off.
Posted by: Randy Reisling at October 8, 2004 10:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think this one was a draw, which was also pretty much what an ABC poll revealed. The ABC poll had Kerry winning by 3 percentage points: 44% thought Kerry won, 41% thought Bush won, and the rest thought it was a tie. However, the poll had 3% more Democrats than Republicans, so it looks like folks voted along party lines.
I believe a tie is still a win for Kerry, and his momentum should continue, albeit perhaps at a slower pace between now and the final debate.
Posted by: pepe at October 8, 2004 11:05 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I own a timber company? Yes, you do Mr. President, and it's on your tax return. I guess you're too tired from all your vacations to look at your taxes before you sign them.
See the following url:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=265
Posted by: Randy Reisling at October 8, 2004 11:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It wasn't just you. Bush yelled for 45 minutes. Every answer carried a tone of "I'm tired of having to explain this to you people!"
Posted by: willis at October 8, 2004 11:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bush does worse when the debate is about foreign policy. He starts yelling and getting ticked off. I would have rather seen them start with domestic issues tonight and then move into foreign. The bad impression that Bush had during the first part of the debate got muted when they started talking about domestic issues. Overall, I thought the debate was very close. I give a slight edge to Kerry because Bush needed to win this debate after his Tuesday night fiasco last week. The polls will not move much from tonight���s debate. Kerry might pick up a point as undecided voters got a second look at him and see that he is going to move this country into a better direction. I am still puzzled how anyone can believe that Bush can better handle Homeland Security than Kerry. Bush has spent three years of making Homeland Security more of a political promise than a reality.
Posted by: DFuller at October 8, 2004 11:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I was surprised so many people called it so close. Not because of the content -- we all know the Bush party line is drivel with a less the frail hold on reality -- but Kerry's sentences were crisper, his one-liners were better, he sounded presidential -- Bush again sounded rattled and peevish, interupting the moderator and getting facts wrong -- I thought it was just as clear a win for Kerry as the first debate.
Posted by: Robert Farrell at October 8, 2004 11:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I completely agree with the Robert's comment. I believe this was ALMOST (perhpas not quite) as clear a win for Kerry as the first one, and I think the polls in the days ahead will confirm that. There were moments where I felt Kerry could have rebutted more effectively -- like on the last question about 3 biggest mistakes, which Bush not only dodged but didn't even appear to understand. Kerry could have either shot back "So you can't even think of 3 mistakes you've made that you can mention?" or he could have mentioned 3 mistakes HE has made, to show the contrast. The other missed opportunity was on LABELS (liberal). I vividly recall a 1988 debate between Courter (R) & Lautenberg (D) for NJ Senate, because it came right after the 1st Bush-Dukakis debate. Courter figured if it worked for Bush, he may as well try it on Lautenberg. After about the 6th mention of the word, Lautenberg shot back something like "You keep calling me a liberal; well, if you think cleaning up the beaches is liberal, then I'm a liberal; if you think putting more resources into education is liberal, then I'm a liberal . . . well, there were about 4 more, but you get the idea. And guess what? The word "Liberal" never came up again, and Lautenberg won by a landslide. I wish Kerry would do something like this in the 3rd debate!
Posted by: Jason at October 8, 2004 11:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I agree with Robert. Kerry clearly won.
Posted by: Randy at October 9, 2004 12:02 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
This debate is a draw because Bush performed significantly better than he did in the first debate. This was probably not so difficult, because his performance last week was abysmal. Meanwhile, Kerry didn't appear quite as strong and sharp as he certainly was last week--but maybe that's more because Bush's performance was a lot better than last week. That said, a tie still wins for the challenger, so I'm not concerned about this debate at all.
Posted by: pepe at October 9, 2004 12:03 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I thought the debate was a draw, which helps Kerry establish his credibility with independents. And frankly, that's all that matters with these debates. The hard core conserveratives and liberals won't be swayed by anything that happened tonight.
What continues to annoy me is the way the MSNBC bunch seems to have it in for the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Once again tonight, they were far more negative toward Kerry than toward Bush.
At one point, the panel was Pat Buchanan, Ben Ginsberg, Ron Reagan and Andrea Mitchell. What's wrong with this picture? Did Eric Alterman's taxi get caught in traffic? Did Al Franken miss a plane? Did someone forget Joe Conason's phone number?
Posted by: DM at October 9, 2004 12:14 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Kerry clearly won the debate, Bush's low expectations notwithstanding. The one answer I wish Kerry had come up with: "Mr. President, you continually speak as if science and ethics are opposing values. They're not. It is ethical for us to do all we can to be sure our grandchildren are not dying of the same diseases that killed our grandparents. It is UNethical to stand in the way of new science, new medicines. It is UNethical to tell the victim of a terrible disease you won't allow scientists to search for a cure because your personal spiritual beliefs won't allow it."
Posted by: willis at October 9, 2004 12:37 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Kerry won the debate. But, people will call it a draw because Bush was a moron in the first debate. As for the liberal response, if he called himself a liberal it would have been suicide. Of course, we know that liberal is not a bad word. But in Middle America, where this election is going to be won, liberal is a bad word. They would have taken it out of context, and used it in an ad with Kerry saying "I am liberal". That would not play well in Ohio, Iowa, and states like that which we need to win. I agree with the 3 mistakes remark. He should have said, "He is so arrogant and out of touch with reality that he cannot name a single mistake that he has made." And MSNBC's panel is always conservative. They have Pat Buchanon and Joe Scarborough as neutral observers. But Ron Reagan, unlike his father, is liberal.
Posted by: Matt at October 9, 2004 12:52 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I agree that the main difference in this debate was that Bush was more focused. Kerry held his own, which is important, and the polls indicate that as well. All the polls I've seen have shown the debate to be a slight advantage for Kerry, which makes sense. Kerry held the line and Bush improved. Over all, it was a win for Kerry, as he is the one who has something to prove to the American people.
Posted by: Rock_nj at October 9, 2004 07:17 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I don't buy the argument that the debate was a tie because Bush performed much better than in debate #1. Kerry clearly won. People call it a draw because Bush was not a total embarassment to his constituency this time, but that doesn't mean that he won the debate. He totally struck out, IMO, on the question about what type of judges he would appoint. He was taken off guard by the question. It appeared to be one that he had not been coached on and he had to "think on his feet". It showed his incapacity to do so, in contrast to Kerry, who is actually a very capable thinker. The fact that Americans have not demanded better from Bush has been a great exaspiration to me over the last 5 years. I think that has changed now. I believe disagreement with his policies and the growing evidence of his failures are opening peoples eyes, allowing them to see him as he is--Unpresidential. This hurt him tremendously in the first debate and was apparent again in the second, although not as starkly. Bush also showed anger at times in the debate that should make people nervous. All in all it was a clear win by Kerry by a smaller margin that the first debate.
Posted by: Randy at October 9, 2004 07:34 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The political blinders are clearly on in the analysis of this debate. A few intellectual facts, Kerry won the first one, Cheney won the VP one, and this one (technically) was very close. Bush improved significantly in this debate and Kerry was worse (not alot worse, but he was worse).
MSNBC is tough on Kerry? Give me a break, Andrea Mitchell and Ronnie Reagan insisted that Edwards won until Chris Mathews smacked them on the back of the head and said 'Hey, lets have a little intellectual honesty here'. Even the conservatives on the panel were honest enough to admit that Bush lost the first one.
The impact of the latest debate will be a positive for Bush. The polls will bear this out in the next few days, though the 3rd debate is right around the corner. Another one like this and Kerry will need an 'October Surprise' to pull out this election.
Posted by: MARKAF at October 9, 2004 08:35 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
MSNBC has a panel with 2 staunch conservatives (Buchanan or Scarboro, and the Republican lawyer), one occasional leftist (Ron Reagan), one guy who's all over the map (Mathews) and one moron (Mitchell). And this is not biased againat Kerry ?
The only way in which the debate is going to be a positive for Bush is that people may think he's not as peulant and whiny as he appeared to be in the first debate. Low Expectations ..
I did think Kerry missed one good line though -- when Bush brought Poland up again, Kerry shiuld have pointed out that the Polish President said he thought Poland was misled into war.
Posted by: erg at October 9, 2004 08:47 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Kerry won last night's debate slightly. Bush was more focused, but still angry. I don't see it having any significant impact on the polls.
Posted by: Rock_nj at October 9, 2004 10:40 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Chris Matthews seems to be one more pundit so terrified of being dismissed as "liberal" that he tried to argue Cheney's "I never met you before tonight" comment into a knockout punch when it wasn't even factually correct.
I think the debate last night was a draw... in the sense that the president didn't light himself on fire or sexually assault any of the questioners. Short of that, I think Kerry was the clear winner. I'm not a Democrat, and I thought Bush did very well in the first debate. But Kerry was more impressive last night than I've ever seen him.
Posted by: willis at October 9, 2004 10:49 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
If Cheney won the VP debate, then how come the media coverage the next day focused entirely on his lies? I don't call that winning.
Posted by: DavidNYC at October 9, 2004 10:53 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
willis, That's interesting as a non-Democrat that you feel Kerry did well last night. Thanks for the input. I think these debates are helping Kerry introduce himself to people, and they like what they see. He's a lot more grounded and level-headed than the Republicans portray him as being.
Isn't it amazing that Clinton was able to win the White House with all his personal character problems. I mean people knew they were voting for a slick poilitician when they voted for Clinton, he had lots of baggage, yet he won on pure likability. Kerry is a much more grounded person than Clinton, yet doesn't have that gravitas Clinton had, so it takes debates for him to connect with people.
Posted by: Rock_nj at October 9, 2004 11:45 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
(Joseph Stiglitz is professor of economics at Columbia University and a Nobel prize winner) - he said
"In August, I joined nine other American Nobel prize winners in economics in signing an open letter to the public. We wrote: "President Bush and his administration have embarked on a reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation ... The differences between President Bush and John Kerry with respect to leadership on the economy are wider than in any other presidential election in our experience. President Bush believes that tax cuts benefiting the most wealthy Americans are the answer to almost every economic problem."
I was very surprised that kerry didnt mention this in the debate - is he reserving deadly blows for the final debate?
Posted by: mram at October 9, 2004 12:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Kerry did really good, not as much a blowout as the 1st one but he helped himself quite a bit:
Independents on 2nd debate: Kerry 53% Bush 37%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13549
The headline number, Kerry 47% Bush 45% is skewed because:
The reason the overall figures show only a slight advantage for Kerry, despite his greater margin among his own party and winning the independent vote, is that the sample of viewers had more Republicans (38%) than Democrats (32%) or independents (30%). Also, the sample of viewers support Bush over Kerry in the presidential race by 50% to 46%.
Posted by: The Other Rob at October 9, 2004 12:21 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Speaking of Nobel Prize winners -- it would be really hysterical if Paul Krugman were to win the economics Nobel Prize to be announced on Monday. He's certainly in the running. That would give Kerry a great opportunity to point out on Tuesday what the current Nobel Prize winner thinks about the Bush administration.
Re: Clinton -- I think he was a remarkable politician. There was his personal charm, yes, but it wasn't just that. The man was also a policy wonk, and had a great knowledge base analytical ability . His political skills were unparalleled. The right tried to portray him as a multiple-murdering rapist, but the American public always saw him as more of a charming, competent rogue.
Posted by: erg at October 9, 2004 12:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
When Clinton spoke I always felt like he was talking to me. And he made most people feel that way. Not just spewing talking points or trying to swing the undecideds. He is a truly gifted politician, his speech at the convention was tremendous.
Posted by: The Other Rob at October 9, 2004 12:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Quoting the pundits? Give me a break. Listening to them blather on about this debate is reminiscent of their coverage of the Great Bush War Folly in Iraq. When things get so bad -- even one good moment is trumpeted as a great success.
Yes! President Bush put together three coherent sentences... picked a fight with Gibson the moderator.... even winked at the crowd when he finished talking about the tragic war in Iraq spiel... and utters an inane little joke, "That answer almost makes me want to scowl."
Folks -- this prattling putz is still attempting to firm up his base... The internals are burning a hole in what's left of "Bush's Brain."
Lt. Col Hardon USMC Ret.
Posted by: Lt. Col Hardon USMC Ret. at October 9, 2004 01:21 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I know that this is not about the 2nd debate, but does anyone have any insight about this assertion in the NY Times this morning that Bush might have had some kind of (a) bullet proof vest (b) back brace (c) radio transmitter on his back during the Miami debate?
I saw this picture, its hard to imagine that something so clearly rectangular is just a rumple in the preisdent's coat or clothing.
Let's be serious, if the same observation were made about Kerry, the right-wing media machine would screaming for an independent prosecutor. I find it just beyond inconceivable that president might have wired for sound, but gosh, an explanation seems to be in order.
Posted by: Richdef at October 9, 2004 03:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
MICHAEL BADNARIK ARRESTED
October 8 ��� 8:38PM CT The first report from St. Louis is in - and presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green Party) were just arrested. Badnarik was carrying an Order to Show Cause, which he intended to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).
Posted by: VoteBadnarik at October 9, 2004 04:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Yes, Kerry's performance last night was better than Bush's. He is certainly more of a politician than Bush is.
But, the question arises: "Does the average American feel that s/he can relate to Kerry?"
Bush's stammers and dazed looks undoubtedly make him seem a bit . . . slow. His simplicity is underwhelming. But, for many, they also make him seem human.
That humanity is not always present in Kerry. I support him, but I always feel a certain disconnectedness between him and whomever he is speaking to or with. This impression of him was reinforced and amplified last night, particularly in the casual environment in which he was speaking
Posted by: Abi Gaines at October 9, 2004 05:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Charlie Gibson mantra:
"Everyday, in everyway, I am becoming more like Felix Unger (Tony Randall edition).
Posted by: flocal at October 9, 2004 07:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
MARKAF a mole.
Posted by: commentator at October 9, 2004 09:49 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I must have watched a different debate than some of you folks here. I don't think Bush did much better than in the 1st debate. Even though I like Edwards better than Kerry, I DID consider the Edwards-Cheney debate a tie. This last one was no tie!
I'd say Kerry did comparably to Edwards, but Bush did not even come close to Cheney (and I'm no fan of Cheney). Bush misunderstood some of the questions, he obviously was not paying attention at some points, and he even missed some opportunities to argue valid points; like on the drugs coming in from Canada and protectionism. Kerry's response to the abortion question, in contrast, was impeccable!
Posted by: Jason at October 9, 2004 11:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Richdef, take a look at this pic and decide:
http://www.electoral-vote2.com/images/bulge.jpg
This is not a photo of a crease or fold in a suit jacket! You're telling me that this isn't a transmission type box and a wire? The way Bush waits, stops, hesitates, and speaks so haltingly with no spontaneity or flow leads me to believe that he is being coached on what to say. One of the first debate rules was not allowing any camera views from behind the candidates, but they did anyway.
Interestingly, Jason, as a Catholic, I posted an explanation of the abortion dilemma on this site that Kerry practically parroted during the second debate. ;)
The Kerry/Edwards campaign has really responded by getting its act together lately. Joe Lockhart and Mike McCurry are doing a terrific job as spokesmen for the campaign. A few weeks and a change of staff surely make a difference!
Posted by: Shar at October 10, 2004 01:15 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Lt. Colonel, the problem with Bush lies in the fact that he's not a conservative. No conservative would drum up deficits the highest in U.S. history, as Bush has.
Posted by: Shar at October 10, 2004 01:21 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Howdy Shar !
Thank you for pointing out the obvious -- It's even more obvious that this so called Commander in Chief has been incompetent bordering on the edge of impeachment with almost every single issue he has dealt the public -- specifically in his handling of the United States military.
So -- If anyone has a close friend or family member who may still be undecided -- or possibly you are yourself -- as to which candidate to vote for in November...
Send them this little Google Bomb and it may help them:
Highlight and copy Lugar + Incompetent and paste it to http://www.google.com and press "I'm feeling Lucky"
This man should be run from office!
And I remain...
Lt. Col Hardon USMC Ret.
Posted by: Lt. Col Hardon USMC Ret. at October 10, 2004 02:06 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Here's one thing I don't get. Bush calls Kerry's 20 years of service in the senate "mediocre". While for most of that time Bush was getting drunk at parties, running sleazy money losing oil businesses and playing baseball chief. Talk about a mediocre career. Kerry needs to throw a few barbs in that direction.
Posted by: Brendan at October 10, 2004 02:42 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
First off, I am desperate to see Bush "retired" so you know my leanings. As such, with polls and battlegrounds tipping more Bush right now, I am equally despearate to see Kerry do well. Yeah, maybe he tied on Friday, but the oportunities missed) see some above but also see the SLATE article) are disheartening. I hope his staff realizes that and better preps him, or reads some of this stuff HERE and elsewhere!
OK, I saw a photo today of a friend leaning over, wearing just a Tee, and his back had a similar outline (caused by bone structure) to Bush in the famous picture. Really/Seriously, was hard to believe for me. But maybe it is "benign" after all.
Lastly, while I am being difficult :-) let me ponder outloud: Who taught Kerry and Edwards how to drink on TV? Edwards gives the lizard snake tongue wag after each sip, amazing nothing was said! And Kerry grits his teeth and almost snarls. Maybe they should try and go thirsty for 90 minutes - yeah i know their throats get dry. Anyone else notice?
Posted by: stu at October 10, 2004 06:39 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Sure, there are words we wish we could put in our guy's mouth. Sure, in retrospect there are sharp comebacks he could have made and didn't. But this is live television, folks, and it's not as easy as it looks. I know Bush looks like a bumbling idiot up there, but if you hauled one of us out of from behind our computer and stuck us in the debate, we'd probably sound more like Bush than Kerry.
To me, Bush attempts at humor fell flat, his accusations that his opponent was liberal, tax-mad and a flip-flopper sounded like a replay of something Reagan said better in 1980, and his inability, again, to admit any mistakes was quite telling in a purely rhetorical sense. Again he interrupted the moderator and failed to answer questions.
Bush did improve as compared to the first debate, because here he was more aggressive, and the whole point of Bushism, insofar as it is a philosophy of government or a political strategy, is attack, attack, attack. Passive is the worst thing Bush could have been, in terms of how he is selling himself to the electorate.
But in terms of his rhetoric, his body language, and his command of the issues, I saw little improvement, whereas after the first debate I expected to see a complete retooling.
Kerry did a fine job, considering he is, in reality, no FDR nor even a Clinton. If you thought his rhetoric in the debate was flawed, you might want to cancel your daily newspaper before you get a look at how he governs.
Posted by: Robert Farrell at October 10, 2004 10:03 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Gallup had Bush giving Gore the whupping of a lifetime less than two weeks before the election. You can't put too much emphasis on these polls.
Kerry is in a very good position at this stage of the race compared to Gore.
Posted by: The Other Rob at October 10, 2004 10:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Lets clear up somethings about MSNBC coverage with some real facts:
Chris Mathews - Formerly worked for the Democrats
Ronnie Reagan - Hardcore Liberal that spoke at DNC convention
Andrea Mitchell - Clearly liberal (even the libs question her intelligence), had Edwards beating Cheney
Joe Scarborough - Token conservative that provides 'balance' to the liberal bias
Pat Buchanan - Former Republican (officially a Libertarian) that now makes a living bashing the current Republicans. Like having Zell Miller as the representative of the liberal Democrats, seldom helps the Republican cause.
MSNBC clearly leans hard to the left. Now that CBS and ABC have all but admitted they are pushing Kerry as their candidate, it only makes sense that NBC has to keep up with them (Let's not forget that Tim Russert had actively worked for the Democrats for years before his stint on MTP)
Posted by: markaf at October 10, 2004 03:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Markaf,
"Bashing" republicans for choosing Zell Miller to represent them is by no stretch of imagination bashing Republicans.
Zell Miller was probably the the worst part of their convention.
I heard a long while back, Pat saying that he was against the war. That is his only critique of the current administration. But he has clearly aired his views that now that the mistake has been done, Bush is the better candidate to clean it up. If you had seen his interview with a scumbag from the vietnam truth veterans when he was filling in for scarborough, you would definitely not have thought that Pat is against the current administration!
Chris leans a bit more towards democrats - but clearly not as much as democrats would hope...
Posted by: mram at October 10, 2004 07:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Mark, I have read just as many things saying Edwards won as Cheney won. Personally, I think it was probably a tie as Edwards looked and sounded better on some issues and Cheney looked and sounded better on others. However, in the post debate spin, Edwards has come off much better than Cheney. Cheney's mistruths, whether lies (saying he never said Saddam owas linked to Al Qaeda or 9-11) or simply mistakes (such as the statement about having just met Edwards...yes I believe this was a mistake and not intentional), have led to the Bush campaign coming off as less than truthful (ironic considering this is how they attacked Gore in 2000).
And let's not forget Ginsburg during the debate coverage on MSNBC. He is definately a Pro-Bush parrot, much like Hughes, who wouldn't admit Bush got thumped in Debate 1. He has been a big part as well as the anti kerry guy from one of the Boston Papers. So if you were actually honest instead of throwing out the standard rhetoric you got off the BC 04 FAQ, you'd see MSNBC has an equal representation of Bias on their coverage. Yes the individuals are biased as components, as a whole they are pretty balanced. Although I am sure you will argue that FOX news is the most "FAIR AND BALANCED" network on TV.
Your arguments have no merit. Go back to the conservative boards and spout your fallible logic there.
Posted by: SICK OF TROLLS at October 10, 2004 07:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
For more on how Chris Matthews is anything but a liberal host, go to http://jabbs.blogspot.com
JABBS has had three pieces in the last week on the ridiculous debate coverage by MSNBC.
Also, go to http://www.dailyhowler.com today fora comparison of MSNBC and Fox News' post-debate coverage. You'll be surprised (unless you've been watching MSNBC lately).
Posted by: DM at October 11, 2004 01:18 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
'Chris Mathews - Formerly worked for the Democrats'
He used to work for Tip O'Neill a long time back. But he's also a great admirer of Ronald Seagan, spent a lot of time attacking the Reagan hit movie earlier, spent weeks praising Reagan when he died.
'Ronnie Reagan - Hardcore Liberal that spoke at DNC convention'
Only on the matter of stem cell research. He is a liberal, but hardly a partisan Democrat.
'Andrea Mitchell - Clearly liberal (even the libs question her intelligence), had Edwards beating Cheney'
She did no such thing. You're either lyong or confusing her with 2 of the other women who came on later. She's also married to Republican Greenspan. For the most part, I see her going wherever the wind blows in any case.
'Joe Scarborough - Token conservative that provides 'balance' to the liberal bias'
He has a show of his own on MSNBC. So much for token (Ron Reagan doesn;t have a show).
'Pat Buchanan - Former Republican (officially a Libertarian) that now makes a living bashing the current Republicans. Like having Zell Miller as the representative of the liberal Democrats, seldom helps the Republican cause. '
Nonsense. Buchanan ran for President as a Republican. He is absolutely not a libertarian. He spends a lot of time bashing Kerry as well in recent months close to the electon.
You have to give credit to the wingnuts. By continually whining media bias, they've managed to push many such panels to the right.
Posted by: erg at October 11, 2004 01:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
'Let's not forget that Tim Russert had actively worked for the Democrats for years before his stint on MTP'
If the President thought he was biased, why did he go and do an interview with him eaerlier this year ? Russert is tough with both Dems and Repubs.
Posted by: erg at October 11, 2004 01:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment