Republican Debate !

[Murffieus]

Watching the Republican debate among 10 candidates at the Reagan Library.

From the standpoint poise and presentation the clear winner is Mitt Romney with Rudy coming in second.

In an extemperaneous setting he's very impressive-----I can see how as a Republican he got elected Governor in heavily Democratic  Massachucetts.

Most Presidential appearing candidate since Reagan!

[The Lens]

I like Romney but his GRANDFATHER had 5 wives (though ironically he has been married less than Rudy & McCain).  It will be tough to overcome the Mormon angle (god I hope Wardle & Mortenson don't see this) given the poligamy just 2 generations removed.

[muarmy81]

Wardle is mormon?

[Murffieus]

I don't think people are going to judge Romney on what his grandfather did----nor on the fact that he is a Morman.

I have to hear him more before I commit to him----but he was very impressive last night-----very, very articulate. In a debate against Hillary it will be no contest as far as stage presence is concerned----against Obama a closer call!

[tower912]

So, Murf, you like a patrician looking politician from Massachusetts who has changed his position on everything?   You must love John Kerry then.    With all of the u-tube stuff and his clear record of flip-flopping his positions, he is going to get shredded.    And, some of my more conservative Christian co-workers and acquaintances have, to a man, said they won't vote for him because of the Mormon angle.     He did have a nice debate, though.

[Murffieus]

Tower----times change, if you are like the rest of us (human) you have changed your mind on an important issue as well----so let's be consistent here.
And let's be a little more selective here-----Rommney hasn't changed his mind on "everything" (as you put it)!

So your conservative friends would rather run the risk of Hillary being President? I don't think so!

[tower912]

Actually, to a man, they are holding out for Thompson. (Not Tommy) I have changed my mind over the years.  I have become more liberal.  And personally, there is no way I will vote for Hillary in the primary.   Not sure who, yet.   Why is it when some politicians, after deep contemplation, change their mind it is called a flip flop, but others, when they do a philosophical 180, it is called a mere opinion change?   Odd.    Romney has changed his position on abortion, gay rights, gun control.   I am sure his R competitors will be showing clip after clip of his old positions in their inevitably negative commercials.    His candidacy won't survive it.     And just like there are people out there who won't vote for a woman or an African American, simply because of those traits, there is a large number of evangelicals who will not vote for a Mormon.   If a R candidate can't get the evangelicals during the primary, they won't win.   Pretty simple.

[Warrior1996]

Romney's favorite book is Battlefield Earth, for God's sake!

[ChicosBailBonds]

RUN FRED RUN!!!

Thompson / Hunter in 2008


By the way, the questions last night were utterly ridiculous.  And having 4 libs do the commentary on MSDNC (MSNBC) was a joke.  Chrissy Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Keith Overbite, and Howard Fineman.  I mean, is it at all possible to have a conservative in the media for at least some balance...wait, don't answer that.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12513

[thekahoona]

RUN FRED RUN!!!

Thompson / Hunter in 2008

Right on!

if fred won't run -- then i think mitt is the man.

[Murffieus]

Tower----Ronald Reagan did a complete 180 on his whole political philosophy-----and historians are now calling him one of the greatest presidents EVER. Things change, perspectives change----either change with them or the parade passes you by!

Chico-----Fred Thompson should save himself the trouble-----the guy doesn't look well (very pale & huge bags under his eye)----has lost all his hair----when was the last time a bald president was elected-----has their ever been one? In this day and age of Internet and TV , he wouldn't have a chance, for that reason alone !

[tower912]

What Reagan had, and what all of the current batch of presidential candidates wish they had, is charisma.   Even when his policies were opposed by the majority of Americans, it was impossible to not like the guy.   Hell, Iran-Contra was a large scandal, but he was able to pull off the "well......I don't recall" and make it believable.   And yes, he went from liberal to conservative, was divorced, had affairs while younger and was estranged from his children.   But he was just so damn likable and nice.   He had a positive, idealistic vision of America which was just what the country craved after Viet Nam and the rest of the 70's.
But what is a conservative these days?   Is it a Goldwater conservative; small government, no international entanglements, low taxes, hands off social policy?   Is it a Robertson conservative, evangelical, wanting an activist goverment social policy that regulates and prohibits anything out of the norm, activist foreign policy with all eyes on the coming Apocalypse?   Is it a Grover Norquiest Republican, shrinking the federal government until it is small enough to drown in a bathtub.   Is it a GWB conservative, low taxes, big government, deficit be damned, secretive, consolidating power in the executive branch, bull in a china shop foreign policy?   Or is the Murf school of conservatism;  Kill off the Muslims and foster the use of the wide post in the process?

[SoCalwarrior]

when was the last time a bald president was elected-----has their ever been one? In this day and age of Internet and TV , he wouldn't have a chance, for that reason alone !

Actually a good point.  Of all of the elected presidents, only five were bald or balding.  And they had problems keeping office. 

John Adams and his son, John Quincy Adams -- both one-termers.
Martin Van Buren -- also booted out after a single term.
James A. Garfield. They shot him.
After Garfield it took seventy-two years before baldie, Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected. The only other balding prez was, Gerald Ford, who stepped in for Nixon, but failed to be reelected.

[ChicosBailBonds]

RUN FRED RUN!!!

Thompson / Hunter in 2008

Right on!

if fred won't run -- then i think mitt is the man.

Fred's running...the fact that Bill Maher is already trashing him makes my day.  Because if that P.O.S. human being doesn't like him, then I know he's good.

[ChicosBailBonds]

when was the last time a bald president was elected-----has their ever been one? In this day and age of Internet and TV , he wouldn't have a chance, for that reason alone !

Actually a good point.  Of all of the elected presidents, only five were bald or balding.  And they had problems keeping office. 

John Adams and his son, John Quincy Adams -- both one-termers.
Martin Van Buren -- also booted out after a single term.
James A. Garfield. They shot him.
After Garfield it took seventy-two years before baldie, Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected. The only other balding prez was, Gerald Ford, who stepped in for Nixon, but failed to be reelected.

Yes, unfortunately we are incredibly enamoured with looks in this society or whether a guy can play a saxaphone on a stage.....all very unfortunate.  But then again, if it comes down to just looks....Hildebeast has no shot.   

Fred maybe bald, but he has charisma something that only one other candidate on either side (Obama) has.  Of course Fred has experience where Obama has almost none and that would come across very clearly on the campaign trail.

[tower912]

RUN FRED RUN!!!

Thompson / Hunter in 2008


By the way, the questions last night were utterly ridiculous.  And having 4 libs do the commentary on MSDNC (MSNBC) was a joke.  Chrissy Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Keith Overbite, and Howard Fineman.  I mean, is it at all possible to have a conservative in the media for at least some balance...wait, don't answer that.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12513

And yet, I am sure you think the Dems are just plain silly for not allowing Brit Humorless, Sean Ins-Hannity, and Bill O'Lie-lly to moderate a debate of theirs on Faux Noise network.

[Murffieus]

Well let liberals moderate the Dems debate----and let a conservative group moderate the republican debate----what's wrong with that?

BTW----I'm not going to nitpick the questions like some other conservatives-----IMO every candidate should be ready to answer ANY question!

[BigSky]

RUN FRED RUN!!!

Thompson / Hunter in 2008


By the way, the questions last night were utterly ridiculous.  And having 4 libs do the commentary on MSDNC (MSNBC) was a joke.  Chrissy Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Keith Overbite, and Howard Fineman.  I mean, is it at all possible to have a conservative in the media for at least some balance...wait, don't answer that.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12513

What is it with all the fun poking with people's physical appearances and gender and names...?  Debating issues is one thing....

Did you not get enough hugs as a child?  Petty and angry.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

RUN FRED RUN!!!

Thompson / Hunter in 2008


By the way, the questions last night were utterly ridiculous.  And having 4 libs do the commentary on MSDNC (MSNBC) was a joke.  Chrissy Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Keith Overbite, and Howard Fineman.  I mean, is it at all possible to have a conservative in the media for at least some balance...wait, don't answer that.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12513

And yet, I am sure you think the Dems are just plain silly for not allowing Brit Humorless, Sean Ins-Hannity, and Bill O'Lie-lly to moderate a debate of theirs on Faux Noise network.

I think it's incredible that the Dems were that cowardly they couldn't handle being on FOX.  At least these GOP guys went on.  If the Dems are so afraid of FOX news, how in the hell are they going to handle Iraq, Iran, Mexico, the EU, etc....my God.

Fox also would have had at least one liberal on the debate broadcast, they almost always have someone from both sides.  Fill me in when MSDNC puts one on because between Mitchell, Matthews, Olberdeusch, and Fineman there isn't even a moderate in that bunch.

[ChicosBailBonds]

RUN FRED RUN!!!

Thompson / Hunter in 2008


By the way, the questions last night were utterly ridiculous.  And having 4 libs do the commentary on MSDNC (MSNBC) was a joke.  Chrissy Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Keith Overbite, and Howard Fineman.  I mean, is it at all possible to have a conservative in the media for at least some balance...wait, don't answer that.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12513

You're right BigSky, it's inappropriate...I should act more like the liberal way and how they treat conservatives.

Calling them Hitler, Nazis, calling the President Chimp...etc, etc.  I'll act more like that.

LOL   
What is it with all the fun poking with people's physical appearances and gender and names...?  Debating issues is one thing....

Did you not get enough hugs as a child?  Petty and angry.   

[tower912]

So, Chico, the questions for the R's were inappropriate and having liberal commentators around a R debate is wrong, but the D's should have trusted Faux noise channel.    Nice consistency there.

[Ahoya06]

I thought all in all, Romney had a good debate. He handled that stupid "What do you dislike most about America" question well.

Was it just me, or did it seem like Chris Matthews was trying SO hard to bait Rudy into a gaffe on the abortion questions? He just kept peppering him with follow-ups! I think more neutral and moderate people need to run these things.

[MU62]

Wardle is mormon?

I remember an article about Wardle's maternal grandfather passing away.  He was an Irish Catholic.  I think the name was Murphy.  Not sure what religion Brian is. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

So, Chico, the questions for the R's were inappropriate and having liberal commentators around a R debate is wrong, but the D's should have trusted Faux noise channel.    Nice consistency there.

Excuse me, but at least they went on.  The questions were ridiculous the other night...but at least they went on.

They didn't run with the their tail between their legs....a characteristic so totally common with Democratic leaders of late.  If they're running from Fox news, they're going to run from every other hard decision.

Oh how this country needs a strong Dem leader like Truman, Kennedy, Sam Nunn, etc....where did those Dems go?  Why were they run out of that party?  Sad...it really is.  Lieberman is the closest thing left of that old guard.  I disagree with him on 90% of his politics but at least he's a stand up guy that has a pair.

[ChicosBailBonds]

After running down some of the more obnoxious questions thrown at the candidates at last night's debate, Cavuto pointed out how "none of those Republicans was afraid to be at a venue where they knew they would probably get snide questions like this on a network or with a host who has a certain leaning. Yet none of their counterparts in the Democratic Party would dare appear here."

Noyes agreed: "Well, that's true. It's amazing that Democrats are trying to avoid having a debate on the Fox News Channel. Fox News had debates in the last cycle. A lot of the questioners brought in — they were not Fox employees — they were some liberal reporters like Gwen Ifill and Juan Williams, along with some of Fox's own people like Carl Cameron. Nobody had any complaints about that [debate]. Now, because they want to please the left-wing blogosphere, they're acting like if appearing on Fox is somehow a dangerous and terrible thing to do. Here you have Republicans going on MSNBC, which is a really, become a very far-left wing network in the last few months, few years, and they all seemed to have a pretty good time and got their message out."

http://newsbusters.org/node/12535

[ChicosBailBonds]

Good God...

http://newsbusters.org/node/12541

[nathanziarek]

Good God, what? It's completely true.

This is what politics is. Context doesn't matter, everything is black and white.

If you can take a line out of a speech and twist it to your needs, I don't see the problem with abstracting it another layer and taking a line out of a movie. Its all wrong. Are we arguing a level of wrongness?

And, let's be honest, if this was happening to George Clooney or Sean Penn would you care at all?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Good God, what? It's completely true.

This is what politics is. Context doesn't matter, everything is black and white.

If you can take a line out of a speech and twist it to your needs, I don't see the problem with abstracting it another layer and taking a line out of a movie. Its all wrong. Are we arguing a level of wrongness?

And, let's be honest, if this was happening to George Clooney or Sean Penn would you care at all?

What's completely true...a guy that played a role as a racist 19 years ago in a television series means he is... in fact...a racist? 

I hope that is not what you are saying.  More importantly is the LA Times writer, who took 2 comments out of 38 to make this giant leap of faith.  Having lived here in Los Angeles most of my life, it doesn't surprise me one iota that the Times would go down this path.  They will take it many times in the coming 12 months and beyond, that is for sure.  What a rag that thing is.

[nathanziarek]

Just like that.

You took one sentence out of my entire post and the site you referenced and made it say whatever made me look worst. Are you in office?

The article you pointed to was not about him being a racist (although the LAT article may have been, I didnt read it). It was about how a person, running for public office, in this day and age of both extreme party animosity and far and wide internet reach (ala YouTube) has to be careful with everything they say, whether in a speech, in a whisper or as an actor. It will all be used against them if it can be.

That's what is true.

[BigSky]

RUN FRED RUN!!!

Thompson / Hunter in 2008


By the way, the questions last night were utterly ridiculous.  And having 4 libs do the commentary on MSDNC (MSNBC) was a joke.  Chrissy Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Keith Overbite, and Howard Fineman.  I mean, is it at all possible to have a conservative in the media for at least some balance...wait, don't answer that.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12513

You're right BigSky, it's inappropriate...I should act more like the liberal way and how they treat conservatives.

Calling them Hitler, Nazis, calling the President Chimp...etc, etc.  I'll act more like that.

LOL   
What is it with all the fun poking with people's physical appearances and gender and names...?  Debating issues is one thing....

Did you not get enough hugs as a child?  Petty and angry.   

Again...your philosophy is two wrongs make a right.  You have a lot of bent up anger in your posts.  If you asked I am sure those in your family and friends circles would give you a hug or two. 

You are making my comments about Conservatives vs Republicans.  My comments were about neither.  They were about your comments. 

[Mayor McCheese]

Romney's favorite book is Battlefield Earth, for God's sake!

what did George W. say his favorite book was... The Hungry Little Caterpillar?? or was it The Little Engine That Could (Im almost positive it was one of them)  I don't think republicans really care all that much about what their favorite book is, just the three G's, Guns, Gays, and God   .... ok that was hateful, and I didn't see much of the republican debate and I should have, for I could bring more to this talk, and just reading the first few posts, I think Romney (believe thats his name) being Mormon will kill him.  It is sad that there are people that won't vote based on sex, race or religion, I am young, but I remember there was a big stink about Kennedy being Catholic (among other things)... if some people have problems with Catholicism, just imagine a religion that allows Polygamy.

[Mayor McCheese]

Good God, what? It's completely true.

This is what politics is. Context doesn't matter, everything is black and white.

If you can take a line out of a speech and twist it to your needs, I don't see the problem with abstracting it another layer and taking a line out of a movie. Its all wrong. Are we arguing a level of wrongness?

And, let's be honest, if this was happening to George Clooney or Sean Penn would you care at all?

What's completely true...a guy that played a role as a racist 19 years ago in a television series means he is... in fact...a racist? 

I hope that is not what you are saying.  More importantly is the LA Times writer, who took 2 comments out of 38 to make this giant leap of faith.  Having lived here in Los Angeles most of my life, it doesn't surprise me one iota that the Times would go down this path.  They will take it many times in the coming 12 months and beyond, that is for sure.  What a rag that thing is.

don't worry too much about someone's past, America can get past it, I mean look at George W's past, dodging the war, getting drunk and coked out in college... only other country besides America that he went to before being elected was Mexico... and not for political reasons...  now do I get drunk in college yes, mostly everyone does, its a time when we can before we grow up, however I am not planning on running for president, if I was, I probably wouldn't, if I was in George W's shoes, instead of hugging Jack Daniels, I would have hugged mock speeches to try and give speeches better 

and now that we are talking about Fox News, and showing links.. here are some I love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlOKZZ0-2u0&mode=related&search=

[ChicosBailBonds]

What I still don't understand is what exactly should Fred Thompson have to "overcome" anyway.  He played a part as an actor and yet the Times is trying to say "if he played the part he must think that way"....have we really become that stupid as society to believe that attempted correlation?  Wow 

[Murffieus]

Thompson is unelectable. In order for the Republicans to win in 2008 they need to nominate a candidate nearer to the center like Rudy or Romney. The time will be right someday to elect another conservative-----but the political climate dictates that time isn't now!

[muarmy81]

France just elected a conservative president, Canada did recently and I think Spain and Mexico did likewise in their most recent elections.  I think many nations are living in a conservative climate.

[jutaw22mu]

im afraid that republicans will fall in love with mitt romney who is the republican version of john kerry.  hes from the same state and is a major flip-flopper.

rudy clearly lost the debate.  he was the only pro-choice one (and his reasoning was pretty poor) and he was one of two that support the use of embryonic stem cells in science (again poor logic).  plus rudy barely knew the difference between shiite and sunni's.  he has a long way to go.  mccain didnt look so hot either, it seemed he wasnt allowed to speak as much as romney or rudy was, plus he looked really really old.  dick cheney old.

i would say that Brownback presented himself the best.  he talked about putting more focus in bringing families back together, which is one of the most important issues in america.  alot of our societial problems stem from broken homes.  he just did a good job in general...i agreed with most of what he said.

my sleeper is that guy from arkansas.  he did a pretty good job as well.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Thompson is unelectable. In order for the Republicans to win in 2008 they need to nominate a candidate nearer to the center like Rudy or Romney. The time will be right someday to elect another conservative-----but the political climate dictates that time isn't now!

You may be right Murff, but conservatives haven't seen a conservative in the White House since Reagan and they are looking for one.  Bush or his father certainly aren't conservative and we all know Clinton wasn't.  It abhors many conservatives to even think of voting for Rudy or McCain.

Do not be surprised to see a major 3rd party candidate this time around.  The primaries will basically be done in February now that both parties and their complicit states have completed f'd up that process.  California, New York, Florida all electing their primary candidate in the first weeks of the new year.  That means 10 months of dealing with the two candidates chosen which is going to ware a lot of people out.  By June people are going to be screaming for an alternative.  That candidate won't win, but might syphon off enough to make it fun.

Hillary or McCain....what's the difference really?

[mviale]

Hillary and Mccain are a mess.

Obama is the real deal - hopefully he survives the clinton onslaught

[Murffieus]

Chico----usually a real conservative will get elected after a period of Dem rule------GWB is IMO a conservative (war on terror---tax cuts---supreme court nominees---abortion & gun issues, etc), but as he described himself  "a compassionate conservative"-----when you have compassion you tend to spend a little more money on social issues (Medicare Drug plan)-----but even there he encouraged its patronage through private insurers.

[jutaw22mu]

if obama is elected then there is truly something wrong with our country.

i agree that hillary and mccain are virtually the same.  i would take one of those two over rudy and obama. 

brownback is the real deal, i wish more people would start pimpin this guy.

[mu_hilltopper]

"a little more money on social issues (Medicare Drug Plan)"  .. A little more money?  Thanks for the laugh!

[augoman]

obama might have been okay if he weren't 1)a carpet bagger in the style of hillary rodham, 2)a part of the jesse jackson machine, 3)involved in real estate scandal during his 2 years of admin experience, 4)still very green.
give us someone else, please.

[mu_hilltopper]

Um .. could you explain the carpetbagger comment about Obama?  He lived in Chicago for a decade before running for office there.  Hillary lived in NY about 8 minutes before she declared for the US Senate.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Great article today.  I enjoyed the last sentence immensely

http://newsbusters.org/node/12612


Finally, Republicans should mock the Democratic withdrawal from Fox with a loud, continuing question: How will Hillary & Co handle Osama bin Laden when they don’t have the courage to handle questioning from Brit Hume?

[nathanziarek]

Was there a fact in that article?

I don't see MSNBC as left at all (so, maybe I'm leaning way left these days :-), but Fox is decidedly right. I have no problem with them existing, and I have no problem with the Democrats not wanting to endorse them.

BUT...I've yet to see anyone go through each debate and provide a serious look, question by question, follow-up by follow-up, at whether or not either was biased. Instead, you get a article like this, that makes wild assumptions with no basis. The one quote from the Republican debate -- "Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?" -- I personally took as a stab at the "lack of morallity" of the left; You can add an agenda to just about any statement.

The only other "proof" of liberal bias was the question from the Washington Post: "What do you dislike most about America?" How is that showing any liberal bias at all? In fact, that sounds like a question us liberals have to answer all the time, except it typically reads "Why do you hate America?" Are we saying that hard questions, questions that make you actually reveal something about your character, are liberal now too?

Awful article today.

[Murffieus]

Nobody with any sense accuses liberals for "hating America"-----some of the things that bother me about liberals is their tolerance in the face of threats from abroad, their thirst for higher taxes to redistribute wealth, excluive reliance on government plans as a solution to the looming crisis in medicare & Social Security, and their turning away from the plight of life in the womb ------(among other things).

[ChicosBailBonds]

Nathan

You don't see MSNBC to the left?  Keith Olbermann?  Chris Matthews (worked for two Democratic Congressmen before getting into news business).  Etc, etc.

Conservatives don't see Fox as conservative and liberals don't see MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC as liberal....why...because what they report to those constituencies they largely agree with.

[jutaw22mu]

msnbc definetely favors the left.  as a matter of fact, most media agencies aside from fox news are decidedly on the left.  im not sure that fox news leans as much to the right as all the others do to the left but fox news is definetely the closest to unbiased.  everyone just thinks its biased to the right because they're so used to the CNN, MSNBCs, etc of the world.

fox news should host all debates.

[nathanziarek]

I guess I need some proof. Just saying agencies are left or right doesn't mean anything.

I don't watch it enough to actually see the bias, but even the London bureau chief for Fox News said they were heavy right and that it was part of their appeal. Once again, I don't have a problem with that. Just about all sides deserve a venue. Realize that they are not going for "fair and balanced" though. If they were, would they need the slogan?

Just because a person worked for a democrat doesn't mean they can't be non-partisan. I've asked for an example of biased questioning between the two debates, and no one's responded yet.

Soudns to me like yet another republican talking point ("liberal media!"), that, said enough, will eventually be taken for granted. How an organization that actually made liberal a dirty word can claim they somehow are denied fair coverage by a liberal media is beyond me.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I guess I need some proof. Just saying agencies are left or right doesn't mean anything.

I don't watch it enough to actually see the bias, but even the London bureau chief for Fox News said they were heavy right and that it was part of their appeal. Once again, I don't have a problem with that. Just about all sides deserve a venue. Realize that they are not going for "fair and balanced" though. If they were, would they need the slogan?

Just because a person worked for a democrat doesn't mean they can't be non-partisan. I've asked for an example of biased questioning between the two debates, and no one's responded yet.

Soudns to me like yet another republican talking point ("liberal media!"), that, said enough, will eventually be taken for granted. How an organization that actually made liberal a dirty word can claim they somehow are denied fair coverage by a liberal media is beyond me.

How about 20 major studies the last 30 years by Pew, UCLA, Stanford, etc, etc analyzing media voting patterns, survey data, etc....would that help?

Happy to post those if you wish.  As just a small example, in 1992 89% of the media voted for Bill Clinton when the American public only gave Clinton 43%.   WHOA.  That's not just a small statistical outlyer, but a major tectonic shift.

When papers like the NY Times haven't endorsed a Republican for President in 80 years except ONE TIME (Eisenhower) or the Washington Post NEVER having done it, that makes you scratch your head.  I mean, these papers really thought Jimmy Carter deserved a second term? 

At any rate, I'm happy to dig up those surveys or you can find them quite easily with a search.

I still love Walter Kronkite's honest answer a few years ago.  "Of course we (the media) are liberal"

[nathanziarek]

I believe there are liberal papers the same way there are conservative ones. I also believe that an editor that leans left can approve articles with a conservative bias, and journalists with a conservative bias can believe in gun control. Simply determining if journalists are conservative or liberal doesn't really tell me if the specific media is conservative or liberal, let alone the entire industry, like you are claiming.

The most recent Pew study asked a single question about political leanings.

I found a great quote about the UCLA study:

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co?author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The nation, taken as an average, is center. Congress is (supposedly) representative of the country. The study was done in 2005, when Congress was overwhelming Republican.

So, if the major media outlets were "moderate" compared to Congress, and Congress was leaning left, that would really mean that the media outlets were leaning right.

Anyway, I'm not going to convince anyone differently. You just keep feeling persecuted in the liberal media and watch Fox News exclusively. I'll keep reading the Liberal Times, and we'll continue to never see eye-to-eye

[Murffieus]

The nation in 2005 may collectively have been center----but the constant struggle is to move that center either right or left to make that "center" more liberal or less liberal----or put another way ----more conservative or less conservative.

Roughly 35% of the country is intrenched as liberal and 35% conservative----with the other 30 % the swing sentiment.----- e.g. if the swing breaks 20%-10% conservative at any given time, that center moves to the right. That's where the politial battle is----the swing vote! Right now the swing appears to have broken to the left!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Comments from the press on how it was conducted


The second presidential debate is over. The dust is still settling as to who did the best or the worst but one thing is clear: Fox News proved to be a much better debate host than MSNBC.





"There is no comparison between Brit Hume and Chris Matthews, and the two networks as well. This was crisp, sharp, with germane and substantive questions and a minimum of silliness. The MSNBC forum was so silly that it almost defied description. Perhaps the Democrats should reconsider their allergy to Fox."


or this one

"That was simply in a different league than the goofball format and goofball "moderators" on MSNBC.  Given the crowded stage and time constraints, the debate still produced memorable moments, spontaneous conflict, and useful shakeouts."



           

[Mayor McCheese]

Nobody with any sense accuses liberals for "hating America"-----some of the things that bother me about liberals is their tolerance in the face of threats from abroad, their thirst for higher taxes to redistribute wealth, excluive reliance on government plans as a solution to the looming crisis in medicare & Social Security, and their turning away from the plight of life in the womb ------(among other things).

abortion as an issue is pointless to argue, either you are for it or against it, no one is really on the fence on this issue... my one main argument about it is, why is it a bunch of older white wealthy men's decision on what a women wants to do.  If you make abortion clinics illegal, will it stop abortions, no, they will just go to unhealthy means about going to get them done.  And in my eyes, a fetus in the womb is not a living human being, sorry, maybe when in the third trimester, but abortions are barely done in this trimester, only when it is known that the baby will hurt/kill the mother I think that they are done.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Nobody with any sense accuses liberals for "hating America"-----some of the things that bother me about liberals is their tolerance in the face of threats from abroad, their thirst for higher taxes to redistribute wealth, excluive reliance on government plans as a solution to the looming crisis in medicare & Social Security, and their turning away from the plight of life in the womb ------(among other things).

abortion as an issue is pointless to argue, either you are for it or against it, no one is really on the fence on this issue... my one main argument about it is, why is it a bunch of older white wealthy men's decision on what a women wants to do.  If you make abortion clinics illegal, will it stop abortions, no, they will just go to unhealthy means about going to get them done.  And in my eyes, a fetus in the womb is not a living human being, sorry, maybe when in the third trimester, but abortions are barely done in this trimester, only when it is known that the baby will hurt/kill the mother I think that they are done.

Because those "older, white, wealthy men" care about the baby kicking in the womb....that's why.   You do realize the original woman in Roe v Wade has also changed her mind and totally against abortion.  Though I agree with you, people are not riding the fence on this one.

As for your definition of when a baby is a baby, well we have examples of premature babies living outside the womb at 20 weeks.  As a father of two, when I saw the ultrasounds of my kids early in development sucking their thumb, kicking, etc....well, it was more than a "fetus" to me I can assure you.  But to others it is not.  Fair enough.

However, the concept of partial birth abortions in the 3rd trimester is grotesque and how anyone supports it (80% of the public does not) is mindboggling, but yet some on the left want to keep that dream alive of delivering the baby half way, cutting a hole in the head, inserting an instrument to scramble the brain and then sucking it out...or you can go for the crushing of the skull.  I don't care how often it's done, the fact this procedure is allowed is mindboggling.

These are the same lunatics that while supporting this practice wet their pants when a serial killer is given a lethal injection that puts him asleep forever because it's "cruel and unusual".  Think about it.

[muarmy81]

honestly,
people need to be given a vasectomy or make them steril around birth and then you need to complete a test to be able to reproduce...if you can't make up your mind to keep a baby after months of being pregnant you shouldn't be reproducing in the first place.  As my in-laws are foster care parents and have also adopted I have seen how desperate some people are to raise children.  If you don't want your child or don't have the means to provide for the child fine, the state will find one of thousands upon thousands of couples who have tried to have their own children unsuccessfully but still have the desire to be parents.  There are sooo many capable couples out there who want to raise children so to me flushing a fetus or aborting a baby is such a waste of life.

[nathanziarek]

The nation in 2005 may collectively have been center----but the constant struggle is to move that center either right or left ...

Just so that I am not misquoted: The entire national personality, when averaged out, defines the center. The center changes -- after 9/11, the center was heavily in favor of strong military. After Enron the center was strongly in favor of forced corporate responsiblity.  Eventually it levels out, and it could level out in a way that would make you think the country leans left or right, but that would be inaccurate. The country is center. You can only believe right or left of it.

Great. Now I'm confused.

[Murffieus]

The political center moves------currently it has moved to the left----for how long is anyone's guess----will depend a lot on our success in Iraq which the liberal wing of the Democratic party is trying to limit!