Democratic Debate vs. Republican Debate

dclary · May 4, 2007

As an exercise, what do you think about the different kinds of questions asked the two sets of candidates. As a question, do you think this reveals the oft-rumored "media bias" or can it be more accurately summed up as "Chris Matthews is the worst debate question-writer ever?"

Questions asked the democrats:
"Do you agree with Senate Leader Harry Reid that the war in Iraq is lost?"
"Can you be against the war and yet still fund it?"
"What would you consider to be a "mission complete" status in Iraq?
"Do hedge funds make America better?"
"Is it right to make personnel decisions based on a person's race?"
"A majority of Americans approve of the Supreme Court's ban on partial-birth abortion. Is this because America and the Supreme Court have different opinions than their elected officials?"
"Who is your model Supreme Court justice?"
"Did the federal government fail the students at VA Tech in any way?"
"Has the massacre made you reevaluate your position on gun control?"
"Do any of you own guns in the house?"
"What taxes would you raise to better fund socialized health care?"
"Do you agree with the NAACP asking tourists to boycott the state of South Carolina until they remove the confederate flag?"
"What's the most significant political or professional mistake you've made and what have you learned?"
"Do you support amnesty for illegal aliens?"
"How would you reverse the trend of other nations producing smarter students than ours?"
"Why do employees have to pass drug tests to get paid, but welfare recipients don't?"
"Why is the price of gas still rising?"
"Who are America's greatest allies?"
"Who are America's greatest enemies?"
"Why are Republicans considered better for national security?"
"Is there a such thing as a global war on terror?"
"Who wants to impeach Dick Cheney?"
"Is there a difference between gay marriage and civil unions?"
"How do we fix global warming?"
"Is Wal-Mart good or evil?"

Questions asked the republicans:
22% of the country thinks we're on the right track. How do you get back to Reagan's "morning in America?"
Most of America's pessimism is because of Iraq. How do you win in Iraq?
55% of america believes the war can't be won. Shouldn't America have a president who listens to them?
The Islamic world hates us. How do you win the war if every dead terrorist is so easily replaced?
So many Islamic nations hate us. Shouldn't we work on that hate, instead of just fighting terrorists?
Would you have fired Rumsfeld before last November?
Should we fire more cabinet members?
Why should we go into Iran? What would be our "trip wire?"
Israel calls and says they're about to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. What do you do?
Should employers be allowed to fire people for being gay?
Should Catholics be allowed to deny communion to pro-choice politicians?
Is the best way to win the election the Arnold Schwarzenegger Centrism way?
Would you hire Karl Rove?
Is the increased influence of Christians in your party a good thing?
What's with your party and all the corruption? (That's a direct quote)
What programs would you cut?
How would you rate Bush's handling of the Iraq war?
What does being a pro-life president mean?
Who disagrees with strong anti-illegal-immigration? Anyone?
Did you watch "An Inconvenient Truth?"
What's your take on stem cell research?
You voted against Bush's tax cuts but now you support them. That's crazy talk. What up?
What tax would you like to cut?
What Democrat would you put in your cabinet?
Who doesn't believe in evolution?
Would you keep any of the current cabinet members if you won?
What's the difference between a Sunni and a Shia?
Do you trust the media?
Do your religious beliefs affect your political policy
Are you for a national ID card?
Would you pardon Scooter Libby?
Who should have had the last say on Terry Schiavo's life?
Should the Clintons come back to the White House? (Seriously. They asked the Republican candidates to answer a question about whether the Democratic candidate should win. :|)

maestrowork · May 4, 2007

To me, it's the same old, same old. Nothing new, nothing earth-shattering, and the candidates are all very "candid" in their answers and positions.

MattW · May 4, 2007

I'd like to see a debate between the handlers and speech writers of each candidate.

That would tell us what their real positions are on the issues.

dclary · May 4, 2007

Well, I'd have to say that there's no way in hell Mitt Romney's handlers knew there'd be a question about Catholics denying pro-life politicians communion. His answer was spot on and perfect, and (I can only assume) completely off the cuff.

I also like his reply to "what do you think about bill clinton going to the white house again?"

"Are you kidding?"

Chris Matthews was an embarrassment, asking questions designed to humiliate the participants, heap backhanded praise on them, and generally answer questions HE has, not that the American people might have.

MattW · May 4, 2007

dclary said:
Chris Matthews was an embarrassment, asking questions designed to humiliate the participants, heap backhanded praise on them, and generally answer questions HE has, not that the American people might have.

I have to agree. At what point did the American public allow the media to dictate what we are supposed to be most concerned about? It's either the most inane fluff, appeals to fringe groups, or issues that have no bearing on how to govern the country.

Bravo · May 4, 2007

i would love for some of those republican questions to be asked to the democrats.

particularly, questions regarding foreign policy.

Celia Cyanide · May 4, 2007

dclary said:
Well, I'd have to say that there's no way in hell Mitt Romney's handlers knew there'd be a question about Catholics denying pro-life politicians communion. His answer was spot on and perfect, and (I can only assume) completely off the cuff.

What was the question and the response?

It is only certain priests, not Catholics, who choose to deny politicians communion, and it's pro choice politicians, not pro life.

Odd question to ask a mormon, in any case.

TheGaffer · May 4, 2007

Clary, the closer you are to the assessment of Chris Matthews being a general all-around bozo, embarrassment and idiot, the more correct you are.

dclary · May 4, 2007

Celia Cyanide said:
What was the question and the response?

It is only certain priests, not Catholics, who choose to deny politicians communion, and it's pro choice politicians, not pro life.

Odd question to ask a mormon, in any case.

Moderator: Governor Romney, what do you say to Roman Catholic bishops who would deny Communion to elected officials who support abortion rights?

Romney: I don't say anything to Roman Catholic bishops. They can do whatever the heck they want.

(Laughter)

Romney: Roman Catholic bishops are in a private institution, a religion. And they can do whatever they want in a religion. America doesn't...

Moderator: Do you see that as interference in public life?

Romney: Well, I can't imagine a government telling a church who can have Communion in their church. We have a separation of church and state. It's served us well in this country.

This is a nation, after all, that wants a leader that's a person of faith, but we don't choose our leader based on which church they go to.

This is a nation which also comes together -- we unite over faith and over the right of people to worship as they choose.

The people we're fighting, they're the ones who divide over faith and decide matters of this nature in the public forum.

This is a place where we celebrate different religions and different faiths.

Celia Cyanide · May 4, 2007

Thank you clary, what an effing stupid question. If Romney were Catholic, what he says might be relevant, maybe, but he's not.

dclary · May 4, 2007

Yeah, that was kinda my main question. Matthews shot out lame-ass questions like this all night, and I was wondering if this was media bias, or Matthews being a dumbass.

The consensus vote seems to be "dumbass."

Joe270 · May 4, 2007

I'll vote 'dumbass'.

TheGaffer · May 5, 2007

Matthews has over the years shown in many ways how he's a dumbass with Democrats as well. He's obsessed with the Clintons' sex life to the point of where you wonder if he wished he was living with them and a video camera -- his coverage of Hillary trends along those lines more than anything else -- and for two years gushed over Pres. Bush as a tough guy after a lot of the country was questioning the war, et al. (I'm talking 2004-2005). Matthews is infotainment, and a loud-ass moron in a lot of ways. On the other hand, in this GOP debate, he also apparently didn't really control the crowd, so to speak, letting answers meander into annoying stump speeches. (A number of those questions, Deek, are open-ended and ridiculous, like the one about how religion influences their beliefs.)

Brian Williams did the Dem debate, and he's just more professional in these situations.

FatTire · May 5, 2007

Romney has become somebody that I can see myself voting for.

tourdeforce · May 5, 2007

Moderator: Governor Romney, what do you say to Roman Catholic bishops who would deny Communion to elected officials who support abortion rights?

This is not a question about internal Catholic church policy.

It is about the acceptability of a religious organization, which is restricted from engaging in political activity or speech, attempting to influence elections through public statements designed to discredit and disadvantage specific elected officials.

Whether he is Mormon or Catholic is irrelevant. He is running for President so the quesion is appropriate.

MattW · May 5, 2007

tourdeforce said:
This is not a question about internal Catholic church policy.

It is about the acceptability of a religious organization, which is restricted from engaging in political activity or speech, attempting to influence elections through public statements designed to discredit and disadvantage specific elected officials.

Whether he is Mormon or Catholic is irrelevant. He is running for President so the quesion is appropriate.

While I think it a fair question, does anyone really believe that voters will line up however their minister/priest/rabbi/imam decide? Can or should we try to prevent anyone from exercising free speech, even if from a position of power?

I understand separation of church and state quite well, but it does not say anywhere that church leaders cannot voice their opinions, or choose those who may participate in their religious services.

tourdeforce · May 5, 2007

MattW said:
I understand separation of church and state quite well, but it does not say anywhere that church leaders cannot voice their opinions, or choose those who may participate in their religious services.

Church leaders and representatives are free to say and do whatever they see fit... if they are willing to give up their tax-free privilege. If they want to be exempt from taxes, they are required to stay out of politics.

MattW · May 5, 2007

Google ads brought up a good one for this topic:

"Making a killing in the stock market? Hundreds of companies are involved in the business of ABORTION. The Timothy Plan is specifically designed mutual fund blah blah blah..."

MattW · May 5, 2007

tourdeforce said:
Church leaders and representatives are free to say and do whatever they see fit... if they are willing to give up their tax-free privilege. If they want to be exempt from taxes, they are required to stay out of politics.

Where is the line?

Are these churches mobilizing their congregations against a particular politician? Or are they exercising their right to express their beliefs and not accepting someone who opposes something they believe in?

I'm with you, but the church has to be allowed to practice unimpeded.

WarrenP · May 5, 2007

tourdeforce said:
Church leaders and representatives are free to say and do whatever they see fit... if they are willing to give up their tax-free privilege. If they want to be exempt from taxes, they are required to stay out of politics.

Although I agree with your ideology on this, it isn't something that can be enforced. If they started to enforce all tax-exempt organizations from politics, there would be a very loud erruption.

Lots of political organizations are tax-exempt. Two prominent ones are The Heritage Foundation (on the right) and NARAL (on the left). Their entire existence is to impact and alter politics, and both are tax-exempt organizations.

tourdeforce · May 5, 2007

A political action group having tax-exempt status on a not-for-profit basis is different than a church being granted tax-exemption based on the foundation that there is a separation of church and state is another.

In return for the tax exemption, regardless of the profit they make, the church is subject to enforceable restrictions which prohibits it from engaging in political activity or campainging or candidates.

There are rules that apply if a church wants to skip out on paying their fair contribution to society.

Jenan Mac · May 5, 2007

MattW said:
While I think it a fair question, does anyone really believe that voters will line up however their minister/priest/rabbi/imam decide? Can or should we try to prevent anyone from exercising free speech, even if from a position of power? .

I know there are people who vote the way their clergyperson tells them to. Absolutely and without a doubt. I'm related to a couple of 'em.

I understand separation of church and state quite well, but it does not say anywhere that church leaders cannot voice their opinions.

As far as saying who can or cannot receive communion...mmphm. That's up to them, IMO. I don't expect Romney'd be getting a temple recommend if he endorsed something Pres. Hinckley said was a sin. I do wonder, though, why some RCC priests refuses communion to pro-choice legislators, but haven't been doing the same to Catholics who've voted for the death penalty.

WarrenP · May 5, 2007

tourdeforce said:
A political action group having tax-exempt status on a not-for-profit basis is different than a church being granted tax-exemption based on the foundation that there is a separation of church and state is another.

In return for the tax exemption, regardless of the profit they make, the church is ubkect to enforceable restrictions which prohibits it from engaging in political activity or campainging or candidates.

There are rules that apply if a church wants to skip out on paying their fair contribution to society.

I gotcha, I thought you were saying because they were tax-exempt that meant that they had to stay out of politics.

Churches fall under the 501c3 grouping, and any organization that is a 501c3 is allowed to be involved in politics, and can even lobby political organizations, as long as it is not their primary (or substantial, or majority... I forget the lingo) function as an organization. They most definately cannot endorse or oppose a candidate; a church could lose its status by the minister mentioning a candidate during a sermon, even without a direct endorsement or opposition spoken.

I spent a lot of time on this recently, my wife just formed a new 501c3 for her new business, and we read and re-read the 501c3 lingo way too many times. Did you know it can take a full year to go through the paperwork and process to become a new 501c3? Anyway, I digress...

Of course, everyone has their ways around everything. For example, The Heritage Foundation is a 501c3, and their entire purpose is politicial. However, they claim their function is to educate and that they produce papers and give talks, which do not count as lobbying. Yeah right, that isn't lobbying.

Taxes blow.

blacbird · May 5, 2007

Observations on these first "debates": First, they weren't in any real sense of the word, "debates", either one.

Second, 0.13% of the American voting public paid any attention to them, either one.

Third, Newsweek has some truly intriguing poll numbers this week, on candidates in both parties, matchups between those candidates, and the effect of Dubya's freefall in approval numbers on all those things. Those numbers are a hell of a lot more important right now than anything said in either of these "debates". And that's not saying very much, because we all know how influential poll numbers are at this point in the campaign cycle.

Although, they do indicate Mitt Romney, even with all that money, has a lot of hard digging to do. Basically, right now, the top three Dems are outpolling the top three Repubs, beyond the margin of error. Newsweek ventures the opinion that Bush's unpopularity is spilling over on the Republican candidates. I think they're right about this, and that means the challenge for Giuliani, McCain, Romney, is going to be to find a way around that obstacle. Meantime, Dems continue to play nice, pretty much, and none of them has so far made any significant misstep. Stay tuned.

caw

Celia Cyanide · May 6, 2007

WarrenP said:
Although I agree with your ideology on this, it isn't something that can be enforced. If they started to enforce all tax-exempt organizations from politics, there would be a very loud erruption.

Lots of political organizations are tax-exempt. Two prominent ones are The Heritage Foundation (on the right) and NARAL (on the left). Their entire existence is to impact and alter politics, and both are tax-exempt organizations.

Uh...no. I've worked with many non-profit organizations, and the vast majority of them, have 3 different non-profit designations. 5013c is the non-political designation. If you donate money to the 501c3 arm of the organization, you can get a tax deduction. But this arm cannot be political. So, what the organization is allowed to do depends upon which arm they are working under.

For example, NARAL could have a table at a concert under their 501c3 non-profit arm. They can give out information about women's reproductive health, but they cannot say anything about political parties, or candidates names, even in a neutral way. I have actually done political outreach for a local pro choice organization, and for NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and they are very strict about what you can and cannot say. We can say we are pro choice, and we can encourage people to vote, but we cannot even combine the two and say, "vote pro choice."

Non-profits also have designations of 501c4 and PAC (Political Action Committee). 501c4 can endorse candidates, and PACs can work with campaigns. Donations to these 2 designations are not tax deductible.

It is perfectly acceptable for any organization to exist under all 3 non-profit designations. It the organization's responsibility to keep the monies separate, and keep track of which designation hey are using for which event.

It absolutely is enforceable. It is a common misconception that all tax exempt organizations are not allowed to be political, when that only applies to the 501c3.

Democratic Debate vs. Republican Debate

Unabashed Mercenary

Fear the Death Ray

Company Man

Unabashed Mercenary

Company Man

Socialitest

Joker Groupie

Docking Bay 94

Unabashed Mercenary

Joker Groupie

Unabashed Mercenary

Docking Bay 94

Who?

Company Man

Company Man

Company Man

The Deadliest Bunny

Joker Groupie