Gabe, You Ignorant Slut

Yeah, I read your post. You missed my point. I'll let Ace and Malkin respond for themselves.

My criticism was twofold, and you left out an important part of my analysis. Did I complain about the questions CNN selected? Yes. Maybe you are comfortable having conservatives intentionally portrayed as a sort of Frankenstein's Monster made up of scary end-time evangelicals, trigger happy survivalists, segregation happy racists and John Birch Society members, but I'm not. It is neither a fair depiction, nor an accurate one.

Flip the image. If Fox News had held this debate and portrayed the Dem Candidates as Gaia-Worshipping, Tree Spiking, One-Child Policy Forced Abortionist, NAMBLA members it would have been just as wrong, regardless of what questions they asked. If convicted child-porn enthusiast Gary Glitter pops up showing interest in a Democrat during his YouTube question, the damage has been done regardless of how profound his question on Tax Credits for Renewable energy might be.

Under your "assumptions", you just let a professed Richardson supporter off the hook for pretending to encourage a Ron Paul run. You fail to see the problem with that?

That is beside the point, though. What you failed to mention was the other aspect I raised. As bothered as I was by the questions (which as they come under even more scrutiny appear to have been specifically designed by Democrats to influence the public perception of who Republicans are and what we stand for), I was just as outraged by the Republican candidates failure to call "bullshit" on the proceedings.

To the extent that there were "victims" on that stage, they were "victims" by choice. While Democrats may be comfortable assuming that role, it was disgusting to watch Republicans pliantly accept it.

I wanted someone in the GOP to produce what I called a "Coverdell Moment." It didn't happen.

In fact, Romney made the matter worse. By declaring the Rebel Flag to be so racially divisive it ought not even be seen (with no apparent qualifications), not only did he basically slander a large segment of the South as irredeemable racists, but he did so in a way that validated the little punk who asked the irrelevant question. That punk has since admitted that he wanted to create a wedge issue. Mission Accomplished!

Fred!'s answer was better, but still fell short of what should have been said.

Quite simply, CNN rigged a debate in order to divide and smear Republicans, and to create wedge issues where none existed before. And the GOP candidates stood there and took it. For you to excuse this on the grounds that "well, hey, the questions were good" is ridiculous. Or, charitably, naive.

Come on, man. You're going to be a lawyer. Are you telling me that if an Opposing Attorney pulled the same kind of tricks, you wouldn't object to the questions? You wouldn't be looking in your Rules of Civil Procedure or your Rules of Evidence for a way to remedy the intentional prejudicing of a jury?

I'm fairly sure you would.

Unless, of course, you limit your practice to "International Law". I don't think the UN picks their Secretary general thru YouTube debates.

posted by Jack M. at 07:57 PM

| Access Comments