GOP YouTube Debates

I saw most of it (work) and I have to say I think it was horribly run. CNN couldn't have screwed it up more. When they fail to notice that at least three questions were planted by Democratic candidates (Clinton, Edwards), something's very wrong. And most of the questions were horrible.
 
It was a terrible debate. Planted questions by committed Democratic voters, almost every single one too. CNN had knowledge of it, everyone knows it. They should just come clean.

As my brother says, CNN = Clinton News Network
 
[quote name='KingBroly']It was a terrible debate. Planted questions by committed Democratic voters, almost every single one too. CNN had knowledge of it, everyone knows it. They should just come clean.

As my brother says, CNN = Clinton News Network[/QUOTE]

Quit whining, the Democrats took questions during their youtube debate from Republicans. The problem is Republicans cannot handle anything beyond a softball lobbed by a carefully vetted crowd.
 
Jesus so a debate is a problem if Republicans are asked questions by people who identify as Democrats? Isn't that how it should be?

I didn't see it, and the horrible questions are one thing (and looking at them there are a couple pretty stupid ones), but legitimate questions asked by people with an opposing viewpoint is kinda how things should work (for both Democrats and Republicans).
 
[quote name='KingBroly']It was a terrible debate. Planted questions by committed Democratic voters, almost every single one too. CNN had knowledge of it, everyone knows it. They should just come clean.

As my brother says, CNN = Clinton News Network[/QUOTE]

Kool-AidMan.jpg


I like the *idea* of the debate, but it's a false premise when questions are selected rather than randomly chosen (after the silly questions/comments are removed). It's a facade of democracy in action as candidates face what "the people" think.

It's what "the people after CNN filtered through it" think.

There were some silly questions, and poor follow ups (though this debate is not prone to that sort of thing).

When John McCain grandstands about dining with the troops, claiming that they said to him "let us win," that's just some baby-kissin' glad-handin' bullshit. What does "win" mean for McCain? What benchmarks? Timeframes? Strategies and resources?

We never found out, as we were too busy watchin' Romney and Giuliani yuk it up over Yankees/Red Sox rivalry. Which is, I understand, more important than the war in Iraq.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

We never found out, as we were too busy watchin' Romney and Giuliani yuk it up over Yankees/Red Sox rivalry. Which is, I understand, more important than the war in Iraq.[/quote]Well.....yeah.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Jesus so a debate is a problem if Republicans are asked questions by people who identify as Democrats? Isn't that how it should be?[/QUOTE]

When these people are not just people off the street but actually on the payroll of Democratic candidates, yes, it does compromise the debate.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']When these people are not just people off the street but actually on the payroll of Democratic candidates, yes, it does compromise the debate.[/quote]

Which of the questions were those? I looked at the questions and while some looked stupid, I don't see how any of them were compromising.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']When these people are not just people off the street but actually on the payroll of Democratic candidates, yes, it does compromise the debate.[/QUOTE]


could i see these financial records that you have discovered, such a bold statement must have tons of evidence to back it up
 
It wouldnt resemble much of a debate if the Republicans fielded questions from strictly republican participants, it would look like a Skulls meeting.
 
People watch these things? Like anything coming out of their mouths means anything ? It's nothing more than free airtime for all of them.

It's a 2 hour long commercial that says "I have nice hair."
 
[quote name='pittpizza']It wouldnt resemble much of a debate if the Republicans fielded questions from strictly republican participants, it would look like a Skulls meeting.[/QUOTE]

You just described every single Bush public appearance.
 
I'm going to hazard a guess, since mslut has been on my ignore list for over a year now, that his reply was a one sentence, monosyllabic, dimwitted insult of sorts.

Am I close ?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I'm going to hazard a guess, since mslut has been on my ignore list for over a year now, that his reply was a one sentence, monosyllabic, dimwitted insult of sorts.

Am I close ?[/QUOTE]

Well, it was one sentence all right, but a few of the words had more than one syllable.

Anyway, there are plenty of articles written about the Clinton and Edwards plants, although the most egregious was a retired gay general who is on Clinton's payroll and worked for John Kerry's campaign in 2004...and who CNN flew to the debate at their expense to harangue the GOP candidates.
 
The purpose of a primary (Republican or Democrat) is for the party to collectively nominate their candidate for President. In many states (not all), only a registered Republican (or Democrat) can vote in that primary.

The debate was for Republicans to learn more about which candidate they should nominate... Not for opperatives of the other party to score points.


a little bit more info about the controversy, and where the planted questions came from.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20071130/cm_rcp/an_embarrassing_end_to_the_you

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314002,00.html
 
i dont mind democrats asking republican candidates questions, or vice versa, but plants are a little fishy. really though, i think it was a lot of bad questions and in turn bad answers. anyway, vote ron paul.
 
From evyrew's first op-ed link:

"More importantly, pause here and ask if we couldn't have gotten the best the YouTube debates gave us from any network moderator. At least with a moderator we would have been spared a partisan operative playing "gotcha" with the Republican candidates over "don't ask, don't tell." It's a perfectly legitimate question, just not when it comes from an undisclosed member of Hillary Clinton's gay and lesbian steering committee."

I'd like to ask a follow-up question: why?

I've read a little bit about how insidious these plants are, but not a single soul has pointed to how their questions are reinforcing that "gotcha" era of politics, sinister in that "have you stopped abusing your wife?" line of questioning, or anything else. Instead, people are outraged that people got to...ask questions. Big deal.

The irony that the Republican party represents people who deserve to be a "protected class" of sorts in the face of the portions of the population they've ostracized, alienated, and legally classified as second-class citizens is not lost on me. Perhaps some of you overlooked this as well?
 
Watching over the debates -- there were some just awful questions. Asking the candidates whether they thought the entire Bible was literal, that was just a weak question.

The only purported plant was the guy on Clinton's LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) Americans for Hillary Steeting Commitee, an openly gay former General in the US Army. The question was perfectly reasonable, but the fact that he's on a committee for Clinton is what pisses off the Republicans. Frankly, I don't care...again, the question was legit so unless they picked him specifically BECAUSE he was on Clinton's steering committee, I don't see what the big deal is.

EDIT: Added the word purported, since we have no idea if there was an actual plant, but that's who people claim.
 
That's another thing; if he's such a high-profile person in Clinton's committee, then it adds multiple layers to the "liberal media" conspiracy. Why wouldn't a very savvy "liberal media" find someone with a squeaky clean background to use as the plant, instead of someone who is "found out" the next morning?

I ultimately think my biggest problem with the whole thing is that it's people screaming and crying about the person asking the question, and people have either ignored or disregarded the fact that it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask a Republican candidate for President. Focus on killing the messenger, because you want to deflect from the substance of the question itself.
 
Here's an email I just got from Ron Paul:

December 3, 2007


Want to know a secret? There were two moments I especially enjoyed at the CNN/YouTube debate -- despite my frustration at some of the questions, and the maldistribution of time.

First, I was pleased at John McCain's attack, which he clearly had planned. Not because that sort of stream-of-consciousness nonsense about Hitler and WWII -- when the neocons openly want what they call WW IV! Are we to forget that the first war crime charged at Nuremberg was waging aggressive war?

I mean this: mainstream politicians NEVER attack an opponent they think is far behind. The McCain campaign, we've heard, is worried sick about New Hampshire, and they thought a slam at me would help. Ha! Of course,
it only strengthened our forces.

Then, after the debate, Rudy Giuliani walked up to me and said, "Oooh, you sure have a LOT of supporters." It's only the beginning, I told him.

Indeed, he could have told that by the crowd outside after the debate. Mitt Romney had a few people, but no one else did. We, on the other hand, had about 500 enthusiastic revolutionaries, plus a boat, a trolley, and two planes towing lighted signs. As I looked out at the crowd, I thought: the establishment has no idea of what they are facing. We have an army of freedom, prosperity, and peace. As the LA Times political blog noted the other day, the
British also thought they had no problem with the Americans--until Yorktown.

But we have an astoundingly short time before the first contests. The Iowa caucuses are on January 3, the New Hampshire primary is on January 8, and Nevada and South Carolina are both on January 19. We have only
30 days to stake our claim to the nomination, and to the new America that restores the ideals of the founders, and leads the world through free enterprise, a sound dollar, the rule of law, and peaceful example. Not through
inflation and bombs.

Help me surprise the neocons and all the establishment with our success. Help me build the foundation for the America we all want. Send your most generous contribution: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate. The military-industrial complex, the biased media, the big banks, the Fed, the waterboarders, and the IRS don't like what we're doing. But every good American is applauding us, and daring to hope for a better future.

Please, help me give it to them, to us, to all Americans to come. Keep this revolution growing and winning:
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate.

Sincerely,

Ron
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
edit:
[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0QpCs0XpRY[/MEDIA]
 
Okay then. Paul did a good job of keeping on message and got some good one-liners in. He also handled himself well when he was attacked by McCain -- he's right, it shows that McCain views him as a threat.

Honestly, I thought McCain performed the best throughout the night. Thompson, while I like him and all, took far too long to answer anything and while his answers were well thought out, he wasn't quick enough on his feet. Giuliani did...okay. Romney's like that girl with the curl -- when he was good he was very very good, but when he was bad he was horrid. Paul kept on message and reminded the libertarian wing why they liked him. Huckabee? Huckabee has figured out how to sell himself very well -- and it's starting to work. Most pundits keep claiming Huckabee won that debate, despite not providing nearly enough substance and proving once again that he's a strange neo-con like our fearless leader.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's another thing; if he's such a high-profile person in Clinton's committee, then it adds multiple layers to the "liberal media" conspiracy. Why wouldn't a very savvy "liberal media" find someone with a squeaky clean background to use as the plant, instead of someone who is "found out" the next morning?[/quote]

Because the damage has already been done, they could care less if he were "found out" the next morning or in the middle of asking the question. They've got a general, gayness, and supposed republican oppression laid out on the table regardless if they were the ones who helped plant him. The focus was to paint all republicans poorly, not determine any real differences between them. Just asking the question was the objective and got the intended result. They didn't expect an acceptable answer, or even an answer at all. Now they have people like you crying that they're attacking the messenger. They win !

I suppose it would be a reasonable question to ask any of the democrat candidates what their qualifications are for running a giant bureaucracy before handing the worlds most powerful one to them for 4 years. But you won't get that exact question, and you certainly would never get a straight answer, you'd get a heck of a lot of deflection there too, and another attack on the messenger as being a plant.

The problem with the Democrats is that their plants are mostly from the far left who feel left out of the presidential equation and not Republican hacks trying to disrupt their selection process.

Let's stop kidding ourselves by thinking these campaigns are straight talk express lines. They're theatre and long winded commercials for pre-packaged products that give us the visage of choosing our own "leaders". And be honest, none of these plants ever sway anyone. Anyone who cares that much has already chosen a side. You think it's going to make any voting republican change his mind and vote for Hillary? Their function is like a streaker on a football field who or some idiot who stands behind Bob Dylan at the Grammy Awards holding up a sign for his own political agenda. It's just a waste of time.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Because the damage has already been done, they could care less if he were "found out" the next morning or in the middle of asking the question. They've got a general, gayness, and supposed republican oppression laid out on the table regardless if they were the ones who helped plant him. The focus was to paint all republicans poorly, not determine any real differences between them. Just asking the question was the objective and got the intended result. They didn't expect an acceptable answer, or even an answer at all. Now they have people like you crying that they're attacking the messenger. They win ![/quote]

Personally, I'd rather have a discussion on the merits of barring open gays from the military than any amount of "zingers" or political theatre. I watch enough pro wrestling as it is, I don't need it on CNN.

Additionally, don't ask don't tell is a Clinton project, so it doesn't behoove them to bring it up (though, I suppose, getting Republicans to hem and haw about rescinding it is the point).

You tell me what I "want," eh? Here's what I want: for gays to no longer be second class citizens in this country; to fight and die no matter who they go home to, have breakfast with, or fuck, with no concern for the absurd, absurd, absurd arguments for why they should hide their identity or not enlist, or why they are incapable of performing at the levels of their straight allies.

That discussion can happen in the absence of planted questions, and that very discussion is being shoved to the background in favor of messenger-killing. As I first said, someone who is either not a plant, or a covert plant, would have allowed the discussion to take the center stage in debate, as opposed to what we're doing now, which is claiming that Republicans are a protected class that don't deserve to be exposed for their hatred and bigotries - and focusing on the delivery of the question instead of the substance.

We've thrown out the baby and are lapping up the bathwater, in short.

I suppose it would be a reasonable question to ask any of the democrat candidates what their qualifications are for running a giant bureaucracy before handing the worlds most powerful one to them for 4 years. But you won't get that exact question, and you certainly would never get a straight answer, you'd get a heck of a lot of deflection there too, and another attack on the messenger as being a plant.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, suggesting that only Democrats would be afraid of such a question.

The problem with the Democrats is that their plants are mostly from the far left who feel left out of the presidential equation and not Republican hacks trying to disrupt their selection process.
Click to expand...

Prove it. What's to be afraid of in that regard? If they're so easily exposed, then you should be thankful. It's the ones you can't identify that are the most sinister. C'mon, man...you know that.

Let's stop kidding ourselves by thinking these campaigns are straight talk express lines. They're theatre and long winded commercials for pre-packaged products that give us the visage of choosing our own "leaders".
Click to expand...

As evidenced by the eye-rolling "24" scenarios the Republican candidates use to reinforce torture (save for McCain, of course, but his kowtowing to the "revised" Military Commissions Act shows that he's a bullshitter when it comes to being against torture).
 
Paint them poorly, bmulligan? The questions the "democratic plants" asked did exactly what they were intended -- got the candidates to tell their base exactly what they want to hear about their views, that they're to the "right" of their Democratic counterparts. How does that hurt their cause?

If anything, responding to openly biased questions helps Republicans to show their base that they stick to their guns. Maybe instead of attacking those on the left who try to field questions to those on the right -- they should be openly seeking them. Especially people like Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee who are trying to prove their conservative bona fides.

Yes, the don't ask, don't tell responses proved a weakness in the GOP field -- especially considering that tolerance for same-sex marriage is becoming more and more pronounced -- BUT, perhaps these differences needed to be point out not just to the people watching the debates, but to the candidates so they have an opportunity to rethink/reexamine their views on the issues. I'm waiting to see someone come forrward and say that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a stupid policy and that unless it's changed so that no one in uniform is allowed to discuss their sexuality/sexual preference -- then it's a foolish policy (and as you can clearly tell...establishing a policy like that would be imposible to enforce and really poor form).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top