What if it is?


The "Gay General" has the blogosphere's pajama's in a bunch. He works for Hillary.

not sure how finding out who the guy was that asked the question negates the reaction to said question

pacino wrote:not sure how finding out who the guy was that asked the question negates the reaction to said question

The reaction to the question isn't relevant to the complaint. It's just dirty looking in the pattern of the other Clinton question planters that have already been identified. Supposedly he was shown favoritism as well, being the only questioner who was allowed a rebuttal question.

Unless I missed it, there was not one question on the environment. CNN must have decided this was just a Democratic isuue.

Goomeister wrote:Unless I missed it, there was not one question on the environment. CNN must have decided this was just a Democratic isuue.

or education, or healthcare

The entire format was stupid.

Someone on National Review suggested they take all of the questions submitted for the Democrat debate and ask them to the Republicans, and vice versa.

That's not only be telling but a very facinating thing to watch.

I didn't watch the debate because watching college basketball is a way better usage of my time, but if CNN really didn't ask a health care question, that's inexcusable.

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:not sure how finding out who the guy was that asked the question negates the reaction to said question

The reaction to the question isn't relevant to the complaint. It's just dirty looking in the pattern of the other Clinton question planters that have already been identified. Supposedly he was shown favoritism as well, being the only questioner who was allowed a rebuttal question.

Well I think it is only shady if the Clinton's convinced CNN to pick his questions from the thousands submitted, which is not altogether unlikely. He was not though the only one allowed a rebuttal. I believe he was just the only person who when asked if the candidates answered his question, said no.

VoxOrion wrote:The entire format was stupid.

Someone on National Review suggested they take all of the questions submitted for the Democrat debate and ask them to the Republicans, and vice versa.

That's not only be telling but a very facinating thing to watch.

I agree that this would be a much more useful and interesting thing to watch. But I really fault the question pickers here. I'm sure tons of Democrats submitted questions to be asked as well but all the questions seemed to be designed to just pander to the base (that kid with the Confederate flag was ridiculous and was Romney's only answer that I liked). It just seemed like the Republicans were less receptive to this concept and treated this like any other debate. Then again, I didn't watch all the Democratic debate back in July because it was the day before the bar exam.

How isn't it shady to have employees from the opposition campaign masquerading as a "regular joe" and asking debate questions? The fact that it's the same opposition campaign that's been busted screwing around with other debates makes it even more scumbagilicious.

Anderson Cooper and CNN seem to be a bit squeemish about it...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28CCf4cEDpI[/youtube]

kimbatiste wrote:I agree that this would be a much more useful and interesting thing to watch. But I really fault the question pickers here. I'm sure tons of Democrats submitted questions to be asked as well but all the questions seemed to be designed to just pander to the base (that kid with the Confederate flag was ridiculous and was Romney's only answer that I liked). It just seemed like the Republicans were less receptive to this concept and treated this like any other debate. Then again, I didn't watch all the Democratic debate back in July because it was the day before the bar exam.

It's funny, the vibe I got from this side of the aisle was completely different. The questions seemed to be selected with the same old Republican hack stereotypes in mind. Hence the lack of questions on healthcare and the environment and the preponderance of guns, gays, and bibles.

I don't find it shady because I think it is a valid question that was not targeted to anyone in particular as hatchet job. I guess what I'm saying is that if anyone else asked the question would anyone have given it a second thought? I thought it was a more interesting way to address the status of homosexuals instead of another gay marriage question. If a Ron Paul staffer had asked the Democrats this question, I would still be legitimately interested to hear their answers.

VoxOrion wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:I agree that this would be a much more useful and interesting thing to watch. But I really fault the question pickers here. I'm sure tons of Democrats submitted questions to be asked as well but all the questions seemed to be designed to just pander to the base (that kid with the Confederate flag was ridiculous and was Romney's only answer that I liked). It just seemed like the Republicans were less receptive to this concept and treated this like any other debate. Then again, I didn't watch all the Democratic debate back in July because it was the day before the bar exam.

It's funny, the vibe I got from this side of the aisle was completely different. The questions seemed to be selected with the same old Republican hack stereotypes in mind. Hence the lack of questions on healthcare and the environment and the preponderance of guns, gays, and bibles.

It's what you get when Democrats pick the questions they think Republicans would be interested in. No malicious intent. Just embarrassing for CNN/YouTube or whoever was picking them.

VoxOrion wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:I agree that this would be a much more useful and interesting thing to watch. But I really fault the question pickers here. I'm sure tons of Democrats submitted questions to be asked as well but all the questions seemed to be designed to just pander to the base (that kid with the Confederate flag was ridiculous and was Romney's only answer that I liked). It just seemed like the Republicans were less receptive to this concept and treated this like any other debate. Then again, I didn't watch all the Democratic debate back in July because it was the day before the bar exam.

It's funny, the vibe I got from this side of the aisle was completely different. The questions seemed to be selected with the same old Republican hack stereotypes in mind. Hence the lack of questions on healthcare and the environment and the preponderance of guns, gays, and bibles.

To be honest though we had the same impression, the only difference was our perception of Republicans I suppose. I agree that all the questions were about guns, gay and bibles (this book, THIS book) but I see that as pandering to the base.

By the way, I say pandering to the base because it has become a phrase meaning the religious Republicans. I actually believe that the majority, i.e. the real base of the Republican party are those who are slightly conservative socially but don't really care all that much. They are republicans mostly because they are fiscally conservative. How the religious has taken over the party still escapes and I hope it ends with the Bush presidency because it is not good for any of us.

kimbatiste wrote:I don't find it shady because I think it is a valid question that was not targeted to anyone in particular as hatchet job. I guess what I'm saying is that if anyone else asked the question would anyone have given it a second thought? I thought it was a more interesting way to address the status of homosexuals instead of another gay marriage question. If a Ron Paul staffer had asked the Democrats this question, I would still be legitimately interested to hear their answers.

The question is irrelevant to the complaint.

kimbatiste wrote:By the way, I say pandering to the base because it has become a phrase meaning the religious Republicans. I actually believe that the majority, i.e. the real base of the Republican party are those who are slightly conservative socially but don't really care all that much. They are republicans mostly because they are fiscally conservative. How the religious has taken over the party still escapes and I hope it ends with the Bush presidency because it is not good for any of us.

So wait, the majority of Republicans are not religious nuts but the religious nuts have taken over the party?

The coalition between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are fracturing. The two were able to live together and support each other's goals through the 80's and 90's, not so much anymore. I also think the fiscal conservatives have thrown up their hands and given up - this may be part of what's reflected in the recent data showing that the Democrat Party is the new party of the rich.

VoxOrion wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:By the way, I say pandering to the base because it has become a phrase meaning the religious Republicans. I actually believe that the majority, i.e. the real base of the Republican party are those who are slightly conservative socially but don't really care all that much. They are republicans mostly because they are fiscally conservative. How the religious has taken over the party still escapes and I hope it ends with the Bush presidency because it is not good for any of us.

So wait, the majority of Republicans are not religious nuts but the religious nuts have taken over the party?

I'm not sure what's off or even surprising about this statement. The religious Republicans, though not in the majority, have proven themselves to be a more cohesive and better organized group and as such have claimed a bigger voice in the party then they numbers-wise deserve. Look at what the Republican primary has been reduced to. It's a competition to see who can come off as the most socially conservative.

Look at it this way: There are 19 million people in New York. Let's say that 45% of those people are republicans that is roughly 8.5 million republicans. Virginia has a population of about 8 million about half of which are Republicans so 4 million people. But the Virginia Republicans have much more sway within the overall party because that is a state they can actually win. So yes, the 4 million religious republicans in Virginia hold more power then the majority of fiscally conservative Republicans.

I get you. I disagree with your assessment, but I'm too tired to get into it (and it's not one of those things either of us can prove, I just disagree).

Does it even matter who we vote for anymore? There is no real difference between any of these candidates. The little things we see won't matter overall. They all toe the party line. They say whatever they can to get people to vote for them. Nothing of serious note really differentiates these candidates from me except for Paul and Kucinich.

Look at Vox. People don't care who is president. They care who is not president. He doesn't want to have a Democrat as president, so he pulls the conservative lever. What if it was Pat Robertson or Bill Donahue on the republican ticket? It doesn't matter as long as it isn't a democrat.

Disco Stu wrote:Look at Vox. People don't care who is president. They care who is not president. He doesn't want to have a Democrat as president, so he pulls the conservative lever. What if it was Pat Robertson or Bill Donahue on the republican ticket? It doesn't matter as long as it isn't a democrat.

You're choosing to see it as a party versus party, somehow denying that there won't be fundamental differences between whoever wins the GOP nomination and whoever wins the Democrat nomination. In primaries, of course the candidates are similar - by definition they will be. The general election is what matters in terms of choosing between the individual platforms. You're confusing choosing between candidates in a primary and choosing between candidates in a general election.

I can't imagine any of the Republican candidates appealing to me to the point where I am a big supporter of any of them. That's life - if anything it's naive to expect that every four years someone whose politics line up perfectly with yours will be available as a candidate - it just doesn't happen that way. It's a weak field on both sides.

No matter what, however, that weak field presents stronger options to me than the alternative: Clinton or Obama. Those two candidates both have platforms that I strongly dislike... my "right" as a voter, and the purpose of my being allowed a choice between them.

I know, with absolute certainty, that Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, or McCain will run on a platform that most closely aligns with what I care about in politics. Aside from Giuliani, I also know that none of them stands against anything that I care about. Furthermore, I know that I agree with little (or nothing, in the case of Clinton) that the Democrats will run on.

Despite my frustration, I will be voting for the candidate that most reflects my political viewpoint. I will not be walking into a booth saying "Gotta vote Republican, doesn't matter what they or the other guy stands for."

What you present is an idea that has never existed: Voting only for the candidate you strongly support or... what, not voting? Voting for the candidate whose positions you can't stand?