**CNN's six "undecided voters" were all Democratic operatives**

UPDATES BELOW - CNN hits bottom and digs: All six debate questioners appear to be Democratic Party operatives. So much for "ordinary people, undecided voters". To paraphrase Junior Soprano, CNN is so far up the DNC's hind end, Howard Dean can taste hair gel.

In a nutshell, CNN's six "undecided voters" were:

A Democratic Party bigwig
An antiwar activist
A Union official
An Islamic leader
A Harry Reid staffer
A radical Chicano separatist

Wow. This looks "rather" like a scandal. Hot Air:

...You’d think the network’s audience might want to know who among the questioners has had a paid, formal relationship with the party.

...I went back to the beginning of the debate to see how Blitzer introduced the format. Did he offer any details on who’d be doing the questioning? Why, yes. After mentioning that the debate was sponsored by the national party — something likely understood by most viewers as a mere formality — he described them as “ordinary people, undecided voters.” Note: not even “undecided Democrats.” Just undecided.

Word on the street is that Hillary's staffers are extremely pleased with CNN's Wolf Blitzer for his softball questioning of Sen. Clinton during Thursday's Las Vegas debate. Blitzer "was outstanding, and did not gang up like Russert did in Philadelphia. He avoided personal attacks, remained professional and ran the best debate so far."

Who were the questioners upon whom Blitzer called? According to CNN, they were "ordinary people, undecided voters.” Like these folks:

Plant #1: LaShannon Spencer, whom Blitzer introduced as an "undecided voter", was tagged by Dan Riehl: in truth, she served as the political director of the Democratic Party of Arkansas.

Plant #2: Khalid Kahn, who expressed concern about profiling and the Patriot Act, asked "[m]y question is that -- our civil liberties have been taken away from us. What are you going to do to protect Americans from this kind of harassment?" Classical Values notes that Mr. Kahn is the president of the Islamic Society of Nevada, who has hosted conferences like this one (with guest speakers like Muzzamil Siddiqi). In fact, Kahn in no stranger to CNN, appearing on a show called Keeping the Faith in Sin City.

Plant #3: Suzanne Jackson -- mother of a three-term Iraq war veteran -- is aso a well-known antiwar activist. She appeared in the Las Vegas Review Journal protesting -- with a poor monkey, no less -- outside of Harry Reid's office in May.

Plant #4: Maria Luisa -- the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" -- wrote that CNN forced her to ask the "frilly" question instead of a pre-approved query regarding the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility.

Update: Andy writes to point out the eerie similarities between Maria L. Parra-Sandoval and "Maria Luisa." Regarding Ms. Parra-Sandoval, the UNLV website states:

This spring she will serve as the political communications intern for Senator Harry Reid in Washington, D.C. Currently a junior at UNLV, Maria is... is an immigrant on a quest to become a United States citizen.

In other words, she's not even eligible to vote, unless the Democrats changed the rules when I wasn't looking.

Who can ever forget that scumbag Peter Jennings opening every evening's 'ABC World News Tonight' with the phrase, "More bad news for George Bush tonight....", and then reporting the latest declining "economic indicators"? Month after month of reports like that suddenly ceased in the first week of November 1992, the day after Clinton was elected.

That reminds me of a biased incident done by the local ABC station in New York. In August of 92 they sent a camera crew to do a LIVE report in a shopping mall (Roosevelt Mall) in Long Island New York. They asked everyday people, shoppers, in the mall how they felt how the economy was doing. The results were pretty evenly mixed. Some thought it was doing great. Some thought it was doing terrible, some thought it was doing good but could do better, etc.

Fast forward to early December. The elections are over, Clinton is the winner and is now awaiting inauguration day. The same local ABC station decides to do another report on what people think how the economy is doing. They tell us that they are going to Roosevelt Mall. Then they air a tape of what they reported back in August. The word "LIVE" was still in the upper corner, even though it wasnt a live report, it was a tape of a report from months ago, AND the ones who thought the economy was doing terrible back in August were edited out! All that was left over were the people who thought that the economy was doing good or great.

So, they tried to mislead the viewers into thinking this was a LIVE report (no one mentioned the fact that this was a tape of a live report from months earlier) when it wasnt, and they edited out any negative coments about the economy. All of the sudden, after the election, it was all gundrops and rainbows. (It was hard not to miss the fact that in their December report that they tried to pass of as a LIVE feed, people were dressed for the summertime. Short pants, short sleeved shirts, etc.)

Not long afterward, reports about the "recovering economy" began to appear, including one famous one where the New York Times credited Bill Clinton with turning the economy around even though the data they cited covered a time period during which Bush was still President.

Two years after Clinton was elected, I saw on one of the Sunday morning shows I think it was, a Clinton supporter (cant recall if he was just a rep for the Dem party or an actual employee for the Clinton administration or both) and a Republican guy (also cant recall his name). The Clinton supporter claimed that Clinton was responsible for three years of our good economy. Of course, as I have pointed out above, at the time Clinton was in office only two years. This sailed over the heads of both the interviewer and the Republican as they both let that go unchallenged.

What are the chances that O’Reilly, Hannity or Michael Savage will get hold of this info?

Hmmmm, well they all (except for Savage, I don't know if he does) have staff perusing FR daily so they can report important stories before the appear anyplace else. Some times Hannity credits us, sometimes not.

O'Reilly calls FR a hate site and was proved wrong and did not apologize or correct himself.

Anybody that has the means should get in touch with all media that might report it. Drudge might but he likes to be first. But they may do something on this story cause they can cite the blog. Hopefully they will.

Even Fox is scared of Hilliary though we need to keep in mind.

So the bottom line is that they all have been made aware of this information, either by their staff seeing it here, or FR people emailing it to them.

I tried a video once from firefox, once from IE.

On Firefox, it made me download a ‘codec’ (virus) first, then it still wouldn’t work.

On IE, it worked fine.

See, those who are smart enough to use Firefox, who are personality types that ‘think for themselves’, they are the ones that GOOGLE, CNN, HRC, ABC,CBS, etc. want to lock out.

Al Gore is a significant $$$ owner of GOOGLE.
Many websites and BLOGS are being funded by SOROS and the DNC.

CONTROL. WE WANT CONTROL. WE NEED CONTROL. YOU MUST DO AS WE TELL YOU TO. DO NOT USE FIREFOX. Send us your money. Do so right away. We are the MASTERS. You must respect my AwwwTOOOORIITTAAAAAYYYYY!!!!!!

Keep this close as well:
CNN Pre-Plann(T)ed & Censored Every Question & Questioner at Dem Debate(?)!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1927189/posts

BTW, our marine who’s name was different on screen (not the only one), has been to protests at Reps. Porter and Heller, Reid and Pelosi’s offices... as well as some other event sponsored by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. You already know mom’s been to protests and on TV. I still smell Rieckoff though.

FYI, democratic blogspot 919 will flip you away from the info on Spencer to an ebay page... that’s happened for four different sites now... and the caches. Look like I missed the cleanup time.

I want to know if Lashannon Spencer still lives in Arkansas... seems a long way for an ‘undecided’ (cough) voter to travel. I wonder if it stung her to have her question added to as well:

“We constantly hear health care questions, and questions pertaining to the war. But we don’t hear questions pertaining to the Supreme Court justice or education. My question is, if you are elected president, what qualities must the appointee possess?”

To which was added:

Malveaux directed the question to Senator Christopher Dodd, and added whether or not he would “require nominees to support abortion rights.”

After:

Dodd answered Spencer’s question, as well as Malveaux’s addition. “I don’t necessarily believe in applying litmus tests here. I think that’s a dangerous precedent to begin that process here. You start down that path, others may follow it, you end up with a court then that may lack that kind of balance.”

Debate moderator Wolf Blitzer then directed the attention to Delaware Senator Joe Biden. “Would you insist that any nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court supported abortion rights for women?” Biden surprisingly took issue with Malveaux’s addition. “Suzanne’s decided. I’m not answering her question. I’m answering the question of the woman who was there, okay?” This reply also drew some applause from the audience. Blitzer then asked Spencer if she wanted Biden to answer Malveaux’s addition as well as her own question. Spencer repled that she wanted “both questions” answered. Biden then put his answer in the context of the so-called right to privacy.

Did Suzanne enjoy her question being pigeonholed to just abortion stance court requirements?

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.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

CNN's six "undecided voters" were all Democratic operatives