There is also the possibility that they were just absolutely incompetent and didn’t realize that Kerr, who they had interviewed numerous times for his activism, had been an advisor to both the John Kerry and Hillary Clinton campaigns. That they didn’t to the most fundamental research into his background before they decided that, out of all the questioners in both debates, he and he alone was worthy of being brought in live and in person to repeat and expound on his question, and then give his response to their answers.

During which, by the way, he lied. He said they didn’t answer the question. They did answer it, just not in a way he liked.

The real irony here is that I agree with Kerr. I’ve publicly backed gay marriage, and I don’t think the arguments against gays in the military really hold much water. I think “don’t ask, don’t tell” is probably the worst possible solution to the problem, as it turns the whole matter into a huge “gotcha” game that’s cost us the services of a great many very fine people. (I own a copy of “Conduct Unbecoming,” and while it has a few glaring errors that reflect the author’s utter ignorance of the military — i.e., calling the aircraft carrier USS Karl Vinson “Carl Vincent,” it’s a very compelling read.) And I think that the architect of that policy, President Clinton, made a huge mistake in pushing it and it ought to be scrapped.

But that doesn’t change the subject. CNN was absolutely, completely, and utterly wrong in how it handled those debates.

Oh, and you’re a big, stinky, potty-mouthed doo-doo-head. But that has been obvious for some time now.

J.

She just never answered them.”

This why I call you sub-human. Cause you lie.

All of the shit you mentioned was investigated. NOTHING came of it. NOTHING.

“And you want me to do your homework for you and investigate the questioners at the Democratic debate? ”

Fuck you, you god damn asshole. YOU made the fucking claim, YOU do the fucking research.

“And note that the Republicans here pretty much knew what they were in for, and showed up anyway. Contrast that with the Democrats when the idea of having a debate on Fox News came up — they even threw the Congressional Black Caucus under the bus for that one.”

The guy who runs Fox, Roger Ailes, is a friend of Giuliani. They’ve given preferential treatment to Giuliani in the Republican primary over McCain, Thompson, Romney.

“The disgrace here is that CNN only did it for one party, and tried to conceal that they did it at all.”

You haven’t proven this, you haven’t even done any research to back it up, so making this claim is a fucking lie.

Now stop being a sub-human, right-wing troll and actually put forth an intellectually honest argument.

She just never answered them.

If she had, we’d know how those hundreds of FBI files on Republicans ended up at the White House. What really was behind the firing of the entire White House Travel Office. Who hired Craig Livingstone. Where her billing records from the Rose Law Firm spent a couple of years between being subpoenaed and being turned over. Why she only ventured once into the cattle futures markets, made a huge profit on her first deals, and didn’t ever do it again. What exactly she did during her tenure on Wal-Mart’s board of directors about the company’s anti-union policies.

And you want me to do your homework for you and investigate the questioners at the Democratic debate? Get off your lazy ass and do it yourself. Maybe ask those people who obsessively try to find any hint of a sex scandal on Republicans to branch out a bit. I’d suggest telling them you heard that one of the questioners used to fellate Boy Scouts while listening to Ronald Reagan speeches. That ought to get them properly motivated.

And note that the Republicans here pretty much knew what they were in for, and showed up anyway. Contrast that with the Democrats when the idea of having a debate on Fox News came up — they even threw the Congressional Black Caucus under the bus for that one.

The real shame is, it’s not a half-bad idea. Invite the opposition in to ask a couple of questions of the candidates, give them a little hint of the heat they might face in the general election. The disgrace here is that CNN only did it for one party, and tried to conceal that they did it at all.

Unless, of course, you’d like to argue that the blogosphere is so much more efficient than CNN that they discovered these eight peoples’ affiliations in less than 24 hours, and CNN couldn’t do the same in the days or weeks or however they had before the debate…

J.

I hate that. Nothing pisses me off more than with the few conservatives here start something than run away.

This is one of the main reasons I call them sub-human, cause they don’t anything to earn my respect.

8 of 34.

That’s how many of the questioners at the Republican debate had ties to the Democratic party.

Just shy of one in four.

You’re going to balance that against one Lou Dobbs fan?

I gave you two examples of blatantly Republican’t questions at the Democratic debates. I didn’t mention the conservative moderators, conservative questioners, conservative question screeners who refused to let any impeachment questions into the debate (and decided which questions were okay top be asked in the first place), or any of the other Republican’t party issues which the Democratic candidates were required to debate about during the Democratic party presidential debate.

It took me five minutes to Google and find that. I didn’t spend hours obsessively examining the backgrounds of everyone who was allowed by the conservative media to ask questions of the Democratic candidates. So I’m reasonably certain you know what you can do with your intensely researched study on the subject. Which comes from the notoriously Republican’t skewed site Wizbang.

I’m also reasonably sure that you’ll just switch off to the next Republican’t propaganda point on the subject. As usual.

He’s more prominent than any of the liberals who got to ask questions, and a lot more connected.

“(The real stinker was the “Ron Paul, will you run as an independent?” was asked by a guy who’s supporting Bill Richardson. It’s as transparent as Oliver’s tossing Paul a bone every now and then — they both want him to stick around and draw votes away from the eventual Republican nominee.)”

… Huh?

Two points:

1.) He’s all but said he’s running as an independent. People should know that in advance before they vote for him or give him money. How is this a bad question to ask?

2.) Oliver makes fun of Ron Paul, he doesn’t, ‘throw him a bone.’

“The outrageous thing here is that CNN not only presented these questioners without any context as to their declared standings in the elections, but did NOT do the same thing in the Democratic debate.”

Really? How would you know? The Democrats didn’t dig through the people’s lives to try and find Republicans asking questions.

“In the end, though, I think this mess will end up helping the Republicans and hurting the Democrats. The Republicans have gotten a taste of tough questioning, and are ready for it. The Democrats got coddled at theirs, and won’t be as well prepared for a real campaign.”

Yeah, you keep believing that. The Republicans get tougher questions because they are on the losing side of every single issue. Even on national security the people trust Democrats more.

“I’m still waiting to see Hillary Clinton face some tough questioning. If she’s as brittle as she has seemed in the past, then those protecting her now will do her no favors in the future.”

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Hillary Clinton hasn’t faced tough questions? Were you in a coma during the 1990s?

“As for why I (and others) are so bent at CNN over it… lemme use one of your side’s pet phrases: ‘It’s the hypocrisy, stupid!’”

And you still haven’t proven it. Like I said before, unless you can prove there were fewer Republicans asking questions at the Democratic debate, you have absolutely no case.

Even if you can, you would also need to show that this isn’t just a case of Democrats asking more questions.

Remember, the left Blogosphere is a lot more developed than the right. One of the Republican national committees asked for video entries for commercials where the public would vote for the best. They got five entries. Five.

You’ll note Norquist wasn’t flown across the country and given a microphone to repeat and expand on his question, nor given the chance to rebut the answers. That singular honor was given to Hillary Clinton’s advisor.

“Singular,” as in “the only one out of both debates.”

At least Norquist is a Republican, so he is a bit more likely to vote in a Republican primary than any of the eight listed above.

As I have said, the questions were, for the most part, good ones. (The real stinker was the “Ron Paul, will you run as an independent?” was asked by a guy who’s supporting Bill Richardson. It’s as transparent as Oliver’s tossing Paul a bone every now and then — they both want him to stick around and draw votes away from the eventual Republican nominee.) The outrageous thing here is that CNN not only presented these questioners without any context as to their declared standings in the elections, but did NOT do the same thing in the Democratic debate.

In the end, though, I think this mess will end up helping the Republicans and hurting the Democrats. The Republicans have gotten a taste of tough questioning, and are ready for it. The Democrats got coddled at theirs, and won’t be as well prepared for a real campaign.

I’m still waiting to see Hillary Clinton face some tough questioning. If she’s as brittle as she has seemed in the past, then those protecting her now will do her no favors in the future.

As for why I (and others) are so bent at CNN over it… lemme use one of your side’s pet phrases: “It’s the hypocrisy, stupid!”

J.

Fuck you. Is it so outrageous to ask for proof?

“Full links…”

Wow. That’s weak. Announced supporter. Union activist. Attended a fundraiser.

Perhaps if you were more interested in the substance of their questions and not the background of people asking the questions, I wouldn’t have to call you an fucking asshole so many times.

But since you are so interested in people’s backgrounds, do the same for the Democratic debate.

And by the way, you are still ignoring Grover Norquist, and this is the third time I’ve pointed him out. Grover Norquist outranks all the Democrats you brought up.

“Any more questions? This particular “sub-human” is tired of your shit.”

You want to be treated like a human? Then act like a human. I treat you with as much respect as you deserve. If you don’t like, tough shit.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/11/30/whoops-there-goes-another-democratic-plant.php

Full links at that article, but I’ll reprint the actual text:

1) Retired Colonel Keith Kerr, staffer on Hillary Clinton’s and John Kerry’s campaigns.

2) Adam Florzak, aide to Senator Dick Durbin. Correction: Florzak worked with Durbin’s staff on Social Security reform, but was never a part of Durbin’s staff.

3) Mark Strauss, announced Bill Richardson supporter.

4) David Cerrone, announced Barack Obama supporter.

5) LeeAnn Anderson, United Steelworkers Union activist — which has endorsed John Edwards.

6) “Journey,” another announced Edwards supporter.

7) Ted Faturos, former intern to Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA).
David McMillan, aspiring TV writer whose biggest schtick is his satire as “the blind black Republican” and attendee of Barack Obama fundraisers.

That’s bare bones. Since I did my brief recap, others have come up with more and more details.

Details CNN didn’t think relevant or couldn’t be bothered to try to find out.

And that doesn’t even touch upon Kerr — whose question was so important that he was the only one in either debate to be flown in to repeat and expound on his question, and then to be granted time to respond to the answers.

Any more questions? This particular “sub-human” is tired of your shit.

J.

That’s how many of the questioners at the Republican debate had ties to the Democratic party.”

I’d love to see your math on this.

8 of 34.

That’s how many of the questioners at the Republican debate had ties to the Democratic party.

Just shy of one in four.

You’re going to balance that against one Lou Dobbs fan?

And you’re going to argue that the 2nd Amendment only applies to Republicans? That they’re the only ones who have a stake in the current Supreme Court case involving DC’s gun ban?

I was going to say “pull off your blinders,” but that ain’t nowhere near sufficient. Borrow a crowbar and pry your head out of your ass.

I repeat: one in four of the questioners at the Republican CNN/YouTube debate have endorsed Democrats, been Democratic activists, and — in one case — served as an advisor for one of the Democratic candidates. And that one was flown across the country to repeat and expound on his question in person — with no one mentioning his role in Hillary’s campaign.

Look up “sandbagging” in the dictionary. It says “See CNN.”

J.

You mean, like when the gun nut asked the Democratic Party candidates about the Republican’t issue of Second Amendment rights during the Democratic You Tube debate?

Or when the Lou Dobbs supporter asked about the Republican’t issue of illegal immigrants during the CNN Democratic debate?

SaveFarris: “Not quite. THESE candidates are running for the Republican nomination. Once they win that, THEN, they run for President.”

Wow. I guess there’s no lie a conservative will try when the truth is not on their side.

Every single one of these men are running for the President of the United States. They say, ‘When I’m president I will…’ not, ‘When I’m the Republican nominee…’

And this still does not address the main point, which is the conservative retards here seem to care more about who asked the question than the validity of the question.

Can’t face the issues head on, so you freak out about something immaterial.

It’s OK for CNN to stack the questioners at the Republican debate with Democratic operatives because the questions are valid, regardless of who asks them.”

As I pointed out before, Grover Norquist asked a question.

Now stop being a fucking asshole.

As far as the question goes, I think only Romney had problems with it… only because he couldn’t back away cleanly and fast enough from his old statements supporting Gays in the military.

Compared to the Democratic debate, the Republican debate had far fewer “Gotcha” questions.

And for Farris, these guys are ultimately running for American president. How they handle general issues in that race has to figure into their suitability as a party candidate. But even so, anti-homosexual stances (leg-crossed super butt clench for instance) appeals to some very influential factions that typically vote Republican.

That’s a hell of a logical acrobatic. Are you going to argue that whatever they say during the primary season is therefore irrelevant once the GOP nominee becomes clear? “It doesn’t matter what they said in December, they were only running for the GOP nomination then. It doesn’t count.”

The question is relevant, and telling. If the Republicans weren’t so hung up on making sure the Theocracy Now! crowd were kept happy, they might be able to try and answer the question with a modicum of common sense–they might be able to say that it is stupid to handicap our military by refusing to allow skilled and willing personnel to serve simply because they don’t fit into a heterosexual norm.