debate | MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Boo Hoo Obama

Waaaaahh, it’s not fair when those racists ask me questions that make me uncomfortable!!!

HALP ME, Nutroots! If you’re a true believer, you’ll harass all the blasphemers!

Boo Hoo Obama

Because Tennyson shared his SNOBama masterpiece with the world, I’ll share my pale imitation as well. (No making t-shirts off it, though–I need the money.

Speaking of Snobama and shirts, AuthenticGOP.com has SNOB shirts available!

UPDATE: And he’s still an elitist snob.

Fred Thompson Rocks the Debate

The focus group loved him. Ron Paul? Not so much. LOL.

I’m still trying to find video from the Luntz group rating RP “the lowest in any debate ever” when he was shrieking like Adam Gadahn about Iran. ;-)

Lots of links to praise of Fred Thompson’s performance in the debate at The Fred File here and here. Video of key moments are here. While you’re there, make a donation!

Fred Thompson also got an important endorsement today from Human Events. If there’s any doubt about who the consistent conservative is, this ought to settle it.

We begin by recalling the profound words of Ronald Reagan at the Conservative Political Action Conference Feb. 15, 1975: “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” We believed that then, and we believe it now. The issue for us — and for the conservative community — boils down to which of the candidates is most representative of the fundamental conservative principles we believe in. The answer is Fred Thompson.
…
We make this endorsement on the basis of much research, having interviewed Sen. Thompson and some of his opponents, as well as examining what they have all said and done. We conclude that Thompson is a solid conservative whose judgment is grounded in our principles.

Read the rest here.

Read about Fred Thompson and why you should support him.

Fred Thompson’s biography

Fred’s principles

His policy papers:

Border Security and Immigration Reform

Improving our Military

Tax Relief and Economic Growth

Social Security Reform

Reducing Government Spending

Israel

Education

Values

FDTV where you can watch campaign videos

Fred’s YouTube channel

Here are other places to talk about Fred:

FredHeads.com

Draft Fred Thompson

South Carolina Republican Debate

Live-blog! You can add your comments in the box at the bottom and vote in polls if/when I post them. You can, of course, comment as usual in the blog comments if you prefer–it might keep things a little more coherent if there aren’t a zillion people commenting, but I won’t complain either way!

As I said earlier, there will be a few of us live-blogging it together, so this might get wild at times! :)

Tonight’s South Carolina GOP Debate

Some of us in Cotillion are going to try to do this at multiple blogs (but it will definitely be here, at the very least), so I’ll update this post to let y’all know where else this live-blog will be posted. You’ll be able to see the same thing and comment at any of the sites hosting it. :)

Fox News Republican “Forum” (Debate)

I hate live-blogging with a passion, but I’m gonna sorta wing it.

Loved that pissing contest between Mitt & Huck, especially “You make up facts faster than you talk.” It’s the truth, isn’t it? Heh.

I’m glad to see Fred talking about Social Security; it needs fixing, and his remark that “nobody makes the case” (cough W cough) for what needs to be done is exactly why it unfortunately wasn’t fixed earlier in Bush’s Presidency.

Oh, brother…Huckabee and his populism. Excuse me while I throw up with the class wars. I’m not sure if Millionaire Mitt should be the one to slap that populist crap down, though–although it’s hard to argue with the knowledge of someone who’s made $200+ million on his own.

God, please, someone, destroy that FairTax nonsense since Chris Wallace mentioned it. Yes, we need IRS reform (or abolition), but not not not with the unFair Tax, “pre-bates” be damned. Giuliani is avoiding the subject altogether, instead talking about how he reduced poverty and welfare in New York City.

OMG, yay–Fred’s talking about a “flatter” tax. Yay! Flat Tax is the way to go! Like he said, what’s good about the Fair Tax is 1) reform, and 2) simplicity, but that’s it. I’m sorry, why the hell isn’t every conservative supporting Fred when he talks about taxes? Hello?

Oh no. They’re going to talk about “change.” I had enough of that last night during the Dems’ debate, thanks. Blech.

McCain mentions the change in Iraq, and that’s the most significant “change” we’ve seen in a very long time. No arguing with him on that–and it really, really matters. Mitt says someone from Washington can’t change Washington; I don’t really agree. I do think John McCain knows how to implement reform–he’s made it a focus of his political career, including with McCain-Feingold (regardless of how much we don’t like it, it was “change”). Of course, I think Mitt could have a reforming effect as well; he’s done it in the real world.

And…once again, Fred says the right thing. It’s not about “change,” it’s about leadership.

Yeah, Rudy! Hillobama wants “change” in the form of tax increases and retreat and defeat in the war. Damn right.

Break time, time to celebrate RON PAUL NOT BEING THERE! Yay!!! This round’s on me!
stein hoist
Read the rest of this entry »

Rant: The Idiocracy Debate (again)

Well, I was going to let it die (as it should), but since everyone’s talking about it and my inbox is filling with people’s thoughts, I can’t get away from it. I’m still aggravated as hell about that abomination, and not just because of the DNCNN debacle. I’ll say one thing that this stupid “debate” did do, though–it put a big spotlight on how well-organized the Democrats are, and how poorly organized Republicans are nowadays. But you know what? No complaining allowed, because the stupid internet activists set that cast a few years ago with the “Not One Dime” and other negatively-focused organizational efforts. This is the logical conclusion of years of whining about not getting *everything* you want. Well, I hope people are happy with President Hillary, because I’ll tell you what–I have never been pessimistic about our chances of winning, not since 1980. I even thought Bob Dole would beat Slick Willie in 1996. I’m not that optimistic about 2008; not yet, anyway.

But about that Idiocracy Debate. EM Zanotti wrote this in a group email discussion:

I think one fundamental problem with those questions was that about 50% of them were irrelevant. Who cares what a future President thinks of Dick Cheney’s “evilness” or whether he is a Bible literalist? Theoretically, the only people who care about those things are “progressives” or Democrats who aren’t looking to vet but rather to destroy the candidates. But those are also some of the biggest names in YouTube-dom, and the ones who knew to be visible, look normal, have a solid question that CNN has been flogging for months prepared and ready to go.

Now, on the other hand, if you’ve seen the rejected questions, which CNN posted some of the night before the debate, what you had last night seems like not only the most relevant, but also the most coherent. Slim pickin’s, peeps.

Link to the “rejected questions” via EM’s post from the other day.

Call me a curmudgeon, but I absolutely despised the format.. I think what EM said (”slim pickins”) is absolutely crucial here. I can think of one and a half questions I thought were well done: Buzz Brockaway’s, and halfway from Grover Norquist (halfway because it simply added nothing, but at least it was aimed at a “no new taxes” question). No, wait–I appreciated the Mars/space program question, but that’s just a personal space-geek interest of mine–hardly one of most voters, and not one of my top issues either.

Almost all of the Joe Schmoes’ questions (other than the one from Buzz) made me cringe at best, insulted and irate at worst. No, wait–nauseated, at worst. “Oh, Mr. Paul, pleeease save the world and run third party.” ::vomiting:: Most of the questions were either made for demagoguery or phony questions from people who obviously have no intention of voting for any of these candidates. I want them to answer questions that actual Republican primary voters like us care about, not crazy-scary crap like that Bible-waving creep had. And what the hell, a Confederate flag question? How can that be mistaken for anything but an attempt to make someone look bad?

I keep remembering two things: 1) the electorate that submitted questions voted for Clinton twice (illustrating their shallowness), and 2) George Allen and “macaca.” “What?” you say? YouTube and the self-centered ambush mentality of YouTubers and the nutroots (left AND right, but mostly left) have completely erased any shred of maturity and dignity in the process that was left after Slick Willie desecrated the office. I don’t want yahoos shouting rude questions at the potential leaders of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth. George Allen was my choice for 2008 since around 2002, and that was destroyed by an off-hand smart-assed crack from him to one of these clowns that was twisted by YouTube/nutroots yahoos into something it wasn’t and isn’t. People are distraught with the current choices, and I blame the idiocracy for it. Who but someone skilled at “debating” yahoos can survive? Is this what we want in the future? Look how our candidates are treated by the media and the nutroots–and you get asinine questions like “do you believe every word of THIS BOOK” and Evil Bad Cheney cartoons. You get obnoxious cranks like Kerr, and phonies like the Obama and Edwards supporters. You get the whole Ron Paul Cult and their obnoxious, insane spittle. You get the (admittedly funny) guy gunning for his fifteen minutes of YouTube fame by catching rifles and saying “you can answer how you want.” (I’m all for humor, but if I wanted to watch funny gun jokes from some schmo I’d expect to find it elsewhere–or at least from the candidates themselves!) There is no respect for the process or the candidates at all any more.

What next, Republican Party Survivor? Dancing With the Candidates? It disgusts me. I was skeptical before the debate and wasn’t on the Save the Debate bandwagon either, but I wasn’t averse to it; I hoped to be pleasantly surprised. Instead, it was worse than even I had imagined.

Bah. Funny, I just now noticed Tom Delay saying virtually the same thing on Hannity and Colmes–and say what you will about Delay, but the man knows how to get things done. I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks this circus is a disgrace. Of course, I think the whole “debate” game is stupid, anyway. It’s glorified hazing. It’s the political equivalent of the Miss USA Swimsuit Competition. It’s just plain stupid, and it in no way indicates who is the best person for the job. It simply allows the Joe Schmo public to be lazy, precluding the requirement for actual research into the candidates’ views and voting records. A “debate” (scare quotes intentional) gives the quick sound bites, and the people in the spin room distill it for the lazy public. How about instead of a stupid “debate,” the networks in play set up 90 minutes for speeches, and give each candidate ten minutes to lay out what he or she stands for and why we should vote for them? Let them sell themselves. They know what issues are important to the voters, and if a candidate doesn’t know, he or she won’t deserve our votes and really ought not be running at all.

Now I know my very negative opinion of this Idiocracy Debate format is firmly in the minority on the internets, but that’s nothing new around here. (Then again, even the Save the Debate Coalition didn’t cheer about the result of it.) I’m more tech-oriented than most in the political blogosphere, so it’s definitely not tech-phobia. It’s just my basic belief that we voters and the office of the Presidency deserve better.

You may not agree with my opinion of the format or of debates in general, but if you agree that last night was a travesty because of CNN’s incompetence or malice (take your pick–I never attribute to malice that which is more easily and likely due to stupidity or incompetence, myself), then check out Red State’s battle cry.

Read the rest of this entry »

The DNCNN-YouTube-Idiocracy Debate

Summed up nicely from the brilliant Wuzzadem:

Republicans' CNN/YouTube debate

I laughed out loud.

All the dirt from the GOP’s Idiocracy Debate at Michelle Malkin’s (and more by following the trackbacks).

Let this be the nail in the coffin for stupidity like YouTube debates. PLEASE.

Best comment seen so far, from Tim Lamb of Waynesville, Ohio:

This is a stupid format. What is next? Dancing with the Presidential Candidates!! The Great Presidential Race!! Presidential Idol!! Give me a break. How about a serious format?

Amen.

Oh, and yeah, I did watch it after all. If I were a good blogger, I’d have posted my commentary about it here. Instead, everything I had to say during the debate is over in the comments at Ace’s. You know, where people actually comment.

Winners & Losers:

Most Presidential: McCain, as usual. Plus, he got extra bonus points for his Presidential demeanor in contrast to the barking moonbat debate troll standing next to him. You know who that is. I personally would have been happier if McCain had roundhouse-kicked RP, but that’s not gonna happen. Oh well.

Most Charismatic (not in the religious sense): Mike Huckabee, as usual. He comes across really well in these debates, but eventually people are going to look deeper and I suspect not like everything he’s for.

Most Surprising (and Welcome) Line: “I was wrong.” Well played by Romney on the abortion issue.

Funniest Line: The bit at the end with Rudy and the Yankees. Other than that bit, he was off last night.

Most in Danger of Hemorrhaging Support: Fred. Fred, oh Fred…wherefore art thou, Fred?

Candidate with the Most Soft Support and Weakest Campaign: Duncan Hunter. I have yet to see any conservative speak ill of Duncan Hunter, but dude’s got like $86 in his campaign. He was good in the debate as always, but it’s meaningless–especially when he only gets in about three sentences. Then again, Huckabee once was in the same boat. I don’t see it with Hunter, though.

Failure of Imagination: Tom Tancredo, on the Mars program. Also Huckabee (and Mitt?), but Tancredo especially. Just one more reason why I wouldn’t vote for him.

Crazy Troll Who Needs To Take A Xanax Before The Debates: Obviously, Ron Paul. I loved that someone asked him the CFR question, because he showed his crazy conspiracy theorist ass for the whole country. And again, McCain should’ve roundhouse kicked him on that Vietnam crap. As soon as I heard it, I was just waiting for McCain’s response. But no point in continuing on the Troll–I detest everything about him, everything he says. He could say “kittens and babies are adorable” and it would irritate me, because he is apparently incapable of speaking without sounding like a raving lunatic (again, contrast that with McCain).

Winner of the Debate: Hillary Clinton, courtesy of the Clinton News Network. Again.

Loser: Ron Paul, because I despise him and his supporters. Okay, the real loser: CNN. What a disgrace.

Update: Ace says General Kerr was the winner.

The clear winner of the Republican debate was Gen. Keith Kerr, a member of Hillary’s LGBT steering committee, given approximately half as much time to voice his opinions as Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson.

Exactly. More post-mortem from the disgraceful Idiocracy Debate there, too.