Still Waiting…

I am still waiting for someone to tell me which questions were unfair, and which questioners were “unfairly” plucked from the “fringe” to make the Republicans look bad. Here again is my challenge:

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.

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway gets it mostly right when he notes that “who these people are doesn’t invalidate their questions,” but then goes on to state:

If one didn’t know better, one might suspect that CNN intentionally assembled a bunch of yahoos in the crowd to represent the Republican base and then fed the candidates gotcha questions from Democrats in order to make them look bad. That would be entertaining, I suppose, but horridly bad journalism. It’s perhaps more hopeful to think that they simply didn’t bother to vet the questioners. Of course, that’s not exactly good journalism, either.

What were the “gotcha” questions? Who were the yahoos? How do they differ from the stated positions of bloggers WELL within the mainstream of the Republican party? It wasn’t the biblical literalism question, because here is Red State:

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.

The right-wing Bush fluffer-sphere is up in arms because the country got a good look at who the GOP really is last night. And when you look at what the GOP really is, and what they really believe in and what they really stand for, well, that just ain’t good for the Republicans.

*** Update ***

Good for Captain Ed:

Abject incompetence, yes. If these bloggers could discover this information — mostly from their YouTube profiles, not exactly heavy lifting — then CNN should have vetted the questioners better. With the possible exception of General Kerr, it doesn’t appear that the questioners made any attempt to hide their affiliation; they simply posted their questions, and CNN blithely selected them at face value.

Bad journalistic practices? Definitely yes. But does that negate the questions themselves? I don’t think so. The CNN/YouTube format closely parallels that of the traditional town-hall forum. For the most part, attendees do not get vetted at these events either, nor should they. After all, while a primary usually involves voters of one party, the entire nation has a stake in the selection of the nominees. If Hillary Clinton held a town hall in my community, I should have an opportunity to question her about her positions on issues without pledging a loyalty oath to do so.

***

CNN deserves the brickbats it will receive for its atrocious research skills. However, Republicans should be prepared to answer the questions the candidates received in this debate. At some point, this will cease being an intramural fight and we will have to convince all of America to vote for our nominee. That won’t happen if we can’t handle fastballs, with a couple of curveballs in the mix.

Other than the gratuitous CNN bashing, Ed is on to something. Although I am not sure why he thinks the questioners need to be vetted in the first place.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






311 replies
  1. 1
    Tim F. says:

    Here’s my answer – the real GOP base is crazier.

    Doubt me? There wasn’t one question about nuking Iran.

  2. 2
    r€nato says:

    I know what you’re getting at, but it’s really no mystery.

    These days, Republicanism depends a whole lot on dog-whistle politics.

    They’re not for torture, but we can’t talk about what we do to interrogation subjects, because ‘they will train to evade such tactics’.

    (I’d really like the media to investigate that particular claim. Do the ‘terrorists’ REALLY train on how to withstand waterboarding and electric shocks to the genitals???)

    They’re not for torture, but they are for ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’.

    They’re pro-life, but pro-war and pro-death penalty too.

    They’re for a ‘strong, aggressive’ foreign policy but you’re a DFH if you suggest that they want to go to war with Iran, Syria, and anyone else who so much as looks at us funny.

    They call abortion murder and want to outlaw it, but no one asks them if that means throwing women in jail or putting doctors on death row or if it’s permissible to stop the ‘murder’ of a fetus by shooting the OB/GYN. No one asks them if they are prepared to outlaw certain forms of contraception or how far they want to take this ‘life begins at conception’ nonsense.

    So long as Republicans talk amongst themselves at tightly-controlled events, they can get away with this soothing goodspeak.

    Once outside the bubble and subjected to common sense questions about their positions, they look exactly like the extremists that they are.

  3. 3
    r€nato says:

    …apparently, the only ‘fair’ questions to ask a Republican presidential candidate are:

    -how much do you love baby Jesus?
    -how evil are liberals?
    -how evil is Hitlery?
    -how much do you hate taxes?
    -how many terrorists will you kill if elected?

  4. 4
    r€nato says:

    If one didn’t know better, one might suspect that CNN intentionally assembled a bunch of yahoos in the crowd to represent the Republican base

    call me Captain Obvious, but a bunch of yahoos IS the GOP base.

  5. 5
    jcricket says:

    So long as Republicans talk amongst themselves at tightly-controlled events, they can get away with this soothing goodspeak.

    Once outside the bubble and subjected to common sense questions about their positions, they look exactly like the extremists that they are.

    Which, as I said in the other comment thread, is exactly what they fear the most (being exposed for what they are). Not only will they lose all the independents and undecideds if they look crazy, even the crazies don’t agree on what kind of crazy the Republicans should be. So the coded appeals are carefully worded for each crowd.

    The Republican coalition is a lot more fragile than the Democratic one because of this, and unless Republicans change course as a party, they will see a tidal wave of electoral losses for the foreseeable future. Expect what happened in WA state to be the model for blue states (full control of legislature + governor’s mansion, “filibuster-proof” majorities). Expect Kansas to be the red state model (lots of Republicans becoming Democrats, school boards stuffed with wingers being kicked-out en masse).

    Krugman may really be right – combine economic, demographic and societal acceptance of diversity trends and Republicans have hitched themselves to an every shrinking group as far out as the eye can see.

  6. 6
    RSA says:

    It just occurred to me, reading the earlier quote from 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.

    that if a Republican candidate were to directly repudiate any of these positions (pro gun control, believer in evolution, spend tax money on Earth, let Confederate flags crumble into dust, and treat the Bible as another good set of old stories, but with some boring parts in between) he’d alienate a significant part of the Republican base, if not a majority of it. (Giuliani’s running up against this problem now.) These aren’t gotchas; they’re explorations of the core beliefs of Republicans.

  7. 7
    r€nato says:

    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.

    her first name is, “Blind”.

  8. 8
    capelza says:

    Erick needs to ask the GOP candidates their views on mixing fabrics and mouthy kids,etc….being he is a literalist and all.

  9. 9
    r€nato says:

    Krugman may really be right – combine economic, demographic and societal acceptance of diversity trends and Republicans have hitched themselves to an every shrinking group as far out as the eye can see.

    exactly right. And given the volume of the ‘base’, they won’t allow the GOP to do the ‘sensible’ thing very easily.

    It’s a lot like the choice that the Democrats faced in the 60s with the civil rights movement. In order to do the right thing, they paid a high price – the loss of the South and Dixiecrats, who were really Republicans all along as far as their values.

  10. 10
    p.lukasiak says:

    Once outside the bubble and subjected to common sense questions about their positions, they look exactly like the extremists that they are.

    precisely. I had a hard time not screaming at the TV last night, because the rebuttals were so obvious, but the candidates seldom took advantage of the huge opening they were given.

    (I mean, Fred Thompson lied about social security, saying it will start running annual deficits in 2017. According to the SS Trustees, it doesn’t stop running annual surpluses until 2028. And all someone has to do is point out that the military command opposed racial integration when Truman imposed it… and that there were lots of soldiers with deeply held “religious” beliefs against what was then called “race-mixing.’)

  11. 11
    Zifnab says:

    …apparently, the only ‘fair’ questions to ask a Republican presidential candidate are:

    Wrong again. None of those questions are ‘fair’ if they are asked by an individual who can in some way be traced back to a Democratic Candidate’s group, a liberal organization – NARAL, ACLU, Sierra Club, Hallmark Gift Club, whatever – or a racial minority.

    Neither are the questions ‘fair’ if the listener’s Republican Candidate of Choice doesn’t give a totally kick-ass answer. Mitt Romney came off terrible on that debate, so he clearly was asked too many liberal questions that he shouldn’t have been bothered with.

    Ultimately, the ‘fairness’ of a question is left to the experts. Michelle Malkin, Bill O’Reily, and Rush Limbaugh are the final adjudicators of what questions are allowed and are not allowed to be asked. Other people can ask them – assuming they have appropriate conservative creds – but if they don’t pass muster, its a grand conspiracy and the Republicans are being treated unfairly.

  12. 12
    r€nato says:

    Erick needs to ask the GOP candidates their views on mixing fabrics and mouthy kids

    the common dodge is that the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament.

    Still, it would be nice if someone would ask the GOP candidates about what Jesus had to say about worldly riches.

  13. 13
    cleek says:

    I am still waiting

    and you’re gonna wait a long time. there’s no upside for any wingnut to come out and admit that this one time they weren’t victims of the Great Liberal Scheme.

  14. 14
    r€nato says:

    other ‘fair’ questions:

    -how much do you hate illegal immigrants?
    -in the extremely unlikely event that any of your administration’s policies fail, describe how it’s Bill Clinton’s fault.

  15. 15
    Davebo says:

    The problem with the questions, to the extent that the problem exists, is that eventually one of these guys will win the nomination. And at that point he’ll (hopefully) be forced to explain to the electorate as a whole, the answers he gave to the Red Stater questions.

    It’s always been a fine line for both parties (primary campaigning versus general election campaigning) but it’s becoming a hairline for the GOP.

  16. 16
    r€nato says:

    Davebo, if we had anything like a fair MSM, the general election would swiftly reveal the shucking-and-jiving which any GOP nominee is going to have to pull off in order to simultaneously disentangle himself from Bush’s legacy and policies and FAILURES while refraining from overt criticism of him.

    However, I fear that we may well be subjected to more swiftboat and ‘Gore says he invented the internet!’ horseshit aimed at keeping Dems on the defensive and keeping anyone from looking too closely at GOP bullshit.

  17. 17
    capelza says:

    r€nato Says:

    the common dodge is that the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament.

    Still, it would be nice if someone would ask the GOP candidates about what Jesus had to say about worldly riches.

    I kid you not, it was at RedState I am pretty sure that I was told that the OT was LAW, but the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes were merely “suggestions”. Now, honestly I can’t say it was RS for sure, it’s been a couple of years, but I’ll never forget that. The words of Jesus were “suggestions”, becuase he wasn’t all fire and brimstone but also interested in social justice and that really boring turning the other cheek thing.

  18. 18
    Tom Hilton says:

    If one didn’t know better, one might suspect that CNN intentionally assembled a bunch of yahoos in the crowd to represent the Republican base and then fed the candidates gotcha questions from Democrats in order to make them look bad.

    Hate to bring up Gun Guy again, but look at what happened there: Biden called him nuts, the crowd applauded, and gun nuts had a shit fit about it. In other words, one might have suspected that CNN intentionally assembled a bunch of yahoos effete urban elitists in the crowd to represent the Republican Democratic base and then fed the candidates gotcha questions from Democrats Republicans to make them look bad.

    Or, to put it more succinctly: whine, whine, whine.

  19. 19
    cleek says:

    Good for Captain Ed:

    i stand corrected :)

  20. 20
    r€nato says:

    However, Republicans should be prepared to answer the questions the candidates received in this debate. At some point, this will cease being an intramural fight and we will have to convince all of America to vote for our nominee. That won’t happen if we can’t handle fastballs, with a couple of curveballs in the mix.

    well at least Ed gets it. One can’t remain in the fact-free bubble forever.

  21. 21
    chopper says:

    If one didn’t know better, one might suspect that CNN intentionally assembled a bunch of yahoos in the crowd to represent the Republican base and then fed the candidates gotcha questions from Democrats in order to make them look bad.

    and why does he know better? oh yeah, because it’s a completely fucking retarded statement.

    jesus, its obvious to anyone with a coupla synapses to rub together that these weren’t ‘way-out-there’ questions within GOP circles. i’m sorry that others are finally noticing the sheer garbage that calls itself ‘reason’ in the GOP, but come on now, people.

  22. 22
    r€nato says:

    The words of Jesus were “suggestions”

    Hey! I have something in common with Red State. Knock me over with a feather.

  23. 23
    jcricket says:

    …apparently, the only ‘fair’ questions to ask a Republican presidential candidate are:

    I’d like to add:

    “Democrats: Traitors or just pathetically misguided?”

    “How can you stand to be in the same room as the Democrats, who stand for nothing but America hating?”

    The oldie but goodie: “GW – Great President or Greatest President ever?”

  24. 24
    r€nato says:

    I am pretty sure that I was told that the OT was LAW, but the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes were merely “suggestions”.

    that’s mighty convenient. Doesn’t their type usually excoriate ‘buffet Christianity’?

    Oops, there I go again asking a question designed to make Red State look like a bunch of yahoos.

  25. 25
    r€nato says:

    oldie but goodie: “GW – Great President or Greatest President ever?”

    can’t believe i missed that

  26. 26

    Although I am not sure why he thinks the questioners need to be vetted in the first place.

    I agree. I always thought the Candidates were the ones being scrutinized. Silly me. But Everything changed after 9/11. No?

  27. 27
    RSA says:

    -how much do you love baby Jesus? Even more than adult Jesus.
    -how evil are liberals? Even more evil than Muslims, who at least are open about the opposition to our ideals, and are misguided and brown besides.
    -how evil is Hitlery? There is no greater evil.
    -how much do you hate taxes? As much as I love government services that are not available to freeloaders.
    -how many terrorists will you kill if elected? With nuclear weapons or with my bare hands?

  28. 28
    Perry Como says:

    r€nato Says:

    other ‘fair’ questions:

    -how much do you hate illegal immigrants?

    From Hit & Run:

    9:20: Commercial time. (“My favorite moment was Tancredo restraining himself and not telling the woman to deport her Chinese daughter.”)

  29. 29
    fahs ibair says:

    You can ask the same question many ways, and who asks the question certainly makes a difference.

    You can have a bug eyed freak hold up a copy of The King James bible in an attempt at getting a three-way going between the Mormons, Catholics and Protestants instead asking a reasonable question about religious differences.

    The original complaint was that Clinton was using her own people to plant questions. In an amazing display of evenhandedness, Dem plants were allowed to question republicans. Goose and Gander and all that.

    Would Cole stop fapping it to Malkin if at the next Dem debate we let code pink get half the questions and the Minutemen the other half as long as we hit all the major topics? Context is totally irrelevant in a debate?

  30. 30
    John Cole says:

    Would Cole stop fapping it to Malkin if at the next Dem debate we let code pink get half the questions and the Minutemen the other half as long as we hit all the major topics?

    Oh- so now it is HALF the questions? Last count I saw was four of them that you all had your panties in a bunch over.

  31. 31
    fahs ibair says:

    True, I forgot that you got the last hyberbole license. My bad.

  32. 32
    Davebo says:

    I’m sure it’s been said.

    But if these candidates can’t field a few questions from voters who haven’t take a loyalty pledge and had a full NSA background check, how are they going to be able to defeat Islamoterrorists?

  33. 33
    Jen says:

    I think by saying code pink get half and the minutemen the other half, that would actually make 100% objectionable questions.

    No, context is important. And the context that nobody had any problem with the questions until they found out who asked them is pretty damn important too.

  34. 34
    RSA says:

    Clinton was using her own people to plant questions.

    Don’t conservatives usually attribute bad behavior among Republicans, the military, or anyone else they support to a few bad apples? (If I were a gay general, what kind of apple would I be?)

  35. 35
    fahs ibair says:

    It isn’t about the candidates, it is about media blatant media dishonesty, but you bring up a good point. This is like exercise for our side, while yours is engaged in a congratulatory parade. It will help us when it matters, we certainly need all the help we can get at this point.

  36. 36
    Perry Como says:

    Oh- so now it is HALF the questions? Last count I saw was four of them that you all had your panties in a bunch over.

    Oh, just wait until the next debate where the Commie News Network will make sure 150% of all of the debate questions are asked by Hitlery KKKlinton supporting illegal immigrant socialists. Then you’ll see the obvious bias in the EM ESS EM.

  37. 37
    fahs ibair says:

    I don’t know that is true Jen. I was following a few live bloggers, and while everyone agreed good points were being hit on, many were curious about weird framing. The young single mother, the gay general, and the batshit crazy bible thumper certainly set off more than one B.S. detector at the time.

  38. 38
    fahs ibair says:

    Very brave of Cole to issue a challenge and ignore all substance also. “I am not answering him, he said half!. Good Day, Sir!”

  39. 39
    John Cole says:

    and the batshit crazy bible thumper certainly set off more than one B.S. detector at the time.

    The batshit crazy bible thumper has, as far as I have seen, not been outed as a “Democrat” plant. From the looks of things right now, you own him, and as stated in this post, there is a not insignificant portion of the GOP who agree with a literal interpretation of the bible, to include seveal of the candidates on the stage last night.

    Granted, it was hard to determine that he was actually a Republican, as the wetsuits and dildo were not clearly visible in the video.

  40. 40
    John Cole says:

    Very brave of Cole to issue a challenge and ignore all substance also. “I am not answering him, he said half!. Good Day, Sir!”

    What are you asking me? I haven’t seen you list any questions that are outside the mainstream of Republican/Conservative/GOP beliefs.

  41. 41
    Jen says:

    The young single mother, the gay general, and the batshit crazy bible thumper certainly set off more than one B.S. detector at the time.

    What can I tell you, it takes all kinds. It’s a crazy and wild and diverse country. We can’t all be blessed with the intellectualism of Malkin. Has someone figured out that the Bible thumper was actually an Edwards plant or are you guys being forced to acknowledge that, um, the Republican party has Bible thumpers in it?

    I am *still* trying to figure out how 3 “weird framing” questions out of 34 is somehow akin to half the questions coming from the Minutemen and half coming from code pink.

  42. 42
    cleek says:

    If I were a gay general, what kind of apple would I be?

    a Pink Lady ?

  43. 43
    fahs ibair says:

    You make my point for me. He wasn’t a plant. You are a teacher so I assume you know what framing the question is.

    CNN-Dem debate: Let’s take a question on health care. (cuts to a small child in a hospital bed)

    CNN-Rethug debate: Let’s take a question on immigration (cuts to cleatus pulling a dildo out of his nether region)

  44. 44
    Crazy C says:

    I still think the Batshit Bible Thumper (BBT?) is a completely honest, conservative evangelical.

    and that scares the hell out of me.

  45. 45
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    I am still trying to figure out how 3 “weird framing” questions out of 34 is somehow akin to half the questions coming from the Minutemen and half coming from code pink.

    I don’t know, but I’m sure it has something to do with liberal media bias.

  46. 46
    Perry Como says:

    CNN-Rethug debate: Let’s take a question on immigration (cuts to cleatus pulling a dildo out of his nether region)

    One wet suit or two?

  47. 47
    Tony J says:

    So, to summarise.

    It’s important to know in advance the party membership of the person asking a question because, if you don’t, you can’t use the party membership of that person as cover for answering the question badly and in a way that makes you look like an unelectable nutjob.

    Simple.

  48. 48
    bob says:

    Here’s an idea fahs: list the questions you think are unfair. Explain to us why they are, in fact, unfair representations of questions asked by right wing bloggers over the years. Oh, yeah, that was the main question of the post. And, by the way, nice bucket of herring you have there. Oooooo, look. A red one.

  49. 49

    Put stuffed suit Republican candidates at the mercy of real people and they’ll always look like asses.

  50. 50
    fahs ibair says:

    Jen, I copped to hyperbole earlier. When the fix is in, you don’t have to blow every call. It all adds up. Plant some questions here, frame a few favorably there and you are done. I will give Anderson Cooper some credit. Even though he had no control, I didn’t notice a whole lot of bias.

  51. 51
    Jake says:

    Bad journalistic practices? Definitely yes.

    What journalistic ethic was violated by allowing people to ask questions?

    I really don’t see what you’re agreeing with John.

  52. 52
    Davebo says:

    John,

    Here are two of the questions that were beyond the pale.

    “I’d like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like usually they do when a Democrat gets into office?”

    “To all the candidates: Tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe. This is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban.”

    Oh, wait. Wrong debate…

    And I’m sure they were both Democrats.

  53. 53
    John Cole says:

    Jake- This in particular:

    “But does that negate the questions themselves? I don’t think so. The CNN/YouTube format closely parallels that of the traditional town-hall forum. For the most part, attendees do not get vetted at these events either, nor should they. After all, while a primary usually involves voters of one party, the entire nation has a stake in the selection of the nominees. If Hillary Clinton held a town hall in my community, I should have an opportunity to question her about her positions on issues without pledging a loyalty oath to do so.”

  54. 54
    fahs ibair says:

    John Cole asks: What are you asking me? I haven’t seen you list any questions that are outside the mainstream of Republican/Conservative/GOP beliefs.

    I asked you if you thought context matters. Is that a GoP belief?

  55. 55
    Jen says:

    Jen, I copped to hyperbole earlier. When the fix is in, you don’t have to blow every call.
    You make my point for me. He wasn’t a plant. You are a teacher so I assume you know what framing the question is.

    CNN-Dem debate: Let’s take a question on health care. (cuts to a small child in a hospital bed)

    CNN-Rethug debate: Let’s take a question on immigration (cuts to cleatus pulling a dildo out of his nether region)

    What are we dealing with here? Am I the only one confused? Is this the best the R’s have to offer? Isn’t there someone else who’d like to try to take a stab at this?

  56. 56
    fahs ibair says:

    Davebo, you prove my point. I thought the gun was going to be licked. Granted there are plenty of gun nuts on our side, but can’t we get a reasonable 2nd ammendment question without the circus? Do you think that questioner was selected by lottery?

  57. 57
    Tony J says:

    And also, it’s still unfair even if the people asking the questions have the right party membership, if they also look like they’ve got the right party membership.

    Kind of like being too embarassed to bring your girlfriend home because you still live in your parents’ basement and have cheeto-stains on your keyboard.

  58. 58
    John Cole says:

    I asked you if you thought context matters. Is that a GoP belief?

    Sure, context matters. Are you now stating that the whole thing was just designed to make Republicans look bad?

    At some point, you dim bulbs are going to realize that your positions and the people they appeal to is what makes the GOP look bad. No amount of context makes a shit sandwich look good.

    Hell- you probably think the immigration portion of the debate at the beginning made the GOP look teh awesome, just like Tancredo did.

  59. 59
    fahs ibair says:

    Would CNN let a pro-choice women ask a Roe-Wade question where she waxed nostalgic about her first abortion? I am sure I could find more than a few who would volunteer.

    No. They will have someone with a dry delivery do it. You know it, but you just don’t care. God love partisanship.

  60. 60
    bob says:

    Hey, fahs, here’s an idea: list the questions you think were unfair and in poor context. Explain why you think this. Try not using hyperbole and just answer the question. Oh, and yes, context matters. So how about listing the questions that were contextually poor and show the framing to which you object. Oh, yeah, that was the original question of the post. Son of a gun, but you don’t seem to be answering the question. I wonder, why?

  61. 61
  62. 62
    fahs ibair says:

    Nope, this bulb isn’t that dim. I am certainly aware of the xenophobic element to the immigration debate. Republicans are not perfect, just more honest than the crew you roll with now.

  63. 63
    The Other Andrew says:

    I’m not particularly thrilled with the idea of a questioner working for a campaign (as opposed to just supporting someone)–those people can ask questions via commercials and press releases, I think this sort of thing should be reserved for private citizens, for lack of a better term.

    That said, if I were going to fake some questions for these guys, I’d follow a very specific pattern. First, I’d get my friends to help me ask a series of specifically-worded queries about gun control, immigration, Iraq and Iran, social values, that sort of thing. I’d hope that one would make it onto the air. The next day, when the right got all bent out of shape about it, I’d point out that the question was an exact quote from Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh–all the questions would have been quotes from “mainstream” conservatives like that. They say a ridiculous amount of crazy stuff, the media just doesn’t care, unless it’s really extreme.

    That’s how something like this should be handled. “You’re just trying to make us look bad!” “Um, actually, you’re doing a pretty good job of that yourself.”

  64. 64
    fahs ibair says:

    Newsflash. Bush isn’t running. You might need another Bong hit. Also check the topic of the thread.

  65. 65
    Davebo says:

    Do you think that questioner was selected by lottery?

    Aare you saying his views aren’t shared by a extremely significant portion of the GOP base? Perhaps even a majority? As in 69% according to Rasmussen?

  66. 66
    fahs ibair says:

    Andrew, that is moving the goalposts. We weren’t arguing the effectiveness of the cheating, just asking if it was going on at all. Hell, If I was going to cheat, Ruffies would be involved.

    Question for Senator Clinton – /acckkk /droool /gahhhhh.

  67. 67
    Jake says:

    Shorter GOP: The truth, it buuuuurns!

  68. 68
    jackdan says:

    I actually agree that, in a sense, many of the questions were not “fair”.

    What’s the point of a primary? To choose a single Republican from the group of Republicans. Any questions that could be expected to prompt essentially identical responses from all the candidates are therefore either “softballs”, serving only to make them all look good, or “plants”, serving to make them all look bad.

    Either of those type of questions may raise legitimate issues, but if the point of a primary debate is to allow one party to choose a candidate, then those questions don’t help.

    From a Republican point of view, the only useful kind of question is one that brings out real distictions between the candidates. “Gays in the military?” doesn’t fit that bill.

    I’m not saying that this is what a primary debate ought to be, since Democrats and independents watch CNN too. But I can imagine why a die-hard Repub voter might accuse CNN of gratuitously trying to make their boys look bad.

    Of course, it’s a tough spot to be in when there are lots of legitimate questions that make ALL your candidates look bad. But I understand a hack claiming that shouldn’t be an issue until after the primaries.

  69. 69
    fahs ibair says:

    Davebo, I believe in the right to protect myself. I am also capable of asking a question about the second amendment without brining in a weapon. Unfortunately some of the live-blogging comments I saw about that stated that it was “good theater”, so maybe you are right. No one on the right believes in self determination, we just like killing things. And people. Brown people.

  70. 70
    Jen says:

    Pew Research poll, 2006, 60% of Americans support gays serving openly in the military. It’s not conceivable that there could be a Republican candidate who’d line up with that?

  71. 71
    The Other Andrew says:

    Moving goalposts? I’ll leave that to the experts.

    Ahh, self-determination. You can be free to decide to engage in mandatory public prayers, you can be free to not have birth-control or abortions, you can be free not to know what your government is doing…

  72. 72
    wasabi gasp says:

    If the videos were rigorously vetted for only republican submissions, my money goes on the GOP appearing worse.

  73. 73
    demimondian says:

    Um, folks? Don’t feed the troll (or, in this case, Fozzie Bear…I mean, fahs ibair), or it might follow you home.

  74. 74
    demkat620 says:

    apparently, the only ‘fair’ questions to ask a Republican presidential candidate are:

    No, no, no you got it all wrong. There aren’t fair questions. There is only one question:

    How do we beat the bitch?

    That is the only fair and pertinent question. All other issues are secondary.

  75. 75
    fahs ibair says:

    Well, since the goalposts got up and left, mandatory public prayer? Wha-huh? Where the F do you live?

  76. 76
    Jen says:

    He’s not even a good troll. I can’t make heads or tails of most of that.

  77. 77
    OxyCon says:

    With all these Repubs bitching about how CNN was unfair to the Repub assclown candidates, take note how silent they are that Dan “Baghdad Bob” Senor’s wife, Campbell Brown was part of CNN’s debate team.
    Could you imagine the outrage these Repubs would be having if a Liberal partisan was part of news network’s Democratic debate?

  78. 78
    jackdan says:

    Jen: “Pew Research poll, 2006, 60% of Americans support gays serving openly in the military. It’s not conceivable that there could be a Republican candidate who’d line up with that?”

    No, it’s not. 60% support it? Republican primary voters are less than 40% of the public. And you can be sure it’s the same 40%.

    At the very least it’s not conceivable that any one of those candidates would admit to supporting gays in the military in a primary debate. Which, if known to the moderator, is effectively the same thing. But I lean toward the former (they don’t believe it AND they wouldn’t say it).

    I concede this is a stupid position to take. I don’t mind seeing some “softballs” and “plants” at the Democratic debates (not sure what the “plants” might be…but perhaps there are some). But it is logically consistent.

  79. 79
    horatius says:

    fahs,

    If Republicans are more honest, they’ll just come outright and put the racism out for everybody to see instead of using racist code-words and shit. So, yeah, just STFU and stop digging the hole deeper.

  80. 80
    fahs ibair says:

    Trolling? John asked a question. Is it demon’s job to make sure everyone chirps in unison?

    If the videos were rigorously vetted for only republican submissions, my money goes on the GOP appearing worse.

    A definite possibility, yet it would be nice if we had the opportunity to hang ourselves. That should go both ways also. The Dems should be represented by their constituents, i.e. truthers, Code-pink, Union leaders and of course Dirty, Filthy Hippies.

  81. 81
    Cyrus says:

    fahs ibair Says:
    I don’t know that is true Jen. I was following a few live bloggers, and while everyone agreed good points were being hit on, many were curious about weird framing. The young single mother, the gay general, and the batshit crazy bible thumper certainly set off more than one B.S. detector at the time.

    Link to those live bloggers, please. And, again, if the speakers set off bullshit detectors but were not plants, isn’t that a problem with the bullshit detectors rather than the speakers?

    You can have a bug eyed freak hold up a copy of The King James bible in an attempt at getting a three-way going between the Mormons, Catholics and Protestants instead asking a reasonable question about religious differences.

    You make my point for me. He wasn’t a plant. You are a teacher so I assume you know what framing the question is.

    CNN-Rethug debate: Let’s take a question on immigration (cuts to cleatus pulling a dildo out of his nether region)

    I will give Anderson Cooper some credit. Even though he had no control, I didn’t notice a whole lot of bias.

    You know, this seems like the third time today that I’ve seen someone claim that evidence contradicting a ridiculous belief just reinforces that belief because it must have taken a whole lot of effort to fake that evidence. When I see members of a group acting nuts with no apparent bias in the filter I’m seeing them through, I assume that they’re probably representative of that group. But when fahs ibair sees members of a group acting nuts with no apparent bias in the filter he’s seeing them through, if that group is Republicans, it’s a sign that the bias was hidden really well.

  82. 82
    fahs ibair says:

    Man you guys aren’t really in to the good faith thing around here. Close you eyes and imagine a republican that isn’t racist.

  83. 83
    Jen says:

    But a year ago the conventional wisdom was the Republicans would over their own dead bodies nominate Giuliani. I heard Charlie Cook say that he might be a Democratic nominee, he might be an Independent nominee, and he might be the next Queen of England, but the Republicans were not going to pick him. The abortion, gun control, and gay rights stuff, of course. He lived with gay people and seems to enjoy drag about as much as Eddie Izzard, I wouldn’t have been surprised to hear him say he thought gays in the military were o.k.

  84. 84
    Dreggas says:

    cleek Says:

    If I were a gay general, what kind of apple would I be?

    A fruity one?

  85. 85
    Davebo says:

    Here’s an idea.

    Why not have the next GOP debate be pay per view only? And don’t allow the press to report on it.

    Then the candidates can be as bat shit crazy as they like without fear of the dreaded 80% hearing about it.

  86. 86
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    So, they have met the yahoos, and they are them? And now they’re pissed off that there wasn’t enough Bush-style potemkin control to protect them from the sight of themselves?

    Excellent.
    .

  87. 87
    Fwiffo says:

    Although I am not sure why he thinks the questioners need to be vetted in the first place.

    Because otherwise it would be impossible to use ad hominems instead of actually dealing with the content of the question.

  88. 88
    fahs ibair says:

    No Cyrus, I was only talking about Andy cooper, the moderator. He wasn’t playing God. I did not see any bias In him.

    I doubt I would of had the courage to post here if I sat through Huckabilly’s religous pandering, b/c it sounds like it was really bad. I guess he went after the Jesus vote in a big way.

    You might not believe this, but there are differences of opinion on the right. We don’t use our debates as political rallies, so it makes them more interesting.

  89. 89
    RSA says:

    Newsflash. Bush isn’t running.

    Here’s something I wonder about: How is it that most of the Republican candidates seem to espouse ramping up Bush’s policies, but they almost never mention Bush by name? My impression is that this is the case even at Republican-specific events.

  90. 90
    Sirkowski says:

    When liberals ask questions, Republicans look crazy.
    When conservatives ask questions, Republicans look crazy.

  91. 91
    wasabi gasp says:

    The Dems should be represented by their constituents, i.e. truthers, Code-pink, Union leaders and of course Dirty, Filthy Hippies.

    None of these groups got their videos on the GOP YouTube debate, so you can stop your bitchin’ and besides that, unless you show me some official blood-oath moonbat credentials, you can talk to the hand.

  92. 92
    fahs ibair says:

    Wasabi – what?

    RSA – Even Bush 41 but some distance between himself and Ronnie. Gore abandoned Clinton. Even popular two termers have high negatives. Conventional wisdom says stay away, but who knows. Maybe Gore could have won.

  93. 93

    fahs ibair Says:

    No Cyrus, I was only talking about Andy cooper, the moderator. He wasn’t playing God. I did not see any bias In him.

    I doubt I would of had the courage to post here if I sat through Huckabilly’s religous pandering, b/c it sounds like it was really bad. I guess he went after the Jesus vote in a big way.

    You might not believe this, but there are differences of opinion on the right. We don’t use our debates as political rallies, so it makes them more interesting.

    November 29th, 2007 at 3:31 pm

    Did you even watch the entire debate?

  94. 94
    John Cole says:

    None of these groups got their videos on the GOP YouTube debate, so you can stop your bitchin’ and besides that, unless you show me some official blood-oath moonbat credentials, you can talk to the hand.

    Wasabi- you have not watched the evolution intelligent design of this thread. Fahs is no longer arguing that Democrat plants made the Republicans look bad in the debate last night, he is arguing that Democrat plants in the previous debate made the Democrats look insufficiently bad.

  95. 95
    fahs ibair says:

    I am?

  96. 96
    fahs ibair says:

    Oh, I see. Pardon me for my ignorance. No, not at all. I would prefer an honest debate. See there is this thing, it is called a hypothetical. I was using it to see if you wanted your debate turned into a circus.

    Also John, back when you used to roll with us, were you a Young Earth Creationist? No? Me neither. I guess we didn’t drink deep enough.

  97. 97
    fahs ibair says:

    Did you even watch the entire debate?
    It says I didn’t right in your own comment when you quoted me.

  98. 98
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    See there is this thing, it is called a hypothetical.

    There is?

    I was using it to see if you wanted your debate turned into a circus.

    Too late.
    .

  99. 99
    jcricket says:

    Why not have the next GOP debate be pay per view only? And don’t allow the press to report on it.

    Republican Cage Match? 10 men enter, 1 man leaves?

    Maybe we can have some of the guys from the WWE do the interviewing?

  100. 100
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Close you eyes and imagine a republican that isn’t racist.

    Keep them closed and imagine a Republican who wasn’t a hypocrite. Go on to imagine a Republican who didn’t think that the Free Market wasn’t the solution to all of society’s problems and that what consenting adults do in their bedrooms is their business. Aw crap: you’ve gone and imagined a Democrat!

  101. 101
    bob says:

    Funny how fahs has yet to answer the question.

  102. 102
    fahs ibair says:

    Which one bob?

  103. 103
    cleek says:

    The Dems should be represented by their constituents, i.e. truthers, Code-pink, Union leaders and of course Dirty, Filthy Hippies.

    this must be some of that “honest debate” you keep talking about.

  104. 104
    les says:

    Somebody’s missing the obvious. The process was biased and unfair because, according to the bitchers (Malkintents, Rushbots, wingnuts generally) it forced the…ok, candidates…to answer questions from people who should not even be allowed in the process, who are anti-American, jihadi-lovers, etc. etc. How can it be anything but the biased media trying to trip up their heroes?

  105. 105
    fahs ibair says:

    Cleek, don’t get all huffy. If Cole can make wetsuit and dildo cracks, I can goof on rethug stereotypes. This isn’t an actual presidential debate.

  106. 106
    bob says:

    fahs, the one in the post. Great Satan’s Underpants, are ALL you right wingers incapable of honesty? No, don’t answer that, it was rhetorical and the answer is self evident. Just tell us which questions, *specifically* you object to as unfair. Maybe provide a link to the actual question being asked. Then explain how said question unfairly characterizes GOP positions. But of course, I expect another red herring from you.

  107. 107
    Timb says:

    I had to drive in the hinterlands of Indiana today and all I heard for three hours (two of Limbaugh and one of Hannity), all I heard was how this is so unfair. Limbaugh, who makes 20 million dollars a year appealing to white shoe Baptists, complained over and over again about how the questions made Republicans look bad (not the candidates, mind you), but all Republicans. On and on bout how these questions were democratic plants, because no Republican cares about the Confederate flag or the punishment a hypothetical woman will get for having an abortion or about gays in the military or farm subsidies.

    This just in, Rush Limbaugh is a teenager: Confederate flag issue (2000 and 2004 South Carolina primary), Thompson just said last week that there should be a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, the Republicans used gay issues as a wedge in 2004 and 2006, and farm subsidies (they campaigning in freakin’ Iowa)….that’s so old news. Get over it CNN and Democratic plants. “We”, apparently, only care about those Mexicans, the Muslims, and taxes.

    It was surreal.

  108. 108
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Damn, people: can’t you get anything right? It wasn’t their answers that made the Repubs look bad. It was the questions. The world will, of course, ask them no tough questions should they be elected.

  109. 109
    ThymeZone says:

    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.

    That’s gotta be spoof, and even if it’s real, when you can’t tell the spoof from the real right wingers, then … well, you know.

    As for vetting questioners? Stupid idea. Vet the questions, not the questioners. Are we a democracy or are we kneeling before a royal family?

  110. 110
    fahs ibair says:

    Bob, I am for open debate. Did you read my comments? I addressed the context in which the questions were asked. It would have been nice to see a question about gays in the military that didn’t come from a Gay Democrat. When they asked the general if his question had been significantly answered, he turned it into an opportunity to espouse the virtues of homosexuals in the military. Fine in theory, but not the time nor place.

    Cole’s post was an update, and the original problem I had with it was the cirular logic he used to attack “nutters”. We complained When Hillary (with CNN’s help) planted softballs. We complained again when CNN was busted planting in this debate, yet Cole calls us out on it. For what I have no idea.

  111. 111

    fahs ibair Says:

    Did you even watch the entire debate?

    It says I didn’t right in your own comment when you quoted me.

    November 29th, 2007 at 3:50 pm

    Just for shits and giggles, did you watch any of the debate live?

  112. 112
    Shabbazz says:

    Batshit Crazy Bible Thumper = Values Voter.

    I have met plenty of “Values Voters” who literally pray for the end of the world, literally believe the Earth is 6000 years old, literally think Bush is doing “God’s Work” and literally vote Republican across the board.

    It’s not a matter of “media bias” or any other nonsense — it’s the face of the Republican movement. It is a movement in which you can’t trust higher education (they’re Libruls!) or the American Free Press (they’re Libruls!) or Congressional review (they’re Libruls!) judicial oversight (they’re Libruls!) or the International Community (they’re Liburls!) or anything else unless it comes from a trusted source that tells you what you exactly want to hear (“it’s all the evil Librul’s fault!)

    The Republican party has been making this bed ever since they started heavilly courting the Evangelicals and demonizing half the country for issues that are nobody’s damn business in the first place.

    They owned the “Values Voters” in 2004 and they will own them again this year. They’re all yours, fellas. Enjoy!

  113. 113
    Davebo says:

    It would have been nice to see a question about gays in the military that didn’t come from a Gay Democrat.

    OK, so if it came worded exactly the same from Andrew Sullivan it would be OK?

    Are you assuming the viewing audience knew the man was a democrat and that would somehow change the way they evaluate the various answers?

  114. 114
    bob says:

    Fahs, my fine herring dragging foe, the title of the post is “Still waiting”. In the post a question is posed. It is a followup to an earlier post with the same question. NONE of your posts addressed the question. You are no more interested in honest “debate” than the man in the moon. Answer the effing question and quit with the dragging red herrings across the trail. Be specific. Show us HOW the questions unfairly characterized the candidates positions. But of course you can’t and you will try another herring drag.

  115. 115
    cleek says:

    It would have been nice to see a question about gays in the military that didn’t come from a Gay Democrat.

    have you met Mr Ad Hominem ?

  116. 116
    fahs ibair says:

    Shabazz, your logic cuts both ways. If we have to claim ownership of Fundies, you have to take ownership when it comes to your nuts. WTO anarchists, Truthers, Animal Liberation Front, World Workers Party. These people don’t vote R. You can have em.

  117. 117
    bob says:

    Truthers come from both sides. WTO anarchists, by definition don’t vote, as they are ANARCHISTS. World Workers Party are communists, not democrats. Yet another lovely herring sandwich from fahs, the artless dodger.

  118. 118
    orogeny says:

    Fozzy,

    If we have to claim ownership of Fundies, you have to take ownership when it comes to your nuts. WTO anarchists, Truthers, Animal Liberation Front, World Workers Party.

    Fundies make up a significant fraction (probably 50% or more) of the Republican base. The Repub candidates line up to kiss their asses on a regular basis. Which of the groups you associated with the Dems has the same influence?

  119. 119
    Jen says:

    Hmmm….The Democratic Party has to claim ownership of the World Workers Party…like an annexation, or a hostile takeover, or something?

    Your *president* is a fundie. Every one of those candidates, without exception, panders to the Religious Right.

  120. 120
    Darkness says:

    I am still trying to figure out how 3 “weird framing” questions out of 34 is somehow akin to half the questions coming from the Minutemen and half coming from code pink.

    You know, I’ve had no desire to tune into the debates, but THAT one I would watch. The “good theater” line comes to mind… But I also want all the candidates to sit on giant pillows wearing bathing suits too. Forget the podiums and power clothes.

  121. 121
    fahs ibair says:

    What? ad hom? wtf, are you people claiming absolute moral authority on all things gay?

    CNN picked a retired gay Democrat General (for the hell of it), and when I point it out, I am engaging in ad hom? you might want to go back to critical thinking class.

    This was a R*epublican debate. Do you get it? Is CNN going to let Republican activists ask Clinton and Obama tough questions? Are they going to let them pontificate with follow-up non questions ? If so, fine. But even the partisans here know that ain’t happening.

  122. 122
    fahs ibair says:

    Jen stomp your feet all you want, he is your president also.

  123. 123
    Pb says:

    I’ve got a better idea… let’s all go on YouTube and have a litle contest to find all the real Republican base questions CNN was afraid to ask. How about ‘Will America Survive?‘… oh wait, that’s a Buchanan supporter… ok, how about this guy?

  124. 124

    You didn’t watch any of the debate live, did you?

  125. 125
    dslak says:

    The Dems should be represented by their constituents, i.e. truthers, Code-pink, Union leaders and of course Dirty, Filthy Hippies.

    Many of these groups are quite hostile to Democrats, seeing them as not radical enough. Ever heard of an instance of Chomsky or ANSWER praising the Democrats? A bit of study of actual political theory, rather than “politic philosophy as GOP talking points” might help to clear up misconceptions like this.

  126. 126
    Pb says:

    Is CNN going to let Republican activists ask

    They already did, the first time, troll. Step up your game, because I’m already getting my pie-tomato-throwing arm warmed up here.

  127. 127
    Jen says:

    Did you want to make any commentary on the substance of what I said, fozzy? No, I didn’t think so.

  128. 128
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    What? ad hom? wtf

    As in “avoiding the question by changing the subject to the person asking the question.”

    Thought it was simple enough.
    .

  129. 129
    fahs ibair says:

    Orogeny, thanks for at least an ounce of honesty. Balloon-juicers normal estimate Fundie infestation at 99%. As for all the kooks I mentioned, probably a small but significant portion of your party. Anarchists will certainly vote Dem as a means to an end. Find me one non-ronpaulbot that votes R* from any of those groups I mentioned, and I will take back what I said. You groom em, you own em.

  130. 130
    scarshapedstar says:

    The mind boggles at the suggestion that the Democratic Youtube Debate featured no Republicans. The nutcase calling his rifle his “baby”? Hell, didn’t he show up again last night? And then the guy challenging Mike Gravel to “flip flop” and not say the obvious about how we threw away 70,000 lives in Vietnam? You think that moron was a Democrat, too?

  131. 131

    Here’s the transcript from the GOP YouTube debate last night. Please review and answer John Cole’s question:

    What were the “gotcha” questions? Who were the yahoos? How do they differ from the stated positions of bloggers WELL within the mainstream of the Republican party?

  132. 132
    bob says:

    Bye fozzy, I really don’t like herring sandwiches. Look up Ad Hominem in wikipedia. Check that definition against and REPUTABLE dictionary (Webster’s, Random House, American Heritage, Oxford, eg). Now try looking it up in a logic text. You MIGHT find a reference to the practice of dismissing the person instead of the question. Now look at what you said about teh ghey genrul. See if it applies. For god’s sake, it has been 3 hours and you still haven’t addressed the question. I’m done with you. Have a nice life.

  133. 133
    Paul L. says:

    I am still waiting for someone to tell me which questions were unfair, and which questioners were “unfairly” plucked from the “fringe” to make the Republicans look bad.

    Is this question unfair for the Democratic presidential debate?

    Do you support a Federal investigation by the US Attorney of the Durham District Attorney’s office and Police department for the violation of the civil rights of the accused in the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax

  134. 134
    LITBMueller says:

    Well, if the Evil CNN Liberals who met in their secret CNN Conspiracy Chamber with Hillary’s campaign staffers and MoveOn.org really DID sit down and decide to “plant” questions, they sure as hell could have found WAY better ones than that!

  135. 135
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    Did you want to make any commentary on the substance of what I said, fozzy? No, I didn’t think so.

    Yep. He did it twice, all to avoid the issue of how hard-wired the GOP is to a dead-end demographic that even alienated other voters of faith. He even used a false analogy to pretend it’s the same with the Dem.’s and the DU types.

    Feh. I guess Republican is as far as he could go.
    .

  136. 136
    bob says:

    sorry, “A” reputable dictionary, not “AND”

  137. 137
    Jen says:

    Woo hoo Paul! I think the last time you posted you didn’t tie it to Duke Lacrosse. You should go back and fix that.

  138. 138
    Davebo says:

    Anarchists will certainly vote Dem as a means to an end.

    Wow! Just what can I say?

    You need to head over to Reason Magazine and clue them in to this blockbuster!

  139. 139
    fahs ibair says:

    Tex, I am not making an argument against the General, that is the problem. It is just not his time nor place. Some lefties think that free speech means they can control the conversation anytime, anywhere. “Do gays belong in the military?” is a perfectly valid question, but the General can keep his opinions to himself until he finds an appropriate venue.

  140. 140
    Jen says:

    You aren’t making an

    argument

    against anything.

  141. 141
    CJ says:

    **Good for Captain Ed:
    “Bad journalistic practices? Definitely yes.”**

    So, you agree with Republicans who are not happy with CNN. And you all would be pissed if Fox hosted a Dem debate (and they showed up) and pulled this crap.

    We’re all in agreement.

  142. 142
    fahs ibair says:

    You need to head over to Reason Magazine and clue them in to this blockbuster!

    Is that a Libertarian joke? Because I don’t trust those guys. Shifty eyes.

  143. 143
    Pb says:

    Grand Moff Texan Says

    Hey, welcome, man, I hadn’t seen you ’round these parts.

  144. 144
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Truthers come from both sides. WTO anarchists, by definition don’t vote, as they are ANARCHISTS. World Workers Party are communists, not democrats. Yet another lovely herring sandwich from fahs, the artless dodger.

    Also, the Democratic party does not court these constituencies, much less aggressively court them. Fundies are the GOP’s prime targets–remember all that faith-based outreach, using church newsletter databases to target voters and all that? Yeah.

  145. 145
    Pb says:

    CJ,

    For the last time, CNN already did the same thing to the Dems, or worse. Duh. And was anyone surprised? No. It’s just the Republican base / activists who are being the real WATBs here.

  146. 146
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    Some lefties think that free speech means they can control the conversation anytime, anywhere.

    From 0 to hypocrisy …

    “Do gays belong in the military?” is a perfectly valid question, but the General can keep his opinions to himself until he finds an appropriate venue.

    … in one sentence.
    .

  147. 147
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    Hey, welcome, man, I hadn’t seen you ‘round these parts.

    Ahoy there.

    Yeah, Cole was always good reading, but now he has juicy trolls.

    NOM NOM NOM.
    .

  148. 148
    fahs ibair says:

    Jen, What? Is that a rebuttal? I was certainly making an argument. It might be wrong, work with me.

  149. 149
    Jen says:

    Just the one. He kinda sucks. Try to find the argument or response to the subject of the post in anything he’s written. Oh well, it’s the only entertainment for the moment, but fortunately I get to leave soon.

  150. 150
    fahs ibair says:

    Texan, How is that hypocritical? There was no reason to give the General a platform to tell us how wonderful gays in the military are (even if it is true). People tuned in to find out what the candidates thought.

    Get it?

  151. 151
    ccham44 says:

    The argument seems to be that questions should not be asked by people who are passionate either way about the issue.

    However, the whole point of the YouTube debate is to get actual stakeholders to ask questions directly to the candidates. Those people are the ones most likely to hold strong opinions. If I’m neutral about an issue, I’m not going to go through the trouble of videotaping myself asking a question about it.

    A gay general has something at stake in the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, and therefore is exactly the kind of person who should be asking the question. (I would agree that allowing him to preach in the “follow up” was probably inappropriate at a debate) Similarly, the person who didn’t want their taxes raised was exactly the kind of person who should have asked that question of the Democrats.

    Why is this a bad thing, even if the questioner may be against the position of candidates?

  152. 152
    fahs ibair says:

    Does everyone here brand all dissent as trolling? I thought you were about speaking truth to power. Jen, have to run to your two-minute-hate class?

  153. 153
    SpotWeld says:

    …keep his opinions to himself until he finds an appropriate venue.

    So.. hypothetically, if Jeff Gannon had a video up, and he asked the same question, you’d have no objection?

    I’m trying to understand what about the general made this specific venue inappropriate for him.

    If it’s not the general, then what about the question was inappropirate? The issues of gays in the military is one that GOP voters would be concerned about, right?

  154. 154
    Shabbazz says:

    Shabazz, your logic cuts both ways. If we have to claim ownership of Fundies, you have to take ownership when it comes to your nuts. WTO anarchists, Truthers, Animal Liberation Front, World Workers Party. These people don’t vote R. You can have em.

    I’m pretty sure anarchists don’t vote. That’s what makes them, you know, anarchists.

    As for the rest of them, they’re voting Green more often than Democrat. But if they latch on to the Democratic ticket to help end the Republican’s Big Adventure — more power to ’em.

  155. 155
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    There was no reason to give the General a platform to tell us how wonderful gays in the military are (even if it is true). People tuned in to find out what the candidates thought.

    You really need to watch the footage if you’re going to comment on it. That’s not what he did. What he did was to ask a question, which is what you said viewers wanted.

    So: it didn’t have what you’re complaining about, and it did have what you’re bitching about not being there. You claim that he, a leftie, was (like all lefties, apparently) trying to control the debate, but you don’t even know what was said. The hypocrisy lies in you thinking you can retroactively determine what he should have said. You stupidity lies in the fact that he already said it.

    You are an abortion of a troll.
    .

  156. 156
    Jen says:

    Let’s recap, shall we, fozz:

    Hmmm….The Democratic Party has to claim ownership of the World Workers Party…like an annexation, or a hostile takeover, or something?

    Your president is a fundie. Every one of those candidates, without exception, panders to the Religious Right.

    –he’s your president too

    Would you like to address the substance of what I said?

    (no response)

    You wanna point out to me where your argument is or where my hate is, exactly?

  157. 157
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    Does everyone here brand all dissent as trolling? j

    Are you dumb enough to think that your emissions constitute dissent?
    .

  158. 158
    CJ says:

    “For the last time, CNN already did the same thing to the Dems, or worse. Duh. And was anyone surprised? No. It’s just the Republican base / activists who are being the real WATBs here.”
    Um, Pb, they didn’t do the “same thing” to the Dems because they at least passed off activists FROM THE SAME PARTY as “ordinary voters.” Here, they used SUPPORTERS OF THE OTHER PARTY to ask questions in a GOP debate.

    Surely you can see that.

  159. 159
    Cyrus says:

    I’ve missed you, DougJ. You certainly keep things interesting around here. I don’t believe you’re John in disguise to drive up page views into the hundreds as TZ has said before, but if you didn’t exist, John would have had to invent you.

  160. 160
    fahs ibair says:

    ccham44 said However, the whole point of the YouTube debate is to get actual stakeholders to ask questions directly to the candidates. Those people are the ones most likely to hold strong opinions. If I’m neutral about an issue, I’m not going to go through the trouble of videotaping myself asking a question about it.

    I think you are right on the spot, but that is why we need to make sure CNN isn’t stacking the deck with questioners. Any political topic is going to have plenty of passionate people that want to hear about it. Who you select to ask which question makes a difference.

  161. 161
    Jay C says:

    Although I am not sure why he thinks the questioners need to be vetted in the first place.

    That should be a simple question to answer, John: it’s right out of the basic Republican playbook. GW Bush (and the GOP in general) has gotten away with public utterances based on pre-cleared audiences, planted questioners (Jeff Gannon, anyone?), and softball questions for many years now. I guess they figure that NOT having to deal with serious questioning or articulating issues is just their due. After all, it’s probably how they would want their Administrations to be run: why not start with the debates?

    PS: Dispatches from Bizarro World: Not only do the RedState honchos demand that “Heads should roll at CNN”, they want a “do-over” . Presumably with a pre-approved script and signed loyalty oaths, no doubt.

  162. 162
    horatius says:

    I guess kool-aid kills brain cells. We’ve tried for the better part of a day to educate fozzy, and he still didn’t get past square one. Like I said, it’s tough to act this stupid. It has to come naturally.

  163. 163
    ThymeZone says:

    Is this question unfair for the Democratic presidential debate?

    There are no “unfair” questions. There are stupid questions, but those can be handled with intelligent answers.

    There should also be no “unfair” answers. A candidate is free to say, that’s a badly formed question, this is the valid question, and here is the valid answer to that valid question.

    The idea that questions and questioners are somehow “fair” or “unfair” is just bogus. Questions should be picked for relevance to real interests.

    As for your dumbass question, why would a president get involved in the prosecution of a rape case at the local level? A candidate should say, that’s something for the local authorities to deal with, and I expect them to deal with it in an appropriate manner. Next question.

    Only buttheads like you want to drag all your little pet things out and puff them up into “issues” that aren’t really relevant to the true interests of the voters. Voters expect good prosecution, and they have the means to get it: Elect good prosecutors who do good work. It’s that simple.

  164. 164
    fahs ibair says:

    Jen, I am responding to like 10 people here. I in all honesty don’t know what you are getting at, and since you were saying non-substantive things, I decided to respond to others. Let me parse your comment and see if I can find a point.

    Also tex, I am rubber and you are glue. Just trying to keep it on your intellectual level.

  165. 165
    ccham44 says:

    Let’s poke that a litte further then. Who would be appropriate, in this format, to ask a question about the military’s policy on gays?

  166. 166
    fahs ibair says:

    Well, everyone is reduced to calling me stupid.

    Grand moff tex, since youtube sponsored this, I am gonna talk a walk and see if I can find the Generals question/comments. Anyone want to be a good sport and give me a head start? I honestly forgot his name.

  167. 167
    horatius says:

    Fozzy,

    You should watch some of the questions Tony Blair got, from the very people who voted for him. He was sweating bullets by the end of the 3 hour townhall meeting. That’s what democracy looks like. Not your spoiled rich brats crinkling up their noses at questions from the voting public and their cock-sucker fans wanting to shield them from it.

  168. 168
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    Here, they used SUPPORTERS OF THE OTHER PARTY to ask questions in a GOP debate.

    Surely you can see that.

    Duh! If they wanted conservative activists to ask the questions, it would have been a QubeTV debate, not YouTube.
    .

  169. 169
    Jen says:

    Whoa, I’ve had a bad experience with Texans over the last seven years, but I’m starting to reconsider!

    Fozzy, I will help you with your trolling now. Let me give you an example of a substantive argument: The Republican candidates pander to the Religious Right. An example of a substantive rebuttal: Not all of the candidates, because Mr. X did this and Mr. Y says this and Mr. Z did not accept Pat Robertson’s endorsement. An example of not a substantive rebuttal: You’re stomping your feet.

    I mean, I just don’t have time to walk you any further than that through what an argument is, maybe you could try conservapedia?

  170. 170
    CJ says:

    “Who would be appropriate, in this format, to ask a question about the military’s policy on gays?”

    ccham44, Who the hell thinks GOP voters are pondering how a candidate will answer this question?

    They aren’t. Democrats and liberals are. Which is fine, but it illustrates what was wrong with CNN’s little game.

  171. 171
    tBone says:

    Does everyone here brand all dissent as trolling?

    Not everyone. I don’t think you’re trolling.

    I think you’re spoofing, and doing a nice job of it, too. The “speaking truth to power” line was a little much, though.

  172. 172

    I am still waiting for someone to tell me which questions were unfair, and which questioners were “unfairly” plucked from the “fringe” to make the Republicans look bad.

    Don’t hold your breath. You’ll pass out.

    Meanwhile, I’m surprised no one has considered that the reason they had to let some Democrats ask the questions is that in light of the dismal response to NRCC’s video contest that John noted a few posts down, one might assume Republicans just didn’t deliver any.

  173. 173
    horatius says:

    And that’s exactly why you get politicians like Bush re-elected, not just once, but twice.

  174. 174
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    Also tex, I am rubber and you are glue. Just trying to keep it on your intellectual level.

    No, dumbass. If you were on my level you’d deal with the content and then mock the unintelligent design thereof. Since you aren’t, it wasn’t and you can’t.

    I’ll wait while you parse that.

    All you’ve done here is regurgitate and run away. Hence, you are a Republican.
    .

  175. 175
    Zifnab says:

    I think you are right on the spot, but that is why we need to make sure CNN isn’t stacking the deck with questioners. Any political topic is going to have plenty of passionate people that want to hear about it. Who you select to ask which question makes a difference.

    Perhaps I’m mistaken, but it seemed that the YouTube questions were picked largely by popular vote. So you put your YouTube question up and get 1000 of your closest friends to punch the star until it becomes “popular”. Then CNN comes through and picks a shotgun of choices.

    You may not like the questions picked, but I didn’t see any particularly bad ones.

  176. 176
    Billy K says:

    Grand Moff Texan Says:

    How long have you been here? I remember you from DKos in 2004 or so (I haven’t read comments there in a few years). I remember because I’m a Star Wars nerd and I live in Texas.

    Anyway, just saying howdy, and May the Force be with You.

  177. 177
    SpotWeld says:

    CJ> Who the hell thinks GOP voters are pondering how a candidate will answer this question?

    Well, the GOP voters in the military might ponder it from time to time?

  178. 178
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    Surely CJ can see this.
    .

  179. 179
    fahs ibair says:

    Horatius, I am all for tough questions. I even said CNN was doing the Republicans an unintentional favor by getting tough, while letting Clinton plant softballs.

    CNN shouldn’t be doing this though, and you all know it.

    tbone- truth to power? Come on, I can have a little fun. A joke doesn’t make me a troll.

    I found his name, it is General Kerr, and unfortunatley the Youtube clips are kinda long so I might have to dig for a few minutes.

  180. 180
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    Who the hell thinks GOP voters are pondering how a candidate will answer this question?

    He’s got a point there. With enemies lists, Regents grads, and loyalty oaths, the problem with the GOP is having a debate at all. Since they already know what they’re supposed to believe, it can only go wrong when someone appears to go off-catechism or tries to be all more-talking-points-than-thou ‘n stuff.
    .

  181. 181
    Jen says:

    A “do-over”…..also the Democrats got more Kool-Aid than I did and their cookie was bigger…

    It’s a hilarious idea, but falls a little bit short. The R’s would have to do over the last seven years to salvage their chances next November.

  182. 182
    CJ says:

    CJ> Who the hell thinks GOP voters are pondering how a candidate will answer this question?

    **Well, the GOP voters in the military might ponder it from time to time?

    Sure, but outside of that relatively narrow segment – almost none. And even in that segment, they’d probably want to hear a Democratic candidate explain why they oppose the current policy, rather than a GOP pol defend it.

  183. 183
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    I found his name, it is General Kerr, and unfortunatley the Youtube clips are kinda long so I might have to dig for a few minutes.

    Does this mean that you might actually have an opinion that’s worth a tin shit in a few minutes?
    .

  184. 184
    fahs ibair says:

    Tex, you are going after me repeatedly and scoring points with the attack rabbits in the process, but try to stick to the arguments. Funny I would have to give this lesson to someone who told me to look up ad hom.

  185. 185
    ccham44 says:

    CJ,

    You’re arguing that the question is inappropriate. My response was to fahs’s point, and he has already stated that he believes the question is appropriate:

    “Do gays belong in the military?” is a perfectly valid question, but the General can keep his opinions to himself until he finds an appropriate venue.

    his beef is with the questioner.

    If it’s true that primary voters don’t care about the issue, then you’re probably right. Though I think there’s a good chance the issue will come up in the next four years, and one of the titles these guys are running for is Commander in Chief.

  186. 186
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    And even in that segment, they’d probably want to hear a Democratic candidate explain why they oppose the current policy, rather than a GOP pol defend it.

    See? He already knows what to believe, so who cares what they think? Why of couse they’d defend the Clinton policy that was supposed to be a freakin’ disaster in its own day!
    .

  187. 187
    Tsulagi says:

    Give it up, Cole. There is no way you or any army is going to keep the Sisters of Perpetual Victimhood herd of elephants from charging to an opportunity to wail and beat their man-tits in indignation while wrapping themselves in the sweet, warm, succoring blanket of victimness.

    Just look at RedState’s front page and side diaries for confirmation of that. They’re in complete wailing mode over there. It’s funny.

  188. 188
    dslak says:

    Yeah, I’m pretty sure many Republican primary voters oppose the current policy as well, given that it allows at least closeted homosexuals to serve.

  189. 189
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    Funny I would have to give this lesson to someone who told me to look up ad hom.

    That was Bob, dumbass. Have you gotten anything right today?

    You know, if you’d actually addressed the comments directed at you, by the law of large numbers you’d have an outside chance of falling back assward into something worthwhile. But NO, there were too many of them and it’s all so compwicated ‘n stuff.

    Pathetic.
    .

  190. 190
    SpotWeld says:

    So if I get CJ right,

    1) The members of the military who are GOP voters don’t matter as far as the decision of the primary candidate is concerned.
    2) The voters who do vote GOP already know that they should agree with the policy position ascribed by the GOP and there is no significant dissent.
    3) It is more appropriate for GOP voters to be critical of Democratic candidates.

    … is it possible, just maybe possible, you could be wrong on all counts?

  191. 191
    Darkness says:

    fahs ibair Says:

    Jen stomp your feet all you want, he is your president also.

  192. 192
    Darkness says:

    whoops, got cut off there…

    fahs ibair Says:

    Jen stomp your feet all you want, he is your president also.

    He ceased to be MY president (and I suspect Jen’s too) the day he had people who held the same opinions as me tossed out of a town hall meeting with The People. HE decided he was not president of half the population of the country. That was his choice. (A little clue-in for the Right because they seem to forget it frequently: he’s the one with power; when something happens, he’s the one responsible because he has the power to make it go one way or another, that being the definition of power.) As far as I’m concerned the presidency is a concept and Bush is wasting oxygen, but he ain’t my president, so if you want him, you can have all of ‘im. No need to share.

  193. 193
    bob says:

    Don’t you love objections to questions from the Gannon wing of the Republican party? OOOOOO Hillary got a softball from a supporter. OMG, how unfair! An honorably discharged gay man who served his country for DECADES has no place asking a question about gays serving in the military in a republican presidential debate designed to take questions from the public? Where WOULD be the place to ask GOP candidates this question? Quietly, from the closet? Oh, yeah, that’s where Jesus says you should pray. So you prefer prayer in public and questions of the powerful in the closet, eh?

  194. 194
    Jen says:

    It’s funny to me that they think this stuff *matters*. I mean, I love talking about this kind of junk rather than working, I’m a wonkette, I love the blogosphere and all that, but it’s self-absorbed navel-gazing irrelevant web-righty talking points, it has as much traction with the voting public as Graeme Frost. (Voting public: “Graeme WHO? Is that a new Christmas movie?”)
    They are losing this damn election. They could have their “do-over” a thousand times and they wouldn’t get any new voters. People have lost their jobs, their houses, and their health insurance. If they actually wanted to win an election again, they would talk about maybe taking a position that more than a minority of the country wanted them to take and maybe having an ounce of compassion for the people who get to decide this election.

  195. 195
    horatius says:

    CNN shouldn’t be doing this though,

    Says the troll who regularly watches Fox News and can’t get enough of it.

  196. 196
    just sayin' says:

    In order to do the right thing, they paid a high price – the loss of the South and Dixiecrats, who were really Republicans all along as far as their values.

    It’s worse than that. The Southern Jimcrowacrats didn’t fit in the GOP of 1964 any better than they fit with the civil rights supporting Dems. The GOP had to change a lot to pick up the Solid South, and were happy to have done it by ’68.

  197. 197
    dslak says:

    OMG, they let activists ask people running for office questions!

    That’s the headline

    on Fox News’ website.

    The “Conflict of interest? What conflict of interest?” network is implying that citizens asking candidates for public office questions ought to have their backgrounds checked first. Of course, after Beauchamp and the Frosts, we already knew that.

  198. 198
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    Darkness,

    if you look back to Jen’s actual post, you can see that that’s not what she was even talking about. She was responding to fozzy’s equivocation about the GOP’s fundamentalist infestation.

    Fozzy was just running away … again.
    .

  199. 199
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    out
    .

  200. 200
    horatius says:

    Fozzy was just running away … again.

    No intelligent wo/man will stick with the GOP given all they have done in the last 7 years, unless there is considerable financial compensation/interests and/or unlimited amounts of kool-aid are involved.

  201. 201
    dslak says:

    unless there is considerable financial compensation/interests and/or unlimited amounts of kool-aid are involved.

    Don’t forget the Cheetos.

  202. 202
    LITBMueller says:

    Here’s RedState’s “head at CNN should roll” email to readers:

    RedState is calling for CNN to fire Sam Feist, their political director; and David Bohrman, Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate.

    During last night’s debate, which CNN billed as “a Republican debate, and the goal was to let Republican voters see their candidates,” CNN either knowingly or incompetently allowed hardcore left wing activists to plant questions and Anderson Cooper willingly gave one of those activists a soapbox so he could harass the Republican candidates about military policy.

    Simple googling would have revealed these left wing activists.

    Had CNN done its homework, this would not have happened. They either willfully let it happen, or incompetently bungled it. Either way, heads should roll.

    Likewise, we hope one or more of the GOP Presidential candidates will call for a do-over debate on substantive policy issues.

    You can read our Directors post here.

    All the best,
    Erick Erickson
    Editor, RedState.com

    Yeah, I suppose CNN should have known that no dissenters are allowed at Republican gatherings!

    But, like John wants to know: Exactly WHAT “substantive policy issues” were NOT raised that they need a do-over for?

  203. 203
    cleek says:

    RedState is calling for […] to fire

    dog bites man

  204. 204
    dmark says:

    He ceased to be MY president (and I suspect Jen’s too) the day he had people who held the same opinions as me tossed out of a town hall meeting with The People

    He ceased to be my president when he violated his oath to protect the constitution.

  205. 205
    bpower says:

    “World Workers Party”
    Yeah, those dudes cant get enough of the Dems :P

    fahs ibair- “There was no reason to give the General a platform to tell us how wonderful gays in the military are (even if it is true). People tuned in to find out what the candidates thought.”

    This is a valid point, but its the only one you’ve got. I don’t see how this minor incident can generate real outrage, a raised eyebrow would suffice. Look, when you consider some of the brutal gotchas that could be lobbed at the candidates this debate was a good result for you guys. And I dont mean gotchas from “plants”, imagine a crowd of fundies and redstaters asking unvetted questions.

  206. 206
    horatius says:

    Red-state is full of cheeto-flecked WATBs. A fertile ground for a draft in service of the Unlimited war to resubjectage brown people.

  207. 207
    horatius says:

    Resubjectage = Resubjugate

  208. 208
    fahs ibair says:

    Horatius-I don’t watch fox.

    Jen. – I don’t care in the least. I have said two or three times now CNN is doing us a favor with their own brand of “tough love”. Little warm-up plus a possible backlash and we might have a fighting chance.

    Darkness – keep stomping those feet. Bush is your President.

    Here is the link of the General. Nothing wrong with the question, but if a General came out, advertised himself and his credentials, called himself “a family man”, stated his worries about “unit cohesion” (hehe) and asked the question, Do you think libs would be in a tizzy?

    I know, two wrongs don’t make a right, but you would think CNN would aim for partiality during a debate.

    Too all those who are having a blast calling Republicans babies, remember this. The Dems boycotted the Fox News Channel event even though their past debates have been much more evenhanded than their programming. TRUTH TO POWER!

  209. 209
    dslak says:

    Resubjectage = Resubjugate

    It was funnier before the correction.

  210. 210
    horatius says:

    This is a valid point, but its the only one you’ve got.

    Not really. The whole purpose of the primary is to select the one person from one party among the two who will be likely to lead the country. You can’t bar people from asking questions that affect millions of people irrespective of what the ideologies of the party are. Politics has become real easy with absolutely no downside at all. These leeches live on the public dime in great comfort, so it is our duty to make it as uncomfortable as possible before we let them through to a life of cushy accountability-free existence. Every question that doesn’t impinge on human decency is a good question, and should be asked. Doing like 20 debates to qualify for Prez is too little. These bastards have to be on the campaign stump facing question after question till they squeal. Only then, will the true public servants opt to serve as President.

  211. 211
    horatius says:

    It was funnier before the correction.

    Come to think of it, it may not exactly be a verb, but it does have just about the same meaning.

  212. 212
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    I’m a bit surprised that Ricky West hasn’t turned up here yet; he just spent about 35 posts over at Drum’s site griping that the Democrats are hypocrites to defend Kerr given that they all ducked that Nevada debate that Fox News offered them. The fact doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that there’s a tiny difference between accepting SOME questions from the Opposition, and appearing in a debate run by an outfit which is notorious for being a wholly owned (and unashamed) propaganda mouthpiece for the other party, which thus could be counted on to bombard the candidates with questions of the “Have you stopped beating your wife?” variety. If, on the other hand, the GOP wants to plant a few ringers in the next YouTube Democratic debate, fine with me. (Assuming that there should BE any more YouTube debates, which is another question.)

  213. 213
    horatius says:

    Horatius-I don’t watch fox.

    Then where’s the outrage from you when Democratic candidates are attacked 24/7 throughout the year on Fox as unfair? But someone asks a couple of questions which are highly relevant to qualification for public office, but which made your candidates look bad and the sky is falling down.

    People have died because of people like the six clowns in the Republican Prez Primary and it is time to demand some answers, before we give them the keys to the nation.

  214. 214
    CMcC says:

    You quote: “The CNN/YouTube format closely parallels that of the traditional town-hall forum. For the most part, attendees do not get vetted at these events either, nor should they.”

    Exactly.

    Which was the practice at all those forums hosted by George W. Bush over the last 7 or 8 years. Let everybody in. Take on all questioners.

    Right?

  215. 215
    SpotWeld says:

    if a General came out, advertised himself and his credentials, called himself “a family man”, stated his worries about “unit cohesion” (hehe) and asked the question, Do you think libs would be in a tizzy?

    Do I think there would be some small group of the left wing making noise about the process? Sure. But I think there would a far larger group openly dicussing the responces to that question given by the canidates with a wide range of opinions. After all, that was the whole point of the program!

  216. 216
    fahs ibair says:

    My problem with isn’t their partiality. They certainly give more airtime to the left than all the other channels give to the right.

    I don’t watch fox because of the perpetual BREAKING NEWS. Car chases, missing white girls, blah blah. Sensational lowest common denominator stuff. Outside of Hannity and O’RLY, Fox does a good job of hosting open debate. (yes I realize those are their two highest rate shows, but there is a market for the stuff since you guys own every other channel.)

  217. 217
    dslak says:

    Another question that ought to be raised here is: What would the debate have had to be like in order for the Cult of Our Lady of Perpetual Outrage not to have screeched about “media bias” afterwards?

    These people take it as a matter of faith that any medium which has not declared itself to be pro-Bush forever and always to be “liberal.” Barring Anderson Cooper tossing fawning softballs to the candidates and calling the Democrats “Osama’s party,” was there any chance this post-debate whinge-fest was not going to happen?

  218. 218
    dslak says:

    They certainly give more airtime to the left than all the other channels give to the right.

    Do you have any possible references that might back up this claim, or is this simply your gut feeling about a TV channel you admit to not watching?

  219. 219
    fahs ibair says:

    To all the people claiming the right is the cult of perpetual outrage, where were your standards when the left took the ball and went home b/c they were afraid of tough questions at the fox debate. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, I think NPR’s Juan Williams was set to be the moderator.

  220. 220
    dslak says:

    Smells like red herring in here.

  221. 221
    John Cole says:

    I’m a bit surprised that Ricky West hasn’t turned up here yet;

    Ricky doesn’t show up here anymore. He does, however, show up on any thread that links me anywhere and make a nasty comment about me (usually something along the lines of “Why read Cole when you can read Sullivan?”). you can find him hanging out with the bottom feeders at the Ace of Spades and occasionally at QandO.

    I wish he would come back here so I could give him a good old-fashioned go fuck yourself, but it just seems poor form to do it in other people’s comment sections.

  222. 222
    Dreggas says:

    fahs ibair Says:

    My problem with isn’t their partiality. They certainly give more airtime to the left than all the other channels give to the right.

    I don’t watch fox because of the perpetual BREAKING NEWS. Car chases, missing white girls, blah blah. Sensational lowest common denominator stuff. Outside of Hannity and O’RLY, Fox does a good job of hosting open debate. (yes I realize those are their two highest rate shows, but there is a market for the stuff since you guys own every other channel.)

    Fox and the words “Open Debate” should not be used in the same sentence. I have yet to see Fox host anything remotely fair or balanced. They are the “Conservative” version of CBN/TBN without the religious crap…barely.

  223. 223
    fahs ibair says:

    It used to be on constantly. That is how I learned to not being able to stand it. I know you all think Colmes is a lapdog, but what about Juan Williams, Mara Liason (sp?) The fathead Dem spin doctor (Bill Burkett?). They would all be suprised to hear they are getting no airtime.

    Do any of you Warriors for Truth get upset when Olbermann goes batshit crazy every night? No? let me guess the difference. Our side “deserves’ it. Back to where we started.

  224. 224
    fahs ibair says:

    I read Ace almost every day and I have never once seen a comment by a “Rick” or “Ricky” West. Google returns 0 hits. Does he go by a different name?

  225. 225
    dslak says:

    Gonna have to break out the Febreze, Glade, and open all the windows . . .

  226. 226
    fahs ibair says:

    Dreggas, any examples?

  227. 227
    rawshark says:

    Do any of you Warriors for Truth get upset when Olbermann goes batshit crazy every night? No? let me guess the difference. Our side “deserves’ it. Back to where we started.

    Strange argument style. Whats that called when you assume the other guys answers and then refute them? its not ad hominem, he’s already done that one.

  228. 228
    John Cole says:

    I read Ace almost every day and I have never once seen a comment by a “Rick” or “Ricky” West. Google returns 0 hits. Does he go by a different name?

    RW.

  229. 229
    Fledermaus says:

    but the General can keep his opinions to himself until he finds an appropriate venue.

    Who the fuck are you to be laying down rules about “appropriate venues” for a citizen to ask questions?

    It’s a freaking debate. Are you just that stupid, or do you just like to pull non-sensical “rules” out of your ass?

  230. 230
    dslak says:

    Whats that called when you assume the other guys answers and then refute them?

    That would be a strawman, as in “an orgy of strawmen.”

  231. 231
    dslak says:

    Are you just that stupid, or do you just like to pull non-sensical “rules” out of your ass?

    Do I have to pick just one?

  232. 232

    CMcC I tried to get in to W’s little Social Security discussion that was held in Galveston in 2006. I went through all of the channels and I couldn’t get in. But some little kid from Katy was included.

    Think about it — a kid who was a flash in the pan and had nothing at stake gets in, but me and many others who have a monetary stake in the system — not wanted.

  233. 233
    fahs ibair says:

    DIE Fledermous, Its a debate, not a venue to lecture us on the benefits of a gay military. They invited the General in house, asked him if is question had been answered to satisfaction, then let him ramble for a good two minutes w/out asking a follow up. Debate, not a lecture. Time and place.

  234. 234
    John S. says:

    but what about Juan Williams, Mara Liason (sp?) The fathead Dem spin doctor (Bill Burkett?)

    Shameless hacks, the lot of ’em.

    Juan Williams was recently caught pimping for Bill O’Reilly on his “black folk are like normal people!” comments, and is a very regular contributor on FOX News.

    Mara Liasson most recently butchered a quote by Bill Clinton deriding people who are swiftboating his wife to make it sound like he was referring to Democrats when he was clearly pointing a finger at Republicans.

    Bill Burkett is not a journalist, so I’m not sure where he fits into your narrative here.

  235. 235
    fahs ibair says:

    Rawshark, I didn’t answer, I guessed. but I don’t want to make and ass out of you and me, so let me ask you. Do Olbermann’s spittle flecked diatribe bother you? Is it good journalism? Sorry for the detour by the way. This shouldn’t be about Keith, but mention FOX to a righty, and we have no choice.

  236. 236
    horatius says:

    Fozzy is beyond redepmtion. Anybody who can’t see Fox for the mud-fest that it is, and anyone who mistakes CNN for a liberal channel (Is there a single liberal channel in the US anymore?), is too stupid or too compromised by the Cheetos.

  237. 237
    fahs ibair says:

    Bill Burkett is not a journalist, so I’m not sure where he fits into your narrative here

    He is a PR flack working for the Democratic party that operates as a pundit, and he get a lot of airtime. I don’t see how he would not fit. The argument goes that fox is a right-wing echo chamber, no?

  238. 238
    horatius says:

    Fuck off Fozzy. Just go infest Redstate or LFG or something.

    You will even call Dan Rather spittle-flecked, and Edward Murrow too if he was alive. Just go fuck yourself.

  239. 239
    John Cole says:

    then let him ramble for a good two minutes w/out asking a follow up

    Exactly! After he said no his question was not answered, they should have cut his mic and sent him back to the beer cellar to drink hefe weisen while singing anti-semitic tunes like good party loyalists do.

    Seriously- there were a number of folks who were asked after their video was shown if they were satisfied. They didn;t cut any of their mics.

    And this guy gave 40 fucking years to this country. Two minutes at a debate is out of line, even if he is an evil Democrat?

  240. 240
    fahs ibair says:

    Not out of line if he was asking a question.

  241. 241
    demimondian says:

    I see we have our new Darrell.

    Well, John, I hope it ups your ad revenue, at least.

  242. 242
    John S. says:

    He is a PR flack working for the Democratic party that operates as a pundit, and he get a lot of airtime.

    He gets a lot of airtime? On which outlets? That’s news to me.

    I don’t see how he would not fit.

    You must be very dense, then. Juan Williams and Mara Liasson are JOURNALISTS (allegedly) that engage in misinformation that benefits conservatives – not liberals. You just indicated that Burkett is a PR flack operating as a pundit, not a journalist. Now do you see the difference (that you yourself made)?

    The argument goes that fox is a right-wing echo chamber, no?

    That’s not an argument, that’s a fact.

    Is there a point you are trying to make here?

  243. 243
    Dreggas says:

    fahs ibair Says:

    Dreggas, any examples?

    O’Reilly
    Hannity
    Greta Van Sustern (or however you spell it)
    Chris Wallace
    Brit Hume
    Roger Ailes who runs the place
    Oliver North
    Geraldo Rivera (that one is still perplexing but then again he has his nose up so many asses it isn’t funny)

    Should I continue? I mean hell they ran a ticker that tied Nancy Pelosi and the Dem majority to rising gas prices!

  244. 244
    dslak says:

    Democrats: Do they love terrorists more than they hate America? Next on Fox!

  245. 245
    fahs ibair says:

    John S. I doubt you would be able to get it, but I will try again. Which outlets?– FOX!
    WTF are were talking about here? Right wing echo chambers don’t let Dem spokesmen go on and talk issues of the day. As far as calling Williams and Liason “journalists”, I believe they hold the title of contributing editors and they operate as pundits.

    John Cole, Would you grant the same airtime and moral authority to a General who had the same credentials but argued the other side?

  246. 246
    tBone says:

    Outside of Hannity and O’RLY, Fox does a good job of hosting open debate. (yes I realize those are their two highest rate shows, but there is a market for the stuff since you guys own every other channel.)

    Man, you were doing so well, but this is just lazy. Did you burn through all of your A material already? Spoofing is a marathon, not a sprint. Learn to pace yourself.

  247. 247
    fahs ibair says:

    Jerry Rivers? The guy who threatened to spit on Malkin? I thought that would make him a hero around these parts.

    Ollie North? Does an hour on the weekends on Military history. Offend your senses?
    Gerrrta verrrn Shusterrrn? She does stories on missing white girls. Never heard anyone call her out on her politics until she took a big contract with fox

    I already conceded Hannity, but his show is “balanced” by his lapdog Colmes.

    Let’s not talk about O’RLY. Don’t want any heads popping.

    Who does that leave? Chris Wallace and Brit Hume? Try again.

  248. 248
    John Cole says:

    John Cole, Would you grant the same airtime and moral authority to a General who had the same credentials but argued the other side?

    For the love of Christ, yes. What part of “it is the question and the candidate’s response that counts, and not who asked it” don’t you understand?

  249. 249
    binzinerator says:

    He ceased to be MY president … the day he had people who held the same opinions as me tossed out of a town hall meeting with The People.

    He ceased to be my president when he violated his oath to protect the constitution.

    He ceased to be my president when he began referring to people who objected to his lies about the war and his abuses of power at home as comforters of the enemy.

    It was the treason language right out of the Constitution.

    And those people he decided who were now enemies of America included me and a number of people close to me, including people who had worn a uniform and had put their lives on the line for this country they supposedly hated so much.

    As darkness said, it was BUSH who decided he was not president of half the population of the country. HE decided half of us were not really Americans.

    And Fozzy? Please keep posting. I mean that sincerely. I enjoy reading them. If not for my sake, then consider it as a service to the readership here. For I see you are performing the same service to most readers here as the those candidates did for most viewers.

    Thank you for providing another good look at who the GOP really is.

  250. 250
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    While we’re on the subject of “moral authority”, James Kirchick (Martin Peretz’s right-hand man, in more ways than one, on the New Republic) pointed out the most interesting thing of all about Kerr’s appearance: most of the GOP audience booed him — not for being a Dem plant (which they didn’t know about at the time), but for a REAL offense, namely being gay.

  251. 251
    fahs ibair says:

    Darkness, biz and Jen walk on the wild side. Their own rules. Stomp all you want. Bush is your president.

  252. 252
    John S. says:

    WTF are were talking about here?

    You tell me. You’re the one rambling.

    Right wing echo chambers don’t let Dem spokesmen go on and talk issues of the day.

    Juan Williams and Mara Liasson aren’t Dem spokespeople, especially when their hackery plays into the right-wing narrative. I don’t think Bill Burkett is regularly featured on FOX, other than to ridicule him. Which is the point of Alan Colmes – to make the “liberal” point of view look ridiculous while putting on an air of balance.

    As far as calling Williams and Liason “journalists”, I believe they hold the title of contributing editors and they operate as pundits.

    I believe the moon is made of green cheese – that doesn’t make it so. Here are the facts:

    Juan Williams

    Before coming to FOX, Williams spent 23 years at The Washington Post, where he served as an editorial writer, op-ed columnist and White House correspondent.

    Williams is currently a senior national correspondent for NPR.

    That is the bio of a journalist – not a pundit.

    Mara Liasson

    Prior to her current assignment, Liasson was NPR’s White House correspondent for all eight years of the Clinton administration. She has won the White House Correspondents Association’s Merriman Smith Award for daily news coverage in 1994, 1995, and again in 1997. From 1989-1992 Liasson was NPR’s congressional correspondent.

    Liasson joined NPR in 1985 as a general assignment reporter and newscaster.

    Prior to joining NPR, Liasson was a freelance radio and television reporter in San Francisco.

    What do you know, another bio for a journalist!

    If you are willing to admit your error, then perhaps I can deem you worthy of further engagement. Otherwise, I’m afraid you’ll have to be relegated to the realm of dishonest partisan blowhards that make shit up to reinforce their opinions.

  253. 253
    fahs ibair says:

    I Did not see that. I saw an audience cheer when Hunter thanked him for his service. The audience did go after Romney when he tried to play it both ways(giggle) though.

  254. 254
    Alan says:

    For the love of Christ, yes. What part of “it is the question and the candidate’s response that counts, and not who asked it” don’t you understand?

    I don’t get the outrage either. Conservatives should welcome such questions so they can get their position known. After all, we’ve heard for nearly two decades that “conservative” social values is what wins elections. You know, protecting the traditions and institutions that make this country great, yadda yadda yadda bullshit.

  255. 255
    John Cole says:

    I Did not see that. I saw an audience cheer when Hunter thanked him for his service. The audience did go after Romney when he tried to play it both ways(giggle) though.

    I know this flies in the face of the way Republicans like to make faith-based opinions about shit, but you could actually try watching the video.

  256. 256
    fahs ibair says:

    Ah how could I forget Eleanor Clift. The whole round table is listed as contributing editors. I guess the moon is made of cheese. Green too.

    Nice to list bio’s that are not from fox. They function as political contributers and panelists. OMG but they have journalism backgrounds!! Yeah like pretty much every other pundit. J-school or a previous career in politics is how you become one. So honest around here.

  257. 257
    fahs ibair says:

    looks like the same footage I saw, but i will d/l it again. I assume it shows something. John, would you grant a 40 year General who was virulently anti-gay the same airtime?

  258. 258
    John Cole says:

    John, would you grant a 40 year General who was virulently anti-gay the same airtime?

    You mean like Peter Pace?

    Sure. Would be great fun watching you all explain away the rabid agreement from Tancredo and the cheering audience.

    BTW- I love the fact that you think that Democrats planted a pro-gay general, and the obvious Republican counterpart for balance is a virulently anti-gay General. Well played.

  259. 259
    Dreggas says:

    fahs ibair Says:

    looks like the same footage I saw, but i will d/l it again. I assume it shows something. John, would you grant a 40 year General who was virulently anti-gay the same airtime?

    No we just make them head of the joint chiefs of staff…

  260. 260
    fahs ibair says:

    Don’t put words in my mouth. I said the question was up for debate. The opposite of pro gay military is anti-gay military. Not Republican anti-gay. I realize Romney capitulated like a little baby, but it is up for debate

  261. 261
    fahs ibair says:

    And did you do exactly what you accused me of? I just re watched the clip and the crowed clearly applauds politely when Cooper introduces him. Cheer might have been an overstatement, but the only boos came on Romneys capitulation.

  262. 262
    fahs ibair says:

    Speaking of capitulation, I love how your link to someone “virulently anti-gay” goes to a post story about Pace apologizing for calling homosexuality immoral.

    I am drowning in the honesty over here.

  263. 263
    jcricket says:

    And this guy gave 40 fucking years to this country. Two minutes at a debate is out of line, even if he is an evil Democrat?

    Look, he caught the gay. The gay is contagious, and so he had to be cut off, for public safety. Being a Democrat is just a minor symptom of the gay. What we’re really afraid of catching from the gay is marriage.

    That would have been my question for the Republicans: “Do you support the quarantining of gays so we can avoid catching gay marriage?” Along with “Are you now, or have you ever been, a homosexual?”

    With the rate RedState is banning people and more generally, the Republican party is ex-communicating everyone who dare cross some narrow path they have imagined is righteousness, it’ll end up like that issue of Incredible Hulk: The End (or that episode of the Twilight Zone with the librarian).

  264. 264
    JWW says:

    John,

    Just by asking the question yourself, you make yourself out to be a liar. At least be honest, with both yourself and your audience.

    I think any question, to any candidate from any party is fair game. They are asking to represent the nation, let the nation ask the questions.

    You however look for justification, ask yourself the questions!

  265. 265
    John Cole says:

    You however look for justification, ask yourself the questions!

    Yoda, or JWW?

  266. 266
    cleek says:

    What part of “it is the question and the candidate’s response that counts, and not who asked it” don’t you understand?

    the whole thing, apparently, since he’s been avoiding that particular point for 6 and a half hours now.

    it’s about time to call a troll a troll and move on.

  267. 267
    John Cole says:

    Speaking of capitulation, I love how your link to someone “virulently anti-gay” goes to a post story about Pace apologizing for calling homosexuality immoral.

    Considering how highly inappropriate it is for someone in his position to be publicly condemning homosexuality as immoral, I think it certainly qualifies as virulently anti-gay. What do you ascribe it to?

  268. 268
    John S. says:

    Nice to list bio’s that are not from fox. They function as political contributers and panelists. OMG but they have journalism backgrounds!! Yeah like pretty much every other pundit. J-school or a previous career in politics is how you become one. So honest around here.

    I guess that clears things up.

    You’re as full of shit as he day is long. Enjoy your stay at Balloon Juice bloviating and getting ridiculed.

    Oh, and for the record, most pundits do NOT have journalism backgrounds i.e. Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews, Bill O’Reilly, Tucker Carlson, etc.

  269. 269
    fahs ibair says:

    I think one could find a better example if our society is so afraid of catching The gay. Did you watch that video you accused me of not watching? I have been trying to discuss these issues in good faith and you threw this bomb out:
    I know this flies in the face of the way Republicans like to make faith-based opinions about shit, but you could actually try watching the video.
    I repeat myself, did you watch it?
    FWIW I think that when it comes to gay issues, your side has won the culture war by framing everything as a civil rights issue. It is a loser for Republicans, and it is only going to drag us down more and more.

  270. 270
    John Cole says:

    I repeat myself, did you watch it?

    For christ sakes. I was responding to your repeated claims you had not watched it. I have watched it.

    WTF DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE QUESTION POSED IN THE POST?

    Once again:

    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.

    Go for it. Please. You are up to about 30 comments and still have not addressed this.

  271. 271
    fahs ibair says:

    Someone might want to take the shovel away from John S.
    O’Rly and Carlson went to J-school. Matthews was a dem speechwriter and flak. Hannity was the only one to take the enlisted route, and he has been on the air in one form or another since his days in college radio. Seriously dude, worst example ever. You can not be making the attack rabbits happy right now.

  272. 272
    jake says:

    I wish he would come back here so I could give him a good old-fashioned go fuck yourself, but it just seems poor form to do it in other people’s comment sections.

    Sources report Mr. West has beefed up security measures for his junk.

  273. 273
    fahs ibair says:

    JWW said it best.

    I think any question, to any candidate from any party is fair game. They are asking to represent the nation, let the nation ask the questions.

    I told you my problem was context, not questions, and framing of the debate. I guess that isn’t what you want to hear.

    Seriously though, you heard people Boo General Kerr?

    Anyways, your it is your site so I will bow out and let you be.

  274. 274
    cleek says:

    Carlson went to J-school

    cite?

  275. 275
    borehole says:

    Just for the record, Fahs, I don’t think it’s cool that everyone’s calling you a troll. You’re obviously sincere* and doing your best** to present a point of view. “Troll” should be reserved for people who muddy the waters with bullshit on purpose, not out of ignorance.

    Sorry I can’t reach out with more kindness, but honestly, man. And hey, y’ever wonder if maybe our side “won” the culture war because the alternative was soul-crushingly, privacy-invadingly moralistic, and nobody likes a busybody?***

    Hey, y’know another word nobody ever uses right? “Virulently.” Also “meteoric.”

    *sincerely dumb

    **which is sad

    ***this is where you bring up how there’re people like that on the left and I respond by saying yeah, I had a couple of chicks like that in my dorm too, but their influence simply isn’t felt in our current discourse, so whatever

  276. 276
    John Cole says:

    I heard a smattering of boos that could be attributed to Romney’s weaseliness or the general. I did distinctly hear people heckling the General towards the end.

  277. 277
    The Other Steve says:

    I still don’t see the problem with this youtube debate. The questions that were asked, are the ones which are central to the Republican parties central tenants.

  278. 278
    jcricket says:

    Sources report Mr. West has beefed up security measures for his junk.

    On the 12th day of Christmas John Cole gave to RedState…

    12 kicks in the junk…
    11 house Republicans resigning…
    10 Gay Republicans outed
    9 Republicans beating their wives
    8 Party switchers
    7 Corrupt party hacks running government agencies
    6 Presidental candidates pandering to the wingers
    5 Gooooooold rings (keeping it traditional)
    4 False explanations for Iraq
    3 wives of Rudy
    2 poorly run wars
    And Cindy Sheehan in a pear tree.

  279. 279
    jcricket says:

    I still don’t see the problem with this youtube debate. The questions that were asked, are the ones which are central to the Republican parties central tenants.

    Seriously, that’s the problem. Republicans hate to be unmasked. They thrive in the shadows (see Cheney).

  280. 280
    bob says:

    Good grief, I left HOURS ago and this doofus STILL hasn’t answered the question. And yet he is still here. Jeez, dude go find a libertarian and ask him for some weed. You might come out alright.

  281. 281
    JWW says:

    John,

    You have made my point with your response. You ask for answers, but if the answer doesn’t match the one already in your mind it is inferior.

    No I am not Yoda, but if a person wants to be a leader, they lead all. You would not know anything about that. You always lead for you, I do know that.

    Quite the twist in your life that you have found the flock you never had,(in the ????) as you know.

    Didn’t mean to argue, any candidate should have to answer any question.

  282. 282
    John Cole says:

    JWW-

    WTF are you talking about?

  283. 283
    Fledermaus says:

    I told you my problem was context, not questions, and framing of the debate.

    All right Fozzie Bear, I still can’t determine if you are a talented spoof (with a day off from work) or the most obtuse person on the planet. But the sentence I quoted is wonderful in the way that it says absolutely nothing. I mean there is no way to respond to this objection.

    con·text (kŏn’tĕkst’) n.

    1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
    2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

    if you’re using definition 1. Then point out which question (a “statement” in the debate) that you object to.

    Meanwhile if you’re relying on #2 you’re an idiot. The setting: A GOP presidential debate. Your objection: people asked questions. OMG, alert the (liberal) media!

  284. 284
    JWW says:

    John,

    You do like to cuss, can I do that without being banned. If so I really could speak more freely. The questions were fair, and should be answered by any candidate. I do find it funny that a pure Democrat and active Democrat supporter would question a policy that was written into law by Pres Clinton. Was the question meant to decieve, was it asked, as though it were the Republicans created the law. Though BG sounds impressive to the majority, 06 with an honorary promotion is not that impressive. Did I hear 47 years time in service? Not even a good 06.

  285. 285
    libarbarian says:

    Fahs,

    It seems to me that you think some of these question were “Cheap Shots” that used extreme examples that violate the norm to make an emotional point. You probably think of many of these question (gay general, KJV Bible idiot, ConfederateFlag dude…) “People like that are are not representative of the norm and CNN and the Dems are using unrepresentative examples to score emotional points and make the Reps look bad”.

    1. Is the Gay General REALLY unrepresentative? I don’t think you could back such a claim up at all. We all know that tens of thousands of gays are right now serving honorably – some in elite units that most people couldn’t make it into. It feels like a cheap shot because you know that the Republican objection to Gays in the military is entirely theoretical and that you can’t and can NEVER prove it correct when you are unwilling to allow the only possible experiment which could prove it to take place The Dems can trot out real-world gay vets who served honorably but you can NEVER show a real-world problem with gays in the military because you won’t allow it to even be tried. You know that your position is weak because you have to assert a fact and then object to the only experiment which could prove you right – and you know that, even though you honestly believe your theory to be correct, this kind of behavior is the hallmark of frauds and conmen and doesn’t look good to the average joe when it is exposed so plainly

    As for the KJV moron and the Stars&Bars douche, I think you are, as I once was, in denial about their influence on the Republican party. Religious Nuts and Neo-Confederate are a (large) minority but their strength is disproportional to their numbers and are effectively a majority in terms of influence and power within the party. Even if the questioners were plants, they faithfully represented the views of the dominant factions in the Rep. party.

    The truth is never a “cheap shot”. When it appears so it just means we need to correct our own vision.

  286. 286
    The Other Steve says:

    I do find it funny that a pure Democrat and active Democrat supporter would question a policy that was written into law by Pres Clinton. Was the question meant to decieve, was it asked, as though it were the Republicans created the law.

    You act as though the policy wasn’t a compromise to move the debate forward. As if you don’t know that Republican Presidents have had the opportunity to allow gays to serve openly, and have done absolutely nothing about it, or that the policy was roundly criticized by Republicans.

    That’s perhaps the most dishonest argument I’ve heard in a long time.

  287. 287
    NonyNony says:

    JWW –

    You say:

    I do find it funny that a pure Democrat and active Democrat supporter would question a policy that was written into law by Pres Clinton.

    Not to defend Clinton, but he did TRY to get a better law into place and was stymied by the Republicans in Congress. DADT was a compromise he had to sign because the Republicans refused to do the right thing in ’93. And DADT was slightly better than the previous policy of “we’ll ask if we feel like it, and when you answer we’ll throw you out without your pension, so screw you.” It’s not MUCH better, but it was slightly better.

  288. 288
    Tom S says:

    Anyone who regularly reads Acey’s blog–and takes it seriously–is going to have a very warped viewpoint.

  289. 289
    TenguPhule says:

    No I am not Yoda, but if a person wants to be a leader, they lead all. You would not know anything about that. You always lead for you, I do know that.

    Translation of JWW in English: I have serious issues with my penis. And I am fucking stoned.

  290. 290
    4jkb4ia says:

    Did not watch debate. Did not read transcript.

    I remember during the Democratic YouTube debate there was a question about gay marriage and the postgame show gave it a lot of attention. Possibly a question about gays in the military was a well-meaning attempt at “balance” on the part of CNN.

    “It isn’t the person who asks it, it’s the question” is a little overstated. If the questioner was well known, like emptywheel, even if the questioner has not selected a candidate people might be influenced by knowing that person.

  291. 291
    4jkb4ia says:

    Also, nothing can top the Bible question for making the Republican base look bad IMHO. The questioner honestly expected to get a yes.

  292. 292
    tBone says:

    JWW said it best.

    OK, you’re definitely a spoof. No one could say that and actually mean it, unless they really, really liked commas, impenetrable grammar and non sequiturs.

  293. 293
    Calliope says:

    JWW — “I do find it funny that a pure Democrat and active Democrat supporter would question a policy that was written into law by Pres Clinton.”

    It’s called thinking for yourself. You should try it sometime.

  294. 294
    4jkb4ia says:

    If I didn’t know better, I would have said the farm subsidy question was a plant to make Republicans look bad, because Fred Thompson may be the only one who can intelligently answer the question. Yes, I know what I just said.

    The questions up until that point were substantive.

  295. 295
    4jkb4ia says:

    If I had to guess, Tennessee benefits more from farm subsidies than Arizona.

  296. 296

    Look fahs,
    I don’t think Kerr had business using the debate as his personal soapbox, but you ask for it when you take certain stances and the Dems get the same thing from opposition questioners.

    Now let me be pretty clear, if you don’t like your Party looking stupid, don’t change the questions change your damn Party. I am unhappy watching the Rs go mindless, I am unhappy to watch the John Coles bailing, you see, they’re the honorably opposition to me and I want them. I don’t want John mucking about in my Party, I want him in yours.

    Your Party is driving responsible people away. I will give you a respectable R sight http://centralsanity.blogspot.com, the lead blogger is R and he’s sticking but he’s working on them. Quit complaining about things that aren’t other people’s fault, the fault is in a group that can’t answer, no matter the context, can not answer.

    You walk into Balloon Juice with a non-rational argument? WTF did you expect would happen? You are nothing but bait for these sharks. They practice on better than you, much less go to work. Nobody treated you unfairly, you walked into a gunfight with a butter knife.

    Air America and Free Speach TV are left media, you have no clue. CNN, NYT, WaPo haven’t had a left thought in their corporate driven minds since your Sainted Ronnie, who is one of the roots of your disconnect. Keith Olberman is MSNBC’s liberal and nobody is kidded about it, no “Fair and Balanced” “We Report, You Decide” crap. If you want to hunt around for him mis-representing or lying about something like Faux does, you knock yourself out.

    George Bush called me a traitor, he threw me out, not the reverse. He lied, he broke his oath, not me. He can thank something that I still have a bit of faith in the Ballot, because I can back up my liberty with force, serious force. Why he has his office I’m not sure, but he has his life because people, some serious people, still have faith in Ballots. I suggest to you that breaking that faith would be a very bad idea, uncomfortable questions are really a much better alternative.

    You will have beter luck if you bring facts and references along with your assertions.

  297. 297
    4jkb4ia says:

    Journey’s question goes back to Ray Hartmann, editor of the Riverfront Times when it was an alternative newspaper. He thought it was the killer question for any pro-lifer.
    Are there any pro-choice non-Jewish conservative bloggers?

  298. 298
    Rick Taylor says:

    This is disturbing. Joe Klein, via Kevin Drum:

    I attended Frank Luntz’s dial group of 30 undecided–or sort of undecided–Republicans in St. Petersburg, Florida, last night…and it was a fairly astonishing evening.

    Now, for the uninitiated: dials are little hand-held machines that enable a focus group member to register instantaneous approval or disapproval as the watch a candidate on TV. There are limitations to the technology: all a candidate has to do is mention, say, Abraham Lincoln and the dials go off into the stratosphere. Film of soaring eagles will have the same effect. But the technology does have its uses.

    In the next segment–the debate between Romney and Mike Huckabee over Huckabee’s college scholarships for the deserving children of illegal immigrants–I noticed something really distressing: When Huckabee said, “After all, these are children of God,” the dials plummeted. And that happened time and again through the evening: Any time any candidate proposed doing anything nice for anyone poor, the dials plummeted (30s). These Republicans were hard.

    But there was worse to come: When John McCain started talking about torture–specifically, about waterboarding–the dials plummeted again. Lower even than for the illegal Children of God. Down to the low 20s, which, given the natural averaging of a focus group, is about as low as you can go. Afterwards, Luntz asked the group why they seemed to be in favor of torture. “I don’t have any problem pouring water on the face of a man who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11,” said John Shevlin, a retired federal law enforcement officer. The group applauded, appallingly.

    I hope this isn’t representative.

  299. 299
    Beej says:

    And has anyone noticed that we’re doing exactly what the Limbaughs and Malkins want us to do? We’re talking about the format and procedures of the debate instead of the candidate’s positions. This is one giant assist to the candidates, because they all, as my old grandaddy would say, stunk up the place. They sounded petty and mean and cranky and not real bright. But the issue is the questions that were asked? Jesus dancing Christ!

  300. 300
    Zuzu says:

    Speaking of Frank Luntz and the Florida debate…and oh yes, partisan plants at Republican debates:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....hp?p=67293

    (Disclaimer: the poster’s obviously a Ron Paul guy.)

  301. 301
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Wow,just wow. The meltdown at RedState is in full mushroom mode. Mushroom mode being the pumping of so much bullshit that they could grow enough mushrooms to feed the world. What a bunch of crybabies! You can tell that the right have become used to managing the ‘message’ that everyone else is to hear, and avoiding exposure to any substantiative debating.

    Do over? Dictating who gets to ask questions? Hey kids, this country is equally ‘owned’ by every single American here. Every single fucking one of us! If I want to ask a candidate of either party a question, I should be allowed to do so. I should not be ‘cleared’ or checked out to see if I have marble counter tops in my kitchen (no).

    The Republican candidates may have been asked questions by someone who does not drink the kool aid? Boo fucking hoo. If the questioners were American, that is good enough for me. What this whining shows me is that the Republicans expect total control of the ‘message’, that they do not believe that the average American (regardless of party) should have the right to question the candidates of either side.

    Sorry guys, I know that with the right in control of the government, and the left playing lapdog to them during that time, you have become spoiled rotten brats used to having everything your way. Well, now that everything King George has touched has turned to shit and everyone has been stuffed with shit pie until they are puking, you guys are getting a dose of reality that you seriously need.

    The world does not revolve around you. Everyone who has opposed this president knows this for a fact already, and they have dealt with it. Now it is your turn to do so.

    Waah! Waah! I want a re-do! We were asked actual questions!

    Oh the horror!

  302. 302
    Ted says:

    John, would you grant a 40 year General who was virulently anti-gay the same airtime?

    “Virulently anti-gay” generals don’t need the airtime. The major network news covers Peter Pace’s comments quite well.

  303. 303
    bago says:

    Have a few of your best friends murdered by a montana coming gun nut and see if you start favoring kinetic energy restrictions based on population density. He only got seven because a cop was only a block away and heard the shots. The smoke and blood coming out of their bodies…

  304. 304

    bago, that is about completely dim, a .32 auto, a weenie round if there ever were one will kill you very dead from 50 feet, quite reliably. It has nothing to do with the energy of a firearm and every thing to do with the intent behind it. I own one revolver that would explode a cop vest with a cast bullet and several rifles that would through and through military body armor and not one of them, oddly enough, has done such a thing.

    People can kill with a whole lot of things, the point being that they want to do so. If you were within 10 feet of me and one of my framing hammers the results would be…horrid.

  305. 305
    John S. says:

    O’Rly and Carlson went to J-school. Matthews was a dem speechwriter and flak. Hannity was the only one to take the enlisted route, and he has been on the air in one form or another since his days in college radio.

    Well, I guess I was wrong with some of those people (see how easy it is to admit error?).

    Apparently, O’Reilly did have a background in journalism, though he was an entertainment writer and movie critic before moving on to being a Geraldo Rivera-style investigative journalist. Unlike people who considered themselves journalists, though, he doesn’t even consider himself a journalist anymore – he prefers the title “commentator”.

    Tucker Carlson on the other hand began his “journalism” career as a member of the editorial staff of Policy Review, a national conservative journal now published by the Hoover Institution. From day one, he has been little more than a conservative mouthpiece (journalists are supposed to have objectivity and no personal bias).

    Chris Matthews was a real journalist for quite a while as Washington, D.C. Bureau Chief for The San Francisco Examiner from 1987 – 2000. But like the previous two, he has given up the mantle of objectivity for bloviating long ago.

    Sean Hannity was NEVER a journalist, pure and simple. Neither was Joe Scarborough.

    Anyway, the point that has been totally obscured at this point with your endless whining and teeth-gnashing is that Juan Williams, Mara Liasson and Eleanor Clift are all STILL journalists. They do not purport to be pundits (even if you think they act as thus) and are still referred to as correspondents, which means professionally they are considered journalists.

    The people I mentioned, while some do have backgrounds in journalism, ceased to function as thus a long time ago and make no effort to hide that fact. They refer to themselves as commentators or talk show hosts. Of course, I still don’t expect you to see the distinction, but there it is.

    Back to you, dipshit.

  306. 306

    […] Still Waiting… […]

  307. 307
    Catsy says:

    Look, after 300+ comments, the bottom line here is this:

    Republicans are pissing and moaning because CNN did by accident what Fox Noise does every single day by design. That’s right, the crowd that treats the clear and unrelenting bias of Fox as their primary source of cable news is whining because some Democrats got to ask questions at a Republican debate.

    Here’s a suggestion: squeeze your legs together. Apply pressure to stop the bleeding.

  308. 308
    rachel says:

    Sean Hannity was NEVER a journalist, pure and simple.

    Impure and devious, maybe…

  309. 309
    bago says:

    Like I’m concerned about the exact caliber of the round that destroyed my friends chest, and rendered him unable to continue living. The point is that some dumbass shot him, and was allowed to do so. All of the steps that led up to half of his lungs being splayed out acrossed the porch were legal. That makes me stop and think. I suggest trying it sometime.

  310. 310

    see if you start favoring kinetic energy restrictions

    This is you deep thinker. Kinetic energy = mass x velocity
    Caliber is one of the basis of mass, lead weighs just so much per cubic inch so either length or diameter is required to increase mass, at a certain point length is not reasonable. A .32 ACP is a low speed, low weight round, about as much so as it gets in handguns.

    Your anger is what it is, that’s sad. But it doesn’t qualify you as knowing shit. Dead is dead, by hammer or my great whacking .45 Colt Vaquero.

    I once hit a buck mulie with my truck, breaking his legs, the only mercy weapon I had was a framing hammer. A single blow with its head to his head instantly killed him.

  311. 311

    WTF does any of this have to do with this thread?

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Still Waiting… […]

Comments are closed.