I’ll be the first to admit, I missed last night’s YouTube-format GOP Presidential debate on CNN. In retrospect, it was probably a good thing. Reading the recaps of the debate, it would have been as much a waste of my time as it was a waste of time for the GOP candidates themselves. I received one of the action alert emails from RedState.com Editor, Erick Erickson, that was sent out to all RedState.com subscribers.
Dear RedState Reader:
RedState is calling for CNN to fire Sam Feist, their political director; and David Bohrman, Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate.
During last night’s debate, which CNN billed as “a Republican debate, and the goal was to let Republican voters see their candidates,” CNN either knowingly or incompetently allowed hardcore left wing activists to plant questions and Anderson Cooper willingly gave one of those activists a soapbox so he could harass the Republican candidates about military policy.
Simple googling would have revealed these left wing activists.
Had CNN done its homework, this would not have happened. They either willfully let it happen, or incompetently bungled it. Either way, heads should roll.
Likewise, we hope one or more of the GOP Presidential candidates will call for a do-over debate on substantive policy issues.
You can read our Directors post here.
You might want to take a moment to read the RedState directors’ call to action concerning the debate. CNN showed their bias by allowing Dem plants to pose questions to the candidates. RedState allows for the possibility that this may have merely been incompetency, but knowing CNN and their agenda, I find that highly doubtful.
I find it ironic that the Dems submarined a planned debate co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus on Fox News because they were either scared of potential hardball questions or because of their hatred of Fox News. Yet the GOP willingly participated in the CNN debates despite CNN’s track record as a mouthpiece for Democrats and liberal activists.
I don’t watch CNN on TV or read any of their “expert analysis” online. I mainly check out their website for news stories. I will likely continue to do so, but I also don’t think it would be a bad idea to hold someone accountable for allowing Dem activists a platform at a debate that was supposed to serve as an educational forum for GOP voters in the primaries. Just like CBS and Rathergate, CNN has now painted a clearer picture when it comes to their political and social agenda. I’m just sorry that more Americans can’t see through this crap.
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
Comments
I think it is very ironic that all of these people, remind you, out of 5,000 entries were mostly from a party other than the Republican Party, or at the very least, conservatives.
Secondly, CNN said they didn’t care who the people were, but what their question entailed. Well, if that is true, why did they make it known during the debate who and where Grover Norquist was from (Americans For Tax Reform)?
Yeah, there is no bias at CNN?
I watched the debate. It wasn’t nearly as bad as the after-reports claim. Fact is, the retired gay general who asked the questions shouldn’t have been picked as one of the questioners because he has apparently allowed Hillary to use his name on her LBGT “issues” board, or whatever. Nonetheless, his question made perfect sense and, yeah, the candidates’ double-speak answers made them look bad. That’s the candidates’ problem. A strong leader should be able to take any reasonable questions and give a reasonable answer. Because our candidates (Republican AND Democrats) feel obligated to “pander to the straights,” they ended up looking as backward as a Sudanese cleric on this particular question. I say let’s give all the candidates (Republican and Democrat alike) all the “gotcha questions” we can come up with. The candidate who is willing to give substantive, honest answers gets my vote. It seems odd that we’ve become so interested in style over substance that we get angry if someone asks our candidate a difficult questions. Both parties have had this happen recently. I say, make every question difficult.
Mike, I will agree with you to a certain extent.
When will a Democrat be asked about the inner city and the black on black crime and why black parents cannot have the choice of school vouchers to get their children out of troubled neighborhoods?
The Reps, for Heavens’ sake, still get asked Confederate Flag questions?
How about putting a little discomfort in the Dem candidates, since they champion themselves as the fighters of the black people.
As a matter of fact, it is the Reps who want to get blacks out of areas that are crime-ridden, but Dems won’t have them getting school vouchers.
I wonder why? Don’t worry, I KNOW why.
Good points. And, yeah, it was rediculuos that the Confederate Flag question was asked in the debate, as if there aren’t any real issues to be addressed.
Been off-lilne for a while (awaiting a new PC).
However, I have wanted to open a question regardiing a certain ‘Oh-So-OUT’ general who posited so dramatically a question to the Republican debate.
On how many security clearance forms did he (materially) misrepresent himself. What branch of the Army was he assigned?
As to the culture of the Pentagon, he was perhaps more a part of it (being a general officer) than anyone he questioned. What steps had he then taken to work out a solution for the services.
One question we always asked during an investigation was “Do you know anything that would adversely reflect on (SUBJECT’s) loyalty, integrity, discretion, morals (ethics) or character?”
I suggest that the general obscured his homosexuality at a time when questionaires required of subject’s an answer.
Thus he has poisoned his roots and the fruit of his enlightenment is equally toxic.
I feel confident in my opinion as I waived a direct (reserve) commission rather than lie after serving in the regular army and reserves. I just dropped the whole show as an SFC (E7).
But I am proud I served, and humbled by the character of great colleagues I have been honored to know.
(I am using the Boston Public Library’s Computer Center, so I could be censored and subject to rendition across the river to the Emirate of Cambridge or any number of anti-US jurisdictions.)