Another Debate, Another Hillary Plant

If Republicans are going to participate in debates in which questions can be asked by planted Hillary Clinton campaign leaders who are not identified as such, Republicans might as well concede the election now.

At the Republican presidential CNN/You Tube debate last night, CNN allowed a military gay activist in Hillary Clinton's campaign to ask a question and to make follow up comments critical of the Republican candidates, all without ever identifying his association with Clinton's campaign.

The Lesbian, Gay, Transgender Americans for Hillary steering committee member asked whether the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military should be abandoned.  Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr was not identified as having any association with Hillary Clinton's campaign. 

Worse, after the candidates answered his question, Kerr was given the opportunity to claim, inaccurately, that the candidates had not answered his question.  He was then allowed to make a follow-up mini-speech arguing in favor of his own position on the issue.

In addition to reflecting poorly on Hillary Clinton's campaign, this is a major error -- whether intentional or accidental -- by CNN, which was already rightly criticized for not vetting questioners at the last debate.

To his credit, Anderson Cooper acknowledged CNN's mistake immediately after confirming that Kerr is serving on a Clinton campaign steering committee:

At a minimum, CNN was inexcusably sloppy, since a simple Google search quickly reveals Kerr's connection to Clinton's campaign.

Republicans would be wise not to participate in any more debates in which the questions and the follow-up are planned and stage managed by partisans of the Democratic Party and their willing or unwitting accomplices in the broadcast media. If that means that future debates are moderated not by broadcasters, but only by truly neutral bodies completely outside the mainstream media, so be it.

Update:  Kathryn Jean Lopez writes at The Corner of a broader CNN backlash:

I'm getting many e-mails along these lines:

I was absolutely disgusted with what I saw tonight from CNN. Thousands of people submitted questions for this debate; yet, the questions they chose only served to reinforce the stereotype that the average Republican voter is a confederate-flag-waving, gun-toting, bible-brandishing conspiracy theorist! There were staggeringly few questions on National Security, and the few that were asked include some of the substanceless "gotcha" questions which were designed for no other purpose than to induce gaffes. What bothers me most is that CNN's embarassing performance was not out of malice; they genuinely believe that this is what Republicans are like and that these ridiculous questions are what Republican voters want to hear. A bad night for CNN and for the American media generally.

Related:  Several Questioners at Republican Debate Were Democratic Partisans   

Comments

[Philadelphia Steve]

How terrible!

You mean that a Republican candidate had to answer a tough question from someone who was not a Jeff Gannon clone? (If this were Virginia, the questinoers would have to sign a Party Loyalty oath to ask questins).

Itsn't it great that president Bush only answers questions from pre-screen citizens, who already have sworn allegiance to him personally.

I guess this will be the Brave New World that Republicans want for America, where only the party Faithful are permitted to express their opinions.

[BillT]

And they were all..... wait for it.... Americans asking those questions. Whomever our next president is we should hope after 8 hard years of extreme partisanship that they will be president to ALL Americans. And that includes listening to and answering questions from all Americans and not only from preselected "friendly" questioners. Long live Democracy.

[psmarc93]

I'm a democrat, but even I found the selection of questions seemed to stereotype Republicans. Nevertheless, I think the candidates took their answers directly into the concerns of most Republicans -- mainly national security and immigration. The topic of this post, however, is a real knee-slapper. After nearly a decade of pre-screened audiences for most Republican leaders -- visibly throwing out anyone with a different point of view under police escort -- this post seems horrified that their candidates for President should have to answer questions from the opposition.

[MeMeMe]

So what? Yeah, the guy should have disclosed his ties to the Clinton campaign. However, this doesn't change the fact that it was a legitimate question. Why can't candidates ask questions of other candidates anyway? And who cares who is asking the question, so long as it is a good one? Certainly this was a better question than the ones that Wolf or Anderson Cooper usually ask.