Posted on 07/19/2005 6:56:20 PM PDT by linkinpunk
Thanks for the pings!
Has kerry reminded us that the President did not work with the world community on his choice?
John Kerry was in Vietnam.
Yeah, the same one he hasn't been doing for four years!
Yup . . . same as the purpose of the "Great Debates" is to get the Republican presidential candidate to committ a "gaffe."Now that the journalists are out of the closet, so to speak, as members of the same party as the Democratic politicians, it makes absolutely zero sense to allow journalists to "moderate" the debates.
"The American people expect the Senate to fulfill its duty to conduct a thorough, independent review of any nominee, and I intend to do exactly that."....Kerry
Translation: blah blah blah blah......
Has ANYONE asked any of these Demwits if they consider the Roberts nomination an extraordinary circumstance?????
I think it is of utmost importance that we get a chance to review the records of the cases he argued before the court when he was Assistant Solicitor General of the USA. Until that time I don't see how he can be confirmed.
some war hero..........
for north V.N. only. a cowardly traitor in the U.S.A.
i wish he would take a lot of oldsmobile rides with fat a$$ kennedy.
Heh, the fox guarding the hen house? To add to your thought, the questions themselves should not be picked by journalists either. You've heard some of the leftist slanted foolishness that's come out of that, huh? Maybe the participants should pick each other's questions. THAT might be a hoot.
FGS
Just give the participants a chess timer to control the equal time of the microphone, and let them have at it. Because the journalists' questions are inevitably influenced by the journalists' perspective, which is the same as the perspective of the Democrat.I even argue that the debates should be done on radio, and done over the the telephone so that they impose minimum constraints on the campaigning of the candidates. That way the debates could be frequent, and long - putting less pressure on the candidate with a settled philosophy, and gradually destroying the candidate who has things to hide.
Of course the candidate with something to hide ain't gonna go for that format (and that will never be the Republican, because the journalists would go for the jugular anyway). But perhaps that is the ideal format for the primary election; if you aren't the frontrunner and need the exposure you could do a debate with a similarly situated candidate in the other party - a win-win situation for ideologically based candidates.
Maybe that would have been the way for Reagan to have campaigned for the 1976 Republican nomination, for example. But then, usually one party has an heir-apparent. That's not the case for '08, unless Hillary walks away with it - and maybe my proposal would be the main chance of the Democratic governor who wants to keep her from doing that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.