Which candidate of the other party has impressed you most this year and why?

[tower912]

And now, for more endless debate.....
I would have to say McCain.   Not one of the rest of the R's has impressed me yet, and I still have some residual respect for him left over from 2000.
My personal order of D's.   1.  Richardson   2. Edwards  3. Obama 4. Biden  5.  Clinton  6. Dodd   7.  Kucinich   8. Gravel

[jutaw22mu]

i'll answer your question....not that i would vote for him, but edwards has been the most impressive dem so far, in my opinion.  i definetly do not like obama, and could only see myself voting for hillary if it was between her and rudy.


my order for the republicans is: 1. Brownback  2. Huckabee  3.  Paul  4.  Fred Thompson (hope he decides to run)  5. Romney  6.  McCain  ...........Last place, even losing to some dems...Rudy

[Murffieus]

IMO, Romney will get the Republican nomination------graduated #1 from his Ivy league school law class-----extremely succesful business man------rescued the winter Olympics-----a Republican elected as Governor of the State of Massachsetts (are you kidding me?)-----and by far the most impressive stage presence of any of the candidates of either party.

Hillary vs Mitt Romeny in the pre election debates----no contest!

[ChicosBailBonds]

And now, for more endless debate.....
I would have to say McCain.   Not one of the rest of the R's has impressed me yet, and I still have some residual respect for him left over from 2000.
My personal order of D's.   1.  Richardson   2. Edwards  3. Obama 4. Biden  5.  Clinton  6. Dodd   7.  Kucinich   8. Gravel

I think Edwards is so far in over his head and when he lectures me on "two Americas" with the crap he's pulled, sorry but that isn't going to fly...he would get crushed.  Quite frankly, no one has impressed me on either side with the slight exception of Romney and Obama.  Obama only because he's held up this long and hasn't caved in yet which has surprised me.  He's also way in over his head long term, but he's holding up so far....largely because the media won't touch him.  He's the golden child right now.

Romney I've come in contact a few times via the sports route.  He's impressive but the Mormon thing will hurt him with a lot of people in this country....and the press will remind the voters every day and every hour that he's Mormon should he get the nomination.  You won't be able to turn on the television for 30 seconds without every expose, every controversial ruling, every scandal, etc that the Mormon Church has gone through since the religion began.  They will have a field day, especially the hard core lefty media.

McCain...no chance whatsoever in my opinion.  And Kucinich...OMG.  I lived in Cleveland for many years....how that man hasn't been put in a little white straight jacket by now is the most surprising item of the day.  Makes me yearn for the days of Mary Rose Okar, another Ohioan that was loopy and finally got caught with her hand in the cookie jar.

Run Fred Run.

[Murffieus]

If being a morman is the only skeleton in Romney's closet----no problem----this isn't the 1950s----Kennedy had a much bigger problem at that time with his Catholism----and guess what----he ran very well in the Bible Belt!

If the voters of Massachucetts weren't turned off by his being Mormon----it will fly elsewhere----any Republican who can get elected in the State of Mass.-----where Dems outnumber Repulicans at least 3 to 1 has something going for him.

Mass. voters were looking for reasons to vote FOR Romney and not looking for reasons (Mormonism) to vote against him!

[mu_hilltopper]

I disagree that the media would start doing hack jobs on Mormanism.

I'd guess the real problem for Romney would be the Republicans in the South more than anywhere else.  Of course, who else are they going to vote for?  Would it be enough to flip a red state blue, probably not.

[Mayor McCheese]

If being a morman is the only skeleton in Romney's closet----no problem----this isn't the 1950s----Kennedy had a much bigger problem at that time with his Catholism----and guess what----he ran very well in the Bible Belt!

If the voters of Massachucetts weren't turned off by his being Mormon----it will fly elsewhere----any Republican who can get elected in the State of Mass.-----where Dems outnumber Repulicans at least 3 to 1 has something going for him.

Mass. voters were looking for reasons to vote FOR Romney and not looking for reasons (Mormonism) to vote against him!

reason why JFK did so well was it was the first televised election... and every girl would give JFK her v-jay-jay.  I also enjoy that the topic is a candidate from the OTHER PARTY... and Murff goes back to his Fox News and Republican ways... nice reading murff

[Murffieus]

Mayor----Well Romney is a physically attractive candidate as well----therefore according to your theory looks will trump religion. I agree somewhat----but in addition -----Romney's has the best stage presence since Reagan-----and that's very, very important in this era of TV debates!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Hilltopper, just watch.  They will pound and pound and pound his religion into the ground.  It will be the topic from the media like you can't believe.  It's in the playbook, just watch.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Mayor----Well Romney is a physically attractive candidate as well----therefore according to your theory looks will trump religion. I agree somewhat----but in addition -----Romney's has the best stage presence since Reagan-----and that's very, very important in this era of TV debates!

Fred Thompson is getting in.  Will announce July 4th.  Would love a Thompson / Romney ticket....would prefer a Thompson / Hunter ticket, however.

[mu_hilltopper]

I suppose that, too, will come down to interpretation.  Of course there'd be stories about Mormonism, as let's face it, few of us would know a Mormon codicil if it came up and bit us on the leg.   Few of us know the history, the past and present rules, etc.  So of course there'd be stories about it, if Romney is one of the last guys standing.

The big question would be, would these stories be "fair" or "unfair" to Mormons.  Is it fair to explain the history?  Absolutely.  While you're predisposed to believe NBC/ABC/CBS has an ulterior motive to defeat him because he's republican, I do not.   Of course, we all know how this argument ends.  Brian Williams will, of course, do a 4 minute bit on Mormonism.  He'll say polygamy was allowed XX years ago, but it's not allowed anymore, yet they may find some polygamists in Utah and interview them. 

I'll say this is fair representation of the history of Mormonism, because, well, it is.  You'll say it's a liberal media textbook play to screw with a Republican.

Fortunately, I believe Fox news will also do the exact same story a dozen times.  But that, miraculously, won't be frowned upon. 

Keep in mind, I consider myself a Republican.  But I've been disgusted with the death of truth the far right has invented.  It's a very sorry state we're now in.

[augoman]

I agree, 'Topper, but both the far right and far left turn me off.  BTW, what is Barack Hussein Obama's religious affilliation, if any, and why haven't we heard of it?

[Murffieus]

Chico----Thompson doesn't have a chance---looks old (check out those bags under his eyes), he's bald, has Lymphoma----all these don't speak to his abilitity to run the country----but these do speak to his image which is very important to be elected or even nominated.

BTW----I don't think this country is ready for a true blue conservative right now----IMO, we will have to settle for a hybrid conservative .

[Warrior1996]

Looks like George Clooney and Matt Damon are throwing in with Obama. If Obama's good enough for them, he's good enough for me.


That's sarcasm, by the way.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chico----Thompson doesn't have a chance---looks old (check out those bags under his eyes), he's bald, has Lymphoma----all these don't speak to his abilitity to run the country----but these do speak to his image which is very important to be elected or even nominated.

BTW----I don't think this country is ready for a true blue conservative right now----IMO, we will have to settle for a hybrid conservative .

Thompson just took the lead in the betting lines Murff.  Money talks.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Looks like George Clooney and Matt Damon are throwing in with Obama. If Obama's good enough for them, he's good enough for me.


That's sarcasm, by the way.

[Pakuni]

I agree, 'Topper, but both the far right and far left turn me off.  BTW, what is Barack Hussein Obama's religious affilliation, if any, and why haven't we heard of it?

Obama is a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's far south side (near 95th and the Dan ryan, if that helps). He's been a member there for 20+ years.

Here's a story about the church if you want to read more:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-elect/2007/mar/19/031900207.html

[ChicosBailBonds]

I suppose that, too, will come down to interpretation.  Of course there'd be stories about Mormonism, as let's face it, few of us would know a Mormon codicil if it came up and bit us on the leg.   Few of us know the history, the past and present rules, etc.  So of course there'd be stories about it, if Romney is one of the last guys standing.

The big question would be, would these stories be "fair" or "unfair" to Mormons.  Is it fair to explain the history?  Absolutely.  While you're predisposed to believe NBC/ABC/CBS has an ulterior motive to defeat him because he's republican, I do not.   Of course, we all know how this argument ends.  Brian Williams will, of course, do a 4 minute bit on Mormonism.  He'll say polygamy was allowed XX years ago, but it's not allowed anymore, yet they may find some polygamists in Utah and interview them. 

I'll say this is fair representation of the history of Mormonism, because, well, it is.  You'll say it's a liberal media textbook play to screw with a Republican.

Fortunately, I believe Fox news will also do the exact same story a dozen times.  But that, miraculously, won't be frowned upon. 

Keep in mind, I consider myself a Republican.  But I've been disgusted with the death of truth the far right has invented.  It's a very sorry state we're now in.

The far right invented the "death of truth"...what exactly would this be?  Please explain.


As far as my belief that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN have it out for conservatives...uhm yes.  When Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Jeff Greenfield, every major study on the press ever done show the leanings of these people...well let's just say that as "professional" as they claim to be, I think they are still human beings.  Many of them are very good at keeping their bias out of a story, but it is often the story itself that tells the story.  In other words, what stories THEY decide are newsworthy, what actually ends up on the tube or in the paper.  They shape the discussion and put the topics out there and that is the bias I am talking about.

Case in point with the recent torture manual that Al Queda had and the virtual non story reported by our press.  A good summary here today by a conservative group asking why:

MRC President Brent Bozell issued the following statement regarding this matter:

"The elite media's liberal bias is abundantly clear in this case. U.S. soldiers raided several al-Qaeda safe houses in Iraq and discovered stacks of evidence about how al-Qaeda tortures its victims. The tools, the drawings, and the photos are gruesome and clearly show what type of enemy the U.S. is facing.

"Yet most of the liberal media are deliberately silent. This is the same self-righteous liberal media that ran more than 6,000 stories and countless photos of Abu Ghraib and the abuse of prisoners there by several U.S. soldiers. Where are they now? Why will they not show the American people what al-Qaeda is actually doing in Iraq right now? Whose side are they on?

"Al-Qaeda's crimes are a thousand-fold more brutal than anything done by any derelict U.S. soldier. Yet it's obvious now that the liberal media want to focus on U.S. misdeeds, and alleged misdeeds, and theoretical misdeeds instead of giving the truth to the American people."

[mu_hilltopper]

The death of truth is simply the idea that we no longer have truth, specifically in stories that are critical about any issue.

When a media outlet (or new-media blogger, for that matter) reports a story, those who don't like the story immediately target the source, not its validity.  Iraq isn't going badly, it's that damned liberal media.  Alberto Gonzales is a good guy, it's just the liberal media that's hosing him. -- And, of course, the far left does the same sort of vilification of Fox News.

In the end, it's the death of truth.  There isn't a single media outlet that everyone can agree on anymore, mostly due to the relentless battle cry of "liberal media".  -- To add to that, from our earlier voter fraud story, we can't trust a Bush selected US prosecutor anymore because he's not conservative enough.  ARGH!

Do I believe your list of news guys "lean" liberal?  Sure.  They're human, they're not machines, they're intelligent, and are highly connected to the daily stories of our planet.  Of course they have opinions.  But I completely reject the idea that they "have it out" for one group or another.   I believe, by and large, they are professionals, doing their jobs while trying to be fair.  -- Do they succeed in being fair 365 days a year?  Probably not.  Unfortunately, they are currently being measured during 6 years of the Bush Presidency, which I honestly believe has been disastrous. -- And that's from a guy who voted for him in 2000. -- So, surprise surprise, many of the stories they have to report cast this disastrous administration in a negative light.

Will "big media" (let's face it, they're still in charge) miss/not emphasize some helpful-to-Bush story now and then?  Sure, as your Al Qaeda torture manual story suggests.   Do I believe Brian Williams and Jim Lehrer saw the story, and with an evil cackle, decided not to put it on just to screw with Bush and advance liberal causes?  Not on your life.  I believe these men are striving to be fair and honest.  And I assume you'll disagree with that.   

The level of our intellectual and political paralysis deepens on a daily basis, as no one can be looked at as an independent arbiter of truth and reaity.   And it's very, very sad because there are a great many fair minded people.  But if they're not fair in your favor, well, then they must be biased, can't be trusted, their story is bunk, and they have an agenda.   

And that, is the death of truth.

(As a side note, I watch the nightly news every night.  Very sorry state.  10 minutes of news, 13 minutes of fluff, the rest ads.  Terrible.)

[Pakuni]

Hilltopper .... great post.

Chico's .... the reason the al Qaeda manual story hasn't been as widely reported as you would like isn't liberal bias, it's news judgment.
It is not - I repeat, not - major news that al Qaeda types use torture and other sadistic means.  It's already been well documented, over and over. We know this because it's been reported over and over again: from Daniel Pearl to Nick Berg to the U.S. soliders tortured and killed in Iraq last year. The fact that they may have a manual on this stuff is hardly earth-shattering, or surprising, information. It's akin to learning that the U.S. Army has a manual showing how to shoot a rifle.

The same cannot, or at least should not, be said of the American armed forces. Our guys are not supposed to torture and when they do, it is indeed a major news story.

[Murffieus]

I think Al Quida torture events of a significant nature are indeed a major news event as it best describes what we are up against and why it's so important to win in Iraq & Afghanistan. These people are ruthless----you have to go back to the Atilla the Hun era to find anything as disturbing !

When an American soldier dies the National news media makes a big deal out of that-----everyday you hear "and 5 MORE American  soldiers died today in Iraq (then they go into detail how they died (roadside bomb)-----and that brings the total to 116 the deadliest month since October of 2005 and it brings the total death totald to 3,555".----then they show a graph each day and show the names, where they are from, etc

Now if day after day the news media can emphasize the number of soldiers killed-----i think that it is incumbant on them to also highlight significant torture events so the American public is similarily reminded each day about the brutality of the enemy.

Bottomline----they want to give the american public the idea that our soldiers are there dying in vain----that it's  a futile effort----that we're merely caught between the two sides in a civil war----we have nothing to gain by being there-----  blah, blah, blah!

85% of the media are liberals by their own account to pollsters!

[ChicosBailBonds]

What you are describing is hardly something "invented" by Republicans or anyone else.  Media speculation has been going on for decades, but even more so now when distinguished journalists for 30+ years like Bernard Goldberg come out and flat out tell you the bias exists.  When Dan Rather is faking memos, etc.

I'm sorry for the cynicism, but there is no reason NOT to be cynical.  These guys have been caught in the cookie jar too many times, especially off camera.

And guess what....GOOD!  I'm glad there isn't a single media outlet that everyone can agree upon.  You know why that is the case...BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN ACTIONS.  Because so many people on both sides of the political spectrum have exposed Fox News, exposed CBS and the NY Times, etc.  They have NO ONE to blame but themselves.  NO ONE.  When PBS last week permanently banned a correspondent because she was conservative but didn't do the same for the liberal that was on the same show....I'm sorry, that screams rank partisianship. 

When the "nation's newspaper" picks the same party's candidate for president for 80 straight years sans one year, that makes you scratch your head.  When 89% of journalists say they voted for President Clinton in an election in which only 43% of the electorate did, that makes you scratch your head.

On the torture manuals, I'm sorry I don't buy the argument or Pakuni's.  The media is 100% in bed with the left's notion that the danger is "overstated" or doesn't exist.  So when something comes up to suggest otherwise, no way in hell are they going to help perpetuate that the right may be correct.  No different then the Fort Dix situation last month when the NY Times to this day still doesn't see a religious connection..OMFG. 

Pakuni, how the hell can it NOT be major news if we still have people like Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell and close to 50% of the electorate (recent poll) stating that the threat isn't real of terrorism.  It obviously IS big news if this many people believe these people are not a threat and out their having pillow parties.

I'm absolutely convinced this country will have to suffer another MAJOR attack until the media cares again and digs into it.  Until then, they will paint everyone that believes a threat exists as boogeymen.  A day will come, sooner rather than later and it will unfortuantely be a giant "WE TOLD YOU SO"

[tower912]

I am as troubled by the fact that 70% of the people thought that Saddam was directly involved with 9/11 on the eve of the invasion as I am by the idea that 50% of the people aren't concerned with terrorism.  Hell, 50% of Floridians aren't making emergency preparations for the next major hurricane.  I KNOW we are going to get hit again.  It is inevitable.  What makes anyone think we will be the only nation excluded from terrorism?   It could be the next Rudolph, or McVeigh, or Nichols, or disgruntled VTech student, or anonymous anthrax mailer.    Terror is going to happen.   So we should act like it is going to happen and prepare.    But, here in Michigan, there are 1000 fewer police officers/state troopers than there were on 9/10/2001.   There are 500 fewer firefighters.   So, I am positive that we will get hit again, but I REFUSE TO LIVE MY LIFE IN FEAR.   So, does that make me part of the group un-concerned with terrorism?   I don't know.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Great point.  I refuse to live my life in fear as well, nor am I suggesting anyone should.  I'm talking more about this notion that whenever something comes up now that suggest the realities of terrorism are still very much there (Fort Dix, etc), it sure seems to get almost no play in the press.  That is more than a coincidence in my mind.

We spend more time analyzing some idiot personal injury attorney in Atlanta flying around the world with non-contagious TB as if 300,000,000 Americans are on their death bed then examining the very people out there that actually would love nothing better to do then hurt others.  The press clearly buys into the notion "there is no terrorist threat" (uttered so lovingly by Michael Moore).  I've heard folks from the AP and other news organizations site this line with complete duplication.  And I guess they are right....that is until another attack which is absolutely sure to happen.


Incidentally, the results of a poll ongoing right now (take it for what it's worth...I don't like polls much and this is definitely a push poll on a conservative site)



Are the mainstream media doing enough to report on the threat of radical Islam in the U.S.?
Yes 1,078
No 54,933

Do you think the mainstream media have a more favorable view of Islam than Christianity?
Yes 49,342
No 6,337

Do you think the mainstream media are intentionally refusing to report on the rise of radical Islam?
Yes 52,872
No 2,843

Do you think radical Muslims will practice suicide bombings in the U.S. in the near future?
Yes 53,288
No 2,285

Do you think our government should do more to appease the demands of radical Muslims?
Yes 3,754
No 52,156

[SoCalwarrior]

You were right to qualify your pole results, but at least give us the source so we know just how biased they are.

"I admit it : The liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

William Kristol

"I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage - all we could have asked. ... For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every republican on earth does that."

Pat Buchanan