One Simple QUESTION for all the DEMOCRATS

JUST LIKE I THOUGHT, MUCH LIKE THE COWARDS THAT WANT TO BE PRESIDENT BUT CANN0T FACE FOX NEWS, LET ALONE FIGHT A WAR ON TERROR, NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT HAS A WORD TO SAY ABOUT THEIR TREASURED CANDIDATES! cowards vote for other cowards should be the banner over the democratic convention when they nominate their choice for president!!!

Unsure of the question by the placing of the comma. Is the question why theyt won't debate on Fox?

Or why they won't fight a war?

IG

Is it now a requirement to debate on Fox News to be an effective Preisdent? I don't think any candidate is afraid to debate on Fox, they just don't want to and that's their perogative. Should they be bullied into participating to coddle the Republicans who won't even be voting in their primary? That really wouldn't make any sense. This is old news anyway. Edwards pulled out in March. There have been plenty of debates and there will be plenty more. Fox news isn't fair and balanced. If I were a candidate, I don't know that I would participate either. Also the CEO of Fox compared Obama to Osama Bin Laden which didn't go over well in Dem. circles.

Exactly. They are currently campaigning and participating in debates to win their party's nomination. Seeing how not many democrats watch Fox news, what's the point in them debating there? It would be entirely different if the candidate for President ducked a debate vs. the republican candidate.

Sort of like "child predators vote for child predators" should be the banner over the republican convention?

Oh wait, republicans aren't child predators as a general rule, just as democrats aren't cowards as a general rule.

it is the democrats wh o are saying run away

Run away from what?

you name it

Punctuation?

all i see when i am watching cspan during commercials are the democrats saying is we need to pull out of Iraq. but they don't want to pull out now they want to wait and postpone until election time. so all they really want to do is be elected.

in the mean time, every time they confront bush on something bush wins. and they run away.

Hmmm...who specifically said they wanted to wait to pull troops out until election time?

reid (however you spell his name) wanted to wait two months. what is two months from now.

Could two months from now be.....(cue scary music)....September!!!! And why is that date so significant? I am glad that you asked.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. general in Iraq and the man behind the current "surge" strategy, is to deliver a report to Congress on Sept. 15. So the Democrats have agreed to wait until after the report, gauge the degree of success by that date, which is a little more than six months after the troop level was raised and then make a decision.

The sequence of events was as follows:

December 6th, 2006, the Iraq Study group presented its report, highly critical of the strategy in Iraq.
December 11th, President Bush meets with his advisers.
January 10th, President Bush speaks to the nation....but before his speech additional troops are already en route.

From the outset, Democrats (and some Republicans) have insisted on metrics, milestones. That is not uncommon. In school or at a job or pretty much anywhere, you have to report on success or failure. People get report cards, evaluations, etc. In war, we refer to the measure of relative gains or losses as "Winning" or "Losing." It is really not unusual for Congress to ask the General in charge of a war effort if we are winning or losing that war.

"they want to wait and postpone until election time." You DO know that the election isn't until November 2008? Please tell me that you know that...PLEASE. So talking about reducing troop levels based on the report of the General in charge of commanding those troops is perfectly reasonable and has nothing to do with the election.

You understand that what you have said makes absolutely no sense and shows an appalling lack of knowledge of current events, right?

"all i see when i am watching cspan during commercials" Maybe you need to watch the WHOLE program instead of 30 second clips.

And neither is the rest of the media.  Why should the republican candidates go on a debate run by the media with a severe liberal bias?

This shows how the democrats have to appease their kook base who believe Fox News, or as they call it "Faux News", is some government sponsored media outlet. 

There was no reason for them to pull out of this debate.

I see you're getting the same responses as I am on my article. None really related to answering the question.

it is also approximately 1 month before an election this year with 11 senate seats up for grabs according to others on this blog.

the attention span of most Americans is about 30 days.

Reid doesn't want to wait for the report good or bad.



they were forced to wait because they couldn't get 60 votes in the senate.






the ambassador said that these milestones are not realistic.






again there are eleven seats up for grabs this year according to others on this site.




that is usually all i can stomach

They don't have to. Maybe they should only have Republican debates on Fox News. I wouldn't care or fuss about it.

If the "liberal" media is so powerful then why have we had a Republican in the White House and a Republican majority in Congress for so long? I know Republicans no longer have the majority in congress but unless the Dem's have enough votes to override the veto, it's hard to get anything accomplished.

Well according to the posts at the DailyKooks Bush stole both elections, and the last election was intentionally lost by republicans in order to set up the democrats for future failure. 





That is an apologist stance.  The democrats don't get anything done because they are so obsessed with useless investigations and manufactured scandals.  The only legislation they want to pass is blatant attempts at appeasing their base. 

I can however give you an answer and I'm not even a Democrat.



Simple, considering Bush has been called everything from Cowboy to Hitler, courage is something Democrats have to avoid so as to not have something in common with Bush and his way of managing the country. Right now courage is considered, by Democrats, as a no-no character when trying to gain support of the American people. Having something in common with Bush to them is like eating in the same restaurant Osama use to eat at. A big no-no.



That's because fighting wars is not cool and makes us unpopular. Remember, we have to look good in the eyes of the rest of the world because their opinion..., matters I guess. We wouldn't want China to raise the prices on their products or sell us bad products just because we not cool anymore. Remember, politics is about who's better, who has more and who can make more.

A chance of free publicity and a chance to convince conservatives who watch O'Reilly to vote for them. Not to mention a chance to stick it to the Republicans. Sounds like good enough reasons to go to any Right leaning network for an interview or debate. But let's be realistic, who in their right mind would try to face a man like Bill O'Reilly, while being Democrat or Liberal? Only a brave soul would. Democrats know they will be called on, just as I did on my article, and will spend part of the time looking for words and the other half avoiding the questions by blaming Bush for something. You know, one of those "vote for me because Bush sucks" campaigns. I'm still waiting for some decent responses on my 2 articles. And it's not about it being their prerogative, it's about them not being stupid enough to go to a gun fight with a knife.

I find it sad to think that just because Bush has a veto power that the Democrats will just give up and not even bother to fight. Why all the celebration when the Democrats won Congress and sorta have the Senate when they knew they couldn't beat Bush anyways. Democrats lied when they said if we win we'll take Bush down.

eh, don't worry about Fox News.  Once the Democrats take over they'll pass a new Fairness Doctrine and outlaw Fox News so it won't even be an issue any more.  There's no way they can let the truth actually get out there once they take over since doing so would possibly mean their defeat later on (when people realize that even with Democrats in office getting out of Iraq won't be easy, or at least if it was that not just the Iraqi's will be looking us as the wimps they believe us to be...  which eventually leads to more attacks and more targetting of U.S. interests so we can be chased away from every where else we may be involved at...)

Of course the lemmings watching CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC won't hear any bad news because when Democrats are in control showing bad news is not allowed....

Who has been telling you this, and why did you believe them? For starters, elections are typically held in November -- which is two months from September. Also, Senators are elected to six year terms --and 1/3 are up for re-election every two years. Since elections were held in 2006, the next Senate election is 2008. So, no -- September is not 1 month away from the November 2008 election.

two months from the end of september





special elections are held whenever.



and i got this mostly from gene

I never said that they were giving up. They have passed legislation such as increase in minimum wage. They passed legislation for government funding of fetal stem cell research that Bush vetoed. They are trying to pass a law that would give health coverage to poor kids that Bush has threatened to veto. They tried and failed to pass immigration reform with Bush's support. They are trying to pass a farm bill that Bush has threatened to veto.



Oh yes, all those Democratic candidates are just shaking in their boots, quivering in fear at the thought of having to face Bill O'Reilly's superior intellectual skills. LMAO