Clinton News Network

[Extra Stout]

:lmao

Clinton News Network: CNN's failure to disclose (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Clinton%2BNews%2BNetwork%3a% 2BCNN%27s%2Bfailure%2Bto%2Bdisclose&articleId=4b900239-c51a-4abf-bdc3-ad8085245472)

13 hours, 27 minutes ago

TWICE NOW, CNN has aired the opinions of an avowed Hillary Clinton supporter without telling viewers that the supposedly impartial commenter is an advocate of the leading Democratic candidate for President.

This is bad journalism.

During Wednesday night's Republican debate, sponsored by CNN and YouTube and hosted by CNN's Anderson Cooper, CNN aired a pre-recorded question by retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr. The general asked whether the candidates supported allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. But Kerr was not an impartial questioner. He is a national co-chairman of Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary.

He also was on John Kerry's National Veterans Steering Committee in 2004. He told CNN he was a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of homosexual Republicans, but his history of Democratic Party activism suggests he has other leanings.

And CNN did more than just air his recorded question. The network put him in the audience and then asked if the candidates answered the question to his satisfaction. That kind of attention given to a man who has lent his name to two Democratic presidential campaigns raises suspicions.

After the CNN-sponsored Democratic debate last month, Cooper presented James Carville as an impartial analyst. He did not disclose that Carville is an informal adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Did he know that? If not, why not?

Clinton was not the only Democratic candidate whose supporters were able to plant hostile questions at Wednesday night's debate. Columnist Michelle Malkin reported yesterday that one questioner was a declared John Edwards supporter and another a declared Barack Obama supporter. Another, who asked about tainted toys from China, works for the United Steelworkers union, which supports Edwards.

CNN did a terrible job vetting its questioners. Why? At the Republican debate in New Hampshire on June 5, which this newspaper co-sponsored, the network did a careful job, although one plant did get through. We discovered after the debate that a questioner who asked a hostile question of Mitt Romney was a volunteer for John McCain's campaign. (We don't believe Sen. McCain had any knowledge of this.)

All citizens should be able to ask questions of the presidential candidates. But when presenting people as impartial questioners or analysts, CNN has the duty to do its best to ensure that they are truly impartial. It has not done so in recent weeks, and for that its credibility takes a hit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm waiting for the next debate, where Bill shows up with a fake mustache and a wig to ask a question.

[Mr. Peabody]

:lmao

Clinton News Network: CNN's failure to disclose (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Clinton%2BNews%2BNetwork%3a% 2BCNN%27s%2Bfailure%2Bto%2Bdisclose&articleId=4b900239-c51a-4abf-bdc3-ad8085245472)

13 hours, 27 minutes ago

TWICE NOW, CNN has aired the opinions of an avowed Hillary Clinton supporter without telling viewers that the supposedly impartial commenter is an advocate of the leading Democratic candidate for President.

This is bad journalism.

...

So the candidates can only be asked questions by their adoring fans? I think the debates would be better if both parties were forced to take questions from "hostile" voters instead of being asked questions like "Mrs. Clinton, do you prefer diamonds or pearls?"

[Extra Stout]

So the candidates can only be asked questions by their adoring fans? I think the debates would be better if both parties were forced to take questions from "hostile" voters instead of being asked questions like "Mrs. Clinton, do you prefer diamonds or pearls?"
Probably at a Republican debate, it would be better if potential Republican voters could ask questions about the issues, rather than having Democratic operatives ask the candidates whether women should be killed or just receive life sentences after they get an abortion, or how many lashes uppity blacks should get if they fail to salute the Confederate flag.

[Holt's Cat]

After Senator Clinton wins the nomination she will be the biggest political news story since her husband's mistress gave him a blowjob. Not surprising that certain news organizations are going soft on her campaign.

[Mr. Peabody]

Probably at a Republican debate, it would be better if potential Republican voters could ask questions about the issues, rather than having Democratic operatives ask the candidates whether women should be killed or just receive life sentences after they get an abortion, or how many lashes uppity blacks should get if they fail to salute the Confederate flag.

I heard the abortion question and that's not exactly the way it was posed. From what I recall, the question was that if a candidate believes that abortion should be illegal, what kind of punishment should offenders receive. I don't think it's a fallacious question or one that the candidates shouldn't have to address.

It was certainly a better question than the "What kind of guns do you all own?" question that came later in the debate.

[JoeChalupa]

What's the big deal since debates are all staged and nothing but sound bites and canned answers. Besides, they are huge waste of time. So WGAF what CNN does anyhow?

[Ignignokt]

What's the big deal since debates are all staged and nothing but sound bites and canned answers. Besides, they are huge waste of time. So WGAF what CNN does anyhow?


Because had this been fox, you, pixel, oh gee, victoria texas, boutons and dan would have a clogged artery.

[JoeChalupa]

Because had this been fox, you, pixel, oh gee, victoria texas, boutons and dan would have a clogged artery.

Not from me. I watch the debates on FoxNews and I actually like the fact that questions come from those who want to challenge the candidates. I'm totally against planted questions from your own campaign such as Hillary's did.

Don't make such blanket statements.

[Walter Craparita]

Hillary would get ripped a new one on Fox News.

Them playing that song at the beginning was fucking pathetic.

Didn't the media used to be against crap like this? NOW they are the ones doing it. Pathetic.

[Extra Stout]

I can't wait for the next Democratic debate when the toughest question Senator Clinton has to field is, "How will sculptors fit your likeness on Mount Rushmore?"

[George Gervin's Afro]

Hillary would get ripped a new one on Fox News.

Them playing that song at the beginning was fucking pathetic.

Didn't the media used to be against crap like this? NOW they are the ones doing it. Pathetic.


ripped how? being asked to defend her husband? i assumed that these debates weren't intended to rip candidates apart. Oh I get it just democrats on Faux news.. gotcha. :rolleyes

[xrayzebra]

ripped how? being asked to defend her husband? i assumed that these debates weren't intended to rip candidates apart. Oh I get it just democrats on Faux news.. gotcha. :rolleyes

Nope, just ask a real question. Hell, they ask her one
about immigration and she claimed it was an ambush
question and shouldn't have been ask. They almost
threatened bodily harm to the asker.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Nope, just ask a real question. Hell, they ask her one
about immigration and she claimed it was an ambush
question and shouldn't have been ask. They almost
threatened bodily harm to the asker.


I would assume that any answer from any candidate relating to immigration would take longer than 30 seconds? Or better yet proposing a a yes or no question to a complex issue? especially one that can't possibly be answered with one word.

[Walter Craparita]

FAUX News.

Could there be anything more Faux than Hillary? The one who puts on her ethnic accent when needed. The one who makes comments that she was really heading things when Billl was in office? The one who can't answer a question? The one who has a machine behind her that intimates all other candidates in her party?

The one who simply wants to be president so she can go down in the history books as first woman president?

FAUX news lol.

[George Gervin's Afro]

FAUX News.

Could there be anything more Faux than Hillary? The one who puts on her ethnic accent when needed. The one who makes comments that she was really heading things when Billl was in office? The one who can't answer a question? The one who has a machine behind her that intimates all other candidates in her party?

The one who simply wants to be president so she can go down in the history books as first woman president?

FAUX news lol.


I see plenty of your opinion but nothing to back it up. I assume you have something to back any of this up? I would like to read some of the 'so called' questions that she would get ripped on.. any suggestions?

[xrayzebra]

I would assume that any answer from any candidate relating to immigration would take longer than 30 seconds? Or better yet proposing a a yes or no question to a complex issue? especially one that can't possibly be answered with one word.

Oh, now I understand. Any real question is too complex
for a dimm-o-crap to answer in 30 seconds, but
Republicans should be able to answer any question from
anyone in that period of time. And you will vote
Dimm-o-crap in the next election, if you are old enough
to vote.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Oh, now I understand. Any real question is too complex
for a dimm-o-crap to answer in 30 seconds, but
Republicans should be able to answer any question from
anyone in that period of time. And you will vote
Dimm-o-crap in the next election, if you are old enough
to vote.


So are you telling me that on complex issues someone should be able to delve into it, propose possible solutions, offer different alternatives, talk about how we got there in less than 30 seconds?

[xrayzebra]

So are you telling me that on complex issues someone should be able to delve into it, propose possible solutions, offer different alternatives, talk about how we got there in less than 30 seconds?

No, you were telling me and the rest of the forum that.

[Lebowski Brickowski]

The most absurd part was that CNN gave that ret. brig. general the floor for like 5 minutes while he lectured the debate hall about gays in the military.

What the fuck was that dude running for anyway? Oh, nothing? Well then somebody take his fucking microphone away. What the fuck do I care about the social views of some audience member?

Fucking obvious.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, you were telling me and the rest of the forum that.


Well you are telling everyone that all complex problems and solutions could be solved by yes or no questions.

[Nbadan]

I'm not surprised, I posted here last week that CNN is pulling for Hitlary and FAUX News is pulling for 9iu11ini....although it has nothing to do with CNN being the Clinton News Network and more to do with the powers that be manipulating the M$M to control the 08' election...

[xrayzebra]

The most absurd part was that CNN gave that ret. brig. general the floor for like 5 minutes while he lectured the debate hall about gays in the military.

What the fuck was that dude running for anyway? Oh, nothing? Well then somebody take his fucking microphone away. What the fuck do I care about the social views of some audience member?

Fucking obvious.

And he was bitching about the Dont Tell rule that
Clinton, Inc. instituted. How bout that for having
it both ways. Hmmmmmm, really didn't intend to
have the little pun there, but......

[xrayzebra]

Well you are telling everyone that all complex problems and solutions could be solved by yes or no questions.

Nope, just keep the debates on the up and up. Republicans
didn't run in ringers into Clintons debate so why should
they be allowed to run any into the Republicans debate.
The debates, at this time, is about each party selecting
their candidate. After selection is made, then bring all
comers on. CNN has proven they are nothing but the
propaganda arm for the Democratic party, especially
Clinton, Inc. No wonder they have no viewership and
Fox owns them.

Anyhow, our boys handled things well I thought. So
the dimms proved they are just that, dimm.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm not surprised, I posted here last week that CNN is pulling for Hitlary and FAUX News is pulling for 9iu11ini....although it has nothing to do with CNN being the Clinton News Network and more to do with the powers that be manipulating the M$M to control the 08' election...


I hear this crap from both sides of the aisle. Why would any network overtly try and favor a candidate? Considering we are living in the age of the blogosphere looking for anything that smells bad.. Are these news organizations that stupid?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Nope, just keep the debates on the up and up. Republicans
didn't run in ringers into Clintons debate so why should
they be allowed to run any into the Republicans debate.
The debates, at this time, is about each party selecting
their candidate. After selection is made, then bring all
comers on. CNN has proven they are nothing but the
propaganda arm for the Democratic party, especially
Clinton, Inc. No wonder they have no viewership and
Fox owns them.

Anyhow, our boys handled things well I thought. So
the dimms proved they are just that, dimm.


fox owns them? they have the 32% dead enders to cater to.. and I see they have done a fine job.. :lol

[xrayzebra]

fox owns them? they have the 32% dead enders to cater to.. and I see they have done a fine job.. :lol

And outdraw all cable news networks. Yeah, just all us
dead enders watching.
:p: :lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

And outdraw all cable news networks. Yeah, just all us
dead enders watching.
:p: :lol


ok i guess i am going to have to explain it to you in plain simple language. we can agree that this country is 48% democrat, 48% republican. correct? if one conservative news organization caters to 48% and the rest (6 or7) of the news stations cater to other 48% who wins?

48% have one station that caters to their views

and the other 48% have 6 or 7 options to choose from.... which would then mean their numbers would be dilluted amongs the 6 or 7 options..

[JoeChalupa]

It shouldn't matter who is asking the question at all. Period.

[Nbadan]

I hear this crap from both sides of the aisle. Why would any network overtly try and favor a candidate? Considering we are living in the age of the blogosphere looking for anything that smells bad.. Are these news organizations that stupid?


No, it's that our candidates from both major parties are predetermined....remember in 03-early 04 Howard Dean, the populist candidate, was the Democratic front-runner - it was this same M$M who used the only open-mic at a campaign event Dean had to scream into to be heard in the loud room....made him sound like a lunatic....all of the sudden here comes the chosen candidate, John Kerry, out of nowhere, certainly not a populist candidate...more pro-business, more centrist, despite what Rushbo says....

[JoeChalupa]

Kerry could have won if he would have responded to the negative attacks much sooner.

[Nbadan]

...unfortunately, Kerry would have been just as weak as Dubya, but likely for different reasons.....

[JoeChalupa]

And that can be said of all candidates for different reasons.

[MannyIsGod]

I hear this crap from both sides of the aisle. Why would any network overtly try and favor a candidate? Considering we are living in the age of the blogosphere looking for anything that smells bad.. Are these news organizations that stupid?Ratings. The networks would LOVE to have a woman running for office.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

MannyIsWrong


No wait, he's right.

[Wild Cobra]

It shouldn't matter who is asking the question at all. Period.
I don't see it so much as who asks the question as to the importance of a question. This was a republican debate. It should have covered republican points of interest only. That is where the who becomes important when the who is a biased idiot.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't see it so much as who asks the question as to the importance of a question. This was a republican debate. It should have covered republican points of interest only. That is where the who becomes important when the who is a biased idiot.

Huh? Shouldn't they be American points of interest? Republican points of interest only? You think immigration is only a republican point of interest? The Iraq war is only a republican point of interest? Education is only a republican point of interest?
That just doesn't make sense to me at all.

[Nbadan]

How the M$M was compromised.....


But not only has the government tried to control people's minds, they've copped to controlling the media, too. Operation Mockingbird, the CIA's plan to infiltrate America's newsrooms, was such a success that former CIA director William Colby boasted, "the Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any major significance in the major media." Carl Bernstein substantiated this, revealing that hundreds of journalists and news organizations were involved in this subversion.

Buzzflash (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/09/05_Stepford.html)

[Wild Cobra]

Huh? Shouldn't they be American points of interest? Republican points of interest only? You think immigration is only a republican point of interest? The Iraq war is only a republican point of interest? Education is only a republican point of interest?
That just doesn't make sense to me at all.
Yes to the republican points of interest only since this is a republican debate.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Fox News refuses to run pro-Constitution ad

Fox News has refused to air an ad produced by the Center for Constitutional Rights that criticizes the Bush administration for "destroying the Constitution" by the use of renditions, torture, and other tactics. The ad, "Rescue the Constitution," which is narrated by actor Danny Glover, can be viewed here.
In an email provided to Media Matters for America by the Center, Fox News account executive Erin Kelly told Owen Henkel, the Center's e-communications manager, that Fox would not run the ad:

Hi Owen --

We cannot approve the spot with it being Danny Glover's opinion that the Bush Administration is destroying the Constitution. If you have documentation that it is indeed being destroyed, we can look at that.

Sorry about that,
Erin

:lol :lol :lol

[xrayzebra]

Fox News refuses to run pro-Constitution ad

Fox News has refused to air an ad produced by the Center for Constitutional Rights that criticizes the Bush administration for "destroying the Constitution" by the use of renditions, torture, and other tactics. The ad, "Rescue the Constitution," which is narrated by actor Danny Glover, can be viewed here.
In an email provided to Media Matters for America by the Center, Fox News account executive Erin Kelly told Owen Henkel, the Center's e-communications manager, that Fox would not run the ad:

Hi Owen --

We cannot approve the spot with it being Danny Glover's opinion that the Bush Administration is destroying the Constitution. If you have documentation that it is indeed being destroyed, we can look at that.

Sorry about that,
Erin

:lol :lol :lol


Danny Who? You mean the little, short Liberal guy. Is
he a Constitutional expert. I didn't know that.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Danny Who? You mean the little, short Liberal guy. Is
he a Constitutional expert. I didn't know that.


yet fox news allows and promotes the "democrats want to surrender" slander everyday.. we call that selective enforcement ray.. it is beyond acknowledgement that fox news is biased towards non conservatives..

[Mr. Peabody]

Fox News refuses to run pro-Constitution ad

In an email provided to Media Matters for America by the Center, Fox News account executive Erin Kelly told Owen Henkel, the Center's e-communications manager, that Fox would not run the ad:

Hi Owen --

We cannot approve the spot with it being Danny Glover's opinion that the Bush Administration is destroying the Constitution. If you have documentation that it is indeed being destroyed, we can look at that.

Sorry about that,
Erin


Wow, I wonder what documentation they had showing that Barack Obama grew up as a Muslim and attended an Islamic madrassa before they ran that story..... :rolleyes

[xrayzebra]

yet fox news allows and promotes the "democrats want to surrender" slander everyday.. we call that selective enforcement ray.. it is beyond acknowledgement that fox news is biased towards non conservatives..

Is that right. Harry Reid and Nancy, miss american, Pelosi
didn't want us out of Iraq, and still do, is not the face of
the Dimm-o-craps, and still say we are losing. Give me
a break youngster. Oh, Mr. Murtha now is on the Republican
side. He says the surge is working. Want to try and
explain that?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Is that right. Harry Reid and Nancy, miss american, Pelosi
didn't want us out of Iraq, and still do, is not the face of
the Dimm-o-craps, and still say we are losing. Give me
a break youngster. Oh, Mr. Murtha now is on the Republican
side. He says the surge is working. Want to try and
explain that?


Well any 8th grade student could tell you that if you put more boots on the ground you will be able to hold more of it. how's the political side of that coming along ray? you do rememebr that every general who has served in Iraq has said this is not a war that we can win with military alone.. so let me ask you AGAIN how's that political process coming along? so now do you consider mr murtha a credible source? for an old experienced guy you sure ain't bright...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Wow, I wonder what documentation they had showing that Barack Obama grew up as a Muslim and attended an Islamic madrassa before they ran that story..... :rolleyes


for a few days.... but they only want stories and advertisements that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.. :rolleyes

[xrayzebra]

Well any 8th grade student could tell you that if you put more boots on the ground you will be able to hold more of it. how's the political side of that coming along ray? you do rememebr that every general who has served in Iraq has said this is not a war that we can win with military alone.. so let me ask you AGAIN how's that political process coming along? so now do you consider mr murtha a credible source? for an old experienced guy you sure ain't bright...

Next question please. I know you will have many more
as we progress and continue to win and gall you no end.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Next question please. I know you will have many more
as we progress and continue to win and gall you no end.


well can we at least assume you mean winning politically as well? Why won't you acknowledge that we have to have progress from the Iraqis as well?

[xrayzebra]

No we don't have to assume anything. Folks like you and the
Media lost the war in VN because folks like me kept their mouth
shut. I don't plan on letting that happen again. So you
spout you stuff and I will give my opinion. How bout that?

[George Gervin's Afro]

No we don't have to assume anything. Folks like you and the
Media lost the war in VN because folks like me kept their mouth
shut. I don't plan on letting that happen again. So you
spout you stuff and I will give my opinion. How bout that?


I will asnwer for you. Yes GGA we still need the Iraqis to hold up their end of the bargain. I can see why people would want to hold off declaring victory because our military alone can't force the Iraqis to form a cohesive govt. If the Iraqis fail then this was all for naught.

[xrayzebra]

Typical. You think you have all the answers, when you don't
even know all the questions.

I would appreciate it if you don't attempt to read my mind, when
you don't have a coherent mind of you own.

Time and circumstances will answer all our questions. Things
will play themselves out.

[JoeChalupa]

I wish you would do the same and stop making so many damn assumptions.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I wish you would do the same and stop making so many damn assumptions.


I'm glad someone pointed that out. I was HOPING that ray would pick up on that..

[DarkReign]

The mainstream, IMO, is just an arm for the government.

Why would they pick one candidate from each party to hype up?

Simple. To give you, me and everyone else the illusion of choice.

Its the test-equivalent of a true/false question. If they own both, they cant be wrong. Notice this isnt a multiple choice question...as intended.

[Wild Cobra]

yet fox news allows and promotes the "democrats want to surrender" slander everyday.. we call that selective enforcement ray.. it is beyond acknowledgement that fox news is biased towards non conservatives..
There is a substantial difference in factual correlation to tie the two different events together. I haven't see any lost rights. Say what you will, but remember the term "Reasonable!"

Where is the link?

Is it this:

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnR9M8cG_6s)

Can you direct me to any slanderous ad that Fox has allowed? This is not an election ad. This is a direct attack against the president, and is slanderous opinion.

Like the reply asked for, I want to know where that idiot Glover gets his facts.

[Wild Cobra]

for a few days.... but they only want stories and advertisements that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.. :rolleyes
LOL...

Took me a while to get off the floor...

It's the liberal media that plays n8ice with the liberals and hardball with the republicans, reporting slander at every opportunity against the republicans. They never say anything bad about their beloved democrats unless the proof is irrefutable!

Tell me. Does anyone deny that Obama grew up in a Muslim school? The connections to say the democrats want us to lose is clear. Very clear. They are invested in defeat. The better the war goes for us, the more and more people see them for the seditious bastards they are.

Liberal lemmings have been saying for years that the constitution is being eroded, yet they never take it to court and win. My God man… Don’t you guys understand the word “reasonable” in the fourth amendment? What has been don that is unreasonable under the conditions we face? You opinion doesn’t matter in the legal world. The accuracy of words meanings do.

[Nbadan]

Meanwhile, back in reality....

Watch the Ad that Fox Won’t Let You See (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnR9M8cG_6s)

[Nbadan]

March in My Name -> Save the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVLPLSFWgkc)

[George Gervin's Afro]

LOL...

Took me a while to get off the floor...

It's the liberal media that plays n8ice with the liberals and hardball with the republicans, reporting slander at every opportunity against the republicans. They never say anything bad about their beloved democrats unless the proof is irrefutable!

Tell me. Does anyone deny that Obama grew up in a Muslim school? The connections to say the democrats want us to lose is clear. Very clear. They are invested in defeat. The better the war goes for us, the more and more people see them for the seditious bastards they are.

Liberal lemmings have been saying for years that the constitution is being eroded, yet they never take it to court and win. My God man… Don’t you guys understand the word “reasonable” in the fourth amendment? What has been don that is unreasonable under the conditions we face? You opinion doesn’t matter in the legal world. The accuracy of words meanings do.


http://lettertoamerica.podbus.com/pictures/Fox%20News.jpg


http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/FOXcrawl1.jpg


http://www.therazor.org/oldroot/Spring03/photos/FoxHeadline.jpg


http://www.bluegrassreport.org/bluegrass_politics/images/cavuto200602241.jpg


http://www.bluegrassreport.org/bluegrass_politics/images/cavuto200602242.jpg

[George Gervin's Afro]

Do you personally think the world would be better off if the United States
loses the war in Iraq?

ALL: Yes - 11%, No - 73%
DEMOCRATS: Yes - 19%, No - 62%
REPUBLICANS: Yes - 7%, No - 76%


Of all three political affiliations, you can bet which one FOX News used in its headline about the new poll.



FOX News Polls FOX News Polls HOME
You Decide 2008

FOX News Poll: Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War
Thursday, October 04, 2007

By Dana Blanton

E-Mail Print Digg This! del.icio.us
AP


Oct. 4: A U.S. soldier gives candy to an Iraqi boy in western Baghdad, Iraq.
NEW YORK — Nearly one out of every five Democrats thinks the world will be better off if America loses the war in Iraq, according to the FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll released Thursday.

The percentage of Democrats (19 percent) who believe that is nearly four times the number of Republicans (5 percent) who gave the same answer. Seven percent of independents said the world would be better off if the U.S. lost the war.

Click here for results of the poll.(pdf)

Overall, 11 percent of Americans think the world would be "better off" if the U.S. lost the war, and 73 percent disagree.

Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from Sept. 25 to Sept. 26. The poll has a 3-point margin of error.

Praying for Peace

Large majorities of Americans say they have said a prayer for soldiers serving in Iraq and for the war to end, while just over half say they have prayed for President Bush.

Most people — 87 percent — say they have said a prayer for the troops, and another 77 percent have prayed for the war in Iraq to end. A much smaller 54 percent majority of Americans say they have prayed for the president.

RelatedColumn Archive
FOX News Poll: Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses WarFOX News Poll: U.S. Should Take Tougher Line With IranFOX News Poll: Majority Says O.J. Simpson Guilty of Robbery FOX News Poll: Americans Have 'Moved On' From Petraeus Flap FOX News Poll: Voters Say President’s Party Not a Huge ConcernFull-page FNC Poll Archive
Among groups, Democrats (80 percent) and Republicans (76 percent) are about equally likely to say they have prayed for the war to end, and women (80 percent) are only slightly more likely than men (73 percent) to have done so.

Republicans (74 percent) are twice as likely as Democrats (37 percent) to have included the president in their prayers, while just over half (52 percent) of independents have prayed for Bush.

Appealing to a higher authority on behalf of the president does not appear to be influenced by gender, as about as many men (51 percent) as women (56 percent) say they have prayed for Bush.

"It’s interesting to see the parallel between overall voter sentiment toward the president and the relatively reduced likelihood to pray for him," says Ernest Paicopolos, principal of Opinion Dynamics. "It’s also striking to see a more than 30-point gap between prayer for the troops and prayer for the commander-in-chief of those same troops."

In general, more Republicans (64 percent) than Democrats (53 percent) and independents (48 percent) say they pray every day. Southerners (66 percent) are 20 percentage points more likely than those living in the Northeast (46 percent) to pray daily.

Overall, a 56 percent majority of Americans says they pray every day, including 64 percent of women and 47 percent of men.

Another 17 percent say they pray several times a week and 7 percent several times a month. Few Americans — 7 percent — say they never pray.

[xrayzebra]

Hey want to know how the "Gay" General Plant signs his
articles:

Keith H. Kerr
Brigadier General, CSMR (Ret.)

Seems he isn't really a retired Army General after all. His
rank comes from the California State Military Reserve.
His highest "reserve" Army rank was Colonel.

So much for all his credentials. The good old Clinton
hype. All smoke and mirrors.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Hey want to know how the "Gay" General Plant signs his
articles:

Keith H. Kerr
Brigadier General, CSMR (Ret.)

Seems he isn't really a retired Army General after all. His
rank comes from the California State Military Reserve.
His highest "reserve" Army rank was Colonel.

So much for all his credentials. The good old Clinton
hype. All smoke and mirrors.


I thought you loved the military? Or only the one's who blindly support Bush?

[xrayzebra]

I thought you loved the military? Or only the one's who blindly support Bush?


Love is such a strong word. Why do you always have to
bring these things into your conversation?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Love is such a strong word. Why do you always have to
bring these things into your conversation?


well ray with all of your flipping and flopping it's heard to keep track on where you stand today.

[JoeChalupa]

Hey want to know how the "Gay" General Plant signs his
articles:

Keith H. Kerr
Brigadier General, CSMR (Ret.)

Seems he isn't really a retired Army General after all. His
rank comes from the California State Military Reserve.
His highest "reserve" Army rank was Colonel.

So much for all his credentials. The good old Clinton
hype. All smoke and mirrors.

Are you with the troops or against them? It doesn't diminish his service to our Country. What are your credentials?

[xrayzebra]

Are you with the troops or against them? It doesn't diminish his service to our Country. What are your credentials?

Oh, Joe, I think you know where I stand. I am with the
troops and their mission 110 percent. As for my credentials,
well if I gave you all of them, then I would give you a little
too much information, which I don't care to do. Just
that I spent my time in the military and other service to
the community. If that doesn't satisfy you, so be it.

[JoeChalupa]

Oh, Joe, I think you know where I stand. I am with the
troops and their mission 110 percent. As for my credentials,
well if I gave you all of them, then I would give you a little
too much information, which I don't care to do. Just
that I spent my time in the military and other service to
the community. If that doesn't satisfy you, so be it.

Okay. I was just wondering since it seemed like you were questioning his credentials. I too did my service in the military and volunteer all the time.
But you make a good point that I try to make to republicans and war mongers all the time. Just because I may speak out against the war does NOT mean that I am against our troops in any way or that I want us to fail in Iraq.
Thanks for clearing that up.