Evidence is growing that several of the questioners at last night's CNN/You Tube debate were known partisans who support other Democratic presidential candidates. This in addition to Retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr, who was allowed to ask a question and allowed a lengthy follow-up at the debate without CNN identifying him as a gay activist currently serving on a Hillary Clinton campaign steering committee.
As Michelle Malkin recaps nicely, contributers at Free Republic have quickly learned that an abortion questioner at the debate was a declared John Edwards supporter, a Log Cabin Republican questioner is a declared Barack Obama supporter, and a lead toy questioner is a prominent union activist for the Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers.
No wonder the debate focused heavily on issues that are divisive, and on issues that most Republican voters will not be focused upon in choosing their presidential candidate. The military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, for example, is a compromise instituted by Bill Clinton. Changing that policy to allow openly gay men and women to serve is of current interest primarily to gay activists. Most voters on the right are more concerned about issues of general nationwide importance such as the progress of the Iraq war, the future of social security, the quality of public education, and the like.
The conclusion is inescapable that the agenda for the latest Republican debate was set by partisans on the left, with CNN's willing cooperation.
Needless to say, someone who actively supports a Democratic presidential candidate is not likely to agree that a Republican candidate has ever adequately answered their question at a debate.
When a debate is rigged so that there can be no right answer, it would be better for the candidates not to show up at all.
Update: Fred Barnes at Weekly Standard says the Republican debate almost seems to have been engineered to humiliate all the candidates:
I don't know if the folks who put the debate together were purposely trying to make the Republican candidates look bad, but they certainly succeeded. . . . .
But it was chiefly the questions and who asked them that made the debate so appalling. By my recollection, there were no questions on health care, the economy, trade, the S-chip children's health care issue, the "surge" in Iraq, the spending showdown between President Bush and Congress, terrorist surveillance, or the performance of the Democratic Congress.
Instead there were questions - ones moderator Anderson Cooper kept insisting had required a lot of time and effort by the questioners - on the Confederate flag, Mars, Giuliani's rooting for the Boston Red Sox in the World Series, whether Ron Paul might run as an independent for president, and the Bible. The best response to these questions was Romney's refusal to discuss what the Confederate flag represents. Fred Thompson discussed it.
The most excruciating episode occurred when Cooper allowed a retired general in the audience to drone on with special pleading in favor of allowing gays in the military. This was a setup. The general had asked a question by video, then suddenly appeared in the crowd and got the mike. The aim here could only have been to make the Republican candidates, all of whom oppose gays in the military, squirm. As it turned out, they didn't appear to. The general turns out to be a Clinton supporter, by the way.
By my count, of the 30-plus questions, there were 6 on immigration, 3 on guns, 2 on abortion, 2 on gays, and one on whether the candidates believe every word in the Bible. These are exactly the issues, in the view of liberals and many in the media, on which Republicans look particularly unattractive. And there were two questions by African Americans premised loosely on the notion that blacks get nothing from Republicans and have no reason to vote for them.
These questions would better be asked of Democrats at one of their presidential debates. After all, the biggest news so far at a Democratic debate was when Hillary Clinton muffed a question about illegal immigrants and drivers' licenses.
Jack M., writing at Ace of Spades, responds to another guest blogger who defended the CNN/You Tube debate:
Did I complain about the questions CNN selected? Yes. Maybe you are comfortable having conservatives intentionally portrayed as a sort of Frankenstein's Monster made up of scary end-time evangelicals, trigger happy survivalists, segregation happy racists and John Birch Society members, but I'm not. It is neither a fair depiction, nor an accurate one.
Flip the image. If Fox News had held this debate and portrayed the Dem Candidates as Gaia-Worshipping, Tree Spiking, One-Child Policy Forced Abortionist, NAMBLA members it would have been just as wrong, regardless of what questions they asked. If convicted child-porn enthusiast Gary Glitter pops up showing interest in a Democrat during his YouTube question, the damage has been done regardless of how profound his question on Tax Credits for Renewable energy might be.
. . . . As bothered as I was by the questions (which as they come under even more scrutiny appear to have been specifically designed by Democrats to influence the public perception of who Republicans are and what we stand for), I was just as outraged by the Republican candidates failure to call "bullshit" on the proceedings.
To the extent that there were "victims" on that stage, they were "victims" by choice. While Democrats may be comfortable assuming that role, it was disgusting to watch Republicans pliantly accept it.
. . . .
In fact, Romney made the matter worse. By declaring the Rebel Flag to be so racially divisive it ought not even be seen (with no apparent qualifications), not only did he basically slander a large segment of the South as irredeemable racists, but he did so in a way that validated the little punk who asked the irrelevant question. That punk has since admitted that he wanted to create a wedge issue. Mission Accomplished!
Powerline has an update on yet more committed Democratic voters who asked question at the debate. Were there any genuinely undecided or Republican questioners? We now know that a high percentage of the questions came from persons already strongly committed to Democratic candidates.
Related: Another Debate, Another Hillary Plant
____________________________________
Linked at Salon's Blog Report and in an amusing post at Scrappleface ("CNN to Team With Google for Next GOP Debate").
Commenters, please note this website's Comment Policy in the right column (only selected comments are published) and use a valid e-mail address.
This kind of thing still surprises me!
I think its just the idea that CNN believes they could get away with it without really trying.
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 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
Posted by: Quinn | November 29, 2007 at 10:59 AM