Expect Huckabee to be in the crosshairs tonight

#129
#129
Why is it so hard to think planted questions are not the norm? They happen all the time. When you have 'people forums' you get this sort of result.
 
#130
#130
I will say I don't care who asks what question or who sent them to ask it. If a candidate answers it in a way that is honest, then they shouldn't have any reason to feel awkward.
 
#131
#131
CSpindizzy said:
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?
Click to expand...

Again, Huckabee was asked this and was able to address it on a national stage last night. Paul has been confronted with this and has made several statements about not endorsing their ideas or beliefs, yet has not had the nation stage to address them. How hard is that to comprehend? It is a far different medium to address an issue that you need to get out ahead on if you are confronted on a national debate (such as Rudy last night with the tax payer guard protection or Huck with the Log Cabin Pub question) than it would be if some late afternoon talk show on MSNBC or CNBC or some interview during a campaign stop in New Hampshire. Not the same audience number, nor the same amount of coverage. Again, had he been able to address the CSA flag question last night (on a much grander stage than he has had in previous times he or his campaign has addressed this) you probably still wouldn't be satisfied.
 
#132
#132
Links to him addressing this?

It's not a matter of me being satisfied. Seeing you make these comments over and over shows me you've missed the point altogether. So no matter what you try to argue at the end of the day people will still have the same view on Paul. Again, the fact he is tied to groups like Mises Institute and having Lew Rockwell as his righthand man will never dispel those opinions on Paul.
 
#133
#133
CSpindizzy said:
Links to him addressing this?

It's not a matter of me being satisfied. Seeing you make these comments over and over shows me you've missed the point altogether. So no matter what you try to argue at the end of the day people will still have the same view on Paul. Again, the fact he is tied to groups like Mises Institute and having Lew Rockwell as his righthand man will never dispel those opinions on Paul.
Click to expand...

We'll just have to disagree.

I totally see your point about there being a public perception out there. You've just missed what I am saying, which is that Huckabee was given an opportunity on a nationally televised debate to answer a question about Log Cabin Pubs. Paul could never generate that kind of audience on his own. Debates like this are the only way he can get his message out. You know this to be true, yet you expect him to give voluntarily give some announcement/denouncement on nation airwaves... when you know no one would probably be there to cover it anyway? Rudy didn't come out voluntarily and address his security scandal earlier in the day... he waited until the debate, and he's a frontrunner. Huckabee is questioned about support of LCRs during the debate because he was directly asked about it.

If it was so important for you and others to want to hear a public comment from Paul on this on the bright lights of a prime time event, then YouTube/CNN did you a disservice. Instead of asking a question about the Yankees/Red Sox at the end of the debate, they should have used that time for Paul to set the record straight.
 
#135
#135
CSpindizzy said:
Again, where has he set it straight? Any links?
Click to expand...
Google? My goodness, this is the Paul campaign response to the Mona Charen hatchet job. I notice that Mona's article got major pub, but the response barely got a whisper.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTJmOWM2ZGQzNzAzOTQwYWJlMDg4YjJiMjE4MWRlZTY=

Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul’s send in checks, then they have wasted their money. I cannot profess to understand the motivations of Don Black as neither Dr. Paul nor I know who he is, but a simple Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits, including Charen’s column. Perhaps a better explanation for his “contribution” is not support for Ron, but the attention he knew he would receive.
Click to expand...

You can find more, like this trumped up story about a measley $500 donation from Don Black.

Lone Star Times » Paul campaign responds to LST re: Nazi gold

Geez... do you really expect every candidate to have to vet each and every $500 donation they receive? Do you expect a campaign to have control over who in cyberspace links to their website? Do you really expect any campaign to have to answer publically to every item that comes up like this? I mean, a $500 donation? Are you kidding? The man has raised $9.3 million or so, and the only thing the media talks about are a $500 donation from some Stormfront loser, and a bunch of $5 donations totalling about $3000-5000. That isn't even 1% of his total fundraising, yet you honestly expect ANY OTHER candidate to be held to such scrutiny?

C'mon... you know there is no way any candidate can put out a fire every time some news group pops up with the name of some militiamen in Montana or neo-Nazi in Wisconsin that has given a few hundred bucks to Paul... or Thompson, or any other candidate, do you?
 
#136
#136
PaulOwnsMcCain.gif


:lol:
 
#137
#137
Rasputin_Vol said:
Google? My goodness, this is the Paul campaign response to the Mona Charen hatchet job. I notice that Mona's article got major pub, but the response barely got a whisper.

Letters on Ron Paul on National Review Online=



You can find more, like this trumped up story about a measley $500 donation from Don Black.

Lone Star Times » Paul campaign responds to LST re: Nazi gold

Geez... do you really expect every candidate to have to vet each and every $500 donation they receive? Do you expect a campaign to have control over who in cyberspace links to their website? Do you really expect any campaign to have to answer publically to every item that comes up like this? I mean, a $500 donation? Are you kidding? The man has raised $9.3 million or so, and the only thing the media talks about are a $500 donation from some Stormfront loser, and a bunch of $5 donations totalling about $3000-5000. That isn't even 1% of his total fundraising, yet you honestly expect ANY OTHER candidate to be held to such scrutiny?

C'mon... you know there is no way any candidate can put out a fire every time some news group pops up with the name of some militiamen in Montana or neo-Nazi in Wisconsin that has given a few hundred bucks to Paul... or Thompson, or any other candidate, do you?
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. The bar has been set for Hillary or any Dem to screen their donors. After the Chinese bundler incident came forth, there were calls over over the map about her needing to screen this or risk being labeled complacent in such actions. So yes. Especially for high dollar donations, I DO expect those to be screened. You see federal campaign law already requires you to screen against donations from felons and foreign nationals. So the time it takes to screen every donation for that can mean screening against other things as well. Endorsements from David Duke apply as well. If CNN must vett out the questions they receive from people on a debate, then I guess a higher standard of vetting from donations and endorsements must be applied.

I still see no repudiation of Lew Rockwell who is Paul's righthand man, his former Chief of Staff, and by far his biggest supporter. With that left untouched the pereception is still there.
 
#138
#138
Could somebody explain the actual purpose for the debates in this day and age? Are voters actually swayed by them?
 
#139
#139
CSpindizzy said:
Wait a minute. The bar has been set for Hillary or any Dem to screen their donors. After the Chinese bundler incident came forth, there were calls over over the map about her needing to screen this or risk being labeled complacent in such actions. So yes. Especially for high dollar donations, I DO expect those to be screened. You see federal campaign law already requires you to screen against donations from felons and foreign nationals. So the time it takes to screen every donation for that can mean screening against other things as well. Endorsements from David Duke apply as well. If CNN must vett out the questions they receive from people on a debate, then I guess a higher standard of vetting from donations and endorsements must be applied.
Click to expand...

A high dollar donation? It was $500... Do you know how many $500 donations there are in any of the candidate's arsenal? I would say that it would be far easier for CNN to get a background check on 34 people asking questions than it would be for any campaign (especially a campaign that has been as understaffed as Paul's) to go through 37000 donations.

It is about proportionality. CNN has the resources and manpower to easily go through 34 people's background.
 
#140
#140
Rasputin_Vol said:
A high dollar donation? It was $500... Do you know how many $500 donations there are in any of the candidate's arsenal? I would say that it would be far easier for CNN to get a background check on 34 people asking questions than it would be for any campaign (especially a campaign that has been as understaffed as Paul's) to go through 37000 donations.

It is about proportionality. CNN has the resources and manpower to easily go through 34 people's background.
Click to expand...

They're required by federal law to vett these out anyway. They are required by law to vett out even the $1 donation. No excuse. If they are not vetting like this can it be said they are not vetting on the federal requirements as well?
 
#141
#141
As for CNN's vetting they never sold this as a purely GOP debate. They never sold the questioners as undecided OR Republicans. While RedState, Michelle Malkin, and Fred Barnes are screaming about the questioners being either committed supporters or activists, they have failed to acknowledge that at least two of the questions are from people as biased as it gets. Buzz Brockway is a GOP activist and very plugged into party politics. Grover Norquist is the head of Americans for Tax Reform, as conservative as you get, along with being best friends with Ralph Reed and felon Jack Abramoff. So the argument that these people were supposed to be average and/or undecided does not hold water.
 
#142
#142
CSpindizzy said:
As for CNN's vetting they never sold this as a purely GOP debate. They never sold the questioners as undecided OR Republicans. While RedState, Michelle Malkin, and Fred Barnes are screaming about the questioners being either committed supporters or activists, they have failed to acknowledge that at least two of the questions are from people as biased as it gets. Buzz Brockway is a GOP activist and very plugged into party politics. Grover Norquist is the head of Americans for Tax Reform, as conservative as you get, along with being best friends with Ralph Reed and felon Jack Abramoff. So the argument that these people were supposed to be average and/or undecided does not hold water.
Click to expand...

Oh, I knew that. It especially became clear that it wasn't your average set up when CNN had a room full of "undecided" voters in a focus group and one of the women said that she would support John Edwards.
 
#143
#143
What? Can undecideds not make up their mind after a debate? Again, what kind of logic are we using here? What law says undecideds HAVE to remain undecided? Undecided voters can go either way - Dem or Republican.

And that still does not answer my question about the ones asking the questions being undecided. Show me where before the debate there was an indication or restriction that those asking the questions had to be confirmed Republicans. It wasn't done for either the Dem or the GOP debate. It was open to viewers.
 
#145
#145
CSpindizzy said:
As for CNN's vetting they never sold this as a purely GOP debate. They never sold the questioners as undecided OR Republicans. While RedState, Michelle Malkin, and Fred Barnes are screaming about the questioners being either committed supporters or activists, they have failed to acknowledge that at least two of the questions are from people as biased as it gets. Buzz Brockway is a GOP activist and very plugged into party politics. Grover Norquist is the head of Americans for Tax Reform, as conservative as you get, along with being best friends with Ralph Reed and felon Jack Abramoff. So the argument that these people were supposed to be average and/or undecided does not hold water.
Click to expand...

I really don't care about who was asking the questions, but you've got to admit that the whoever chose the questions really did a bad job of choosing topics.
 
#146
#146
I disagree with a few friends on the whole Bible question. What better way is there to see into a man's heart than having him discuss probably his deepest held belief? For Christians, their beliefs are proably the most important to them. If they waffle and squirm on standing up for their core personal belief, that tells you all you need to know about the person. Yeah, the guy asking the question is probably an atheist. Whooptie doo. If you can't stand up on this what CAN you stand up on? The question didn't say anything about making the Bible the platform for the nation. It asked about taking the Bible word for word. So the counter that we're not voting for priest-in-chief doesn't apply.
 
#147
#147
I can see the Bible question, but the questions about prosecuting abortionists, gays in the military and the dude in the basement with the rebel flag were just plain goofy.
 
#148
#148
With the military stretched thin people are examining policy in boosting the numbers. Analysts are rethinking some of the old policies. Age limits have been dropped, criminal pasts are less scrutinized, etc and the recruiting is still trailing off. So gays in the military is actually a more relevant issue than people give it credit for.

Prosecuting abortionists is relevant for each one of the candidates who wants the Federal government to push for an end to Roe and add a constitutional amendment to protect life. THOSE candidates need to answer that. Are they prepared to back up the amendment they say they support? Or is it lip service?

The flag issue was irrelevant. It might be relevant for those in SC who still harp on it...even those in GA who harp on it. It's a small number. It's about as relevant as the sex ed issue asked at the Dem debate.
 
#149
#149
CSpindizzy said:
It's about as relevant as the sex ed issue asked at the Dem debate.
Click to expand...

That's my whole point. It's not that the questions shouldn't be asked, it's that they are out of place in a Republican primary debate where for the most part every candidate is going to answer the question the same way with differing degrees of eloquence. It was like the questioners weren't seeking information, they were seeking to trip somebody up.

I think part of the reason Huckabee hit a homerun is because giving plain, logical answers to potentially problematic questions is his strong suit.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top