Debates hosted by party Opponents is bad because....?

The complaints below are premised on the idea that the CNBC GOP debate moderators came across like their partisan liberal opponents, and that it was so unfair whine, whine, whine....

I say, what's wrong with that? I would have no problem with moderators acting like either liberals or conservatives, asking tough gotcha questions. It's a debate for gods sake.

And that's what makes the following admissions by Cruz, Giuliani and Gutfeld so bizarre, they don't want to be challenged, they just want safe party line questions.

Geez, can't take the heat wimps....here's an even better way of saying it:

Poor Picked on Conservative Dictatorship in Wisconsin. Now they're the victims of a...crossword puzzle? Poor Babies. Send in the Walker Authority?

From time to time my conservative friend in Milwaukee would call me ranting about the most ridiculous and petty thing…like most Republicans. I can’t help thinking, “where’d he come up with that, and why?”

Was it some hyperbolic talk host or blogger that’s riled him up, or…actually it was. It’s the echo chamber of outrage's queen of trash, WIBA's Vicki McKenna. 

Take a look at this stupid discussion over a crossword puzzle that was unfortunately a little bit too honest. Keep in mind, this small thing caused the right wing to blow a gasket. Oh, and the twit misspelled the current abbreviation of WI., using some 20th century grouping of letters. 

Twitchy US Politics: Indoctrination: Wisc. public school teaches that conservatism restricts personal freedom

These dim witted constitutional contortionists weren't done whining yet:

On the other side of the puzzle was a political survey. Students were required to complete it. In what universe is this acceptable?

Right wing world? Of course, some conservative high school teachers in the state have invited Republican politicians to propagandize in their classrooms, heck even go on tea party field trips, but that's okay, they're just spreading more that "personal freedom," like second class citizenship for gay couples.

Here's my quickly thrown together comment from the above story:

This is the stuff you waste your time and energy on? Misreading Melissa Harris Perry's comments ...amazing. It's a promo, get a life. Can't take the truth from a simple crossword puzzle. That small part bothers you, and it should.

Sexual freedom regulated and restricted by Republicans. Trying to establish a state religion restricts and misreads First Amendment, emergency managers removes representative democracy, voting freedom regulated and suppressed by Republicans, silly nonsensical arguments against background checks restricts a free society, health freedom restricted by Republicans who would like to make more money off the sick and dying, consumer protection restricted by Republicans through tort reform, the right to breath freely without cigarette smoke opposed by Republicans, life saving gun regulations opposed by Republicans.

The crossword puzzle hurts because deep down you know its true and you're trying desperately to drum up comments in your echo chamber.

Here's a look at just what clouds the cluttered mind of McKenna (click to enlarge):

Putting our Faith in Conservative Defeatists!!

As the title clearly states, we've been putting our faith and money on leaders, politicians and non-human interests (corporations are people my friend) that don’t want to fix anything. To them, Social Security and Medicare won’t be there for them, so what’s to fix?

Conservatives have so far done a pretty good job of convincing younger voters that their defeatist attitude is a virtue, and rooted firmly in reality. The truth is, under their defeatist political guidance, the loss of our safety nets is a win for the party and a loss for actual people. So why vote for a sure thing that rewards political quitters?

Because the Democrats aren’t there demanding that their solutions be enacted. Even when the public is totally on their side.

Real Clear Politics: Most Americans say go ahead and raise taxes if it will save Social Security benefits for future generations. And raise the retirement age, if you have to. Both options are preferable to cutting monthly benefits, even for people who are years away from applying for them.

That's what actual American's are saying:

A new Associated Press-GfK poll on public attitudes toward the nation's largest federal program: When given a choice on how to fix them, 53 percent of adults said they would rather raise taxes than cut benefits for future generations. 36 percent would cut benefits. 53 percent said they would raise the retirement age, while 35 percent said they would cut monthly payments.

That’s not exactly a defeatist approach to saving Social Security, is it? Yet the conservative propaganda surrounding the eventual death of Social Security, is creating just the right amount of uncertainty, as illustrated sporadically in the comments below.

"Right now, it seems like we're taxed so much, but if that would be the only way to go, I guess I'd have to be for it to preserve it," said Marge Youngs, a 77-year-old widow from Toledo, Ohio. "It's extremely important to me. It's most of my income."

But Jeff Victory of Nashville, Tenn., worries that Obama doesn't have the stomach to cut benefits to help rein in the program. "Barack has already shown he's going to give anything free out to everyone he possibly can, so I'm going to have to go with Romney on that one," said Victory, a 26-year-old electrician. "I'm not planning on it at all, honestly," said Victory, the 26-year-old electrician.

"Raising taxes, especially on the people that provide the jobs for us, is not an option because what you do there, you discourage promoting jobs," said James Taylor, a 68-year-old retiree from Golden, Miss.

But Juan Tellez, a 22-year-old college student in Gainesville, Fla., said he would accept higher taxes if it means preserving benefits, even though he's not very confident Social Security will be around for his generation. "I think of Social Security as an investment, as a public investment almost, something more communal," Tellez said. "I feel like I would want to invest in that."

Without an equally powerful argument that actually reflects the public’s willingness to increase taxes for security in old age, the Republicans will eventually get what they want. Look at it this way; if the public continues to elect Republicans who want to do just the opposite of public opinion, then how hard can it be get elected promising to fiercely defend what the people want?