Republican YouTube Debate

totally agree, but to me, the more disturbing thing was seeing romney get out his dancing shoes whenever a tough question came his way. And the waterboarding, Jesus, what the fuck is wrong with people who support that. I may not like McCain too much, but at least he had the balls to say no to it.

Romney's so worried about another question boiling down to him being Mormon, the guy's turned into a rhetorical Fatima Robinson.

I am more worried about CNN's onscreen approval meter. It made me feel like I was playing Debate Hero.

Agreed.

I love how the networks are giving Ron Paul the same amount of coverage they're giving the writer's strike.

I'd so play Debate Hero. I imagine on Hard you'd have to debate the merits of pedophilia, but as long as you hit the beats right you'll get the crowd to chant along. "FUCK KIDS! FUCK KIDS!"

CNN's stepped in it.
Retired General Plant - 3 others plants

The whole retired general thing and the media's response to it is disgusting and obvious. The question he asked was relevant and important, the answers he got were muddled and confusing. What does the media focus on? The guy might have once worked for HRC, so obviously the question was biased and never should have been asked. WTF!! The delusional SOBs that make up our government and the media should be fucking shot in their god-damned smug mother-fucking faces. I would then personally rape their face-holes and shoot my goopy load all over their exposed brainstems.

I don't get it. Is it actually against the rules for anyone who has supported a particular candidate to ask questions at the debate? Because that's pretty damn stupid if you ask me. I'd actually prefer to see debates where the Democratic candidates had to field questions from Republican voters and vice versa.

That's crazy talk. What business do politicians have addressing the opposition's arguments? Only by preaching to the choir can progress ever be achieved.

its all a joke to me anyways

That's not for the Primary elections, its for the General election. The Primary elections are for Republicans and undecided's or Democrats and undecided's for the other guy's debates. Remember, we're not just talking about the General's question now we're talking about 3 other plants that were decided for Obama and Edwards. You can honestly sit there and say if this didn't happen at a Democrat debate, on Fox News with known republican supporters you wouldn't be blowing up? The purpose behind this is integrity. CNN obviously doesn't have any and I would boycot any CNN debate for the upcoming elections if I were a Republican or Democrat Presidential candidate(see how they had Clinton campaign people give post after the dem debate)

I can't seem to find the actual video of the questions through that link. But here's the thing: I don't think someone who sneaks past the censors to ask a presidential candidate a policy-based question in a public arena is a "plant". A plant is someone who one campaign sneaks in to either attack a particular candidate personally or lob a softball at their candidate. The latter is what Hilary was accused of recently, and while I think its a fucking weak thing to do, I'm not under any illusion that it's at all unusual.

Also, unfortunately, we have a word for boycotting all cable news channels that lack integrity. It's called "conceding".

With the exception of Ron Paul, all the Republican candidates should skip the debate, whip their dicks out, and just measure. That's all they've been doing figuratively.

It's not that the issue of the "plants" isn't a legitimate issue, but it's very, very minor, considering that all of them asked legitimate questions. And I don't think it has to do with the "integrity" of CNN, so much as their relative inability to screen YouTube questioners.

Nice way to avert the truth. Quibble about the word "plant" all you want or you could just become informed and get a dictonary. (Hint, the word is used correctly).

Remember, the Republicans balked the last YouTube debate because they had concerns, I think they've been proven right. CNN dropped the ball in their vetting process or they didn't and intended for known supporters to ask questions either way they've lost journalistic integrity which is KEY in holding acceptable debates.

Try stepping back from this as a Republican or a Democrat and look at it objectivly. CNN screwed up and they screwed up with their post show for the Democratic debate in Las Vegas. You think if Obama, Edwards or anyone but Hillary wins the nom they'll be holding debates at CNN? Both the Republican and the Democratic candidates have to agree on the number of debates, the format and who the moderator will be and CNN will be left off the list.

Press Release: General named co-chair of Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary Committee on November 11th

Yeah, that "valuable question time" spent dodging the issues.

So now I guess we have to ask all the media pundits who ask questions at the debates what their party affiliation is, right? I mean, if Wolf Blitzer is a Democrat how can he possibly be allowed to ask the Republicans questions, and vice-versa?

Meanwhile, the urgent issues facing this country -- the economy's downward spiral, the climate crisis, etc -- were MIA. Republicans are very creepy about the whole immigration thing and it's a shame that all the GOP candidates have caved to racist hysteria.

Plus, why is religion such a big thing in these stupid debates? I wish someone would pull out Thomas Jefferson's letter about the wall of separation between church and state and read it aloud. Thanks the total deterioration of education in this country, people don't seem to know that the founders never intended for America to become a theocracratic state. The only one with the stones to do it is Ron Paul, but he falls on the opposite ideological side of Jefferson wrt church involvement in state affairs.

The marriage of Christian Extremists to the constantly right-sliding Republican party is such an odd marriage. It's almost like the only place they really agree is intolerance towards all who disagree and endless arrogance. What happened to the days when Christianity was about helping people and Conservatism was about smaller government?

Where does it say they were plants? I see no mention of the Democratic party setting this up, I see American voters asking questions of their presidential candidates. And who can blame them? I have questions for Republican candidates too: the first would be, "Hurts, doesn't it?".


Okay.

Some guy's complaining because politicians were put on the spot by being asked questions by those who do not support them. He thinks this is a bad thing. Apparently the media is not only supposed to provide a venue for debates but now has to see to it the participants are only asked the questions they want to answer.


I'd be mocking the questioners for being doofii, actually. That's what Republican supporters are: doofii. It wouldn't occur to me to complain about their having the nerve to ask questions of Democrats. In fact, I'd probably applaud their having the initiative to go to the source rather than find out what the opposition is thinking by reading, say, Michelle Malkin.

Then I'd laugh at the absurdity of the question, because it's bound to be absurd. Something about hair or the size of airplanes or how high Al Gore's power bill is. Then I'd come back here and point out that you're justifying your outrage by making stuff up about things that didn't happen. When the SS starts dragging people out of Democratic speeches for practicing dissent in total silence, then you'll have something real to talk about.

Of course, then I'll point out that tu quoque arguments are worthless even when you point your finger at real events rather than imaginary ones.

But it would never occur to me to be upset that a Republican asked a Democrat a question in a setting designed for just that purpose. When it comes to reading minds, you suck.

Yeah, the complaints here make no sense whatsoever. Oh no...people who disagree with us asked us questions on our points of contention! Foul play!

More importantly, questions that a republican and a democrat disagree about ought to be a softball for Republicans in a Republican debate.

If these primaries are only for party members are other people allowed to watch, listen, or read transcripts? Or comment on the candidates' answers after the fact? Because it seems to me an awful lot of people who aren't Democrats seem to comment on the Democrat primary candidates. Where's your ire for Hannity and Malkin and pretty much everyone in the news who, by your lights, has no stake in what's going on?

That is precisely what they do. They ask if you're affiliated with a candidate, if you gave money to any candidates yet and if you are registered Democrat or Republican. In order for your question to be valid you have to answer NO to all of the above and be affiliated with the party involved with the debate or an independent.

Here's an excerpt source

I think you missed my point, Malkin-referencer.

First off, you're already wrong. They're not presidental candidates this particular election is to determine which Republican would become a Presidential candidate for the Republican Party. And since you're Candaian, you cannot really ask any questions anyways so I stopped reading at the part where you were wrong.

edit --

Canadian (typed it too fast)

From here

Candidate - a person who seeks an office, honor, etc.: a candidate for governor.

Glad we settled THAT.

For what it's worth, you're thinking of the word nominee.

"Candaian"? Is that like Romulan, or is it just another 'funny-forehead' species?

To be honest, it isn't worth mentioning. If you don't get that the moderator's are supposed to be news journalists held to a sense of journalistic integrity before their party affiliations then you just don't get it and probably never will. Just take a look at Dan Rather as an example.

I referenced Malkin along with everyone else(MSNBC, Politico, etc) and tomorrows newspapers will reference them too. It isn't like the information on the page is conjecture, they're links from other sources.

Is this what it's come down to? If the question's too tough, blame the person that asked it?

The theory appears to be that it's some kind of conspiracy. The absolute lack of evidence is problematic for them, but hey...why let the details ruin a good story?

The problem isn't the questions, the questions are irrelevant. None of the candidates looked any worse off, CNN is the one who looked bad. Why do you think there was an immediate apology right after the debate?

I love this particular kind of horseshit, as if Dan Rather himself manufactured that fucking memo, and put his entire distinguished career on the line, just to try to make Bush look bad. Christ, you're dense.

Hmm, let's see -- evidence begins to circulate that Bush may very well have been AWOL from some of his duty. Interviews and other evidence begin to lend credence to this. Suddenly CBS is given a memo from an undisclosed source that pretty much confirms the story. Almost immediately the memo comes under suspicion from right-wing sources, and is then discredited. CBS and Dan Rather are shamed and mocked, and the story, though still certainly viable, is quickly buried and victory is declared by the neocons.

Yeah, that scheming Dan Rather! What a partisan tool!

Um, I dunno, because CNN is bed-wettingly afraid of being accused of partisanship?

I don't think anyone here has implied that CNN is the pinnacle of industrious journalism. Yeah, they fucked up the second-of-its-kind-in-history YouTube debate. That doesn't make it some sort of Evil Democratic Conspiracy for chrissakes.

He didn't go through the vetting process to determine if it was authentic. That was HIS bad and it cost him his career. Sugarcoat it however you want, spin it however you want but that is the bottomline. Pay close attention to the lawsuit he filed against CBS it will be dropped because the evidence anyone but him pushed for this to go on the air isn't there.

Right. Because the anchors decide the news.

But you accused him of partisanship, not just sloppy reporting.

Is it always the news anchor's responsibility to vet every story he announces?

And it's funny how all the false stories about Clinton that were given MASSIVE airtime and print space are conspicuously absent from all these complaints about media partisanship.

But, Vince Foster was murdered!

In regards to that Rather/CBS suit:

A meaningless distinction, since neither candidates nor potential candidates are off-limits to those who disagree with them. Despite your proclamation to the contrary.

If your argument hinges on my being Canadian, you have no argument. I think you're just upset that a dirty foreigner dares to take an interest in world events. Poor guy.

jvc, you're level-headed as usual. But here's the thing: what are we talking about in the aftermath of the debate? Whether or not one of the question-askers was a Democratic plant! Yeah, CNN (and every corporate American news outlet) is very happy to report on the most superficial aspects of this election cycle, just like this "controversy," because "people want to know." That's why the ridiculous questions were things that "people want to know" -- who's going to stop the non-white people from invading our country? Who has read the Bible the most times? How is waterboarding considered torture when our security is at stake???

You're right to blame CNN. But they're all this bad.

It's not solely any individual reporter's fault, their corporate masters call the shots. And their corporate masters want the public focusing on "the things Americans want to know" so they don't shift their gaze to the things Americans really need to know to protect themselves, their ethics, their children, the world around them, their money, and their way of life from these &^%$#$%.

OK, I probably had too much caffeine for lunch.

And just for some levity...

If Republicans fear a Democrat's simple question, how can we ever trust them to fight...

I know everyone's sick of hearing it at this point in the election cycle, but Al Qaeda is adorable.

CNNPolitics: Campaign trail rancor carries into GOP debate

Wait, I didn't see a Rancor...

See, you just aren't getting it. It isn't about the question. It is about the forum where the question was held and who was asking it. This debate is solely for the Republican party and for the American registered Republians to ask questions for people who may get their vote in the upcoming primary election. There were over 3000 entrants into the CNN Youtube debate and they went with 15? of those 15, 3 of them were Democrats and a couple were not ordinary citizens, they were influential people. The entire debate was flawed on every level and CNN dropped the ball on that. That is what this is about.

The fact you are a foreigner has nothing to do with your ability to convey your opinion nor does it prohibit you from having an interest in American politics, it does however prevent you from asking questions at a Republican debate unless you are an American and registered Republican.


Little US Government 101. When registering to vote, one may declare an affiliation with a political party. In partisan elections, such as primary elections, this allows voters who are members of a particular party to determine which of the party's nominees will be the party's candidate in the general election.

Do you not know that in some states people from any party affiliation are able to vote in a party's primary?

Why is that? They can't ask relevant questions? If CNN or the rules of the debate set that out, that's fine. But, it's a stupid rule to set out as an absolute. It might be that an outsider's perspective leads to more insightful questioning.

I don't make the rules, I just live by them. The states that matter are closed elections.

I think the entire election system needs an overhaul but I don't think that's happening in this lifetime. I really don't like electronic voting machines either but also, something that isn't going to change.

edit --
answer to LD

I don't make the rules, I just live by them. The questionaire to ask questions at the debates eliminate people, if people lie that's another story (which is what they are claiming the General did, lie)