Here's why Phil's getting cancelled

[vraiblonde]

I happened to scan past Donohue and he had Dennis Miller on (I think it was a repeat). Anyway, Dennis is a Bush supporter and in favor of going after Saddam. Needless to say, Phil doesn't like this. Here's one paraphrased exchange:

Dennis: One of the things I like best about Bush is he realizes that he doesn't know everything - he knows his shortcomings - so he surrounds himself with people who know this stuff and can bring him up to speed.

Phil: Oh, I give Bush all the credit in the world for his achievements.

Dennis: Come on, Phil...

Phil: No, really. For instance, beating alcoholism - that's a great achievement!

Now I'm watching the Democrats throw away the 2004 election on C-SPAN. They better watch it or their show will get the ax, too.

 

[Penn]

I caught that same show, with Dennis Miller totally outclassing
Phil Donahue last night.

It was clear to me that Phil wasn't fast enough or learned enough to keep up with Dennis' thinking; you could actually see Phil Donahue pause, ever so slightly, trying to grasp the meaning of some of Millers' retorts.

As I turned off the TV, I was left wondering if Phil realized that this is the gentleman that should have been hosting the show all along.

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Now I'm watching the Democrats throw away the 2004 election on C-SPAN. They better watch it or their show will get the ax, too.

So are you saying that the 2004 Election was the Democrats' to win? I certainly think that way. A recent Pew poll shows President Bush's job-approval rating is 54%, its lowest since the inauguration. A dismal 40% approve of his handeling of the economy while only 45% approve of his handeling of social issues. The poll also showed that in an election between the president and "a Democratic contender," Bush is merely winning by 5 percentage points, 45-40%. Everything is going against the Republicans here but you wouldn't believe that.

 

[Penn]

Dems, don't put too much stock in those polls. Depending how the questions are asked, and in which sequence they're arranged, those numbers can go up or even down dramatically.

I know you love 'em buddy, but don't go to snickering too much just yet, my friend.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by penncam
Dems, don't put too much stock in those polls. Depending how the questions are asked, and in which sequence they're arranged, those numbers can go up or even down dramatically.

I know you love 'em buddy, but don't go to snickering too much just yet, my friend.

yea, these polls must suck
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_reagan010806.html

 

[SmallTown]

Speaking of shows being cancelled, saw bill maher on larry king (maybe that is why I missed the saddam interview??).

I liked the guy when he was on comedy central because I thought it was a good fit. Comedy. But now trying to go mainstream and be taken seriously. Ughh. The guy is so freaking annoying. I've never seen someone jump around questions as much as he does. He talks a lot of smack like he knows whats going on, but when questioned he looks completely lost.
Example. He said he was an independent, so larry asked him "So you don't vote in primaries?"
he looked confused and said that if a person need the vote he votes in the primary.
Sure, you can party flip all you want to vote in primaries, which could be the case here. But I just got the impression he wasn't aware you couldn't vote in the primary without being registered with that party ( or am I mistaken?)

Here is to another who needs a big L slapped on the forehead

 

[vraiblonde]

Liberals are off-trend - sorry.

According to Gallup, 59% of Americans favor invading Iraq with ground troops:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/specialReports/pollSummaries/sr030224.asp

Gallup also shows Bush's current approval rating at 57%:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/stateNation/

Now the libs are trying to trot out a 1995 testimony from Gen. Hussein Kamel that says Iraq destroyed all it's weapons.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html

It so happens that Kamel is the former son-in-law of Saddam Hussein. I say "former" because Kamel is no longer among the living. The article mentions briefly that Kamel was killed shortly after returning to Iraq (after his famous defection). What they don't feel the need to tell you is that Saddam had him killed - lured him back into the country with promises of forgiveness, then had him and the other son-in-law assassinated.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/feud021097.htm

The talk around the campfire is that Saddam was responsible for the 1996 assassination attempt of Uday Hussein, son of the dictator and most famous for his torture of the Iraqi soccer team after a losing season.

A significant portion of the Dem candidates rhetoric last night revolved around the problem with Iraq. To a man, they insisted that Iraq wasn't that big of a deal and that Bush should focus on bin Laden/North Korea/Charlton Heston/take-your-pick instead. They proclaimed that "diplomacy" was the answer, not force.

Now. Explain to me how a person might use "diplomacy" against a man who had his daughters' husbands killed and allegedly ordered the assassination of his own son?

 

[vraiblonde]

ST, I saw the Maher interview too. Here's the transcript for anyone who's interested:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/26/lkl.00.html

About halfway down the page, Maher is defending Michael Jackson - what a hoot!

 

[SmallTown]

Going along with Dems post about age, does it mean I'm getting old because I watch Larry King sometimes???

anyways, here it is..
KING: What are you? MAHER: I'm an independent.

KING: You do not vote in primaries.

MAHER: No, I don't think I do, but I might. If there was someone I liked I would help them get a leg up. I have.



hmm.. Don't think I do... I might.. I have... WTF???


But I did like his comment about Nike!

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Liberals are off-trend - sorry.

Gallup also shows Bush's current approval rating at 57%:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/stateNation/

A significant portion of the Dem candidates rhetoric last night revolved around the problem with Iraq. To a man, they insisted that Iraq wasn't that big of a deal and that Bush should focus on bin Laden/North Korea/Charlton Heston/take-your-pick instead. They proclaimed that "diplomacy" was the answer, not force.

Now. Explain to me how a person might use "diplomacy" against a man who had his daughters' husbands killed and allegedly ordered the assassination of his own son?

Did you take a look at the other two polls? Quite to Bush's disadvantage. The Democratic candidates right now are using terrible political tactics. I say this for all the candidates save Lieberman. Our party needs a hawk to carry its banner because one, I am convinced that that is the correct policy that we need right now, and two, it will help the political position of the party. We have to admit that President Bush is right on this one. Lieberman is a candidate that will show that and Edwards will too. Kerry voted for the Iraq resolution but he always talks about how wrong the bill was and Dean is just stupid. Too often these guys are trying to get the largest applause from the liberal crowds. There is more to this party than the liberal section. Clinton won by carrying the moderates of the party and so did Gore. The majority of the candidates this year seem to think that the Democratic Party is still the party of McGovern and Mondale. We most definitely are not and it is time for Dean and company to realize that.

 

[Penn]

Ah Dems, no, please.......

Originally posted by demsformd
The majority of the candidates this year seem to think that the Democratic Party is still the party of McGovern and Mondale. We most definitely are not and it is time for Dean and company to realize that.

Psst! Shhh! Please Dems, let these guys live in that fantasy for just a while longer, c'mon.

By the time they wake up and realize how they've painted themselves into a corner, it'll be too late!!

Stupidity does have it's uses, and the libs are still not sure what that concept is all about. Something to do with "Useful Idiots".