CNN's Performance Was Unacceptable. There Should Be A Do Over of This Debate.

By The Directors Posted in Comments (237) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Our own Dan Spencer made USA Today today in an article by Jill Thompson.

Only if you check our front page, we don't have a contributor named Dan Spencer; well, we do, but he does not write under his name. You actually have to dig around on the web to find out Dan's real name. Good for USA Today for being competent.

Contrast that with CNN last night. Not only did they allow Keith Kerr's question, they invited him to the debate. Had they bothered to research, they would have discovered his connection to Hillary Clinton's campaign. He's a member of the LGBT Americans for Hillary Steering Committee and co-chair on Hillary's National Military Veterans group. He also was an active John Kerry supporter in 2004. And last night Anderson Cooper willingly gave Mr. Kerr the Democratic activist a soapbox. Anderson has yet to apologize for either his willing participation or incompetent handling of the situation and failure to research.

Consider the other Democratic plants. Mary LeeAnn Anderson is a known Edwards supporter and union activist. She asked the protectionist question disguised as a lead paint question. Consider "Journey" the abortion questioner who, if CNN had paid attention to her YouTube profile, is a huge John Edwards supporter. And consider David Cerone, who asked the Log Cabin Republicans question -- his YouTube profile lists him as an Obama supporter.

CNN's pre-debate spin was that

This would be a Republican debate, and the goal was to let Republican voters see their candidates.

This debate was not about Republicans asking the Republican candidates questions. This was about CNN abusing its position to push a Democratic agenda.

This has all the markings of a set up and heads should roll at CNN.

In the meantime:

1) Republican candidates for President should boycott CNN.

2) Republican viewers should boycott CNN until they fire Sam Feist, their political director; and David Bohrman, Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate.

3) One or more of the Republican candidates should demand a do over wherein we can have a substantive debate about substantive issues that exclude CNN's agenda, which is clearly out of touch with the Republican party, and the drivel we saw from YouTube.

Though it is rare we take this additional step from a Directors post, we the undersigned contributors want to make sure our names are attached hereto:

Erick Erickson
Thomas Crown
Ben Domenech
Jeff Emanuel
Dan Spencer, aka California Yankee
Mark I.
Kevin Holtsberry
Pejman Yousefzadeh
Moe Lane
Dave Poff, aka haystack
Martin A. Knight
Robert A. Hahn
Leon H. Wolf
Mark Kilmer
Victoria Coates, aka AcademicElephant
Charles Bird
Neil Stevens

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | LA-SEN: Kennedy (R) in, seat leans RComments (20) »
CNN's Performance Was Unacceptable. There Should Be A Do Over of This Debate. 237 Comments (0 topical, 237 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Amen. by edm

That says it all, Erick.

via this link

If you have none, I'll give you some of mine, I have plenty to go around.

Not much to add, but whether any of your 1,2 or 3 actually happen, CNN can not be allowed to just saw "whoops" and let's all move along.

This is about electing a friggin President, this is important stuff. And what CNN did was an absolute outrage.

While they may not believe in property rights, we do. They own the channel they can run things their way.

My take is just don't watch them. Except for the debates I allready don't.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

if they aren't in a format to allow for substantive discussion. So what if CNN didn't screen the questioners or whatever? Democratic activists - who by the way are American voters like it or not - posed questions designed to draw out weaknesses in the positions of Republicans. You don't mean it!! What is the world coming to? The candidates - or most of them - don't give us any substance anyway. They just get up there and spout off meaningless platitudes like "let us win" (gag), "strict construction (Rudy, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about), and "line item veto" (we've been having that debate for about 2000 years). Unfortunately, when the most important issue on people's minds are the latest in the Spears-Federline custody case and a bunch of has been entertainers doing the cha-cha for a stupid trophy, I guess we get exactly what we deserve: stupid politics for a stupid electorate.

Well here's two questions: Why should Republicans be required to judge their candidates based on what Democrat activists think is important? Shouldn't we be the ones asking questions about issues WE think are important.

Second: Has CNN or any other outlet determined that the Democrats should have a debate where folks that work for Republican campaigns are the folks asking the questions?

The nomination process is not the time when the other side gets to decide who should and shouldn't be in the race. This is when Republicans get to decide who they believe should represent them in the general, who should be making the appeal to voters.

In many states - I know it's true in NY - primaries are CLOSED. So I don't care if the Democrat shills are "American voters." There's a good chance they won't get to vote in the REPUBLICAN primary. If this were a general election debate, that would be different (it still wouldn't excuse the horrendous bias of CNN) - but we're not at that point yet. Democrats wouldn't appreciate having a bunch of Republicans running the show at one of their candidate forums, why should we accept Democrats trying to rig the system for our chance on stage.

But I notice you apparently don't have any real disagreement with the fact that debates produce no substance. All of this high-and-mighty talk about the purity of the primary process is hog wash. If you learned anything about the candidates or their positions last night, I would surely like to know what it is. And that, my friend, is not CNN's fault, biased though it may be. For example, when a candidate takes a straight-forward question about eliminating three agencies and turns it a self-serving, pandering statement about reforming Social Security, an intelligent person would know that they're getting bs. When a candidate is asked point blank about a previous statement given on gays in the military and he refuses to answer the question because of the temporal political consequences, you're watching pure theater. I'm a conservative and I want to see conservative principles prevail. But I'm not interested in a Access Hollywood debate where the only statements are appeals to the lowest and, by the way, least intellectually sound arguments. Most of these men have extraordinary experience and the minds to go with it. Why must the American electorate endure this mindless crap? Has that what the most envied democracy in the world has come to? Furthermore, there are voters in this country who are neither Republican nor Democrat. Those people have a right to watch and learn (if possible) the positions of the candidates in these debates. Debates are not an opportunities for either Republicans or Democrats to sit around and pat each other on the back for the most nauseatingly cliched political sound bite of the night.

The point is it's difficult to be outraged by the sham of CNN's journalistic objectivity when the entire debate system is completely meaningless.

    I notice you apparently don't have any real disagreement with the fact that debates produce no substance.

I am sorry to learn that you are unable to find anything of substance in these debates. Perhaps you do not need to watch them.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

Furthermore, there are voters in this country who are neither Republican nor Democrat. Those people have a right to watch and learn (if possible) the positions of the candidates in these debates.

Anyone who isn't sure whether to vote for a Republican or for a Democrat is an imbecile who should have his right privilege to vote permanently revoked.

The differences between the two parties are night and day, good and evil, Mother Theresa and Hitler, pain and pleasure. I'm not even saying which side is darkness and which side is light. But the differences are that stark.

I agree with Neal Boortz that maybe 5% of American citizens should be allowed to vote.

Just for the heck of it, let's agree that any question related to public policy is OK. Maybe having to answer something dreamed up by James Carville on CNN, where nobody is watching, is good practice for what might happen when people ARE watching. So it doesn't matter WHO was asking the questions, even the "gotcha" ones, but it does matter how well they were answered.

Let's also agree that the biggest problem was that of non-disclosure by CNN.

This event suggests that a new format for a future debate would be to have Republican sympathizers, Charles Krauthammer, for instance, question the Democrat candidates, but make it up-front and honest. That would be a lot more fun than any of these have been so far. OK, OK, so let the reverse be true, too, even though the Democrats already HAD their chance to question the Republicans.

I'd even suggest giving all the candidates the option to say, "That's a dumb question. Go pound sand" as often as they wish. Could work for him/her, or could go badly.

Well, I think it was brilliant, anyway.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

And that young lying twit from YouTube should be unemployed as well.

Remember the Fox debate that Mitt Romney bailed out on in Iowa?

How about restarting that effort?

Can we have one thread - one, stinking, thread - where you actually pass on the opportunity to take a cheap shot at Romney?

Just to break up the monotony, you know.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

I still found the answers from the candidates interesting on some of the issues, and it definitely moved me away from Rudy and towards Mitt, which surprised me.

I know Huckabee was funny, but I'm worried that there isn't enough substance and strength in him to fight big government fiscal liberalism, which he still embraces.

McCain would be a good VP, but I think arguing with Ron Paul last night just made both of them look like tired old men, even though Ron Paul is far crazier.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

It's absolutely appalling that CNN rigged the debate last night. There would be coast to coast outrage if Fox News had pulled a similar stunt for a Democratic debate.

The Dems have the nerve to boycott Fox News for alleged "bias?" I guess if I were a Democrat it would make since for me to only debate on channels that rigged it in my favor.

Republicans should be furious about this, and never appear on CNN ever again.

Feed your brain at The Hot Joints

all tv. I did 6 years ago. Since Fred and Jeri are scheduled for Larry King (who I have never watched before in my life), I'll just catch them on YouTube.
Redneck Hippie

However, any shred of credibility that CNN had left is long gone now.

The left lowers the bar yet again, and Republican leadership remains silent. Is the RNC even in business still?

I love Red State.

I agree. Did anyone else get the impression that there were Dems in the focus group following the debate? One lady said that she'd vote for Edwards when asked who her favorite candidate is.

It was a locust of Dems in the whole production.

Y'know, I didn't think I'd see a contest any time soon where the playing field was worse than the Monday Night football game between Pittsburgh and Miami.

Guess I was wrong.

Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

…when most Republican candidates refused to participate in a September You Tube/CNN debate? They were roundly criticized including by many in their own party. The Washington Post's Jose Antonio Vargas on July 26 wrote:
Patrick Ruffini, former eCampaign director at the Republican National Committee who served as online adviser to Giuliani for a few months earlier this year, said it would "very problematic" if the Republican candidates declined. "What's worse -- questions from the public, many of whom are supporters, or questions from the media, who many Republicans believed are biased? This is YouTube. That's not something they'd want to snub," Ruffini said.

Have people wised up now? CNN is a dishonest player. They are entirely incapable of running a fair debate. The whole reason that they have these "average citizen" questions is not because people like the format - it is because no one trusts CNN news to ask unbiased questions. They merely use these bogus "average Joe on the street" people as beards.

to stop watching them until you guys tell me it's okay...thanks...(hope this didn't double post!)

janet ney

Ok so it was a debate of Rebublicans so Republicans could see their guys in action.

I figure having leftists pose a few "hard" questions is a good thing.

I want to know how these guys handle questions from these people NOW. I would rather not pick a guy that handles a friendly room well only to see him fall apart later when he gets hit with a question about an issue that many americans ride the fence on.

Much ado about nothing, in my opinion

"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."

-George W. Bush

The fact that it worked out for us does not excuse CNN's antics. I don't care if they were deliberately doing it, or just too incompetent to use Google; I do care that either way they can't be trusted to do the job that they claim to do.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Not only did it work out for us, but it works out for CNN to.

All this attention on their "antics" helps the network to gain more viewers, at least in the next debate, or whatever performance they can drum up.

Lets face it, the left views FOX with the same contempt as the right views CNN, perhaps both being somewhat justified in their opinions.

Either network could put on a 10-second silent spot of the American Flag blowing the in the wind and somebody from "the other side" would gripe about it and make it out to be what it isn't.

In addition to a do-over with questions of actual interest to Republicans (instead of questions of interest to stereotype-baiting lefty moonbats), CNN should have another Democratic debate with questions exclusively from Republicans.

> Should heterosexuals be allowed in the military? Why?
> Can you give me three examples of government intereference that you find unacceptable? How about one?
> How is your platform different from socialism? How is it similar?
> Please tell me why you're better qualified to spend my money, raise my kids, and take care of my health than I am.

"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?
-- imwithfred --

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

#4 should be the question asked to every person running for political office.

The correct response being...I'm not. Any other answer should disqualify them from the ballot.

the problem is that CNN, allegedly acting as an "unbiased moderator" on behalf of the American public allowed Democrat shills to pose as undecided Republicans. Even if CNN had simply admitted they were stacking the deck with the same shills beforehand there would not be as much outrage.

Can we sue for a truth in advertising violation? Class action suite maybe?

Hanging's too good for 'em! Burning's too good for 'em! They should be torn into littly bitty pieces and buried alive! Heavy Metal

I disagree with this approach.

I don't like CNN, I do like Anderson Cooper, I do think that the soapbox given to the gay General was inappropriate.... Overall this was a good night for Republicans. Our group simply looks more Presidential than theirs. It is a mistake to make an issue out of this. We should let a lying dog sleep and move on.

"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."

-George W. Bush

the account of the "debate" reported in my local paper was the AP version. There was not a single mention of any of the CNN obfuscations, even though one of them was made public almost immediately after the program.

The reportorial transgressions were serious enough to merit some public exposure. It might achieve page 8 status tomorrow.

Naw, I don't normally use such language, but the words transform themselves on the way down from the High Dudgeon.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

CNN hasn't been a credible news source for me in some time--it's just fluffy blow-in-your-ear media, as far as I'm concerned.

I do agree with Old School above about the lack of substance in political debates. The canned, pre-memorized positions don't sway me at all--there's no information there.

I felt much more comfortable with the people I'm supporting
McCain, Thompson and even Voldemort.

I also was pleasantly surprised by Duncan Hunter (wow, has he gotten the short end of the stick)

So I can't call the debate a total waste of time. In fact, if they're as contentious as these are from this point on, I'd love to watch more of them in whatever format that helps draw the candidates out to talk about positions and distinguish themselves from each other.

"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

Sorry Everyone, Now i understand the topic better (RTFA? me? ha!), I agree, if CNN was going to frame the debate as questions by Republicans for Republicans, then they should have done a better job (make any sort of effort instead of none?) of checking the people to see if they were obviously non Republicans. That's really bad form on CNNs part and they really mucked it up by not doing basic fact checking.

Fun debate or not, they still have a responsibility to deliver on what they promote.

"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

Contrary to what the imbeciles at CNN want to believe, I have zero interest in hearing what candidates think about legal action against women who have abortions, the caliber of the guns each candidate owns, gays and/or bisexuals and/or transgenders in the military, or bible reading habits.

I would like to hear their thoughts on:
* Free market solutions to government-caused problems such as a collapsing social security system and healthcare.
* What should be done to fight the DC porkfest.
* How we can better defend our borders, including realistic solutions to illegal immigration.
* How to revamp our educational system to do a better job of teaching government independence, personal responsibility, math & science, and critical thinking.

"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Republicans tuned in to the dabate to hear how Republican candidates stand on issues that are important to Republicans. CNN, thru malice or thru incompetence, robbed the viewers of their opportunity to judge their candidates on the issues that are important to them. I do not care how they feel about Democratic talking points. I wanted to hear how they stand on Republican issues.

CNN needs to do another debate, at their expense, that lets verified conservatives ask the questions that true conservatives want the answers to.

For the record: I am a Fred Thompson supporter. Check him out at

Edward E. Richardson
aka: SSGRichDAV
DFT FredHead

Thank you for this post. Throughout the debate I couldn't help but think about how these men chose to show up on a liberal network in spite of the fact that Democrats didn't have the guts to debate on Fox.

Good points, good post.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

Really, this is the Clinton New Network. I say shame on the candidates for trying to suck up to Liberal Media by having CNN host the debate. Of course, I have yet to see anything resembling an actual debate. Its more like a group press conference.

the GOP should do the same with CNN.

"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)

They have lost credibility and viewers as a result of their obvious bias. If they are to gain any credibility they should take some kind of action to try to save face.

Frankly, I think it's rather comical...with the new media exposing them for who they are they simply look foolish.

No one, especially the MSM, gives a flying crap about what CNN did last night. Should they? Absolutely! Will they? Not a chance! Worse yet, the RNC should be crucified for allowing this to happen; they have no business engaging CNN for debate forums, considering there despicable record. More importantly, the time has come for there to be a Cable Media Ombudsman, or a Broadcast Board of Ethics, that formally deals with nonsense like this. CNN should be publicly admonished for allowing this to occur; there's no excuse. It's time for the RNC to limit debates to the top tier candidates, and turn the questions over to qualified, credible, journalist/reporters (if any are left). The public wants serious policy question; they don't need songs, flags and stupid ass generals who have nothing to do but search for a soap box for his pet peeve. And just once, I want one of our candidates to tell the moderator, when one of these dumb ass questions are permitted, to shove it and walk off the stage. And last night would have been the perfect forum for it.

Once again they show themselves for who they are.

“I believe that conservatives beat liberals only when we challenge their outdated positions, not embrace them. This is not a time for philosophical flexibility, it is a time to stand up for what we believe in,” - Fred Thompson

I agree that the gay general thing was way beyond the line, and CNN owes an apology and detailed explanation at a minimum.

But honestly, what did we expect from a CNN/Youtube debate? Those of us who were against the format warned about this very type of scenario when the republican candidates were skeptical about signing on to this circus, and we were quickly dismissed as reinforcing negative GOP stereotypes as staid old sticks-in-the-mud who were unwilling and slow to adopt new age technologies. Never mind that the point of argument was about the Republican candidates giving CNN the OK to put a harness on Youtube and take it for a ride, hijacking new media tools to accomplish its evil old media designs.

I agree what CNN did was deplorable and I am glad to see the network called out for its behavior. I also don't think what happened should be treated as a surprise, because it wasn't. Reactions of shocked disbelief come off as contrived.

Rush was saying that hey started the show with some guy on guitar singing a song about the canadates. The camera panned to them and they smiled. he said that if it was him, he would have said tha this is a serious debate for a very serious position in our goverment and after that...he would have walked off the stage. Rush is right!

I never watched CNN anyway, so no problem boycotting =)

What bothers me to no end is why the Democrats actually give into the Youtube debate and any other insane debate?

Think about it. Think about when Clinton went to MTV and talked to all the Kids on the set. These honestly really annoying debates aren’t for the Baby Boomers or in many cases the Gen Xer’s. It is for the younger viewers, the tree hugging bark eating neo-scrub-unists, the America hating pee-on’s and the less then perfect couch potatoes of America.

This isn’t about a debate anymore. It is who is more popular. I don’t want a National Prom King or Queen! I want someone who I think will do well in running the Country with common sense and enough gumption to stand up to other countries and their dictators and tell them to shove it. Is that asking for a lot?

With credit to former Arizona Cardinal Football Coach Denny Green:


It's not called the Clinton News Network for nuttin'....


Remember all the talk about Democrats boycotting Fox? Oh, the humanity! After all it's a KnownFact they are completely biased and BIG right wingers. It was all a bunch of propoganda and no proof.

Where are all these folks now when direct evidence of the VLWC (insert snicker) is presented? Lunching on pate', drinking mineral water and chortling about how they really burned the Neocons.

Give them another chance? Why not best of three? Sheesh, I mean break out the "kick me" sign. Frankly, they don't deserve another chance to try and polish their dishonest nonsense. Who watches that channel anyway? People falling asleep in airport lounges and cheesy bars? Oh, and fire them? I say we shoot for an LBO and make them a subsidiary of the comedy channel. At least then, their talent would be more appropriately put to use.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

Not a fan of Wilfred Owen then?


Because if you are I have a few friends here that may be able to help you out.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

No, wait, I'm starting to remember. I threatened to, told you to cut out the trolling, and you disappeared.

Right. Old memories.

Ok, here we go: There's now a flag on your account. I'm going to get an email every time you comment here. Your next trolling effort will be your last on this board.

Good luck.

We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

There is no way the site can thank you enough

But thanks just the same.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

It would send a powerful message if the Republican candidates could agree to boycott interviews and other appearances on CNN until the Iowa caucuses, and simply boycott any CNN-conducted debates until the general election. CNN lied to them. CNN lied to America about Saddam Hussein's tyranny in Iraq, which its news director admitted after the US drove into Baghdad and it became inevitable that CNN's duplicity would be exposed anyway. The candidates should make it clear to America that anything they hear on CNN is politically biased, and they will ensure that Republicans will not be giving ratings to CNN. There is no point in cultivating friendship with CNN, since CNN will just abuse access. Like the scorpion who stings the fox carrying it across the river and drowns itself, it is simply in CNN's nature to be duplicitous because it has ingrained the nasty self-righteous blockhead spirit of Ted Turner.

That does not mean that Republicans and surrogates can't show up to balance Democratic perspectives, just that CNN can't do promotions about "an exclusive interview with ...". It will demote CNN to the lower tier of political discourse.

Raymond Takashi Swenson
Lt. Colonel, USAF (Ret.)
Attorney at Law

on the suspicion that they would be biased, but we got actual bias. That is reason enough for a continual boycott.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"

> consider David Cerone, who asked the Log Cabin Republicans question

Is it your contention that a Log Cabin Republican is not a Republican?

Lots of Republicans are deserting their party this year, primarily due to the unpopular Iraq war. Facing the party means facing these people too.

A quick check of any of the sites detailing the plants (Michelle Malkin has a great list), would show that David Cerone is an Obama supporter and most likely not an (R), log cabin or otherwise...

"Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." - A. Lincoln

Sorry, the inference that an Obama supporter is "most likely not an (R)" may be accurate but "most likely" is not sufficient for an accusation of being a "plant." Simply googling "Republicans for Obama" will attest to that.

That assertion I agree with -- although I would extend it to include that any affiliation with any candidate of any party should be disclosed.

Is it your contention that a Log Cabin Republican is not a Republican?

What a dumb and frankly transparent attempt to gay bait.

When the so-called Log Cabin "Republican" is endorsing and quasi-campaigning for Barack Obama, who happens, in case it somehow escaped your attention, to be a Democrat ... then he is not a Republican.

> What a dumb and frankly transparent attempt to gay bait.

Sorry, you are not using the term correctly. To "gay bait" is to attempt to out somebody or to accuse somebody of being gay for the purpose of treating them as such ( Neither of these are occurring here.

> When the so-called Log Cabin "Republican" is endorsing and quasi-campaigning for Barack Obama, who happens, in case it somehow escaped your attention, to be a Democrat ... then he is not a Republican.

So, in other words, you are saying that no Republican can ever campaign for (or vote for?) a non-Republican?

Interesting rule.

Sorry, you are not using the term correctly.

Sorry, I could not possibly care less.

No one said anything about him being a Log Cabin Republican (if indeed he is one) or any type of Republican for that matter - we're focused on the fact that he's an Obama supporter, which seems to support the conclusion that he's no Republican at all, your very transparent attempt to elicit some sort of response you can point to and shriek homophobia at notwithstanding.

So, in other words, you are saying that no Republican can ever campaign for (or vote for?) a non-Republican?

So, are you saying that your head is buried that far up your rear end?

Bottomline; CNN was able to find Democrats who support Democrats to ask the questions for the Democrats' debate. Now with Republicans, they apparently could only find Democrats and (according to you) staunch Republicans who just happen to support Democrats to ask the questions.

Try harder.

> So, are you saying that your head is buried that far up your rear end?

Ah, yes, the ad hominem -- the refuge of the inarticulate. I figured that would show up sometime.

> (according to you) staunch Republicans

Who said anything about "staunch"? Don't put words in my mouth. Most people are not as polarized as you appear to be, and consider the merits of individual candidates. informing you that your head was up your a*s. In this case, it's merely a public service announcement.

Sparky, you failed to provoke a homophobic backlash. Quit while you're behind, or I will quit you for you. Grok?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Heh heh ...

Ah, yes, the ad hominem -- the refuge of the inarticulate. I figured that would show up sometime.

Er ... I don't think you're as conversant with the meaning of ad hominem as you think you are. It doesn't just actually mean insult.

Either way, point still stands. CNN found Democrats who support Democrats to ask questions at the Democratic debate and strangely enough could only find Democrats who support Democrats and Republicans who support Democrats to ask questions at the Republican debate.

If you think after that that our complaint is focussed around the sexuality of the questioner then your head is really very far up your rear end.

PS: Put a halt to this "so are you saying ...?" idiocy you seem to have made a staple of your debating style. It wears thin very quickly and its not even that good a method of constructing straw man arguments.

You are putting words in my mouth again, and also assuming as fact the point I'm questioning -- whether or not the original questioner was a Democrat.

But given the threat of banning, go ahead, have your fun. I know who not to listen to now.

First they go over there and write posts about how we're all a cult, and then they come over here and get annoyed when we don't get our lines right.

I know what you can do, ThatTallGuy. Why don't you go back to dKos and write a post about how irrelevant we are? I understand that the practice is great for making your compatriots feel better about never getting anything done.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

You are putting words in my mouth again, and also assuming as fact the point I'm questioning -- whether or not the original questioner was a Democrat.

I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, if CNN could find Democrats who support Democrats to ask Democrats questions reflecting Democratic priorities at the Democratic debate, then they should have found Republicans who support Republicans to ask Republicans questions reflecting Republican priorities at the Republicans' own debate.


Instead we got "Republicans" who support Democrats and Democrats who support Democrats. Maybe next time Zell Miller should be invited to ask a question at a Democratic debate ... I'm pretty certain your head would make a quick exit from your posterior and all the obtuseness would clear away.

PS: Figured out what ad hominem means?

No time to try to win us over with humor.

Do you think for one minute that this type of bait and switch would fly in a Democrat debate? Do you actually think for one minute that CNN would let not one, but several questioners affiliated with the GOP ask questions and be a part of the focus groups in a Dem debate?

It was a low-road ambush, plain and simple, and CNN got busted. The more you guys try to explain it away or justify it, the more foolish you look.

OK, so this is the transcript of what Kerr said:

Kerr: American men and women in the military are professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.

For 42 years, I wore the army uniform on active duty, in the Reserve, and also for the state of California. I revealed I was a gay man after I retired.

Today, "don't ask/don't tell" is destructive to our military policy.

Every day, the Department of Defense discharges two people, not for misconduct, not for the unit cohesion...

Cooper: Wait, the mike is -- you've lost me. Is the microphone not working? Please, just finish your -- what is your question?

Kerr: Not for the unit cohesion that Congressman Hunter is talking about, but simply because they happen to be gay.

So... are Republicans not interested in this because Kerr likes Hillary, and if so have they heard of the concept of an ad hominem fallacy? Or are they not interested in it because they don't think that troop firings on account of sexual orientation are worth talking about? Or because there are no gay Republicans? Or what? I mean, even assuming that if you've signed the Republican loyalty oath that means you support the Clinton policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to the hilt, surely it's not unreasonable to suggest that there might be Republicans who might be concerned and be interested in hearing what their candidates have to say about it, is it?

I mean, what was actually so bad about the question? I know gay Republicans, I know people in the military, I know gay soldiers, and I know one guy whose colorful tales about life in the military aren't always full of purely heterosexual debauchery, to the extent that he's said "most of those guys are gay". We're at war with people who speak Arabic and Persian, and there are recorded instances of Arabic and Persian translators being fired from the military because they violated DADT. We're also in a situation where it's suggested straight people are "violating" DADT in order to get out, exacerbating the retention problem the US military is facing as Iraq draws out into the indefinite future. Whether or not you agree with the policy, the situation is such that I can see it being a perfectly valid question to ask any presidential candidate.

Why isn't it a valid question for Republicans? Why should Republicans be so angry that it was asked? Seriously, I'm not following this train of thought.

I think there should have been more Republican centred questions, though. For example, someone should have asked serial adulterer Rudi Giuliani just what all that money was spent on. The front runner in the race seems to be a GOP version of Bill Clinton without the policy chops - mired in scandal and incapable of keeping his penis in his pants. Is that a question that Republicans would have asked, had CNN not been so biased?

Let's take someone who is on the steering committee of one of the GOP candidates' campaign committees - pick any one of the top 5 - and try to get them planted to ask a question about, let's see, homosexual marriage, at the next Democrat debate.

Oh, and let's make sure the sponsor of the debate conspicuously fails to mention said questioner's connection to the GOP.

Oh, and let's make sure the questioner is then given the opportunity to bloviate on the subject from the floor of the debate.

Yeah - that's going to happen.

In other words, this has less to do with the question than you probably think.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

Well put doc!
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

It isn't.

It isn't about the questioners, either.

It's about how the people who gave those questioners a mike did the exact opposite of what they said they'd do.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Seriously, I'm not following this train of thought.

It occurs to me that this is not a new (or rare) experience for you.

Let's recap; CNN gets Democrats to ask Democrats questions at their debate, and then goes out and gets Democrats to ask Republicans questions at our debate in direct contradiction of what they said they'd do.

Only a stupid trolling idiot would think we're complaining about the specific content of the questions. You do? Oh well ...

Well, what else could you be complaining about other than the content of the questions? If Bill Clinton himself had got up and asked "hey, I think Bush is the greatest president ever and I'd like to know which of the candidates would do the most to continue his policies", that would probably have been a "Republican" question, wouldn't it?

I want to know why the questions asked last night weren't republican, and that involves addressing the content, not who asked them.

This is what I'm missing - why the content of the questions is irrelevant, and whether what made all these questions "not Republican" is simply that they weren't all asked by people who had signed on the dotted line as Republicans?

See Moe Lane's short comment about #85 above. It starts out something like "It's not about the questions...." It really can't be explained better.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

I haven't really jumped into the discussions hitherto, but the principal objection I'm hearing here is that this debate was promised to be questions by Republicans to Republican primary candidates. This promise was broken.

While it still produced exchanges among the candidates that were revealing, the debate was shifted from what was promised. That is, the questions represented what Democrats thought should be questions asked to Republican candidates rather than questions representing what Republicans want to ask their candidates. This leads either to tangential topics being discussed and/or questions on key topics being misframed (to use that popular term).

Let me try to give an analogy (recognizing that I may fall into the same hazard).

If Democratic primary candidates were in a debate, a plausible question from a Democrat would be "what steps would you take as President to remove our troops from Iraq and how quickly would you do this?" That would be very different than a possible "Republican" question on Iraq (not one that I'd ask) along the lines of "how does undermining our efforts in Iraq by setting a timetable on troop withdrawal not represent a stab in the back to the Iraqi people and a surrender to terror"? See the difference?

Or for that matter, I don't think Democratic voters really find the following "Republican" question helpful to their decision process between candidates: "How can you justify stealing more of my income to fund more governmental programs that just make problems worse?"

Hopefully this gives you more of indication what the fuss has been about, at least as I see it.

And Rightly So!

It just seems to me that we're beyond "fuss" here. There's a call for resignations over this, right there at the top of the page. That indicates to me that this is seen to be worse than your usual run of the mill nonsense, worse than can be explained the way pretty much anything regarding politics on TV can be explained - the American News Media, MSM if you're so inclined, are pretty much all lazy and incompetent.

Despite this, we've had over a year now of debates and exposes and fluff pieces and candidates running and not running and considering running. So on that issue, I can honestly say that I don't think one debate going this way or that way matters as far as available information goes. In my opinion the balance of information in the media is still tilted towards favourite books and who takes two bottles into the shower rather than substantive policy issues, but to expect anything else would be to expect, I dunno, integrity or competence from American journalists and publishers.

Here's what's really kinda getting me, though. Yes, this is the GOP candidate, but it's the GOP candidate for PotUS, not for Super GOP Man. As much as electability is a terrible thing to pick a candidate on (and led the Democrats to go for John "unelectable" Kerry last time around, although that can be put down to post Clinton triangulation obsession as much as anything else), I don't see how the questions from the middle that came in were so very unRepublican. There are a couple of comments on here saying "I don't care about the Log Cabin Republicans" but, well, they do, and they consider themselves Republicans, so in a Republican debate it seems that at least should have been on the cards - yet people here are objecting to it because it's not what "most" Republicans care about.

So, I think my fundamental question is, without the kinds of conservatives who ask questions about these kinds of things on the GOP, how is there any hope of a GOP victory in the general?

without the kinds of conservatives who ask questions about these kinds of things on the GOP ...

Conservatives? Are you still unaware that the guy who asked the Log Cabin Republican question is an Obama supporter? CNN apparently went out of its way to find Democrat supporters to ask questions of Republicans when they sought Democrats to ask Democrats questions during their own debate.

And as such, the issues that were addressed were not the issues that would have most helped Republicans in selecting our nominee - you think I'm bothered about Log Cabin Republicans in any way near the degree tow which I'm bothered about tax cuts?

And, by the way, considering that we are talking about primaries, yes, we're looking for Super GOP Man and a GOP candidate for POTUS.

I guess I have a further question then.

These questions are from the transcripts. First this one:

Often, I've heard both politicians and voters express their concern with providing a better future for their children. A concern of my generation is the trillions of dollars of national debt and what kind of responsibility we will have for that in the future.

My question for you all is, if elected, what measures will you take to tackle the national debt and control spending?

then this one:

The Republican Party once stood for limited government, which meant reduce federal spending because it cost less and we spent less.

However, over the past decade, real discretionary federal spending has in fact increased 40 percent, more than half of which has been non-defense related.

So my question is: What are the names of the top three federal programs you would reduce in size in order to decrease...

then one on whether the candidates supported the "fair tax", then one from Grover Norquist asking whether the candidates would pledge not to raise taxes, then one about corn subsidies.

I'm not saying that you should be happy with that because you're obviously not and it's your prerogative not be. But I am curious as to what CNN should have put in the segment of the debate about taxes and spending, that would have given the candidates more chance to talk about their economic policies?

If this had been the RedState debate rather than the CNN one, what would you have put there instead?

...the questions from the middle...

Until you have a firmer grasp on reality, you won't be able to understand the problem. Perhaps instead of getting your perception of what Republicans are like from Anderson Cooper and Hillary Clinton, perhaps you should go visit some actual red states and OBSERVE Republicans without annoying them.

What, you're going to make me list my red state travel credentials? Would you believe me even if I listed them? If I said I used to live in Montgomery, Alabama, would you believe me?

I mean, I don't normally talk a lot of politics with my Bush-voting friends, because we're normally talking about books and beer and girls and stuff. Last time I did that was this year's Mardi Gras (well, Lundi Gras) and everyone else got annoyed because we were arguing about Iraq while merrily drunk on Bourbon St. Then he came back to my hotel room and crashed on the spare bed.

You probably don't even believe that I do anything to do with Red states anywhere, and that that Republican anecdote is just a "girlfriend in Canada," or that the people I hang around with aren't real conservatives. I dunno. I guess it's just possible to have good drinking buddies even if your politics annoy the crap out of each other. Maybe it's an experience you've never had, and you're not the kind of conservative who has friends who aren't conservative. But, you do know that some conservatives do have friends whose political opinions differ, and that sometimes they waste the brief time when that friend is in state yapping about federal politics while getting increasingly hammered on whisky, right?

This was supposed to be a debate where Republicans would get to ask our would-be Republican Presidential candidates questions that would help us in making our decision for who will get our nomination.

That's what CNN delivered for the Democrats. Democrats were given the opportunity to ask their vying candidates questions on the issues Democrats tend to care about.

The fair thing to do would be for CNN to extend us the same courtesy, which they actually promised to do, and provide Republicans with the very same avenue to ask our candidates questions on the issues Republicans are most concerned with.

I personally don't give two flying @#$%s about gays in the military or Log Cabin Republicans - they're hardly in the top ten (or twenty) of 99.9% of Republicans' concerns. Like most Republicans, I'm far more concerned about national security, keeping taxes and spending low, school choice, pro-growth economic policy, judges, etc. I wanted to see questions that reflected those (Republican) priorities.

Do you understand now?

We so appreciate your participation.

The reason you can't follow the train of thought is 1) You would actually have to think and 2)You are part of the home team crowd - MSMers and libs. Of COURSE you don;t think anything is wrong.


It's an honest question, my kneejerking little friend. I bet I'm as big a fan of the American news media as you are - possibly less. And how do you know I'm a liberal? I might be a Ron Paul supporter? ;) Or, more seriously, given that any GOP candidate has to appeal to a wide cross section of voters, I might be one of those moderate Republicans outside the hardcore centre who feels that the party has let the side down bitterly over the last four presidential terms and who is interested in having a Republican party that lives up to its name "Grand Old Party" again. Or I might be a moderate Democrat from the west looking at the field of candidates and wondering why I have to pick between candidates with all fluff and no substance on both sides of the aisle. Is this how you appeal to people curious as to what the big deal is? "Sorry, if you don't get why we're throwing a flub over this, then you're just an idiot?" Way to market yourselves!

By the way, which Democratic plant made Romney and Giuliani try to "out-Tancredo Tancredo" in the debate?

I'm leaning toward that interpretation.

Your question has been posed numerous times, and answered as many times, with a multiplier. Move along.

That's my last attempt at delicacy.

We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

It seems to be very easy to troll on here, Thomas. That said, I've explained my position above. I hope that that, at least, won't fall into the troll filter. If it does, well... good luck in the general, like I said.

I wonder why you would be wishing us good luck in the general if you WERE one of us?

The crux of the matter, isn't it? Depends how we define "us" and "you". I'm not a Republican. I'm a classic British Liberal in the vein of J.S. Mill and Adam Smith, and an American Pragmatist in the vein of William James. That used to be functionally equivalent to being an American conservative (these names do get confusing, don't they - John Howard was in charge of the Australian Liberal Party and would have been classified as a dyed in the wool conservative in the USA. Best to just roll with it if the word liberal makes you faint.)

It means I'm not a Democrat, either. In fact, it seems as if there's nobody of any real substance occupying the stage in the States at all. But it doesn't mean I don't have a horse in the race. For a start I'm already casting my eyes over a few parcels in Montana because I want a place in the Rockies, and secondly the rest of the world is dependent on you picking someone competent because you control foreign policy and, alongside China and Saudi Arabia, the global economy. The problem I can see is an increasingly insular GOP imploding and becoming sidelined once one of the unpalatable Democratic nominees gets the job of PotUS, leaving the USA in the undesirable position of sticking with a nonsense candidate in the presidency simply because all the alternatives are even more ludicrous.

My desires in US politics are hardly reactionary. All I want is a stable, economically sound, relatively non-interventionist - or at least competently diplomatic - government of any stripe. I want to be able to cross the border on business, as I do quite frequently, without being treated like a criminal and having my fingerprints taken for daring to be a businessman whose job takes him into your country, and I don't care if an elephant or a donkey gets there. If that sounds like a terrible liberal plot to destroy your country to you, then like I say, good luck to you in the election, because you'll need it. You'll probably lose, the GOP will probably schism down the religious/economic fracture line like has been threatened for some time, and those who put party before country will completely deserve it. Unfortunately, it won't be good for America, and hence it won't be good for anyone.

The impression that's given to those of us who aren't partisan is that the Democrats don't know what they're doing about anything and the Republicans are just whining about everything. Maybe it's unfair to both sides, maybe it's not. I hope that 2008 will usher in a surprising new era of intelligent politicians arguing in good faith over substantive policy issues with the aim of creating a strong, stable America. But I know that "wah, the liberal media was mean to us again" isn't going to help your side. Which means that, regardless of whether CNN are poopyheads or meaniepies or incompetent, airheaded buffoons masquerading as journalists, calling for resignations does nothing to stop this being a race to be the guy who's going to lose to Hillary Clinton.

I don't know if this is still classed as trolling or not, I honestly don't. I hope it's not. And I hope that you guys find someone good to run for president sometime before next November. More than that, though, I hope you believe me when I say that I want that, because it will be a sign that the internal politics of the GOP aren't hopelessly lost in the deep mires of who's more loyal to the party above all, that you could take the words of someone who's not "one of you" in good faith. Even if the reasons I want a strong GOP candidate aren't your reasons, I hope you can at least get past "not one of us".

Because that, honestly, is the problem.

Your government sucks, but I want to move here anyway, just as long as you guys actually change your policies so that you don't have any control over your borders, and I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate George Bush.

That should cover it.


PS: :ka-click: You were about to say something overlong and tedious, McDuff? - Because you are perilously close to boring me.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Wow. That's, um.

A lot of absolutes.

So, it is unreasonable to say "America is such a great country that even the depressing state of federal politics hasn't yet put me off finding that real nice place in the Rockies"?

I mean, really?

Don't play cute games with me. My time on this board is a few days longer than yours, and I know fully well what you are. Just because a lot of the commenters don't read, say, Trevino's July 7 piece doesn't mean I didn't.

I'm serious. My patience is exhausted.

We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I wish I had a scanner here because, given these revelations, it is perhaps no accident that the ad's layout with the typical Netflix two-color printing, with red and black on white paper, so closely resembles an old Soviet propaganda poster.

...too bad none of the GOP candidates have the stones to do that.

Yeah, yeah, CNN = morons. We know.

Grow a pair and let it go.

The world only goes round by misunderstanding - Charles Baudelaire the netrooters who were calling for a Fox pullout, what were their reactions? Not that the two situations are really similar, but it's the closest example that I can think of, offhand.

No, no need to type it all out again: just give us some links to your speaking truth to Lefty power.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Yes, the situation is a bit different. While CNN is biased towards general sloppiness, Fox has an ideological spin. I understood the candidates' reluctance to join. However, since CNN is apparently bent on promoting gay brigadier generals, I have decided to rethink my logic.

I need to make it up to you. :-) They should debate on Fox. If they are too afraid, then they shouldn't be running for president.

The world only goes round by misunderstanding - Charles Baudelaire

The Former First Name In News

"While CNN is biased towards general sloppiness, Fox has an ideological spin."

So THAT'S what it is - thanks a lot.


While CNN is biased towards general sloppiness, Fox has an ideological spin.

I agree that CNN is sloppy, but that it lacks an ideological spin? Sure. Next you'll tell me that the New York Times is "middle of the road."

...I have decided to rethink my logic.

Apparently they had an ideological bias after all :O
The world only goes round by misunderstanding - Charles Baudelaire

Yeah, that's why I wrote trash about CNN.

You guys are too much fun.

The world only goes round by misunderstanding - Charles Baudelaire

...somebody on your side says something that appalls you, and you look at the keyboard, look at the rebuttal, look at the send button - and decide that no, you aren't really willing to get into that, because too many people wouldn't approve.

I figure that you'll then come over here for more fun.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I have no qualms about criticizing anyone, except God. It's true - I come here for fun, but more time than not, I don't comment, because I'm reading and learning about current conservative beliefs. I'm curious about the other side.

The world only goes round by misunderstanding - Charles Baudelaire

would that be blue? or yellow?

That's a whopper -- double-meat, double-cheese.

In what universe is CNN not a leftist, America-hating bunch of liars and cheats? They are certainly sloppy, I grant you, but not innocently. The general mindset of leftism is much more interested in acquiring power than in telling the truth.

FNC = we report, you decide.
CNN = how can we fool 'em again today?

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

and underwear. CNN is files stuffed up their A***s!

Don't be so quick to jump on a thinking liberal who's open to reason, okay...

And Rightly So!

You grow a pair and admit your little buddies at CNN got busted big time?

I never respected CNN to begin with...if their office building in Atlanta burned down tomorrow, I wouldn't notice. If anyone got busted, it was Giuliani and his nonsense about sanctuary mansions.

The world only goes round by misunderstanding - Charles Baudelaire

I'm not talking about boobs. Just so you know.

Retract / revise your title if necessary.

The world only goes round by misunderstanding - Charles Baudelaire

on how long curious-lib lasts before she's blammed?

That's actually a pretty good span for a visitor from the other side of Grand Chasm.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Thanks, docj. The liberal media won't tell me how True Conservatives think, so I have to come here.

_The world only goes round by misunderstanding - Charles Baudelaire_

Is there any way to find out who paid Keith Kerr's airfare to attend the debate. Was it the Clinton campaign? Was it CNN? It would be interesting to know who was sufficiently interested in having him there in person to pay for him to be there.

or maybe Ahmedinejad?


The world only goes round by misunderstanding - Charles Baudelaire

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Am I developmentally challenged?

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

But there is help.

You're probably thinking you're clever.

You probably should think some more.

The clever answer would be Howard Dean, obviously!

The world only goes round by misunderstanding - Charles Baudelaire

Resistence is futile. Only by closing your mind can you save your leftiness. Because the more you think, the more conservative you will become.

I would say surrender now, but then the fun is all in the conquest anyway.....

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

still, it might be interesting to... what was that Watergate mantra... oh yeah, follow the money. And I don't just mean to the CNN bank account.

You've got to be kidding me Erick. This is the biggest load of crybaby nonsense I've heard today. It's a Republican debate because it is composed of Republican candidates. Last I checked anyone with cable access and a television could view this. And last I checked CNN and YouTube allowed ANYONE to submit questions. They in NO way spelled out only verified and registered Republicans could submit a question to be asked of Republican candidates.

Honestly if you're this insane for calling for heads to roll, the GOP is doomed in November. If you, other activists, and Republican candidates cannot handle questions that do address concerns of many voters in this country, then none of those candidates should be running. Would you prefer each candidate be offered warm and fuzzy softball questions?

Perhaps your attitude is why the GOP is in the current situation. You and others within our party want to be sheltered and exclusive. You do not want candidates to feel the heat of the race and think quick on their toes. You want them to see scripted and planted GOP questions and concerns. They lose touch with reality. Good example? Our current president. People like you have sheltered Bush since 2000. He has never faced the tough questions.

As far as CNN goes, they did what they set out to do. Fred Barnes is whining about the questions chosen: immigration, abortion, guns, and gay marriage. He says these are loaded issues to make the GOP look bad. Perhaps sheltered Fred missed out that polls show these are top isues to the base. If this is a Republican debate would it not make sense for Republican candidates to discuss Republican top issues and be able to stand on principle on those issues? Is Fred implying the GOP is too scared to talk about immigration? Abortion? Guns?

This is gutless. CNN opened the floor on the Dem debate as well. And as I see there were some middle to right people asking some questions in that debate. Odd how the "whiners" aren't crying about that.

So grow up. Let these guys loose and answer whatever is thrown at them. You cannot deny these questions are very legit and even concerning to many in the base. Stop trying to hand us a more sheltered and defunct candidate to put up in November. Stop giving us some scripted and closed off party.

And "our party" - what do you mean?

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

The GOP. Who else are we talking about?

It was CNN's stated objective to make this a debate by Republicans for Republicans. Anderson Cooper was on Glenn Beck's radio show yesterday before the debates:

COOPER: But actually I think most of our questions come from Republicans. I mean, it's not -- this is not a bunch of Democrats like lobbying, you know, as the Republicans. I think if the debate became that, it would eventually kind of be unfair. What we want is a serious debate for, you know, a Republican audience with legitimate questions.

That's what all of this is about. CNN advertised this as one thing and then gave us something completely different.

Stated? Where was it stated? Show me where this was stated and was falsely advertised.

MAN what a terrible job as a troll...

...your intelligence test; but I didn't expect you to stab yourself with the pencil. That takes skill.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Please learn to read.

Couldn't Gloria get this kid into school?

"I mean, it's not--this is not a bunch of Democrats like lobbying, you know, as the Republicans. I think if the debate became that, it would eventually kind of be unfair."

We're not, like, lobbying, like you know. I don't really know, like, what lobbying is, but you know, we're not, like, you know, doing it or anything. 'Cause that would, you know, like, be kinda unfair. You know.


I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

in that interview, and what transpired during the "debate," BOTH programs should have been broadcast back-to-back on Comedy Central.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

Ouch, that would give it even lower ratings than CNN

Heads need to roll.

Blogs 4 Conservatives is keeping conservatism alive in the 21st century and beyond!

Well, I have to say this- I would like whoever is the GOP nominee to be able to answer, truthfully, any question that is put to him, no matter who it comes from. During the primary season and then the general election, the nature of the discourse is political. Once the election is over and the new president is chosen, the politics should end and the actual governing and executing of policy should begin. The president should be able to interact with other agents, be they the media, or legislators, or other heads of state, without being stage managed or mediated. It hardly matters to me who asks the question. The important thing is the answer. cigar, beat-up car, nice guitar.....

It's not like I expected anything better of the Communist News Network.

No need for me to start boycotting, I've been doing it ever since Fox News came on the air.

-- Wingzfan99 --

What is the problem? If conservatism actually has a better position on gays in the military than liberalism then this would be a case where conservatives Presidential candidates would get a chance to shine.

I think every opportunity that conservatives have a chance to express there views on social issues and persuade people that they are superior should be taken. If conservatives can be embarrassed by there position on something then maybe it needs to be re thought.

I personally think that since we are at war and are strapped for the man power to fight terrorism, we need everyone who is willing to put on the uniform to stand up and be counted.

If it would stop Global Jihadism I would fight next to a homosexual.

Personally I find it embarrassing to be asking for a do over of a Nationally televised debate.

Vote for Ron Paul.

I personally think that since we are at war and are strapped for the man power to fight terrorism, we need everyone who is willing to put on the uniform to stand up and be counted.

If it would stop Global Jihadism I would fight next to a homosexual.


Vote for Ron Paul.

What "Global Jihadism"? Don't you mean "blowback"? And what do you mean "we are at fight terrorism"? Don't you mean "the US is an imperialistic power and the entire world would be better if we just came home and did nothing"? After all, look at Vietnam -- great example of things getting better after we left!

One of two things is true: (1) You are a self-deluding nincompoop who knows absolutely nothing about the contradictory subjects of which he speaks, or (2) You are just too stupid to be here.

Your choice.

Or at least that's the way I interpret it, from this story on Fox News (what, do you think CNN would actually carry anything about it?):

"The whole point of these ground-breaking CNN/YouTube debates is to focus on substantive questions of concern to real people and to throw open the process to a wider range of Americans all around the country. CNN cared about what you asked, not who you were. This was the case for both the Democratic and the Republican CNN/YouTube debates," CNN said in a statement issued late in the day.

"The issues raised during last night's debate were legitimate and relevant no matter who was asking the questions. The vested interests who are challenging the credibility of the questioners are trying to distract voters from the substantive issues they care most about. Americans are tired of that discredited low-road approach, and throughout this election campaign CNN will stay focused on what the candidates are saying about the pressing issues facing this country at a critical time in our history.

"Judging by the fact that last night's event was the most-watched primary debate ever, it seems that the audience responded to our focus on plain-spoken questions about important issues," the statement continued.

Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

How does "ever single word of this book" become relevant?
The question was asked in a way to draw the "gotcha" answer or make you look like a fanatic. Didn't work but they tried. Just one example.

What happened last nite suprises anyone? I expected exactly what happened. I realize one has to give the Clinton News Network a chance, but the democ-rats want to win this next election at ANY cost it seems. I think the repub candidates are doing fine. They are doing their best to show their best. What remains is to GET THE VOTE OUT! We have to vote - everyone does - for whoever is nominated. The best of luck to the nominee!

did nothing that I did not already expect them to do.

If the R's go on CNN for any more debates they will get what they deserve.

The description of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

I had an IQ test for Republican elected officials before last night: their IQ's tended to be similar to the number of appearances they made on Hardball, plus or minus 50. I have expanded that test to include any CNN telecast.

But as a party, we deserve our leaders to put CNN off limits for presidential primary debates. The Dems boycotted FOX simply because it wouldn't toe their party line. The insult and injury are real here and not some hysterical Howard Dean delusion. If this had been done to Democrats, it would have led the news for the next 12 months.

And you can add my name to the list, too.

Maybe not as obvious, but different? CNN was a little more over the top than usual, but I'm really tired of Republican after Republican showing up on CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, take your pick and acting surprised when they get ambushed, and then we all whine about the treatment.

Boycotting CNN makes us look silly like the Dems with Fox News. What our guys should be doing is showing up on these networks, taking it right back at them and calling them on this stuff, not accepting loaded questions and then trying to answer them in a respectful manner that genuflects to the MSM's perceived status of the arbiters of truth. We only prop up the credibility of these hacks and prolong their stranglehold over 60% of the electorate when it comes to distributing information. Darken their doors, but stop putting them on a pedestal they don't belong on.

The next time one of our guys is asked about flying the Confederate Flag the answer should be, "why don't you go ask the Democrats that raised it over the SC State Capitol building to begin with, that's never been a Republican flag from Abe Lincoln's day to my day so don't waste time at our debate with silly, bigoted, loaded questions like that." Or when asked "why don't you believe professional U.S. military personnel can serve along side gays and lesbians", the tables should be turned with, "with all do respect sir, when did I say that? I never said that and if your issue is with "don't ask don't tell", then perhaps you should ask former President Clinton on that one. If you want to talk about the serious national security threats facing this nation, then let's do that".

I'm just tired of watching our guys get their lunch money taken everyday when they know it's coming, only to go home and whine about it. Stand up to these biased bullies for crying out loud in a manner that doesn't involve threatening our not going to school again until they stop.

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

If individual Republicans want to appear, fine, although my opinion of them probably will drop tremendously. But CNN actually enabled the Clintonistas' dirty tricks, so that is a perfectly sound reason not to allow that network to host another debate. As a matter of fact, that should be expected. Even in its most biased moment, I don't recall anything remotely similar from MSNBC, for example.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. Ceding CNN to the Democrats doesn't further conservatism, I agree with Buckeye. We still live in a Democracy, so I hate to break the bad news to you but there will always be someone who disagrees with you, and wants to make you look bad. What made Reagan great was going out there and taking on the liberal critics and not letting them get him down.

It sometimes feels to me like Romney and Guiliani are embarrassed to be Republicans.

CNN deliberately distorted who the "undecided Republicans" were, allowed a Clinton hack to pose a question under the guise of neutrality, and essentially tried to turn a debate into a ridicule-fest. Yes, it is a democracy. Therefore, other forums are available. Even those that "disagree" don't resort to partisan hackery. CNN did. There is nothing to cede here. This was the equivalent of the DNC hosting a Republican debate. Twice fooled and all...

They interviewed him on December 11, 2003 on their program - The Flip Side... at 11 AM Eastern Standard Time.

"KATHLEEN HAYS, CNNfn ANCHOR, THE FLIPSIDE: Let's get on to our big story, this year marks 10th anniversary of the "don't ask, don't tell policy", a bill intended to permit gays and lesbians to serve in the armed forces without fear of harassment or expulsion as long as their sexual orientation is kept private. But in a recent "New York Times" article, several formal service members who disclosed that they are gay criticized that the policy is ineffective. One of those men Retired Army Brig. General Keith H. Kerr joins us from San Francisco. And here in New York is Matt Coles, director of the Lesbian & Gay Rights Project for ACLU."

"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."

Yeah, because we know Fox News would never do anything like this. Yeaaaaah right.

Now that you have unsuccessfully tried the "oops, we got caught/let's change the subject quick" distraction tactic... Care to comment on the fact that Mr. Kerr was interviewed on CNN on Dcember 11, 2003... which, by the way, negates their entire claim that Mr. Kerr was just some average, randomely selected individual of whom they knew little about?

"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."

Yes because every interviewer remembers every interviewee they ever speak with over a four year period. And they interviewed him on the same issues as he asked about. How is that "conspiracy"? Wow. CNN was consistent. They never made any of these people out to be neutral, undecided, etc. You're grasping for straws here. Smells of desperation.

Keep grasping, Dizzy.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

...that I have ever seen here. Let's play an intelligence test: if you can figure it what it was, I'll let you keep posting here.

Your next post, please.


PS: Nobody tell him.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

But one in particular stands out. If CNN found Kerr worthy of an on-camera interview, and then magically, out of 5000 YouTube videos, he is picked, and subsequently is flown, by someone, to the actual debate, I find that coincidence a little to much dismiss.

The one who is grasping at straws is you as you try to defend the ambush tactics of CNN. And if you are a Republican, I am Margaret Thatcher.

CNN has archives...Hell.. all I had to do was use Google to find out they inetrviewed Mr. Kerr.
Care to explain how some woman in Tampa, Florida had an easier time finding out about their interview with Mr. Kerr than the entire vetting/research team of CNN?

"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."

"Desperation" is better defined as, spending your time trolling conservative blog sites trying to find out if we've discovered your dirty little secrets andto assertain howmuch damage we can do.

Scary huh?
CNN's trick bringing back those Dan Rather Memo nightmares?
Afraid you'll you're going to be plagued this Presidential Run Present by the ghost of "planted but random" the way your party was haunted in Presidential Run Past by that evil spirit of "fake but accurate"?

Bah... HUMbug!

"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."

In the absence of any evidence you have about Fox actually having done this, I'm just going to have to assume that you're here to troll, and doing it badly at that.

Disabuse me of this notion.

The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

It's kinda sad, really... (but, admittedly entertaining) when someone can't even be clever at trolling.
And, while binking them on their knobby little heads can be quite fun, they crack and run away... and the joy ends so quickly.

Oh the days when sledge hammers could be used for hours.

"Even when you fall on your face, you're still moving forward."

A troll is defined as someone who is trying to merely get a rise out of someone. I am just trying to posit that Fox News has used a lot of slimy techniques in the past as well. I don't think CNN planted anyone but perhaps these individuals got themselves in, in order to present the questions they wanted answered?

Lastly, who cares if these questions were planted? If the presidential candidates cannot answer questions -- no matter the source -- then obviously they're incapable or unfit for being the president in the first place. I think it's good to get candidates off guard.

I don't think people should be planted necessarily but I'm tired of all the doublespeak on both sides of the political spectrum by politicians who use tried and true tactics to misinform the American public at best and outright lie to them at worst. They use clever slight of hand techniques to worm their way out of answering the question and framing it in such a way that they answer the question they wish they had been asked. That's disingenuous and a disservice to the American people who need to know where these candidates actually stand.

In summation, we need to put more heat on these candidates -- both of the left and right and everywhere in between -- because there's too much at stake and too much to lose if we let someone just waltz in to the Presidency without fully knowing where they stand. If CNN planted these people then they need to be held responsible but I'm not against the outcome if it helped put a little pressure on the candidates to answer poignant and pressing questions that needed being answered.

Didn't think so, but I wanted to check first.


The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

is someone who is a functional moron, but has extraordinary abilities in one area. You, sir, are NO savant!

Column by Gary Bauer of Human Events, on the Democratic boycott of Fox News?:

Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Fox News?

....That is why the Republican presidential candidates do not groan about having to take part in debates sponsored by liberal news outlets, including CNN, ABC News and MSNBC and moderated by liberal commentators like former Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos and Chris Matthews.

Unlike liberals, conservatives-from the schoolyard, to the college classroom, to the workplace and the highest levels of government-are used to having to defend their views against unfriendly inquisitors. Conservatives know that taking a hit, a tough question or a rude suggestion comes with the territory. But with all of the Big Media firmly in the grasp of the liberal mindset, it's sand in the oyster of Democrats' lives to have to put up with a few dissenters.


If the best and the brightest that the Democratic Party has to offer cannot stand up to a few bloggers sitting in their mothers' basements in their pajamas armed with nothing but keyboards and café lattes, how will they stand up to crazed dictators with million-man armies and nuclear weapons?

That shoe suddenly does not fit so well.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

This is a Republican debate. The purpose of the debate ostensibly is to help Republicans decide who to support in the primary.

To have Democrats jump in is dishonest. For CNN, as moderator, to allow them to do so, is dishonest.

HTML Help for Red Staters

They answered all the questions and did it well.

We still need to call CNN out on it. And they continue to lie.

But you don't seem to actually make it.

Lets try this. One all the candidates dealt excellently with the questions. Romney could have been more polished but he was still positive and presidential.

Two The questions were by and large not interesting. The abortion question made the assumption that republicans would go after potential mothers with pitchforks and torches. The black support question was a case of know thyself. The gays in the military question was just idiotic.

So yes our guys did really well with questions that were meant to make them look like gun crazed rednecks. I personally would have wanted a question about judges, a question about fair/flat/ vs other tax reform, A question about how the border could be secured etc. What I got was garbage.

P.S. I would have been just as upset if they asked diamonds or pearls.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

... (not of the conspiratoral sort) and simply happens to be most obvious example of what happens everyday at CNN, CBS, NPR, etc. The incompetence of CNN is a result of a cummulative bias produced by lack of political diversity in the news staff.

Any right leaning people -- like we RedState denizens -- would have been suspicious about these particular questioners from the start and consequently would likely have done a little investigation into their political affiliations. Left-leaning people will not catch those signals, except in the reverse circumstances.

With an overwhelmingly left-leaning staff, CNN is not competnent to provide a format that treats Rs and Ds comparably.

Competnent reporting requires an affirmative action program to insure a representative political diversity in the news staff.

He was entertaining at the debate but I wonder how much of that has to do with his drama lessons?

I just found that article. Looks like while the guys were out playing football he was getting ballet lessons and drama training.

CNN allowed these questions during the July 23, 2007 Democratic debate:

1. I'd like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like usually they do when a Democrats gets into office?

2. 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. Please tell me your views.

3. This question is to Senator Hillary Clinton. The Arab states, Muslim nations, believe it's women as being second-class citizens. If you're president of the United States, how do you feel that you would even be taken seriously by these states in any kind of talks, negotiations, or any other diplomatic relations?

Somehow, those don't sound like questions that have been posed by Democrats. I would tend to believe CNN enjoys allowing a few Q's slipping through the partisan filter, regardless of what party you are talking about.

is any evidence that any of the people asking these questions were either:

a) Republicans, or
b) Affiliated with a Republican campaign.

Look, I need to go to bed. Can we get this over with? I hate leaving work left undone for Moe.

The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

Or were you deliberately trying to ignore this?

"Some of the Republican candidates don't trust us. They're not completely convinced that we're going to wean out the Democratic gotcha questions," Bohrman said. "But I've been very clear from the beginning: This will be a Republican debate, and the goal is to let Republican voters see their candidates."

Mind you, I'm willing to believe abject incompetence, Jason Wolf. But for your part, I guess that you've closed that door.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

No, Moe, I did not say that I am "OK" with CNN lying. What I stated was that they did the same thing to Democrats, allowing similiarly loaded questions.( And no, I do not have proof that t he questions were posed by Republicans). You can expect them to continue doing so. Do I think that's "OK"? No, not if they promised the debating parties something else. That's classic "Bait and Switch", and it's wrong

Why is it necessary to characterize my position as an approval of what they did?

Did they? Did you google the folks that asked those questions at the Democrats' debate? I don't think anybody here has said that ANY liberal-leaning question should have been refused. But when the liberal-leaning question come not from everyday voters but people who are actively and publicly campaigning for a Democrat, and that is not disclosed it smacks of dishonesty.

If in fact the right-leaning questions to Democrats were asked by active members of a Republican campaign, you only highlight (rather than detract from) the point made here - that CNN is incompetent and incapable of hosting a candidate forum that actually benefits the proposed audience.

You stated that you think that CNN did this deliberately; that eliminates "incompetent," and leaves "liars."

You're clearly not upset that they did this, which indicates that you're OK with this. :ka-click: So if I ever catching you to lying to me or anybody else again you will be out the door immediately.

Signify your understanding by saying "Yes, Moe" - and after that, I think that you are done on this thread, don't you?


The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

What I stated was that they did the same thing to Democrats,

Sure they did. The exact same thing. They made sure the questions to the Democrats were asked by Democrats and they made sure the questions to Republicans were asked by Democrats.

You can't say they are inconsistent.

Quentin Langley
Editor of

International Editor of

Logic always fails people like this guy.

1. The man who asked the question looked crazed and/or seriously sketchy.

2. The man who asked the question pulled out a very large firearm at the end, referred to it as "my baby", and mentioned that it was purchased under a gun ban.

3. I'm not sure how this question reflects a conservative perspective.

Do you see the difference? The people in the "right leaning" videos were being mocked. I'm a liberal, and I can see it.

It doesn't matter to me if the questions came from Democrats. The problem for me was that the questions came from a liberal perspective, reflecting liberal views about conservatives. CNN specifically said that they weren't going to do this.

Media Matters actually complained on Tuesday that no similar promise was made to the Democrats. The reason is simple -- they had no reason to be worried about it.

I'm with RS on this one.

It's not even conscious. They probably thought they did a great job. The simple fact is that they don't understand conservatism.

of the "undecideds" and questioners? I once would have agreed with what you wrote, dk, but no longer. When CNN felt a need to make the oppositional participants look like something other than what they are, that showed me the network was quite aware of what it had done.

I certainly don't respect CNN enough to defend them.

I for one think you are dead on with this comment dkilmer. CNN's defensive quote posted by Finrod (CNN flips Republicans the bird) shows clearly why they failed to meet their stated objectives. They selected the questions and questioners that they thought were relevant. How in the world is a news staff almost thoroughly comprised of non-Republican voters going to select the questions and questioners most relevant to Republican voters. Bias-free news is such an obviously flawed expectation but this is one of those rare cases when its absurdity cannot be obscured in the typical manner.

OK, first, the spoken question, followed by the implication.

1. I'd like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like usually they do when a Democrats gets into office?
Remember, Democrats Raise Taxes!

2. 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. Please tell me your views.
Remember, the Democrats want to take your guns!

3. This question is to Senator Hillary Clinton. The Arab states, Muslim nations, believe it's women as being second-class citizens. If you're president of the United States, how do you feel that you would even be taken seriously by these states in any kind of talks, negotiations, or any other diplomatic relations?
Remember, Hillary is a woman. Arabs wont't take a woman seriously, we can't have an "unserious" leader. Hillary must not be President

These are Republican talking points thinly disguised as questions, plain and simple. Denying it is just silly. And yes, the Democrats did complain about these particular questions just as RS is complaining about the obvious planted questions at the YouBoob Debate. Two sides of a coin.

Not letting Hillary get elected isn't a "conservative perspective", it's a conservative goal. And that question does a great job of paiting her as an potentially ineffective leader by suggesting that the Very Scary Arabs wouldn't take her seriously.

Remember, Hillary is a woman. Arabs wont't take a woman seriously, we can't have an "unserious" leader. Hillary must not be President
These are Republican talking points thinly disguised as questions

The fact that you continue to include this question and pose your interpretation of it as a Republican talking point shows more than you realize.

Do you really believe Republicans wouldn't take a woman President seriously simply because of her gender...???

I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
-- Mark Hemingway, The Corner (NRO)

"Democrats raise taxes" and "Democrats want to take your guns" are not Republican talking points, they are Democrat policies. On the whole, Democrats are not embarrassed by these policies either. Of course, they focus the first one on increased government "services" and increased taxes on "the rich" and the second on taking guns from other people, but most Democrats don't run away from these policies altogether. How could they? These are core party objectives.

And, yes, I do realise that not all Democrats share these objectives, but it is what the party as a whole advocates.

As for the third point, hasn't the Obama campaign been pushing this line? I don't recall ever hearing it from a Republican.

Quentin Langley
Editor of

International Editor of

...(although I'd argue that they're softball talking points). I'm saying that the "Republican" views were presented in a way that mocked them. Here's Biden's response to the gun video:

"I'll tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help."

Now imagine this video: [A large man with close-cropped hair stands in front of an American flag. He's wearing a shoulder holster] "I defended my country for twelve years in the United States Army. Three of those years were spent in Afghanistan, fighting terrorists. Now that I'm home, I want to protect my family." [A small woman holding a child steps into view and leans on the man's shoulder] "Tell me what you will do to protect my Second Amendment rights."

See the difference?

that's point cuts pretty well. Do you have a link to the record that shows those questions? Can you go on and establish equivalence by a little googling or examining the youtube profiles to show that these questioners are actually involved in or promoting a Republican candidate?

meant to reply to Jason above, but Leon has already asked the question anyway.

So who cares? Really, the GOP candidate need to be able to address such issues head on. If one is not challenged how is one sure of what they believe? Was not Jesus tempted by Lucifer himself, and he survived, not only that he prevailed!

If the candidate are not challenged how will they be when a real crisis presents itself? This is so easy compared to the general election and the Presidency itself.

I personally believe that the Parties ought to have a debate where the question come exclusively from the other party's partisans, and see who does the better job.

Additionally, why how is taking questions from the opposite side of the fence any less American than from your side of the Fence.

by the way, I though Huckabee did well.

The general election is for taking questions from non-Republicans. The primary is for Republicans. It is dishonest for people who don't vote Republican to participate in our primary.

HTML Help for Red Staters


How can we tell whether a candidate is truly a conservative or one if sheep's clothing if he is unable to answer such questions? take the whole gays in the military thing, sure it was a bias question, but proof is in the answer! Should we be worried that it may be answered in a way that will turn off GOP voters? of course not, if you believe that is key to your support.

We should not be afraid if facing those questions.

When a person's name is prominent as a steering committee member for a Democrat for President, or otherwise actively supporting a Democrat for President, then we know that person has no business participating in Republican primary activity.

Read the links. Read the articles up on RS today. We have proof. CNN admitted it. Are you denying it? Or are you just playing passive-agressive games here? Come on.

HTML Help for Red Staters

There is no doubt in my mind that the questions had some bias. the who Kerr thing is a great example. but my point is why should it matter? Are you saying the GOP candidates should not have to face such questions? Personally the Dems should have to face the same type of tough questions.

While i agree that it may not be fair for the dems to receive easier, or less challenging questions, that should not distract us from the real point of such a debate, to flesh out the best candidate to beat Hillary or whomever is nominated. It is only through fire that the right candidate be found. It's like Shadrach, Meshak and Abendigo, (spelling?) as they were not afraid to be thrown in the fire, it should be the same with the candidates. the one that stands up to their principals should be nominated.

Let me take you at face value:

Theere are two problems with putting questions from Democrats (who are presumably actively against Republicans, or in general do not have the best interests of the party or our values in mind).

First is the opportunity cost. Every time they put up a Democrat's question, that's a missed chance to grapple with a question from a Republican, one that will aid us in distinguishing our candidates.

Secondly is the marketing value. Republican events are our chance to showcase our candidates, our issues, and our values to the American people. When Democrats barge in with their issues, it changes the tenor of our debate and ruins our opportunity.

Imagine if Al Gore stepped out on stage at the Republican National Convention and grabbed the microphone. Democrats spoiling our party events harms us.

The Republican candidates took up CNN's offer in good faith, and CNN dishonestly betrayed them. Shame on CNN. Shame on them.

Are you a Republican by the way?

HTML Help for Red Staters

I am independent voter. I am not affiliated with either party. I was a register with GOP for many years. though my wife is.

1st point. I will agree with you about time. there are times where these debate are really just window dressing.

2nd point. I agree with you about the tenor of the debates, but that is was is lacking in both party's partisan debate, a real since of confrontation. I just wish that CNN would have been as challeging to the dem's debate, that would have been fun to watch.

Now the last point about Gore is comical. that would be funny don't you think? however, you are comparing two very different situtation, a debate is not a convention.

though i hope not registered GOP does not reduce my credibility in your eyes!

If you're not a Republican, if you don't have that *investment* in our party, then it *would* change your outlook of our party's events, and what it means to be a Republican.

HTML Help for Red Staters

ah, i disagree with you there. my wife and i talk about the candidates in any election before we vote.

But ultimately, it is voters like me that watch these debates and weigh which way to go. Take Hillary. I dont like her, i dont like some of the policy that she may implement if made president. take hukabee. a genuinely honest man, who has struggled. i like what he has to say. Now, if i had no investment, as you say, how would i have know of him and his beliefs? The national election is about sound bites and photo ops not real nitty gritty issues, unlike a primary.

I personally use the primaries to gauge which party that will have the best platform by the way they choose their candidate. While i may not personally vote in the primary they inform my choice. (my state did have an open primary once)

I not saying that all debates should be like this. While i am not happy with CNN's behaviour (i not watch much cable news), this gives me an opportunity to gauge the candidates.

is, and start plugging away for Dennis Kucinich. He's a George McGovern liberal and the Democratic Party needs to be set right. They surely won't mind, will they? And they won't mind when we ask the Democrats at their next debate about their positions on partial birth abortion, merit pay for teachers, building a fence along the southern border, and other issues that we discuss, will they? Of course they won't. It will happen. I'm sure.

You quoted CNN as saying that "This would be a Republican debate, and the goal was to let Republican voters see their candidates," then complain that this was not about Republicans asking the Republican candidates questions. The two don't mesh.

I see no value in having only members of one party be allowed to ask questions at any kind of a debate. While it is foolish to allow someone who is involved in any campaign pose questions to the candidates, I really don't want to waste my time watching any debate if the candidates aren't offered questions from both sides of the aisle. No matter who wins, that person will be everybody's president.

Might as well have the candidate's chiefs-of-staff ask the questions.

and executive producer of the debate was quoted in today's (Friday's) USA Today saying, "We never would have used the general's (Keith Kerr's) question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate."

He apparently thought this was a mistake.

"I see no value in having only members of one party be allowed to ask questions at any kind of a debate."

To you and all the others (mainly dems and independents) arguing this point.

Can you all not see any difference between the nature of primary vs. general election debates that bear strongly on your particular point?

Add me to that list, too please!
CNN willfully and willingly took people from the far left to ask some questions that they do not have the ballz to ask. Good old vile little "gotchas"
Why we continue to agree to let boob tube set the agenda for Republican questions is beyond my comprehension. Their tinfoil hats have shorted out their brains long ago.
I would like to see a do over without CNN or You-Tube being involved. No, Wolf Blitzer bending over for Bubba with his softball questions to his wife, the delicate "diva" of their clan and straight up real questions that are not set up to be gotchas, as Hitlery so ineloquently mentioned when she felt she was being picked on by the school yard bully boys.
What will she do with the Little Man in Iran if he said BOO to her? Waaah you're picking on me. I'm going to tell Bill!!. BLAH!

May I suggest that Redstate pool resources with other conservative organizations such as, National Review Online, Weekly Standard, etc. to host our own debate? At a bare minimum, you could hold it in a conference room large enough to conduct a round-table discussion of the top five candidates and video tape it for replay on the internet. With a larger budget, you could rent out a hall on a college campus and do the debate in front of a smallish audience. Offer free coverage of the debate to any network willing to broadcast it. At minimum, I'll bet some of the conservative radio talk show hosts would be willing to broadcast the audio of the debate.

Anyway, this way you could guarantee a more productive format and have the debate focus on questions of genuine interest to conservatives.

Just a suggestion.

Have every candidate talk only about his ideas for leadership and never mention the other candidates position.

Jim Tomasik

Both of you have excellent suggestions and ideas. Good job. Now we have to put it to work and Thompson said the same thing after the debate.

Thompson was offered this by Huckabee when he first got in. Thompson said he only wanted to do it in the GL with the Democrat nom.

Now he seems to see things differently because he is no longer so much out front? That works for me.

Good to see he changed his mind.

Jim Tomasik

I think that was a nice way to dismiss Huckabee who was polling nearly off the radar at the time. Keep in mind that Thompson would limit it to the top 5 or so.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

We don't need a do over....we need a real more of this CNN/Utube S*@t.....Utube debates are a disgrace to the office of the President of the United forgot a name on the list of heads....Cooper!, that clod should be on the street as well. You can NOT tell me he didn't know....sounds a lot like Hillary.....'I had know Idea'.....

that too secure these rights,Governments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers form the consent of the Governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT of the people to alter or to abolish it, a

I already boycott CNN so will have to figure out something else to do. Meanwhile I love the idea of righty blogs pooling resources to host a debate.

Another idea and one that would drive the libs and Drive-Bys insane (my favorite kind) would be Rush hosting the debate on his website (free side!) the way he occasionally shows a 4th hour that is not broadcast. I don't watch debates but I'd watch that one.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service