Arianna on Good Morning America Discussing Right is Wrong

Comments

[unionave]

Arianna gets my vote . It's refreshing to see and hear some one that has not joined the sheep following the goat to slaughter .

[liberalgirl31]

ABC is basically Fox Lite now. ABC employs right-wing hacks like Glenn Beck and John Stossel. Gibson interviewed like a McCain spokesman, not as an objective journalist. I will not be watching that station in the future.

[Hedonist]

Arianna alleges that issues like Reverend Wright are distractions from the real issues. Then she sends a couple of her minions, Marty Parrish and Keith Dismons(sp?), to ask McCain about whether once McCain referred to his wife as a c*nt. What a vile hypocrite Arianna is.

[AdamX]

Rev. Wright is not a candidate. McCain is. Get real.

[Probus]

We need more people like Arianna to speak to the real issues in this country. She does a great job with this site. She is an excellent debater and is exactly what dems need right now. She really ruffled Gibson on the debate and the issue of flag pins.

[Ring0]

Ditto ...

[Maanu]

Gibson was bad, Rose was a thousand times worse. Let a woman speak. Charlie's, keep your opinions to yourself. That's what you get paid to do.

[bobo209]

ARIANNA FOR PREZ.. I SAY GIVE EMM HELL..

[threesmommy]

Arianna for Press Secretary in the Obama administration!!

[klandish]

As Gibson demonstrates the media hides behind a thousand vales. Camouflaging their agenda with false "issues" and nearly every trivial concern they can dredge up to offset the real problems we should all be addressing.

[realpolitic]

Everyone recognizes it, but the media itself.

[kasinca]

The media is owned by the military industrial complex and they do not want to be the fourth estate they are supposed to be...they are not liberal...they are reichwing controlled.

[georgiaR]

I am always amazed when the left says we are not safer. We have not had another attack in our country in over 6 years. SO WE ARE SAFER. I just hope a President Clinton or Obama will do the same.

[DontBanMeBro]

If your criteria to determine whether we are safer now than before is ONLY based on a major terrorist attack occurring in the United States, then you are correct: we are safer.

If your criteria is finding those people responsible for carrying out said attack, then you would be incorrect.

If your criteria is curtailing muslim extremism, or fortifying our borders, or checking incoming overseas freight, or spreading democracy . . . . you'd be incorrect.

I, too, am amazed when people from the right use such specious reasoning to defend this administration. Safer???? Your own government tells us an attack is imminent every other month. How is that safer?!?!? Do you feel better knowing they've been wrong every time?

[realpolitic]

Not only are we no safer accoding to many government reports, but we have almost derailed our economy, our military, and our government's fiscal position, in Bush's effort to make us no safer. Let's start opposing terrorist groups with our collective mindset and working with other country's security apparatuses and stop doing exactly what al-Qaida wants us to do by invading Middle Eastern countries.

[JohnPone]

There's no do overs... Bush and his government failed America on 9/11 and afterwards. Everything... every decision he, and his cabinet, has made is pure politics as evidenced by him turning 9/11 into the Iraq invasion. The only thing he hasn't failed at in his life is getting elected... and I imagine that's mostly Rove's doing. So don't say we're safer because you're making a statement based upon your political beliefs vs facts... which in turn makes us less safe as well. The sooner that all Americans recognize the idiocy of the last 8 years the easier it will be for us to move on.

[realpolitic]

Bush has failed at everything and, in fact, given a half-hearted attempt at everything he has done, including being a student, his air national guard duties, business ventures, and his promotion to the worst president ever. His failing does not change, just the implications and scope of his failures change.

[RickTheScribe]

Seriously, Georgia, every time I hear someone use the sort of convoluted logic that you used in that statement I can't help but have a big ol' belly laugh! If we're safer because we haven't had a major terrorist attack killing thousands since Sept. 11, 2001, wouldn't it then follow logically that we were also safer on Sept. 10, 2001? And every day, month and year prior to that (since we had never had such an attack before)? In fact, using your own logic, one would have to conclude that we've been less safe with Dubya as president than we were during an other administration since his was the only one where we had such an attack (okay, you've probably got me there....I have no doubt we have been less safe with that fool as president than ever).

What if, say, this weekend's NASCAR race comes under terrorist attack and thousands of people die in Richmond? How would that change your thinking? Obviously, it's not likely this will happen. But you don't know. Not very many of us expected those planes to fly into the World Trade Center either. So today could, for all we know, be another Sept. 10. Any day could. So to think we're safe just because we haven't had another attack of that magnitude is foolish. Especially considering the bad feelings that our actions have stirred up against us during this administration. More people hating us is bound to make us less safe, not more.

[Soundofthunder]

Stop it with the logic and stuff. It confuses the apologists and excuse makers.

Dead on assessment, RTS. Our safety is not a function of how many attacks we have had since 9/11 but the potential for future attacks, and the potential magnitude of any such attack. Worldwide terrorism is up since going into Iraq, and al Qaida is at near pre-9/11 strength. Translation: we are as safe as we were on Sept. 10, 2001, which is not very safe at all.

SOT

[STParker]

My tiger dust is keeping all the tigers thousands of miles away.

[OddManOut]

Arianna isn't afraid to call out the "lunatic fringe" even when challenged. Her case in point? The failed policies of the Bush administration and the Republican congress that brought us such gems as the War in Iraq, bad energy policy (read: high gas prices), and ignorance of global warming. Arianna's voice on these issues is needed in a country where discussion of the real issues is lacking.

[politicojunkie]

YOU MAKE US PROUD ARIANNA!
I usual watch GMA but have not watched since Gibson has been filling in. He is a true "elitist". Since he became anchor of ABC News the lead stories have changed dramatically. The top stories on CBS and NBC are always the most important story of the day . . . . not so on Gibson's news.

For those who don't know, "unelectable" is code word for Black. How sad.

[Bluedog12]

Arianna you’re debating a true elitist. Gibson asked Obama his “got ya” question on capital gains. Charlie used his own answer, the talking points formulated by supply side takers. While Charlie and many wealthy benefit from current favorable capital gains tax he can’t see the trees for the forest. This great journalist can’t bring himself to discuss capital gains with average Americans, average Americans who wish they were “burdened” with capital gains. What a Jackass.

[realpolitic]

Charlie is so out of touch he assumes Americans are consumed with the capital gains tax rate, probably because Fox News tells him so.

[brabra]

copy and paste this message....
TO ALL THE OBAMA SUPPORTERS:

Since the media is refusing to reveal/report the Paul vs Clinton fraud case in court right now, we need to create our own movement and flood every blog on CNN and every blogging website on the World Wide Web with information from the case regardless of what the topic is. For those that don't know - Google Paul vs Clinton and hold on to your shirt with what you read!!

OBAMANACS UNITE!!! LET'S DO THIS!!

[scottyboi84]

I thought she was very graceful and truthful. I thought Charlie Gibson got awfully defensive, perhaps because she's right. The media gets hung up on stupid idiosyncrasies and we never get to hear anything that really matters, like the gas prices, or the healthcare, or the housing crisis. These are things we would not mind if they went in depth into, but we all know that the government would quickly squash anything that might reveal their hidden agendas. Right now the Bush administration is scrambling to make every last dollar that they can off the American checkbook before dumbass gets booted, and I think that would be a great story that would get a lot of rating because it's very controversial, there are still some(includes blind, deaf mutes) that still side with our president and think he is just great. I, however, am not blind or stupid, and I think that we deserve some truth, obviously not necessarily what you see on television news shows, but something more like it would be nice. Thanks Arianna. You've got my vote!

[caroledj]

OMG! Charles Gibson is even more of an idiot than I thought.

[thundermustard]

www.noflagpins.com
I have not watched ABC News since the debate.
I don't even go to their website anymore.

[JScott]

Walt would be proud of AH!!!!!