CNN/YouTube GOP Debate

[Professor S]

Well... it certainly was interesting, even if unenlightening. The only thing that CNN proved last night is that they have a definite preformed idea of what they think the Republican Party is made of:

1) Gun nuts
2) Racist Confederate Flag Wavers
3) Bible Beaters

The questions that were chosen were so ignorant and without substance that the candidates essentially had to take them in different directions. Even Anderson Cooper had to add his own questions to them to make them halfway decent.

The most shameful part of the night, though, was the inclusion of Keith Kerr, ret. Brig. General who is gay in the audience, who spent most of his time making a speech instead of actually asking a question. The best part is, that General is or was on a Hillary Clinton Advisory committee.

http://arlingtoncardinal.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2007/11/29/3381468.html

And FoxNews is the only biased news channel? Really? But honestly, I think the fact that the Republicans have consistently debated in what could be described as unfriendly media venues will be a huge reason why they will win the next Presidential election. Why? Because while the Republicans have been answering tough, challenging questions, the Democrat candidates have been living in a fishbowl. They refused a debate on Fox and the uestions they have been answering have been little more than prompts for vacuous campaign rhetoric. They have not been challenged on any real foreign policy and I don't believe terrorism has been mentioned very much, if at all. If the Democrats don't start developing substantive answers to these middle of the road questions, they will be in trouble when it comes to the general election.

Here is how I rate the GOP debate performance:

Rudy - Steady and articulate as always. Not much new, but thats not a bad thing. He is solidifying himself as my favorite candidate, but I'm not 100% convinced yet.

Romne - Kind of had a little trouble in spots. There are definite chinks in his armor when it comes to his past policies.

Huckabee - Wow, he is getting good. Smoother than a peanut butter and banana milkshake. His religious past still worries me, though, and his overly soft spoken nature.

McCain - Same old commander in chief stuff

Thompson - An improvement, but still not much substance.

Tancredo - Is he still running?

Ron Paul - Crazy as ever. Honestly, I don't see how no one has asked him about the donations he's accepted from white supremacist orgs.

Once again, the questions last night were so idiotic that I don't think anyone really gained or lost ground. Romne may have lost ground, but thats about it.

[thatmariolover]

Is there a reason you need to be so polar? Yeah, CNN is biased - just like most every popular media source is biased. That's not what bothers people about Fox news. Fox news has reporters and hosts that are frequently rude, insulting, and hostile without provocation.

Back to the topic at hand, I agree the questions were poorly selected. Given that, the cantidates did a reasonable job of answering them. I thought they managed to avoid talking overly much about their democratic rivals, and were more focused on the differences between each other (which I appreciated).

As for the bribes from white supremacists, I'm rather surprised it hasn't come up myself. Although I don't see how the speech Rudy's been giving since 9/11 (the same speech, over and over and over) capitalizing off of of the tragedy for campaign funds is any less questionable.

All in all, it'll be interesting to see how the debates continue. But I'll be honest, without some promises to bring troops home I'm just not interested in much else they want to say.

[Professor S]

Is there a reason you need to be so polar? Yeah, CNN is biased - just like most every popular media source is biased. That's not what bothers people about Fox news. Fox news has reporters and hosts that are frequently rude, insulting, and hostile without provocation.

I'm not being "polar", I''m pointing our the obvious. If the sky is blue, you aren't polar for stating it. Given, Bill O'Reilly is rude, but their news people I don't find rude. And lets be honest, people rail against Fox for its bias, not its rudeness. The diference between CNN and Fox is that Fox is obvious and open about the messages their columnists send, while CNN hides them in selective reporting and manipulation.

As for the bribes from white supremacists, I'm rather surprised it hasn't come up myself. Although I don't see how the speech Rudy's been giving since 9/11 (the same speech, over and over and over) capitalizing off of of the tragedy for campaign funds is any less questionable.

Actually Rudy was asked specifically about this in the debate and he articularted very well all his other, non 9/11 credentials. Just because Rudy discusses 9/11 doesn't make him a one issue candidate, and its also far better than ignoring it like the Democrat candidates do. And comparing 9/11 rhetoric as being no worse than racist rhetoric is a little rediculous IMO.

[thatmariolover]

I'm not being "polar", I''m pointing our the obvious. If the sky is blue, you aren't polar for stating it. Given, Bill O'Reilly is rude, but their news people I don't find rude. And lets be honest, people rail against Fox for its bias, not its rudeness. The diference between CNN and Fox is that Fox is obvious and open about the messages their columnists send, while CNN hides them in selective reporting and manipulation.



Actually Rudy was asked specifically about this in the debate and he articularted very well all his other, non 9/11 credentials. Just because Rudy discusses 9/11 doesn't make him a one issue candidate, and its also far better than ignoring it like the Democrat candidates do. And comparing 9/11 rhetoric as being no worse than racist rhetoric is a little rediculous IMO.


The way you stated matters did seem pretty polar to me. It is polar to intentionally distance yourself from others simply because you disagree with them, which feels exactly like what your doing. Reading your political opinions feels just like what popular media keeps cramming down our throats - Democrats and Republicans can't get along.

As for Rudy being asked specifically about it, I obviously missed that. But my criticism of his 9/11 speech isn't that I think it makes him a single issue cantidate. My criticism comes in that he's giving the same speech for rediculous sums of money over and over - and frankly feels like he's capitalizing off of the death of three thousand people to get himself on the ballot. As for how sick I think that is - is Ron Paul going to high class dinners publically spouting racist rhetoric? No (even if he'd like to). If he was, that'd certainly be worse in my opinion. As to the lesser wrong of accepting campaign donations from such organizations, I do think Rudy is equally in the wrong of exploiting a tragedy for personal gain.

[Professor S]

The way you stated matters did seem pretty polar to me. It is polar to intentionally distance yourself from others simply because you disagree with them, which feels exactly like what your doing. Reading your political opinions feels just like what popular media keeps cramming down our throats - Democrats and Republicans can't get along.

If distancing myself from people is the equal of dissagreeing with them, then I guess I am. But as for Dems and GOP not getting along... have they been able to? Is there any evidence that they will or even want to get along? The truth is that the leadership of each party disagree fundamentally on just about EVERY SINGLE ISSUE. Name it: Taxes, abortion rights, foreiogn policy, economics, social issues... they don't agree on anything. Its bnot just a forced message, its pretty damn accurate.

As for Rudy being asked specifically about it, I obviously missed that. But my criticism of his 9/11 speech isn't that I think it makes him a single issue cantidate. My criticism comes in that he's giving the same speech for rediculous sums of money over and over - and frankly feels like he's capitalizing off of the death of three thousand people to get himself on the ballot. As for how sick I think that is - is Ron Paul going to high class dinners publically spouting racist rhetoric? No (even if he'd like to). If he was, that'd certainly be worse in my opinion. As to the lesser wrong of accepting campaign donations from such organizations, I do think Rudy is equally in the wrong of exploiting a tragedy for personal gain.

Now I see what you're saying, and I understand how you could feel that way.

[Jason1]

I watched for maybe 10 seconds, and they happened to cut to Chuck Norris in the audience for a split second. I figured it wouldnt get any better than that so I changed the channel.

[Professor S]

I watched for maybe 10 seconds, and they happened to cut to Chuck Norris in the audience for a split second. I figured it wouldnt get any better than that so I changed the channel.

Chuck Norris is a reason to watch the debate, because he'll roundhouse kick you in the head if you don't.

[thatmariolover]

I think there's a distinct difference between the political parties and those that generally side with one or the other. I think we can be civil, even if they clearly cannot. They agree on a lot of things, just not the things they disagree on (which is what everybody focuses on).

[Professor S]

I think there's a distinct difference between the political parties and those that generally side with one or the other. I think we can be civil, even if they clearly cannot. They agree on a lot of things, just not the things they disagree on (which is what everybody focuses on).

Well thats an interesting challenge. What do they agree on? I'm genuinely curious.

[thatmariolover]

All of the good stuff that sounds good in your head but sounds trite and cliche when you say it out loud. Freedom, justice, democracy. For the most part it's the method(s) that change(s) between parties, not the goal(s).

[Professor S]

All of the good stuff that sounds good in your head but sounds trite and cliche when you say it out loud. Freedom, justice, democracy. For the most part it's the method(s) that change(s) between parties, not the goal(s).

True, but the proof is in the pudding. Everyone wants what you've listed, the how you get there is where the irreparable split has taken place.

[manasecret]

Well... it certainly was interesting, even if unenlightening. The only thing that CNN proved last night is that they have a definite preformed idea of what they think the Republican Party is made of:

1) Gun nuts
2) Racist Confederate Flag Wavers
3) Bible Beaters

The questions that were chosen were so ignorant and without substance that the candidates essentially had to take them in different directions. Even Anderson Cooper had to add his own questions to them to make them halfway decent.

First off, here's the link to all of the questions and answers from the Republican YouTube debate.

http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate

Compare them to the questions at the Democratic debate.

http://www.youtube.com/democraticdebate

By reading the questions, I agree that overall the Republicans got some tougher questions. I didn't get to see the debate, but I'll be watching it on YouTube hopefully tonight.

Secondly, CNN didn't make up the questions, YouTube users did. If you thought they were "ignorant and without substance" then blame YouTube users, not CNN. And might I ask if you yourself submitted a question? If you had a problem with the questions, I suggest next time you do submit one. Isn't that the whole point?

You can say that CNN probably chose the ones to fulfill their agenda, but you don't know that they did or that they didn't (unless there's a link to all of the submitted questions that didn't get chosen?). To say something like "of course they did" just shows your bias against CNN and nothing else.

I read on CNN before the debate (unfortunately I can't find the link now) that they were choosing questions to represent subjects that a lot of the submitted questions had asked about. And it makes sense that the questions submitted were tougher for Republicans, considering some conservatives accuse YouTube of liberal bias (http://www.newsbusters.org/node/8355).

I personally don't like how CNN gets to choose the questions, because it certainly injects the possibility of CNN bias. Number one, that tarnishes the whole point of "us" asking the questions, instead of CNN, and number two it lets people like you write off the questions as CNN bias instead of YouTube user-bias -- or us-bias.

Now that the debate is over, I think they should release all of the submitted questions that didn't get chosen. That way we can see for ourselves if they chose a bunch of singular questions instead of questions more people asked. It would improve the debate format.

[Professor S]

Mana, I agree that they should release all of the questions, but that would likely be thousands to sift through. As for CNN bias, I'll once again point to the Hillary Clinton campaigner and committee leader that CNN chose to have a special LIVE forum during the debate. They deny knowledge of him being associated with the Clinton campaign, but thats seems like an AMAZING coincidence to me.

[manasecret]

About 5,000 questions actually. Not an inordinate amount. There would be enough people out there that would be willing to sift through them all and give their analysis of CNN's choices, that a consensus could be reached.

As for the Colonel, that seems to be another problem with the YouTube format. Since anyone can ask a question, anyone can ask! Including rival campaign plants. However, I watched his question, and he did ask a question through YouTube, two candidates responded, and then the Colonel got to respond to the responses. He did use his response time as a platform for his agenda, which you can tell Anderson Cooper wasn't really happy about and was forced to cut him short. But as I understand it, this was not a unique situation for the Colonel. CNN has invited other YouTubers who had their questions chosen to be present live at the debate to respond to the responses.

[thatmariolover]

Mana, I agree that they should release all of the questions, but that would likely be thousands to sift through. As for CNN bias, I'll once again point to the Hillary Clinton campaigner and committee leader that CNN chose to have a special LIVE forum during the debate. They deny knowledge of him being associated with the Clinton campaign, but thats seems like an AMAZING coincidence to me.

Frankly it looks as bad for Hillary as it does for CNN.

[Bond]

Fox news has reporters and hosts that are frequently rude, insulting, and hostile without provocation.
Sorry... I thought you were describing CNN's James Carville?

As for the bribes from white supremacists, I'm rather surprised it hasn't come up myself.
Abraham Lincoln was a Republican... Abraham Lincoln ended slavery... Republicans ended slavery... hmm...

[thatmariolover]

Ignore, duplicate post and for some reason I don't have deletion privileges on my own posts anymore.

[thatmariolover]

Sorry... I thought you were describing CNN's James Carville?


Abraham Lincoln was a Republican... Abraham Lincoln ended slavery... Republicans ended slavery... hmm...

For the first, you're right, and I hardly condone his attitude when he acts like that. But he's a far cry from Bill o' Reilly nine times out of ten.

But for the second, where did I state (or even imply) that accepting bribes from white supremacists had anything to do with being Republican? No need to get defensive about something I didn't even say.

[Bond]

For the first, you're right, and I hardly condone his attitude when he acts like that. But he's a far cry from Bill o' Reilly nine times out of ten.
I think if Carville had his own show he'd be just as bad as O'Reilly. But that being said, they're both awful.

But for the second, where did I state (or even imply) that accepting bribes from white supremacists had anything to do with being Republican? No need to get defensive about something I didn't even say.
I was just being an ass, sorry. But the whole white supremacist stigma that often goes along with Republicans irritates me so.

[Professor S]

I was pretty sure he was just referring to Ron Paul, who is by all association a shameless white supremacist. Michael Medved has called him out on this MULTIPLE times on his national radio show (6th in the nation overall) and Paul has never explained the donations or refused them. Its a definite problem that hasn.t been picked up on by major media for some odd reason.

Personally, I think media types protect Paul because he's a weird, fidgety, little man who makes wild claims and talks like a 1939 nazi sympathizing isolationist. Crazy is always good for ratings.

[Professor S]

This is what I'm talking about when it comes to Ron Paul

http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/25/rpb1/

Yeah, he's pretty much a scumbag.