• Right Place Photo Caption Contest Hall of Glory Top 25

    meister.jpeg About Me
    BlogmeisterUSA's Guidelines for Commenting
    My Blog at Newsbusters
    My Writings at Family Security Matters
    My Writings at The American Thinker
    I Also Blog at Lifelike Pundits
    National Summary Interviews Me
    Read "The Americans" by Gordon Sinclair
    PELOSI_DEMOCRAT_TREASON-1.jpg More About the Fighting 101st Keyboardists
    fighting101s.jpg


November 29, 2007

CNN's YouTube Republican Debate: The Shenanigans Continue

Good lord, will CNN never learn? There were 5,000 questions submitted for last night's debate and a *surprising* number of them were from committed Democrat candidate supporters.

Michelle Malkin and Hot Air have lots and lots of details.

I only caught the second hour of the debate and watched the first half hour of the discussion afterward. The alarm bells first started ringing when Bill Bennett (the only conservative commentator out of six in the after-debate mish mash) said he was getting e-mails saying one of the questioners (I think the guy who said, "What would Jesus do?" about capital punishment) was connected with the Hillary Clinton campaign. Anderson Cooper started hemming and hawing, saying that he didn't know anything about that, but CNN would look into it.

Seems to me they might have wanted to look into it BEFORE the debate. Or did they?

I also enjoyed watching the 12 "undecided Republicans" whose reactions were being monitored. One of them said after the debate that she was supporting John Edwards! Quite the interesting turn of events. Can you imagine a Democrat debate on CNN where an "undecided Democrat" announced he was supporting Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney? I can't either.

Despite the penchant for bias against them, Republicans go on these networks for debate...yet Democrats refuse to go on Fox. What is it they're afraid of? They'd likely be treated more fairly than the Republicans were last night...and for all that, the candidates did fairly well. (Some better than others, of course.)

And frankly, I'm still undecided.

UPDATE: Paul tried to post a comment in the comments section, but MuNu rejected it for "questionable content." No idea why, so I'm including it below:

Actually it was a retired general who asked about gaes in the military
being part of a Gay/Les/etc. group that has ties to HRC (thanks for the clarification Paul -- ed.). As I pointed out
in LLP post, I thought it was odd he was the only one allowed a follow up, live at that!

The HRC connection was noted afterwards, and A Cooper seemed angry about
it. I think it was a mistake, but the fact is, he works for HRC because
of his views; he didn't ask the question because HRC paid him off. I
think it's important to remember that he was expressing his own views,
although I agree CNN made a mistake in not having the connection beforehand
(which they've acknowledged).

UPDATE 2 (Nov. 30): Another rejected comment...what's up with that? (channeling Seinfeld)...this one from husband-dude:

The political preference wouldn't matter at all if it had been disclosed beforehand that the questioners were for the most part Democratic activists. They were not represented as such.

Democratic candidates flat out refused to have a debate on Fox because "the network was biased against their party."

Republicans went ahead and had the debate with CNN where the network was apparently VERY biased against their party - and did very well.

CNN.gif

The Clinton News Network strikes again...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:07 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0) | 2008
Comments

I just can't get my shorts all bunched up over this election cycle. I'm trying, but I just don't f-e-e-l it for any of the candidates.

Oh, problem solved, I'm voting for Mike Gravel.

http://liberalsmash.blogspot.com/2007/11/vote-me-up-president-part-ii.html

Posted by: Two Dogs at November 29, 2007 10:00 AM

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 11/29/2007 A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Posted by: David m at November 29, 2007 11:26 AM

This morning my local radio guys were inviting each other to noodle through another intriguing hypothetical about dem debates. Try to imagine an "undecided dem voter" asking something like this: Why is it all you guys seem to care so much more about the "civil liberties" of committed terrorists, than about the lives of innocent American citizens who committed no graver offence than simply showing up for work before nine in the morning?

Equally valid. Equally on-topic. Equally leading. But such a question would never get through on the donk side of things. The questioner would be thrown out of the studio, Hillary would squawk about nasty men being mean to her, a zillion and one liberal activists would demand the resignation of a zillion and one conservative operatives, with written apologies as well, and half of those & probably more would actually be forthcoming.

Before the week was out we'd be hearing from over a hundred "experts," probably double that, about how it IS possible to be "patriotic" and still champion the civil rights of terrorists because "we are better than that."

But with things as they are, we'll just hear about these plants from bloggers like Malkin, and you and me, for a couple days or so and then all will be forgotten.

Posted by: Morgan K Freeberg at November 29, 2007 05:51 PM

what difference does it make? the questions were perfectly valid. and none of the candidates seemed to balk at them.

why should the political preference of the questioner matter?

Posted by: steve at November 29, 2007 06:45 PM

Can you imagine the hullabaloo had it been Repub plants at a Dem debate? LOL. Oye Vey the hypocrisy.

Posted by: Jenn at November 30, 2007 04:36 PM

well really, what's the big deal? you had questions about abortion and the role of gays in the republican party. any true "republican" should be able to knock those two out of the park. say you're totally against abortion, you hate it, it's killing people.

and say "well i'll accept their support but not their lifestyle."

isn't that what the base wants to hear? no fags and no babykillers?

Posted by: steve at November 30, 2007 07:26 PM

And now there are gays in the Republican Party killing babies?!?!?! I am missing alot of news these days. And damn those gays, damn 'em.

Posted by: Two Dogs at November 30, 2007 08:14 PM

fun search test!

Posted by: at December 16, 2007 02:04 PM


    ENDORSEMENTS "Your stupid requirements for commenting, whatever they are, mean I'll not read you again." ~ "Duke Martin", Oraculations
    "One of the worst sites I've read." ~ Frank A. Niedospial