Expect Huckabee to be in the crosshairs tonight

#101
#101
CSpindizzy said:
Again, you are assuming CNN knew ahead of time whether each one of these people were declared supporters of some other campaign. And who cares if they are? Again, what is wrong with supporters of various groups sending in questions whether loaded or legit? CNN never sold it as such and those getting their panties in a wad over it are plain nuts.
Click to expand...


I'm not assuming anything. But, CNN did bring the guy in. They saw the question, thought it would be a good one and brought the guy in. It wasn't YouTube's doing alone.

I stated before that I don't care - just stating how it happened.

Finally, I was just suggesting that there would be equal panty-wadding from lefties if the situation were reversed (Fox bringing in a supporter of a Rep).

For the record, my panties are unwadded on this issue.
 
#102
#102
But they gave the mike to more than just this guy. How were they supposed to know he'd rant for another 30 seconds? You could tell little Anderson was squirming and felt very uncomfortable. I think the mike failing was an effort on the crew's part to bail him out but he was a lost puppy in this case.

Personally I'd rather see uncomfortable questions from "the other side" rather than warm and fuzzy softball questions that leave you just as uninformed as you were at the beginning. I wished they let all of the candidates answer this question. There would definitely have been more awkward moments for certain ones on that stage.
 
#103
#103
On one hand, I'd like to see all candidates answer this question (both Rep and Dem).

On the other hand, this type of question seems to come from the Rove playbook - pick a wedge but non-critical social issue (e.g. gay marriage) and make the debate about that.
 
#104
#104
I think it would be more productive if there just weren't so many people standing on the stage at one time. Guys like Hunter and Tancredo have moved the debate about as far as they are going to move it.
 
#105
#105
Looks like the Dem YouTube debate had some GOP questioneers as well. There goes Michelle Malkin's argument.
 
#106
#106
GAVol said:
I think it would be more productive if there just weren't so many people standing on the stage at one time. Guys like Hunter and Tancredo have moved the debate about as far as they are going to move it.
Click to expand...

All about the ego and face time. A little extra money doesn't hurt either.
 
#107
#107
GAVol said:
What I couldn't figure out was in the post-debate analysis when Bill Bennett kept talking about how well Romney had done. I was thinking he is either a total shill for Romney or he just wasn't watching.
Click to expand...

Yeah...Bennett was raving about him on the on-line poll on CNN. For what it's worth, the people polled on CNN think that Paul ran away with the entire debate.

I didn't think so. I think that Huckabee did very well...and McCain was good - but seemed tired.
 
#108
#108
volinbham said:
I'm not assuming anything. But, CNN did bring the guy in. They saw the question, thought it would be a good one and brought the guy in. It wasn't YouTube's doing alone.

I stated before that I don't care - just stating how it happened.

Finally, I was just suggesting that there would be equal panty-wadding from lefties if the situation were reversed (Fox bringing in a supporter of a Rep).

For the record, my panties are unwadded on this issue.
Click to expand...

If this is in fact the case, where is the issue? What's the problem?

I could care less what the Left would have a problem with. Frankly, the whole "well they would do the same thing too" argument and defense is a little old and childish. Just because someone else would pull a 5 year old meltdown over something similar doesn't mean anyone on the Right has to as well. As I mentioned earlier Malkin's throwing a fit over "planted" questions. She obviously did not sleep last night going through the profiles of each questioneer and comparing MySpace and Facebook profiles to see which questions were posed by Edwards and Obama supporters. Clearly some people have too much spare time on their hands. The same people who whine about Liberal whining have been caught doing the same thing.
 
#110
#110
CSpindizzy said:
From what I understand, YouTube brought in a few of the people whose videos were aired to allow CNN to ask if they were happy with the responses.

I think it's a stretch to blame them for not knowing. The questions were from all across the spectrum and YouTube brought in a mix of those people. It's a controversial issue even within the GOP and the military itself. How could anyone automatically assume that this question would be loaded from Hillary's campaign? I think they were caught off guard and let the guy stammer through his point. They were stupid for letting him go on so long but to blame them for a Hillary connection is a little much.
Click to expand...

Wait, weren't you making the guilt by association argument? :ermm:

Even though this guy is connected with the Hillary campaign, are you saying that Hillary can't necessarily be held accountable?

Please, tell me you are saying that.
 
#111
#111
Huckabee and Paul should get more traction. They both were viewed as doing well in the debate. I don't understand the popularity of Guiliani. His personal life is a mess, 2 of his kids supposedly dont even speak to him.
 
#113
#113
GAVol said:
What I couldn't figure out was in the post-debate analysis when Bill Bennett kept talking about how well Romney had done. I was thinking he is either a total shill for Romney or he just wasn't watching.
Click to expand...

Oh gawd... I watched some of that post-debate show and I had to turn it as soon as Bennett started popping off about that. In my opinion, Rudy and Mitt lost ground big time in this debate. How anyone can say that either of these guys gained anything is puzzling.

With the exception of Huckabee, all of the candidates had their moments where they stumbled. But Huck managed to make the least number of mistakes. He is officially a serious contender right now.
 
#114
#114
oklavol said:
Huckabee and Paul should get more traction. They both were viewed as doing well in the debate. I don't understand the popularity of Guiliani. His personal life is a mess, 2 of his kids supposedly dont even speak to him.
Click to expand...

I don't think Paul gains much (if any) from that debate (this is coming from a guy that has been on the Paul bandwagon since early November, btw). He didn't show any range outside of the pulling out of Iraq issue, but that was mostly due to the questions he was asked (which mostly dealt with foreign policy/Mexico).
 
#115
#115
Rasputin_Vol said:
Wait, weren't you making the guilt by association argument? :ermm:

Even though this guy is connected with the Hillary campaign, are you saying that Hillary can't necessarily be held accountable?

Please, tell me you are saying that.
Click to expand...

Huh? You do realize you just made no sense right? CNN had no clue this guy was connected to the Hillary campaign. When they were told AFTER THE FACT they stated had they known they would not have allowed that to take place. So again I state my point - how can you blame someone for planting a Hillary question when they had no knowledge he was a Hillary plant? And where does this Hillary plant claim come from? Here is some info from foxnews.com:

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer has denied that the campaign had any knowledge ahead of time that Kerr was going to participate in the debate, and Kerr said he did not inform the campaign of his plans.
Click to expand...
According to the Clinton campaign, members of Clinton's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Steering Committee have endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in their individual capacity and work with the campaign on several areas including political outreach, communications, policy advice and counsel and fundraising.
The retired officer said his activities with the Clinton campaign are minimal. He receives e-mails from the campaign and has been invited to a fundraiser in San Francisco. He said he offered to pay "some token amount like 100 bucks" to attend the fundraiser, but as of yet has given no contribution.
"I have not done any work. Several friends asked me if I would allow my name to be listed and I agreed. She's been such a strong advocate for gay rights," he told CNN on Thursday.
He added that he had been a Log Cabin Republican for a long time and recently changed from Republican to independent in California. He said he had supported the GOP but "these guys are just partisanly homophobic."
Click to expand...
Nice try but hold off on the "gotcha".
 
#116
#116
Paul still stays in single digits. If anything, he probably angered some supporters by dodging the independent run question.
 
#117
#117
CSpindizzy said:
Paul still stays in single digits. If anything, he probably angered some supporters by dodging the independent run question.
Click to expand...

He has always said he was not running as an indy. His numbers didn't move at all, imo, last night. He's still a pretty good long shot now that huckabee is surging.
 
#118
#118
CSpindizzy said:
Nice try but hold off on the "gotcha".
Click to expand...

Just pointing out that the campaigns cannot control the actions of individuals that may support them. Nor can a campaign control who chooses to support them. The fact that CNN had the guy speak on the mic is a totally seperate issue. They were irresponsible for having him talk... not blaming Hillary for that.

But Just pointing out that the guilt by association argument is weak... very weak in many cases because controlling who supports you or the actions of your supporters is tantamount to herding cats.
 
#119
#119
You're still missing the point. It does not matter if the argument is weak or not. People still base their opinions, beliefs, etc. on arguments like this. Most arguments on beliefs, etc. are actually weak. Does that stop people from still believing them? Nope. Paul's followers still think he has a wonderful shot at winning the nomination. Seeing him still in single digits disproves that. Fred's people think by far he is the best candidate out there. Not sure what episode of Law & Order they are watching. Bill Bennett swears up and down Mitt rocked the house last night. No supporting evidence and weak arguments on each of those. But that doesn't stop any of them from still believing that.
 
#120
#120
CSpindizzy said:
You're still missing the point. It does not matter if the argument is weak or not. People still base their opinions, beliefs, etc. on arguments like this. Most arguments on beliefs, etc. are actually weak. Does that stop people from still believing them? Nope. Paul's followers still think he has a wonderful shot at winning the nomination. Seeing him still in single digits disproves that. Fred's people think by far he is the best candidate out there. Not sure what episode of Law & Order they are watching. Bill Bennett swears up and down Mitt rocked the house last night. No supporting evidence and weak arguments on each of those. But that doesn't stop any of them from still believing that.
Click to expand...

I guess it appeared that you seemed to be advancing/supporting the guilt by association argument in several of your posts. If you are saying you find the guilt by association tactics used against Paul (or anyother candidate for that matter) are weak. Then we agree. But if you are saying that Paul or any candidate has control over who supports them or what some guy does at a YouTube debate, then that is where we part ways. But it appeared that you were making the case that Paul was a closet Confederate and that Paul needed to address this in the same manner as Huckabee, yet he has not had an opportunity in any of the debates or media outlets to do that, to my knowledge.
 
#122
#122
What? He cannot come out in any manner and clear the air? Does he have to have a debate to make a statement? He's had several debates and had several interviews to do so. I never knew Paul was silenced in such a manner. Wow. Is he that weak he just cannot come out and make a statement without it being prodded out of him in a debate?
 
#123
#123
CSpindizzy said:
If this is in fact the case, where is the issue? What's the problem?

I could care less what the Left would have a problem with. Frankly, the whole "well they would do the same thing too" argument and defense is a little old and childish. Just because someone else would pull a 5 year old meltdown over something similar doesn't mean anyone on the Right has to as well. As I mentioned earlier Malkin's throwing a fit over "planted" questions. She obviously did not sleep last night going through the profiles of each questioneer and comparing MySpace and Facebook profiles to see which questions were posed by Edwards and Obama supporters. Clearly some people have too much spare time on their hands. The same people who whine about Liberal whining have been caught doing the same thing.
Click to expand...

Michelle Malkin seems to have gotten your panties in a wad...
 
#124
#124
Nope. Just love watching her spend so much free time on pointless things. Just seems like a lot of work for absolutely nothing. Anyone who has all of that research done within 10 hours or less overnight really needs to get out more.

And no I do not wear panties.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top