http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us...hp&oref=slogin

The part that caught my eye:

Did the NYT report that Obama has failed to accept John McCain's invitation to appear with him at Town Hall meetings across America so that they could discuss and debate their policies among the folks in the audience? Didn't think so. Why isn't Obama willing to attend Town Hall meetings with McCain and let the people ask them both questions and have an honest discussion of the issues without a moderator? Revealing.

True.

I don't really care about the VP debate. I mean, I guess I should care... you need to know which way that tie-breaking vote in the Senate might be case.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

The NYT, like me, probably thinks it's not surprising nor newsworthy that a candidate turned down the opportunity to appear in front of a crowd that is hand-picked by his opponent's campaign and whose questions have been pre-screened by his opponent's campaign. McCain's campaign agreed to the 3 debate structure from the non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates. The 2nd of these is in town hall format. This is yet another manufactured faux-outrage the right wing wants to make noise about because they get further and further behind when we actually talk about real issues and their lousy record.

Quit creating false outrage without doing research. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/us...eetings&st=cse

Secondly, on not accepting the invitation, why would Obama, as the frontrunner, go to McCain sponsored town-hall meetings that have screened questions in advance. And you really can't claim media bias on that one, considering it's Fox News.

Obama accepting that invitation would be like McCain accepting an Obama invitation to come speak at a 15,000 person rally of Obama supporters... not logical.

GWB, does your username stand for George W. Bush? Man...I thought everyone abandoned that guy long ago.

No outrage from me. Unlike you, I do not take everything that comes out of the New York Slimes as being gospel truth. And no, I would never do my research from a newspaper that's nothing more than the propaganda branch of the DNC. You can put all the talking points from the DNC (and the propagandist media machines) out there as you want, but it has no bearing on what the truth is. You are right about one thing though, Fox News is just as biased as the other guys most of the time--they all have an agenda--pretty much as you seemingly do.

That's true, the New York Slimes would rather put out false stories, as they did a few months ago, claiming that McCain was having an affair with some female lobbyist. That proved to not be true, and I don't recall the New York Slimes ever retracting or apologizing for the lies they printed. I would trust the Enquirer "newspaper" news before I would ever believe one letter printed on the NYS rag. And aren't they (Enquirer) the same newspaper that reported the Edwards affair while all of the liberal media covered it up? So, since you seem to have such high regards for the NYT, could you tell me why they have printed mostly negative stories about McCain and very little if any about Obama. Please enlighten me.

Well, if it bothers you so much, no, my username is my real initials. That's the truth. I admire and respect our president and have no problem saying so. He is not perfect by any means, and certainly has made his fair share of mistakes, but he's done a good job at keeping your family, and mine, safe from terrorism (on our soil) since 9/11, and for that we can be thankful, or at least I can be.

Any other assumptions you have about me that need to be addressed?

Oh Please! Bush has done a good job? His legacy leaves us with massive deficits, a floundering economy and a war with no end that costs us billions a week! He's been a disaster.

While I agree with you things are not looking rosy right now, I don't subscribe to the liberal talking points that everything that's wrong with the world today is "Bush's fault". There is enough blame to go around for the way a lot of things are today, but I'm sure you see it differently, most liberals do. It's pretty obvious that we don't agree on this issue, so we will just have to agree to disagree.

I'm sure you liberals on this forum aren't bothered by the fact that your guy took in thousands of dollars from Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. In fact, he was the #2 recipient of this money given out to lawmakers. Nothing wrong with that picture, is there? (Shhh, not when it's our guy.) And of course, it doesn't matter anyway--it's all Bush's fault.

Published by Lindsay Renick Mayer on September 11, 2008

When the federal government announced two months ago that it would prop up mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, CRP looked at how much money members of Congress had collected since 1989 from the companies. On Sunday the government completely took over the two government-sponsored enterprises, and we've returned to our data to bring you the updates, this time providing a list of all 354 lawmakers who have gotten money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (in July we posted the top 25). These totals are based on data released electronically from the FEC on Sept. 2 and include contributions to lawmakers' leadership PACs and candidate committees from the floundering companies' PACs and employees. Current members of Congress have received a total of $4.8 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with Democrats collecting 57 percent of that. This week we also wrote about how much money lawmakers had invested of their own money in the companies last year--a total of up to $1.7 million.

OpenSecrets | Update: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers - Capital Eye

Dodd, Christopher J SCT D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900
Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349
Kerry, John S MA D $111,000 $2,000 $109,00

No, that did not prove to not be true. The matter simply dropped off the radar during that time when the rest of the media were still on the McCain barbecue invitation list.

What the Times said, by the way, was that McCain spent so much time with this lobbyist that senior staffers suspected he was having an affair - based, perhaps, on his previous behavior in this regard.

(Insert 'sputter - choke - Clinton! Clinton! What about Clinton?!' here)

And, of course, GWB, you wish to God the presidential race would include Bush as a choice, so you could vote for him a third term. Who cares that he led us to war in Iraq under undeniably false pretenses.? Weapons of mass destruction? None that could be used were found.

Can he even have an affair at his age?

__________________
Dr. Spaceman: Now Jenna, medically speaking for your height your weight puts you what we call the "disgusting" range. Fortunately there are solutions. For example, crystal meth has been shown to be very effective. How important is tooth retention to you?

From today's RCP Poll average: Obama +2.2
[Detailed numbers below]

I Think McCain's people might need to have her call in sick on account of moose fever or something considering how quickly people have figured out how easily she shows her total lack of experience.

I doubt Biden is worried much which explains why the argument does not seem to include the Democrats.

I would agree with Midtowner that the VP debates are of little serious consequence. However, in this election which seems to be completely focused on Palin over McCain, it could have a real effect. But, probably not.

But, Palin's cinderella story had less stamina than I think anybody thought.

Poll Date Sample Obama (D) McCain (R) Spread

RCP Average 09/09-09/20 -- 47.6 45.4 Obama +2.2
Gallup 09/18-09/20 2720 RV 49 45 Obama +4
Rasmussen 09/18-09/20 3000 LV 48 47 Obama +1
Hotline/FD 09/18 - 09/20 922 RV 45 44 Obama +1
Battleground 09/11 - 09/18 800 LV 47 47 Tie
CBS News
NY Times 09/12 - 09/16 LV 49 44 Obama +5
Quinnipiac 09/11 - 09/16 987 LV 49 45 Obama +4
Pew Res 09/09 - 09/14 2307 LV 46 46 Tie

Oh, I see. So, the NYS took a rumor and made it into a big front page story with no evidence whatsoever (except for his previous behavior). Is that what you're saying?
If the NYS is such a respectable paper as you obviously believe it to be, why haven't they reported on some of the rumors that are out there about Obama, including who he's had sex with? Sure, they are rumors, but they're first hand rumors and not rumors coming from people who "suspect" something going on. Personally, I do not want to see this particular story printed as it has no relevance to Obama possibly becoming president. Who he slept with is of no concern of mine, why should it be any concern who McCain may or may not have slept with? Obama's association with William Ayers has never been fully checked out, do you think that story would have been left alone had McCain had a relationship with a terrorist like Ayers? No, it would have been front page news. Obama spent 20 years attending a hate filled racist church along with his two young daughters. This church is well known for preaching sermons filled with hate and anti-white and anti-jewish . Why hasn't the media grilled Obama on this and asked him how he could possibly attend a church like this for so long and especially allow his daughters to be exposed to this kind of hateful preaching? If McCain had attended a church like this for 20 years, he would have never gotten the nomination in the first place--the media would have made sure of it. The truth is, the republicans would have never nominated a person of such poor character in the first place. Again, why isn't the NYS splashing the front page of their rag with headlines like this, "OBAMA, WIFE AND TWO DAUGHTERS ATTEND HATE FILLED RACIST CHURCH"? The answer is simple, McCain is a republican, Obama is a socialist (dressed in democrat clothes) and that's who the NYS wants to become their next president, and apparently you do too. By the way, Obama use to be involved in socialist activities when he was younger, he's never said he was not a socialist (to my knowledge) and the media has never asked him. Wonder why?

Obama’s International Socialist Connections
Gateway Pundit: Is America Ready for Obama? Is America Ready for a Socialist?
Barack Obama the Socialist
Barack Obama's Socialist Philosophy
Barack Obama, Man of Faith - Nicholas Stix - MensNewsDaily.com™
Barack Obama's Socialist Philosophy
American Thinker Blog: Obama and His Socialist Agenda

You liburuls are just full of assumptions, aren't you? I would not want Bush to be president again, but don't let the facts get in the way of your assumptions.

It was a good tactic by McCain to "challenge" Obama to Town Hall debates he knew he would not accept. Obama should have countered with an invitation to the Junior Prom or something that McCain would similarly declined. Then we could hear both candidates opine about the other not giving the American people to decide. At least with the junior prom invitation, there would have been a spirited debate about who would lead and who was ready to lead on dance one.

I share the viewpoint of that judge from Boston Legal who always says he will not tolerate any jibber jabber or poppycock in his court room. Because really, that's what all of this yammering about the debates is... jibber jabber.

We should be asking ourselves why either candidate has so much control over the debate process. Why the media has to co-opt these events like a time share in Boca. Why the debates don't start until a month before the election. (and before someone starts in on why one guy or the other dragged his feet, let's face it, they're not debating until after the conventions and those red, white and blue commercials just ended two weeks ago.)

Alan Shore: Denny, I refuse to shoot you.
Denny Crane: You... Democrat! Protesting war and banning guns. If you Nancys had your way, nobody would ever shoot anybody! And then where would we be?"

McCain's "challenge" to Obama vis a vis "town hall meetings" was a cheap ploy.

It was meant to be bait for all the usual media types to repeat endlessly about how Obama "refused" to meet with McCain in public.

The politicians have control because it is thier right to negotiate.

I'm not sure what the debate process was like before the Nixon/JFK debates in 1961 (?), but since then the power of television has made all candidates very carefull about presenting themselves in the best light possible. To do otherwise would be foolish and not too many candidates get to be nominees by being foolish.

The debates should be interesting this year. I rarely miss any but I'm certain not to this year.

I'm not expecting any surprises out of the Obama/McCain ones. The Biden/Palin one is where there is the possibility for surprise. That one could turn into a real cage match.

Supposedly, BO doesn't do well in these situations while JM does.
Another rumor is that the town hall meetings would be packed with
JM supporters. This rumor might have been started by leftists because
that's what they do at colleges and television debates.

GWB, you should have quit this thread a long time ago. Too many ridiculous statements to reply to, but here's one...

"you liburuls are just full of assumptions aren't you" -GWB

Yet you're the one who assumed the NYT didn't report on the town hall meeting negotiations.

Who's assuming too much again, & who's "not [letting facts get in the way of their] assumptions"?

To summarize those links, they're nothing but speculative garbage. Obama wants to nationalize industry? What a joke. I'll tell you what. There's just too many gullible people in the world who will believe anything put before their eyes or what they hear.

"To summarize those links, they're nothing but speculative garbage. Obama wants to nationalize industry? What a joke. I'll tell you what. There's just too many gullible people in the world who will believe anything put before their eyes or what they hear."

And all one has to do to figure that out is read your posts. The fact that you support a fellow who attended a church were hate and racism was preached TWENTY YEARS, and likes to hang out with terrorists, says a lot about you. Imagine if that was John McCain and not the Obamessiah, we'd never hear the end of it. But the truth is, the republicans have enough sense that they would never nominate a character like that. You liberals could care less about that though. As long as the person has a "D" after their name, that's good enough for you. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

You like to take things out of context don't you? That's one of the liberals favorite ploy. Go ahead and play the game, but do it without me because I don't have patience for people who lack common sense. By the way, is your source for the town hall meeting negotiations the New Your Slimes (Obama's propaganda machine)? Don't drown your Kool Aid.