The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: txradioguy on August 13, 2015, 04:56:48 AM
-
On Monday night, Fox News host Megyn Kelly doubled down in defense of her questions during Thursday night’s inaugural Republican presidential debate. She explained:
You may have heard that there was a dustup between yours truly and presidential contender Donald Trump. Mr. Trump was upset with a question I asked him at the debate last week about his electability and specifically comments he had made in the past about women. A few words on that: Apparently Mr. Trump thought the question I asked was unfair and felt I was attacking him. I felt he was asked a tough but fair question. We agreed to disagree. Mr. Trump gave interviews over the weekend that attacked me personally. I have decided not to respond. Mr. Trump is an interesting man who has captured the attention of the electorate. That’s why he’s leading in the polls. Trump, who is now the frontrunner, will not apologize. And I certainly will not apologize for doing good journalism. So, I’ll continue doing my job—without fear or favor. And Mr. Trump, I expect, will continue with what has been a successful campaign thus far. This is a tough business, and it’s time now to move forward.
But was Kelly’s performance “good journalism�
First, what is “good journalism� Has it come to mean asking gotcha questions designed to catch politicians off guard, pushing them off their talking points? After all, that is why Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Sam Donaldson, and Dan Rather were considered “good journalists,†even though all were partisan egotists. By that definition, Kelly’s performance was admirable.
If by “good journalism,†however, we mean questions designed to elicit informational responses that will be helpful to viewers, Kelly failed in her duties on Thursday night.
Kelly asked fifteen questions during the debate. A huge majority of those questions targeted Republicans in ways that would have pleased Clintonista George Stephanopoulos. There is a reason Jorge Ramos of Fusion praised Fox News, as did anchors on MSNBC and CNN. As did the New York Times opinion page. And, of course, as did Hillary Clinton.
Here were Kelly’s questions, one by one. As the debate went on, her quotient of informational questions to headline-grabbing ones went up. But early on, during the highly anticipated beginning of the first debate of this presidential news cycle, it was a ratings-garnering fireworks show:
Ben Carson’s Qualifications. Kelly began the debate by asking Dr. Ben Carson about his screw-ups on NATO, the governmental parties in Israel, and Alan Greenspan’s position as chairman of the Fed. She concluded, “Aren’t these basic mistakes, and don’t they raise legitimate questions about whether you are ready to be president?†The question itself isn’t unfair, but the way in which it was posed certainly was: a list of specifics to which Carson had no opportunity to respond, followed by a broader question about leading designed to cast Carson negatively.
Out of the gate, Fox News anchor Kelly condescended to a man who became the director of pediatric neurosurgery at the world-renowned Johns Hopkins Hospital when he was just 33 years old.
Bold.
Trump on Women. Kelly’s most controversial question of the night was directed toward Donald Trump. She essentially labeled him a general in the “war on women†because he says nasty things on his Twitter account and on reality television:
Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women. You’ve called women you don’t like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.†Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?
Trump rightly objected to this question. Of all the problems women face on planet Earth in the year 2015, is Donald Trump’s Twitter account the most noteworthy for viewers of a presidential primary debate? And if not his Twitter feed, is it his Apprentice board room – from eight seasons ago? As it turns out, his supposed victim said she didn’t remember the comment and eventually defended The Donald.
Kelly, of course, didn’t provide the staggering audience of 24 million the context from the episode of The View that prompted Trump to disparage comic and host Rosie O’Donnell. O’Donnell, as it happens, provoked Trump’s ire by mocking women who participated in his pageants as well as women in his family, past and present.
#War.
Hillary Clinton, predictably, has seized the battle between Trump and Kelly to slam Republicans as sexist monsters. She said that Trump’s comments about Kelly, in which he said that Kelly had “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her…wherever†during the debate, were “outrageous.†She added:
I just want to remind us that what they say about women — not one woman who is perfectly capable and incredibly impressive, able to take care of herself, but all these women that I have fought for, worked for, stood up for, advocated for and want to be a president for, who may not have the opportunity to defend themselves, who may lose the right to exercise a personal choice if certain of the Republicans were to be successful, I don’t want that forgotten.
She then launched into an attack on Senator Sen. Marco Rubio's (R-FL) pro-life position, stating, “what Marco Rubio said has as much of an impact in terms of where the Republican party is today as anybody else on that stage.â€
Kelly provided this opening with a foolish question. The true war on women is happening in the Middle East, with the help of cowardly Democrats; it’s happening in Europe, where genital mutilation is reaching nearly every corner of the continent; and it’s happening in the United States, where Democrats back sex-selective abortion and a record 56 million women are out of the work force during this Democratic administration. Hillary Clinton herself has been labeled the “war on women†by alleged sexual harassment victim Kathleen Willey. But Trump said Rosie O’Donnell’s fat, and that makes it to the top of a 2016 Republican presidential debate.
All in the name of “good journalism.â€
Blasting Walker on Abortion. Kelly didn’t just ask Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker about his abortion position. She phrased it in language that would have made Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood proud: “Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion, and with 83 percent of the American public in favor of a life exception, are you too out of the mainstream on this issue to win the general election?†She asked no questions about the Democrats’ abortion-after-birth position.
Smacking Kasich on Medicaid. Kelly asked Governor John Kasich of Ohio about his expansion of Medicaid in the state, and his justification by way of the Bible. The question was hard-hitting and logical:
You defended your Medicaid expansion by invoking God, saying to skeptics that when they arrive in heaven, Saint Peter isn’t going to ask them how small they’ve kept government, but what they have done for the poor. Why should Republican voters, who generally want to shrink government, believe that you won’t use your Saint Peter rationale to expand every government program?
Even this question, however, smacked of anti-religious eye-rolling. Kasich may be misusing the Bible, but questioning his sincerity seems misplaced.
Facing Off Christie and Paul. Kelly looked to start a chair-throwing Jerry Springer fight between Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) and Senator Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
over surveillance. She didn’t just ask them about their policies – she explicitly attempted to start a fracas between the two, and succeeded by asking Christie this:
Do you really believe you can assign blame to Senator Paul just for opposing the bulk collection of people’s phone records in the event of a terrorist attack?
The battle that ensued was quite entertaining. It also didn’t add any additional informational content of the debate.
Quizzing Cruz on ISIS. Kelly asked Cruz about his position on ISIS in straightforward manner; Cruz answered in straightforward manner. It was one of the best moments of the debate for any candidate.
Slamming Bush Over Iraq. Before we even analyze the question, the main takeaway from this exchange is that Megyn Kelly branded Operation Iraqi Freedom Jeb’s “brother’s war.†She didn’t just ask Bush about his position on the war in Iraq, she specifically posed Bush’s position as in opposition to troops that died. Kelly originally caught Bush in the Iraq war question back in May, when she asked, “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?… You don’t think it was a mistake?†After Bush received blowback about his answer and said he wouldn’t have invaded Iraq, Kelly now flipped the tables: “To the families of those who died in that war who say they liberated and deposed a ruthless dictator, how do you look at them now and say that your brother’s war was a mistake?†It’s fair to say that Iraq was not George W. Bush’s war any more than it was Hillary Clinton’s war. Iraq was a war voted for by the United States Congress to enforce United Nations resolutions, with a coalition of dozens of countries.
Asking Walker About The Middle East. Another good question from Kelly here, in which she asked Walker about cultivating partners in the Arab world. The question gave Walker an opportunity to demonstrate knowledge about the Middle East situation.
Asking Carson About Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. Another good question from Kelly, straightforwardly posed and answered.
Slamming Bush on Planned Parenthood. Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) is deeply pro-life and always has been. That didn’t stop Kelly from digging for paydirt on Bush and abortion:
Governor Bush, let’s start with you. Many Republicans have been outraged recently by a series of videos on Planned Parenthood. You now say that you support ending federal funding for this organization. However, until late 2014, right before you started your campaign, you sat on the board of a Bloomberg charity that quite publicly gave tens of millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood while you were a director. How could you not know about these well publicized donations, and if you did know, how could you help a charity so openly committed to abortion rights?
A gotcha question if ever there was one.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/08/11/the-arrogance-of-power-megyn-kellys-good-journalism/
-
I thought she asked tough questions and questions that since it was a GOP presidential debate certainly had every right to ask. Why should those who call themselves conservative or proclaim certain stances on issues go unchecked; especially it they are claiming one thing and acting in another way? I think it was informational to viewers and viewers should have seen it as a signal to do some research and make a better assessment of the candidate they like rather than depend on just what they are saying. Even with her tough questions, those candidates are polling very well.
-
We'll probably never know if she was being fair, since the Democrats likely wouldn't allow her to be a moderator at one of their debates.
-
But was Kelly’s performance “good journalism?"
Yes.
-
I thought she asked tough questions and questions that since it was a GOP presidential debate certainly had every right to ask. Why should those who call themselves conservative or proclaim certain stances on issues go unchecked; especially it they are claiming one thing and acting in another way? I think it was informational to viewers and viewers should have seen it as a signal to do some research and make a better assessment of the candidate they like rather than depend on just what they are saying. Even with her tough questions, those candidates are polling very well.
Nothing about immigration the usurping of the Constitution by the President or the over reach by the DOJ and the EPA nothing on the deficit.
No offense to you but in reality there were no tough questions. Nothing on the problems truly facing this country.
-
Yes.
Only if she was working for MSNBC or CNN.
-
It's not just her, though. And, other than the research the moderators have to do, this isn't journalism, it's a debate. Tough questions are fine but what pissed me off was how lopsided the time given to each candidate was. If they're asking about a foreign policy issue, I'd like to know how other candidates would handle the same situation. Granted, you couldn't ask a question and have all 10 answer, but you could choose a few to answer each question.
I learned very little about the candidates and that bothers me. I get that Trump is entertaining (this is NOT a slam, just a fact) and that Bush is the establishment favorite, followed by Kasich, but we have a slew of great candidates and they should've had the same opportunities to introduce themselves as Trump and the presumed RINO front runner. At least they made the best of the time they did have since their poll numbers went up.
On the issue of abortion, if they were to ask what they would do in light of the Planned Parenthood videos and then questioned a candidate on an earlier pro choice stance during the back and forth that would be fine. It would be relevant. What Trump called Rosie O'Donnell or anyone else, I don't care about. If his character is an issue, it will come out in the next year. This is an important election and 99.9999% of the questions should've been policy related and the serious issues the next president will face.
It's disappointing in one sense because we've said forever "let FOX host a debate". At least they'll be fair. It didn't feel like they were there to inform us about the candidates but to impress the other members of the media. And I really like Megyn Kelly, she does some hard hitting, no bullshit stuff on her show. Greta would've been a better choice.
Cindie
-
Only if she was working for MSNBC or CNN.
Her job is to get viewers, for the commercials. She's doing exactly what Fox pays her to do.
-
Her job is to get viewers, for the commercials. She's doing exactly what Fox pays her to do.
That's true but moderating a debate for the most important job in the free world isn't like your regular hour long show, it also means you have a responsibility to give voters and opportunity to hear from all the candidates more or less equally. I understand the whole pop icon thing but this isn't Celebrity Apprentice and you can't have one or two candidates suck all the air out of the room. I'm sure Trump would be more than happy to go on anyone's hour long show and talk about himself and his ideas.
This was a poor debate for many reasons. Too much gotcha and not enough policy and too much focus on one person. Allowing the voters an opportunity to hear more from everyone also has the advantage of weeding out the ones who can't win much earlier.
Cindie
-
That's true but moderating a debate for the most important job in the free world isn't like your regular hour long show, it also means you have a responsibility to give voters and opportunity to hear from all the candidates more or less equally. I understand the whole pop icon thing but this isn't Celebrity Apprentice and you can't have one or two candidates suck all the air out of the room. I'm sure Trump would be more than happy to go on anyone's hour long show and talk about himself and his ideas.
This was a poor debate for many reasons. Too much gotcha and not enough policy and too much focus on one person. Allowing the voters an opportunity to hear more from everyone also has the advantage of weeding out the ones who can't win much earlier.
Cindie
I disagree, Cindie. As Ayn Rand said, 'check your premises'.
The debates are exactly like Celebrity Apprentice. They are not part of the official electoral process.
'Responsibility' and 'duty' require a mechanism of punishment for failure to meet that responsibility. Fox News has no legal, social, or cultural duty to provide equal access or 'fairness' in any of its content. Their only duty is to to maximize profits for their shareholders.
Broadcast on only one network, ultimately the purpose of the debate was to make money for that network, by putting eyeballs on the screen for advertisers. The media has done a good job of convincing voters that they are an indispensable part of the electoral process, but it just ain't so. This is the 'circus' part of 'bread and circuses'.
-
Don't nearly all conservatives call others liberals when asked a question then get hammered with personal insults?
Isn't this out of the democrat/liberal playbook? Being critical of her job is one thing getting personal is another.
-
I disagree, Cindie. As Ayn Rand said, 'check your premises'.
The debates are exactly like Celebrity Apprentice. They are not part of the official electoral process.
'Responsibility' and 'duty' require a mechanism of punishment for failure to meet that responsibility. Fox News has no legal, social, or cultural duty to provide equal access or 'fairness' in any of its content. Their only duty is to to maximize profits for their shareholders.
Broadcast on only one network, ultimately the purpose of the debate was to make money for that network, by putting eyeballs on the screen for advertisers. The media has done a good job of convincing voters that they are an indispensable part of the electoral process, but it just ain't so. This is the 'circus' part of 'bread and circuses'.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think this is more important than some fluff show. We're electing the new leader of the free world for a world (and a country) very much on the brink. That's my premise. I want to know what the different candidates think on different issues. We aren't voting on the next American Idol, but even on this show you get to hear all the contestants sing an entire song before you vote.
Cindie
-
Her job is to get viewers, for the commercials. She's doing exactly what Fox pays her to do.
Kelly didn't get the viewers. Trump brought them along just fine.
-
I don't mind tough questions asked and answered by conservative candidates.
What really frustrates me on the subject is when the libs don't get the same treatment.
They get softballs.
They get puff pieces.
They get reporters drooling on them.
If it was objectively fair, if it was balanced, if it was investigative journalism to both sides of the aisle, then fine.
But it's not.
Libs get the kid glove treatment.
The thing I didn't like about Megan Kelly's question is how it was framed as a plagiarism of the divisive identity politics the libs specialize in.
We as conservatives should never accept any lib premise.
Neither should any good objective fair journalist blindly accept lib premises.
-
Kelly didn't get the viewers. Trump brought them along just fine.
Exactly. And now that Fox is playing up the Trump vs Kelly angle, it will get more eyeballs on the screen next time.
It's Hulk Hogan vs. Ted DiBiase, the Million Dollar Man (you can decide who is who). Vince McMahon would be proud.
-
Exactly. And now that Fox is playing up the Trump vs Kelly angle, it will get more eyeballs on the screen next time.
It's Hulk Hogan vs. Ted DiBiase, the Million Dollar Man (you can decide who is who). Vince McMahon would be proud.
I liked Andy Kaufmann and Jerry Lawler myself.
-
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think this is more important than some fluff show. We're electing the new leader of the free world for a world (and a country) very much on the brink. That's my premise. I want to know what the different candidates think on different issues. We aren't voting on the next American Idol, but even on this show you get to hear all the contestants sing an entire song before you vote.
Cindie
The debate was going to go the way it went regardless of what was asked. Those guys had their monologues planned no matter what the question was.
Megyn knocked it out of the park in an important way: she asked difficult questions and expected answers. Fox came off looking like a news organization and not a soft-focus obsequity parlor, like MSNBC. Like it or not, Fox had to do that to dispel the myth that it's in the can for any particular Republican.
When the field is winnowed out, I expect things to get more real.
-
The debate was going to go the way it went regardless of what was asked. Those guys had their monologues planned no matter what the question was.
Megyn knocked it out of the park in an important way: she asked difficult questions and expected answers. Fox came off looking like a news organization and not a soft-focus obsequity parlor, like MSNBC. Like it or not, Fox had to do that to dispel the myth that it's in the can for any particular Republican.
When the field is winnowed out, I expect things to get more real.
It's possible to not sound like a house organ by asking probing, effective policy and position questions as opposed to TMZ-Springer questions.
-
It's possible to not sound like a house organ by asking probing, effective policy and position questions as opposed to TMZ-Springer questions.
...because the candidates were providing well-considered policy opinions and insights. Yeah.
If you were Megyn Kelly, your job was to not look like a shill.
If you were a candidate, your job was to consume the leftover oxygen from Trump.
This wasn't a debate, it was box-checking.
-
I liked Andy Kaufmann and Jerry Lawler myself.
I often think of them when I read posts from Skins' Island, edpecially the fake disability DUmmies.
-
If Trump continues to be the leader on the GOP primaries I will bet the ranch the questions about his past flip flops and finance practices are going to be fierce and heavy, get used to it and he should be held to answer like any other person running for POTUS. :tongue:
-
If Trump continues to be the leader on the GOP primaries I will bet the ranch the questions about his past flip flops and finance practices are going to be fierce and heavy, get used to it and he should be held to answer like any other person running for POTUS. :tongue:
'Be held to answer' implies an authority which does not exist.
Like any other candidate, Trump will answer questions if he chooses, in the manner he chooses. See 'Hillary Clinton'.
-
If they're going to fold up and do the dying cockroach when asked a toughie, it's better to find out now instead of seeing the field narrow down to three or four through money/primary attrition issues, and then find out most of the really competent ones already left the race and everyone who's left isn't ready for the majors. That's sort of what happened in '08, and to a lesser extent in '12. I'm with Big Dog on this one.
-
Seeing Hitlary skate away from not only any tough question, but any question whatsoever has me fuming.
The double standard is exponential.
-
Seeing Hitlary skate away from not only any tough question, but any question whatsoever has me fuming.
The double standard is exponential.
It's going to get much worse. When she finally does have to poke her head out, it'll be to answer the question, "How did you cope with those mean old people asking questions about some silly emails?"
-
'Be held to answer' implies an authority which does not exist.
Like any other candidate, Trump will answer questions if he chooses, in the manner he chooses. See 'Hillary Clinton'.
If he don't answer then he will most likely fall in the polls and/or get even more heat from others.
Heck Hillary don't even get asked questions? :wink:
-
If he don't answer then he will most likely fall in the polls and/or get even more heat from others.
Consequences.
Heck Hillary don't even get asked questions? :wink:
Questions are for little people. She's inevitable.
-
Her job is to get viewers, for the commercials. She's doing exactly what Fox pays her to do.
'zackly. h5
And here's the crux of the article:
The battle that ensued was quite entertaining. It also didn’t add any additional informational content of the debate.
If anyone actually thinks that Fox News or any other MSM power broker is going to ask questions that inform the audience and otherwise assist voters in making up their minds concerning the candidate they'll vote for, you've been drinking the Kool-Aid.
Fox News, in that context, is no better than the other MSM brokers.
It's all about ratings, all about entertainment and ultimately all about making money.
When you get right down to it, **** the Voters.
-
Her job is to get viewers, for the commercials. She's doing exactly what Fox pays her to do.
She may have picked up viewers from the Left with her debate questions, but she lost me. I realize that means jack shit to anyone, but she didn't ask tough questions that would enlighten viewers; she was clearly (imo) aiming to discredit most of the people on the stage under the guise of *electability*. I call it sandbagging; ymmv. :shrug:
-
She may have picked up viewers from the Left with her debate questions, but she lost me. I realize that means jack shit to anyone, but she didn't ask tough questions that would enlighten viewers; she was clearly (imo) aiming to discredit most of the people on the stage under the guise of *electability*. I call it sandbagging; ymmv. :shrug:
I would almost bet they were ordered not to ask real everyday tough questions about the future of America. None of them would answer anyway just pander like they normally do.
-
I have no issues with her questions. I like Megyn before and I still like her. Trump will be asked much tougher questions if he becomes the nominee. Right now I just see him as a whiny arrogant rich boy who is mad and throwing a tantrum. He makes me think that he is a right leaning version of Obama. Same arrogance and will probably behave the same way as Obama when he can't get his way with Congress.
-
I have issues with Fox including Kelly. Tough question are fine but when reporters throw soft balls to racists like Jessie, Al and liberal extremist, I call that lousy journalism and being hypocritical. Fair and balanced, my @ss.
-
I have issues with Fox including Kelly. Tough question are fine but when reporters throw soft balls to racists like Jessie, Al and liberal extremist, I call that lousy journalism and being hypocritical. Fair and balanced, my @ss.
I have issues with waiting an hour to BS you again.
-
I have no issues with her questions. I like Megyn before and I still like her. Trump will be asked much tougher questions if he becomes the nominee. Right now I just see him as a whiny arrogant rich boy who is mad and throwing a tantrum. He makes me think that he is a right leaning version of Obama. Same arrogance and will probably behave the same way as Obama when he can't get his way with Congress.
I also agree and he may have a wise ass remark the first few times but after the 10 or twelfth time he will get up take his ball and go home! :bawl: When he can't have control he will whine then go. :rant:
-
I have issues with waiting an hour to BS you again.
Sounds like a mental problem
-
I also agree and he may have a wise ass remark the first few times but after the 10 or twelfth time he will get up take his ball and go home! :bawl: When he can't have control he will whine then go. :rant:
Will he?
Since you are clearly gifted with the power to see into the future, tell me: what are this Saturday's Powerball numbers?
-
Will he?
Since you are clearly gifted with the power to see into the future, tell me: what are this Saturday's Powerball numbers?
I don't have a crystal ball and I can't even predict what time of night my bladder will wake my ass up, but Trump is not used to being asked tough questions.
Good article from Derek Hunter that encapsulates my own thoughts on The Donald:
On paper, Donald Trump offers a lot as a candidate. He’s able to command a room, he is decisive, confident, unapologetic for what he believes, doesn’t need to kiss rings and make promises to raise money, and he stands up to an activist media. But campaigns aren’t run on paper, they’re run in life. And in life, Donald Trump appears to have an out-of-control ego in need of constant feeding, which is coupled with no ability to control himself.
Nothing about Donald Trump’s life requires constraint. Worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 billion, there is nothing he can’t afford to buy, aside from some countries.
I once had gotten paid all at once from a few consulting jobs I’d done; for how I grew up until that point, I was flush. I’d had more money in my bank account than I’d ever had. I’d been paycheck to paycheck before that, with some months pretty financially thin. I remember walking around a Target and, in the electronics department, it hit me: I could afford to buy anything in the store at that moment. It was a weird feeling.
While I could have afforded it, it would have been stupid to buy the most expensive thing there (I’m pretty sure it was their biggest TV), so I opted for financial responsibility and just purchased what I was there for. But I remember that feeling. It was the ability to breathe, to check the mail without fearing a bill or have to turn down going out with friends because I needed to pay rent. It was liberating, but it was also foreign.
Every day of Donald Trump’s life is like that, everywhere he goes, without the frame of reference of what it was like before. That has an impact on a person’s character.
I’m not saying Trump is of low character, this isn’t a value judgment or a self-congratulatory exercise where I pat myself on the back for my accomplishments, it’s an observation of a man who can’t seem to control himself when he should because he’s never had to.
The Fox News debate was 2 weeks ago, a lifetime in politics. Yet, for reasons unknown, Trump took to Twitter this week to attack co-moderator Megyn Kelly again. Using the retweet function to make most of his attacks via proxy, he endorsed calling her a “bimbo,†among other things.
Pointless and petty, but very Trump.
Rest of the article at the link:
http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2015/08/27/his-own-worst-enemy-n2044135?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
-
Will he?
Since you are clearly gifted with the power to see into the future, tell me: what are this Saturday's Powerball numbers?
Do ya know who was ahead in the polls this time 4 years ago?
I will bet the ranch it will not be Trump next year. I would think Rubio, Walker, Cruz and if Fiorina keeps the numbers up she may be hit up as VP just because she is a woman. I have no clue as to how Bush is even getting the numbers he is. I know no one who likes him!
The above statements are my opinion and my opinion.