| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/17 |
| 2007/11/29-12/6 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48712 Activity:high |
11/29 Michelle Malkin has collected youtube profiles/images of questioners
from last night's debate. Several of the questioners are openly
supporting Democrat candidates. Don't bother telling me how much you
hate Malkin. Look at the evidence presented about how CNN is
incompetent.
http://csua.org/u/k44 (michellemalkin.com)
\_ I'm confused by the outrage. Same thing happened with the July
debate with the Democrats.
\_ And yet the questions still managed to address significant GOP
issues. How'd that happen?!? Oh, wait, it's because when you're
not MM or AC, thinking outside your talking points isn't that
hard.
\_ Not issues for people voting in the R primary.
\_ I'm voting in the R primary, and they were issues I was
interested in.
\_ Oh really? Which issues?
The Confederate Flag?
Whether they believe in every word in the Bible?
What would Jesus do about the death penalty?
\_ Gun control, abortion, and taxes. Way to cherrypick.
\_ I frankly don't believe you. When you say you're
voting in the R primary, is that because you're a
registered R? Or because you're a D in an open
primary state?
\_ I'm registered R, and I frankly don't care if
you believe me. Also, are gun control, abortion,
and taxes not important to people voting in the
R primary? They were covered in the questions.
\_ Gun control and taxes matter, but abortion
doesn't because a president can't affect it.
\_ Errr.. sort of. The Religious Right is
very interested in what the president thinks
of abortion because the prez appoints
to the Supreme Court. And the SC could
overturn Roe vs Wade.
\_ The RR is a minority part of the R party.
So sure it concerns that segment, but it
does not concern most R at all.
\_ Sure, I'm R and I don't care. But the
RR exterts disproportinal control over
the primary system.
Addendum: For example, Huckabee is
doing so well in Iowa because RRs
don't trust Romney. He who wins
Iowa...
\_ You and MM are right, Democrats should not be allowed to participate
in the political process anymore. No Free Speech For Democrats!
\_ Excellent straw man sir!
\_ Isn't that what you are complaining about? I don't get it,
do you really think that Democrats should not be allowed
to ask Republicans questions during debates?
\_ The people in question aren't simply Dems, they're openly
supporting different candidates. They're not interested in
the answer, they're just bomb-throwing.
\_ I am pretty sure you don't lose your free speech rights
simply because you declare allegiance to a particular
candidate. Did these people lie and claim they were
undecided, so that they could get permission to ask
questions by CNN? Otherwise, I can't imagine what your
beef would be. Can I go to a Romney rally and ask him
a question, even though I am an Edwards supporter? Why
the heck not? I might even change my mind!
\_ Wow, are you really this clueless? I didn't say you
lose any "free speech rights". However, there is a
difference between honest questions and
bomb-throwing.
\_ Yes, only questions pre-screened and OK'd by the
candidates should be allowed near any Republican.
\_ Or Hillary
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/diamond_v_pearl_student_blasts_1.php
\_ I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
What you call "bomb-throwing" I call healthy
debate and integral to the democratic process.
It is pretty funny for a MM reader to complain
about bomb-throwing.
\_ And it's pretty funny when someone uses "free
speech rights" in this context. Wow.
\_ How do you even register to post in that blog?
\_ The problem was that CNN was deceitful. If they had put "General
Bob Smith, (D) Activist" next to the name of the guy they flew in
and put in the front row, then it would be lame but not piss anyone
off. These were supposed to be "undecided (R) voters" which
several clearly were not. And this is the same motd crowd that was
so concerned that Foxnews was going to abuse their position if they
ran a debate, yet you find this a-ok. Sheesh.
\_ Again, same thing happened in the Dem debate. No one cared
until CNN released a statement saying there would be no "gotcha
questions" in the R debate. The other MM (media matters) noted
this and pointed out the multiple gotchas they let into the D
debate. Now, if Malkin had been complaining about gotchas after
they said they wouldn't have them, she might have a point. With
this post she's just a crybaby.
\_ I don't read/watch Malkin so I have no idea what she said
and don't really care. In the Dem debate we had Hillary
plants there for her. In the Rep debate we had Hillary,
Edards, Obama, and CNN plants. Neither situation is
acceptable to me. This just further enforces my belief
that the US 'main stream media' is biased to such a degree
that they should be dismissed entirely as the yellow rag
'journalists' they are. I would like to note that we didn't
see Rep plants in either debate but that's another matter.
\_ In the Dem CNN/YT debate, there were questions that were
most likely from R supporters. But no one went and tried
to pin them down as R supporters, because attacking the
questioner rather than answer a valid question is in the
R playbook. Not so much with the D's. You're showing
your bias in trying to determine cnn's.
R playbook. Not so much with the Ds. Being of the other
party does not negate one's right to ask a question in an
open debate. Instead of running from them, or whining
about them, why not try and give cogent answers and, y'know
try and persuade people...
\_ Which questions? And who do you think did the tracking?
Random people on the net who post on (R) blogs. Nothing
is stopping you from tracking down the qusetioners to
see if your allegations are even true. If they are,
then let us know, until then you're blowing smoke and
tossing out red herrings. No one said you don't have a
right to ask a question. That's a strawman. It has
been stated quite clearly the issue is they were
falsely presented as "undecided (R) voters" or in the
case of Hillary plants at the D debate, as "undecided
(D) voters" when in fact they were political operatives.
And in the case of the (R), they did answer, even though
several of the questions were stupid. That was a good
effort at distracting from the real point about dirty
politics on the part of CNN and Hillary but no dice.
\_ When/where did CNN say the questions came from
"undecided (R) voters"? This is important. If they
did say this, then you have a point. I don't think
they did, though. And as you've based your entire
argument and outrage on this point, I suggest you
look carefully.
\_ Both debates were choosing people in that context.
This is how questioners have been chosen in
debates in recent years. This is nothing new.
So, if I'm right and they said these were supposed
to be undecided voters in each debate, then what?
Do you finally agree the debates were fucked?
And frankly, even if that weren't flat out stated,
they should still have properly identified the
people, but that's a hypothetical. I don't want
to go off on some tangent about that at this
point.
\_ You repeat your assertion with no supporting
evidence. Show me where CNN said "This is how
we're choosing the questioners". IMO, these
questions were decidedly less offensive than
those of Russert or Blitzer (raise your hand?
seriously?). I would love to go back to LWV
moderation with decent questions and actual
discussion, but these complaints are overblown
and really crybabyish.
\_ No, this is not generally how questioners are
chosen in debates, not in the ones I have
watched over the years. You are just blowing
smoke at this point and I think you know it.
\_ Wow, way to make shit up to cover for lame
debate moderators and slimey tactics from
the (D). Even the LATimes published a
piece on how shitty CNN did. When the LAT
not only doesn't support your left wing
agenda but out right bashes you, you have
a problem. You=CNN in this case. I notice
you completed ignored my question and just
magically decided with no knowledge that I
and everyone else who has been saying these
were supposed to be normal citizens and not
activists is wrong. I think I've been
trolled. You have yet to answer a single
question I've posed in this thread and
instead just keep throwing bombs.
\_ You are talking to more than one person,
btw. Yes, if a questioner signed some
waiver or made a verbal agreement with CNN
that they were an undecided (R) voter,
then it would be immoral to violate that
agreement. Happy? Now, show me your
evidence that this was the case, or
just admit that this is you and MM's
made up rule, not something that
other people agree to, or even would
agree to, unless they were partisan
loons.
\_ From your source: "Beside considerations\
like these, CNN's incompetent failure
to weed out Democratically connected
\_ From your source: "Beside considerations
like these, CNN's incompetent failure to
weed out Democratically connected
questioners pales." Even the LA Times
agrees that it is no big deal.
\_ "We were looking for people who were
interested enough in the process to ask\
a question," Sam Feist, CNN's political\
director, said Thursday. "We didn't
inquire about people's ideological\
beliefs, and that wasn't relevant. . . .\
We were looking for questions that
would make for an interesting debate."
interested enough in the process to ask
a question," Sam Feist, CNN's political
director, said Thursday. "We didn't
inquire about people's ideological
beliefs, and that wasn't relevant. . . .
We were looking for questions that would
make for an interesting debate."
\_ I'm now trying to imagine Fox News running the Dem debate:
"First question: When did you first start hating America?"
\_ You'll have to keep imagining since Fox was never given a
chance. Do you think CNN should be allowed to hold further
debates after this last performance? How about the previous
one where more Clinton activists were planted in the audience
and there was zero followup to her answers from Blitzer? Was
that a well run debate? |
| 5/17 |
|
| csua.org/u/k44 -> michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/digging-out-the-cnnyoutube-plants-abortion-questioner-is-edwards-supporter/ Michelle Malkin Digging out more CNN/YouTube plants: Abortion questioner is declared Edwards supporter (and a slobbering Anderson Cooper fan); Log Cabin Republican questioner is declared Obama supporter; Keith H Kerr = Hillary/Kerry supporter and anti-"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" activist Keith H Kerr *** The best thing about Republicans agreeing to do the CNN/YouTube debate is that it created yet another invaluable opportunity to expose CNN's abject incompetence. jpg Turns out "Journey/" "paperserenade" is also a big slobbering Anderson Cooper fan. She posted this video a month ago exulting that "Anderson Cooper said my name!" posted an Anderson Cooper segment from VH1 with the following comment: "Anderson officially had the Best Week Ever for the week of 10/26/07, and looked more delicious than a pic-i-nic basket while doing so. And lookie, I found the video and uploaded it to Youtube for y'all. blacktygrrrr said: To complain about questions being "planted" is pointless. In fact, one advantage republicans have in terms of governing is that they are used to hostile fire every day with the media. As for the gay Brigadier General, his being planted does not invalidate his question. I am more worried about democrats voting for him in the New Hampshire open primary than on planted questioners. The lack of disclosure and the pretense of neutrality speak volumes about the inability of CNN and other MSM outlets covering the campaign to do their jobs at the moment when, in their own assessments, the stakes are high. DocattheAutopsy said: The question from either plant may be acceptable, but you have to wonder... and we get one working for Hillary and another working for Edwards. Michelle Malkin said: Now we just have to find the one working for Obama. David Cercone, the Log Cabin Republican questioner, is a declared Obama supporter with a blog at Obama 08. see-dubya said: The one I'm wondering about was the Confederate Flag guy, Leroy Brooks from Houston. It's too common a name for google to find out anything about him, (which would somewhat exonerate CNN if he were planted). Still, if anyone does hear or know anything I'm sure we'd be all ears. Bad Candy said: Good, I say they keep doing stuff like this, every time they do it, it confirms everything we say about them, and it dulls their effect on public debate every time pull stunts like this. It is the Republicans and Conservatives who are dishonest, devious and underhanded and can't be trusted. Problem is, this hypocrisy will be and probably already is completely lost on them already. Kentucky Unclaimed Money said: Haha, just caught your update on the other Edwards supporter. CNN, The Big 3, NY Times, WaPo, would be going absolutely WILD right now, thinking they finally got something that they could use to take Fox down. Michelle, please tell me Fox will make this in to a mainstream story, even if you have to push them? I can't wait for my hero Lou Dobbs to tell Cooper what a great job he did. While watching I thought the gay general was allowed way to much pontification time, plant or no plant. And Ron Paul troops sounded as though they may have bought most of the available scalper tickets. CNN has given Christiane Amanpour credibility a new meaning. WarTip said: On November 29th, 2007 at 4:15 am, RetFireman said: I love when they do our work for us. Problem is, this hypocrisy will be and probably already is completely lost on them already. It is very difficult to explain logic and reason to someone who either does not possess these traits or (seemingly) believes them to be as evil as facts and truth. You could feed them the truth a little bit at a time or even force feed them large doses and it still would not register to them. com headline: Campaign rancor carries into YouTube debate "With the first contest of the 2008 nominating season drawing near, Republican candidates engaged in a free-for-all in their first-ever CNN/YouTube debate, trying to differentiate their views on immigration, the Iraq war, abortion, gun control and even whether they believe every word in the Bible is true." In light of the number of now-known plants from Democrat campaigns, and CNN's slant that the debate "continued the rancor" of the GOP campaign, I have little doubt that the entire set of questions was orchestrated. Give me a break, these planted questions and the questioners were so juvenile it is laughable. CarpiJugulum: Agree with the stacking the deck, pushing the socialist agenda and trying to make the looney left socialists seem mainstream. But we knew CNN was doing this, we just didn't have such visible and clear proof. You can now forget about anything that is said or done by CNN, it's leftist biased. Now it's out in the open, and anyone who cares can see what CNN really is doing and stands for. It's one thing if they said "I'm an undecided Edwards-leaning Democrat activist voter," but this is absurd. But I have to give it to CNN and google/youtube (both "undecided" organizations), for giving "the people" power to bias the "debate". And it is working, because we are starting to feel powerless against the MSM, which means against our opponents. Then why isn't the RNC and every R candidate screaming for Anderson Cooper's scalp? Maybe we should just rename the Republican Party the "Passive Party"? They will believe that the great right wing conspiracy did all these plants to make them look bad. Fox news is talking about one plant now but not all posted here. Will we find any questions that were from Republicans or Conservatives when the air all clears? How come these same Dem supporters didn't ask these questions about immigration and taxes and Iraq and such at the Dem-You Tube debate? Why has no one yet spoken up from the Florida Republican Campaign Committee for allowing themselves to be used by CNN and these Dem operatives? Of course, Hillary or her group would not be so gracious. That doesn't give CNN a pass for not doing their homework and seriously, when will the Republicans grow a backbone and call these clowns on their bias? I suppose what you desire is someone with no postions on anything. It indicates there is a belief and one is sticking to it. And to claim otherwise, is a recipe to find the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR and wind up with nothing. Michelle, you and Bryan were spot on about how the left has the advantage on Internet multimedia political actions front. cough cough) with CNN, totally infiltrated that debate last night with their questions. Why are folks who are most likely registered democrats even allowed to ask questions? How hard would it be for CNN to ask the questioners to certify they are registered republicans/conservaties/etc. I would be interested to know their process for screening democratic debate questioners vs. I wanna go ask someone face to face just wtf they were thinking. Didn't you all notice they were questions about things that liberals all think conservatives care about, and not what we care most about? My issue is a) is the question relevant and b) what is the answer. The whole issue with the plants is the question was asked under false pretenses. If it was a good question - what would have been wrong with the person saying "I support (you fill in the blank) but if you become president instead of (above named person), how will you (and then ask the question)". When we want honesty in our candidates, don't we want honesty in the questions? The dems fled the opportunity to appear on a socalled conservative station debate. I am not so upset at the types of questions that were asked and would have had no problem with them had CNN been upfront about the nature of the questioner and the questions. It is a glaring reflection on their characters or lack thereof. What's surprising is that the morons think they can still get away with this kind of stuff without anyone finding out about it. "And we would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling bloggers and your stupid Internet searches!" They were disabled for a few hours this morning while the site suffered the brunt of a Drudge Report link. Now that things have been tweaked and are running smooth... |
| marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/diamond_v_pearl_student_blasts_1.php MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. "Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN," Luisa writes. "I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance." Writes Luisa: "CNN ran out of time and used me to "close" the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America--and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question." Rivals to Clinton believe that the debate audience had a pro-Clinton tilt. UNLV was responsible for distributing most of the tickets. In a separate post, Luisa provides the question she wanted to ask: Yucca Mountain, NV is the proposed site for the country's nuclear waste repository. Despite scientific evidence that it is a vulnerable site, the federal government continues to push for the plan to move forward. The evidence relied on is unsound and the risks involved in transporting high-level radioactive waste across the country are high. do to ensure that the best site/s is/are chosen for the storage of spent nuclear reactor fuel? Sam Feist, the executive producer of the debate, said that the student was asked to choose another question because the candidates had already spent about ten minutes discussing Yucca Mountain. cgi/17653 Comments (556) Almost a Truman Scholar and she gets to ask a Diamond vs Pearl question? And yes, the audience was stacked with Clinton supporters. CNN lost another chunk of the 10 percent credibility they had left. November 16, 2007 11:37 AM "UNLV was responsible for distribuing most of the tickets." I'm under the impression that Harry Reid's state party was responsible for distribuing most of the tickets. November 16, 2007 11:46 AM This was the worst debate I've seen so far this year. They handled the pre-debate show poorly by handing things off to Lou Dobbs (who is clearly a xenophobe), they handled the debate itself horrendously (interrupting candidates every 5 seconds and modifying questions in an attempt to play "gotcha" and create sound bite clips for themselves later), and they handled the post-debate show poorly by ensuring that everyone but the Republican had ties to the Clinton White House. CNN is an equal to FOX News in their bias and inaccuracy. In addition, it was clear that the questions weren't written by audience members, but were modified for them to read/memorize - that was clear from the first question on - and when Suzanne Malvaux modified the one woman's question to just "will you support a nominee that would overturn Roe" - why bother with the pretense of having audience questions at all? Why not just stick with the moderators the entire time if the goal is to control the questions and debate. I felt sorry for the student who had to ask it - clearly she's smarter than that (based on your post here), and what a frivolous way to wrap things up. I have more respect for the UFO question from the last debate than I do for this one - and that's saying something! The Democrats shouldn't attend another debate sponsored by them. November 16, 2007 12:26 PM So this is what Clinton feminism looks like. After the unrelenting nightmare of the last 7 years, I will never vote for phony, desperate to win at any cost, manipulating Clinton who would rather laugh and equivocate than deal with the serious issues of our time with integrity and sincerity. November 16, 2007 12:27 PM And right after the debate to have the pro Hillary commentators, spitting out of both sides of their mouth oowey gooey Hillary won stuff. If I were a first time voter I'd be so turned off by these Clinton politics. Well, Obama can celebrate with another great endorsement today! November 16, 2007 12:28 PM Posted by Petey: "UNLV was responsible for distribuing most of the tickets." I'm under the impression that Harry Reid's state party was responsible for distribuing most of the tickets. November 16, 2007 12:30 PM Maybe they were just trying to make up for the last debate on NBC where Russert, Williams, and Mathews did nothing but attack Clinton. I'm no big fan of HRC, but, "more", if you think the MSM is going easy on Clinton you're the one who needs to wake up. November 16, 2007 12:42 PM The conclusion that it was a partisan crowd rests on the premise that the crowd as a whole booed Senator Obama and John Edwards when they either raised their differences with Senator Clinton ... or, in one case, when Senator Obama started to tackle Senator Clinton when she repeated a crass tax scare line that was, indeed, laughably absurd with respect to retirees ... how much payroll income does Senator Clinton think that retirees have in a year? Is she thinking of retired CEO's that sit on the same boards that she does? but clearly it was not the whole crowd, it was a partisan contingent in the crowd. Its simply a matter of finding your partisans in the crowd before hand, and priming them to "defend" their candidate from "mudslinging". She certainly has more than enough organization in the state to do that ... the Clinton campaign was simply the campaign who felt confident they could get their partisans to boo without being booted from the event. November 16, 2007 12:44 PM I agree that the moderators were terrible. It is inappropriate to sell a portion of the debate as "audience questions" and then change the majority of the questions. The most egregious example was the person who asked about qualifications for Supreme Court justices. That lady in the blue suit holding the mike just tacked on the abortion aspect. Wolf followed suit and rephrased the question as an abortion-rights litmus-test question, which is was not. I liked how Biden said he would answer the question the woman asked and when she indicated she would like both questions answered, answered them both. After that, though, the question was only phrased as an abortion question. I am not a Hillary fan, but int hat last debate, he was clearly letting his anti-Clinton colors show, which is not the role of a debate moderator. Not enough to win me over or anything, but I was impressed with her. November 16, 2007 12:49 PM Prince made the song Diamonds and Pearl popular. Please all Anti-Hillary supporters rally to one true democrat. Just be cause she is labeled a democrat does not mean she represents you. The other half of the hall (the side on which Biden sat) were tickets distributed by the state Democratic party. There were significant contingents of Obama, Clinton and Edwards supporters. I'm quite sure that it was the Clinton supporters sitting in the Democratic party distributed ticket area who were booing during the debate. On the student, you may have the wrong student Mr Ambinder. Today's Las Vegas Sun has a brief item about her which uses a different name. November 16, 2007 12:53 PM Want a real presidential debate? Rules: 1 Candidates each have 10 minutes of mike time, controlled by a clock BUT it is not contiguous mike time. Whenever they want to talk, they hit the button on their chess clock and their mike turns on. The stupid ones will look stupid, the smart ones will look smart. November 16, 2007 12:57 PM I work at UNLV and am involved in local Democratic politics. UNLV was responsible for distributing half of the tickets, and the local Democratic party was responsible for distributing the other half. November 16, 2007 1:01 PM I work at UNLV and am involved in local Democratic politics. UNLV was responsible for distributing half of the tickets, and the local Democratic party was... |
| michellemalkin.com Barack Obama: I remember when I first ran for the state Senate - my very first race. A seat had opened up, and some friends asked me if I'd be interested in running. Well, I thought about it, and then I did what every wise man does when faced with a difficult decision: I prayed, and I asked my wife. And after consulting with these higher powers, I threw my hat in the ring and I did what every person on a campaign does - I talked to anyone who'd listen. I went to bake sales and barber shops and if there were two guys standing on the corner I'd pull up and hand them literature. And everywhere I went I'd get two questions: First, they'd ask, "Where'd you get that funny name, Barack Obama?" And I'd have to explain that I got the name from my father, who was from Kenya. As for how "different" Obama looks, here is another "attack" on his looks. |