Speechifying General Was on Hillary's Steering Committee
CNN employs YouTube, but not Google.
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 | CNN | Media | Media Bias | Media Incompetence — Comments (64) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So the folks at CNN selected a question from a retired general with a pretty impressive service record to question them all on whether "don't ask, don't tell" should be dropped. The first candidate to answer was Duncan Hunter, who gave a pretty clear "No" answer (it took the full time, but was still pretty unequivocally "No.") At this point, I was distracted by something in the house, so I didn't catch all the answers, but I did also hear one of the other candidates say something to the effect of "No, because it's working." Then CNN cut to the guy, who was in the audience, whereupon he inexplicably said that he "didn't get an answer," and then was allowed to speechify for a longer period of time than any of the candidates got to answer any question.
Turns out, via our commenter smagar, that this guy is on Hillary's steering committee.
Way to go, CNN. Way to display journalistic competence and put to rest all those accusations of bias.
Oh, yeah, Ron Paul is a scumbag butcher-apologizing moron. I was wrong: he's no better than most of his supporters, except that he uses less four-letter words.
UPDATE (by Dan McLaughlin): Anderson Cooper says he didn't ask and should have told:
Hilarious, really, that a Hillary campaign official would plant a question...criticizing a policy enacted by Hillary's husband.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | In Which the GOP Field Drives RS Contributors to Drink — Comments (60) »
Speechifying General Was on Hillary's Steering Committee 64 Comments (0 topical, 64 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
that Rudy's featured commercial included a comment about Hillary planting a question.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Guess what the big story of this debate will be? Not "sanctuary mansions." Not Huckabee's performance.
No, the MSM will instead be all abuzz with (a) the issue of gays in the military and (b) how CNN got snookered. I suspect GEN Kerr will be on MSNBC tomorrow night, and in the pages of the NYT by Friday. (Something tells me that's not what the RNC wanted to see coming out of tonight, eh?)
And, folks, there's dang little we can do about it.
Who do we complain to? CNN? They've already said they're sorry. And, let's be honest, do you think they give one hoot about being fair to Republicans? Heck, their desired audience is probably silently applauding CNN, and wouldn't mind if the network had actually done this on purpose. (For the record, I don't think they did it on purpose).
The Hillary campaign? No way. They have plausible deniability. The general was acting on his own, they'll surely say. And, unless we have some strong evidence to the contrary, it's not a good idea to insinuate they were involved. Plus, if they did do it---good on them! Politics ain't beanbag. It was CNN's job, not theirs, to make sure the debate was fair---and it now appears that CNN was unable to do that job---or didn't care to do it.
Now, we all know the drill. CNN will deploy Howard Kurtz as their cleaner. He'll conduct some hard-hitting, soul-searching interviews with CNN officials and other MSM luminati. He'll scold his colleagues for being careless...and then move on.
From what I can see, there's not much we can do. The Dems have successfully turned the GOP's night against it. And, the culprits will get away. Think about it---what can the GOP do? Refuse to go on CNN during the election cycle? (Besides, as CNN will tell us with a sparkling smile, it was all an innocent mistake.) To whom do we complain? And, even if we do complain, we come off looking like whiners.
Congrats, Dems. I tip my hat to you. You scored a big one. A clean kill. Roger Stone, the GOP political trickster, has to be impressed.
All we can do is lick our wounds and keep on keeping on. And, never trust anything CNN tells us again.
To Patrick Ruffini and Mary Katherine Ham (bloggers who worked hard for this YouTube event)---got any suggestions about how we get even for this? No...I didn't think so.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
I think it plays right into the widespread perception that she is unscrupulous and amoral. Of course you are right that the MSM will try to ignore that little aspect, but I can't see how this doesn't blowback on Clinton due to their association with one another, denied or not.
Tomorrow, if I were here, I'd proclaim (with a smug, satisfied little smile) that she and her campaign had nothing to do with this. And, unless Son of Deep Throat emerges from the Clinton campaign, what proof do we have?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Most people won't believe her, although most admittedly won't care.
You nailed something below, though, and I think it is important. CNN obviously didn't learn anything from Rathergate. I think the same applies to the Clintons...they are kind of caught in a Nineties timewarp, wherein the alternative media had just started to be a problem for the Left. That needs to be exploited. A decade ago the MSM wouldn't have hammered Bill Clinton as much over his comments that he always opposed the Iraq War--because the blogosphere and other alternatives weren't strong enough to keep the dinosaurs honest.
THIS is what the buzz will be about tomorrow. Not anything the GOP wanted to be talking about---this. Essentially, Hillary (or her supporters) stole the GOP's night.
Ya gotta hand it to them.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Nixonian-like street creds that show Democratic primary voters she will do anything to win, she certainly has pushed it forward. I don't think she thought the connection would be made, at least so quickly, and that offers me some comfort.
Profoundly stupid. Look at the legs this stories got.
1. Politicians are lying scuzzbuckets (check)
2. Media incompetency and are easily manipulated (check)
3. Media that is not CNN gets to laugh at them (check)
4. It amplifies previous and well know information (check)
5. It fits into soundbytes and doesn't require thinking to understand (Check check and check)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Who cares what the question is... I do not think we should allow any Democrats to ask a Republican any questions.
Its not fair to mix the debates.
They have their issues and we have ours.
one where Cromwell whispers to Henry VIII as the Privy Council elaborates on another marital conundrum: "we can't use that one again, Your Majesty, that was our solution for wife #__"
...when no one asks any questions.
HRC: Oops, we knew nothing about it.
MSM: Okay. No problem.
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
I could tell it was a setup the second they had him speak from the audience. What the hell was that? A debate or an ambush? I'd like to see CNN have questioners whose children were victims of a criminal let off by a liberal judge or an illegal immigrant criminal not deported after he served his sentence. I'd like to see CNN have questions from an Iraqi who risked his life to give Americans intelligence on Al Qaeda and ask why the Democrats want to abandon him and Iraqis who are dying by the tens of thousands fighting radical Jihad. This debate was an absurd anti-Republican farce and the fact that CNN gave several minutes to a Hillary Clinton plant only makes it more overwhelmingly obvious.
And as far as Ron Paul, he just went absolutely over the edge in this debate. It's one thing to talk about blowback. It's another to specifically justify Al Qaeda's mass murder on 9/11 by saying that we were occupying Saudi Arabia and deserved it. We had troops who had no authority in Saudi Arabia on bases in the desert, invited by the government! Even if we HAD been occupying Saudi Arabia that is no excuse for mass murder of civilians! And since when is the United States always at fault? Why the **** shouldn't Al Qaeda expect blowback from killing thousands of men, women, and children who went to work or to see the view from the World Trade Center? Isn't that worse than some American soldiers sitting in the desert at the request of the government? Ron Paul can go to hell.
I'd like to see CNN have questioners whose children were victims of a criminal let off by a liberal judge or an illegal immigrant criminal not deported after he served his sentence. I'd like to see CNN have questions from an Iraqi who risked his life to give Americans intelligence on Al Qaeda and ask why the Democrats want to abandon him and Iraqis who are dying by the tens of thousands fighting radical Jihad.
Even if CNN were so inclined---and, after tonight, I think it's fair to speculate if they are indeed so inclined---the Dems would never allow it. Trust me, any audience questioners will now be fully vetted.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Personally I welcome it. Our guys better be able to deal with this now, because there will only be more of it as time goes on.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I am perturbed by CNN's deliberate attempt to represent Gen. Kerr as a distinguished veteran who was merely posing a question from a non-partisan point of view, as nothing could be further from the truth. CNN would surely know (as they have had prior dealings with Kerr) that he has been a long-time activist working to overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
In a December 11, 2003 interview that aired on CNN's American Morning, Kerr appeared with retired Coast Guard Rear Admiral Alan Steinman and retired Army Brigadier General Virgil Richard (all three of whom disclosed their orientation to the New York Times.) At that time, Kerr was quoted as saying the following:
It's the 10th anniversary of don't ask, don't tell and the three of us think that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is not working. It prohibits and discourages loyal Americans who want to serve their country from doing so, because they have to lie and conceal their personal life. And Americans who are interested in serving their country should be given the opportunity to do so.
I am finding it harder and harder to believe that SOMEONE at CNN didn't know who this guy was. No one is this incompetent.
I mean, for Pete's sake, he's been interviewed on CNN before!
Oh, and CNN, the blogosphere dug up all this info less than one hour after the telecast ended.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Don't let the Dems get any PR hay from this. Ask loudly and often why Bill Clinton put the brakes on his plans to allow gays in the military. That should make Hillary's camp back off. And, as for Obama and the rest of the Apple Dumpling Gang---who cares?
OK, CNN, there you go. The next move is yours.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
of making amends. They are doing what they are told - by the Clinton's.
She's now the boy who cried wolf. Even if she denies planting the question who will believe her? The MSM has the template that she plants questions and the MSM won't change it until the general. Watch Obama or Edwards use the "She even plants questions to republicans" line soon. It's a win/win for them. She plans questions and republicans are anti-gay. They'll use it.
...BTW....I don't know why everyone is so giddy every time she makes a gaffe like this.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
7 AG/GOV elections in Arkansas, the 1992 primaries, two presidential elections, 2 Senate elections, and only two losses (Bill's 1st race and his 1980 loss). Compare that to one Senate race and a few state legislative wins and one Congressional primary loss for Obama.
Obama has his weaknesses too; the man's a rank amateur. I'd rather face him.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
...I'm going to bed.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
.....she was thoroughly embarrassed after getting caught planting questions, why does she keep doing it? This woman is unbelievable!
The thing is, I want her to save these gaffes for the general election.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
GEN Kerr could have been acting on his own. That's highly likely. Army generals are notorious for exercising initiative.
OR, if HRC's people did plant the question, do we have any evidence pointing back to her? Has anyone gotten a call tonight from Son of Deep Throat, from deep inside HRC headquarters?
Unless we have some really good hard evidence, I STRONGLY suggest we not imply HRC is behind this.
And, even if her campaign did do this, it was CNN's job to ensure the debate was a fair one. I think it's now fair to speculate that CNN didn't really care if this debate was fair. It was, after all, a debate for Republicans.
Let CNN convince us that they deserve our trust. I'm not holding my breath, because I don't think they care one whit for our trust. We're not their target audience.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
This has more angles than I want to think about.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
And, apparently, a successful one at that.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
For all we will ever know it could have been Anderson Cooper that orchestrated this. I lean towards Obama going for a twofer but who can say ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Certainly the collusion angle cannot be ignored. Clinton very well could win, but easily exposed stunts like this and an apparent unawareness about how easy it is to expose things in the post-MSM era certainly make her vulnerable and erases any doubt that could linger about where CNN's loyalities are.
Hmmm. Not a nice position to be in.
Assuming that CNN was trying to be fair all along, that is. (Given how big a screwup this was, it's hard to imagine an outfit like CNN making this big a mistake).
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
news Team
"Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard -- awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff."
CNN clearly understands the benefit of choosing sides.
Do you all think that anyone is really going to remember this debate next year? No way. The General didn't do any damage to any one candidate...no big whoop.
The real loser is CNN. Inevitably they'll want a CNN/You Tube debate for the general. Think the RNC is going to allow that now? This will work out in the long run - Hillary! exposed as having a hand in it (sure they can deny it, but her negatives are so bad nobody will believe it), the General didn't take anyone specific out, and CNN loses credbility.
During this retired General's rant, I actually felt a little disgusted by some of the heckling coming from the audience, but now, not so much.
Maybe they had laptops and had Googled who this guy was. A dirty trick all the way. But so typically Clintonian.
Blogs 4 Conservatives is keeping conservatism alive in the 21st century and beyond!
You mean the so-called news network that has officially rolled over for the Clinton's? The network that was told to lay off Hillary and did? Are we at all surprised that CNN would not only roll over for Hillary but would now place her stooges in the audience of a Republican debate to ask bogus questions?
If you think CNN was not in on this, did not know who we was, you are kidding yourself.
is meaningless. This is merely one of many many anti-Republican, unethical moves they have made. What was an active member of the Clinton campaign doing there in the first place?
I look forward to CNN's amswers; I hope someone asks them directly and specifically.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
and do not care to discuss their implosion anymore. First CNN coddled Saddam. Then CNN coddled Hillary in her debate. Now CNN is a forum for democrat activists to ask misleading questions of Republicans. Yes, America's free press is in great shape.
It would appear that this is not an isolated case. Not by a long shot. Michelle Malkin sniffed out some more Democrat party plants in the CNN/YouTube Debate. Nuance!
Blogs 4 Conservatives is keeping conservatism alive in the 21st century and beyond!
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Jason Coleman thinks he's found another and another. And it hasn't even been 12 hours yet.
Were there any questioners who weren't Dems?
Blogs 4 Conservatives is keeping conservatism alive in the 21st century and beyond!
the Dem candidates were all afraid to debate on FNC because some of the questions might not be from Code Pink or the ACLU or Hillary's staff.
How do you think they got so many democrat activists on to push their agenda?
for the Republicans to ban CNN the same way the Dems banned Fox.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
The "elder statesman" of cable news is just competing for that all-important Kos/Moonbat/Shut-in/Still-lives-with-Mommy-at-37/Troother demographic.
Oh, and when did Mr. Jane Fonda's TV Democrat campaignnews network ever have journalistic standards?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Given the history of these two god-awful miscreants there isn't much reason to doubt. Also, I've heard rumors that in politics perceptions count, innocent or not, this reflects on her. If she wasn't stupid enough to do it, and don't bet she isn't, the general certainly was, the perception accrues to her and her increasingly marred campaign. In other words she's guilty either way.
Can't help thinking about the outcry over Democrats possibly appearing on Fox News because it's biased, it doesn't do news you know. So this is what liberals prefer, CNN, which spoon feds them the pablum they want to hear and doesn't upset their infantilism.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
She and Her Manthing are petty, disingenuous, autophiliacs who worshipfully gaze into any handy mirror.
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
her campaign knew and "didn't" tell her. This was another great gaff for us and adds more evidence to the lier, planter image. In this case I kinda feel for Cooper because he's always seemed fair to me. He's one of the few CNN folks I kinda sorta like.
Oh and I agree we want to face Hillary not Obama. Hillary doesn't expand her base at all. She's got no upside. She's too well known.
Obama could create Obama republicans. He'd be a 1 termer like Carter, but he would be awesome as a candidate. When's the last time the Dems had a likeable candidate without personal baggage? Inexperiance won't hurt him in a "change" election either.
2000 Bush 41 set up on larry king by clintons George Stephanopoulos on Iran Contra. just before election.
2004 Bush/Kerry debate Kerry people plant questions about national guard
2007 Pro hillary crowd just when she needs it
never changes at cnn boycott now
and to a lesser extent Clinton. CNN is spinning. This is much like Rathergate--except this has has exploded during the primary. This will not go over well for either CNN or Clinton.
Although it is good to let MSM biases be exposed, I think it is time to boycott CNN. The network has moved beyond the normal left-wing media joke into an active dirty trickster for a political party and candidate.
Rolling over for Hillary at her demand. Planting democrat activists in to pretend to be just regular folk, against Republicans. Wolfie the poodle, rolling over and licking Hillary's hand. CNN the network coddling tyrants around the world.
They are worse then useless. They waste their freedom and rush to be owned by enemies of their freedom.
Cheating Clinton? What else is new?
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
She's changed the damn subject. Yesterday, this time, the news was Bill's crapola about his supporting the Iraq War, focusing not only on his difficulty with the truth, but what her position was from day one. Guess what's not in the news this morning? Guess what's in the news this morning? Seems to me, her operatives bailed her out again.
As, with some sarcasm, I posted yesterday, the Clinton way appears to be to negate one idiocy with another. There is this thing known as accumulation, the blunders and corruption add up.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
the Democrats next YouTube love-fest?
Did you notice that the theme of the questions posed to Democrats was "Why aren't you more 'progressive'?"
This is the same theme that the questioners posed to Republicans last night.
Chris Matthews was the only one to throw a hardball at any of the Democrats. And he picked Hillary, who least represents what he wants from a Democratic candidate (if I've gauged his progressiveness correctly).
Romney/Thompson 2008
Yes, DADT was a Clinton policy. Hillary probably doesn't want to be associated with DADT during the primary, and her shill attempted to make it look like the GOP imposed it. Of course, his main effect was to draw attention to Clintonian sleaze.
Does anyone at this stage think the general helped Clinton in any way whatsoever?
While despicable for any news source to allow this to happen, it's not a bad thing for the GOP. While Clinton hasn't been enthralled in any major scandals this campaign, she seems to be making little gaffes every week such as the one last night. For all the efforts that went into trying to humanize her for the campaign, these stories that make the news every week remind all Americans of the games the Clintons play.
I say let her continue to run little stunts like this. Her poll numbers will just keep dropping.
Hillary's rep was that she was so controlled that she never made mistakes (or at least never got caught). She's been slipping up.
In the planted questions for Dem debate/appearance and planted questions for GOP debate cases, she's claiming no knowledge or approval of it. So is she incompetent at controlling her people or a liar? Either answer is okay with me.
It's the reverse version of what she says about Bush. He's this blithering idiot who was able to pull off this great scheme to fool the smartest people in the world like her and John Kerry. So is he really a genius or is she really an idiot. Again, either answer is okay.
I strongly dislike what he has to say, but his voice is extremely grating on my ears too, is it just me?
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party ! Pastafarianism anyone?