Dangling Conversations

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Charlie from East Lansing @ 10/06/2008 3:51:31 PM

    I have never seen a set of questions more explicitly designed to advance the point of view of a single candidate. Let's add a few. How about "Does the theoretical desire to reshape the politics of a region justify launching a preventive war that costs hundreds of thousands of lives?" Or "Do you consider it moral that the world's richest nation cannot provide adequate health care to all its citizens, and if not, how are you going to solve the problem?" I have had enough and more than enough of the coverage of "values voters" that ignores the deeply held values that inform my liberal positions.

    This column is more appropriate for a McCain campaign telephone "push poll" than a column in a newsweekly. It is deliberately deceptive.

    • Posted By: Ubipetros @ 10/06/2008 9:22:05 PM

      I agree with Iconoblaster. Charlie has certainly nailed it. ANY list of questions seeking moral clarity is OBVIOUSLY BIASED against the party and candidate that has no morals.

    • Posted By: Ubipetros @ 10/06/2008 9:19:38 PM

      Sorry Charlie (couldn't resist), but I must agree with Iconoblaster. Any list of questions that seek moral clarity are OBVIOUSLY biased against the individual candidate and party that has no morals.

    • Posted By: aro1 @ 10/06/2008 5:52:27 PM

      Mr. Charlie I would like you to name ONE question from this list that is not a vital concern for candidates from both parties. I notice both your "questions" place blame soley on the current administration. Who is showing favoritism here?

    • Posted By: aro1 @ 10/06/2008 5:49:11 PM

      Mr. Charlie, I would like you to name ONE question from this list that is not a relevant concern for representatives from both partys. I notice both of the questions you pose place blame soley on the present administration. Who is favoring candidates here?

    • Posted By: Iconoblaster @ 10/06/2008 5:26:37 PM

      Charlie has obviously spotted the ruse. I hope everyone does. Good call, Charlie!

  • Posted By: Concerned Canadian @ 10/06/2008 3:33:43 PM

    Barack Hussein Obama ....SUCKS !! ....HE IS A LIAR !! .....HE'S MISSING IN ACTION ......HE'S A FREDDIE MAE AND FANNY MAC FRONT MAN !! ......HE TAKES MONEY FROM THE PLO !!

    WAKE UP AMERICA...I'VE SAID THIS FOR 18 MONTHS...NOW IT'S ALL COMING OUT....REV WRIGHT....YOU ARE RIGHT...." THE CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST " ...AND OBAMA IS FRIED !!

    • Posted By: duchess194607 @ 10/06/2008 8:19:50 PM

      This guy is WHACKED!!! What's up with you guy. Calm down, there will be other elections. Don't have a heart attack about it. Besides you have your own problems up there. I hope you know you can be sued for slander even if you live in Canada.

  • Posted By: A in IN @ 10/06/2008 8:10:47 PM

    I could only get CNN when traveling during the Republican convention.... talk about biased media!!! We need Fox news to balance out all the other news channels which ask leading questions of Democratic suppporters/candidates while they include suggestions on how to improve the campaign of the people they are interviewing... supposedly this is a non-biased questions! Give me a break!

  • Posted By: bigdadred @ 10/06/2008 7:12:38 PM

    The fact that Fox News Network is taking the position of launching a series of all out assaults against senator Obama???s character is a sad day in journalism. They should be ashamed of the immoral and unethical standards that their network displays on a continual basis. What they must be made to understand is that as citizens we rely upon networks for their fair and accurate reporting of events and we will not tolerate anything less, especially when its over the top or maybe I should say as far right as Fox News Network is. If your views are the same share this message with others. It is time to take a stand against Fox and look to other networks for fair and accurate news coverage.

  • Posted By: dillet @ 10/06/2008 6:02:38 PM

    Great list--we'd love to know the answers. Many votes are based on these topics more than anything else; candidates take note.

  • Posted By: C. MacLean @ 10/06/2008 3:34:57 PM

    "Are you at all concerned that the trajectory of Supreme Court jurisprudence over the past six decades risks driving religiously informed moral argument out of our public life?"

    Religiously informed moral argument? Which moral argument from which religion are we talking about here?

    It is arrogant in the extreme to assume there is ONE religiously informed moral argument, because there are many. And NONE of them belong in our public life - we have separation of church and state in America for a reason.

    Any discussion of "morals" should not start by assuming that conservative Christian values are the only values that count.

  • Posted By: tiredoflies @ 10/06/2008 3:40:12 PM

    For eight years, Bush and the republicans have conditioned America to be afraid and live in fear. They are now playing Americans for all they can get out of that fear card.

    Fear and smear is how the republicans gain POWER and CONTROL OVER THE PEOPLE. LIES, DISTORTIONS AND EXAGGERATIONS are the tools they use to accomplish their purpose. This is what we are seeing right now.

    If they make it, once again when the election is over, all the peon voters will be cast to the wayside and power, money and indifference to the middle and lower class will reign once again. We will be stuck for four or eight more years of the past.

    I reject these false qualifications for President. I reject the abundance of lies, distortions and complete anti Obama fabrications which are condoned be the McCain campaign and appears on this and other web sites.

    No talk on the economy, health care or any of the other issues with respect to what it takes for ordinary people to live and prosper in the reality of day to day.

    Only attacks with concocted false relationships on Obamas character, even though the major news organizations have concluded that no real relationships existed or does exist.

    HOW MANY OF YOU WILL AGAIN ALLOW YOURSELVES TO BE USED AND MANIPULATED IN THIS WAY?

    I for one will NOT bow to their fear. I will NOT vote for the dishonorable one who attempts to GAIN THE PRESIDENCY BY PLAYING US FOR FOOLS THROUGH LIES AND DECEIT.

    I will vote for the one who seeks the Presidency VIA THE HIGH ROAD WITH VISION, A COMMAND OF THE ISSUES AND A GENUINE CONCERN FOR ALL PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY.

    My family will vote for Barack Obama.

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 10/06/2008 5:33:18 PM

      Wasn't it the major news organizations that discounted the affairs of Bill Clinton as meaningless and his conduct eventually lead to his impeachment.... you are like Obama (full of rhetoric) but you cannot refute anything negative that is said against Obama.... just spin....

      You say that you would vote for the one who seeks the Presidency VIA THE HIGH ROAD....how can one take the high road when deception is the foundation of his campaign?

      Here are the facts. Obama has associations with these radical people...

      Antoin Rezko-

      William Ayers

      Emil Jones Jr.

      Rashid Khalidi

      The Rev. Michael Pfleger

      Rev. Jeremiah A Wright Jr.


      • Posted By: Mimi13 @ 10/06/2008 5:48:32 PM

        As people sit around their kitchen table worried about how they're going to pay the bills. Or will they have a job next week. Or how will they pay for an operation when they don't have health insurance. Or will their kid's college loan be cancelled. Do you really think they give a flying fig about any of these people?

        IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!

  • Posted By: Iconoblaster @ 10/06/2008 5:38:10 PM

    I have to laugh when political commentators speak of "classic biblical sexuality"...often in defense of the legal formulation of "marriage" currently in vogue (ie, one man, one woman, as an equal partnership) that is distinctly NOT charactristic of the mores and marriages of MANY biblical figures offered as models of piety and propriety: plural marriages abounded, women were subservient, and violations of ethics, such as incest to reproduce an heir, or fraud to steal a patrimony, was excused and justified when it suited the biblical writers to do so. Biblical mores included the "justice" of wiping out an indigenous population to seize their land, institutionalized compulsory demonstrations of orthodox piety, approval of slavery and violent racist bigotry of the worst sorts. Oh please, yes, lets have the candidates views on biblical morality.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse