-
Website
http://mashable.com/ -
Original page
http://mashable.com/2007/11/30/youtube-cnn-republican-debate-reflects-poorly-on-new-media/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
People claim to not know where the mainstream muslims are in condemming terrorism or speaking up, well read for yourself, http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrori.... I was so shocked to see this on your blog, I looked around at all the links around it thinking that you were quoting someone else saying this, with no luck.
Please dont recycle junk that people like michelle malkin are spouting, just because an organization stands up for the rights of a law abiding set of the american electorate doesnt mean they have terrorist ties. I'm sorry to say that you have lost this former daily reader.
That anyone is left thinking that CAIR isn't affiliated with terrorism baffles me.
It is entirely possible for an organization to say one thing and covertly do another.
Media bias has been fact for decades.
One thing the media can't do is change the past. Hillary is dragging a ball and chain behind her skirt. Bill Clinton was impeached from the office of Presidency. Has everyone forgotten that? Now, he's getting another shot at the office through his wife.
He lied to the American public and he lied to the court system.
Say what you will, but with her in office, there'll be more panty raids in the White House halls.
What planet are you on that you still care that Clinton was impeached? The lies that Bush & Co. have told the American public far outweigh anything Bill ever did or will do. At least he is not a murderer and a war criminal.
You want it straight? Kucinich or Paul.
The media do NOT have a liberal bias, they have a corporatist bias.
http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/LiberalMedi...
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
I'm not about to call terrorism mainstream for Muslim Americans. To do so would be prejudiced and racist. There is a reason that even the Democrats and prominent Muslims distance themselves from CAIR, and that is it.
Second, and perhaps most importantly, since when does supporting someone disqualify that person from asking a perfectly valid question? Everyone should have the opportunity to ask a question to any or all candidates, regardless of what party they are a part of or regardless of who they support. Be it the Republican Debate or the Democrats Debate.
The fact is, in the end, it doesn't reflect poorly on YouTube at all; in fact, CNN is almost exclusively taking the heat... and they're doing it for every stupid reason I just wrote about. For shame America.
Being employed by opposition party candidates is quite another.
If we wanted to have a small group of insiders sling mud and try to entrap each other, why didn't the democrat candidates themselves post YouTube videos of themselves asking these questions?
Because it served the agenda of the Democrats to make it look like these were issues that mattered to the Republican base, when in fact it only matters to the strongest supporters of the Democrat candidates. CNN (and by proxy, YouTube) were willing participants in this scam.
None of the people on your list are employed by any of the candidates. The closest we have to employment is former inters and "work with Dick Durbin on SS reform".
I'll concede that its poor taste not to disclose where the General endorsed Hillary, but that shouldn't change anything. His question is a valid one, especially concerning Mitt Romney's (yet another) flip-flop position.
We'll just have to disagree though about your last point. I don't feel that the CNN YouTube Debates, or any of the debates on any network, should be about focusing on their party base. I think that, considering many states feature open primaries for independent voters (such as myself), it should be obligatory, even, that they discuss issues that matter to everyone. Any question should be free game.
If you ask me, because the internet is so new, Republicans haven't quite figured out how to "game" the Democrats at it, like they have in traditional media. Republicans time after time run far stronger campaigns and win because of their aggressive tactics. Until they figure out how to use it to their advantage, they'll continue to cry foul at everything that pops up.
Mark, just to be clear, is this your position (that CAIR has "known ties" to terrorists) or were you quoting?
Do a Google search. Or try any of these links:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?A...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/the...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable....
Also, keep in mind we're still in primaries. Let's say a Democrat supporter's candidate doesn't make it, maybe one of the Republican candidates would be the next best pick. I've known Democrats, for example, who'd take McCain over Clinton. So why shouldn't they be asking questions?
Besides, this gives the Republican candidates an opportunity to make converts.
A primary debate is designed so that members of the base can determine which candidate they'll nominate. It is not supposed to be an opportunity for folks of the opposition party to embarrass or create PR disasters for them.
That's because there were none, as a matter of fact, there were Democrat campaign plants in that debate as well!
I guess this is all just a coincidence!
Pete, can we get this poor kid another assignment? I'm beginning to fear for Ann Coulter's personal safety if he isn't given something else to do. Maybe one of those collections of site you put together for us. I've got it, a collection of places where we can get tech and social networking news without getting political viewpoints shoved down our throat.
These topics are very germaine to social media.
Unfortunately for you, I'm not leaving.
I'm a bit unsure on what Ann Coulter has to do with it. Could you explain?
It's not anyone's fault for asking a question. It's CNN's fault for choosing them. And there were some seriously retarded questions. "What do you think of the Confederate Flag?" "Are you still a Yankees fan Giuliani?"
Malkin is just an actress paid by Bill O'Riley. She's about as genuine as lonelygirl15, I don't even think she has a real opinion. Watch any of her heavily scripted YouTube videos and you'll see what I mean.
And by the way, Ron Paul stomped everyone.
Michelle Malkin has actually severed her relationship with O'Reilly and Fox. Not sure exactly why, but if memory serves, it has something to do with Geraldo.
Ron Paul did a decent job over all, but I'm not sure that his strategy of harping on the war positions will win him major support from the Republican base. At least, that wouldn't be my winning strategy.
I hope I'm wrong on that, because I'd like to see him the nominee.
The Yankees question though, was bad.
If I changed the format, I'd let youtube users select a number of questions that had to be asked. That'll help make it an even more open format than it already is.
First, you make no attempt to assess the validity of the questions. They seem to be about abortion, gays, lead in toys, muslims, social security, corn subsidies and black republicans. Are these topics de facto not relevant simply because a democrat asked them? If a republican asked the same questions, would that make them relevant?
Second, you state that the debates are only intended for republicans and thus non-republicans should not participate, either as a questioner or even as audience. What about democrats who may be leaning republican this time? What about independants?
Third, you apparently don't realize that the next president will be the president for all Americans, not just replublicans. Are you saying that the repulbican candidates should have no concerns about the "other" half of the country?
Talk about a "bias" - your's is very clear. Mashable, stick to social networking. If I want political hackery, I'll go to Red Sate or Daily Kos.
If one or maybe at best two of the questioners got past the screeners, you could chalk it up to bad luck or accident.
When one third of the Questioners can be shown to be plants from opposition party, several things happen:
YouTube gets a reputation for being a liberal haven, and nothing else (an unfair assumption).
CNN ends up looking like they were trying to entrap the Republicans.
Republicans candidates end up feeling they can't trust CNN or more importantly, Social Media forums to be receptive to their message.
Resultingly, they'll end up engaging social media less, and thus, engaging the public less. As a result, they'll end up speaking to issues that matter to our demographic less.
I can't believe that I have to spell it out so explicitly for some of you. So many of you are hung up on the fact that there are Democrat and Republican labels involved here that you can't see the bigger picture.
Mark, you can't seem to believe.. are baffled by.. are truly sorry people can't accept the truth.. don't know where people get their information.. etc.
We get it, man. People who disagree with you are stupid and you are continually amazed by it.
Done and done.
Couple headlines from your links:
- Airline: Get discounts by cruising 'gay' pages
- Global Warmists Exploit the Holocaust
I think you need to rethink your claim of being a Libertarian. I feel sorry for you if you read this garbage and interpret as fact. If you're just here to stoke fires, then I say keep writing this garbage and then I'll know to skip over your articles.
Here were the *actual* headlines from the links I posted in the comments.
* A Bad Day for CAIR: an article describing a host of Democratic legislators announcing their discovery of CAIR's terrorist links.
* The curious links of a CAIR doctor who doesn't support terror: an article describing a CAIR member who also happened to be the spiritual leader of HAMAS and the international Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organizations.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, Johnny. I will say this: that an illiterate person ascribes me no credibility couldn't make me happier.
The point is, why does a DECLARED Obama supporter, a person who WORKS FOR a Democrat campaign, etc. give a flying crap about the Republican PRIMARY debate, and what is the point of them asking a question that is a)pointless and b)a question that 95% of the Republican base doesn't care about?
At best, the people who picked the questions are just ignorant, at worst, they knew exactly what they were doing and had an agenda of some sort.
I'm already tired of the 2008 election, and it's 11 months away...
The question asked about gays in the military was a fallacy (composition). It was a badly phrased question. It is absurd to make a big deal about this. They are adults and should be able to answer a question.
It was not a HARD question per say. For Christ sake, just answer it.
We all know that the candidates will not deviate ALL THAT MUCH from each other on question that concern the "Republican" base. Abortion NO. Guns YES. Taxes NO. God IS REAL. Etc... Not that hard to get the answers right. Don't worry Republicans (or Dems), PR hacks will do plenty of testing and come up with the right answers. Your shallow concerns will be fulfilled!!!
The YouTube question only prove how shallow and stupid the American public has become. I am NO populist. Don't leave it to "the people" to ask the questions. Instead, public intellectuals should ask some tough questions.
Maybe have some sort of online Q&A for the mass of idiots. CNN is a disgrace as is Fox News. Not because they are liberal or conservative, rather because they lack journalistic honesty. Sorry, most blogs are as well (A&L Daily is not of course). Don't turn this into an "old" or "new" media debate. That is all a bunch of bull. It does not change the fact that America is turning into an Idiocracy. Wikipedia or YouTube are not helping!!!
Don't worry tech people. The corporations with the most stash of money will buy the policies that will help them earn more profits. That is after all how things work these days.
Your dismal writing skills have been brought to my attention. I expect to see you back in my classroom, bright and early, Monday morning.
Signed,
Your 8th Grade English Teacher
Anyhow, I appreciate how the writer would like to see Ron Paul as the nominee, so I agree with you on that. What I don't agree with is what you said about Dan Rather making that stuff up about bush. Rather was am"bushed" by his network higher ups, whose highest-ups were in bed with the bush puppeteers. That was a shocking experience of criminal spin on the part of whoever orchestrated Rather's demise.
I'm disappointed to hear your words parroting exactly what they fed the dumbed down public.
For all those cry babies who attack the people who asked the question. It is the question that matters, not who asks it.
Where is the outrage that this president not only attacks any type of dissent but wherever he goes, people must sign something that they support him.
Or it could be that the debate questions were billed as open to the public and that the public includes Democrats, just as the Democratic debates included Republicans.
Democrats asking questions in an open format is not "planting" questions, it's "asking" them exactly as the open format is designed to allow.
When you hold public events Democrats show up. This is shocking why exactly?
Here is a question from the Democratic YouTube debate:
"My name is Marcus Benson from Minneapolis. And I'd like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like usually they do when a Democrats gets into office?"
Think that guy was a raging Democrat? I'm guessing no.
Complaining that an open debate was actually open is incoherent. I missed the part where CNN stated all the questioners had to be Republicans, and the previous Democratic debate made it clear that opposition viewpoints would be included.
Let's make them face their enemies, the Democrats too, not just the Republicans.
Why should they even bother to receive questions from supporters for this type of debate? If you are only supposed to have supportive questioners then why not just have a nice town hall meeting instead?
The point is why didn't the Democrats have more difficult questions to answer?
Why didn't you make that complaint during the Democratic party debates? It included multiple questions from "plants." (And by "plants" I mean "people of the opposition party" which you apparently consider "plants" because they disagree with you)
A) I was a writer here at Mashable at the time. I made commentary similar to this on my podcast after the dem debate....
B) If the Republican questioners were actually employed by Republican candidates, were masquerading as something they weren't, or were actual plants. They weren't, and these were.
C) If the bulk of the questions catered to the Republican base as opposed to the Democrat base at the Dem Primary debate. They didn't. In fact, most were the same or similar question asked at the Republican debate.
I knew CNN would dork it up. But YouTube, too? Sorry, I'm a little tired of the "after the fact" Excuseniks who say "the Devil (CNN) made me do it," if that it is the prevailing line. If I operated YouTube, and the quality were beneath my standards, I'd protest or just walk away. Of course, actors do this often when the script stinks or the director's an arse.
The real "victim" in this thing is the American voter, regardless of who he/she supports. All of the debates, and I have seen nearly all the Republican and Democratic debates, have been greatly flawed for many reasons. At the top of the heap are piss-poor moderators, too much focus on "party" favorites, unfairly targeted questions, and runaway blowhards.
Perhaps it is time for the tech community to host its own debate, according to rules that the on-line community can agree on (worth a shot, anyway). If one or two candidates show up, forget the rest--I don't want to hear from them anyway.
Suddenly, it isn't ideas that decide candidates, it's what "juicy" stuff happens right before the vote. The race is becoming like a tabloid, with fake drama and everything.
Oh how DARE they have to answer hard questions?!?!?! DOn't you want your president to be able to answer hard questions? Are you people stupid? IF there are easy questions that we can ask the republican candidates, that show their obvious flaws... why the hell are you standing up for them in the first place? Do you want a weak leader who can't take the spotlight? The guy deciding whether to push the button can't even answer a question about gay marriage? (lol)
The weak defending the weak, what a sad state the Republican has dissipated into. The ultimate hypocrite party. They do all the wrongs but parade religion as if that will fix everything. They try to tell people that republicans have values... when the whole conservative agenda only serves the purpose of making and keeping old money. The rich keep getting richer and the poor proletariat embraces the ideas of republicans because they think that's how they will get the American dream. What a beautiful propaganda campaign the republicans have run since reagan.... now we are slowly starting to see the inherent hate of the republican mantra. I don't understand how people can't see the party for the hate it supports, the caste system it is attempting to create and all the rights it wants for itself but not for it's opponents.
You would have argued that CNN has a liberal bias because it allowed Republicans to ask questions? That's odd to say the least. Do you just claim that CNN has a liberal bias no matter what they do?
"If the Republican questioners were actually employed by Republican candidates, were masquerading as something they weren't, or were actual plants."
You don't seem to know what the word "plant" means. It doesn't mean "someone I disagree with" or "someone affiliated with someone I don't like" or "someone not a Republican."
In the Democratic debates the Democrats were asked questions from people with clear Republican biases. By your definition those people would be "plants" and are masquerading as something they weren't.
Here are some questions for you: Can you produce the contract where the Republicans and CNN agreed to screen out Democrats? Can you provide any documentation whatsoever that CNN implied anything about the screening process at all, or even that it had one? Can you enumerate what the goals of the screening process were, and how CNN violated them?
CNN never stated or implied that Democratic questions were not allowed. The entire point of the YouTube debates is that the general public can pose questions. The general public includes Democrats.
Show me where CNN agreed to screen out Obama supporters.
You seem very confused about what allowing questions from the general public means. Do you know that in fact every American is part of the general public or do you use some sort of pet alternate meaning that includes only Republicans?
Don't extend an open invitation then complain about the guest list.
Your complaint, if I may summarize it accurately, is that CNN has a liberal bias because it allowed the general public to ask questions in a debate, exactly as it said it would, and that the general public includes liberals.
What actually *would* be unethical would be for CNN to screen out liberals from an open forum.
A plant, in this context, means someone who was put in the running and selected by a favorable vetting system employed by the opposition party. I don't care if they came from the Green, Reform or Communist party. It would still be unethical for an opponent to place employees in the race to shape the debate. And it would still be unethical for the vetting process to seek out and select those same individuals.
Instead of answering your irrelevant questions, I'll refer you back to your local community college's courses on ethics and journalism. They should be able to provide the answers you seek.
Michelle Malkin is Ann Coulter light, yet she gets a mention as if she is some sort of real journalist.
Dan Rather's circumstances are a bit less black and white than they seem, considering some of the shocking details made apparent in his lawsuit against the network.
Furthermore, you dismiss many of the questions to the candidates as somehow invalid because there were democrat 'plants' in the audience. 'Plants' plural? There was one guy who had been asked to answer some questions for a commission in Hillary's campaign that HASN'T EVEN FORMED yet and he has never been paid. Other than that, there's nothing. No more evidence of 'plants'.
Do your freaking research. You look like such a fool.
At this point all those polls are meaningless but picking the one poll that says Republicans will win while ignoring all the ones that say Democrats will win is another example of clear bias by the author.
If I want Hot Air I'll read Hot Air.
Hanging onto this discredited point for dear life aren't you? There was one 'supposed' plant by your definition--an openly gay man who has served honorably in the military for 50 years. He was asked by the Clinton campaign to advise on a commission sometime in the future. He is not an employee of her campaign as you keep suggesting. And you have no evidence whatsoever that he was put into the debate by the Clinton campaign.
The reality is that it was a guy with a real reason to be politically active, real passion for his cause, and real credibility to pursue. Who wouldn't have chosen his question among all the others? Was it any worse than the 'Do you believe every word of this book?'? No. It was head and shoulders above that.
The case for your conclusion is weak and it has unraveled. Give it up. Learn from your mistakes. Don't preach to people about journalism when you have demonstrated yourself as a failure in that respect.
You can't define what a "plant" is and you can't prove that CNN agreed to screen out Democrats. Your idea of "screening appropriately" is screening in a way that pleases you personally, as if that is what CNN agreed to do.
In fact, CNN/YouTube invited *anyone* from the general public to submit questions, which rules out screening based on party affiliation.
You are complaining that "anyone" includes people who disagree with you. That's a nonsensical complaint.
Again, your complaint is that in a debate where anyone can submit questions some Democrats submitted questions. Have I got that right?
Do you work for CNN or YouTube? I have to wonder. The only reason you could be this intentionally obtuse is if you couldn't read what I wrote, or you worked for the PR departments of CNN or YouTube.
I'm curious, which is the only reason I continue to respond, exactly how functionally illiterate you can pretend to be.
The primarys are party elections in a supermajority of states, yes there are some outliers which allow open primaries, and frankly, those primaries aren't weighted very heavily in the selection process at the convention. The primary election season is a time when party members vet their candidates within (key word there) their party. Meaning that they should be a relatively "closed" system, to allow the Republicans to select Republicans and Democrats to select Democrats.
Now let's talk about these two CNN/YouTube primary debates. First, the Dem debate. At that debate, it's already been demonstrated that democrat activists, campaign staffers and volunteers were presented as ordinary "undecided" Democrat voters, if that's how the Democrats want to run their debate, then fine, thats their perogative. The questioners from the Democrat debate were analyzed after the fact, and to date, no one has found any partisan Republicans portraying themselves as Democrats in that debate. If someone can produce evidence that this is not the case, please do so.
Now CNN presented this debate to the Republicans as a venue for Republicans to ask Republicans questions via YouTube, that's what the producer promised the Republican party (just as he did the democrat party). However, in this debate, CNN selected questioners who were serving as Co-Chair of an organization which as already endorsed Hillary, and further, this individual actually sits on one of Hillary's steering committee (CNN identified this person as an "undecided republican", which was untrue and easily found out by the first results page of a simple Google search). Also, CNN allowed a volunteer for Bill Richardson to portray himself as a Ron Paul Republican (which also could have been found out by simply looking at his other YouTube videos), CNN also presented another "undecided Republican" who was actually a Democrat employeed by Democrat Senator Dick Durbin, they also presented an "undecided Republican" who has and still endorses John Edwards, another "undecided Republican" was a Democrat raising money for Barack Obama, another was the wife of a Union Official who is endorsing Hillary.
There's more, like a former intern for Jane Harman, etc. The point is that these people were mis-represented to the extreme.
The Republicans should be allowed to have their PRIMARY debates without CNN assisting in the masquerade of Democrat activists portraying Republicans. Just like the Democrats should be able to hold their PRIMARY debates free form clandestine Republicans impersonating Democrats (which so far is how it's been going down).
Sure there is a time and a place for free-for-all questioning from any and all comers, but the PRIMARY is not the place or time for it. The Primaries are supposed to be for the parties to caucus amonst themselves to select the person they think best represents them.
This isn't about free speech, this isn't about the right of Democrats to ask Republican candidates questions, this is about the primaries where the respective parties should be allowed to conduct their primaries without interference from the other party, and CERTAINLY not assisted by news organizations claiming to be playing the role of unbiased moderator.
Finally, let me just point out that in a Republican PRIMARY debate, a Hillary campaign committee member was flown across the country on Googles dime (which may actually turn out to be an illegal in-kind campaign donation) and this Hillary campaign official was handed a mike and allowed to filibuster for an amount of time GREATER than that was allowed for 2 of the Republican candidates to speak.
If any of you think that's fair and appropriate for a PRIMARY debate, then I think you need to familiarize yourself with our primary/general election system and do so objectively, because you're seriously off the mark.
Did Anderson Cooper REALLY say "Here's an undecided Republican with a question for X, Y, or Z?" I think its a bit of a stretch to just say that CNN said they were all undecided Republicans. Now, I may be wrong. They may have said something at the beginning of the broadcast that I didn't catch. But that still doesn't make a difference for me.
There are two philosophies here. Some of us feel that the debate should be open to anyone and that all questions are valid. Some of us feel that it should be closed, only to part members, and maybe even limited to undecideds. I think the latter is a very bad move, but to each their own.
Wow, I listen to the pablum that is spewed by both "sides" and I can't believe we are all (or at least most of us) supposedly brothers and sisters who call ourselves Americans. I hear what folks from "the other side of the isle" have to say and I can't help but ask myself "Do I misunderstand them as much as they obviously misunderstand me?". How quickly we forget the unity we had on September 12, 2001. Grow up people...
With all due respect, you simply do not understand the primary process.
You may see two philosophies here, and by here, you seem to suggest this site/thread, but what the philosophies here are is immaterial. The reality is that the PRIMARIES are for the respective Parties to select their candidate, the general election is where left and right, Democrats v. Republicans duke it out.
Just because you may "want" the primaries to be an open free for all, doesn't change the historical foundational theory and practice of the PRIMARY process. The primaries are for the parties, and the general election is for everyone.
I'll also I'll point out that you are wrong about:
"Did Anderson Cooper REALLY say "Here's an undecided Republican with a question for X, Y, or Z?" I think its a bit of a stretch to just say that CNN said they were all undecided Republicans. Now, I may be wrong. They may have said something at the beginning of the broadcast that I didn't catch. But that still doesn't make a difference for me. "
CNN did in fact assure the Republican party of Florida and the Republican candidates taht this was to be a debate for and with Republicans only, which is why the operatives discovered were LYING ABOUT THEIR AFFILIATION in their videos. Your right, Anderson Cooper did not say at the beginning of the debate that each questioner would be an "undecided Republican. HOWEVER, CNN producers and management did say that they would limit questions to Republicans. THEY EITHER LIED (like the found operatives did) OR THEY ARE GROSSLY INCOMPETANT and given the history of these debates, there's more evidence of the former.
Whether or not it makes a difference to you is immaterial, there were fundamental misrepresentations made by CNN and the discovered questioners and that is simply unacceptable.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the primary process as it has existed for decades and no amount of Bush Derangement Syndrome or general Republican Derangement Syndrome excuses the gross misrepresentations of CNN and the outright LIES of the questioners discovered.
The PRIMARIES are for the parties and the GENERAL is for everyone, that's the system that's been in place for much longer than you've been alive and for much longer than CNN as been in operation, and it's not your place or theirs to unilaterally change this process and it's certainly not within the portfolio of CNN to assure the Republican party of an above board primary debate on then to allow a Clinton Campaign Steering Committee member and co-chari of VoteVets to filibuster for an amount of time that was greater than the amount of time allocated for 2 of the Republican Candidates.
You have made a fundamental error in your interpretation of what the PRIMARY ELECTION period is all about.
I will further sugges that you aren't being intellectually honest about your desire to see a free-for-all primary. I suggest that your desire to excuse the questioners outright deception is a reflection of your political bias against republicans.
I highly doubt that if information were to surface that Karl Rove had his wife misrepresent herself as an "undecided democrat" and then ask Hillary about Mary Mahoney, that you'd be saying today that it was a fair question and that there would be no issue to take the moderators to task on.
I also doubt that if a staffer of Mitt Romney were to attempt to hide his party affiliation and claimed himself to be an "undecided Democrat" and then presented Senator Obama with a "when did you decide to stop beating your wife" kind of question that you would call that acceptable and above board.
The move for greater transparency in politics is a noble one, I find it greatly disturbing that some here would suggest that misrepresentation and outright lies on the part of CNN and the questioners is an acceptable and desirable political practice.
Your point is discredited because you keep using words like 'plant' that are completely inappropriate. You fail to justify the term being used. Wow, people who were politically active took the time to make a Youtube video asking candidates questions that were relevant to Americans. Real surprising.
And how do you define 'employees'? None of the questioners have been shown to be 'employees' of any campaign.
So, you're making a ridiculous stretch to prove an already weak point. JAS is just trying to back you up with all he can, but all he's got is that there is some 'historical foundational theory and practice of the PRIMARY process' that says 'No QUESTIONS from the other side'. That is just laughably bogus. The primary system is enforced by the fact the if you register with another party, you can't VOTE in the primary. VOTE. VOTE. VOTE. VOTE. VOTE.
There's nothing about 'asking questions'. This thread just goes to show that if you keep reiterating an absurdly stupid case over and over and over, people out there will buy into it. Shame on you.
If you work for someone, say Democrat Senator Dick Durbin, and you accept money from said Senator, the Senator is your employer and you are his employee.
You can try to split hairs and say that this individual is a consultant, because he got a 1099 instead of a W-2, but for simplicity's sake, you're an employee.
Actually, CNN did say that they would limit questions to Republicans, they said that to the candiadates, they said it to the Florida Party and the National Party.
The primaries are for the parties to select their candidate and the general election is for the populace to select the winner.
"Plant" is the word that was used to describe Kerr, the other individuals are simply more manifestations of the same theme. Those that are discussing it are using the term to describe those individuals who misrepresented their credentials, it is being applied to those who acted on their own accord to misrepresent themselves and it's used to describe those who actively work for Democrat campaigns, organizations and individuals.
Play the word game all you want, but the system is the system and CNN's misrepresentations are now well documented, but in the contracts with the Party, the agreements with the candidates and their own statements to the media.
Your obfuscating the points by saying that these people were merely "politically active" when in point of fact, they are members of Democrat campaigns, employees for Democrat organizations and officials and individuals who have publically endorsed Democrat campaigns. This is more than being "politically active" it's being "active within specific Democrat campaigns and organizations", who, no matter how you look at it, have no place in a Republican Primary debate.
Save it for the general.
How bout a just a little intellectual honesty, anonymous. Stop asking what the definition of "is" is, it's foolish.
Yes, that is your pet definition that you made up on the spot, rather than the definition that CNN agreed to. My pet definition of "screening appropriately" is screening out softball questions designed to allow candidates to pander - so can I argue that CNN has a Republican bias?
The general is not an employee of Clinton anyway. Fact check much?
Furthermore employees of opponents are members of the general public and Americans, same as anyone else.
Keep trying.
---
"At that debate, it's already been demonstrated that democrat activists, campaign staffers and volunteers were presented as ordinary "undecided" Democrat voters, if that's how the Democrats want to run their debate, then fine, thats their perogative."
Is it really shocking to you that people who take the time to submit questions to YouTube are politically active?
The idea that the people asking the questions have to be "ordinary undecided" voters is something you invented, it has nothing to do with the formal terms of the debate. Your definition of "ordinary" is moronic -- only people disengaged from the political process are ordinary?
Most "ordinary" people who take the time to post videos to YouTube are going to be politically active.
"If any of you think that's fair and appropriate for a PRIMARY debate, then I think you need to familiarize yourself with our primary/general election system and do so objectively, because you're seriously off the mark."
Then make those the rules.
This is the part you are missing. If you want the questions to only come from Republican then MAKE THOSE THE RULES UP FRONT.
You didn't do that. Only retroactively do you pretend that those *should* have been the rules, even though they weren't. The rules did not exclude Democrats, and the advertising extended an open invitation to everyone.
I'm not going to argue that the questions made sense for a primary debate. Then again, "Do you prefer diamonds or pearls" doesn't make sense in any debate. "Are you going to raise taxes like Democrats always do" doesn't make sense in a Democratic debate.
To say that the debates were stupid and useless is a very legitimate complaint: they were. But you don't get to invent rules after the fact, then complain that they were broken when nobody agreed to them in the first place.
Let me spell this out again, as clearly as possible:
If the primary debates can only include questions from undecideds from that party, make that part of the rules.
Proof in writing please?
""Plant" is the word that was used to describe Kerr, the other individuals are simply more manifestations of the same theme."
Yes, that is the word you use, the point is you use it incorrectly.
The debate format was such that anyone could submit questions. The general qualifies as part of anyone. The rules did not say that questions had to come from Republicans, and he did not pretend to be a Republican. All he "pretended" to be is someone who submitted a question to YouTube.
You don't get to invent pet rules for a debate or pet definitions for words. The guy did not pretend to be a Republican and to my knowledge there were no rules that question askers had to disclose their political affiliations or sign a loyalty oath.
Conspicuously missing from your arguments is the text of the actual rules and the contract between CNN and the debate comission that shows that only Republicans were allowed to submit questions.
If you have proof of that, please post it. Otherwise please stop whining about rules you wholly invented.
You claim it is "well documented" but provided zero documentation.
All you have to do is post a link to the part of the contract where it states that only Republicans can ask questions. Should be easy since it's so well-documented.
Imagine if the tables were turned - if was a Democrat Primary debate on Fox News, and 30% of the questions came from avowed supporters of Republican candidates.
I think a lot of the immature posters here trying to defend CNN and YouTube would be the first to complain.
30 seconds says it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mALpnSTGAQs
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/29/cnn-produ...
“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.â€â€¦
We can play this game forever, the facts are solidly on my side.
A very simple question.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/s...
'"There are quite a few things you might describe as Democratic 'gotchas,' and we are weeding those out." CNN wants to ensure that next Wednesday’s Republican event is “a debate of their party.†'
That's what hotair.com quoted. But apparently they missed the bit just above it:
"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."
Their entire vetting process appeared to be about vetting the questions themselves, without regard to the identity of the questions. I think that's entirely fair.
I see nothing here about promising to disqualify questions from Democrat supporters, or from people who might be thinking about voting Democrat, or from a person who might have had expressed a positive opinion about a Democrat sometime last year, or however Mark is defining the phrase "Democratic plant" to mean. There is no evidence that CNN was going to disqualify questions based on party affiliation if they believed that the question was a fair one to ask of a Republican candidate.
So I believe Margalis is right, and Jas is wrong.
What part of deliberate misrepresentations do you not understand. Kerr identified himself to CNN as an "undecided Republican" when in fact he was a "techincal independent" who A) served on the campaign of Hillary Clinton in an advisory capacity B)officially endorsed Clinton personally and officially through VoteVets C)raised soft money for Clinton via VoteVets.
CNN via Anderson Cooper even ADMITTED that Kerr's involvement as a committee member for Clinton was misrepresented and wrong, so much so that they edited out his comment. They did this because they were caught red-handed live on air by Bill Bennett. They even edited out his comments in later re-broadcasts.
This would have gone a long way to make things right had some very key things not happened, like:
1. A simple google search would have revealed Kerr's position on the first page of results, apparently CNN wasted over $300,000 on Kerr and no one bothered to vet his claims? They state that they didn't know who he was beyond his status as Gen., YET, he's been on the network before. He was DEFINATELY not an appropriate questioner, and he certainly should not have been given more air-time than 2 of the candidates. Discovering Kerr's relationship took even less time than he had on mike in the debate. That's simply inappropriate in a major way when you're supposedly trying to guarantee "a debate of their (key word there) party".
2. If some of the other questioners hadn't had directly contradictory commentary on their own YouTube pages, CNN might have been able to state that they didn't realize what they were doing.
3. If the numerical scope of inappropriate questioners was less, one might even begin to chalk it up to "fair" but as it stands over 30% of the questioners were Democrat activists, employees, campaign officials or declared supporters and volunteers/fundraisers. It should be noted that the number of Republican activists, employees, campaign officials and declared supporters/volunteers in the Dem CNN debate was precisely ZERO.
This was a primary debate. Not a general debate. The only way it could be called "fair" is if there were any similarities in the nature of the questions and questioners in the Dem debater was similar it was not.
Oh yeah, there was one similarity. In the CNN dem debate, they also misrepresented questioners as "undecided Democrats" who were actually activists with declared endorsements and officials from Democrat organizations who were officially supporting a Dem candidate, they also gave false names for a least one of the questioners which made discovery of her link to a campaign a bit more difficult but not impossible.
So yeah, CNN did make some attempt at fairness by including activists/employees/campaign officials and volunteers with declared support. Only problem is that they did this with Dem supporters questioning Dems in one debate and Dem supporters questioning Republicans in another.
You can say things like "appears to be" and "seems" but the facts are easy to see. CNN even admitted their error and scrubbed parts of the debate, yet people here are still claiming that Kerr was a legitimate questioner.
I will state flat out that some of you are simply being intellectually dishonest with your claims of "fairness" and I suggest you are doing so because of partisan means.
Is there ANYONE here who can, with a straight face say that if Karl Rove's wife (without identifying her as such) asked Clinton questions at the debate that they would consider that "fair"? Is there anyone here that would suggest that if an NRA official and campaign official (without disclosure of either) for Romney asked Obama about gun control that you would consider it fair?
Primaries are for the parties, the General is for populace at large.