November 30, 2007

RedState and Human Events Offer A "Do Over Debate" To Republican Candidates [Nice Deb]
— Open Blog

Dissatisfied with the disgrace that was the CNN-YouTube debate, Redstate and Human Events has joined forces to offer the Republican candidates a "do-over", this time with conservatives in charge of vetting the questioners:

We have a base of readers who represent the Republican wing of the Republican Party. You – and the Republican Party – deserve to face the questions posed by undecided Republicans, not Democratic activists. We will solicit and obtain YouTube videos from those people and vet each questioner to establish that they are – really - - undecided Republicans. We hope to include soldiers in the field in Iraq, Young Republicans, and others who still have not decided among you.

Today, allow us to make you this offer: We will organize a debate at a time and date amenable to you all. We will work with a national broadcaster to broadcast the debate as well as offer it online. We, not the liberal drive by media, will ensure the questioners are who they say they are. And we will choose them based on criteria that will be fully disclosed to you all which ensure the questioners aren’t activists for any Democratic candidate.

This is an excellent idea. I hope the candidates take them up on it.

Posted by: Open Blog at 12:27 PM | Comments (42)
Post contains 233 words, total size 1 kb.

1 It's a great idea, but I don't think it will happen.  Look at all the shit the R candidates had to do just to say yes to the CNN debate.

I think all R debates should happen on Fox from now on so that this kind of asshattery doesn't happen again.  The Dems won't go on Fox because of their own reasons.  Fine, we now have ours.


Posted by: EC at November 30, 2007 12:33 PM (j2Tjh)

2 Ratings gold here. I am sure that any network would jump at the chance to get just a sliver of the Christy Lane ad buy.

It's amazing how quickly you have become the victim party.

It's like totally unfair how they tricked us in to answering questions about god, guns and gays!  Why didn't they have any army dudes up there implying the truth about treasonous Democrats in loaded "question" bombs like they do at all of W's rallies? So totally unfair.

I know all of you deluded nuts thought that the greatly increased number of videos was because you are secretly a large majority of the online communities, but  there were probably only 100 questions submitted by any GOP supporters.

I really like how quickly you turned on Gabby after he correctly noted what a bunch of sad whining ass bitches you are becoming.  Dems were right  not to go on FOX but if you think that inane youtube debate was any more gotcha than Russert v. Clinton you are not an astute observer of politics.

Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for my frozen fruit enema.

Posted by: tommy at November 30, 2007 12:39 PM (sgF4t)

3 Hey tommy, don't forget the tobasco.

Posted by: A. Weasel at November 30, 2007 12:45 PM (bqcfE)

4 Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for my frozen fruit enema.

It's "teh gay" humor so predictable and mostly lame but it actually sounds refreshing.

Congrats on fy, nq I am sure you lameasses can squeeze a good 6 months out of that.


Yeah, the jokes pretty much write themselves on that one, don't they?

Now again, if you'll excuse me, it's time for me to teach my pet gerbil how to chew on my prostate.

Posted by: tommy at November 30, 2007 12:47 PM (sgF4t)

5

I think this debate should have as big a lickspittle as Wolf Blitzer to run it. Everyone deserves a softball debate.


"Mrs. Clinton, you have really pretty hair and you smell nice. How do you do it?"


Posted by: Karusky at November 30, 2007 12:53 PM (EBrO9)

6

It's "teh gay" humor so predictable


If the tubesteak fits ...


Posted by: toby928 at November 30, 2007 12:56 PM (evdj2)

7 but  there were probably only 100 questions submitted by any GOP supporters.

Heh.  Well, at least we're still better than you.  Oh, and we're winning the war.

Posted by: SOC at November 30, 2007 12:59 PM (1/F/d)

8

Dems were right  not to go on FOX


Why?  Because they're a bunch of whiny assed little bitches, timmy?  Tell me, dumbass -- what's it like to be so totally devoid of self-awareness and irony that you can excoriate the cowardess and victimhood of Republicans and then make a statement like this one about your own party?


but if you think that inane youtube debate was any more gotcha than Russert v. Clinton you are not an astute observer of politics.


Right, timmy.  Because asking the leading Democrat candidate a single straightforward question pertaining to a policy which more Americans have strong opinions about than pretty much any other is playing "gotcha".


Of course, if my ideology were indefensible on its merits, I'd probably consider any rhetorical effort to evoke honesty about my beliefs to be dirty pool.  Especially if that effort came from someone who's supposed to be in my hip pocket.


Now back to your anal massochism, you sick little mutant.


Posted by: VJay at November 30, 2007 01:03 PM (gQ+XA)

9

Now again, if you'll excuse me, it's time for me to go accept my sticking it to the wingnuts award from Sadly, No.


Every day is "everybody wins a trophy day" at that twithole.  Keep up the good work, intrepid leftwing warrior!


Posted by: VJay at November 30, 2007 01:08 PM (gQ+XA)

10

Of course, if my ideology were indefensible on its merits, I'd
probably consider any rhetorical effort to evoke honesty about my
beliefs to be dirty pool.  Especially if that effort came from someone
who's supposed to be in my hip pocket.


Now back to your anal massochism, you sick little mutant.


Applause.

Posted by: mesablue at November 30, 2007 01:13 PM (KCOdQ)

11 tommy has the reasoning power of an infant.   

Posted by: polynikes at November 30, 2007 01:28 PM (m2CN7)

12 Sounds like a great idea and the GOP has a golden opportunity to demonstrate that they are ready for the modern media and internet age. They can show themselves to be distinct from the Democrats in their vision of the future and willingness to work with the citizens of the USA.


And really, what do they risk? Hostility from the legacy media? Looking foolish?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 30, 2007 01:33 PM (hfyfI)

13 This needs to happen.  Somebody noted that there's *another* CNN debate scheduled.  Dump that.

Posted by: someone at November 30, 2007 01:37 PM (2z2WN)

14 If they pull this off, the MSM will be howling.

You'll be able to measure the level of success by how much squealing you hear.

Posted by: GarandFan at November 30, 2007 01:45 PM (+tCxF)

15 I'm sorry about my earlier trolling; it's just that I haven't had a cock up my ass in a looooooong time, and all that rejection starts to gnaw after awhile.  If only I could get another cock up my ass.  Maybe if I weren't such a douchebag.

Posted by: Tommy at November 30, 2007 01:46 PM (kFwRi)

16 I'd watch- but can they at least exclude the Bircheresque Crank?  I'd also be OK with limiting it to the top 5 candidates- as much as I like Tanc and Hunter, they're done and another debate isn't going to that.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2007 02:03 PM (plsiE)

17

BAD idea to only allow questions from Republicans.  All questions should be welcomed with the true leanings of the questioner.  No need to dodge issues really.  If perhaps someone offers up:  "2 million dead Iraqis, how does that make you feel?"


Oh yes,......"FY,NQ".     


I'm looking to vote for someone who is not afraid to debate all comers. Someone who will dismiss idiots for the idiots they are. There is a line.        


 


Posted by: Xchaan (pronounced: leh-nerd skin-nerd) at November 30, 2007 02:10 PM (igcvF)

18 All of the GOP candidates should hold a joint press conference and with single, pre-written, one paragraph statements explain why they are not going to another CNN debate and that they are going to be at this one.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 30, 2007 02:14 PM (hfyfI)

19 I don't understand how all these dems think this is some sort of proof that the republicans are unwilling to answer their questions.  The entire journalism field is utterly dominated by the left, and the GOP has to face these questions day in and day out.  Furthermore, it was predicatlbe that CNN and MSNBC would be biased against the GOP, yet they went because they are willing to face the music.

It's the dems who are afraid to face opposing views.  Look how they cower in fear of a FOXNEWS debate, even if it harms the black caucus.  Why are the dems not concerned with that?

The problem is that primaries are not general elections.  The GOP primary is not about the democrats.  Republicans are trying to make an informed vote in their primary and deserve to have a debate that isn't another piece of DNC propaganda.  It's not that we're mad that the liberals were biased again.  It's that this debate was not useful for what we thought we would be getting. 

CNN isn't useful for republicans to become informed.  Isn't that a problem for the GOP primary?  Who does this hurt most?  Liberals, of course!  We are totally geared towards the leftist arguments and what isn't moderate.  We are probably going to nominate, for the first time ever, a pro-choice socially liberal hawk.  A hybrid of the nations new culture and its desire for protection against terror.  It's pretty much the only conceivable way the GOP could hold the white house after such an unpopular president.

CNN was probably patting itself on the back for it's hilarious caricature of the confederate bible literalist crazy redneck republican.  All CNN did was marginalize such voters and create a much stronger GOP nominee.  Also, now that they've shot their wad tarnishing millions of voters, they are much, much less effective at creating propaganda.  Remember how they lied about Saddam to facilitate ratings by keeping reporters in Saddam's jurisdiction for on location but untrue news?  This debate deceit is even more ridiculous than that! 

All the liberals can do is say "the GOP is a bunch of cowards for not being totally cool with ridiculous bias and slanted administration of news!... if they were tougher, they'd deal with it!"  But this argument takes for granted that CNN is full of shit.

I ask again: if it's not an issue at all to face a primary debate biased against your entire party,  why are the dems unanimously oposed to a debate on foxnews?  And would foxnews come close to CNN's behaivior?  How would they dems act if they did?  You saw Hillary's reaction to the ID card question, which was banal.  The dems are aware now that CNN will have a hard time hosting a Clinton Giuliani debate.  They blew it.

Posted by: PJ at November 30, 2007 02:21 PM (8dfqL)

20

The Dems are so scared of Fox that they would not enter a debate co-sponsorred by the Cong Black Caucus.  Hey black voters, the Dems know that they NEED an overwhelming majority of your votes to have any chance of winning, yet they so take you for granted and/or are so scared of Fox that they blew off this chance at a debate which would include a strong dose of issues (presumably) interesting to blacks.  Furthermore, the leaders of the CBC were apparently confident enough that they would survive the taint of being near Fox, yet the couragsous Clinton, Edwards, Obama et all were afraid of bursting into flames from being near Fox.


To sum up - stop giving your votes to pussies who don't respect you in the least.


Posted by: holdfast at November 30, 2007 02:37 PM (Gzb30)

21

BAD idea to only allow questions from Republicans.  All questions should be welcomed with the true leanings of the questioner. 


The point of these debates is to help Republicans decide who they vote for in the Republican primary.  Not to have a Hillary shill debate the candidates over why he thinks gays should be able to be openly gay in the military.


Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2007 02:41 PM (plsiE)

22

The point of these debates is to help Republicans decide who they vote for in the Republican primary.  Not to have a Hillary shill debate the candidates over why he thinks gays should be able to be openly gay in the military.


Precisely.


There's just no point to field questions from decided democrats. This isn't the general. The party itself is not at question here. It wastes our time, and devalues the debate. Because the actual purpose of the debate is to help me decide who I like, and asking them why all 8 all oppose Hillarycare wastes valuable time and does not help the debate achieve it's purpose and goal.


This debate is a great idea. They should do it. But even moreso, Fred should immediately begin pushing for it. It's unclear what the format would be, if it's pre-recorded back and forth instead of streaming, Fred would WTFPWN it. Even if it's not, it's an opportunity for him to demonstrate his conservative bonafides, with the questions coming from real conservatives and actually reflecting (hopefully) some of the issues conservatives care about that the candidates differ on.


Also, even if it doesn't happen, any candidate can quickly win a lot of internet support points by being the first (especially if it's also only) one to jump on this and support it.


My recommendation? There should be mostly random youtubers asking questions, as that was the premise. But throwing in a few big names to the mix wouldn't hurt anyone. Like the CNN debate did with Grover Norquist.


I'm curious what kind of question El Rushbo would ask.


Posted by: Entropy at November 30, 2007 02:53 PM (HgAV0)

23

Tommy:  My saying you are addled in your thinking because you've got your own cock in your mouth while typing your comments doesn't really qualify as predictable gay humor.  But it does explain the stupidity of your posts about as well as anything else might. 


Good luck trying to hump your trophy (again, not really gay humor, just accurate).


Posted by: Sharkman at November 30, 2007 02:57 PM (UioS4)

24 Tommy wouldn't know humor if unless you shoved it up his ass.

Posted by: Entropy at November 30, 2007 03:00 PM (HgAV0)

25 That's not funny!

Posted by: Radical Feminist at November 30, 2007 03:52 PM (Lk931)

26

it's time for me to go accept my sticking it to the wingnuts award from Sadly, No


Atta boy, Tommy. Way to reach for the stars and live out the American dream. Put that trophy on your mantle and keep it polished.  Show it off to all your friends so they can all say they knew you when... With such a high honor in your trolling career, someone will surely name their first born after you.


If only we could all aspire to such lofty goals.  Instead we have this moron blog and ummmm....  Oh yeah, we have FY, NQ.


Posted by: Conservative Belle at November 30, 2007 04:01 PM (/v6Id)

27 I think timmy's coda was added by a co-blogger.

I have no idea who that might be, though.

Posted by: Slublog at November 30, 2007 04:39 PM (8iqNm)

28 Will AoSHQ have a representative at this debate?  I'd love to hear the candidates' favorite methods of killing hobos.


Posted by: JayC at November 30, 2007 04:41 PM (+1O2Q)

29 5 bucks says tommy was breathing heavily as he typed out his little temper tantrum.

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2007 04:43 PM (rZ5uY)

30

I've see this idea floated a few places too -- What if Rush would lend 3 hours of radio time to a real republician debate? 


I'm sure it not likely to happen, but can you think of a better way to reach the core of the party, or a better place to ensure a lack of liberal bias?


 


Just sayin'


Posted by: fretless at November 30, 2007 04:50 PM (YmM0l)

31 it's just that I haven't had a cock up my ass in a looooooong time, and
all that rejection starts to gnaw after awhile.  If only I could get
another cock up my ass.


Helen Thomas is on Line 3 for you Tommy.

Posted by: Aye Chihuahua at November 30, 2007 04:58 PM (p4GgM)

32 Dems cancelled their debate about 2 minutes before the guild strike was over.

Posted by: JH at November 30, 2007 06:22 PM (j1Yu1)

33 This should have done a long time ago. It was extremely stupid to go to CNN for a Republican debate.

Posted by: jdun at November 30, 2007 06:44 PM (cVyBC)

34 If they do this, can I get "dibs" on the moderator slot?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 30, 2007 07:12 PM (HcgFD)

35 The same Dems who pee their pants at the thought of a scary Fox News anchor asking one of their retarded candidates about national security have the gall to call our candidates scared of taking questions form libtards?

Posted by: Dirk at November 30, 2007 09:28 PM (AJx67)

36

Shill:  Gays in the military?


Conservative candidate:  Not something I spend a lot of time on.(pause) "Don't ask, Don't tell" while not perfect, seems to be working. (pause) The current U.S. fighting force is the finest in the world, I'm sure there are there are Gays serving proudly.


Next...


Posted by: schawn at November 30, 2007 11:25 PM (GvwnD)

37

Primaries are to find the best candidate period.  Did it ever occur to anyone that the best man may be a Dem. Far fetched I know.


To me it's not the questions, it's the answers.  Doesn't any answer, to any question build a data base from which to base a decision?


Repub questions only is bad for appearences. Not inclusive. Cowardly. Yes, the Dems get away with cowardly behavior. Screw them, their Dems.


Leadership requires that some may not like your position. Not wanting to be pinned down on issues is not leadership. I'm looking for a leader. Sadly, I may have to vote for the lesser of two evils.


Posted by: xschaan at November 30, 2007 11:40 PM (GvwnD)

38 I am not a Ron Paul fan.

However, he has done well in fund raising and other than Mike Huckabee, appears to be the only candidate who is adding more supporters nationally than he's losing at the present time. So he is, like it or not, a legitimate candidate.

RedState has policies which state new commentators who are Ron Paul supporters can't contribute freely to discussions and support their chosen candidate. Apparently, Ron Paul supporters who were long term members can.

I realize the fanaticism of the Ron Paul internet base is annoying to many of us, but with that kind of policy, how can RedState offer a legitimately unbiased Republican platform?

I say it's difficult.

Posted by: Christoph at December 01, 2007 12:43 AM (hawOV)

39 " Christoph at December 01, 2007 05:43 AM (hawOV)"

I find many RP supporters at odds with conservatism in several respects. There is a certain segment that have no common sense when it comes to foreign policy. If their plans for diplomacy overseas was based on realistic thinking, then I could accept them as part of the conservative cause. They are like a Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde. On domestic policies, they have some great ideas, but the minute you mention foreign policy, the Mr Hyde comes out. I cannot accept them as part of conservatism when they hold those positions.

I agree with Redstate because you cannot have a rational discussion with people who deny the realities of the politics of a world community.

Posted by: csdeven at December 01, 2007 04:16 AM (M5cP1)

40

Tommy,


Tap


tap


tap


you there?


Posted by: L Craig, Wide Stance (R) at December 01, 2007 05:42 AM (X5b4e)

41 I've see this idea floated a few places too -- What if Rush would lend 3 hours of radio time to a real republician debate?


That would be a great idea, Rush could even moderate and vet the questions. He's good in interviews, a billion people would listen, and it would be more controlled than this nonsense lately.


I would exclude Ron Paul simply because he's not a conservative, not going to win even dog catcher, and is a pointless crank that litters the field with nonsense. I would exclude Alan Keyes as well, although he's very well spoken.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 01, 2007 08:40 AM (hfyfI)

Posted by: WWEE at June 24, 2011 09:39 PM (9qgP/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
96kb generated in CPU 0.03, elapsed 0.052 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.023 seconds, 229 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.