I just caught up on my wingnut television for the week. I found it entertaining enough. If you thought the Democrats were getting tough on each other check out this exchange:
While I sort of enjoy watching the Republicans alienate one of the fastest growing demographics in the country its also appalling that Republicans are bragging about not giving children money for tuition. Giuliani's tactic is interesting. Basically he's denying that New York was a sanctuary city and then justifies the City's "three exceptions". But his three exceptions are basically the components of what define a sanctuary city. I suppose that means the Giuliani camp thinks Republican voters oppose things called "sanctuary cities" but don't really know what the term means. And hey, he might be right. I'm sort of confused about the framing, though. My sense is that the term 'sanctuary' was first used by cities and immigrant rights activists. And it seems like it should be a positive frame. Sanctuaries generally connote nice, happy, places right? Like this:
But nearly every use of the term I've seen has been from conservatives. Are we gaming them or is there a better frame? I sort of like "solidarity cities".
While I sort of enjoy watching the Republicans alienate one of the fastest growing demographics in the country its also appalling that Republicans are bragging about not giving children money for tuition. Which brings me to Huckabee who *gasp* supports letting the children of immigrants have the same chance at winning a merit based scholarship as their peers.
If this had been a general election debate I could say Huckabee just school Romney here. They guy is going to win Iowa and that will probably be how Romney falls apart. I'm ambivalent about whether a Huckabee nomination would be a good thing. On the one hand, Huckabee is definitely the best Republican on domestic spending issues. The guy raised taxes so he could increase state spending by 65%- on things like health care, education and roads. The Club for Growth hates him. I mean really really hates him. Which makes me want to love him.
Unfortunately he also likes to tell women what they can do what they're bodies, tell gay people they can't get married, tell straight people they can't get unmarried, and doesn't believe in evolution. But the real reason I'm worried about a Huckabee nomination is that I think he could win. Truly, he has more political talent than any other Republican running for President. He's like Bush in 2000 except he's articulate and a real southerner. Here's more. Try to get past Tancredo's overwhelming awkwardness at the end:
Really though Mike, choosing the death penalty wasn't the only irrevocable decision you made.
So you’re probably a relatively normal person, and as a result not nearly as excited as I am about the Republican CNN-YouTube debate on November 28th. But if you didn’t watch the Democratic counterpart in July, they actually asked some fairly original and even challenging questions that you’d never hear come out of Wolf Blitzer’s mouth.
That’s why I strongly encourage everyone with a video camera to submit your own questions for the Republican candidates by the November 25 deadline. This is your chance to call out Romney, bewilder Mike Huckabee, embarrass Rudy Giuliani, make Anderson Cooper blush, or simply make life awkward for everyone involved. Just imagine the possibilities. Are you imagining? Ok, fine, I’ll imagine for you:
This is for all the candidates who oppose embryonic stem cell research:
Imagine that a building is on fire- In one room is a dish containing three human embryos; in the other, a newborn baby. You only have time to save one. Which would you choose?
The genius of this question (which I sadly cannot claim credit for) is that for pro-life Republicans, there truly is no right answer. Since they purport that each embryo is a human life, the logical conclusion would be to save the embryos rather than the baby. But any politician who says they would save a Petri dish over a baby would come off as inhuman and unfeeling. On the other hand, if they say they would save the newborn they are essentially conceding that embryos aren’t the same value as human life, and by extension, the sort of ‘life’ that exists at conception is not equal to that of a living, breathing human. That’s why I love this question and suggest you use it to put Republicans on the spot whenever possible.
For Ron Paul:
On your website you warn Americans of a plan to build a NAFTA superhighway from Mexico to Canada, as part of a larger plot by powerful special interest groups to unite The United States, Mexico, and Canada into one nation by the North American Union. Why haven’t we heard more about this grave threat to US sovereignty in the main stream media?
This is actually the least condescending version of this question I could come up with. It also works in regards to the 17th Amendment, the gold standard, the United Nations- or any other radical position that he generally avoids talking about. Essentially, I would love to make the coalition of pseudo-anarchists, misguided stoners, and naïve college students aware that their man is a legitimate nut job.
For Mitt Romney:
In 1994, you claimed that you would be a better advocate for gay rights than Ted Kennedy. Now? Not so much. What has changed since ’94 to account for this shift: your principles, your target audience, or the gays?
You get the idea.
Sadly, I am stranded in the barrens of Western New York without a video camera; but for all of you with the technological means, this is your chance to give your favorite Republican candidate a proverbial bitch slap --phrased in the form of a question, of course. Good luck!
http://www.youtube.com/contest/RepublicanDebate
I noted while watching the debate last night that Joe Biden seemed to be doing a lot of Hillary Clinton's dirty work for her. He was incredibly outspoken in his criticism of both Edwards and Obama, allowing Clinton to stay mostly above the fray and then twice agreed with answers she provided. Towards the end of the debate, Clinton returned the favor, and agreed with a comment of Biden's, then moments later, he made a semi-awkward, semi-conspicuous plug when he referred to the next President as a "he or she".
Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post's political blog The Fix, saw an even bigger trend emerge, and he writes in a blog post today that "The Democratic field split into two factions Tuesday night at the AFL-CIO forum in Chicago, with Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Joe Biden (Del.) and Chris Dodd (Conn.) on one side and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) on the other."
Cillizza's argument is well-developed and deserves a read!
(And btw, that picture is not even from last night. It just seemed too good to pass up!)
A few ramblings about Monday's YouTube debate:
1) CNN tried hard to play up the "revolutionary" angle, but there really wasn't anything super exciting about the debate. Sure, the moderator was young, hip, sexy (ask any girl I know...) Anderson Cooper, but the debate was basically a town hall format transposed to the 21st century. Questions were, after all, screened by CNN, so nothing revolutionary was going to get through.
2) Instead of revolutionary questions, CNN focused on unorthodox delivery. I'm a huge fan of YouTube humor, and rednecks are funny, but is having people dressed as rednecks really informative in any way, shape, or form? And I'm not going to lie: I cried inside when they had a snowman ask the question on global warming. Here's a surefire way NOT to get one of the most serious issues facing America taken seriously: animatronic snowmen. I can just see Inhofe playing that clip on the Senate floor.
3) As always, the biggest problem was the format. Seven and a half people, standing side-by-side on a stage, delivering their own little 90-second soliloquies with the occasional Anderson-moderated response. Wouldn't it be infinitely more exciting and revolutionary to just let the candidates go at it?
All told, the debate was a huge improvement over the last few, but still left me disappointed-- not in our field, which is by all accounts terrific, but in the media that mangles politics time and time again. Until they get it right, I'm going to go watch Gordon Brown fisticuff his parliament on Question Time.
Cheers!
