Remember the ridiculous CNN debate (I think the "internet" debate where CNN CHOSE the questionis) in 2008, or maybe 2007, involving the Repubican candidates? This was the question for Mike Huckaby (who happens to be a Baptist minister, but did NOT make that a central part of his campaign):
"Do you believe everything in the Bible is literally true?"
Unless you are the Bigoted Network (see previus article), why is that question relevant in a Presidential debate? Does it make any difference whether the President thinks the Bible is literally true or not? Obviously, to the BIGOTS of CNN, it does, becasue CNN is OBSESSSED with "social issues" (while claiming it is Repubicans who are). Yes, it is the religious bigots at CN who would look with horror on this question being asked of President Obama:
"Do you believe that the Bible conainis the actual Word of God, or do you reverve the right (as Nancy Pelosi says she does) to exercise your reason to dispute things in the Bible with which you disagree?'
What about this question for Obama: "Bill Maher says you are not really a Christian, but that you are a secular humanist. Is he wrong? If Maher--an anti-Christian, anti-religiious person, thinks that way, don't you think Christians might have reason to belive that?
Another question for Obama: You misquoted the Declaration of Independence by leaving out "by their Creator". You actually did that twice. What do you say to people who say you did that deliberately, to cater to the anti-religious ideology of the ACLU?"
I could go on oforever, and WOUYLD if I were a token "conservative asking question s at a debate attended by Obama. That brings up one of my BEEFS with Repubicans. This blog has shown, day after day, how PARTISAN and BAD CNN is. Democrats REFUSE to debate on Fox News. WHY do Repubicans agree to debate on CNN? I will answer my own question: BECAUSE THEY ARE WIMPS. Republican candidates should refuse to debate on CNN, and SAY WHY. Yep. Quoting that Huckaby questioni is a good start.
Why can you expect at least one, if not more, similar questions on CNN tonight? I already answered this for you. Leftists in general, and CNN in particular, are OBSESSED with both religious and social issues, even as Repubicans and conservatives (often to their discredit) do not raise them a smajor issues in the campaingn. is DEMOCRATS, and the mainstream media, who are willing to "focus" on "social" and religious issues. I have never even known a REPUBLICAN who focused on RELIGION in his or her campaign, although I am sure there must be a few that have, but the mainstream media keeps trying to make it an ISSUE (bigots that they are). Palin a Pentecostal? The BIGOTED mainstream media tried to make it an "issue". Romney a Mormon? The mainstream meida has tried to make it an "issue" for more than FOUR YEARS. It is time REPPUBLICAN CANDIDATES started calling these people out as the BIGOTS they are, and as people appealing to religious bigotry--trying to directly inject religion into national politics. Nope. It is IRRELEVANT whether there are Christain "right" religious groupos playing lthe "religion" cared. There are BLACK PREACHERS doing the same thing in BLACK CHRUCHES. If the mainstream media wants to make an issue out of that, FOR BOTH PARTIES, be my guest. But to attack CAnDIDATES by asking religious questions is EVIL stuff.
Oh yes. Juan Williams. This shows the kind of stuff you can expect tonight on CNN. Juan Williams spent a good part of the FOX debate among the then Repubican candidates complaining about how Repubicans failed to "focus" on the "issues" that really mattered, like jobs, the economy, and maybe the deficit. Of course, what Williams realy MEANT by that is what CNN and the resto of the left mean: "If you don't REJECT conservative views on social issues, and agree with us, then you are making "social issues" too big an issue, because we then have to fight you on it and pretty much ignore jobs.". Yep. Williams proceeded to make it OBVIOUS he is a HYPOCRITE and a lPARTISAN, LEFTIST POLITICAL HACK. Here was his question for Tim Pawlenty:
"Do you favor teaching Creationism (inteligent design) in public schools along with evolution" (or words to that effect)
Willimas had just spent ALL of his time complaining about Republican politicians ignoring the "improtant issues", and then Williams asked THIS question. Can you ossibley be more of a HYPOCRITE than that. Again, for the benefit of YOU, Juan, my name is Gordon Stewart. Yes, I am willing to attach my name to this statement, and I am willing to say it to your face. Further, I am wiling to say it to AnYONE from Fox News, which I have long said is part of the mainstream media problem and not part of the "solution". No, Juan, the President of the Untied States has NOTHING to do with whether a shool board tries to allow intelligent design to be taught in the public schools, and ver little to do with whether any such attemt is held to be Constitutional or not. But is it not absurd for a modern person not to "believe" in evolution? Actually, of course, the question is not nearly that simple.
It is a fACT that evolution occurs, It has been observed in the laboratory/in nature. This is NOT "theory". The genetic basis of evolution--post-dating Darwin--is hardly "theory" either. If we did not believe in evoluton to this extent, we would have relpeated the mistake of the Soviet Union and Lysenko. Hybrids, and the development of modern agriculutre, owe an awful lot to Mendel and Darwin, and the theory of genetics. So what is the problem? The problem is: HOW DID WE GET FROM INANIMATE CHEMICALS TO HUMAN BEINGS? Is random mutation really enough to explain this? Or do you alomst have to postulate some DIRECTION (whether some sort of unknown natural force, or something like God) in pushing mutations toward "higher" forms of life. And I would note that we STILL have not duplicated the creatinon of "life" fromm inanimate chemicals.
Therefore, a question for Obama:
Do you believe that Darwin's theory of evolution completely explains how man developed from one-celled life, and before that from inanimate chemicals, all of the way to your intelligent self Do you think this questin should be EXCLUDED from our nation's classrooms?"
How about this question:
In the movie, "Inherit the Wind", Clarence Darrow is shown asking the opposing "expert" how he would like it if the Bible was EXCLUDED from being mentioned by teachers, just as Arkansas law prohibited evolution from being taugt by teachers. Do you faovr our apparent present policy of going to the very extreme condemned by Clarence Darrown, and PROHIBITING the Bible from being referenced in public schools? " ("Inherit the Wind is a good movie--if a little hard to take for a truly religious person, about the Scopes "monkey tril" in 1925 or so., about an attempt to enfroce a law against teaching evolution. At that time, of curse, the Bible was ROUTINELY taught and referenced in public schools, without makig us a "theocracy". It was not reallly until about the time the movie was mmade lthat the DICTATORIAL OLIGARCHY of the Supreme Court of the Untited States suddenly interpreted the 14th Amendment to essentially exclude God from the public schools. Darrow, by the way, LOAT the case, in a case that did not drawmuch attention at the time. The movie, made in the early 1960s, made the case famous.)
What about this question for Obama:
"Do you believe that the idea of "intelligent design"--the idea that there is an intelligence behind the way the universe is organized--should be EXCLLUDED from the public schools?"
Or how about this one for Obama, or any Democrat:
"Do you believe that the posting of the Ten Coommandments in public shcools, or in any public school classroom, should be PROHIBITED."
I could keep going, but you get the point. CNN, and all of the rest of the mainstream media, are generally loathe to CHALLENGEE DEMOCRATS on "religious issues", or their relationshiip to pubic policy. But they are perfectly willing to do that with Repubicans. "Sixty Minutes" to Mitt Romney, in connection with the 2008 electoin: "We know the Mormon Church frowns on premarital sex (as, supposedly, does almost EVERY Christian religion--editorial comment). Did you engage in premarital sex with your wife before your marriage?" Nope. You cannot defend a question like that. As I keep saying, and these people keep proving, this is EVIL at work. There is no way to make that an appropriate question. If Mitt Romney wre out thre suggesting that premarital sex be made a crime....maybe. Otherwise, that is an EVIL question being asked by the EVIL people of "Sixty Minutes". And yes, they are biogted people.
Again, I think Republicans need to stop answering these question, and ATTACK the question and the questioner. Cowards die a thousand deaths; a brave man dies but once." Tim Pawlenty EVADED the Juan Williams EVIL question. He should have ATTACKED. Mitt Romney EVADED the question about his Mormon religion (see previous article about Piers Moragan). He should hhave ATTACKED. Until Republicans start attacking this kind of question, and pointing out questions that could be asked of Democrats, then they are going to keep getting this EVIL kind of bigotry and hypocrisy.
CNN is "promising" that tonight's debate will be only on "serious", important issues. We will see.