Redstate

via this link

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

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.

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.

It was a locust of Dems in the whole production.

"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

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

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.

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

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

I've read in years.

Not a fan of Wilfred Owen then?

/tangent

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

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"
Kyle

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.

just basic ethics.

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 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gay+bait). 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.

...by 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.

Capiche?

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.

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!

Uh, no.

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 wors