Man Up Republicans!

by Mike on July 27, 2007

in Election 2008,Politics

It’s only a debate. It’s only a debate sponsored by the Communist News Network. It’s only a debate moderated by Anderson Cooper. So what on earth is this nonsense I’m reading on the internets? According to the Washington Compost, several Republican candidates are talking about skipping the upcoming YouTube CNN debate.

According to Mitt Romney, there is little dignity in Presidential candidates answering questions from Frosty the Snowman. No argument here. However, there is also little dignity in answering questions from just about any journalist. Just about all of them will be hostile toward Republicans after lobbing softballs toward Democrats. Just about all of them will display the intellectual depth of a teletubby. Remember Chrissy Matthews; even worse, remember Wolf Blitzer? Our candidates should not be looking for a forum worthy of a Presidential candidate. They need to work with the system we have.

And for the love Jesus they should not act like Democrats and avoid fora with hostile questions. Conservative ideas are grounded in common sense and are popular with American people. There is nothing to hide. Moreover, it’s not as if our candidates could be stumped by anything a liberal blogger or Anderson Cooper has to say. And if any of our candidates are incapable of winning a battle of wits with Anderson Cooper, then GOP voters need to know about it before February.

It’s often been said that a Democrat who is afraid of Brit Hume does not deserve the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The same is true of a Republican who is too much of a silly nanny to stand up to Anderson Cooper. Man up GOP.

{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

daredevil92103 July 27, 2007 at 3:16 pm

i’m all for conservative. neo-con, is a whole different breed.
but i agree that the you tube debate should be hosted by someone not against republicans. i disagree that the news is mainly left-wing or whatever. the news is propaganda. they will only say what their sponsors allow them to. it’s the illusion of a free press.
well, maybe the news mostly caters to liberals, but they are as nutty as neocons. it’s like watching a sports event.

Reply

southernvoice July 27, 2007 at 4:03 pm

I agree that liberals and neo cons are flip sides of the same evil vile coin and they are destroying both parties. It is not healthy to show loyality to political parties rather than to ideas.

Liberals foist John Kerry off on us in the last election so that whether a liberal or a neo con got into the White House we would commit a holocaust against Iraqis and support Israel against Palestinians.

Any group that is loyal to a foreign country is a threat to us whether its mexicans, cubans, chinese or zionists.

Reply

Woodrow Wilkson July 27, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Republican presidential candidates out there — now is your chance! Go in place of the major candidates who refuse to go up for the YouTube debate and try for the presidency? Or better yet, think of somebody else that can run for presiden and ask that person for yourself?!? This is the break that you need to start-up the presidency for yourself!

Reply

Ryan July 28, 2007 at 10:26 am

Interesting comments…

Daredevil:
“Neo-con” is a code word that libs use to smear conservatives by taking a sort of high-road. The term refers to conservatives who would rather take an aggressive and idealistic approach to American foreign policy, especially in the Mideast. It has nothing to do with taxes or judges or the borders, just a belief that people, when exposed to democracy, will choose it over the alternative. 45 years of the Cold War taught us nothing less. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but somehow this became a bad thing: maybe it’s just the liberal’s attempt at revenge for Republicans successfully making “liberal” a bad word in mainstream American politics; they’ve had to change to “progressive”, so “neo-cons” will have to run from the word.

SouthernVoice:
“Zionist” is also a code word for those who don’t like Jews, in general, on some personal level. Zionist may have been a term used 70 years ago to refer to Jews looking for a homeland in historic Palestine (the Jews were there first, unless the Phoenecians decide they want their homeland back). Anyway, Jews aren’t to blame for the strife in the Mideast, it’s a combination of the United Nations and lazy, spiteful and selfish Arab neighbors who’d rather see their ethnic brethren suffer for sixty years than give them a real helping hand, scapegoating their problems all the while on the Jews. Did you know that Nazi operatives in the 1940s actually used the Grand Moofti to help form the Baath Party in Iraq and Syria?

Woodrow:
Newt had a greatpoint on this: these are people seeking the highest office in our land and they’re being debased by hand-selected hit pieces designed to entertain rather than address the core of real issues. I believe our candidates need to be real about their true constituencies, but this seems more like a gimmick by the networks than a real attempt to understand the candidate’s position on the issues.

Reply

daredevil92103 July 28, 2007 at 12:56 pm

ryan. thank you for correcting me. i’m usually not much into politics until of late, because it seems like as a country we are heading in a dangerous direction. but i know our first attempts at imperialism, i guess you could say, was in latin american countries. didnt turn out too well. aren’t we trying the same stuff in the middle east, basically?

Reply

Ryan July 29, 2007 at 10:05 am

The problem with American Imperialism throughout history has been that American’s are generally too interested in their own lives, rather than everyone else’s, to keep a big old-style empire together. As long as trade is not interrupted, we’re cool. But that means we’d rather have a treaty than take another nation for our own. So, we’re not historically very good at imperialism.

What Iraq may end up being is an attempt to bring them into the globalized world, in which we are the top dog. If they trade with other nations (oil, etc.) then other nations can have some influence on Iraq’s internal politics and their rules for treating other countries. That’s why sanctions work in countries other than Iran, North Korea and Saddam’s Iraq– they didn’t really trade with anyone of consequence to make much of a difference in their behavior. Plus, stable countries can open the way for democratic ones.

But I agree that America is heading for something very ominous in the future. We are essentially leaderless here at home. The Democrats want to score cheap political points and will use our government, our people and our troops to make that happen. The Republicans are aloof having, in my opinion, misread the 2006 election, and President Bush is as lame duck as one can get– and he seems like he’s not even trying anymore.

People whine and moan about Iran being a possible next target and quickly push military action off the table. This is 1930s-style appeasement if I ever saw it. Iran is violating international decree and building a nuclear bomb with the full intention of using it against the Israelis ASAP. They aren’t even being quiet about their intentions. They also support Hamas, Hezbollah and al Qaeda with weapons and supplies. If we were to enforce the Bush Doctrine, Iran would be in our sights. Our own reports indicate that Iran is directly responsible for supplying weapons that have killed at least 200 US troops in Iraq. Yet we do nothing but think about talking to a country that sees talking and negotiation as a sign of weakness, which in trun emboldens ALL our enemies at home and abroad! Add that too the leaderless, political quagmire here at home and I agree with your sense of forboding about the future.

Reply

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: