Crossfire! Bay Bucchanon is crashing!!

[TheDonkey]

If you want to see something entertaining flip to CNN's Crossfire.

[Sagan]

1. Details!

Please!

[Richardo]

2. FEED THE CUBE RATS!!

Pwetty pwease? Sounds great!

[Walt Starr]

3. OH COME ON!!

You CAN'T LEAD US ON LIKE THIS THEN LEAVE US HANGING!!!

[Rowdyboy]

4. Its wonderful

James has her on the ropes. He likes gay people, likes to eat with them, likes 'em as friends. Doesn't cost him any sleep if they want to get together and get married!

I don't always agree with James but I love him to death!

And he is eating Baybay for afternoon tea!

Bay can only say its not about that, James.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. Bay and Pat are not considered to be "credible voices".

I'm not suprised by this. Bay should come out and admit it:
She's an ignorant bigot!

[Rowdyboy]

6. Ralph Nader running again...

Peter Fenn for Dems: "Naderized"= screwed "You can't find a former Nader supporter to admit it now". Repub spokesman doesn't expect Nader to be much of a factor this time. Fenn says even 1% could be enough to lose. Carville Nader=Bush

[trotsky]

7. You can find one right here.

I voted for Nader in 1996 AND 2000. Primarily because I knew my state was safe for the Democrats, even though Gore's margin was a little closer than expected in 2000. I do believe there is too much corporate influence in both parties, which is essentially why I voted the way I did, but the risk involved in 2004 is much too great. There is a clear difference in the direction Bush* will take this country vs. any of the Dems left in the race.

[Zeke]

10. Explain.

How is the risk greater this year for the nation & world if Bush wins versus Bush getting in last time?

True, your vote was safe in 2000, but for God's sake, Bush started ruining the country from day one, before day one, so I just cannot understand a vote for Nader in 2000, and certainly not now.

14. I'm with Trotsky on this

I voted for Nader in 96. Would have voted for him in 2000, but there was a family emergency on election day and I was on a plane & didn't have a chance to cast an absentee ballot.
In both cases I was in New York, a safe state. That was one reason.
Second reason was I wanted the Green Party to become an official third party. Third reason (and this is something people tend to forget) is that Clinton although a Democrat, was also something of a centrist, so in '96 I thought it important to give Nader support. I held my nose and voted for Clinton in 92, actually because I was a little suspicious of him but I didn't want the first Bush to stay as President. Ever since McGovern I've voted Democratic except for 96.

This time around, there's no way I'll vote for Nader & if I had been in a close state (like Florida) in 96 or 2000 I would not have voted for him.

[trotsky]

15. Like I said,

In '96 and '00, my state was pretty safe for Democrats, so I felt like my vote was "covered." Had my state been competitive, I would have voted for Gore in 2000. No question.

[Kinkistyle]

16. Repub Senate/House/Supreme Court

'nuff said

[Rowdyboy]

8. Bay on Kerry's voting record

anti-military votes. Calls him McGovern. Fenn defends. Repub-"Kennedy is the conservative senator from Massachusetts"

James points out analysis of predominance of Republican personal attacks. Cites numbers Bush tv ads were 46% personal attacks; Gore was 16%. Repub calls study bogus. I think it was U of Missouri.

Bay whines about attacks on president. Fenn "we're sending him a message" from American people." People heard state of Union and his numbers went down.

James rattles off failures; Repub does talking points.

[nannygoat]

9. Here's the study I think James was using (linked to from the Daily Howler)

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh122002.shtml

<snip>
WE’VE GOT YOUR STUDY RIGHT HERE: Is the press corps spilling with liberal bias? In Tuesday’s Post, Michael Kelly
presented a Lichter study of Campaign 2000 which seemed to suggest that Bush and Gore got roughly similar press coverage. (To Kelly, of course, data suggesting similar treatment were evidence of continuing liberal bias. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/19/02.) To state the obvious, it’s almost impossible to examine press coverage in the quantitative, “objective” way Lichter attempts. But as we mentioned, the particular study which Kelly cited covered network evening newscasts only, and it included the one brief period of the twenty-month race when Bush got worse coverage than Gore. One wider study of the 2000 coverage gives a quite different impression.

The study was released on July 28, 2000. “According to a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Democrat Al Gore was far more likely to be the subject of negative news stories this year,” Judy Woodruff reported on Inside Politics. “Forty-two percent of Gore stories covered the degree to which he is tainted by scandal…When the media reported on Bush,” she continued, “it was more likely to deal with positive themes. Forty percent of all stories were on Bush’s main campaign message, that he’s a different kind of Republican.”

[alcuno]

12. The time to turn the screws on your party is NOT when they're on the ropes

A Nader-like campaign would have been PERFECT when Clinton ran for a second term. You already hold the WH with a very good chance of reelection. People need to learn something about timing.

[HootieMcBoob]

11. It looked like Bay was having fun to me

She wasn't nearly as bad as Tucker and Novak. She looked to me as if she was getting a really big kick out of Carville. It didn't help her case much but then I don't think she or Pat are die hard Bush people. They're old style conservatives as opposed to the newly evil neo variety.

[TacticalPeek]

13. Either or.

I think it would be unwise to leave either Buchanan alone in a locked room with either Bush.

Then again, maybe that's not such a bad idea, now that I think more on it.

:evilgrin: