In recent days, Republican prez candidates Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have taken to saying they won’t participate in the Sept 17th YouTube-CNN debate (now that they saw how the Democratic version played out).
They both suddenly realized they had other events planned for that day … in six weeks … that are more important than answering questions from actual Americans.
‘Fraidy cats.
But maybe that’s their point — they feel they shouldn’t have to answer to the people whose votes they are seeking and instead would rather spend their time kowtowing to special interests.
WaPo says that Multiple-Choice Mitt actually told a C-Span interviewer he thinks “the debate did not show the proper respect for the process of selecting a presidential nominee”.
The process of which he speaks is our democratic form of a representative republic and the only people disrespecting it are those candidates and current incumbents who can’t be bothered to answer our legitimate questions. The proper respect should come from him: he should be respecting we Americans who elect a person to be our leader every four years.
Gov. “Ties Dogs to His Car” Romney has claimed that the example of a ’snowman’ asking a question about global warming was somehow unbecoming. The rest of us thought it was kitschy but amusing. If Gov. Romney is afraid of Frosty the Snowman, how’s he ever going to go after Osama bin Forgotten?
There is now a group of conservatives trying to pressure Romney and Giuliani into participating in the debate. Their group is, cleverly enough, called Save the Debate. Good for them, although they strangely claim that Republicans backing out of a q+a in which regular Americans are asking the debate questions is somehow akin to the Democrats which scuttled the Fox News q+a (based on the obvious rationale that Fox is a well-known conservative-biased organization).
Odd. Are these conservative grassrooters somehow claiming that the American people are liberally-biased and that this is why Republicans are backing away from such a debate?
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 30, 2007 at 11:49 pm
dwlawson
Maybe the bias is in the organization that is choosing which video questions to air.
CNN, after all, is the organization that decided it should edit its transcripts to cover up one of its “analysts” referring to gun owners as “gun nuts” or “Second Amendment literalists”.
http://www.wearethemilitia.org/2007/07/journalistic_integrity.html
That said, I think they should do the debate anyway. Only a coward runs away from a debate as the Dems proved regarding the FNC proposed debate.
Giuliani and Romney won’t win the Republican primary anyway. I’m actually considering voting in the Republican primary for the first time ever just to help make that certain.
Since the Dems will take Illinois anyway, the only election that really matters in this state is the primary.
July 31, 2007 at 12:10 am
robnesvacil
Right… as explained, the Democrats scuttled a biased debate set-up. Fox News is historically, demonstrably and routinely biased against Democrats (indeed, they were the first television channel to air the faked-up “madrassa” BS against Sen. Obama). As a private entity, it is their right to hold such bias should they so choose just it is the right of other private entities, say, someone campaigning for office, to ignore their bullcrap.
Either you believe in the free market and liberty or you don’t, DW.
Nobody “ran away” from the Fox debate. They simply weren’t going to legitimize a biased organization any further — their choice to do so.
It would be as if the Republicans in this case were trying to scuttle the YouTube debate because they somehow know the American people are biased against them, seeing as how Gov. Romney’s stated rationale is that he doesn’t think questions from the American people are respectful of our democracy in action… that somehow being questioned by real Americans is disrespectful.
(As to your gripe, CNN has also committed such crap against the other side. Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign comes to mind. [Dr. Dean, by the way, got straight A's from the NRA as governor of Vermont]. Though they didn’t bother to edit any of it and instead left the impression to just ferment in voters’ heads.)
PS: Certain “gun owners” are “2A literalists”. A smaller subset likely are also “nuts”… as certain people who choose to use their guns for illegal purposes demonstrate daily in this country.
Now, I wouldn’t say all gun owners are literalists or are nuts — the facts speak otherwise. The vast majority of gun owners are reasonable and law-abiding (and certainly very sane and rational) upstanding citizens and neighbors. Post over here, or email me, when you get that CNN DVD. I’m curious to know if they similarly edit the video somehow.
As for “1A figurativists” … most of us actually are. This is why we as a society do not (usually) dispute laws restricting forms of speech such as slander, libel, fraud, incitement, etc.
July 31, 2007 at 8:16 pm
dwlawson
I was in no way suggesting that the Democrats are or were required to accept Fox’s proposal. I just think it’s spineless.
In my opinion, Romney is a bit patrician, but I think that could be due to spending too much time in New England. I saw a segment about his 5 sons and they seem like decent guys, but my main impression after finding out that Romney has 5 sons and, I think 1 daughter is that we should be voting for his wife! She is either a saint or a real go-getter.
Hey, I’m all for sensible gun laws. We could repeal all 20,000 gun control laws and still have the same sort of “reasonable” restrictions on the 2nd that we have on the 1st.
Slander and Libel are using speech to harm. Using a gun to murder or attempt to murder someone is using firearms to harm. It is illegal to murder or attempt to murder someone. Self defense is not murder, anymore than the truth is not libel or slander.
Fraud is using speech to steal. Armed robbery with a firearm is using a firearm to steal. It is illegal to rob someone.
Incitement is using speech to prompt someone else to commit a crime. I suppose the 2A analogy would be forcing someone to commit a crime by threatening to murder them with a gun. That’s illegal too.
People always point to the time-honored example of not being able to shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Well, you can’t shoot your gun in a crowded theater either. You actually can yell “fire” if there actually is a fire. So I think you can shoot your gun in self defense in a theater as well. (well, not in Illinois unless you are a law enforcement officer, or a retired law enforcement officer, or a Chicago Alderman, or a Railroad Security Person, or a member of an astonishing growing number of federal agencies being armed everyday…)
August 1, 2007 at 9:13 am
robnesvacil
In reality, most Democratic voters (this is currently a primary election we’re discussing) thought ignoring Fox News was just the opposite. Rather than needlessly pandering to a well-known biased organization, in effect giving it legitimacy, they went elsewhere instead.
That debate wasn’t about walking away from a fight (which what your reaction to it seems to indicate you think it was). It was about walking away from known liars so as not to give them even the appearance of truthiness.
That anyone is even thinking there’s an analogy between Democrats walking away from biased liars and Republicans walking away from regular Americans is quite curious (especially coming from a liitle-l libertarian such as yourself)…
–
I’ll note that the people you say are allowed to be armed are not usually armed with “assault weapons” in those situations. You yourself are generally allowed to own a sidearm though, granted, some municipalities do restrict your ability to transport it.
August 1, 2007 at 4:43 pm
dwlawson
First, I don’t care an ounce what Daily KOS has to say about FNC. I think FNC looks right biased only in comparison to the rest of the mainstream media. The Trib, Suntimes and Chicago TV are so left it’s laughable if it wasn’t so ridiculous. I used to pooh pooh the conservatives who claimed the media was so liberal biased until I got involved in the gun rights issue and found out how slanted the reporting is.
Example, 1200-1500 individuals go to Springfield for IGOLD and not a peep out of them. 200 illegals go there and its big news.
Another, in March history was made when the DC court of appeals struck down DC’s handgun ban. In every national story Chicago was mentioned due to its handgun ban, yet apparently the Chicago media didn’t think it was interesting to Chicagoans. Given that this very well could lead to challenges to Chicago’s ban, it should be of interest. Chicago’s counsel appeared as a friend of the court, btw.
I’ve already gone on “record” here advocating that the repubs should be taking up the offer. I bet Fred Thompson (if he ever does enter the race) and Ron Paul would be eager for the debate. My only concern was not the people being involved, but the way in which CNN chooses which videos. I would not have picked “baby” AR.15 dude to represent the majority of gun owners.
Now, on the “assault weapons.” What definition are you meaning as it seems the definition of assault weapon is expanding faster than my waist line. I’ve no doubt that many of the “elites” allowed to carry in Illinois are using semi-auto pistols, which are now often lumped into the ”
assault weapon” group.
As for me, I’m a Chicago resident, so sidearms are not allowed. I suppose sharp scissors are next. I can’t even bring home my single shot Kentucky Bounty flintlock percussion pistol (I built from a kit). Who knows, if SB1007 gets passed maybe the bangers will be have to resort to using them in drive-by’s.
August 1, 2007 at 4:54 pm
robnesvacil
If you actually read the link, it was about Fox News claiming in court that the First Amendment allowed it to lie about the news all it wanted … and the court agreeing with that claim.
The post quoted Fox News saying they are liars and the First Amendment allows them to be such.
But enough about bothering to read facts and being rational based on the facts…. not when those facts are from a source you don’t like.
The media is more lazy than anything — IGOLD isn’t a “story” because it’s dog bites man. That’s not bias, that’s laziness.
Again, anyone can find whatever “bias” they want in the media because the media can’t be all things to all people. There was a letter to the editor in the Trib the other day complaining the paper (sports section in particular) was biased against sailboaters because there wasn’t more coverage of the Mackinac race.
You likely also would not have picked a snowman to question global warming if you were an environmentalist because it gives the appearance of mocking the issue… so there’s CNN being “conservatively” biased because they picked a snowman instead of something else.
Whatever, DW. When all you’ve got are complaints, you’ve got nothing.
August 1, 2007 at 5:17 pm
dwlawson
Well, I do have complaints, but trust me, I’m doing plenty to change things. Blogging is fine, but just sitting back and reporting on what other people are doing isn’t very useful.
As for the court ruling that the media can lie…no surprise there. I don’t really see the need to have the government involved. This is something that should be tried in the court of public opinion, unlike the Vick case or the Duke case. I learned that I need to do my own research and not rely on the talking heads.
Actually I am an environmentalist and I didn’t feel mocked by the snowman. I really didn’t feel mocked by the “baby” guy either but I did feel it didn’t help my cause.
August 1, 2007 at 6:04 pm
robnesvacil
DW,
The media is the court of public opinion…
If you didn’t feel mocked by the “baby” guy, why bring him up? Believing something like that “didn’t help” the cause and thinking it to be mockery are not that far off for most people…
(By the by, have you ever read the way C-Rock talks about his babies?)
August 1, 2007 at 6:05 pm
robnesvacil
PS: Long story behind why I write for this blog, but suffice it to say blogging ain’t all I do either.
August 1, 2007 at 10:23 pm
dwlawson
The difference to me is that mockery is personal. I don’t take what he did personally, or subjectively. Objectively I feel it does not help my cause.
Alot of people refer to their boats, cars, what have you as their “baby” and frankly there is nothing disturbing about it. For Biden or Richardson to question the guys sanity is irresponsible. It might even be actionable, not that I advocate the injudicious use of lawsuits.
August 1, 2007 at 10:30 pm
dwlawson
Oh and I don’t consider the media to be the “court of public opinion” with respect to the journalistic integrity of FNC or any other media outlet. I consider the viewers to be the judge and jury.
Unfortunately given how the viewers seem to be greedy for Anna Nicole Smith/Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohan news instead of real news I don’t see the problem with our media being fixed any time soon.
August 1, 2007 at 11:11 pm
robnesvacil
Two sides of the same coin then — but note that with literally fewer and fewer media voices there is less and less information available to the “judge and jury” as you put it. There may be many media “outlets” but they are owned by only a handful of larger media corps due to the relaxing and deregulation of media rules.