Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 29, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

THE WACKO PARADE....The Weekly Standard's blog comments on the questioners at Wednesday's Republican debate:

So, a good night for for the lowest denominator, a bad night for the GOP. America got to see a vaguely threatening parade of gun fetishists, flat worlders, Mars Explorers, Confederate flag lovers and zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers as well as various one issue activists hammering their pet causes.

Funny! But wait. NRO publishes an email from a reader:

I was absolutely disgusted with what I saw tonight from CNN. Thousands of people submitted questions for this debate; yet, the questions they chose only served to reinforce the stereotype that the average Republican voter is a confederate-flag-waving, gun-toting, bible-brandishing conspiracy theorist! There were staggeringly few questions on National Security, and the few that were asked include some of the substanceless "gotcha" questions which were designed for no other purpose than to induce gaffes.

Is the second guy right? Did CNN load up the debate with wackos? Or is he in denial about the real face of the contemporary GOP?

You'll be unsurprised to learn that I vote for option B. If you get questions from tub thumpers, gun nuts, and tax zealots, then you air questions from tub thumpers, gun nuts, and tax zealots. But I'm biased. So I guess I'll leave it up to the wingers to fight this one out with CNN.

Kevin Drum 12:46 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (79)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

You are evidently a Hater. And obviously, to the extent the event reflected badly on the candidates, it demonstrates Liberal Media Bias. On the other hand, to the extent it reflected well on any candidate, then obviously God's Will is at work, amen.

Posted by: bleh on November 29, 2007 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

yet, the questions they chose only served to reinforce the stereotype that the average Republican voter is a confederate-flag-waving, gun-toting, bible-brandishing conspiracy theorist!

If they loaded the questions to make the Republican candidates look like wingnuts, they loaded the audience with wingnuts so that the wingnuttiest comments got the most enthusiastic responses.

Or perhaps the Republican party really has been taken over by wingnuts.

Posted by: asdf on November 29, 2007 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINK

Or is he in denial about the real face of the contemporary GOP?

He's in denial. If he doesn't like that "confederate-flag-waving, gun-toting, bible-brandishing conspiracy theorist" stereotype, then he needs to take back the GOP from the wackos, or find a different party or candidate.

Posted by: has407 on November 29, 2007 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK

How do you load the questions, exactly? Did any callers - do any republicans anywhere - want to know about tax credits for solar power? Renewable resources? Protecting unions? Single payer health care?


That's what I thought.

Posted by: craigie on November 29, 2007 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

Short Shameful Confession: I like Huckabee.

Not for his positions on issues, but because he seems like the only one of the GOP frontrunners who actually believes what he's saying. He's either sincere, or he's very very good at faking sincerity. None of the others come close.

And I think that could make him the hardest one of the bunch to beat in the general election. Especially if the Democrats, in an effort to show that they can throw away even an election being handed to them on a silver platter, nominate someone who has a very hard time coming across as sincere and genuine, and instead seems to have a Romney-esque degree of willingness to flip-flop whenever politically viability demands it.

Posted by: asdf on November 29, 2007 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

Hmmm, whomever could you mean?

Posted by: craigie on November 29, 2007 at 1:32 AM | PERMALINK

Option B, obviously.

Posted by: gfw on November 29, 2007 at 1:42 AM | PERMALINK

Are all the submitted videos available on YouTube? Perhaps the whiner could tabulate just how many were wackos and how many were fine, upstanding people who don't go on Teh Gay hunts.

Posted by: NTodd on November 29, 2007 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

BTW, why did Romney have such a difficult time with the Bible question? Something like: "Do you believe in this book? This book?"

I assume because he wanted to say that he also believed in the book of Mormon. But he had a good, slight dodge: I believe that it's the word of God.

Does anyone else have any other thoughts on why that question might have thrown him for a small loop?

Posted by: gfw on November 29, 2007 at 1:46 AM | PERMALINK

If my Republican friends are representative of the party as a whole, the Repubs consider CNN to be the most liberally-biased news outlet. More so than the New York Times. More than CBS. They accuse CNN of pursuing a conscious agenda to promote Dem causes and undermine Repub causes. And they mean that literally.

Far be it from me to defend CNN, but if you ever want to remind yourself how wide a gulf separates Dems and Repubs, get into a debate with the other side about bias in the media.

Posted by: Novemberist on November 29, 2007 at 1:53 AM | PERMALINK

And this when the CNN explicitly admitted that they selected only the questions that were of interest to the Republicans, and not some Democratic Party prompted gotchas.

Republicans apparently do not like to look at their face in the mirror.

Posted by: gregor on November 29, 2007 at 1:53 AM | PERMALINK

I should add that these same people consider Paul Krugman a lefty radical but consider the WSJ editorial page to be right-of-center but relatively mainstream. Where do I find these people?

Posted by: Novemberist on November 29, 2007 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK
I was absolutely disgusted with what I saw tonight from CNN. Thousands of people submitted questions for this debate; yet, the questions they chose only served to reinforce the stereotype that the average Republican voter is a confederate-flag-waving, gun-toting, bible-brandishing conspiracy theorist!

This email came in to NRO. How can the writer even make that accusation with a straight face, knowing the company he keeps?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 29, 2007 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

This is a little bit stream of consciousness, and it's after four beers, so it's probably not going to work out well. I'd rather be doing something else, but the blonde had to work tomorrow. At least I didn't get fake numbered.

Disclosure: I didn't watch the debate, as only one of the Republican candidates is worthy of election to, well, much of anything.

"Or perhaps the Republican party really has been taken over by wingnuts."

Partly true. Some of what goes on in odd formats like this has to do with the one to many nature of the internet, where every idiot with a keyboard gets an equal voice. That's unfortunate, but not an earth shattering big deal.

The bigger issue is that the Republican Party has gone, in a pretty short period of time, from an largely elite DRIVEN (note that the issue is the force more than the membership) conservative party to a frothing at the mouth populist party. I'd go so far as to say that if you treat fascism as a spectrum rather than a goal line, than they've certainly moved in that direction.

Note:

-Demonization of immigrants. Not really new, but I don't recall it as ever being this bad. I'm young though, and the GOP fundamentally misunderstands this issue. Eventually they'll get tired of getting their asses handed to them because they let their better judgment get drowned out by the shrieking noise of scared, angry people.
-Blind fealty to the concept of "law and order", for it's own sake, rather than as an underpinning of a civic society, coupled with an increased acceptance of the nanny state
-Rejection of a traditional skepticism of government, replaced by a weird, blind faith, everyone on death row is guilty, every one in Gitmo is a Very Dangerous Terrorist, bureaucracies never abuse their powers, etc etc
-the vicious treatment of elites that don't say what they want to hear - historically the GOP is largely elite driven, which is both a good and a bad thing. For now, the fact that it's becoming more democratic (small d) ain't working out so great.
-the embrace of certain things that are fundamentally un-American e.g. torture, which apparently leaves American exceptionalism (Anglophile though I may be - I am an American Exceptionalist) to be based on Mom and Apple Pie


This has less to do with any kind of a mass turnover in membership than it does with extraordinarily poor leadership. This is hopefully a transient issue. And don't kid yourself - Americans, and humanity at large, have always been, and always will be, ready to torture and otherwise debase themselves if they're whipped up in the right way, and no one says "No" and leads them to a better place.

Also note the rise of bizarre forms of media. Some of that may not be transient, e.g. Rush Limbaugh is a genuinely talented guy. But I firmly believe the day will come will come where Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter aren't judged worthy of book deals. And pretty much the entire staff at NRO is recognized for the giant douchebags that they are.

Posted by: hotrod on November 29, 2007 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

Well, there may be truth to question-loading. After CNN swapped that student's question, at the last Dem debate, swapped her question about Yucca Mountain for the "pearls" question, you never know.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 29, 2007 at 2:29 AM | PERMALINK

I don't think there was a single questioner that came close to being the "typical" Red State Republican voter. You know, the type that actually gets the Republicans to the White House on occasion. And I believe (or was it obvious to everyone?) that the "gun fetishist" and the "zombie-eyed-Bible-waver" were parodies by liberals. (But maybe PA comment readers are conditioned to see parodies everywhere).

I wonder, even after the last two CNN debates, what percentage of the electorate knows what youtube is -- never mind how to post a video on it.

There has to be a middle road for these debates. Something between Russert and youtybe.

Posted by: JS on November 29, 2007 at 3:50 AM | PERMALINK

"This is a little bit stream of consciousness, and it's after four beers, so it's probably not going to work out well . . . I didn't watch the debate . . . [it's] the internet, where every idiot with a keyboard gets an equal voice."

Indeed.

Posted by: snartly on November 29, 2007 at 5:49 AM | PERMALINK

What I was struck by was the utter and complete lack of vision by these candidates. They don't have any solution to any problem that doesn't involve bombing it or cutting taxes. Unbelievable. Not a word about alternative energy sources, new housing or transportation concepts, nothing.

The Republican Party still doesn't get "the vision thing"!

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 29, 2007 at 5:51 AM | PERMALINK

I missed the begining. Did CNN pick the "how do we beat the bitch" question?

Ahem, the wackos they picked were fairly mild and representated well the GOP base.

Posted by: dennisS on November 29, 2007 at 8:05 AM | PERMALINK

Damn. Forgot to enter my parody video.

Maybe next fall we can just cut to the chase and have Steven Colbert moderate a debate on comedy central.

Posted by: B on November 29, 2007 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

Funny! But wait. NRO publishes an email from a reader:

I was absolutely disgusted with what I saw tonight from CNN. Thousands of people submitted questions for this debate; yet, the questions they chose only served to reinforce the stereotype that the average Republican voter is a confederate-flag-waving, gun-toting, bible-brandishing conspiracy theorist! There were staggeringly few questions on National Security, and the few that were asked include some of the substanceless "gotcha" questions which were designed for no other purpose than to induce gaffes.

Let's look at just three separate posts from John Derbyshire of NRO, and see if we can figure out why it is that people look at the Republican Party as the Party of insane white men with bizaare fetishes and misguided ideas:

The Confederate Flag:

An Observation On The Display of The American Flag [John Derbyshire]

One good point that got edited out of my "NASCAR Nation" piece in the
current NRODT (and I'm not blaming the editors—authors "sign off" on an
edited piece, & if I'd had my wits about me I would have had this put back
in) was as follows.

I note that on the infield of the Talladega Speedway, you see a lot of
Confederate flags. However—this is the bit that got left on the cutting-room floor—I went on to observe that whenever you see the Confederate flag and the Stars & Stripes flying together on the same staff, THE UNION FLAG IS UPPERMOST. I read this as proud patriotism with a strong,
but secondary, admixture of regional pride.

Guns:

Spirit of Self-Defense [John Derbyshire]

As NRO's designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22.

At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren't very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can't hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren't bad.

Yes, yes, I know it's easy to say these things: but didn't the heroes of Flight 93 teach us anything? As the cliche goes—and like most cliches. It's true—none of us knows what he'd do in a dire situation like that. I hope, however, that if I thought I was going to die anyway, I'd at least take a run at the guy.

The Bible-waving thing:

I don’t feel sure, in fact, that the teachings of a religion have any necessary consequence for the destinies of believer communities. Steve Sailer has remarked that if a Martian’s entire knowledge of the world came from reading the Bible, he would be bound to deduce, after hearing the thundering, angry voice of the Old Testament Jehovah, and reading of the conquests of Joshua, Gideon and David, followed by the gentle words of Christ and St. Paul, that those warlike, fighting Jews must have been kicking around the meek, cheek-turning Christians for the last 2,000 years. This is not... exactly what has been happening.

Gee, maybe if someone at NRO had a passing interest in reading the shit Derbyshire spreads around like badly prepared manure in a salted field, they'd understand why people think the Republican Party has such an image problem right now.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2007 at 8:14 AM | PERMALINK

The answer is clearly "B".

My mother (hard core Repub.) asked me recently why Mitt Romney's being a Mormon was an issue.

I nearly gagged!

Posted by: Mark-NC on November 29, 2007 at 8:44 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: "If you get questions from tub thumpers, gun nuts, and tax zealots, then you air questions from tub thumpers, gun nuts, and tax zealots"

If I recall correctly, Kevin has opined that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to own guns. In my opinion, that makes Kevin a "gun nut". The Second Amendment establishes the right of the "free States" to establish "well-organized militias."

Posted by: SecularAnimist on November 29, 2007 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

America got to see a vaguely threatening parade of gun fetishists, flat worlders, Mars Explorers, Confederate flag lovers and zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers

God dammit. The GOP has the election sealed up again.

Posted by: brooksfoe on November 29, 2007 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

Ask Sonny Perdue, who rode to the Georgia statehouse on the it, if the Confederate flag is a "phony issue." Ask Al Gore, who spent much of the 2000 race reassuring wackjobs that he wasn't gonna take away their guns, if guns are a "phony issue."

This IS what the GOP has become. Certainly the primary-voter segment. And these are the people they pander to.

My favorite answer to the Confederate flag issue was Mitt Romney's; he somehow managed to blame Jonh Edwards for the whole thing.

Posted by: sullijan on November 29, 2007 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

Wacko Parade how well put, the whole republican party is nothing more than a bunch of Wacos including the king himself Waco King George.

Posted by: Al on November 29, 2007 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

What worries me about Hotrod's confidence that "This has less to do with any kind of a mass turnover in membership than it does with extraordinarily poor leadership" and that it is "hopefully a transient issue", is that the GOP has now firmly based itself on having Dixie as a core constituency -- and Dixie's culture, despite having become (obviously) hugely less racist than it used to be, is still vastly more anti-intellectual and subject to fascistic appeals than the rest of the country. Add that to the other GOP core constituency -- the upper class, which of course has always been tempted to resort to dictatorial and semi-dictatorial tactics to maintain its privileges -- and you have a party whose "poor leadership" comes from the grassroots up, and which is going to stay that way for a very long time (specifically, until the last remnants of Old Southern culture fade out completely). The effect was more diluted during the days when the Old South consisted of mindless Lincoln-haters who found themselves allied with a party more directed toward the interests of the lower class in general.

At the risk of resurrecting Godwin's Law, this is exactly the sort of coalition the Nazis had -- and, as Hotrod says, any population can be roused to fascistic behavior by the wrong leadership combined with the wrong political stimulus (and the Age of Megaterrorism is tailor-made to provoke national paranoia).

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on November 29, 2007 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

At the risk of resurrecting Godwin's Law, this is exactly the sort of coalition the Nazis had -- and, as Hotrod says, any population can be roused to fascistic behavior by the wrong leadership combined with the wrong political stimulus (and the Age of Megaterrorism is tailor-made to provoke national paranoia).

That assumes the American people are going to follow one of these insane wingnuts, and I doubt very much whether any of them has the charisma.

McCain said withdrawing from Iraq is just the kind of thing that encouraged and fueled the rise of Hitler.

Who is the Iraqi equivalent of Hitler? And why didn't anyone point out that the Iraqis are far more content killing one another than with taking over the world?

Also noted, the screams about a planted question from a Hillary or Edwards supporter.

Well, if you can't handle a question from an American citizen who supports a Democrat, how the fuck are you going to handle al Qaeda?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2007 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

Seems like some Yankee Republicans don’t have the stomach for the freak show over at the Big Tent Dixieland Revival Republican Party. I suggest they join the colorless DLC cocktail party crowd. They do respectable Republicanism without the embarrassing Jesus stuff or the pesky populism.

Posted by: bellumregio on November 29, 2007 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

I wonder how my Democratic friends would like it if Fox held a Democratic presidential debate and filled the audience with conservative plants who asked questions not intended to help Democrats decide whom to nominate but rather to create sound bites that the Republicans could use in the general election.

You see, that's what CNN did last night. Michelle Malkin points out that in addition to the pro-gay rights retired general who currently is working on the Clinton campaign and used to work for the Kerry campaign, the following questioners were liberal activists: "Abortion questioner is declared Edwards supporter (and a slobbering Anderson Cooper fan); Log Cabin Republican questioner is declared Obama supporter; lead toy questioner is a prominent union activist for the Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers."

If you think it would be just fine if Fox were to do that to the Democrats, then, OK, otherwise, I don't see how you can defend CNN.

Posted by: DBL on November 29, 2007 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

I could not possibly care less that y'all are feeling aggrieved. Good! Now, suck it up and learn something about the error of your ways the past 14 year from it, ya bastards.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 29, 2007 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

America got to see a vaguely threatening parade of gun fetishists, flat worlders, Mars Explorers, Confederate flag lovers and zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers...

In other words, a truly reflective cross-section of today's GOP.

Posted by: ckelly on November 29, 2007 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

What a group of presidential candidates! All support a backward policy against gays in the military, some would end the income tax, most support unregulated gun ownership, most oppose sensible policies on illegal immigration, and one won't condemn waterboarding.

Do they think we need all those guns to protect against the threat of gay marriage?

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

Posted by: altara on November 29, 2007 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK
Did CNN load up the debate with wackos? Or is he in denial about the real face of the contemporary GOP?

Given what we know of media question selection (or even direction) of supposedly audience-driven questions in prior Democratic debates, it would be surprising if media debate sponsors were not selecting questions in Republican debates to fit preselected narratives rather than to fully explore the issues.

OTOH, I don't think this is working out badly for the Republicans in this case. The people who are paying much attention to primary debates of either party are probably the most politically engaged -- those that aren't Republicans aren't likely to be swingable, those that are Republicans are likely to be commited to the key constituencies that make up the base. And while the issues that both descriptions suggest the debate highlighted may make Republicans and Republican candidates seem nuts to swing voters, they are also issues that provide red meat to the base, while avoiding hard questions on pressing issues (like National Security). And the gotchas probably don't hurt; the main audience will chalk them up to media bias an unfairness.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 29, 2007 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, it was a dirty conspiracy by CNN to torpedo the Rep candidates eh DBL? Michelle Malkin says... blah blah. Really? Is this all you've got? Wake up and smell it bub, your party and your candidates have jumped the shark.

Posted by: ckelly on November 29, 2007 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

DBL wrote: "I wonder how my Democratic friends would like it if Fox held a Democratic presidential debate and filled the audience with conservative plants who asked questions not intended to help Democrats decide whom to nominate but rather to create sound bites that the Republicans could use in the general election."

That would be a feeble effort on Fox's part.

After all, CNN held a Democratic presidential debate moderated by bought-and-paid-for Republican Party shill Tim Russert who spent the entire debate asking questions intended to provide sound bites that the Republicans could use in the general election.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on November 29, 2007 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

Fox does that and worse every night. Even more than CNN, they put viewership over truth in order to sell commercials, and they do this by creating a fantasy world for Republican idiots. CNN isn't much better.

An interesting Republican debate, or Democratic one for that matter, would be hosted by Amy Goodman,Bill Moyers, and Phil Donahue. At least you would get some real tough questions and some follow up, and if the Repugs and the Dems started trying to outdo each other about their support for torture, curtailing individual liberties in the US, detaining and deporting migrant families, nuking Iran, privatizing the US treasury, stealing from the poor and giving to the rich and the usual bull, well, at least there would be a couple of moderators who might effectively shame our top candidates for being insane, authoritarian, corrupt, somewhat evil, egomaniacs. That would be interesting.

CNN is bullshit
Fox is the utmost font of bullshit.
Malkin is the quintessence of bullshit as it slips out of dispenser that is Fox, along with other biohazardous material.

There used to be decent Republicans in this country. There really just aren't anymore. They are like people who live on farms in the US census-- statistically irrelevant.

Core Republicans in the US are truly the Brown Shirts of today, thugs waiting for the big provocation to start denouncing, rounding up and gunning down their fellow Americans in the streets. There is a significant subgroup of the pro-life Christian Patriot crowd which skews towards white power religious warrior proto-fascists itching for a fight. It is foolishness to not consider this.

Hey America, this is your Republican party today.

Posted by: Trypticon on November 29, 2007 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

I wonder how my Democratic friends would like it if Fox held a Democratic presidential debate and filled the audience with conservative plants who asked questions not intended to help Democrats decide whom to nominate but rather to create sound bites that the Republicans could use in the general election.

Actually, there are few things that could help a Republican win the Presidency right now. How many attack ads are going to feature the eventual nominee with his arm around George Bush in the fall of next year?

Wingnuts vs the Democratic candidates? Don't make me laugh. The wingnuts would be roasted over the coals and humiliated. If you put the weakest Democrat up there, which is either Kucinich or Dodd, depending on who you believe, they would wipe the floor with them. If you put Obama in front of fifty wingnuts, Obama would turn them into cowered fools, which is what they are.

Hillary? Against wingnuts? Seen that, got the t-shirt. She more than handled Rick Lazio, didn't she? Or did I miss where old Rick is actually a respected national figure these days?

Wingnuts have fallen for this notion that 2008 is going to be a redux of 2004, with Kerry taking August off to go parasailing and let the Swift Boaters run roughshod over him for weeks on end with little or no response.

Guess what? Ain't gonna happen this time. Ain't gonna happen ever again in your lifetime, suckers.

A few American citizens ask the Republicans questions, and the whole rotten edifice collapses in hysterics because they cannot stand up to any critical analysis of their fucking positions on the issues.

That should be the real story--how is it that so many Republicans can have a debate and demonstrate that Ron fucking Paul is pretty much the only sane one in the bunch?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2007 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

DBL, Would this be that same dreaded "liberal media bias" that gave us Joe Klein lying about FISA, presenting patently false information, and baselessly painting Dems as "weak" via his Time magazine gig?

Posted by: ckelly on November 29, 2007 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

No doubt the kind of questions DBL and NRO's emailer would have preferred would have been like

  • What does Ronald Reagan mean to you?
  • What kind of a president do you think Hillary Clinton would be?
  • Ranking the world's most evil people ever, where would you place Saddam Hussein?

I.e., an infomercial for the GOP that drew no meaningful distinctions between the candidates, but served only to maximize the viability of whoever ultimately wins the nomination.

Posted by: kth on November 29, 2007 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

I do find it rather hard to believe that so many of you think the Russert is a Republican shill. Kevin, do you agree with that?

But I agree it would be amusing to have a debate moderated by a couple of extremists, say Bill Moyers on the left and Ann Coulter on the right. That would be entertaining.

Posted by: DBL on November 29, 2007 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK
... America got to see a vaguely threatening parade of gun fetishists, flat worlders, Mars Explorers, Confederate flag lovers and zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers as well as various one issue activists hammering their pet causes.

Ummmm ... maybe if the GOP hadn't spent the past few decades pandering to gun fetishists, flat worlders, Mars Explorers, Confederate flag lovers and zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers by pushing wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage, the GOP faithful wouldn't come across as such loons.

Face it, Derby, you have no one to blame but yourself for helping turn your party into a worldwide joke.

Posted by: Mark D on November 29, 2007 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

I do find it rather hard to believe that so many of you think the Russert is a Republican shill
...a couple of extremists, say Bill Moyers on the left and Ann Coulter on the right...

The Russert isn't a shill--he's an idiot. And calling Moyers an extremist like Mr. Coulter is idiocy, too, DBL.

Sheesh.

Posted by: shnooky on November 29, 2007 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

They don't have any solution to any problem that doesn't involve bombing it or cutting taxes.

I believe that sums up the GOP precisely. Well, except that "bombing it" should be changed to "bombing something irrelevant"

Posted by: craigie on November 29, 2007 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

But I agree it would be amusing to have a debate moderated by a couple of extremists, say Bill Moyers on the left and Ann Coulter on the right.

You're so right--Moyers is always calling for people to be silenced, slaughtered and killed and he never stops calling people faggots. Did you see where he claimed that anyone who had a relative killed on 9/11 was enjoying their victimhood? He's so out of control. Just the other day, he went on PBS and totally made up the fact that the Bush Administration lied to get us into the war in Iraq. Who does Moyers think he's fooling, using facts and actual testimony from the people who were there to suggest something so extremist such as that?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2007 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl: I could not possibly care less that y'all are feeling aggrieved. Good! Now, suck it up and learn something about the error of your ways the past 14 year from it, ya bastards.

This post demonstrates the win-at-all-costs credo of today's Democrats. The need to win justifies the dishonest use of secretly planted questions. Integrity is for losers.

The need to win also justifies racist attacks on Clarence Thomas and anti-Hispanic attacks on Miguel Estrada. It justifies holding up up military authorizations that deprive our troops of materiel. It justifies rhetoric that encourages enemy attacks and discourages our allies.

Posted by: ex-liberal on November 29, 2007 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

This post demonstrates the win-at-all-costs credo of today's Democrats

You're goddamned right. We're going to win and you're going to lose.

And when we've won, we'll fix all the shit you broke.

How hard is that to figure out?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2007 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Bill Moyers, an extremist? Wow, Americans are spoiled. Pol Pot? Now that is an extremist. Bill Moyers is an honorable good old Christian boy from Texas who loves his country, the rule of law, the ethical practice of journalism, and is only extreme in his consistency and courage in opposing corruption, extremism, and Republican (and Democratic) malfeasance. Ann Coulter is an offensive bitch, but she's still pretty much a spoiled Barby Doll who is a caricature of herself. Wake up buddy, there is no extreme left in this country-- not necessarily a bad thing, not necessarily a good thing. There is an extreme right, but it's a lot scarier than Coulter. I'll remind you all that the biggest weapons cache seized in this country since 9/11 was from a white power freak in Texas, who among other things, was in possession of a weaponized cyanide device and plans to use it.

John Ashcroft apparently said he would agree to be water boarded the other day. That gives me a good idea for a theme for a Republican debate:

I see Gitmo, orange jumpsuits, and waterboards in a sweeping arch around a small concrete courtyard...

"Do you support torture and waterboarding?"

"Yes."

"I don't believe you... [gurgule] I'll ask you again, do you really support torture??"

"YES, absolutely!!"

"You really don't seem persuaded...
"Now Mitt, do you really believe in every word in This Book?"

"It's the word of G-d"

"You're not answering my question Mitt [gurgle]
"Do you really believe Jesus is the only begotten Son...

[gurgle]

"I confess! The greatest Holy revelation was found by a washed up treasure hunter in upstate New York in the 19th century, magic gold tablets that only he could read with G-d given glasses noone ever saw!"

"That's not good enough for America, Mitt..."

[gurgle]

and so on

Rosie O'Donnell as MC?

Posted by: Trypticon on November 29, 2007 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

The saying goes"
"You are judged by the company you keep."

On the left:
Tree huggers, gays, and the media.

On the right:
Racists, Amageddon loving jesus folk, and Halliburton

I take left. Everytime.

Posted by: cboss on November 29, 2007 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Bill Moyers: During his [over] 25 years in broadcasting, Bill Moyers has pursued a broad spectrum of journalism for which he has received many major awards including over 30 Emmys [including a lifetime achievement Emmy] the Erik Barnouw Award from the Organization of American Historians; the George Foster Peabody Award for political reporting and international coverage; and the prestigious Gold Baton, which is the highest honor of the Alfred I. duPont/Columbia University Award. He was one of the first three persons to be awarded the Honorary Doctor of Fine Arts by The American Film Institute. A survey of television critics by Television Quarterly, the official journal of The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, placed Moyers among the 10 journalists who have had the most significant influence of television news.

Ann Coulter: Honors graduate from Cornell University School of Arts and Sciences (Class of 1984) and received her J.D. from The University of Michigan Law School. She was an editor of The Michigan Law Review. Was a good friend of the late John Kennedy Jr., her George Magazine editor.

Wow, Moyers better get cracking if he wants to measure up to Coulter. I love it when he becomes completely unhinged and when his eyeballs roll up into his head and he starts screaming about the Carlyle group and the FISA laws...

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2007 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal wrote: "This post demonstrates the win-at-all-costs credo of today's Democrats."

Every single one of your posts demonstrates the vapid brain-dead mental slavery of today's Republicans.

Have you ever posted a single comment that had any content other than slavish regurgitation of utterly inane and laughably dishonest scripted Republican talking points?

No.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on November 29, 2007 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Fuck you, ex-liberal. Is that clear enough for you, you Constitution-disrespecting jackass? I have nothing to say to you, you miserable, feckless, bed-wetting coward.

It was not Democrats locking Republicans out of meetings or refusing them meeting space. You fuckers were pathetic, petty and classless for 14 years, and now you get to stew in your own juices, and I am not going to pretend like I am not enjoying watching you and your ilk choke on your just desserts.

And did I say "Fuck you, ex-liberal" yet???

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 29, 2007 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

It justifies holding up up military authorizations that deprive our troops of materiel. It justifies rhetoric that encourages enemy attacks and discourages our allies.

That was your boy - and I do mean boy, that petulant brain-damaged fuck is decidedly not a man - who vetoed the appropriations.

And don't you fucking dare say I "encourage enemy attacks" when everyone in my family has stepped up, and you and yours are tabless, rankless chickenhawks.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 29, 2007 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Now - apologies to the board for unloading on that subhuman piece of dreck. I know better than to even acknowledge his existence, and won't in the future. He is irrelevant and desperate, and it shows.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 29, 2007 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

no apologies necessary. it is frustrating when racist cowards who support the destruction of our military, rule of law, standard of living, and peoples around the world invoke "integrity" while wallowing in hypocrisy and impugning the integrity of others whose families are actually serving their country in spite of bad policies being promulgated from the corrupt Republican ruling elite.

Posted by: Trypticon on November 29, 2007 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

CNN is an propaganda organization filled with and dedicated to tub thumpers, gun nuts, and anti-tax zealots.

Posted by: Brojo on November 29, 2007 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

There is an extreme right, but it's a lot scarier than Coulter. I'll remind you all that the biggest weapons cache seized in this country since 9/11 was from a white power freak in Texas, who among other things, was in possession of a weaponized cyanide device and plans to use it.
-Trypticon at 11:28am

Rove, et al, have zapped-up a brood of Frankenstein zombies that have now gotten so numerous they are beginning to stumble into their houses and break the China. The media has played along with this game to make big profits off as many freak shows that they can conjure up. I'm pretty sure that in order to kill a zombie you have to fill up their mouths with salt and sew their lips shut-a daunting task that requires a crew. Don't be surprised the Yankee Republicans start organizing the crews.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on November 29, 2007 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK
….racist attacks on Clarence Thomas and …. Miguel Estrada … holding up up military authorizations ….encourages enemy attacks and discourages our allies. ex-lax at 11:23 AM
Nothing encourages enemy attacks like ignoring warning about those attacks, invading and occupying countries without legal justification.

While there were no secretly planted questions, the Republicans of today must use McCarthyism, electoral fraud, and the ugliest campaign tactics possible to score points. Republicans like you whine victimhood and cry racism while being racist and distorting the fact that the complaints of Thomas and Estrada are because of their bias, partisanship, and incompetence, not their race.

It was, in case you didn't know it, Rumsfeld who kept denying troops proper armored vehicles and safety vests. It is you Republicans who are denying an up or down vote on military funding.

Your insane policies and rhetoric have lost this country almost all its allies. Check out the fate of your boy's Coalition of the Willing.

The modern Republican Party is a sad case of foaming-at-mouth illogical, irrational incoherence.

….If you think it would be just fine if Fox were to do that....DBL at 10:02 AM

Perhaps you missed the NBC debate during which Russert and Williams hammered Clinton with false quotes and mistaken "facts?"
If you can't deal will all, you can't be better than Bush who is so cowardly that he limits access to Republican stalwarts.

Posted by: Mike on November 29, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

He is irrelevant and desperate, and it shows.

"ex-liberal" is as dishonest as ever, but lately he's certainly dropped his threadbare and unconvincing pretense as a faus-reasonable commentator and become more overtly a troll.

Why Kevin's moderator(s
) continue to tolerate "ex-liberal"'s pissing on the floor in here is a mystery.

Posted by: Gregory on November 29, 2007 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

This post demonstrates the win-at-all-costs credo of today's Democrats. The need to win justifies the dishonest use of secretly planted questions. Integrity is for losers.

To quote the old anti-drug PSA "We learned it by watching you!" I hope you enjoy losing the next four elections as the Democrats finally realize the media environment politics operates in these days.

Posted by: Col Bat Guano on November 29, 2007 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

A random sampling of GOPers will produce...a plethora of wackos. The core of the GOP is wacko. They are flat-earthers, anti-heliocentric, anti-woman, anti-non-white, anti-pluralism, anti-Constitution, anti-American. They are, top to bottom, wackos.

The standard deviation on the random sample of GOPers is 0.005.

CNN would have had real trouble finding NON-wacko, NON-slack-jawed, NON-drooling-idiot, NON-racist, NON-empty-eyed-bible-thumper questions. I rather suspect they picked the least wacko questions in the shitpile.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on November 29, 2007 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers

Just another name for "value-voters", and NRO should thank them too, stop calling them names because those are the folks that put Bushie back into office in 2004. Bushie in nutshell.

So why is NRO spitting on the mirror now, after all this trouble to make the GOP exactly what they wanted it to be, via making it exactly what Bush wanted it to be. What is Bushism? Is it a religion of self hate? I don't NRO, you tell us.

Posted by: Me_again on November 29, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Why doesn't CNN have a site somewhere where you could see ALL of the questions submitted? Then we (and the GOP) could easily find out if only loaded questions were selected.

Maybe CNN needs to see this posting.

Posted by: slanted tom on November 29, 2007 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

oops, should be "I don't know, NRO, you tell us"

Posted by: Me_ again on November 29, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

What do you expect from a bunch of dead-enders? The 24% or so that is clinging to Bush exist as the most uninformed, rabidly disingenous and delusional group of Americans ever.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2007 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Not for his positions on issues, but because he seems like the only one of the GOP frontrunners who actually believes what he's saying. He's either sincere, or he's very very good at faking sincerity. None of the others come close. Posted by: asdf

Who cares? He's overtly religious. Worse yet, he's overtly Southern Baptist. Fine, he's sincerely backwards.

Posted by: JeffII on November 29, 2007 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

Now - apologies to the board for unloading on that subhuman piece of dreck. I know better than to even acknowledge his existence, and won't in the future. He is irrelevant and desperate, and it shows.

Oh, but it was lovely to behold though. For my part I'd say please feel free whenever the spirit moves.

Posted by: DrBB on November 29, 2007 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

CNN is an propaganda organization filled with and dedicated to tub thumpers, gun nuts, and anti-tax zealots. Posted by: Brojo

Sad isn't it? Back when Ted Turner owned it and was running things, even beyond the novelty, it was much better than the majors because it featured news from just about every where.

While I don't see eye-to-eye with Turner on everything (I sure enjoyed volunteering for his Goodwill Games in 1990), he's certainly no Rupert Murdoch. I mean, any guy that wants to re-populate the plains with bison's all right by me.

Posted by: JeffII on November 29, 2007 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

yeah. CNN is really crap now.

Posted by: Trypticon on November 29, 2007 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

Why doesn't CNN have a site somewhere where you could see ALL of the questions submitted? Then we (and the GOP) could easily find out if only loaded questions were selected.
Maybe CNN needs to see this posting.
Posted by: slanted tom

I believe the question that needs to be asked, hypothetically, of course, is, "Can anyone imagine CNN choosing the same questions for a Democratic debate?"

Posted by: majarosh on November 29, 2007 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

"If I recall correctly, Kevin has opined that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to own guns."

Your recall is indeed correct. Which is why I wonder at Kevin's apparent assertion that a guy who simply was asking about whether Rudy et al share that opinion is a "gun nut". Bigoted attitudes about gun owners don't help Democrats (esp. considering about 1/3rd of Dems polled, myself included, identify themselves as gun owners).

"In my opinion, that makes Kevin a "gun nut".

Heh; actually that makes about 2/3rds of the population of the country "gun nuts". Whatever the hell a gun nut is, anyway. To me they're just tools. I have a fire extinguisher and hammer in my house too; I'm a "fire prevention nut" and a "home improvement nut" apparently, by Kevin's definition, perhaps?

"The Second Amendment establishes the right of the "free States" to establish "well-organized militias.""

Apparently you haven't read it, as it does nothing of the sort; hint, it doesn't say "the right of the STATE to establish militias shall not be infringed".

The sooner we get over the bigoted, pseudo-intellectual fascination with assuming that people who enjoy a particular hobby are "nuts", the sooner we quit alientating voters needlessly.

Posted by: Sebastian-PGP on November 29, 2007 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Believing that the constitution does something is not the same as approving of it and does not rule out current supporters of particular interpretations of that clause, let alone specific questioners in the republican debate, being nutty.

Posted by: jefff on November 29, 2007 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Eh, nuts abound, that's for sure. I just think it's problematic assuming people are nutty without much due cause. You're just as likely to alienate a friend that way.

Posted by: Sebastian-PGP on November 29, 2007 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

What I don't get is this: this was a Republican presidential debate; a debate featuring persons of the Republican persuasion who are running for president. There are people in this country who are not Republicans; so what the hell is so outrageous about Republicans answering questions...
Oh.
Never mind.

Posted by: Doug on November 29, 2007 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

"I believe the question that needs to be asked, hypothetically, of course, is, 'Can anyone imagine CNN choosing the same questions for a Democratic debate?'"

You can ask the question, of course, but it would be pretty stupid. I already addressed that question in the other thread where you did, in fact, ask it. Of the four questions you cited, three have already been asked of Democratic candidates and the fourth wouldn't be because all of the candidates agree and everyone knows what their position is.

Posted by: PaulB on November 29, 2007 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

"the average Republican voter is a confederate-flag-waving, gun-toting, bible-brandishing conspiracy theorist!"

Look at the Republican party over the last 30 years, Do you really have to ask that question?

Posted by: brianm0122 on November 29, 2007 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

Stereotype much?

Posted by: Sebastian-PGP on November 30, 2007 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

Mars Explorers?

Posted by: bryan on November 30, 2007 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

For gfw, in case he's still reading: the reason Romney had trouble with the Bible question is that Mormons believe the Bible was doctored to remove evidence of the truth of Mormonism, and that Joseph Smith's revelations supply the missing information. A bit of an awkward question for Mitt, then.

Posted by: Shoshana on December 2, 2007 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?










 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly