[...]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available [...]……

[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]……

[...]one of our visitors recently recommended the following website[...]……

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.

“I see, I’m “vitriolic” and I guess that makes you the “victim”. Sigh.”

Another leap on your illogic trapeze.
See ya round.

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!

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?

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.

“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.

The Republican reluctance to engage in the scheduled September YouTube debate has created a fierce debate in the blogosphere, including something of a civil war at Hugh Hewitt’s Townhall blog. Hugh himself has adamantly insisted that Republican candid…