sandman on August 2, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Hey doofus, how come Colmes interviews his liberal friends and Hannity can’t ask them questions? (the problem is that Comes is so inept that few want to be interviewed by him)

Answer: Because some of these newsmakers only have a limited time to be interviewed so they go with people who support them.

Great line!

God help us if any of these wussies get into the oval office on anything but a visit.

Actually they want jurors literally ignorant of the facts of the case. But most trial lawyers take it a step further, as when a trial lawyer once told me in their firm they work to keep obviously smart people off juries: “Smart people listen to the evidence. I don’t want them listening to the evidence. I want them listening to me.”
eeyore on August 2, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Once upon a time in the good olde U.S of .A. I was an expert witness in a patent infringement case and asked the litigator “In what type of case would you want an analytic jury and in what type of case would you want an emotionally driven jury”? He looked at me as if I were crazy. He always wants to appeal to emotions.

Silky (one trick) Pony still lives in that world.

It’s just plain irrational!

Rudy and Fred…should at least have the “melons” to take questions from the puppet, Alan Colmes…
sandman on August 2, 2007 at 6:53 PM

It may be because Alan doesn’t usually ask questions, but rather gives talking-point rants that are only a few clicks short of Rosiedom. I frequently have to turn the channel when Alan asks a question – not because it’s so searingly probative that my arguments crumble before its brilliance, but because it’s just a rant that makes a normally taciturn guy want to smack him in the puss.

He made a living selecting juries for their stupidity.
Alamo on August 2, 2007 at 4:17 PM

That’s sorta the point. Actually they want jurors literally ignorant of the facts of the case. But most trial lawyers take it a step further, as when a trial lawyer once told me in their firm they work to keep obviously smart people off juries: “Smart people listen to the evidence. I don’t want them listening to the evidence. I want them listening to me.”

Trent Lott’s counter-terrorism plan: run! [TPM] McCain may be broke, but you can bid on the Straight Talk Express which is up for sale on eBay. [Capitol Hill Blue] Tom Tancredo vicariously lives the life of a bounty hunter……

Why is it that when Rudy and Fred make their way on to Fox News, they’re always receiving their softball questions from every Republican’s “good friend,” Sean Hannity.

They should at least have the “melons” to take questions from the puppet, Alan Colmes, even if their too afraid to take questions from non-media Americans, i.e. YouTube/CNN debate.

Still lashing out at the insignificant Edwards? Sad.

Does Silky actually think he can win the nomination by pandering to the far, far, far, far left? I think not. He has an ulterior motive somewhere …

darwin on August 2, 2007 at 5:01 PM

It’s what his wife wants. She’s the one who wears the real skirt in the family.

His once burnished suit is now empty unless he can channel JFK.
Wait! …
Randy

Obama will meet with Ahmadinejad — but he won’t meet with Chris Wallace. Your Democratic Party.

Very good observation. We should point it out in TV ads when the vice presidential debate nears…

Alamo on August 2, 2007 at 4:44 PM

I remember someone saying after the debate, if you want to sue someone go with Edwards.

If it weren’t for the fact he stands no chance, I’d be extremely furious over the fact that the media never busts this “anti-war candidate” of all candidates, for being the pro-war one last time around. When all the other Dem candidates were turning on the war in the 2004 primaries (again, because they need negative and bad things to happen in order to win, because they have no ideas or plans or offer anything anyone agrees with), Edwards stood fast. While Chris Matthews BEGGED Edwards to say Bush misled him, “went it alone”, etc. Edwards stood his ground saying he was not mislead, he saw the intelligence, he saw the clear threat, he would have acted the exact same way Bush did at the UN, etc. etc.

Okay, I guess I am still furious about it, because I can’t stand the fact that NO ONE in the media roasts his nuts on that one. That alone should thoroughly destroy this clown because his entire campaign this round is about pretending he’s the new Howard Dean or something, and the primary focus (outside of “2 Americas”) his newfound anti-war position.

Like everything he does, down to the last anti-Coulter fundraising e-mail, it’s cynical calculation wrapped in progressive faux principle.

true story: We have neighbors who (legally) immigrated from Romania and when they discuss the “democrat” candidates, they call them COMMUNISTS. On a wide variety of issues, from Hillary’s corporate oil profits grab to socialized medicine, they point out that Democrats aren’t “progressive”….They’
re Repressive.

liberals = progressives = COMMUNISTS