Sorry state of the Republican party
 

this editorial in today's NY Times shows what a sad group of candidates the GOP has assembled. Watch the conservative responses to this. None will be able to refute the facts of the editorial. They'll just cite the source as the Times and call it another example of the bias of the liberal media.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/op...1.html?_r=1&hp

Facts?
 

It's getting harder to find facts on the NY Time Editorial/Opinion Pages and it's not too hard to find opinions on the NY Times news pages.

Reminds me of Mark Twain who wrote...
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."

Please, actor. The NY Times is a well known promoter of the liberal/progressive cause and liberal/progressive political candidates in it's opinion pages particularly. Your link is specifically from their opinion page and is just that, their opinion. You don't need me to tell you what I think they can do with their opinion.

I reject their stupid and hateful opinion of the Republican electorate, and laugh at their caricature depictions of the people who are vying for the Republican nomination.

This editorial opinion piece can only entertain their disciples.

Thanks for proving
 

my point.

Actor, as you predicted, the conservatives have just labled this as junk reporting by the liberal press. Right wingnuts do not even bother to check for the truth in it.

Personally, I liked it a lot. Gingrich wants to have a "loyalty oath"? Bachman couldn't find anyway to create jobs except to get rid of the EPA (doesn't that lose jobs for those employees?), and Santorum actually said that wealth will trickle down? Total losers - all of them.

The current field of Republican contenders is a very good base for jokes for the late night comedians. See, they do have a purpose!

Oh please
 

This column is purely for people who did not actually watch the debate, and who refuse to do so because their minds are completely closed to other ideas and thinking.

The arrogance of this "erudite" NYT editorial staff is doing nothing more than promoting ignorance and laziness--ignorance in the form encouraging readers to rely on this biased pile of mockery, instead of doing a little bit of easy homework by simply watching all or parts of this debate in video segments posted online.

In this day and age of internet, radio, and satellite tv/radio, it is pure laziness to consider yourself "informed" after reading only a column like this from a notoriously biased publisher of "news".

This is irresponsible, to encourage the public to consider itself "informed" about these candidates, providing drivel like this, when readers can and should easily inform themselves by actually WATCHING the debate REGARDLESS of your Democrat or Republican leanings!

Here is one clip of 7 minutes from the debate, on immigration. Warning: you might learn something about these candidates that the arrogant NYT purposely withheld from its column

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH7ERymYRVo&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

Link to video clip above
 

Since the youtube link I posted above is not working, here is a link to the "channel" where it is posted.

http://www.youtube.com/user/immreport

No definitive answers given
 

Well, I just wasted 7 minutes of my time listening to the video clip of those sorry individuals who are the hopes and dreams of the Republicans.

They were asked direct questions regarding immigration. Not one of them answered the direct question but went off on their own prepared responses to something remotely similar to the question.

Ron Paul is totally out his element (as well as out of his mind) when trying to give a coherent answer. Ricky Santorum did not even try to answer the question. Newt only grazed the question and finally said there is no answer.

Bachman was not in on this question but I am sure she would have had some stock answer her advisors wrote for her that brushed on immigration.

None of these people were impressive. To my conservative friends, Richie, Hancie, and iloveTV, I can only say Vote Democrat.

Skipping school
 

Sorry, some of us are willing to keep doing some homework and then coming to a tentative conclusion. Lots of things can happen in 17 months, and some of us are willing to change course based on what we have the ambition to study and learn.

To ilovetv - You asked people to watch the video on the candidates' responses to questions on immigration and we might learn something about the candidates. I did that and then I posted my findngs. You did not express any of your viewpoints on what you thought of their non-answers.

Please do so - and tell us who you thought gave the answers to the direct questions and why you think their answer to the direct question posed to them was the right answer. Thank you.

Maybe they should all have had teleprompters ready.

The NY Times Credibility Challenge
 

The Times, along with most daily newspapers, continues to lose circulation and importance - not to mention money. The sole exception among major papers is The Wall Street Journal. I noted in another post that I continue to read the journal because of its objective coverage. Apparently I am not the only one who feels this way:

http://www.theawl.com/2009/10/a-grap...st-two-decades

For those of you who are interested, the times continues to lose circulation, having lost an additional 6% in the last year. Unless people can believe what a paper writes, there is no reason for subscribing.

BBQMan,

You definitely got a good head on your shoulders. The Wall Street Journal is an excellent newspaper.

Hancie -
... or had crib notes scribbled on their hands.

You don't get to set up the biased and hateful editorial opinion of the NY Times towards Republicans as some kind of national barometer of truth. It was merely their biased opinion and I get to disagree with their opinion, and in fact, damn well should.

Your promotion of this lousy opinion piece and your impertinence in expecting me to be in awe of their journalistic wisdom and respond in defense of their false premises is ludicrous.

Vote for Obama again and we all will we in a socialist society and the Government will run all our lives. Good thinking...................... :loco:

BBQman I have subscribe to the Wall Street Journal since 1978 until present. They seem to be one of the few papers left with any crediblity.

it seems the only things that are credible are those that you agree with. Anything that you disagree with is not. Simple

NBC WSJ Poll
 

Speaking of the WSJ, an NBC/WSJ Poll conducted 6-13 surveyed 1000 adults via cell phone regarding Congress, Obama, and the Republican field of candidates. The link to the pdf is listed below. The document is 31 pages long.
Question 6 surveyed their feelings about the Tea Party Movement and the Republican candidates. . Those who are very positive and somewhat positive for the following: Tea Party 13 and 15%. Negative (Somewhat and Very) 14 and 27. Then it surveys the candidates on page 10 as Total positive and total negative.I left out not sure.
Obama 49 37
Christie 23 14
Romney 27 26
Democratic Party 38 39
Ryan 17 18
Pawlenty 14 15
Huntsman 7 9
Perry 12 15
Tea Party 28 41
Republican Party 28 41
Palin 24 54
Question 9 Who they would vote for 1n 2112
Obama 45
Republican candidate 40
Gingrich 16 48
Cain and Bachman were not listed. She was listed on Question 12b asked of registered voters who said they would vote in the Republican primary. Maybe the survey was prior to the debate.
There is lots of data to digest.

Here is the link http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Se...0Filled-in.pdf

From what I read in Mitch's posting from the Wall Street Journal, President Obama does not have much to fear from the Republican potential candidates.

It is very interesting to see that the American mainstream voter is definitely not represented by the majority of the posters on this forum. Gripe as much as you want, but you must remember the majority of Americans voted President Obama into office - and it looks as though he will be staying another term.

Opinion Versus News
 

The editorial or opinion pages of any newspaper or magazine are for exactly that--editorials or opinion. If you wish to read news, you need to go to other parts of the paper to read columns written by reporters, not columnists.

When people criticize a media source of being left or right, it's often because of what they publish on the editorial or opinion pages, articles written by columnists. Oftentimes those same media sources do a superb job of reporting the facts of the news in news articles. I won't argues that the New York Times columnists don't tend to "lean left". But I will argue that the paper does a superb job of reporting the news.

It seems as though "ilovetv" will not answer a direct question either.

Sounds like one of those Republican/Teaparty darlings that would not answer direct questions either on their "debate".

Just want to get your talking point in without taking any responsibility for it nor answering a direct question is NOT how to proceed either in a debate or a forum.

Takes More Than Just The WSJ
 

No, not really. Of the four papers delivered to my driveway every morning (The WSJ, New York Times, USA TODAY and Villages Daily Sun), the WSJ is lots better in many respects.

Of course, the WSJ doesn't have very much of an opinion page or very many columnists, an average of only about one page a day, so the majority of what it prints is news. And not much national news of a general nature, and no local news at all. So it really does require reading more than just the WSJ to be reasonably completely informed.

If Obama, a nobody from no where with no accomplishments or qualifications, except dole out the kool aid can come along with NOTHING but words...ANYBODY on the list can do like wise. I totally am amused by the inference that Obama has nothing to fear from who ever it is being bashed at the moment.

He and the dems, have much to fear that is why the negative rhetoric about ANYBODY that does not have a 'D' after their name.

The Dems performance on the economy, jobs, energy, immigration, health care and the babbling about bringing change (uuurrrpppp!) to Washington, the deficit and the increased number of wars are what they have to fear.

Isn't it funny there is not much about these major topics by the mainstream media. What is also missing from any reporting is anything about Herman Cain.
When the media reported the debate the first week they did not mention one word about him. Hmmmnnnn...a black with an 'R' after his name who has no fear about taking and stating positions with risk.

Based on promises kept and accomplishment of improving the stature, integrity of America all merit Obama and his sheeple an F on his report card. Yes, whether the 'D' faithful like it or not....THEY HAVE MUCH TO FEAR!!!!


btk

With the economy in the toilet and more of the same from Obama coming; such as his still held plan of destroying the coal industry and in effect raising power costs in this country to astronomical heights, the only weapon the Democrats have is to try to disillusion the Republican electorate and hopefully deter them from thinking they can oust Obama so that they dejectedly stay home with their votes un-cast.

Ain't gonna happen in 2012. The lame-stream media's plan is doomed to failure. Keep the faith.

Generation 3A nuke plants can destroy the coal industry, lower our electric bills and provide the electrical oomph that we're going to need as more and more cars run on electricity.

What's more is that we can stop blowing the tops off of mountains and filling in the rivers with spoil in West Virginia if we do that.

Good luck getting those nuclear plants past the environmental lobbyists who wield great power in liberal Democrat circles.

and the oil companies that own the republican party

You would like to obtain the power to run this nation, how?

the same way we always have,out of the ground but perhaps without the billions in subsidies we give the oil companies. Oh I forgot the oil companies millions in donations to the republican party,guess they will keep those subsidies for awhile longer.

Don't expect a cogent
 

response.

I mean, you just have to laugh at the complaint that the GOP candidates would not give a straight answer to a reporter’s question. What candidate gives a straight answer? They all have their talking points and the questions are irrelevant to the answers. Actually, Ron Paul comes closest to giving a straight answer. Take a look back at the 2008 Democrat debates. Wasn’t it Dennis Miller who suggested the current occupant of the White House should be selling Sham Wow? I just love that line.

Here's a question they should have asked in the style of the CNN questioning done.

Television: CNN or no Television? .......................(I know my answer.)

(credit: Dennis Miller)