Thursday, November 29, 2007
|
|
CNN Blew the Post-Debate, Too ...
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
11:38 AM
|
Aside from Townhall's own Bill Bennett, last night's talking heads giving CNN's post-mortem were all liberal establishment types...
Question: Since it's a YouTube debate, why not include the young conservative bloggers who, by the way, where there last night?
Who knows more about a GOP YouTube debate, conservative new media bloggers -- or establishment media liberals?
MKH, Robert Bluey, David All, and Patrick Ruffini could have joined Bill Bennett and given CNN a truly original (and hip) perspective.
It's time the networks realize that The New Right is ready to lead, and that it's time to pass the torch to a new generation.
Message to CNN: You don't have to keep using the same guys you used in 1992 ...
|
|
Matt Lewis,
Just last night, in your post-debate analysis, you were championing CNN and the debate, when you wrote;
-------------
"The real winner tonight was CNN, YouTube, the GOP, and the American people."
-------------
But now your headline for this post reads, "CNN Blew the Post-Debate, Too" which implies CNN blew the debate.
Which is it, Matt---CNN blew the debate, or CNN was 'a real winner' ??
You flip-flop like John Kerry being in favor of the war before he was against it.
You thought the CNN debate was 'a real winner' before you thought CNN 'blew it.'
|
|
|
That is why CNN has such low ratings. I doubt too many of us are interested in what the dinosaur mouthpieces have to say. They still haven't digested Rathergate. |
|
|
like Campbell Brown has put on some weight? Was that a double chin? |
|
Matt writes: "It's time the networks realize that The New Right is ready to lead, and that it's time to pass the torch to a new generation."
Leadership isn't given, it's taken. If you intend to wait around until networks "realize" someone else is "ready" to lead, hoping they'll gracefully "bow out", you'll be waiting a long, long, long time...
Or, you could seize the day. Take the torch and run with it. Do you think one of the dinosaurs can really stop you? LOL!
Stop pretending the networks are relevant; they're not. Not anymore.
~~~
Matt continues: "Message to CNN: You don't have to keep using the same guys you used in 1992 ..."
Let them use stick-figures and cardboard cut-outs...who cares? Let 'em phone it in, literally. CNN hasn't been relevant since at least the 2000 elections. Seriously.
I haven't watched CNN in 10 years. They're programmed out of my channel selection.
If everyone who complains about CNN just stopped watching it, they'd have gone out of business by now.
~~~
It's like Ann Coulter complaining about the NYT all the time. STOP READING IT. Stop giving it "currency". The New York Times is on a long downhill slide toward oblivion. If those who complain about it would simply stop reading and referring to it, they will finally go out of business. |
|
|
Of course, Ron Paul wins the post debate polling again. Who else could win other than Ron Paul? Ron Paul's standing as the champion of the debates is becoming automatic, it's spontaneous. Ron Paul's honesty and integrity has become ubiquitous. Even though CNN limits his input, Ron Paul still wins. Ron Paul could stand on the stage and not say a single word the entire debate and still win the post debate polling just on the fact of his long established principles of freedom, integrity, and honesty. |
|
I'm not sure which is more annoying - Ron Paul's anti-war barking or the screams of the 30 RP Shills in the audience?
I did rather enjoy watching Dr Paul get is a$$ handed to him by John McCain.
The one HONEST question posed to Ron Paul - by one of his supporters - "Will you run as an independent after NOT getting the Republican nomination?"
What exactly will Ron Paul and his supporters do after the nomination? Support the nominee?? (Somehow I sense that ISNT going to happen) |
|
|
Its better to expose and ridicule them than to ignore them. More fun, too. We know they're a joke, but its more important for people in general to understand. |
|
Why is everyone so quick to dismiss Ron Paul's chances? The voting hasn't even started yet!
His numbers in the polls have been rising quickly over the past couple weeks since his $4.3 million money bomb, and he has brought in almost $10 million this quarter already. He has also placed consistently high in most of the straw polls around the country. It is obvious that there IS a movement forming around him. Whether or not it will be enough to get him nominated remains to be seen, but it is far, far too early to call him out before the first primary has even started! An awful lot can happen between now and then. |
|
|
There has to be some other candidates with workers in my state?.......But no signs....Billboards and signs are everywhere for Ron Paul, and no other signs in site. |
|
|
It's kind of funny that you would take umbrage over having a liberal panel discussing the GOP debate (if it was, indeed, "liberal"). After all, isn't this typical of FNC? Which is why the Dems refused to debate on FNC, if I recall correctly. |
|
"The New Right is ready to lead"
I don't want the new right, I want the old right. The "right" that held the Constitution as something sacred, where the belief in a free republic was second to none.
The "new right" is of the kind that says "It's just a God damn piece of paper." in reference to the Constitution. The hero of the new right said that, Pres. Bush.
The new right, ya right. |
|
Sensible political viewers look at several indicators to conclude Ron Paul has ZERO chance:
1. He is anti-war (more in line with Dennis Kucinich than the average American Republican).
2. He gets booed more often than any other candidates at the debates (despite his few screaming supporters).
3. His national poll numbers have ALWAYS been single-digit.
4. His views (eliminate FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, withdraw from WTO, NATO, UN, etc, etc) are WAY too extremists for everyone but RP's faithful libertarian followers and Pat Buchanan.
5. He wants to legalize drugs and prostitution.
6. He wants to pull every deployed soldier (in the world) back to the US (Buchanan isolationist).
Just these 6 points alone are evidence Ron Paul has ZERO chance at winning the Republican nomination much less a national election! Is it SO HARD for you Ron Paul disciples to really understand "electable" versus "unelectable" in a Presidential Election? |
|
1. Ron Paul is NOT anti-war. He was in strong support of our military actions against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. He believes in a strong national defense. What he is against is unconstitutional wars. He believes that war should be done only as a last resort and then in a constitutional way -- by an official declaration of war by the United States Congress.
2. This is a very poor way of determining the value of a candidate. If he does get more boos (which is doubtful: Giuliani gets his share too), it is because his views are radically different than those of the rest of the candidates for 2008.
3. Yes, his poll numbers have been in the single digits, but they have double in the past two weeks. There is talk of a solid double-digit showing in New Hampshire, and that was before his latest media blitz. Everywhere he speaks, he is gathering crowds of thousands of people to hear him speak. Who else in this campaign can claim the same? Given his very limited media exposure, he is doing remarkably well, and as he spends the money on advertising, his name recognition with rise. How many people know who Ron Paul is when you ask them? That is changing rapidly.
4. His views are in line with the traditional limited government that USED to be mainstream Republican thought. He is attracting those Republicans lost in the late nineties and the Bush years -- those who turned independent or to the Constitution Party because they did not like where the Republican Party was taking them. If you actually listened to what he said about these issues, you would see that he is very reasoned in his approach. He recognizes that it will be a process that could take decades to complete. Also, do you really want to defend all of those departments?
|
|
5. The War on Drugs has been a dismal failure that has resulted in over-crowded jails and thousands of broken homes in the black communities. As for prostitution, he doesn't want to ~legalize~ it, but he believes that it should be a decision left to the states. It is not a decision to be made at the federal level.
6. We may no choice but to do this soon as our debts are mounting at an increasing rate. How do you propose paying off the national debt without massive spending cutbacks? This is actually a much more popular position in this country than you realize. We are a country that is tired of war -- especially wars that look more and more to have dubious justification.
|
|
Now for the six reasons Ron Paul has a good chance:
1. He is the only candidate who has not and never will accept lobbyist funding. In other words, he is not sold out.
2. He has a clear and consistent voting record for adherence to Constitutional law.
3. He is receiving more campaign contributions from military personnel than any other presidential candidate. What does that say about his foreign policy?
4. He speaks the truth plainly without resorting to mudslinging or degrading accusations. People like a clean campaign.
5. He has thousands of willing and dedicated supporters who are spreading his message, donating money, and WILL vote for him in primaries. His support is solid while few if any of the other candidates can say the same.
6. He is considered a true Washington outsider at a time when the American people distrust both parties and want real, meaningful change.
I can list plenty more reasons, but all of these reasons point to the fact he can resonate with a lot of people. As he said, there is a revolution in this country, and that revolution has chosen Ron Paul. |
|
The liberal CNN planted 7 of the "questioners" and then loaded the post interview 6 person panel with 5 liberals.
CNN is pathetic. |
|
|
Ron Paul (smeagol) is completely unelectable and the sooner he and his kool-aid drinking cult followers realize that the better. You might be able to hack your way into winning any internet poll but that will be the extent of your winnings. Your internet savy has only enhanced your reputations as crazed lunatic spammers. Much as in the trilogy 'Lord of the Rings' Smeagol will not wind up with the golden ring, you can bank on that! |
|
Is that the "Blow everyone up who looks at us funny", "well, maybe SOME socialism is ok as long as we have cheap labor" New Right? Or is it the New Left, the "Evangelicals" who've decided SOME socialism is ok as long as no gays marry and nobody has abortions?
That train sound you hear coming at you is the third party we're about to form. |
|
talisman writes the left's mantra on Fox News (which, like all leftist mantras, is concocted without reference to facts):
"It's kind of funny that you would take umbrage over having a liberal panel discussing the GOP debate (if it was, indeed, "liberal"). After all, isn't this typical of FNC? Which is why the Dems refused to debate on FNC, if I recall correctly."
Any time I see a panel on Fox News, it's got real liberals and real conservatives -- completely unlike the "balanced" panels of hard-left liberals and moderate liberals I see on the biggest TV networks. Sunday on Fox, we see Brit Hume and William Kristol from the right, but we also see Juan Williams and Maura Liason from the Left.
The Dems refused to debate on FNC because they knew they couldn't get away with planted questions there the way they do on the other networks.
Tim Russert (God bless him for being an honest man) stepped out of script and showed us what happens when Cardboard Clinton has to swing at a fast ball. It wasn't a MAJOR LEAGUE fastball, mind you, but it WAS the 75-mph kind (a moderate, high school fastball), and she wet herself in fear, and couldn't even swing at it. They knew they'd get the pro fastballs at Fox. THAT is why they won't debate there. |
|
angrywhtmale
I don't want a new right. I am quite happy with the "old right". Old fashioned conservatism Ronald Regan style. Rush Limbaugh summarized the state of the GOP field very nicely following the CNN/youtube debate.
"There was one candidate who did not display any moderateness or liberalism or have any of his past forays into those areas displayed, and that candidate was Fred Thompson."
The light you believe you see at the end of the tunnel might be the firefly that is Ron Paul about to spread his guts out over the windshield of the train that is inevitably going to squash him. If you legitimately believe Smeagol has a shot you are crazier than he is. |
|
|
...slashing the rivals is just what the left fears on Fox. It is of the secular self love, and an ideology of denial. How many times have you watched Colmes see, and hear, undeniable facts, and act as if they didn't exist. Then he returns with a question of speculation. Proven facts bounce off the hardened layer of liberal embrace. A wall built around any individual who builds that wall to protect individual prosperity. Inside that wall is all the material the person has gained, and all can gain equally with that material. There cannot be any rivals, or revelations, presented to this ideology, has it speculates all are of equal passions. The whats yours is mine, has mine is the same as yours, syndrome of pure democracy. Theoretic politics born, and bred, by medicine man politicians selling a cure for all remedy. |
|
|
|