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

[12th Doctor]

This is an honest to God, serious question:

Can we trust that Romney still believes anything he said before two years ago.  Again, tonight, he demonstrated that he flipped on to different issues... he showed quite a bit of agility in side-stepping, but he did that none-the-less.

As for Huckabee... as they are saying on CNN, he hasn't addressed a serious question yet.  The front-runners are getting hammered while he just flies on by.  He looked good up there, but in a debate that was short on substance, he provided the least of all the people up there.

Ron Paul needs to stop acting like he escaped from a mental hospital.  If he calmed down and prevented his voice from going into the pre-puberty range it would be easier to take him serious.

All these candidates clearly know that Rudy is still the favorite, because they all got a dig in.  Is it just me, or did most of the questions Rudy got sucked?  I wish he would have gotten the Gay's in the Military question.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Huckabee, eliminate the IRS.

Get serious.

If he wants to be a serious candidate, Huckabee had better get real.

Huckabee is the only real candidate on the republican side.

[12th Doctor]

One of the people in the focus group refered to "Giuliano".

Well, to be fair, alot of Republicans are used to these "ethnics" yet.

[angus]

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.

[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)

[Meeker]

My rankings:

1) Huckabee
2) Giuliani
3) McCain
4) Thompson
5) Romney

Tancredo and Hunter were just there. Paul did his Paul thing and isn't really trying to win over voters from the other candidates but rather bring in voters who haven't participated in the past. So it doesn't really matter how he performs in comparison to the others.


Romney really needed a good night to curve Huckabee's momentum, and it mission failure on that one. Iowa is about to become a bloodbath between these two and Giuliani very shortly.

[angus]

...(end diatribe)

Yes, full disclosure is a valid point (conflicts of interests and all, and if they identify Norquist then they should similarly identify General what's-his-name.  I suspect they're all embarrassed, if it turns out to be true that he was a Clintonista, that they didn't do their homework.)   Actually, Cooper did say that this "should be investigated."  But I do think it was a reasonable statement that the general made.  And while we're on the subject, I have never bought into the notion that allowing two men to marry somehow diminishes the "sanctity" of my own heterosexual marriage.  It just blows my mind to think that we're still arguing over things like gay marriage and gays serving openly in the army.  I guess I was just ranting more about the subject of the question. 

okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.  It isn't that I'm insensitive to the plight of gay men and women in the world, but it just pisses me off that we spend so much time arguing about homosexuals when we're allowing the dollar to devaluate, we have a $200.3 billion in the third quarter of 2007, and our current national public debt is over nine trillion dollars (that's over thirty thousand dollars for every man, woman, and child!).  And this is my main objection to the "you tube" format, in which the great unwashed masses, clueless and driven by the same sensationalism that guarantees quality programming like "Cops" and "Survivor" and "Idol," inform what might otherwise be reasoned and intelligent debate about subjects that affect *all* of us.  gay or straight.  black or white.  man or woman. 

still,I have to admit that it's always fun to see grainy, home-made videos of a mulleted, shirtless man wearing cutoffs and knee-high tube socks sporting a semi-automatic weapon and asking whether the candidates will promise to defend his right to shoot off his left toe.  So, on balance, I'd have to say the You Tubesox debate should continue.  I'm only disappointed that they didn't have the general asking his question from a bubblebath while he was washing his pecs slowly with a loofah while sipping on a dry, buttery chardonnay and with scented candles on the tubside shelf.  You know, the way they normally do these “you tube” debate questions.  (stage the woman asking about lead in toys with two children, stage the guy asking about second amendment rights with a gun, stage the guy asking about inner-city violence as a negro boy with a free-weight set and a basketball in the background, etc.)  I think the fact that the "gay general" wasn't so stereotypically and blatantly staged the way every one else is probably the biggest testament to the fact that he was a last-minute choice.  This may explain why they didn't properly vet him.  They simply didn't have time.   

[Meeker]

Wow, the Democratic one was only in September? It seems so long ago.


Predictions:

1) The moderators will try to create conflicts

2) Everyone will accuse each other of being soft on immigration

3) Huckabee will tell a somewhat humorous joke

4) Paul will piss everyone off

5) Giuliani and Romney will bicker

6) Everyone will ignore Fred and McCain

7) We'll be reminded that Hunter and Tancredo are in fact still running, only to forget five minutes after it ends

Likely YouTube questioners: Gays, someone on the border/a Minuteman, a pastor
 

Wow... 9-out-of-10 correct on the serious predictions.

Good job.

Hardball panel here I come...

[True Democrat]

I missed the debate because of work.  And even though the coffee shop I work at plays XM, they refused to turn off the Christmas music and put on CNN.  Would someone mind telling generally what happened in a paragraph or two, in the most unbiased way possible.

[12th Doctor]

I missed the debate because of work.  And even though the coffee shop I work at plays XM, they refused to turn off the Christmas music and put on CNN.  Would someone mind telling generally what happened in a paragraph or two, in the most unbiased way possible.

I can tell you all you need to know in one sentence:

Its on again at midnight.

[Jake]

I saw the last hour plus the highlights:

1. Romney backtracked more than anything. I don't think I heard him answering a question without backtracking or changing his position. He really f'ed up a question about gays in the military.

2. Guiliani laid out his record well, always giving an example from his background while answering. In a highlight he got into a pissing match (that he lost BTW) with Romney over illegal immigration.

3. Huckabee had wit and charm, but didn't answer a serious important question that I saw.

4. I forgot Tancredo and Hunter were at the debate until Tancredo said he would stop space funding (FF).

5. CNN had Hillary's Gay Issues guy (a former General) ask the candidates a question on gays in the military. If anyone did not know who CNN's candidate was, they know now.

6. Thompson's answers kind of flowed together in a jumble of generalities. This man will not last until Iowa.

7. McCain put in a solid preformance, but didn't get the preformance he needed to get back into contention. I doubt whether he can remain competitive in even New Hampshire.

8. Ron Paul brought everything back to Iraq. It's also kind of annoying how CNN (and others) treat him as one of the serious candidates rather than relegating him to the four minutes of face time (combined) Hunter and Tancredo received.

[12th Doctor]

I saw the last hour plus the highlights:

1. Romney backtracked more than anything. I don't think I heard him answering a question without backtracking or changing his position. He really f'ed up a question about gays in the military.

Agreed.  That was probably the worst answer of the night.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty much.  Are we really to believe that they had no idea?  Joke.  Plus, it gave Hillary even more free press.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed.  The man simply displays no depth of understanding on any issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, agreed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Paul is fun to point and laugh at... the others aren't.  He is a curiosity, and an interesting one, even though he has no chance.  Anyway, I really wish Hunter and Tancredo would drop out so that way the serious candidates would be able to answer more questions.

[Jake]

I see the clueless Romney bashers in this thread are in full flight tonight.

I'll give you a pass because I didn't watch most of this debate, but after Romney answer to the General, you need to withdraw this statement to have any credibility at all. Your guy completely fucked himself tonight at a time when he really couldn't afford to give his rivals more ammunition. And now he looks like an utter fool in front of probably the largest conservative/Republican audience that he'll face until Iowa.

[Mr. Morden]

I missed the begining of the debate on first airing, so I'm watching the replay.  Does Hunter not realize that "Cooper" is Anderson Cooper's *last* name rather than his first name?

[Ebowed]

Anyone know if it's been posted online yet?

[Meeker]

NY Times should have it up by tomorrow along with their fancy transcript thingy.

[Eraserhead]

Well everyone I managed to catch most of the debate tonight but I wasn't able to post on here while watching.

My quick thoughts...

Winners: Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul.

Losers: Basically everyone else.

Also the questions were mostly awful.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

The question was clearly fair game, and a good one.  I'd have picked it if I worked at CNN.

I can't even hit them too much for inviting the guy to the debate personally, though that's going a little beyond.  Clearly designed to throw the candidates off and make them uncomfortable when answering.

The part that went over the line for me was when CNN then allowed him to editorialize after the question was answered and explain why all the Republicans there were wrong on the issue.  And CNN is especially in the wrong if he is indeed on a steering committee for Hillary Clinton.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Oh, and yeah, certainly Huckabee did the hands down best job.  He came across genuinely likeable (charismatic), and that goes farther to move voters than anything else other than rank partisanship.

[Tender Branson]

I watched the debate and actually it was the first debate I watched in months, but Huckabee was clearly the winner of this one. Not only in my opinion, but according to polls conducted immediately afterwards too. He should now go on to win IA and SC, with Romney taking NH:

"Due to transmission issues our live coverage of the debate aftermath was interrupted.  However, our cameras captured the moment when Matt Towery and Tom Baxter informed Governor Huckabee, who was surrounded by national press, that the survey of both Iowa and Florida Republicans conducted by InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research showed Mike Huckabee the winner of tonight's CNN/YouTube debate.

The Florida survey conducted with the Florida Chamber of Commerce showed the following results:

Huckabee: 44%
Giulani: 18%
Romney: 13%
McCain: 10%
Thompson: 5%
Paul: 4%
Hunter: 1%
Tancredo: 1%
Rest: undecided

The survey of 341 Republicans who stated they were undecided, intended to watch the debate and agreed to phone in their opinion immediately after the ending was weighted for age and gender.  It has a margin of error of +/- 6%.

A survey of Iowa Republicans of over 1,035 Iowa Republicans taken in the last twenty minutes of the debate showed Huckabee the winner in that state as well.  The numbers virtually mirrored Florida.  They were:

Huckabee: 32%
Romney: 16%
Giuliani: 12%
McCain: 10%
Thompson: 7%
Paul: 6%
Tancredo: 2%
Hunter: 0%
Rest: undecided

Interestingly, the Iowa poll did not survey only undecided voters.  Yet, both a survey of undecided voters in Florida and a general survey in Iowa showed Huckabee the winner."

http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_1128_53.aspx

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

The questions for this debate were atrocious and indicative of either A) what CNN thinks Republican voters care about or B) that Republican primary voters need to get better priorities.

[Meeker]

Those post debate polls are remarkable. Huckabee definitely has the big mo' at this point.


Oh, and for those who missed it the debate is up on YouTube: http://youtube.com/republicandebate  Never would've seen that one coming...

[Eraserhead]

It really does look like a blowout for Huckabee. I'm amazed more people didn't try to attack him during the debate. Maybe it was because when Romney tried to on immigration, the Huckster totally owned him.

I thought Thompson and Romney both had their worst debates yet (by far). They were both just awful through almost the entire thing.

[The Duke]

1. Romney was awful.  He was snarky and condescending on immigration towards Giuliani, an issue Romney has no right to condescend on given that he supported the ridiculous amnesty plan.  He declared his opposition to gays in the military, then looked at Anderson Cooper the way a cow looks at an oncoming train when Cooper asked if he still looked forward to a day when gays could serve.  He refused to even answer a questiona bout waterboarding.  You jusat get the feeling the air is coming out of the balloon, don't you?  He looks scared and defensive at all times, and he has no rationale for his candidacy anymore.

2. Giuliani struggled with immigration, largely because he got rattled by the crowd.  Did CNN let Romney stack the audience?  It wouldn't be the first time Romney had stacked an audience and not the first time CNN had allowed it.

3. I remain unsure why Fred Thompson is here.

4. Maybe someday all those youngsters who back Ron Paul will grow up and realize that pacifism and the gold standard aren't very good ideas and they'll become actual conservatives.  Here's to hoping.

5. John McCain had the best night to me.  I know msot people were impressed with huckabee, but then again most people are easily impressed.

6. Speaking of Huckabee, we all realize the media keeps pushing this guy because they know he'd be a catastrophic general election candidate, right?  He has an exclusively fundamentalist religious education, he does not recognize evolution or the big bang, he has a tax plan that was designed by the Church of Scientology, he has said he thinks the purpose of gun rights is to make possible violent resistance to the Federal Government, he has no foreign policy expertise, he is economically illiterate, he can't raise money, and he believes Christianity should be the basis for public policy.  His simplistic one line answers to every question play well in cattle call debates, but in one on one engagements they are likely to look shallow and poorly thought out when compared to Hillary Clinton's detail heavy answers.  He is a joke and should be treated as one.

[MODU]

It lived up to my expectations... low.  Too many softball questions, and too much time given to Romney and Rudy.  In my mind, Rudy, Romney, and Paul hurt their campaigns with their wishy-washy answers and personal attacks.  No one really stood out from the pack, though Thompson, Hunter, and Huckabee had good answers, and Tancredo was rather calm.  McCain was neither great nor bad... just there, unlike Alan Keyes.