I noticed a difference in the errors they fact checked for both parties' debates, and I couldn't help noticing how Democrats use old figures are get something some percentage points off, while Republicans aren't even in the ballpark. Factcheck was clear about that for this year's debates, but I'm wondering if they'll keep doing that in the general election. It seemed like they had to find some Kerry error for every Bush error in a pretense they were even, and the press does the same thing. Will they do better next year?

Duh, only 3 candidates are even remotely based in reality:

Mike Gravel - Ended the Vietnam War

Dennis Kucinich - Brave enough to file impeachment papers against Cheney and outed the outsourcing of media coverups [Tillman murder, Lynch fake hero, Abu Graib just an accident]to Franklin and Rendon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxshMiedhYM

Ron Paul - Only republican candidate that can beat Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and John Edwards put together.

Every other candidate has to wait for the Council on Foreign Affairs to sign off on their speaches

All academic anyway.
Literally.

Reality Check has it right.

Last year it came to light that Bush had violated the Constitution by spying on Americans without benefit of a warrant. The Republican controlled congress then attempted to make it all legal for him, but THEY couldn't muster the votes.
Appalled Americans reacted by giving control of Congress to the Loyal Opposition Party, who naturally, in turn, gave Bush what his black heart desired.

So what the Hell does it matter what either group of Mainstream-Congress-Crooks and Wanna-Be-The-Presidents tell us?

There's less than a handful of candidates worth the space they take up, from both big parties combined, and I probably don't have to tell you their names (reality check already did).
Note that they're NOT the names the MSM keeps talking-and-talking-and-talking about.

Before declaring Ron Paul one of the realists, you might want to learn about his other positions. You're praising someone who takes seriously the wingnut conspiracy theory about a secret highway from Mexico to Canada.

Eric Ferguson wrote: "You're praising someone who takes seriously the wingnut conspiracy theory about a secret highway from Mexico to Canada"

I've heard a lot of accusations about Ron Paul buying into conspiracy theories. The most "evidence" I've seen presented amounted to the fact that he actually spoke with some people who believe such (gasp!). In other words, he's willing to listen to people, whether he agrees with their opinions or theories, believes them, or not.

Every time he's been asked directly and publicly about such C.S. beliefs (direct gov't involvement in 9-11 for instance) he's said something on the order of: "No, I don't believe that, but I was willing to listen to the a who does. They have a right to be heard like everybody else."

In turn, I'm willing to listen to people, like Eric Ferguson, who say Ron Paul believes in some wacko theory.
Eric, do you have some concrete evidence regarding what you charge, that you're ready to present??

Above SHOULD read: ..."I was willing to listen to the GROUP who does."

Huh, I always figured Republican's and facts were mutally exclusive, period.
I share reality checks' assessment of the candidate's at this point.
I ain't crazy about Ron Paul, but compared to what the R's are offering as the major candidates, he would be far better for the country as a whole.
Mike Gravel should be getting more attention as well.