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

DEMOCRATS IN THE MIST....In the right-wing blogosphere, the biggest topic of discussion about last night's Republican debate is the fact that some of the questioners were Democrats. In particular, retired Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr, who asked about gays in the military, turned out to be a Kerry and Clinton supporter.

Personally, I think Republicans have bigger things to worry about than that. But if you're interested, James Joyner has a good roundup.

Kevin Drum 12:09 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (99)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Here's my question: why would it be a bad thing if some of the questioners were Democrats? Why do they have to be all uber-wingnuts? They should probably be mostly conservatives, since it's for a GOP primary, but why not mix in a few questions from Democrats? (CNN seems to agree, since I'm guessing the woman in the hijab was not a GOP voter).

Regarding the general specifically, even if he were on Hillary's payroll, would that be so bad? Repubs could judge their candidates based on their ability to answer a Hillary gotcha question during the general campaign.

Posted by: mmy on November 29, 2007 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

Just the obvious question: has anyone done an analysis of the Democratic YouTube questioners? Any Republicans among them?

If not, and if somehow Democrats snuck in some of their own questioners, then I can think of only one word that captures my reaction.

Bravo!

Posted by: frankly0 on November 29, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

Ever since Bush fenced out every American other than his most rabid supporters from all of his tax payer funded propaganda events, it's become normal to think it wrong for Republicans to face anyone other than ardent republicans. What this reveals is an assumption that Republicans do not have an interest in governing of, by and for all the people. They are authoritarians that want to hijack the oldest Democracy in the world and rule for the benefit of Republicans only. Rove flat out admitted that. Now it is assumed knowledge for the whole field of candidates and the whole party. So, this reveals, yet again, that Republicans are both authoritarian and cowards-- they don't even want to have to talk to people they aren't stealing the contry with and for.

Posted by: Trypticon on November 29, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Great reporting by Michelle Malkin and other members of the right roots in exposing this important story. This proves what we conservatives have known all along. The liberal media and especially CNN are in cahoots with the liberals and Democrats in order to further their left wing agenda of tipping the upcoming election to the Democrats. For Hillary, this shows once again her tired tactic of planting biased questioners who ask partisan questions in order to help her win. No liberals come out good and conservatives have given one more reason why we can't trust Democrats or the media. It would've been better if the debate was held by Fox News because then the questions would've been more balanced.

Posted by: Al on November 29, 2007 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

The guy's a Republican and is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans. Here's a link to him speaking at their 2004 convention - http://online.logcabin.org/photo_gallery/2004_convention.html

Posted by: Alex on November 29, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

As usual, Al is spot on - So much better to let some of the fellows over at Homeland Security write, er handle the questions.

Posted by: bert on November 29, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

#1 They should be able to answer any question.
#2 But, if a person is an Edwards supporter or an Obama supporter or a Hillary suppporter, be upfront about it.

Posted by: Robodruid on November 29, 2007 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, I think Republicans have bigger things to worry about than that

Like joining brave Democrats in refusing to appear at a debate sponsored by Fox News? You know, not answering questions from FNC is to be lauded but Dem plants in GOP debates is plausible because they should be able to answer any question from any source.

Go check with the Townhouse folks & find out what your spin on this supposed to be (as usual, since independent thought is not a virtue on the left).

Posted by: RW on November 29, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Candidates should be able to answer questions from both sides. Besides, looking at the poll numbers, whoever is the Repub candidate is going to need some Democratic votes to win, so why not answer their questions?

Posted by: tomeck on November 29, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

The thing that is really funny is that the stupidest, most embarrassing questions came from the Republicans (flag boy, bible guy). CNN did the wingers a favor by presenting questions from people that weren't mouth breathing morons.

Posted by: Teresa on November 29, 2007 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

I remember during the 2006 election, many of the progressive blogger and pundits said that they would never carry water for the Democrats like Rush Limbaugh had for the Republicans. Now it is a year later and virtually every progressive/left of center blogger is carrying water for the Democrats. Just a couple of weeks after arguing that Democratic activist should be the ones asking question at the Democratic Debate in Las Vegas, they are trying to defend Democratic Party activist for asking question to Republican primary opponents.

Since virtually no one is going to decide how to vote in the Republican Primary based upon DADT and all of the candidates had the same position, the question was pointless other than to score political points for Democratic candidates. Since none of the progressive bloggers has managed to produce a conservative questioner at the Democratic Youtube debate, it is obvious how the media leans.

Posted by: superdestroyer on November 29, 2007 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: "In the right-wing blogosphere, anyway, the biggest topic of discussion about last night's Republican debate is the fact that some of the questioners were Democrats."

The right-wing blogosphere represents the dregs of humanity. They spend all their time whining to each other about how they are poor, pitiful victims of "powerful liberal elites" -- just as they have been brainwashed to do by years of Rush Limbaugh's propaganda.

Republicans seeking to win election to the Presidency of the United States of America are subjected to a few questions from Democrats -- oh, how unfair!!! It's truly pathetic.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on November 29, 2007 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

superdestroyer wrote: "Since none of the progressive bloggers has managed to produce a conservative questioner at the Democratic Youtube debate, it is obvious how the media leans."

Oh, yes, you have our pity, you poor pitiful victim of powerful liberal elites.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on November 29, 2007 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Wingnuts like Malkin just prove what Kevin's resident GOP shills have done for years: The GOP can't stand up to critical examination of its positions.

But if the GOP candidates can't confront Democrats, how can we expect them to confront the terrorists?

Posted by: Gregory on November 29, 2007 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Buncha fuckin' whiners, that's what they are. And, mercifully, it's approaching a frequency that only dogs can hear.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 29, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans seeking to win election to the Presidency of the United States of America are subjected to a few questions from Democrats -- oh, how unfair!!! It's truly pathetic.

So, when are the brave Dems going to reverse their decision to duck & hide from a debate on Fox?

Seriously, don't you guys EVER think things through? Hey, Kevin will check the Townhouse thing & give you your marching orders soon (if Kos or atrios doesn't beat him to it) so you won't have to simply call me names for reminding you of your duplicity (it's coming) but you'll have a ready-set answer that is the exact same.

Just like always.

Posted by: RW on November 29, 2007 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Since none of the progressive bloggers has managed to produce a conservative questioner at the Democratic Youtube debate,

maybe you didn't know this, but the 'bloggers' and 'questioners' didn't select themselves, CNN did.

Posted by: cleek on November 29, 2007 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Now it is a year later and virtually every progressive/left of center blogger is carrying water for the Democrats.

Citations, please.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 29, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of a group of whiners, cowards, bottom feders and complainers who need someone else to tell them how to think.


TOO easy.

Posted by: RW on November 29, 2007 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

What is all the fuzz about? The man identified himself as a retired general and a gay. His question was very much a personal question of extreme importance to him and he would and most likely did ask Democrats the same question. Remember, this is supposed to be a Democracy.

Do Republicans identify themselves as Republicans?

On second thought, their cooing and swooning over Bush speaks for itself.

Posted by: Renate on November 29, 2007 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

For Cripes sake. Are they running for Jefferson Davis's seat??
I get to watch the debate and I get to ask questions of the candidates if that candidate want to be My President. And isn't this person going to be that Serviceman's Commander in Chief?? Are todays journalists so poorly prepared that they have to follow someone elses lead??? And that person is fu*&ing Michelle Milk-it

Posted by: Footie on November 29, 2007 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

One of the things that Republicans have to worry about is finding a 4 x 4 pickup to use as a hearse to haul Henry Hyde’s fat ass to the boneyard. The repulsive old twit finally kicked the bucket.

Even though it is almost a crime against humanity to think about him copulating, this old tub of lard broke up a marriage by having an affair with a married woman when he was in his 40s, but he was still more than happy to pontificate about the evils of Bill Clinton cavorting with a single, willing adult female. Good riddance, Hank!

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 29, 2007 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

TOO easy.

Yeah, everyone knows that Democrats all march lockstep to the same "drum" - sheesh...give it up, Chumley.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 29, 2007 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Then: Dems ducking from a debate on Fox is fine.
Now: The GOP is too scared to answer questions from Dems.

Heh, funny to watch you shift & divert while having no clue as to what to conjur up for an answer, BGRS. Don't worry, you'll be given one shortly. Your providers are busy trying to find one, but no doubt, when you're given one, you & your fellow bots will use it (and only it) as the go-to response.

How much more needling can you guys take before you're given the party line, I wonder?

Posted by: rw on November 29, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Heh. I just perused the post and comments that RW thinks makes us a bunch of lockstep-loons. Quite the opposite is the case, however. Go read it for yourselves, then we'll all meet at the flagpole after school and pile on when he bends over to unlock his bike...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 29, 2007 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

That's your gig, nimrod. In that very thread you reference, I pointed out that I don't get my news from the M$M, and think for myself. So yeah, that sure proves your point, I guess.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 29, 2007 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

[All future attempst to derail the thread will be deleted, no matter who does it.]

Posted by: RW on November 29, 2007 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

Tap, tap, tap.

Then: good
Now: not good


Explain. Don't worry, while you're losing this one your benefactors are removing the really juicy stuff so you won't look so bad. Heh.

Posted by: RW on November 29, 2007 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

What the hell are you talking about? Have you made a point yet, or are you just a snarling junkyard dog? (No need to answer.)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 29, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

"Since none of the progressive bloggers has managed to produce a conservative questioner at the Democratic Youtube debate, it is obvious how the media leans."

except, you know, the Gun Guy:

QUESTION: Good evening, America. My name is Jered Townsend from Clio, Michigan.

To all the candidates, tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe.

This is my baby [he says, stroking his gun], purchased under the 1994 gun ban. Please tell me your views.

Thank you.

Posted by: cleek on November 29, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Since you're having trouble & need assistance (a constant theme):

Then: Dems ducking from a debate on Fox is fine.
Now: The GOP is too scared to answer questions from Dems.

See: duplicity.

Posted by: RW on November 29, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

How much more needling can you guys take before you're given the party line, I wonder?

Isn't it sad that a bunch of Republicans trying to win the White House are forced to piss their pants in fear just because a gay General asked them a question?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2007 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

"The thing that is really funny is that the stupidest, most embarrassing questions came from the Republicans (flag boy, bible guy). CNN did the wingers a favor by presenting questions from people that weren't mouth breathing morons."

As a conservative my only issue with your point is that it's hard not to believe that CNN didn't deliberately show these "embarrassing" questions to further denigrate the candidates and Republicans in general. CNN reported they had thousands of questions submitted so I do find it hard to believe that they didn't cherry pick with a purpose, a left wing purpose. Until we get to the general election BOTH parties are better served by having a debate focused on meaningful questions that the party faithful want answered, NOT the questions that the other party want answered. In CNN's defense I thought that many of the questions did in fact concern key Republican issues. My biggest gripe was the moderator's inability to control the debate. That said a handful of questions certainly didn't need to asked in a Republican primary debate. I would have no problem in the general election for any of the questions asked last night. In the Republican primary time frame, however, it certainly seemed that many questions asked during the debate did not help any un-decided Republican in the decision making process. I don't buy into any conspiracy by CNN and Clinton but I do buy into them (CNN) letting their left-wing bias influence the choice of questions. I do find it hard to not wonder why the only person from the audience to make a monologue was the General. I'm retired military, conservative and I don't support "DADT" but DADT is not an issue currently in the Republican primary. Why would CNN focus so much time on this particular issue? In the general election if the Democratic candidate makes it an issue then fine, ask away, although the General's connection with Sen Clinton's campaign obviously makes his question unethical without full disclosure. In the end the debate showed that the Democrats were actually right in not going to the Fox debates. Media bias is real on both sides of the political spectrum. CNN had a golden opportunity to show conservatives that they were not biased last night but instead CNN chose the low road.

Posted by: 1SG on November 29, 2007 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider,
The candidates answered the guy's question (didn't you know that?).
The point is that the entire corps of Democratic candidates were SCARED to debate on FNC & the lockstep choir 'round the nutroots supported that action.

Now, they all want to play the role of tough man & claim that the folks who DID answer the questions are scared. ALl the while, they're pretending that history began yesterday.

Besides, the person who instituted Don't Ask Don't Tell has the same last name a the Democratic front-runner.

Posted by: RW on November 29, 2007 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans are such a bunch of whiners that CNN is falling over itself to show deference to their demand for loyalty oaths from questioners.
The difference between Fox, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and ABC is .... well, not much. They are all corporatist and right wing. They all use RNC talking points. They are all dishonest about their rightist slant.

Posted by: Mike on November 29, 2007 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

I know it's a wast of time directly addressing Rump Wiggler, Right Winger, or whatever, so I'll just point out the obvious: he's drawing false equivalences, a common defect of the mendacious or deteriorating mind knowingly or unknowingly spouting logical fallacies and flawed reasoning.

The Dems have not instituted a party-wide policy of refusing questions from non-Democrats. The Republicans have made it routine to exclude all non-partisans from public forums, including tax-payer funded ones. This is an equivalent comparison. It is not the same as Dems refusing to appear on a right wing propaganda network that has a proven history of distorting democratic voices, even if it takes bullying or creative editing to achieve that. It might be an equivalent comparison if the Repugs refused to appear at a Move-On.org debate. While wrong, that would still be understandable, and an equivalent criticism. Anyway, RW's glee at his amazing discovery of Democratic double standards, is sadly, just revelatory or either a) his poor brain function, or b) his double plus mendacious hypocrisy, or c) all of the above.

As for the sources he's citing from which I/we are supposed to take our marching orders from, color me uninformed, but I've never heard of them.

Posted by: Trypticon on November 29, 2007 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

The Republicans have made it routine to exclude all non-partisans from public forums, including tax-payer funded ones.

The Republicans answered the questions posed by the member of Hillary's task force. Stupid comparison & lame attempt to deflect from the obvious case of duplicity.

Try again & next time try something logical.

Posted by: RW on November 29, 2007 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Rump Wiggler,

Ah, yes, feel the love. Can't tell which is better, the constant anti-gay name calling from the left or the tap-dancing on Henry Hyde's grave from an earlier comment. Stay classy.

Posted by: RW on November 29, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

It isn't Democrats demanding loyalty oaths; and it wasn't the Democratic candidate for president in 2004 that screened his audiences to make sure that the candidate didn't have his bubble punctured. It was not a Democratic rally that a woman whose son was killed in Iraq was surrounded by stepford-wives shouting "Four More years!!!" and waving signs.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 29, 2007 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks 1SG for a considered, non-inflammatory take on the issue. To be frank, I'd agree with Mike that all the Networks are corporatist and skew to the right from a little bit to a lot. At the same time I'd say, of course CNN cherry picked the questions. But I wouldn't buy for a second that it's due to liberal bias, I'd say it's for sensationalism and keeping people watching their commercial slots. Why show a woman in a head scarf from Alabama? To set up the candidates for an easy one liner and getting the crowd in a "USA USA!" demonstration to keep people watching. I think it's fair to question their motives, but given the massive swing of the entire media apparatus in this country to the right over the last decade, it does not hold up to suggest it was liberal bias. And as it has been said, it's not as if the questions were super hard or confrontational or anything. Bottom line, CNN hardly challenged these guys in any real sense. Check out debates from British Parliament if that doesn't resonate with you. It is pathetic how protected and scripted and dumb ALL of our candidates are allowed to be in this country. But republicans have taken this to an unAmerican level. Anyway, I don't agree with what you said, but I appreciate the way you said it.

Posted by: Trypticon on November 29, 2007 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

It isn't Democrats....

Okay, I get it. Like anything, it all comes down to "the Democrats are better" to you, which is nothing more than mind-numbed party-line lockstep. And, since that's what most hyper-partisans resort to when there's no place else to go (really, does anyone expect Karl Rove to say "well, the Democrats are right on this matter, but overall....") I'll play the role of gentleman and call off the dogs.

No sense kicking someone when they're down or beating a horse that can't go any further......

Posted by: RW on November 29, 2007 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Democrats are better.

Deal.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 29, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK
The point is that the entire corps of Democratic candidates were SCARED to debate on FNC…. RW on November 29, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Only in your fantasy world of macho-Republican who are too scared to take questions from blacks, Hispanics, gays or Democrats and had to be shamed into this one (They shunned an earlier planed one on 9-17 as well as a PBS debate). Pity, but every time you try to point a finger, there are three pointing back.

…The Republican frontrunners' snubbing of Smiley and PBS comes on the heels of their rejection of a debate sponsored by the Spanish-language network Univision (McCain was the only GOP candidate to accept that invitation). This past June, only one Republican presidential candidate, California Rep. Duncan Hunter, showed up at the convention of the National Association of Latino Elected & Appointed Officials….

Posted by: Mike on November 29, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Ya know, Royal Whack-job, you have a point. I'll let you slink off and lick your wounds. That nag of yours (the GOP) is certainly a dead horse.

Buh-by, see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya. And I truly mean that.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 29, 2007 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

and RW joins the Pie Lover's Club!

Posted by: cleek on November 29, 2007 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Pity, but every time you try to point a finger, there are three pointing back..

Actually, I point that same finger at the GOP in that instance. They most certainly should have participated in that debate & faced the partisan Dems.

Y'see, I don't march in lockstep as long as it helps "my guys". That's for losers (which is why so many need assitance, ahem). When one can actually think things out they often don't end up on the short end of things and thus having someone apply mercy when they feel sorry for them.

Shame on the GOP for not participating in that event. Shame on the losers who cannot think for themselves and must resort to the party line or else endure an embarrassing instance of an illogical stance.

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

Buh-by, see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya. And I truly mean that.

What are you, nine?

Posted by: RW on November 29, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Whew! I'm so relieved that RW "called off the dogs" and "didn't kick anyone when they're down".
LOL, What an absurd little troll.

Posted by: ckelly on November 29, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Rump Wiggler just sounded funny to me. If you project anti-gayness onto that, that's your demon. You could be a repugnant waste-particle for all I know. That's your business.

It's clearly pointless to argue logically with you, as you clearly lack the capacity.

If republicans boycotted a Move-On debate, that would be somewhat comparable to Dems boycotting a Fox debate, in that both organizations could be seen to have an institutional bias against the party in question (beyond that, Fox and Move-On are obviously not comparable, one being a huge commercial media empire with a long history of ignorant, lying commentators, etc.). Republicans bravely fielding questions from non-republicans in a particular debate is not comparable to Dems refusing to dignify an entire anti-Democratic propaganda machine by getting set up in a so-called "debate" on Fox.

And the Dems refusing to debate on Fox is not comparable to the extreme and routine anti-American behavior of Republicans who no longer will willingly expose themselves to questions, signs, or breathing from anyone other than their most steadfast supporters. This is true, and ugly, and the real story behind this story. Republicans are shocked that they had to deal with even the teeniest weeniest perception of a possible challenge of the most modest sort. Usually these situations are coercively stopped by the Secret Service, or campaign or staff members posing as law enforcement, or party members, or venue security, or media organizations that prevent real debate and are propaganda wings of the Republican party. Free speech has been killed by this administration, and the Republican party and mindless provocateurs like RW want to keep it that way. Basically everyone is playing along, and even the Dems are a bit too envious of not having to be really challenged.

Bush has destroyed the access of the American People to the White House and the Executive Branch. This correlates with his persistence in self serving destructive policies such as the Iraq war that the American People by a large majority oppose. Say what you will about Bill Clinton, but he was not afraid or ill equipped to face the opposition. Bush is a coward and a bully who cannot face opposition in private or public. Bush and the republicans have lowered the standards for honest access to public servants for everybody, and republicans are so spoiled as to freak out at anything other than base inflation of their authoritarian aspirations.

Posted by: Trypticon on November 29, 2007 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Talk about not making a single solitary point.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2007 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

"The point is that the entire corps of Democratic candidates were SCARED to debate on FNC"

ROFL.... Dear heart, since this statement is flatly false, forgive us if we don't take this bit of mindless partisan drivel any more seriously than we do the rest of your mindless partisan drivel.

Loved the fact the thread you pointed us to disproved the very point you were trying to make, not to mention answering your would-be "gotcha" question, and how you have been unable to come up with anything else other than childish taunts. We don't even have to bother coming up with a response (like, e.g., pointing out the difference between ordinary citizens and a propaganda network). You're doing a great job of discrediting your own arguments!

Posted by: PaulB on November 29, 2007 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

cleek ,

Reason magazine actually did an interview with the gun guy. No political contributions. No pictures of him in Republican T-shirts. A self-described left-center independent.

http://reason.com/blog/show/121589.html

I guess that is something that CNN is incapable of doing.

Posted by: superdestroyer on November 29, 2007 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Trypticon,

The refusal of the Democrats to go on Fox is equivalent to the Republicans going to the black debate. The Democrats could only screw up during the Fox Debate but would get not benefit from doing it. The same could be said of the Republican doing a Congressional Black Caucus/Travis Smiley Debate. Why should either party take questions from groups who would never vote for them?

Posted by: superdestroyer on November 29, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Oy...at least hit "teh google" and get the name right...It's Tavis Smiley.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 29, 2007 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

sheese, you guys are like some kind of drug resistant superbug or something.

you're fixating on a couple of mildly challenging questioners in a particular debate without towering allegiance to the republican party, when your shrillness is simply a feeble attempt to distract from the fact that your party and your president have hurt freedom of speech and open discussion more than any forces in modern, if not all of, American history.

And since we're not anti-democratic, we have to put up with your dumb ass obsessive whining bullshit, and don't ban you, delete you, publish your address and incite violence against you, have you arrested, or all the other vile tactics routinely used by republicans and conservatives in America today.

Posted by: Trypticon on November 29, 2007 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Trypticon,

Please list one example of hurting free speech. The last time I looked the Bush Administration has not taken a channel off the cable, closed down a newspaper, or even shouted down someone they disagreed with.

I believe it is the left that is excited about a return of the Fairness Doctrine, hate speech laws, and university/employers/school speech codes. You may want to asked the guy from Tennessee Center for Policy Research who published the energy bills of Al Gore's mansion about intimidation from the left.

Posted by: superdestroyer on November 29, 2007 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Super. You're less wrong on this point than RW, but still wrong. You're right to the extent that, yes, why would either party go to a debate hosted by a group seen as skeptical to it. But it's absurd to compare an unwillingness to show up to an overtly conservative for profit media empire with a history of lying and distortion against the party to an unwillingness to show up in front of an African Americans audience. One is a corporation, another is a segment of the American population. Lump the latter in with an unwillingness of Republicans to show up to other African American and Latino sponsored events and what you have is a pattern of racism and an unwillingness on the part of Republicans to engage major segments of the American People. Not exactly comparable to dodging a hostile and dishonest network.

Posted by: Trypticon on November 29, 2007 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

"The refusal of the Democrats to go on Fox is equivalent to the Republicans going to the black debate."

No. Fox is a blatant Republican propaganda network. To refuse to appear on that network had nothing to do with the "difficulty" of the questions or whether the candidates were "afraid" to appear or whether or not Fox's viewers would be listening with open minds and would be prepared to vote for a Democratic candidate. Instead, it was a refusal to grant an air of legitimacy to a propaganda network. You can make no such claim about Tavis Smiley, nor about the Black Congressional Causus, nor about Black and Hispanic voters.

When Bush refused to debate with Ahmadinejad, was it because Bush was "afraid" of him? That is an exactly analogous situation, which is why few on the left made such a claim, unlike our dear friend RW, who has such trouble with reality.

Posted by: PaulB on November 29, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Stupor. Here's a typical White House example:

http://coloradopoliticalnews.blogs.com/colorado_political_news/2005/04/white_house_adm.html

and in case you thought it was just routine for Bush, here's a bit on Romney:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/view.bg?articleid=1012402

have a nice day

Posted by: Trypticon on November 29, 2007 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and Stupor, as for shouting someone down, how 'bout George "Macaca" Allen? Or that judge in upstate New York that is getting removed from the bench for sending everyone on his docket to prison when a cell phone rang in his court room? Or VP Dick telling Leahy to "Go Fuck Yourself" on the Senate floor, or...

you must be an idiot or a lier to suggest you have no idea the extent to which Republicans have undermined freedom of speech. How about supporting the Iraqi government shutting down news organizations of their choice? How about the killing of more reporters in Iraq than in any other war? How about trying environmental activists as terrorists? How about illegally eavesdropping and data mining huge swaths of all communications passing between Americans on American soil? How about the Secret Service driecting law enforcement to keep protestors away from the president?

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11462prs20040914.html

What is your major mental malfunction?

Posted by: Trypticon on November 29, 2007 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

superdestroyer wrote: "The last time I looked the Bush Administration has not taken a channel off the cable, closed down a newspaper, or even shouted down someone they disagreed with."

Are you really the clueless dumbass that you seem to be?

Bush's Republican head of the FCC is aggressively pursuing the Republican agenda of rewriting media ownership rules to ensure that pro-Republican corporations like Rupert Murdoch's News Corp and ClearChannel own every radio station, every TV station and every newspaper in America.

The idea that the giant media corporations that own nearly all of the mass media outlets from which nearly all Americans get nearly all of their information are "leftists" and have a "liberal agenda" is utterly laughable. Their agenda is to extend and enhance the power of corporations and enrich their already ultra-rich CEOs. Is that what you think of as a "liberal" agenda, superdumbass?

Posted by: SecularAnimist on November 29, 2007 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Rump Wiggler - that's cute! cudo's

I found the debate last night to be absolutely disappointing. I was looking forward to hearing the Republicans discuss issues of real concern to real people. Instead 90% of the questions came from white 30-something guys directed at white 60-something guys. And on topics that I don't think the majority of the population consider important - like the right to hang the southern confederate flag, shoot guns whenever, etc.

If I were a Republican I guess I would be railing at CNN for chosing questions/questioners that I don't think really represent the majority concerns of their party. I know Kevin disagrees with that, but I don't buy it.

Posted by: optical weenie on November 29, 2007 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

A self-described left-center independent.

Like Glenn Reynolds and Ann Althouse, you mean?

Posted by: Gregory on November 29, 2007 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

"The last time I looked the Bush Administration has not taken a channel off the cable, closed down a newspaper, or even shouted down someone they disagreed with."

Why bother? They can watch the marketplace that they manipulate by virtue of using the FCC to promote the big media companies and their ever-increasing control over more and more broadcast outlets do that for them:

“Minority television ownership is in such a precarious state that the loss of a single minority-owned company results in a disastrous decline,” said S. Derek Turner, research director of Free Press and lead author of Out of the Picture 2007. “Permitting any more consolidation will only further diminish the number of minority-owned stations.”

Read the full report at http://www.freepress.net/docs/otp2007.pdf

Among the most alarming new findings:

--From October 2006 to October 2007, the number of minority-owned commercial TV stations decreased by 8.5 percent.

--African-American TV station ownership dropped by 60 percent — as the total number of black-owned TV stations fell from 19 to 8 in just a single year.

--People of color now own just five of the 845 “big four” network-affiliated stations — a 62 percent decline from October 2006.

You don't need to silence them--you just need to run them out of business.

Oh, and as for "taking out" a broadcast outlet:

The Evening Standard reports that the unnamed sources who leaked the memo to the Mirror say it records "Bush suggesting that he might order the bombing of Al-Jazeera's studios in Qatar."

And it allegedly details how Blair argued against an attack on the station's buildings in the business district of Doha, the capital city of Qatar, which is a key ally of the West in the Persian Gulf.

Al-Jazeera had sparked the anger of the US administration by broadcasting video messages from Al Qaeda head Osama bin Laden and leaders of the insurgency in Iraq, as well as showing footage of the bodies of US servicemen and Iraqi civilians killed in fighting.

Then there is this little number here:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:
Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;


So, do you have a point or what?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2007 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

As I just said somewhere at CNN posting:

Well, to whatever extent [the report of money used for trysting with his new girlfriend] is true, Rudi the red-faced would-be reign deer (sorry...) allows the hypocrisy of his Republican backers to shine through just as vividly as his own. Here he was, using public funds to support an *extra-marital relationship*, and yet the "character counts" crowd among the GoP are still (?) rooting for Rudi. Yes, how quickly they forget just how important Bill Clinton's character issues were (and they were - I wouldn't have voted for him in 2000 if he could and did run again.)

And yet we also hear all this griping about Hillary "planting questions" as if supporters of a given candidate can't participate in the question session (OK, let them state that, but it's overblown.)

tyrannogenius

Posted by: NB on November 29, 2007 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

I'd say, of course CNN cherry picked the questions. But I wouldn't buy for a second that it's due to liberal bias, I'd say it's for sensationalism and keeping people watching their commercial slots. Why show a woman in a head scarf from Alabama?
Posted by: Trypticon on November 29, 2007 at 2:26 PM

Wow. Like it has been said: "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro". What's next, someone stands up with a question on a sign-"Hi, I'm an Ellen Jamesian-I've got a question for Senator McCain..."?

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on November 29, 2007 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

The real point against RW (although, given his past behavior elsewhere, I can't believe I'm wasting my time on this) is that there's a teensy difference between (1) accepting SOME questions from people on the other side, and (2) agreeing to join a debate in which ALL the questions will be asked by an outfit that has made it abundantly clear that they're a totally owned propaganda outlet of the other party, and a huge number of whose questions will therefore be of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" variety. If, on the other hand, GOP supporters want to slip a few ringers into future YouTube debates sponsored by some reasonably nonpartisan outfit like CNN, fine. In fact, go to it.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on November 29, 2007 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

On the other hand, it is nice that RW agrees with us regarding the idiocy of all those GOP bloggers screaming about the horror of GOP candidates being forced to answer ANY question whatsoever from the opposition.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on November 29, 2007 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

This just in from RedState:

"RedState is calling for CNN to fire Sam Feist, their political director; and David Bohrman, Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate.

"During last night’s debate, which CNN billed as 'a Republican debate, and the goal was to let Republican voters see their candidates,' CNN either knowingly or incompetently allowed hardcore left wing activists to plant questions and Anderson Cooper willingly gave one of those activists a soapbox so he could harass the Republican candidates about military policy.

"Simple googling would have revealed these left wing activists.

"Had CNN done its homework, this would not have happened. They either willfully let it happen, or incompetently bungled it. Either way, heads should roll.

"Likewise, we hope one or more of the GOP Presidential candidates will call for a do-over debate on substantive policy issues.

"You can read our Directors post here.

"All the best,
Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com"

"ONE of those activists"? Eeek! A mouse! So glad, to repeat, that RW at least agrees with us on the idiocy of the RedStaters (which of course is only what one would expect, given the well-known far greater willingness of the Right to accept "independent thought" and all that).

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on November 29, 2007 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

What about the Republican plants?

Posted by: Crissa on November 29, 2007 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

Sign up for your Dem loyalty Oath.Do it Now it is the only way to win.

Posted by: john john on November 29, 2007 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

to Crissa: I thought that Thompson was the only Republican that qualified as a vegetable? Although R(ump)W(riggler) might be classified as weed, come to think of it...

Posted by: Doug on November 29, 2007 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

"Independent thought goes a long way towards (here come the scary words) taking care of one's self."

Well, tell it to the RedStaters, Rick.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on November 29, 2007 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't make anything homophobic out of R(ump) W(iggler) - I thought it was a nod to the fact that he is perpetually showing his ass.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 29, 2007 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and Kevin, you don't need to shield me from the Big Bad by removing his snottier (and more cretinous) comments. In fact, let me officially invite RW to pop on over to John Cole's current thread on the same subject. He's just dying to hear from you again, Rick.

Meanwhile, James Kirchick (Martin Peretz's right-hand man, in more ways than one, at the New Republic) noted the most interesting thing about Kerr's appearance last night: most of the GOP audience booed him -- not for being a Democratic plant (which they didn't know about at the time), but for a REAL offense, namely being gay: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2007/11/28/gop-audience-boos-gay-veteran.aspx .

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on November 29, 2007 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK


Well, tell it to the RedStaters, Rick.

I don't read red state, Bruce.

Since we're telling each other what to say to "our side", why don't you ask your friends why Brit Hume, Chris Wallace & Tim Russert are hardened & unfair ogres who must be avoided at all costs?

Wooooooooooooooo, Brit Hume. Scary. Hide your daughters, the scary anchors are coming.

Posted by: RW on November 29, 2007 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

In fact, let me officially invite RW to pop on over to John Cole's current thread on the same subject.

Bruce, even though you & I disagree on many items & have gone back & forth many times, I do consider you to be an intelligent person. The italicized quote dampens that image.

I mean, please. Just because many folks like to be bamboozled in order to appease their zeal for political sustenance ('those guys suck and we're great, just ask us'), it doesn't appeal to everyone.

Independent.
Thought.

Have a great day, Bruce.

Posted by: RW on November 29, 2007 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

Probably for the same reason the GOP candidates thought that debate before the black audience should be avoided, Rick. Now, if you can find a large swarm of liberals who would behave like Victorian maiden aunts at the thought of GOP plants being allowed to ask one or two questions in a YouTube debate of Democratic candidates, be sure and let me know and I'll definitely agree with you about their infamy.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on November 29, 2007 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and JC isn't worth the 6 seconds it would take for me to kick his ass. You can tell him I said so, btw.

Posted by: RW on November 29, 2007 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

Why not tell him yourself, instead of wasting that 6 seconds telling ME to do it for you instead?

Posted by: BruceMoomaw on November 29, 2007 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

Probably for the same reason the GOP candidates thought that debate before the black audience should be avoided, Rick.

"The black audience". LOL! I love it. Spin, baby, spin.

Here I go and agree with you that the GOP should've gone to that debate and all you can do is freaking spin.....sad. I might as well have said that the Dems were scared to appear before a seasoned journalistic audience instead of saying "FNC".

But, that'd have been less than full honestly. And I don't care for that sort of stuff......rather, I avoid it.
Like, now.
So, catch you later.

Posted by: RW on November 29, 2007 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, well, one more:

Why not tell him yourself, instead of wasting that 6 seconds telling ME to do it for you instead?

Irony, Bruce, irony. Look up above, where you were telling me to go ask the red staters something.....throw in some irony with a small amount of lame humor and, well.....oh, heck, lighten up and smile. Not everything is a freaking bomb being thrown.

Life's too short.

Heck, I guess I should really spell out that I'm not threatening anyone (ten bucks says someone takes that line, though). Irony+humor=lame comment. :)

Later.

Posted by: RW on November 29, 2007 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

(Confidentially, for someone who "doesn't read RedState" and doesn't agree with them on this issue, you were certainly in a hurry to come dashing over here and defend all those right-wing bloggers who ARE throwing a fit about the Kerr Affair.)

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on November 29, 2007 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

I gotta take a crack at this "red state" thing:

"RedState is calling for CNN to fire Sam Feist, their political director; and David Bohrman, Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate.

And they have the right to call for virtually anyone to be fired. They can call for CNN to fire Anderson Cooper, too.

This is how it starts--the Republican Party WORKS THE REFEREES. There is no difference between them and Tim Duncan working the refs early in a game to get them to stop calling fouls on him.

The thing everyone needs to realize is that you don't get to work the referees anymore. This is wholly a Republican conceit.

"During last night’s debate, which CNN billed as 'a Republican debate, and the goal was to let Republican voters see their candidates,' CNN either knowingly or incompetently allowed hardcore left wing activists to plant questions and Anderson Cooper willingly gave one of those activists a soapbox so he could harass the Republican candidates about military policy.

So? Quit your bitching. Send right wingers out to do the same. Oh, wait--that already has a name. It's called "freeping" an event. Freerepublic.com was set up to do just that.

"Simple googling would have revealed these left wing activists.

Left wing activists have another name--they're also called Americans. They also have voting rights. And they have First Amendment rights. I know that Republicans think they can exclude people from their events based on their political preferences, so long as no one from the Republican party is excluded from a political event. This is called mind-numbingly fucked up hypocrisy, by the way.

"Had CNN done its homework, this would not have happened. They either willfully let it happen, or incompetently bungled it. Either way, heads should roll.

Had the candidates been prepared for the tough questions, they might have handled the debate better.

"Likewise, we hope one or more of the GOP Presidential candidates will call for a do-over debate on substantive policy issues.

Yeah, because exposing the Republicans to the American people a second time will make them lok sooooooooooo much better.

What a bunch of pussies. This is the modern Republican party at work. When they're made to look bad, they scream like little whiny ass titty babies and act like complete and total wusses.

Sorry, Red State. You don't get to work the refs anymore.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2007 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

And for someone attempting to deflect my tweaking at the lack of independent thought on the left, you sure are putting forth the exact same argument as the ONLY ARGUMENT put up after my initial hour of taunting (to the demise of BGRS, who joined everyone else in coming up with bupkis as a retort). Then, once someone puts up the first (lame) argument, everyone else picks it up and runs with it.

Precisely as I suggested from the get-go.

See you next time for the exact same exercise.

Posted by: RW on November 29, 2007 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Demise? I don't think so, Bub. You rant and the spittle flies, but you are sound and fury, signifying nothing.

But go on deluding yourself. It's fun on occasion,. and then I ignore you, like any other petulant, adolescent brat.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 29, 2007 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

And for someone attempting to deflect my tweaking at the lack of independent thought on the left, you sure are putting forth the exact same argument as the ONLY ARGUMENT put up after my initial hour of taunting (to the demise of BGRS, who joined everyone else in coming up with bupkis as a retort). Then, once someone puts up the first (lame) argument, everyone else picks it up and runs with it.

We can all pull back and see the delusional right wingers in all their glory--they are convinced they made a point when, in fact, they simply made a meaningless stream of words appear on a blog thread.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2007 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

Please, Rick. You started out trying to defend those GOP bloggers who were screaming bloody murder about one Democratic questioner in a debate by comparing them (falsely) to the Dems dodging a debate in which ALL the questions would have been from a hostile source. It was only a lot later that you suddenly switched to trying to instead defend the GOP candidates for dodging that black college debate -- by comparing THAT to the Dems dodging Fox News. If you'd done the latter from the start instead, it would have been harder for anyone to reply to you.

(Not impossible, though. The Dem candidates were dodging a debate in which all the questions would have been from conservatives, because conservatives don't like Democrats -- which is the case because... well, they're conservatives. The GOP candidates were dodging a debate in which all the questions would have been from blacks, because blacks don't like Republicans -- which is the case because...well, do the phrases "Southern Strategy", "Strom Thurmond" and "Abner Louima" ring a bell?)

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on November 29, 2007 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone believe CNN would have chosen the same questions (confederate flag, own a gun, believe this book, loaded Ret. Gen question, etc) for a Democratic debate?
It's an honest question and it deserves an honest answer.

Posted by: majarosh on November 29, 2007 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

Majarosh, each party has its own issues and its own disagreements, which is why the debates for each party are significantly different. Are you going to pretend otherwise? But let's look at your latest silliness in greater detail:

- Democrats are united on their views about the Confederate flag, so a question on that topic is a waste of time.

- Democratic candidates have already been asked about their views on gun control in debates.

- Democratic candidates have already been asked about their views on religion in debates.

- Democratic candidates have already been asked about their views on "Don't Ask; Don't Tell" in debates.

So you pretty much struck out. Got anything substantive to say?

Posted by: PaulB on November 29, 2007 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

"And for someone attempting to deflect my tweaking at the lack of independent thought on the left"

ROFLMAO.... Dear heart, all you are demonstrating here is that you really don't know how to read, how to comprehend arguments, and how to respond to arguments, since all you've done in this entire thread, as in every thread, is spout the same inane drivel over and over again.

We don't mind, actually, since your obtuseness is so hilariously stupid that we're perfectly fine watching you make a fool of yourself, but you really should take better care of yourself, particularly since all you have done is make exactly the same argument that everyone on the right is making at this time. Now what was that you were saying about "group think," dear?

Posted by: PaulB on November 29, 2007 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

"Independent. Thought."

ROFL.... Anyone care to bet on whether he's self-aware enough to realize the irony of that comment?

Oh, and RW, dear, do tell us when you're prepared to attack George Bush for being a coward because he refused to debate with Ahmadinejad. Ooh!!! Scary!!!

Posted by: PaulB on November 29, 2007 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

man, I thought the Wiggler had crawled back under his rock along with SuperAnnoyer having had their asses handed to them repeatedly. Turns out, the record's stuck, the record's stuck, the record's stuck...

nice illustrations of the conservative mind.

man, that really sucks that modern American conservatism/republicanism have so trashed the idea of "conservative." It used to connote a certain sensibility, caution, and reflectiveness. Now it's just synonymous with incoherent, profligate, idiocy, anti-Americanism, and reckless endangerment of the human race and the entire planet.

Posted by: trypticon on November 29, 2007 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

PB,
0 for 4 right out of the door.

The questions last night:

1. confederate flag-stupid question, would definitely not be chosen for a dem debate even though the subject reared it's ugly head in Democratcally controlled So. Carolina State House.

2. guns-the question was not about gun control, the question was "Do you own a gun and if so what kind?" would not be chosen for a dem deb.

3. bible-the question was not about religion, it was "Do you believe this book. This book?" (the Bible) not even, do you beleive IN the...? would never be asked at a dem deb.

4. Ret. Gen-wasn't really a question, more of a loaded statement, not neccessarily about DADT, BTW a Clinton I policy. What he said was, "I want to know why you think American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians." Well, guess what. American men and women in uniform do serve with gays and lesbians, not one of the candidates has ever said that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to whatever the hell they're asked to do and that particular statement would never see the light of day at a dem deb.

My question still deserves an HONEST answer. It's really not that tough.

Posted by: majarosh on November 29, 2007 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

"PB, 0 for 4 right out of the door."

LOL... Yes, dear, I know, and yet you came back for more. Eager for punishment, are you?

"1. confederate flag-stupid question, would definitely not be chosen for a dem debate even though the subject reared it's ugly head in Democratcally controlled So. Carolina State House."

Dear heart, is there any doubt at all in your mind as to position of any of the Democratic presidential candidates? Which party is associated with the Confederate Flag, dear? Free clue: it's not the Democratic Party.

Strike one.

"2. guns-the question was not about gun control, the question was 'Do you own a gun and if so what kind?' would not be chosen for a dem deb."

Sure it would? Why not? The Democrats aren't united on this issue and the question is valid. Democratic candidates get asked gun control questions all the time.

Strike two.

"3. bible-the question was not about religion, it was 'Do you believe this book. This book?' (the Bible) not even, do you beleive IN the...? would never be asked at a dem deb."

ROFL.... Two points, dear: the first is that you haven't invalidated my response. The second is that the Democratic questioners aren't quite so stupid as the Republican questioners, at least not in that way.

Strike three.

"4. Ret. Gen-wasn't really a question, more of a loaded statement, not neccessarily about DADT"

Dear heart, since that does nothing to address the fact that the Democratic candidates have already been asked precisely that question in a variety of ways in a variety of forums, forgive me if I don't take this statement seriously.

"Well, guess what. American men and women in uniform do serve with gays and lesbians, not one of the candidates has ever said that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to whatever the hell they're asked to do and that particular statement would never see the light of day at a dem deb."

ROFL.... You didn't listen to the response, did you, dear? Maybe you should read the transcript before you spout off about what "not of the candidates has ever said."

Strike four.

And you haven't even addressed my very first point that of course the questions are different, because the Republican and Democratic Party are different!

Strike five.

"My question still deserves an HONEST answer. It's really not that tough."

You got the answer the question deserved, dear. You just can't handle it, so you're back whining. And you're right, it wasn't tough at all.

Posted by: PaulB on November 29, 2007 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

guns-the question was not about gun control, the question was "Do you own a gun and if so what kind?" would not be chosen for a dem deb.

Wrong. Democrats were asked at the April 26th debate if any of them had kept guns in their houses at any time during their adult lives.

http://tinyurl.com/2hsqkf

confederate flag-stupid question, would definitely not be chosen for a dem debate even though the subject reared it's ugly head in Democratcally controlled So. Carolina State House.

Wrong. The Confederate Flag issue was raised during the 2004 Democratic Presidential Debates

http://tinyurl.com/tr43

and during the May 9th debate this year.

http://tinyurl.com/2ehg9r

Well, guess what. American men and women in uniform do serve with gays and lesbians, not one of the candidates has ever said that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough

The Democratic hopefuls were asked the gays in the military question here:

http://tinyurl.com/39sfl6

Your problem was with the charitable framing of the question? Should the general have asked the question that's really at the heart of the nutjub Republican objection to gays, "Gentlemen, why do you think that gays are too depraved to serve in the military? Is it because are you afraid of being alone with them in the shower?"

Because that's what it pretty much fucking comes down to. The General was being polite and giving them an out. And the Dems aren't being asked that question because in general they're for integration, not discrimination based on 18th century sensibilities. Duh.

You really don't ever bother to inform yourself about an issue before you speak out, do you?

Posted by: trex on November 29, 2007 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINK

Let's recap:

CNN puts on a typical mostly substanceless specticle of a debate disigned to promote the corporation, improve ratings, and sell commercials. CNN, given it's politically neutral interest in sensastionalism picks some wing nut questions and one from a gqy Republican general now supporting Dems. At leas one of the candidates fails to aswer the quesstion.

The right wing noise machine flies into action holding up CNN as a liberal news organization corrupting the integrity of republican debate by knowingly or unkiowingly exposing republican presidential candidates to uncomfortable questions about sexality-all too relevant to their most condersative members these day, After all Dems were cowards to avoid this sort of gotcha questioning, and why should rebpugs do too.

But really it turns out that replucans have years of proven track records of avoiding not conservative media empires, but minority sponsored meeting after minority sposered meeting. The are blowing off the American people, not corporations. And, while democrats have less than elegant moments and play games too, they wtill generally manage to face real questions from real challengers on a regular bases. Bush has taken point on wiping out that expectation for the rest of the republican field. Now just get your security detail to manhandle protesters, get your events people to keep the room clean of non supporters, if you dont' have a secutiry staff in your power, invent one by having your staff impersonate officers and persectue journalisms and less than partisans. This is standard fare as I documented above for StuporAnnoyer.

The poinit is, Dems take attack questions from planted reputs all the time. They are not wimps, they deal with it. Repuplicans dodge these questions when they get the, which they don't, having buil the party to insolate the idiots at the top. Rove likes to attack where he's weak. Hhis people have crushed bipartisanship, access of the people to goverment, decent debate among many others sins. And somehow they manage to get people talking about firing folks at CNN over gays in the military. oy

Posted by: trypticon on November 30, 2007 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

Here's what NPR's Mara Liasson had to say about the CNN debate:

"I think CNN does itself a great disservice when it doesn't apply the exact same kind of criteria to both debates. I covered both of them. In the Democratic debate, I don't think there were any questions that were clearly coming from, you know, a Republican point of view. They were generally sympathetic. They were about global warming and health care and education, all kind of Democratic issues. They weren't challenging them. There was one kind anti-tax question, I think, but they weren't challenging the basic principles of the Democratic Party. There were lots of questions last night [at the GOP debate] that were. I think the question about the Bible was mocking. I think one of the abortion questions was clearly not from someone who was pro-life."

I suppose you could call Mara a Republican shill, too, but at some point you have to acknowledge that CNN screwed the pooch.

Posted by: DBL on November 30, 2007 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

No, DBL, you don't. The LA Times did a detailed comparison study of the questions sent to the Democratic YouTube debate ( http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-youtube30nov30,1,6572347.story ):

"A review by the Los Angeles Times of the debate sponsored by CNN and YouTube four months ago found that the Democratic presidential candidates also faced queries that seemed to come from the conservative perspective. At least two of the citizen-interrogators had clear GOP leanings...

"CNN's [Sam] Feist said conservative commentators did not complain when questioners who shared their political ideology had videos aired during the Democratic forum in July.

"During that session, one video questioner asked the candidates to choose between raising taxes or cutting benefits in order to save Social Security. Another demanded to know whether taxes would rise 'like usually they do when a Democrat comes in office.' A third featured a gun-toting Michigan man, who in an interview Thursday said he had voted twice for President Bush, who wanted to know if the Democrats would protect his 'baby' -- an assault rifle he cradled in his arms.

"Another questioner from that forum who seemed to have clear conservative credentials was John McAlpin, a sailor who asked Clinton: 'How do you think you would be taken seriously' by Arab and Muslim nations that treat women as 'second-class citizens'?

"McAlpin's MySpace page features pictures of Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor and Republican presidential candidate.

"It depicts Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly as a friend, while offering a caricature of a bearded, turban-wearing 'Borat Hussein Obama' -- a derogatory reference to Obama, the Democratic candidate who as a youth attended a Muslim school."

The article also helpfully provides links to complete transcripts of both the Democratic and Republican YouTube debates. And it reveals that the Keith Kerr brouhaha was initially kicked off by none other than William Bennett, who apparently tore himself away from the slot machines long enough to say "almost as soon as the broadcast ended" that "one of the questioners had ties to the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)." One wonders how he knew this in advance. Could the GOP National Committee possibly have found it out in advance through extensive research on the backgrounds of the questioners before the broadcast, and pipelined it to Bennett before he served as a CNN commentator on the show? Nah.

Finally, although RW seems to have made himself scarce: there's a second reason why the refusal of the Dems to attend that Fox News debate, and the failure of (most of) the GOP candidates to attend that debate sponsored by black Morgan State University, is by no means entirely analogous -- and one I should have thought of, because in retrospect it's obvious. (E.J. Dionne and Josh Marshall both specify it as their reason, although Kevin has never had a word to say on either debate-skipping event.) Namely: that we all know very well just how honest good ol' Roger Ailes is as a "journalist", and have known it ever since Joe McGinniss introduced him to us as Richard Nixon's awesomely cynical ad manager back in "The Selling of the President 1968". If there was possibly a way he could arrange for this debate to be an ambush of the Democratic caandidates, he would have done it -- and in any case there was no point in the Dems providing free prestige to a "news outfit" explicitly developed by Ailes, Rupert Murdoch and Newt Gingrich as a GOP propaganda organ during discussions back in 1996. It would have been like the GOP candidates agreeing to appear at a debate managed by Rahm Emanuel.


Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on November 30, 2007 at 2:04 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