Posted on 11/29/2007 5:49:19 AM PST by jdm
CNN and YouTube had weeks to select the questions for last night's debate, poring over 5,000 submissions to select the handful that made it to the candidates. They even flew a few of them to the debate in order to allow them a response to the answers provided by the Republican presidential hopefuls. Yet within minutes of the debate, bloggers discovered what CNN missed -- that one prominent questioner flown to Florida by CNN worked on the campaign of a Democratic rival, and that at least three other questioners have declared support for Democratic candidates. Michelle Malkin rounds it up:
The best thing about Republicans agreeing to do the CNN/YouTube debate is that it created yet another invaluable opportunity to expose CNN’s abject incompetence.
Retired Brig. Gen./gays in the military lobbyist/Hillary-Kerry supporter Keith H. Kerr wasn’t the only plant at the CNN/YouTube debate. The plant uncovering is in full-swing over at Free Republic.
Example: “Journey,” a.k.a. “Paperserenade,” the girl who asked an abortion question, is a declared John Edwards supporter. ... Brian McMurphy at SixMeatBuffet (hat tip See-Dubya) notes that David Cercone, the Pompano Beach, Florida, man who asked the question about Log Cabin Republicans, is a declared Obama supporter. ... The lead toy questioner, LeeAnn Anderson, who appears to be an ordinary mom concerned about her two children, whom she includes in her video, is a prominent Pittsburgh union activist–and aide to Leo Gerard, President of the American Steel Workers Union/John Edwards supporter.
Abject incompetence, yes. If these bloggers could discover this information -- mostly from their YouTube profiles, not exactly heavy lifting -- then CNN should have vetted the questioners better. With the possible exception of General Kerr, it doesn't appear that the questioners made any attempt to hide their affiliation; they simply posted their questions, and CNN blithely selected them at face value.
Bad journalistic practices? Definitely yes. But does that negate the questions themselves? I don't think so. The CNN/YouTube format closely parallels that of the traditional town-hall forum. For the most part, attendees do not get vetted at these events either, nor should they. After all, while a primary usually involves voters of one party, the entire nation has a stake in the selection of the nominees. If Hillary Clinton held a town hall in my community, I should have an opportunity to question her about her positions on issues without pledging a loyalty oath to do so.
The questions asked don't seem particularly outrageous. Kerr asked about gays in the military and Cercone about Log Cabin Republicans. Gays in the military have been a major policy issue for almost twenty years; gay issues relate to a major Republican strategy in the past two elections. The GOP encouraged ballot initiatives opposing same-sex marriage in 2004 and 2006 to help push evangelicals to the polls. Republicans make opposition to the "gay agenda" a big fundraising point on a regular basis. Those questions seemed reasonable, and reasonably asked. Although I disagree with the candidates on their positions on Kerr's point, they all gave reasonable and consistent answers.
The question on abortion -- would opposition to abortion mean jailing the women who seek them -- was hardly unusual. Fred Thompson actually gave the best answer on this, unflappable as always, which is that it doesn't happen that way now with clearly illegal abortions. Everyone on that stage has attacked Rudy Giuliani for his pro-choice view (with good reason, in my opinion); the Republicans have clearly made abortion a big issue in this primary. Shouldn't they expect to get precisely this question when talking about criminalizing abortion?
LeeAnn Anderson's question about toys, and by extension trade with China, may have come from left field, pun intended, but it touched on Duncan Hunter's biggest issue. He has been railing against free-trade agreements with China all during his presidential run. Also, it hardly needs to be said, but both Republican and Democratic parents and grandparents have concerns this Christmas about the next toy recall, and hoping their children and grandchildren don't find it the hard way. It's a rational question, made by someone with undisclosed interests in the answer, but the question itself is precisely the kind made in town-hall forums.
CNN deserves the brickbats it will receive for its atrocious research skills. However, Republicans should be prepared to answer the questions the candidates received in this debate. At some point, this will cease being an intramural fight and we will have to convince all of America to vote for our nominee. That won't happen if we can't handle fastballs, with a couple of curveballs in the mix.
Ed Morrissey doesn't get it this time around. CNN knew who these people were and didn't care. End of story.
And no where in the MSM is this being reported. What a sleazy, conniving, dishonest bunch of Democrats the MSM is. We will have to work very hard to overcome the cheating before and during the next election.
...”The best thing about Republicans agreeing to do the CNN/YouTube debate is that it created yet another invaluable opportunity to expose CNN’s abject incompetence.”...
Incompetence? I think the word should be “mendacity” or “treachery”. Clearly not incompetence. They have been - and are - biased toward the democrat party to the extent that they have no credibility with thinking Americans. Of course, that qualification leaves out most democrat party voters.
I spoke to Jim Greer, chairman of the RPOF last night. I congratulated him for his leadership of the Party which has resulted in new found contributions and additional national prestige. I urged him not to give in to the temptations of an endorsement of a candidate prior to primary day. Florida has spent real political capital to challenge other states for the role of an early decision state. If we do not appear to be honest brokers, and stack the deck, then any influence that our state may have gained as a primary state will be sacrificed for political expediency. Our precedence in this election will have repercussions for 2012 and beyond.
I also challenged him to cut off the media feeding frenzy from the debate process. I was personally embarrassed for the eight men on stage who had to suppress wincing over another guitar guy serenading the field with inane witticisms. The false premises loaded into many of the questions should have been left on the cutting room floor. The media has repeatedly proved themselves unworthy of presenting cogent questions, and receiving thoughtful answers. We are allowing the media to set our agendas when the RPOF should be setting the agenda. I asked him point blank, why should we, as in a prominent Republican like Newt Gingrich, not be moderating the debate instead of Anderson Cooper?
Why are we giving paychecks to the media whores who would like nothing better than to see eight Republican Statesmen squabble over which one is more like Ronald Reagan? The media builds their ratings on our squabbling, not our reasoned, civil debate.
As I made my case to Jim, I was challenged by a man who was standing with Jim. “Oh but we don’t have the power, they have the audience, 300 million people, that is why we need them.” I replied that the NFL charges the networks for programing, but would never allow the networks to pick the referees, build the stadium, or make the rules of the game. We have the power, I said. Then, I found out that the man was a former studio executive.
Sounds like another "fake but accurate" excuse by Morrissey. He may accept these "good questions" by Democrat operatives, but there is a double standard. Why are the Dems getting involved in the Rep primaries and setting the agenda? Why is CNN being complicit? This isn't tit for tat. It is all one way. There is no doubt that the questions were intended to paint Reps as racist, bigoted, war-mongering, religious fanatics and homophobes. The bible and Confederate flag questions were particularly over the top and were selected by CNN to be aired. And the final "pearls or diamonds" question to Giuliani was just a blatant attempt to help Rudy.
IMHO, the harder and more off the wall questions are, the more we can see how these candidates respond under stress.
No one that I heard asked a question that shouldn't have been asked, and most were questions that many Americans wanted answered.
BS basil. How about the ‘rats start answering some questions other than pearls vs diamonds?
I don’t mind the questions as long as the people asking the questions are properly identifying themselves so the answer is in the correct context as well as the QUESTIONER!
CNN made the allusion these were undecided or GOP voters asking questions. They were NOT.
Wow. My respect for the Captain just plunged.
So I guess in his world it would have been ok for a person to IMPERSONATE an American soldier that had served in Iraq and was questioning the rational for the war; since in context we would know somewhere out there in America there is a real soldier with the same concern!
These people were FAKE! That is the problem.
In fairness I think it must be admitted CNN treated democrats and republicans alike in these debates. In the democrat debate they planted democrat operatives, and in the republican debate they planted democrat operatives.
How can anybody object to balanced treatment ?
Ed Morrisey--Useful Idiot.
Howie Kurtz could'a wrote this...
I’m just wondering if Anderson Cooper has a ‘personal relationship’ with this General Kerr....
Nonsense. For example, how many Americans are concerned about the Confederate flag issue and why is it relevant for the Presidential campaign? We went through this in SC in 2000.
Where is the RNC on this? Why don’t they issue a statement?
How come the Democrats get policy questions and the Republicans only get morality questions at these debates????
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.