GOP Primaries/Candidates thread

[Balta1701]

It had to do with gays in the military, and I think the story is even up on drudge now. Bill Bennet busted CNN out on the after part of the debate where they were talking to the six critics about what they thought of the debate.

The sad thing? I think it appears that the Youtube debates were 2 of the 3 most interesting debates this cycle, because the questions were totally different from what are normally asked. Then of course, CNN has to bugger it up by not bothering to check on the backgrounds of people. Hell, Grover Norquist, a very powerful Republican activist, managed to get a question asked too. I mean, yeah the question is tempting, but seriously, don't you at least bother to Google the names of the people asking questions?

[Rex Kickass]

Grover Norquist, at least, disclosed who he was. Part of me thinks its crappy that Clinton and Obama voters got questions in, but at the same time... most of these questions were vetted by the candidates' staff ahead of time. So why does it really matter?

[mr_genius]

OK. That was definitely an interesting segment though. Hillary plant or not, I think it was a solid question and situation to put to that group.

 

 

It was a bs. Legit question? yes. But none of the other questions got the same treatment. So they play this guys question, then after the GOP answer Anderson is like "I want you to know mr.whateverhisnameis is in the crowd". CNN then gives the guy a microphone to give a big speech. This is not a town hall meeting, NO other audience members said anything. The only person was the CNN/Clinton plant that got to berate the candidates. It was a shameful display and only cements CNN's reputation as a bogus news enterprise.

Edited November 29, 2007 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

Grover Norquist, at least, disclosed who he was. Part of me thinks its crappy that Clinton and Obama voters got questions in, but at the same time... most of these questions were vetted by the candidates' staff ahead of time. So why does it really matter?

 

The issue is how it was handled. CNN knew who this guy was, that is why the gave him this big production during the debate. Not only did he get his video question on air, they gave him a microphone after the candidates answered so he could give a big long winded speech. Wtf?

[StrangeSox]

The issue is how it was handled. CNN knew who this guy was, that is why the gave him this big production during the debate. Not only did he get his video question on air, they gave him a microphone after the candidates answered so he could give a big long winded speech. Wtf?

 

I want to see candidates answer tough questions, but I don't want those questions to be part of political operations for their opponents. CNN really messed up big time on this one.

[mr_genius]

I want to see candidates answer tough questions, but I don't want those questions to be part of political operations for their opponents. CNN really messed up big time on this one.

 

It appears that there were numerous planted questions. CNN seems to have solicited 'youtube debate' questions from Clinton, Edwards and Obama campaign workers/activists. This is a pretty big scandal.

Edited November 29, 2007 by mr_genius

[southsider2k5]

The sad thing? I think it appears that the Youtube debates were 2 of the 3 most interesting debates this cycle, because the questions were totally different from what are normally asked. Then of course, CNN has to bugger it up by not bothering to check on the backgrounds of people. Hell, Grover Norquist, a very powerful Republican activist, managed to get a question asked too. I mean, yeah the question is tempting, but seriously, don't you at least bother to Google the names of the people asking questions?

 

I'd agree with this.

[mr_genius]

OK. That was definitely an interesting segment though. Hillary plant or not, I think it was a solid question and situation to put to that group.

 

I'd recommend watching the videos of the debate if you haven't seen them - to anyone here. In particular, that segment, but also the opening sequence between Giuliani and Romney about illegal immigrants, and also the McCain-Paul exchanges over Iraq.

 

 

Actually most of the questions were total garbage. A lot of stupid stuff like "what would jesus do?". No questions on education, healthcare or energy policy. CNN is probably done getting any GOP debates from now on. From all the planted questions selected by Dems at CNN to the big planned out scene with the gay general. However, I thought the candidates handled the situation well.

[southsideirish71]

Actually most of the questions were total garbage. A lot of stupid stuff like "what would jesus do?". No questions on education, healthcare or energy policy. CNN is probably done getting any GOP debates from now on. From all the planted questions selected by Dems at CNN to the big planned out scene with the gay general. However, I thought the candidates handled the situation well.

 

My favorite obvious plant was the Gay General who they claim they didnt know who he was, even though he appeared on CNN a few years back on the Dont Ask Dont tell policy.

 

These questions were a series of plants. The Clinton News Network had some fun.

 

 

Either CNN's research department is stupid, or crooked.

Edited November 29, 2007 by southsideirish71

[NorthSideSox72]

My favorite obvious plant was the Gay General who they claim they didnt know who he was, even though he appeared on CNN a few years back on the Dont Ask Dont tell policy.

 

These questions were a series of plants. The Clinton News Network had some fun.

Either CNN's research department is stupid, or crooked.

All of you conspiracy theorists that keep pointing at these questions and questioners as plants are making the assumption that CNN is somehow acting like they didn't know the general was gay or something. Or that the GOP pundit with a question wasn't a GOP pundit. I watched the entire debate, and they knew darn well who they all were.

 

So what's the conspiracy? How is asking uncomfortable questions that put people in awkward positions making them crooked or stupid?

 

The only thing I am seeing here that's at all dirty is an accusation that this gay general was a supposed Clinton "plant". How is he a "plant" if CNN asked him on there, knowing what he was?

 

And why do people give a s*** if candidates are questioned in the debates by people not of a common viewpoint? To me, that is a very, very good thing, for a change.

 

[EvilMonkey]

All of you conspiracy theorists that keep pointing at these questions and questioners as plants are making the assumption that CNN is somehow acting like they didn't know the general was gay or something. Or that the GOP pundit with a question wasn't a GOP pundit. I watched the entire debate, and they knew darn well who they all were.

 

So what's the conspiracy? How is asking uncomfortable questions that put people in awkward positions making them crooked or stupid?

 

The only thing I am seeing here that's at all dirty is an accusation that this gay general was a supposed Clinton "plant". How is he a "plant" if CNN asked him on there, knowing what he was?

 

And why do people give a s*** if candidates are questioned in the debates by people not of a common viewpoint? To me, that is a very, very good thing, for a change.

It all goes towards credibility. If the questions are good, why sneak in people associated with the Democratic party or candidates in any way? If global warming is such a threat, why exagerate the facts to the point of absurdidty? If the war effort is really that bad, why make up stories of atrocities that never happened? It is like a great many on the liberal side of things have no faith in their facts or arguments and have to try and tweak them to the point that they are crying wolf, and noone will listen.

[NorthSideSox72]

It all goes towards credibility. If the questions are good, why sneak in people associated with the Democratic party or candidates in any way? If global warming is such a threat, why exagerate the facts to the point of absurdidty? If the war effort is really that bad, why make up stories of atrocities that never happened? It is like a great many on the liberal side of things have no faith in their facts or arguments and have to try and tweak them to the point that they are crying wolf, and noone will listen.

Again, I think you're missing my real question here... What "sneak" occurred with this gay general that wasn't a "sneak" with the other questions? The answer is NONE. CNN put a guy on who would ask a question that would be tough to answer. That isn't sneaky - its good debate fodder.

 

And using your parallels, who is exagerrating points about global warming to the point of absurdity? Surely someone is, but you seem to believe that its being done as a policy point by the Dems, which is 100% false. Are the Dems the same things as the idiots who wrote "The Day After Tomorrow" to you? If they are, then why don't I just go assuming that the GOP is best represented by Ann Coulter?

 

This, to me, is the definition of manufactured outrage.

 

[southsider2k5]

My first question would be did they have known hardcore conservatives ask Dem's on controversial issues to make them look bad?

[NorthSideSox72]

My first question would be did they have known hardcore conservatives ask Dem's on controversial issues to make them look bad?

I would love to see the questions for the Dems include those asked by conservatives, liberals and independents. I didn't see the Dem YouTube debate though, so I don't know if that is what happened.

 

[kapkomet]

I would love to see the questions for the Dems include those asked by conservatives, liberals and independents. I didn't see the Dem YouTube debate though, so I don't know if that is what happened.

Come on NSS... you're not THAT dense.

[mr_genius]

All of you conspiracy theorists that keep pointing at these questions and questioners as plants are making the assumption that CNN is somehow acting like they didn't know the general was gay or something. Or that the GOP pundit with a question wasn't a GOP pundit. I watched the entire debate, and they knew darn well who they all were.

 

So what's the conspiracy? How is asking uncomfortable questions that put people in awkward positions making them crooked or stupid?

 

The only thing I am seeing here that's at all dirty is an accusation that this gay general was a supposed Clinton "plant". How is he a "plant" if CNN asked him on there, knowing what he was?

 

And why do people give a s*** if candidates are questioned in the debates by people not of a common viewpoint? To me, that is a very, very good thing, for a change.

 

 

Uh, it's not the fact that they ask supposedly hard questions, it's the format of having some "surprise" guest who gets a microphone and gives a speech after the candidates answer. They sure didn't do that to the Dems. It's also the type of questions asked, selecting decent questions to the Dems then selecting Dem operatives to select the questions for the GOP. This is a GOP primary, questions should be geared towards the issues that GOP voters want to know about. Not what the Democrats at CNN think will be a 'gotcha' question. The whole debate was a debacle for CNN, it was a joke. If you can't see the bias on this issue, you got on the 'blinders' big time.

[mr_genius]

My first question would be did they have known hardcore conservatives ask Dem's on controversial issues to make them look bad?

 

 

Of course not, that wouldn't be fair. See, what is the fair, is to have Democrats select the questions for the Dem debate, and have Democrats select the questions for the GOP debate. See, it makes it consistent.

 

If you don't see the logic in that you are just a conspiracy theorist.

Edited November 30, 2007 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

I would love to see the questions for the Dems include those asked by conservatives, liberals and independents. I didn't see the Dem YouTube debate though, so I don't know if that is what happened.

So, Media Matters, of course, has at least catalogued some of those so as to allow a baseline of comparison with what came up during the Republican debate.

QUESTION: My name is Marcus Benson from Minneapolis, and I'd like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like usually they do when a Democrat gets into office?

 

[...]

 

QUESTION: Good evening, America. My name is Jered Townsend from Clio, Michigan. 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. Please tell me your views. Thank you.

 

[...]

 

QUESTION: Mitch from Philadelphia. 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?

 

[...]

 

QUESTION: My name is John. I'm from West Virginia.

 

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.

While obviously none of these are exact parallels, given that presumably none of these folks are allowing their names to be publically presented as high-profile endorsers of another candidate, I believe they at least help give an answer to your question (and please note, this is not a defense of CNN's failure to do a background check on this guy or whatever it was that allowed him to ask a question, merely an attempt to answer NSS's question) Edited November 30, 2007 by Balta1701

[EvilMonkey]

Again, I think you're missing my real question here... What "sneak" occurred with this gay general that wasn't a "sneak" with the other questions? The answer is NONE. CNN put a guy on who would ask a question that would be tough to answer. That isn't sneaky - its good debate fodder.

 

And using your parallels, who is exagerrating points about global warming to the point of absurdity? Surely someone is, but you seem to believe that its being done as a policy point by the Dems, which is 100% false. Are the Dems the same things as the idiots who wrote "The Day After Tomorrow" to you? If they are, then why don't I just go assuming that the GOP is best represented by Ann Coulter?

 

This, to me, is the definition of manufactured outrage.

I am not the one that said it was a sneak attack, just that the stupidity of those involved lowers their credibility lower than Uribe's batting average. As for the other points, who is exagerating global warming threats? How about the Goracle? And since most of the Dem candidates seemed to hearily endorse his little propaganda piece, and incorporate some of his ideas into their own GW platform, I guess you can say it is a pretty large crown. Oh, and didn't really say it was dems, I said"It is like a great many on the liberal side of things...". Note that I didn't say 'all', or 'Dems'. There is just this bunch of people in politics on the left side of things that seems to have no faith at all in the strength and/or sincerity of their earguments that they have to make thnigs up or exagerate to try and get their point across. In the end, all they do is undermine the efforts of others by maknig them seem like kooks not worthy of attention.

[southsider2k5]

So, Media Matters, of course, has at least catalogued some of those so as to allow a baseline of comparison with what came up during the Republican debate.

While obviously none of these are exact parallels, given that presumably none of these folks are allowing their names to be publically presented as high-profile endorsers of another candidate, I believe they at least help give an answer to your question (and please note, this is not a defense of CNN's failure to do a background check on this guy or whatever it was that allowed him to ask a question, merely an attempt to answer NSS's question)

 

So what are their connections to the Republician party? And to follow that up, were one in four people asking questions, connected to the Republician party? I don't know if there is an actual conspiracy or not, but you would think when you have been tagged with the derogatory nickname the "Clinton News Network" you would at least make sure people working for the Clintons weren't asking the questions

 

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a.../111300093/1001

 

CNN hit for planted questions

By Christina Bellantoni

November 30, 2007

 

Not only did CNN include a question from Clinton supporter retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr in its debate, but the network also brought him to the forum for a follow-up

 

CNN intended for political sparks to fly during Wednesday"s Republican presidential debate, but outrage and accusations of partisanship were directed at the network instead.

 

The backlash started after it turned out that a homosexual retired soldier asking about "don"t ask, don"t tell" has an affiliation with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton"s campaign. The network was forced to apologize and scrubbed the exchange from its repeat of the two-hour debate, even though the Clinton campaign says retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr was not acting on behalf of the Democratic presidential front-runner.

 

But things spiraled downward for CNN yesterday as bloggers — a more natural audience for a debate co-hosted by YouTube — held each questioner under a magnifying glass and found anti-Republican links ranging from the Council on American-Islamic Relations to a pro-Democratic labor union. The network defended its choice of questioners and noted that it drew 5 million viewers — the most-watched primary debate ever.

 

Reports flew on the Internet that at least nine of the 34 questions posed via YouTube videos — on topics ranging from corn subsidies to Social Security reform — came from voters who have ties to Democrats or a vested interest in asking the Republicans to go on record.

 

"Would it have killed CNN to Google some of these people?" conservative blogger Jason Coleman asked.

 

On the personal Web page of David McMillan of Los Angeles, who asked the candidates why many black voters choose Democrats over Republicans, are many political videos, including one with a Politico.com video blogger asking which presidential candidate was most "gangsta." In the video, he called Sen. John McCain of Arizona "Insane McCain." There are also photos of him attending a fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and laudatory videos of former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, both Democrats.

 

Adam Florzak, who asked about Social Security, has an entire Web site devoted to the subject (www.pactamerica.com) and a 2005 article describes him as "hell-bent on reforming Social Security and the pension system" and working with someone from Democratic Whip Sen. Richard J. Durbin's staff.

 

At his site, Mr. Florzak describes his efforts to get a personal meeting to put his Social Security plan into the hands of Mr. Obama and has posted a video of himself asking the Illinois Democrat about the issue during a town-hall meeting.

[NorthSideSox72]

Looking at the questions asked of the Dems, there were some conservative sounding questions there too.

 

So really, the only difference here is that the tough question was asked by someone who works for a Clinton-related organization, right? Look, I've been as critical of Clinton as anyone here, but my response is still... so what? I could care less if one of those questions asked of the Dems that was uncomfortable was asked by someone related to a GOP campaign. It makes no difference.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Looking at the questions asked of the Dems, there were some conservative sounding questions there too.

 

So really, the only difference here is that the tough question was asked by someone who works for a Clinton-related organization, right? Look, I've been as critical of Clinton as anyone here, but my response is still... so what? I could care less if one of those questions asked of the Dems that was uncomfortable was asked by someone related to a GOP campaign. It makes no difference.

 

Keep in mind these are the same Democrats who refused to do a Fox News Debate because of their "bias". So basically it is OK to sneak in through the backdoor with questions, but they aren't willing to give the same courtesy when the other side tries to do the same thing, well except they want it honestly and openly (instead of through proxies).

 

I can't say that it doesn't surprise me, its just pathetic that it comes to this. I would much rather see a debate where tough questions are asked, and I don't have a problem with all parties asking them. It would just be nice if they were willing to play by their own rules. Heck I miss when debates were actually debates. These pre-programed beauty pagents bore the s*** out of me. Yeah, it was more entertaining, and enlightening, just what happened to honesty and fact-checking?

[NorthSideSox72]

New ARG poll for Iowa shows Romney and Huckabee pretty much deadlocked. Results, with change from previous ARG in parens...

 

Romney: 28% (+2)

Huckabee: 27% (+3)

Thompson: 14% (+3)

McCain: 9% (-1)

Giuliani: 9% (-2)

Paul: 3% (even)

 

Romney and Huckabee dominating, Giuliani now down in single digits and tied for 4th.

 

ETA: Interesting that Giuliani and McCain were both well into the 20's about 6 months ago in Iowa. Huckabee was at 2% at that time, Romney 16%.

 

[southsider2k5]

Glad to see Thompson with a little bit of a bounce.

 

Also has Guiliani just given up on Iowa? He is getting killed there. It really makes NH very important for him.

[NorthSideSox72]

Glad to see Thompson with a little bit of a bounce.

 

Also has Guiliani just given up on Iowa? He is getting killed there. It really makes NH very important for him.

Last five NH polls...

 

Romney:___34_33_34_36_34

Giuliani:____16_16_20_22_15

McCain:____16_18_13_11_15

Huckabee:__6__5__7__13_14

Paul:______8__8__8__2__8

Thompson:_5__4__2__3__3

 

So Giuliani isn't exactly doing great in NH either. Huckabee making a run there and is basically even with McCain and Giuliani. But Romney is dominating. Thompson is a non-factor at this point.

 

I think the GOP polls over the next week will be very telling. The GOP debate, for all the bluster and controversy here, was the most watched primary debate in history they are saying. It was the first chance to really see Huckabee for a lot of America, and the chance for Romney and Giuliani to duke it out for pole position. It will be interesting to see what people thought of them after those debates, in IA and NH particularly.