On the continuing discussion of whether Republicans should hold a YouTube debate, Hugh Hewitt looks at some of the submitted questions and concludes that the exercise would be an endless succession of moonbat-generated ambush pieces. But where he sees risk, I see opportunity.
Wouldn’t we love to see a Republican candidate respond to a 9/11 “Truth”er? (I can’t bring myself to flatter them by removing the scare quotes.) I suspect if Anderson Cooper tried the usual “your questioner was in the audience here tonight” schtick with that question on Rudy Giuliani, Rudy would jump into the audience and kick his ass himself.
Good example – Entry 2,944 asks Mitt Romney, “Since you are a Mormon, a certain percentage of your salary goes to the Mormon Church. Now, there’s a conflict of interest there, if you are elected president, that means taxpayer dollars will go to the Mormon church by people who didn’t vote for you. What do you think about that?”
I think this man is a moron. Once a president, or any other government employee is paid their salary, they’re entitled to spend or donate it anyplace they like. The suggestion that Romney or any other presidential candidate tithing a portion of their income to his or her church is somehow a “conflict of interest” suggests that the questioner is supremely misinformed on what a conflict of interest is, and/or just has a beef with Mormons.*
Mitt Romney would hit that one out of the park, and Hugh of all people knows it.
I think almost all of the candidates could take a rediculous question from Moonbat America and handle them with ease. Americans generally don’t like snide, sneers, or insults. Any candidate who decried it, and put CNN on the spot by asking them to justify why they featured a snide, sneering, or insulting question, would be appreciated.
*Geraghty defends Mormons! “Accomplice to bigotry” turns state’s evidence!
UPDATE: This question might even be moot. This Romney supporter says that the candidate has pledged to not accept a salary as president.