Just Another Gimmick

I clicked on R. Emmet Tyrell's article on Townhall about the idiots who contributed the questions on the 'YouTube Debate'. Mr. Tyrell focused on the morons who asked the questions. That's all well and good but the bigger issue, I think, is why do Democrats NEVER have to answer serious questions? They wag their jaws spewing whatever the polls at the moment tell them is popular with whatever demographic segment they happen to be speaking to and whatever they say, no matter how irrational, is unanalyzed and forgotten in time for the next bit of nonsense to emerge. Their true actions are never scrutinized honestly.
Here's my comment to Mr. Tyrell's article:

You Tube or any other MSM format becomes a vehicle for the Democratic candidates to avoid any serious questions. Mrs Clinton's relationship with a creep who sells lists of vulnerable senior citizens to con artists, no question there. The unbroken record of failure of government health-care systems, didnt hear that one. The Democrats opposition to a border fence, nope. The Dem's opposition to the John Doe law, didnt hear it. Any question about the use of an increasingly discredited man-made Global Warming theory to justify government control of the economy, nah- not there. They could have asked why Democrats run as conservatives and then go to Washington and vote like wacko leftists, but they didnt. Nuclear power, building refineries and drilling for oil? nope. Fortunately for the Dems, the Republicans, for some inexplicable reason, are also too befuddled to hit them with those same questions (and a whole lot more). The Repubs just stand on the cattle call stage and respectfully answer snidey questions about abortion.
The media is the problem. The idiots that are running it have no interest in serious debate. They are morons with an agenda pandering to morons with an agenda. Result-- Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Clinton and B. Hussien Obama are considered serious candidates.

A Maverick By Another Name

Today on Townhall Debra Saunders wrote an exculpatory article about John McCain an his supposedly admirable 'maverick' status. She even mentioned his 'courageous' stands on global warming and immigration. Now, supporting legislation to turn the economy over to the Central Planning Socialists might be 'courageous' if you are convinced that global warming is caused by human activity (the CP Socialists are experts at decreasing economic activity), but if you think that global warming is a normal phase in the earth's climate cycle due to solar activity then this 'courageous' stand becomes a 'stupid' stand, engendered by a lot of New York Slimes and Washington Compost articles best left unread.
Anyway, here is my comment on Ms. Saunder's article:

Maverick aka LIBERAL. I guess you could admire Harry Reid for having the courage of his convictions if you ignore what those convictions actually are. Does that make him a maverick too? McLame has fought courageously for ACLU lawyers for terrorists, keeping conservative judges off the bench, against free speech and tax cuts,against drilling for oil in ANWAR and offshore --in fact he did more than anyone else, including his fellow maverick Harry Reid, to make the Republican majority in the Senate absolutely meaningless. Now this maverick wants Republicans to vote for him? He should get the mailing lists of his fellow mavericks Kennedy (McCain-Kennedy immigration) and Feingold (McCain- Feingold partial repeal of the First Amendment) and campaign for votes from people who agree with him.

Trent Lott For President

"Now, people are at least as smart as goats"

Why would a man of such sagacity fear talk radio?