New CNN 'Crossfire' has GOP turning the channel

U.S. News ^ | 04/06/2002 | Paul Bedard

[CyberAnt]

Good assessment! And ... I totally agree!

[meia]

So who on the conservative side is the equal of Begala and Carville? Is there anyone?

[Husker24]

ROFLMAO!!!!!

[meia]

CNN is making the classic liberal error of assuming that liberal politics are really mainstream politics and that a majority of the people agree that Bush is an idiot and Clinton was a prince among men and a towering success as President. The reality is the opposite, of course.

Actually the American people do feel that Clinton was a success as president. He left office with the highest approval rating of any president. The American people do not think Bush is an idiot. Just the opposite.

[Biblebelter]

I have watched the show for short periods of time with a ball game with sound in the PIP. It is terrible television, television is supposed to be a cool medium if I remember Marshall McCluhan correctly. The show's focus is not discussion but the histrionics and invective of the hosts. It looks like the WWF is producing the show, it should be called Crossfire Raw. It is not informative, nor entertaining, nor amusing. Crossfire had petered out before it expanded to an hour and changed the hosts, if they wanted a show that might get an audience by beating up conservatives, they should try to get Politically Incorrect to move to CNN. Although conservatives are always outnumbered, at least the show brings an intensity level more appropriate to talk television.

[Husker24]

I watched one episode the other day with Jesse Jackson and Jerry Fallwel, Carville tried to cover his serpent eyes with shaded glasses, somehow it only made him look more demonic. Novak was useless, he kept sideing with the Palistinians. The audience was nausiateing, they would laugh when ever Falwell would say anything and cheering would break out whenever Carville would make some smartass remark. That show is pure left-wing propaganda.

[Inspectorette]

So who on the conservative side is the equal of Begala and Carville? Is there anyone?

I'd love to see The Great One, Mark Levin, and Ann Coulter. They would annihilate the gruesome twosome.

[Jhoffa_]

Finally some sign of intelligence from the GOP.

Boycott it, absolutely.

Let Paul and Snake Head sit there and gripe to each other till their ratings tank.

[Jhoffa_]

I'd love to see The Great One, Mark Levin..

"Great One" indeed, I love that guy.

He deserves the title. I love to see him take what would otherwise be about a page and a half of comments and condense it down into a single sound byte. And on top of that, he's a smarmy bastard when he does it.

LOL!

I love that guy!

[Dr. Scarpetta]

Who can watch this show? No one. The dynamic duo of Begala and Carvile will soon be out on the street again. Since CNN is this stupid when they're already being beaten by Fox, they deserve retaliation from EVERY Republican.

[pepperhead]

I don't think it's a matter of Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson being able to hold their own. It's a simple matter that Begala and Carville never shut up. They interview by ambush and filibustering. I can not imagine anyone in there right mind going on that show when Carville is on there. They just show no one any respect. It is real hard to make any point when people are talking over you.

[Calvin Locke]

I watched about 5 minutes...</>

That was 500% greater effort than I put in to the show. It was horribly non-entertaining.
Everbody's comments are totally on the mark, now that I think about it. I didn't bother to give it such detailed analysis
[ as to why it S^CKS, big time]

Stopped only to check it out when I realized it was the *new* Crossfire.
(Do they think a 2nd Admendment name is going to keep viewers?) Kept right on going after a minute of its non-sense.

Carville is repulsive. He'd stand a better chance on radio. But wait! Radio is home to the VRWC.
And the audience is so mean spirited, no liberal has a chance.

The left fails to appreciate that people generally do not buy what
is neither wanted or desirable. Might I suggest Europe, then, Mr. Carville? Or Zimbabwe?

[linn37]

in other words this new show with old retreads SUCKS

[meia]

We have to face facts. We cannot beat these guys with our guys. Therefore, the only thing we can do to preserve our advantage is to somehow shut these guys up. QUICK!!!

Is that the new Right-Wing agenda? If you can't win the debate, shut the opposition up?

[section9]

No, silly leftist. But it's rather obvious that putting Begala and Carville up against a Washington institution like Novak and a light-in-the-loafers pantywaist like Tucker Carlson isn't CNN's idea of a balanced show.

Republicans simply decided not to play along with CNN's scam, that's all. Now when they decide to put Anne Coulter on against the Forehead, then you'll see the little geek get his ass whipped. Until then, no cooperation with the Clinton News Network and its stacked deck!

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Republicans need to be "smart" like the Hildebeast. She only allows herself to be interviewed by "friendly" interviewers and the local press.

Given that all politics is local, the GOP should concentrate on getting the message out to the public directly, not through "filters" like CNN.

[Jim Scott]

Actually the American people do feel that Clinton was a success as president. He left office with the highest approval rating of any president.

That's only partially true. Bill Clinton's poll numbers may have been holding but Clinton had worn out his welcome after eight scandal-filled years. The last-minute pardons hurt him, as did the trashing of the White House. If he was so popular, why did Al Gore avoid using him to bolster his own candidacy? That decision tells me that Clinton was not truly popular by 2000, just tolerated. Nixon had good approval numbers too, right up to the day he resigned.

Meanwhile, George Bush has approval numbers Clinton only dreamed of, and Clinton and his minions are still trying to whitewash Bill and prop him up as a success, when every month's events (the mid-east mess, now) show how poor a job Clinton actually did as President. Media shills aside (they'll be forgotten eventually), history won't be kind to the 'Man from Hope'.

[meia]

That's only partially true. Bill Clinton's poll numbers may have been holding but Clinton had worn out his welcome after eight scandal-filled years. The last-minute pardons hurt him, as did the trashing of the White House. If he was so popular, why did Al Gore avoid using him to bolster his own candidacy? That decision tells me that Clinton was not truly popular by 2000, just tolerated. Nixon had good approval numbers too, right up to the day he resigned.

Polls still show Clinton with high approval, so the pardons didn't hurt. And the trashing? Bush said it didn't happen. As for Gore not using him, that is not a reflection of his popularity but rather Gores bad judgement. After all, he did lose the electoral votes. Maybe if he had used Clinton, he would have garnered more of the popular vote in some of the states he did poorly in and won the electoral votes in addition to winning the popular vote.

Do you have a source for Nixon approval ratings?