The CNN/YouTube debate
Update 9:05pm Eastern. The candidates are asked to say something they like or don’t like about the candidate next to them.
John Edwards doesn’t like Hillary’s jacket. Way to look presidential, Johnny.
Joe Biden likes Dennis Kucinich’s wife. And I don’t think he’s joking.
Dennis notes that there was no one put to the left of him. Anderson cracks that that isn’t possible.
Ho, ho, ho. The circus draws to a close. For now.
Update 9:02pm Eastern. Joe Biden disses gun owners by mocking a question from a gun owner, whom he says “needs help” and is mentally deficient.
Here’s the vid:
Update 8:53pm Eastern. Finally, a question related to immigration. A woman asks whether the Dems’ health care plans will cover “undocumented workers.”
Dodd - Yes.
Richardson - He says yes and that “Every American deserves coverage.”
“Undocumented workers = Americans.” Where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah.
Update 8:45pm Eastern. Here’s the “Are you a liberal” question:
The Club for Growth is laughing:
Pigs were flying in South Carolina tonight during the Democratic presidential debate as Hillary Clinton announced that she is not a big-government liberal but a “modern progressive” that “believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms.” Perhaps Hillary Clinton hasn’t been reading her own press releases and campaign speeches because her entire presidential campaign has been a series of proposals for new government programs. In fact, Senator Clinton’s entire political career reeks of big-government liberalism, from her disastrous attempt at Hillary Care to her recent proposal for universal kindergarten. At every turn, Hillary Clinton has embraced the far-left, liberal agenda, including her support for tax hikes, increased government spending, and restrictions on political free speech and her opposition to school choice and free trade.
“I am hard-pressed to imagine something more absurd than Hillary Clinton defending individual rights and eschewing the big-government label on national television,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “Kudos to CNN host Anderson Cooper for keeping a straight face.”
Update 8:20pm Eastern. The circus plays on. CNN just played this “question:”
Also: A “snowman” asked about global warming:
Anderson Cooper asked which candidates took private jets. All rose their hands except Mike Gravel…he took the train and bus.
Second serious question from a YouTuber who asks whether the Dems support nuclear power. Silky says no. Obama says “explore it.” Hillary chirps: “We can solve these problems!…I’m agnostic about nuclear power…”
Update 7:15pm Eastern. Which Republican would you pick as VP? Biden says Hagel or Lugar.
Update 7:12pm Eastern. A smug YouTube questioner asks Hillary whether she considers herself a “liberal.” She avoids “liberal,” calling herself a “modern progressive.”
Mike Gravel takes on Hillary’s “agent of change” rhetoric and takes on Barack Obama’s lobbyist funding, Robert Wolf.
Obama says he doesn’t take lobbying money. Obama gets applause. Gravel gets cut off.
6:53pm Eastern update. CNN.com is running a pre-debate special. Senior citizen William Schneider is on right now explaining what issues matter to The Yoots. He pronounces “INNN-ter-net” like it has ghost quotes around it.
“Internet reporter” Jacki Schechner adds that “I think this is about the coolest thing ever!” The CNN.com anchor is wearing a hideous, red polyurethane jacket circa 1982. I think they think it looks Yoot-ful.
Update: Here’s a multimedia, interactive idea…Play some of Glenn and Helen’s new podcast with Michael Yon reporting from Iraq. Ask the candidates to respond to his on-the-ground assessment. Would they smear the messenger? Ignore the message? That would be worth watching.
Bumped…Update: The “freak show” begins in 20 minutes. Cue the Barney & Bailey theme song…
***
Yeah, it’s tonight at 7pm Eastern. The “historic” night on which presidential candidates will attempt to prove their hipness and Yoot Vote appeal by making contrived references to LonelyGirl15, Ask a Ninja, and these techno-fancy things on the Internets called “blogs.”
Those screens look really wizbang cool, but I hope CNN can resolve all those crappy, 20th century audio problems they’ve been having.
Bryan Preston sifted through the dreck of YouTube citizen questions.
Matthew Felling says CNN’s hype has gone “overboard.”
Hotline previews the pre-debate game show.
Don Ward thinks “[t]he whole affair sounds as gimmicky as a Cal Worthington commercial.”
Which you can, of course, find on YouTube:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- CNN/YouTube Debate - Gimmick or not? « Volunteer Opinion Journal
- Who's watching the CNN YouTube debates tonight? : Domestic Divapalooza
- Wake up America-Gun Guy CRACKED ME UP
- Democratic Debate… #4? or #3? Who cares at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source.
- Stuck On Stupid
- Let’s prepare for the next CNN/YouTube debates in Florida « Volunteer Opinion Journal
- Did Hillary intentionally avoid mentioning Bill at the CNN/YouTube debate? « Volunteer Opinion Journal
- News Flash - Hillary Clinton is not a “liberal”,… so she says « Volunteer Opinion Journal
- Michelle Malkin » CNN/YouTube (or is it YawnTube?) debate ratings are in: Not so “historic”
- Stuck On Stupid
- Michelle Malkin » A very simple question for the GOP candidates
- Michelle Malkin » Saturday night jive: The New Hampshire debates; Round Two - Dem candidates; Update: Hillary turns Shrill-ary; Edwards: “Forces of status quo”= Hillary; Unlikeable? Hillary’s feelings are hurt
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Ballot initiative round-up
November 4, 2008 11:32 PM by Michelle Malkin
31 Comments |
Happened to catch the CNN “team” sorting through questions. It was pretty funny. They went on about how good the questions were and how “professional journalists” wouldn’t have thought of these questions (no doubt there), so the CNN reporter asked the self-important group leader, “Can you give us an example?” The guy said “No.” No, as in I’m not going to tell you. Even the CNN reporter gave a “look” to the camera.
Dang. I suppose this means I’ll have to unblock CNN on the parental controls.
I am a computer luddite, however if I were capable I would have liked to ask the candidates to respond to the following statement -
Support the Troops. Enlist!
IMHO, it is more than a bumper sticker, it is something a President should ask the citizenry.
zzzzzzzzzzz…another dem debate another 3 hours of them not answering any tough questions while telling us that socialism works…maybe I’ll rent a hummer limo and eat a steak in it, just out of spite.
It would be fun if CNN divided all of the questions into only two groups: acceptable and unacceptable for broadcast. Then choose the acceptable clips randomly for each candidate. For added showmanship, CNN could add a spinning wheel or lever that each candidate must manipulate in order to be assigned a question. It would be like a gameshow but with the risk of being asked questions too stupid, even for Redeye. If it’s a ratings hit, look for a celebrity youtube debate, where all of the questions are provided by Hollywood’s intellectual elite.
I think “rw” hit the nail on the head with the gameshow idea. So far the whole political positioning thing, on both sides, has been like a cheap gameshow.
All that is really missing is Monty Hall.
It’s been the “headline” story on CNN.com all day too. Is there nothing else happening today in the world?
Monty Python
Sorry, I refuse to watch CNN, so I guess I won’t see this one.
I hope they don’t take off Glenn Beck to put that trash on.
I don’t watch CNN that much either but will be sure to miss this debate. And FYI to Mikey B & Rustyoleum, I’ve missed the GOP ones as well. I think this is much too early to have to have this stuff on so soon.
Questions that I’d ask, but they’d never use:
• Senators Obama and Clinton - You two, along with Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, have a solid history in shady land deals. How has your self-dealing and self-enrichment made you more sensitive to the needs of the public, many of whom have had to pay retail for their property?
• Mr. Kucinich - Is your support for embryonic stem cell research rooted in the usual liberal enthusiasm towards eugenics and playing God or because you personally hope for a cure for your still shopping in the Juniors department at Target in your middle-age?
• Sen. Biden - When you proposed to your wife, what song lyrics did you pass off as your own poetry?
• Sen. Obama - You cried like a little girl when Maureen Dowd mentioned your prominent ears - a trait which actor/superstar Will Smith also has yet manages to cope with. What is to prevent our enemies from keeping you in a perpetual state of depression by releasing statements referring to you as the “infidel Great Satan, President Dumbo?”
• Gov. Richardson - You helped Monica Lewinsky get a job. Did you also get a sample of what your boss found so interesting?
• Sen. Edwards - Your wife has been out attacking Ann Coulter and dissing Sen. Clinton. Does that mean that she’s more of a man than you are and, if so, why the hell isn’t she running for President while you stay home with your hair in curlers, eating bon bons, you wuss?
• Sen. Dodd - Why are you here? Doesn’t Teddy need his wingman for his escapades at Hooters?
• Sen. Gravel - You are 77-years-old now and would be nearly 83 when you finished your first term. What are you trying to prove?
Tonight will be the “Seinfeld Debate,” a true debate about nothing. Below are 42 questions CNN should ask.
Oh, and the next time democrats complain about Fox News, they should take their biased heads and shove them up their…what is a word to describe it…oh yeah…CNN.
eric
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/06/06/21-questions-cnn-should-ask-the-democrats/
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/06/24/21-more-questions-cnn-should-ask-the-democrats/
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/the-gop-debate-cnn-truly-is-al-jazeera-west/
This is getting sad and insane and absurd in a way only Beckett could devise.
With each debate carefully scheduled, arranged and advertised on CNN, where the Democratic candidates will get softball questions and the Republicans will get hammered, there is no outrage about the fact that the Democrats won’t debate on the much-more-watched FOX News channel. No outrage from this board, not outrage from Michelle, no outrage from O’Reilly, none from anywhere. Just chuckle at those cowardly Democrats and let them walk away unscathed, like the way they think it should be. Why not just let them walk away with the election, people?! Here, let me hand you all election ballots with their names already filled out on them for you!
Is this all that a board like this can come up with? What sense does it make to go crazy about immigration now if you’re ready to put Hillary into the Oval office - and if the media is complicit, and they are, and the rest of the people like those on this board who could speak up are apathetic on the issue - and that’s what this board is being on this issue - then into the White House Hillary will go, because the average voter doesn’t know the depth and severity of the information that will only be addressed if Fox does a Democratic debate. And it isn’t like that should be a surprise.
All the energy used up in this place about relatively minor subjects like Sheehan and Jet Blue - like KOS won’t be out there painting hate everywhere without Jet Blue - that could and should be put to use now where it counts - holding the Democrats’ feet to the fire on tough issues in front of a world audience, isn’t. Let’s talk about Ralph Nader, Rosie O’Donnel, John McCains zero-liklihood Presidency and Jet-Blue instead. By all means, let’s have an impassioned discussion about the Democrats having an all-night porpoganda fest on an issue they’ve already won on their turf. But talk about the fact that Democrats won’t debate on Fox News, a situation which could literally change the tenor of the entire election? Oh, how blase. And that’s exactly what the Democratic candidates want - and you’re giving it to them. In politics, there’s no such thing as a neutral inactivity.
To everyone, including, with respect, our host, why not just vote for the Democratic candidate when the time comes? With the apathy being demonstrated toward this outrage of one-sided bias in the electoral system, you might as well not only invite the Democratic candidate into the white house, but tidy the place up for them while your at it.
You could make a difference right now - we all could if enough outrage was being generated- but I guess that’s just hard work, and nobody really cares.
How the Democrats must be laughing at boards like this - and crossing their fingers that the hosts and posters don’t get wise to where the trouble for them could really be.
It’s so sad it’s almost pathetic. So let’s all watch the Democrats on CNN and bitch into the wind about the softball questions - and watch them walk away with the election.
Conservative Cat,
Reread the post directly above you. I am quite outraged, and clearly stated so. THe links contain more outrage, and well written outrage at that.
eric
http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com
Cat:
First of all, I would appreciate it if you got off your high horse for a minute and stopped banging on people here for what is essentially nothing.
ONE DEBATE ON FOX NEWS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE ELECTION.
AMerican elections don’t work like that. And the 2 or three million people who tune in to such a debate are already predisposed to vote Republican anyway for the most part. Less than 30% of Fox’s audience is made up of independents. The rest are GOP and Dems.
That’s 30% of 3 million which is about a million people who already haven’t made up their minds about the election who might tune in to a Dem debate on Fox. That’s less than 1% of the total votes that will be cast in 2008 (120 million cast in 2004).
You’re off on a rant on a non-issue. Settle down, pop a brew, and relax.
Well, I knew this would make me no friends and that people would take it as a personal attack (a no-brainer) and I suppose I should apologize for any hurt feelings if that’s the case. But when the going got rough, the founding fathers were anything but politically correct, and I think this issue is a bit larger than some people realize.
Blackgygrrrr, Perhaps one of the problems is that few boards are opening up renewed threads specifically on this topic, unless people want to go off topic all the time (and maybe they should).
Maybe someone who might be reading with some direct influence on O’Reilly might tell him that enough is enough on giving the arrogant Dems a free pass on this issue. Holding the Democratic candidates to tough questions on the world stage is critical at this juncture
Rick: “ONE DEBATE ON FOX NEWS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE ELECTION.”
With all due respect because we’ve agreed on this board before and I like your posts, I think that’s fatally flawed thinking. The one debate where Reagan kept saying “there you go again” to Carter was huge turning point from which Carter never recovered. The one debate in which Kennedy looked so much better than a Haggard Nixon cemented Nixon’s loss.
And besides, who is talking about only one debate? Who says CNN gets to have the highest number of debates when Fox has much higher ratings?
Think I will, with the Dems providing all of the laughs.
CC we are not handing the Dems anything, quite the opposite. I think our candidates are far superior and it will show when the Dems are debating with them and not each other!!
Rick: “That’s 30% of 3 million which is about a million people who already haven’t made up their minds about the election who might tune in to a Dem debate on Fox. That’s less than 1% of the total votes that will be cast in 2008 (120 million cast in 2004).”
You’re forgetting the “trickle down” effect. Word of mouth on blogs, newpapers as they reopen the issue trying to put to rest whatever the situation was to try to defend the Dems as well as endless talk the morning after around the water cooler has tremendous effect. I’ve been in the media for 20 years - I know what I’m talking about, and none of that will happen unless there is a grass roots uprising on the issue right now, because the rest of the media has the situation under lock and key, and Fox news itself will look silly if they start complaining about the issue. This can only come from the people - and maybe if some start writing their congressman and demand that they start making noise on the issue, some additional movement will happen.
General,
“CC we are not handing the Dems anything, quite the opposite. I think our candidates are far superior and it will show when the Dems are debating with them and not each other!!”
And the Dems will love you for it. As Dick Morris pointed out, they won’t start any real trouble amongst each other and will keep attacking the Republicans en mass while the Republicans battle it out amongst each other. That’s a no-brainer losing sceenario for the Republicans. Remember that 85% of the media is against the right and most of those actively supporting the left. How much chance do you think the Republicans have in the real world with those kinds off odds stacked against them?
Remember, you follow the news and politics. Most people are only getting sound bytes and what Katie Couric tells them. The Republicans are going to get killed if the status quo remains constant.
so John Edwards wants to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 /hour. Plus he wants to increase taxes on people over $200,000. Is he actually trying to destroy small business, or does he just not understand how economics works?
DEMOCRATIC DEBATE 45:00 pm CNN has upped the propganda odds to dangerously high levels: the “common citizens” on U-Tube are so obviously lecturn-pounding, left wing shills it’s ridiculous. This is very bad news for the Republicans. CNN has taken biased political news handling to a new level - and it’s very, very effective. Common voters will be steered by tactics like this just enough to hand the White House to the Dems.
Also, CNN just showed the faces of the dead soldiers in a huge propoganda move against the right presented as a moment to honor them. This being held at the Citadel. So carefully planned for propoganda it’s chilling. This is getting way more serious than many of us realize.
Still think we should all pop open a beer and relax, Rick? These people are serious, and unless our side gets very serious very fast, it’s going to be Hillary rubber-stamping anything and everything that Reid and Pelosi hand her.
The media is locked up on the left except for Fox and the Dems know it - already good enough reason why the Dems need to go on Fox. I submit that anyone who feels as I do, like Blacktgrrr isn’t overreacting, but rather anyone who feels that the issue isn’t important enough to fight for will be handing the Democrats the White House out of nothing more or less than sheer laziness.
We have a year and a half until the election. Studies show that most people - 70% - don’t make up their minds until late October before voting. To believe that in the large scheme of things that one or two or five debates on CNN where even with the trickle down effect is going to reach perhaps 10% of an engaged electorate - most of whom have already made up their minds - is just not rational.
And that Reagan-Carter debate occurred two weeks before the 1980 election - a seismic difference.
To Rick Moran —
Less than 1% of the vote is not as insignificant as you think. The country is so closely divided that such small margins are critical. George Bush won in 2000 with a margin of approximately 1000 votes.
I have had 2 cousins graduate from the Citadel. My son and brother attended their summer camps as well.
I assure you that NONE of the above agree with anything the LIBS are stating.
Diplocacy? Please tell me what the LIBS mean by that word…….
Diplomacy…..sorry for the typo.
A Dem. debate on CNN, 3 Hours of you’re life you will never get back…..But, I do like the pop a brew and relax idea plus the Angels are on….ahhhhhh
I want to see at least one sweating bullets.
I watch Fox News more than CNN. It would be interesting if YouTube and Fox did a debate.
They just had a question from a snowman.
Wow.
I liked that question ….If any of the candidates would work for minimum wage.
Unfortunately, the ones that needed to answer, didn’t.
Question” How do you get American’s to conserve energy?”
Answer-stop having stupid, gimmicky debates
Conserve flatulence (Libs bloviating)
Who was your favorite teacher
next softball question…what is your favorite color? ( I bet it’s blue)
I’d like them to have a video about crumbling inner cities that are exclusively under democratic control (Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, Chicago, etc) and then ask the candidates how well they think their liberal experiment has worked….I wonder how they’ll blame Bush for it?
The poverty tour reference? Thank God John Edwards took three days out of his busy schedule to talk to poor people (and pro bono none the less..no $50,000 fee there)
Here’s a question;
“How many of you will take a lie detector test on LIVE TV ??????????
Edwards sounds like the hick he is….I am from NC and I sound more intelligent.
I guess Class and Money are separate issues.
Ahh Hilaries scars from here health care dibacle…I like how she forgets to mention that in the process, she made health care worse by forcing hospitals and clinics to move to managed care.
Yeah, taylork…..and her pal, Edwards SUED so many in that field.
The irony.
Mike Gravel is worthless…and on the note of worthlessness, why is it Edwards is considered still in the running, while McCain (who has more money and polls higher) is not? (not that I support McCain, it just seems odd to me…must be something about the hair…)
Edwards has the sympathy votes.
WHERE IS EVERYONE?
Just you ‘n me taylork!!!!!
Dumbo, Mumbo, and Jumbo…top three contenders.
I didn’t tape this debate, nor would I watch it again, but I would like to see the comparison on the In god we trust question with the quoting religion in your judgments question. If I’m getting this correctly, the typical answer of the two is this, my religion guides my moral values, but when I make a decision based on morality, you’re not allowed to know how I came about this decision. Is this about right?
They obviously have something better to do with their time.
How do you win a debate? Insult the person giving the question…and then say you’re not joking about it.
Maybe they are engrossed in the show.
I am flipping channels, typing, and not missing a beat.
(we women can do that ya know!)
Regarding their religious guides:
Buddha, Satan, Stalin, etc.
more proof that John Edward is in fact more of a woman the hildog…he just talked about not liking her coat
this last question is sooooooo stupid…what is this softball question number 56? the final question should be asking each candidate what their favorite food is and why
I am getting all teary eyed. They are loving each other.
PUKE.
Rick,
“To believe that in the large scheme of things that one or two or five debates on CNN where even with the trickle down effect is going to reach perhaps 10% of an engaged electorate - most of whom have already made up their minds - is just not rational.”
That’s an interesting opinion, Rick. A nice, relaxed, unrealistically optomistic gamble of an opinion. Do you have anything to back it up?
So, if I understand you, your extrapolation goes like this: We don’t need to worry about the gross imbalance of the venues during this political election at this early stage because right now nobody cares and later on, maybe nobody cares also? If it matters later down the line, how does it hurt to set a balanced policy on the debates today - while we still can?
Dfern,
“Less than 1% of the vote is not as insignificant as you think. The country is so closely divided that such small margins are critical. George Bush won in 2000 with a margin of approximately 1000 votes.
EXACTLY CORRECT! Now we’re getting down to it.
Dismissing the GOP presidential field as a “pathetic” bunch of “pygmies,” Newt Gingrich hinted Monday he might step in to beat Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
Feral, now you just ruined our lovefest.
For shame.
I HOPE Newt enters. He’ll have my full support.
still waiting for that immigration question…what? the debates over and nobody was asked about immigration? Hmm, it must not be that important an issue…
Silky Pony didn’t like Senator Clinton’s coat, because it doesn’t go with his hair!!!!!!!!!
Silky Pony…..LMAO!!!!!!!
That’s funny jose!
Yeah, I am perplexed that the illegal immigration debacle wasn’t mentioned.
Guess those ?s were deliberately excluded?
I can’t believe they ran the Red State Update question. Good for Jackie and Dunlap!
Cat:
Fact: We are still 18 months away from the election.
To believe that any event or series of events this far out from the election matters one whit is ridiculous - as any political professional in America would tell you.
You’re going off half cocked for absolutely no reason. Have you considered the damage done to the Democrats for NOT appearing on Fox among independents? Obviously not.
Take a deep breath - and pop another cold one.
#57 and #58 you should NOT have mentioned Silky Pony!!!
Tonight’s DNC debate…debate…”IS” that what it was?
Bash Bush. Praise Reagan.
Secret MySpace entry for John Edwards:
Hi. My name is Johnny Reid Edwards former Senator from the Great State of North Carolina (actually I don’t think North Carolina is so great and never did, but my advisers have said that I should say that). You can just call me John if you want. I was born on June 10, 1953, although people tell me that I look at least 25 years younger.
I was the very first person in my dirt poor family to attend college. I earned my law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It was a great accomplishment as I was so poor that I had to work 8 different part time jobs to pay for my tuition and just barely enough food to survive.
After getting my law degree I immediately went on my noble mission to save hundreds of victims of gross corporate negligence and gross medical malpractice. When necessary to win a case to help the poor victim that I was representing I would even feel the presence of dead people inside me, talking to me and through me to the members of the jury. If you don’t think that takes a lot out of a man, just try it sometime. I also split the settlement very fairly with my clients. I was VERY generous to them - 5% for them, 95% for me. More than fair. I mean I was the one who had to channel the dead, wasn’t I!!!
If I do say so myself I am so cute that you just can’t believe it! I have such great hair! I am also very boyish looking in a good way, not in a gay way at all. Did I mention that I have GREAT HAIR!!! Sometimes I think my great looks are almost a curse.
I sometimes like to chill out after a long day of campaigning to save America by eating at Wendy’s. I also like to spend some time at home sprucing up around my modest and humble house. I also like to spend hours in front of the mirror combing my hair. Wouldn’t you too if you had such great hair!!! BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT I AM GAY!!! NOT AT ALL!!! In fact I HATE gays, just don’t tell Elizabeth, OK. Contrary to what some of my very few enemies say I never spend more than $399 on haircuts. That $400 on a haircut is a damn lie, as it included a very generous $1 tip.
I would like to think that I am open minded, honest, polite and straight. And I appreciate the same qualities in others.
Who I’d like to meet:
…other bloggers who grew up in poverty. People who like to help the poor. People with great hair so that I can comb your hair and you can comb mine. It’s going to be great!!!
No gays though. They make me feel icky!!!
Dfern,
By the way, I’d submit that the population is so closely divided specifically because the media does lean so far to the left. It is a testiment to conservative values that as many people still support them as they do. But this reality isn’t written in forever stone, espceially when you coinsider what teacher are putting into our kid’s heads and that, predictably, the youth are turning toward the left, and the past election demonstrates that quite well. Things are being driven - hard - to the left by a relentless media. Those who assume that 50% voter margin between right and left is the stopping point by which voters will vote by some magical insurance policy are tragically mistaken.
Rick (and others)
Additional footnote on the effect of a single debate: Morris on H&C has just mention three ways in which this one debate has turned the tables on conventional wisdom in this election. We’re in a new world were no one can predict the long-term effects of a U-Tube moment or TV sound bite. Assuming anything via wishful thinking is exactly what anyone’s oppositon hopes will happen.
UPDATE: Morris just strongly suggested that CNN or U-Tube edited out any questions with the word “terror” in them, since there weren’t any. Maybe by itself this example one-sidedness is a glitch, but these glitches are quickly adding up as the last election showed. Assuming that no one will care or pay attention is the surest road to defeat.
Anyone want to start suggesting ways that we the people can start putting the pressure on Democrats to debate in the only venue which will ask the tough questions in a worldwide venue - Fox News Channel?
feral, he didn’t grow up poor. That’s another blatant lie. His father owned the dang company.
I’d love to see him REALLY challenged by Newt! That would be a blast to watch!
I don’t believe either terrorist or illegals was mentioned.
Did I miss something?
Surely, those are the MAJOR concerns of most people.
Rick,
I don’t drink beer or anything else thanks, maybe you should lay off a few and clear your head a bit:
You’re going off half cocked for absolutely no reason. Have you considered the damage done to the Democrats for NOT appearing on Fox among independents? Obviously not”.
You’re living in a nice, comfy dream world, Rick. There is no damage to the Democrats because for there to be damage there needs to be reporting, discussion and reminders of the facts among the general population. Think Wolf Blitzer is going to ask Hillary about it and challenge her response? The only place anyone is talking about it to speak of is here and now, and you’re saying it’s no problem if we just pop open a beer. It’s a non-issue among the general electorate, and that’s a real problem.
I think part of the trouble is that no one has a handle among right wing journalsist on how to make noise about the problem. O’Reilly ambushed the candidates and they all ran away. And then nothing. If the roles had been reversed, CNN, the NY Times and the rest would be on it every day, and God help us, they’d be right!
Your attitude is utterly bewildering to me, Rick. What is it about wanting a fair playing field in the world of political debates that you don’t understand or simply don’t like?
You say it’s 18 months until the election and not to worry about it. If the election is so far away, why are the candidates having debates now? And why won’t the Dems debate on Fox if the time issue negates any importance on the issue?
I think you’re the one going off half-cocked Rick, in a manner of speaking, right back to the fridge and another beer inside which the world is a nice and comfy place. You need to get it together, my friend.Use this as a barometer if you need one: If it’s important to the candidates, it should be important to you, too - and they aren’t waiting for you to finish that beer before deciding to level the playing field.
Will Michelle Malkin be the moderator? No one else at FOX News is remotely qualified to ask the tough questions.
Rick,
Don’t mean to butt in on your conversation with Rick, but do you honestly believe that if O’Reilly asked them the tough questions, they’d answer?
Of course not. Dems are weak….just talking points and do not have a plan for anything except what benefits their pockets. They have NOTHING to offer and no real solutions. They give some vague answer to not answer….typical MO.
They’ll say just about anything to the dumbed down Americans they court.
On July 23rd, 2007 at 9:34 pm, gayle said:
I don’t believe either terrorist or illegals was mentioned.
Did I miss something?
Surely, those are the MAJOR concerns of most people.
Of course they are, but CNN is in bed with the democrats. Think that a debate with Fox anchors would have such an omission? Of course not, and why the Dems are running scared and why we, somehow, have to put enough pressure on them that either they’ll have a Fox debate or two, or the general population will know that they’re on the run - and not Presidential material.
Leave it to CNN and “a couple of beers” and you know the winner in 08 won’t be a Republican the way the media is whitewashing the Democrats on a wholesale basis at this point.
People can only vote according to the information they’re getting, and huge preportion of the elctorate is only getting half, with the Times and CNN is pushing anti-conservative propoganda hard besides.
The DEMS don’t stand a chance to win this election UNTIL they face the music.
That means being confronted by Conservatives. If they continue to avoid FOX, they will lose.
FOX has the highest ratings and don’t think viewers won’t take notice.
How much dumber can they get?
Just let them keep up the pretenses.
It’s good for the rest of us.
I don’t believe that, were you expecting cooperation from the MSM?
True, but it is no worst then in 00,04 or 06, I relize we did not do well in 06,but I still have faith. People want solutions to problems, not blame games and excuses. This is where we excel. After the primaries they will have to debate the Repubs. The biggest problem that I see is that the MSM has told everyone what a lousy selection the Repubs have, and that a few folks are starting to believe it, have faith and support your party.
Anyway I watched the debate, looked to me as though they are running from their Kos base. Obama wants to talk to Iran and Hillary and Edwards wouldn’t commit? And the early indication is that Obama won? Wow, their was a lot of material in this debate for the Repubs.
BTW what do you expect Michelle, Fox or me to do about the Dems refusing not to debate on Fox? How about the first question after the primaries being: If you refuse to debate on Fox because you believe it is bias, how are you going to deal with (whomever) that obviously is? Question 2: Are you going to refuse to answer questions from reporters that you feel are bias? And so on
Good points.
They’ll talk w/leaders from terrorist nations but not FOX NEWS commentators.
FOX should be PROUD.
2007 at 9:52 pm, MrC_5150 said:
Will Michelle Malkin be the moderator? No one else at FOX News is remotely qualified to ask the tough questions.
Mr C 5150, I wonder if you know just how brilliant a suggestion that is? Michelle, young, up and coming asian female conservative asking questions of the Democratic Presidential candidates. From a strictly media perspective it’s an amazing idea. It’s by no means enough to do the job, not remotely, but it’s one of several potential great starts. One problem is that any and all great starts on this, with the rest of the media skewed heavily to the left, have to happen together, or each one gets knocked down and disappears, like what happened when O’Reilly ambushed the Dems on this issue. Immediate electricity, the Dems ran - literally - but then Mr O let it drop.
Great idea Mr_C. Brilliant. And she’d ask what everyone else would be too PC to ask, too.
(That, incidentally, is a concern I have: that to prove themselves “fair” to the democrats, the Fox moderators would only throw one or two tough questions. If these people want to be President, if they want that job, they better be able to handle a whole three hours of though questions every time and then some.)
General Company,
“True, but it is no worst then in 00,04 or 06, I relize we did not do well in 06,but I still have faith.”
We did progresively worse each time. So much for faith. Would you gamble Hillary rubber stamping everything reid and pelosi wanted from child care to war strategy and leave it to some vaguely defined faith you have in other people to save you from that nightmare?
“BTW what do you expect Michelle, Fox or me to do about the Dems refusing not to debate on Fox?”
Michelle has a huge bully pulpit. That one is easy, and obviously it’s this person;s opinion that she should.
As for the rest of us, I’m doing something right now. Were you to do the same and everyone else, it would eventually attain “momentum: and that’s enough. Even if the left paints us more troublemaking extremists that’s fine, as long as we’re trouble making extremists making loud noise about the Dems being afraid to appear on Fox News. You don’t need context to that kind of message - the message alone does that, and it’s a damning message.
Also, here’s another idea: start putting pressure on the second-teir Democratic candidates like mad now. Call and e-mail their offices, politely but resolutely. Inform them that they’ll have a wider audience and can make the first-tier candidates look weak. Most of those guys are probably counting their election runs on the second hands of theior watches, and might just take the bait in a desperate effort to get traction.
Star writing to the few newspapers sympathetic to the right wing - where they stand a chance of getting published - and keep ‘em coming. If noithing else, that alonde, all the letters of outrage by common voters, could be a story for them.
How about the first question after the primaries being: If you refuse to debate on Fox because you believe it is bias, how are you going to deal with (whomever) that obviously is? Question 2: Are you going to refuse to answer questions from reporters that you feel are bias? And so on
That only works if there is someone to ask the question and that’s the whole point. It won’t happen and if Wolf Nlitzer does, Hillary will say Fox is just right wing, Blitzer will agree and that’s that. You scenario proposes the fact of a reality which doesn’t exist and is exactly what this is all about.
Gayle:
“The DEMS don’t stand a chance to win this election UNTIL they face the music.
That means being confronted by Conservatives. If they continue to avoid FOX, they will lose.
FOX has the highest ratings and don’t think viewers won’t take notice.
How much dumber can they get?
Just let them keep up the pretenses.
It’s good for the rest of us.
We lost ‘08 to a bunch of left wing nuts who also didn’t face the music then, but still won. Sorry to say it, but that’s more wishful thinking, Gayle.
Maybe Michelle can start (sorry Michelle, I know you have spare time, you have a Rhoomba)
by asking a question a week of the candidates. Submitted first to their campaigns so they actually have a chance to respond, and then publicly asked on the O’Malkin Factor. It’s not the same as a debate (which these aren’t really anyway) since they can prepare canned answers, but my guess is that they won’t bother answering anyway. Then the non-answer starts to become the story - week after week with no answers - then reporters can dog them about it. If they do answer, Michelle rebuts them and invites them on to discuss. Keep plugging away at their refusal.
Good idea, Aloha, with one tiny caveat: if she’s going to do that, then frame it thusly from the beginning: If the Democrats are afraid to come to Fox News to debate and they are (show clips from Mr O’s location ambushes)and attend only left-friendly venues like CNN, then we’ll go to them. Here’s my first five questions, etc (more than one question - that’s too easily dismissed)
Then the way you describe the situation playing out sounds likely, and that’s good.
Though don’t leave it all up to poor Michelle - there’s plenty you can do, too, and should!
If Republicans get a strong presidential candidate then they themselves can pose the question/challenge of a debate on Fox News a la Fred Thompson’s response to Michael Moore via the internet. This would be more effective instead of waiting on a left wing “news” show moderator to pose the question. He can frame it in such a way as to relate it to democrats always insisting we talk to our enemies while they continue to dismiss the notion of talking to normal Americans on the opposite side of the political spectrum who frequent Fox News. Whoever does this has to be aggressive and unrelenting about it to ratchet up the pressure. Either Guiliani or Thompson would be best in my opinion. Either way it will hurt the democratic candidate. One, they will eventually have to debate on Fox News and get hardball questions that will expose them for the socialist they are or two, the longer they continue to refuse to debate on the leading news network in the country, the weaker they will look.
The crutch of this, of course, would be that once the democratic candidate does debate at least once on Fox News then they will forever be able to wave their hand dismissively every time they are challenged to another debate on that network. In my opinion the best time would be about three to four months out from the election to let the damage of the Fox News debate soak in and trickle down to the average Joe who is probably lesser informed. If the democratic candidate is smart, he or she will want to get this debate out of the way as soon as possible to start damage control immediately after.
Wow, you really do think you are the only one doing these things don’t you? I take it for granted that most of us here are more then what we read here. I write my Reps, I write the opposition. I campaign for folks I feel will do a good job. If you don’t think their decision not to appear on Fox wont haunt them , well I disagree, but then I don’t expect their competitors to ask the question either. I think every one understands what the Dems are doing and even some liberals I have talked to think they are spineless for avoiding anyone, let alone Fox. If Michelle and Mr. O chased them around only to badger them with this question, who would see it? Preaching to the choir, everyone else would see it as justification for not appearing.
I appreciate where you are coming from, I simply refuse this freaked out approach to an election that is over a year away. If we are to win this election, then we must have the center. I suggest instead of ridiculing and running them off we appeal to them for their vote. You sound so doom and gloom, I just cant understand.
Rick,
I think you may be missing something here. The election may be 18 months away, but the primary is in February. So while, a lot of what is said might not tricle down to the voter that is undecided between, voting for a Republican or a democrat, a person that is interested in the primaries is likely to be watching these debates.
That being said, I do agree with Newt and Fred Thompson in that this election cycle has startd way too soon. I’m not sure that there has been more than 2 weeks of down time since November before there was 08 speculation going on.
That being said, I think Rick is wrong in saying that one Fox News debate won’t change anything. The fact of the matter is, it’s hard to scrutinize a candidate when all there talking about is their favorite teacher. And in an era when any misstatement can hurt you, saying something foolish on a question of actual importance may come back to hurt a candidate. However, this assumes that any of the candidates say anything substantive, which, for the most part, they did n’t do in this debate. I think 95% of what all the candidates said were things we’ve heard already.
..can’t way for the gay debate!!!
This is stunning. I hope these few responses don’t represent the majority of the right wing of the blogosphere.
“If Republicans get a strong presidential candidate then they themselves can pose the question/challenge of a debate on Fox News”
And coming from a Republican candidate, that cements the impression that Fox News is “right wing”. Beautiful. Just what nobody needs and no candidate in his right mind would do.
“Wow, you really do think you are the only one doing these things don’t you?”
No, but I do seem to be the only one showing intense concern about this issue. I keep hearing how the election is so far away, like that means anything in context. I’ll repeat this: if the election was so far away, why are the candidates debating now? Why is there so much media talk about the election now? That kind of response is stunning.
“The crutch of this, of course, would be that once the democratic candidate does debate at least once on Fox News then they will forever be able to wave their hand dismissively every time they are challenged to another debate on that network. ”
Wow, talk about defeatism. How about saying “you were on three CNN debates, how about three on Fox?” Fox isn’t the little guy in the corner, compared to Fox, CNN is - Fox blows the doors off CNN’s ratings every single day.
In my opinion the best time would be about three to four months out from the election to let the damage of the Fox News debate soak in and trickle down to the average Joe who is probably lesser informed.
You should have an interesting discussion with Rick, who seems to think that most people have already made up their minds now. Incidentally, with only 4 months out until the election as you see it, what makes you think you can get enough momentum to force their hand into a Fox debate then?
The MSM won’t be calling for it. What’s your plan for “making” them do it four months before election time?
” I campaign for folks I feel will do a good job. If you don’t think their decision not to appear on Fox wont haunt them , well I disagree
But only the Dems won’t appear on Fox, so you’re obviously at least partially in the Dem camp. Some voice of reason you bring to the issue.
“If Michelle and Mr. O chased them around only to badger them with this question, who would see it? Preaching to the choir, everyone else would see it as justification for not appearing.”
Now this is truly absurd. If those were the kind of results we could expect from O’Reilly and Michelle “chasing these people around”, as you put it, then there would be very few states with Megan’s Law on the books, the immigration fiasco would have passed and Jet Blue would be happily funding KOS, among a million other situations which in point of fact did change the original direction in which they were headed because Mr. O and Michelle made lot of loud and reasonable and effective noise about them. Reality check: It matters and it works.
“I suggest instead of ridiculing and running them off we appeal to them for their vote. You sound so doom and gloom, I just cant understand. ”
I have to admit that I have no idea what this last sentence means in context. I’d dismiss it but I’m fascinated by the various implications in it. Would you care to explain what you meant by that?
I have a feeling what we’re seeing in these few responses are a few stealth liberals and some VERY lazy conservatives, the former saying “Oh God No! It’s so wrong!” and the latter saying “I’d rather BS at my convenience, don’t bother me with getting genuinely active, thanks.” But if those are indeed the responses, just say so and keep the conversation uncomplicated. I’d hate to think that these responses were meant to say what they communicate, because they’re senseless.
It’s so simple: be active in favor of leveling the playing field NOW. If you want Dems to win, say so. If you’re too lazy to get actively involved, SAY SO. But don’t try to debate the common sense of attempting to level the playing field now on the merits of the case, because that’s just ridiculous.
Thanks, Taylork, a voice of reason at last!
“However, this assumes that any of the candidates say anything substantive,”
Unless they trip up with an unhappy question of Fox, in which case the answer can become very substantial indeed. And that’s a great measure of the whole point of this. That’s what debates are all about, but you know that.
Finally some clarity! HRC is not a liberal but a “modern progressive.” I’ve always wondered exactly what a “modern progressive” is, and apparently it’s somewhere to the left of “liberal.” Speaking of HRC, note that moment of honesty when she declared herself “agnostic” about nuclear power. That means “without knowledge.” I think it’s praiseworthy when the smartest carbon-based life form to ever exist admits not knowing about something. Hopefully she won’t let here lack of knowledge lead to poor decisions.
Osama won the debate!
The big winner of this Seinfeld debate about nothing was Osama Bin Laden, who apparently is less relevant to liberals and CNN (Redundant, I know) than ever before.
The candidates did take time to play the race card. John Edwards wanted to party like it’s 1968 in his video, but most of the candidates wanted to talk about 1868, since apparently George W. Bush supports Jim Crow laws. The race card was dealt in abundance.
Although they were not asked what type of tree they would be, bringing up Al Gore suffices in that department.
For those wanting an adult discussion, we will have to wait for Guliani, McCain, Romney, and F.D. Thompson.
eric
http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com
Double M,
That double post was totally accidental.
My bad.
eric
Just another reason I’m glad I chunked my TV out the window several years ago.
Well, I’ve got some encouraging news.
Fark.com is an “oddball links” site. It’s run by a real Leftie who does his best to get anti-Bush, anti-war remarks into each little mini-description. He also has little category icons, like “Asinine”, “Stupid”, “Interesting”, etc, next to each article. When he posts one of Olbermann’s rants, it usually has “Hero” next to it. Got the picture?
I didn’t pay any attention to the Dem debate last night, but later in the evening I was on Fark, just looking around, and noticed he had a live-blog thread going about the debate. I decided to see what the Lefties were saying, expecting them to be oooing and awwing over their fave candidates.
Wrong again.
They absolutely savaged them.
And I don’t mean that lightweight candyass stuff, I mean the heavy-duty industrial-grade savaging. They ripped them to shreds. It was hard to tell which they thought was more insipid, the questions or the answers.
Occasionally, one of the candidates would get a kudo for a good answer, but not often. While much of the MSM (naturally) declared Obama the “winner”, most of the gang on Fark thought he was a total sham, constantly changing the question into some pre-rehearsed talking point he could elaborate on.
By the time the dust settled, the gang had pretty-much decided that a Gravel/Paul ticket was the way to go.
After it was over, one of the group regulars said:
“This is such a ridiculous bunch of crap. No wonder people refuse to take the democrats seriously. I was flirting with voting for Obama if he got the nomination but I consider participation in this a huge black eye for all of them. If I remember this next year it will be hard for me to muster the effort to vote at all.”
As I said, it was quite encouraging.
If the Dems are willing to have a debate with the YouTube crowd, but refuse Fox News - a legitimate, professional news organization - it says a lot about
1) Who they think their base is
2) How they respect the rest of us
3) The level of dignity and respect they give the Office of the President
To answer those questions:
1) Their base is the moontbat, slightly unhinged, “hip, with-it” crowd
2) They couldn’t care less about the average American
3) They think the Office of the President is a joke and a trendy, whatever we want it to be fad
And they want to run this country. Who wants to bet they get ideas for national and foreign policy from YouTube next?
EnglishQueen,
While some of that is almost certainly true, it’s also true that a politician never met a venue for maximum exposure he or she didn’t like. Fox has the biggest exposure potential of any cable News outfit, bar none. No, for them to run away from that there must be more afoot than arrogant elitism: they’re scared to death. They’re afraid to even talk for a moment to a Fox News reporter - the segment on O’Reilly proved it. When someone is running scared from an honest venue, they have something to hide. That’s why it’s critical that the people put enough fear into them that the fear of voter reprisal outweighs the fear of Fox News. How unfortunate that the boiling energy this board so often demonstrates is not being used here, but in funny poems and worthless bitchfests elsewhere. We like to think of ourselves as the party of do-ers. Very dispiriting. If Republicans had half the determination to win that the Dems have we could beat this thing easily. The non-interest here speaks for itself.
As far as the U-Tube questions, that’s another no-brainer. Not a single one mentioned terrorism, or the wear on terrorism. The game was rigged - big time. Disgusting.
I was posting comments on WRAL TV in Raleigh, NC regarding last night’s joke of a debate.
There were well over 200 posts, some were pleasant, some were testy, but none were absolutely rude.
Libs, Conservs, and neutrals were voicing their opinions.
THE BLOG WAS PULLED - YANKED.
Welcome to yet another GREAT LIBERAL FACED NC TV STATION.
Sickening.
And coming from a Republican candidate, that cements the impression that Fox News is “right wing”. Beautiful. Just what nobody needs and no candidate in his right mind would do.
Let’s say for the sake of arguement that it does “cement” the impression of Fox News being right wing. If the two candidates have already debated on any of the left leaning networks then the republican candidate will have strong ground to demand the democratic candidate debate him on a network that leans to the opposing side. Another arguement the republican can make is that republicans mostly watch Fox because its the only source of news they trust on television. How will the democrats look alienating the majority of republican voters by denying their trusted news source equal time. Independents will also take notice of this hypocrisy and those votes could very well make or break the election for us next year. The Democrats don’t want to debate anyone right now, including the American people, themselves and definitely not anybody they perceive to be right wing. they will never open themselves up to that kind of scrutiny before they get their own party’s nomination. they won’t be able to do this unless the convince the unhinged extreme left that they will best represent their ideals as president. that’s why on cnn last night we didn’t hear anything about terrorism, abortion or even illegal immigration. you know if a democrat appeared on Fox News they would get asked these questions. you know and they know it. appearing on Fox News and facing their viewers, who they already perceive as being mostly “right wing” will not help them win the primary. that’s all they care about right now and no amount of harping, bitching, complaining or any grass roots action by conservatives is going to change that. Once the democrats have picked a candidate we can focus all our energy on picking them apart, there is just no need to do it now. Unlike a lot of us who peruse news sites and political blogs daily, your average American voter has a very short attention span when it comes to politics and they just aren’t paying attention right now.
If you are referring to me, this is exactly what I am talking about. You sound like Al Gore with your sky is falling analogy. I give up, some folks would rather cry like babies. Not me!!! You stayed up all night crying wolf and got all bent when others had a positive position. Calling me a liberal, yea great. If you expect me to pout like you it isn’t going to happen. We have worked very hard it my state to change it to a conservative state after decades of Democrat leadership, and you call me a liberal. Know wonder you fear this election so much, you obviously haven’t met anyone conservative enough for you. I wont be wasting any more of my time on the likes of you!!! Mr O is going to save your world? Good grief?
Gayle,
That’s awful and smacks of on Orwellian nightmare world, but it certainly isn’t surprising. But that’s exactly - in a general sense - what I’m talking about. There used to be rules to this game, but the left has learned that they will protect their own, and so anyone can do anything in terms of cutting off the voice of opposition. Needless to say, the Fox debate issue is as strong an example as one can imagine - which is why it needs to be dealt with. If nothing else it sets the kind of precident that turns democracies on their heads.
OlBlueEyes,
(I wasn’t a fan - wrong generation - but still love your rendition of New York, New York
“you know if a democrat appeared on Fox News they would get asked these questions. you know and they know it. appearing on Fox News and facing their viewers, who they already perceive as being mostly “right wing” will not help them win the primary. that’s all they care about right now and no amount of harping, bitching, complaining or any grass roots action by conservatives is going to change that.
It’ll come as no surprise that I disagree strongly. With all due respect this is the kind of self-defeatism certain to become a self-fulfilling prophecy if left to stand. If we follow that thinking, we might as well give up on anything to which people outside our party might object, and that includes who becomes President. Can it be that the conservative mindset is so bludgeoned by 40 years of the MSM browbeating us that we really do believe we cannot fight the MSM and those who foster its one-sidedness?
General,
I love your post. Truly.
You win the prize for most defensive post I’ve ever read on this board. Maybe anywhere.
” You sound like Al Gore with your sky is falling analogy.
The analogy to chicken little is yours. For the record I made no such analogy, but keep hangin’ in there and pitching.
“some folks would rather cry like babies. Not me!!!”
That’s some aggrandizing self-hero-worship you have going on there, but nobody said we should cry like babies. I said you should get off your lazy butt and be pro-active in defending the American right to a level political playing field and it’s apparent you don’t wanna.
“Know wonder you fear this election so much, you obviously haven’t met anyone conservative enough for you.
Ah, the well-known veiled liberal defense of accusing the other side of right wing extremism. Yes, wanting the Democrats to debate on Fox News to level the playing field certainly is an outrageously extremist concept. I guess we all need to conciede that one - not.
“I wont be wasting any more of my time on the likes of you!!!
And in so doing, you’ll be wasting alot less of my time, also. Thank you for that.
“Mr O is going to save your world? “
The accusatory “your”, liberal code for “conservative”. If I thought that I wouldn’t try to rally people to get off their asses, I’d just e-mail O’Reilly himself and whine how things aren’t going very well. Isn’t that what do-nothing conservatives always do? Write into the wind or call Rush and complain and take little substantial action while the left mobilizes their troops and takes major action to steer the country to the left. Didn’t it ever occur to you (editorial you for everyone else, no point in trying to get get through to the General) that this is exactly why the media and halls of academia are 90% liberal. It didn’t happen by accident. They were doing while we were talking. We were being “gentlemen” while they were getting the job done. And now so many suggest we continue to repeat the same historically apparent mistakes, thjis time by doing anything other than deal with this situation. File that under “D” for “Duh”. “Or maybe “D” for “Don’t bother me right now, I can’t take the trouble to actively be involved in helping my country.”
Funny how a call to arms continually gets called “bitching” and “whining” and “crying” by people who don’t give a damn enough to get off their asses and do anything (total projection, to be sure). Funny, but, I suppose not surprising. And tragic. This country is in the shape it’s in, with Pelosi and Reid calling the shots in congress for exactly that reason. Of course, what Newt did with the contract with America was supposed to be impossible, too, except that when the time came, he didn’t cry bitterly to those who demanded action and whine that they leave him alone - he got off his ass and he did it. So many examples, really, of doing the thing as compared to whining about impossibilities or inappropriate times for action. And that’s why the right is so badly on the defensive now. Something else to file under “D” for “duh”.
So far not a single person has offered an intellectually honest rebuttal on why we shouldn’t become active in this situation. A few good posts on why we should, but not a decent arguement against. Our Founding Fathers would be proud.
Anyone else?
If you’re following this, Michelle, any comment? I know I might take a beating for mixing it up so voraciously on your board, but the true conservative isn’t afraid of that when he feels there’s a job to be done - and there’s very definately a job to be done, but no one person can do this kind of thing alone.
Suddenly my last post is back - at least once I log on it’s back - it doesn’t appear to be when I’m not logged in. testing, 1 2 3…
This is cute. I cut and paste the last message I previously posted - the one that disappeared if I wasn’t logged in but shows up when I am - then logged off, checked it once logged of and there it was. BUT, I closed down the site, came back and it was gone again - both versions, this time. Once I officially log in, however, it shows up again, giving one the impression that someone with the keys to the house wants me to think the post is there, but wants to keep it hidden from everyone else.
Now there’s the fairness doctorine in action if ever I saw it.
Could someone please log in officially (as if to post) and tell me if they can read the long post I wrote that starts with a response to Gayle? I have heard nothing from administration, so if there’s a hacker here, they should know about it.
To whoever is blocking the post if not administration: I copied and saved it, so I can post it back here at any time. And will.
To the rest of you, check back here often for this continuing saga…
10 pharagrags to say that? You are dumb as dirt arnt you? I bet you write 10 more to proove it!!
As usual, you didn’t understand that which you didn’t want to hear. And still no sensible rebuttal, but that’s fine. Pathetic.