Democratic Operatives Vote With Their Videos.
Quietly admit: GOP now the Party of Ideas.
By Moe Lane Posted in Liberals — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
My, my, my: all sorts of video shenanigans going on last night, nu?
Michelle Malkin's got the roundup: turns out that the woman framing abortion in terms of penalties for women was an Edwards supporter; the guy trying to gay-bait by asking about Log Cabin Republicans is going to vote for Obama (see also Six Meat Buffet and JunkYardBlog), the woman brandishing her adopted child on a badly-veiled screed for protectionism is a union organizer and aide to an Edwards supporter (see also the Autopsy); with a h/t to the aforementioned The Autopsy we see these two Jason Coleman links, one of which indicates that Corn Subsidy Boy was an ex-intern for Jane Harman and that the guy asking about why the GOP doesn't attract more African Americans is an Edwards supporter who likes to make fun of actual African-American Republicans. And then, of course, there was Hillary's guy. No doubt there'll be more*.
Now, this is the point where you might expect me to huff and puff about all of this. Quite the contrary: I'm gratified that all these people fell over themselves to prove that if you want a substantive answer on anything, you're pretty much forced to go to a Republican.
Moe Lane
PS: A real pity that none of the questioners mentioned can be counted upon to have listened to the response, though.
*One does wonder what CNN was thinking; or, indeed, whether they were thinking at all.
« Do Nothing Dem Congress Slow-Bleeding US Auto Industry — Comments (46) | La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid — Comments (6) »
Democratic Operatives Vote With Their Videos. 22 Comments (0 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
You may be right, but the incompetence or bias of CNN is a major issue that is highlighted by this and should not be allowed to fade gently away.
I knew something was up when they went to their "undecided republicans" and someone spoke up that, yes, the debate had helped them make a decision.
The debate inspired our "undecided republican" to support John Edwards.
If CNN was capable of embarrassment.....
But that's an entirely different post, really. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I just wanted to do something short and sweet. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The questioners probably did not listen to the answers, but a lot of swing voters probably did. (At least the swing voters who were watching.) This is good practice for the general election. If we have not learned this in the past 15 years (8 years of Clinton and 7 years of Bush), our candidates need to learn it today: the MSM is NOT your friend. You need to deal with them, but watch for a knife in your back the entire time.
Why isn't any prominent GOP official out on the airwaves right now denouncing CNN? The media lets the Democrats get away with boycotting Fox, somebody should be pointing out how we rose above that pettiness, only to get slammed by CNN selecting questions primarily from Democrats. If this had happened to the Democrats on Fox News, Howard Dean would be out right now drawing attention to it. Where are our leaders?
Dems cave and refuse to debate on Fox. This is only fair, given the KnownFact that Fox is the mouthpiece of the VRWC
GOP points out obvious bias on CNN. This is proof that the GOP are a bunch of whiny crybabies not fit to deal with the likes of bin Laden.
How can the GOP win in the MSM has taken sides?
...and went spelunking for more links. Amusingly, they weren't hard to find. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
to lower the entire Republican primary process into the looney bin of YouTube?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
the idea, if such it be, is based on the democratic/theological point that the lower you sink and the wider the hole the better democracy works. In short, more idiots is better than less idiots.
The 19th century conservatives who saw this coming must be rolling in their graves, and probably didn't think it would get this bad.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
The dems did it first to reach out to younger potential voters and to show they are "hip" and "with it" (out dated terms intentional); after all, wasn't the online community named the person of the year?. Then CNN offered it to the GOP and if we refused it would appear that we were shunning this type of audience, forcing us to knowingly walk into the ambush.
Personally, I don't think the GOP (or any candidate) should be afraid of any question. Just tell it like it is and stand by your opinions. If your opinions clash with the majority of US citizens, then they have a right to know. But it would be nice to have had balanced questions which also allowed them to touch on their talking points like how controlling illegal immigration would benefit US criticizes, how a government not spending more than they make in income is far better in the long run, and how putting terrorists on the defensive is far better than allowing them to continue making pot shots at us.
Blogs 4 Conservatives is keeping conservatism alive in the 21st century and beyond!
I watched the debate, and of course being from CNN, the slant of the questions was unsurprising, even boring. Reading Michelle's undressing of CNN today, there's simply NO WAY it was anything but intentional by CNN.
But MAN, watching our guys answer, unapologetically conservative (mostly), clear-headed respsonses. Made me proud of my party, proud of conservatives, and proud of our candidates. All of them. Yes, even HIM.
And I'd just LOVE to see the roles reversed in a Democratic debate. A bunch of questions posed by conservatives, challenging Dem candidates on their weakest points and inconsistencies.....
Considering how Mrs. Darth Vader barfs all over herself over a simple driver license question, imagine how she'd respond to an actual serious question.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
Maybe I'll watch the debate after all, I assume its still avail on YouTube?
That's what I would hope they would do.
On a side note, If I may ask a simple request, please don't compare Hillary C to one of my fav fictional characters. I have so little to love in life, please don't take him away from me...
It presents me with an interesting dilemma, though. Is there any name, historical or fictional, which if assigned as a tag to Hillary Rodham Rodham, which would not offend the original bearer of that name?
I mean, really, even a D-bag like Heinrich Himmler would be pretty put out, I'd think.
Hitler? No soap.
Scar-Face Capone himself? I wouldn't even dare, in case he has descendants who'd come and deal with me.
Nero? Trajan? Domitius? King John? John Walker?
This is hard.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
the questions that were NOT planted by a Dem activist.
1) Norquist
2) any others?
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
I did notice Grover Norquist and Buzz Brockway asking questions. So they had at least two Republicans asking questions.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.