s skippy the bush kangaroo: forget loyalty oaths, now only repubbbs can talk to repubbbs

skippy the bush kangaroo



Thursday, November 29, 2007

forget loyalty oaths, now only repubbbs can talk to repubbbs

if you were to take a trip thru hardly-ever-right wing blogtopia (and yes, we coined that phrase) today, well, you'd have to shower afterwards.

but more to the point, you'd realize that repubbbs only think that repubbbs are allowed to ask repubbbs questions, and that if somebody who might vote for a dem has a question for the gop candidates, it's totally not fair.

fred barnes in the weekly standard thinks the repubbb candidates came off looking like losers in last night's debate, apparently because cnn set them up.

but it was chiefly the questions and who asked them that made the debate so appalling. by my recollection, there were no questions on health care, the economy, trade, the s-chip children's health care issue, the "surge" in iraq, the spending showdown between president bush and congress, terrorist surveillance, or the performance of the democratic congress.

instead there were questions - ones moderator anderson cooper kept insisting had required a lot of time and effort by the questioners - on the confederate flag, mars, giuliani's rooting for the boston red sox in the world series, whether ron paul might run as an independent for president, and the bible. the best response to these questions was romney's refusal to discuss what the confederate flag represents. fred thompson discussed it.
one question, by a general of the us army who happens to be gay, was about gays in the military. this general works for hillary's campaign. so apparently this is not fair. nobody who works for dems should be able to ask repubbbs a question.

this righteous indignation about un-repubbblican questions being asked of repubblicans goes completely with the past several years of how this adminstration has handled the public: packing stadiums with choirs to be preached to, and not letting any opposing viewpoint even into the parking lot, let alone the venue to confront the power.

michelle malkin complains that several questioners in the youtube debate were actually supporters of different dem candidates. how dare cnn think that democrats may want repubbb candidates to explain their positions! it's unheard of!

we read michelle's post, and, after showering, we must note that michelle's hard-hitting investigative journalism lacks a certain, shall we say, actual point.

the john edwards supporter asked what the candidates thought the punishment for abortion should be if abortion became illegal. a very sane, legitimate question, and difficult to answer without showing your true colors question.

the "obama supporter" who asked if the candidates would accept the log cabin repubbblicans' support, never once claimed to be a log cabin repubbblican in his video, unlike how malkin describes him:

concerned undecided log cabin republican supporter david cercone = obama supporter david cercone
here's his video:



hm...he never claimed to be a log cabin repubbblican, yet that's how malkin characterizes him.

but it gets worse...the lady who asked a question about lead in toys is a...heaven forbid...union member! oh, god! the humanity, oh, the humanity!

but best of all, malkin was totally unable to find any blue tinges on the most ridiculous of the questioners. that is to say, the guy who likes the confederate flag wasn't a dem plant, and neither was the guy who thinks every word of the bible is the literal truth.

no, sir, those guys, the weirdest, goofiest guys in the debate? real repubbblicans.





those darn repubbbs!

john cole deals with this at balloon juice, but his commenters are more succinct and much nastier than we could ever be!

addendum: redstate is calling for a "do over" of the debate. that's right. the hardly-ever-right wing thinks american politics is a game of "red rover red rover send huckabee on over."

Labels: , , ,

posted by skippy at 1:22 PM |

2 Comments:

and that if somebody who might vote for a dem has a question for the gop candidates, it's totally not fair.

Imagine a Dem debate where a random "You-Tube" questioner asks the candidates about 'tax policy'...

When all the Dems 'blow smoke'-- Anderson Cooper literally hands the microphone to the 'questioner'- who just happens to be sitting in the 'live' audience... and he gets to deliver a 5 minute lecture on National TV to the 'assembled' candidates of the opposing party.

Later, you learn that his name was "Grover Norquist"...

If it doesn't matter who asks the questions, why were all you progressive pinheads so afraid of a Dem debate hosted by "Fox News"?
commented by Blogger Fletch, 9:19 PM PST  
By the far the most bizarre aspect of the "debate" was the complete disconnect between war spending and taxes, rebuilding infrastructure, and growing deficit.

And, I have to say I agree with the commenter above. The fact that the "gays in the military" question was asked, by whomever, was perfectly fine. What was completely bizarre, and totally inappropriate, was that the questioner (who, like several other questioners, was in the audience), was then allowed to provide a "rebuttal" to the answers. WTF? I mean, I'd be happy to see that format for all the questions, with questioners allowed to ask followup, give a speech, whatever. But that isn't the format, so this one exception was quite bizarre.

Incidentally, selecting random YouTube questioner Grover Norquist is also rather, let's just say, unorthodox.
commented by Blogger Left I on the News, 9:08 AM PST  

Add a comment