Forget Romney. When the MSM does their job and points out the failures of Bush, his policies and his administration; you complain! I guess selective adaptation applies to politics as well as biology.

And this is different from blaming Senator Clinton for offenses supposedly committed by her husband?

You guys will support the GOP no matter what they say or do.

The MSM has been in the pocket of the Republicans for the last 15 years, and the Bush administration for the his entire time in office.

Not only that, but they still endure your periodic attacks while continuing to suck up. It's amazing. Reminds me of how McCain still sucks up to Bush after the way they treated him in the last election.

Mitche:
What the F**K are you talking about?

How is the ridiculous story by the AP in anyway related to Bush?

Basically, you're actually saying that Romney is a failure because of his great and great-great grandfathers... it's either that or you're a religious bigot against Mormons.

And it's great that when the MSM actually do their job, you then call them rightwingers. What a load of crap.

I can't believe you'd actually ridicule someone for their faith and for their ancestory... I'm not surpised, just horribly offended.

When the MSM does their job and points out the failures AND the successes of Bush, there will be no complaining. That being said, since Bush isnt running again, how is he germane to the thread?

Imagine the uproar were we to dig into democrat presidential candidate's family trees only to discover their embarrassing secrets. We would get treated to more fluff stories, ala Clinton's 'Why Lying Is Good' or 'Losing Your Temper On National TV Is Healthy'.

Alright, now I wait for the inevitable catalog of Bush failures from the liberal POV: three...two...one...

Leo: "If you're going to run a hit piece on a Presidential candidate, at least have the intellectual integrity to center it around the issues..."

What I want to know is if any of them had big ears.

Rico:
You're a decent guy who is "fair" and willing to look at both sides in an endeavor to look for accurate information and not spin it. I'd say you are your own mini No Spin Zone but that'd probably not be appreciated.

However... there's a big difference between asking questions about Obama's legislative history or his personal history due to lack of a legislative history and looking at someone's great-great grandfather and apply their beliefs onto a candidate or to write what appears to be nothing but religious bigotry by the AP, that or they're being politically motivated.

You're right, talking about someone's ears isn't appropriate, nor is talking about someone's great-great grandfather. Neither has any bearing on 2008 and the way this country would be governed.

Whats wrong with polygamy? Man to woman, man to man, woman to woman, man to women...

I thought Democrats were the very relaxed and liberal party. At least Romney's ancestors married all the women they slept with. Unlike Bill Clinton. Which is worse?

I agree with the original post. Bringing up Romney's ancestors is the same as bringing up Barack Obama's middle name: what the hell has it got to do with the candidate? I wish that the press would focus its energy on the more pressing issues that we're facing.

yekepyt. What do you think the issues are now (honestly)? OK, there's the war. Yes, obviously.

What else? What are the Democrats FOR? What are the Republicans FOR?

And.... why does your signature link to Yahoo? I mean really, what's up with that?

The name of this site is Blogs For Bush.
Wawilliyo:
The last line in the original post is...Hey MSM get a life and get back to doing your job.
I know very little about Romney and I don't profess to. I could care less about him at this point. Don't put words in my mouth and assume that you have insight into something that I didn't say. What I said was, folks like you constantly blame "the media" for the failures of the administration. That is their job. If there were more sucesses then they would point those out also. It is just that there are so few of them.
I'll tell you what is offensive: your breathing.

Yes a good point I think the actions of anyones distance ancestors aren't relevant.

But what about what/who they were - is that a relevant point either - I myself say no but many Americans still believe it is

Case in Point
-Barak Obama's great grandfather was of African descent
-Bill Richardson's great grandfather was hispanic
-George Allen's grandparents were jewish
-Rudy Guiliani's grandparents were Italian

All this still seems relevant to the media also

Should it?

Yes a good point I think the actions of anyones distance ancestors aren't relevant.

But what about what/who they were - is that a relevant point either - I myself say no but many Americans still believe it is

Case in Point
-Barak Obama's great grandfather was of African descent
-Bill Richardson's great grandfather was hispanic
-George Allen's grandparents were jewish
-Rudy Guiliani's grandparents were Italian

All this still seems relevant to the media also

Should it?

I'd just like to point out the big "Mitt Romney '08" ad in the margin and ask how many of you will now link to it?

wawillyo: "You're right, talking about someone's ears isn't appropriate, nor is talking about someone's great-great grandfather."

I could add a few things to that, but yup, that was my point alright. But since you brought it up, now it's your job to explain it to keefer, lol! And after you do we'll all wrestle around on the floor for a while, then crack a few Billy beers. How does that sound?

It is ALSO their job to point out the successes of REpublicans and the failiures of Democrats as WELL as the failiures of republicans and the successes of democrats. *Unfortunately, they only do half their job.

The MSM has been in the pocket of the Republicans for the last 15 years, and the Bush administration for the his entire time in office.

Yes, PMS, the MSM and their constant leaking of classified programs has really helped the administration fight terror. Riiiight.

And let us not forget Bush's best friend, Dan Rather. So, PMS, what bizarro world are you living in?

Rico, if you happen to come across any political cartoons of President Bush, just look at how big they make Bush's ears. And had Obama-sama not made an issue to MoDo about his ears, I wouldn't have even noticed. I mean, hell, he's a clean, articulate guy, who's never done anything notable, but yet the left is all over him because he bloviates about how he's gonna end the war.

He's nothing but a clean, articulate, good-looking lib--with big ears.

Romney won't go far, folks, and it's unfortunate. Maybe he can get on the ticket as Rudy's veep...

I know very little about Romney and I don't profess to.

Judging by your posts, you know very little about everything we discuss here.

I'll tell you what is offensive: your breathing.

What's really offensive is the empty space between your ears. Run along, mitche...

Kahn -- take your pick of the many issues that face us today: war, economy, poverty, racism, health care, disease, terrorism, genocide, tax policy, education, whatever...

With all that to present, discuss, and debate, why is the media pointing out Romney's great-grandparents or Obama's middle name?

I am simply stating my agreement with the original post, not trying to start an argument.

As for the yahoo link, the form that I used to post my comment asked me for a URL and I thought it might be mandatory so I just entered yahoo.com... there's nothing really "up" with it.

Oops, keefer beat me to a response about Obama's ears. The reason we've been joking about his ears is (a) he says it bothers him, and it's my goal in life to bother Liberal Democrats whenever possible, and (b) see keefer's comment about the Bush cartoons. I'm betting, whether he's elected or not, there will NEVER be a cartoon of Obama that depicts him in the same fashion as Bush.

Bottom line, there's a big difference between joking about the size of someone's ears and judging someone by something their great great gandfather did.

Ditto, Spook, besides, the man has no record of achievements in his long career as a US Senator. He's a kook, anti-war lib who's the anti-Hitler to the anit-war kook left fringe.

And he has big ears...

Oops, typos galore in my last post. Corrections:

He's a kook, anti-war lib who's the anti-Hitlery to the anti-war kook left fringe.

There, corrections made. And, oh, BTW--he has big ears...

keefer, I understand, as a child, Obama's schoolmates called him Dumbo, and it had nothing to do with his intelligence, heh, heh.

In all seriousness, I have a friend in Chicago (a Democrat) who describes Obama as an articulate, charismatic empty suit (with big ears).

Looks like I got a rise out of keef. Lol.

Spook: "I'm betting, whether he's elected or not, there will NEVER be a cartoon of Obama that depicts him in the same fashion as Bush."

You might want to check out this page. I would guess it's awfully hard to draw an Obama cartoon without emphasizing both his ears and his chin.

Anyway, I've been trying to be humorous. I made the connection between Romney's heritage and Obama's ears because I think they're both silly. Then again, I don't think Obama is actually sensitive about his ears. When I first heard the "ear exchange" on Rush's show I immediately thought he missed the point, whether intentionally or not. Perhaps he didn't understand the relationship between MoDo and Obama -- I'm pretty sure MoDo wants to have Obama's baby, lol! Read any of her columns about him: they positively glow. So I'm also reasonably sure they were teasing each other. Although it's getting to the point where he must be thinking... with friends like her, who needs enemies? Lol! MoDo was also responsible for the Geffen flap between Obama and Hillary.

By the way, did anyone catch the significance of my "Billy beer" comment? Remember Billy Carter? Jimmy was constantly tarred for his goofy brother. As if he didn't have enough legitimate problems, lol!

yekepyt- I know what I think is important (two things you left off your list). I was asking what YOU thought was important.

I'll pick ONE of YOUR subjects.

GENOCIDE.
1. FDR knew it was happening to the jews and did nothing to stop it.
2. Pulling out of Viet nam and refusing to help afterwards caused it in South Viet nam AND Cambodia
3. Failure to help in Rwanda allowed it to happen.
4. Congress could order us into Dafur - only Congress could.
5. Pulling out of Iraq WILL cause it.

Tell me when you find the common thread...

Kahn, I am wondering what your questions have to do with the topic, which is about how the media focuses on irrelevant stuff like candidates' ancestors or their middle names while there are so many more important issues to debate.

It seems that you are trying to get people to discuss some other issue inside this thread, although I'm not sure why. Maybe it's just because you don't have anything to say/ask that is on topic?

(Reminder: the topic is about the media digging up completely meaningless details about various candidates' backgrounds, and then presenting them as if they are meaningful).

A ridiculous attempt by the MSM to link polygamy with Romney. But easily refuted and more germaine to the present by simply pointing out that Romney has had fewer wives then most of the current Republican hopefuls.

Of course, Obama's father WAS, in fact, a bigamist/polygamist. Why doesn't the American media cover THAT story, which at least has the virtue of having happened within the living memory of most American voters.

On a plus side out of the Republican front runners it is said although he is a Mormon he has had the fewest number of wifes. Go figure.

yekept - nothing ata ll. You said we should talk about what was important. I asked you to pick some subjects, you did. I replied.

Whatever. I wonder if you've figured it out yet? What the genocides had/have in common? Oh well.

yekept - nothing at all. You said we should talk about what was important. I asked you to pick some subjects, you did. I replied.

Whatever. I wonder if you've figured it out yet? What the genocides had/have in common? Oh well.

Had some trouble there posting - sorry

As a Dem, I hope Mitt gets the nomination. I think he would be easy to defeat. We will make his religion an issue, because it is a easy religion to point out differences from most Americans. Politics is a rough game, and he should get used to this type of attention.

Oh, P.M. you are the gift that keeps on giving. Though you take up a lot of time and space here, it is worth it just for the entertainment value of your mindless psuedo-posts.

Can it be, can it possibly BE,that you truly believe Shrillary has been blasted for what Bill did? Boy, talk about oversimplifying something!

Hillary has been implicated in dozens of misdeeds which also included hubby Bill. She has also been criticized for pretending she didn't know about his serial adulteries, when she not only knew, she hired private investigators to dig up dirt on the women involved so she could use that info to silence them---thereby protecting hubby's political career, thereby advancing her own.

I have never heard of Hill being slammed for anything Bill did which did not directly involve her. Unless you are going to claim Bill packed up the White House goodies and shipped them off to New York while Hillary was out having her hair cut.

You are so silly.

Back to the thread----does anyone remember the fact that Jack Kennedy's father was a bootlegger, which didn't seem to matter to Kennedy devotees? Nope, Joe even got appointed as Ambassador to Great Britain, the coolest posting in the Ambassador Corps---at least till he got hauled home in disgrace for supporting Hitler.

I'm definitely not in the sins of the father visited upon heads of the sons group. All of us have ancestors who would not pass a smell test today, whether they were prisoners sent off to the colonies by King George or slave holders or bank robbers or whatever. While we were not as firmly established as a prison colony as was Australia, we did get our share of prisoners shipped over here, as well as those dodging the law back home.

But I loved Kahn's point. Who CARES about who was married to whom, and in what number? After all, isn't marriage supposed to be a constantly changing, constantly evolving, institution, never tied to any one definition? Isn't it supposed to be whatever we say it is? And aren't we supposed to embrace any and all relationships as equally good? So Mitt's grandfather had FIVE mommies---sounds like a book that should be mandatory reading in second grade, to me. Let's teach these kids the true meaning of diversity.