Midweek Politics 11.01.06 - Polling expert, John Kerry's drama, Michael J Fox, more..

[dpakman91]

This Week's Show:

November 1, 2006

Total Running Time: 56:39

This Week's Topics:

--Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research at the Pew Research Center returns to give us the latest news on polling for the 2006 election.

--John Kerry's latest controversy in which he told students to study hard, otherwise they could get "stuck in Iraq."

--Bill O'Reilly on The Late Show with David Letterman for the second good interview in a few months.

--Rush Limbaugh's apology to Michael J. Fox, as well as Michael J. Fox's comments to both Katie Couric and George Stephanopolous.

--Laura Ingraham likens stem cell research to "public executions of child molesters."

--Sean Hannity's reaction to a Fox News military analyst backing a Democrat over a Republican for the US Senate.

--Rush Limbaugh says that there is a basis for the content in a Republican ad against Harold Ford, Jr. that was deemed racist.

--Lynne Cheney's interview with Wolf Blitzer during which she accuses CNN of liberal bias, as well as Wolf Blitzer's follow-up comments.

Download Page: Midweek Politics with David Pakman - 11.01.2006 - Midweek Politics Radio with David Pakman

[ballz2wallz]

David;

Don't you think that if you continue to focus your show on what other conservative talk-show hosts say, it makes it look like you're on the defensive, you're just taking after the likes of Air America by just bashing the conservatives, and really have nothing original and your own to offer? There's also a pattern with whom you like to pick on; it's the same 4 or 5 people every time.

No offense, but everytime I read what you have in your show it's about what this or that conservative host said and how wrong or preposterous it is. I would rather hear what you think, not how you disagree with what they think. I think we already know you disagree with them.

Just my opinion.

[dpakman91]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

David;

Don't you think that if you continue to focus your show on what other conservative talk-show hosts say, it makes it look like you're on the defensive, you're just taking after the likes of Air America by just bashing the conservatives, and really have nothing original and your own to offer? There's also a pattern with whom you like to pick on; it's the same 4 or 5 people every time.

No offense, but everytime I read what you have in your show it's about what this or that conservative host said and how wrong or preposterous it is. I would rather hear what you think, not how you disagree with what they think. I think we already know you disagree with them.

Just my opinion.

Of the 59 minutes in yesterday's show, clips from conservative talk-show hosts make up about 7 minutes. I'm not including the letterman/o'reilly interview in that because i consider it a comedy bit and totally separate.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by dpakman91

Of the 59 minutes in yesterday's show, clips from conservative talk-show hosts make up about 7 minutes. I'm not including the letterman/o'reilly interview in that because i consider it a comedy bit and totally separate.

And how long did you spend talking about them?

I think in the summaries I'd rather see, instead of names of conservative talk-show hosts, the entries of the actual issues that you talk about.

For example, instead of:


Rush Limbaugh says that there is a basis for the content in a Republican ad against Harold Ford, Jr. that was deemed racist.

You could say

Is there really a basis for the content in a Republican ad against Harold Ford, Jr. that was deemed racist; an objective analysis

Or something like that. See my point? I don't want to read your summary and see the names (almost like advertising) of every other radio show host. I want to see what issues you talk about, and what you think of them.

[dpakman91]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And how long did you spend talking about them?

I think in the summaries I'd rather see, instead of names of conservative talk-show hosts, the entries of the actual issues that you talk about.

For example, instead of:


Rush Limbaugh says that there is a basis for the content in a Republican ad against Harold Ford, Jr. that was deemed racist.

You could say

Is there really a basis for the content in a Republican ad against Harold Ford, Jr. that was deemed racist; an objective analysis

Or something like that. See my point? I don't want to read your summary and see the names (almost like advertising) of every other radio show host. I want to see what issues you talk about, and what you think of them.

touché, that is a valid point.