Do you agree with Ron Paul and Michele Bachman about the CBS debate?

[francoHFW]

I do wish they let Paul talk more- we could save some on defense fersure. But let Obama do it...

 

[Inthemiddle]

And what of the people who get zero air time at all in the debates?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course if these were actual ‘debates’ questions wouldn’t be asked at all, much less the number of questions.

Otherwise CBS is a private business interested only in making a profit, it’s free to make business decisions accordingly.

And there’s nothing that can be done to compel CBS to ask an equal number of questions to all candidates, particularly with regard to conservatives/republicans who are opposed to ‘equal time.’

If we are to have a true democracy to go with our constitutional republic then we must have fair debates and true free media.

‘Free media’ pertains only to government prior restraint or preemption; if government were dictating to CBS how to conduct its debate, that would be an issue.

Yes, I agree with Paul and Bachman that they are treated unfairly.

And?

Aren’t private corporations free to treat people unfairly? At least that’s a rightist tenet. Paul and Bachman need to stop complaining and let the free market decide, just take their business elsewhere.

 

[Alan Stallion]

Every debate and every "news" media outlet has been guilty of disproportionate amount of time, and typically by design. They care more about what the perceived front-runners have to say because they want the audience to only care about those candidates, good or bad.

A common tactic: each candidate gets 60 seconds, with 30 second to rebut if their name is mentioned. So for example, the question will go Mitt Romney about his Romneycare. Anybody else who responds automatically grants Mitt 30 seconds each time his name is mentioned. Which is why Mitt is typically is, if not number one, in the top 3 of time allotted.

You'll also note how, until the last two debates, Romney and Rick Perry were centered on stage right next to each other, which makes it easier for back-and-forth bickering between the two, as candidates who are usually places on the edge of the stage, typically Huntsman, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and until recently, Herman Cain. It really should be random placement if they cared about fairness, but the media (no matter which outlet) is far from caring about fairness. They're be more than happy to select the candidates for the voting public.

Clearly in the most recent debate on CBS, Ron Paul was left out of the second round questions so he has a legitimate gripe. And the memo that one of Bachmann's staffers received accidently helps to confirm her suspicions of manipulative exclusion.

 

[rightwinger]

I thought Bachmann did pretty well last night. She actually looked like she knew what she was talking about

More time would have just given her more time to screw up a good thing

 

[Avorysuds]

They are just being whiny little bitches

Start coming up in the polls and you will get more FaceTime. As it is, they get more attention than their candidacy deserves

Here is the problem, people like RW that fear a candidate (Paul) that is not a fake. Paul talks about ending the wars and people like RW are scared because their party is now the huge massive evil war party. RW does not want someone like RP VS Obama because Obama would stand no chance, what would Obama tell liberals, “don’t vote Paul because he would end the wars and not bail out the rich???

Yes, I agree with Paul and Bachman that they are treated unfairly. Paul polls better than Newt and not too long ago Paul was polling 10-14% while Newt was polling 3% or 1% and they still gave Newt more time, so this idea that how you poll is going to determine your talk time is pure bullshit.

I also found it amazing the order they asked questions and the fact they didn’t ask Paul about what cuts he would do. It was done like that because Paul offers actual cuts to balance the budget, others can just talk (as they did) and offer no meaningful cuts as long as the bar is set low. Instead they want to keep asking RP if he would allow terrorists to get nukes…

I really hope if Paul does not get the nod he runs independent and kills the Republicans chances to beat Obama, there is simply no difference at this point. I liked Newt but now he is just a big spending war bitch who offers zero cuts. “Go after crooks” is Newts answer… A it does not balance the budget and B what the fuck does that even mean…

The currrent Republican voter base does not deserve to elect another war loving big spending President. I know it hurts but most Republicans are still nothing more than Progressive liberals.

while I agree that given his standing in the polls Paul should have gotten more air time, lying will not help your cause. Paul does not poll better than Newt.

He did for a long fucking time and some polls still show him ahead of Newt. Try and keep in mind that lying will not help your case...

 

[Avorysuds]

I thought Bachmann did pretty well last night. She actually looked like she knew what she was talking about

More time would have just given her more time to screw up a good thing

Yup, you liked her because she is ok with killing American citizens, supports torture and likes the idea of more war and so on... Not shocking for a second you would like her.

 

[BenNatuf]

Here is the problem, people like RW that fear a candidate (Paul) that is not a fake. Paul talks about ending the wars and people like RW are scared because their party is now the huge massive evil war party. RW does not want someone like RP VS Obama because Obama would stand no chance, what would Obama tell liberals, “don’t vote Paul because he would end the wars and not bail out the rich???

Yes, I agree with Paul and Bachman that they are treated unfairly. Paul polls better than Newt and not too long ago Paul was polling 10-14% while Newt was polling 3% or 1% and they still gave Newt more time, so this idea that how you poll is going to determine your talk time is pure bullshit.

I also found it amazing the order they asked questions and the fact they didn’t ask Paul about what cuts he would do. It was done like that because Paul offers actual cuts to balance the budget, others can just talk (as they did) and offer no meaningful cuts as long as the bar is set low. Instead they want to keep asking RP if he would allow terrorists to get nukes…

I really hope if Paul does not get the nod he runs independent and kills the Republicans chances to beat Obama, there is simply no difference at this point. I liked Newt but now he is just a big spending war bitch who offers zero cuts. “Go after crooks” is Newts answer… A it does not balance the budget and B what the fuck does that even mean…

The currrent Republican voter base does not deserve to elect another war loving big spending President. I know it hurts but most Republicans are still nothing more than Progressive liberals.

while I agree that given his standing in the polls Paul should have gotten more air time, lying will not help your cause. Paul does not poll better than Newt.

He did for a long fucking time and some polls still show him ahead of Newt. Try and keep in mind that lying will not help your case...

youi didn't say he used to, you said he polls ahead of him. he does not. the last time Pau polled ahead of newt was a month ago and it was 9-8... statistically tied. Cripes man, Paul is only polling ahead of Perry in ONE current poll.

And newt has never polled 1%, and the last time paul hit 14% in any poll was in august.

Lying will not help your case.

 

[Katzndogz]

It is always disappointing that Ron Paul gets to waste time better spent with worthwhile candidates. Michelle Bachman started off well, slid and just doesn't have the grace to bow out yet.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is always disappointing that Ron Paul gets to waste time better spent with worthwhile candidates. Michelle Bachman started off well, slid and just doesn't have the grace to bow out yet.

It has more to do with a lack of common sense than ‘grace.’

 

[JakeStarkey]

If we are to have a true democracy to go with our constitutional republic then we must have fair debates and true free media.

The Cain supporters complained about the lack of coverage for Herman Cain as well in his early campaign.

Do you agree with Ron Paul and Michele Bachman about the CBS debate?


More : Do you agree with Ron Paul and Michele Bachman about the CBS debate?

The winners of CBS debate are certainly Cain and Bachman, I agree with the statement that CBS ( Christian Bashing System) faked coverage about them. The speeches of meaningful RINOs were miserable, they should better run for Demoncrats.

Barnon and BenNatuf, either or both CHINOs and RINOs, are fun to read. They are here for only grins and chuckles.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You far right RINOs and CHINOs and AINOs! Listen up, suck wads, now!!

It will be Romney or Newt. Cain cannot stop the bleeding. Bachman is loony and Perry is goony. Johnson and Huntsman, the most sensible, don't stand a chance at all.

It is what it is. Get used to it.

 

[PredFan]

I had thought that CNN had done just abut as awful a job with their debate as anyone could possibly do. Then CBS upped the ante.

 

[PredFan]

You far right RINOs and CHINOs and AINOs! Listen up, suck wads, now!!

It will be Romney or Newt. Cain cannot stop the bleeding. Bachman is loony and Perry is goony. Johnson and Huntsman, the most sensible, don't stand a chance at all.

It is what it is. Get used to it.

Incoherant ramblings of a left wing loon are entertaining only for a short time. You're about at your limit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PredFain, read the realclearpolitics.com ratings for the next two weeks, and come crawling back in apology. I will simply laugh and kick dust in your face. And, if you don't, I will post this and the ratings and kick dust in your face.

Romney and Newt, no one else to toot.