Heads Should Roll at CNN
I expect to have more to say on the gay angle of the latest example of biased coverage at CNN. It almost makes me wish I had tuned into last night’s debate instead of watching Rain Man. (I was eager to see flick, roughly a quarter of which takes place in my home town).
Suffice is to say that while impressed (yet again) by Dustin Hoffman’s Oscar-winning performance, I pretty much found the movie disappointing. While well made, it seemed quite dated, not as powerful last night as it had been when first I saw it, now nearly two decades ago.
But, today the big issue is the blogosphere is not how well quality movies hold up over time, but the aforementioned bias at CNN. First, we learn that an openly gay veteran whom CNN invited to the debate to ask a question served on Mrs. “Clinton’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender steering committee.” She isn’t the only Democrat this man supported. “He was also active in John F. Kerry’s 2004 campaign for president.“
To be sure, this man raised an important issue, asking about gays in the military, but it compromises the intended purpose of this Republican forum to invite voter who has already made up his mind in this election by choosing to support a candidate the opposing party.
And it’s not just this Clinton supporter. It seems that with each passing hour today, we learn that yet another person questioning the Republican candidates last night was affiliated with the campaign of a Democratic contender — or else had worked for a Democratic politician.
As I noted in the updates to Bruce’s initial post, we have since learned that one questioner works for Democratic Senate Whip Dick Durbin while another works for Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson. Later, it came out that another backed John Edwards while yet another had worked for Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman.
Calling CNN the “Last Name in News,” John Podhoretz notes how CNN’s bias n particularly pernicious in staging this forum for Republican candidates:
This sort of liberal media bias would have been far less of an issue if we were talking about a debate between the Democratic and Republican nominees for president, because in those circumstances both candidates are seeking to govern all Americans, even those who don’t vote for them. But in a Republican primary debate, when it is GOP members who are trying to determine which candidate should best represent their party, an overwhelmingly Democratic institution like CNN needs to be specially conscious of the way its biases might play into question selection.
No wonder Hugh Hewitt has called CNN The Most Busted Names In News”.
If CNN wishes to live up to its self-description as “the Most Trusted Name in News,” it needs to fire all those who chose the questions (and hence vetted those asking them) for last night’s debate. Only employees who can show that they favored a more thorough vetting process than that used should be allowed to keep their jobs.
While those on the left delight in portraying Fox as a biased network, CNN’s inclusion of a number of questioners who have supported Democratic candidates (without so identifying them) in last night’s Republican debate shows that supposedly impartial news source as being far more off-center than its supposedly conservative rival (news network). This is yet another piece of evidence that CNN leans far more to the left than Fox does to the right.
If CNN wishes to live up its mantra, heads should roll at the network.
UPDATE: CNN defends its vetting of the questions (Via Dan Riehl via Instapundit). I might be more sympathetic to this defense if CNN had indicated the questioners’ affiliation with or suport of other presidential candidates. But, the main thing is that it shows the similarity of the world view between those vetting the questions and supporters of Democratic presidential candidates. Given that this was a forum for Republican candidates, it would be nice if CNN could have identified good questions from individuals who back Republican candidates or support conservative causes.
They don’t seem familiar with issues on the mind of Republican voters. And this, after all, is a contest for who will be the party’s standard-bearer in next year’s presidential election.
And this coupled with past examples of CNN bias helps confirm the conservative charge of network bias.
UP-UPDATE: Given some of the comments critics made in the comments and which I received in at least one e-mail, I thought I’d offer excerpts form posts of other bloggers who have thoughts similar to my own — and expressed them better than I did. Given the length of this post, I have placed them beneath the jump, so just click here on the more to read on.
In his post providing a plethora of links on this topic, Glenn Reynolds writes:
CNN’s problem isn’t just bias — it’s a failure of professionalism. Frankly, if bloggers ran some sort of event and were infiltrated in this fashion, the usual media-ethics suspects would be tugging their beards about blogger irresponsibility and praising the superior layers of editors and fact-checkers at Big Media outfits like . . . CNN.
In another post, he links blogger Danny at National Journal who, while wondering why a leftist blogger would define fact-checking as stalking, makes some interesting observations:
The network [CNN] botched the debate big time, making a mockery of objective journalism, and it deserved to be called out — especially in light of CNN’s pre-debate suggestion that it was trying to moderate the debate in a way that would help Republican voters pick a candidate.
. . .
Remember, the network has insisted time and again that it must filter the questions rather than bestow that power on the Internet community (including those untrustworthy, pajama-clad loons we know as bloggers) because only CNN knows how to make sure a debate is fair and balanced.
. . .
One of the cardinal rules of the blogosphere is disclosure. Bloggers believe it’s OK to have what some readers might consider conflicts of interest as long as those conflicts are acknowledged. They weren’t in this case, and they should have been.
Pretty much sums up my problem with the way CNN handled this debate and why I believe heads should roll.
[Please note that when an alert reader e-mailed me to note that the Obama supporter who asked about Log Cabin did not define himself as a member of the organization, so I merely removed the paragraph which said as much.--Dan]
82 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I’m not sure I understand the beef here Dan. Especially when you yourself state that the DADT question was quite legitimate. And I’m not hearing anyone attack the questions, just those who asked them. I don’t recall any rules for the Democratic You-Tube debate that said Repub sympathizers were prohibited from asking questions. Indeed, considering some of the “gotcha” questions that were asked in that debate, some of the questioners might well have been Republicans yet I didn’t see anyone rushing around calling foul. Can you show me the rules for last night’s debate that would have banned Dem questioners?
Comment by Ian S — November 29, 2007 @ 9:12 pm - November 29, 2007
Ian, first read the blockquote from John Podhoretz about this being a Republican primary debate.
Second, as I recall from the Democratic debate, CNN said it would be bringing in undecided voters. I will assume the same rules apply for the GOP debate. Several of these guys have clearly made up their mind.
If these guys were members of the opposing party, CNN had a duty to inform its viewers as much.
Main issue is that this is yet another example of CNN’s bias against Republicans. C’mon, choosing questioners affiliated with or supportive of, Democratic candidates for a Republican debate.
Finally, please note I said that General Kerr raised an important issue, didn’t say that his question per se was legitimate. His rambling on (and on and on) suggests less an interest in an answer than in bating the candidates. He should have asked it more succinctly.
(Just as I should be more succinct in some of my posts.)
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 29, 2007 @ 9:31 pm - November 29, 2007
I think CNN’s own statement makes the matter far clearer:
CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, who moderated the debate and the panel, said that if that was the case, CNN should have identified Kerr as such.
David Bohrman, a CNN senior vice president and executive producer of the debate, later said: “We regret this and apologize to the Republican candidates. We never would have used the general’s question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate.”
Kerr lied, Ian. He claimed he had no connection whatsoever to the Clinton campaign, and he clearly did. He also clearly supported the campaign of John Kerry, a man who knowingly lied to Congress to smear his fellow veterans and to pander to the anti-military Democrat Party.
It shouldn’t surprise us, Ian, that you support gays who lie and tell falsehoods at the behest of their Democrat masters. But what you need to realize is that the more you and your fellow Democrat gays like Kerr link being gay with telling lies and smearing other veterans, the more you ruin matters for the rest of us.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2007 @ 9:47 pm - November 29, 2007
#2:
Naw, we like you just the way you are.
As for CNN, I’m beginning to think our side should also call foul and begin an investigation into just who the “gotcha” questioners were at the Dem debate. Quite likely Repub operatives. I detest CNN only slightly less than FauxNews and never watch it apart from the debates.
[If you find that he was a Republican operative, let me know and I'll break the story, faulting CNN for not properly vetting that debate. --Dan]
Comment by Ian S — November 29, 2007 @ 9:50 pm - November 29, 2007
#4:
Where did he claim that?
Comment by Ian S — November 29, 2007 @ 9:53 pm - November 29, 2007
Oops, that should have referred to #3.
Comment by Ian S — November 29, 2007 @ 9:53 pm - November 29, 2007
As gay man, a former military officer and an opponent of DADT, I feel the Kerr “stunt” is yet another example of how well meaning, left-leaning gay rights activists often do more harm than good in advancing the cause of equality for gays in America. In this case, Kerr becomes the story. This could have been handled much better in one of two ways. One, Kerr’s question could have more effectively been asked by a truly dispassionate observer, not such an obvious plant. Or, two, CNN could have fully disclosed who Kerr was and his role in past and current Democratic campaigns. This hamfisted, inept handling of the matter sucks all the energy away from the worthy cause of repealing DADT and probably makes the effort to bring this about a little less likely, at least in the nearterm.
A word of advice to activists who wish to advance their agenda in the future. Retired General Officers are some of the most egotistical, pompous wind bags walking the earth. They cannot help it, it is just in their genes. One who managed to navigate a full military career in the closet is probably going to be even worse. Just pick a regular, normal and likable person to put in the spotlight in such situations in the future. You might find they make better plants.
Comment by Scott — November 29, 2007 @ 9:58 pm - November 29, 2007
Well said, Scott, esp. about Kerr becoming the story.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 29, 2007 @ 10:00 pm - November 29, 2007
Indeed. Just imagine the reverse. Imagine the howls of outrage - and I say, rightful howls - if CNN had peppered the Democratic debate with at least FOUR tough, conservative or Republican questioners, that it failed to properly disclose as conservative / Republican questioners.
Yet to be proven. As we never tire of telling the “Bush LIED!!(tm)” crowd, it’s not a lie until there is a very high likelihood of conscious intent to deceive. The evidence I’ve seen thus far, still leaves some room for the possibility that Kerr could have believed honestly (if wrongly) that any connection he had to the Hillary Clinton campaign was tenuous and not worth considering, and that he had been welcomed by LCR as an official “member”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2007 @ 10:58 pm - November 29, 2007
CNN has apparently trolled memeorandum to pick up the lefty talking point regarding this situation. Here’s what they have to say:
I’ve seen that very same formulation at least a dozen times at various lefty hangouts. We’re just trying to distract from the excellent questions by mentioning the process!
Comment by Bilby — November 29, 2007 @ 10:59 pm - November 29, 2007
Oops. Here’s the link.
Comment by Bilby — November 29, 2007 @ 11:00 pm - November 29, 2007
“And it’s not just this Clinton supporter. It seems that with each passing hour today, we learn that yet another person questioning the Republican candidates last night was affiliated with the campaign of a Democratic contender — or else had worked for a Democratic politician.”
Funny, no one seemed to care much that when ‘grass roots supporters’ showed up to protest the vote re-count in Florida in 2000, it turned out that each and everyone of them pictured worked for either a Republican campaign or were employed as a staffer to an elected Republican official….
Or how about the fact that Bush’s “town meetings” were carefully orchestrated by local Republican business owners to essentially act as a Bush rally (and as I seem to recall, an employee was fired from one company for refusing to attend)
Comment by Kevin — November 29, 2007 @ 11:43 pm - November 29, 2007
Correct me if I’m wrong, but do all the people who pose a question at a debate have to be screened for their pollitical affilations? When is a question not a question? It’s going to be hardball in a few weeks. Why not let us see it now?
Comment by noel — November 29, 2007 @ 11:48 pm - November 29, 2007
Um, Kevin, can’t you see the distinction?
First, I’m not going to defend what the president did, but at least he doesn’t bill himself as a non-partisan name in news.
And as to the grass-roots supporters, well, did they claim that they weren’t Republicans? Again, they showed up of their own accord, even if they were GOP activists and were not hand-picked bya news organization.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 29, 2007 @ 11:51 pm - November 29, 2007
#9:
Well, we don’t know yet if it was Republican operatives who put forward the “gotcha” questions at the Dem debate but hopefully, that will come to light too. CNN has plenty of right wing tools: Campbell Brown comes immediately to mind.
Comment by Ian S — November 30, 2007 @ 12:21 am - November 30, 2007
No actual comments on the fact that everyone who answered Kerr’s question said they supported DADT and thought it was great?
You attack a fellow gay, yet totally ignore the responses of the Presidential candidates?
[Attack? All we did is say that this man has supported Democratic candidates. Interesting the way you define attack.]
How can you guys live with yourselves when you debase yourselves like this by vilifying a 40 year veteran? You truly lick the boots of your Republican masters and are happy when they then put their boots on your neck.
[Give me a break on that. You guys on left are so eager to find conservatives vilifying the military that you discover vilification when there is none. This is a guy, who even CNN has acknowledged, has not been candid about the candidates he supports. And that is the issue. Had he been more forthcoming, we would have been less critical.]
Sickening.
How about that lovely response from Huckabee about Log Cabin Republicans? I kick them to the curb, but if they come crawling to support me, I would happily accept their supports. Sort like being a Klansman welcoming black support while working to keep the black man down.
[Is that all that you do is repeat cliches?]
It will be fascinating to see the contortions GayPatriot will go through to justify what the candidates said on gays.
[Were did we justify what the candidates said on gays in the military? Did you even read the post where I acknowledged this was an "important issue"? Or perhaps note that in comment 8, I agreed with Scott's comment 7 on how CNN and Kerr's inept handling of the question allowed that to become the issue. Seems you're going through contortions just to attack us. --Dan]
Comment by Elais — November 30, 2007 @ 1:02 am - November 30, 2007
The issue is the fact a Democratic operative was brought in to ask questions and speechify without it being made known. It’s not about whether his question was a good or poignant one. Personally I was offended by Duncan Hunter’s answer, but that’s not the point.
Kerr wasn’t the only one, either. The plants are sprouting up all over the place.
Comment by Bilby — November 30, 2007 @ 1:37 am - November 30, 2007
Actually, I wouldn’t be concerned whatsoever of a panelist’s background as long as that panelist was honestly chosen by CNN’s methodology for culling from what must have been a hundred thousand submissions from Youtubers. And I also would not be concerned with the methodology as long as it was honestly described and actually adhered to (i.e. “our criteria is that weight is given to professional activists”). But statistically it is the equivalent of winning the Lottery that 5 of the winners came up as activists. This strongly suggests that CNNs error was NOT that of improperly vetting the panelists. Sheer chance would have taken care of that. The error has to have been the much darker one of CNN actually rigging the outcome.
Comment by Robert — November 30, 2007 @ 1:41 am - November 30, 2007
You attack a fellow gay, yet totally ignore the responses of the Presidential candidates?
So gay ethics require that you ignore when another person deliberately lies and misrepresents themselves if that person is gay.
In that case, DADT makes perfect sense; the armed forces can’t have people who are covering up and ignoring the misbehavior and incompetence of others, and gays are required to do that for other gays.
How can you guys live with yourselves when you debase yourselves like this by vilifying a 40 year veteran?
If vilifying veterans is a problem for him, he wouldn’t have joined the Kerry campaign; after all, John Kerry launched his political career by lying about returning veterans to Congress, claiming they were all inhuman murderers and baby-killers.
Furthermore, Kerr was nowhere to be seen when gays were vilifying and getting JROTC banned in San Francisco schools, when the gays on the SF Board of Supervisors were trying to get the Blue Angels banned from flying and when they banned the USS Iowa from being berthed in SF as a veterans’ museum, and when Code Pink, International ANSWER, and other groups supported by gays are picketing, harassing, and vandalizing military recruitment centers and military recruiters.
It should be obvious to everyone that Kerr is gay first and only a veteran or a military supporter when it’s convenient for Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, it should be even more obvious that Kerr puts his sexual orientation and sexual needs ahead of basic military ethics, like telling the truth.
In short, you couldn’t find a better example. And until gays like you and Kerr, Elais, stop using the fact that you’re gay as an excuse for unethical behavior and for outright antimilitary bigotry, DADT makes perfect sense.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2007 @ 1:59 am - November 30, 2007
My money’s on Clinton Inc.
Whenever liberals start pointing fingers at Republicans, the wisest course of action is to look in the opposite direction.
The reality is that not all soldiers and veterans are as pure as the wind driven snow. Some, and I’ve met a few, are just downright dirty SOBs. That they served their country, I thank them. That they gave up time at home and work to protect all of us, I likewise thank them. However, there are a few that deserve little or no respect.
Case in point, VoteVets frequently lies and misrepresents to push their agenda. For instance, last year they ran an ad claiming that certain Republicans reps had voted against VA funding. The dirty secret was that the bill, which increased VA funding passed 395-0 seven months before the ad ran (during campaign season).
They actively lied to effect the outcome of a campaign. Should they be called out as liars or should we just pat them on the head and pitty them because they’re veterans? I personally lean toward the former.
What’s most disturbing, not to mention pathetic, is that liberals ALWAYS rund defense for liars and oxygen thieves as long as it furthers their agenda.
Did Kerr lie? I don’t know. Evidently, at the worst, CNN misrepresented who he was and that should be known.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 30, 2007 @ 2:57 am - November 30, 2007
And why not? The liberals can’t win with ideas so they have to lie and cheat to get their power back. One must be skeptical given their history of:
*Registering dead or fictional characters
*Paying registrars with crack cocaine for doing the above
*Bussing people in from other cities and/or states to vote in elections
*Desperatly trying to allow convicted fellons to vote
*Slash the tires of vehicles used to transport voters to the polls
*Snowbirds vote here in Florida and then vote absentee back home
*Push desperately to throw out overseas military votes
*Actively try to register as many illegal aliens as possible
*Fervently oppose showing ID to prove you are who you say you are so you only get to vote once etc. etc. etc.
All the while pointing their fingers at Republicans. So why shouldn’t we look at who’s asking the questions? What are you afraid of? What are you trying to deflect attention from?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 30, 2007 @ 3:09 am - November 30, 2007
Looks like a Muslim asked one of the questions.
Guess who she worked for once… CAIR.
So now CNN is letting peolpe who worked for terrorist front groups ask questions to presidential candidates.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/surprise-muslim-youtube-questioner-was-former-cair-intern/
Comment by Vince P — November 30, 2007 @ 3:43 am - November 30, 2007
Here are some things that CNN itself said they would/wouldn’t do a week before the debate:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/sneak-peek-at-cnnyoutube-debate-videos/
Comment by Vince P — November 30, 2007 @ 4:05 am - November 30, 2007
I thought the GOP candidates did a good job of answering those so-called “planted” questions. At each question, one or two on the debate stage stepped forward to tell us exactly how they feel about the issue in question, and that alone told us more about what the GOP candidates are made of than all the rest of the debate, which was pretty much just more Guiliani-Romney bickering. Could it be the problem that GOP hyper partisans have here and on other blogs with those questions are the ANSWERS they elicited? GOP candidates typically like to code-tap their way around these issues when America’s watching and leave themselves room to navigate back to the center during the General Election. Horse has left the barn on that this time, though. All this harrumphing about WHO asked the questions leaves one thinking that the hyper partisans are quite thin-skinned and realize that the horse is out and that they’re left with a field of near-lunatics running for President — excepting McCain, of course, who maintains a look of dismay at his stage mates.
Question to Gay Patriot West: you’ve established a pattern of destroying a comment you disagree with by lacing it with “Edits” — but you never do this with an agreeable comment or a comment from an opponent you know. At best, this pattern underscores the thin-skin observation above; at worst, it’s just plain unbecoming of a blogger who otherwise shows a true sensitivity to the thoughts of others.
Comment by KYKid — November 30, 2007 @ 6:30 am - November 30, 2007
#24
Perhaps if you paid attention, instead of trying to be an arrogant dick, you might learn something.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 30, 2007 @ 6:47 am - November 30, 2007
Frankly I think Podhoretz’ comments are whiney. Too bad if they are asked tough questions, even by people from other parties. The questions themselves were legit. These men are not just running for the nomination of their party but to be president of the country which includes all parties. Besides, Independents vote in both primaries and are entitled to have their questions answered as well.
Indeed. This is where the problem comes in. It’s not that tough questions were asked by Democrat sympathizers, but that they misrepresented who they were while putting forward a false image of ‘objectivity’. Yeah, the media is unbiased. Suuuuuuure. Once again they have egg on their face and are shown to be the partisan hacks they really are.
Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 7:12 am - November 30, 2007
Absolutely! This why the Servicemembers United guys the other night were like a breath of fresh air…
*former enlisted man just whistles innocently*
Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 7:16 am - November 30, 2007
The former I WANT to see instead of this farce we call ‘debates’ now; the latter is where the problem comes in.
Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 7:17 am - November 30, 2007
Oh yeah: the Levi’s Dockers and loafers protest. I don’t recall what you claim here but I still chuckle remembering the news footage…
Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 7:20 am - November 30, 2007
I have to get this off my chest about David Cercone. Even before the news broke about him, the instant I saw his face, my gut impression of him was…. WHINER!! (Or, PERENNIAL GAY VICTIM!) So the news that he’s a committed Obama supporter, didn’t surprise me.
And yet Kerr was to be seen, defending America for 40 years. Come on NDT… this one (i.e., vilifying Kerr) is a loser for you. It is beneath you - or ought to be. And other targets deserve it more.
TGC, thanks. That sums up my view.
That itself is a distractionary tactic… an attempt to change the subject.
It’s interesting to see that CNN doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 30, 2007 @ 7:27 am - November 30, 2007
I agree with Jonah Goldberg, there should be a debate where conservative activists question Democrats and a debate where liberal activists question Republicans. Well, we kind of just had the latter. I would love to see Hilldog, B.O., and the Breck Girl questioned by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and such like.
But since the Democrats are too chicken to even appear on FoxNews, it’s unlikely they would ever submit to questioning by people who will ask questions tougher than, “Mrs. Clinton, how do you feel being the first woman president will be good for America?”
Comment by V the K — November 30, 2007 @ 7:43 am - November 30, 2007
Now that’s an excellent suggestion and something I would dearly love to watch!
Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 7:53 am - November 30, 2007
That’s part of the subtext here. Dems / leftists can dish it out… but rarely can they take it. As we’ve seen time and time again, on this blog.
Hilldog was asked ONE semi-tough question, and look at the hypocritical stink she kicked up.
BTW, I have one about a half hour ago in mod… sigh…
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 30, 2007 @ 8:02 am - November 30, 2007
Whenever I think of that, I laugh remembering Dan’s “they’re ganging up on me!” whiney impersonation on the podcast.
Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 8:10 am - November 30, 2007
I’ll fifth the suggestion of V the K on having opposition partisans question each field of candidates. But, just as you guys relish the idea of hammering the Dems, so do I, but in reverse, as it would indeed be wonderful for Dem activists to walk Romney and Guiliani through their flip-flops, and question Guiliani directly — with NYC records in view — on his use of public funds to protect and ferry about a mistress while doing the same for his then-current wife. It would also be fun to watch them talk Bible literalism with Gov. Pyle of Arkansas, get Dr. Paul to talk some more about the NAU conspiracy, get Cong. Tancredo to drive away some more Hispanic/Latino votes, get Cong. Hunter to address DADT again (especially in the face of the dozens of former generals speaking out against the policy this very day). The only one that would handle the Dem activists would be McCain, who would summon up all of the righteousness that an elderly man might and fend off the activists.
Comment by KYKid — November 30, 2007 @ 9:24 am - November 30, 2007
Is your five minute hate over?
Comment by Vince P — November 30, 2007 @ 9:42 am - November 30, 2007
God forbid Republicans answer a question from someone who isn’t a die-hard GOPer.
I have an idea for the next debate. Let’s have people submit questions like this except we’ll have the Republican’s answer the questions submitted for the Democrats and vice versa. Of course no one will be told of this in advance. It would also add a little drama and buzz to the event plus making all the candidates have to answer questions they aren’t necessarily overly prepped for.
Comment by Houndentenor — November 30, 2007 @ 9:45 am - November 30, 2007
i wonder if you miss the point on purpose?
the issue is the ulterior motive and lack of forthcomingness.
this is a primary debate how many primaries do youknow where people from other parties ask the questions?
the purpose of the primary is so the party members can choose their guy based on their values… not the values of some pot smoking retard holding up the bible asking absurd question like “do youbelieve every word”… it’s a sham, and it’s disrepectful.
Comment by Vince P — November 30, 2007 @ 10:00 am - November 30, 2007
Vince, are they now saying that one (the bible guy) was also a Dem plant? If so, even I am ashamed. I thought for sure that was definitely one of yours.
Comment by KYKid — November 30, 2007 @ 10:17 am - November 30, 2007
Houndentenor, that idea of yours? (Chuckling) Sounds like we’d have mass confusion on both sides, with much checking of prepared notes down on the podium.
Comment by KYKid — November 30, 2007 @ 10:19 am - November 30, 2007
This manufactured outrage is a brilliant strategy. All of this screaming and railing against CNN conveniently makes you all forget the weakness of your candidates, their flip-flopping and their general crumminess. It simply rallies you all to the generic republican banner.
Kudos!
Comment by gil — November 30, 2007 @ 10:22 am - November 30, 2007
I can assure you that person was not a Christian, Republican or Conservative.
Comment by Vince P — November 30, 2007 @ 10:46 am - November 30, 2007
I don’t see why the Bible question is even relevant to the candidate’s qualifications to be president. Certainly, it is less relevant than his health care policy… which CNN did not think was worth asking about.
Comment by V the K — November 30, 2007 @ 11:10 am - November 30, 2007
No, I’m well aware of the purpose of debates. Each party is choosing the person to represent them in the general election. Why should we focus on issues mainly of interest to voters who are probably going to vote for a Democrat or Republican no matter who the candidates are? Why not make them answer questions that moderates and swing voters would like answered? Why not ask them questions they will be asked in a debate? Why not bring up topics that the candidate’s opponent will hammer away at them on in the general election?
I thought it would be interesting. In Britain there is a programme called Ask the (Prime) Minister. Sometimes it’s a cabinet member and sometimes it’s the PM. People ask questions. And they get to ask follow ups. I watched one of these on CSPAN with Tony Blair. They really put him in the hotseat. We let our presidents get away with WAY too much. Yes, Clinton as well as Bush. This isn’t a partisan attack. We should hold them to their word and they should have to face questions from people who aren’t party hacks. Again, both parties should have to do this. Bush has been completely sheltered from opposition opinion as president and that is a bad thing for the country. I fear that the next Democratic president (whoever and whenever that may be) will follow his lead and do the same thing and I do not want that.
Candidates should have to answer TOUGH questions. Not fluffy bunny questions. Such a debate would destroy certain candidates. I say goodbye and good riddance. I want to know now if they can’t handle the pressure and not next October and I would think you would want the same thing for the GOP nominee.
Comment by Houndentenor — November 30, 2007 @ 11:26 am - November 30, 2007
gil contends that the candidates are “flip-flop”ers.
gil, for the record, that charge has to have some heft to it before it sticks. For instance, it worked on JohnKerry repeatedly. In fact, he was such a flipflopper that a campaign ad was created showing him windsurfing and flipping the sail at each subsequent contradiction.
JohnKerry’s list: #1 the Iraq War & funding votes; #2 the Fairness Doctrine; #3 the Israeli security fence; #4 the Patriot Act round 1; #5 death penalty for terrorists; #6 releasing oil reserves to combat market forces; #7 affirmative action; #8 MFN status for China; #9 the effectiveness of No Child Left Behind; and #10 whether or not Teresa really wears the pants in his gigilo marriage.
Remember, it was so bad that some Democrat Senator have called him Lt. Flippity Flop, USN-Ret. Granted, it was in jest at fundraiser… but still.
For flipflop to work on your targets, you’d have to prove it was a calculated move to win political advantage… not simply the RR garden variety of policy maturation and thoughtful consideration or research.
gil, if you can rise to that test, have at it.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 30, 2007 @ 11:27 am - November 30, 2007
Well firstly, the Republicans knew the YouTube debate was going to be a trap yet they went anyway. There was a lot of controversy in the month or two since it was annoucned there was going to be a YT debate… a lot of people said that that this sort of debate is not serious, it cheapens the office these people are running for, it’s nothing but a marketing tool for CNN and YT…. the questions would be set-ups.. etc..
Yet the candidates went anyway… so they did exactly what you want… they entered a forum they knew that was designed to be against them and they faced it.
The Democrats wont go on Fox, to be asked credible questions by real journalists…
If you guys want to criticize the Republicans for “whining” then you lost sight of the big picture…. the Republicans went on with the debate knowing it would be the joke that it was…. where is your criticism for the Democrats who wont do the same?
As I said elsewhere , these aren’t real debates. A real debate should be like Lincoln-Douglas debate… not some media-controlled pseudo-press conference with 30 second soundbite restrictions.
Comment by Vince P — November 30, 2007 @ 11:38 am - November 30, 2007
As someone who was asked and did tell then discharged, I find it quite funny and hypocritical of Kerr to make his rambling speech, was there an actual question?, to be supporter of Clinton whose husband signed off on DADT. She has also done nothing to get rid of DADT.
That in itself tells me he’s not serious of getting rid DADT and was trying to make points or get his moment in the sun.
Comment by ousslander — November 30, 2007 @ 11:50 am - November 30, 2007
Good point, ousslander. Kind of corresponds to what Scott said above in #7. He allowed himself to be made the issue.
His rambling and support of Clinton (with a checkered record on the issue) detract from his addressing a very serious issue.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 30, 2007 @ 11:57 am - November 30, 2007
“gil contends that the candidates are “flip-flop”ers”
Um. I don’t “contend” anything. The facts speak for themselves and in the case of the Repubs, they the fish on the floor.
If you are satisfied that your guy has flipped and flopped his way into your heart, that is fine. Good for you.
I understand your need to avoid looking at it by flinging your spittle at CNN. It’s a good strategy.
Nice work
Comment by gil — November 30, 2007 @ 12:00 pm - November 30, 2007
LOL.. It looks like our gay brigadier general isn’t quite a brigadier general:
Low Hanging Fruit
Posted at 8:22 AM on 11/30/2007 by David Horowitz
It seems that Gay Keith, the Clinton plant, was not a Brigadier General and served only in the reserves.
I received this note from retired Brigadier General William Becker:
IN SPITE OF MY CURRENT DISTRACTIONS AT HOME I AM FORCED TO ENTER THE PUBLIC ARENA TO EXPRESS MY OUTRAGE AT THE CURRENT REPUBLICAN DEBATE AS MANAGED BY CNN. GAY KEITH IS NOT A BRIGADIER GENERAL. HE IS NOT EVEN AN ACTIVE DUTY RETIRED ARMY OFFICER. HE SPENT HIS YEARS AS A RESERVIST SOLELY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MILITARY BUREAUCRACY. HIS BIO IS PUBLISHED IN THE GAY ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO VOIDING THE “DON’T ASK DON’T TELL” POLICY.
FOR DETAILS. YOU MUST NOTE THAT KERR WAS RETIRED FROM THE INACTIVE ARMY RESERVES IN THE GRADE OF COLONEL. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A FEW YEARS SERVED ON ACTIVE DUTY AS A LIEUTENANT HIS ENTIRE SERVICE WAS IN THE RESERVES IN CALIFORNIA. HE WAS PLACED IN RETIRED RESERVE STATUS WITH THE CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD RESERVES AND PROMOTED TO BRIGADIER GENERAL IN THAT FEDERALLY UNRECOGNIZED STATUS.
THIS IS CONSIDERED AN “HONORARY” TITLE SIMILAR TO THE PHD AWARDED BY UNIVERSITIES AS HONORARIUM. WE WOULD NEVER REFER TO SUCH AWARDEES AS “DOCTOR”. IT IS ALSO NOTEWORTHY THAT HE WAS A GRADUATE OF UC BERKELEY AND SERVED AS AN INSTRUCTOR IN ACADEMIA. HE HAS NO COMBAT EXPERIENCE DURING HIS 43 YEARS OF “SERVICE” AND IT IS A DISGRACE FOR HIM TO BE ASSOCIATED BY THE MEDIA WITH THE ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY!!!!
THANKS FOR LISTENING TO THE VOICE OF WRATH OF THIS OLD MILITARY AVIATOR. BRIGADIER GENERAL BILL BECKER UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, RETIRED COMBAT VETERAN WWII, KOREA,
VIETNAM
Comment by Vince P — November 30, 2007 @ 12:11 pm - November 30, 2007
This is the link for the above
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/11/low-hanging-fru.html
Comment by Vince P — November 30, 2007 @ 12:12 pm - November 30, 2007
The YT format was just a clever marketing ploy. They picked real people’s videos for questions they would have asked anyway. Did it work? Not really. Did more people watch than would have watched a standard moderator type debate? Maybe someone has numbers and will know. I kind of doubt it.
I don’t think the YT debate was a “trap”. How is it a trap to be asked about DADT? This is a controversial policy after all. No one really likes it (left or right) so far as I can tell.
As for Clinton, is she responsible for her husband’s actions and policies? It seems to me that if she is going to run on his presidency giving her “experience” and taking credit for his accomplishments then she has to accept the blame for his failures as well. DADT is certainly one of those failures (it was bungled whether you think gays should be discharged or not). But then I am not and never was a Hilary fan. I don’t hate her and certainly find it laughable that people think she’s a monster. I just don’t trust her very much.
Comment by Houndentenor — November 30, 2007 @ 12:13 pm - November 30, 2007
Read my post 23 and tell me how DADT fits within the standards that CNN set for itself.
Comment by Vince P — November 30, 2007 @ 12:16 pm - November 30, 2007
Because a shift has occurred within the GOP from 1993 when DADT was signed into law by that putz Bill Clinton. Indeed, even since 2004 when homosexuality was a nice wedge issue for them. Republicans are split with 49% in favor and 42% opposed to repealing DADT according to latest polls. It’s a legitimate issue and question in the primaries and in the general election.
Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 12:26 pm - November 30, 2007
The gay question was the most loaded question I have ever heard! (maybe I’m being a little dramatic) The only answers to that question would be 1) I oppose DADT or 2) Yes, I do not think the men and women in our military are mature enough. It was like my friend asking “Do I look fat in this?”
What a load of crap!
How ironic that a Clinton supporter is asking a question about DADT. He must have received one too many blows to the head during his military career.
For a Republican debate there were no tax questions.
Comment by BrianP — November 30, 2007 @ 12:39 pm - November 30, 2007
God forbid liberals ask Republicans legitimate questions on subjects that people give a shit about without using lies or subterfuge.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 30, 2007 @ 12:56 pm - November 30, 2007
How is DADT a “Democratic gotcha” question? I would think the question would be most embarrassing to Sen. Clinton since her husband signed it into law. They either want to keep DADT, replace it with another law or get rid of it altogether. How is that “gotcha”? Shouldn’t anyone running for president have a position on such a controversial issue. (As I said earlier plenty on the right don’t like the policy either for different reasons than I oppose it.)
Comment by Houndentenor — November 30, 2007 @ 12:57 pm - November 30, 2007
It obviously is not. However, when Cooper let Kerr give a rebuttal that went on and on that is another matter entirely. I would have been fine with a 10-second “I don’t believe you’ve fully answered my question”. This and not disclosing his affliations is where CNN screwed up. The question itself was fine.
Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 1:03 pm - November 30, 2007
Well said, John, about Kerr’s rambling rebuttal.
It would have taken even less than ten seconds to offer the rebuttal you suggested and been far more effective.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 30, 2007 @ 1:06 pm - November 30, 2007
#90:
No, he served on active duty when he joined the military in the early 1950’s. So I wonder, has Rush called him a phony soldier yet. I’m sure that line of attack will be coming soon. But don’t you guys worry - we’re learning to hit back and “Rudy’s Judy Booty Duty” is just the start. DailyKos has a Name That Scandal going and it’s a hoot. “Fornigate”, “Sex on the City”, “Hizboner”, “Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog”, “Car 69 Where Are You?” (The last one will be obscure except to those of a certain age.
)
Comment by Ian S — November 30, 2007 @ 1:29 pm - November 30, 2007
Oops, make that last reference to #50 not #90.
Comment by Ian S — November 30, 2007 @ 1:31 pm - November 30, 2007
Gee Ian, and here I thought that sex had nothing to do with the performance of one’s job. At least such was what the Dems told us in the 90s… If that’s the best you guys can do, by all means have at it. Just wait until Hillary gets the nomination.
Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 1:36 pm - November 30, 2007
Indeed. Heck, even if he had disclosed his affliations and then given such a response to their answers it would have been powerful. By doing what he did though he blew the moment even though the question itself was good.
Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 1:40 pm - November 30, 2007
#62:
It typically doesn’t, John. But Rudy appears to have used the police department as a taxi service for his mistress and tried to hide it all. Isn’t it a bit ironic that a guy like Rudy who rails against socialized medicine for the people doesn’t seem to mind some socialized adultery for himself?
Comment by Ian S — November 30, 2007 @ 2:12 pm - November 30, 2007
Hey if perjury under oath and sexual harassment in the White House are okay I don’t see what you’re complaining about, Ian.
Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 2:15 pm - November 30, 2007
What’s funny to me is the people who previously whined that Jeff Gannon asking favorable questions of George Bush was a huge conspiracy and a major scandal are the same people who whine that CNN planting activists for the Hillary, Obama, and Edwards campaigns in a Republican debate is a fake scandal.
Comment by V the K — November 30, 2007 @ 2:50 pm - November 30, 2007
How about Trooper Gate?
Ooops! Already been done by the Rapist In Chief.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 30, 2007 @ 3:09 pm - November 30, 2007
Gannon got security clearance to enter the White House on numerous occasions. I rather doubt CNN’s vetting process for youtube submissions was anywhere near as strenuous.
I am pretty sure this is the last time anyone will try this format. It was silly (remember the stupid snowman asking about global warming? *rolls eyes*) and distracted from a real discussion.
Comment by Houndentenor — November 30, 2007 @ 3:29 pm - November 30, 2007
No, he served on active duty when he joined the military in the early 1950’s.
Uh huh….for how long?
Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr entered the U. S. Army as a Private at Fort Ord, California, on 21 September 1953. After completing basic and advanced training, he served with the 513th Military Intelligence Group in Germany during the Cold War. Upon release from active duty, he continued to serve in the U. S. Army Reserve and was commissioned a First Lieutenant in June 1960.
In other words, this guy was on active duty for a fraction of the years of service he claims.
And, since you and your fellow leftists, Ian, have argued that the Reserves and the National Guard don’t count as serving (when it comes to the Bush administration), your own argument invalidates your “soldier”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2007 @ 3:52 pm - November 30, 2007
I never saw the problem of having Gannon as a White House reporter. He may have been a biased reporter, but he was one reporter among many. I’m sure there were other agenda-driven reporters in the White House.
The only issue for me was whether or not he lied in applying for his White House press credentials.
Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — November 30, 2007 @ 4:17 pm - November 30, 2007
#90 Ian. You say Keith served on “active duty” when he joined the military in early 1950’s. He was a reservist in California. I was in the reserves in the 50’s, after I got discharged in 1946 from ACTIVE DUTY . Being in the reserves in the 50’s was not the same as being on “active duty”.
Comment by John W — November 30, 2007 @ 4:33 pm - November 30, 2007
[Comment deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]
Comment by Ian S — November 30, 2007 @ 4:34 pm - November 30, 2007
Dear Dan, if he applied using an alias, isn’t that basically lying? Did the White House know he was not using his real name or not? It seems to me that either Gannon/Guckert was aided in getting access to the White House (and not all his visits were for press conferences) or whoever is screening people for clearance is incompetent.
Comment by Houndentenor — November 30, 2007 @ 4:48 pm - November 30, 2007
MM2007 at 45 “gil, if you can rise to that test, have at it” in defending your allegation the GOP candidates are flipfloppers.
gil at #49 responds: “Um. I don’t “contend” anything. The facts speak for themselves and in the case of the Repubs, they the fish on the floor.”
So that’s a solid failure on your part, gil. Flipflopping remains the province of Democrats like Lt FlippityFlop Kerry.
No wonder the latest Zogby poll has nearly all the GOP contenders beating the Democrats’ choice for cornation -Hillary. Rudy beats her in a matchup of likely voters. Mitt does it. McCain does it. Huckabee does it. Even FreddieThompson does it.
The Democrats need to get some stronger candidates.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 30, 2007 @ 6:08 pm - November 30, 2007
Hounentenor, if he applied using an alias–and that was not the practice, then yes, it reflects poorly on him and on the White House’s vetting process. So, I would agree that (in that case) the screening people were incompetent.
But, so what if he was aided in getting access? What’s wrong with having a pro-Bush “reporter” when most of the White House press corps is hostile to this Administration?
Leftist blogs have made much of what he did with the access he was granted, but they have been able to prove little more than a conservative guy (who happened to have done some escort work) got press credentials to the White House.
I don’t know why so many left-wing blogs got so upset over something so trivial.
And anyway, he was one of the few conservative reporters credentialed to cover a supposedly conservative Administrations. With CNN, it seems that those questioners they selected who had any ideological leanings, tilted far to the left. Not too different from most of those who cover the White House.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 30, 2007 @ 6:55 pm - November 30, 2007
Exactly. Houndentenor, I do not ‘get’ your fixation on Gannon.
Unless the real story here were your having a viewpoint like “how DARE a Republican have even ONE friend in the press?” But I’m not accusing you of that.
As for “prostitute in the White House” (which I’ve seen you say in the past)… Who cares? Do you really think it’s the first time a prostitute - or in Gannon’s case, an ex-prostitute; someone who reformed themselves and cleaned up their act - has been in the Whiite House?
You know that some reporters adopt pseudonyms, right?
May I underline your “If”? Was it unusual or outrageous that a White House reporter would apply under his professional alias? I’d like to know, one way or the other.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 30, 2007 @ 7:12 pm - November 30, 2007
…what Ian said in 72…
Comment by KYKid — November 30, 2007 @ 7:35 pm - November 30, 2007
Leftists are obsessed with the sex and private lives of everyone.. and can’t wait to moralize when it suits them.
Comment by Vince P — November 30, 2007 @ 7:43 pm - November 30, 2007
Exactly. Similarly, as an example, do you really think that USSS is completely unaware as to who Paul David Hewson is?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 30, 2007 @ 9:16 pm - November 30, 2007
Heads should roll? Funny, that statement sounds a lot like what we’re hearing against an innocent school teacher in Sudan right now……
Comment by Kevin — December 1, 2007 @ 10:12 am - December 1, 2007
Look, it seems to me that the real trouble with CNN and Democrat campaigns planting questioners…
… there was probing of Republican candidates opinions on subjects that we as Republican primary voters had little interest in. Reading the whole Bible, who has an undocumented gardener, what is the name of the gun you have in your house, etc. I wanted a discription of their tax policy, what the plan is for saving S Security, how will they eliminate the AMT, how will they limit government so it can do few things well, how will they specifically reign in govenment spending, how do we continue to win in Iraq, Ron Pauls opinion of the tri laterals, etc etc. Instead half the debate was wasted on fluffy liberal questions and answers. And Democrat voters were able to decide on our candidates views on their hot button issues. So we are left with wondering which network will have a real debate on OUR issues. Fred Thompson idea of challenging 2 or three other Republicans to a round table discussion of the ISSUES is intreguing. Shouldn’t FOX news, a real news network take him up in it?
The next time CNN MSNBC wonder why they have only 150,000 viewers a nite, maybe they will revisit opportunities when they have a captive audience and how they totally blew it. CNN ends the nite with a black eye not an “attaboy”.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 1, 2007 @ 3:14 pm - December 1, 2007
So far the debate managed by Brit Hume, Wendell Golller, and Chris Wallace will be remembered as the most serious and probing of all. CNN’s Wolf Blitzed and MSNBC Matthews’” typical question was “raise your hand if you are pro life…..raise your hand if you are for guns”…what a joke. And the interesting part is they still don’t get it. They don’t get, that they don’t get it.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 1, 2007 @ 3:17 pm - December 1, 2007