While watching the Democratic You Tube Debate and Puppet Show it became real obvious that the beanbags being thrown around then would be rocks when the Republicans took the stage. Consider the hate filled Daily Kos kiddies and the moderator, now there is your one degree of separation.
Don't you think, if CNN tried that, that the American people (and first of all, this bunch right here) would notice and call 'em on it? This is free CNN publicity for Republicans at the "cost" of a minimal risk of something allegedly "humiliating," like that stupid snowman, which I didn't mind that much. If they back out of this, it means they're scared of the other Republicans on the stage (not just Dr. Paul, either -- IMO they fear the ideas of both Hunter & Tancredo!).
As for CNN, imagine being them for a moment. You've been raked over the coals for the silliness of the Democrat debate. Do you really want to make yourselves look stupid and even-more-partisan at a Republican debate?
Trust me, you don't even want to hear how I'd truly "humilate" these characters (even the ones I happen to like, let alone the scaredy-cat RINOs!). I'm thinking 100 questions, SAT-style multiple choice with #2 pencils and plenty of proctors watching like hawks, on the subject of the Constitution, being suddenly sprung on all of 'em, all at once. Will there be some light moments? Probably. Is any debate a risk? Certainly. But if these people want us Republicans to be able to call the Democrats cowards for not debating on Fox, they need to get some consistent principles, and "grow a pair" soon. Otherwise, such an accusation will not pass the laugh-test with the American People, because they're wise to hypocrites and cowards this time. Thankfully...
JMR
I dunno sarc, looks to me like YouTube has become the Boob Tube of the 21st Century. Should the Republicans go on? Sure, free publicity. BUT, they should not let themselves be humiliated. As for your beloved Ron Paul, a real long shot.
I think that if I were CNN I'd be able to select some intelligent questions. In fact, I think the questions I selected would be better than the ones "professional" journalists think-up and spew.
I'm glad we agree that they should go on, and that they all have the ability to say the words, "that's a stupid question" if CNN picks a stupid question again. And it's not like I agree with Dr. Paul on every issue, either. Chances are, the moment I manage to get him elected, he's going to somehow start getting me angry "just because." ;) I like Colbert's "an enigma wrapped in a riddle nestled in a sesame seed bun of mystery" better than "a longshot." :)
Also, note the media bias in your Yahoo article. It dishonestly claims no widespread support for Dr. Paul in "polls," when what it means is no widespread support in CONVENTIONAL, landline-dependent, dinosaur-polls of the '70s and '80s. The "rest of the story," as Paul Harvey would say, is Dr. Paul's utter dominance of internet polls, both post-debate and just random internet polls, because of all us "spammers." This blatant bias is partly because the news media don't want to admit they could have been wrong/biased in their initial "it must be evil hackers & spammers" allegations.
The fun part of all this is that I was able, off the top of my head, to totally bust the Yahoo story's bias just then. Effortless...
JMR
I think that if I were CNN I'd be able to select some intelligent questions.
Certainly, they are able to select intelligent questions. They are even able to ask intelligent questions on their own without youtube user input. That isn't the question. The question is whether they will decide to select (what you and I would consider) intelligent questions. They don't seem to have made that decision with the Democrat debate, why should I think they will with a Republican debate?
P.S. I still think the Republicans should go there, and give them hell every time a stupid question is asked. Unfortunately, I don't really think any of the Republicans currently out there are willing to take what they consider the political risk of pointing out the stupidity of the questions.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
Yes. Or they should shut-up about the Democrats' Fox boycott. And no, I don't believe the "schedule" excuses from these cowards whose job is supposedly to be at debates like this, either...
JMR
Screw them. I am sick and tired of being the nice guy and "reaching accross the isle" to these back stabbing fools.
EDIT:
On second thought, if the Candidates got the type of questions we know they are going to get, they could use it to make the point how useless and biased theMSM is.
I can just hear it now. Criricisim about Hurricane Katrina will come in the form of "How could BUSH have done a better job..."
What was the highlight of the u-tube debate? The snowman.
Does anyone remember the candidates, or where the questioners the big deal?
Finally, did anyone really believe this was a Presidential debate? Because if it were, there would be more words about the debate, and fewer words about the forum.
A circus is designed to entertain and provide a distractraction. When the circus is over, we go back to reality. If Republicans are being asked to be sponsored by an internet phenom, then they could agree to a debate sponsored by Newsbusters, IMO.
Does anyone remember the candidates, or where the questioners the big deal?
This was a dem moron debate. Who in the news media today will be discussing their stupid responses? The conservative biased slaughters live on forever.
The obvious difference is play dems for president v. hunt the RNC.
They should go on.I know the Dems were afraid to go on Fox so dont emulate them.They can count on it being bias but as I have said before the media is and they deal with them .
I would also say that the Republican candidates shouldn't avoid any debate, but I watched the YouTube fiasco, and this wasn't a debate. It was a question and answer session at it's best, and there wasn't much best. Circus would be a better word. I was waiting for the Mini Cooper to drive out on stage so 20 more Democrat candidates could roll out honking horns and giving noogies to Mrs. Bill Clinton.
I can imagine a really good question, done in Kermie's voice and to the tune of his classic "It Isn't Easy Being Green" which might make fun of both the Democrats & the biased news media for desperately trying to ignore climate-evidence from other planets in our solar system in the climate change debate.
The trip to other planets could even include a bit of a "pigs in space" hat-tip, but with the implication that the pigs are the bipartisan pro-big-spending-faction currently in control of our government. The key would be making the song funny (something I might manage) and having decent Jim Henson like "cheap but good" production values (which would take actual talent).
JMR
Can you imagine the spending/tax-questions I'd have The Count asking these clowns?? I'm beginning to think a "Sesame Street debate" might actually be a good idea!
JMR
The long answer is why should the GOP monetarily benefit through a ratings spike two companies, i.e. CNN & Google (owns Youtube), who consistently give them bad press? Why should the candidates waste time with a bunch of inane questions that would not benefit the public in the decision making process when they could go to Fox News, Town Hall or MRC get a favorable viewing, meat and potatoes questions and the public get the straight scoop???? And just as importantly, financially benefit the sponsor and advertisers who support a fair and balanced representation of world and national events??? There is absolutely nothing in it for the GOP or the our agenda, the heck with false equality, giving driveling loons and their supporters equal time and money is stupid.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
The only thing I might mention is, that if they, the GOP, don't do the You Tube 'debate', they look like they are running from this opportunity like the Dems have from Fox News. In essence, they do this 'debate' format--they take the high ground and show they aren't backing down from squat.
My question would then be, could Fox News, Town Hall etc. dovetail with You Tube to do this goofy 'debate' format?
They should be willing to communicate no matter what the forum or audience. They should have the courage to identify a question as trivial, nonsensical, baited, etc... I think it sends a weak message if they refuse...kinda like the Dumbocrats avoiding FOX.
[I wish Fred would jump in and get in on it.]
If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG. Thompson/Rice
I guess I have been inspired by Patton too much...or more recently by the movie 300. Sometimes you have the face the enemy head on knowing that you may lose the battle, but in the bigger picture, win the war. Courage is never easy, but it is vital.
Winners never quit, quitters never win!!!
[btw, I highly recommend 300. I especially liked how the corrupt senator got dealt.]
If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG. Thompson/Rice
I think there is a difference between foolish and brave, it's called wasted effort which doesn't prove anything. It's just like equating suicidal and heroic, they aren't the same things. There is no point going on a fool's errand. A winner is smart enough to fight battles on the ground of their own choosing, not the enemy's.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
dscott, while your right to a point, these are not wasted efforts. One thing I learned after arriving in Germany in the mid 70's, was that we were there to delay any attack by the soviets. The forces in country were not enough to stop or repel. We were simply there to stall them till the forces could be moved into place. We were the "suicidal" or sacrificial lambs, so to speak. There are times that some must try to do the impossible to for the sake of all others. You cannot attribuite the term of suicidial to these people.
dscott...Again, it would only be foolish if they allow it. If they are incapable of raising the level of the debate no matter where it is, then they have no business being the POTUS. If they can go in and raise the bar, be firm and direct...that is strength.
Presidential candidates should be presidential. If they were competing on "Last comic standing" maybe they should stoop to the level of the dreck that would question them.
I'd rather have a dignified, strong, adult, principled candidate rather than one who panders to the likes of the democrat candidates and their puppet masters.
Unless conservative republicans screen the questions, it's a waste of time and a shameful degradation of the highest office in the land.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Did anyone else notice that Anderson Cooper wouldn't let the big three (Hill, B. Hussein, Edwards) answer the only decent questions of the evening? Kusinich's, and the like, positions on gun control and gay marriage are hardly relevant, right?
What's the point of having a youtube debate for the Republican candidates? The moderator would just keep asking the same question over and over again...
MC: "Why do you think Bush is the worst president in the history of the world?" "And let's get another angle. Why do you think Bush is the worst president in the history of the world?"
They would maybe pause for one question like, "Why does Bush hate children?" How pathetic, I can just picture it now... These idiots are so transparent.
I have no problem with Youtube but the question were vetted by CNN and you saw what kind of questions they used and how they manipulated them -- how do you think the republicans would fare with that kind of format from that network
“I would remind you
that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind
you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
As has been explained several times, this whole 'YouTube debate' thing is not novel, and not new. The injection of YouTube simply panders to an audience that--based on the ratings--does not care for pandering.
Let's have a serious conversation on the issues, with integrity, intellect, and grammar. Should regular people submit questions? Of course! That has been the case with every Presidential debate, so why change it now?
Besides, people expect more from Conservatives...leave the sideshows to the experts.
I think they should definately go on the debate. Anyone can hit an easy pitch out of the park, but you know that CNN would use liberal agenda questions that would be difficult for Republicans to respond to... unless they have the moxie to answer a questions with "what kind of idiot asks a question like that?" instead of "thank you for the great question."
I would love to see Fred Thompson get up and respond to some moronic Lib YouTuber's question the same way he responded to Michael Moore's jibes about his cigars. Responding to idiots by calling them out would be a much better debate than the niceties bestowed on uber-retard Chris Mathews.
It would be a huge mistake to boycott. It's petty and Democrat-like. They should go in saying, "yes, we know CNN is biased. Yes, we know the questions will sometimes be silly, but if and when they are too ridiculous to address seriously, we'll refuse to answer them."
How difficult is that?
And I'm personally tired of the "beneath the dignity of the office" comment. For one, none of these gentlemen is yet President. What's more, each and every one of them would appear on Letterman or Leno, or have already done so, and that was once considered beneath the dignity of the office to do.
Do the debate, hold CNN accountable for biases, and welcome hard-hitting questions from the right from Republican YouTubers.
Exactly what I posted below. Thanks Ken, I totally agree. It will show that the GOP will 'man up' when faced with a challenge as opposed to the Dem's of whom will always run.
Ken, it's not about CNN. It's about u-tube. The Repub candidates, I think, don't have an issue at all about appearing on CNN. It's the link to u-tube that's the problem. If you're a serious presidential contender, you really shouldn't be acquiesing to a setting that applies juvenile tactics (aka snowmen questioners). I don't think it's about bias or trying to avoid hard questions at all.
But frankly, IMO, all of these "debates" in this day and age are becoming too much of a "gotcha-and-debasing" environment. I don't understand what value is achieved by trying to answer a question such as "look at the candidate to your left and say one good thing and one bad thing about him". What value is that to this country? Unfortunately, even with just CNN (without u-tube), this type of question is all too common.
Exactly, and respectfully to Ken, the fact that the Dems engaged in childish behavior by boycotting Fox News and then expect the GOP candidates to go on CNN is enabling a double standard. The GOP has missed many opportunities in not holding the lib Dems to the exact same standards as demanded of the GOP by the lib Dems. The reason why lib Dems feel they can act in this irresponsible childish manner is because we, the GOP and Conservatives have enabled them to do so. I say no more free passes. If CNN wants the GOP candidates to go on their air time which is a financial benefit to CNN and their advertisers, then the Dems must first agree & go on Fox to reciprocate with their candidates before any GOP candidate debate goes anymore on CNN.
I'm not buying the going on Leno or King as some kind of precedence, because those are individual candidates making individual choices. We are talking about group decisions and not allowing one group to decide unilaterally what the ground rules are and who should observe them. If the GOP as a party is incapable of seeing the danger of letting others dictate the terms of behavior and allowing others to determine what behavior is acceptable, then they will fall for every Rope-A-Dope situation that comes down the pike. It's time to stop being suckers, being at the mercy of childish people and take back control of our own destiny. Anyone who can't do that is not fit to be POTUS, IMO. You are either a hapless victim of circumstance or master of your own fate.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
To all of the nay-sayers: Next time you whine about the Pubs not having backbone, remember what you asked for...if they cannot stand-up to You-tubers and CNN, how can they be expected to face a real threat.
If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG. Thompson/Rice
Respectfully LionKing, my reason as I explained in the Michelle Malkin blog in saying no was the fact that democrats look common when associating with the mob whether Cindy Sheehan or YouTube.
You are aware of the filth of sites like Huffington and KOS. You also know that the creatures lurking even on YouTube and MySpace end up in time being pedophiles, perverts and pornsters. If democrats want to be seen slumming with ilk and with dolts who could not find a voting booth because Mommy won't pay their allowance that week........then let them look like a mob.
I was advocating the dignity of keeping our candidates looking presidential. Why not with the WSJ changing hands have Republicans go on that site which as actual voters and numerous other sites where normal people hang out.
I used the analogy in True Grit in, "You have achieved nothing when you have bettered a fool". Why better YouTube or liberals, because we both know it accomplishes nothing. George Bush passed Kennedy's liberal school reform and increased every democrat program and they still hate him. They can not be convinced when even given all they want, because they need someone in power to make them think they have power.
My solution is simple. Let Republicans set their own stage so it is a real debate and not some internet geek whose question will begin with, "Republicans hate America, THE QUESTION about why democrats are more caring and end with, George Bush assassinated Tillman.
Facing that accomplishes nothing, but makes Republicans look common. Republicans need to be like Reagan in always looking presidential.
Thank you for your time and God bless. I too want the Republicans to fight, but to pick a fight to showcase who they are in being superior.
LC...I understand the concept of being presidential. Where and when should not dictate...just because there are many degenerates on the Web does not mean that all are that. YouTube has both good and bad...it is incumbent upon these Prez hopefuls to be able to raise the bar...raise the level of discussion...It is kinda like Jesus..he hung with the worst to try and raise them to a higher standard. These hopefuls should show up in suits, looking sharp...not like they are going to BBQ. They should be articulate and strong and direct. Avoiding them is just weak...I do not accept the guilt-by-assoication argument in this particular case.
Besides, it's almost an axiom of this site that ordinary citizens often know more about stories and ask better questions than overpaid "professional" journalists. I'm surprised at the reluctance shown by some to see if CNN can't do better given the probable quality of submissions they ignored last time and the hailstorm of critics WRT the silly choices. And I liked the guy last time with the rifle, anyway, it showed Biden's true colors, unlike the "mainstream" media will ever do with tough questions surrounding Dodd...
JMR
Actually, the CNN debate actually having questions and answers is a step up from what Congress considers to be debate. Have you ever watched C-SPAN? Most of their "debates" are nothing more than taking turns giving pre-written speeches without responding to anything the other side says.
By the way, I'm one of those minority who think Republicans should do the CNN debate. Even if the questions stink, they are coming from the people, and I think this Republican field is good at turning bad questions into good answers. Unlike the dems, who are still trying to figure out what they really meant to say, because they're trying to play both sides instead of showing leadership.
and politcal debates are not where YouTube belongs. They are a great gathering place for music, comedy, etc. but come on, when important topics start to imitate SNL skits, where will it stop
I can only imagine a voice at the closed door, saying "Warming, Warming" and when the door is opened, out jumps a looney lib asking what will you do to stop "Man Made Global Warming"
Democrats sell imagery and emotion and cater to the young and dumb. Republicans don't control academia or the media so they need to rely on fact and truth, which will eventually doom Democrats. BUT, unlike after the last Civil War, the Democratic Party must be dissovled for the good of all. As socialists, Democrats should like the sound of that!
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
}}}----> utube debate
August 3, 2007 - 02:31 ET by Cool ArrowStep boldly into the mouth of the CBS eye and kick sand into it, but don't debase yourselves with the inane theatre of clowns and sock puppets.
Take a stand against big government, intrusive and pushy neighbors, cowards, mewling educators, and comfortable beggars.
If you are unable to stand against all of these, well, send in the clowns. You're on your own, losers.
Jesus wondered around on streets, gop can youtube 4 free!
August 3, 2007 - 03:48 ET by upcountrywaterThe more time slots in which one can be visible, the better chance of some truth hopefully being exposed to the ignorant .
}}}----> Big mistake
August 3, 2007 - 04:14 ET by Cool ArrowThe Dem utube debate was High Mass compared to the Bert and Ernie show in store for the Repubs.
SNL in its heyday has nothing compared to the Lampooning Republicans will get. The Network and Moderator have the luxury of one degree of separation.
The anecdotal may make for great theatre, but it fosters the most obscene policy.
No to Republican You Tube ASSASINATION
August 3, 2007 - 06:56 ET by CTWhile watching the Democratic You Tube Debate and Puppet Show it became real obvious that the beanbags being thrown around then would be rocks when the Republicans took the stage. Consider the hate filled Daily Kos kiddies and the moderator, now there is your one degree of separation.
Don't you think, if CNN
August 3, 2007 - 07:09 ET by sarcasmoDon't you think, if CNN tried that, that the American people (and first of all, this bunch right here) would notice and call 'em on it? This is free CNN publicity for Republicans at the "cost" of a minimal risk of something allegedly "humiliating," like that stupid snowman, which I didn't mind that much. If they back out of this, it means they're scared of the other Republicans on the stage (not just Dr. Paul, either -- IMO they fear the ideas of both Hunter & Tancredo!).
As for CNN, imagine being them for a moment. You've been raked over the coals for the silliness of the Democrat debate. Do you really want to make yourselves look stupid and even-more-partisan at a Republican debate?
Trust me, you don't even want to hear how I'd truly "humilate" these characters (even the ones I happen to like, let alone the scaredy-cat RINOs!). I'm thinking 100 questions, SAT-style multiple choice with #2 pencils and plenty of proctors watching like hawks, on the subject of the Constitution, being suddenly sprung on all of 'em, all at once. Will there be some light moments? Probably. Is any debate a risk? Certainly. But if these people want us Republicans to be able to call the Democrats cowards for not debating on Fox, they need to get some consistent principles, and "grow a pair" soon. Otherwise, such an accusation will not pass the laugh-test with the American People, because they're wise to hypocrites and cowards this time. Thankfully...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Ron Paul? Yawn.
August 3, 2007 - 07:23 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsI dunno sarc, looks to me like YouTube has become the Boob Tube of the 21st Century. Should the Republicans go on? Sure, free publicity. BUT, they should not let themselves be humiliated. As for your beloved Ron Paul, a real long shot.
D
I don't support our liberals or their mission.
I think that if I were CNN
August 3, 2007 - 07:40 ET by sarcasmoI think that if I were CNN I'd be able to select some intelligent questions. In fact, I think the questions I selected would be better than the ones "professional" journalists think-up and spew.
I'm glad we agree that they should go on, and that they all have the ability to say the words, "that's a stupid question" if CNN picks a stupid question again. And it's not like I agree with Dr. Paul on every issue, either. Chances are, the moment I manage to get him elected, he's going to somehow start getting me angry "just because." ;) I like Colbert's "an enigma wrapped in a riddle nestled in a sesame seed bun of mystery" better than "a longshot." :)
Also, note the media bias in your Yahoo article. It dishonestly claims no widespread support for Dr. Paul in "polls," when what it means is no widespread support in CONVENTIONAL, landline-dependent, dinosaur-polls of the '70s and '80s. The "rest of the story," as Paul Harvey would say, is Dr. Paul's utter dominance of internet polls, both post-debate and just random internet polls, because of all us "spammers." This blatant bias is partly because the news media don't want to admit they could have been wrong/biased in their initial "it must be evil hackers & spammers" allegations.
The fun part of all this is that I was able, off the top of my head, to totally bust the Yahoo story's bias just then. Effortless...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I think that if I were CNN
August 3, 2007 - 13:50 ET by lnthompI think that if I were CNN I'd be able to select some intelligent questions.
Certainly, they are able to select intelligent questions. They are even able to ask intelligent questions on their own without youtube user input. That isn't the question. The question is whether they will decide to select (what you and I would consider) intelligent questions. They don't seem to have made that decision with the Democrat debate, why should I think they will with a Republican debate?
P.S. I still think the Republicans should go there, and give them hell every time a stupid question is asked. Unfortunately, I don't really think any of the Republicans currently out there are willing to take what they consider the political risk of pointing out the stupidity of the questions.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
Yes. Or they should shut-up
August 3, 2007 - 05:29 ET by sarcasmoYes. Or they should shut-up about the Democrats' Fox boycott. And no, I don't believe the "schedule" excuses from these cowards whose job is supposedly to be at debates like this, either...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Fight fire with fire, man
August 3, 2007 - 07:40 ET by Six String SpiffScrew them. I am sick and tired of being the nice guy and "reaching accross the isle" to these back stabbing fools.
EDIT:
On second thought, if the Candidates got the type of questions we know they are going to get, they could use it to make the point how useless and biased theMSM is.
I can just hear it now. Criricisim about Hurricane Katrina will come in the form of "How could BUSH have done a better job..."
Fight back, Republicans. FIGHT!
What the MSSM doesn't report can kill you.
The circus is in town
August 3, 2007 - 06:15 ET by ThisnThatWhat was the highlight of the u-tube debate? The snowman.
Does anyone remember the candidates, or where the questioners the big deal?
Finally, did anyone really believe this was a Presidential debate? Because if it were, there would be more words about the debate, and fewer words about the forum.
A circus is designed to entertain and provide a distractraction. When the circus is over, we go back to reality. If Republicans are being asked to be sponsored by an internet phenom, then they could agree to a debate sponsored by Newsbusters, IMO.
}}---> I'm with you TnT
August 3, 2007 - 06:35 ET by Cool ArrowIt was a farce.
The only response any of us will really remember is Biden's attack on the 2nd Amendment.
There was a different dynamic in play that wasn't quite so bad, though. Biden jumped higher than he normally would with a face to face question.
I just don't see how Republicans can profit from answering sock puppet questions chosen by a Democrat moderator.
YouTube
August 3, 2007 - 08:39 ET by JDWDoes anyone remember the candidates, or where the questioners the big deal?
This was a dem moron debate. Who in the news media today will be discussing their stupid responses? The conservative biased slaughters live on forever.
The obvious difference is play dems for president v. hunt the RNC.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
you tube debate
August 3, 2007 - 06:44 ET by DontabYes they should do the debate, as long as they can have real professionals asking serious questions!
They should go on.I know the
August 3, 2007 - 06:53 ET by well99They should go on.I know the Dems were afraid to go on Fox so dont emulate them.They can count on it being bias but as I have said before the media is and they deal with them .
No Way
August 3, 2007 - 06:56 ET by OldSailor88I would also say that the Republican candidates shouldn't avoid any debate, but I watched the YouTube fiasco, and this wasn't a debate. It was a question and answer session at it's best, and there wasn't much best. Circus would be a better word. I was waiting for the Mini Cooper to drive out on stage so 20 more Democrat candidates could roll out honking horns and giving noogies to Mrs. Bill Clinton.
Kermit the Frog
August 3, 2007 - 06:59 ET by P.J. GladnickOnly if they allow Kermit the Frog to be one of the questioners.
I can imagine a really good
August 3, 2007 - 08:02 ET by sarcasmoI can imagine a really good question, done in Kermie's voice and to the tune of his classic "It Isn't Easy Being Green" which might make fun of both the Democrats & the biased news media for desperately trying to ignore climate-evidence from other planets in our solar system in the climate change debate.
The trip to other planets could even include a bit of a "pigs in space" hat-tip, but with the implication that the pigs are the bipartisan pro-big-spending-faction currently in control of our government. The key would be making the song funny (something I might manage) and having decent Jim Henson like "cheap but good" production values (which would take actual talent).
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I would rather see the two
August 3, 2007 - 08:14 ET by gueinI would rather see the two grumpy old men in the balcony asking the questions. That would be must see TV.
Can you imagine the
August 3, 2007 - 09:04 ET by sarcasmoCan you imagine the spending/tax-questions I'd have The Count asking these clowns?? I'm beginning to think a "Sesame Street debate" might actually be a good idea!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
The "DeBait"
August 3, 2007 - 08:09 ET by mytwocentsThey might as well have Homer Simpson ask the questions. What a total waste of time and effort.
}}---> DeBait
August 3, 2007 - 08:16 ET by Cool ArrowI could produce the Lib version of this defacation of characters in about 5 minutes.
Each question begins with "Why do you hate ______?
The short answer is:
August 3, 2007 - 08:35 ET by dscottThe short answer is: NO!!!!!!!!!
The long answer is why should the GOP monetarily benefit through a ratings spike two companies, i.e. CNN & Google (owns Youtube), who consistently give them bad press? Why should the candidates waste time with a bunch of inane questions that would not benefit the public in the decision making process when they could go to Fox News, Town Hall or MRC get a favorable viewing, meat and potatoes questions and the public get the straight scoop???? And just as importantly, financially benefit the sponsor and advertisers who support a fair and balanced representation of world and national events??? There is absolutely nothing in it for the GOP or the our agenda, the heck with false equality, giving driveling loons and their supporters equal time and money is stupid.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Well...
August 3, 2007 - 09:39 ET by Sick-n-TiredThe only thing I might mention is, that if they, the GOP, don't do the You Tube 'debate', they look like they are running from this opportunity like the Dems have from Fox News. In essence, they do this 'debate' format--they take the high ground and show they aren't backing down from squat.
My question would then be, could Fox News, Town Hall etc. dovetail with You Tube to do this goofy 'debate' format?
simply put ...yes
August 3, 2007 - 08:39 ET by LionKingThey should be willing to communicate no matter what the forum or audience. They should have the courage to identify a question as trivial, nonsensical, baited, etc... I think it sends a weak message if they refuse...kinda like the Dumbocrats avoiding FOX.
[I wish Fred would jump in and get in on it.]
I agree with your comments
August 3, 2007 - 09:28 ET by steviep831I agree with your comments to a point. Some times there is just no way to "win" with the MSM. They would find a way to twist every word that was sad.
Too much Patton
August 3, 2007 - 09:46 ET by LionKingI guess I have been inspired by Patton too much...or more recently by the movie 300. Sometimes you have the face the enemy head on knowing that you may lose the battle, but in the bigger picture, win the war. Courage is never easy, but it is vital.
Winners never quit, quitters never win!!!
[btw, I highly recommend 300. I especially liked how the corrupt senator got dealt.]
I think there is a
August 3, 2007 - 09:52 ET by dscottI think there is a difference between foolish and brave, it's called wasted effort which doesn't prove anything. It's just like equating suicidal and heroic, they aren't the same things. There is no point going on a fool's errand. A winner is smart enough to fight battles on the ground of their own choosing, not the enemy's.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
dscott, while your right to
August 3, 2007 - 10:00 ET by bassndudedscott, while your right to a point, these are not wasted efforts. One thing I learned after arriving in Germany in the mid 70's, was that we were there to delay any attack by the soviets. The forces in country were not enough to stop or repel. We were simply there to stall them till the forces could be moved into place. We were the "suicidal" or sacrificial lambs, so to speak. There are times that some must try to do the impossible to for the sake of all others. You cannot attribuite the term of suicidial to these people.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
foolishness
August 3, 2007 - 11:04 ET by LionKingdscott...Again, it would only be foolish if they allow it. If they are incapable of raising the level of the debate no matter where it is, then they have no business being the POTUS. If they can go in and raise the bar, be firm and direct...that is strength.
Absolutely Not
August 3, 2007 - 08:51 ET by HelenSPresidential candidates should be presidential. If they were competing on "Last comic standing" maybe they should stoop to the level of the dreck that would question them.
I'd rather have a dignified, strong, adult, principled candidate rather than one who panders to the likes of the democrat candidates and their puppet masters.
Unless conservative republicans screen the questions, it's a waste of time and a shameful degradation of the highest office in the land.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Did anyone else notice that
August 3, 2007 - 09:03 ET by rustylynnDid anyone else notice that Anderson Cooper wouldn't let the big three (Hill, B. Hussein, Edwards) answer the only decent questions of the evening? Kusinich's, and the like, positions on gun control and gay marriage are hardly relevant, right?
What's the point of having
August 3, 2007 - 09:26 ET by steviep831What's the point of having a youtube debate for the Republican candidates? The moderator would just keep asking the same question over and over again...
MC: "Why do you think Bush is the worst president in the history of the world?" "And let's get another angle. Why do you think Bush is the worst president in the history of the world?"
They would maybe pause for one question like, "Why does Bush hate children?" How pathetic, I can just picture it now... These idiots are so transparent.
CNN & Youtube
August 3, 2007 - 09:28 ET by paulnashtnI have no problem with Youtube but the question were vetted by CNN and you saw what kind of questions they used and how they manipulated them -- how do you think the republicans would fare with that kind of format from that network
“I would remind you
that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind
you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
No, and here's why...
August 3, 2007 - 10:29 ET by GordyAs has been explained several times, this whole 'YouTube debate' thing is not novel, and not new. The injection of YouTube simply panders to an audience that--based on the ratings--does not care for pandering.
Let's have a serious conversation on the issues, with integrity, intellect, and grammar. Should regular people submit questions? Of course! That has been the case with every Presidential debate, so why change it now?
Besides, people expect more from Conservatives...leave the sideshows to the experts.
YouTube...geesh!
-gordy.
I think they should
August 3, 2007 - 10:55 ET by BruzillaI think they should definately go on the debate. Anyone can hit an easy pitch out of the park, but you know that CNN would use liberal agenda questions that would be difficult for Republicans to respond to... unless they have the moxie to answer a questions with "what kind of idiot asks a question like that?" instead of "thank you for the great question."
I would love to see Fred Thompson get up and respond to some moronic Lib YouTuber's question the same way he responded to Michael Moore's jibes about his cigars. Responding to idiots by calling them out would be a much better debate than the niceties bestowed on uber-retard Chris Mathews.
It would be a huge mistake
August 3, 2007 - 11:20 ET by Ken ShepherdIt would be a huge mistake to boycott. It's petty and Democrat-like. They should go in saying, "yes, we know CNN is biased. Yes, we know the questions will sometimes be silly, but if and when they are too ridiculous to address seriously, we'll refuse to answer them."
How difficult is that?
And I'm personally tired of the "beneath the dignity of the office" comment. For one, none of these gentlemen is yet President. What's more, each and every one of them would appear on Letterman or Leno, or have already done so, and that was once considered beneath the dignity of the office to do.
Do the debate, hold CNN accountable for biases, and welcome hard-hitting questions from the right from Republican YouTubers.
Mr. Shepherd...
August 3, 2007 - 11:26 ET by LionKingThank you for so eloquently stating what I ahve been trying to communicate in related posts.
[btw, I am still miffed at you about moderating my post the other day. ;-) ]
Bingo!
August 3, 2007 - 11:29 ET by Sick-n-TiredExactly what I posted below. Thanks Ken, I totally agree. It will show that the GOP will 'man up' when faced with a challenge as opposed to the Dem's of whom will always run.
It's not CNN
August 4, 2007 - 08:49 ET by ThisnThatKen, it's not about CNN. It's about u-tube. The Repub candidates, I think, don't have an issue at all about appearing on CNN. It's the link to u-tube that's the problem. If you're a serious presidential contender, you really shouldn't be acquiesing to a setting that applies juvenile tactics (aka snowmen questioners). I don't think it's about bias or trying to avoid hard questions at all.
But frankly, IMO, all of these "debates" in this day and age are becoming too much of a "gotcha-and-debasing" environment. I don't understand what value is achieved by trying to answer a question such as "look at the candidate to your left and say one good thing and one bad thing about him". What value is that to this country? Unfortunately, even with just CNN (without u-tube), this type of question is all too common.
When Hillary goes on Fox...then do the Tube
August 3, 2007 - 11:43 ET by JayTeeSee who Blinks first......When Hillary and company go on a Fox News station, then the Repubs should do the Tube...not until
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Exactly, and respectfully
August 3, 2007 - 12:24 ET by dscottExactly, and respectfully to Ken, the fact that the Dems engaged in childish behavior by boycotting Fox News and then expect the GOP candidates to go on CNN is enabling a double standard. The GOP has missed many opportunities in not holding the lib Dems to the exact same standards as demanded of the GOP by the lib Dems. The reason why lib Dems feel they can act in this irresponsible childish manner is because we, the GOP and Conservatives have enabled them to do so. I say no more free passes. If CNN wants the GOP candidates to go on their air time which is a financial benefit to CNN and their advertisers, then the Dems must first agree & go on Fox to reciprocate with their candidates before any GOP candidate debate goes anymore on CNN.
I'm not buying the going on Leno or King as some kind of precedence, because those are individual candidates making individual choices. We are talking about group decisions and not allowing one group to decide unilaterally what the ground rules are and who should observe them. If the GOP as a party is incapable of seeing the danger of letting others dictate the terms of behavior and allowing others to determine what behavior is acceptable, then they will fall for every Rope-A-Dope situation that comes down the pike. It's time to stop being suckers, being at the mercy of childish people and take back control of our own destiny. Anyone who can't do that is not fit to be POTUS, IMO. You are either a hapless victim of circumstance or master of your own fate.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
nay-sayers!!!
August 3, 2007 - 12:09 ET by LionKingTo all of the nay-sayers: Next time you whine about the Pubs not having backbone, remember what you asked for...if they cannot stand-up to You-tubers and CNN, how can they be expected to face a real threat.
Respectfully
August 3, 2007 - 15:12 ET by Lame CherryRespectfully LionKing, my reason as I explained in the Michelle Malkin blog in saying no was the fact that democrats look common when associating with the mob whether Cindy Sheehan or YouTube.
You are aware of the filth of sites like Huffington and KOS. You also know that the creatures lurking even on YouTube and MySpace end up in time being pedophiles, perverts and pornsters. If democrats want to be seen slumming with ilk and with dolts who could not find a voting booth because Mommy won't pay their allowance that week........then let them look like a mob.
I was advocating the dignity of keeping our candidates looking presidential. Why not with the WSJ changing hands have Republicans go on that site which as actual voters and numerous other sites where normal people hang out.
I used the analogy in True Grit in, "You have achieved nothing when you have bettered a fool". Why better YouTube or liberals, because we both know it accomplishes nothing. George Bush passed Kennedy's liberal school reform and increased every democrat program and they still hate him. They can not be convinced when even given all they want, because they need someone in power to make them think they have power.
My solution is simple. Let Republicans set their own stage so it is a real debate and not some internet geek whose question will begin with, "Republicans hate America, THE QUESTION about why democrats are more caring and end with, George Bush assassinated Tillman.
Facing that accomplishes nothing, but makes Republicans look common. Republicans need to be like Reagan in always looking presidential.
Thank you for your time and God bless. I too want the Republicans to fight, but to pick a fight to showcase who they are in being superior.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
LC...
August 3, 2007 - 15:22 ET by LionKingLC...I understand the concept of being presidential. Where and when should not dictate...just because there are many degenerates on the Web does not mean that all are that. YouTube has both good and bad...it is incumbent upon these Prez hopefuls to be able to raise the bar...raise the level of discussion...It is kinda like Jesus..he hung with the worst to try and raise them to a higher standard. These hopefuls should show up in suits, looking sharp...not like they are going to BBQ. They should be articulate and strong and direct. Avoiding them is just weak...I do not accept the guilt-by-assoication argument in this particular case.
Besides, it's almost an
August 3, 2007 - 17:02 ET by sarcasmoBesides, it's almost an axiom of this site that ordinary citizens often know more about stories and ask better questions than overpaid "professional" journalists. I'm surprised at the reluctance shown by some to see if CNN can't do better given the probable quality of submissions they ignored last time and the hailstorm of critics WRT the silly choices. And I liked the guy last time with the rifle, anyway, it showed Biden's true colors, unlike the "mainstream" media will ever do with tough questions surrounding Dodd...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
The modern debate
August 3, 2007 - 20:26 ET by kbielefeActually, the CNN debate actually having questions and answers is a step up from what Congress considers to be debate. Have you ever watched C-SPAN? Most of their "debates" are nothing more than taking turns giving pre-written speeches without responding to anything the other side says.
By the way, I'm one of those minority who think Republicans should do the CNN debate. Even if the questions stink, they are coming from the people, and I think this Republican field is good at turning bad questions into good answers. Unlike the dems, who are still trying to figure out what they really meant to say, because they're trying to play both sides instead of showing leadership.
YouTube has its place
August 4, 2007 - 18:47 ET by ThreePuttinDudeand politcal debates are not where YouTube belongs. They are a great gathering place for music, comedy, etc. but come on, when important topics start to imitate SNL skits, where will it stop
I can only imagine a voice at the closed door, saying "Warming, Warming" and when the door is opened, out jumps a looney lib asking what will you do to stop "Man Made Global Warming"
YouTube, stay where you belong.
UTeleTubbies
August 5, 2007 - 21:18 ET by j17ghsDemocrats sell imagery and emotion and cater to the young and dumb. Republicans don't control academia or the media so they need to rely on fact and truth, which will eventually doom Democrats. BUT, unlike after the last Civil War, the Democratic Party must be dissovled for the good of all. As socialists, Democrats should like the sound of that!
Do the Debate
August 5, 2007 - 21:41 ET by pbthinkerDo the debate but, only if they let Glenn Beck pick the questions, since he's the closest thing to a Conservative CNN has.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
GOP candidates have backbones???
August 7, 2007 - 19:23 ET by LionKingThe GOP candidates appear to be finding some backbone with the YouTube debate.
Maybe they actually pay attention to what is said in the blogosphere.