Post by raphael on Nov 30, 2007 15:20:14 GMT -5
Yeah I had to spam this one over here on the local section. Since I felt this was a fellow Chattanoogan. I don't know who this cat is but he seems to have a good handle on the political scenery. You go Joe! This was lifted off the Chattanoogan.com site.......
www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_117876.asp
CNN Favoritism
posted November 30, 2007
First of all, could it have been any more obvious that CNN was trying to favor the "media darling" candidates? Rudy and Mitt got at least three times the questions that Ron Paul got, and Fred and McCain at least two times. Time after time I found myself screaming at the TV, "Let Ron Paul answer THAT one!" Most of the time it was to no avail.
My thoughts about the candidates, for what they're worth.
Mitt Romney is the slickest media darling candidate by a long shot. Hair just so, suit just so, sound bites coming out of both sides of his mouth at a time. I can see why the media just love him, but his slickness masks an utter lack of conviction on anything. He will say anything and do anything to win. Unfortunately for him, even if he wins the nomination he will not be able to beat Hillary.
Rudy Giuliani is just freakin' scary. The guy is a fascist who wants to take away all our guns and isn't even subtle about it. He was the most hated mayor in NYC history on 9/10/2001 and nothing has changed except now he can play the 9/11 card. Sorry, it isn't going to work. Hillary will beat him if it comes to that, and she might even do it with my vote. I can't imagine voting for Hillary but I can even less imagine voting for Benito Giuliani. Might as well just go ahead and vote for Satan.
Fred Thompson is just plain lame. He couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag. To me he is less objectionable than Rudy or maybe even Romney but he is just a sad sack on the stage. It's like he doesn't even want the nomination. My theory here is that he doesn't want to go down in history as the first presidential candidate to lose to a woman, which he most certainly would do, because Hillary would eat his lunch in a debate. I can't stand her but she would absolutely clean his clock.
I have a little bit of grudging respect for McCain because he came out strongly against torture. However, he blew that by coming out foursquare in favor of the war in Iraq. Sorry, dude, 70% plus of the country has figured this out by now and you are on the wrong side. And Ron Paul just nuked you out of the water by correctly pointing out that he gets more contributions from active duty military personnel than you or anyone else. Better start kissing up to Ron instead of confronting him, and hope he suffers a momentary lapse of sanity and picks you for VP.
Huckabee has a pretty decent sense of humor. He made me laugh a couple of times, especially with the crack about Jesus being too smart to run for office. However that is not enough to mask the fact that fiscally he is a big tax-and-spend liberal. I wish he and the Clintons would go back to Arkansas and leave us all the hell alone. Well, that will happen soon enough, on Super Tuesday if not before.
OK, so Hunter built a fence between San Diego and Tijuana. Apparently, with his own two hands. Big deal; now what exactly qualifies him to be President? At this point he is just a vanity candidate, maybe hoping for VP consideration?
Speaking of the ultimate in one issue/vanity candidates, now that everyone else is trying to "out-Tancredo Tancredo" why is he still running? Unlike Huckabee or Hunter, he's not even a legitimate VP contender. Enough already, bow out and throw your support to the only candidate who has a fighting chance against Hillary ... Ron Paul, of course.
It was awesome watching Ron Paul go toe to toe with McCain on the undeclared war in Iraq. Ron didn't back down from him an inch, and made some really telling points for those who were willing to actually listen with an open mind. No telling what Ron Paul could accomplish in these debates if they would actually ask him as many questions as the so-called "front-runners" and even then let him get an answer in edgewise instead of calling "time" 15 seconds into a 30-second answer. Not to mention deliberately choosing "loaded" questions in an attempt to make him look bad or go on the defensive. He fended those off eloquently, by the way, but he still got only a small fraction of the total air time.
Conclusion: the Republicans are utterly doomed in 2008 if they don't have the good sense to nominate Ron Paul. None of the rest of them match up favorably against Hillary Clinton who will be the Democratic nominee. (Or, in case of a miracle, against Obama, either.) Ron Paul, due to his unique appeal to everyone from hippie anti-war activists to Jeffersonian libertarians to Barry Goldwater conservatives, is the only GOP candidate who can bring together the coalition required to win. One can only hope the Republican primary voters realize this before it is too late and we get stuck with another President Clinton.
Joe Dumas
www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_117876.asp
CNN Favoritism
posted November 30, 2007
First of all, could it have been any more obvious that CNN was trying to favor the "media darling" candidates? Rudy and Mitt got at least three times the questions that Ron Paul got, and Fred and McCain at least two times. Time after time I found myself screaming at the TV, "Let Ron Paul answer THAT one!" Most of the time it was to no avail.
My thoughts about the candidates, for what they're worth.
Mitt Romney is the slickest media darling candidate by a long shot. Hair just so, suit just so, sound bites coming out of both sides of his mouth at a time. I can see why the media just love him, but his slickness masks an utter lack of conviction on anything. He will say anything and do anything to win. Unfortunately for him, even if he wins the nomination he will not be able to beat Hillary.
Rudy Giuliani is just freakin' scary. The guy is a fascist who wants to take away all our guns and isn't even subtle about it. He was the most hated mayor in NYC history on 9/10/2001 and nothing has changed except now he can play the 9/11 card. Sorry, it isn't going to work. Hillary will beat him if it comes to that, and she might even do it with my vote. I can't imagine voting for Hillary but I can even less imagine voting for Benito Giuliani. Might as well just go ahead and vote for Satan.
Fred Thompson is just plain lame. He couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag. To me he is less objectionable than Rudy or maybe even Romney but he is just a sad sack on the stage. It's like he doesn't even want the nomination. My theory here is that he doesn't want to go down in history as the first presidential candidate to lose to a woman, which he most certainly would do, because Hillary would eat his lunch in a debate. I can't stand her but she would absolutely clean his clock.
I have a little bit of grudging respect for McCain because he came out strongly against torture. However, he blew that by coming out foursquare in favor of the war in Iraq. Sorry, dude, 70% plus of the country has figured this out by now and you are on the wrong side. And Ron Paul just nuked you out of the water by correctly pointing out that he gets more contributions from active duty military personnel than you or anyone else. Better start kissing up to Ron instead of confronting him, and hope he suffers a momentary lapse of sanity and picks you for VP.
Huckabee has a pretty decent sense of humor. He made me laugh a couple of times, especially with the crack about Jesus being too smart to run for office. However that is not enough to mask the fact that fiscally he is a big tax-and-spend liberal. I wish he and the Clintons would go back to Arkansas and leave us all the hell alone. Well, that will happen soon enough, on Super Tuesday if not before.
OK, so Hunter built a fence between San Diego and Tijuana. Apparently, with his own two hands. Big deal; now what exactly qualifies him to be President? At this point he is just a vanity candidate, maybe hoping for VP consideration?
Speaking of the ultimate in one issue/vanity candidates, now that everyone else is trying to "out-Tancredo Tancredo" why is he still running? Unlike Huckabee or Hunter, he's not even a legitimate VP contender. Enough already, bow out and throw your support to the only candidate who has a fighting chance against Hillary ... Ron Paul, of course.
It was awesome watching Ron Paul go toe to toe with McCain on the undeclared war in Iraq. Ron didn't back down from him an inch, and made some really telling points for those who were willing to actually listen with an open mind. No telling what Ron Paul could accomplish in these debates if they would actually ask him as many questions as the so-called "front-runners" and even then let him get an answer in edgewise instead of calling "time" 15 seconds into a 30-second answer. Not to mention deliberately choosing "loaded" questions in an attempt to make him look bad or go on the defensive. He fended those off eloquently, by the way, but he still got only a small fraction of the total air time.
Conclusion: the Republicans are utterly doomed in 2008 if they don't have the good sense to nominate Ron Paul. None of the rest of them match up favorably against Hillary Clinton who will be the Democratic nominee. (Or, in case of a miracle, against Obama, either.) Ron Paul, due to his unique appeal to everyone from hippie anti-war activists to Jeffersonian libertarians to Barry Goldwater conservatives, is the only GOP candidate who can bring together the coalition required to win. One can only hope the Republican primary voters realize this before it is too late and we get stuck with another President Clinton.
Joe Dumas