Isn't the vice-presidency the fourth branch? That was what Cheney said. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport

You seem a little down, let me cheer you up.

It was Clinton's “pay as you go” policies and tax legislation that balanced the budget.

And to say, “The Republicans that balanced the budget in 2000 were not the ones that participated in the ear marks and other wasteful spending” is ridiculous. It's the very same people, re-elected by almost 98%. What changed was President Bush and his amazingly profligate spending. Shocking, really! But a natural extension of Reagan's “deficits don't matter” mantra which has become the defining feature of post-Reagan Republicanism.

And all that media looking the other way? There were thousands and thousands of stories about Rev. Wright, et. al. Thousands. It was just that there was no there, there. Peripheral characters with minor associations. Unendingly reported on by every talk radio host across the country 24 hours a day I might add.

Funny when the right complains about “media bias” they never quite seem to get around to mentioning talk radio, practically an adjunct of the Republican Party. What was that phrase Schimdt used... oh yeah, “150% in the tank.”

And now you're somehow surprised that when y'all put up a complete unknown with no apparent qualifications to run as VP people would want to know about her? Amazed that the press would be curious? Did you think that when Palin claimed foreign policy experience by virtue of being able to see Russia from her kitchen everybody was going to be reassured? I changed planes at Charles de Gaulle Airport a couple of times but that doesn't make me an expert on Napoleon.

Perhaps you thought her constant lying about the bridge to nowhere, the entitlements, the earmarks, trooper gate, or the firing of the librarian would go unchallenged? For you guys I guess that's not much of a stretch having bought the Bush/Cheney lies for years and years. So I'll give you that one. I can understand how that caught you by surprise. After all, so many people have believed many lies for so long now.

“One of the reasons Conservatives didn't like McCain, was that he associated with liberal journalists freely.”

That's probably true. Do you realize how silly and sad that is?

I told you Palin was going to be a disaster. Your only hope now is that McCain can keep the debate from happening because of the critical necessity of his staying in Washington and riding in the little cart delivering the bailout bill from Congress to the White House to make sure it arrives safely. Then he can reschedule the debate until next week and bump the Palin/Biden debate, thus hiding the fact that she is an almost perfect Tabula Rosa from some of the people for a while longer.

And one final thought for you Richard. You're absolutely wrong that, “you libs see no bias”. I do see the bias! The media is biased toward truth. 'Course that's terrible for your side.

It was Clinton's “pay as you go” policies and tax legislation that balanced the budget.

Not quite, his economic estimates as far back as 1996 predicted a balance budget alright, in 2012. But two things happened that liberals always forget to mention.

1.) The Dow Jones was skyrocketing from the increased revenues that came from the IPO's for websites that had no income or profit. I recall reading one 'journalist' saying that we are in a new economy where money is made without any proof of income. Well, the increased revenue balanced the budget, and then BEFORE the 2000 election, the bubble began to burst and the news media kept their mouths shut, out of fear that Gore might be blamed for it. The balanced budget was based upon smoke and mirrors.

2.) The Cold war was won by Reagan, which gave Clinton room to cut the military spending component of the budget. Maybe you accidently FORGOT about the huge cuts that were made to close dozens upon dozens of our military bases.

What changed was President Bush and his amazingly profligate spending. Shocking, really!

Actually, the federal budget is mostly non-discretionary spending.

But a great deal of that was to combat the War on Terror, to rebuild American confidence in our Airlines, and to federalize an entire new department called Homeland Security which gave federal jobs to TSA workers.

And all that media looking the other way? There were thousands and thousands of stories about Rev. Wright, et. al. Thousands.

Wrong again, very little came from the "media". And when it did, it was never covered thoroughly. Sure, Hannity, O'Reilly and talk radio in general covered it, but they are not the media, they are commentators. You do know the difference don't you. Commentators interpret the news and openly discuss their biases. Journalists interpret the news to fit their world view and then hide behind the banner of the Free Press and suggest they are unbiased. I really don't mind journalists having a bias, just tell us what your biases are, instead of "pretending" to be fair.

Funny when the right complains about “media bias” they never quite seem to get around to mentioning talk radio, practically an adjunct of the Republican Party. What was that phrase Schimdt used... oh yeah, “150% in the tank.”

Again, you are making a liberal argument. You change the meaning of words and then say you won the debate. Let me see if you can understand this, Journalists are supposed to report the news without the taint of personal opinion or political bias. Talk radio is Biased Commentaries given by Biased talk show hosts who report the news filtered through they own opinions. Which is why Mediaresearch.org reports the bias with little difficulty, while mediamatters.org reports right wing talk radio hosts as if they are no different than journalist. There is a difference Jeff, you know it, but you are just being disingenuous. You know how to argue, but you revert back to your liberal tendencies to avoid the truth that you know exists.

As to talk radio being biased for Conservatives, I'm sorry that you didn't know this Jeff, so let me type slowly so that you don't get lost in the facts.

Talk radio is controlled by the free market. (I know thats a bad word to use, but its the truth.) The only thing that is necessary for liberal talk shows to gain ground is for more people to listen to them. Why do you suppose it doesn't succeed? Because the facts and the truth can stand the test of time. Rush talks 3 hours every day for 20 years. He just keeps opining on the facts. Liberals hide behind lies and half truths pretending to tell the entire truth. The only people that buy into this liberal spin are liberals like you. Which explains why MSNBC is at the bottom of the ratings barrel. Because intelligent and honest people know the difference in spin and in the truth.
And now you're somehow surprised that when y'all put up a complete unknown with no apparent qualifications to run as VP people would want to know about her? Amazed that the press would be curious?

There is a difference in reporting her lack of experience and in expressing an arrogance about the pick. Compare Gibson's interview with Obama and with Palin. The word Hubris came up both times. With Obama, Gibson served it up with a smile, and a glint of the eye. Obama warmly chuckled while he answered. With Palin, Gibson looked down over his professorial glasses and scolded her like she was late for class. You know it, I know it. Everyone who pays close attention knows it. Palin isn't very experienced, no doubt. Now why hasn't the Press said the same thing about Obama. Sure the press reminds the voter that he has limited experience, its too obvious not to report it, but they immediately change the subject and move on. With Palin, they smirk, giggle and laugh, and then make up stories about her like the book banning scenario.

Perhaps you thought her constant lying about the bridge to nowhere, the entitlements, the earmarks, trooper gate, or the firing of the librarian would go unchallenged?

Ah, gees, now I see where you are doing exactly what I mentioned above. Can you really look yourself in the mirror when you make these moronic comparisons of media fairness?

“One of the reasons Conservatives didn't like McCain, was that he associated with liberal journalists freely.”

That's probably true. Do you realize how silly and sad that is?

I realize how sad it is that there are liberal journalists, instead of impartial reporters of the news. Its silly that you think you can argue about and pretend you are being academic.

I told you Palin was going to be a disaster. Your only hope now is that McCain can keep the debate from happening because of the critical necessity of his staying in Washington and riding in the little cart delivering the bailout bill from Congress to the White House to make sure it arrives safely.

"There you go again!" Democrats are part and parcel the originators of this mess. By pushing these ridiculous loans to their own voters who can't balance their own checkbooks, if a bank would even give them a checking account. This was the Democrat's fault. I blame the Republicans for not telling it like it is, instead of dancing around the politically incorrect thing to say and that the reason we are in this mess is because of liberal policies of dolling out money to the undeserved.

And one final thought for you Richard. You're absolutely wrong that, “you libs see no bias”. I do see the bias! The media is biased toward truth. 'Course that's terrible for your side.

Asinine comment Jeff. You must be in a good mood due to the recent polls. So you are getting a bit cocky. I understand. I really do. You are getting "gitty" thinking of Barack doing to America what he has never done before. Obama is an empty suit with no record of accomplishment and you want him to be president merely because of a speech he gave in 2002. Its true what Karl Marx once said. "Religion is the opiate for the masses." Obama is your Religion, he is your new Messiah, and you are in a self induced drug coma.

I'll make my predictions right now and here. McCain will get between 280 and 300 electorally college votes. Then again, I like Zogby's call to arms for the cocky liberals. He tried to get you guys to continue to fight, rather then resting, so he suggests that McCain is looking at a landslide, because the electorate hasn't figured out who Obama really is. My question to you, have you?

The Dow Jones was skyrocketing? Well of course it was. That’s because the GDP grows so much faster under Democratic Presidents. Take the terms since the 1950’s and group them by 4 year terms so Reagan and Clinton get 2 term units. Look at the average GDP growth figures by term.

No Republican term has reached as high as the average for the Democratic terms.

No Democratic term has fallen as low as the average Republican term.

Democrats are almost always better for the economy in every aspect except taxes.

“The Cold war was won by Reagan, which gave Clinton room to cut the military spending component of the budget. Maybe you accidently FORGOT about the huge cuts that were made to close dozens upon dozens of our military bases.”

No. I didn’t accidentally forget. How could I forget something that only exists in your mind? Clinton increased the military budget while balancing the budget too.

The defense budget started falling under Reagan in 1986 (-4.1%), continued falling under Reagan in 1987 (-3.1%), continued falling under Reagan in 1988 (-1.5%). Then during GHW Bush’s term (1989 – 1993) the defense budget fell every year from 475.4 billion in 1989 to $395.4 billion in 1993.

Under Clinton the defense budget fell for a while then increased during his term from $395.4 billion in 1993 to $406.5 billion in 2001.

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/U.20080331.FY_09_Request_in_T/U.20080331.FY_09_Request_in_T.pdf'

Table 2 Defense Budget

I can’t believe that you’re still drinking the Bush deficit’s kool aide: “Actually, the federal budget is mostly non-discretionary spending.”

He came in with huge surpluses and has essentially bankrupted the country.

About Obama and Wright being covered in thousands of news stories you can claim with a straight face, “Wrong again, very little came from the "media". And when it did, it was never covered thoroughly.” ?

Go to Google News and search for “Obama Wright” from the archives. I just pulled up over 19,000 news stories.

Wrong too about the media.

“Again, you are making a liberal argument. You change the meaning of words and then say you won the debate.” “...you are just being disingenuous” ... “you revert back to your liberal tendencies to avoid the truth that you know exists”

Nope. I didn't change the meaning of the word media. You did. All of a sudden you've restricted the usage to exclude everyone except news journalist.

Here's the definition from Merriam-Webster:

Media: a medium of communication (as newspapers, radio, or television) that is designed to reach the mass of the people —usually used in plural.

Another fact, biased against you.

Give me a break about how y’all are getting hounded in the media or poor old Palin is being mistreated. If she can’t handle a news reporter’s question how can she possibly be prepared to be President? She’s not running for VP of her kindergarten class.

And what’s up with this part: ???

“Perhaps you thought her constant lying about the bridge to nowhere, the entitlements, the earmarks, trooper gate, or the firing of the librarian would go unchallenged?
Ah, gees, now I see where you are doing exactly what I mentioned above. Can you really look yourself in the mirror when you make these moronic comparisons of media fairness?”

Media fairness? The news media reports the facts. She lied about all of those things. Over and over and over again. What? The media is somehow supposed not to mention that?

Do you still believe that Palin didn’t take earmarks and stopped the bridge to nowhere?

“By pushing these ridiculous loans to their own voters who can't balance their own checkbooks, if a bank would even give them a checking account. This was the Democrat's fault.”

Utterly preposterous.

There is not and never has been any law that required banks to make liar loans. This problem stemmed directly from Republican legislation which allowed the amount of leverage to increase to 30 times assets coupled with deregulation and no oversight. The oversight part was the responsibility of the BUSH administration!! HELLO!!!

“Obama is an empty suit with no record of accomplishment and you want him to be president merely because of a speech he gave in 2002.”

No, again Richard. Like it or not, Obama has been through the campaign and has been thoroughly vetted by the American people, much to your chagrin I’m sure. And the idea that you can even rouse up some kind of mock concern over someone being an empty suit is really funny. Palin is not even an empty suit. More like a wispy feather boa without as much substance.

McCain landslide? My calculations right now has Obama at 307 McCain 231. Next week McCain will probably pull out of Michigan and Colorado on his way to your landslide victory.

And all that junk about, "Obama is your Religion, he is your new Messiah..." blah, blah blah. Only the right wing nuts are claiming Obama is a Messiah. I've noticed that you do it a lot.

Me, I'm a Methodist.

What are your thoughts on the involvement of Raines and Johnson with this "financial crisis"? Any problem with them? Or Jamie Gorelick? Or Barney Frank? What say you?

Well, whether you like such as Barney or not, Mass. is lucky to have such a brilliant man representing them---as far as politicians go---not morals.

To throw out some names many detest isn't related to our current problems!

Yeah, I've got a big problem with Raines and Johnson. However the connection with Obama for Raines was peripheral it seems, a couple of phone calls to the campaign. Doesn't seem like much to hang Obama with. However, I have had a personal contact with Mr. Raines which left me less than satisfied and believe me that's being charitable. His compensation is/was outrageous. As for Johnson, again his serving for 2 weeks vetting VP selections for Obama is going to be hard to use to discredit Obama, politically speaking. On the other hand it has more traction than Raines connection. I was surprised a little that the McCain people went with an attack on Raines when it seemed to me Johnson was a better target. I assume you're asking politically. As you know, both parties are up to their eyeballs with connections to Wall Street and financial agencies.

I am totally clueless about Gorelick. I've heard the name but don't know the story.

Barney Frank? Seems like he's right on top of the situation, working with Bush and Paulson. He's a partisan but I don't have a problem with that at all. I'm assuming you don't care that he's gay, did you have a specific complaint about him?

Then DON'T be one or the other!!!!

Be INDEPENDENT and vote for the person who at the time seems to have what it takes to do well for US! Whether Dem Or Rep.

That also doesn't mean they have to be an "independent" candidate, necessarily.

Two parties is what we need--no more-- but one should vote for the person, not the party, who is doing the best.