The Democratic Party had decided on the debate schedule

[Lynn7]

And Fox News will not be allowed to sponser any of the debates. CNN I think will air two of them and then I think NBC has two and then CBS and AbC will air one each if I remember right.

The Repubs on the other hand appeared on MSNBC which is very liberally slanted. And I'm sure that the Repubs will also appear on CNN for their debates. That is why I really like the Repubs.

[Thrizzle]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/202557/939

[EVILxxx]

The Democrats would be wise not to let themselves be told what to do by the moveon.orgs of their party. That's how they lost in 04.

[QUENTIN]

Fox News and MSNBC are not even remotely opposing equals. If MSNBC has any kind of consistent liberal bias (which I have neither seen firsthand watching it or in any of the many studies on media bias), it is practically imperceptible when compared to Fox News's clear, obvious, and admittedly intentional strong conservative bias. MSNBC is not incapable of fairly portraying Republicans, Fox News has proven time and time again that they will go to ridiculous and cartoonishly unethical extremes in order to assure Democrats are not fairly portrayed. There is no incentive for democrats to appear on Fox News and several incentives not to, so this just makes sense.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
That is why I really like the Repubs.


Because of their debate schedule? That's so fucking laughable.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
Fox News and MSNBC are not even remotely opposing equals. If MSNBC has any kind of consistent liberal bias (which I have neither seen firsthand watching it or in any of the many studies on media bias), it is practically imperceptible when compared to Fox News's clear, obvious, and admittedly intentional strong conservative bias. MSNBC is not incapable of fairly portraying Republicans, Fox News has proven time and time again that they will go to ridiculous and cartoonishly unethical extremes in order to assure Democrats are not fairly portrayed. There is no incentive for democrats to appear on Fox News and several incentives not to, so this just makes sense.

MSNBC has the fair Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman. They are so objective. How could I have forgotten about them. And of course Chris moderated the last Republican debate. I stopped watching them a few years ago when they became virulent.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Because of their debate schedule? That's so fucking laughable.

Yes. They are giving two debates to CNN who only gets less than half the viewership of Fox. So I guess they are shunning Fox because they are conservatively slanted. So what if the Repubs decided to only give their debates to the channels that they considered objective (almost none of them are). This is a strange way to conduct business but it goes along with the Dems mindset of if you dont think like us we will not associate with you. True to form.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Yes. They are giving two debates to CNN who only gets less than half the viewership of Fox. So I guess they are shunning Fox because they are conservatively slanted. So what if the Repubs decided to only give their debates to the channels that they considered objective (almost none of them are). This is a strange way to conduct business but it goes along with the Dems mindset of if you dont think like us we will not associate with you. True to form.

How do you know that Fox just didn't want to pick them up? Oh wait, that would mean the Democrats WEREN'T at fault....so it must be wrong, right Lynn?

[Thrizzle]

Chris Matthews is a liberal? Odd considering he calls himself a republican.

[Lynn7]

You cannot be familiar with Chris Matthews who would NEVER call himself a Republican since he has always been a Dem and has worked as a Dem speechwriter and worked for Tip O'Neil (ultra famous Democratic Speaker of the House) if I remember right. His brother is a Republican however.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
You cannot be familiar with Chris Matthews who would NEVER call himself a Republican since he has always been a Dem and has worked as a Dem speechwriter and worked for Tip O'Neil (ultra famous Democratic Speaker of the House) if I remember right. His brother is a Republican however.

From Wikipedia:
Matthews was raised in a conservative Irish Catholic household. As a young man he was a Goldwater Republican who was inspired to become a Democrat by Eugene McCarthy's pro-civil rights and anti-Vietnam war platforms. Despite having worked for Democrats, Matthews has said, "I'm more conservative than people think I am. ... I voted for George W. Bush in 2000."

The truth will set you free!

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by Lynn7
You cannot be familiar with Chris Matthews who would NEVER call himself a Republican since he has always been a Dem and has worked as a Dem speechwriter and worked for Tip O'Neil (ultra famous Democratic Speaker of the House) if I remember right. His brother is a Republican however.

"We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits."

-- Chris Matthews on "Mission Accomplished"

What a Goddamn bleedin'-heart hippie scumbag! :rolleyes:

[Lynn7]

Let me enter the Chris Matthews show into evidence along with his MSNBC show Hardball. I used to watch him years ago when I thought he was objective but for the past 5 years he has raged against anything Republican so while it is nice that you guys found those quotes you just have to watch him to see what I mean. He is farrrrr left. He is a Catholic though so I'm sure he is somewhat conflicted on many issues. He was yelled at by that Democratic conservative guy (from Georgia?) one time for being very unfair (can't think of his name but he was a rebel in the Dem party who has retired from politcs). Also, he stacks his guests on the Chris Matthews show so they are just about all liberal- he might have on a liberal Republican to support the conservative side (right! :rolleyes: )

[Thrizzle]

Lynn what would it take for you to believe he isnt a liberal? Obviously not him saying he's a conservative because he's already done that and you dont believe him. Should he punch Hillary in the face? Or maybe shoot Ted Kennedy? Nah, then he'd be a liberal that just doesnt like those two. Lol i just dont get it, im at my wits end here.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Chris Matthews strikes me as the kind of guy who's a Republican who, like the majority of Americans, is sick and tired of the nonsense coming from the White House on a daily basis.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
MSNBC has the fair Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman. They are so objective. How could I have forgotten about them. And of course Chris moderated the last Republican debate. I stopped watching them a few years ago when they became virulent.

Yes, because God forbid anyone ask anything other than softball questions to your party's candidates:rolleyes: I mean for godsakes, it seems anyone, even republicans, who criticize republicans at this time, is automatically written off as a covert Democrat/liberal! wait till the end of summer, because all of Congress it seems will become democrats...... going by your logic of course.

Oh, and you forgot to list former republican congressmen, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and the evil liberal Tucker Carlson to that list of severely liberal MSNBC talking heads.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Lynn7]

Friday, May 04, 2007
The Chris Matthews Agenda Kidnaps the GOP Debate
Posted by: Michael Medved at 3:55 AM

Why did Chris Matthews, the moderator of the first GOP Presidential debate, find it necessary to pin down all the Republican contenders their positions on poor, departed Terri Schiavo?

To most Americans, this case would seem to be the very definition of a dead issue, you should pardon the expression.

Yet Matthews chose to use precious time in a 90 minute televised debate from the Reagan library to ask each and every one of the ten Presidential candidates whether he agreed with Congressional interference with the Schiavo case more than two years ago.

Matthews and the other questioners made no similar attempt to drill each of the candidates on health care, education, guns, Afghanistan, education, Israel and the Palestinians, AIDS, Venezuela, college loans, hate crimes, Cuba, affirmative action, tort reform, balancing the budget, or social security.

None of these significant issues received nearly as much attention as Terri Schiavo, or embryonic stem cell research, or faith in politics, or abortion --- in fact, questions about abortion seemed to dominate the proceedings, with Mayor Giuliani forced to address questions about “reproductive rights” on four different occasions.

A Martian who knew nothing of American politics might think that abortion and related human life issues (like stem cells and right to die) represented the chief concern of the US electorate, or at least of the Republican candidates. In point of fact, none of the candidates has stressed his position on abortion in the way that Chris Matthews obsessed on the question in the debate.

What motivated him to ignore some of the crucial challenges of our time – like reforming public education, or confronting the upcoming collapse of social security and medicare, or freeing our economy and our citizens from predatory lawsuits – and instead to concentrate on social issues that few voters identify as their chief concerns?

Obviously, the MSNBC “Hardballer” asked the questions he did in an effort to marginalize the Republicans, and to suggest to all viewers that the party had been captured by the far-right, ultra-religious fringe.

At the same time, he seemed determined to flush out Giuliani for his more moderate stances on such issues – driving a wedge between the frontrunner and the purportedly intolerant fanaticism of the religious conservative base.

As it turned out, Rudy sounded so measured, so fundamentally conservative, and so Reaganesque in his unflappable, can-do optimism that he did little to undermine his standing.

But Matthews refused to give up on his project of attacking Republicans on their supposed weak-spot – social positions out of touch with the American mainstream. The moderator even went so far as to ask each of the contenders—yup, all ten of ‘em -- whether he would welcome Bill Clinton returning to Washington as a resident of the White House.

What are Republican candidates supposed to say to such an inane query?

The only way that Slick Willy comes back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is if Hillary wins the Presidency, or if one of the other candidates wins the election, jettisons his wife and embraces Bill in a gay marriage-- and either development would look distasteful to Republicans.

Matthews asked about Clinton because he hoped that one (or more) of the GOP contenders would explode in a torrent of intemperate Bill-bashing—again, marginalizing the party and separating its candidates from the Great American Middle, which feels incurable fondness for the former President. Fortunately, the candidates looked appropriately befuddled by the asinine inquiry and remained respectful (if skeptical) of both Clintons.

In last week’s debate among Democrats, Brian Williams of NBC did a superb job of raising all the most significant challenges facing the country, and allowed the contenders to explain their positions. Chris Matthews, by contrast, ignored many of the most significant concerns of the public and aimed primarily at trivia designed to make the GOP’ers look bad.

Despite his efforts, each of the big three (Giuliani, Romney, McCain) came across as competent, commanding and sympathetic – as did second-tier contenders Sam Brownback and especially Duncan Hunter (who may have turned in the single best performance of the evening). Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, Ron Paul, and particularly the two terrible Toms (Tommy Thompson and Tom Tancredo) looked much less impressive.

But none of the candidates on the stage embarrassed himself nearly as much as the evening’s moderator, whose bias and hostility dominated and largely posioned the proceedings.

__________________________________________________ ___


MAtthews' actions speak louder than his words- if it is true that he says he is more conservative than most people think then he certainly takes every opportunity to try make the Repubs try to look bad. I have seen it with my own eyes. I had to stop watching his show cause of how unfairly he treats Repub guests. He beats them with clubs while treating the Dems like valued guests.

CArlson is weak. Buchanon does not belong to the Republican party anymore and is a critic so why would I think that he would represent the party? I do give them credit for having Scarborough on. But that does not make up for the rest of their programming.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7


MAtthews' actions speak louder than his words- if it is true that he says he is more conservative than most people think then he certainly takes every opportunity to try make the Repubs try to look bad. I have seen it with my own eyes. I had to stop watching his show cause of how unfairly he treats Repub guests. He beats them with clubs while treating the Dems like valued guests.

CArlson is weak. Buchanon does not belong to the Republican party anymore and is a critic so why would I think that he would represent the party? I do give them credit for having Scarborough on. But that does not make up for the rest of their programming.



Because Buchanan is STILL a conservative, and a Republican, he's just not a NEO- conservative and those are the people whom he criticizes, because they've circumvented and perverted the foundations of the Republican Party, which I believe he holds dear.

And I'm sure Matthews beat the Terry Schiavo issue because he wants to see if these Republican candidates, who were once upon a time about less government interference in people's lives, will get back to what they were supposed to originally stand for.

When you chastize your children for doing something wrong, are you embarassing them or making your displeasure known to them?

MSNBC still gave Tucker Carlson a show. Fox News just gave Colmes a leash and a dog house. They could've let Tucker Carlson wallow in obscurity after they cancelled Crossfire, but instead they gave him a slot... which could've been filled by some wild ranting liberal, but they didn't.

Go figure.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
MAtthews' actions speak louder than his words- if it is true that he says he is more conservative than most people think then he certainly takes every opportunity to try make the Repubs try to look bad. I have seen it with my own eyes. I had to stop watching his show cause of how unfairly he treats Repub guests. He beats them with clubs while treating the Dems like valued guests.


Lets look at the questions asked, all taken from the online site politico.com

Mayor Giuliani, how do we get back to Ronald Reagan's morning in America?
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?
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?
Do we have to reduce that temperature of hatred before we win the war, or simply continue to fight the terrorists?
Would you have fired Don Rumsfeld before last November?
Do you think a general shake-up in this administration's Cabinet, right now, would be good for the administration?
He wants to know, what specific programs would you cut if you were president?
Governor Thompson, is racism still a problem in our society, and can a president do anything about it?
Beside yourself, who do you think should be the Republican nominee for president of the United States, and why?

Blah blah these softballs go on forever. Not exactly the witch hunt conservatives would lead us to believe. What do these people have against the truth? WTF?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
Because Buchanan is STILL a conservative, and a Republican, he's just not a NEO- conservative and those are the people whom he criticizes, because they've circumvented and perverted the foundations of the Republican Party, which I believe he holds dear.

And I'm sure Matthews beat the Terry Schiavo issue because he wants to see if these Republican candidates, who were once upon a time about less government interference in people's lives, will get back to what they were supposed to originally stand for.

When you chastize your children for doing something wrong, are you embarassing them or making your displeasure known to them?

MSNBC still gave Tucker Carlson a show. Fox News just gave Colmes a leash and a dog house. They could've let Tucker Carlson wallow in obscurity after they cancelled Crossfire, but instead they gave him a slot... which could've been filled by some wild ranting liberal, but they didn't.

Go figure.

Buchanon is a conservative who is instantly dismiised by many as being too extreme in his views- therefore a great choice for a conservative representative on a liberal leaning cable channel. Carlson is a nice guy but does not effectively represnt the conservative viewpoint cause he tends to be too moderate on many issues and always looks for middle ground.

I do like Scarborough but I could see that he was starting to slant a bit left too in recent times. I guess that happens when you are surrounded by libs and are employed by them too.

Olbermann and Matthews are the heavy hitters there and I had heard months ago they were planning to get rid of the other shows. MSNBCs ratings are miniscule anyway-probably from trying to appeal to the left at the expense of the right. Couric's show has suffered because she alientated so many -people on the right over the years. An unfortunate problem is that people on the right tend to watch the news and they tend to watch shows that are at least not bashers of the right.

I do give CNN headline news credit for having the Glenn Beck show on.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
MSNBC has the fair Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman. They are so objective. How could I have forgotten about them. And of course Chris moderated the last Republican debate. I stopped watching them a few years ago when they became virulent.

Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are news commentators, their shows are not straight news shows, they're political commentary shows where one is expected to hear opinions. Fox News isn't an illegitimate, biased network because they gave Bill O'Reilly a show. O'Reilly is dishonest and frequently misstates things, but his having a commentary show where states his conservative opinions is fine. Where the problem lies, what is unethical and wrong, is by having people like Brit Hume host a commentary show where he professes a conservative opinion on everything, and ALSO have him work as a panelist and a news anchor. How would you feel if instead of Bill Maher just having a politically commentary talk show on HBO, he also started reading the nightly news on your local station?

I'm amazed that the debate right now is whether a network is biased based on how many conservative pundits they have vs. how many liberal pundits they have. It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with making sure the anchors aren't pundits at all, and if they have an opinion one way or another about the news, they don't state it and don't imply it. Most networks aren't biased because they report objective stories, while Fox is biased because it inserts opinion into most news stories and doesn't differentiate between commentators and anchors (and, of course, they've been caught using Republican party talking points as a list of news stories for the day)

[Lynn7]

I would never compare Brit Hume to Bill Maher! lol!

I see Brit as a man who is intolerant of hypocirsy rather than a conservative pundit. And anyway, when he gives the news he is objective in his reporting. When he speaks with the panel at the end of the show he has people that are critical of both sides of the aiste. At least on that show they will criticize the Republicans too. You hardly ever hear any criticism of the left on MSNBC. And the panelists are thoughtful and mostly fair. I will say that Birt and Juan Willimas are at each others' throats a lot of the time during the panel section of the show. Chris Wallace moderates the same show on Sunday and he is far from conservative. Yet he conducts himself objectively IMO.