CNN's Damage Control over Fake Undecided Voters at GOP Debate
Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 02:43AM A Plant: someone who poses as an undecided voter in a political debate but is actually a loyalist for the opposing party's campaign. There was a garden at last night's GOP debate.
Brigadier General (RET) Keith Kerr not only had his video question shown a at the You Tube Republican Presidential debate sponsored by CNN, but he was also gasp in the audience! BG Kerr, who served 43 years in the U.S. Army, posed a “don’t ask, don’t tell” question to Republican candidates.
Shocker! Kerr is a gay rights activist on the Hillary Clinton steering committee for LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender) Americans for Hillary.
Kerr said in the CNN debate, “I revealed I was gay after I retired.” He became openly gay AFTER he left National Reserve duty! Wasn’t his premise that soldiers are professional enough to handle gay soldiers? Why did he hide his identity for 43 years then?
Kerr’s question was:
“I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians?”
Oh, please! The lack of professionalism lies with the individual not adhering to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and bringing it into foreign countries. You have to wonder how many deployments Kerr has been on.
Bill Bennet mentions on CNN that the internet is on to the Clinton-Kerr plant and Anderson Cooper is shocked, issuing an explanation:
The Advocate lists BG Keith Kerr as a “retired colonel, U.S. Army; retired brigadier general, California National Reserve”. Two thoughts: California and National Reserve! It's incredibly odd to have an active duty Brigadier General serving for 43 years.
His name doesn’t appear to be on Hillary’s official campaign site anymore. Is she ashamed??
Kerr, who lives in SAN FRANCISCO, was interviewed on CNN's American Morning on Dec. 11, 2003 opposing "don't ask, don't tell".
There were more plants. The hippie chick who asked about abortion is John Edwards supporter. The Log Cabin Republican is an Obama supporter. The lady with the two kids and the lead toy question is an Edwards supporter.
When’s the last time this happened at a Democratic Debate???? Never.
Why are liberals so afraid of being HONEST?? And how could a CNN that so perfectly orchestrated the Democratic debate, choosing every question and taking direction from Hillary Clinton, really, really not know all these questions were from Democrat supporters and not undecided Republicans? I thought every one of the plants were obvious. I suspect all the booing of the night came from planted participants as well.
PREVIOUS POSTS:
GEN Pace Offends Gays Defending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
OTHER’S BLOGGING: Gateway Pundit Ian Schwartz Hot Air Michelle Malkin Stop the ACLU Gina Cobb Sister Toldjah
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1398093
08 Elections, CNN, DNC, RNC, VIDEO 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (58)
It was so obvious that this man was a plant, Amy, and as the questions were supposed to be asked by people using You Tube, and as his You Tube video had already been shown, why did CNN let him stand up in the audience and make a speech? This was highly disrespectful to the candidates as it was using up their air time! Each and every candidate up there should be furious with CNN for allowing this to happen! The you-know-what is going to hit the fan over this one, but watch CNN lie. Of course, Hillary won't lie. We know she always tells the truth, don't we? ARRRRGGGGG!
This kind of thing still surprises me when I hear about it!
I think its just the idea that CNN believes they could get away with it without really trying to cover their tracks.
Anyways, this idea that the states ought to decide whether or not to legalize the killing of innocent babies is inherently vile and evil. Anyone who makes such an argument (like Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, etc.) is by definition a bad person.
To get a better idear of what I'm talking about check out this analysis of Ron Paul's response to a question asked on YouTube about abortion a few months back.
http://www.kgov.com/bel_56kbps/20071016
What? Since when do Democrats not have the right to ask questions in public of Republican presidential candidates? Last I checked, Democrats are permitted to vote in this country too. In fact, and some probably even occasionally vote for Republicans. To suggest that it is somehow not OK for Democrats to be asking Republican candidates about their views is just weird - whoever ends up being the president will be the president for Republicans and Democrats and Independents and Greenies and everybody. I know you get that. So why the umbrage?
This is such a non-story. Who cares who and or what questions are asked to any presidential candidate. We as citizens should force our politicians to answer tougher questions...and actually answer them, not just give whatever answer they want.
I think this is just a stupid story. I could care less who asks the questions. The bottom line is answer the questions that are asked. Does it really matter who is asking them?? Why can't Mitt Romney or John McCain answer a question from a democrat? Is the question somehow tainted? And if a republican wanted to ask Hillary Clinton or John Edwards a question - who cares? Is it a bad question because it comes from a republican. I certainly do not think so.
Just a stupid political story that takes away from covering real issues. What a joke...
I'll second that Mark. Big Time.
The fact that audiences at W appearances (campaign and otherwise) during his reign have been carefully screened so that only loyal syncophants may attend is what should give us great pause. Such attitudes and actions are shameful in a democracy.
Rather than being angered by the opposition "plants", we should be cheering. And yes, opposition questions should be the norm in Democratic debates also. We learn nothing of the candidates by tossing friendly soft balls for the politicians to hit with their well rehearsed talking points.
And for God's sake, can we end this Iowa nonsense. Why do the opinions of a few thousand white folk in the middle of nowhere deserve so much attention?
Yeah, its so stupid and irrelevant that Rush Limbaugh is leading with this story in his first hour today. What does he know about what Republican voters think is important?
Amy's point, which is obviously lost on you two, is that CNN would never do this to democrats.
Fine, CNN is a left-wing media outlet. When the next debates are on Fox News they can get even...happy?
Mark: If I tried to question Hillary at a campaign event I would be removed. But you Dems apparently feel you have the right to interfere in the GOP nominating contest.How typicall arrogant and elitist of you!
Did we find out how this questioner paid for his trip from CA to FL? Did CNN cover the trip? Did Hillay?
How many Republicans were flown in to attend?
What does anyone expect from CNN? It's softballs for Hillary and the kitchen sink tossed at Republicans.
To my knowledge, the "don't ask, don'ttell" issue has NOT been a factor in the GOP nomination process.
Hey Mark: You do the righ thing and demand GOP plants get equal time at the next Dem debate. I double dare you. You'll either be laughed out of the room or lynched by Moveon.org.
It's funny how the left is minimizing this. THESE ARE BILLED AS UNDECIDED REPUBLICAN VOTERS. They are Democrats posing questions to try to put the candidates in an awkward position. That's their whole objective.
At the Dem debates, everything is so completely controlled so the candidates won't have any suprises and challenges.
Based on that, which party seems readier to guide the country, Dems who cannnot operate outside a scripted box or handle spontaneous or difficult questions, or Republicans who politely deal with plants?
Amy: I thought the questions were suppose to be from people who were undecided or had no political affiliation. I do not believe they were suppose to be republicans. That doesn't make much sense to me, but I could be wrong.
And what's wrong with putting an politician in an "awkward position"? If they can't answer a question about gays in the military, how the hell are they suppose to lead the country?
I'm all for republicans hammering Hillary with questions (mostly because I can't stand her!). "Plant" all the republicans you want in a democratic debate - I really could care less.
The point was made earlier that President Bush has gone to great lengths to ensure people at his rallies and events are conservatives. That is well documented. Hillary has done the same and I am sure others have too. It's stupid and we as citizens and voters should not stand for it.
This CNN debate should open all our eyes to the BS we let these politicians get away with. Anyone under the sun, regardless of political background, should be able to ask these candidates whatever they want and have their question answered honestly. We deserve that from the people who are running to lead America.
"And what's wrong with putting an politician in an "awkward position"? If they can't answer a question about gays in the military, how the hell are they suppose to lead the country?
"I'm all for republicans hammering Hillary with questions (mostly because I can't stand her!). "Plant" all the republicans you want in a democratic debate - I really could care less.
"The point was made earlier that President Bush has gone to great lengths to ensure people at his rallies and events are conservatives. That is well documented. Hillary has done the same and I am sure others have too. It's stupid and we as citizens and voters should not stand for it.
"This CNN debate should open all our eyes to the BS we let these politicians get away with. Anyone under the sun, regardless of political background, should be able to ask these candidates whatever they want and have their question answered honestly. We deserve that from the people who are running to lead America."
I agree. I don't mind demanding that GOP plants get equal time at the next Dem debate. Who do I call to lodge my request? I'll do it.
Bru said:
Isn't that precisely the point? These are supporters of individual Democratic candidates. John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Obama supporters. Would you call them undecideds?
And this is a REPUBLICAN debate so REPUBLICANS can narrow down their choices. How many Dems will be voting in Republican caucuses? They can't if they're registered Democrats.
This points toward the inherent dishonesty that resides within the Democratic party. PATHETIC.
I think there was something very strange about Anderson Coopers very harried
statement. He said,
If he didn't know that then how did he know the general was an
activist? On the other hand, if Coopers knew he was an activist, that
why was Coopers participating in the charade that questions were from
undecided voters?
"I agree. I don't mind demanding that GOP plants get equal time at the next Dem debate. Who do I call to lodge my request? I'll do it."
i do mind. the purpose of the primaries is about choosing a candidate to represent the party, and that means both democrats and republican along with any other parties.
it is not about the ability to answer questions of those who can't vote for you, it is about answering the questions of those who are eligible to vote for you that counts. if that would have been a republican who asked the question that would have been fine but it wasn't.
a question from him on that issue should have been asked in the dem's debate or in a debate once candidates were chosen and debating each other in the general election.
i would say though, placing plants like that is a sign of the recognition of weakness on the part of dems and the recognition of the strength of the republican candidates. reason: the whole purpose of planting is to make the persons who answer look bad. this tells me that what the dems say in public contradicts what they are saying or thinking in private.
Mark, Bru, and Grumpy,
The funny thing is, the Republican candidates are willing to subject themselves to some ridiculous questions, and agree to go on networks other than FOX. But when will the Democratic candidates grow a spine and go on FOX?
Has anyone proved that these people were, in fact, Democrat "plants" (by Democrat candidates) rather than individual voters who decided to ask a question?
I haven't seen any proof to back that assertion.
And don't GOP-types trail Dems around the campaign trail and ask questions at most stops? I haven't heard of the Dems doing what the President did last time around and requiring people to sign an oath that they were going to vote Republican before letting them attend some events.
"But when will the Democratic candidates grow a spine and go on FOX?"
The Dems realize that FOX NEWS (or FAUX NEWS, as some wit dubbed it) has the deck stacked against them (some would say unfairly), and they have the low-hangers [*] necessary to walk away from FOX. I presume that when FOX acts as fair and balanced as it claims to be, the DEMS will come running back for the free publicity.
[*] a euphemism for intestinal fortitude; cojones, stones, balls, scrotal presumption, gonads, testicles, manliness [no cracks about Hillary, please! ha ha ha].
Amy said: Wasn’t his premise that soldiers are professional enough to handle gay soldiers? Why did he hide his identity for 43 years then?
Probably because he wanted to continue to serve in the military. Under the current policy he would have been discharged.
I agree CNN should have done a better job of vetting their questions (especially if the person asking the question is officially associated with a particular candidate) but I’m glad this issue was raised. Having served in the military myself I personally do not believe a soldier’s sexual orientation affects their ability to do their job. Nor do I think it affects other soldiers’ ability to do theirs.
Well then, CPT Silke, you know more than Colin Powell and Peter Pace. Homosexual behavior does not belong in combat formations. Kerr hid his identity as a homosexual for only a few years under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - its only been our policy for 14 years, and that old duff has probably been out for that long or longer, so I doubt DADT had much/any affect on him.
The old policy was 100% no homosexual tendencies, conduct, etc.. none. He spent most of his career under THAT policy and apparently was willing to do it. There's a reason for that policy.
Johnny, I don’t know what you mean by “homosexual behavior does not belong in combat formations.” I would say sexual behavior of any kind does not belong in military formations. Soldiers have a right not to be the object of sexual advances by fellow soldiers but that is a conduct issue and has nothing to do with sexual orientation. The British and the Israelis allow gay soldiers to serve – I hope one day we do too.
The Democrats refuse to conduct a debate on Fox network, remember? Nothing has changed there.
As for the rest, I'm of two minds. While I agree with the assessments of the conduct of CNN, I don't agree that the Republican candidates should make much of it, except to point out that they withstood the nonsense.
I believe, we, the public, should voice our outrage long and loud. We are the ones who are being disserviced by this kind of behavior. We are being denied our right to make informed choices between the candidates due to this kind of interference.
Bru, Mark in Irvine, and Grumpy Old Fart, CNN had the choice of what questions were picked along with YouTube. Amy is correct in that it was bad form to allow the General a soap box after his YouTube question was used. In addition, this was a Republican debate for the Republican primaries, in which Democrats, as has already been pointed out and virtually ignored, will not be voting for Republicans. After the primaries, there will be plenty of time for Democrats to ask questions of whichever of the two candidates nominated for the general election.
The debate was a farce long before it aired and CNN is culpable. You'd think with 6 months to plan it, they could have done a better job considering the expertise they claim. That being said, I believe they did the Republican base a favor in the long run. It is no longer the least bit questionable about where CNN stands on national issues or who they support nor the amount of unethical behavior in which they are willing to engage to reach their goals. Americans, real Americans are tired of it.
After this, I wouldn't be so sure that a Democrat will take the White House in '08. I believe this will be one time when saying it over and over will not make it any truer tomorrow than it is today, which is not true at all.
"Amy's point, which is obviously lost on you two, is that CNN would never do this to democrats."
Johnny, it's clear to me that you have put a lot of thought into this and did some exhaustive research before making that post. Perhaps, in your research, you didn't go over the questions asked of Democrats in the CNN/YouTube debate on July 23rd. There were a couple of questions asked that makes me wonder if these questions were posed by Republicans.
Is this the kind of question a partisan Democrat would ask of a Democratic candidate?
How about that one, Johnny? Is that the kind of question that gun-grabbing Democrats ask their Democratic candidates?
Democratic talking point, Johnny?
Democrat?
Johnny, it's clear to many, including a few other folks who have come here, that this is a non-issue. Who cares who the asked the question? It's a good question. I guess it just scrambles your brain having your bigotry shoved in your face in a Republican debate. Instead of dealing with the bigotry, attack the person asking the question. Perhaps it is easier to focus on this issue than dealing with the absurd behaviour of the Republican candidates last night.
This is just silliness. I wish someone had asked: WHY ARE WE STILL IN IRAQ?
Hey Steph, I can't wait to see your post about how outraged you are regarding the unfair treatment of Democrats by CNN.
Somehow I don't think you defend Democrats much.
And lastly, you can SEE all of these questions being asked at the debate. But I imagine that you will deny the questons were ever asked since the information was compiled at Bill Orally's favorite website.
this silly game didn't hurt the candidates, (other than having to go through that horrible intro-song?) just cnn's reputation....... uh, such as it is.....
Silke, I agree that all sexual advances are inappropriate. The moral standard should go across the board no matter what the sexual orientation. Period. It's a military ethic.
You hope gays will be able to serve in the military? They already do. Kerr served for 43 years.
To use Israel or Britian as models of military excellence is inadequate. Israel is not a superpower like the U.S. They don't have bases all over the world in many different countries with many varying religious and cultural surroundings. To have openly gay soldiers serving in Muslim, Far Eastern, or any other country is incredibly problematic. This isn't an issue for Israel. They don't have the influence or geographical influence the U.S. does.
"Openly" means out in the open. How stupid is it to have gay soldiers sleeping together in Kuwait? Iraq? Other countries where our presence is needed but would be offensive at the same time?
As for Britain, you may recall their embarrassing episode with Iran last year. They are not the U.S., I'll just put it that way, so to compare the U.S. to the Brits does them validation they haven't earned.
Colin Powell, GEN Petraeus, etc., all say don't ask/don't tell works. It allows gays to serve without displaying their sexuality openly. I think single hetro soldiers should be held to the same standard.
Mark in Irvine: I almost took you seriously until I read your "Faux News" comment.
Thankfully, I read that comment before I began holding my breath waiting for you to get GOP plants equaltime at the next Dem debate.
Meanwhile, I have taken the opportunity to go meet and question GOP candidates: NY Gov. George Pataki (who decided not to run), Duncan Hunter, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John McCain. All of the above came to events within 15 miles of my home. Neither Hillary, nor Obama or John Edwards have been here that I am aware of.
Seems your Dem candidates are afraid of Fox News and afraid to answer tough questions from the voters. Glad that the GOP candidates are not.
"Thankfully, I read that comment before I began holding my breath waiting for you to get GOP plants equaltime at the next Dem debate."
Mike, prove that he was a plant. The man said he did it on his own accord. Surely you are not going to call a man who served in the military for 43 years a liar.
"Seems your Dem candidates are afraid of Fox News and afraid to answer tough questions from the voters. Glad that the GOP candidates are not."
Good for the Dems. Why reward an opinion network that makes money lying and trashing Democrats?
"Openly" means out in the open. How stupid is it to have gay soldiers sleeping together in Kuwait? Iraq?
Amy, you have been watching to much "Queer As Folk." What study can you refer to that will prove your comment is anything but ignorant?
"this silly game didn't hurt the candidates"
You have got to be kidding. What I saw was a bunch of weenies arguing about who could kick impoverished brown people the hardest and who could bang the Bible the loudest. What a shameful bunch of clowns.
I liked Ron Paul though. Smartest dude on the stage by far.
As usual, Pedro, you can't offer anything to back up your critiques and disagreements. Just name calling.
What do you think "openly gay" in the military means?
The GOP is anything but a bunch of weenies. Substantively, they are heads and shoulders above the DNC bunch. Dems have pre-fabed fluffy questions because they fear to death being caught off guard. It's all about superficial appearance to them. That's why Hillary, when embarrassed two debates ago by Tim Russert, had her staff demand that Wolf Blitzer not pull a Russert and only ask a certain perscribed set of questions.
Wow, that's presidential for ya! So what happens when one of those Dems is president and an unscripted event happens?
Ron Paul certainly has some good points, but he has no idea what he's talking about on Iraq. He is completely unaquainted with basic facts of the war, the strategy and military operations. He was embarrassing on Iraq, but good on abortion and a few other issues. I find him relatively likeable except for his incredible ignorance on Iraq.
"The GOP is anything but a bunch of weenies. Substantively, they are heads and shoulders above the DNC bunch. Dems have pre-fabed fluffy questions because they fear to death being caught off guard. It's all about superficial appearance to them."
Oh puleeeeze, Amy - the titular head of the GOP can't handle a spontaneous question to save his life. Every appearance is scripted and the audience sewn with plants with pre-approved questions. Why, the GOP -Secret Service even forcibly ejects citizens from Bush appearances because they are afraid of spontaneity (and ends up paying damages to those evicted for wrongful arrest or battery or some such thing as a result).
Neither party has a monopoly on this kind of stuff. Besides, this whole thread seems to be more about process rather than substance - the voters, i.e., "we the people", have a right to hear the candidates speak, and we deserve to get spontaneous answers. BTW, some Dems and Reps do switch parties and vote in the other's primaries, so a Dem question is not out of place at a Rep debate, in my view.
Amy, no one is saying gay soldiers should be able to blatantly display their sexual preferences. Again, that is a conduct issue. Professionalism and good military bearing applies to all soldiers. But if the point is that gay soldiers are already serving in the military (and we know that they are) then your argument falls apart. The reality is that they are already in Kuwait and Iraq and they are sleeping in the same quarters where straight soldiers are sleeping. A policy that amounts to pretending they are not isn’t going to change that.
Amy,
If the Republicans weren't failing in so many ways, do you think you and all of the other rightwingers would be out their feigning victimhood over THIS issue? This is kind of like the MoveOn add. When Congress gets back, I imagine the Republicans will act on a resolution to condemn CNN.
And like the MoveOn ad, this latest manufactured outrage is another attempt to have the media focus on irrelevent BS instead of the substantive issue - the debate. Your party has failed to control the Senate. It has failed to control the House. It has lied to the American people over Iraq. It has failed to oversee the executive branch and their abuses of established law and Constitutuional principles. It has failed at domestic policy. It has failed miserably at foreign policy.
But worse than that, it has failed America. George Bush and the Republican party have failed America in ways that will take a generation to recover. The American people are disgusted with the gross incompetence of the Republican party. So instead of dealing with the substantive issues that are a result of all of these issues, you folks will encourage the national debate to be about blaming Democrats for a tough question that was given to Republicans at their debate. Don't you see how silly all of this is?
All you folks have left is your victimhood. All of the tough-talking, ass-kicking, authoritarian BS that has come from Republican hacks for the last 20 years is nothing but a facade for a bunch of scared, incompetent victims. This was shown clearly Wednesday night.
What started as a debate about the "planted" liberals at the GOP debate has turned into a fight about gays in the military...crazy how things take off!
If you ask me the entire caucus system/primaries is a big joke any way. Why do we screw around campaiging in Iowa and New Hampshire for several months to pick a parties nominee? These candidates have visted about 5 states and those 5 states basically say who will run. What a joke! If we are going to have a primary, why doesn't every state vote the same day? And why even have a primary? What we should do is all vote at once for these idiots...whoever gets the most votes wins. We've made this entire process so convoluted. Only in politics would something but so absurd and make such little sense. As American citizens, we should demand something better than this our of a process that is suppose to select our next president.
Bru said: What started as a debate about the "planted" liberals at the GOP debate has turned into a fight about gays in the military...crazy how things take off!
Amy made a comment in her post about Kerr’s remarks. In my mind that opened it up for discussion. Besides, I thought the whole point of those arguing against Amy’s complaints about the “plant” was how this was distracting people from the real substantive issues in the debate. Now you’re saying it’s “crazy” to discuss a real issue?
Amy, Peggy Noonan has an excellent op-ed today you may be interested in that touches on this subject. I think she makes some good points.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
Silke: Great tip. It's short, so I'll quote it here. Thanks!
PEGGY NOONAN
Death, Taxes and Mrs. Clinton
Only two of them are inevitable.
Friday, November 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
I will never forget that breathtaking moment when, in the CNN/YouTube debate earlier this fall, the woman from Ohio held up a picture and said, "Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, this is a human fetus. Given a few more months, it will be a baby you could hold in your arms. You all say you're 'for the children.' I would ask you to look America in the eye and tell us how you can support laws to end this life. Thank you."
They were momentarily nonplussed, then awkwardly struggled to answer, to regain lost high ground. One of them, John Edwards I think, finally criticizing the woman for being "manipulative," using "hot images" and indulging in "the politics of personal destruction." The woman then stood in the audience for her follow up. "I beg your pardon, but the literal politics of personal destruction--of destroying a person--is what you stand for."
Oh, I wish I weren't about to say, "Wait, that didn't happen." For of course it did not. Who of our media masters would allow a question so piercing on such a painful and politically incorrect subject?
I thought of this the other night when citizens who turned out to be partisans for Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards asked the Republicans, in debate, would Jesus support the death penalty, do you believe every word of the Bible, and what does the Confederate flag mean to you?
It was a good debate, feisty and revealing. It's not bad that the questions had a certain spin, and played on stereotypes of the GOP. It's just bad that it doesn't quite happen at Democratic debates. Somehow, there, an obscure restraint sets in on the part of news producers. Too bad. Running for most powerful person in the world is, among other things, an act of startling presumption. They all should be grilled, everyone, both sides. Winter voting approaches; may many chestnuts be roasted on an open fire.
"It's just bad that it doesn't quite happen at Democratic debates."
Johnny, it appears that Noonan does the same exhaustive research that you do prior to expressing victimization of your political leaders.
Perhaps if you and Noonan had paid attention to the first YouTube debate with the Democrats, you would have seen for yourself that Democrats had to deal with as many (if not more) difficult questions than the Republicans.
The difference here, is that only the hyper-sensitive Republicans felt victimized by the ordeal.
Go back and read my first post in the thread and then follow that link to Media Matters I gave you. You will be quickly reminded of the "unfair" treatment that the Democrats received.
PQ:
Before you criticize others for their alleged indolence in research, maybe you'd be better served by actually reading the posts of the people you judge.
Nowhere did I or any of the conservatives in this discussion lament "difficult questions" aimed at candidates from either party.
There is broad consensus here (and I will include Ms. Noonan) that democrats plant ringers in these debates - who could never vote in a Republican primary - and the MSM is at least complicit and at most responsible for the lopsided rules. Hillary even plants "undecided voters" in her own debates with scripted questions.
It is comical that you raise the issue of "difficult questions" when the democrats won't even debate each other on FOX News. Perhaps if you had paid attention to their timid avoidance of a non-fluff ball environment you wouldn't be so quick to look down your nose at GOP bloggers.
"Before you criticize others for their alleged indolence in research, maybe you'd be better served by actually reading the posts of the people you judge."
Johnny, I read you extremely well.
"Nowhere did I or any of the conservatives in this discussion lament "difficult questions" aimed at candidates from either party."
No one lamented "non-fluff ball" until you did it in your last post. Isn't a "non-fluff ball question" the same thing as a "difficult question?"
"There is broad consensus here (and I will include Ms. Noonan) that democrats plant ringers in these debates"
I am not going to call you a liar. I would like to think that you are an honest and decent person, who, like me, consider yourself to be honest and decent. You are angry about how difficult things are in our country now. You are missing the good ol'days of the Conserative Revolution. You wish Terry Schiavo and Hurricane Katrina had never existed, yet you are angry that WMD's hadn't existed.
The lies you are told, and there are just too many to list, have been generated by the usual group of rightwing propagandists. These are the people who get paid a lot of money to make sure you are angry about something. I believe it was you who mentioned Rush Limbaugh in this thread. Is this truth molestor the source of your outrage?
I just don't fully understand how you can believe these lies. In this thread I have provided facts that disprove this latest manufactured outrage. You ignore the evidence that disproves the lies and then proceed to repeat these lies without ever acknowledging the evidence that has been presented to you.
Are you scared that your beliefs and convictions are losing relevency?
Pedro, you should really be careful about preaching motives to people. Oh, and thanks for not calling my husband a liar.
He's not angry, we're telling the truth. Democrats at their debates have questions coordinated/censored by CNN by ALL Democrats, whether in the audience or CNN. That was the scandal of the last Dem debate.
Republicans don't sneak into DEMOCRATIC debates because the big name on the side of the building, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE indicates to us that it's not intended for us.
This isn't rocket science, people. Did anyone notice that the most stupid, touchy-feely, immature and condescending questions were from the plants in the audience? I sure did. You can spot libs a mile away.
*yawn*
Does anyone else reading this traffic hear what PQ refers to as "anger" and "outrage" in any of my comments?
If there is any bellicosity being expressed here Mr. Queso, its coming from you.
And its arrogant of you to put words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. I am thankful 1,000,000 times that precious Terry Schaivo lived. And you ask me if I am scared that my beliefs are "losing relevancy?"
My belief is in the God of Israel and in the Catholic church. I am quite secure in those beliefs.
And you do err, sir, when you conflate fluffball questions with a fluffball environment (which is what I said). CNN = fluffball environs for democrats. FOX News = too challenging. Of course the democrats didn't mind speaking at the Daily Kos ("General Betray us") convention...
This is what the Washington bureau chief and the senior vice president for CNN said this before the debate.
Pedro, you should really be careful about preaching motives to people.
There is not doubt that I have projected my best-guess characterization on him. I would find it hard to believe that you or Johnny have never done this to your opponents.
"He's not angry, we're telling the truth."
Right now you are expressing your faith in these lies.
Democrats at their debates have questions coordinated/censored by CNN by ALL Democrats, whether in the audience or CNN. That was the scandal of the last Dem debate.
I think that "scandal" was about Hillary getting soft treatment in that debate and having James Carville on as a post-debate commentor. Were you equally alarmed at the pounding Hillary took in the previous debate? I bet you enjoyed that one. Didn't ya?
Republicans don't sneak into DEMOCRATIC debates because the big name on the side of the building, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE indicates to us that it's not intended for us."
In a Republic, we should be asking ourselves difficult questions. It appears to me that you are trying to limit the debate. Why shouldn't Republican voters see how their candidates deal with controversial issues? All of these candidates, Democrat or Republican, need to be scrutinized on all of the issues. We should be doing it now. Do not be afraid to see how our candidates handle themselves in a tough situation.
"This isn't rocket science, people. Did anyone notice that the most stupid, touchy-feely, immature and condescending questions were from the plants in the audience? I sure did. You can spot libs a mile away."
It's a conspiracy. It is those libs who you can spot a mile away. They are the ones who are responsible for the failure of Republicans.
Are you scared that your beliefs and convictions are losing relevency?
"Does anyone else reading this traffic hear what PQ refers to as "anger" and "outrage" in any of my comments?"
Johnny, if you are not angry or outraged, why did Amy start this thread? You both speak for each other. I strongly believe that you two are angry and outraged. That's how victims behave.
"And its arrogant of you to put words in my mouth and thoughts in my head."
It is my way of trying to understand why you overlook facts that contradicts someone elses agenda.
"I am thankful 1,000,000 times that precious Terry Schaivo lived."
Do you feel the same way about all of the lives that have been lost in Iraq?
"And you do err, sir, when you conflate fluffball questions with a fluffball environment (which is what I said)."
Well, Johnny, if fluffball questions aren't asked at a debate where questions are a key component, then the debate would probably be something much less of a fluffball enviroment. Surely that logic makes sense to you?
"Of course the democrats didn't mind speaking at the Daily Kos ("General Betray us") convention...
I don't see the problem here. Perhaps you are repeating a manufactured outrage conceived by a talking head on that opinion network that is being justly boycotted.
"This is what the Washington bureau chief and the senior vice president for CNN said this before the debate."
Amy, that is a man who is doing his best to deal with the manufactured outrage. When I entered this thread, I offered examples of difficult questions asked to Democrats in the first YouTube debate. Do you believe that the Democratic Party selected those questions? And if they did, shouldn't they be given kudos for asking themselves difficult questions?
Did the Democrats manufacture outrage toward the Washington bureau chief and the senior vice president for CNN after that debate?
"In a Republic, we should be asking ourselves difficult questions. It appears to me that you are trying to limit the debate."
Right. In a caucas/straw poll in a party nominating process (primaries), the candidates compete for the nomination of their OWN PARTY. You keep filibustering about "difficult/challenging questions" because that's what YOU want to talk about. That is neither the topic of this thread nor a position anyone on here is defending.
The Republican Party primaries are for GOP voters to nominate a candidate for our own party. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?
And if you're all for "challenging questions" from even the opposite political party, please defend the democrat decision to not debate each other on FOX News channel.
" In a caucas/straw poll in a party nominating process (primaries), the candidates compete for the nomination of their OWN PARTY. You keep filibustering about "difficult/challenging questions" because that's what YOU want to talk about. That is neither the topic of this thread nor a position anyone on here is defending.
It doesn't work that way anymore, Johnny. Each party has inserted itself into the debate of the other party. I heard Glenn Beck talking about this newly discovered sacred institution last night. Republicans get to cast the ballots, but everyone gets to participate in the debate. This is one of our nations principles that you put your butt on the line for. Right?
You still haven't acknowledged the hotbutton (do you like that word better?) questions asked of Democratic candidates in the first YouTube debate. Were those questions appropriate? Do you like to see Democrats being asked hotbutton questions? Don't you want to how they handle themselves? Wouldn't you like them to hear them say something that would give you folks something to howl about?
"And if you're all for "challenging questions" from even the opposite political party, please defend the democrat decision to not debate each other on FOX News channel."
I have already addressed this once. The Democrats shouldn't reward an opinion network that profits off of lying about the Democrats? Is there a show or segment on that network that has ever given Democrats favorable treatment?