The only reason to watch NBC right now is the Olympics, as bad as the coverage is. My husband arises at 5:30 each morning, so there is no way we are watching past 10 pm EDT. Therefore, we DVR the primetime coverage each night, then spend the subsequent night skipping the commercials (!!!), and getting past the limp interviews to see the events NBC is supposed to be bringing to us. It is more than a 7 hour delay to be sure, but so much more satisfying than suffering through the aforementioned fillers.

yeah, that's my question. Granted, there is a lot of gray area to consider, but I thought stations and affiliates had an obligation not to air blantantly lying political commercials. Can anyone chime in about this???

NBC's Olympic coverage is crap, too. I don't watch anything on that loser channel.

"

Political speech has been called the "life-breath of democracy" by the US Supreme Court and receives very strong First Amendment protection. For that reason, the FCC has said that it will "not attempt to judge the truth or falsity of material broadcast regarding candidates or ballot issues." That principle is sure to be tested in the wave of negative campaign ads we are likely to see between now and November, many of which will generate "cease and desist" letters from the subjects of those negative ads. Of course, broadcasters and cable operators alike are immune from liability for anything said in the context of a candidate "use" featuring a sponsoring candidate's recognizable voice or image...the so-called "no censorship" rule."

from http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/articles/political-broadcasting/

It makes me wonder if they believe their own BS about there being lots of "Clinton Democrats" who are terribly disappointed with Obama and aren't supporting him. It's an idea that's circulating in right-wing media (and among comment trolls.) There's no evidence for it, but it wouldn't be the first time the campaign appears to have acted as if they believe their own propaganda.

Clinton issues a statement, so what. Clinton in front of a camera saying Romoney is a liar, that gets on TV and heard.

Oh just wait sick i effin and TC

He will then it will be Let the Games begin!

Apparently Romney did ask for Tax (welfare) refunds on his home

Clinton's policies were conservative, not liberal. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act took from those with the least while the 1999 Citicorp Relief Act and the 2000 Commodities Act gave to those with the most. Clinton favored uniforms for school children and public vouchers for private religious schools. Clinton set the stage for the disastrous economic act of Bush2. Neither Clinton ever met a war they didn't like, including Iraq. Conservatives of Clinton's time complained he was stealing their act, even though it was what they wanted. Clinton was better than the other guy, but he's not a liberal. Obama has, though, very slightly liberalized a tiny spot in the 1996 Welfare Act but also "conservatized" it as coming under State and not Federal discretion.

Neither of them are actually liberals, but Clinton is closer to liberal than Obama.

I was subjected to CNN (blitzer)at the Gym yesterday where (I am not making this up )they were having a he said she said discussion why the latest Bain ad is the worst political ad ever.

It isn't called the Cretin's News Network for nothing. Wolf Blitzer has taken wider advantage of coincidence and hiding in a hotel room 22 years ago than anyone I have ever seen. Talk about a guy who hit his Peter Principle top end 30 years ago when he went to work for a cable news company that would hire anybody because nobody wanted to work there.

skippy,

Your post is absolute bull@!$%#.

You got nothing, and in your attempt to make some absolutely non existent dig at Obama you show that you really have no point to make.

So the focus of this election is his "secret" tax returns and not the economy or jobs or the countless other issues facing this country?

Here we go again. Can you make an argument without being disingenuous?

Steve did not say the focus of this election is Romney's tax return. You are the only person who made this claim.

The tax returns have been a main topic of conversation for weeks now. By the campaigns and by the media.

Is that not an accurate statement?

But, no one (besides you) is claiming that the focus of the entire election is on Romney's tax returns.

And then you proceed to write an entire paragraph chastising Steve for a comment that he didn't make.

So are you now giving up the pretense of being an independent/moderate?

Donna,

I was not making a dig at Obama, just pointing out that this very important election is not ALL about Romney's tax returns - as Steve calls it the "focus" of the campaign.

How you got me taking a "dig" at Obama out of this is a mystery. Please show me where.

as Steve calls it the "focus" of the campaign.

No, he didn't Skip. You did.

Rollo,

The tax returns have been a main topic of conversation for weeks now. By the campaigns and by the media.

So yes it is the "focus" - which as you state above you agree with. Oh and it has not been brought up by the campaigns, but rather ONE campaign - the Democrats.

And then you proceed to write an entire paragraph chastising Steve for a comment that he didn't make.

Again Rollo you state the above. Well here is Steve's very first sentence in the above post:

Yesterday, Mitt Romney had a fair amount of success moving the focus away from his secret tax returns.

I know you and Donna and others here just do not like to see anything that goes against what 99.9% of the folks here want to see/read, but come on. Obviously you and Donna are so "focused" (pun intended) on only posting purely positive comments when it comes to liberals/Democrats and purely negative comments when it relates to conservatives/Repulicans that you just can't stand it when I make an opinion on this specific article - where I did not bring up anything about Obama or Romney for that matter (except the fact that Steve wrote about the focus of the campaign,etc).

Skip, I read you as getting your snark on... perhaps you were too subtle?

Again Rollo you state the above. Well here is Steve's very first sentence in the above post:

Yesterday, Mitt Romney had a fair amount of success moving the focus away from his secret tax returns.

And here is your distortion of that statement:

So the focus of this election is his "secret" tax returns and not the economy or jobs or the countless other issues facing this country?

That is not at all what Steve said. And if you can't admit that, then you have some problems.

Do I really need to explain to you that Steve is talking about the media scrutiny? Either way you're attributing words to Steve that he never said.

Obviously you and Donna are so "focused" (pun intended) on only posting purely positive comments when it comes to liberals/Democrats and purely negative comments when it relates to conservatives/Repulican

Wow. You really can't make an argument without distortion or disingenuousness, can you?

Nothing in the comment that you're responding to is pro Democrat/liberal and anti Republican/conservative. So your claim is ridiculous and childish.

Rollo,

You yourself have not made any agrument either. Please tell what Steve meant then when he said Romney was shifting the focus away from the tax returns...since you seem to know. AND the only reason the media is talking about it is because people like Sen. Reid and others keep bringing it up. The media is reporting on them bringing it up. They are not independently writing about it. I did not say Steve's comment was pro or con anything. And what is it with folks here calling people names (troll, childish, etc) when someone has a different viewpoint. All of us are just stating our opinions/views here. This is just a blog and not some official site.

I still like the lively debate though. :)

Rollo,

You yourself have not made any agrument either.

Who said I was trying to make one? I was pointing out the disingenuousness of what you did. And apparently you have an inability to admit a mistake.

Please tell what Steve meant then when he said Romney was shifting the focus away from the tax returns

Are you even reading the comments that you're responding to?

I said:

Do I really need to explain to you that Steve is talking about the media scrutiny?

But, what you did was attribute words to Steve that he never said. You need to admit that that was wrong.

And what is it with folks here calling people names (troll, childish, etc) when someone has a different viewpoint.

That's weak. Childish was a description of your actions. The action being a ridiculous claim about me. This claim:

Obviously you and Donna are so "focused" (pun intended) on only posting purely positive comments when it comes to liberals/Democrats and purely negative comments when it relates to conservatives/Repulicans that you just can't stand it when I make an opinion on this specific article

Which was proven false.

This is tiresome Rollo. I explained to you that there really is NO media scrutiny- the media is reporting on the statements by Reid and others. I have seen nothing from the media independently talking about the tax returns - just reporting on Sen Reid's "10 year" comment and others that keep bringing it up.

And your childish comment is still meaningless. How is stating my opinion childish?

skippy it is you who is tiresome.

You come on this site trying to make some sort of bs argument and when people call you out on it you respond in the same "childish" manner.

You would be better served to go back to your right leaning sites and chat with the people there, because you are going to get called out here.

Scrutiny means coverage. The media has been covering the tax returns. ABC asked Romeny about tax returns on his overseas trip. Is this an inaccurate statement. That's what I meant by scrutiny.

It seems as if I have to spell out every little detail for you Skip.

And this is not an opinion:

Obviously you and Donna are so "focused" (pun intended) on only posting purely positive comments when it comes to liberals/Democrats and purely negative comments when it relates to conservatives/Repulicans that you just can't stand it when I make an opinion on this specific article

It's an inaccurate statement. And I'm being polite when I describe it like that. Are you actually saying that every one of my posting are:

positive comments when it comes to liberals/Democrats and purely negative comments when it relates to conservatives/Repulican

As I pointed out, the comment that you were responding to did not fit that description. So, yes the comment was inaccurate and had what I see as a childish tone.

Donna...,

Yes, Skippywippy pretends that he is stating "honest opinions" or suchlike, when he is obviously doing no such thing.

Rollo,

As you have seen, he is much worse than disingenuous.

Thank you for the daily demonstration of how stupid stupid has to be to be stupid enough to be one of you, Skippy. BTW, don't most little boys get rid of that nickname by the time they go to high school? Of course the fact that white Republican males will forever be middle school students does explain that.

Wow Entopy,

You must be pshyic since you seem to know what my honest opinion is. :)

As usual, if anyone's opinion differs from the automatons here you will be put down. Classic and expected at this rah-rah site. Still it is fun.

I know dishonesty when I see it, skippy (such as the way you grossly overuse smiley emoticons), and you are nothing but a big phoney. Nearly everybody here is onto you.

And exactly what are they "onto". Some evil plot to make you all change you minds on topics? I do think a few here take this blog way too serious. This is just a spot to discuss whatever is put up...for entertainment mostly. Based on the posts it looks like on any given day maybe 30 or so people are even on it. So I guess if you think the other 29 on "onto me" and my nefarious plot to cause some kind of effect on you....so be it.

This is a tiny little blog, get a grip. :) - that one is just for you Entropy. Sorry if my "overuse" is causing havoc on the net.

I rest my case.

Velkyn,

If the tax rules are not to everyone's liking, then we should try to change them. But I would imagine everyone - including you and me - take every deduction and credit on our tax returns to reduce our tax to the IRS. There is a whole industry out there that promises you "the biggest tax refund". Yes, I am sure if the returns were released, it would anger a lot of people, but most people that have accountants file their returns - which I am sure Romney does - hire them to do a good job, which it a tax accountant's case would mean NOT paying the maximum. Again, if he is a tax fraud, that is a different story. But since there has never been a mention of any IRS problems with his decades of returns, I would think that everything is legal.

But since there has never been a mention of any IRS problems with his decades of returns, I would think that everything is legal.

But, Romney has been audited Skip. And because he does not release the tax returns we don't know the details and the outcomes of that audit or if his was audited on more that one occasion.

WATCH: Mitt Romney Admits He's Been Audited By The IRS

From time to time I've been audited as happens I think to other citizens as well

Ok Rollo,

He's been audited. A lot of people are - especially if you have complex investments and returns. But again if he was found to be fraudulently filing he would be prosecuted. And THAT would have definitely come out by now. I think most poeple that focus on this (couldn't help it :) ) are not going to vote for him and/or do not like the idea that maybe someone is able to use the tax code to their advantage better. Look, I do not like all the loopholes in the tax code either - I can't use most of them myself - but they were put in the code by the government and if you had a chance to use ANY deduction or credit available to you, I am sure you would.

Actually, Romney does say from time to time, which implies multiple audits.

But again if he was found to be fraudulently filing he would be prosecuted. And THAT would have definitely come out by now.

How? This I'm being serious about. The reason I ask is because I know that Tom Daschle failed to pay $128K, but he wasn't prosecuted. We didn't know this until he was up for Senate confirmation. We don't know if the same happen with Romney and I guess we will never know.

True about Dachle Rollo. But he can still work in D.C., so apparently if you work high up in the Federal system you get a pass. :)

Good point.

so apparently if you work high up in the Federal system you get a pass. :)

But, Daschle didn't get a pass, he was not confirmable.

Plus, more to the point of Romney, if the US Senate had not compelled Daschle to reveal those tax returns, we would have never known this.

That is the point of Romney disclosing his returns, IMO.

Five posts all spouting b.s., Skippy. Can you say "I'm a troll"? I knew you could!

Rollo ... Skip knows exactly what you mean. He's been contorting his arguments all the way through this thread so as to avoid acknowledging that Romney's tax returns SHOULD be a major issue in this campaign. Whether or not he releases them.

One of the most important differences between the candidates is their perceptions of economic fairness in general, and tax fairness in particular. These are important concepts to the American people, because the direction in which we move after this election will affect the stability of the middle class. That, in turn, largely determines our ability to grow and prosper as a nation.

The information contained within Romney's tax returns highlights these differences. Whether he releases them and we have actual information, or he continues to hide that data and we continue to speculate about them, those returns will--and should--be a "major focus" of the Romney/Obama face-off.

The current state of economic growth, unemployment, entitlements, transfer payments, and other economic elements are really derivatives of our past decisions about how--or whether--we provide equality of opportunity and the extent to which the middle class has been allowed to share in the prosperity of the past three decades.

What we need to talk about more than anything else during these next three months is this: do we achieve growth and stability by building the middle class from the bottom up, or by continuing with "trickle down" economics that have put the middle class (and the American dream) in jeopardy.

TC your comments are meaningless to me since you often wish ill will (including death) on others. You a far worse than a troll.

mpguy,

You do have valid points when it comes to economic fairness and the candidates do differ in that way. And that is what the election is about. I am not going to vote for Romney or Obama for that matter, but the point here is that his tax returns seem to be a little bit much focus-wise when there is so much more to consider. Remember the President is not king and cannot make laws himself. Actually we should all be talking more about the Congressional races which is where laws concerning the economy and fairness will come from.

Skip ... I agree about the importance of House and Senate races, but that doesn't reduce the importance of the presidential contest. The President sets a tone, has a veto over legislation, and, more importantly, is able to wield power in numerous ways through his control over federal agencies. It's also about the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court.

It isn't the tax returns themselves. It's what they say about tax policy and the advantages the "1%" get. Most people file tax returns. They know what tax breaks they get (or don't), and they can understand, at a visceral level, what getting a special low tax rate is all about. The Romney returns are a kind of shorthand for the debate over our current "trickle down" focus. That's one reason the Romney team is in such a panic over this. They can't allow that debate to continue, because the consequences of our discussing economic and tax fairness will be disastrous for his chances of winning in November.

Why do you think that the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and their ilk are putting so much money into this election? Because they're worried about the good of the country? Or about middle class folks? Or about the next generation seeing a declining standard of living? Puh-leese.

They want to preserve their outsized tax breaks and the tremendous advantages government provides for them (but that they'll never admit to). Not the least of which is taxation of estates. The Koch Brothers are well into their seventies. Adelson turned 79 last week. Do I have to spell out the implications of that?

I'm not Obama's biggest fan, but there's only one choice here. It isn't Romney.