Liberals Defend the Candidates by Attacking the Debate Moderators

Quite entertaining isn't it?

 

So far right person's like you think the moderators asked the appropriate questions? Is that because the way they misshandled the debate was favorable to the elitist far right cause?

 

:laugh:


Just what I want, a president who's afraid to face George Stephanopolis.


:laugh:

As far as I'm concerned, they should be ready to answer anything, if they want this job.

 

Only if we all agree that there are some "secrets to secret to talk about" John Kerry and George Bush speaking with Tim Russert. Like a college ritual.

Then they all had a big laugh. On us.

 

It was the worst debate from a question standpoint so far during this election. It was more of a "tabloid" debate than anything else. I was very disappointed in the lack of time devoted to the key substantive issues of the day and their impact on Mr. and Mrs. Average American.

 

I was not home in the US, so I could not watch the debate ... if it was one.

The last number of years I have been very disappointed with the press and how they seem to always throw softball questions and never pin the politicians when it is obvious they are avoding an issue.

I believe, and I am serious about this, reporters shy away from the hard issues because if they make the politicians mad they, the politicians, will not come back no their shows and corporate profits will suffer. Can't have corporate profits suffer you know!:laugh:

 

Rolling out the red carpets for the servants in other words right? Doesn't make a whole lotta sense does it? The press would serve us better if they stuck to reporting on and investigating the politicos instead of being all chummy with them that isn't supposed to be part of their job. Neither is manipulating public opinion with either "sides" propaganda but they do it all the time.

The mass media isn't there to inform us it's there to control us. Thing is they're losing control because of the free flow of information on the internet. Makes them look almost comical in a way. They know they're losing it, we know they're losing it and they know we know. But yet they continue with the same old tricks alot of us have already caught onto.

Funny and sad thing to witness.

It's insulting too being treated like a bunch of kids that have to be told what to think and do.

 

It wasn't Obama who complained, it was an advocacy group.

I thought Gibson and Stephanopolis did a good job of asking the right questions. If fact, by asking the tough questions it gives the candidates the platform to answer them instead of someone relying on the Internet for answers.

 

Do you really want the debates in the autumn to center around John McCain's adultery with the woman who is his current wife while he was still married to his former wife? I don't and I am not even a supporter of Senator McCain.

We need to be discussing issues such as the energy crisis, the health care crisis, saving Social Security, withdrawing our troops from Iraq, winning the war against al Qaeda - the big, important issues.

 

Anytime debates become anything other than network sanctioned infomercials, candidates whine.

I agree with Ken. I don't want a debate on Michelle Obama's thesis or Barack wearing an American flag or McCain's divorce. But I don't want softballs either. Obama's petulance over the debate just gives Hillary more fodder. Obama hasn't figured out he doesn't have to swing at pitches in the dirt.

 

A lot of the questions were ridiculous. They should have addressed substantive issues, not the attack fluff. Still, I would rather see real debates following the formal rules of debate, rather than the way these media circuses are done.