Spoiled Democrats and Debates

[medicinal]

you don't show your hand when you're bluffing:

with their party riding high in a wave of media driven bush hatred, the last thing the dems want is for the public to get a good look at nuts and bolts of their agenda. with their recent history of temporary band-aids and whining defeatism, the last thing they need is for the voters to see the yawning void behind the rhetoric.

meanwhile:

with the current administration's bungling of everything they set their hand to, the reps are desperately trying to get the message out that they are more than just a one trick pony. they must use every venue to distance themselves from bush and company's futile tactics and bring attention to some of their more profitable ideas.

in short:

if this election is centered solely on our fiasco in the middle east, then we are doomed to at least four years of do-nothing social programs and ivory tower theatrics. if the public is more interested in the workings of government than its pie in the sky facade, then we might be stuck with more of the same two faced piety that has brought us to this sorry pass.

somebody please tell me:

how do you choose the lesser of two evils when they are both equally insane?

Vote for the one that will stop the war!!! It's obvious you have no party that will change the world, so get off your high horse and live with the facts.

medicinal Reviewed by medicinal on 05-15-2007. Spoiled Democrats and Debates We've now finished the first two presidential debates, both on MSNBC. Pundits are debating whether they will make a difference in the race, but one thing is very clear: It's business as usual for the media moderating these things. The Democrats were treated to an amiable chit-chat among friends. The Republicans took round after round of hostile fire from enemies. Nothing ever changes. The Democrats are spoiled like rotten kids, and the Republicans are invited to sleep on a bed of nails â?? and Rating: 5

[Psycho4Bud]

Vote for the one that will stop the war!!! It's obvious you have no party that will change the world, so get off your high horse and live with the facts.

Can't tell ya which one would for sure since they're to uppity to debate on TV. So how many of the recently elected dems stated that only to approve nothing more than non-binding resolutions?

Have a good one!:s4:

[RamblerGambler]

Facts speak for themselves. Who controlled every branch of government, from the executive to the judicial for years, and yet still still acted like a minority party by blaming the Democrats for their inability to accomplish anything of substance. Tax cuts for the wealthy, a surplus turned to the largest national debt in our history, record high gas prices as Oil company's post record earnings. I'm not even going to go into the almost daily scandals that seem to plague the Grand Old Party.

How about we chose a candadate that won't fill oversight positions with members of that industry. Someone that won't use creative names on bills to pass "No Child Left Behind" and the "Clean Air Act" come to mind. Forget stay the course, it's time for a change.

[Psycho4Bud]

Facts speak for themselves. Who controlled every branch of government, from the executive to the judicial for years.

During the Fifth Party System after 1932, the Democrats controlled the House from 1932 to 1994, with two exceptions (1946 and 1952), as the New Deal Coalition was successful. In terms of legislation, however, the Conservative coalition usually blocked liberal legislative proposals, except in 1964-65 when President Lyndon Johnson had the majorities to pass his Great Society proposals. The most important leader was long-time Democratic Speaker Sam Rayburn. The Republicans under Newt Gingrich returned to a majority in the election of 1994, as part of the Republican Revolution that gave the party both houses and a majority of governorships that year.

The Democrats gained 30 seats in the 2006 elections, regaining control and electing Nancy Pelosi as the first woman Speaker. Voter response to the war in Iraq and numerous Republican congressional scandals were most influential to Republican losses.
History of the United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The chart in this link shows that the Senate has been under Dem. control more often than not.
Party leaders of the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BUT, can you explain why they won't or shouldn't debate on Fox; Something that is sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus? Doesn't this show the American public a side of arrogance that could come back to haunt the party? What it shows is that they aren't prepared or willing to answer tough questions. Not an "electable" feature.

"a surplus turned to the largest national debt in our history"
We haven't had a surplus since the 1800's.......a more accurate account of debt is how it relates to the GDP. Chart below:

Have a good one!:s4:

[RamblerGambler]

Thanks to the quality work of Devilstower, the main debate of this thread can be put to the test. If I have it straight, weak democrats are tossed softball questions by the "liberal media" while stoic rupublicans stand up to a pummeling by the liberal elite. Maybe toss in how unfair it is that fox news won't get a debate any time soon, how things would be even then.

Here then are the first three questions asked in each debate. The questions alternate starting with Democrats and are followed by Republicans. Summary is bold. Again, this is courtesy of Devilstower.

Senator Clinton, your party's leader in the United States Senate, Harry Reid, recently said the war in Iraq is lost. A letter to today's USA Today calls his comments "treasonous" and says if General Patton were alive today, Patton would "wipe his boots" with Senator Reid. Do you agree with the position of your leader in the Senate?

In the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, just 22 percent believe this country is on the right track. Mayor Giuliani, how do we get back to Ronald Reagan's morning in America?

Okay, in round one, a Democratic leader is declared a treasonous weakling based on a misquote and ravings from a LTE. A former Republican leader is seen as the goal to which we should aspire. Certainly "fair and balanced" so far.

Senator Obama, you have called this war in Iraq, quote, "dumb," close quote. How do you square that position with those who have sacrificed so much? And why have you voted for appropriations for it in the past?


Senator McCain, most of the public pessimism today has to do with Iraq. What would you need, as commander in chief, to win the war in Iraq?

In round two, a Democratic senator is shown to be a hypocrite who doesn't respect the troops, while a Republican senator is asked what he needs to dispel public gloom and seize victory. Nothing to see here.

Senator Edwards, you made a high-profile apology for your vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution. You have said, quote, "We need a leader who will be open and honest, who will tell the truth when they made a mistake." Was that not a direct shot at your opponent, Senator Clinton?


Governor Thompson, if you're commander in chief and you want to win this war in Iraq, what do you need to do to win it?


And in round three, Democrats are invited to wallow in their past mistakes and take pot shots at each other, while Republicans are given another opportunity to win, Win, WIN! All good.

Yes, truly the republicans are victims of America's savage liberal media.

[Psycho4Bud]

Yes, truly the republicans are victims of America's savage liberal media.

Rounds? Those were the first three questions directed at the dem candidates:
South Carolina Democratic debate transcript - The Debates - MSNBC.com

So since they caught a lil' heat on the Dems R Us news channel they don't feel that they could handle themselves on Fox? LMAO!!

Also, weren't the Republican candidates grilled on abortion rights and stem cell research?

Face it, the Dems punked out by not debating on FOX.

Have a good one!:s4:

[medicinal]

Rounds? Those were the first three questions directed at the dem candidates:
South Carolina Democratic debate transcript - The Debates - MSNBC.com

So since they caught a lil' heat on the Dems R Us news channel they don't feel that they could handle themselves on Fox? LMAO!!

Also, weren't the Republican candidates grilled on abortion rights and stem cell research?

Face it, the Dems punked out by not debating on FOX.

Have a good one!:s4:

If someone had a made up audience that were cued to boo after your responses and cheer when the moderator ask a question, would you want to go on there. I believe it was the most intelligent thing to do, refuse those monkeys on fox. They might as well have that great right wing god, Rupert Murdoch, ask the questions and have geriatric right wing nutcases in the audience that will applaud on cue and boo any democratic explanation of the skewed questions. Fox news has outlived it's usefullness. It is seen by most as right wing rhetorical bullshit spouting hatemongers. And if you can't see that, then you're one of them!

[Psycho4Bud]

The audience is told both on MSNBC and on FOX not to applaud, etc. in order to get in more questions with the time alotted.

I would think that the dems would WANT to debate on FOX in order to get the attention of those that are more middle of the road. That would be like the Republican candidates banning MSNBC due to the majority of the tree huggers in charge.

Colmes is a VERY prominant figure on FOX and he's further to the left than Obama.........

Have a good one!:s4:

[RamblerGambler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPd9yjvF7Mw


Fair and balanced? Torture is back on the table according to the candidates last night. And listen to the fox crowd go wild.

[Psycho4Bud]

YouTube - REPUBLICANS APPLAUD FOR TORTURE!


Fair and balanced? Torture is back on the table according to the candidates last night. And listen to the fox crowd go wild.

And this has "what" to do with spoiled democrats?

Have a good one!:s4: