CNN Republican You-Tube Debate -- Wednesday, November 28, 2007

[Sam Spade]

Sometimes I wonder how smart the people on this forum are.

Everyone clearly understood at the last Democratic debate that CNN set up the questioning and the audience to make sure and paint Hillary Clinton is the best possible light, along with painting Obama, Edwards and the rest of her opponents as vicious and mean.

This debate, CNN is specifically trying to make Republicans look like nutcases (of which some of the candidates are doing a pretty job at).

P.S.  If you don't believe me, the openly gay general CNN let speak for three or four minutes is the Chairman of Hillary Clinton's Gay Steering Committee.

Expect that to get more play tomorrow than the actual debate.

[Sam Spade]

Sometimes I wonder how smart the people on this forum are.

Everyone clearly understood at the last Democratic debate that CNN set up the questioning and the audience to make sure and paint Hillary Clinton is the best possible light, along with painting Obama, Edwards and the rest of her opponents as vicious and mean.

This debate, CNN is specifically trying to make Republicans look like nutcases (of which some of the candidates are doing a pretty job at).

P.S.  If you don't believe me, the openly gay general CNN let speak for three or four minutes is the Chairman of Hillary Clinton's Gay Steering Committee.

Expect that to get more play tomorrow than the actual debate.

They did give a hell of a lot of "we know you're not moderate, but are you crazy?" kind of questions, and gave them extra time.  But you want us to spend the entire debate bitching about that instead of taking it as a pointless YouTube debate?

Nah, this was more fun.

Of course it's more fun.    I'm just pointing it out, because it's obvious and it needed to be said.  Most importantly, everyone needs to understand what candidate CNN is supporting.  

[Sam Spade]

Edit:  I put chairman, the gay general is one of three.

PS: Huck won the debate.  I may post more later.

[Sam Spade]

William Bennett seriously thinks Romney had a "very strong night"?

CNN (Anderson Cooper, at least) is saying that they don't know about the gay general's Clinton connection.  Whooops.

Note:  Anderson Cooper did not say connection to Clinton, he said connection to a Democratic presidential contender.

And if CNN didn't know about this, I'll put a D-MS avatar by my name for a month.  It's part of a pattern, and to be quite honest, this stuff makes me much more sympathetic to Obama and Edwards also.

[Sam Spade]

Huckabee's received an Intrade boost from the debate and is now at 11.0 to win the RepNom.

As well he should.  If there's only one comment I could make to him is that he is very likeable, but often doesn't look Presidential.  It's a minor detail, but he can work on it (Governors often don't start out as Presidential)

As to the other candidates, they all kind of washed together to me.  Rudy lost the early debate with Romney, but got better as the night went on.  Romney started off good went in reverse, and I thought in the end performed worse, especially with his "gays and lesbians" non-answer.  McCain attacked the three-pound elephant in the room, which plays well with Republicans, but who cares.  Why is Thompson still on the stage?

[Sam Spade]

Anderson Cooper... is saying that they don't know about the gay general's Clinton connection

Anderson Cooper doesn't know anything that isn't scrolling through that blue screen in front of him.  What a bimbo.  Never trust a man with two last names.

anyway, that doesn't matter.  so what if that guy is working for clinton.  he makes a good point.  Both the Democrats and the Republicans are putting gay people on a par with the flatfooted, the nearsighted, and pregnant people.  But unlike those other folks, gay people can run fast, sneak around, and blow shït up.  And that's pretty much all you need in a footsoldier.  So there's really no good reason, other than the fact that some latently homosexual, outwardly homophobic, big hunk of a man feels threatened to have a man in his foxhole who may tempt him to come out of his little closet.  Well, get over it.  If we were arguing about whether blind men or gelatinous/obese men or pregnant bimbos should be fighting for our republic, then I'd be all for maintaining high standards.  But this whole anti-gay policy is illogical, and it removes from our military many excellent candidates for service, especially given that many of the butchest people I've ever met are bulldykes hell bent on killing men for any reason.  Put 'em in a uniform and let 'em defend the country.  They make fine combatants.  Let's get past this silly "don't ask/don't tell" policy.  A policy that was put in place, I might add, by a Democrat president.  And I don't care if it's one of Hillary's hitmen bringing it up.  The identity of the messenger doesn't diminish the quality of his testimony.

I don't think anyone at this forum (especially myself) cares whether this guy's question was asked at the debate or whether he was in the audience making comments.  If CNN wanted the question to be there, that's their decision, it is their debate.

However, there was a key element missing - that is the element of disclosure - and that goes fundamentally to the element of honesty and fair dealing not only with the candidates, but with the public.  Grover Nordquist was labeled as being from Americans for Tax Reform, why should the brigadier general have been labeled as a member of a Hillary Clinton steering committee, not to mention a member of the steering committee for Veterans for Kerry. (of which he was also)

Moreover, if CNN is going to allow this man to publicly be at the debate (only one other questioner in person btw) and is going to allow him to speak for nearly 3-4 minutes (probably as much time as Tancredo got), we, as the public, even have a greater right to know the facts about this person.

It's exactly the same problem as the questioner in the last CNN debate who asked the "diamonds and pearls" question to Hillary Clinton, instead of the question about Yucca Mountain that she wanted to ask.  I don't think anyone cares about the question that she asked, but what we, as the public, have the right to know, is that she wanted to ask this question and CNN told her to ask the other one.

And CNN should be the one to tell us that, if they have any honesty left.

(end diatribe)