I only learned 2 things from that debate, that Ron Paul is against a border fence because it will be used to keep us in, and that it’s moronic for Republicans to agree to have liberal moderators at their debates.
PMSNBC
Yeah, every election cycle I wonder if the republican candidates are finally going to stop allowing their debates to be “moderated” by guys who hate their guts, and every election cycle they fall into the same trap like clockwork. Republicans really are the Stupid Party.
I don't think this needs to be a problem, and Newt has already pointed the way out: Ignore the stupid question and say what you want. Don't let the "moderator" dictate your content, except to use whatever words in the "question" are useful as a pivot point to something you want to say. If they try to call you on it, do it again.
Whether the Obammunist "moderators" finally learn their lesson from this is irrelevant. The point is entertainment. Beating up on the talking hairstyles on national TV is an excellent way to impress Republican primary voters.
Why do they do this every four years?????????
How dumb can they be?????
Blaming Williams or the liberal media is like blaming the berserk chimp or the person who sold it to the fool who took it in and embraced it.
Blame the damfool Republicans who agreed to the setup. Liberals were just doing what liberals do.
Get used to it.
One positive thing about the "debate" is it gave Republicans an opportunity to see which candidate held up best against hostile media questions without flubbing or getting flustered.
Clearly, the fantasy of the Marxist Utopia dies very hard among some on the Left.
But I'm starting to like Newt's approach. Everyone on the stage needs to follow his lead. Open hostility to idiotic questions...and refuse to take them seriously. When an overwhelming majority of Americans support the death penalty, the way Williams framed the question should have been ridiculed by every one of those candidates. The candidates need to go on the offensive and make the moderators defend the premise of the question, or force them to move on to their next question.
The very premise of some of these questions need to be challenged...by all the candidates.
Declare open warfare on the lib media. They no longer control the message. (Chris Matthews admits SS is a Ponzi scheme.)
I don’t mind an adversarial moderator as long as that type of moderating is applied equally in the republican and democrat debates.
Also, the candidates are free to change the subject, refuse to answer, and chew out the moderator.
It’s the candidates’ responsibility to handle themselves well in all encounters with the press. The only situation not in the candidates’ control is a recorded interview that undergoes biased editing before being broadcast.