::rolls eyes::
I'm no longer so embarrassed for the Democrats. This is way more egregious and certainly more elitist than ditching the Fox debate. |
|
This is a race to see who will become the leader of the free world, not the next American Idol.
While I agree things change over time, surely we can maintain some decorum when it comes to a presidential election cycle.
I have a hard time picturing Ronald Reagan answering questions from a snowman...... |
|
So Democrats ditch a debate and that means they're afraid of Fox. Republicans ditch a debate and they're upholding the dignity of the process?
Double standard, anyone? |
|
I have read most of your posts. I will respond if you ever say anything intelligent.
Good day. |
|
"Intelligent" in this context means what exactly? Come on, Paddy, educate me. I'm just a poor, stupid liberal.
No? Not interested in holding a dialogue? Quel suprise.
I guess I ought to just build a giant statue of your brain then and pray for enlightenment.
Good day to YOU, sir.
|
|
|
Great idea on resurrecting of a brain statue---it'll be a bit like trying to make sense out of a "snowman". They both interact similarly. |
|
This is a mistake. It is not necessarily an issue of right or wrong -- it is about appearance. The Democrats will be able to say that they are more receptive to addressing the concerns of everyday people. Now, I completely agree with people that this is NOT really about everyday people -- but it will take no effort to spin it that way.
I am not sure, though, that I agree that being President or running for President means you are too dignified for odd-ball questions. You are running to represent the people -- not to be king. I think we mystify the office too much already. He is not our superior -- he is our servant. He serves at OUR pleasure, and he should never forget that or get too big for his britches (or her, as the case may be in a bit more than a year). If a question strikes you as being silly, answer it with grace. It needn't be an embarrassing moment -- it can show what you are made of. |
|
|
I think a Republican YouTube debate would be as ridiculous as the Democrat one was. Although I do believe that the typical debate platform is a waste. We need real debates with candidates taking real positions that are important to GOP voters. THAT would be worth watching. |
|
|
None of these "game show" events come even close to qualify as debates. The questioners and/or medium should not overshadow the candidates. The only appeal they have to viewers is the possibility of seeing a major gaff. I don't even know how we can hold a true debate. These "first tier" guys will NEVER submit to anything that poses any risk of getting cornered into having to give a real answer. All we are being presented with are publicity stunts to promote various media. I've learned most of what I need to know from Powerline Candidate Forum where you can actually participate in cornering candidates and watch them completely ignore what they said next time they speak in public. The term "herding weasels" is very appropriate here. |
|
|
Tightie-whities or boxers? Yeah, that's what we need to know about our candidates. |
|
at first glance i think you are right hugh but in the end i think rudy has it better.
the problem is not with youtube entries it's with cnn choosing which questions to air. in the dem debate every question was a polite softball. with the repubs i'm sure we will see a lot of hate speech posing as passion.
not good for the repubs in general. |
|
|
Why waste time on idiotic questions / people. Are we watching for information or intertainment. I'd like them to agree to the debate but establish who will screen the questions. I'd like to see the questions that did not make the Dems debate. I have a feeling that some would have been a lot better then some that did make it. |
|
I think it is very smart not to get ensnared in a circus athmosphere and Thompson is not going to be there ... so why should RG attend?
as you note today, the ongoing disarray and inability to raise fund in the Thompson non-campaign is reflecting itself in the betting odd's.
Thompson dropped like a rock today and RG went up.
FT is not going to run. |
|
I echo Manfred's opinion on this. No, the snowman debate is not exactly the most substantive or dignified way to conduct a conversation about the direction of this country. But since when is the process of electing the president dignified? I look at these guys flipping pancakes at meet-and-greets, or I think back to Alan Keyes crowd-surfing at Michael Moore's urging, or Mike Dukakis in the tank or Ed Muskie crying on national television or Poppa Bush making a fool of himself over the amazing technology that is a supermarket checkout gun, and it occurs to me that there is virtually no part of this process that's even a little dignified.
But I digress.
I find it agonizingly arrogant and hypocritical for Giuliani and Romney to duck out while nailing Democrats to the cross for ditching Fox. That's my point. The Dems were wrong too, but Republicans are both wrong and stupid. This is a stunningly politically tone-deaf decision on their part. |
|
|
Presidential debates are a joke. I haven't seen a good one since Clinton-Bush-Perot in '92 (and even then I was twelve, so what did I know? That one could have been just as meaningless). But like it or not, the American people are the ones pulling the lever on Election Day. And no one's going to get anywhere by implying that their questions are unimportant. So if all debates are rotten, why not at least make them rotten while making sure we at least hear from SOME real people, no matter how ignorant those real people are? |
|
"I'm just a poor, stupid liberal."
It may be that you're not poor. |
|
As it happens, I am fairly poverty-stricken. But then again, that's the plight of artists I suppose.
My stupidity, on the other hand, I have no excuse for. |
|
I would agree with Paddy's comment above.If a stupid question is asked, I would rather see a well known journalist get slapped down than some fool on YouTube.
The CNN approach leads, as CNN so designs, to a circus. |
|
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
Some of you have no doubt wondered what the objection by counsel "argumentative" means. We have had a lot of such objections from both sides this afternoon, and you have noticed that I have sustained them. I think at this point, there need be no secrets, particularly as to the language used in courtroom.
By "argumentative," the lawyers are asserting that the other side is asking a question for its own sake, more specifically for effect upon all of you, and not because the question is intended to elicit an answer of any probative value. The witness is simply being used as a convenient potted plant for the lawyers to make arguments to you in the form of highly rhetorical questions. I have sustained these objections because the questions are inappropriate.
I have now grown wearisome of such tactics, and have let counsel know it out of your presence. Nevertheless, my advice apparently has fallen on deaf ears. Therefore, why keep you in the dark any longer? From now on, when I sustain objections to argumentative questions, you will know that the lawyers are misbehaving. Some people call it cheating. I will let you be the judge of that. Sustained. Please continue, counsel.
Except that: In a presidential debate, no one says such things, and the worst offenders on this score tend to be partisan lay people attempting to trap, ridicule and offend the presidential candidate(s). Forget this kind of forum. |
|
Interesting how EVERYONE is getting their panties all bunched up over the daily and/or weekly details of what each side says and/or does about the other side (and we're still 16 months from a general election).
I really am laughing here........not at you directly.....but at the dramatic terminology chosen in describing this----(just another page in a long book of back-and-forth crap between cons and libs)-----incident of who chooses not to appear on a televised program, blah, blah, blah:
Your passage:
"But I digress.
I find it agonizingly arrogant and hypocritical for Giuliani and Romney to duck out while nailing Democrats to the cross for ditching Fox. That's my point. The Dems were wrong too, but Republicans are both wrong and stupid. This is a stunningly politically tone-deaf decision on their part."
We have the choosing of the word, "agonizingly" arrogant. As a backdrop, it makes the version of "agonizing" which I went through for an entire year(in watching my mother succomb to an insidious cancer) pale in comparison.
Then in the same paragraph, our world seems to be rocked by the "stunningly...tone-deaf...". Silly me for approaching a sensation remotely akin to being "stunned" that morning I woke up to a couple of major skyscrapers imploding after swallowing rather large aircraft.
Please know that I am not making fun of you. Not in a personal way. Please also know that I am befuddled and bewildered as to what the words "agonizing" and "stunned" really mean anymore. I thought I did, however, as you can plainly see, these words are so loosely used these days that they are at the very least, diluted.
|
|
|
They were out of there once they saw questions from six black people, two lesbians, a snowman - and ONLY ONE GUN NUT!! |
|
"I have a hard time picturing Ronald Reagan answering questions from a snowman......"
How quickly they forget the man co-starred with a chimpanzee! |
|
|
Tightie-whities or boxers? Depends! ;) |
|
The YouTube debate was a JOKE, BORING, LAUGHABLE, PATHETIC......I can go on and on.
So, because the Republicans are mature, don't want silly stupid questions asked of them, the elections over and the DEMS are in????? So we all want higher taxes, a weak defense, socialized medicine???????????? Dude, you need to take a breath and SHUT UP. There is so much time till the election. The DEMS have just started making complete asses out of themselves....let them continue.
At the end of the day we want: Border Security, lower taxes, safety.....WE WANT AMERICA BACK.
And get off the fund raising drama. Once we have a solid candidate, the money will come rolling in |
|
So whatever became of Fox News? Can't they put on a Youtube debate and just make sure the questions are fair?
There, that wasn't so hard now was it?
Put me in charge of the RNC and we'd win in 2008. These idiots can't think 2 inches outside of the box. |
|
|
The "we're too mature" to take questions from the low-lifes on YouTube is playing right into the hands of the people who most want to see the republican party lose face for many, many, years to come. Thank you. |
|
That seems sort of cheap and easy. I suspect most of us watched the towers fall live, and I suspect most of us were stunned, shocked, horrified etc. I live in New York, have friends who live near the Trade Centers, and have many friends who work down there. When I moved away from New York, I would drive home (14 long hours) to see my parents, and the first thing that I could see late in the night that would tell me I was leaving the miserable New Jersey Swamps were those two towers -- they meant home to me -- but the idea that stunning or whatever is off limits now because of it is just sort of silly. Especially given the argument that this debate is skippable because the candidates are too dignified -- well, if we are going to elevate the guy who loves wearing drag, my former idiotic mayor, to that level of seriousness, then I think we can start using the same language.
Let's discuss this on its merits, not taking shots at adjectives, adverbs, and verbs. |
|
|
Don't get me confused with the other 'Brian' making comments here, this is my first one on this topic. The GOP Candidates are missing the point that the majority of Americans under 35 use the Internet, not snail mail, not telephones, nor the TV. It's the internet stupid that connects the growing new segment of America and the World's society. If the GOP candidates are too stupid not to do a YouTube debate, then frankly, they have no business running a Nation whose one third of it's people are internet connected since the Candiates will be disconnected from this part of America. |
|
The GOP is in deep trouble. The party is disorganized, disspirited, and lacking in fundraising. The President is not popular.
So the candidates need to throw caution to the wind and take CNN and its silly questions head on. Will CNN play fair and edit those YouTube questions fairly, heck no. But there is the opportunity for Thompson, Giuliani and Romney. It is those left field questions that they can hit out of the park.
If GOP candidates act timid they will lose. The Dems ran away from Fox, don't mimic them with CNN. |
|
"I find it agonizingly arrogant and hypocritical for Giuliani and Romney to duck out while nailing Democrats to the cross for ditching Fox"
When did the Algore/Google controlled, hardline leftwing Youtube, become the equivalent of Fox News?
That would be like Republican candidates appearing on Daily Kos.
It simply doesn't make any sense.
The Republican base is not interesd in our candidates kowtowing to a bunch of screaming, wild eyed, left wing crazies. It's not going to get them any votes in the primaries, so why do it.
A definite thumbs down. |
|
|
OK, I am not picking -- I mean this sincerely -- how is youtube biased? I mean, if anyone can post something, how can it be biased? This strikes me as the same as the anti-wikipedia argument. Wikipedia is biased towards ignorance, since so many of the entries have problems, but I don't see a political bias. Explain. |
|
"I mean this sincerely -- how is youtube biased?"
Youtube is owned by the Algore controlled, hard line leftwing Google, no?
And the same Youtube has regularly removed postings from conservatives like Michelle Malkin, while at the same time allowing the ranting loony left crazies to post any ati-American hate they like, no?
"if anyone can post something, how can it be biased? "
They can't
Just go ask Michelle Malkin.
That's one reason why Malkin started her own video service, called "Hotair".This |
|
|
I enjoyed the teaser. When does the full fledged version of your biography get released? It pains me little in finding no overbloated adjectives in describing how tedious it is to read your drivel. |
|
What counts is who picks the questions. Get Fox to cosponsor with You Tube. It is only fair since the Dems will not touch Fox.
Fox will pick mature germane questions. |
|
"I have a hard time picturing Ronald Reagan answering questions from a snowman"
He wouldn't know the difference. Didn't his alleged nearsightedness keep him home back in 1942? |
|
|
How can they face Al Qaeda????????????????????? |
|
in their quest to make the candidates jump through the most demeaning and ridiculous hoops imaginable.
Let the Dems play this game. It just gives more ammunition for their 'Dukakis tank moment'. It makes them all look small and silly.
The lefties are just mad because their candidates look stupid and it's too late to save them from THE SNOWMAN! |
|
...to be fair. At least he'll try to be fair. Thats about all you can ask. If cnn is doing it again I'd like to see them get Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs involved. Then I could really feel more comfortable about it. And I know the GOP candidates would be a lot more relaxed. And I'm sure that there are those ultra-lib elements within cnn that don't want them to be relaxed.
I think Cooper wants to build a reputation for fairness and unbiased reporting. This is his big chance here. And honestly it is cnn's big chance to lure conservatives back [from Fox] if they handle this correctly and do allow Dobb's and Beck to be involved in this.
Am also glad to hear the GOP candidates raising some cane about the debate process. It has been very poor. Even Fox's debate was less than stellar. DD |
|
The UTube debate was questions asked by real people. But only the questions the left-wing extremists at the Communist News Network approved of.
Not one question on why congress has not demanded border security and the prosecution of employers who hire illegals.
Not one question on a law protecting people who identify suspicious behavior by potential terrorists, from frivolous law suits.
CNN sucks. Thats why their at the bottom of ratings. |
|
Mr Ruffini:
Why don’t we just stick a sock-puppet on Chris Matthews’ fist and have IT ask questions of the candidates? Sir, if you’re genuinely of the opinion that some clown dressed up as a snowman asking a question on global warming is the proper way to select the POTUS, then you’re eminently qualified to be the puppet.
|
|
Give a scathing commentary on everything that was wrong and stupid with the YouTube debate (if you really cut to the bone, your whole commentary will be replayed in MSM-- it will be interesting and newsworthy.)
After which lay down the utlimatum-- 'either grow up or I won't show up.' (makes for good headline.) While saying this, mix in a couple of barbs as preemption of what tricks you expect them to pull on you. This whole dialogue should take no more than a just over a minute.
Result-- you probably win support from the base. The regular evening news watcher would find it very hard to disagree with you. You've declawed CNN in advance. You're political opponents have no goods on you. |
|
Well we're seeing this entire, stupid "big tent" philosophy falling apart.
We need to be attacking the dems over their socialism and anti-Americanism.
Don't worry about hurting feelings. |
|
|
|
in hindsight, I would have loved to have a snowman question come out on rudy, fred or mitt. If I were their stratigist, I'd be praying for that question/situation. Just think of the PR. You get some silly question from a snowman. You don't answer for 15 seconds, then give a rousing address on what it means to be running for the presidency, you end by saying "I'm looking to be the leader of the greatest nation in the most perilous of times, and it looks like I need to take the lead on this charade"
Then walk off the stage!
you've either left the rest of the nominee's looking like idiots for staying in the circus or like sheep for also walking out.
|
|
|
The difference is on the youtube debates the questions are ask by everyday americans. They are asking questions that matter to most if not nearly all americans. The FoxNews Channel is nothin more than a mouth piece for the Republican Party. Even Ann coulter says so. How many times to Bill O say "far left" in a day? That's the difference. Questions that matter to a majority of americans vs. gotcha questions from Fox Noise to trap Dems and make them look bad while bolstering Repub propaganda. What would Jack Bauer do? Yea, that's real hard hitting journalism. The fact is, the Repubs are truly scared right now. Scared to answer random questions for which they have no pre-fabricated answer. Scared of netroots websites like DailyKos. Do you think Dems are worried about all the mudslinging that goes on in TH? Nope. |
|
Mr. Ruffini refers to the YouTube questioners as, "regular people". Really? From what planet?
We are in the process, even if it is much too early to be doing so, of choosing a leader in an era when an evil force is loose in the world and attempting to end our leadership role in the world not to mention kill many of us in the process. All this is much to serious to let the process of choosing a leader degenerate into a combination of the worst of TV (CNN) and the dregs of the internet (YouTube).
"Regular people"? It's got to be a joke, and not a very funny one. |
|
I tell you how to make things right and secure the nomination. Be the ONLY candidate to agree and if it is any of the big 4... then they will win. Why? SImply because they show they are not afraid of regular people no matter how stupid the question. They are asking for the job of the person who represents us all... including the people who might ask stupid questions on youtube.
Fred or Newt please step up and take this debate... and in doing so take the nomination. |
|
|
Dont let the lefties at CNN sandbag you, Republican candidates! Just as they used that clownish format to help the Dems avoid any serious questions (and possibly revealing just how idiotically far to the left they are) the agenda-driven libs at CNN will make sure that the questions that are selected will be designed to play to the worse stereotypes of Republicans. Kudos to Rudy to not play their stupid game. And Romney too, it seems. If CNN wants a freak show they should just bring on the Snowman and let him mc a debate between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. |
|
While i agree better question screening would be preferred, it's just not going to happen. Media wont broadcast a "unentertaining" debate purely on the issues and from legitament questions. Only people highly interested in politics would watch and sadly that's not a lot. They need these off the wall questions thrown in to make it "entertaining" and draw out the emotions of the normal politically inept person.
Furthermore, none of the top tier candidates on both sides want to answer the tough questions whether they admit it or not. It really is sad what politics are coming to today. There is one such candidate I believe would agree to/excel in said legitament debate. He is the same candidate that is drawing up large amounts of attention from the youth and internet (youtube being one of them) movements. Ron Paul. |
|
not just the YouTube/CNN shenanigans (which might at least be more honest about being juvenile) but the whole lot of multi-candidate, multi-question media hideousities. I'm still waiting for one candidate to be serious and adult enough to denounce and refuse to participate in any of them.
Want a real debate? Here's how - announce the one (not two or more) question that will be addressed in the debate beforehand. Allow the candidates a set amount of time to answer and then after all have had their say a set (single) rebuttal time. No more or less than that. No stupidities from Chris Matthews, Anderson Cooper or any other knuckleheaded newsreader - just THE question and THE answers. Want another question? Have another debate. Keep it on point, and keep the question important. |
|
Having a presidential debate is NOT an "all or nothing" situation. The Republicans' only choice is not to use YouTube and stupid videos or not to appear in public.
Republicans absolutely can and should demand -- not request, demand -- intelligent, pertinent, well-formulated and well-asked questions, regardless of whether they come from Anderson Cooper or American citizens' videos.
I personally think Americans should have the opportunity to WRITE IN questions. The requirement that people make videos is kind of sophomoric. |
|
We need dignified adults to run for president. |
|
Wow... why should candidates be afraid to answer any of the questions? If they can't defend themselves and explain their point of view no matter how absurd the question is, I sure don't want them as my commander and chief. What are they going to do when faced with a tough decision in office? Back down?
You may or may not agree with Ron Paul's line of thinking. That is your right. On the other hand, you can't but respect a man that believes in his ideas whole heartedly and can defend them without a shadow of a doubt.
|
|
"the fact that even the highly partisan questioners acquitted themselves better than Chris Matthews did"
Comparing them to Chris Matthews is setting the bar ridiculously low...no?
w/o= |
|
They were dissing the NAACP, the sponsors of the Fox News debate they ducked.
With all the "undocumented americans" ready to line up & vote (on Spanish language ballots) the Demonrats don't need the NAACP or their constituency to win elections anymore.
I believe it was a conscious decision to throw the African-American voters under the bus.
Uhhh...I mean out of the private jet at 20,000 feet.
w/o= |
|
|
Its not the absurd questions that need to be answered. In a YouTube debate CNN will not allow a serious discussion of the important issues. The strategic threat presented by China? The failure of government-run healthcare and why the government needs to be less involved? The Democrat's (and Ron Paul's) irresponsible lack of concern about the terrorist threat to world peace? Protectionism vs. Free Trade? The need for regime change in Iran? A bureaucracy that feels its ok to leak national security secrets for political purposes NONE of these topics would be touched on. Instead we would get the usual sniveling liberal stereotype questions about abortion, evolution, global warming, Karl Rove ... the usual Democratic talking points. I want to see a serious discussion with questions asked by serious journalists that includes no more than four or five candidates at a time. Ron Paul's abandonment of our foreign policy responsibilities make him totally unthinkable to any real Republican so I would exclude him, Brownback, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson, and Mike Huckabee as irrelevant. |
|
|
I agree with you 100%. In my previous comment I state that the questions needed better screening. The media will not allow/broadcast this though. Im just saying every candidate should be prepared to answer any question that's asked of them, no matter how relevant. That's one of the main reasons the tough/important questions don't get asked. Candidates beat around the bush as to not give away their true position. People get tired of hearing the same old politically correct answers. No one feels strongly enough to take a bold stance and risk their campaign. They say whatever will get the most votes/them into office. |
|
|
Implicit in most of the postings here supporting a Republican boycott of the YOUTUBE debate is, I'm sorry to say, a contempt for ordinary American voters. Trying to slough it off because a couple of questioners wore funny outfits is a fairly lame excuse particulary since quite a lot of the questions the other night were perfectly reasonable. For those watching this story, admittedly a fairly small number, this looks like the Republicans avoiding questions from ordinary folk. They can also probably figure out the reason, dropping a brick answering a tough question from left field. Don't think the Democrats and the media won't have a field day over this, they will. Try all the rationalising you like, it looks like political cowardice. |
|
|
My my it seems that the GOP is too cowardly, too preoccupied with other matters or too snotty to talk to average Americans (even those dressed like snowmen)! I saw a tiny postage stamp sized article about this in the Daily News and it seems that Mitt Romney thinks it's beneath his dignity to talk to a Snowman while Rudy is bailing out because it would interfere with his going begging for contributions from his fellow fat cats! Shmucks! |
|
...and as far as "Ron Paul's abandonment of our foreign policy responsibilities", the Iraq war is apparently not holding down al queada (sp?) which is supposed to be our target. All we're doing is trying to build a democracy there. I support that and realize what would happen if we leave but I dont know if thats an obtainable/feasable goal anymore. I think we should give this last push a chance but if it fails that should be the last of it.
Furthermore, Ron Paul keeps saying he wants to go after the terrorist, not nation building. If staying in Iraq has done anything, it's po'd the terrorist even more and provided them a safe harbour along the afghan/paki border. There is a much larger security threat-protecting our own dang border. Forget about the terrorists over there for now. They've got to get in first and right now they could be walking across the rio grande. Once we have that situation contained, then hunt them over seas. |
|
And of course no one (on either side) would answer a question about why space development is important to him (or her) because that would never get through the screen.
But space-based solar power, if given the kind of focus now being given to forcing the country to destroy itself economically in order to cut carbon emissions by 90% (per Al Gore at the NJ Live Earth) could solve not only our need for clean energy, it would eliminate our dependence on oil from countries who envy us but don't want to do what's necessary to become like us.
Want to learn more? Check out http://www.nss.org.
|
|
moral_majority writes: Friday, July, 27, 2007 11:29 AM
What libs & their allies do
They sit around all day complaining... I wish I was white; I wish I was rich; I wish I was straight; I wish I had a job ......
Well grow up you babies! Do something about it.
What planet do you life on man?? Is this 1907 or 2007? I can't tell by reading your post. Sometimes you can really see the ignorance of people and tell how they truly think. Im sure there's a lot of non-Caucasians who are happy and proud to be what race they are. Im sure there's plenty of people who aren't rich who are satisfied with their lives. I've never heard a gay man or woman say "I wish i was straight". "I wish I had a job" I guess liberals are the only ones unemployed huh. You, sir are the definition of a bigot. Come out the Slate rock quarey with Fred Flinstone in the stone age and into the 21st century. Moral majority...I hope don't too many people think like you. Sad excuse for an american. |
|
|
|
I attended a military school where tubing meant failure. The most appalling failure of the Republican's so far as the debates are concerned was the Cris Mathews nonsense. This U-Tube silliness would certainly surpass that. Is that because Republicans are afraid?
Of course not. It is because the current debates should be about who Republicans will select as their candidate and who Democrats will select as theirs. So Republican candidates subjecting themselves to a liberals Hacks questions and time management, as they did with Chris Mathews, is stupid-just as the dems submitting themselves to a right wing zealot for questions and time management would be. As a Republican I want to know the positions of my candidates on issues of concern to me and I resent being denied that information because the Republicans think its important to make Chris feel important. Time enough for that when both parties are on the podium-for now the debate should be about issues that Republican's want to know their candidates positions on and what Democrates need to know about their candidates positions. That purpose cannot be served by pandering to the oppositions leading hacks or taking questions from snowmen selected by God knows what authority. A little common sense PLEASE.
|
|
I would not mind the Candidates debating questions from YouTube, if the questions were asked face to face without the, "dramatics?".
Speaking to a non-face? Lets be real. We know the questions we want answered. I think the Democratic debate with YouTube was a joke. |
|
Don't sweat moral_majority. Mm is a hard-core liberal who poses as a conservative Christian, and posts the insane nonsense he imagines conservative Christians would be posting if they told the truth. The fact that none of them actually post things like that doesn't deter him; he KNOWS that's what they're thinking. He knows it because... um... well... he just knows. "'Cause EVERYBODY knows that's what they think. C'mon, YOU know that's what they're thinking, and if you don't, you're just too stupid to breathe, " etc.
That's moral_majority. Don't take him seriously. None of us do. |
|
...the number of people who posted "If the Republicans pan the Democrats for dumping Fox, they're hypocrites for dumping YouTube." Honestly, it's frightening how many people lack the most rudimentary ability to reason.
What they're saying is, "If you denounce somebody for doing X, then you're a hypocrite if you do X, regardless of your reason."
Let's try this on a hypothetical, shall we? Hypothetical Joe gets upset at Hypothetical Sam because Sam slugs a guy in a bar just because he felt like hitting someone. Then H. Joe slugs a man who's trying to pick his pocket.
Is Hypothetical Joe a hypocrite?
According to the Democrats in here, yes, he is, because in their thinking, it doesn't matter what the reason for the action is. You denounced somebody for slugging, you can't slug anybody. Period. That's how they think.
Those of us who actually engage in moral reasoning understand that reasons matter. Slugging somebody "because I feel like it" is arbitrary, vicious, and abusive. Slugging somebody who's picking your pocket is self-defense, and benefits society by adding risk to the act of picking pockets.
Now, let's apply that to the matter at hand. Why did the Democrats dump Fox? They dumped Fox because they maintain the delusion that Fox is biased against Democrats. Republicans found this disgusting because Republicans CONSTANTLY face questioners from media sources who are biased against Republicans; they properly observed that the Democrats were being wimps.
Is that why the candidates are dumping YouTube? I don't think so; they seem to be dumping it because it lowers the level of the debate to banality. Different reason, different actions.
Nope, guys, no hypocrisy here. Just another instance of Democrats displaying their inability to engage in moral reasoning. |
|
The Republican candidates have actually done the right thing in snubbing this debate. They have saved themselves the embarassment of having to speak within a debate format that favors the quick-witted and requires the ability to field any impromptu question from the American public.
Young people ages 18-30 have increasingly self-identified as "liberal" since GWB took office anyway. The GOP has all but lost the "young people" demographic. The candidates know deep down that their misguided, condescending attempts to try to reach out to this group with their outdated rhetoric will only provide Jon Stewart with more material and make the GOP lose the general election by an even bigger margin. |
|
Mitt Romney was just on CSPAN and took a YouTube question. Along with a plethora of telephone calls in CSPAN's standard format of Republican, Democrat and Independent phone lines.
He also said, due to his schedule, he is not able to make the CNN/YouTube debate.
|
|
Because, I'm here in Detroit, surrounded by idiots. Could it be Michigan got it "Right" once?
Mitt and the Republicans can avoid Michigan after the primaries.. These nitwits here think being #1 in murder is something to be proud of. |
|
|
Well, this article just proves Romney and Giulliani are afraid of we commoners questions. Lets wait and see what other Republican candidates say before casting judgement on all the Republican candidates, and Fred Thompson. |
|
|
Complete with their typical filtered, softball non-questions. If the GOP hasn't got more going for it that that pathetic juvenile stunt..they should quit debating while they are ahead... |
|
"Well, this article just proves Romney and Giulliani are afraid of we commoners questions"
Huh? Romney was just on CSPAN today (as this story was hitting the internet) and he took a YouTube question and spent 90 minutes taking a lot of calls and questions from "commeners".
It's interesting, reading all the puffery today about how Mitt is some how afraid of YouTube and then I turn on CSPAN and there he is answering a YouTube question...NICE!
Classic....from a class guy!
|
|
|
What is it that "you tube" is best known for... other than it's do-it-yourself, 2nd rate birthplace in the bedrooms of obscure little Twit-Tarts undressing for the camera... Dubious "success" at best....but obviously right on the Lib's level of social-political-moral and interlectual developement... |
|
|
is smokin some good weed. Come on lets be serious. |
|
Rubbish!
The whole YouTube debate concept is a circus. The GOP candidates are right not to participate in such a farce. Being forced to answer a stupid question from a snowman??? Are you kidding? Talk about lowering yourself, even more than the whole process already does!
"My name is Joe Blow from Idiotsville and I'd like all the candidates to bark like a dog for 30 seconds."
There's no valid comparison to the Dems bailing on a FoxNews debate (as far as these "debates" go), which is a legitimate respectable forum with actual newsmen, unlike snowmen with high-pitch voices or a guy holding a gun claiming it's his baby.
Just because our times include the popularity of media such as YouTube, doesn't mean we have to mindlessly jump on every bandwagon in the pop culture to pick our President!
We must nip this trend in the bud before what diminished dignity remains is completely obliterated and they really are asked to bark like seals! |
|
XYZABC writes: "The whole YouTube debate is a circus....We must nip this trend in the bud before what diminished dignity remains is completely obliterated"
What "dignity" has there ever been to the political campaign process? Candidates eating hot dogs and pizza at "average folks' diners," then going around with the grease ketchup and mustard smeared around their lips; pumping voters' hands; kissing the voters' babies. Every candidate tries to make himself look like a "man of the people," and sometimes it fails grotesquely (remember Bush 41 with the supermarket checkout laser?).
No matter how "undignified" you think the process is, no matter how "uncouth" the participants are, remember that those participants are AMERICANS. And they VOTE. The snowman guy has EXACTLY the same number of votes that YOU do.
And ALL these elected officials work for us taxpayers. Believe me, these politicians love power so much they would do any stunt short of a striptease on camera (and maybe even that!) if they thought it would help them win.
As far as "nipping YouTube in the bud" is concerned, YouTube is fantastically popular, while the combined Nielsen ratings of the Big Four Networks keep declining with each successive decade. YouTube and Internet video generally is the wave of the future. Broadcast television may not survive much longer.
|
|
Russell writes: "So whatever became of Fox News? Can't they put on a Youtube debate and just make sure the questions are fair?"
If that keeps up, the impression the world will get is that Republicans don't trust anybody in the MSM to ask them any questions (in ANY format) except Fox News. That is exactly the mirror image of the Democrats; they won't trust Fox News to give them questions.
I don't think Fox News WANTS to be known as the favorite network of one political party and the hated enemy of the other. That doesn't exactly jibe with their claim to be "fair and balanced." It starts to look like a conflict of interest.
|
|
Russell writes: "We need to be attacking the dems over their socialism and anti-Americanism."
No, that's dead WRONG.
History has shown, repeatedly, that a political party cannot retain the White House by just going negative on the challenger party.
It didn't work for the Democrats in 1980.
It didn't work for the Republicans in 1992.
And it won't work in 2008.
The incumbent party has a special challenge that the challenger party never has: The incumbent party has to show why the public should TRUST it to CONTINUE to be the incumbent. Carter's only argument from 1980 was "I know things are bad, but my opponent could possibly make things even worse." That argument fell like a lead balloon with the public, and the public threw Carter out of office and elected his opponent--Reagan.
|
|
YouTube has just put a face to the questions (and added some video production) to a format CSPAN has been doing for years; taking questions from voters to the politicans.
Romney was on CSPAN live for 90 minutes yesterday taking telephone questions. I hardly think that because only the voice was presented that somehow makes the questions less valuable.
This YouTube fascination reminds me, back in the day, when all the guys were fawning over their eight-track players!!!
|
|
|
|