YouTube and Republicans: Get in the game
Update 8:00pm Eastern: Who’s in? Rick Moran surveys the GOP field.
Bryan Preston has a new Hot Air vid urging Republicans not to run from the scheduled Sept. 17 YouTube/CNN debate. Click to watch:
I know. The CNN/YouTube Democrat debate was a circus. I said so. But Republicans shouldn’t sit out their turn. And conservatives shouldn’t abandon YouTube to the moonbats and jihadists. The GOP candidates should see it as an opportunity.
If the questions are stupid, say so.
If the forum is biased, say so.
Wouldn’t it be a breath of fresh air to see a Republican candidate take command, show some intestinal fortitude, and kick some MSM/left-wing assets?
I’d also love to see a Republican pull an anti-Joe Biden and stand up for gun owners in a national debate (see my latest column this week).
What say you? There’s a poll running at Hot Air. Have your say.
***
More debate about the debate: Patrick Ruffini says save it. Hugh Hewitt’s not on board.
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.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Debunking Keynesian economics
December 16, 2008 05:16 PM by Michelle Malkin
36 CommentsDeadbeat watch: Troopers still owed overtime for DNC
December 1, 2008 10:56 PM by Michelle Malkin
20 Comments
Squeakers: Franken/Coleman, Rossi/Gregoire, Merkley/Smith, Stevens/Begich, Prop. 8, Colorado’s Amendment 46, Chambliss/Martin
November 5, 2008 03:30 AM by Michelle Malkin
50 Comments
Ballot initiative round-up
November 4, 2008 11:32 PM by Michelle Malkin
31 CommentsElection Night: Counting the votes Colorado, Virginia called for Obama
November 4, 2008 07:54 PM by Michelle Malkin
690 Comments
Categories: 2008 campaign,YouTube
The Hill
» Pelosi: 'Colbert used to be my friend'AmSpecBlog
» No Waiver for TheeNewsBusters.org
» WashPost Touts Poll That Even Leftists Support Obama on Terrorism, GOP Should Avoid 'Risky' Critiques
I agree with MM: Republicans should do it. But, since when is YouTube the MSM? And you can call that debate a “circus” but the questions were better and more relevant than any I have heard in any debate thus far. Also, Joe Bidden was spot on re. the baby-gun thing. MM’s column assumed he’s a hobbyist–how does she know?
I’d support attending the debate if I had faith that the Reps would call the questions stupid, biased etc…unfortunately, with the current crop of announced (I support Rudy of the announced and Fred when/if he gets in) I’m not sure if they would. Not to mention, the Paul wackos would love to serve up some question to Rudy that would let Paul get revenge for his humiliation at the other debate. Then his supporters would flood the insta-polls afterward and the MSM would carry the liberal water and declare Paul the winner and excoriate the Reps for “refusing to answer the American people’s concerns”
There’s a difference between courage and sado-masochism
I think you have to do it. It just looks too bad if you don’t go. No doubt they will do their best to smear the GOP candidates, but if they can’t handle the MSM and the Nutroots(undoubtedly 80% of the questions will be coming from them) how can they deal with Jihadists and despots?
Easy, blow them up…can’t do that to YouBoobers
It would also be a great opportunity to point out the Loony Left (can I trademark that) refused to go on a Fox sponsored and hosted debate.
We’ve been complaining for months that dems were too scared to go on Fox, and the talking point has always been if you’re scared to go on fox how can yo stand up to the terrorists? I’d hate to see our candidates open to that criticism.
Furthermore, the second tier candidates could use as much exposure as they can get. If Mitt doesn’t want to be on it, then there’s more time for them.
Finally, I think the youtube debate could work with some additional work. Images have power, and a youtube debate allows for these images to be seen. The question is what type of images? Will they be nothing more than a guy in front of a webcam, which seems to be no different thana moderator asking question, or something so demeaning to the office of the Presidency as a snowman talking about global warming, or can it something more? How about videos that show illegals crossing the border, or planned parenthood encouraging a girl to lie about her age so she can get an abortion without parental consents, or even (and I know I’m stuck on this) show the mess that is our urban centers and ask a candidate how they will dig us out of the 40 year mess that dem policy has created.
If the network sponsoring the debate 9in this case CNN) would actually take it seriously and put legit videos up instead of snowmen, then I think it would be a very interesting thing to watch.
Bullseye, Michelle.
I completely agree with you…and I have 0 confidence that CNN would do that. I fully expect that out of 30 questions, 27 would be from libs(Why do you hate Mexicans? Why do you deny science? etc), 2 from Paul supporting Libertarians (Why should American blood be spilled for Israel? etc) and 1 from a conservative
Yes, it would be a great opportunity for the Republican candidates to go out there and really tell it how it is. Of course, after reading that sentence, you should know how completely impossible that notion really is. These guys aren’t going to play the ‘straight talk express’ because it doesn’t exist. God bless them if it did, but I just don’t see it happening. None of these guys have the kahones to tell truth to… youtube. So skip it. No one really cares, and the majority of people who are posting youtube videos will not agree with our side out of teenage angst principle.
Can’t wait to see Freak show 2!!!!!
The Republican candidates should demand a serious forum for serious debate and leave the kid’s games to the kids.
Spending hours answering pitiful pleas from a horse demanding “Why are you trying to kill me with Global Warming, Wilberrrrr??!!” or like bufoonery is a total waste of time.
Since the “YouTube” debates have virtually no audience and will be very quickly forgotten either way, the candidates should decline to degrade the American political process (it’s bad enough already) by engaging in such blatant goofiness.
I believe it was Marx who is credited with the saying it not those who cast the votes that count but rather those who count the votes. What I am getting at is who is it that picks which questions get presented to the contestants, er candidates. While the Dems were handed softballs I am willing to bet the tone of the questions asked to the Republicans will be markedly different.
It just feels like too much of a set up especially with CNN hosting the thing.
Just my 2¢
LOL. I’m trying to picture Lincoln or Douglas spinning a wheel annd recieving “lovely parting gifts”.
If the ‘pubs cave to this garbage, I’ll be looking forward to Michael Savage’s live commentary and ridicule of every one of them.
Exactly !
Makes zero sense for them to hide from this it is about as close as we can expect any of them to come to answering questions we want answered. Will it be a freak show ? Odds say yes but the way they handle it will be the best way for me to decide who I will support. They should get the same amount of bad press for ducking this that the democrats got for ducking Fox.
#15 BlueHinduGrass
But the Dims didn’t get bad press for that, instead they were praised.
I’d support those who have the basic common sense decline to be in the “freak shows” altogether.
Two problems with that conclusion, BluegrassHindu – the first is a logical one: If the Democrats had denied the “opportunity” to be berated by talking snowmen, you’d have a comparison to make.
The second is a factual problem: What “bad press” was heaped on the Democrats?
(And how did they manage to get through such stinging criticism??
Yup. You beat me to the keyboard on that, Grunt.
Too much
Too Soon
Too Often
If Michelle was a candidate, we’d have some refreshing honesty and guts. Unfortunately, we’ve only got the present line-up.
If only they realized that they would win big time if they showed some you-know-what and that half the country would cheer loudly. Instead they choose to mince and dance and dodge and show how weak they are.
We should contact them all and let them know how we feel.
At first I was with the Hugh Hewitt school (i.e., don’t go), but now I’m more inclined to say, “Gor For It.”
Even it it turns into a circus/ambush of the candidates, that in itself is a showcase for what’s better about the Republicans:
- We’re the adult party. We can cope with an adversarial audience, because we’r not ashamed of who we are or what we stand for. In answer to inane questions, we’ll explain what we stand for.
The jeerers and the sneerers will only highlight what kind of choice the 2008 election is going to be about: people unafraid to face challenges vs. those who are; and adults vs. adolescents.
The beauty of being a conservative is that unlike donks, we don’t have to misrepresent what we believe in, or pretend to be what we are not, or pretend not to be what we are. Let that punch through the hostile and ridiculous questions, and this is one ambush we can reverse on the ambushers.
Don’t forget the Ron Paul Effect. If his minions get their way this will be more then a 3 ring circus.
Do I really neet to link all the pages of shots they took from the right ? Sure they were praised by the left in the same way people here are jumping to praise the Repubs that are avoiding this.
Alright Regulus convinced me…I just hope the campaigns have the press releases pre-set to go expressing disappointment that CNN choose to pander to it’s liberal bias rather than present the American people with serious questions on serious issues.
#23 BlueGrassHindu
I am not talking about the critcism raised by the blogosphere, I am talking about the mass market media who were either silent or reported it with a just the facts type style meaning all they said was the Democratic candidates refused to debate on the Fox network. No clarification. No mentioning the fact that it was the Congressional Black Caucus that was sponsoring the thing. Nothing critical of their motives just they won’t do it.
BluegrassHindu said:
The second is a factual problem:
You’re grasping at relivistic straws there, BluegrassHindu. They somehow lived through it and I’m going to hazard a wild guess here that not too many leftists subscribe to the Weekly Standard.
Err, no – some of us just hope that that there a few candidates left who have the basic good sense to pass on wasting time being denounced by dancing Raggedy Ann Dolls or a blinking Rudolf The Red-Nosed Reindeer.
Michelle – my thoughts exactly. i sent the following email to Dean Barnett this morning, in light of the friendly dustup between Pat Ruffini and Hugh H on this issue. This tracks with what you and other sane, non-octegenarian bloggers are recommending, as in DO THE DEBATE:
The Chinese language characters for “chaos” and “opportunity” are the same. Why is this relevant?
Here’s why: amid the chaos of the madcap questions posed by UTubers, there is a great deal of chaos, in that the GOP September debate could turn into a CNN ambush. No question about that. It could be an ambush in the sense that the battle of Gettysbeard could have been an ambush if Gen’s Reynolds and Hancock had not got wind of the coming storm and prepared for it by digging in and fighting it out.
What the GOP candidates should do instead of ceding the battleground to the Rebs is start a national discussion about that first debate and how screwed up it was, not because of the format, but because lib wankers at CNN STILL played gatekeeper and chose the questions.
That’s where the approbation should be directed, not at the “new way of doing things” that the UTube/citizen questioner format represents.
Put CNN on notice publicly that you (the candidate, be it Mitt or Rudy or whoever, best if its one of those two tho) will not tolerate CNN framing the GOP debate in strictly liberal terms. And, (as JPod notes today) the candidates should be prepared to stop the debate in its tracks if in fact CNN goes that route. This would afford a gutsy candidate who is comfortable in the new media sandbox (which Mitt so far appears to be, at least minimally) to call CNN to account right then and there, in a way that I guarantee would make for riveting TV. Rip CNN a new set of balls right there on national TV. Talk about a base-energizer. Wow. what would that do to GOP troop morale???
He (or she, lord forbid) who wishes to be the next President cannot be a wuss. That goes for cultural awareness as well as martial fighting spirit. Imho, the UTube debate is a massive opportunity for a GOP candidate to get a two-fer: show the world that they are culturally aware (something no GOP Presidential candidate in my lifetime has been) and pop CNN right in the mouth with the whole world watching.
But, my bottom line here is: Patrick is right. Do the debates. Put CNN on notice beforehand that no lib smacktardism will be tolerated. And when and if it does happen on game day, be ready to call them on it and don’t let go until CNN comes clean or is soundly embarrassed.
Adults don’t play silly totally meaningless kids games if they want to be taken seriously.
Actually, I’d question the reasoning ability of anyone who thinks it’s a great idea to walk into any ambush. Stupidy is not on my list of leadership qualities, much less a recommendation for the highest office of the land.
If the candidates wanted to do something that matters on this they would demand that YouTube remove the Jihadi-terrorist videos.
has anyone actually seen Ron Paul? I thought he was just a liberal truther fantasy? He’s a democrat right?
The reason why the democratic debate was awful on You Tube was because the questioners were by and large imbeciles. From the first fellow yelling, “Wassup!’ to questions about feelings about Al Gore, it was simply a reflection of the caliber of the voters on the left. It was nonsensical gibberish. I am shocked CNN did not play the many videos I am sure they received about Paris Hilton.
CNN is itching to make republicans look like imbeciles, but we cannot let them. The solution is to MAKE INTELLIGENT VIDEOS.
Be dignified. Dress nicely. Treat it like a job interview. Speak clearly, in proper english, without slang. Look the part. Ask intelligent questions. Ask questions about the War on Terror.
Ask positive questions. Do not come across as believing that the sky is falling. Resist the urge to be funny. It will come across as sophomoric.
The liberals are children. We conservatives are adults. That is the message we must convey. A debate can only be as serious as we allow it to be.
Bring it on You Tube. Conservatives got elected despite CNN before, and we can and will do so again.
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/the-war-against-nonsense/
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/the-seinfeld-network-seinfeld-party-had-a-seinfeld-debate/
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/the-gop-debate-cnn-truly-is-al-jazeera-west/
Respectfully,
eric
It’s not about debate. It’s not about youtube. It’s about the Leftist media making points, any way they can. This is a silly “issue”, and engaging in the argument only lends it unearned legitimacy.
Let’s make a deal: The democrats do Fox debate and the repubs do CNN snowman.
The only difference between the Chris Matthews debate “show” and the CNN snowTube is that CNN holds the filter and portrays the questioners as randomly selected.
This says a lot about you Mike. None of it good.
Biden decided to belittle the questioner rather than answer the question. Typical liberal response. Playing to the audience and saying nothing of substance.
That’s the entire basis of my reluctance…though I can also see the point of going through with it…just have those press-releases ready
Why would the Candidates be drawn into a pee pee contest with the Democratic party who says “No!” to Fox, does GooTube, and then passively dares the Republicans to do the same thing?
Will the base of the party and conservative leaning DemoPendents give a flying dootie about the GooTube debates?
Ya ya ya…the medium is sexy and hot and so very “youthful”; but let’s face it, the payoff is minimal versus the risk.
The Republican candidates need to focus on more important strategic concerns than these staged cattle shows. For example, fundraising on the Internet and grassroots list building using the Internet, holding web-based town meetings using the amazing web simulcast technology that is out there, etc. etc. etc.
CNN and GooTube setting the stages of debate now? Pish. How about Fox getting serious and holding a series of one hour “Repub vs. Repub” debates one on one (say Mitt vs. Rudi or Hunter vs. McCain) with a viable moderator who asks referreed questions previously agreed to by the candidates. A simple format without all the “winner takes all” hoopla that does nothing but distract the public.
Go deep and the people will learn who their candidates are. And once the main Presidential campaign is on next year, after the primaries and horsecr*p, push for some serious debates on the Food Channel with Brit Hume as moderator. Then let the Dems bail on that.
Not meaning to offend both sides here but, if this is the best we have Republcan or Democrat, God help us.
In her most recent column at Jewish World Review, Kathleen Parker commenting on viewership of the al-CNN/YouTube debate pointed out the following:
Remind me again how agreeing to a 2-hour anti-Republican smear aimed at boosting al-CNN’s sagging ratings will help the GOP among the millions of 18-34 year-olds?
While it would be a “breath of fresh air to see a Republican candidate take command, show some intestinal fortitude, and kick some MSM/left-wing assets” (to use Michelle’s words), remember that al-CNN controls the cameras and microphones. The Christians in the ancient Roman Empire who were “volunteered” to face the lions had better odds. And, to the best of my knowledge, the lions went undefeated.
Today Hugh Hewitt has been pretend responding to actual YouTube submitted questions. The problem is most are ridiculously biased, naive, stupid, or simply oblivious to reality. Participating Republicans would be in a no-win situation; how can one publicly dismiss such nonsense without appearing to be condescending or patronizing? The Dems and the MSM would have a field day in painting conservatives as out-of-touch with the common people.
I’m only a little on board with Michelle’s thinking on this, and it works out this way:
There is a big, big opportunity we have here that we might not get again (caps intentional for aesthetic effect):
MAKE ALOT OF LOUD NOISE AGREEING TO THE DEMOCRATS’ CALL BUT ONLY IF THE DEMOCRATS WILL DEBATE ON FOX, AND YELL IT SO LOUD, NON-STOP, THAT THE DEMS WILL AT LEAST HAVE TO ANSWER THE CALL, IF NOT AGREE TO IT.
Some will see this as petty and absurd, but perhaps only because we Republicans have gotten a bit too used to assuming that our defensive posture re the MSM is how it’s supposed to be.
Getting a handle on calling the Democrats on their cowardly refusal to debate on Fox I think has been the big problem in getting that message out and calling the Dems on their cowardly manuvering. Now the Dems have given our party the opportunity we need on a platter to make legit hay on this issue, and we should – big time. If nothing else it will help re-energize the base by giving them a little of their hope back in these post-Pelosi election days.
No, standing dignified on the podium and patting oneself on the back for debating on the CNN/U-Tube while Dems refused to go on Fox will be at best be a moment which is forgotten in 10 seconds or at worst make the Republicans look like unrealistic suckers who should have called the Dems on the Fox News issue when they had the chance. And suckers our guys will be if they fall for that.
Besides, we all know the CNN debate was rigged, and I’m getting a little inside info on that. Not a single question mentioning terrorism, for example – yeah, like that just worked out that way. So our guys are clearly being set up. Of course. So much so that it’s really an insult to the intelligence. My big fear is that our guys will be shallow-headed enough that they think they will look like heroes compared to the Dems, and that’s just wishful daydreaming of the most unrealistic, self-destructive sort.
IF I WERE GIVING THE MARCHING ORDERS: GO OUT AND GIVE EVERYONE 100% NO-SPIN STRAIGHT UP FACTS AND TRUTH AND MAKE IT CLEAR WE’RE NO PATSIES. WE DID CNN. YOU DIDN’T DO FOX – BECAUSE YOU’RE SCARED. WE’LL DO CNN AGAIN WITH U-TUBE, BUT YOU HAVE TO DO FOX. AND EVERYONE NEEDS TO BRING THIS UP IN EVERY INTERVIEW, UNTIL EVEN MR & MRS JOE SIXPACK GET WIND OF THE STORY.
With all due respect, anything else, like hoping we’ll look good for doing CNN again when the Dems wouldn’t do Fox is born, in my opinion, of living inside the political wonk bubble. We know all this stuff, but nobody else does, and we make up only a couple of voting points. And since CNN will pour on the negativity, we’d be the dumbest jackasses in the world to do it.
Unless the Dems debate on Fox.
The ball is finally in our court on the biased MSM issue and we should play it for everything it’s worth while we have the chance and not be afraid of non-existant consequences. Let’s not blow it again by assuming the road most gentlemanly is the one best travelled.
NO, stay away from that Dog & Pony show.
We already know CNN is going to do all sorts of tricks, and black out candidates faces and such. As it was the whole thing was the most ‘low-tech’ format I’d ever seen.
Let Fox News sponsor the Republican debates, and everyone can just mail in their video questions to Fox. YouTube is trouble!
Bad idea. YouTube is filled with uneducated, infantile nitwits. Why would any legitimate candidate want to entertain questions from such buffoons?
There is a reason McCain and Paul are the only two candidates are signed on: they both have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the nomination.
Rick Moranlink is bad
In regards to the snowman, didn’t Cooper say that they would not post videos of people in costume? Explain to me how a snowman is any different?
I’d like to see Republicans take a firm, vocal stand against the Democrat media. I wouldn’t give a used dip of snuff for either CNN or YouTube. I’d give even less for both. The Republican
whimpscandidates should present a united chorus to defy the slanderous, treacherous, lying MSM and expose them for what they are. Pandering to the Democrat media (as the Reepublicans all are doing) only lends the biased bigoted media the legitimacy they crave.What’s with the “no love” for Ron Paul? Just curious Rogue, how is being for the constitution “wacko?” Raging Republican, what does the Bible say about Israel? Might I suggest reading the following? http://mujca.com/arabchristians.htm Would love to hear your response and I’m not being antagonistic, but seeking your version of the truth based on the Good Book.
HebrewToYou, the hell fire doesn’t start till the end of the world, so there is no melting of the snowballs quite yet. http://www.thetruthabouthell.org/
Listen people…whatever bandwagon you want to support is up to you, but don’t be fooled by hidden agenda’s that have let our leaders, both left and right, steer us into becoming the world’s largest debtor nation. Our votes have got us to this point in time and naturally, our future generations are worried. How will voting for the same old party rhetoric change our destiny, their destiny?
My comments on this post will probably get me kicked off of Michelle’s site, however, if this is the case, good luck to you all in the future. For me, I’m “Fed Up” which is the name of my book due out by the end of the year and I’m supporting the only candidate that can save America from it’s path towards tyranny; The Republican Ron Paul. “It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.” Ben Franklin
Fed up:
Why would you be banned? We tolerate conspiracy nuts all the time here.
You might want to adjust the old tin foil beanie, though. I hear Michelle gives off powerful braiwaves – very controlling if you’re not careful.
Bruce,
Great post. Let’s hope this stuff is getting through to the right people.
Glamchild,
I take your point, but our problem – the right’s problem – is that all else being equal, we get killed because the media is do unequal. We might have to bite that bullet with the CNN/U-Tube thing, but only if Dems agree to go on Fox.
If the right makes ALOT of noise, it’s a win-win for conservatives: If the Dems refuse, then the story has gotten more play and the Dems have a huge cloud of suspicion over their heads among the general population. If they agree to debate on Fox, then there they are finally get the tough questions they deserve – and with the Fox moderators knowing that the Republicans have traded that for having to go into the lion’s den with the CNN/U-Tube ambush, those Fox News questions are likely to be pretty straightforward, and that could substantially color the election (yes, it could).
I agree that Republicans should stay away under the status quo, but the only way they can do that without the MSM painting them as cowards is for them to make noise about the Fox situation. Unfortunately, history has shown most Republican politicians get weak, shaky legs when it comes to fighting the MSM with facts, but we can push and we can hope.
Rick Moran,
What did I say that would cause you to describe me as someone like Tex Marrs (known for his “tin foil” type comments? Debate issues as slander is only a sign of ignorance.
Hmmm, I posted this once, but it didn’t show up, so I’ll try again.
Rick Moran, What did I say that would cause you to put me in the same category as the tin foil hat wearing Tex Marrs? The first sign of ignorance is slandering or categorizing the person you are debating (comparing to Hitler, Nazism, Anti-semitic, etc. or in your case, “tin foil hat”). You can do better than that right? Debate me on the issues and maybe enligtenment will come your way.
What better way to showcase the very wide differences in ideas and substance between the same old blame game of the Democrats and the real solutions to real issues that the Republicans offer.
UPDATE:
I hadn’t seen this before, apparently filed at 5:30 PM. Being non-post-board savvy, I’ll just have to put down the link the old-fashioned way:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070727/us_time/willthegopsaynotoyoutube
Here’s the most significant part, way, way down, inthe last paragraph where there just isn’t enough space to explore the idea further, thanks:
If G.O.P. contenders succeed in making the case that technology is only incidental to their objections, they will have a precedent: The major Democratic candidates have pledged to boycott a debate sponsored by Fox News, citing the network’s conservative bias as their reason. Right-wing commentators mocked the Democrats for their decision, but the netroots applauded. And whether Republicans can make the case to a general audience that CNN is biased to the left hardly matters – their base voters likely already believe it.
Earth to Republican Presidential hopefuls, their “people” and their supporters: NOW IS THE TIME TO PRESS THE ISSUE ABOUT DEMOCRATS RUNNING SCARED FROM FOX NEWS AS LOUDLY AS POSSIBLE AND TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. SETTING IT UP AS A CHALLENGE TO THE LEFT IS THE BEST WAY TO GET MUCH-NEEDED MEDIA ATTENTION – everybody loves a fight!
“The major Democratic candidates have pledged to boycott a debate sponsored by Fox News, citing the network’s conservative bias as their reason.”
I forgot to add this: shouldn’t that read, from an objective reporter’s perspective, “citing the network’s alledged conservative bias as their reason”
Ambush At The OK Corral, Redux
Act 1:
“Hi, Jim! Did you watch the Republican CNN/YouTube debate last night?”
“No, darn it. Bill was sick and I had to cover for him. Why? What happened?”
“They came across as a bunch of idiots! They couldn’t even answer the simplest questions!”
“Wow!”
“Check it out! I’ve got the clips right here.”
(begin clip)
YOUTUBER: Hi, my name’s Mark from Flatbush, Arkansas, and I have a yes-or-no question for Mr. Romney. Sir, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no only, please!
ROMNEY: Well, I, uh…I mean, I, uh…
(end clip)
“See? He couldn’t even answer the question, which proves he’s still beating his wife!”
“Wow!”
“Now check this one out.”
(begin clip)
YOUTUBER: Hello. My name is Catherine and I live in the great city of Minneapolis! My question is for Mr. Giuliani and his stance against global warming. Mr. Giuliani, why do you want the polar bears to die? Don’t you like polar bears?”
GIULIANI: Well, uh, the issue with global warming is very complicated and doesn’t really have anything to do with polar bears, per se, but-
(end clip)
“See how he avoids the issue? The guy hates polar bears!”
“What a jerk!”
“I’ll say! And it gets even worse! I have a clip right here that shows Thompson actually attempting to deny that he married a ‘trophy wife’!”
“No!”
“You bet! Boy, the Republicans’ hypocrisy was certainly on display last night!”
(curtain)
(end Act 1)
For your viewing pleasure, Acts 2 and 3 will be performed in real-time.
It is impossible to debate conspiracy nuts as you so ably show.
“Enlightenment” presuspposes that you have secret knowledge that I and the rest of us lack. Putting yourself in a privileged position is the heighth of intellectual arrogance which is why “debating” anything you say is an exercise in futility.
All we can do here is point a finger and laugh at you.
Rick Moran,
What did I say that was “conspiracy?” Again with the categorization. You choose not to debate issues but utilze the weapon of mass humiliation that again, fails to show any intellect on your behalf.
You have said nothing of substance in any of your responses to me yet you have a whole website you blog on attempting to do what?
If you’re afraid to debate an issue here, why have a public website?
All I can say, again, is that all you got? I know that’s not the case.
“Now the reason the enlightened prince and the wise general conquer the enemy whenever they move and their achievements surpass those of ordinary men is foreknowledge.” Sun Tzu
The knowledge is not “secret” Mr. Moran. It’s there for anyone’s taking.
Let’s have the next Presidential debates in Baghdad.
FedUP-
I am appreciative of your duel with Mr. Moran. I appreciate Mr. Moran’s candor as well.
Re- Mr. Paul. For me he is a mixed bag.
I want to see the US back on the gold standard. And I want the Federal Reserve abolished, along with the Internal Revenue Service.
I am all for the formal declaration of war by Congress if we are going into war. (But I do not believe that the Commander in Chief should be crippled by a do-nothing Congress in war time.)
My point is there are many parts of Mr. Paul’s platform with which I can agree. However, although he is forging links with some liberal democratic forces in Central Texas, I believe his influence is limited.
The spending orgy will not end until the nation comes to ruin. The spending that led us out of the Great Depression has become the noose around the neck of 4 generations. And the stock market hedge funds are a part of that.
Simply having a strict spending policy will not end the orgy. Lawyers make laws so they can get around them. And so they would in Congress and continue to spend us into oblivion.
The trap for Paul, should he be elected, is that he believes in strict interpretation of Presidential powers. Congress would strangle him.
His fight to get us back onto the Gold Standard might help in the spending debacle. Yet, it would take a decade of negotiating with the banking cartels and world governments. Not doable. And surely no amount of integrity and ethics would get it done.
Ruin is the fastest road. Oh. And War.
I am in favor of neither. I do believe however that trends continue until they arrive at what looks like a catastrophic end, but are really in their DNA, meaning, the only end they are capable of.
Just thought I would put it out there in general terms; so, if you can, please do not inundate me with all the things I didn’t say about Ron Paul or the Bible.
Speaking of which: Biblical interpretation for the sake of determining the moral efficacy of present day Israelites makes for shaky ground in the face of Arab-Persian-Islamo-Fascism.
My 2 devalued cents on the matter.
bear1909,
Thanks for your “enlightened” response. First and foremost, I am not one who would be categorized as someone who would “inundate” you with all the things you didn’t say about Ron Paul or the Bible. I can tell from your answer that you do indeed have a grasp at what reality is and isn’t.
The issue you seem to make is that Ron Paul wouldn’t have the congress behind him and in a sense, if by some miracle he was elected, it could become a lame duck presidency. The solution, however, is for those that do think like you do, to become said congress.
The Declaration of Independence says, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” It is up to patriots, to act accordingly.
If one is fooled into thinking the left or the right are the only real choices, then one falls into the trap of voluntarily allowing both parties to “usurp!”
It is impossible for the transformation to happen overnight as you know. With “4 generations” of abuse, it will take some time to resurrect the past abuses.
I do agree that a hard fall has to come and will come for this rebound to occur. There is not one candidate running in either party that can at least get the ball rolling in the right direction except for Ron Paul. It has to start somewhere right?
Regarding Islamofacism, I believe it just a tool to get the neo-cons elected as it is the only trick they have left in the bag. I’ve spoken to many Muslims here in America and they are people just like you and me. They are not the radical Wahhabi types that are the minority that the Sean Hannity’s are so afraid of in declaring that a pre-emptive strike on Iran is a neccesity. How many Wahhabi’s are in Iran? How many are in Saudi Arabia where Bush just agreed to provide $20 billion of arms including satellite guided bombs? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aH4QgFii6qwI&refer=us
The same country that most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.
I appreciate your “devalued 2 cents” on the matter.
I didn’t watch the youtube fiasco but seeing clips all over every network the following day was worse than having a root canal. Any candidate expected to answer a melting snowman is one guy I don’t want with his finger on the Big button. I can’t remember who coined this but it made reference to how they all resembled game show contestants.
If the Repubs are as artful in dodging the 800 lb. gorilla in the room as the Dems were in failing to address certain issues it will be for nothing anyway. No Repub candidates besides Tancredo and Hunter have really come out with their plan to control immigration.
bear1909 #58 – Holding the debates in Baghdad is a splendid idea. I’d bet those young men and women vote too (when their ballots aren’t disqualified or questioned). Just think of the ratings that would generate. Would they hold the feet of those candidates serving in Congress to the fire or what?
Image: Bear1909 kisses the ring of 24kLady and says- “Let’s provide them with the blaze!”
bear1909, thanks for your thoughtful response. It deserves some contemplation on my behalf before I respond and I’m out the door with my nephew and niece for a movie. I’ll get back to you tomorrow.
In the meantime, I thought you might enjoy this from Pat Paulsen: “All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.”
Cheers!
FedUp- have a good one!
Well, theory about Ron Paul is academically interesting but not terribly practical from a viewpoint of bringing the discussion closer to winning the election for conservatives – Ron Paul stands zero chance of getting anywhere.
I think this is more to the point:
“On July 28th, 2007 at 9:40 am, Dr. Mercury said:
Ambush At The OK Corral, Redux
You got it Dr, that is exactly the kind of scenario that would play out near water foolers all across the country – and why engaging in that self-destructive foolishness would be a bad call to say the least. When the spider invites in the fly, you know it isn’t for tea.
Many highly opinionated people while expressing opinions on issues such as the never-can-win Ron Paul, haven’t touched the issue of challenging the Democrats to a Fox debate since the Democrats challenged the Republicans to a CNN/U-Tube debate. I’m curious as to why. It seems like that course of action would be a no-brainer. Anyone care to pick that one up?
1.
Hi, Bear. Well, there’s no question your heart is in the right place, and in theory I agree with you about maintaining the high ground. The problem is it has never worked for us in the past when it comes to media-covered politics, because the media is against us.
Case in point: Clinton was at a low ebb as he approached the election for his second term. Monica, Whitewater, the McDougals, all of it spelled disaster, if only someone with a national platform would drive the stake through the vampire’s heart. Bob Dole and Clinton then square off for their first debate and you could hear a pin drop as Dole started to speak. Everyone across the world held their breath as they expected Dole to not only serve up payback for some of the Clinton camp smearing, but by doing nothing more than citing Clinton’s behavior as grounds why he was totally unfit to be in so responsible position as the leader of the free world, ambulance chasers across the globe would watch as a sitting President was personally humiliated on a scale previously unimaginable. If you have tape or can borrow one, watch it: Clinton’s expression and physical posture was that of a man bracing himself for personal destruction. The camera angle just as Dole spoke was a 2-shot along the 2/3 profile, Dole in the background, Clinton up front; the media people knew what they were doing – the world was going to watch every millisecond of Clinton’s humiliation in real time as Dole said the words. A hush of deafening silence fell over the free world. Then Dole spoke.
“My freinds and fellow Americans, let me start off by saying that I’m not going to exploit my opponent’s personal problems for political gain.”
The world sat stunned, Clinton visably relaxed (watch the tape, clear as day) and Dole managed to do the unthinkable: he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by “talking the high road”.
No, if Rush, Sean Hannity and this board’s own host Michelle were likewise that irresponsibly charitable, this country would be more deeply embroiled in liberalism than ever. Does Rush “take the high road” on the scale you’re talking about? OF COURSE NOT! Not debating on a network because you claim they won’t be fair is absolutely fair game, and unless we fight it out like we mean it – which is much harder work than sitting back and “taking the high road” – then we’re going to lose. And that is a no-brainer.
Bear1909) says- Here’s a no-brainer, Mr. C_C:” Never get in a pissin contest with a skunk.”
This remark assumes bad retribution if we engage the Democrats. What could be worse, I wonder, than losing and watching millions of kids raised in Hillary Clinton’s view of the world? “Losing our gentlemanly values?” In politics?! That isn’t taking the high road, that’s being unconscionably negligent to the innocent, and they desrve for us to do better than that to protect them from an awful future.
The Republicans should keep the high ground on this and *IGNORE* the Party of CarneyBoy Kucinich.
And the Dems will thank you for it as they smear the right mercilessly with all the tools of the MSM and waltz through record wins in the ’08 elections. No offense, but what a truly stupid remark.
Let the DNC self-destruct with its decision to boycott FNC debates and boycott FNC advertisers.
How the hell is that going to happen? Because a few well-informed geeks like us will disapprove? Who is going to hold the Dems accountable? This, I’m sorry to say, is unrealistic daydreaming of the most dangerous variety.
What is the practical effect of that strategy?
We don’t turn our backs on a hugely significant talking point and maybe get to watch them get caught on tough questions in front of a worldwide audience. I can’t believe I have to explain this! This has the “Duh Factor” written all over it. What is it about not handing the election to the Democrats that you don’t understand?! What do you expect to ahppen – that they’ll self destruct without us lifting a finger except at the polling booth?! With the MSM behind them?!
Are they defining any national policy platformbs y holding a CNN/BOOBTUBE debate?
They look unafraid to engage the nation while getting softball questions. The MSM will never bring up the Fox situation worth talking about (in advertising, repetition is the key) so the Dems win big-time so far. Perception is 50% of the game, and with the MSM behind them, we’re getting killed, and yet you think we’re winning as the polls ever so slowly skew in favor of the democrats. Rome is burning, Nero. Here, play a lighthearted little ditty on your fiddle. You know, just for the fun of it.
What makes anybody believe that an FNC debate would *force* the Party of $4000 Haircuts get real about the issues (no matter who is asking the questions)?
Nothing, but not answering and being called on it in front of millions of viewers worldwide has an impact. remember, elections turn on just a few percentage points, generally – we’re not in a position to give up even a fraction of that small amount.
Why get into a hissy fit match with the Party of Howard “Upper East Side” Dean?
Sorry, but this one is just plain weird. It’s called having a national debate during an election cycle. Running away from Fox News is a huge story because of the endless damning implications, but if only the MSM would cover it and they won’t, which is what this is all about.
“You wont debate on Fox and you want us debate on Boob Tube!” Oh the scorn!
Well, when you consider that one tilts left, the other tilts right, the Republicans have done both, the Dems refuse to do both, and the American people need all sides to make an informed decision on who will lead the free world – yes! (Duh!)
I say take the Republican candidate debates to the next level: hold the debates in ways that set the bar higher than the Democrats would ever risk so early in the game.
Get the electorate to ask “What the hell is going on with the Democratic candidates- talking to Snow men and sh*T?”
Nice daydream, but how do you imagine such a thing can be orchestrated? The MSM won’t do it, CNN amd MSNBC will edit such questions out of the forum, so how is the electorate supposed to ask this? It’s virtually impossible as long as you leave Fox out of the equation. It’s funny, you’ll suggest this, which is clearly out of the realm of practical acheivment, but getting the Republicans candidates to bring this up as an issue? – oh my heavens no! – we’ll look “ungentlemanly”! Sheesh, do you want our guys to win in 08 or don’t you? Or is thre thought of losing so awful for you that you just to put your head in the sand and say, “not now, not today”. because the polls are slowly turning againt us, you know, if you haven’t been watching.
This tit for tat out of fear the Democrats are going to set a credible agenda on anything is playing right into their grubby little hands.
In don’t understand this sentence in context. Could you clarify it?
The time for debating a Democratic candidate is in September and October of 08.
What does that have to do with holding the Democrats accountable for answering in all venues now? Democrats and Republicans are debating amongst themselves now, aren’t they? Why wait? That’s enough reason, unless you want to give the dems a head start in getting their message out unchallenged early so it’s harder to undo for our guys later on.
But if we don’t have a candidate that is lean and debating mean, what good is a GooberTube debate going to do except “Whew! Now the DNC can’t criticize me as a Presidential candidate!”
Once agin, this is OT and doesn’t mean anything in context. We’re talking about holding the Dems accountable in all venues now, while they are debating now.
If Republican candidates could articulate the National Policy agenda of the PARTY, and zero in on how to best implement it in their respective administrations, while at the same time disqualifying Billary, Hussein Obama’s, Carney-Kucinich, Breck Boy, and AlBore’s platforms, the Democrats will fry under the heat.
They will, huh? What heat? the non-heat of U-Tube and CNN where the questions are cherry pciked in their favor? Once again, you aren’t articulating a clear understanding of the circumstances. There is no heat without media scrutiny, and the dems won’t get it from the MSM. Simple. So we want them to go on Fox where heat might be forethcoming. So simple. So on-topic. Let’s stay on-topic, eh?
The media will have a field day with what the Repubs are saying and will be forced to ask those Bumpkins “What about what Rudi said about your plan for Billary Care?”
You’re dreaming agin – they won’t ask those questions and that’s the whole point.
The Dems unwillingness to debate on FNC should be used against them to destroy them in the media.
Well, yes! But if the Republicans candidates won’t do it, and there is no grassroots movement and if left up to you there sure as hell wouldn’t be, then where’s the pressure on the issue that will destroy them? Is it destroying them now while the story is still fresh? No, it’s doing nothing at the current volume. The volume won’t get louder and the story will go away if noise of the type you say we shouldn’t be making isn’t made now.
If that is what they are giving you, use it. And use it with lethal intent. Let them run off the cliff together.
I’m trying to use it and get other people to use it, but the vocal voices on this board, for instance, are saying it’s either too early or we should take the high road. So if we won’t talk about it and make a grassroots fuss about it, or convince our candidates to take up the challenge of U-Tube by challenging back at them re Fox then how do we use it? Just here, among the converted? That isn’t a rhetorical question, I’d like your clear action-point plan on using it.
These Circus Animals are listening to Howard Dean! LOL…Howard is a total manufactured dork who thinks he is a populist.
That’s nice, but joe six-pack who can cancel out you vote doesn’t know that, so what’s your point?
And now he has the entire platform of candidates listening to the fringe Left: “Hey! I know! Let’s have a debate on YouTube, man!”
And they do and they get their message out unencumbered while looking like they’re being held to the fire by the American people. Once again, what’s you point? that it’s so ridiculous that noone should care? Now that’s a winning strategy for an election. Just ask Bob Dole.
“Heeeeyaaawwwww!” said HoHo Dean.
That’s right. Ha ha ha. And now Pelosi and Reid are running Congress. That’s a pretty funny joke, alright.
I asked you several questions in the text above. Could you answer them straight and to the point?
Mr. Conservative Cat:
Let’s take this a step at a time because your tone isn’t conducive to discussion.
Having said that, let’s have a look at your first “point”.
You said:
In theory?
How does one agree “in theory”?
If one agrees, then one agrees.
But to insert “in theory” merely sets the stage to rebut while casting the alternative view as ivory towerish or out of touch with reality.
So it isn’t an agreement at all, as your full statement demonstrates.
You say that maintaining the moral high ground has “never” worked.
By saying so, you give me a rather chubby argument to buttslap off the stage:
Presidential election 04- was family values a decisive platform plank that spanked the Democrats, or was it not?
That worked. The measure: Hillary started going to church. So what if the media covers her going to church with her pimp husband?
It is a site gag to the bi-partisan conservative base.
Was the MSM media a compliant tool for the “Family values” platform? Unwittingly yes. Do they “like us”? Nope.
Should we care? Why? If we stick to the knitting and can pull the votes (without election fraud)we have pulled in the previous 2 elections (where Democratic voter fraud was *enormous* as the story unfolds).
To go back to Bill Clinton’s hooey gooey with Monica is an obvious, but specious, point about the MSM’s focus.
The Republicans impeached The President of The United States. Was this not “media covered politics”?
So, before we continue this tete-a-tete, Mr. C_C, consider taking a step back while introducing a little more civility and grace, perhaps some healthy curiousity, in talking things over.
You do not have a corner or a lock on political wisdom, experience, or insight. Your first argument illustrates this handily for me.
Mr. C_C:
After reading more of your vitriolic post, I am inclined to engage you point by point.
Next.
You said: “Bob Dole and Clinton then square off for their first debate and you could hear a pin drop as Dole started to speak.”
So, let me see if I have this right,Mr. C_C.
1. You are advocating vigorously for a Republican CNN/YouTube debate.
2. The Republican debate would somehow impact a viewing public’s opinion of Democratic candidates, (but not necessarily a voting public’s opinion of Democratic candidates).
3. You attribute to these intra-Party debates (or a Republican decision not to have one on BoobTube) a risk of losing the margin of victory in the 08 Presidential election.
4. You offer a failed argument for holding the moral high ground saying it “never” works.
Yet, you illustrate your “point” with a Presidential debate between the two finalists.
That is an entirely different kettle of fish, so much so that your arguments as a whole begin to leak and list to port.
The debates between finalists do influence the margin of points in an election. You will be hard-pressed to document the predictive value about a YouTube debate.
You also fail to address the alternative I’ve presented to you: If the Democrats say OolaFungutz to FNC debates, and then say “Hey let’s party on YouTube”, does that not in the least look like a strategy to frame the process?
And if it doesnt to you, why not?
And if it might look like it is, why on God’s Green Earth would you bite on that Ca-ca filled cupcake?
Mr. C_C name drops by saying-“Does Rush “take the high road” on the scale you’re talking about? OF COURSE NOT! Not debating on a network because you claim they won’t be fair is absolutely fair game, and unless we fight it out like we mean it – which is much harder work than sitting back and “taking the high road” – then we’re going to lose. And that is a no-brainer.”
Mr. C_C: There are many roads to victory. And the road you advocate may very well work. We will see won’t we? But you appear to have your feet in the cement shoes of “fight it out like we mean it” over an issue that clearly makes your butt itch.
Has Rush made this itch a personal cause as you seem to have made it? I have heard him register his talking points about Dems and the FNC issue, but has he insisted that YouTube debates swing an election with the alarmist vitriol with which you feel compelled to lead?
You are projecting onto my argument something I didn’t say, and in fact said the opposite: the part of your statement above where you say “which is much harder work than sitting back and ‘taking the high road’ “.
1. I suggested taking the high road by raising the bar on these pre-08 debates. Raising the bar is not sitting back.
2. I suggested holding the debates “in Baghdad”. Takes imagination on how to do that. But you aren’t curious about this position. So you don’t know what that might entail. Real time streaming video from the US to Baghdad would put the Republican candidates square in the picture with troops asking the tough questions about the war. Do you think it might influence what the public hears and sees about the Pelosi Congress?
3. Ya see, Mr C_C taking the high road means leaving the chicken Democrats who won’t debate on FNC holding their own bag while the Republican debates do more to expose the Democrats on substance than on the superfluous concern of whether or not FNC is “fair and balanced”. That requires some heavy lifting from Republican candidates. It is not an easy way out.
Mr. C_C said: No, if Rush, Sean Hannity and this board’s own host Michelle were likewise that irresponsibly charitable, this country would be more deeply embroiled in liberalism than ever.
(sigh) You, Mr. C_C, are getting carried away with your name dropping and your projections onto my arguments with distorted editorializing. “Irresponsibly charitable”? I thought we were discussing strategy.
You seem to be shoveling out your dairy barn.
Again: raising the bar is not a charitable act.
Stick to my arguments. You asked for me to be straight and to the point.
So far, you have been neither.
Hi Bear, just some thoughts to your post yesterday…
(Bear1909 said): “I am already “said congress”. The current woes of the Nation are not in effect because men and women of goodwill sat by and did nothing. To assume we are in the mess we are in because no one has done anything is costly. The cost is the ear one might hope to reach by a call to action, which is what Mr. Paul’s campaign amounts to on its face. I will act based on the equity I have established by my political actions on the grassroots level in the face of Presidential administration and Pelosi Galore’s Congress.”
Fed Up says: I disagree Bear, but you did get the “costly” aspect to the issue correct. My point was that we voters have voted for exactly what we have received; almost 9 trillion of debt and the honor of being the world’s largest debtor nation (let alone the budget deficit, trade deficit, pension deficits and the 40 trillion bill coming for Medicare and Social Security). The grassroots effort you may be putting forth I don’t know well enough to comment upon. If you have a website or something you can point me to I can then reference it. Ron Paul’s campaign, as you know, is simply a return to following the Constitution, a sound monetary system, limited government and free markets. Naturally we both agree upon one issue and that is the hard fall. I believe it’s unavoidable at this point, but at least Paul can eliminate some Federal bureaucracy to possibly make a difference.
(Bear1909 said): “Are our laws being circumvented by LAWCAP (Bucky Fullers moniker for the legal cabals which manipulate supra-national powers over nations for the sake of finance capitalism the world over).?
Has LAWCAP made it necessary for each individual citizen endowed with certain inalienable rights to be vigilant in their fight to curtail the influence of LAWCAP on their lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness? Yes. (Shamnesty as a case in point.)
Granted, this is a total drag. And if I was the Managing Director of the Known Universe, I would end LAWCAP altogether to reduce the high opportunity cost of “Liberty” in the USA.
The Founding Fathers and the people living here at the time fought everyday of their adult lives against the continuous encroachment of the earliest form of LAWCAP- the British and their mercantile companies, East and West.
And this continuous striving was the norm. It is no different today.
From its inception, the Constitutional Government of the USA was vested to the landed interests which held the country’s commercial interest together.
The struggle against that source of “big government oppression” has been constant and tirelessly fought against in this country.”
Fed Up says: You get no argument from me here Bear. Don’t the Austrian economists have the solutions for these issues?
(Bear1909 said): “The premise is a bit high-handed for this forum. And to passively assert that I am being fooled into this false political dichotomy is not productive here with me.
The parties do not usurp by virtue of our mere voting for them.
Fleeting political advantage occurs on an issue by issue basis; but, that does not make for “usurpation”.
The party politicians and their blocks are defeated yay or nay because that is the DNA of representative politics.
The people are defeated, at least for a little while, yay or nay, because that is the DNA of most political bodies of the people.
The pendulum swings.”
Fed Up says: The issues is that the pendulum swings only one of two ways. When one way isn’t going well, then the people switch to the other way. Ron Paul sums this up best; “We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.” Wouldn’t you agree this is an accurate description?
(Bear1909 said): “Why must we consistently hear the impossibility of transformation being tied to “overnight”?
I know that tipping points happen through a simple conversation overheard by one.
The irony here is that to believe transformation does indeed happen overnight is simplistic, while the trigger of most transformations are highly simplistic- one of the rare beauties of the human psychic world.
As for the 4 generations of abuse, I prefer a sidestep around that mental obstacle.
First, a national conversation about what constitutes Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness would lift the cesspool lid on what our People of the United States have endured at the hands and minds of our elected officials at every level and those of LAWCAP.
30 days. 24/7. Web-based. Get it out. Transcript it. A national town meeting where we say “OUCH and GLORY HALLELUJAH”.
Bring the pain and glory out into the light. The pain loses its power and the glory incites the will to act.
30 days. I guarantee one thing: the “debates” would change.”
Fed Up says: Ron Paul has been on the House floor for years spreading the message of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” and many more Freedom issues, more than any other candidate running for President, yet his message is only creeping out to more and more people here in 2007.
My “overnight” comment was utilized for others to read so that they understand that Ron Paul’s plan is one that will take time to come to fruition. There has to be a transitional period to help those who have become accustomed to the welfare state (those on food stamps, welfare, medicare, social security, etc.). Now before someone jumps in here and attacks this position, one must understand the fact that these programs may not exist in the future for the simple reason that there will be no money to pay for them anyway.
Just like the college graduate who receives a credit card with a spending limit from a bank and goes on a wild spending spree, at some point his credit is zero and the payments to the bank must be paid out of current income. If his income doesn’t meet the minimum payment plan, then bankruptcy is his only solution. America’s solution is to print more money. The college kid can’t do that. As long as people believe in this game of monopoly money, it will continue…..till the gig is up and bankruptcy is America’s only option (we’d already be in bankruptcy if we didn’t have the world’s strongest military backing the dollar).
(Bear1909 said): “Coming from my limited experience that combines the hierarchical patriarchy of the Roman Catholic Church and the matrilineal indigenous societies of which I am a part, I do not agree. “Ball rolling” by a politically privileged member of Congress is antithetical to what works in the making of a lasting political movement. Your assertion implies that change begins at the top.
Every time I have “stepped in it” within traditional Indian societies, it has been because I tried to initiate something that was not my place to initiate.
Yes, Ron Paul is elected. Yes, he believes it is his calling to run for President. But did anybody else here *HIS* phone ringing?
How does he know that he should be the Big Duck in the Puddle? How does he know that his role *NOW* is not to be grooming the embodiment of leadership in someone else *YOUNGER* *SMARTER* and *INFLUENTIAL* than himself? I listen to Paul, and I don’t “feel” him.
Libertarian values don’t speak to me. I won’t *invest* Ron Paul with my vote because he hasn’t addressed the unasked questions I posed above. And it is his duty, as it is for all of the “candidates”, to address the unasked questions. Not just answer “What makes you qualified to run for President of the USA?” We are all qualified to run in America, right?”
Fed Up says; Ron Paul has the youth movement on his side. It’s their future he is fighting for. He has answered every question that anyone has posed. He is the only candidate running who has a track record of such. He doesn’t waver in his position depending on which corporation is trying to get him to see things their way. He is not a corporatist. Do a google on Fred Thompson or Romney or Guiliani with the word “speeches” and see what comes up. Then do this for Ron Paul. The difference is as dark is to light. Does one really think the so called big 3 have any more qualifications than Paul? This is where the ignorance of the people stands out IMO.
(Bear1909 said): “You may be right that the “neo-con” (the kneejerk reactive term coined by liberals who were spanked with the use of the term “neo-liberal” after LBJ Great Society Democrats morphed into something “new” and “different” a la Pelosi Galore) camp used it to get elected. But it is a non-sequitur to say that Muslims living in America are people just like you and me.
Yes, they bleed red and they love their kids. But they are not like me.
Just like Jews are not just like me. Just like Bible Belt Christian Fundamentalists are not like me. Or Orthodox Catholics.
They are beholden to Islam if they call themselves Muslim. And- they stand to benefit from Sharia Creep and the establishment of a world-wide Caliphate. When you speak with them, do you speak about these finer points. Or is it polite chat similar to the ones I have with non-Indians who are exploring with me (politely and nervously) whether I am a good Injun or a bad Injun.
Instead of such tiptoeing through the tulips with them, I ask them what they think about all the broken treaties still on the books, about the bounty and scalping laws that were still on the books in Vermont until the early 1950s, or the role of that state’s flagship land grant University and its Extension Service in the role of Hitler’s Germany in the extermination and sterilization plan for Jews (no, I didn’t read this in Ward Churchill’s books- I lost my job back in the 90s for unearthing from the institution’s own archives the history of the American Eugenics Movement and its role bit of history to the attention of scholars during a campaign to get tribal recognition for Abenaki Indians in Vermont.)
So when you say Muslims living in the US are just like you and me, what does that mean? I live next to a Persian man who left Iran as a child. He is Muslim, but doesn’t practice the religion.
He prays when he wants and eats what he wants. But what he lives in fear about is nothing like what my life is like.
He experiences the frailties of human life. Yet, there is something he harbors waiting for some shoe to fall.
This is not like me. He cannot tell me why he enjoys American life. Nor can the Halal merchants on the west side of town. They cannot say why they “love” this Country. They are not like me.
For all the crap American Indian people experienced and still do to this day, I believe in the promise of this country and the people who are here today. But I do not accept the pretense with which people who practice a religious politic have emigrated here, overstayed student visas, participate in anti-American education in mosques and madrasas on American soil.”
Fed Up says: It is good to get the perspective from an Native American point of view. Your definition of what it means to be an American is different than say an American Muslim. I can see your point of view, but let me clarify my statements. I have spoken to these Muslims. I have asked the hard questions (you wouldn’t believe how open taxi drivers are once you relate to them that you know a little about them).
When I say they are no different than me, I must clarify that I don’t mean as someone who practices their religion versus mine, or their nationality versus mine, but rather as someone who has constitutional rights and wants freedom to continue practicing their own religion in the Land of the Free. Is this not a right of theirs as long as that religion does not legally interfere with my own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness or infringe upon my personal property and obeys American laws. As such, they have a right to do as they wish as I do practicing my religion…whether my religion is satanic snake worshiping one or Fundamentalist Christian.
It is when Sharia law comes into conflict with national law where problems arise as is currently happening in Pakistan. Muslim radical groups are always going to exist and will probably prop up more and more here in America. America has it’s own radical groups already you know and they have nothing to do with religion…..the Crypts, the Blood, the Mexican Mafia, the Latin Kings or the Cosa Nostra.
The real issue is we in America are trying to spread democracy to other nations yet the word “democracy” doesn’t even exist in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. We are a Republic. We must remain a republic with laws that are adhered to. To franchise democracy to the world is a farce. Ron Paul understands this; “Democracy Is Not Freedom:” http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html
I’ll let you have the last word and appreciate your thoughts Bear.
I said: “Never get in a pissin contest with a skunk.”
Mr. C_C: said-“This remark assumes bad retribution if we engage the Democrats.”
Well, Mr. C_C, you are speaking over the remark with, again, a distorted projection.
The saying is an expression with an unstated payoff.
To the naïve (and I am not suggesting that you are naïve) and the uninitiated to this bit of country wisdom, it raises a question: “Why not?”
To which the informed and experienced one can reply “You will ALWAYS lose.”
Whatever vaguery is implied by your projection- “this remark assumes bad retribution if we engage the Democrats”, it does not *address* the practicality of the wisdom of my remark.
Therefore, you-again- are not being straight in this discussion as far as your commentary is concerned.
In addition, your projection smears some stinky stuff on my original argument to raise the bar with the debates.
You say that there is some non-will to “engage the Democrats”.
My argument encourages nothing of the sort.
Take the high ground and shoot down on your enemy. Straight enough metaphor for you?
Pin them down and emaciate them with their own choice of positions.
In 20 years, NOBODY will remember FNC and it’s itch to defends it’s own noose “Fair and Balanced”.
People will remember the Republicans talking to Snow Men about dying polar bears.
People won’t remember the Democrats doing it, just the same way they don’t remember Clinton firing prosecutors en masse.
Engaging the Democrats by raising the bar with substantive debate while calling out Democratic positions in the process, would initiate press coverage of what each respective Republican candidate said about each Democratic candidate’s position.
Simple idea: Moderator of a Republican debate asks the same question to each candidate- “So and so: Compare and contrast your position on the War in Iraq with your Democratic competitors, namely Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton.”
Go right on down the line and pound the Democrats.
The MSM loves to spread gossip. “Mrs. Clinton, what about Rudy Giuliani’s comment about your position on the war last nite to the troops in Baghdad during the webcasted debate?”
And her reply: “Well, we invited them to debate on YouTube but they refused.”
It wouldn’t pass muster with voters who are not sure about her.
The MSM would not be able to help themselves in trying to give her a chance to respond. And however she tries to respond, and protect her allegiances to the Lefty Peace Moms, she will fall flat.
BINGO! Engagement on.
Now, Mr. C_C, be a mensch and, for a moment, demonstrate that you grasp this concept of taking the (moral)(tactical) high ground.
Suspend your judgement of me as the messenger and my message.
Try and control your obvious personal issues (evidenced by your seeming compulsion and need to project onto arguments and using the word “stupid” about my freely offered and defensible positions, drop names of celebrity conservatives to bolster your operational style in debate).
Then we can proceed in a manner that is fair and balanced.
Mr. C_C sounding like a Nanny State Liberal in Republican Drag said
“What could be worse, I wonder, than losing and watching millions of kids raised in Hillary Clinton’s view of the world? “Losing our gentlemanly values?” In politics?! That isn’t taking the high road, that’s being unconscionably negligent to the innocent, and they desrve for us to do better than that to protect them from an awful future.”
You have opened the door on this, Mr. C_C.
We started by talking about the advantages and disadvantages of debating on YouTube/CNN.
All of a sudden the balance of our children’s future hinges on Presidential Primary debates as a zero-sum event.
But, anyway, here goes-
Who said anything about “Losing our gentlemanly values?” ? I certainly did not.
And besides, values are lost when they are not put into ACTION, Mr. C_C.
At grass roots level we are losing our kids to socialism disguised by Baby Boomers’ mantras of “Caring for the People”, “Doing the Right Thing”, and “Give Peace a Chance”.
It isn’t Hillary’s view of the world: it is Saul Alinsky’s view of the world.
And the Nation is vulnerable to such filth because:
1).The National electorate has failed to articulate its own vision for the future.
2)The National Electorate has failed to eradicate Marxist doctrine from public institutions where it influences policy and planning. (Just as it is failing to take on ISLAM).
Instead, like you are doing with your FNC obsession, the National Electorate is settling for reactionary political fights based on vague points from a Boogey Man threat matrix, such as the one you offered above.
Millions of kids are already living an “awful future”.
Where have you been?
This has been going on in the US since its creation.
What do you read?
What do you know about this?
Am I saying America is evil?
No, I am saying I am an involved parent who has worked at all levels of the educational system in the Nation in 4 different states, and interfaced with social services agencies in each.
The next President will not impact the entrenched bureaucratic elite-based system that is sucking the tax dollars out of Washington, state treasuries, and local coffers.
Kids being raised in a Socialist Nanny State is not going to begin, nor is it likely to increase appreciably because another Clinton gets elected.
The long term trend is already in motion. It is over 200 years old.
I am not referring to being raised on talking points either: we are talking about the millions of kids and parents who know their lack of worth to both Republicans and Democrats who maintain their respective versions of Nanny State policies.
That is a result of what is happening at grass roots levels, Mr. C_C.
Not Washington D.C.
Bananas and condoms don’t come from Washington.
Here in California they come from unelected Commissions,. “Planning Boards”, “Educational Consortia” etc etc etc. I bet it happens that way in more states than one.
Bear,
I see, I’m “vitriolic” and I guess that makes you the “victim”. Sigh. Okay, so far you haven’t offered much so it won’t take alot to debate your points, a debate which I find myself wanting to hold the Dems feet to the fire and availing ourselves of an opportunity and you – maybe not.
“…in theory I agree with you about maintaining the high ground. The problem is it has never worked for us in the past when it comes to media-covered politics, because the media is against us.
In theory?
How does one agree “in theory”?
If one agrees, then one agrees.
This ius ridiculous and I’ll bet almost every reading this sees it that way, also. You agree in theory by seperating the theory from the actual fact, which is usually far less desireable. Are you trying to tell everyone that you’ve never heard that phrase before? This sounds like absurdist parsing. In this instance, “agreeing in theory” means yes, in theory it would be nice to always take the high road, in this instance seeming defined by you as not calling the Dems out on not debating on Fox, which in the cold light of reality is just ignoring an opportunity and a problem. You know, I feeli like I’m just wasting my time debating a point so uttery, totally stupid that even a 5 year old would immediately grasp the difference (ooh, golly, I’m being “vitriolic” again!)
“To go back to Bill Clinton’s hooey gooey with Monica is an obvious, but specious, point about the MSM’s focus.
The Republicans impeached The President of The United States. Was this not “media covered politics”?
Sure the media covered it, and he was impeached but not removed, and he seemingly feels no shame about his disgraceful actions. Do you? The media coverage was tepid in terms of putting the heat on, and now most teenagers feel oral sex isn’t sex. So what are you saying, Bear? – that the MSM, about which Michelle and others always say – rightfully – is unfair, is fair enough that we need not worry about them this election season?
So, let me see if I have this right,Mr. C_C.
1. You are advocating vigorously for a Republican CNN/YouTube debate.
As a bargaining chip on the political playing field to challenge the dems to debate onthe only neutral-to-unfriendly venue they will have this election, Fox News. You have a problem with that, somehow? If the Republicans don’t do it, the MSM will paint them as cowards without mentioning Fox, or ignore the point. Will the u-tune debatye hammer the Republicans? of course, but our guys are used to that and they have the right arguements on their side. To do it for the fun of it? No. To do it as a grandstanding challenge to the dems to face hrsher music in a debate by going on Fox, of course!
2. The Republican debate would somehow impact a viewing public’s opinion of Democratic candidates, (but not necessarily a voting public’s opinion of Democratic candidates).
Now this is where you’re getting stupid again, and you now sound like one of those stealth liberals trying to screw things up onb the right because you’re too well spoken not to understand the absurd content of this last question. I assume you mean republican candidates and not Democratic candidates in your last sentence.
It would impact their view on Republicans maybe. It might impact their view if Democrats take the challenge and get hammered on Fox. It would definately impact on the Democrats if, after much noise is made by republicans, they still look to cheicken to appear on Fox – that is a message anyone can understand, but the broader audience isn’t getting the story so they don’t get the message.
3. You attribute to these intra-Party debates (or a Republican decision not to have one on BoobTube) a risk of losing the margin of victory in the 08 Presidential election.
Sigh, Geez, just read my answer to 2. If that isn’t enough I’m guessing you’ll never ubnderstand, don’t want to understand or want to appear not to understand for some other underlying purpose, but I can’t believe you’re so stupid as to not be able to follow this very simple thread of logic, and it’s getting irritating. I’ve spoken to two readers here off board and they think your responses, quite frankly, are full of sh*t. “Nobody can be that dumb” says one.
4. You offer a failed argument for holding the moral high ground saying it “never” works.
Yet, you illustrate your “point” with a Presidential debate between the two finalists.
Geez, there you go again. 1. there is no moral high ground by not holding the dems accountable, so stop patting yourself on the back for winning that point without debating it directly – not holding the dems accountable is called being a pre-election sap. Yes, I illustrated the point between two finalists – meaning two opposing parties, which is the same situation here, the ground rules for the debates as relates to the two parties, even if the debates themselves are between members of the same party. once again, you’re smarter than this, so I’m beginning to question your motivations big time. (“moral high ground” by not stepping forward and leveling the playing field. Jes*s Chr*st, gimmie a break! What far-off planet did you come from?)
The debates between finalists do influence the margin of points in an election. You will be hard-pressed to document the predictive value about a YouTube debate.
Dammit, I wish you would keep your head together on this. It isn’t about who goes on U-Tube, it’s about the dems not going on Fox – the only place they will be asked tough questions. Is it possible you finally get the idea now? (Sheesh!)(if you don’t, everyone else here does, so if you want to make it look like you can’t follow simple idea to it’s conclusion, I guess you are entitled to represetn yourself thusly (“moral high ground” I can’t get over that one!)
You also fail to address the alternative I’ve presented to you: If the Democrats say OolaFungutz to FNC debates, and then say “Hey let’s party on YouTube”, does that not in the least look like a strategy to frame the process?
No, because nobody outside political wonks pay any attention and nobody gets it. You think that everyone in the world follows politics like people who log in to places like this, and you should know better.
And if it doesnt to you, why not? Besides, we go on U-Tune only if the Dems go on Fox. Our guys can stanbd up to U-Tube, but should only have to as a trade for the Dems going on Fox for tough questions. I’ve only repeated what the strategy is about 500 times, but still at this juncture you either don’t get it for real, somehow, or want to appear dumb on the issue.
“Has Rush made this itch a personal cause as you seem to have made it? I have heard him register his talking points about Dems and the FNC issue, but has he insisted that YouTube debates swing an election with the alarmist vitriol with which you feel compelled to lead?”
This sin’t a legit point in this debate but to make this clear anyway, I don’t listen to Rush. Everyone owes him an enormous debt for the obvious reasons, of course, and I like his old TV show, but his one-man-band radio show is a style and format I simply never cared for. So take from that what you will.
“2. I suggested holding the debates “in Baghdad”. Takes imagination on how to do that. But you aren’t curious about this position. So you don’t know what that might entail. Real time streaming video from the US to Baghdad would put the Republican candidates square in the picture with troops asking the tough questions about the war. Do you think it might influence what the public hears and sees about the Pelosi Congress? “
I’m smiling tbut this is worthy of LOL status. Put all the leading republican candidates – with much advance warning to skilled and funded murderous terrorists – into one of the most dangerous places on earth to grandstand for political points. Bear, you need such a reality check on this on it’s pathetic. Bagdad?! God help us.
“3. Ya see, Mr C_C taking the high road means leaving the chicken Democrats who won’t debate on FNC holding their own bag while the Republican debates do more to expose the Democrats on substance than on the superfluous concern of whether or not FNC is “fair and balanced”. That requires some heavy lifting from Republican candidates. It is not an easy way out.”
I guess for you this constant “either or” approach makes sense. You can have it both ways: the Republicans will do in the debates what and how they’ll do and that’s that. But you can also call the Dems out for running scared on Fox. Once again, you assume the dems running scared from Fox will be upper most in the minds of the average voter, and it should be but it won’t because the MSM media won’t cover it (for the millionth time) just like they aren’t covering it now. So we and the candidates have to make it an issue the media cannot ignore. there is nothing “high road” about what your suggesting, unl;ess this high road business is all in your head, in which case that’s where it’ll stay because no one else will think the Republicans are going low road by challenging the dems on their cherry picking of pro-liberal news outlets on which to debate.
“Mr. C_C said: No, if Rush, Sean Hannity and this board’s own host Michelle were likewise that irresponsibly charitable, this country would be more deeply embroiled in liberalism than ever.
(sigh) You, Mr. C_C, are getting carried away with your name dropping”
LOL, I see. Let me tell you, Bear, I’ve worked with some major names in the entertaiment industry, if I wanted to drop names I could do it by the truckload.
“Again: raising the bar is not a charitable act.”
Whewther it is or not generally depends on the ciurcumnstanbce, but your idea of not calling the Dems out on cherry picking their venues – which is important – is only “taking the high road” in your own head. I’m sure you’ll snort heartily while looking down your nose at those absurd democrats as they take control of the white house. Boy, you’ll really have showed them who takes the high road then, eh? Sheesh!
“Stick to my arguments. You asked for me to be straight and to the point.
So far, you have been neither.”
I can only respond with what you’ve given me, and it’s tough to be straight when I have to untangle the absurdist, pro-defeatist ans elitist knots in every one of your sentences. I think I’ve done all I can here – soime people will see it my way, and others your way (though I have no idea why the latter could be the case unless they’re stealth liberals trying to sabotage the 08 elections from within on a grassroots level, and this wouldn’t be the first time). You’re so far off in some weird, academtic/theoretically, elitist la la land that anything resenbling street smarts will bounce off you like rubber missles of logic against you rock of gibralter stand in favor of – taking some abstract concept of the high road?!
I’m done, you can have the last word if you want to, but my life is too filled right now to continue mixing it up with someone who either can’t understand a few simple, street-wise realities or thinks it’s cute or sophisticated to pretend not to. I don’t have to to convince a single person who seems to have a vested interest in not being convinced, to argue for the fun of it or to be your buddy. You can have the last word and spin it as much as you want. I’ve done as much good on this thread which is slowly falling to the bottom of the list as I’m likly to, and that’s what it’s about for me.
FedUp-
I think I can let things rest where they lay. It was great to air views so thoroughly.
We can micro-clarify til the cows come home. My point to engaging your views was to exchange ideas.
We have accomplished that. Cool!
Mr_Conservative_Cat said:
“I see, I’m “vitriolic” and I guess that makes you the “victim”. Sigh.”
Another leap on your illogic trapeze.
See ya round.
The difference here is that the democrats won’t do Fox news because they were intimidated by the loony left.
The Republicans don’t want to do the CNN/YouTube debate because it’s stupid.
It’s hardly the same.
UPDATE
Well, the one-side basing on this issue has begun: On Hannity and Colmes tonight Mr. Colmes asked a guest if the Republicans would look “cowardly” for not appearing on the U-Tube debate. Much hollow and frankly unconvincing noise was made about the U-Tube debate not being a serious venue, but that’s what it sounded like – hollow and unconvincing. The appearance to any objective observer was that Colms had struck a good point and it stuck because no one brought up the double standard about the Fox debates. That’s the message the average viewer who couldn’t care less about MM.com or any other insightful internet source is getting.
The idea that Rebulicans are cowardly to debate in venues not suited to their viewpoint is certain to be a hard-core Democrat talking point. Always it is that Republicans feel a need to strike back only at the last hour, when a good portion of public opinion has solidified in favor of the opposition.
It was too easy to predict this one and if grassroots Republicans don’t start making some noise now before the liberals set the terms of the national debate, it’ll be too easy to predict the result of the 08 elections, also.
We’ve seen this time and again on the part of conservatives who feel they are above fighting back on a level they feel is beneath them, forgetting the old theatrical addage” nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Reagan knew the slogan and framed his responses fast and clearly and effectively.
We’ll yell and scream about abortion, gun control and immigration, but like a collective idiot mind never follow Reagans example and make the loudest noise where it counts: getting people elected who will carry out our views into something practically manifest. newt knew the power needed, and mobilized it, but without him, most will sit out the details in favor of the larger issues while the details eat away the larger issues out from under us.
We’ll never learn, and shame on those who know better, including everyone here, for not raising their collective voice on so clearly a winnable and substantial issue for the Republicans. To those who say the issue is not substabtial, I say take your head out of the sand: keeping the playing field level is about as important as it gets – indeed, the founders created the electoral college with exactly that intent in mind, which seperates us from the European Democracies where the large concentrations of the urban elite decide the elections.
Shame on those who know better and say nothing. And don’t bitch when the Dems win in 08 – you’ll have had your chance when the time was right, and decided to be “above it”.
Above winning.
And I’ll be hear to tell you to shut up, because nobody needs a lazy whiner.
Well the Democrats are now on the issue, as predicted: thanks to the people like those here who’ll say nothing, the Dems have learned that we’re the patsies we’ve always been, and they’ll keep driving the point about U-Tube home along with everything else while those like those here sniff the air haughtily and do nothing that is beneath them – like fight back. Pathetic.
Shame.
Shame.
Shame.
This means you.