Dems/ CNN guilty of what they accuse GOP/ FOX of being.

[AFTiger 282]

[AURaptor 1,126]

[Tiger Al 0]

The format was as I stated, which is why CNN apologized for screwing things up in the first place. They admitted the Brig General wouldn't have been flown down, had hey known who he was. Same goes w/ about half a dozen others.

No...CNN "apologized" for not knowing Kerr had been on a Clinton steering committee that focused on gays and the military. They admitted that they would've used a similar question from someone else. I would tend to blame Kerr for not fully disclosing that he had worked on a candidates, any candidates, steering committee when it became obvious that his question was going to be used and he was going to be in the audience.

You're still trying to force a square peg into a round hole with the debate format. Please show me where CNN or youtube has said that their format was only for "undecided, republican leaning voters" as you keep insisting. I've looked and can't find your description of it anywhere. As I posted earlier from the CNN/youtube announcement, THEY said it was open to "ordinary voters" with a question. The Heritage Foundation (I assume you know of them) said they didn't want the candidates to be given all easy questions. They wanted the candidates to answer questions from the left and the right. The Democrats answered hard questions in their debate, why can't the republicans?

Should CNN have known who Kerr was? I don't know. If they did know, they should've either acknowledged that or not used him at all. They've admitted as much. The full article you posted a snippet from:

CNN is calling its Republican presidential debate a roaring success, despite a flap over one on-air questioner who turned out to be an adviser to Hillary Clinton.

"The realty is, the questions are the heart of the debate, and the questions were great," said David Bohrman, CNN's Washington bureau chief, who produced the debate. "The answers, by and large, were great, too."

Even so, CNN was caught by surprise when one participant in the open-forum event turned out to be a member of a steering committee of gays and lesbians for Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

During the CNN/YouTube Debate, aired Wednesday from St. Petersburg, Fla., Keith Kerr of Santa Rosa, Calif., a retired Army colonel who served as a brigadier general in the reserves, asked the eight candidates about their views on gays in the military, and identified himself as gay.

In response, Republican candidates Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Duncan Hunter all said they supported the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Kerr's connection to Democratic hopeful Clinton came to light later in the evening when Bill Bennett, the conservative author who is also a CNN contributor, raised the issue in a post-debate discussion with moderator Anderson Cooper.

Cooper acknowledged he had not known of the connection.

Kerr's appearance quickly became a topic on the blogosphere, and in particular on a number of conservative Web sites, which lambasted CNN for including him.

Kerr was one of 5,000 people who submitted videotaped questions through YouTube, and was among a handful invited to be part of the audience, where he was given the chance to ask debaters in person, "Why you think American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians?"

On a subsequent interview on CNN, Kerr said he had done no work for the Clinton campaign.

Bohrman said on Friday that, in checking Kerr's background, CNN had verified his military experience, and determined through Federal Election Commission records that he had contributed no money to any political campaign.

"We thought a question on this topic would not be inappropriate," said Bohrman, "and who better to ask it than a real general who was out as a gay and had not given any political contributions?"

But had CNN known beforehand of Kerr's Clinton connection, he would have been passed over in favor of someone else with a similar question, Bohrman added.

"I wish we had known," he said.

He said the network's primary goal in vetting questions had been to avoid "obvious Democratic `gotcha' questions" and fact-check any statements contained within the questions. He described the CNN/YouTube format as a learning process.

CNN first teamed with YouTube last July for a Democratic debate similarly using citizen-submitted videotaped questions. Wednesday's Republican followup attracted more than 4.4 million viewers, which CNN called the most-watched primary debate ever on a cable news network.

I'm still not sure what was wrong with his question, though. How did his question qualify as a "gotcha" question as you seem to imply?

[Tiger Al 0]

The list of Democrat operatives at the two debates has been documented in many sources . Who were the Republican operatives at the CNN debates?

TigerAL, you can get as personal as you want but the fact is CNN should never be allowed to do these debates again. They are simply not trustworthy.

You shouldn't get offended. Your problem is that in the absence of facts you make them up. In the presence of facts you stubbornly continue to prop up your own erroneous arguments. This is a habitual tendency for you. You listed several important topics that you claimed weren't discussed. They were. I showed them to you. You made several other statements supposedly based on fact. These "facts" are based on assumptions rather than actual facts. You evidently didn't see this debate nor did you venture to find out anything about it other than what Michelle Malkin said about it. If, however, you did see it, then you flat-out lied about the questions that weren't asked and assumed no one else knew any more than you did. These were your statements from earlier:

1. Many of the question were provocative and were deleberately planted by Demcorat operatives in a supposedly "undecided" voter format. I have no problem with hard questions but don't lie to me about your background or your motives.

The questions should be 'provocative' and the format wasn't advertised as being "undecided."

2. The selection of questions from "conservative" voters were characatures of gun-toten red necks or bible thumpers which reflected CNN's twisted view of conseres.

Which questions? Was CNN presenting a caricature when they aired a question about global warming asked by a snowman during the Democratic debate?

3. CNN is in the Democrats (especially Hillary Clinton) camp by they way they conduct the pampered questioning of Democrats versus the attacks on the Republican candidates. CNN showed the double standard so dearly loved by liberals, the rules of fair play just do not aplly to them.

How were the Democrats pampered any more or less than the republicans? They were asked tough questions as well as easy ones. Same holds true for the republican debate.

4. Not one question carried the disussion of the future of this country forward but centered on petty issues desigened to ridicule the conservative viewpoint. No questions on the economy, no questions on post Iraq security, no questions on immigration. CNN acted more as PT Barnum and conducted a circus.

This is either ignorance or lying. You feel free to tell me which.

You keep parroting this 'list of Democrat operatives.' Who are they? Kerr is the only person who could be considered an 'operative' and that's only because he was on a steering committee whose purpose was to aid a candidate in formulating a policy. This doesn't require him to support that candidate. Before it's over, he may be on multiple candidates' (Democrat, republican or otherwise) steering committees for that same purpose. I'm sure you know this, though, if you follow politics. If CNN knew about this they should've said so or not used his question.

But, what was wrong with his question? What was wrong with any of the questions? Since you probably don't know what they were, here's a LINK to the ones that were asked.

[AFTiger 282]

The list of Democrat operatives at the two debates has been documented in many sources . Who were the Republican operatives at the CNN debates?

TigerAL, you can get as personal as you want but the fact is CNN should never be allowed to do these debates again. They are simply not trustworthy.

You shouldn't get offended. Your problem is that in the absence of facts you make them up. In the presence of facts you stubbornly continue to prop up your own erroneous arguments. This is a habitual tendency for you. You listed several important topics that you claimed weren't discussed. They were. I showed them to you. You made several other statements supposedly based on fact. These "facts" are based on assumptions rather than actual facts. You evidently didn't see this debate nor did you venture to find out anything about it other than what Michelle Malkin said about it. If, however, you did see it, then you flat-out lied about the questions that weren't asked and assumed no one else knew any more than you did. These were your statements from earlier:

1. Many of the question were provocative and were deleberately planted by Demcorat operatives in a supposedly "undecided" voter format. I have no problem with hard questions but don't lie to me about your background or your motives.

The questions should be 'provocative' and the format wasn't advertised as being "undecided."

Never said questions should not be hard. I think questions to Democrats should be equally provocative. They have not been

2. The selection of questions from "conservative" voters were characatures of gun-toten red necks or bible thumpers which reflected CNN's twisted view of conseres.

Which questions? Was CNN presenting a caricature when they aired a question about global warming asked by a snowman during the Democratic debate?

yes it was a caracture. In the GOP debate. 1, How many guns do you own. 2. Tuition rates are set by colleges not Presidents. 3. Lead laced toys from a union activist. 4. More gun questions 5. What would Jesus do? 6. Do you believe every word in the Bible? 6. Stars and Bars etc

3. CNN is in the Democrats (especially Hillary Clinton) camp by they way they conduct the pampered questioning of Democrats versus the attacks on the Republican candidates. CNN showed the double standard so dearly loved by liberals, the rules of fair play just do not aplly to them.

How were the Democrats pampered any more or less than the republicans? They were asked tough questions as well as easy ones. Same holds true for the republican debate.

Pearls or Diamonds

4. Not one question carried the disussion of the future of this country forward but centered on petty issues desigened to ridicule the conservative viewpoint. No questions on the economy, no questions on post Iraq security, no questions on immigration. CNN acted more as PT Barnum and conducted a circus.

This is either ignorance or lying. You feel free to tell me which.

You keep parroting this 'list of Democrat operatives.' Who are they? Kerr is the only person who could be considered an 'operative' and that's only because he was on a steering committee whose purpose was to aid a candidate in formulating a policy. This doesn't require him to support that candidate. Before it's over, he may be on multiple candidates' (Democrat, republican or otherwise) steering committees for that same purpose. I'm sure you know this, though, if you follow politics. If CNN knew about this they should've said so or not used his question.

IF any more political plants turn up at CNN’s presidential debates, the cable-news network will have to merge with the Home and Garden channel.

At CNN’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas two weeks back, moderator Wolf Blitzer introduced several citizen questioners as “ordinary people, undecided voters.” But they later turned out to include a former Arkansas Democratic director of political affairs, the president of the Islamic Society of Nevada and a far left anti-war activist who’d been quoted in newspapers lambasting Harry Reid for his failure to pull out of Iraq.

Yet CNN failed to disclose those affiliations and activism during the broadcast.

Behold - the phony political foliage bloomed again at Wednesday night’s much hyped CNN/YouTube GOP debate.

Oh, CNN did make careful note that Grover Norquist (who asked about his anti-tax pledge) is a Republican activist with Americans for Tax Reform. But somehow the network’s layers and layers of fact-checkers missed several easily identified Democratic activists posing as ordinary, undecided citizens.

The tallest plant was a retired gay vet, one “Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr,” who questioned - or rather, lectured - the candidates on video and in person about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that bans open gays from the military.

Funny. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was exactly the policy CNN adopted in not telling viewers that Kerr is a member of Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual- Transgender Americans for Hillary.

Sen. Clinton’s campaign Web site features a press release announcing Kerr and other members of the committee in June. And a basic Web search turns up Kerr’s past support as a member of a veterans’ steering committee for the John Kerry for President campaign - and his prior appearance on CNN in December ‘03.

CNN’s moderator, Anderson Cooper, singled out Kerr (who’d been flown in for the event) in the vast audience, giving him a chance for his own filibustering moment. Marvel at it: Not one CNN journalist uncovered the connection or thought it pertinent to disclose that Kerr’s heart belonged to Hillary.

When righty commentator Bill Bennett pointed out the facts to Cooper after the debate, a red-faced Cooper feebly blubbered: “That was something certainly unknown to us, and had we known that, would have been disclosed by us. It turns out we have just looked at it.”

Cluelessness doesn’t absolve CNN of journalistic malpractice. Neither does editing out Kerr’s question (as the network did on rebroadcast, to camouflage the potted plant).

The story is far from over: Cooper and CNN still owe their audience - and the GOP candidates - a bouquet of mea culpas for due diligence and disclosure lapses. Beyond Kerr, Internet sleuths have uncovered several other Democratic activists lurking in the YouTube garden:

* A young woman named “Journey” questioned the candidates on abortion. On her blog (easily accessed from her YouTube channel), she declares herself a John Edwards supporter. Post debate, she immediately posted a video wearing . . . her John Edwards ‘08 T-shirt.

* David Cercone of Florida asked a question seemingly on behalf of the Log Cabin Republicans. He had declared his support for Obama on an Obama ‘08 campaign blog back in July.

* Concerned mother LeeAnn Anderson asked about lead in toys with her two children in her lap. She is actually a staffer and prominent Pittsburgh union activist for the United Steelworkers - which has endorsed Edwards.

On other questioners, elementary Google searches show that:

* Ted Faturos, who asked about ethanol subsidies, had served as an intern for Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.).

* Adam Florzak, who asked about Social Security, quit his job as a welder and is working with Sen. Dick Durbin’s (D-Ill.) staff on the issue.

* Mark Strauss, who urged Ron Paul to run as an independent, had publicly supported Gov. Bill Richardson in July.

Alternative media platforms - talk radio, the Internet and this op-ed page - have spread these facts like kudzu. But the persistent media double standard is obvious to everyone but the manure spreaders at CNN: Had GOP candidates somehow been able to insert their operatives and supporters into a Democratic debate, and had, say, Fox News failed to vet the questioners and presented them as average citizens, both Fox and the GOP would be treated as the century’s worst media sinners.

Whether through, as one blogger put, “constructive incompetence” or “convenient ineptitude,” CNN has committed journalistic malpractice under the guise of “citizen” participation.

In a now richly ironic interview with Wired.- com before the debate, David Bohrman, a CNN senior vice president, explained why videos were picked not by popular vote, but by supposedly seasoned CNN journalists: The Web is still too immature a medium to set an agenda for a national debate, he claimed. “It’s really easy for the campaigns to game the system.” “You’ve seen how effective the Ron Paul campaign [supporters] have been on the Web,” he noted. “You don’t know if there are 40 or 4 million of them. It would be easy for a really organized campaign to stack the deck.”

What does Bohrman have to say about his crack staff now?

But, what was wrong with his question? What was wrong with any of the questions? Since you probably don't know what they were, here's a LINK to the ones that were asked.

You are in denial. I don't understand your loyaly to obvioulsy biased TV News network like CNN but attack Fox. CNN is and has been part of the Democrat agenda and is now the TV propoganda wing.

But your mind is closed shut to the truth and will not be opened. You are engaged in name calling now so I'm done.

[Tiger Al 0]

Never said questions should not be hard. I think questions to Democrats should be equally provocative. They have not been

Then I don't think you've seen any of the questions the Democrats were asked. You seem to focus only on the easy questions the Dems were asked and only on the hard questions the reps were asked and exclude ALL of the other ones. The Dems were also asked these questions:

"I'd like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like they usually do when a Democrat gets into office?"

"To all the candidates: Tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe. This is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban."

"My question for all the candidates: How do we pull out now? And the follow-up: Are we watching the same blankin' war? I certainly wasn't a big fan of the invasion/liberation. It sickens me to hear about soldiers wounded and getting killed daily, not to mention innocent Iraqis, but how do we pull out now? Government's shaky; bombs daily.

Don't you think if we pulled out now that it would open it up for Iran and Syria, God knows who -- Russia -- how do we pull out now? And isn't it our responsibility to get these people up on their feet? I mean, do you leave a newborn baby to take care of himself? How do we pull out now?"

"My question is for Mike Gravel. In one of the previous debates, you said something along the lines of, "The entire deaths of Vietnam died in vain."

How do you expect to win in a country where probably a pretty large chunk of the people voting disagree with that statement and might very well be offended by it? I'd like to know if you plan to defend that statement, or if you're just going to flip-flop. Thanks."

"I'm a proud serving member of the United States military. I'm serving overseas.

This question is to Senator Hillary Clinton. The Arab states, Muslim nations, believe its women as being second-class citizens. If you're president of the United States, how do you feel that you would be even be taken seriously by these states in any kind of talks, negotiations, or any other diplomatic relations? I feel that's a legitimate question."

"Should African Americans be given reparations for slavery?"

"Do you send your kids to a public or a private school?"

Do you honestly think these were not provocative questions posed to the Democrats? How are these not "gotcha" questions? You want to focus on "Diamonds or Pearls" instead. What was the final question in the rep debate? Oh, yeah...Yankees or Red Sox. There's a real wedge issue. What were some of the other softballs the reps were served?:

"How many guns do you own?"

"What is your vision for human space exploration?"

"Mr. Paul, are you going to run as an independent?"

"Would you sign a federal abortion ban?"

"What are the top three federal programs you would cut?"

"Will you pledge to veto amnesty for illegal immigrants?"

As I said before, the candidates in both debates were asked easy questions, middle-of-the-road questions and hard questions. Actually reading/watching them would easily confirm that.

yes it was a caracture. In the GOP debate. 1, How many guns do you own. 2. Tuition rates are set by colleges not Presidents. 3. Lead laced toys from a union activist. 4. More gun questions 5. What would Jesus do? 6. Do you believe every word in the Bible? 6. Stars and Bars etc

You seem to have a problem with the gun questions. Why? Is the NRA not an important special interest group to republicans? Is the Supreme Court not set to hear an important 2nd Amendment case soon? This is red meat to the gop base, isn't it?

You also seem to dislike the religious questions. Why? The republicans act as if they have the market cornered on morality matters on an almost daily basis. What better way to showcase this "obvious superiority" than by wowing your base with their religious gravitas? Has it ever occurred to you that these questions might have been submitted by Giuliani/Tancredo/Hunter/McCain/Paul/Thompson/Huckabee supporters as a way to illuminate Mitt Romney's 'mormonism?' No, of course not. It must've been a Dem plant, despite the fact that we really don't care about his religious affiliation. Church/State separation and all.

The confederate flag has been discussed here a few times. It seems to be important to many of the posters who also happen to be conservatives. Seems like an easy enough question to me. Most here think it represents the struggle for states rights and southern heritage and nothing more. republicans claim to want smaller Federal government and more states rights.

As for tuition rates, you really need to listen to the question before you comment on it. Yes, you are correct that universities set tuition rates but governments can give tax breaks for tuition paid, which was what the question was about. Sometimes things aren't what they seem on the surface.

And now the "union activist." Of all of the conspiracy theories you people keep propping up, this one is the most mindless. She is branded an "activist" because she lists on her bio that she's a member of the Steelworkers' Union and is, therefore, a "plant" because she must obviously be a John Edwards supporter because the Steelworkers' Union has endorsed him. Your assumption operates on several flawed premises, but, I'll only address the obvious ones here. First, I assume that you have never belonged to a union and don't really understand what they do. I have belonged to one and can say that their endorsement of a political candidate doesn't guarantee, or claim to guarantee, that every single member supports that same candidate. The majority do, but, not every member. Second, the woman said she was from Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania is not a right-to-work state but is a 'union shop' state. That means that to work in jobs that are unionized she must join the union. She may or may not want to be in it and she may or may not like it.

My point is that you've made a lot of assumptions based on even more assumptions. Not in fact. The fact is, we don't know very much about her. But, that doesn't really matter. She asked a legitimate question, but, as has sadly become the modus operandi for republicans these days, you simply dismiss it by trying to de-legitimize the person asking it. How was her question a threat to the republicans that you need to dismiss the person asking it by claiming she's some "union activist" instead of just dealing with the question?

Pearls or Diamonds

I covered this earlier. Yankees or Red Sox.

IF any more political plants turn up at CNN’s presidential debates...

Cutting and pasting Michelle Malkin to provide 90% of your response is lazy. I've read her before and I still think she's an idiot. Be original...make your own arguments...supplement them with quotes, articles, etc. when necessary.

You are in denial. I don't understand your loyaly to obvioulsy biased TV News network like CNN but attack Fox. CNN is and has been part of the Democrat agenda and is now the TV propoganda wing.

But your mind is closed shut to the truth and will not be opened. You are engaged in name calling now so I'm done.

The premise of your entire argument is that CNN brought in Democratic 'ringers' in violation of the format of the debate which was to be for undecided, republican voters. When you use this erroneous assumption as your launching point you are doomed from the beginning. CNN/youtube never said this was the format. However, this IS what they said:

What will YOU ask the Republican presidential candidates?

On November 28, YouTube and CNN are holding the second of our presidential primary debates, in which YOU ask the questions of the candidates through videos you submit on YouTube. Submit your question HERE, then tune in to watch your questions broadcast and answered by the Republican candidates LIVE on CNN this fall in St. Petersburg, Florida.

* Be original -- choose your own approach.

* Be personal -- your perspective is important.

* Choose your focus -- you can address one or all of the candidates.

* Keep it quick -- your question should be less than 30 seconds.

* Make it look good -- speak loudly and keep that camera steady.

* Provide context -- in your question or video description, include your name and home town.

* Please note -- all videos are subject to the YouTube terms of use. (more)

This from USAToday:

CNN and YouTube will host a Democratic debate next month in which questions for the candidates will come entirely from citizens posting video clips, the latest sign of how the Internet has transformed presidential politics.

The two-hour debate, scheduled for July 23 at the Citadel in South Carolina, will be hosted by CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. But in a conference call with reporters Thursday, executives from CNN and YouTube said the traditional debate format, in which a panel of reporters grill the candidates, had been scrapped in favor of a more democratic approach.

"Journalists do a really good job asking questions, but there is another world of questions out there I'd like to see," said CNN Washington bureau chief David Bohrman, who will produce the broadcast. "This is wide open to creativity and the use of sound and pictures. The tone and flavor will be so different from any other debate."

Anyone who wants to submit a question may do so by uploading a video clip through YouTube. All the videos that are submitted will be posted on the site. CNN will then choose as many as 50 videos to use during the debate.

Asked for guidelines on what kind of questions were most likely to make it on the air, Bohrman said they should be concise — no more than 30 seconds — provocative, and creative.

"We're not going to have anything obscene or inappropriate, but I think we'll get some very inventive questions," he said.

A similar debate for Republican candidates will take place Sept. 17 in Florida.

Now, please tell me, what exactly is the outrage supposed to be about?

[Tiger Al 0]

General Kerr on o'reilly.

LINK

[AURaptor 1,126]

Now, please tell me, what exactly is the outrage supposed to be about?

Go back to the start of the thread and read it all over again. It seems you have issues following a discussion. The point wasn't the 'hard questions', but who was asking them. CNN even admitted that they'd not have flown the Brig.General down had they known his affiliation to the Clinton campaign. Same probably goes for 'Journey', a Edwards supporter. There weren't any GOP plants in the Dem debate, so why allow them into the GOP debate?

[Tiger Al 0]

Now, please tell me, what exactly is the outrage supposed to be about?

Go back to the start of the thread and read it all over again. It seems you have issues following a discussion. The point wasn't the 'hard questions', but who was asking them. CNN even admitted that they'd not have flown the Brig.General down had they known his affiliation to the Clinton campaign. Same probably goes for 'Journey', a Edwards supporter. There weren't any GOP plants in the Dem debate, so why allow them into the GOP debate?

I don't need to read it again. I understand what the format was. I've asked you to show me where CNN or youtube claimed the format was to be, as you've mistakenly insisted, for 'undecided republican-leaning' voters. I showed you and AFTiger what the rules of the contest were as stated on the youtube site and they did not exclude entries based on party affiliation but were, in fact, open to anyone.

As for gop plants, who knows who was and wasn't in the audience. The Democrats seemed more concerned with answering the QUESTIONS as opposed to who asked them.

What was wrong with Kerr's question?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Now, please tell me, what exactly is the outrage supposed to be about?

Go back to the start of the thread and read it all over again. It seems you have issues following a discussion. The point wasn't the 'hard questions', but who was asking them. CNN even admitted that they'd not have flown the Brig.General down had they known his affiliation to the Clinton campaign. Same probably goes for 'Journey', a Edwards supporter. There weren't any GOP plants in the Dem debate, so why allow them into the GOP debate?

I don't need to read it again. I understand what the format was. I've asked you to show me where CNN or youtube claimed the format was to be, as you've mistakenly insisted, for 'undecided republican-leaning' voters. I showed you and AFTiger what the rules of the contest were as stated on the youtube site and they did not exclude entries based on party affiliation but were, in fact, open to anyone.

As for gop plants, who knows who was and wasn't in the audience. The Democrats seemed more concerned with answering the QUESTIONS as opposed to who asked them.

What was wrong with Kerr's question?

The GOP candidates answered the questions too, but that's not the issue. What is at issue here, what you continue to ignore, was that these folks were playing ' gotchya ' , by posing agenda driven questions while PRETENDING to be that what they were not - undecided voters. True, I can't find it in print where the questions had to come from a specific group, though I have heard it said , everyone in the media business agrees that full disclosure of who was asking the questions should be something known in advance. The false, misleading question which is more intended to do political harm than to honestly find out a candidate's position on an issue takes away from true political debate.

As for what was wrong w/ Kerr's question, he first should have been asking those who had a hand in making it the law in the first place, like Hillary Clinton. It was under her 'co-Presidency' that Don't ask/ Don't tell became law. Secondly, he was being disenginious because he claimed to be an 'openly gay man' now, but not so when he was serving. His orientation wasn't an issue when he served, of what importance was it now, that he was out of the service ? If anything, he seemed to be the model for Don't ask/Don't tell.

[DKW 86 7,441]

The list of Democrat operatives at the two debates has been documented in many sources . Who were the Republican operatives at the CNN debates?

TigerAL, you can get as personal as you want but the fact is CNN should never be allowed to do these debates again. They are simply not trustworthy.

Blah blah blah

Al, answer the question please. You have skirted it twice so far. Please, just answer the one meaningful question in this whole debate.

Were there any Republican plants at the Dem debate?

Who were they?

What did they ask?

Why does one side get planted operatives at one debate, while the other side gets nothing but softball questions?

Why did these people HAVE to pretend to be something they obviously were not?

The vetting was 100% CNN's responsibility. The blogosphere blew this up in CNN's face in less than an hour, yet CNN, with tens of millions of dollars in assets CANT vett a bunch of clowns? Really AL? Really? A bunch of broke pajama wearing bloggers are better at vetting sources than CNN? Really? That is your answer? Really? You really think that CNN didnt KNOW who these clowns were?

[Tiger Al 0]

The GOP candidates answered the questions too, but that's not the issue. What is at issue here, what you continue to ignore, was that these folks were playing ' gotchya ' , by posing agenda driven questions while PRETENDING to be that what they were not - undecided voters. True, I can't find it in print where the questions had to come from a specific group, though I have heard it said , everyone in the media business agrees that full disclosure of who was asking the questions should be something known in advance. The false, misleading question which is more intended to do political harm than to honestly find out a candidate's position on an issue takes away from true political debate.

There was no requirement for them to be UNDECIDED voters. You're trying to force that condition into the format when it was never a requirement by the people (CNN/youtube) who were hosting the debate. Square peg, round hole. I showed you in print what the rules were. Just because you heard it from some alternate source doesn't make it so. You claim it's a 'false, misleading question.' How so? If one of the republicans is elected, do they only represent those that voted for them?

As for what was wrong w/ Kerr's question, he first should have been asking those who had a hand in making it the law in the first place, like Hillary Clinton. It was under her 'co-Presidency' that Don't ask/ Don't tell became law.

Perhaps if you'd followed the link to the o'reilly interview this wouldn't be a mystery to you. Once you've done that, follow this LINK and you'll see that all of the Dems support changing the policy. It's already been asked of and answered by the Democrats.

Secondly, he was being disenginious because he claimed to be an 'openly gay man' now, but not so when he was serving. His orientation wasn't an issue when he served, of what importance was it now, that he was out of the service ? If anything, he seemed to be the model for Don't ask/Don't tell.

This is one of the looniest lines of logic I've seen you use yet. He supports the policy change precisely because it forced him to be disenginious when he was in the military.

[Tiger Al 0]

The list of Democrat operatives at the two debates has been documented in many sources . Who were the Republican operatives at the CNN debates?

TigerAL, you can get as personal as you want but the fact is CNN should never be allowed to do these debates again. They are simply not trustworthy.

Blah blah blah

Al, answer the question please. You have skirted it twice so far. Please, just answer the one meaningful question in this whole debate.

Were there any Republican plants at the Dem debate?

Who were they?

What did they ask?

Why does one side get planted operatives at one debate, while the other side gets nothing but softball questions?

Why did these people HAVE to pretend to be something they obviously were not?

I've answered this question already.

As for gop plants, who knows who was and wasn't in the audience. The Democrats seemed more concerned with answering the QUESTIONS as opposed to who asked them.

You claim that the Democrats were asked 'nothing but softball questions.' I posted a list of what I believe were some tough, 'gotcha' questions that were posed to them. I'll assume that you either skipped over them or you disagree with my assessment. How were these questions 'softball' questions?:

"I'd like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like they usually do when a Democrat gets into office?"

"To all the candidates: Tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe. This is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban."

"My question for all the candidates: How do we pull out now? And the follow-up: Are we watching the same blankin' war? I certainly wasn't a big fan of the invasion/liberation. It sickens me to hear about soldiers wounded and getting killed daily, not to mention innocent Iraqis, but how do we pull out now? Government's shaky; bombs daily.

Don't you think if we pulled out now that it would open it up for Iran and Syria, God knows who -- Russia -- how do we pull out now? And isn't it our responsibility to get these people up on their feet? I mean, do you leave a newborn baby to take care of himself? How do we pull out now?"

"My question is for Mike Gravel. In one of the previous debates, you said something along the lines of, "The entire deaths of Vietnam died in vain."

How do you expect to win in a country where probably a pretty large chunk of the people voting disagree with that statement and might very well be offended by it? I'd like to know if you plan to defend that statement, or if you're just going to flip-flop. Thanks."

"I'm a proud serving member of the United States military. I'm serving overseas.

This question is to Senator Hillary Clinton. The Arab states, Muslim nations, believe its women as being second-class citizens. If you're president of the United States, how do you feel that you would be even be taken seriously by these states in any kind of talks, negotiations, or any other diplomatic relations? I feel that's a legitimate question."

"Should African Americans be given reparations for slavery?"

"Do you send your kids to a public or a private school?"

The vetting was 100% CNN's responsibility. The blogosphere blew this up in CNN's face in less than an hour, yet CNN, with tens of millions of dollars in assets CANT vett a bunch of clowns? Really AL? Really? A bunch of broke pajama wearing bloggers are better at vetting sources than CNN? Really? That is your answer? Really? You really think that CNN didnt KNOW who these clowns were?

You're suffering from the same delusion as AURaptor and AFTiger with regards to the format. I've said before, as well as has CNN, that Kerr probably shouldn't have been used. Had CNN known of Kerr's affiliation with the Clinton campaign they should've been smart enough to have learned that republicans these days avoid the message by assasinating the messenger.

What was wrong with the question?

[DKW 86 7,441]

The vetting was 100% CNN's responsibility. The blogosphere blew this up in CNN's face in less than an hour, yet CNN, with tens of millions of dollars in assets CANT vett a bunch of clowns? Really AL? Really? A bunch of broke pajama wearing bloggers are better at vetting sources than CNN? Really? That is your answer? Really? You really think that CNN didnt KNOW who these clowns were?

You're suffering from the same delusion as AURaptor and AFTiger with regards to the format. I've said before, as well as has CNN, that Kerr probably shouldn't have been used. Had CNN known of Kerr's affiliation with the Clinton campaign they should've been smart enough to have learned that republicans these days avoid the message by assasinating the messenger.

What was wrong with the question?

Al, I didnt ask one question about the questions. Not one.

I asked whether you think CNN, with $XM available to them in assets to vett these folks really got punked by clowns? You really believe that? You really believe that? You as a grown adult male really think that CNN is that careless and stupid? Come on man! You are not that dumb. You really think that CNN didnt know about Kerr? Were there any Republican plants at the Dem Debate? Apparently not. Hhhmmmm...

If it didnt matter Al, Why challenge anyone at all? Why waste the time and money to go thru the motions? And yet they did, WHY? Why did they do the challenging and fail so miserably at it?

I havent said a word about the questions. All are fair as far as I am concerned. Any and all, no matter how embarassing/awkward. But why go thru all these hoops to screen the folks and then fail so glaringly and openly? Why expose yourself to getting punked out on the Internet? I am not shooting the messenger either. I just want to hear you say you absolutely see nothing funny that CNN went to all this effort to vett the questioners and then failed so miserably and you dont find anything odd about it? They did the screening fine for the Dems. No problems as far as I can see. But multiple gaffs with the Rep Debate?

Things that make yo go hhhmmmmmm!!!!

[TexasTiger 13,029]

You as a grown adult male really think that CNN is that careless and stupid?

I'm amazed at the level of competence you ascribe to CNN.

[Tiger Al 0]

I havent said a word about the questions. All are fair as far as I am concerned.

Then it makes no difference who asked them.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Al, just for you:

[TexasTiger 13,029]

I havent said a word about the questions. All are fair as far as I am concerned.

Then it makes no difference who asked them.

Yeah, what's the point of a plant if they are asking fair questions anyone else might reasonably ask? Where's the "gotcha?"

[Tiger Al 0]

Al, just for you:

I'm sorry you feel that way, Dave. But, your position on this is truly confusing. If all of the questions were fair as far as you're concerned then, really, REALLY, what difference does it make who asked it?

[Tiger Al 0]

I havent said a word about the questions. All are fair as far as I am concerned.

Then it makes no difference who asked them.

Yeah, what's the point of a plant if they are asking fair questions anyone else might reasonably ask? Where's the "gotcha?"

Exactly. I could understand the outrage if some assumed Democratic "plant" had asked a question like this: "This question is for Candidate X...In 1996 you said on FoxNews that because Bill Clinton had an affair he lacked the moral character to be President. You yourself cheated on your wife, so, what makes you more fit to be President now than Clinton was then?" Gotcha!!!

The question from Kerr was a chance for the reps to reassure their base by showing how tough they'd be on the gays. Are we sure Kerr wasn't a republican plant?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Tiger Al,it's NOT just about Kerr, as you continue to try to hammer home. It was about 1/2 a dozen Democrats, working for or staunchly in favor for other Dem party candidates which is the issue here.

[Tiger Al 0]

Tiger Al,it's NOT just about Kerr, as you continue to try to hammer home. It was about 1/2 a dozen Democrats, working for or staunchly in favor for other Dem party candidates which is the issue here.

What was wrong with the questions they asked?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Tiger Al,it's NOT just about Kerr, as you continue to try to hammer home. It was about 1/2 a dozen Democrats, working for or staunchly in favor for other Dem party candidates which is the issue here.

What was wrong with the questions they asked?

We've already sang this verse.

[DKW 86 7,441]

CNN and its $XM budget was trying to vet these folks. Why? I asked you that question. You, as usual, have dodged it.

There werent plants at the Dem Debate. But mystriously they were at the Rep Debate. Why?

Why did CNN even attempt to vett these folks and have to issue an apology? Why?

You of course see nothing wrong with any of this. We are just asking why did it only happen at the Rep Debate? Why were those connected to Dem Campaigns asking questions? Why could CNN not live up to its pledge and cull these losers out? Why did it take only mere moments for a bunch of pajama wearing nobodies on the Internet to debug all this?

If you are silly enough to think that these folks werent plants, that they somehow miraculously punked CNN, that they werent known by CNN ahead of time, you are the ones that need help.

So finally Al, You REALLY believe all this is TOTALLY INNOCENT?

[Tiger Al 0]

Tiger Al,it's NOT just about Kerr, as you continue to try to hammer home. It was about 1/2 a dozen Democrats, working for or staunchly in favor for other Dem party candidates which is the issue here.

What was wrong with the questions they asked?

We've already sang this verse.

No...you've been asked this question multiple times and refuse to answer. You focus, not on the legitimacy of the questions asked, but instead on the legitimacy of the person asking the question. You try to shoehorn your idea of what the debate format was supposed to be to fit what the advertised format actually was. You toss around the words "activists," "operatives" and "plants" in the loosest of fashion to supplement your flawed supposition that CNN and the DNC teamed up to beat up on the poor, hapless republicans.

From the Democratic debate:

"I'd like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like they usually do when a Democrat gets into office?"

Do you honestly think that this question, 1. Was asked by a Democratic supporter and 2. Wasn't designed to elicit a "gotcha" answer, either now or later? But, the candidates answered it and nobody in the peanut gallery whined because the person asking it clearly wasn't an "undecided, Democrat-leaning registered voter" and they didn't whine because CNN aired it when they're assumed to be friendly to the Democrats.

So, I'll ask you again...What was wrong with the question(s)?