Right-wingers have gone ballistic since Wednesday's Republican YouTube debate because four of the questioners appear to be Democrats, including the retired "do ask, do tell" soldier who hogged not one but two microphones, and it's apparently GOP policy to avoid speaking to outsiders until the general election. But when Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan went hunting for Democrats today in that debate's target-rich environment, she still came up empty-handed.
Check out this huge blunder in Noonan's column:
I thought of this the other night when citizens who turned out to be partisans for Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards asked the Republicans, in debate, would Jesus support the death penalty, do you believe every word of the Bible, and what does the Confederate flag mean to you?
None of those three questions was asked by a partisan for a Democratic candidate.
Tyler Overman, who asked if Jesus would support the death penalty, is a 23-year-old from Memphis, Tennessee, with no stated political affiliations on his YouTube profile or MySpace page. I could find no blogger or media report linking him to Democrats.
Joseph Dearing, who asked whether candidates believe every single word in his Bible, describes himself on YouTube as a "saved Bible-believing Christian" and has posted 24 videos over the past six months on the Book. He's a 24-year-old from Grand Prairie, Texas, who has a GodTube profile that states, "I've grown a lot spiritually, thanks to the influence of the infallible word of God, which today is found in the Authorized (King James) Bible." He told the Dallas Morning News that he was disappointed in the answers he got and is a Ron Paul supporter.
Leroy Brooks, who asked the flag question, is a self-described "kid" from Houston, Texas who declares on his YouTube profile that he's a Paul supporter. This ought to be no surprise, considering the Guy Fawkes bust in the background of his video. Paul backers have adopted that literal revolutionary as a symbol of their metaphorical goal to blow up big government.
In comments he posted on YouTube, Brooks said the purpose of the question was "to get a major candidate to attack me or blow me off and therefore hurting their southern base." (I think it may have succeeded where Mitt Romney is concerned, because his slam against the flag will burn some South Carolinans.)
Brooks also explained what the Confederate flag means to him:
for me it is a image that represents the first and only time in american history when a large group of people, who disapproved of government policies (slavery being just one of many), stood up and said "We're not going to take it anymore!".
So he's hanging that ginormous Confederate flag on his wall as a symbol of opposition to slavery. YouTube grades on a curve.
There's something unseemly about fisking people because they asked questions at a debate, as if you can't ask a good question because you already picked a horse in this race. Many political bloggers have pledged their troth to a specific candidate; does that mean they should also drink a glass of shut the hell up?
My favorite response to the debate is the bloggers like Malkin who have outed Log Cabin Republican David Cercone because he's supporting Barack Obama. The fact he's been left to vote Democrat, because all of the Republicans on that stage are allergic to his support, was the point of his question!
As a yellow-dog Democrat who watched the entire debate, I thought most of the questions were fair, aside from the gay soldier who should've been excluded by virtue of being too closely affiliated with Clinton. The fact some people asked questions for less than genuine reasons is less important to me than the substance of the answers -- watching Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani wrestle with Biblical literalism is just deserts for a GOP that's come to believe it has cornered the market on faith.
As Peggy Noonan should know, that question came from a God-fearing Republican.
Pegy Noonan is a sickening bitch...fer sure....but hey, you have to work with what you got.......
I am thinking she is a squirter...
Rex is a linebacker on your team, Rogers. It's the reason that Republicans will probably have another 4-8 years in the presidency.
The American public is not all this unaware of what is happening. They can see from their "Middle America" perspective the chicanery being employed by the Left and, or Democratics in their conduct of nomination. They aren't blind to the appearance of partisan cooperation between Democratic candidates and the media, in general; we can ignore the side-event of talk radio for the moment.
In Democratic debates, the questions are chosen to highlight the platform being presented by the member chosen. None of the questions are stereotypically negative, or intended to be "tough" or embarrassing. Live questioners turn out to be plants, stooges for the candidates and must be "picked" in cooperation with the staff managing the debate (media).
Then, the public can observe the media's continued cooperation with partisan interests in how they "manage" Republican debates. "Tough" and, or embarrassing questions, a soapbox provided to partisan interests to cause dissent and to sabotage the conduct of questioning, cheers from a supposedly Republican audience (or at the least equally represented) when a queer general gets angry at Republicans, and applause and shouts at other questions they found embarrassing to Republicans.
Now, here you are defending these actions by attacking someone who notices, but only has 3 paragraphs to explain her impressions ...
Being alive at the time and aware of the history of WWII, I'm familiar with your brand of "news", Rogers. It is for absolute loyalty to party over national interests, or win at any cost for your team and no matter how the win is accomplished. It is to manipulate the awareness and understanding of your audience and defend your gang over all efforts to defeat the philosophy of the-ends-justify-the-means you all employ.
I'm confidently hopeful that our American values and respect for the Constitution as our ultimate protection against anti-democratic gangsters will prevail against the politics being displayed by the Left, in today's world. I think Democratics will be defeated for the presidency, AND will begin to lose seats in both Houses of Congress. I believe the public will be disgusted with the constant effort to lose a war for 4 years running. Be amazed at how American soldiers, volunteers, are reviled and used as hateful images; in life and in death. Wonder at the idiocy of those who plant questions, or choose them, in order to manipulate the public like fools ...
... and vote your sorry, intransigent, anti-democratic, unpatriotic butts right out of government ....
And, you'll have done it to yourselves. We'll see ....
Being alive at the time and aware of the history of WWII, I'm familiar with your brand of "news", Rogers. It is for absolute loyalty to party over national interests, or win at any cost for your team and no matter how the win is accomplished.
Saying this over and over doesn't make it true, Tadowe. I'm a Democrat because I think the party's better at representing the interests of the people and this country, and they're more likely to succeed in areas where we need the federal government like Social Security and Medicare. Republicans run for office on the failure of government, and when they win they usually keep that promise.
But I've linked numerous stories over the years where Democrats or liberals were engaged in wrongdoing. The Drudge Retort was the only large liberal blog that made a big deal out of Air America's financial improprieties with the youth charity in New York.
The notion that I'm a Democrat first and an American second is offensive. I can take the hit -- I've been arguing politics with people who disagree with me since I began using BBSes as a kid in 1983 -- but it seems like a waste of time to continuously hear from a regular correspondent that I'm a traitor to my country.
I've often wondered why Rogers wastes his time arguing with Tadowe, who gets his jollies lurking at a liberal blog, waiting for the chance to swoop in and drop his load of crazed bombast.
It's manifest that Tadowe is insane, else why would he waste his time here. It's not as if he has a chance in hell of ever changing anyone's opinion, so why would he bother, except to glorify his own ego, which as any sane person would realize-- will never happen here.
Plus he has no sense of humor.
It's hard to believe he's real, rather than some goofball prankster's sockpuppet.
Rogers reasons, "Saying this over and over doesn't make it true, Tadowe."
How about saying, "NO WMD!", over and over? Does that make it true that WMD was not a valid reason to invade Iraq? (It's a rhetorical question, Rogers, and no need to fear that you *must* be honest and admit the image your party displays in contradiction to your "exception" to the rule ...) Isn't what I'm doing in that regard merely a Peewee Hermanish echo of what Democratics have been doing now for going on to eight years?
"I'm a Democrat because I think the party's better at representing the interests of the people and this country, and they're more likely to succeed in areas where we need the federal government like Social Security and Medicare."
These subjects have been mentioned in what debate? I'll never understand why, in discussions of generalities, the pronoun "you" is always taken to be a personal, individually directed, remark? Any of the shoes I display fit you, Rogers, why just slip them on ..."Republicans run for office on the failure of government, and when they win they usually keep that promise."
A typically stereotypical remark, and worded so carefully, too. I might have said, "Republicans run for office in order to reduce government and government spending, but rarely keep their promise (probably because they ARE bipartisan and think of all the people in their final decisions.)
You (in general) want more, and more, and more government to control the aspects of life that you fear. On the other hand, they (in general) want to rely more, and more, and more on the individual and the social institutions which do work socialistically; at the clan/tribal level.
"But I've linked numerous stories over the years where Democrats or liberals were engaged in wrongdoing. The Drudge Retort was the only large liberal blog that made a big deal out of Air America's financial improprieties with the youth charity in New York."
Gilding the lily. Besides, it actually brings the Leftists and, or Democratics together in collective agreement as to how to answer such nasty revelations of the party's true character and ends-justify-the-means attitude towards reality; a life-and-death reality for our nation, and not some 'game' of politics.
"The notion that I'm a Democrat first and an American second is offensive."
Indeed!?! And, why is that? You brag about your status as a "yellow-dog-democrat", but become upset when your individual self is dragged through the mud by your party's actions? Again ... I've said that your efforts are in support of the general efforts that the Democratic party is conducting, in order to win at any costs; even attempting to subvert the success (putting it mildly) of a war that ALL the USA is engaged it winning (or should be), and not just Republicans. Your personal, individual motives vis a vis anti-war, violence, whatever is not the subject, and even if it were it is trumped by your claim of yellow-dogism and the slavish support of party that represents.
"I can take the hit -- I've been arguing politics with people who disagree with me since I began using BBSes as a kid in 1983 -- but it seems like a waste of time to continuously hear from a regular correspondent that I'm a traitor to my country."
On your political discussion blog, Republicans are "Republithugs" and other epithets, much more vicious and spitefully presented. Those posts are supported by their remaining present on your blog, while similar but much more POINTED comments from the rightwing are removed -- BY VOTE. A "vote" that your staff, and yourself, use to judge the content, because you want to please the majority ... and it is in support of yellow-dogism. Saying that that is "arguing poltics" defines the term "begging the question".
I've explained why I think my opinion is valid, and by providing reasoning to support those conclusions -- that the party is acting out treasonously in attempting to lose a war to win a political victory. Republicans, and anyone else in support of a US victory, are reviled daily, and have been so reviled for the last 7 years! The Christian religion is being attacked (but only the conservative Christians ... yeah!). It doesn't matter to the party that they are cutting their Southern Baptist Democratic nose right off their progressively collective face(s)! No! Quick, make it NASCAR Democratics, too! Put them up on the posters to mock and revile for their remaining conservatism! Who else can we attack? How about any Democratic member who wants to win in Iraq? (Yeah ... Miller that traitor and Lieberman that backstabbing loser ... we can call others 'traitors' but they can't refer to our party that way, or we'll subtly infer that they may be vicious correspondents ...)
Look, Rogers, Rex and Vince agree with you and the party ...
and I still can't post from my exgate url
You brag about your status as a "yellow-dog-democrat", but become upset when your individual self is dragged through the mud by your party's actions?
I'm not bragging when I describe myself as a yellow-dog Democrat; it's just a fact -- I've never voted Republican for president or any other major office, and only left the Democrats for a Ross Perot vote in 1992 that seems quite embarrassing in retrospect, even though like Perot I am from Dallas.
I'd prefer a democracy where more than two parties had power in Congress.
I'll fix the IP problem this morning.
You brag about your status as a "yellow-dog-democrat", but become upset when your individual self is dragged through the mud by your party's actions?
I'm not bragging when I describe myself as a yellow-dog Democrat; it's just a fact -- I've never voted Republican for president or any other major office, and only left the Democrats for a Ross Perot vote in 1992 that I will never live down. I'd prefer a democracy where more than two parties had power in Congress. But when given the choice between R and D, for me it's no real choice at all.
Send an email to rcade at yahoo dot com from the IP address that can't post here and I'll look into the problem.
"I'm not bragging when I describe myself as a yellow-dog Democrat; it's just a fact -- I've never voted Republican for president or any other major office, and only left the Democrats for a Ross Perot vote in 1992 that seems quite embarrassing in retrospect, even though like Perot I am from Dallas."
Please, Rogers. It is equivalent to saying you're a died-in-the-wool Cowboys fan, or North Texas University "Mean Green" supporter -- the only difference is that you weren't born into being a zealot for those "teams" ... just Democratics. It is a brag, and a dare ...
It is also a two-way-street, and since your slavish loyalty to party provides you (and the rest of the herd) with the appearance of supporting subversion of a war, in order to gain political power when that failure can be blamed on Republicans. It places you in the position of looking anti-patriotic when the party attacks our volunteer military because they are perceived as standing in the way of a terrorist victory over Bush/Republicans. Or, even my example on your political blog -- the main subject of discussion, whenever I write *anything*.
You can't believably deny that you are part of the program directed against Christianity (specifically conservative Christians), because you continue to post articles which hold Christians up as evil, corrupt and, or hypocritical because some example/exception is found to highlight that *they* are the same sort of representatives of their faith as you are in your "faith" in Democratics as principled and moral leaders of America.
So, here you are making excuses for being an unconscious lever-puller -- not unconscious about the lever, but unconscious in realizing that the appearance(s) that the party reflects back on you are there and can't be avoided by those who so zealously support the party's acts and actions.
I'd give you credit for being a bit more objective, however, if I had ever seen you actively criticize any of these efforts: from trying to subvert the success of this war, all the way down to Christian bashing ... but, I haven't seen a one.
You even defend CNN's manipulation of the news and make me the "correspondent" villain for my observations surrounding that, and the "principle" which justifies such chicanery.
BTW, this and the last post were from exgate, and work fine, now.
So, here you are making excuses for being an unconscious lever-puller ...
Where did I make an excuse? I disclose my biases because I think it's the fair thing to do, so people can judge what I'm saying. I disclose the Drudge Retort's liberal bias for the same reason.
Turnabout is fair play here. Have you ever voted for a non-Republican for president or another significant office?
Rogers says, "Where did I make an excuse?"
You said that you weren't bragging about being a yellow-dog, that it was just a fact. Compare that with this:
"I've never voted Republican for president or any other major office ..."
That's quite a record, Rogers! Something you are obviously proud of doing, or not doing, huh? Sort of like a brag, but not one ... in the world of progressiveness.
"I disclose my biases because I think it's the fair thing to do, so people can judge what I'm saying. I disclose the Drudge Retort's liberal bias for the same reason."
You want to let other people know that you can't be persuaded of anything not Leftist and, or Democratic ... isn't that what you are saying? Isn't it really a caveat to anyone who disagreed with the various contentions and calumnies you create to advance your party in ruling this nation; directing it into progressiveness and radical change to defeat assuage your fears in life?
Of course it is, because even though I didn't label myself when corresponding to this site or the Drudge Retort, no one had any doubts, and neither would they when they saw the commentary from you, or the responses from the majority on your site. So, more excuses for bragging, it seems.
"Turnabout is fair play here. Have you ever voted for a non-Republican for president or another significant office?"
No one believes me! I've mentioned that I was a Democrat up until the riots in '68, and the effort of the Democratic party to bring the leadership of the rioters, among other subversives, into the party and give them control of the party platform! I voted the last two times for Nader, as I've said, and because he is the most honest of them all, in word and deed. I did not vote for Clinton because he is an f'ing cowardly draft dodging pervert ... and a convicted perjurer ...
You'd pull the lever for him, though, even now ... wouldn't you, Ol' Yaller?
I would've voted for Bill Clinton in 2000 without hesitation. I was happy with the way the country was going. Today? The Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton pattern gives me pause.
Now I'm on Rogers team? C'mon Tadowe, even you have to admit Peggy noona is nauseating.
"I would've voted for Bill Clinton in 2000 without hesitation."
Of course! It is better to goosestep to the koolaid bowl, than to EVER slink over and vote for a Republican. That's what being a yellow-dog-democrat entails -- a nazi-like adherence to party over everything else ... better a vote for a mass murderer, than to vote for a Republican.
... and, Rex, I certainly understand your not wanting to be associated with that kind of personally induced slavery ... no matter what kind of one-liner idiot you otherwise make of yourself!
"Brevity is the soul of wit."
You would be wise to learn Tadowe.
And Noonan is still a squirter, dimes to dollars.
Rex goes cliche, "Brevity is the soul of wit."
If only the Bard had learned his own lesson, my literature professors might even have been more tolerable.
Wit starts with a brief thought or exclamation -- the soul of the thought, and with the body to follow. At birth, all such thoughts take on body and fill-out; hopefully becoming knowledge and understanding.
You issues ghost-like and essentially vague brevity as your wit.
"You would be wise to learn Tadowe."
You would be wise not to make me into the subject of discussion. That path leads to obsession.
"And Noonan is still a squirter, dimes to dollars."
You highlight the hate mongering of Leftists and, or Democratics. Keep up the good work ...
Haven't been called a leftist since Horace the ghey stalked these halls. I don't like Noonan, that doesn't make me a 'leftist'.
I calls as I sees em'. No matter what the political affliation.
"Haven't been called a leftist since Horace the ghey stalked these halls."
How refreshing for you then, a non-partisan hater of conservative columnists ... you say ... ?
I'm sure you will never understand how much admire folks like you ....