Republican Presidential Candidates

[Nick de Cusa]

Autant commencer à débattre de la victoire d'Hillary.

Je ne comprends pas le sens de ta phrase mais:

1. le candidat démocrate sera Hillary Clinton

2. Les républicains ne gagneront pas l'élection.

Savoir faire la distinction entre

1. Le monde tel que nous le souhaitons, et

2. Le monde tel qu'il est

[Sarvok]

Autant commencer à débattre de la victoire d'Hillary.

Il y a 4 à la même époque, si je me souviens pas, le démocrate était favori. Et pourtant …..

Si R.P. a eut tant de passage média ces derniers temps c'est plutot bon signe. Et il devrait avoir un bon score au NH, non ? Quel type de primaire est-ce au NH ? C'est ce que j'ai lu sur le Free State Project, qu'il y avait beaucoup de libertarien la haut. Et qu'en est-il de l'Iowa ?

[John Loque]

http://europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/11…r-ron-paul.html

Je pense donner 20 euros. Ca fait presque 30 dollards

Ils ont des concurrents ? Parce que ça fait pas très sérieux…

[Phil]

Ils ont des concurrents ? Parce que ça fait pas très sérieux…

Je doute que les européens qui sont pour Clinton ou Obama vont se bouger le derrière, on en a déjà plein ici et puis ils n’ont pas besoin d’aide.

Sinon je ne préfère pas me lancer dans le jeu des prédictions. Les sondages n’interrogent que ceux qui ont voté pour Bush aux dernières élections, si il fait 7% dans le NH, c’est déjà beaucoup ! Le gros de son support est constitué de Démocrates qui se retrouvent dégouté, de libertariens, de gens qui votent pas en temps normal, et puis moins désirable extrême gauche, extrême droite et les "9/11 truthers" .

Le Nom de RP a été mentionné que 4695 fois entre aout 2006 et aout 2007. McCain a été mentionné 95000 fois. Donc il a réussi à se faire une base, sans l’aide des médias. Que se passera-t-il s’il fait plus de bruit ?

Les militaires peuvent aussi jouer leur rôle (ils sont près de 2 millions + les vétérans). thisnovember11th.com . Jusqu’ici c’est lui qui est le plus apprécié des militaires, tant au point vu donations qu’au point de vu popularité. Je vais de temps en temps voir sur des forums militaires, il est le favori. Et ceux qui s’opposent à lui ne sont souvent pas Américain.

Qu’il gagne ou pas, il fait passer un message libérale comme jamais vu depuis longtemps (et particulièrement chez les jeunes). Et en parlant de l’économie américaine, il permet déjà de virer l’argument " C’est le capitalisme qui échoue gnagnagna " si celle-ci se casse la figure.

Mais je suis d’accord sur le fait que si les élections se déroulaient maintenant, il perdrait presque certainement.

[John Loque]

Je doute que les européens qui sont pour Clinton ou Obama vont se bouger le derrière, on en a déjà plein ici et puis ils n’ont pas besoin d’aide.

Je parlais d'autres supporters de Ron Paul.

[Phil]

C'est quoi le principe exact là? je n'ai pas tout compris!!!

voila sa réponse

Euro-Aid is for NARPS and MARPS man. Need I say more

http://peleforronpaul.chipin.com/hel…pport-ron-paul

We are mainly expat Americans here who know lots of Europeans that understand that they have a vested interest in who the next American president will be. They understand how interrelated our economies are and how culturally linked we are as well. They want to help Ron Paul, but cant directly. Here is where we come in. We get donations and produce stuff like buttons, t-shirts, whatever, and then distribute it here and also send it to our buddies in America to distribute it there. Why not? We can also purchase radio time from here in Anywheresville USA. This is all totally legal as long as we don't interact or coordinate with the RP campaign. By the way I am American so none of this mind your own business crap.

Please donate, there is a huge untapped resource in Europe.

Je parlais d'autres supporters de Ron Paul.

oops my bad

[kobsh_gigaone]

Je ne comprends pas le sens de ta phrase mais:

1. le candidat démocrate sera Hillary Clinton

je l'ai déjà dit et je le redis :

1. Howard Dean était le grand favori en 2004, et s'est fait démolir par Kerry.

2. Obama et Edwards ne sont pas si loin derrière elle, dans les sondages de l'Iowa.

[Roniberal]

Sam Brownback soutient McCain:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor…7057834,00.html

Brownback Endorses McCain

Sam Brownback, a Kansas conservative and favorite of evangelical Christians, endorsed his former Republican presidential rival John McCain on Wednesday, calling him a friend and a hero.

The nod could provide a much-needed boost, particularly in Iowa, for the Arizona senator and one-time presumed GOP front-runner whose bid faltered and who now is looking for a comeback.

Brownback announced his support for McCain in Dubuque, Iowa, and was traveling with the candidate to campaign in two other cities in the state.

``John McCain is the only candidate who can rally the Reagan coalition of conservatives, independents and conservative Democrats needed to defeat Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat in the general election next year,'' Brownback said in a statement.

He praised McCain for spending a lifetime ``standing up for human rights around the world, including a consistent 24-year pro-life record of protecting the rights of the unborn.''

McCain equally lavished praise on Brownback, saying his Senate colleague was ``a man of faith and compassion whose integrity and unwavering commitment to protecting the dignity of human life, both born and unborn, has been an inspiration to me.''

It's uncertain how much weight Brownback's backing will carry; the Kansas senator dropped out of the race last month with little money and less support. While he is a favorite of religious conservatives, he failed to persuade them to embrace him as the GOP's consensus conservative candidate. He spent months emphasizing his opposition to abortion, gay marriage and other issues important to the party's right, but left the race ranked low in polls.

Still, Brownback's backing could signal to evangelical Christians that they can trust McCain and could help solidify McCain's credentials on social issues. The endorsement could be especially important in Iowa, where McCain trails in polls.

Despite a solidly conservative Senate voting record on social issues, McCain has a rocky history with cultural and religious conservatives who make up a significant part of the Republican base - and have proven to be influential in Iowa's GOP caucuses.

He once likened their leaders to ``agents of intolerance,'' but since has taken steps to heal his relationship with the voting group. Still, some are skeptical that McCain will be a loyal Republican who will champion their issues, in part because while his record is clear, he's not a high-profile crusader against abortion rights and gay marriage.

Other candidates in the crowded GOP field had lobbied for Brownback's support over the past few weeks.

Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and Southern Baptist minister who has made strides in Iowa in recent weeks, was widely considered the other Republican most likely to get Brownback's endorsement. It's unclear whether Fred Thompson, the former Tennessee senator trying to emerge as the conservatives' choice, ever got a look from Brownback.

Brownback did talk to Rudy Giuliani, a backer of abortion rights and gay rights, and emerged from the meeting with kind words about the former New York mayor. Yet, days earlier, Brownback told reporters he saw no way in which the GOP would nominate a ``pro-choice'' Republican. Brownback spent months this summer bitterly criticizing Romney's shifts on social issues.

Pat Robertson est un con:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/07/america/camp.php

Robertson's endorsement is coup for Giuliani

Rudolph Giuliani scored a big coup Wednesday by winning the support of Pat Robertson, who, as one of the nation's best-known televangelists, could help Giuliani reassure Republican voters who have been wary of his support for abortion rights.

Robertson, the founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network, said in endorsing Giuliani in Washington that he believed "the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists" and praised Giuliani as a "true fiscal conservative."

While Robertson did not mention Giuliani's support of abortion rights, he said approvingly that Giuliani had "assured the American people that his choices for judicial appointments will be men and women who share the judicial philosophy of John Roberts and Antonin Scalia," who have argued against the Roe v. Wade abortion-rights ruling.

The endorsement comes just a month after a coalition of other prominent Christian conservatives threatened to back a third-party candidate if Giuliani were to become the Republican Party's presidential nominee.

Winning the support of Robertson could not only help Giuliani present himself as a viable candidate to the Christian right, but could also help him improve his standing in Iowa: Robertson finished second in the Iowa caucuses during his own run for the Republican nomination in 1988.

And the announcement threatened to overshadow an important conservative endorsement being announced by Senator John McCain of Arizona - the backing of Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who recently ended his own bid for president.

While McCain opposes abortion rights, he has sometimes been viewed with suspicion by anti-abortion groups who felt muzzled by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that he helped pass.

So the endorsement by Brownback, a staunch social conservative, was seen as an important achievement by the McCain campaign.

If Robertson's influence within the Christian conservative movement has waned in recent years - he no longer attends the big strategy meetings of the new leaders who have sprung up - he still has clout as the chairman of a television station and the host of a television show, "The 700 Club," that could give Giuliani's standing a boost.

In an interview on the Christian Broadcasting Network in September, Giuliani discussed his religious views in more detail than he often does on the trail.

"I believe in God, I pray to God, pray to Jesus for guidance and for help," Giuliani said. "I have very, very strong views on religion that come about from having wanted to be a priest when I was younger and having studied theology for four years in college; it's an area that I know really, really well academically. I understand the history of religion. Men and women's relationship to God is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, motivating thing in human history."

Giuliani had appealed directly to Robertson for support and given a speech at Regent University, which Robertson founded, over the summer. Mitt Romney, who has also been courting religious conservatives, spoke at Regent as well.

His campaign has been hoping that Giuliani's tough stance on terrorism would outweigh traditional social issues for conservatives in the post-Sept. 11 world.

Evangelists are investigated

Senator Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is investigating six prominent evangelistic ministries to determine whether they have illegally used donations to finance opulent lifestyles.

Grassley said Tuesday that he sent letters to the six Christian ministries Monday requesting documents to answer a long list of questions about their compensation, housing allowances, checking and savings accounts, cars, airplanes and overseas trips. They have until Dec. 6 to respond.

The inquiry focuses on some of the flashiest preachers now popular on television and the Internet, many of them proponents of the prosperity gospel - that God will reward believers who open their hearts and wallets.

Grassley, of Iowa, said in a telephone interview: "Jesus comes into the city on a simple mule, and you got people today expanding his gospel in corporate jets. Somebody ought to raise questions about is it right or wrong."

[pankkake]

Hillary Clinton a la couverture médiatique mais peu de gens derrière elle.

http://politics.reddit.com/info/5zx2v/comments

[Roniberal]

Chuck Baldwin est un prince:

http://www.redpills.org/?p=485

Chuck Baldwin; Why Ron Paul should be the Christian’s choice for president

Chuck Baldwin does a good job of relating to fellow pastors why Ron Paul should be their choice for president. To those who are not Christian, Chuck’s column is still worth a read since many of Ron Paul’s attributes and platform planks cross the idealogical divides.

Here then is Chuck’s column for November 6th entitled, “An Appeal To My Fellow Pastors”:

Recently, Iowa pastors gathered to hear my presentation in Des Moines on behalf of Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. After listening to me, they then heard ten-term Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul himself.

Consider how Congressman Paul’s message impacted Pastor Jim Hartman of the Assembly of God church in Conrad, Iowa. “I’ve been supporting Mike Huckabee, but I would say I’m leaning real strong toward Ron Paul.” Hartman supported President Bush four years ago and explained, “Up until the last six months I had not allowed myself to imagine that we’d been let down by Bush.” As for Iraq, he said, “I don’t think we were prepared to understand that culture and to work with that culture.” He said he now feels “humble and I feel kind of bad that I haven’t done a better job of being faithful to Ron Paul’s kind of integrity.” [source: MSNBC, Oct. 30, 2007]

Integrity: that is the issue drawing millions to Ron Paul, including young people. The night before I spoke, nearly 700 students gathered at Iowa State University in Ames to hear Dr. Paul. One of those students wrote me recently. His name is Nathan Rockman. He wrote, “As a columnist for the Iowa State Daily here on campus, I have seen first hand what can be described as Ron Paul fever. Since Dr. Paul visited this past Friday, his message of freedom and liberty has been spreading through campus like wildfire . . .”

Ron Paul doesn’t recruit artisan spin writers and bloggers to wear down those who might question his past dealings. He doesn’t need to. There are no missing hard-drives, ethics violations, and taxpayer funds used for personal use that need to be spun away. He still refuses to participate in the lucrative Congressional pension fund and returns a portion of his Congressional office budget back to the U.S. Treasury each year.

This kind of integrity moved Pastor Hartman, the students at Iowa State University, and many more like them.

Ron Paul has been fighting for the right to life from the beginning of his public career. Dr. Paul is rock-solid on pro-life. After all, he has helped over 4,000 women deliver their babies into the world in his obstetrics practice in Lake Jackson, Texas. He proposed the “Sanctity of Life Act of 2005″ (and 2007), which would require that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency.” Has he recently discovered these pro-life convictions? Not at all. Congressman Paul introduced the Human Life Amendment in Congress in his very first term of Congress, a couple of years after Roe v. Wade was first handed down.

Is Ron Paul a libertarian, as some use in a throw-away line, often intended to move the listener to discard him without thought? Yes, on areas of fiscal, economic and judicial liberty, he is. But, he is also a social conservative and a Constitutionalist.

Ron Paul’s priorities are right with marriage. He and his wife, Carol, have been married for more than fifty years. He believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and defends that principle with his vote, where and when he has the Constitutional authority to do so. For example, Dr. Paul strongly supports the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Candidly, though, Ron Paul does not believe (and neither do I) that the U.S. Government needs to be defining that which God has already defined in His Word.

Where pastors often become confused about Ron Paul is that when he is resisting the unconstitutional centralization of our federal government, he is often perceived as being anti-family. Many in these pro-family movements themselves have been co-opted into believing that the solutions to our family problems come in the form of more unconstitutional federal legislation and programs. And when one does not agree with these unconstitutional remedies, they conclude that he or she is “anti-family.” Such people mean well but are confused.

America would be much better off if we Christian pastors taught the need for Christ-honoring resistance–at the local level–to anti-family federal intrusions. We should call on our congregations to vote out of office any judge who passes rulings designed to pervert the Biblical family. That doesn’t take a Constitutional amendment. It just takes courageous pastors and people who understand that judges, too, must respect the Constitution and our Christian heritage.

In fact, adherence to the Constitution protects our freedom of speech and assembly; our freedom of worship; our right to keep and bear arms; our right to a trial by jury; the right to be secure in our own homes against police overreach; our right to witness for Christ in public, as a Christian; the right to own property; the right to not be deprived of life or property without due process of law; the right to face our accusers, and the right to keep government local and limited.

Keeping government local and limited is the cornerstone doctrine of American government. Ron Paul understands this more than any other candidate running today.

Most of the problems that we are now dealing with socially, culturally, financially, etc., stem from America abandoning the basic founding principle that “the government that governs least governs best.”

Accordingly, America’s commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been (and is being) systematically stripped from us–not by State legislatures, but mostly by agencies of the federal government.

Consider how it has been federal courts that have banned prayer in school, and legalized abortion and homosexual marriage. Even in the liberal State of Massachusetts it was the courts (along with a compliant liberal governor, Mitt Romney), that forced acceptance of homosexual marriage upon the people.

The solutions to these problems do not reside in more federal legislation. All that does is strengthen the scope and power of the federal judiciary.

The only ones who have anything to fear from Ron Paul are those who believe in Big Government.

You see, Ron Paul is actually calling on us pastors and Christians to stop seeing the federal government as one “in whom we live and move and have our being.” Jesus Christ is our Savior and Lord, not the federal government. Have we not, in a material way, set up the federal government as our functional Lord and Savior? When we look to the federal government to solve our moral and spiritual problems, that is exactly what we are doing.

When it comes to the war in Iraq, I firmly believe that Christian conservatives have been duped by the neocons. Dr. Paul–an Air Force veteran and proponent of a strong national defense–opposed the unprovoked and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and rightly so. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul’s principled position. There was a much better way to deal with al-Qaeda.

Soon after 9/11, Congressman Paul introduced H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According to Paul, “A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.”

This is precisely what President Thomas Jefferson did when America’s ships were confronted with Barbary pirates on the high seas.

If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have lost nearly 4,000 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1 trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr. Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case today.

One thing that Pastor Hartman brought up in our meeting in Iowa was the sentiment of many Christians and pastors to defend Israel. Dr. Paul stated that he did not believe that we do Israel any favors and we actually weaken Israel by our constant meddling and intervention. I agree.

Ron Paul is not Israel’s enemy. And neither is he the enemy to Christian liberty and constitutional government.

Ron Paul’s non-interventionist and constitutional foreign policy approach would help, not hurt, Israel to resolve tensions with their neighbors. Remember, Israel has more nuclear missiles to defend themselves than all of the Middle East nations combined. Believe me, Israel knows how to defend itself. And know this: America’s constant meddling curses Israel more than it blesses.

Also consider this: according to published reports such as this one in the Houston Chronicle http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5223477.html , Ron Paul is receiving more donations from military personnel than any other Presidential candidate in either party. Think seriously about this. Our active duty and retired military personnel clearly endorse with their own contributions Ron Paul’s non-interventionist position above all others.

In the end, if the candidate is a sincere Christian, he will all the more readily obey his or her oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. After all, does not our Lord tell us that our yea is to be yea and our nay is to be nay? In other words, genuine believers are to be true to their word. How, then, could a true Christian make a promise before God and the American people to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution and then turn

around and ignore that promise?

Ron Paul lives his Christian faith and takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. What more could we ask for in a Presidential candidate?

[Ash]

Je ne comprends pas le sens de ta phrase mais:

1. le candidat démocrate sera Hillary Clinton

2. Les républicains ne gagneront pas l'élection.

Savoir faire la distinction entre

1. Le monde tel que nous le souhaitons, et

2. Le monde tel qu'il est

Je ne comprends pas le rapport, nous voilà quitte.

[Rincevent]

1. Howard Dean était le grand favori en 2004, et s'est fait démolir par Kerry.

Il n'était guère favori que des media français, qui n'ont pas retenu leur enthousiasme devant un candidat bobo. Dean a fait parler de lui pour la même raison que Chevènement en 2002 : il y est allé à fond largement avant les autres. Quand les autres sont partis, il a été remis à la place qui lui était due, tout simplement.

[kobsh_gigaone]

Il n'était guère favori que des media français, qui n'ont pas retenu leur enthousiasme devant un candidat bobo. Dean a fait parler de lui pour la même raison que Chevènement en 2002 : il y est allé à fond largement avant les autres. Quand les autres sont partis, il a été remis à la place qui lui était due, tout simplement.

pour rappel ici et ici

A noter qu'a chaque fois qu'on parle de l'écrasante domination d'Hilary dans les sondages, les médias américains rappellent la débâcle de Dean.

[pankkake]

La femme de Kucinich :

[Rincevent]

pour rappel ici et ici

A noter qu'a chaque fois qu'on parle de l'écrasante domination d'Hilary dans les sondages, les médias américains rappellent la débâcle de Dean.

In June 2003, Howard Dean aired the first television advertising of the 2004 campaign

Je crois que c'est clair, ces articles viennent plutôt à l'appui de mon interprétation.

[Roniberal]

Il n'était guère favori que des media français, qui n'ont pas retenu leur enthousiasme devant un candidat bobo. Dean a fait parler de lui pour la même raison que Chevènement en 2002 : il y est allé à fond largement avant les autres. Quand les autres sont partis, il a été remis à la place qui lui était due, tout simplement.

Désolé mais parmi les candidats démocrates, il n'était pas le plus inintéressant, loin s'en faut.

C'était d'ailleurs à mon sens, un candidat beaucoup plus "présentable" et aux idées préférables à celles de Kerry.

[Rincevent]

Ah j'ai pas dit ça. Sa modération fiscale était notamment à souligner.

[Apollon]

A noter qu'a chaque fois qu'on parle de l'écrasante domination d'Hilary dans les sondages, les médias américains rappellent la débâcle de Dean.

Pourtant ils sont aux antipodes : Dean était outsider quand Hilary Clinton est la chouchou des médias. Le soutien de celui-ci était un buzz internet (comme Ron Paul) quand HC s'appuie sur l'élite. Il a fini par passer pour un fou furieux et HC est très loin de cette réputation. Bref…

[kobsh_gigaone]

Pourtant ils sont aux antipodes : Dean était outsider quand Hilary Clinton est la chouchou des médias. Le soutien de celui-ci était un buzz internet (comme Ron Paul) quand HC s'appuie sur l'élite. Il a fini par passer pour un fou furieux et HC est très loin de cette réputation. Bref…

Je pense de plus en plus que je devrais parier avec certains d'entre vous.

[Apollon]

Je pense de plus en plus que je devrais parier avec certains d'entre vous.

Fais donc une offre.

[kobsh_gigaone]

Fais donc une offre.

si je gagne tu m'offres un bouquin de mon choix, si je perds je t'offre un bouquin de ton choix…

[Apollon]

si je gagne tu m'offres un bouquin de mon choix, si je perds je t'offre un bouquin de ton choix…

Il manque le sujet du pari et un plafond pour le gain.

[ts69]

Il y a 4 à la même époque, si je me souviens pas, le démocrate était favori. Et pourtant …..

Si R.P. a eut tant de passage média ces derniers temps c'est plutot bon signe. Et il devrait avoir un bon score au NH, non ? Quel type de primaire est-ce au NH ? C'est ce que j'ai lu sur le Free State Project, qu'il y avait beaucoup de libertarien la haut. Et qu'en est-il de l'Iowa ?

Les primaires républicaines au NH sont ouvertes, sauf pour les personnes adhérents au parti démocrate (et vice-versa d'ailleurs).

Sinon pour l'instant il y a à peu près 5000 personnes qui ont bougé au NH pour le free state project. C'est pas grand chose. Mais le NH a été choisi pour le FSP justement parce qu'il était semble-t-il déjà un des plus libéraux. Un bon score de Ron Paul est possible, et ça aurait une grande influence sur les autres primaires.

[Apollon]

Rétrospectivement les victoires électorales apparaissent souvent évidentes. Il ne faut pas se laisser intoxiquer par les tendances. Sauf accident je pense que HC gagne et à défaut ce sera Giuliani.

[Roniberal]

Ah j'ai pas dit ça. Sa modération fiscale était notamment à souligner.

C'est le "il a été remis à la place qui lui était due" qui m'a interpellé.

Sauf accident je pense que HC gagne et à défaut ce sera Giuliani.

Le pire scénario-catastrophe qui puisse se produire!

[kobsh_gigaone]

Il manque le sujet du pari et un plafond pour le gain.

Hilary remporte les primaires démocrates = 1 bouquin

Hilary est présidente = 1 bouquin supplémentaire

[Phil]

pour l'info

Ron Paul passe sur CNN 0410 pm ET le 8 novembre (aujourd'hui).

Donc 22h10 pour Bruxelles

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_20…the-situta.html

[John Loque]

Le premier qui le trouve sur Youtube donne le lien. Merci.

[A.B.]

Le premier qui le trouve sur Youtube donne le lien. Merci.

de manière générale

http://www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008dotcom

et

http://www.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream1

et

http://search.cnn.com/search?type=video&am…;query=ron+paul

[Phil]

Le premier qui le trouve sur Youtube donne le lien. Merci.

Pas de problème pour çà. J'aime beaucoup les lectures de Jack Cafferty

Mais je ne comprends pas, l'autre jour j'avais vu Wolf Blitzer sur CNN et maintenant quand je regarde le programme, son show n'est jamais mentionné. Comme si il n’était jamais passé sur CNN en Europe.

Sinon pour voir des vidéos de lui, le plus facile c’est www.freeme.tv