CNN fell down on the job vetting questions for Republican candidates. While the questions were lame, to say the least, the blatant lack of honesty in revealing the identity of the questioners calls into question both CNN's and the DNC's moral standards.
We all know the democratic crop of 2008 Presidential hopefuls is lame, to say the least. They will promise anything to anyone, hoping their camp followers will blindly swallow it and vote for them--as their party did with the pie-in-the-sky 2006 elections with promises they haven't been able to deliver.
And, we all know that with the exception of Fox News, no one else, least of all CNN, even attempts to pretend they are fair and balanced in their reporting. In fact, they most blatantly are not fair and balanced and lean decidedly left.
The Presidential hopefuls (Democratic ones anyway) shake in their tiny shoes at the mere thought of appearing on FOX News and, while stamping their little feet, state they won't appear on FOX. Because they're afraid. Back in June, FOX News boss Roger Ailes was quoted as saying,
"The candidates that can't face Fox, can't face al-Qaeda. And that's what's coming,"
This was in direct response to the Dems fear of facing viewers in a debate on
FOX News Network
Now, why would the Dems be afraid to face FOX? After all, don't they all tout how tough they are and how they'd be so "tough" on terror? So why afraid of FOX?
They are also paranoid.
While the Dems won't appear on FOX out of fear, the Republicans will appear when and where asked. They may not all be the greatest of candidates (there are several I don't agree with in many areas) but they certainly aren't afraid to face a network.
The CNN YouTube debates scheduled for November 28, 2007, were scheduled for Republicans. We are not yet in the general election. Each party has their own debates so constituents can get a "feel" for the candidates and the stand each candidate is taking on issues important to constituents.
It has come out in recent weeks, however, that most of the Dem candidates can't handle unscripted questions, Hillary Clinton being chief among them. So there have been scandals regarding "plants" at the Dems debates to ask typically "softball" questions of the candidates so they don't have to struggle so hard to find a believable answer.
They went a step further for the Republican YouTube debates and actually planted several "questioners", presumably hoping to trip up the candidates with unscripted, potentially embarrassing questions.
The most prominent of these plants was an employee on Hillary's GLBT council, Ret. Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr, a gays in the military lobbyist. What was rather funny, though, was the question regarding don't ask, don't tell. A policy implemented by Bubba himself.
Among other "plants" in the CNN garden? "Journey" aka "Paperserenade"--John Edwards supporter (also in love with Anderson Cooper); David Cercone--Barack Obama supporter; LeeAnn Anderson--John Edwards supporter and Pittsburgh Union Activist; Yasmin--former CAIR intern (all of the above courtesy of Michelle Malkin
here and
here); Adam Florzak--Dick Durbin supporter (courtesy of Power Line.com
here); Ted Faturos--former Jane Harman intern; David McMillan--John Edwards supporter (both of the above exposed at Jason Coleman.com
here and
here). More are coming in periodically.
Oh yes, my sources are blogs. I have found blogs generally have the scoop before the newspapers.
Now, why is this such a big deal?
Several reasons. One, this was a Republican debate. It was not a general election debate. You don't see the Republicans invading dem debates. So, props for general rudeness to the dems.
Two, the whole idea was an attempt to embarrass the Republicans. Well, it was shown no matter how ridiculous the question, the Republicans at least make an effort to think on their feet. They don't have to be in total control with each individual question. It also shows the Republicans aren't afraid to go onto any particular network based on a paranoid delusion of perceived bias.
Three, the dishonesty of it. It actually would have been okay if the questioners had said something along the lines of, "I'm so and so, I'm a democrat and I'm leaning towards this democratic candidate. How would you win my vote or persuade me to vote for you based upon this question".
That, at least, would have been honest on the questioner's part.
But there was no honesty on these questioners' parts. It was a complete attempt to deceive. And CNN was complicit in this deception. That much was obvious from Cooper's lack of surprise when Kerr's actual status was pointed out to him by Bill Bennett.
Nor would CNN be attempting to justify this deception as they are now trying to do with so called "damage control"--with quite so much defensiveness (
here in Politico's "CNN Defends Vetting of Debate Questioners).
Dishonesty and paranoia--thy name is 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate.
