In prison for life or send in the hangman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Genuine political debate is simply not in the interest's of the advertisers who purchase time from the big media conglomerates.

The media conglomerates must maintain an environment where consumers are continually seduced to purchase products they don't need.

Worse still, the owners of the big media conglomerates have enormous influence, which they maintain by narrowing the bounds of acceptable political debate. This results in marginalization of candidates whose policy's pose a threat to the military industrial complex, pharmaceutical conglomerates, insurance companies, financial institutions, automobile manufacturers, multinational food conglomerates, petroleum interests and, increasingly, high technology firms.

In the final analysis, the interest's of everyday citizens are increasingly ignored, while the narrow interest's of the powerful take front and center stage.

That said, the only viable solution is to break the back of the media monopoly and return control of the political debate to citizens. A good first step in this direction would include a return of the fairness doctrine and legislation designed to drastically reduce the concentration of media ownership, which presently rests in the hands of less than twenty media conglomerates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and to the Internet while the MSM panicked and tried to discount and discredit bloggers and online newsletters as serious journalists.
In 2001, my intuition told me the flag waving manure being fed to us by the MSM, the ever changing reasons for the Iraq war and a fixation with celebrities, missing, exploited or murdered white women or childdren told me something was up.
Next I purchased and read a book titled: Bad News, bought and watched a video titled: Weapons of Mass Deception began reading Vanity Fair and the New Yorker and watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I also started watching C-Span's Book Notes program with much more interest.
I then moved my online search to news sources abroad and found a whole other world view and set of facts.
Next, albeit late, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC joined the growing dissention.
Only lazy spoon fed muppets still watch the MSM and take their so-called reporting as anything other than propaganda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People who watch/listen to the CORPORATE MSM get just what they deserve - crap!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fascist Right-Wing Public Discourse began in earnest about twenty years ago as the brainchild of Roger Ailes who fashioned,along with the help of Australian Aryan Supremacist, Rupert Murdock, the making of Rush Limbaugh a household name affording Rush's frequent sleepovers in the Reagan White House.The " R-Gang .. Roger, Rupert, Rush ", quickly spawned scores of imitators across the country not reached by the tentacles of conglomerate radio. "
All are war hawks and proponents of pre-emptive tactics worthy of bottom-feeding playground bullies. Bullies who themselves avoided wearing the uniform of our gallant soldiers but rather donning the cloak of cowardice! Limbaugh benefitted from his powerful Judge Limbaugh dad declaring the rotund Rush's hemorrhoids should spare his young son from service during Viet Nam! Dittos Rush for close friends and fellow cowardly children of privilege/influence:

*Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve. Former High School History Teacher and currently a Sexual Harrasser/Stalker
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve. Bush/ McCain Butt-Boy and chief apologist
* Paul Gigot: did not serve. WSJ Elitest
* Bill Bennett: did not serve. Self proclaimed expert on Morality but admitted gambling addict.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
*Tucker Carlson :did not serve. Son of extremely wealthy founder of Public Broadcasting System, Richard Carlson
* Laura Ingraham: did not serve.
* Ann Coulter: did not serve. Likely cross dresser, perhaps trans-sexual, avowed hate-monger.
Maybe its time for a Lutheresque revolt against our established Pontiffs of Punditry?
Roy Murtishaw
Pine Bluff, Arkansas

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BRAVE TO KABC-THANK YOU GEORGE AND CHARLY..IT WAS TIME TO ASK ..
I am truly amazed as how easy it is for people to try and divert faults and not take responsibility for thier own actions! Obama's relationships with Anti-Americans are his responsibility and saying that ANYONE has smeared Obama is ridiculous. He has smeared himself by having such associations. Obama thinks that all American's are idiots. Having the notion that we believe him about not knowing Wrights positions and comments is absolutely ludicrous and insulting. In regards to Ayers, I as a lay person would never serve on a board, or accept a fundraiser at Ayers home. I would not even shake Ayers hand now or never and I am just a lay-American!!!.So please don't start blaming anyone for smearing Obama. They all had the right to express thier concerns because they are all of our concerns, They represent millions like me and million Americans feel that the questions asked to Obama should be answered.Obama Having the following Associations (see below) should be something that all Americans must question and reject. We must all remember that Obama is applying for the most powerful position of our nation and having associations of this sort is something we must think again before considering Obama for our Next President of the United States. If Obama and his supporters do not like the questiones it is too bad. That Obama fell apart at the debate and demonstrated weakness is the reason that there is so much hallabaloo with the questions. The question here is Why did Obama fall Apart? He usually is the aloof and the standing kool candidate that is so honest he will answer anything, for he has been given the free pass for a year and certainly no one would dare ask him anything for they would be characterized as Racist....but Sorry Mr. Obama the questions needed to asked and needed to be answered truthfully...But no he demonstrated a weakness that was really not attractive and it was very concerning! Obama was being ask a simple question that if there was nothing for us to worry about he could have answered eloquently and truthfully and move on. Yet he fell apart, seemed flustered and actually stuttered more than his usual when questions are a little to touch for him that he has not gotten the lead from Clinton. This was a direct question just for him.. And frankly to no ones fault he fell Apart! WHY? Obama continually on the road had to resort complaining about the questions and pointing the finger at Clinton and everyone else to make him look like the vitum-shame on him. Obama seems in diverting the real questions and blaming Clinton just like this writer to the real issue here: HIS ASSOCIATION WITH ANTI-AMERICANS and even more deeply continued with the Litany of complaints against America. Could Obama be the new Bill Ayers just a more sophisticated Ayers? I ASK AGAIN!............So our (Americans) questions in regards to all this is why is he getting so upset if there is nothing to all this??? I personally admired Clinton now because she expressed millions of peoples concerns? Well Yes I and millions of others like me are very concern!!!..After all this is the position of the President of the United states !!Obama should not have any connections to people that hate us, have hurt in the pass and people that would like to hurt us in the future. Diverting the real issue is unfair! We need to know and that is the bottom line Why has Obama associated himself with such sorts?????? Obama’s Connections: William Ayers - American Terrorist Raul Reyes - Columbian Terrorist Antonio Rezko - Muslim Slum Lord Professor Khalidi - Muslim Terrorist Supporter Reverend Wright - Racist N.O.I. Muslim Supporter/Preacher Louis Farrakhan - Racist N.O.I. Muslim Supporter/ Faux Preacher Nadhmi Auchi - Muslim Billionaire Sohaib Abassi - Muslim Millionaire Rea more here: http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com
OBAMA IS A RISK! CAN WE AFFORD TO TAKE THIS RISK?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

George is right: there is very little policy difference between Clinton and Obama, either in their positions or in their Senate voting records. The race has been managed to remove policy issues from discussion. Wonder why that is?

That means that voters' decisions come down to judgments about personalities and attitudes. Now, THAT's interesting: the biggest real difference is that Clinton, being a Clinton, is a known quantity; essentially, a way to put Bill back in the White House. Some of us actually remember back that far, and the rest of us can find out if we want to.

Obama, on the other hand, is almost unknown. Normally, that would be a disqualifier - "better the enemy you know." But these are not normal times. The unknown is the frontrunner, and by some accounts has a virtual lock on the nomination.

Apparently, people are so unhappy and desperate that they prefer a pig in a poke over a known evil. "Change" is perhaps the best-chosen political slogan in my (fairly long) memory. At the very least, he's a good reader of the national psyche.

Of course, so was Bill Clinton, and we all know where that led us.

A footnote, back on topic: none of this lets the media off the hook for stupid questions. I'm not a masochist, so I didn't watch the debate. But the Party policy of keeping real issues to a minimum doesn't excuse pundit collaboration with that agenda. Stephanopoulos, in particular, is historically a Party functionary, so we can assume his questions reflected Democratic Party interests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

so how do I get one of these here pundit jobs?

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

money talks. have nothing to do with companies that advertise on puppet networks. don't go to fucking disney world. that's ABC. don't buy GE that's NBC. don't buy Westinghouse, that's CNN. and we all know who Fox is. make it stick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

have the right to "host" these presidential "debates" anyway? It used to be they were "hosted" by the League of Women Voters, or some other non-profit, non-partisan group.

These bozos have a dog in the fight, and therefore, shouldn't be allowed to manipulate the system the way they have this election cycle.

Enough of the "media" hosting these so-called debates. This is bullshit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]