Patterico's Pontifications

11/29/2007

Republican YouTube Debate Filled with Questions from People with Undisclosed Ties to Democrat Candidates

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:41 am

Back in July, I had a post that asked: Should Republicans Participate in the YouTube Debate? I said:

I read the transcript of the Democrat version, and I understand the reluctance. The Democrat debate was dominated by questioners asking: “Why can’t you be more leftist?” And the Republican debate will be dominated by questioners asking: “Why can’t you be more leftist?”

That prediction was more obvious than it was bold. But it turned out to be worse than even I realized. Remember that the Democrat debate was filled with questions from folks with undisclosed affiliations to Democrat candidates, as this Hot Air video cleverly documented:

And as I noted last night in an update to this post, the Republican debate was filled with questions from folks with undisclosed affiliations to Democrat candidates.

Everyone knows about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell questioner with an undisclosed affiliation to the Hillary campaign. But the blogosphere immediately picked up on several more connections, which were first documented (as far as I saw) in a Michelle Malkin post that Drudge has linked on his front page. (I just accessed her post seconds ago, but apparently she has had trouble keeping up the site due to the Drudge link. If you have trouble pulling up Michelle’s post, you can see a summary of some of the other questioners’ undisclosed ties to Democrats in this Hot Air post.) There’s a woman in an Edwards ’08 T-shirt complaining about how Republicans didn’t answer her question right — and her support for Edwards was easily discoverable before the debate. And there’s another guy who has a blog at Obama ’08.

And Christoph tells us that there’s even more evidence than that, being developed here and here.

I’d caution folks not to overstate the case. Unless there is clear evidence that the campaigns themselves were involved, I’m reluctant to call these “plants” by the campaigns. The clear truth is bad enough: many of these folks had clear ties to Democrat campaigns that CNN should have discovered and disclosed, but didn’t. It’s now happened, not once, but twice. It should be a terrific embarrassment to CNN.

As usual, the lumber-footed Big Media appears slow to discover all this. The L.A. Times has a story about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell guy, but nothing (as far as I can tell) on the other undisclosed connections. Will such a story be forthcoming? One hopes. If not, we can always leave a comment complaining about the omission on the Readers’ Representative blog.

Of course, our comment may not be published . . .

197 Responses to “Republican YouTube Debate Filled with Questions from People with Undisclosed Ties to Democrat Candidates”

  1. Predicted CNN spin –
    If not for our layers and layers of experience editors and highly skilled production staff, all the questioners would have been Democrat plants rather than just four. Furthermore, we deserve pay raises, bonuses and numerous journalist and media awards for our hard work. Finally, Republicans are racist hate mongers for questioning our journalism skills.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  2. Sloppy, lazy CNN once again didn’t learn from the first planting fiasco of its last debate, and pulls a repeat performance, this time with double the plants. Nice work. I mean how stupid do you have to be to let the girl whose own profile states: “female. 19. arlington, texas. liberal. vegetarian. feminist. lesbian.” with the John Edwards 08 t-shirt ask a question?

    It’s pretty clear to me that CNN has an agenda, and its transparently obvious how it perceives GOP voters.

    Gabriel (6d7447)

  3. CNN chose to ignore the vast majority of questions from ‘YouTube’ because they recognized the threat of embarrassment to the nominees. Instead they aired
    Grover Norquist. Quid Pro Quo.

    Semanticleo (0aaaec)

  4. After all the juvenile whining among Democrats about Fox News having Democratic debates, what we have learned is that Fox News is a more honest broker of debates than is CNN.

    Notice my lack of surprise.

    SPQR (8475fc)

  5. Oh go ahead and overstate it, Patterico. This is ever so entertaining.

    And here’s an extra piece of cheese for you.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  6. Sir, doesn’t anyone think this was deliberate rather than accidental on the part of CNN? If one “plant” got through that might be put down to an oversight, but to have several, obviously partisan questioners is not an accident

    colin mcdonald (907b77)

  7. Then who planted the guy waving the Bible?

    And who planted the guy demanding fealty to the Confederate flag?

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  8. I would have hoped that Democratic questioners would at least have made the debate more honest. Instead we got the usual dodging and dissembling.

    Moops (444e9b)

  9. Do you think the question itself was dishonest?

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  10. David, I’d wager that they are caricatures of conservatives. Look, I know that you and CNN think that the GOP is only about Guns, God, Gays and General Lee, but you’ll find you are sadly mistaken.

    The equivalent would have been posting videos from Code Pink or the Worker’s World Party, but strangely, those never seem to make it into the Dems debates.

    They say that there were over 10,000 submissions or something. I am highly incredulous that those two were the best questions concerning religion and 2nd Amendment issues. CNN’s selection of those exposes either their agenda or their unseriousnesses.

    Techie (ed20d9)

  11. Do you think the question itself was dishonest?

    When asked by someone who is supporting the wife of the guy that instituted the policy he is against, then yes. It is a dishonest question.

    He should first publicly ask it of Clinton. Both of them.

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  12. Watching the replay of the post-debate analysis with Bill Bennett and Anderson Cooper, and then Cooper’s later apology, I think he personally really was sandbagged by Kerr’s affiliation with the Clinton campaign. But at the same time it’s hard to believe no one involved with Wednesday’s debate, either at CNN or YouTube, was totally unaware of the connection (and Kerr certainly knew about it, but chose to say nothing during his live appearance).

    My guess is someone down the line knew about the connection, and knew that Cooper and others would really like to not only pose the “don’t ask, don’t tell” question, but would love the hook of having a retired general ask it, even though they were aware of his current (Clinton) and past (Kerry) support for Democrats. So they forwarded this video to the higher-ups like Cooper, who thought it would be a great idea not only to use the video, but to have Gen. Kerr in the audience.

    The idea was probably that even if the general’s connection to the Clinton campaign came out, it would be several days after the fact, by which time it could be spun as “old news” by Hillary’s handlers. Where they messed up was in thinking that Bill Bennett wouldn’t check his Blackberry during the first commercial break of the post-debate analysis show and see all these e-mails alerting him to the Kerr-Clinton connection (allowing the other questioners with Democratic connections to get through isn’t good for CNN’s image, but as of now, no one has found a press release listing any of those other questioners as formal campaign advisers).

    Calling CNN on the connection on live television meant there was no way it could be brushed off, even by saying the question was legitimate (which it was). The point is, after all the grief CNN got from other Democrats over their apparent pro-Clinton bias in the Las Vegas debate, this just drives home the point even more, and leaves the network only with the excuse that, “We’re too stupid to know how to use Google.” Being deliberately biased and/or technologically ignorant are labels no TV news operation wants to admit to, even if there happens to be some truth to both.

    John (34537e)

  13. I’d like to see Hillary’s answer to the “Every word in this book” guy, considering all the black churches and Rev.s she hangs out with (Jackson and Sharpton)

    Techie (ed20d9)

  14. Techie there was a submission from a couple whose gay son was murdered by gay basjers. But that never made it into the debate.

    Maybe that’s a good thing as the crowd would surely have cheered his death.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  15. Only in your wet dreams, David.

    Techie (ed20d9)

  16. I would have hoped that Democratic questioners would at least have made the debate more honest. Instead we got the usual dodging and dissembling.

    Like the Democratic questioners at the Democrat debate made it honest? Puh-leeze.

    Look, everyone who defended CNN using nothing but Democratic Party employees at the Democrat debate is now defending CNN using Democrat employees in the Republican debate. You folks can’t have it both ways.

    Steverino (e00589)

  17. Like the Democratic questioners at the Democrat debate made it honest?

    Because I said that. So dumb.

    Moops (444e9b)

  18. These aren’t debates at all. They’re co-ordinated personal appearances.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  19. 18

    At least we agree on something.

    Techie (ed20d9)

  20. David continues to prove he is nothing more than a dishonest troll. Its almost as if hes channeling Alphie.

    Gabriel (6d7447)

  21. Steverino nails it.

    It’s fine to argue that Democrats should be asking questions at Democratic debates. Because Democrats are voting on these candidates, I have no problem with this (although associations with a campaign or organization should be disclosed-they shoudl not be referred to as “undecided voters.”)

    But Republicans should then be afforded the same treatment. Republican activists should be asking the questions, not Democratic ones.

    Look, can you imagine the howls of protest if Ward Connerly, “undecided voter,” asked a question about affirmative action at a Democratic debate?

    MartyH (52fae7)

  22. #14
    Maybe that’s a good thing as the crowd would surely have cheered his death.

    Like “Screw Them” Kos kids regarding Americans in Iraq and other liberal blogs hoping for Cheney’s death?

    #17
    They’re co-ordinated personal appearances.

    You are talking about Clinton News Network coordinating the appearance of Democrat inquisitors at the Republican debate – right?

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  23. I’m talking about ALL these so-called “debates” be they for Republicans or Democrats. They’re all so artificial that to complain that a particular question is “planted” is laughable.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  24. Because I said that. So dumb.

    Never said you said it. I was pointing out that using your reasoning the questions at the Democrat debates weren’t honest. Sorry if the subtlety was lost on you.

    You can’t have it both ways, Moops, and I didn’t see you complaining when a bunch of Democrats asked questions of the Democratic candidates.

    Steverino (e00589)

  25. I think what we are seeing is the MSM thumbing their nose at the new media. Politics is owned by the MSM.

    If you have any doubts just look for any significant public reaction to what CNN has done. Good luck.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  26. I’m with Ehrenstein #18 and techie. I have never seen a nationally televised debate where the questions weren’t so painfully obviously planted vetted and rehersed….although I can’t imagine that the flying saucer question to Kuchinic was approved by that candidate….it always seems so obvious that people are being steered towards some subset of candidates.

    I liked the idea of the candidates in each party getting to write the questions for the candidates it the opposite party!

    Maybe the candidates should answer foreign policy questions written by people from pakistan,china, afganistan, mexico, canada, and various other trading partners.

    EdWood (f36d0d)

  27. Better still, Ed, I’d lke to see a real debate between say Hillary and Rudy or Obama and Mitt, that was undertaken according to actual debating rules and standards. That, I think we can all agree, would be genuinely illuminating.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  28. #23
    “I’m talking about ALL these so-called “debates” be they for Republicans or Democrats.”

    100% agreement. The only rule seems to be “don’t answer the question, just hit your talking points”

    They’re all so artificial that to complain that a particular question is “planted” is laughable.

    50% agreement. I think points have been made by the commenter who point out that CNN is having democrat partisans asking so many the questions at the debates of both parties is a valid concern.

    Your comment that a Republican crowd would cheer the death of young man is, of course, contemptible. You flatter yourself with your own perceived moral superiority based solely on you political views. Shallow.

    quasimodo (edc74e)

  29. Not contemptible, just realistic. Did you watch that thing last night?

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  30. so the crowd was full of democrat plants, uh?

    quasimodo (edc74e)

  31. I love watching the leftists pretend it’s no big deal when the candidates they vote for refuse to appear on Fox because Fox is “biased.”

    Your hypocrisy is breathtaking.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  32. Not contemptible, just realistic

    Just another proud member of the “reality based community.”

    Remember, the left loves gays. Except when they write homosexual slurs about people whom the don’t like and such.

    Again, you are an embarrassing hypocrite.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  33. And who planted the guy demanding fealty to the Confederate flag?

    He actually did no such thing. But, CNN planted him.

    Not terribly complicated.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  34. Democrat plants like Grover Norquist.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  35. Then who planted the guy waving the Bible?

    And who planted the guy demanding fealty to the Confederate flag?

    Did someone say everyone was planted?

    Gerald A (bdfba2)

  36. Essentially everyone was — for one reason or another.

    Of course for Pattoricans CNN is in league with the DNC, and there’s no doubt about it.

    Maybe they should have staged this dog and pony show on FOX, right?

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  37. Zactly Ace…those paragons of hypocrisy known as Democrats refuse to even appear on Fox for a debate. Aren’t these liberals remotely aware of how distaseful their behaviour is? Does their unmitigated arrogance simply blind them to reality?

    katiewithroses (e99bfd)

  38. Then why didn’t the Republicans go on FOX for this thing?

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  39. I was pointing out that using your reasoning the questions at the Democrat debates weren’t honest.

    Actually I was talking about the answers, not the questions. You do a great job of rebutting claims nobody has made, though.

    You can’t have it both ways, Moops, and I didn’t see you complaining when a bunch of Democrats asked questions of the Democratic candidates.

    Just as I wouldn’t be complaining if this debate had a bunch of Republicans asking questions. I’ve never disagreed with the claim that it’s not kosher to have Democrats asking questions at a Republican debate if you don’t also have Republicans asking questions at a Democratic debate, so I’m not sure why you think that I have.

    Moops (444e9b)

  40. Do folks think that the question about the KJV Bible was simply to get the candidates to say whether they are literalists, or was it a deliberate swipe at Romney?

    Moops (444e9b)

  41. I guess CNN has no agenda. Therefore here are some of the questions we are likely yo see CNN ask democratic candidates in future debates:

    -Why have your supporters spit on American honor guards carrying the flag at past democratic conventions and rallies? Why do democrats not condemn such behavior?

    -Why do you support placing restrictions on pro life demonstrators but favor flag burning?

    -Why do jihaddies and terrorists support democratic foreign policies?

    -Why do Democrats persue dialog with people who pledge to destroy America regardless of how frutiless such policies have proven to be?

    -You advocate the rich pay their fair share. How do you define fair?

    –If you believe that you support American values why do you advocate policies that treat Americans differently according to their race, creed and gender?

    -You are opposed to the death penalty yet support sticking sissors into the heads of babies and sucking out their brains. Why is one cruel and the other justified?

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  42. The Ace #32,

    I was a big fan of Polipundit until I got my head handed to me by your commenters over DADT. Link. I have never seen more homosexual slurs than from the Polipundit post I link in my post.

    nk (09a321)

  43. But Republicans should then be afforded the same treatment. Republican activists should be asking the questions, not Democratic ones.

    I’m still waiting to find out exactly which questions you consider “unfair”.

    I watched the debate, and all the questions that were asked seemed legitimate — and except for the one from the retired General (who got on because he was a retired general, just like Grover Norquist got on because he was Grover Norquist) reflected the thinking of at least some conservative activists.

    You may not like the fact that the GOP has been exploiting the racial subtext of the confederate flag for decades — but an awful lot of today’s GOP supporters in the south are the same people who fight every effort to remove confederate symbols from state flags.

    The fact is that the right wing is all in a tizzy about this because they want to draw attention away from the dismal reception their candidates will get from independent and moderate voters if they are exposed to the candidates.

    And when one compares the relative softballs thrown at the GOP candidates to the ridiculously biased treated meted out by Blitzer (“Is General Petraeus lying?”) and Williams/Russert (paraphrase “Sen Clinton, I’m going misrepresent your position on a complex issue by taking a quote from you out of context, and give you 30 seconds to justify what you never said. Go!”) well, there really is no contest.

    It sounds like you would prefer that people take a loyalty oath to the Republican Party before they are ever allowed to ask Republicans questions. And while I understand this was standard procedure for any “town meeting” held by Bush, that doesn’t mean its a good idea to encase GOP candidates in their own little self-affirming bubbles even before they get to the White House.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  44. Actually I was talking about the answers, not the questions. You do a great job of rebutting claims nobody has made, though

    Sigh. You’re a plodder. Okay, we’ll plod. You siad that the questions would bring out honest answers from the Republicans, but you didn’t seem too concerned by the answers at the Democrat debate. It seems you want to hold the Republican candidates to a higher standard than you would hold the Democrats. Is that clear enough for you?

    Just as I wouldn’t be complaining if this debate had a bunch of Republicans asking questions.

    You seemed pretty happy that this debate had a bunch of Democrats asking questions, so I’m going to take this as you being disingenuous.

    I’ve never disagreed with the claim that it’s not kosher to have Democrats asking questions at a Republican debate if you don’t also have Republicans asking questions at a Democratic debate, so I’m not sure why you think that I have.

    Again, you seemed to think having Democrats ask questions at this debate was a good thing. You made no comment other than that, so it’s not likely that anyone would infer you’d think CNN’s behavior was improper.

    Steverino (e00589)

  45. to the ridiculously biased treated meted out by Blitzer (”Is General Petraeus lying?”)

    Um, how is this biased given that the Democrats, and Hillary Clinton specifically, basically said he was? And, moveon.org called him a traitor.

    You have to be so far to the left or willfully obtuse to think that is a “biased” question.

    paraphrase “Sen Clinton, I’m going misrepresent your position on a complex issue by taking a quote from you out of context, and give you 30 seconds to justify what you never said. Go!

    Which question would this be?

    It sounds like you would prefer that people take a loyalty oath to the Republican Party before they are ever allowed to ask Republicans questions

    So you’re for the Democrats having a debate held on Fox with plants from the Rudy campaign asking questions then, right?

    You do realize what primary debates are for, correct? Because based on your comments, it seems to indicate otherwise.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  46. It sounds like you would prefer that people take a loyalty oath to the Republican Party before they are ever allowed to ask Republicans questions. Well, how about this as an alternative. Democrats, or those who support or have supported Democrats identify themselves as such instead of adopting the charade of an “Undecided Voter from the Lesser Antilles. Maybe you are comfortable with deception. I’m not.

    katiewithroses (e99bfd)

  47. Speaking of Undecided Voters, I wonder how many truly Undecided Voters will think all these Liberals shills dressed up as Moderates represent their values…

    katiewithroses (e99bfd)

  48. As opposed to all those “Fair and Balanced” Republican shills.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  49. You’re a plodder.

    Is plodder a shorthand for “person who likes to be paraphrased accurately”? If so, then guilty as charged.

    You siad that the questions would bring out honest answers from the Republicans, but you didn’t seem too concerned by the answers at the Democrat debate.

    I said that was my hope. If CNN is going to be put hostile questioners in the audience, perhaps one side benefit would be more difficult questions that could force the candidates to be honest.

    You seemed pretty happy that this debate had a bunch of Democrats asking questions, so I’m going to take this as you being disingenuous.

    Actually, I’m not happy at all. Not only did CNN apparently treat the debates differently, but the potential silver lining of more honest answers from the candidates that I had hoped for did not materialize. I’m going to take this as you being unable to understand simple English.

    You made no comment other than that, so it’s not likely that anyone would infer you’d think CNN’s behavior was improper.

    Except I qualified it with “at least.” As in, “If CNN is going to do this kind of thing, maybe some good can still come out of it.”

    I don’t think there’s an actual disagreement here. You just misinterpreted my comment.

    Moops (444e9b)

  50. As opposed to all those “Fair and Balanced”…
    David, it’s fine with me that CNN has indisputably exposed their liberal persuasion.
    Say what you will about Fox, you can’t say they salted a debate with questions from liars.

    katiewithroses (e99bfd)

  51. I think that what is being said here is (now focus like a laser) that people asking questions at a Republican debate should be as Republican as the people at a Democrat debate are Democrats. Instead, we get Democrats planted to ask questions at a Democrat debate, and Democrats planted to ask questions at a Republican debate.

    That doesn’t seem kosher, but then, I’m not part of the so-called reality-based community.

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  52. Why didn’t CNN fly BRIG. GEN. KEITH KERR (RET.) from California to Las Vegas for the Dem debate given that Hillary’s husband signed DOMA? She is the most appropriate target for this question.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  53. “Sen Clinton, I’m going misrepresent your position on a complex issue by taking a quote from you out of context, and give you 30 seconds to justify what you never said. Go!”

    Yet another in an endless string of liberal mystery claims. What did she actually mean? What was the real context and how do you know?

    Gerald A (fe1f90)

  54. “Say what you will about Fox, you can’t say they salted a debate with questions from liars,”

    Are you even so much as remotely serious?

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  55. So you’re for the Democrats having a debate held on Fox with plants from the Rudy campaign asking questions then, right?

    no, I’m for debates free of “gotcha” questions — questions about complex issues for which there is no “yes” or “no” answer.

    For instance, the “Is Petraeus lying” question. If Hillary said “no”, she would be essentially endorsing the purely political message that he presented to Congress — and leave herself open to attack for hypocrisy, etc. If she said “yes”, however, it wouldn’t have mattered how much evidence she laid on the table that proved he had been dishonest, her argument would be ignored in favor of “HILLARY ATTACKS PETRAEUS” headlines. (We saw the same thing with the Move-On ads…. the substance of the ads were completely ignored, despite the compelling evidence that justified the ‘controversial’ headline.)

    Except for the General, I didn’t see any questions that were asked that the candidates couldn’t take a firm position on. (Keen’s question was pure ‘gotcha’ insofar as it required a candidate to insult a retired general’s service in order to say that they didn’t support non-discrimination in the military.) In most cases, people wanted the opportunity to answer the questions that were asked (Mitt Romney was a notable exception — but it wasn’t the YouTube question that made him look bad, it was McCain on torture, and Anderson with his “followup” asking Romney if he stood by his earlier ‘gays in the military’ stance.)

    Which question would this be?

    The drivers licenses for illegal immigrants question. But don’t take my word for it, read what the newspaper that conducted and published the interview from which the quote was taken has to say… http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071102/OPINION01/311020012/-1/opinion

    (I think Clinton was tripped up on the question because she was over-prepared for an honest question about what she’d said — when Russert raised the topic, she answered the question an honest journalist would have asked, and defended her actual position — which made it appear that she was approving of drivers licenses for illegals.)

    You do realize what primary debates are for, correct? Because based on your comments, it seems to indicate otherwise.

    actually, because neither Iowa nor New Hampshire require that only people registered as republicans before the day of the primary can caucus/vote, what you seem to be suggesting (that the primary process is the exclusive domain of registered Republicans) in particulary inapt at this point in the process (caveat, not positive about Iowa GOP rules…but I do know about the Dems rules.)

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  56. “Why didn’t CNN fly BRIG. GEN. KEITH KERR (RET.) from California to Las Vegas for the Dem debate given that Hillary’s husband signed DOMA? She is the most appropriate target for this question.”

    I know you don’t pay attention to such pesky details, dear, but Hillary has already gone on record as being opposed to DADT.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  57. Are you even so much as remotely serious?

    david, its true. the fox debate wasn’t “salted” with questions from liars — every question came from a liar (unless they allowed some audience participation).

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  58. You failed to hear Clinton’s speech yesterday – he’s always been against DADT and did not sign DOMA.

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  59. By the way, if the Democrats weren’t such cowards and appeared on Fox for a debate and something like this happened, Harry Reid would be standing on the Senate floor right now threatening to yank Fox’s broadcast license (like the Dems did when ABC had the temerity to air “The Path to 9/11″).

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  60. I know you don’t pay attention to such pesky details, dear, but Hillary has already gone on record as being opposed to DADT.

    When did she say this when it was being debated?
    Why didn’t she convince her husband it was a bad idea? Where is the fake moral indignation about it at the Democratic debates?

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  61. Here is the point that all of the liberals who so quickly jumped on this site to defend CNN’s questioners don’t get:

    (as an aside, is there a rule that when any news organization does something other than Fox News, leftists must defend it? That is what always happens. I wonder whay that is? Does that ever make you – leftist – stop and consider? That you are invested somehow in the way things are currently done by the “mainstream” media? No? I did not think so.)

    The issue is not really that so many democrat plants (meaning people affiliated with the democratic party or certain democratic candidates) asked questions. If the question is valid, it does not matter who asks it.

    The issue is that at Democrat primary debates, the questioners are overwhelmingly leftists and then at Republican debates, the questioners are again democrats. Considering the fact that the nation is split pretty evenly along party lines, does this not concern you at all that this is clearly evidence of media bias?

    I don’t believe the media said to themselves, “let’s only get democrats to ask questions.” I think the media simply only know democrats, or see questions that are asked by a democrat and say “hey, good question” b/c it fits their internal bias. they simply ignore and dicount the kinds of questions conservatives would ask – either of dems or of republicans.

    That is the issue. And, it is dishonest of the media to pretend the questioners are independent, undecided voters. that seems to have been a flat out lie.

    How or why a leftist defends that as somehow a) honest, or b) good for the country is beyond me.

    Great Banana (aa0c92)

  62. She said this at earlier campaign appearances you paid no attention to. Like the one in West Hollywood about two months back.

    Fake moral indignation is a Republican game, Ace. Like Claude Rains in Casablanca they’re “shocked SHOCKED!” at “plants.”
    But we’re not supposed to pay any attention to the male hustler behind the curtain cause he works for them.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  63. …every question came from a liar Typical response, considering. If these sham “Undecided” voters had turned up in the Fox audience , you would have made a point worth considering. It did not happen on FOX. It happened on CNN. Even you cannot deny the objective truth to that. At least, I assume not.

    katiewithroses (e99bfd)

  64. it wouldn’t have mattered how much evidence she laid on the table that proved he had been dishonest,

    Considering there is no evidence, that is yet another idiotic statement on your part.

    the substance of the ads were completely ignored, despite the compelling evidence that justified the ‘controversial’ headline

    See comments above.

    The drivers licenses for illegal immigrants question

    Huh? Did she flip flop? Yes. Did she run from her previous position? Yes.

    By they way, an opinion isn’t exactly fact,

    In the full context of this quote, we think it’s obvious that she’s saying Spitzer’s plan “makes sense” from his perspective and based on the position he’s in, but it is not a good idea.

    Which is complete BS. Nowhere, not in any single instance, does she indicate “it is not a good idea.” Further, the whole premise of her “the federal government’s failure” is false. It’s excuse making. Spitizer can follow existing federal law on this. The idea that it’s a “problem” is absurd.

    In other words, you’re an easily misled dupe.

    caveat, not positive about Iowa GOP rules

    From,
    because neither Iowa nor New Hampshire require that only people registered as republicans before the day of the primary can caucus/vote, what you seem to be suggesting (that the primary process is the exclusive domain of registered Republicans

    Parody.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  65. Fake moral indignation is a Republican game, Ace.

    Pot, meet kettle. There are whole sub-organizations, led by democratic luminaries such as Jesse Jackson, and Murderin’ Al Sharpton that exist entirely on this tactic. I think the libs own this technique. I wish conservatives could play this game even half as well as the libs. Saying otherwise is either a) dishonest or b) reveals an intellectual flaw in the speaker.

    Great Banana (aa0c92)

  66. I just love it when Republicans talk about “objective truth”!

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  67. She said this at earlier campaign appearances you paid no attention to

    Said what?

    You didn’t even read what I wrote.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  68. Fake moral indignation is a Republican game, Ace

    Do you mean like the Jena 6?

    Or do you mean like the Twanna Brawley case?

    Or did you mean like the “rape” occuring at the Duke Lacrosse house?

    Or do you mean like when you leftists pretend to get all upset when Republicans are against gay marriage yet call people you disagree with political “fags” and “homos”?

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  69. I love it when dems pretend anything coming out of their mouth is not a lie.

    Great Banana (aa0c92)

  70. Oh, the Harry Reid taking to the senate floor to pretend that Rush Limbaugh called actual troops “phony” was another classic fake moral indignation leftists moment.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  71. I’d caution folks not to overstate the case. Unless there is clear evidence that the campaigns themselves were involved, I’m reluctant to call these “plants” by the campaigns. The clear truth is bad enough: many of these folks had clear ties to Democrat campaigns that CNN should have discovered and disclosed, but didn’t. It’s now happened, not once, but twice. It should be a terrific embarrassment to CNN.

    What he said.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  72. This Just In! Hillary claims she didn’t plant the general.

    So when they claim they didn’t do something, you only believe them when it’s what you want to hear?

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  73. Politicians should go to shock therapy. Every time they don’t answer a question in a debate, they get a little zap. Sadly, I don’t think we have the energy capacity to do that.

    And anyway, this is pretty sad for CNN, or even sadder for those who don’t think anything wrong of this crap.

    G (722480)

  74. Or do you mean like when you leftists pretend to get all upset when Republicans are against gay marriage yet call people you disagree with political “fags” and “homos”?

    And who would that be? Someone you just made up out of whole cloth no doubt.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  75. “So when they claim they didn’t do something, you only believe them when it’s what you want to hear?”

    I didn’t say I believed it. I was just supplying a link.

    I link — you decide.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  76. You folks are missing how CNN handles the questioners!

    As to whether the person and question is planted by Dems, CNN has a DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL policy!

    Teflon Dad (6535f8)

  77. And who would that be? Someone you just made up out of whole cloth no doubt

    Um, I get emails like that all the time.
    But, here you go, clown.

    Example 1

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  78. Teflon Dad, that was PRICELESS!!!!

    Say hi to yer boy for us….

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  79. Ace… How about their attacks on gay men who are also Republicans?

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  80. As to whether the person and question is planted by Dems, CNN has a DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL policy! chuckling at that

    katiewithroses (e99bfd)

  81. “Nowhere, not in any single instance, does she indicate “it is not a good idea.””

    – The Ace

    Except for this instance...

    “As president, I will not support driver’s licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system.”

    In other words, you’re a ill-informed blowhard.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  82. And who would that be? Someone you just made up out of whole cloth no doubt.

    Oh, here’s another gem:

    Famous self-hating closeted homosexual and right wing propagandist blogger Matt Drudge has taken aim at the DailyKos community today.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  83. Except for this instance

    Um, I was speaking about her comments prior to her flip flop about her editorial board meeting ( The Telegraph editorial board during an interview Oct. 16.) from the link provided in #54.

    You link to a story on November 10, 2007.

    Do try and keep up.

    In other words, you’re a ill-informed blowhard

    Project much?

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  84. damn yer fast, Ace

    katiewithroses (e99bfd)

  85. Are you even so much as remotely serious?

    I just love it when Republicans talk about “objective truth”!

    Like Claude Rains in Casablanca they’re “shocked SHOCKED!” at “plants.”

    More classic evasion techniques. These could be used as examples at websites like this Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

    I may contact the website.

    You had a bunch of Democrat questioners of the Repub candidates. You don’t have the reverse at the Dem debates. You keep up a string of BS to deny the obvious. Remarkably similar to several other lefties who’ve posted here, especially when media bias comes up. Actus is one who comes to mind.

    Now you need to reply with something like “That’s laughable, a Republican wanting to not deny the obvious!”.

    Gerald A (10b9b3)

  86. GOP debate misses the mark

    By: Roger Simon
    Nov 29, 2007 03:01 PM EST

    Ronald Reagan successfully portrayed the Republican Party as the party of hope and optimism, as the party that created “morning in America.”

    But was that the party that was on display in St. Petersburg, Fla., Wednesday night at the Republican debate?

    If you were a Martian and had watched the first 30 minutes of the debate, you would have thought that illegal immigration was the chief problem facing America, and that by sealing its borders America could end its woes.

    [clip]

    And then there were questions about the Confederate battle flag, whether Ron Paul believes there is a conspiracy to merge the United States with Canada and Mexico and the obligatory, wearisome Red Sox vs. Yankees question.

    I don’t want to suggest that there were no important questions. There were a few.

    But, in general, the evening was meant to be politics as entertainment. Because that’s what politics is, isn’t it?

    [end]
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7096.html

    I’m sure glad I did not miss any of the Jazz beating the 76er’s to tun in to this crap! Waste of time and an insult to anybody with just half a brain.

    TC (1cf350)

  87. Well Matt Drudge IS a self-hating closeted Homsoexual, Ace.

    Tell the Entire World something it doesn’t know for a change.

    He was “outed” by Jeanette Walls (not a gay or lesbian activist) in her book Dish a number of years back.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  88. “You had a bunch of Democrat questioners of the Repub candidates.”

    ME?!?!! Do you think I work for CNN?

    Do you think I work for the DNC?

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  89. Oooh, Big Bad Hillawy didn’t wecant fast enough for my poor widdle expectations.

    BOO FRIGGITY HOO. You’re making mountains out of molehills.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  90. Do you think I work for the DNC?

    You don’t need to David, you do their dirty work for free. 😉

    qdpsteve (cd214a)

  91. By they way, an opinion isn’t exactly fact,
    In the full context of this quote, we think it’s obvious that she’s saying

    Reason #23,546 why there is no point trying to have a serious discussion with a right-winger… the inability to read for context.

    The opinion (“we think…”) that you seem to have such a hard time with isn’t a question of what Hillary’s position was, but how obvious (“we think its obvious…”) her position was.

    And it was obvious. If you know how to read for context.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  92. And it was obvious. If you know how to read for context.

    Translation:
    Her words mean what I want it to mean.

    It’s funny, if “it was obvious” why aren’t there words there to support the contention that “she didn’t think it was a good idea”?

    Why do you think that is?

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  93. No lukasiak, opinions are only fact when condescending arrogant libtools like you have them. Seriously, I’d love to know how much you *true* DNC clockwatching stooges (no not you David) get paid by the hour to troll here.

    qdpsteve (cd214a)

  94. Oooh, Big Bad Hillawy didn’t wecant fast enough for my poor widdle expectations

    Why do you bother? You were proven wrong and don’t even know what’s being discussed.

    Move along before you get embarrassed again.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  95. Reading for context<Making up what you need to so you don’t have to foolish

    katiewithroses (e99bfd)

  96. The opinion (”we think…”) that you seem to have such a hard time with isn’t a question of what Hillary’s position was, but how obvious (”we think its obvious…”) her position was.

    What’s so funny about you writing this is that the editorial board had this to say:

    UPDATE: Since we penned this editorial, Clinton has refined and shifted her position on this matter, appearing to more strongly endorse the idea of driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. We stand by, however, the conclusions we drew in this editorial – that she did not take that position in our editorial board interview with her, and that we think she is – as a result of a deliberately ambiguous method of answering questions – as much to blame for the confusion over her position on this

    As with all leftists your points are parody.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  97. Well Matt Drudge IS a self-hating closeted Homsoexual, Ace.

    Thank you for confirming my point which you of course disputed.

    The Ace (12e3ad)

  98. The Editorial Board was obviously just “listening in context” when they first defended her position
    re: illegal licensing

    katiewithroses (e99bfd)

  99. You had a bunch of Democrat questioners of the Repub candidates. You don’t have the reverse at the Dem debates.

    No, what you have is journalistic hacks like Blitzer, Williams, and Russert using GOP talking points to demand Yes or No answers to “gotcha” questions.

    I mean, when did the GOP NOT want to talk about immigration this year? When did the GOP want to STOP demonizing gays and lesbians for political gain? When did the GOP decide it wasn’t going to exploit the abortion issue anymore? And how come the party that has been pandering to southern “states rights” advocates suddenly has problems with a question about the Stars and Bars”?

    The candidates were asked questions they LIKE answering. They don’t want to talk about issues that the majority of Americans care deeply about — stuff like universal health care and federal aid to education because it conflicts with the “drown government in a bathtub” ethos that the GOP believes in, but the rest of America doesn’t.

    The GOP got the questions they wanted. The fact that it turned out so badly overall was a function of the quality of the candidates — and a hateful, truly ugly audience who are so debased they will boo a war hero like Senator John McCain.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  100. I love the questions like “when did you STOP beating your wife?”

    re: John McCain – thank you for your service. However, not all your political opinions are worth cheering.

    Is that context a little too hard to follow?

    Or are now going to argue that it’s WRONG to call Gen Petreus a traitor, like most of the Democrats did? After all, doesn’t the uniform exclude all criticism?

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  101. The GOP got the questions they wanted. I see. Democrat & Liberal supporters ask questions at a GOP primary debate via on youtube, never revealing where their sympathies lie, just to ask GOP candidates questions Republicans like. Sure. Makes sense to me.

    katiewithroses (e99bfd)

  102. Has it occurred to any of you liberal beacons of light that the CANDIDATES did not choose the questions? CNN chose the questions & the questioners. CNN. Is this, like, intellectually challenging for you?

    katiewithroses (e99bfd)

  103. Katie, it’s all a Rovian plot to make Hillary! look bad.

    Karl, you magnificent b*stard!

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  104. lukasiak,

    No, what you have is journalistic hacks like Blitzer, Williams, and Russert using GOP talking points to demand Yes or No answers to “gotcha” questions.

    Can you give us an example of one of these questions that traumatize you so deeply?

    j curtis (8bcca6)

  105. When did the GOP want to STOP demonizing gays and lesbians for political gain?

    I just have to ask…

    Excluding filth like Phelps, can you give me one example of this?

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  106. “Thank you for confirming my point which you of course disputed.”

    What point was that? You keep changing your mind about them with every post.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  107. “… it’s all a Rovian plot to make Hillary! look bad. Someone quick tell Karl, all Hillary has to do to look bad is “answer” a question. Then she looks downright crazy.

    katiewithroses (e99bfd)

  108. Has it occurred to any of you liberal beacons of light that the CANDIDATES did not choose the questions? CNN chose the questions & the questioners. CNN. Is this, like, intellectually challenging for you?

    you’re the ones who think that there is some grand conspiracy here — how intellectually challendged are YOU, that you seem to think that there was some kind of plot to make sure that Democrats got to ask questions that Republican candidates were happy to answer?

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  109. lukasiak, with you calling Tim Russert a “hack” repeating GOP talking points, we can with high confidence laugh at the rest of your comments. Not even Bill Clinton can say that about Russert to attempt to redeem Hillary’s poor performance with a straight face, and you lack his skills at dissembling.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  110. Katie,

    Sad to say, I think your comment about intellectually challenged is spot on. I’d add reading comprehension as part of the mix, too.

    Maybe you could restate it as:
    CNN hosted the debates. CNN choose the questions and questioners. The questions and questioners came from known supporters of Democratic candidates.

    Perhaps it’s the big words you’re using like “intellectually challenged” and the like. You might want to try baby words such as “Hillary! is known to plant her supporters in the audiences to get friendly questions. Looks like the same type of thing is going on in Republican debates where the Democrats are planting their supporters to ask Democrat talking points.”

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  111. Scott Jacobs,

    Phelps is a democrat. Obviously. Hell, he used to have Al Gore over to his house for fundraisers (I’m not kidding).

    The democrat party is stuffed with racists and homophobes. The GOP has plenty too, but it’s absurd to lay Phelps at the feet of the republicans.

    Dustin (0b4d60)

  112. “you seem to think that there was some kind of plot to make sure that Democrats got to ask questions” What do you call it when, during a GOP Primary debate, questions are posed by supporters of Democratic candidates who have neglected to divulge their affilations? Not divulged by either themselves or the sponsor the the debate? Happy coincidence?

    katiewithroses (e99bfd)

  113. Perhaps we should just state “‘Undecided’ means ‘I’m voting for a particular Democrat candidate.'” There is no person alive today who hasn’t already picked out a candidate – at least, CNN couldn’t find them.

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  114. CNN hosted the debates. CNN choose the questions and questioners. The questions and questioners came from known supporters of Democratic candidates. Oh how I wish my thoughts were that organized! Yes, indeed. Democrats gets questions planted by Democrats, Republicans get questions planted by…wait. Democrats?

    katiewithroses (e99bfd)

  115. There is no person alive today who hasn’t already picked out a candidate – at least, CNN couldn’t find them. Now THAT is funny

    katiewithroses (e99bfd)

  116. I can’t tell you how many Republican friends I have whose main concerns are trips to Mars and the Confederate flag. I mean, that’s the talk of the town at Starbucks. Not things like exploding government spending, increasing taxes, rotten schools, corrupt leadership, and general government waste. No sir. It’s all about whether a Republican believes in the literal Word of God.

    Thanks, CNN, for getting to the pulse of the Republicans today. At least you’re not guilty of shallow thinking and stereotyping.

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  117. I can’t tell you how many Republican friends I have whose main concerns are trips to Mars and the Confederate flag Oh, definitely. Why just yesterday I was saying to my friend “I do hope
    someone asks about Mars. And I do hope someone thinks to bring in Cousin Petey & his Happy Guitar!”

    katiewithroses (e99bfd)

  118. No, what you have is journalistic hacks like Blitzer, Williams, and Russert using GOP talking points to demand Yes or No answers to “gotcha” questions.

    Yes, because now answering whether or not you support giving drivers licenses to illegals is a “gotcha” question.

    Intellectual cowards. All of you.

    The Ace (eaec12)

  119. What point was that? You keep changing your mind about them with every post.

    I’d love to see you provide an example of this.

    Otherwise, I proved that leftists use homosexual smears against those they don’t like.

    You disputed it, then confirmed it.

    The Ace (eaec12)

  120. The candidates were asked questions they LIKE answering

    Really? Ron Paul, is that you?

    Um, how would you know?

    they don’t want to talk about issues that the majority of Americans care deeply about — stuff like universal health care and federal aid to education

    Hilarious. Every single one of them is opposed to universal health care. And, a few of them mentioned closing the Department of Education last night.

    Again, your posts are parody.

    The Ace (eaec12)

  121. I can’t tell you how many Republican friends I have whose main concerns are trips to Mars and the Confederate flag

    Exactly. It’s funny that the “reality based community” can’t see to see how “in context” these questions actually were.

    The Editorial Board was obviously just “listening in context” when they first defended her position
    re: illegal licensing

    Comment by katiewithroses

    Bingo!

    The Ace (eaec12)

  122. CNN hosted the debates. CNN choose the questions and questioners. The questions and questioners came from known supporters of Democratic candidates.

    “known” huh?

    Its true that CNN hasn’t yet caught up with the far-right wing, and its really effective character assasination machine (say something that a right-winger doesn’t like, you’ll get googled until they find something that they can twist enough to smear you with.)

    Neither has the left, because there was no full court press after the Democratic debate to determine the party affiliation of each person who asked a question. (I mean, how do any of you actually KNOW that all the questions at the Dem You Tube debate were from Democrats. You have a very bad habit of projecting your own twisted behaviors on Democrats, so color me unconvinced.)

    But its also true that CNN cared more about the questions themselves, than the party affiliations of the person asking the questions.

    which is really the point. None of you will address the fact that these weren’t “gotcha” questions (except,IMHO, the Keen question) — and were questions that the GOP wanted to answer. Could the questions have been better — sure, but its not like the questions asked of the Democrats were incisive either.

    Instead, you have created an artificial controversy to distract from the fact that your candidates came off (by and large) looking like idiots — and “Republicans” as represented by the audience came off even worse in their consistent display of intolerance of ideas from the candidates that they didn’t like. (

    You’re embarrassed by what happened last night, as you should be. But instead of trying to blame others for what happened, you’d be much better off trying to figure out what is WRONG with your party.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  123. Let’s try this again for the comprehensionally challenged:

    What matters is that the questioners were KNOWN Democrat supporters. CNN even had one of them on their own station several times, and KNEW about him. Others were findable with a few clicks of Google – heck, Bill Bennet was getting e-mails from viewers in real-time. You think CNN hasn’t discovered anything yet about how to find out about people on Google, Facebook, and the like?

    That’s the key point – they were DEMOCRATS masquerading as disinterested, unaffiliated voters. They were NOT, and they were essentially LIARS. They should have each said, “Although I am supporting Democrat candidate X, I would like to know what you think about Y.” That would have been honest.

    Now after you digest that, you can come back with your powerful retort of “La la la la la, I’m not listening to you.”

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  124. “known” huh?

    All you had to do was click on the Youtube profile to see this. Unless of course the girl in the Edwards shirt is “undecided” or something.

    to distract from the fact that your candidates came off (by and large) looking like idiots

    And I’m sure it go swell if Republicans got to ask questions of the Democrats.

    Can you yet grasp what took place?

    The Ace (eaec12)

  125. lukasiak, I find it more than a little amusing to see you have absorbed the Clinton talking points that mentioning public facts is “character assassiantion” and “smearing”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  126. Can you yet grasp what took place?

    yes. Your team got asked a bunch of fair questions, and made idiots out of themselves — as did the 100% Republican audience. Its the nature of the questions that is at issue here; “party affiliation” is completely irrelevant. (btw, I don’t know which of the questioners you are referring to when you say they’ve been on CNN, but if its Kerr, he’s a lifelong Republican. In other words, the one question that I think you have a reason to object to — the one from Kerr — wasn’t even from a democrat.)

    Questioners didn’t make Rudy engage in a personal attack on Willard about the illegal aliens who worked at his mansion. Questioners didn’t make Willard look like a complete fool on the waterboarding question — that was John McCain. Questioners didn’t make McCain look like a buffoon by accusing Ron Paul of being the kind of person who brought Hitler to power — McCain did that on his own. And questioners didn’t make the audience boo loudly and obnoxiously every time they heard an idea they didn’t like (at least when the Democrats booed, it was because they were sick of the personal attacks that were happening).

    What happened last night had nothing to do with the party affiliation of the questioners — it had to do with the kind of people on the stage, and in the audience.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  127. SPQR, I thought that was a Kerry trick…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  128. Nope, you still haven’t grasped what was at stake.

    Those ears – do you use them, or do you just hang jewelry off them?

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  129. p_lukasiak, the moment they have obvious republican supporters are questions at a Democrat debate, go find somewhere else to be stupid, ok?

    I mean, you have the right to be a moron, but you’re starting to abuse that right…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  130. Scott Jacobs, Kerry plagiarized.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  131. p_lukasiak, the moment they have obvious republican supporters are questions at a Democrat debate

    just curious — as you watched the debate, how many questioners were you able to identify as Democrats, and which ones were they. be honest.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  132. Oops.

    One more thing.

    According to Col. Bill Campenni (USAF, ret), one of President Bush’s squadron mates in the Texas Air National Guard, there is no such thing as the California National Reserve of which Kerr claimed to be a former member. Campenni told HUMAN EVENTS that Kerr is not even a retired Army General. “He retired as a California Army National Guard colonel,” said Campenni. “It is common at Guard retirement ceremonies to give an honorary promotion to colonels to the STATE rank of Brigadier General…[but] it has no meaning other than a fancy certificate for the wall and use of the title at local Guard functions.” Campenni said the rank of general is not federally recognized and the title can not be used or the rank worn outside the state.

    Oops indeed. A fake general now.

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  133. Nice try to avoid the obvious problem of Democrats asking the questions during a Republican primary debate.

    Try to stay focused. I know it’s hard, but it can be done.

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  134. p_lukasiak, the moment they have obvious republican supporters are questions at a Democrat debate

    and because I tend to avoid right wing sites, perhaps you can point me to someone who live-blogged the debate and identified these “obvious democratic supporters” based on their question at the time it happened.

    I mean, if the questions were so biased, if it was so obvious that the questions were from democratic plants, I’m sure that there were people live-blogging the debates going “AHA!!! Its a Democrat! Its SOOO Obvious!!!”

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  135. Another non sequitur lukasiak.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  136. Nice try to avoid the obvious problem of Democrats asking the questions during a Republican primary debate.

    if Republicans asked fair and relevant questions at a Democratic debate, I wouldn’t blame those questions because the Democrats on stage and in the audience made themselves look like idiots.

    Which is the essential difference between you and me. Unlike you, I’m perfectly willing to point out what I consider a “gotcha” question that CNN should not have included (the Kerr question) — based NOT on Kerr’s party affiliation (republican) or distant association with the Clinton campaign, but based solely on the question itself.

    But what I’m not hearing from anyone is what the “bad” questions were, and why they were something that a republican would never ask. All I’m hearing about is something that is utterly irrelevant to the outcome of the debate itself.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  137. This type of thing will piss off everyone to the right of Joe Lieberman. However, it should no longer come as a surprise. There should have been an outrage when Hillary was planting people. Nope. There should have been an outrage after the Dem CNN debate when they did something kind of similar. Nope. And there should be an outrage over this. Not just amongst people on the Right, but voters in general, and even more so from their brothers and sisters in the media. Alas, sadly, no. There will continue to be no consequences for the media since they are provided cover by their own fraternity.

    JD (00210f)

  138. You might try to think this one thru, luke –

    The questions were from Youtube. CNN picked the questions. CNN spent some time ascertaining who these people were by checking to see if they gave money to candidates (so they say) and it appears they did not. However, CNN did not do due diligence that other ordinary Americans can do using their keyboard and mouse and such innovative & shockingly new tools as Google. Some of these people also had enough information in their public profiles to make them immediately known as Democrat supporters. CNN didn’t recognize this as a problem, whether through ignorance or lack of work that an ordinary citizen – heck, even a journalist – could do on his own. (CNN is supposedly a news station, right, with real actual reporters and journalists?)

    The questions/questioners selected were done so by CNN with little checking. The biases of CNN come through in allowing Democrat plants to ask questions during a Republican primary. Not questions from undecided citizens. Democrat supports.

    Do you catch that subtle but all-so-important distinction?

    Essentially, these people lied to get themselves into the debate. And CNN through incompetence or institutional bias could not see the problem with this.

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  139. Your team got asked a bunch of fair questions, and made idiots out of themselve

    Mind you, coming from the same person pretending that asking if you support giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses, in the state you reprsent no less, is a “gotcha” question.

    The Ace (eaec12)

  140. based NOT on Kerr’s party affiliation (republican)

    Proof?

    The Ace (eaec12)

  141. lukasiak, I find it more than a little amusing to see you have absorbed the Clinton talking points that mentioning public facts is “character assassiantion” and “smearing”.

    and I find it amusing that you defend the right wing’s campaigns to discredit by any means people who say stuff that they don’t like…. rather than addressing the issues raised, you just go out and smear people and pretend the issue doesn’t exist anymore.

    I mean, what is really the point of the “Kerr is not a real general” comment above. And does the fact that Bill Campenni is a partisan hack with a record of proven lies make a difference in how we perceive Kerr?

    I don’t think either has anything to do with anything in terms of discussing the debates — they are simply distractions from the real discussion of what the candidates said, how they handled themselves, and whether you are more or less inclined to support them as a result of the debate.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  142. Ace, you are being very unfair in quoting the actual words of people.

    You should take a note from the pages of Hillary’s! husband who was all against the Iraq War right from the beginning. Quoting his words in 2003 that contradict that is so…unnice.

    It’s not nice to quote what candidates actually say. What’s important is “how does it make me feel?” and “will this brown color wash off my nose, or must I wear it for the next four years?”

    And again, let’s focus on the topic at hand: Democrats planting Democrat supporters at a Republican primary debate. Cool or not cool: you decide.

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  143. Here a link to a reanscript of Kerr on CNN in 2003.

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/11/ltm.10.html

    daleyrocks (906622)

  144. based NOT on Kerr’s party affiliation (republican)

    You missed the latest leftist “gotcha” on this matter:

    Kerr said is a registered independent and has not donated money to Clinton or any other 2008 candidates,

    What happened last night had nothing to do with the party affiliation of the questioners

    So you support having Republicans pretending to be Democrats asking questions at the next Democratic debate airing on Fox News, right?

    The Ace (eaec12)

  145. Oh, I had to laugh just now. Whether Kerr is a general or not is ascertainable by simple factual checking.

    Was he a federal general, or was he a state colonel? I am glad he was able to serve honorably in his chosen profession, but let’s also be honest that representing yourself as a federal general in public when you are not is not something an ordinary military member would do.

    Please point out the part where Campenni’s said, “I am of course partisan, so I’m making this up.”

    You don’t believe what he said, fine. You’re entitled to your quaint understanding of facts.

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  146. Based on the question?

    My friend, there were people on air getting e-mails durring the debate about “Edward’s supporter” or “Works on a Hillary commitee”.

    But since you asked, I’ll give you a list of names/titles, and who they actually work for/support.

    BG Kerr (gays in the military) – Hillary (this one you should admit to)

    “Journey” (abortion) – Edwards in ’08 shirt

    Florzak (soc sec question) – worked with Dick Durbin on Social Security reform

    Cercone (Log Cabin Republican) – Obama supporter based on “Why I support Obama” on a support Obama website

    Strauss (asked the Ron Paul “run as an independant” question) – Richardson supporter (was on the CNN Youtube debate for the Dems)

    Faturos (Asked about subsidies) – Worked as an intern for Congresswoman Jane Harman (D)

    McMillan (asked about the small number of black republicans) – Edwards supporter based on all the vids up of him at Edwards events.

    Anderson (lead toy question) – prominent Pittsburgh union activist and aide to Leo Gerard, President of the American Steel Workers Union/John Edwards supporter (the United Steelworker’s union YouTube page has a great video on it with her in it)

    Are those enough examples for you?

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  147. Scott – those are mere FACTS.

    Luke has got his FEELINGS on his side. They trump facts everyday!

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  148. But what I’m not hearing from anyone is what the “bad” questions were, and why they were something that a republican would never ask

    Look at this way. The debate had an indignant gay man asking why those “homophobes” support DADT, a confederate flag, a KJV Bible, a shotgun, and all the rest.

    In other words, it was a caricature of what people like you think Republicans represent.

    The Ace (eaec12)

  149. The questions/questioners selected were done so by CNN with little checking. The biases of CNN come through in allowing Democrat plants to ask questions during a Republican primary. Not questions from undecided citizens. Democrat supports. Do you catch that subtle but all-so-important distinction?

    What I don’t catch is any relevant distinction. You can make a “valid” argument that CNN picked bad/biased questions–but no one seems to be doing so. All they are doing is focussing on the party affiliation of some of the questioners as if THAT indicates bias. It doesn’t. As you have indicated, they picked the questions first, and looked at who the people were later. Now, you could argue that CNN exhibited bias in its choice of questions — and that bias wound up being reflected in the fact that a couple of questions were asked by people who weren’t staunch republicans — but you’re NOT making that argument. You’re not telling me which questions you think that a Republican would never ask — and explaining why you think that.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  150. p_lukasiak – If you-re not a Republican, I find it interesting that you presume to know what questions Republican candidates or Republican leaning voters want to be asked. Your comments indicate you really don’t have much of a clue.

    The debate was staged by CNN to give the public and voters a public perception of the Republican candidates for president. Thet framed that perception from a liberal’s perspective through the questions they selected and the questions they omitted. Would you have been happy if through the questions allowed in the Democratic debate the candidates were perceived as a bunch of serial abortion loving, terrorist appeasing, communist, environmental whacko rax raisers? Just put the shoe on the other foot and think for a few minutes.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  151. tax raisers

    daleyrocks (906622)

  152. Off the top of my head, here’s what a Republican debate might look like had they had actual undecideds and Republicans ask the questions rather than Democrats who lied their way into the debate:

    National security – how to keep it
    Borders – how to secure them
    Taxes – how to reduce them
    Spending – how to reduce it
    Families – how to strengthen them
    Education – how to free it from government
    Crime – how to protect the innocent and punish the guilty

    I’m not so sure that the Republican party is going around with DADT as the primary conversation-starter.

    Asking the questions CNN did shows they have an elitist view of Republicans as the party of racist homophobic morons. It’s a nice meme, and it’s satisfying for the elites to think, but it doesn’t speak well for the intellectual and moral integrity of CNN.

    Not that we were confused there was any, of course.

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  153. p_lukasiak,

    admittedly I wasn’t watching thinking “ha! that’s a Democratic question!” But I was thinking, something is off here. The questioners seemed over the top (the guy with the bible, come on?) in many instances.
    Now we know why.

    If you truly support the idea of the Dems answering “tough” questions from people from either party, kudos to you. But that’s kind of tough to believe considering you think Wolf Blitzer played “gotcha” with Hillary.

    The Ace (eaec12)

  154. p_lukasiak – You’ll note in the transcript I linked above that Kerr says DADT served him well.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  155. Playing “gotcha” with Hillary! is asking her a question that forces her to think on her feet.

    No president should be exposed to that, of course.

    How unfair it all is, and she can’t even use her femininity as a defense.

    Yep, when it’s Hillary!, it’s unfair. If it’s some rube asking a Republican about the Confederate flag, well, then, that’s the kind of question that is on the lips of Republicans nationwide as they look to decide whom to pick as their candidate.

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  156. Oh boy, CNN lied.

    With only a week to go before the Republican CNN/YouTube debate next Wednesday, voters are lighting up the video site with serious and not-so-serious questions for the eight candidates.

    David Bohrman, CNN’s Washington bureau chief and executive producer of the debate, spoke to The Caucus from “an undisclosed location” where he and a team of six others were pouring over the entries.

    So far, about 3,000 questions have been posted to YouTube, Mr. Bohrman said, and he expects to have about 5,000 videos at his disposal come Sunday, the contest deadline. That beats July’s Democratic YouTube debate, which pulled in about 3,000 videos.

    Most questions online have been pulled from public viewing for review, but many of the remaining posts involve asking the candidates to defend their opposition to gay marriage and abortion. Those kinds of “lobbying grenades” would be disqualified by the CNN selection team, Mr. Bohrman said.

    “There are quite a few things you might describe as Democratic ‘gotchas,’ and we are weeding those out,” Mr. Bohrman said. CNN wants to ensure that next Wednesday’s Republican event is “a debate of their party.”

    Propogandists, pure and simple.

    The Ace (eaec12)

  157. Look at this way. The debate had an indignant gay man asking why those “homophobes” support DADT, a confederate flag, a KJV Bible, a shotgun, and all the rest.

    I don’t recall any of the questioners using the word “homophobe” (I could be wrong ..got a link to a transcript). As far as the “indignent” gay man, if you are referring to Kerr, I agree that the question was inappropriate based on its CONTENT.

    If you are talking about the “Log Cabin Republican” — I don’t know if he was a democrat or not, but I do know Log Cabin republicans, and that was exactly the kind of question that they ask Republican candidates (they tend to be very defensive/agressive, since neither the majority of the gay community nor the majority of the GOP really wants to be associated with them) — and I think that the candidate who got that question did a good job in responding to it.

    The guy with the confederate flag, the guy with the bible, and the gun guy all asked perfectly valid questions.. and did so in exactly the “attention getting” way that CNN did have a bias toward. (if there was a bias, it was a bias toward people who were more than just ‘talking heads’ So maybe its just that us Democrats are more creative than Republicans! 😉 ). Some of the questions were well handled by the candidates (Thompson hit the flag question out of the park) while other candidates looked bad answering (Willard was an embarrassment answering the same flag question.)

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  158. lukasiak writes: “and I find it amusing that you defend the right wing’s campaigns to discredit by any means people who say stuff that they don’t like…. rather than addressing the issues raised, you just go out and smear people and pretend the issue doesn’t exist anymore.

    Such is only happening in your imagination, were you actually sincere in the claim. But we know that Democrats are not sincere when they make this frequent claim as it is intended to allow them to duck the question.

    The issue is the fact that CNN cannot run an honest debate, either through incompetence born of their bias, or intentional act – probably the latter. That is the issue of this thread and one that only you continue to avoid with complete nonsense such as the above quote.

    Planted shills and trolls – that is all the Democrats and their media fellow travellers have to offer.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  159. lukasiak then basically admits his own dishonesty with this attempt at cuteness: “(if there was a bias, it was a bias toward people who were more than just ‘talking heads’ So maybe its just that us Democrats are more creative than Republicans! 😉 ).”

    That confirms my impression of you.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  160. You just don’t get it, do you.

    Pay attention here. I’ll type slowly.

    These were DEMOCRATS asking the questions AT A REPUBLICAN PRIMARY DEBATE.

    Do you get it yet? These weren’t UNDECIDED voters.

    They were DEMOCRATS and THEY LIED.

    Doesn’t that at least shame you that the Democrats have to lie to get their questions answered? Doesn’t that tell you that CNN doesn’t even see how biased they are by asking questions that are largely talking points for DEMOCRATS in a REPUBLICAN debate?

    I know this is hard, but really, really try.

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  161. The guy with the confederate flag..asked perfectly valid questions.

    Considering the Republicans assembled up an army to defeat those Democrats fighting behind it, I’m not sure how.
    The slaves were freed by Republicans you know.

    The Ace (eaec12)

  162. p_lukasiak is a liar. Period. A dishonest person who is more concerned with gotcha political points than with any type of honesty. I knew that union rep was not a Republican when she started talking about having to adopt children from overseas and why can’t the government protect her kids and keep the jobs at home. That was obviously a Dem to anyone with a pulse.

    David, King of teh Gheys, is just dancing around today.

    JD (00210f)

  163. Playing “gotcha” with Hillary! is asking her a question that forces her to think on her feet.
    No president should be exposed to that, of course.

    Listen, i’m not supporting Hillary. She’s WAY down on my list. But the simple fact is that in the Philadelphia debate, she was ganged up on by the rest of the candidates, as well as the moderators. She did pretty well for the first 90 minutes, but then screwed up the drivers license question — which as I’ve already stated, took her words completely out of context. After 90 minutes, she was probably on auto-pilot… she had a response ready for that topic, and thought she was defending what she’s actually said — and not Russerts deliberate misquotation of her.

    Personally, I’d like to see any of the Republican candidates (let alone Bush..I mean, that would be funny if he wasn’t the President) subjected to what Clinton went through that night, because from what I saw last night, they would have done far worse than Hillary did in Philadelphia.

    Just remember, right now Hillary Clinton is the odds on favorite to be YOUR president in a little over a year….so you might want to seek treatment for your Hillary Derangement Syndrome — if not for your own sake, then for the sake of the country.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  164. Even if all of the questions were asked by real Republicans, the questions chosen represented the moonbat Left’s perception of what interests Republicans. Liars. And luckysackof is running around here defending that. Can you imagine if this had happened to the Dems?

    JD (00210f)

  165. Right – p_lukasiak is not supporting Hillary, she is waaaaaaaaaaaay to conservative and corporate. He would probably claim to be undecided too.

    JD (00210f)

  166. Such is only happening in your imagination,

    Come on. Scroll up a few comments. Look at the crap that your buddies are digging up and gleefully posting on Kerr.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  167. Doesn’t that at least shame you that the Democrats have to lie to get their questions answered

    not in the least. Their questions weren’t picked because of their party affiliation, their questions were picked because CNN thought that the presentation and the issues raised by the questions themselves were appropriate for the debate.

    I mean, you are acting like being a democrat asking a question at a republican debate is the equivalent of being a child molester at a day care center. I don’t understand why you feel so threatened by the very IDEA of a democrat asking a question if there is no obvious partisan bias in the question itself.

    (btw, did they actually identify themselves as Republicans? I know there was no “only registered republicans can ask questions” rule when they solicited questions.)

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  168. I know there was no “only registered republicans can ask questions” rule when they solicited questions.)

    Care to acknowledge this?

    Most questions online have been pulled from public viewing for review, but many of the remaining posts involve asking the candidates to defend their opposition to gay marriage and abortion. Those kinds of “lobbying grenades” would be disqualified by the CNN selection team, Mr. Bohrman said.

    “There are quite a few things you might describe as Democratic ‘gotchas,’ and we are weeding those out,” Mr. Bohrman said. CNN wants to ensure that next Wednesday’s Republican event is “a debate of their party.”

    The Ace (eaec12)

  169. Right – p_lukasiak is not supporting Hillary, she is waaaaaaaaaaaay to conservative and corporate. He would probably claim to be undecided too.

    not undecided. I know who I would vote for today (Edwards). But I could still change my mind… especially if Biden or Dodd were to gain some traction. (you’re right about my feelings about Hillary, and as far as Obama is concerned, while I think he’d make a fine president, he’s simple not ready to deal with all the crap you will be throwing at him, and he’d crash and burn as the Democratic nominee. And while I’d like to like Richardson more than I do, even I know that you gotta be an idiot to say that “human rights are more important than national security.”)

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  170. Telling the truth about Kerr (a colonel for the State and not a general for the Feds) is … gleefully posted?

    I’m just amazed at (a) your thinking that this is a smear (it’s just stating the truth) and (b) your ability to see my state of mind while I post.

    You are truly wonderful in your inability to stay focused on the way the DEMOCRATS lied to get into the debates, and the way CNN didn’t do due diligence to try to keep the debates honest, and the way CNN picked questions that are largely irrelevant to REPUBLICAN voters in a REPUBLICAN debate.

    But you go ahead and play in your sandbox now, dear.

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  171. Oh, and thanks for admitting you aren’t shamed by lying.

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  172. STOP ALL THIS RIGHT NOW.

    and go comment on my post on the same topic.

    Please.

    WLS (dfa1f1)

  173. Care to acknowledge this?

    yes I saw that the other day — that’s why I wrote “when questions were solicited”.

    But I think that either CNN realized how stupid that sounded and backed off it, or (more likely) were really saying that there wouldn’t be any questions like this…

    “My parents came to this country to find a better way of life 12 years ago, and I was born here — which makes me an American citizen. My parents worked hard to give me the American Dream, and give me more opportunities than they ever had. The fruits and vegetables you eat are much cheaper because my parents had to take wages well below what your laws required, and had to work in conditions that no American citizen would ever put up with. Please explain to me why, after allowing my parents to be exploited so that you don’t have to pay as much for the food that you feed your own children, that you now want to throw my parents out of the country?”

    I mean, that’s a gotcha question — the kind of question that puts a human face on illegal immigration when the GOP is doing everything it can to dehumanize undocumented workers. And THAT is the kind of question that (except for Kerr) you didn’t see last night.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  174. You’re avoiding the question again.

    Bzzt!

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  175. But then, you admit you aren’t shamed by lying, so avoiding the question is probably not too much of a deal, either

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  176. yes I saw that the other day — that’s why I wrote “when questions were solicited”.

    In other words, what you wrote is meaningless. What was “solicited” has nothing to do with what was broadcast.

    Please explain to me why, after allowing my parents to be exploited so that you don’t have to pay as much for the food that you feed your own children, that you now want to throw my parents out of the country

    Hilarious. You know nothing about “the cost of food” and what “exploitation” is.

    I’d gladly “pay more” for food and throw all 3 of them out of the country.

    The Ace (eaec12)

  177. Luckless:

    How about the human face of parents of children killed by drunken illegal aliens? Or the children being deprived of a decent education because of a 40% increase in illegal aliens soaking up educational funds? Or how about the human face of those who contract TB because of illegals who enter this country with diseases and put us all at risk.

    Guess thats too much of a human face on the issue for you.

    Such insufferable sanctimony is entertaining especially when highlighting a feral rage unrestrained by knowledge or rteflection reducing discussion to mere agitprop and the infantilization of reason.

    Now tell us how you managed to plant thoe questions at the debate.

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  178. Are those enough examples for you?

    i’m still waiting for ONE example (other than the one that I keep citing myself) of an unfair question

    Do you think it was unfair to ask about farm subsidies?

    Do you think, given the willing exploitation that of the abortion issue that the GOP has engaged in, that the candidates didn’t want to talk about their abortion positions (okay, maybe Rudy didn’t)–and lets not forget that Frederick of Hollywood raised the issue in a far more confrontational way vis a vis Romney’s position

    Is there a problem with Social Security questions that I don’t know about?

    do you get where I’m going with this? You simply refuse to deal with the issue of whether the QUESTIONS were appropriate — instead, all you can focus on is the fact that some of the people who asked questions may be supporting Democratic candidates this year

    BIG hint — lots of registered Republicans are understandably disgusted with the GOP — and looking at Democratic candidates this year. Do you really think that the Ron Paul phenomenon is some sort of freak occurence? Its not — especially not when Paul has more active duty military contributors than any other candidate. Paul is pretty much of a wack-job overall…he’s a pre-senial-dementia Mike Gravel. But there are huge numbers of Republicans who hate the Iraq war, hate what Bush has done to this country — and don’t see any of the viable GOP candidates that speak to them. So they’re looking to a fringe candidate like Ron Paul, and Democrats, this year.

    Right wingers still haven’t figured it out — that the nation as a whole, and huge numbers of Republicans, are OVER you. You have your little internet enclaves where you all reinforce your own opinions, and you don’t realize what is really going on. (of course, the left has its own problems in that regard, but at least the left is in the general area that the average american thinks we should be heading. The right is what the vast majority of Americans want to move away from.)

    In other words, supporting Obama or Edwards doesn’t mean you are a “democrat”, because Bush has basically destroyed the GOP brand.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  179. i’m still waiting for ONE example (other than the one that I keep citing myself) of an unfair question

    Try looking here.

    Your entire argument has been gutted like a deer during hunting season.

    Paul (36cd46)

  180. I’d love to see you respond to WLS’s point-by-point, question-by-question takedown of CNN.

    I doubt you will, because that will take guts.

    Paul (36cd46)

  181. lukasiak, your refrain about citing an unfair question is just your attempt to hijack the thread.

    Much as CNN allowed the Democrats to hijack a Republican primary candidate debate.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  182. In other words, what you wrote is meaningless. What was “solicited” has nothing to do with what was broadcast.

    no, what you are writing is meaningless, because if everyone was encouraged to submit questions, there was never any intent to exclude people based solely on party affiliation. A lot of people — especially people in the media — were taken aback by the CNN statement (‘next Wednesday’s Republican event is “a debate of their party.”’) because that has never been the standard for any debate.

    (I mean, do you really think that Democrats wanted to answer the drivers license question at all — let alone have it become the center of the most recent debate? Democrats DO care about immigration reform — but they don’t care what their Presidential candidates think about a decision that is within the purview of state governments, especially when comprehensive immigration reform that they DO want to talk about is designed to eliminate the need for states to even think about giving drivers licenses to undocumented foreigners.)

    And BECAUSE that has never been the standard, I think that people read far more into the statement than was intended — what was intended was that questions that assumed the perspective of Democrats as a given, then required the candidates to respond within the assumptions of that framework, would be excluded.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  183. lukasiak, you are now CNN’s spokesman?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  184. The candidates went in expecting a Republican debate, and instead got questions asked by Democrats hiding and lying as Republicans. While this action of lying and hiding is, according to Luke, admirable, it still shows that the questions were NOT about Republican issues or even “undecided” issues – it was about DEMOCRATS and what they wanted to talk about.

    I personally find it beneath contempt for the Democrats to lie and hide, but then, I’m not the one admiring their actions.

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  185. Try looking here.

    its actually pretty funny.

    I mean, the very idea that asking Thompson a question about amnesty for undocumented aliens is about exposing one of his “weaknesses” is simply absurd. Thompson takes every opportunity he can to say “no amnesty” — but the writer is so intent upon creating massive, all encompassing conspiracy theories about “the Clinton News Network” that he starts out in tin-foil-hat territory, and just goes deeper.

    Giuliani and “sanctuary cities”? You think Rudy has a problem with that question — that it exposes some kind of weakness? New York was never a “sanctuary city”, nor did Rudy ever propose that it become one. The most “innovative” thing that Rudy did in New York with the undocumented was make it possible for them to report crimes without being reported to the immigration authorities. And that makes perfect sense — its a tradeoff, but would you rather have an otherwise law abiding undocumented worker on your street, or a mugger who attacked that undocumented person, and is still on the street because the victim was afraid of being deported if he reported the crime?

    Tancredo and guest workers? You think he’s not thrilled for the opportunity to not just say that he is opposed to guest worker programs…he want to cut all forms of immigration to the bone.

    I mean, the toughest question of the night was the one that wasn’t a YouTube question — the one about Rudy charging various city agencies (many with small budgets that could ill afford the additional costs) for his security detail when he was cheating on his second wife in the Hamptons.

    Rudy blew the question off as if Cooper was asking about using city funds for his protection, and Cooper decided not to “go there” because the media is still afraid to confront the sordid truth about Rudy’s personal life — despite the fact that ignored the advice of his experts and located the city’s emergency center at the WTC — then used those offices to screw around because they were within walking distance of city hall.

    So, I’m still waiting for an unfair question — from what I saw, the candidates were thrilled for the chance to answer the questions directed at them — despite the paranoid raving of WLS.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  186. So, I’m still waiting for an unfair question — from what I saw, the candidates were thrilled for the chance to answer the questions directed at them

    Well then, you must think that there is nothing wrong with the wording of the question that WLS suggested for Hillary.

    Paul (36cd46)

  187. Funny how you left that out of you response.

    Paul (36cd46)

  188. New York was never a “sanctuary city”

    Where do you get this idiocy? Is it sort of like Kerr’s party affiliation (republican) ?

    Mr. Giuliani had inherited an executive order from previous mayoral administrations that protected illegal immigrants from being reported to federal immigration authorities when using city services. During the presidential campaign, he has repeatedly insisted that the policy was necessary for public health and safety.

    The Ace (eaec12)

  189. Giuliani and “sanctuary cities”? You think Rudy has a problem with that question — that it exposes some kind of weakness? New York was never a “sanctuary city”, nor did Rudy ever propose that it become one.

    So when he made it impossible for the cops to check the immigration status of those they arrested, that made it a what…

    Resort town?

    Cathedral of Notre Dame?

    A kitty cat?

    Seriously, if you’re going to lie, pick stuff we can’t disprove so easily.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  190. Where do you get this idiocy? Is it sort of like Kerr’s party affiliation (republican) ?

    um, from Rudy Giuliani in last night’s debate. Okay, I know I should never trust a republican, but i figured their word was good around here.

    So when he made it impossible for the cops to check the immigration status of those they arrested, that made it a what…

    again, citing Rudy, you’re dead wrong. Undocumented people reporting crimes (and victim of crimes) were not reported to immigration. But if you were arrested, you were reported.

    So if Rudy’s wrong, hey, I’m more than happy to admit that I made a mistake in believing what Rudy said during the debate.

    p_lukasiak (e59d7d)

  191. Oops indeed. A fake general now.

    Comment by steve miller — 11/29/2007 @ 4:15 pm

    Wonderful. Now we denigrate the service of the officer. When you make these comments you are essentially saying the same thing about every other officer who is recognized in this fashion.

    Of course Rush has already jumped on the bandwagon with this theme.

    Sometimes the way people treat military personnel because of their politics makes me utterly sick and disgusted.

    voiceofreason (76c594)

  192. We’re not denigrating whatever service Kerr actually performed. But we certainly are denigrating the service the viewers were misled into believing he did. He may have been a genuine colonel, but he’s a phony general. And there’s nothing wrong with National Guard service, but it’s not the same thing as regular forces service; it is what it is, and shouldn’t have been puffed up into something that it isn’t.

    An honorary generalship is like an honorary doctorate. Bush has probably got a bunch of those, but he doesn’t go around calling himself “Dr Bush” in front of people who might think he had a real one. Or it’s like those southern gentlemen who (used to? still do?) call themselves “colonel”. It’s a time-honoured custom, but if they got up on TV and used the authority of that courtesy title to comment on military affairs they’d be called on it.

    Milhouse (027917)

  193. Milhouse,
    I disagree. You are attacking the messenger and in turn denigrating his service. Whether he calls himself General or Bobba louie is not the point. And it certainly had no bearing on the quality of service he gave. Comparing him to the Kentucky Colonels is just wrong.
    CNN put it together and the “plant” criticism should be directed at them.
    There have been many gay military personnel who spoke out after leaving the service. Oftentimes they were referred to as retired ___ of the __ service.

    I had the same criticisms about the Bush critics regarding his guard service. He was characterized as doing it to avoid Viet Nam. Yet he chose a high risk occupation in a time when the Guard/Reserve were mostly used in plans for an all out conventional war with the Soviets. To dismiss Bush’s service was to dismiss the service of any guard and reserve.

    voiceofreason (76c594)

  194. CNN…
    Crap
    Not
    News

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  195. You know, you’re right.

    Reporting the facts is SMEARING. How could I have missed that? Thanks for edumacating me on that.

    Like a little cheese with that whine?

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  196. again, citing Rudy, you’re dead wrong

    Hilarious. So you believe everything the candidates say then, right?

    I’m right, I know I’m right. Rudy, like a liberal, is changing the defintion of words to suit him. It isn’t right.

    New York is and was a sanctuary city. Police are actively prevented from checking immigration status of those committing crimes.

    The Ace (12e3ad)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6683 secs.