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.
Trackbacks
- Romney May Chicken Out of Debate « Blogs 4 Brownback
- Bill's Bites
- Swanky Conservative
- Pajamas Media
- What the Crap? GOP YouTube Debate - To skip, or not to skip. «
- YouTube Circus Awaits GOP « AcePundit.com
- NeoCon News » YouTube Republicans- football to the groin?
- Heading Right » Blog Archive » 2 UTube Or Not 2 UTube
- right side of tech
- You can run but you can’t hide… from the CNN/YouTube debate that is. « Volunteer Opinion Journal
- Let’s prepare for the next CNN/YouTube debates in Florida « Volunteer Opinion Journal
- Captain's Quarters
- A Proposal To CNN at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source.
- The Sundries Shack
- D S Simon Vlog Views » Blog Archive » Republicans and Businesses Fear Online Video Revolution at their Peril
- Don’t run from the CNN/YouTube debate | Political Debate Zone
- Don’t run from the CNN/YouTube debate » Political Debate Zone
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 con