The Weekly Standard:
So, a good night for for the lowest denominator, a bad night for the GOP. America got to see a vaguely threatening parade of gun fetishists, flat worlders, Mars Explorers, Confederate flag lovers and zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers as well as various one issue activists hammering their pet causes.
So they think the questions unfairly represented the current GOP? Fine. Which questions? Which questions were plucked from the fringe?
I am betting that I can find someone in the top 500 of the TTLB blogroll who identifies as a Republican who has asked/stated/argued EVERY question asked last night, whether it be Mars exploration (I think the hardest one to link to the GOP) to the Confederate Flag to gun rights to the immigration stances to the biblical literalism portrayed last night.
So which questions were from the “fringe?” Fill me in. I am all ears. Because that IS the current Republican party- the lowest common denominator.
PS- Doesn’t the fact that a retired gay General scared the living shit out of the blogosphere’s bravest and brightest conservative stalwarts make the case for gays in the military? I mean, if you can make the Keyboard Commandos cringe, imagine what you can do to less hardy souls like Iraqi insurgents?
*** Update #2 ***
Still waiting. And while you are at it, nutters, explain to me how a Republican President is going to work with the Democratic supermajority in the House and Senate when they can’t even handle a question from a John Edwards supporter without wilting?
Jen
Not to flatter you, John, but the Republicans with any sense aren’t Republicans any more. Even my Dad isn’t going to vote Republican next time, and I really would have thought Mars exploration would have been more likely. These are the mouth-breathers you guys are left with.
uh_clem
This sounds like a cogent synopsis of what’s left of the Republican party as of 2007. Add in the “I’ve got mine, screw everybody else.” contingent of tax-eliminators and who else is left among the 28 percenters?
theRisingJurist
None of them were from the fringe, but in each case represent only half* the party. The Bible literalists don’t represent the other half* of Republicans who treat the Bible with less gravity, or who aren’t even Christians at all (yes, we exist). The stars ‘n’ bars good ol’ boys don’t represent the other half* of Republicans who live in diverse urban areas and appreciate that the flag is indeed offensive to people. The border militia crews don’t represent the other half* of of Republicans who understand that it’s more complicated than “Build a wall and deport them all.” The gun nuts don’t… ok, that one does pretty well represent the Republican party. We love guns, whoa man.
*I use half as an easy rhetorical value. Actual values may vary.
gypsy howell
And for those people, we had the Grover Norquist submission last night, so they pretty much covered ALL the bases….
Jen
Half = 6
28 Percent
I do not understand what you are getting at here John Cole you make it sound like these are bad things. That is the Real America the rest of you are just new yorkers who are out of touch.
John Cole
Do you have any idea how insane this sounds? From a practical standpoint, how was CNN supposed to get questions that represent what the WHOLE party thinks when the candidates themselves all differ on the issues to varying degrees.
Admit it- the questions were fine, and this is just another one of Malkin’s ginned up non-controversies.
Doubting Thomas
About that accusation that the gay soldier was a plant from the Hilary camp… I saw Matt Lauer repeat that this morning like it was a proven fact. All I can see is that some commenter at Red State made the accusation which Bill Bennett made sure he mentioned during Cooper’s post debate wrap-up. I haven’t seen any independent proof or verification of it. Pretty sad of NBC to go with rumors as fact, but par for the course.
Did you see the group of undecideds after the debate?
Q: Who will you vote for now?
A: John Edwards
Priceless…
theRisingJurist
Haha. I personally know all six of them, then.
Actually, doing the math on the Republicans I am well-acquainted with, I guess the ratio of nutball to sensible conservative isn’t 1:1, but closer to 3:1. And that’s really unfortunate. The silver lining is that the split falls largely on generational lines, so things should get better. I mean, once my grandmother’s generation dies, the country will be 50% less racist. That’s something, right?
The questions were fine, and I said as much in the comments to the previous post on the issue. I am merely addressing your assertion that this “IS the current Republican party.”
Pb
Malkin is foaming at the mouth over all the ‘plants’ at the debate. Because, you know, surely everyone asking questions at the Democratic YouTube debate was a Democrat, right? As far as I know, there wasn’t a test, but Malkin apparently wants to engage in yet more
manufactured outragecitizen journalism…Jen
Well, Krugman takes this as evidence that the R party will actually wither and die as an increasingly irrelevant vestige less enlightened thinking. I’m paraphrasing, haven’t finished the book yet. Sounds like a silver lining to me!
zzyzx
NRO on the questions:
Just thought I’d mention that.
Then again, don’t forget Red State saying that religious beliefs are important
cleek
anyone know how to register to comment at Malkin’s hate site ?
Billy K
You know, the GOP has been about this crap for a long time now. It’s recently become more blatant, more transparent, but this is who they’ve been as long as I’ve been politically aware (first voted for Dukakis). This attempt to make this wingnuttery out to be a recent thing is disingenuous.
After the GOP loses everything in 2008 and they reinvent themselves for 2010/2012 as, um…compassionate conservatives*, keep in mind they’re still the same mouth-breathers. They’ve just gone back to hiding it.
*I think that’s taken. They’ll come up with something, I’m sure. They’re very good at slogans.
theRisingJurist
That’s entirely possible. I always make a point to distinguish between being conservative and being a Republican. That might seem an academic point, but my conservative philosophies alone cannot nominally ally me with the party. I eagerly await whatever alternative develops.
John Cole
No idea, but there is probably a loyalty oath.
Cindrella Ferret
The retired Brigadier General may not have been a plant but he is in fact linked to HRC a member of LGBT Americans for Hillary.
As I stated, this does not prove he was a plant, but it doesn’t look good. This is what he has to say about it. Read bullet point #2. I blame CNN. But who knows for sure? If nothing else it shows you how prepared establishment journalism is to actually conduct a presidential “debate.”
Cindrella Ferret
I believe you have to make a video of yourself dressed as a cheerleader, saying something nice about the Former Cheerleader.
b-psycho
Re: that general: did the wingnuts ever consider that their hostility to gays, both in combat and elsewhere, was key to him supporting a Dem instead of them in the first place?
Pb
Cindrella Ferret,
What’s the problem? As I said before, do you think that all the questioners at the first Democratic YouTube Debate on CNN were Democrats? Was there any stipulation that they should be? Oh noes, Republican candidates for President got asked questions by Americans on teh TV too, quick, someone call the authorities! Pfft.
The Mechanical Eye
Oh, and mock me if you will, but I do not question the account of Jonah and the Whale. You know, Mayor, Faith ain’t just a woman’s name.
What a strange thing to stand on, if you’re going to argue about biblical literalism.
As it turns out, believing that a whale swallowed anyone is truly an act of great faith — in the actual passage in the Bible, there’s no mention of a whale, it’s a fish. Popular re-tellings insert the whale, because it made more “sense,” or as George Orwell thought, it made for a more comforting myth for adults as some kind of Freudian fantasy to return to the womb (link)
Like so many other literalists, this person only thinks they know what’s in the Bible through popular re-tellings. They never actually open up that book to get to the parts about how to sell one’s daughter into slavery or when God is pleased when you slaughter an entire encampment of unsuspecting non-Chosen People.
DU
John Cole
There is n evidence ANYONE was a plant, unless you are using the word “plant” incorrectly like the nutter right, which is to mean “anyone they did not screen out to my liking.”
CNN didn’t plant anyone. It wasn’t against the rules for non-RNC bootlickers to ask questions. There were no plants.
No screaming eagle shit, ehh? I guess the crowd boos were part of the RNC gay outreach.
The reason these folks are hysterical is because the country got a good solid eyeball at what the current GOP looks like. That won’t help the GOP.
jrg
Brilliant. I’ll be watching the Commie News Network looking for this oh-so-partisan fox-news-like line of reasoning.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law, bitches.
Tsulagi
I await Uncle Jimbo to announce he’s written a stern, manly letter of condemnation to the authorities demanding a full investigation.
D-Chance.
That has baffled me, going all the way back to pre-DADT days. The public is told and assured that our soldiers are the elite fighting machine of the world. They can suffer through all injury, fight through any adversity in any combat arena, and come out victorious. They are physically, mentally, emotionally superior to any other soldier on this planet.
But, oh my god, don’t put them near a homosexual… because that would just DESTROY them? WTF???
Cyrus
I can believe that about registered Republicans, sure. Maybe the ratio is even more like 2:1. But is “registered Republicans” the important measure? What about likely voter Republicans? (My guess: 3:1 at the very least.) Or politically active Republicans, or elected Republicans? (Well, if the “nutball” category doesn’t include craven and ineffective opportunists, then in the Senate, there’s Specter, McCain, Snowe, Collins, Hagel… 10:1.)
jcricket
The GOP is basically the anti-Hillary, and they project their fears on to her. I’m not a huge Hillary lover (serious), but one of the things she has going for her is that the more people get to know her, the more popular she becomes.
The right-wing, apparently with the exception of Huckabee (likable but still crazy), has the opposite problem. I fully expect any Republican nominee from this field to find themselves in a world of hurt once the American public gets wind of what they stand for.
Scandals a blowin for Rudy, Fred’s toast. Romney’s going to pander to the right like there’s no tomorrow, Huckabee’s a true bible thumper + big spender.
Zifnab
You’re not. Hence the easy bait for Stalkin Malkin and the Outrage Sisters. If every question doesn’t make every listener happy, then clearly CNN was overwhelmingly biased.
Easily the highlight of the debate.
jcricket
It’s projection. It’s all fucking projection.
The 101st fighting keyboardists are afraid of gays and quiver when one walks nearby, so our military will be similarly cowed (despite gays serving openly in the Israeli and Australian armies – and others).
So to with pretty much anything they claim. Just apply what they’re saying about anyone to themselves and you have the truth.
Jen
That is very true. Especially for Guiliani, I think, the more I learn about him the nastier a piece of work he seems to be. Plus they seem to have the idea that their talking points are actually priorities for American voters instead of things the voters keep telling them are their priorities. It just doesn’t seem smart to me when so many people are going without health care and getting really fed up about it to just go on about “Hillarycare” — at least she’s got a plan, what are you going to do about it?
Sorry, I got off topic, the topic being the fundamental unfairness of having to answer questions by non-Republicans who were not disclosed as being non-Republicans. I just like to note, for the absurdity of it, that that is the issue.
Bubblegum Tate
Mark Noonan’s got you covered here: If we explore Mars and find life there, then that is absolutely undeniable proof of the existence of God!
Dug Jay
Ace makes a similar point re the next Democratic debate::
It’s easy to anticipate part of the response (which is really not a respose at all…just more BDS in action) from this crowd, namely, the poor guy is paralyzed and missing his limbs because those awful Bush/Hitler fools sent him to Iraq in the first place.
libarbarian
The only reason these guys are afraid of being in a fox hole with a gay man is that that they know they would be tempted to ignore their duty and make a-sexy-time.
Billy K
Seriously… “I support cutting off all funding necessary to keep soldiers in danger in Iraq.” Next question?
There are no difficult questions regarding Iraq unless you’re a frightened Democrat who doesn’t believe that 66-75% of the country wants out. The answer is, always was and forever shall be, “I’ll get us out.”
Perry Como
Electorate: This is madness!
Erick: THIS. IS. REDSTATE!
Fe E
Say what now? Could you give me a link, please? I bet that piece of writing is absolutely hy-freaking-sterical.
boctaoe
Just glanced at some comments at Redstate.(I can’t comment, cause I’m banned ,,Ta Dah) and boy are they whining about mean unfair CNN and the planted question, the one planted question and how they are never going to watch CNN again. Geesch!!!
demimondian
Oh, it’s really easy. If we search another world and find no life, it’s proof that God exists because our uniqueness shows that He considers us special. If we search another world, and find no life, it’s proof that God exists because it would be vanishingly improbable that life would independently evolve in more than one place.
Dulcie
Sometimes I think we would’ve been better off if the US had started as a penal colony instead as a haven for religious fundies.
Illuminancer
Nah, they’re afraid, deep down, they they’d end up in a foxhole with a gay man who’d look at them and say, “No thanks–I’d chew off my own leg before having sex with you, because, BLECH!”
jcricket
Sad but true. Plus we’d have cool accents and funny sports.
Dreggas
Shhh….don’t tell him that there is evidence life on earth started on mars, at least theoretically.
binzinerator
theRisingJurist:
I must be misunderstanding something. You seem to be saying the questions asked didn’t represent the current GOP, that you disagree with Cole’s assertion that this the current Republican party.
But when you state: “I guess the ratio of nutball to sensible conservative isn’t 1:1, but closer to 3:1…” you’ve just confirmed Cole’s assertion.
If for every sensible conservative there are 3 nutballs, by your own estimation 75% of the current Republican party are nutters. So the nutters are not just fairly represented in the Republican party, they in fact constitute a supermajority. They ARE the party.
So I must’ve missed something. What did I misread? Am I erroneously equating conservatives with Republicans?
But if that’s so, it makes it even harder to say with a straight face — it means the GOP would have to be made up of a disproportionate number of the remaining sensible conservatives. In other words, only 25% of conservatives aren’t nutballs, but — whew! — fortunately the Republican Party is mostly made up of that level-headed 25%.
Were you intending to dispute what Cole said or are you agreeing with it?
Nancy Irving
The premise of this whole “controversy” is that the Republican field came out looking pretty bad in this debate.
Leave it at that.
John
Wasn’t there a very pro-gun question at the Democratic YouTube debate? The guy who asked it did not strike me as someone who was very likely to vote for any Democrat. Not that an NRA supporter couldn’t vote Democrat, but it seemed like guns were a very big part of his life and he had just enough nuttiness about him that I assumed he had to be a Republican.
I have to say it irritated me. Maybe there are some Democrats who are really interested in the candidates position on gun control. But after some other questions which seemed to prop up rightwing talking points, it seemed to me the people in charge were picking questions for gotcha value. And there were plenty of videos asking questions that progressives would be interested in hearing the answers to that didn’t get asked because of this.
So I can kind of see the irritation on the right about this. I mean I can assume someone from the right wanting to make sure the candidate(s) they support would under no circumstances permit that gay people contribute to this society asking the question the Democrat supporter did. But it wasn’t. It was someone who probably wouldn’t vote for any of the candidates, even if one of them had actually answered that gay people should be able to serve.
Strypgia
Until I started reading the comments, I assumed he was referring to the candidates, since that seems to be fair description of the current slate of GOP hopefuls. Is that wrong of me?
theRisingJurist
Well, I was addressing his assertion that the nutballs represent the whole party, and pointing out that there is a sensible faction of party. So while the questions weren’t from the fringe, they weren’t completely representative either. So I guess I half-agree with him?
And yes. I am the former, but do not generally call myself the latter.