Posted by NowHearThis on September 2, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

STAR Liberal Bias: "Democrats have been almost giddy all year, because national polls show that their party is far more popular than the Republicans in general terms, and in most congressional races .... But the presidential race is tight; the latest CNN poll, for example, shows Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., with a 1-point lead over Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz."

Two points: The Dem-Liberal Congress has the "lowest" approval rating ever, in the single digits. It's been a do-nothing congress. Remember when the DEMs ran on ending the war forthwith? They either lied on their campaign promises in '06 or they pulled the wool over the eyes of the undereducated, uniformed DEM electorate.

#2: Obama has a so-called one-point lead over McCain, this after a rousing DEM convention. With all the excitement and Hollywood idiot star power, one would think there would be a 20-point bounce.

Just because the DEMS elites on both coasts think they are a shoe in, there is another part of the country, "fly over" who don't buy leftist-liberal ideology.

Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on September 2, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmmmm. Do we see some liberal bias in the article? "Taxin" Jackson is among the biggest losers in the history of California politics. She is an extremely poor manager whose solution to any problem is to take more of my EARNED money to give to others, even if they are illegal immigrants.

I've never been as disgusted as I am now. From the radical creeps who are demonstrating in the neighborhood of the RNC to those who are trashing Palin in blogs and articles, this is liberalism at its worst. What is sick is that Palin is being trashed on family matters which have nothing to do with her record of accomplishment. Her approach to the situation has increased my resolve to support her.

Sarah Palin has accomplished more in her time at bat in politics than Obama and Biden have combined over their entire careers. They have fed at the public trough and they talk a good game as would be expected of lawyers ... but actual accomplishments ... I can't find them anyplace.

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Didn't Dan Quayle take (Candace Bergen's TV character) Murphy Brown to task for having a child without being married?

That was just a TV show, this is the real world. Where is the GOP self-righteous outrage now, or do members of their own party get a pass on that? What a bunch of hypocrites.

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To NowHearThis: How is reporting the facts considered "Liberal Bias"? You Repubs just can't handle the truth that Bush is the worst president ever in the history of this country (and has the approval ratings to match), which is one more reason that you're probably going be swept out of office come November.

Besides, polls at this point are basically meaningless - the only one that counts is the national one that's taken on November 4th.

Posted by gdawg2112 on September 2, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How relevent to bring up Dan Quayle's comments (for those too young to remember, he was elected VP 20 YEARS AGO!). Next you'll bring up Woodrow Wilson. BTW, had the GOP not pushed for the surge, we'd be defeated in Iraq. The irony is that the "end the war" crowd's candidate is pushing for MORE WAR in Afghanistan. Don't worry, the Dems will be surrendering there too after BHO is elected.

Posted by gdawg2112 on September 2, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Marines just handed Anbar over to the Iraqi's (that is in Iraq by the way - since you missed other memos you might not know this little fact). Handing over beats running scared like the Dems advocated.

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To gdawg2112: Damn straight it's relevant to bring up Dan Quayle's comments, or has the GOP suddenly reversed itself on claiming the "moral high ground" (however they define it, based on whatever's convenient for them at any given moment)? Too bad you can't run and hide from your party's abject failures and blatant hypocrisy.

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To gdawg2112: What exactly is our mission in Iraq, again??? Let's see, no WMDs, no Al-Qaeda, Iraq was never a direct and credible threat to this country, etc. etc. etc. So why exactly are we there?

At least Obama had the courage to vote against Bush's ill-conceived invasion of Iraq based on phony intelligence cooked up by a failed administration with its own ulterior motives.

Posted by gdawg2112 on September 2, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well we know the Dems can't take a moral high ground on anything so there is really no point bringing that up. At least the GOP tries to take a moral stand that they frequently can't acheive. I'll let you push the argument that no morals are a better alternative since you seem to be comfortable bringing that to the table.
Nice talking points regurgitation by the way, your party would be proud.
Our mission in Iraq - exactly as defined - Iraqi FREEDOM. Yup, the initial presumption was flawed so now your ilk wants to run away from Iraq as quickly as possible. I think your guy wants to run those troops to Afghanistan? You sure are a war-mongering group. Why the push for more war in Afghanistan? Or am I wrong that you want more troops (= more war) there?

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gdawg2112: Why don't you just concede that you've got no argument on these issues and move on to something more productive? Otherwise we can continue to laugh at you while you continue to dig that hole even deeper and make an even bigger fool of yourself, LOL!

Posted by CaptainAmerica on September 2, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, the tough guy conservative GOP'ers sure are crying a lot about this story. If being a republican is so wonderful why has Ventura County gone from Red to Blue? People are fleeing the Republican party at the greatest rate in history! The GOP convention is in complete turmoil and John McBush is in complete damage mode after his terrible VP pick. Maybe he should have checked her out more than just doing Google searches on her. Palin is supposed to be about "Family Values" and she could not even teach those values to her own daughter! Great story in Rolling Stone magazine this month called "How George Bush Destroyed the GOP", I suggest you all read it!

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GramMars: gdawg2112's rambling, nonsensical rants are just more proof of how out of touch the Repubs are with reality. Luckily most intelligent Americans said "no thanks" to that KoolAid, and we'll vote in a much more competent group of leaders in November.

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Poppa: Your comment assumes that these "tough-guy" Repubs can even read... ;-)

Posted by gdawg2112 on September 2, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To SoCalGuy - sounds like a typical Dem argument. Allow me to paraphrase your recent post: "just shut up". With rhetorical skills such as those, you'll go far with the Dems. Here is the arguement that you seem incapable of differentiating. Murphy Brown was unmarried WITH the child. Palin's daughter has not yet HAD the child but according to the release will MARRY the father. In summary one was unmarried with a kid and one is not. Next, maybe we can demonstrate how to tell an apple from an orange.

Posted by CaptainAmerica on September 2, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gdawg2112 was Larry Craig taking the moral high ground in that men's room stall? Was Foley taking your moral high ground with those male interns? What about Ted Haggart when he was getting massages from that male prostitute? How about George Bush when he lied us into a war in Iraq that has cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives? How about the fact that out of the last four Presidents only one, Clinton, left the Country better off than he found it? Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 all created massive debt, I thought republicans were supposed to be fiscally conservative? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Posted by gdawg2112 on September 2, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So Granmars - if war is wrong as you say so why do you support Obama since he wants to send more troops to Afghanistan?

Posted by gdawg2112 on September 2, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To Poopa - I guess you can't read which is why I said it is better to preach and not succeed than to preach no morals as the Dems. Of all elected folks you mentioned that were caught being immoral, they resign (or at least don't run again in the case of Craig). But the Dems have no pre-conceived notions about morality - they have none. Bill Clinton was up there swinging it around in Denver. I can't help but laugh that the Dems think morals are a bad thing.

Posted by gdawg2112 on September 2, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To Granmars - of course I don't agree with everything my candidate says. But a MAJOR plank of the Dems is no war and here their guy is promoting it in Afghanistan. I didn't bring up Murphy Brown some other clown did and I just illuminated the differences and how the argument was baseless. The essense of his argument is that Dems preach no morals as that is the only way one cannot get called a hypocrite.

Posted by gdawg2112 on September 2, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To Poopa - since the congress controls the money, let's look at the debt shall we: Reagan and Bush had Dem congress = deficit. Clinton had Republican congress = no debt. Bush had Republican congress = debt. The only "real" lesson here is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. No checks, means bouncing checks.

Posted by gdawg2112 on September 2, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So GramMars (and I apologize for spelling it incorrectly in the previous posts) is it wrong to point out that inner-city "families" suffer with only one parent around? This suffering causes lots of social ills like crime, illiteracy, welfare, etc. Is it not necessary for politicians to point out such things when they harm the common-good? Sadly, the effects of not talking about morals results in more of the inner city ills for you cannot fix it by not speaking of morals.

Posted by Mr_E_Man on September 2, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just cause so many lib-hating GOP dihards here have brought it up, I would like someone here to name a dem that actually advocates this so-called no morals preachiness that you keep talking about and back it up with an actual fact.

In Obama's speech, he said he wanted to more parental responsibility, he wanted to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and to bring more transparency (less lies and deception) to the political process in Washington.

That doesn't sound anti-moral to me. But then again, you conservitards seem to hear only what you want to hear and conveniently lie about things that hurt your argument.

On no, I'm sure to get a lashing from the right-wing decepticons now. Gawd forbid someone calls them on their BS.

Posted by gdawg2112 on September 2, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All I use is logic, Mr_E_Man. If you get mad at the conservitards for preaching morals and falling short then logic demands that the only way to not be a hypocrite is to preach no morals. Get it?
We are all human and fall short and cannot expect perfection from any. So one will always be a hypocrite at some point unless you preach no morals. Tell your child not to lie but if your wife asks if the dress makes her butt look big - you just became a hypocrite or you sleep on the couch.

Posted by CaptainAmerica on September 2, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gdawg, you really are ignorant. You see, only democrats have morals, republicans have none. They prove it daily. Palin preaches family values and she can't even keep her then 16 year old daughter from giving it up to a 17 year old who describes himself on his Myspace page as a "F**KEN Redneck and we kick anyone's as* we don't like and I don't want no kids". Have you noticed also how when a democratic man is caught in a sex scandal it is almost always with a woman, but when a republican male is caught it is almost always with another man? The morals are that republican's say don't do something and then do it themselves. In terms of Afganistan Obama is going after the man who actually was behind 911. Republicans not only cannot find Bin Laden you guys cannot even find your own butts with both hands.

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gdawg2112: Nice try, but you've still got no argument. Keep sputtering, we're really enjoying laughing at you.

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Poppa: Great posts, keep it up. LOL!

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gdawg2112: Both are pregnant and unmarried. Don't try to parse that into anything else, especially since we didn't drink the GOP KoolAid and can still think and discuss issues intelligently.

Posted by CaptainAmerica on September 2, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also gdawg by calling me "Poopa" I think it shows that you have your mind in that Larry Craig mode. I also heard a rumor that they have arrested 65 GOP male delegates in the men's room at the Minn/St. Paul airport since yesterday when they started arriving for the convention. Maybe John McBush had to pick a conservative woman because he could not find a straight conservative male. Makes you wonder.

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

E_Man: "I would like someone here to name a dem that actually advocates this so-called no morals preachiness that you keep talking about and back it up with an actual fact."

They won't because they can't. Luckily their days are numbered, approval ratings don't lie. :-)

Posted by Mr_E_Man on September 2, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since gdawg doesn't know the difference, here's some clarification. Libs aren't against fighting to defend the country, they are against fighting wars that are rooted in lies. Such is the case with Iraq.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, was a known haven for terrorist activity and continues to be home to high-level Al-Qaida operatives including Osama Bin Laden, who started all this.

As for the congress comparisons, try this on for size... Reagan wasted so much money that he had to reverse gears and increase taxes to pay for it. But even that didn't help reduce the huge deficit he created. Clinton had to wring the republican congress into agreeing to a budget that would restore fiscal responsibility to the nation. To this day they continue to hate him for it, because fiscal responsibility was supposed to be their cause.

Fast forward to Bush junior who lied to us about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. He manipulated scores of political leaders into giving him the authority to waste billion of dollars in Iraq. You can't blame that kind of irresponsibility on congress.

Posted by gdawg2112 on September 2, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From Poopa - "Have you noticed also how when a democratic man is caught in a sex scandal it is almost always with a woman, but when a republican male is caught it is almost always with another man?"

Are you saying that having a gay affair is more immoral than a heterosexual one? Please, I am the ignorant one, enlighten me on how this is so. An affair is an affair, gay or straight or are you making a moral judgement? Be careful, most of your Dem friends embrace (no pun)gay culture.

And again, when caught, the republican steps down or won't run again (in the case of Craig) but Dems can't be accused as hypocrites since they don't preach morals. You yourself stated that only republicans say don't do something. Dems never say don't do something hence the argument on preaching no morals. Is logic tough for you? How were you in math in school? An advanced degree in the sciences was probably not in the cards for you right?

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gdawg2112: "All I use is logic, Mr_E_Man"

You don't know the meaning of the word, at least you sure don't demonstrate it by anything you've posted in this thread.

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gdawg2112: "From Poopa"

Yep, when the republitards don't have anything factual to argue with, out come the ad-hominems. How utterly predictable, how utterly lame. LOL!

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GramMars: "It's official, I have a headache from beating my head against the wall with Gdawg2112's posts. I'm gonna head home tonight and have a drink, maybe then his logic will become clear......"

Hard to create logic where there isn't any, but whatever you do please don't drink the GOP KoolAid - it needs to be declared a controlled substance as a lethal brain toxin.

Posted by gdawg2112 on September 2, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr_E_Man - you are somewhat correct. I partially agree with you (Scary huh?). The war in Afghanistan was the fair and righteous one. Iraq was a bad gamble and was wrong. Had there been WMDs we'd be singing a different tune. However, we are in Iraq now so how do we end it. I'd say the surge is correct, many would disagree but it seems that when you bring up Iraq to a lib, they can't get past the guy who started it. You know what, Bush will be out in what, 6 months. We still have a war in Iraq, how do we do it right? I'd like that to be adressed rather than trashing GW yet again as saying as much doesn't improve anything.
So why are there so many anti-war people in the democratic party (Code-pink, et al)? Or are they not really anti-war? I wonder how many agree with your defnition?
I do agree with the other things you said. I just prefer the fact that under Reagan's policies and then under Bush 1, the cold war ended and to me that is a valuable way to spend yourself into a deficit. Some argue that the same is happening now. However, I dislike the way the GOP spent on the war and every other pet project when they had the White House and the Congress. They deserved to be thrown out for that.

And to SoCalGuy - your arguments have been cogent, insightful and erudite. Wow - I'm humbled. Especially that last zinger. Keep up the good work.

Posted by gdawg2112 on September 2, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My apologies to Poppa. I just checked my typing and have been addressing you incorrectly. Truly a mistake as I type quickly and doubled the o and not the p. I apologized to GramMars when I got that one wrong, you deserve the same. Sorry. Kind of funny and the way you ran with it was humorous too, perhaps not politically correct, but funny nonetheless. You still didn't answer my question though - is a gay affair worse than a straight one? As a Dem, you do support Gay Marriage right? One "can't" be worse than the other although you did imply it.

Posted by prd2beamrkn on September 2, 2008 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SoCalguy

goddog or whatever his freaky name is obviously did not read when BUSH himself stated we were in Iraq to fight the war on Terrorism. I think we created more with this war. I was told my someone in the ARMY himself, he had to finish what his DADDY could not. Dork!

Posted by Mr_E_Man on September 2, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gdawg, while I agree that ending the cold war was a noble expenditure, it's becoming quite clear that it never really ended. Russia still hates us, they still love to stick it to us, as was the case when they decided to goad Goergia into entering South Ossetia.

On a different note, there is no doubt that withdrawal from Iraq is and will continue to be a touchy issue. Yes, we are obligated to this mission for now. But the main problem we libs have with it is in that we have no exit strategy. If we don't come up with one, how much longer will we be stuck with this chronic problem?

The fact is, we need to start finding a way out and not pretending that it doesn't matter. The fiscal cost is too high and it makes no sense for us to continuously incure costs as the country we occupy continues to absorb huge surpluses. It makes no sense for us to avoid the subject of an exit strategy when the country continues to show a strong interest in our departure.

Basically, we, as a country, need to start making decisions that make sense.

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gdawg2112: "Mr_E_Man - you are somewhat correct. I partially agree with you (Scary huh?). The war in Afghanistan was the fair and righteous one. Iraq was a bad gamble and was wrong. Had there been WMDs we'd be singing a different tune."

Well, whattayaknow... we actually agree on something. Maybe there's hope for bipartisan consensus after all. :-)

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gdawg2112: "No checks, means bouncing checks."

Good point.

Posted by CaptainAmerica on September 2, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gdawg, Try to pay attention as this is my last post. Republican's are anti-gay marriage, yet they seem to be pro-gay sex. It is the hypocrisy of republican's on display on a daily basis. Republican's woo the religous right, at the same time they lie us into a war in Iraq and they murder thousands of women and children. Basically it comes down to Republicans are hypocrits and Democrats are not.

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

E_Man: "It makes no sense for us to avoid the subject of an exit strategy when the country continues to show a strong interest in our departure."

But for several years now the GOP has always equated having an exit strategy with a lack of patriotism, something I'm not sure they're even moderating this time around.

Posted by NowHearThis on September 2, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SoCalGuy, you'll never see the STAR report on GOP events here in the county. Every time a DEM's child is involved with questionable activities, the liberal press sweeps the story under the rug.

By the way SoCalGuy, didn't you hear, because of great voter turnout, Republicans vote on Tues. Nov 4 and Dems vote on Wed. Nov. 5.

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NowHearThis: Got anything original to add to the discussion? Because I've heard all of your tired and lame cliched talking points before.

If you do please post it and maybe we can have an intelligent discussion of the issues, otherwise if you're just going to parrot the GOP party line you'll probably find a more receptive audience on an elementary school playground where you (and their intelligence level) belong.

Posted by Mr_E_Man on September 2, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SoCalGuy, please don't insult my 6-year-old by equating her superior intelligence with those of red-state conservatives. These people still think that Obama is a muslim and that all libs are gay flag burners.

Posted by sparks240 on September 2, 2008 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd like to vote for someone who isn't allready corrupted by special interests before they even get into office. You won't find anyone like that this year.

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sparks240: Please define exactly what you mean by "special interests". That term gets batted around loosely in just about every political campaign, but nobody ever really defines it - usually it can be translated to mean "someone else's vested interests other than my own".

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

E_Man: LOL, good point - sorry about that.

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Equitable_Enforcer: Why do you and your fellow republitards hate our Constitutional freedoms so much? I guess in your perverted sense of the world only those who agree with the official GOP party line have the freedom to voice their opinions?

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080...

Campaign money hurts Palin's outsider image

WASHINGTON – GOP vice presidential pick Sarah Palin accepted at least $4,500 in campaign contributions in the same fundraising scheme at the center of a public corruption scandal that led to the indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens.

The contributions, made during Palin's failed 2002 bid to become Alaska's lieutenant governor, were not illegal for her to accept. But they show how Palin, a self-proclaimed reformer who has bucked Stevens and his allies, is nonetheless a product of a political system in Alaska now under the cloud of an ongoing FBI investigation.

It's the latest in a string of revelations that have forced John McCain's campaign to defend his choice and the thoroughness of the background check of Palin, 44, a little-known governor who is new to the national stage. Palin stunned delegates at the GOP convention Monday when she announced through the McCain campaign that her unmarried 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant.

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 2, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-20...

A New Stitch in a Bad Pattern

September 2, 2008

A McCain ad wrongly claims Obama plans "painful tax increases" for working families. And who's talking about deficits?

Summary

McCain's new ad puts another stitch in what we've called his pattern of deceit on Obama's tax plan. This one claims Obama and congressional Democrats plan to push forward "painful tax increases on working American families" and that they will bring about "years of deficits," "no balanced budgets" and "billions in new government spending."

The ad is plain wrong about higher taxes on working families. In fact, Obama's economic plan would produce a tax cut for the majority of American households, with middle-income earners benefiting most. As for "years of deficits," exactly the same claim could be made about McCain's program. It's unlikely either Obama or McCain would balance the budget, and both are projected to increase the debt by trillions.

Posted by GDOG5 on September 3, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Liberal left wing STAR!
Why haven't you printed any of the write ups from DEMs who support McCain? Let me help you..

READ IT AND WEEP, all those who haven't a clue!

9/2/08 - "LIEBERMAN: OBAMA NOT READY TO LEAD, But McCain and Palin Are"
9/2/08 - "John Coale, a prominent Washington lawyer, husband of Fox TV host Greta Van Susteren and a supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, announced today that he was supporting John McCain for president."

Posted by Mr_E_Man on September 3, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why isn't the l;iberal leftist Star doing any write-ups on Palin and her 527s, the criminal investigation for using her position to get her former brother in-law fired or how her husband is a member of the Alaska Independence Party, whose charter lays out a strategy for seceding the union. She actually addressed this group at their annual convention earlier this year.

Yup, sounds like leftist media manipulation to me.

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 3, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GDOG5: 2 people crossing party lines to vote for the opposing candidates doesn't exactly equate to a tidal wave, LOL! No wonder your party is out of touch with reality.

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 3, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dance, Dance, Dance

This is priceless - watch McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds dance around all of the questions asked of him by CNN reporter Campbell Brown about Palin's (lack of) experience:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com...

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 3, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain Cancels Scheduled Appearance on "Larry King Live"

What's he afraid of, a little honest scrutiny by the press? Guess the "tough guy" former POW isn't so tough after all...

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA65...

Cable news network: McCain campaign said Campbell Brown interview of spokesman Tucker Bounds was 'over the line.'

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 9/2/2008 6:17:00 PM

According to CNN, Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) pulled out of a scheduled interview with the network after a segment with Campbell Brown and a top McCain spokesman Monday night in which Brown asked for examples of a foreign-policy decision made by Republican vice president pick Sarah Palin.

McCain was scheduled to appear on Larry King Live, but CNN's Wolf Blitzer said Tuesday that the campaign told the news network they thought Brown's interview with spokesman Tucker Bounds was "over the line."

CNN said it disagreed and it is committed to covering both sides of issues.

The McCain campaign was checking into the report of the interview’s cancellation at press time.

Only hours after CNN said McCain pulled out of the interview with King, ABC News announced that it has "the only interview" with the candidate during the Republican National Convention. That will be Wednesday night (Sept. 3) with Charlie Gibson for World News, Nightline and Good Morning America (Thursday morning).

Posted by SoCalGuy on September 3, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yet Another McCain Attack Ad Debunked

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archiv...

The McCain camp is going up with a new TV ad touting Palin's credentials and attacking Obama's.

The campaign says the ad will air in "key states" (read: there probably isn't much money behind the ad).

It's important to note that there are a few misleading assertions in the ad. For one, the "Journal" that's cited is the conservative and partisan Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Two, to call Obama the Senate's most liberal senator is dubious. (The charge comes from the National Journal ranking Obama as having the most liberal Senate voting record of 2007, but he was nowhere near the top in 2005 and 2006; it's also worth noting that Obama missed many Senate votes in 2007, so that ranking is a bit skewed.) And three, the charge that Obama "gave big oil billions in subsidies and giveaways" is misleading. (According to nonpartisan fact-checkers, the 2005 energy bill the McCain camp is referring to actual resulted in a net tax INCREASE on oil companies.)

Posted by bbbdugout on September 5, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

it still comes down to the same thing - the current administration needs to be held responsible for the current state of the economy, the environment, our world respect, health care, illegal immigration, corp plundering, etc. - all in the worse condition that they have ever been - just simply do that - take responsiblity for the screwups - just take responsiblity - and then get out of our way - right now all we have is division amung the American people - that's the last thing we need - we should work together - not fear our neighbor because their a different color, religion, or sexual orientation - Americans are all Americans