Nifty. Frank Luntz is really good at analyzing the political process by getting a real time feel for voter sentiment.

Two quick thoughts:

1) Cleese analyzed American debates and campaigning, not that particular Republican debate (as if a 2 minute soundbite qualifies as "analysis" to begin with).

2) The average American voter is a simpleton.

First ... My Theory on the Brontosaurus.
Next ... What do the old really think about youth in Asia?

dillenger69: Next ... What do the old really think about youth in Asia?

I'm not old, but I'd be willing to do a little research on the subject.

/window seat
//over there

I would think he was disappointed by the lack of participation from the Silly Party

He's just pimping for a spot as the Secretary of Silly Walks.

Holy crap! That lady from 1:30 is Linda from ebolaworld.com

I can be in a Republican debate?

Honestly, I disliked Huckabee until the debate, I still don't care for is religious based politics.


But I'll be damned if he didn't remind me of how wonderful it would be to have an articulate president again.

Nice hand-picked audience with pre-determined victory preferences.

/couldn't watch past the first speaker other than "Cleese"

Who cares who Ronald Reagan would have endorsed? And he said that with a straight face?

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh, CNN is hostile to Republicans. Unlike Fox, the official bung-hole licker of the Republican party.

TheWizard: But I'll be damned if he didn't remind me of how wonderful it would be to have an articulate president again.

You know who else was articulate?

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Holy crap! That lady from 1:30 is Linda from ebolaworld.com

Huh? Someone say something to me? Oh. Sorry.

Anyway, one woman claims that there is no unity, and the point is to show unity.

WTF? Idiot.

dogdaze: Nifty. Frank Luntz is really good at analyzing the political process by getting a real time feel for voter sentiment.

I hope that was sarcasm.

FARK YOU, FRANK

/Note: Some naughty words are in this video

Wow. It's great to see Fox News do very little to analyze what the Republican nominees said, and take a quick opportunity to snipe the actual network having the debate.

Why is John Cleese even there?

I heard Cleese is voting Slightly Silly this year.

SusanIvanova: TheWizard: But I'll be damned if he didn't remind me of how wonderful it would be to have an articulate president again.

You know who else was articulate?

Frasier Crane?

I was watching Fox News at the gym last night, and Hannity said "Coming up next....Frank Luntz with a very special guest." My expectations were low, but I actually thought it was kind of cool that John Cleese was the "special guest".

/It seemed so farking random, and that's why I liked it.

Mentat: Who cares who Ronald Reagan would have endorsed? And he said that with a straight face?

Especially considering I've heard Reagan's nonstop from republicans through this entire process

John Cleese had the best lines of that whole video.

/he is still funny

You know America is in trouble when an old English man is the only halfway attractive person in the room. Of course, you also know America is in trouble when John Cleese is brought on for serious political commentary.

And what's up with people not wanting to get rid of paid spots on TV? Are they masochists?

I thought that was a pretty good cross-section of "conservative" asstards.

/was really hoping for something a bit more insightful from Cleese, though

WTF? Why is John Cleese doing debate analysis?

/the sad thing is he makes sense.

The interviewer annoys me to no end. No one 'wins' a political debate.

McManus_brothers: WTF? Why is John Cleese doing debate analysis?

/the sad thing is he makes sense.

Cleese doesn't turn down paying work.

I felt like Huckabee was by far the best in the debate. Huckabee is my 2nd choice and a close one at that.

Romney was disingenuous about McCain's immigration record (because he knows the right wing machine right now is slamming McCain for it, and it buys votes). McCain was petty about his "timetable" accusation and failed to provide evidence. The burden of proof is on him to prove it, of course if it's true it's damning to Romney.

I'm a big McCain supporter but he did poorly at the debate.

McCain/Huckabee '08? Still think it will be Crist but I would be overjoyed at either ticket.

I'm voting full-on Silly.

I'm sorry, could we skip the part where Fox News spoonfeeds the immobile public?

The Silly Party Delegate seems to be suggesting that we get rid of political ads in general, but hold more debates. So candidates and issue-groups could still get airtime, but they would have to come up with fewer soundbites and more coherent arguments? And then be challenged on statements they made?

It would never fly.

It sounds kind of like public funding of campaigns, since candidates would need to raise far less money to run. And I know that seems to scare some people.

Speaking of campaign financing, apparently the UK and Canada both limit campaign spending and require TV stations to give airtime to candidates. Any British or Canadian Farkers care to comment about this?

Three things learned from the video.
1) John Cleese can be poignant AND funny at the same time,
2) Fox News hates Ron Paul because he'll take away their lucrative War Footage™, and
3) The vast VAST majority of American voters are embarrassingly ignorant.

I bet they were tricked into that little room with hopes of seeing an early screening of Ass.

John Cleese summary of US politics: PFFFFFFFFFTTT!

Mentat: Who cares who Ronald Reagan would have endorsed? And he said that with a straight face?

How about "Those people on the stage have nothing to do with the last eight years"?

Just when you think you have a handle on how stupid and terrifyingly under-informed the average Rethug is you watch sommat like that and realise it's much worse than you thought.

"Wot a silly bunt".

The Rev Numbers Speaking of campaign financing, apparently the UK and Canada both limit campaign spending and require TV stations to give airtime to candidates. Any British or Canadian Farkers care to comment about this?

Okay, yes, yes we do. It prevents some of the worst exesses of corporate over-influence. Y'all should think about it.

I like how the libs on the boards here are so terrified at the sight of a venerated pop culture icon like Cleese actually legitimizing 1) Fox News and B) The Republican Party, by showing up, intelligently commenting, and energetically engaging with the host and the audience.

Stupendous.

/"A ssss-p-p-p-p-p-p-oooooooooo-nnnnuh???"
//love that Fawlty Towers line, it must run through my head twice a day at least

Was listening to an NPR interview with a British woman who was analyzing media coverage on both sides of the pond. I'm not sure if Britain itself wants elections like ours but from what she, and John Cleese were saying the political pundits would love a system like ours because it's more interesting to watch.

Dead_Mandela: I like how the libs on the boards here are so terrified at the sight of a venerated pop culture icon like Cleese actually legitimizing 1) Fox News and B) The Republican Party

He's English. He doesn't know a damn about American politics.

And yeah, we're quaking in our boots, pal. Not.

He's English. He doesn't know a damn about American politics.

I would bet he knows more far about American politics than you know about British politics.

The Rev. Numbers: Speaking of campaign financing, apparently the UK and Canada both limit campaign spending and require TV stations to give airtime to candidates. Any British or Canadian Farkers care to comment about this?

It's not really worth anything in Canada. In Canada, we have this phonemenon called "cultural pollution" - almost all of our television channels are American. The average canuck might turn to CBC for the evening news, but other than that, watch whatever else. It's really quite sad.