This brings up an interesting question. Why are folks disturbed that Democrats [or liberals] asked questions of Republican candidates? Or the reverse, should Republicans ask some of the questions of the Democratic candidates?
I think there really needs to be that kind of cross pollination of questioning. As an example, regarding pro choice/right to life, if only a conservative base was asking questions of the Republicans, would the question even be asked since all except Rudy have already declared to be right to life.
Same with gay rights. [although this might confuse some of the Republicans since the questioner, a Clinton support was a Log Cabin Republican]. If only conservatives were in the question pool, just how would the question be framed? "Y'all are still against them gays, right?" "Yes", "Yep", "Yes Sir", "Uh huh", "Yes", and of course "I believe it's the States decision."
Without CONTROVERSIAL QUESTIONS these debates are nothing but YesFests. And the same should go with the Dem Debates. Have a Romney or Paul supporter ask about Universal Healthcare instead of the Talking Head. We would get much better questions.
Don't blame the "media" for this so called "debacle"
What is so wrong with asking candidates tough, harsh, and difficult questions?
As they presume themselves to be qualified to lead us, the ought to be subject to questions that give us an idea how they stand, so intelligent decisions can be made.
We need to know how they stand, and tough questions show how they perform under pressure.
What is wrong with you? Don't you understand it is supposed to be like a job interview!!!!??
Lord knows, the poor voter, bombarded right and left with mudslinging ads, and bland, feel good propaganda that says nothing, needs a chance to become informed.
Just the same thing that the public has the right to know about Supreme Court and Cabinet level nominees.
It is the right to be informed of the positions
__________________ "I think God is black. What's the matter, you have a problem with that? Are you afraid He is going to steal the moon or something?"
~~~Sarah Silverman
"Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative"
~~~Oscar Wilde
This brings up an interesting question. Why are folks disturbed that Democrats [or liberals] asked questions of Republican candidates? Or the reverse, should Republicans ask some of the questions of the Democratic candidates?
I think there really needs to be that kind of cross pollination of questioning. As an example, regarding pro choice/right to life, if only a conservative base was asking questions of the Republicans, would the question even be asked since all except Rudy have already declared to be right to life.
Same with gay rights. [although this might confuse some of the Republicans since the questioner, a Clinton support was a Log Cabin Republican]. If only conservatives were in the question pool, just how would the question be framed? "Y'all are still against them gays, right?" "Yes", "Yep", "Yes Sir", "Uh huh", "Yes", and of course "I believe it's the States decision."
Without CONTROVERSIAL QUESTIONS these debates are nothing but YesFests. And the same should go with the Dem Debates. Have a Romney or Paul supporter ask about Universal Healthcare instead of the Talking Head. We would get much better questions.
Surprisingly, I agree w/ you!
It is the "YouTubing" of our political process that really pisses me off! The national election of our next President is a very serious matter, and this craze for irrelevant and contrived YouTube questions, designed to do nothing more than "out" the conservative opinions of the Republican candidates, which really bugs me. Those stupid videos are NOT questions, they are clichés pure and simple. And the drive-by media seems to love that shit! I cannot believe that even the Kookbergers here are buying into that crap!!!
What is so wrong with asking candidates tough, harsh, and difficult questions?
As they presume themselves to be qualified to lead us, the ought to be subject to questions that give us an idea how they stand, so intelligent decisions can be made.
We need to know how they stand, and tough questions show how they perform under pressure.
What is wrong with you? Don't you understand it is supposed to be like a job interview!!!!??
Lord knows, the poor voter, bombarded right and left with mudslinging ads, and bland, feel good propaganda that says nothing, needs a chance to become informed.
Just the same thing that the public has the right to know about Supreme Court and Cabinet level nominees.
It is the right to be informed of the positions
"...tough, harsh, and difficult questions?" Where the hell have you been??? That was the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen:
"How do you feel about the world today?"
"What is your favorite color?
"Do you think gays should be allowed on the battlefield?
"Is the world going to survive?"
ETC., ETC...
It is the "YouTubing" of our political process that really pisses me off! The national election of our next President is a very serious matter, and this craze for irrelevant and contrived YouTube questions, designed to do nothing more than "out" the conservative opinions of the Republican candidates, which really bugs me. Those stupid videos are NOT questions, they are clichés pure and simple. And the drive-by media seems to love that shit! I cannot believe that even the Kookbergers here are buying into that crap!!!
I think it again boils down to my previous position that the >media< is neither liberal nor conservative but purely driven by ratings and profit and the YouTube phenom fits into that paradigm. Prior to YouTube we got the "boxers or briefs" question for Clinton, B. in 1992 on an MTV forum. [although some will say it was a significant question [or at least the answer was - see link]].
Imagine if you took the fluff questions out of the YouTube debate and asked questions that matter. Ask Huckabee, as an example about his belief in Biblical Inerrancy. Not as a question of his faith but his critical thinking skills. How did he derive that the eighth generation translation of oral stories are absolute and, as an example man and dinosaur lived together, something that has to be assumed if the Bible is inerrant and literal. What tangential Critical Thinking skillset was used to make that fundamental decision in his life and, as President how are we going to be sure that those same decision skills are not used when a real decision has to be made that affects everyone's life and wellbeing, not just his personal faith.
^ Making a mental note of the term "biblical inerrancy" for the next time I have that conversation. I never had a nice, succinct term to describe that, but it's funny to watch the faces of true believers when you bring that up after hearing about how the Bible says very specific things about this, that, or the other.
__________________
"I respect faith but doubt is what gets you an education."
- Wilson Mizner
"Once you label me, you negate me."
- Soren Kierkegaard
I think it again boils down to my previous position that the >media< is neither liberal nor conservative but purely driven by ratings and profit and the YouTube phenom fits into that paradigm. Prior to YouTube we got the "boxers or briefs" question for Clinton, B. in 1992 on an MTV forum. [although some will say it was a significant question [or at least the answer was - see link]].
Imagine if you took the fluff questions out of the YouTube debate and asked questions that matter. Ask Huckabee, as an example about his belief in Biblical Inerrancy. Not as a question of his faith but his critical thinking skills. How did he derive that the eighth generation translation of oral stories are absolute and, as an example man and dinosaur lived together, something that has to be assumed if the Bible is inerrant and literal. What tangential Critical Thinking skillset was used to make that fundamental decision in his life and, as President how are we going to be sure that those same decision skills are not used when a real decision has to be made that affects everyone's life and wellbeing, not just his personal faith.
Damn bear! I half-agree w/ you again!!
The drive-by media is liberal but ratings are key, by-and-large, and I would like to see Huckabee outed too--I don't turst him; but those two issues are apples and oranges IMO.
^ Making a mental note of the term "biblical inerrancy" for the next time I have that conversation. I never had a nice, succinct term to describe that, but it's funny to watch the faces of true believers when you bring that up after hearing about how the Bible says very specific things about this, that, or the other.
There is much useful information that comes from being a recovering Baptist.
Linear Mode
