I just heard it on Rush Limbaugh's program, its some guy named Peter Cohan (I know I spelled that last name wrong.)  This Peter guy was going to like Ralph Nader run for president like with the green party so he has decided to run with Nader as his vice president.

Hey, Ralphie, that's m'boy!  Those liberal interest groups are gonna start leaning on him, really pressuring him to quit, but the more they do, the more he'll hang on.  He's like a pitbull!
;)

Hey, Ralphie, that's m'boy!  Those liberal interest groups are gonna start leaning on him, really pressuring him to quit, but the more they do, the more he'll hang on.  He's like a pitbull!
;)


I'll agree with that.  He means buisness.  He is saying now he will take more votes away from Bush rather then Kerry.  He says a lot of angry republicans will vote for him since their is no way they will vote for a democrat like John Kerry.  Maybe he will tilt this election, towards Kerry.... :\'(.  Anyway he got on his first state ballot which is in Arizona and now is setting his sights on Oregon and Florida.

I'll agree with that.  He means buisness.  He is saying now he will take more votes away from Bush rather then Kerry.  He says a lot of angry republicans will vote for him since their is no way they will vote for a democrat like John Kerry.  Maybe he will tilt this election, towards Kerry.... :\'(.  Anyway he got on his first state ballot which is in Arizona and now is setting his sights on Oregon and Florida.

I hear Ralph claim he'll take votes away from Bush, but I just don't see it.  I can't see him taking enough votes from Bush to make a difference, not when balanced against the votes he'll take from Kerry.  Who are these Nader-voting Republicans.
???

Who are these Nader-voting Republicans.
???


They live in Ralph's fantasy land.

Anyway he got on his first state ballot which is in Arizona and now is setting his sights on Oregon and Florida.


Here is the story:

PHOENIX (Reuters) - Arizona, considered a swing state in the upcoming presidential election, could be the first in the nation to put independent candidate Ralph Nader on its Nov. 2 election ballot, officials said on Friday.

State election officials have received petitions with 21,185 signatures, nearly 6,500 more than required for his name to appear on the ballot and opponents only have 10 days to challenge the signatures.

"We're running a 50-state campaign," said Kevin Zeese, Nader's national campaign spokesman. "We're not shying away from any battleground states like Arizona."

State Democrats have vowed to launch a stiff challenge to keep Nader off the Arizona ballot, fearing that the consumer advocate would siphon votes away from Democratic Party hopeful John Kerry and help tilt the election to Republican President Bush.

Nader, then a Green Party candidate, claimed 3 percent of the state's vote in the 2000 presidential election. Bush won the state by 6 percentage points over Democrat Al Gore.

The western state has 10 electoral votes.

Nader also has filed more than 80,000 signatures to get on the ballot in Texas, about 15,000 more than needed. His campaign is actively collecting signatures in 25 states especially Florida and Oregon.

He already has the Reform Party's backing and is working on an endorsement from his former Green Party to help him secure more spots on other state ballots, Zeese said.

I have to admit something here:

I am a firm Bush supporter.  And I can't imagine voting for somebody else.

At the same time, if my choice was between Kerry and Nader, I would vote Nader without a doubt.

Nader may be far to the left in many areas, but I do believe I can trust him, and he does not have that slimey feeling I get from Kerry.  I do not see the "I vote for it, then against it even though I am for it" type doubletalk from Nader.  He says things as he sees them.

I so with that the Democrats would pick honest people I could trust to run for President.  Jimmy Carter may have been a soft President, but I felt that I could trust the man to do waht he said he would.  THat is sadly lacking in the party now.  In the 1990's, the party seemed to change to the "Say anything that will get you elected" party.

I have to admit something here:

I am a firm Bush supporter.  And I can't imagine voting for somebody else.

At the same time, if my choice was between Kerry and Nader, I would vote Nader without a doubt.

Nader may be far to the left in many areas, but I do believe I can trust him, and he does not have that slimey feeling I get from Kerry.  I do not see the "I vote for it, then against it even though I am for it" type doubletalk from Nader.  He says things as he sees them.

I so with that the Democrats would pick honest people I could trust to run for President.  Jimmy Carter may have been a soft President, but I felt that I could trust the man to do waht he said he would.  THat is sadly lacking in the party now.  In the 1990's, the party seemed to change to the "Say anything that will get you elected" party.


You nailed it.  I am like you, I am A.B.K (Anyone But Kerry.)  I think the democrats could have found a more honest person then Kerry, it stills blows my mind that the democrats picked Kerry over Edwards.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Kerry!  Vote Bush in 2004!

Unfortunately, that can be said about either party :(


That's true.  I remember when George Sr. said to read his lips, no new taxes.   We all saw how that worked out.

That's true.  I remember when George Sr. said to read his lips, no new taxes.   We all saw how that worked out.


Yes.  Bush Sr.'s lie caused me to vote for Clinton in 1992.  I regret that, but I don't regret not voting Bush so if I could go back I would vote for Perot.  My first election I voted in was in 1980 and I voted Reagan, 1984 Reagan, 1988 Bush Sr., 1992 Clinton, 1996 Dole, 2000 Bush, 2004 Bush; is my voting record.  Anyway I thought when I voted for Clinton back in 1992 ''how could taxes get any higher'', well I guess Clinton proved me wrong.

You nailed it.  I am like you, I am A.B.K (Anyone But Kerry.)  I think the democrats could have found a more honest person then Kerry, it stills blows my mind that the democrats picked Kerry over Edwards.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Kerry!  Vote Bush in 2004!

If John Edwards became the nominee, the Republicans would have spent the past two months trashing him as a "trial lawyer" beholden to "special interests."  They would have dug up everything they could find on him down to a parking ticket he got in college.  Same goes for any other politician the Dems selected for their nominee.  That's the way the Republican Noise Machine works.

Must be because you hate the same people Bush and the right-wing hate.

1) Don't make assumptions.

2) Remember everyone has a right to their opinion (within the guidelines). Stop personalizing your responses. Adress the subject not the person.

I think the democrats could have found a more honest person then Kerry, it stills blows my mind that the democrats picked Kerry over Edwards.

I still find it incredible that in a country of more than 200 million people the quality of people you get lining up to do the job is so poor: over the years I've met a whole load of intelligent, charming, witty, sensible Americans... all of whom would be a long way preferable to any of the candidates for nomination that I've seen in the US.  But, of course, wouldn't want the job even if it were possible for them to get there.

Must admit, one person I've not really looked at in any depth is Nader... the previous independent, IIRC was Ross Perot and I'm damn glad that {expletive deleted} didn't get anywhere (my grudge against EDS is long-held and personal).

I still find it incredible that in a country of more than 200 million people the quality of people you get lining up to do the job is so poor: over the years I've met a whole load of intelligent, charming, witty, sensible Americans... all of whom would be a long way preferable to any of the candidates for nomination that I've seen in the US.  But, of course, wouldn't want the job even if it were possible for them to get there.
Suppose you did a million great things and two bad things.  If you run for president, the opposition will harp on those two bad things until you are discredited.  More importantly, it takes such a gargantuan amount of money to run for office--even for the House of Representatives, let alone President--that most people are precluded from the process.  Bush isn't President because he's any good, he's president because of his name and all that money.  Bush was not the choice of the people.  He was the choice of Republican National Committee, Corporate lobbyists, the military-industrial complex, and finally the choice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Before his 2000 campaign even started, he had a $70 million war chest.  For his 2004 campaign, he has received more money than any candidate in history.  The power of the special interests behind a candidate determines the candidate's success in American politics, not the candidate's merits.

Must admit, one person I've not really looked at in any depth is Nader... the previous independent, IIRC was Ross Perot and I'm darn glad that {expletive deleted} didn't get anywhere (my grudge against EDS is long-held and personal).

Ross Perot did get us Bill Clinton!
:)
As above, Perot is a multi-billionaire.  He could spend $100 million on a campaign.  He could buy half-hour blocks for his soapbox on national television.  No other third party candidate has had such deep pockets.

.

Ross Perot did get us Bill Clinton!
:)
As above, Perot is a multi-billionaire.  He could spend $100 million on a campaign.  He could buy half-hour blocks for his soapbox on national television.  No other third party candidate has had such deep pockets.


Yes Perot did get us that dryball Clinton.  He took over 19% of the vote in 1992, probably the best independent run ever.  4 billion dollars is a hell of a lot of money so he could spend spend spend.  Some say Perot ruined Dole, I think he did too, because if Perot never ran Bush Sr. would have won in 1992 and Dole wouldn't have ran against Clinton in 1996 and possibly could have won.

That's true.  I remember when George Sr. said to read his lips, no new taxes.   We all saw how that worked out.


True, but also consider the fact that CONGRESS is the one that voted to raise taxes, with enough votes to over-ride a Presidential Veto.  Vetoing that tax increase would just have hurt more people, and caused an even bigger fight.  Presidents that Veto legislation with that much backing do so at their own peril.

If John Edwards became the nominee, the Republicans would have spent the past two months trashing him as a "trial lawyer" beholden to "special interests."  They would have dug up everything they could find on him down to a parking ticket he got in college.  Same goes for any other politician the Dems selected for their nominee.  That's the way the Republican Noise Machine works.


And we have not heard the same thing about Republicans by Democrats?

Oh, I forgot.  When it is for your side, it is truth.  When it is against your side, it is "trashing".

Must admit, one person I've not really looked at in any depth is Nader... the previous independent, IIRC was Ross Perot and I'm darn glad that {expletive deleted} didn't get anywhere (my grudge against EDS is long-held and personal).


Actually, my family has a history of voting for independents.

My mother in 1980 worked for the campaign of John Anderson.  Anderson was a Republican who ran Independent in that year, mostly splitting over Abortion.  But because of Jimmy Carter's "Rose Garden Campaign", and the charisma of Ronald Reagan, he never had a chance.  But my Pro-Choice Anti-Abortion mother thought he was a better choice, so helped him, even though she knew he never had a chance.

In 1992, I checked into the Ross Perot campaign.  I entered the office in LA, and tried to ask about his potential policies and stances.  All I was told was "He will tell us after he is on the ballot, will you sign this pettition?"

Needless to say, this disgusted me and I walked away, not even signing it.  I would not blindly endorse or support somebody, no matter how I feel.

And yes, I understand your feelings about EDS.  I worked for them before, and have contracted through the in the past.  At least their TV commercials are funny.  :P

Here is a quote from Nader's new vice president who ran for governor in 2002 in California:

"I got fed up with liberals who say the best way to promote their positions is by silencing dissenting voices,'' Camejo said. "I would never advocate that people don't vote for what they believe in. That's voting against democracy, yet it's exactly what Democrats are calling for.''

Basically if you agree with Ralph Nader, you should vote for him not vote for Kerry because of some bull that democrats want to label him with.

And we have not heard the same thing about Republicans by Democrats?

Oh, I forgot.  When it is for your side, it is truth.  When it is against your side, it is "trashing".

Well, the right-wing is incessant and ruthless in their "trashing," and they have a vast media complex--right-wing newspapers, right-wing radio, and FOX News--into which they can channel all this trashing for mass diffusion.  The liberal side simply does not have the money, the mendacity, and a corresponding media complex who will say anything, ANYTHING, to get Democrats elected.
Analogous left-wing trashing (minus the relentless mendacity)  is relegated to tiny outfits such as The Nation, The Prgressive, Harper's, and the sporadic and moribund "Air America" network. 
Michael Moore may do more harm than good in the end.

Well, the right-wing is incessant and ruthless in their "trashing," and they have a vast media complex--right-wing newspapers, right-wing radio, and FOX News-


Woah!  How can you even compare CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, BBC, PBS, NPR, Air America, L.A. Times, NY times, USA today, Atlanta Journal Contitutuion, and more.  I will give talk radio to the right-wing BUT newspapers and television media is vastly to the left.

Let's get something straight here:

Nader and Camejo are not independents. They are third-party candidates. They have an organized political party with a specific political agenda, much of which is about environmental protection and the regulations they want to see to enforce that.

Perot was an independent when he ran for president (I think!); more recently, he formed (or joined?) the Reform Party, which pretty much disintegrated in the rift over Buchanan.

The sad thing is, it would be practically impossible for a political independent to run a reasonable campaign for president. Since they do not have the financial backing of an organized political party, they've got almost no resources to get their name and platform out before the public.

Woah!  How can you even compare CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, BBC, PBS, NPR, Air America, L.A. Times, NY times, USA today, Atlanta Journal Contitutuion, and more.  I will give talk radio to the right-wing BUT newspapers and television media is vastly to the left.

Why do you believe that they are "vastly to the left"?  What, in your view, makes them so?

Why do you believe that they are "vastly to the left"?  What, in your view, makes them so?

Compared to GWB, they are... but then so would be Attila the Hun or Ghengis Khan ;)


More importantly, it takes such a gargantuan amount of money to run for office--even for the House of Representatives, let alone President--that most people are precluded from the process.

I know... that's why it ain't democracy.  It's a bit, but not much, better over here.

Why do you believe that they are "vastly to the left"?  What, in your view, makes them so?


Have you ever heard of Bernard Goldberg?

He is the former 60 Minutes and CBS news reporter who was fired after he dared to send a memo to the Washington Post, which dared to say "we are biased".

He is the life-long liberal, who is still a registered Democrat, who is constantly slammed by the "fair and ballanced" media.  Because the major news outlets (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc) will not have him on their shows, he is forced to go to the "Right Wing" outlets to get his message out.

The NY Times gave his book almost NO coverage, even after it spent 2 months on the top of the Best Sellers list.  *HE* states how biased the media is himself.  If you don't believe it, check out his book "Baised".

As he states, if he was with a Tobacco company, or Tire company, or any other "big business", the media would parade him as a hero.  Because he shined his flashlight on them, he is deamonized and fired.  There is "Fair And Ballanced".

One thing I have noticed over the years is how both groups react to somebody leaving the fold, or in their perception leaving the fold.

For one example, look at how Bernard Goldberg, Tammy Bruce, and Dennis Miller are treated for in the belief of the left, "Becomming Conservative".

Even though 2 of these 3 are still self-described "Liberals", they are all deamonized for dareing to say what is wrong with their party.  All 3 of them have to go to the "evil right-wing" outlets of Fox News and AM Radio, because nobody in the mainstream will touch them anymore.

Their books are slammed as "Conservative Propaganda", never mind that both Goldberg and Bruce are STILL Liberals.  They both view their books in much the same way that Communism encouraged it's members to be self-confessing.  They both had the idea of trying to "fix" problems they saw with their political party.  But instead of welcoming this self-criticizm, they were ostracized, and expelled.

On the other side of the spectrum, look at how most Conservatives reacted to John McCain.  A lot of us scratched our heads, and thought there was an aspect of "sour grapes" in his antics, but there was very little outright condemnation of the man himself, only of some of his views.  And most conservatives welcome other views, even if we do not agree with them.

The one thing that puzzles most of us is how "liberals" do not see the major networks and news outlets as biased.  Even when I was a liberal, I could see the slant.  Now that I have changed, I see it even more.  And this goes back to Ronald Reagan and his "Star Wars" project.  During the Reagan-Carter election, John Anderson was talked about often, because he was seen as a Republican Spoiler.  The same thing was done with Ross Perot in 1992.  But almost nothing was heard of Ralph Nader during either of these elections.

I found a perfect political cartoon which I think shows how most Democrats view Nader:

http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/mike_from_los_angeles/detail?.dir=/Yahoo!+Photo+Album&.dnm=cb73.jpg

I hope everybody can enjoy that as much as I have  :)

Very well said Mushroom, you are truly a thinker.

Despite the typical arrogance of liberals, they are no match for a direct, logical presentation of conservative positions.  But remember, liberalism is a body of beliefs based on emotion, not reason.  Being a liberal is the easiest choice anyone can make: all you have to do is feel.  All you have to do is agree with every emotional appeal.  But liberalism withers under the rigors of analysis and the test of real-world experience.  That is why, when you go head-to-head with liberals, their approach very quickly degenerates from parroting cliches and slogans to bitterly comparing you to evil historical figures.  When the liberals are out of power they're funnier and more deceptive than ever.  Watch out!

Very well said Mushroom, you are truly a thinker.

Despite the typical arrogance of liberals, they are no match for a direct, logical presentation of conservative positions.  But remember, liberalism is a body of beliefs based on emotion, not reason.  Being a liberal is the easiest choice anyone can make: all you have to do is feel.  All you have to do is agree with every emotional appeal.  But liberalism withers under the rigors of analysis and the test of real-world experience.  That is why, when you go head-to-head with liberals, their approach very quickly degenerates from parroting cliches and slogans to bitterly comparing you to evil historical figures.  When the liberals are out of power they're funnier and more deceptive than ever.  Watch out!

It doesn't matter whether Goldberg and Bruce describe themselves as "liberals."  Alan Colmes describes himself as a "liberal" and takes the "liberal" point of view.  All three are part of what David Brock calls  "The Republican Noise Machine."  It's not political analysis.  It's propaganda theater.
It is ironic the way so-called "Conservatives" play the game of calling the "Liberal" side "emotional."  The entire Hannity, Limbaugh, Goldberg, Washington Times game is based on soundbites and fiery podium-thumping.  Debate is non-existent on "Crossfire," "Capital Gang," "Hannity & Colmes," and such programs, because the commercial television format is anathema to any process that takes more than a few minutes attention span.
They don't hire the liberals who WILL crush a Hannity or a Novak at his own game night after night.

Take Hannity, for instance.  If Hannity ever had to hold his own in a debate, he'd be toast. On the radio and on television, he gets to dominate the forum, shout others down, and throw insults. He doesn't have to "debate" point for point.

He got to select his own co-host, did you know that? No wonder he chose that whiny, bespectacled capon, Alan Colmes. He wouldn't be able to survive night after night against Joe Conason, Eric Alterman, or David Corn. Hannity & Corn, I kinda like that!

Last night they were going on about Clinton's book. The guests were loony-toons Ann Coulter and, on the other side, some other dumb blonde from the DNC. Someone totally unsuited for verbal brawl on national television. They're not going to invite Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, or Dr. Helen Caldicott, that's for sure.

The only reason why Hannity is succeeds is because the right-wing media has carved out a protected niche for him. Same thing with Rush Limburger, Joe Sourdough and others.

Liberals and moderates do not get the same kind of platform on television that the Righties get.  If Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, or Tom Brokaw pulled the same kind innaccuracy, ridicule, and thuggery practiced by the FOX boys, they'd be out of a job within a week.

Bernard Goldberg is simply lying.  The reason the Right accuses the other networks of having a "liberal" bias is because the fail to display a "conservative" bias. 

This is about perception control.  The range of perspectives about the economy, foreign policy, and social issues presented by both the "conservative" media, and the "mainstream" media is quite limited.  Any voice, no matter how compelling, that says, for instance, "Nationalized healthcare is necessary," or "Reagan's policies devastated our infrastructure" are quickly marginalized.  Perspectives that do not favor giant corporations and the Pentagon are dismissed out of hand as "whacky."

Remember, the true bias in the media is not "liberal" or "conservative," it is CORPORATE.

Two books I recommend on the subject of media bias are:
Eric Alterman: What Liberal Media?
David Brock: The Republican Noise Machine
The arguments presented in both books are often dismissed or ignored, but never impeached.

It doesn't matter whether Goldberg and Bruce describe themselves as "liberals."  Alan Colmes describes himself as a "liberal" and takes the "liberal" point of view.  All three are part of what David Brock calls  "The Republican Noise Machine."  It's not political analysis.  It's propaganda theater.


Oh yes, you are SO right there.

Tammy Bruce, a Liberal, Feminist, Pro-Choice Lesbian.  She is exactly what the Right needs as a spokesman.  (NOTE:  I am not PC, I use common useage pronouns, please do not take offense)

Tammy Bruce always was, and still is all of those I listed above.  A big part of her "split" with the Democrats was over both the OJ Simpson case, and Bill Clinton.  She could not understand how the group she was a member of (Tammy was the President of the LA Chapter of NOW) could support a man over a woman in a sexual harassment case.

Her book exposed the flack she got when she refused to allow Democratic Campaigning in the NOW offices (A violation of both election laws, and also a violation of their non-profit charter).  It also told how she was told to shut up and to back Clinton over any of the women speaking out against him, no matter how right they may have been.  She also tried to give support for Dr. Laura Schlessinger by pointing out that she was hardly anti-gay, being a long-time suporter of PFLAG, a group which tries to get parents to accept their homosexual children.

I encourage people when they hear somebody slammed to check out the facts for themselves, not accept the screams from one side or the other.  I discounted the initial charges against Clinton, until there were so many women claiming he tried to molest them that I could not deny it any longer.  Then seeing the women attacked, that just made me even more mad.  Seeing NOW attack women who were accusing a man of sexual harassment was sickening to her.  Ad she also pointed out, how is it then fair to accuse Justice Clarance Thomas of things even less offensive, while excuseing Clinton, just because of HIS politics.

Oh yes, you are SO right there.

Tammy Bruce, a Liberal, Feminist, Pro-Choice Lesbian.  She is exactly what the Right needs as a spokesman.  (NOTE:  I am not PC, I use common useage pronouns, please do not take offense)

Tammy Bruce always was, and still is all of those I listed above.  A big part of her "split" with the Democrats was over both the OJ Simpson case, and Bill Clinton.  She could not understand how the group she was a member of (Tammy was the President of the LA Chapter of NOW) could support a man over a woman in a sexual harassment case.

Her book exposed the flack she got when she refused to allow Democratic Campaigning in the NOW offices (A violation of both election laws, and also a violation of their non-profit charter).  It also told how she was told to shut up and to back Clinton over any of the women speaking out against him, no matter how right they may have been.  She also tried to give support for Dr. Laura Schlessinger by pointing out that she was hardly anti-gay, being a long-time suporter of PFLAG, a group which tries to get parents to accept their homosexual children.

I encourage people when they hear somebody slammed to check out the facts for themselves, not accept the screams from one side or the other.  I discounted the initial charges against Clinton, until there were so many women claiming he tried to molest them that I could not deny it any longer.  Then seeing the women attacked, that just made me even more mad.  Seeing NOW attack women who were accusing a man of sexual harassment was sickening to her.  Ad she also pointed out, how is it then fair to accuse Justice Clarance Thomas of things even less offensive, while excuseing Clinton, just because of HIS politics.

Actions speak louder than words, the cliche goes, and Tammy Bruce's actions show her to be a shill for the right.  She's a Girl Friday for FOX News, and his even filled in on Sean Hannity's program. She likes to prattle on about how she's a Democrat, a Feminist, and lesbian...then she does nothing but bash Democrats, feminists, and lesbians.  She's every bit as bad as that gay right-winger Andrew Sullivan.  Her latest book, The Death of Right and Wrong is more right-wing platitudes about our culture turning into Sodom and Gomorrah, it could have come from the charlatan pen of William Bennett for all it's really got to do with being a dissident feminist.
No self-respecting liberal can stand the company of Hannity, O'Reilly, or Bernie Goldberg for more than about 90 seconds.  Hey, what happened to Bernie Goldberg?  Weren't we talking about him?  Anyway, I can only conclude that Ms. Bruce is a shill for the Right.  It is one of the oldest tricks in the propaganda book to appear to co-opt members from the other side. 

CORRECTION: We were talking about Goldberg on the NEWS BIAS thread, things get kinda blurry.

It is ironic the way so-called "Conservatives" play the game of calling the "Liberal" side "emotional."  The entire Hannity, Limbaugh, Goldberg, Washington Times game is based on soundbites and fiery podium-thumping.  Debate is non-existent on "Crossfire," "Capital Gang," "Hannity & Colmes," and such programs, because the commercial television format is anathema to any process that takes more than a few minutes attention span.


What I think is funny is that I am re-reading this right after I watched a segment of "Hannity & Coulmes".  This segment featured an interview with Dick Morris.

DIck is promoting his own book about the Clintons, and was commenting on Bill's new book.  Several times, Hannity stopped him and refusted his own claims, and supported Bill Clinton!  In particular, in incidents reguarding the War on Terror, showing cases where Bill did something positive, which Dick Morris was trying to downplay.

If Fox and "H&C" is so extreme right-wing, why is one of their stars speaking in support of Clinton, and against a "Clinton Basher"?

What I think is funny is that I am re-reading this right after I watched a segment of "Hannity & Coulmes".  This segment featured an interview with dip Morris.

dip is promoting his own book about the Clintons, and was commenting on Bill's new book.  Several times, Hannity stopped him and refusted his own claims, and supported Bill Clinton!  In particular, in incidents reguarding the War on Terror, showing cases where Bill did something positive, which dip Morris was trying to downplay.

If Fox and "H&C" is so extreme right-wing, why is one of their stars speaking in support of Clinton, and against a "Clinton Basher"?

You're talking about Sean Hannity regarding Bill Clinton !!!  I'm sorry, this does not even merit an answer.  Have you listened to Hannity over the past six years?  He cannot go two sentences without bashing liberals, or Democrats, or the Clintons.  I saw the same segment, and Hannity was not supporting Clinton, he was just playing a little devil's advocate.  Hannity is a bone-ignorant half-wit who is so ignorant he doesn't know he's ignorant.  If it was not for Roger Ailes and radio's love affair with right-wing louts, Hannity's commentary wouldn't get beyond the barstools at the local saloon.

You're talking about Sean Hannity regarding Bill Clinton !!!  I'm sorry, this does not even merit an answer.  Have you listened to Hannity over the past six years?  He cannot go two sentences without bashing liberals, or Democrats, or the Clintons.  I saw the same segment, and Hannity was not supporting Clinton, he was just playing a little devil's advocate.  Hannity is a bone-ignorant half-wit who is so ignorant he doesn't know he's ignorant.  If it was not for Roger Ailes and radio's love affair with right-wing louts, Hannity's commentary wouldn't get beyond the barstools at the local saloon.


Were you watching tonight?  I did, about 2 hours ago.  And yes, he WAS supporting Clinton.  And why would he not?  While many of us questioned the TIMING of his choice to bomb Iraq during the middle of his Impeachemnt hearings, none of us questioned the NEED for it to be done.

Were you watching tonight?  I did, about 2 hours ago.  And yes, he WAS supporting Clinton.  And why would he not?  While many of us questioned the TIMING of his choice to bomb Iraq during the middle of his Impeachemnt hearings, none of us questioned the NEED for it to be done.



Nnnnoooo, I wouldn't say Morris was supporting Clinton.  For example, in his "highway reflector" analogy, Morris was calling Clinton a soul-less narcissist.  Not exactly a flattering portrayal.  Furthermore, Morris, like Ann Coulter, has made a lucrative career out of bashing the Clintons.  He's worse than Coulter, though, because he's smart, and he worked for them.  Morris is a backstabber and a turncoat.