Posted on 01/04/2002 12:25:32 AM PST by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:03:11 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
THE folks at Msnbc are talking to former Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Alan Keyes about hosting a 10 p.m. show up against Fox News' new hire, Greta Van Susteren. Meanwhile, Van Susteren, a lawyer before her O.J. Simpson commentary turned her into a CNN star, reportedly has penned an eight-page memo detailing CNN's demerits. She plans to keep the document secret as long as CNN doesn't try to paint her as an ungrateful traitor.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I explained why on my post # 222.
This thread moves so fast,
I can see how you could have missed it.
You support Keyes because you agree with him. That makes sense
What doesn't make sense is for others (apparently not you) to attack and put down others who support GW because they agree with him. See what I mean?
It's one thing to like someone or agree with them. It's another thing altogether to attack people and put them down and say that they are not moral, or not smart enough to understand how great Keyes is or are not patriotic if they don't support Keyes.
Those kind of things make an hypocricy of the claim that you are moral at all.
There are a few things that I agree with Keyes on, but mostly he is too extreme for me. I'd rather see the country united right now, than trying to force everyone to accept ideas that they don't agree with.
You've got a lot of nerve quoting Ronald Reagan after Keyes called Bush evil.
Enough of you.
Well, I spend entirely too much time with the TV on, so this will be a good incentive for me to get back to READING! (I might tune in Greta one night to see how well the Fox make-up people do with her...they are the best in the business, IMHO. If you don't believe me, look how bad Paula Zahn looks now that she is on CNN! HA!)PREDICTION: One of the first guests on Dr. Keyes's show will be Bill Kristol, balanced with Joe Conason. They will chuckle and chortle over President Bush's dimwitedness . The following night will be Arianna Huffington, balanced with Gene Lyons. Third night will be "investigative" with Larry.
I expect kudos if I am close to accurate. HA!
I don't know about accurate, but the thought is LOL funny !!
Ooops.......I hope your other facts are more accurate than that one!
The platform was all settled BEFORE the convention -- it was adopted AT the convention, the end of July.
So what's your excuse for Keyes not coming out for Bush until the end of October NOW?
Gosh, when will they EVER learn not to bring a knife to a gun fight? We just do NOT make statements we cannot back up with facts!
And Keyes calling the Bush Administration evil at the CPAC in Dallas was observing Reagan's 11th Commandment or going on TV to trash Bush after the speeches he has made is following Reagan's 11th commandment. What nerve you have to invoke that when Pres Bush has never trashed keyes but the same cannot be said of keyes toward Bush!
No. MOST Keyes supporters here have been supportive of Bush both here and on other threads. Virtually all attacks here have been by you folks against Keyes, followed by attacks on you by his supporters, and your further attacks on the supporters. In fact these are classic disrupter techniques. As evidence, One can look up a number of Keyes threads, which you folks stayed out of, and there was virtually no flaming of Bush or anyone else, but instead there was rational discussion of issues. If you care to dispute this, please cite flaming of Bush on any Keyes thread where none of you folks showed up.
As far as me being a "prime violator", I rarely respond to keyes threads. However, the thought of keyes having a TV show in which to trash a great President brought even me to an intense need to reply. And I feel a heck of a lot better!
"Notice that the liberal media had no problem publicizing George Bush.
Maybe they didn't consider Bush to be a threat to the liberal agenda.
# 227 by exodus
************************
To: exodus
"Maybe they consider him the president of the United States?
Care to tell us all just how the press, liberal or not,
could go for eight years and not PUBLICIZE George W. Bush?
# 236 by Howlin
************************
Keep up, Howlin.
We're not talking about the President.
We're talking about the candidate
for the Republican nomination.
Bush didn't even have the official nomination
of the Republican party at the time,
and the liberal media never had a bad word to say about him.
We were talking about how the liberal media
wouldn't publicize candidate Keyes' run for the nomination.
Thank you for responding to me.
At the time I thought it was because he was not invited to speak at the Republican convention. But then they didn't invite John McCain either. I remember that McCain finally gave his support to Bush. I can't remember when Keyes did, although I know he finally did.
Do you or does anyone remember when Keyes started supporting Bush?
Would you be so kind as to point out ONE, just ONE, of ANY of those supportive posts by Keyes' people for George W. Bush, president of the United States?
We'll wait.
{{{Insert Jeopardy music here}}}
Yes, good point! That is the kind of thinking that I see from the Keyes folks -- "this is the only right answer and anyone who doesn't agree should be punished or banned or worse."
For those kind of thinkers, freedom and personal liberty are secondary and getting their way -- dominating and controlling others -- is primary.
GW says, "good people can disagree"
And by the way, while I refuse to account for what, if anything, CAL said or did or didn't say or didn't do, everytime this comes up it is always in the context (from y'all's side) that Keyes is just an angry, poor loser, poor campaigner, lousy ________ and just popped out with this comment that Bush was not intelligent or smart and that he would lose.
It's clear, not only by what you posted but what Miss M did, that he was saying this in the context of Bush not articulating the moral message....and then it came out about the study he did as well as the one that AU prof did about the WH not changing sides in ok economic times. So, it isn't as though he's just a blow hard, sore loser that is clearly attempting to be painted upon him.
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.