I believe I join many conservatives in having exceedingly little patience for the "controversy" surrounding ABC's performance in last night's Democratic debate.
After years of enduring a left-of-center tilt from MSM debate moderators, conservatives can only chuckle at such complaints. The endurance by the right of Chris Matthews and the clown-show that was the YouTube debate during the Republican primary season means that the collective right-of-center response to this bout of whining is:
"So?"
Moreover, at its core, Democratic complaining (generally from Obama supporters) as well as tut-tutting from the left-of-center media establishment seems centered on one key issue: the ABC moderators had the stones to ask about controversial topics that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will inevitably face this fall.
Given that their primary contest is much more about style and electabiliity at this point than idealogical variance, the candidates' ability to handle such questions is not an inconsequential issue. Just because those queries didn't conform to status quo expectations - and are eliciting the resulting howls of protest - doesn't mean they were flawed in aggregate.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 17, 2008 09:01 PM | Email ThisPersonally, I'm loving this bloodletting as it illuminates the problem with liberalism in general. They tend to focus on the abstract and inconsequential rather than the basic common sense/common values issues.
Instead getting caught up in comparative navel-gazing behavior like...Does age jump gender? or vice versa?
Posted by: Rick D. on April 17, 2008 09:24 PMBS
Bringing back the Marriage penalty will raise each family's taxes by thousands
Eliminating the Bush Tax cuts will cost a single income with a family's taxes to go up $1600.
All their proposed new socail programs will add thousands more to each families tax loads.
Two Trillion in new taxes they have planned, and wiping out the tax cuts on top of all the new income eating monsters our economy has produced.
No Thanks! I'll take my chances with McCain!
The howls have been about the fact that regardless of how "consequential" you may feel these "issues" are, could they really be more important than all the issues of importance that the next President of the United States will need to tackle, such as the economy and jobs, the Iraq war and occupation, health care, education, energy alternatives, the environment, corruption, the power of special interests, and so on?
That two-thirds of this "debate" focused on these inane matters is a slap in the face of anyone who wanted to hear the candidates talk about real issues.
Posted by: Daniel K on April 17, 2008 09:41 PMUnfortunately for the leftists (especially for Obama's fans), some of the more recent topics don't reflect well on their candidates. So, they're mad -- and especially mad that one of the networks other than the hated Fox News actually treated their candidates like candidates.
They pretty clearly enjoy having the bias work in their favor, even though they claim it just isn't biased when it is in their favor.
It drives them nuts to have the favorable bias disappear, even for a little while.
It's wonderful to behold their ire.
Posted by: Micajah on April 17, 2008 09:49 PMDo you feel like Clinton & Obama haven't had enough time to talk issues during their interminable primary contest?
Furthermore, do you believe the American people base their vote for President entirely on issues or do they also give some consideration to the personal traits, character, and experience of the candidates as well?
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 17, 2008 10:05 PME.g., Obama's take on raising the capital gains tax even though lowering it brought in more tax revenues. The question (and his subsequent answer) actually SHOWED that he was more concerned about punishing people than doing something practical and good that would encourage investment while contributing money $$ to the public kitty. He would rather take away economic freedom AND have less money in the public coffers. What sense, people, does THAT make? Yet there it was, for all to see.
Posted by: Michele on April 17, 2008 10:10 PMThey should have been careful what they wished for. They wanted a Fairness doctrine, and so karma has happy to oblige in remuneration for Chris Matthews.
Obama is no longer electable. There will be some gnashing and a lot denial, but the simple fact is that there is no way that he can recover from all of the gaffes and questionable affiliations.
And for those who have been paying attention, when there is no teleprompter, Obama has shown to be remarkably incapable of thinking on his feet. This won't bode well in the head to head against McCain.
But is there any surprise here? Obama is the face of Progressives. Self-destruct is part of their ideology, because if he had to come right out and really say who he is, and the socialist policies he stands for, he would not stand a chance. So he is forced to stand there and try to tiptoe around a huge political liability like Wright or Ayers, instead of simply denouncing them roundly. Something, by the way, that he should have done long ago, when he first knew he had presidential aspirations.
The grand audacity of hope turns out to be nothing more than the foolish overconfidence of Progressives.
He'll most likely put his foot in his mount again too. He can't help it. And if it is not him, it will be one of his supporters, or his wife or yet another nut job he is affiliated with, etc.
Gore, Kerry, Obama. Do they ever vet their candidates?
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 17, 2008 10:16 PMDo they suppose that McCain won't bring these issues up?
Maybe if they were a little more focused on finding someone qualified than in trying to decide what category of "minority" their affirmative action program should try to fill, they would not find themselves so alarmed at the prospect of facing actual questions.
I agree that Obama has serious problems; the unfortunate reality is that Hillary was never very electable either. Her own party doesn't seem to like her very much, and she is universally loathed by Republicans.
The Democrats appear intent on blowing yet another election.
Oh you mean like stick to the issues like the MSM did during the 2006 election that painted every R candidate as a sex fiend because of the Foley scandal?
Yep they really stuck to the issues there. All I can say is welcome to the real world.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 18, 2008 01:21 AMImagine in six months, during a debate between McCain and the democratic nominee, and the moderator spent the first hour hammering McCain on the deeper meaning of Cindy's "Recipe-gate", rehashing the Rovian crap about an exagerated war-record, asking if he thinks he's too old to be President, etc, etc, etc.
My sense is that there would be no end to the outrage on this board and 'whining' about the bias in the media.
Posted by: Splinter on April 18, 2008 09:07 AMIt's just part of the games liberals play. On the rare occasion this kind of "hardball" gets turned on the left they demonstrate for all to see that they are nothing more than a bunch of spoiled, elitist crybabies.
Those who scoff at what I'm saying need only turn to this morning's P-I editorial page.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 18, 2008 11:13 AMOr would it have been more informative to once again listen to both of these phonies lie about someone "I met today on the campaing trail who lives under a bridge thanks to the Republicans". Obama couldn't even get through the first 30-seconds of his opening statement without telling one of these fabrications.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 18, 2008 11:44 AMBill - Boo Hoo... poor Republicans (not 'conservative' by the way... Republicans have long ceased to be conservative about anything) always getting picked on by the MSM. I guess that's why McCain has gotten a free ride the last several weeks with his "mis-speaks" about Sunni, Shiite and AQI.
Although I don't disagree with you about the Democratic party being a bunch of elitist crybabies (almost as much as the Republican parry is now). This primary season has probably done more to turn me off of both parties than anything ever before.
Oh well, we only have 200 more days of elitist media types trying to distract us about Obama's lapel pin and Cindy McCain's recipe box.
Posted by: Splinter on April 18, 2008 12:40 PMAny question that forced the candidates to give an unrehearsed answer can't be called "stupid".
A stupid question would be one that allowed the candidates to regurgitate their position papers, without actually responding to the question.
And as far as people not caring about what you call "stupid questions", that is perhaps true, but they sure seem to care about the answers given to those questions. Answers that actally reveal something about the true thoughts and character of the candidate in question.
Posted by: ewaggin on April 18, 2008 12:58 PMYou could also get to the true thoughts and character of a candidate by probing deeper into some of the canned policy positions that still haven't been answered by any of the candidates. Obama could be asked to give more details on how he plans to finance some of his more costly proposals, Clinton could be asked (again) to tell Americans what will happen if they do not elect to have the 'mandatory' health insurance she is proposing, and McCain could be asked any number of questions about the Catch-22 proposal he seems to be making for Iraq.
In my opinion, it is still 'stupid' to ask about the lapel pins, Reverend Wright, Bosnia 'sniper fire', or some of the Keeting 5 issues that McCain has already answered time and time again. First, none of these issues have anything to do with the issues most Americans are facing (the economy, Iraq or healthcare) and they have all been answered many times.
Perhaps they have been asked the questions you list several times, yet in some cases they are unable to give consistent and coherent answers, which is a good reason to keep asking the question. Case in point - Obama on the lapel pin.
And the questions weren't all stupid, even using your overly-broad definition:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120847505709424727.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Ignorant, or just don't care, indeed.
Posted by: ewaggin on April 18, 2008 01:34 PMDid you type that all by yourself, or did your mommy help you?
Posted by: ewaggin on April 18, 2008 01:38 PMWell, that's quite the splitting of hairs there. But you implied that none of this is new. Maybe not, but the point is, those questions haven't been addressed 'over and over again'. Which is why they were asked. If they were addressed, we most certainly would've been subjected to the screeching long before now.
Just because you don't like to talk about it, don't think it's important and are hurrying to change the subject ... doesn't mean others aren't looking for answers.
I know Obama's positions. I know Hillary's positions. We've been subjected to them 'over and over again'.
What I don't know is why Obama doesn't denounce his racist pastor and church. Why he's associated with domestic terrorists. Why he thinks he's better than us knuckle-dragging rubes who turn to God, guns and a hatred of brown people when we get bitter.
Correct that. I DO know. But I want others to know, and that's why it's important that he address these issues. At least one time.
Posted by: jimg on April 18, 2008 01:38 PMIt's just a question, Senator. Get over it.
Posted by: Gary on April 18, 2008 01:47 PMRegarding your other Fox News talking points, let me see if I can just respond to these off the cuff, as I have heard these answered so many times, that if someone can still claim they haven't been address, either they don't follow politics, are just plain ignorant, or are engaged in typical partisan propaganda.
Racist pastor Wright: He has condemned Rev Wright's views and words on multiple occasions. Obama has explained in great detail how he doesn't agree with the black anger in many of these churches, but tries to understand where it comes from. Just like he tries to understand the white resentment (mine included) when minorities are given special access to programs, or given preferencial treatment in contracting and applying for jobs. It's also obvious that, along with the misplaced anger and whacky theories occasionally spewed forth by Wright, his church has also done a lot of good for the community it serves in Chicago, and it doesn't make sense to completely throw the baby out with the bath water (so to speak).
Associating with Domestic Terrorists: Obama and Ayers served on the same board for some community organization, and apparently Ayers made a $250 donation to his campaign at the state level. They may have even lived in the same neighborhood in Chicago, but I imagine you could probably find a lot of shady folks in most Chicago neighborhoods. To say that Obama associates with domestic terrorists makes about as much sense as saying George Bush associated with al qaeda because they have met and associated with the Bin Laden family. It makes a nice conspiracy theory, but any rational person would know that Obama (or Bush) would not have gotten to where they are if they had some deep secret alliance with terrorists.
Obama is an elitist: I would start by saying that anyone that is running for president is going to have a pretty huge ego and probably be a lot more well off that most blue collar workers, but the FACTS are that Obama was raised by a single mother, knows what it's like to have to pay off college loans (unlike our current President) and skipped the Wall Street mega-bucks to work in some of the poorest areas of Chicago. Actions speak a lot loader than words.
So you can continue to either ignore the facts, or use Rush as your only source of information on politics, but if this is the best you have on Obama, then I would say he has a pretty good chance in November.
Posted by: Splinter on April 18, 2008 02:13 PMThe problem I have with this is it seems very close to being like what went on in the 50's... "Are you now or have you ever been associated with a communist organization?"
Since we had McCain associate with that whacky evangelical minister, does that mean we should spend our time focusing on what McCain thinks about the most radical evangelical thinking? Do you really think that would be a better use of our time than talking about... um... how to get out of Iraq without making things worse... how to get our economy turned around... how to keep health care costs from continuing to go through the roof... what we should do to reduce our dependance on middle east oil?
It's just frustrating is all... on both sides of the political spectrum... to be wasting time (in my opinion) talking about "issues" that really don't impact our lives in the slightest.
Posted by: Splinter on April 18, 2008 02:31 PMMcCain has no friends who blew anything up and are unrepetent. And if he did, the GOP would dump him. Duh.
When/where did you learn are about Ayers? So you don't think it matters that the Dem front runner has Weather Undergound friend. Good. That's your right. I do think it matters. So what if this becomes known to everybody else?
Posted by: Gary on April 18, 2008 02:39 PMAnd if you actual bother to give the full context of Axelrod's statement, rather than just the "friendly" part of it, it makes a bit more sense:
"Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school," he said. "They're certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together....He (Obama) thinks what was done then was wrong and outrageous, and he believes that you can't defend the indefensible—but he's looking forward, he's not looking back."
So are you saying that every person a politician is even aquainted with, represents the candidates view? Even after they say they think the person's views is "indefensible"? That doesn't matter to you apparently.... If any two people ever have a conversation, or attend a party together, that must mean they are sharing some deep secret conspiracy together.
I have a hard time believing you're really that gullible.
Posted by: Splinter on April 18, 2008 02:56 PM"When Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., was indicted today on fraud, conspiracy and money laundering charges, he became the second official for the John McCain presidential campaign to face federal charges."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2008/02/renzis-record-s.html
LOL! I can just image that... which was my original point some time ago, that during one of the upcoming debates between McCain and the Democrat, the MSM moderators focus on these types of non-issues and "guilt by association issues", the level of whining from the right-wing blog would be deafening.
I mean there is a constant whine on this board every day about the "liberal bias" and unfair coverage of Republican candidates to begin with.... But if what happened to Obama happens to McCain, I have serious doubts how many "no biggies" I would be hearing.
Posted by: Splinter on April 18, 2008 03:21 PMAt least if you're thinkning about taxes and war, it's something that matters.... So why don't you try to defend your candidate on both of those issues.
Posted by: Splinter on April 18, 2008 03:29 PMMaybe it's just a new Republican thing I can't quite grasp... about why we should care about who this person has associated with and what bad things that person did that have nothing to do with the first person. Maybe the Republican party really doesn't have any good ideas any more about how to deal with our real issues, so they need to invent issues to distract us from not having any real ideas.
Yeah... that must be it. I do feel better now that I've learned something here. Thanks for the education and have a great weekend. :)
Posted by: Splinter on April 18, 2008 03:39 PMWe know all of this. Now what? How about we explore the person, their character, their judgment, history, etc? They want to be the President. Why do some people not want it to be known what kind of person they are? How they act under pressure, for instance? It's all part of the test that is a political campaign. Otherwise they could just submit a thesis and be done with it.
Posted by: Gary on April 18, 2008 03:45 PMDid the MSM make mention during the past 7-years of the robust economy we've had under Bush? Of course they didn't. You may as well expect them to question "global warming" while it's snowing in late April as I type this comment.
And how could I not help remembering when during the 2000 election George Bush rightly noted the economic downturn caused by the dot-com bust. The MSM and the Democrats shrieked about how Bush was "talking down the economy".
To borrow from an infamous Chicago Pastor, are the Democrats' chickens about to come home to roost?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 18, 2008 03:49 PMThe hard reality for Obama supporters is that Presidential candidates are subject to scrutiny. And delving in to Obama's relationships, particularly those of Wright and Ayers is absolutely de rigueur for any presidential election cycle.
This is the trouble with spending all of one's time inside the Blue Cocoon. And to be expected, because apart from a few brief moments like this debate, Obama has been given the kid gloves, nay starry-eyed gushing from the MSM. For evidence, see any just about any Chris Matthews video on YouTube in the last six months or so.
Consider SP an educational service for those few moments you lefties are willing to visit us in the gun-toting, religion soaked hinterlands.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 19, 2008 01:03 AMUmmm hey Einstein, this was their 21st Debate...now you're squealing about what? Because relevant issues of associations with Domestic Terrorists like William Ayers are trivial matters to the electorate?
You are either extremely ignorant or extremely partisan.....you decide which.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 19, 2008 10:10 AMWho'd prefer that we just ask "Boxers or briefs, Senator?" instead of relevant questions.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 19, 2008 10:13 AMSilly question. Of course you do.
Does that popular Soviet Realist poster of Obama that was shown on the front page of Thursday's Seattle Times not send chills down a person's spine? It certainly ought to.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 19, 2008 11:03 AM
Honestly, I don't have a big issue with the occasional question that deals with these type of character questions, but not an entire hour. Again, I think it would have been much more useful to the topics that concern most Americans to be trying to drill down into some of the 'pat answers' that all the candidates are giving on the economy, the war, healthcare, taxes, etc.
And Jeff, the only thing SP gives me an education on (at least from the rants on these posts) is that reinforces the notion that both political parties are basically full of a bunch of crack-pots, bigots and conspiracy theorists. (And I would say the same thing about the posts in H.A.... both sides of the political spectrum are wacked)
Posted by: Splinter on April 19, 2008 03:35 PMMust I continue?
Of course neither of them should have been subjected to the kind of questioning typically reserved for Republicans.
How could I have been so foolish?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 19, 2008 05:02 PMYour move Splinter
Posted by: Rick D. on April 19, 2008 07:30 PMPeriod.
And they blame the press for doing its job.
Posted by: Gary on April 19, 2008 10:10 PM