We're told that if we vote for an Independent party, we've wasted our vote. We only have two parties and are stuck with choosing between two people in a country of over 300 million. That's why we usually vote for a candidate who is the 'lesser of two evils' instead of one we actually believe will be great for our country. We certainly wouldn't want to 'waste' our vote.

If I vote Libertarian because I believe in the values they express but they are not one of the two main parties, I'm 'taking my vote away from the main candidate'. (wasting my vote)

But then how do the majority of voters even know there are other parties, or what they stand for when the Media completely shuts them out in favor of the wealthy who vie for office? When they are prevented from appearing in debates and get no TV or newspaper attention it's pretty hard for voters to commit to an idea they are serious contenders.

If 75,000 other voters decide to vote Libertarian, would that party receive any votes from the Electoral college or would those 75,000 votes just be scrubbed? (wasted votes)

If that's the case, you may as well vote for your brother or sister - or little Stewie. Better I waste my own vote on someone I really like and trust than to waste it on someone I believe to be dishonest, mean, arrogant, or not the brightest bulb on the tree, wouldn't that be a wasted vote too? Maybe even the biggest waste because I'd continue to give power to those who not only don't serve us but actually harm us.

Would you vote for a third party if you don't believe in the candidates we have been given? Why?. why not?

I have voted for third party candidates over the years. All your suppositions are correct. Unless a third party candidate receives a majority vote, the electoral college votes will go en masse to the majority winner.

Which means the person you voted for won't win. I accepted this long ago.

But in fact, this is no different than voting for a candidate in one of the two main parties and the OTHER guy winning your state. It's exactly the same thing. Period.

If someone other than whom you voted for wins a majority, all the other votes, whomever they were for, appear/feel wasted.

But they're not. Losing is part of life. Speaking truthfully at the ballot box is critical.

You cannot go through life, nor teach your kids to do so, only standing up for the things you can "beat the other" guy on. You stand by your beliefs. You vote your conscience, then get on with life.

HI Wings!

I may have voted for John Anderson in 1980(was it), but I don't remember! :D

I would like to add something to your post... you said you wanted to vote for someone with the same values as you have; I think if politics you really want to vote for issues. It is issues that determine how our foreign policy and domestic policy works. Issues now are the War in Iraq and withdrawing; illegal immigrants, what to do about them; our economy and how to protect the middle class and prevent a meltdown in the stock market... on and on for issues.

Values are if you are for or against homosexual marriage... etc.

Anyway, I don't remember Ron Paul's positions on the issues, nor Ralph Nader's positions. I should look them up soon.


Best wishes,

Mary Sue

Let me see, I have voted for Wallace, Carter and Nixon, and Bush guess I have wasted a lot of votes.

This is more than I ever wanted to know about the process, hope it provides a lot of help
U. S. Electoral College

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBeaucaire

Losing is part of life. Speaking truthfully at the ballot box is critical.

---

I'm with you on this one, JB. The only wasted vote is one that misrepresents your true values and principles. Winning or losing is beside the point.

I have done it twice .But you should do it with the understanding that the person you vote for will not win .We have a 2 party system all these years because it has worked well .Your premise is not quite accurate . We are not choosing between 2 people .There has been a long process of weeding out candidates that has been ongoing since at least last summer . Also; it is not wasting a vote to vote 3rd party. I said in another posting that it plays primarily a spoiler role .But that doesn't make it a wasted vote .
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politi...es-214558.html

In the posting I pointed out the irony the unintended consequences of a Nader run in 2000 helping GW Bush even though he clearly had more in common with Gore .Simularily I believe that the Libertarian vote for Bob Barr will almost assuredly give the election to Obama in a close general election . Again ;if you compared issue by issue I am sure Bob Barr is closer to McCain than Obama.

Btw ; in every election cycle since 1980 at least ,the minor party candidates have been involved in the debates . They have also received extensive coverage by the media. The fact that their campaigns have not resonated with the public should not be blamed on some kind of conspiracy to shut them out of the process. Do I think that the Libertarian Party convention should've received the same coverage as the major party conventions will ? No . The fact is that the Libertarian convention would've been a non-rating event had they broadcast it on the major networks this weekend. As it is ; only political junkies like me bothered to tune into it at all. It was quite a boring affair .They made no attempt at all to make the process attractive to the viewing audience.

As I also pointed out . The most successful 3rd Party run was by Teddy Roosevelt ;a very popular American ,and a previous 2 term President. If there was going to be any success by a 3rd Party run that was it. But his run only received 27 percent of the vote .As is typical of 3rd party runs ,all he really accomplished is splitting like minded voters and giving the election to Woodrow Wilson on a silver platter .

The Anderson run in 1980 made the results of the contest closer than it should've been . But Ronald Reagan still was able to garner enough support to beat Carter .No 3rd Party candidate has been able to even win a single state since George Wallace's 2 runs gave him the majorities in some of the Southern States . But Wallace had no impact on the general election .
Ross Perot arguably may have been responsible for the 2 Clinton wins in the 1990s .He did not win a state either .

Thanks Tom. I have always respected your political knowledge. However, you're wrong about third party candidates being given media attention. They do not get that. What has anyone heard about Barr or Nader? Nada! Ron Paul was once invited on Fox to participate in the presidential debate but on the day of the debate, he was asked not to come because they didn't have 'room' for him.

If they don't have the money to pay big media to give them exposure and they don't get it. Some people are still asking who is Ron Paul, while on the internet he garnered $6 million on one weekend from a rally held by his followers. There are many other examples of this being ignored or played down by media.

Ron Paul got a very vocal ,dedicated and very small core of supporters . He participated in many of the Republican debates ;got national exposure, and still garnered single digit support in the primaries . Fox made a decision, after many of the debates had occurred ,to remove from the format the ones that were not getting any traction ,so that the remaining candidates could get a decent hearing in the debate format. You have to admit that nothing of substance happens when there are 7 and more candidates trying the get their message out in a 1and a half hour forum.

With all due respect ,Ralph Nader was and is a well known political figure .He had ample opportunity to convince the electorate that he could be a major player.
Bob Barr only recently announced his candidacy and his name recognition was enough to gain the Libertarian nomination even though there were plenty of other candidates from within the ranks of the party. The Libertarian party is fringe. The reason they have not gained more prominence as I explained in previous postings is that the major parties have for years cherry-picked the issues from the 3rd parties and incorporated them into their broader platforms. That system has worked well for the country . We have generally avoided electing extremists as a result.

I say we all vote for Alan Greenspan. It's bound to help the economy.

I almost always vote third-party.

But... that's for several reasons, the primary of which is that I *believe* that a two-party system doesn't represent the people.

So... I'm not "wasting" my vote. I'm casting my vote, every time, against the two-party system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

Thanks Tom. I have always respected your political knowledge. However, you're wrong about third party candidates being given media attention. They do not get that. What has anyone heard about Barr or Nader? Nada! Ron Paul was once invited on Fox to participate in the presidential debate but on the day of the debate, he was asked not to come because they didn't have 'room' for him.

If they don't have the money to pay big media to give them exposure and they don't get it. Some people are still asking who is Ron Paul, while on the internet he garnered $6 million on one weekend from a rally held by his followers. There are many other examples of this being ignored or played down by media.

---

If you're saying that media exposure is the main thing that matters, I disagree. You give the media too much credit. The reason third party candidates haven't had much success is that too few people have voted for them. Vote for them if you support their platform and, win or lose, your vote is not wasted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

Thanks Tom. I have always respected your political knowledge. However, you're wrong about third party candidates being given media attention. They do not get that. What has anyone heard about Barr or Nader? Nada! Ron Paul was once invited on Fox to participate in the presidential debate but on the day of the debate, he was asked not to come because they didn't have 'room' for him.

If they don't have the money to pay big media to give them exposure and they don't get it. Some people are still asking who is Ron Paul, while on the internet he garnered $6 million on one weekend from a rally held by his followers. There are many other examples of this being ignored or played down by media.

---

The MSM does not as strong an influence as it use to.

Information can be had if one is willing to search it out. These days with talk radio, internet search engines, social networking sites, links it is easy to get some information on almost anything.

I do agree that it takes an unconscionable amount of $$$$$$$ to run for the presidency.

Sorry, I forgot that the Libertarian Party is running a candidate and it is not Ron Paul. I think Ralph Nader is still running on the Green Party, as of the last I heard.

Nope the Greens don't want him anymore either (except for some who are running a draft Nader campaign) .He is running as an independent with someone named Matt Gonzalez as his Veep .

Thanks, Tom.

Do any of you think it was a mistake to change the way the President was selected originally? There were no public campaigns, huge expenditures, etc. A moot question, of course.

Quote:

---

Do any of you think it was a mistake to change the way the President was selected originally? There were no public campaigns, huge expenditures, etc. A moot question, of course.

---

There was pretty much a two party system and campaigns after Washington left office. The system has not changed much since 1800 except for the 12th amendment which eliminated the problem of the VP being the runner up ;and later the 22nd Amendment that put a term limit on the Presidency.

The campaigns in 1796 and 1800 between primarily John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were quite nasty affairs. Anyone who thinks the mud and slander is bad today should read up on those elections.

Yes there was little open campaigning by the principles. But their surrogates did the dirty work. Newspapers were set up(the internet of their day) for the sole purpose of discrediting the opposition. The candidates and their surrogates owned the media so there was less need to use expenditures to get their message out.

Thank you for your response, but I disagree with you as well. Media exposure is EVERYTHING when it comes to the election. Media determines who will win the election. They expose who they have chosen as a winner with good coverage and that usually wins hands down.

Ron Paul has a huge following and no exposure because he doesn't have the money to pay out to media, or the desire to 'buddy up' with the status quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

If you're saying that media exposure is the main thing that matters, I disagree. You give the media too much credit. The reason third party candidates haven't had much success is that too few people have voted for them. Vote for them if you support their platform and, win or lose, your vote is not wasted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

Media determines who will win the election. They expose who they have chosen as a winner with good coverage and that usually wins hands down.

---

If this is true, they sure seem to be having trouble making up their mind this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

Ron Paul has a huge following and no exposure because he doesn't have the money to pay out to media, or the desire to 'buddy up' with the status quo.

---

Ron Paul is a fringe candidate because his policy positions are extreme.

PW

Ron Paul was the top fund raiser in the GOP field. Even now with his campaign defunct and not soliciting he has a war chest of $5 million unspent dollars .Howard Dean was the top fund raiser in 2004 before the NH primary . There are 2 recent examples where the money available did not equate to electoral success.
Ron Paul does not have a huge following .He has a small very vocal and dedicated following . Despite the snub at the FOX debate he had plenty of media exposure . He was a frequent guest on the cable broadcasts and appeared on the radio talk shows as much as any of the other canidates .

Like Hillary's minions now; the last cry of despair in these elections is the charge of unfair biased media coverage.
YouTube - McAuliffe Praises FNC

Quote:

---

"what percentage of the mainstream media is in the tank for Barack Obama?"

"Oh, 90 percent," .... "I mean, from day one. It is what it is -- we're not complaining, we have to deal with the hand we're dealt with...''



"It doesn't do you any good," ...."You know what - every independent study has said that this is the most biased coverage they have ever seen in a presidential campaign. Clearly it has been a biased media, no question about it. I have said this - Fox has been one of the most responsible in this presidential campaign -- I have said that all along.''

---

Quote:

---

"Clearly it has been a biased media, no question about it. I have said this - Fox has been one of the most responsible in this presidential campaign -- I have said that all along.''

---

This man is clearly an idiot. Here's an example of Fox News' responsible reporting:

Fox News Jokes About Killing Obama

The incident happen in an exchange with the FOX News anchor. When asked her opinion of the recent scandal surrounding some comments made by Sen. Hillary Clinton, which Trotta described by saying that, "some are reading [it] as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama." Hemmer quickly corrected Trotta, having noticed that she had said "Osama" when she meant "Obama." At this point, Trotta said, "Obama. Well... both if we could!" Trotta then laughed gleefully.

Update on the progress of the Ron Paul campaign . (as you know he has not officially dropped out of the contest)

In yesterday's Idaho primary Ron Paul collected a best to date 24% of the Republican vote. Paul supporters were actually disappointed with the result because the contest has shifted to the cheap media markets;Paul has horded his campaign funds , and McCain, having clinched the nomination, has effectively disengaged from the GOP race. If Paul was going to make a move to show electoral legitimacy this would've been the place to lay it on the line.

But Paul is more content to try to disrupt the Republican convention and perhaps throw a "Hail Mary pass" on the convention floor . Paul's supporters have been showing up attempting to take over State conventions with the goal of using that venue to seat their delegates at the national convention ;even though the state's delegations are already pledged. Then if they can force a 2nd ballot it would free up many of the delegates to nominate who they wish . It is a " Hail Mary Pass "because their tactic needs to survive the 1st ballot ,which McCain has locked up theoretically . What it would take is a bunch of trojan horse Paul delegates dressed up as McCain delegates not voting in the 1st round.
Ron Paul's troops quietly take over some local GOP groups : Top of the Ticket : Los Angeles Times
At very least they intend to force some issues during the Republican platform debate.

Whatever staying power Paul has is more attributed to a dissatisfaction of McCain by the Republican base than an enduring message by Paul. He gets the protest votes because no one else stayed in the process long enough to split them with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Whatever staying power Paul has is more attributed to a dissatisfaction of McCain by the Republican base than an enduring message by Paul.

---

I disagree. I believe that they know his message and want it to be heard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

If this is true, they sure seem to be having trouble making up their mind this year.

Ron Paul is a fringe candidate because his policy positions are extreme.

---

Ron Paul has extreme policy that people don't agree with? Really? Do you think people disagree with following the Constitution as it was intended? I don't.
Do you think people want more government instead of less? I don't.

Do people want to pay more taxes instead of less?
Do people want more government intervention into their private lives?
Do we want the Federal Reserve holding our money so the government can use it however and whenever they decide without our input?
Do people want amnesty for illegals?

If people knew his positions, I don't believe they would disagree. They don't know his positions because he's been kept from their view the majority of the time. When they do mention him it's in a way that indicates he knows nothing, and yet his time with Congress as well as his career as a doctor, show him to be very knowledgeable about our government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

This man is clearly an idiot. Here's an example of Fox News' responsible reporting:

---

NK, I'm not saying McAuliffe isn't an idiot, but in this case he's right. The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University did a recent study and reported this:

Quote:

---

Who’s Fair and Balanced?: Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.

---

Trotta's comment was out of line, but if you want to judge FNC on that one comment by someone rarely seen on the network, let's judge HBO by the same standard for Bill Maher's outrageous remarks. Or how about MSNBC over Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann? Let's be fair and balanced about this.

Your "recent study" comes from the Center for Media and Public Affairs which:
Center for Media and Public Affairs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

The media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has challenged CMPA's non-partisan claim, based on the argument that much of its funding has come from conservative sources, and that its founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor.

---

Thanks for trying though. No self-respecting person under the age of 55 takes Fox News seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

...Thanks for trying though. No self-respecting person under the age of 55 takes Fox News seriously.

---

That's not an argument. That's begging the question your opinion about FOX is true because you say so... facts or no facts. Hehe, that's actually pretty funny.

Well, let me try. "Everyone knows the media is owned and operated by the liberal pundits and conservative values and candidates can't even buy a fair shake. Everyone knows that. No self-aware intelligence can deny that."

(Hey, I do feel better... :) )

Here are the facts on Ron Paul and his participation in the GOP debates

There were 20 debates both televised and not televised . Ron Paul participated in 17 of them . Of the 3 he did not attend ;The one everyone remembers is the FOX debate (you know FOX ;the network that Needkarma says no one takes seriously ).He also was not invited to a nonsponsored debate in Washington DC Oct 16,2007 . He also chose to not participate in a local debate in Iowa October 25 ,2007 .

How then did he not have ample opportnity to get his message out when besides participating in the vast majority of the debates ;he also had the most money of any candidate in the GOP field for the purpose of advertising ?
I recall in NY and NJ ,the 2 States I travel in daily ,Ron Paul signs were out months before the other candidates and they littered the highways and street corners . His blog sites have been some of the most sophisticated on the net. Clearly his core group of supporters are dedicated .

The truth is that although it is a nice fantasy ;his vision of the role of the US in the world is not practical . As Ronald Reagan said during the D Day anniversary at Pointe de Hoc Normandy.

We in America have learned bitter lessons from two World Wars: It is better to be here ready to protect the peace than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.

I agree with many of the libertarian positions and find myself in agreement with much of what Ron Paul says even if I don't think he is the best perosn to lead that movement . However ;the libertarian position on the role of America has been discreditted much like Chamberlain's position in Munich.

No it wasn't serious argument, it was kind of a jab Fox's viewership demographics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Here are the facts on Ron Paul and his participation in the GOP debates

There were 20 debates both televised and not televised . Ron Paul participated in 17 of them . Of the 3 he did not attend ;The one everyone remembers is the FOX debate (you know FOX ;the network that Needkarma says no one takes seriously ).He also was not invited to a nonsponsored debate in Washington DC Oct 16,2007 . He also chose to not participate in a local debate in Iowa October 25 ,2007 .

How then did he not have ample opportnity to get his message out when besides participating in the vast majority of the debates ;he also had the most money of any candidate in the GOP field for the purpose of advertising ?
I recall in NY and NJ ,the 2 States I travel in daily ,Ron Paul signs were out months before the other candidates and they littered the highways and street corners . His blog sites have been some of the most sophisticated on the net. Clearly his core group of supporters are dedicated .

The truth is that although it is a nice fantasy ;his vision of the role of the US in the world is not practical . As Ronald Reagan said during the D Day anniversary at Pointe de Hoc Normandy.

We in America have learned bitter lessons from two World Wars: It is better to be here ready to protect the peace than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.

I agree with many of the libertarian positions and find myself in agreement with much of what Ron Paul says even if I don't think he is the best perosn to lead that movement . However ;the libertarian position on the role of America has been discreditted much like Chamberlain's position in Munich.

---

Interesting that I've seen the other candidates dozens of times, at least once a day, usually more but have seen Ron Paul about twice during the entire campaign. Maybe the shows he did aired while I was sleeping? He did bow out when it became obvious he would get no news hype. He hopes to maintain his seat on Congress at least. I once saw him try to respond to a question and was cut off before he had completed his answer. He has not been treated nicely, no matter what is being said. Since he is known to vote contrary to the status quo, they really don't accept him. Especially now that he's told some of their secrets.

Ron Paul speaks a bit slower but if anyone takes the time to listen, he is 100% for the Constitution which the others have manipulated to suit themselves.

Even if he were in office and his ideas were too far-fetched there is always a semi-useful Congress to stop them. He couldn't do worse than what we've had and probably would do much better. After all, he's not in it for the cash or the fame. He simply loves America.

I do not disparage his motives just his dangerous notions about our role in the world. Do you remember how he responded to the question of how he would've dealt with al-Qaeda after 9-11 ? Almost eveyone agrees that going after them in Afghanistan was the correct move. Well... almost everyone . Ron Paul said his constitutional mandate was to issue a "Letter of Marquis". In 20th century jargon that is he wanted to send in a hit squad.

He also did not answer adequately to the clearly racists material published in his news letter penned under his name.

Racist? Ron Paul has been a free doctor to hundreds of poverty stricken black families. That should be the answer shouldn't it?

Tom, we can't agree with every single issue with any of the candidates. I disagree with Hillary, Obama and McCain, as well as half of Congress on Amnesty. In fact, I angrily disagree since the money for their care comes out of my crumpled pocket.

It's my inclination to look hard at McCain but every time I do, I find more that I disagree with... you already know how I feel about the two Democrats. :) OMG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

Ron Paul has extreme policy that people don't agree with? Really?

---

Yes, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

Do you think people disagree with following the Constitution as it was intended? I don't.

---

I think a majority disagrees with following the Constitution as Ron Paul interprets it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

Do you think people want more government instead of less? I don't.

---

I think a majority wants more competent and less doctrinaire government. I don't think they want a major reduction in the level of government services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

Do people want to pay more taxes instead of less?

---

Of course not. They want somebody else to pay for their government services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

Do people want more government intervention into their private lives?

---

No, but many of them want the government to make other people behave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

Do we want the Federal Reserve holding our money so the government can use it however and whenever they decide without our input?

---

Since that isn't what the Fed does, the question is moot. A competent central bank is an essential component of a market economy. People who want to abolish it generally misunderstand its role and function. Going back on the gold standard is a recipe for financial disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

Do people want amnesty for illegals?

---

Not if it's called that. Do they want to pay what it would cost to round them all up and deport them? I doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

If people knew his positions, I don't believe they would disagree.

---

Well, I know his positions and I disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

They don't know his positions because he's been kept from their view the majority of the time. When they do mention him it's in a way that indicates he knows nothing, and yet his time with Congress as well as his career as a doctor, show him to be very knowledgeable about our government.

---

Anybody who cares can easily find out what his positions are. It isn't necessary to postulate a vast media conspiracy to explain his lack of support.

Quote:

---

Tom, we can't agree with every single issue with any of the candidates. I disagree with Hillary, Obama and McCain, as well as half of Congress on Amnesty. In fact, I angrily disagree since the money for their care comes out of my crumpled pocket.

It's my inclination to look hard at McCain but every time I do, I find more that I disagree with... you already know how I feel about the two Democrats. :) OMG

---

can't argue with you threre . I know peope who argue that after 4 years of a disastrous Democrat rule that includes veto proof majorities in both houses of Congres that the US will plead with the GOP to come to the rescue ;and that will give them ample time to bring in fresh blood . Perhaps they are right . After 4 years of Carter the country handed the Presidency to the Republicans for 12 years. After 2 years of the Clintoon act the Republicans began to build their majority in Congress. But a Democrat control will shape the courts for the next 20 years and that will be a bitter pill to swallow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

But a Democrat control will shape the courts for the next 20 years and that will be a bitter pill to swallow.

---

Or 50% of the population is looking forward to it. It's in the eye of the beholder.

Quote:

---

No self-respecting person under the age of 55 takes Fox News seriously.

---

Here are the FNC (Fox News Channel )ratings for this period.

Quote:

---

For the 77th consecutive month, FNC finished first in total day and prime time ratings during May. FNC was the sixth highest rated cable network on all of basic cable during prime time for the month (CNN and MSNBC finished 19th and 26th) and the seventh rated network in total day (CNN and MSNBC were 19th and 27th).
FNC also had 11 out of the top 13 programs in cable during the month in Total Viewers. The O'Reilly Factor was the #1 program in cable news for the 90th consecutive month, and saw gains in Total Viewers year-to-year (26%).
Amercia's Newsroom (9-11amET) was up 30% year-to-year, with the program averaging more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined during the time.
Meanwhile, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren has been #1 for 73 consecutive months in Total Viewers while Hannity & Colmes has been #1 in its timeslot for 54 consecutive months.

---

mediabistro.com: TVNewser

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Your "recent study" comes from the Center for Media and Public Affairs which:
Center for Media and Public Affairs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thanks for trying though. No self-respecting person under the age of 55 takes Fox News seriously.

---

Nice try NK, but you left out the last sentence of your quote:

Quote:

---

After a Washington Post article referred to CMPA as "conservative," the Post published a "Clarification," which concluded, "The Center describes itself as nonpartisan, and its studies have been cited by both conservative and liberal commentators."

---

You also failed to be "fair and balanced" in omitting discussion of the CMPA critic you cite, FAIR:

Quote:

---

In 1990, Walter Goodman wrote an editorial in The New York Times comparing FAIR and Accuracy in Media and stated that the two groups' "criticism of television and the press is often provocative. But it is always tendentious", and that FAIR's "target invariably is bias on the right."[2]

In May 2002, Jeff Cohen, a FAIR founder, left the organization to work as a producer on Phil Donahue's short-lived talk show on MSNBC...

In 2006, FAIR criticized U.S. media coverage of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, taking issue with the assertion that "... Hugo Chávez is an autocrat who has consolidated one-party rule".[4] FAIR has frequently defended the Chávez government against such criticism.

---

FAIR currently cites far, far, far left-wing cartoonist and disgusting Bush critic Ted Rall as an authority on fairness in the media. Rall is the bottom feeder that drew this racist cartoon where Condoleezza Rice calls herself "Bush's beard" and "his house nigga":

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/tr...rall040705.gif

I come prepared, NK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I come prepared, NK.

---

I understood a long time ago that you had MUCH more free time than I to hang out here. I stand corrected: Fox News is the most balanced news network and caters to both liberals and conservatives equally. Keith Olbermann is also fair and balanced and tells the truth about political situations without fear of ramifications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I understood a long time ago that you had MUCH more free time than I to hang out here. I stand corrected: Fox News is the most balanced news network and caters to both liberals and conservatives equally. Keith Olbermann is also fair and balanced and tells the truth about political situations without fear of ramifications.

---

It has MUCH more to do with taking time to know the facts than it does free time to hang out here. Fact is, Olbermann is a deluded left-wing conspiracy nut.

Quote:

---

purplewings agrees: Most of your points were childish and completely untrue. The fact is people don't know who Ron Paul is. To this day I have people asking. The Media decides who we will be able to choose from and that's a fact

---

Hiding behind a supposed conspiracy by The Media instead of actually debating the merits of his policy positions is a cop out. If you think my points were erroneous or poorly reasoned, address them in an adult fashion.