Posted on 10/09/2008 7:11:06 AM PDT by theothercheek
That debate at Belmont University in Nashville, TN, was no town hall meeting. It was highly ritualized Kabuki Theater.
To begin with, instead of just letting the first 5,000 people to show up into the Curb Event Center and taking questions from the audience at random, The Gallup Organization hand-picked 80 uncommitted voters from the Nashville area to participate. What’s this fetish the MSM has with uncommitted voters? Allowing a committed voter to ask a partisan question gives the candidate from the opposing party a chance to rebut a claim or make a case for a divergent position – and, just maybe, to change someone’s mind.
Of course, it’s easier for 80 people to pass through metal detectors than 5,000, but this feat was accomplished when Elton John threw a fund-raising concert at NYC’s Radio City Music Hall in April attended by Hillary Clinton and her family (all of whom were under Secret Service protection). So the end result was that this crowd wasn’t a bunch of citizens just like you and me - and their selection was anything but democratic.
Moderator Tom Brokaw sifted through their questions plus the “tens of thousands” E-mailed by viewers – yup, there’s that MSM filter VP candidate Sarah Palin objected to during her debate with her counterpart Joe Biden last week – and chose questions on the same topics that journalists have repeatedly asked the candidates during previous debates ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thestilettoblog.com ...
I think the fetish with uncommitted voters is that supposedly these voters are seeking new information to help makes up their minds. I guess they think committed voters don’t pay as much attention to debates and campaign events because their minds are made up.
I can imagine, though, that partisan people would claim to be uncommitted and get in there and ask a question of the candidate they oppose that would cause him problems.
I would pay money on pay-per-view for a debate where the campaigns ask each other the questions. I would love to hear not just the answers the campaigns give, but the choice of questions they would pose to their opponents.
That’s an original idea. Too bad none of the MSM moderators thought of it. I would pay for that, too.
taking points = talking points
I know what you mean. The questions just didn’t seem like “real people” questions except for that last one that Brokaw made fun of as being “zen like.” And Obama’s answer to that one was revealing of his arrogance - he couldn’t think of a single thing he didn’t know. It was the only question worth a damn in my opinion.
Yes, but he “looked” and “sounded” presidential. And that’s all that matters now, isn’t it? Start practicing your fist bumps ...
Right on the mark. This was a farce. The audience and questioners were just MSM props and pawns. Brokaw selected the questions and there was no follow-up from the questioner. Is it any wonder there were no questions on immigration, abortion, gun control, etc.? This was a Stalinist press event under the guise of a townhall event.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.