As yo shold know, I am suggesting you BOYCOTT the unfair and unbalanced network. As partoof my own personal boycott, I am watcing NONE of the "prime time' lnieup, an=d only "surfing" the daytime 'news' a few minutes a day (if that) . Thus, I have not seen Greta Van Susteren in MONTHS. I have not missed anything. As I have previuosly stated, my respect for the unfair and unbalanced network goes DONW every single MINUTE I actualy "surf" the network. And this TRND has been in effect for YEARS.
What did Van Susteren do? Remember, this occurred in only about 30 seconds, which is all I coudl satnad (only doing that because I was cruious as to who the unfari and unbalanced network considered the "winner" of the debate). Well, I watched CNN for maybe 15 minutes (after the debate itself, and VanSutern managed to be WORRSE than ANYTHING said on CNN. That is what I jsut said. Tonight, except for the "defense" of Wolf Blitzer, the unfair and unbalanced network was WORSE than CNN. How LOW can they sink. I may not know, becuase I may not see them enough. But I am afraid thaey can sink REEALLY LOW.
What am I talking aobut/ Well, what do YOU think is RickSantorum's MAIN problem in becoming President? if yuo got this right, apply for a job at the unfair and unbalanced network. I have advised my two attorney daughters to apply, since they are BOTH at least doube the intteeligence of any of the presen twoemn there (even if they, unfortunately, are not conservatives). I am gong to have to warn my daughters aobut how to DUMB DOWN for any interview they might get. Van Susteren actually dismissed Santorum as probalby "unelectable" becaues of his positoins on GAY RIGHTS. In other words, Brit Humer was correctly saying that Santorum won the debate, and Van susteren ws dismessing Santourm because of the "gay" issue. My opinon o fHume is actualy gong DOWN because he HUMORED her-as he didtoo often before I pretty mch stoped watcing the unfair and unbalanced network (that is, Humer did it regularly with regard to Juan Willimans and others) .
Gay rights???????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is the OFFICIAL positon of teh "establishment" (of which Van Susteren is a card carrying member) on "gay rights? It is that the American people are all about JOBS, DEBT, DEFICTS and the EcONOMY. Who cares about "gay rights"? And who says that the American people are ready to discared theTHOUSANDS of years of human history oveer "gay marriage" (which our PRESIDENT still "officially" opposes)? You remember "Dishonest Jack" Cafferty? He is the CNN person who said that the GOP cannot win so long as they "talk" baout "social issues' after a debate where CNN insisted on ASKING questionas about "social issues'. What Cafferty really meant, of course, his that HE put "social issues' AHEAD of the SURVIVAL of this country. IN other word, Cafferty was willing to SELL OUT his country on the IMPORTANT issues of our survival, because HE thinkgs issues like' gay rights' and "abortin" are the MOST IMPORTANT issues in this country (unless you are RIGHT on them--agree with Cafferty).
What can I say VanSusteren is a SOUL MATE to "Disonest Jack" Cafferty. Van Susteren, like Cafferty, thinks the American peole (read HER, or at least the peole she talks to) are willng to SELL OUT their country, and electt a President who will DESTOROY that country, because Santorum has the "wrong' position on homosexual "rights'. Not only is Vansusteren a soul mate of "Dishonest Jack" Cafferty, but she is INCOMPETENT (a poistion I was already arriveing at when I finally began my boycott of the unfair and unbalanced network). It is WRrRONG--absurd--to suggest that the American people would DEFEAT Rick Santourm over "gay rights. What Van Sust4eren is really saying, and it is DISHONEST as well as incomopetent, is that people in the media--like VAN SUSTERNE--will NOT ALLOW Rick Snatorum to talk about he real issues because THEY will focus so mcuh on the "social issues' that Santorum will never have a chance to tell people about the issues upon which this country's survivla depedns. Again, Greta, this tells me that you are willing to SEELL OUT ouyr country rather than try to focus --as a media person--on the REAL ISSUES> Nope. Ms. Van Susteren, I no longer have ANY respect for you. Go awy. I will never hear a word lyou say agan, at least on your own program.
If lyu believe nothing else I have ever said, believe this: Rick Santorum will NOT lose lths election based on his position on "gay rights". "But, Skip, did you not say , yourself, that Santorum let himself be labeled as only a "social issues" candidate", and that may have kept him from suring early?" Yep. I said that, and stand behind it. But look how DIFFERENT that is from what Van susteren said. What I was saing is that people woh THINK LIKE VANSUSTGEREN (wrongly) BOXED Snatourm in as a "social issues' cncidate--a RELIGOUS right candidate. Now it is true lthat the MEDI--Bill Maher typoes ALL, including Van Susteren--thinks that being associated with the "religious right' is a DEATH KNELL for a candidate. Taht is why the ANTI-CHRISITAN media keeps makng those associations with the GOP candidates--even those not emphasizing religion in their campaign. If Van Susteren wanted to say that Santorum had been too 'pigeon-holed" into being exclusvively a "religius right', social issues candidate, I would not crucify her this way. She would have a pont--even if it would ingore the COMPLICITY of the unfari and unbalanced network in this EVIL. But what Van Susteren did is limit hereself to saying that Snatorum's positon on gay rights-specifically gay marriage, but hshe owould probably expand it to other 'gay rights' issues like gasy in the military--would DEFEAST Rick Snatourm. That is RIDICULOUS. Taht "issue' would NOT HURT Rick Santourm AT ALL. I might not actually HELP hi, but it would NOT HURT. That is as close to a FACT as ny "opinion" you are likely to hear, an dmuch close to a FACT than the vomit that Van Susteren is puttin gout.
P.S No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). Why does ANY "conservative", or conservative leanign person, bother to watch the unfair and unbalanced network.? Nope. I do NOT think they are "better " than CNN. Listen to Rush Limbuagh. SURF a LOT of sources (like I do). There is NO reason to watch the unfari and unbalanced network. You don't get real 'journalism", and you don't get 'fairness'. You get cable TV EVIL, with a slight slant toward the GOP estalbishment for RATINGS. Yep. The unfarir and unbalanced network gives more TOKEN acknowledgement to the Tea Party than MSNBC, but so does the GOP establishment. The unfair and unbalanced nework DOES NOT MEAN IT, and their "news' operation is fully as bad as CNN. I remind you that my FIRST cirticism of John Roberts came when he was workng for CNN, and he has tit right in the unfiar and unbalanced netowrk (as does Greta Van susteren). Not ehe real pon here. To even ASK Rick Snatourm whetehr "homoseuality is a isin", as the EVIL Piers Moragan did, or to aks hime aobut it in AnY interview as if it is the most importaqnt issue he faces, is to prove yourself INCOMPETENT as a "journalists'. What you PROVE is tghat you have an AGENDA. It is NOT a tgurlyl important issue. Snatorum has his position, and that should be reported (as a minor positoin). But the idea that this is one of the most imortant issues of our time, for which peole will SELL OUT their country on, say jobs and the economy, is STUPID. Yep. I jsut called Greta Van Susteren STUPID, and I stand by it.