To: ForGod'sSake
he Dim's whole exercise of dragging these appointees through the briar patch is to create a slip-up. To badger the witness, so to speak, into making a less than eloquent statement that can be turned into a sound bite for the media enablers. 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.
147 posted on
07/20/2005 11:00:13 AM PDT by
conservatism_IS_compassion
(The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
To: conservatism_IS_compassion
...it makes absolutely zero sense to allow journalists to "moderate" the debates. 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
152 posted on
07/20/2005 7:19:40 PM PDT by
ForGod'sSake
(ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson