Political Punch

I would like to know about all these "hecklers" that magically appear at Hillary's or Bill's events.

Iron my shirts...9/11 conspiracy. They both had very pat, rehersed answers to those comments. Hillary didn't even blink on hers...Bill had to strain to hear the guy...then he just happened to know exactly how many MUSLIMS died on 9/11.

I have serious doubts that either event was random. Sounds very much like plants to me.

I've listened to alot of other stump speeches and haven't heard any hecklers with any other candidate.

I see that some libs are turning this around, the issue is that CNN put them up as Republicans that were undecided! That is the issue at hand not whether a Dem can ask a republican a question or not. Why did these poeple and CNN have to hide who they were.

CNN spent money and time to get the gentleman from Clintons campaign there but did not take the minute to look up him on google, and the other three please.

And also this is the primary they do not vote in the republican primary , so that is an issue too.

The Clinton News Network (CNN) failed. They showed there lib bias and so did the other stations that did not report it as it is.

This was Fraud, Representing someone or something you are not and those libs commited fraud. But I guess Fraud runs rampant in the Lib/Dem Party, het they get promoted for it.

To Rick: hear! hear! You put into better words exactly what I was trying to say. That is exactly the point. What CNN did is what the Dems claim Fox would have pulled on them and why they didn't show up on Fox! So why is it "Fox is evil" but "CNN is pure-as-snow impartial"? It's the hypocrisy that is so blatant that gets me. I am still waiting to hear the apologists of CNN to be honest here and say, "ok, ok... yes I hate Fox for what they represent, but yes, ok, I agree, CNN is left-leaning and bias in favor of the Dems". It is so clear to everyone now - a little honesty please.

Any and every American has the right to ask the Republican candidates for President their position on a topic. I don't think that's really the question here. What the point is that the Republicans were subjected to what the Democrats claimed they would be subjected to had they particpated in a debate hosted by Fox. For all the premature accusations against Fox news for how they would have handled a debate with the Democratic candidates, obviously CNN wasn't able to handle it any better. At least the Republican candidates had the courage to particpate, which is more than can be said of the Democrats.

CNN was entirely even-handed. They asked question of the Democrats that made Democrats look good. And they asked questions of the Republicans that made Democrats look good. no questions on the war on terror - that would be unfair, because it would make Dems look bad, and Republicans look good. And that wouldn't be fair to the good guys.

CLINTON PLANTS QUESTIONS AT CNN DEBATE
It turns out that Keith Kerr, retired Colonel., U.S. Army; retired Brigadier General, California National Reserve, who submitted a YouTube question about gays in the military, is actually a member of Hillary Clinton's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Americans For Hillary Steering Committee. He's also part of a film production crew trying overturn the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. In the final seconds of the post-debate coverage, Anderson Cooper acknowledges that CNN messed this up and states that CNN did not know that Kerr has a position within the Clinton campaign and that had they known, they would have disclosed the association.

I don't fault CNN. I think that the format of the debate inherently posed difficulty for them. YouTube and netroots activism is far more the province of liberals than conservatives (who tend to instead favor top-down message dissemination). It must have been hard to compile sufficient content contributed by actual Republicans to fuel a debate of that length.

Apparently, this is a problem that Republicans, themselves, have faced time and time again, so they ought to be commiserating with CNN, as opposed to criticizing them. For instance, when the NRCC sought anti-Democrat homespun ads from their supporters, they were only able to garner 5 entries after as many weeks of soliciting videos. Similarly, when the Republican National Committee established the MyGOP internet social networking site in an effort to emulate the progressive blogosphere's small-dollar/high volume donation model, the effort ended up losing money.

I think that the GOP Presidential hopefuls should remember that they are vying for the opportunity to serve as the nation's President, and as such, no issue of significant concern to large segments of the population should be off the table for discussion.

On the discussion over questioner "plants" in the Republican debate, I am incensed. Since when may a registered Democrat NOT be permitted to ask a question of a Republican candidate, or or a registered Republican of a Democrat, for that matter??? I thought we ALL had freedom of speech, ALL had a voice in government, ALL were free to question our leaders, much less our would-be leaders??? The moderators of debates are supposed to choose a variety of meaningful questions. Who cares who asked those questions??? Finally, let us not forget the wonderful "town hall" meetings held by President Bush for which all attendees were carefully screened for their political bias.
This is America. If I want a question answered from a candidate, ANY candidate, he/she very well BETTER answer it if he/she wants MY vote.

Battleforcebulldog, that is a fine question (though the slippery slope you take to its conclusion is either irrelevant or preposterous). And whether it is a "Republican" question or a "Democratic" one, I'd like to know what the candidates have to say. That is my point and that is James Danley's point, too.

Jake I think you are off base.You say nothing about the guy who held up the Bible and asked the candidates if they believed every word written it, or how about the kid with the stars&bars flag and a "Vendetta" bust in his bedroom just for starters? Did anyone look up their party affliation? No, you can't have it both ways.I politics everyone has an axe to grind.

I think there's a slippery slope here. As in, why stop with prohibiting political activists from submitting questions. Why not everyone with a bias?

Fox News - is no challenge. I watch Fox News and what is the big deal! They are Republican, who cares? There are moments that the one reporter is shady - what's his name Bill O'Reily is arrogant and all into himself. He is ridiculous! I watch their morning program - it has moments of humor. CNN is Democrat! Who cares! Fox News is Republican - Who Cares! The media as a whole loses credibility and it will not be long before everyone starts ignoring these programs. Why? Because both networks are biased - everyone knows this. People get tired of the same old same old......

This is politics – it’s only going to get dirtier. I am sure there were many other Democrat videos submitted from other candidates. Who cares about the videos submitted the questions - it really is about connecting with the American people. It really is about their presence or lack of while on stage. It really is about their answers to the questions. Sometimes you have to go with the flow when given a curved ball – some were able to handle the curve ball. McCain showed signs of humor – while Mitt & Rudy fought like teenagers. Frankly, the only important issue was connecting with the American people –a few candidates did, most did not.

For the person that wanted a question for the Democrat Party, here is one.

Social Security started out as a 5% payroll tax. It is now a 14% payroll tax. It only took it 75 years to almost triple. The Democrat Party wants to "solve" Social Security by increasing taxes. At the current rate, Social Security will be a 100% payroll tax in 139 years.

Mr./Mrs. Candidate what is your plan to solve Social Security so my grandchildren will have it in 139 years? I am assuming that you can only tax 100%.

Well said, James Danley.

CNN=CLINTON NEWS NETWORK
ABC=ALL 'BOUT CLINTON?
seems like it, i see her and bills names on here a whole lot.

Some believe the questions asked especially about gays were the very best questions to bring positions on the most important issues that will be facing the next president.
Wow, I simple can't believe they can be helped. It was stated by Anderson that as many a 1500 questions were submitted from which CNN chose the few. It is true that everybody should be allowed to submit their questions, but who invited the Gay retired General to be in attendance? If not invited by CNN, who gave out tickets and when? Why if he was present did he have the opportunity to respond????
BAD JOB CNN, you should apologize for your inepness or glaring bias.

As a conservative Republican, I don't have a problem with the questions that were asked last night. While the debate was billed as a Republican debate, I don't recall anyone stating that only Republicans could submit questions. Even if these were questions on so-called Democratic issues, whoever is the Republican nominee will have to answer them eventually during the general election. It's one thing (not a problem) for a supporter of a Democratic candidate to ask the Republican candidates a question without a disclaimer. But it's quite another (a minor problem) for Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr, who is a member of Hillary Clinton's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Americans for Hillary Steering Committee. Had CNN done their homework (taking 2 seconds to Google his name) and then identified him as such, then I would not have had a problem with using his YouTube question.

The MEDIA is biased against everybody.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

remember CNN stands for Clinton Not-so-worthy News

I think you are missing the point (at least my point). Its not the questions, per se, its the hypocrisy. You cannot argue that the questions asked were, if not Dem talking points, leaning towards Dem issues and geared towards Dem point of views and CNN knew what they were doing. This is the reason why the Dems didn't do the Fox debate - they claim Fox is biased. My point is, no one can now claim the reverse is not true - no one can now claim that CNN is unbiased. They are clearly biased. That's my point. I'm sick of hearing the Dems cry about Fox and never mention that CNN is the same thing only going in the other direction!

Uh - these debates don't belong to anyone Gribbet. If they belong to anyway it would be the American People.

Why are you guys afraid of some 80 year old gay guy anyway. He asked a question about gay rights. He got some boos from the crowd, the candidates largely ignored him and moved on.

Get a grip. I don't see how this guy's question got in the way of Republican deciding who they want to nominate.

Omigosh!! I though caucus's and forums and debates are to give the people a chance to ask questions of each candidate -- and I would like to see the democratic candidates get the same question Brig. General's asked as well. (I though Hillary waffled on this issue saying Don't Ask Don't Tell is Working )-- Even with the plants it was still pretty scripted staying away from Climate Change and other controversial issues -- it was certainly better than the last staged "Clinton" debate one with the stacked audience.
Have we gotten that divided that Dems and Republicans can only attend public forum of their own party -- what about the independents???

These debates are for Republicans to decide who they wish to nominate. If Clinton wants to pull this crap once she has the nomination of her party and it is down to the nominees debating, that is a different story

The Hillary goons are just getting started. They have months to go before they sleep.

I think Dems wimping out of the Fox sponsored debate was not cool. Agreed.

But today we are talking about a public forum where candidates for public office are interviewing with The People for election by The People to that Public Office.

If wingnuts are upset about The People asking questions of candidates, the wingnuts should rise up and demand NO MORE YouTubes debates. Here's an idea for wingnuts to consider - Loyalty Oaths for all those who would have the temerity to pose a question to a candidate.

BTW doesn't GWB just about script all his taxpayer funded "town hall" events? What is all this isolation from The People about anyway? Gues this is why we have Conservapedia.

All you Dems who say, "what's the big deal" - ask yourself, what's the big deal that the Dems refused to go on FoxNews? Its because you say Fox is biased against them. Now, think to yourself in an objective manner, do you think CNN acting in an "unbiased" way? If you honestly answer that question, you'll see its the same thing. It cuts both ways. Don't claim the Dems were right for not waiting to go on Fox (presumably to avoid getting asked "planted" and biased questions) only to turn around and say what CNN did was fine and "fair and balanced". It wasn't and you know it. CNN is clearly just as biased towards the Dems as you claim Fox is biased towards the Reps. Plain and simple.

Again, if Republicans wanted to ask Democrats "Republican" questions (I wonder what they would even be: "Why do you care about people who don't look like every Republican presidential candidate?" "Why do you care about science when this book over here tells us everything we need to know?") then I'm sure the Democrats would be happy to field them.

Seriously, what is a Republican/Democratic question anyway? This issue seems ridiculous.

I do not see the issue here. Yes this was a Republican debate, but it's an American election. Since when does the political party of a questioner have anything to do with asking a reasonable question? Are we now screening our debates like Bush screens his so called "public" appearances?

Was anyone at the debate asking questions NOT a plant of the Clinton News Network? What a sham, time to boycott CNN and MSNBC. I hope this backfires on the DEMs big time. Enough slanted news coverage can they actually ask fair questions from real UNDECIDED voters. CNN has NO credibility for the rest of the 2008 campaign, no more CNN debates, period!

Give me a break, Commander Guy.

The Democrats won't even go on Fox because of 'bias'.

The CNN questions were absurd, and almost equally absurd was the post debate panel of GOP primary voters, the first one who was voting for 'Edwards'.

CNN has very little credibility, and for a reason...

According to the most respected unbiased study I could find (Univ of Chicago), gays and lesbians make up about 3-4 percent of the population. The percentage approaches the erroneously-reported 10 percent figure only in some select cities. It is not a big group of voters, but it carries clout beyond its numbers these days. And it is not a monolithic community. There are deeply religious gays, despite what Bible-thumpers would mandate, if they ruled the world. There are committed Republican gays. Many middle-class, quiet, professional gays frown upon the relatively few public 'flamers' in their community--who also have clout way beyond their numbers these days. But, 'gays in the military' was a rare issue where Bill Clinton had to back off, due to opposition from a huge majority of Americans, no matter what party. No, I don't trust CNN. It kow-towed to a Hillary-corp threat before the last Dem debate and threw her nothing but softballs, since she had lost the previous debate when she was asked tough questions. So, I could believe a 'plant' scenario. But, it doesn't make sense to me, that the 'plant' would stand up and shine a spotlight on the cozy relationship between liberal Dems and gay groups--if he were planted by Dems. I think this was a personal thing by Kerr, with some help, or a conspiracy by some group that really doesn't know how to play politics.

I'm sure all the Democratic candidates would be withdrawing after your three questions, so hopefully you'll just keep them to yourself.

Back to reality, I wouldn't care at alll if every question at a Democratic debate in which questions were solicited from the public were asked by Republicans. Why is that relevant?

A Democrat who supports Obama asked a question of the Republicans. Why is this surprising? Don't you suppose many of the questions for the Dem debate came from Republicans? I didn't see a requirement from CNN that you had to be a registered Republican to send in a question for last night's debate.

Re: Comments by The Commander Guy, DKNY, and Beth Foote: Who do you think you are fooling? You are Libs and Dems who, if the same thing happened to a Dem candidate, would be having "cat fits." Yes, it does make a difference who the questioner is, and you damn well know that it is. If not, why was there all the hullabaloo from “Dame Hillary” over Ted Koppel’s highly relevant questions to her? Let me ask the first three questions at the next Dem debate and they would all be finished (I was once a very active Dem, and believe me, I know them and where they are most vulnerable, especialy this year’s crop).

This was to be a debate, town hall style, between Republicans leading to a Republican primary. The agenda clearly is to inform Republican voters and caucus goers on each candidate’s position, demeanor, and abilities and inform everyone about candidates. All of the candidates should be available to answer any question.
That said when CNN decided to plant questioners with credentials such as alleged they moved from a news organization to a news managing organization. I suspect the good General has been paid by CNN for his past commentary and is certainly linked to another party and candidate. That’s not just wrong it is flat wrong.
CNN’s creditability is not questionable it is gone.

This is the same CNN that was "paid off" by Saddam Hussein in the 1990's to keep quiet about the mass murders and mass graves of the Iraqi people. This is the same CNN that shows videos of insurgents in Iraq killing American troops. It does not surprise anyone that CNN is not creditable when they state "they didn't know" that there were Democratic plants in the GOP debate. CNN has long been identified as either the "Communist News Network" or the "Clinton News Network". They are now more of an embaressment to true Journalistic Reporting; why Anderson Cooper stays with CNN is puzzling.

If you use a "plant" who pretends to be someone he or she is not, it is not clever; it is deceptive. Part of objective reporting means using discretion to ensure that various viewpoints are presented. Since time is limited, the responsible and unbiased thing to do is to poll questioners beforehand and choose questioners who are most representative of the audience present at the debate. It looks like CNN failed the sniff test at this debate. It is fine to bring certain issues to the forefront through editorial discretion. However, this should be clearly identified as "editorial". If you steer the questions being asked, it is no longer objective reporting. It is attempting to set an agenda. CNNs credibility is at stake. I don't think the risks that they took will offer the rewards they had hoped for.

Why is the identity of the questioner relevant? If the question is good, it is good. If the question is ridiculous or poorly phrased or unfairly phrased then say so and explain why. I don't follow this issue.

Great reporting but not surprising. Republicans are always held to a higher standard, which is good. However, it should go both ways, but the media allows Dems to get away with double talk (taking all sides of all issues). Could you imagine if Fox News hosted a debate and had conservatives planted in the audience??? Yet, no one in the media is shocked by the Clinton News Network (CNN) doing it!

If you are not man enough to take a question from a democrat or two, how can, we the people, trust you to stand up to Terrorists and Tyrants.

I think I've heard this somewhere before.