GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Questions for Obama Supporters
(Particularly those Bellyaching about Last Week’s Debate)

by

Something struck me as I read James Taranto’s comments (via Instapundit*) on liberals made unhappy by last week’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia: their bellyaching undermines their own rationale for supporting this charismatic man lacking executive experience for the highest office in the land.

I mean, if their guy were this great post-partisan figure (as all too many of them claim), able through his very presence and the singularity of his circumstances to unite and lead the counry, he would be able to rise above even the most partisan of moderators and the most antagonistic of journalists. (See e.g., Ronald Reagan and Sam Donaldson.) That they would whine that he got harsh treatment from the media suggests they lack confidence in his ability to withstand such tough questioning.

Made of Teflon he ain’t. Or at least they don’t think him to be.

Can they tell me how they expect a man who they don’t think can handle tough questions can handle the rigors of a job which includes the responsibilities of Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the United States?

So, with thir bellyaching in mind, I have few more questions (hope they’re not too shoddy or despicable) for Obama supporters:

  • What makes your man such an unusual politician?
  • What has he accomplished to merit your enthusiasm and to show his fitness for the White House?
  • If your man is as great as you claim, why are you whining about the debate? Do you really believe his stature should exempt him from intense and probing questioning?
  • Wouldn’t a man who seeks to lead our great nation be able to dismiss unfair questions much as one such leader handled a question about his age in 1984?

——-

*While I normally try to catch Taranto’s Best of the Web everyday, I did follow Glenn’s link to it before I got to it on my own today, so by the standard of common (blogging) courtesy, I own him a hat tip.

UPDATE:  Obama must really hate tough questions as he is refusing to debate Mrs. Clinton in North Carolina.

Comments

  1. All the intellectual rigor this post contains is encapsulated here:

    Can they tell me how they expect a man who they don’t think can handle tough questions

    Only a current GOP and Bush apologist, only someone who has imbibed Ted-Kennedy-at-a-host-bar levels of Konservative Kool-Aid, could possibly think that flag lapel pins and “who loves America enough” silliness possibly qualify as “tough questions.”
    The sad part is this was a chance for the left and the right to come together and demand that the media stop playing gotcha games with our leaders and their election process, but sadly the right was more interested in doing anything to bloody the man who may well clean their clocks this fall.

    [Um, torrent, you didn’t answer the questions I posed, instead you attacked. Telling. -Dan]

  2. Obviously Obama and his zombies think the questions are tough.. because the answers reveal who he really is. Who Obama really is is not what America wants.

    Asking Obama about his associations with Communists, Terrorists, Racists, Jews Haters, America Haters is perfectly appropiate. Only a blind ideologue would say it doesn’t matter.

  3. UPDATE: Obama must really hate tough questions as he is refusing to debate Mrs. Clinton in North Carolina.

    Wow. This is a guy who wants to sit down with Satan in Iran and he cant’ even debate Hillary?

    What a baby. I love it.. Keep it up Obama.. keep revealing more.

  4. For #1, there is a reason why no “serious” questions are asked. Because if the questioners “focused on the issues that matter”, it would be a very quick debate because there is no serious disagreement on the “issues”. Both Clinton and Obama are left-wing sychophants. Oh, there is a difference. Clinton will run it by a focus group and Obama will shoot off his mouth when he thinks that no one is listening. For those who feel that these debates do not focus on the “issues”, welcome to the conservative Republican world! Our candidates had to face earth-shattering questions as who believed in evolution vs. creationism. Or Mitt Romney had to be questioned about being an LDS-Mormon for those who do not know. And always the hot-button are you for or against same-sex marriage and or abortion. Please. These are valid issues for us, they are for your side as well. You are just facing the reality that St. Barack is not the messiah you thought he was.

  7. his optimism, his spirit, his bravery to say no to lobbyists and washington bigwigs.

    Has it occured to you that someone just gave him a script to read? Geez.. half the stuff he says is taken from other people’s speeches.

    See this video for demostration. How do you know who this guy is if what he says on the road is prepackaged borrowed rhetoric.

    I’m sure I wont get an answer. None of you respond to these sorts of questions.

  9. The whining about the “harsh treatment from the media” Obama received confirms the candidate has a glass jaw – and his supporters know it. American voters were certainly interested in checking out this “charismatic man lacking executive experience for the highest office in the land.” Check out this excerpt from an April 17th AP article:

    “The prime-time debate from Philadelphia on Wednesday was seen by 10.7 million people, according to Nielsen Media Research. That’s the MOST OF ANY DEBATE THIS ELECTION cycle — topping the 9.3 million who watched the Democrats on ABC Jan. 5.”

    The “whining” detractors among the punditry included:

    Tom Shales of The Washington Post, said Gibson and Stephanopoulos “turned in shoddy, despicable performances.”

    Will Bunch, a Philadelphia Daily News writer, who wrote that he was so angry that “it’s hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking.” He said the ABC newsmen spent too much time on trivial matters that didn’t concern most voters…..”By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself,” Bunch wrote.

    Greg Mitchell of the trade publication Editor and Publisher said it was “perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate this year.”

    And my favorite: one un-attributed poster wrote: “Why not have Paris Hilton moderate next time?” (The potential ratings of a Paris Hilton-moderated debate boggle the mind. Who else could provide a better platform for both candidates to demonstrate their “un-elite” credentials?)

    Given the punditry’s visceral anger and intense criticism of the format and line of questions, the statistics underlying the ratings are particularly interesting:

    1. The Nielson 10.7 million rating figure is calculated by averaging the four consecutive 30-minute INTERVALS of the two-hour debate, allowing us to compare viewership of these intervals.

    2. The format of the debate was divided into three consecutive 45 minute SEGMENTS: the first focused on character (or “gotcha”) issues, the second on foreign policy and the third on domestic issues.

    A. If viewers were disappointed with the line of questions during the FIRST SEGMENT, they would have voted with their remote controls. The “GOTCHA” SEGMENT spanned the FIRST AND SECOND 30-MINUTE INTERVALS, so total viewership would have declined.

    B. Instead, the number of viewers actually peaked (at 11.8 million) during the second (8:30-9:00) interval, which contained some of the most hotly-condemned portions of the debate.

    C. The peak occurred despite difficult competition: the 8:30-9:00 timeslot includes NBC’s “Deal or No Deal,” its most watched program of the season (with an average of over 13 million viewers).

    D. Again, if viewers wanted more discussion on foreign policy and domestic issues, viewership would have increased – or at least held steady – during those segments. But to the contrary: the number of viewers declined by 15%, to an average of 10 million during the second half of the debate.

    The question raised by the facts is ” Did Americans want more in-depth policy discussions from Hillary and Oback or do they see their policies as so similar they are yearning for insights into their character?

    The pundits who dismiss the debate out-of-hand are simply elitists who reject the concerns of American voters.

  10. #6 – OK queerdisunity, please name ONE of the pieces of legislation he has successfully sponsored while in the US Senate. Just one. I’m talking from introducing it on the Senate floor through the formal signing by President Bush in the Rose Garden.

    C’mon, name one. I double-dog-dare you.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  11. Good point, Peter. Certainly, I can’t find one. When we hear the bellyaching about Obama being challeenged on these petty items such as his comments on Quaker Staters, his pastor, his favourite terrorist, his father’s calendar of events, his law school professorship and all, I can only suggest that in addition to rhetoric what else has he offered.
    But, you know what? In September and October, should these gnat-bites still linger, he’ll only say, we have to move on. And ‘Americana’ (those that think they’re educated and sophisticated and are neither) will just pull more wool over their own eyes and follow along.

  15. Why are we still having debates? What are they going to say now that they haven’t said before? Oh look, more gotcha politics. yawn.

    The Democratic race is over. It’s just no one told the Clintons. She’s going to still be running in Freburary 2009.