At CNN, November is planting season; Update: Plant video edit added!

posted at 8:26 am on November 29, 2007 by Bryan

CNN’s handling of the last Democrat debate was so shifty, we produced this video to note all the plants in the audience.

And we noticed last night that there was at least one plant sprouting in the audience for the GOP debate. Well, head over to the boss’ blog to take a look at all the plants she found in last night’s debate. Oh, there’s one difference this time around. Last time, the debate was for Democrats and the plants were all Democrats. This time, the debate was for Republicans…but the plants were still all Democrats.

Yup. This is CNN, indeed.

Update: Since the boss’ site is temporarily down, here are a couple of screen caps of the four plants that were in last night’s debate.

mm000.png

mm001.png

CNN has some ‘splaining to do.

Update (MM): We’re told the rebroadcast of the debate was edited and cut out the retired gay Brig Gen. Keith Kerr’s question. Looks like they’ll have to go in and do more weeding, huh?

Update (AP): A video edit of all the questions posed by known Democrats can be found here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Why is this so surprising? For the most part, Republicans don’t support ANY of these issues, so finding one to sucker-punch the candidates might be pretty hard, hence the need to use the passionate faithless. Such practice is circumspect, but probably necessary.

TinMan13 on November 29, 2007 at 8:29 AM

Nothing new, but I’d say it should be labeled Election Tampering and should be prosecutable. We are a country in a war of sorts. Those messing with the election in anyway should be jailed IMO.

johnnyU on November 29, 2007 at 8:38 AM

TinMan13 on November 29, 2007 at 8:29 AM

Except that this debate is for the Republican primary… hence, I’d like to see a Republican – someone actually voting in the event – ask a question or two.

Lehosh on November 29, 2007 at 8:39 AM

I think MM’s site is overloaded right now due to the Drudge linkage.

nosliwelyk on November 29, 2007 at 8:39 AM

Debates aren’t always about opposition, especially when all participants are on the “same” side. These debates should be about why they make the best Republican nominee, not why they would be the best president.

Once we pick the nominee, then we can go into compare/contrast between Democrat and Republican nominees for President.

So planting a bunch of Dems (someone had to check these people out ahead of time, so someone knew they were left-leaning) to ask tough questions to make Republicans squirm and not just saying who the people really were reinforces the left-leaning bias of CNN (and the MSM in general).

Neo on November 29, 2007 at 8:40 AM

No wait, I’m in!

nosliwelyk on November 29, 2007 at 8:40 AM

The Republicans were set up by that ultra left wing network, CNN. To their credit, the Republicans did exhibit a high degree of courage by even participating. Unlike the sniveling, Democrats who cowered in the corner rather than debate on FOX, the Republicans stood up and took the blows.

rplat on November 29, 2007 at 8:42 AM

I think MM’s site is overloaded right now due to the Drudge linkage.

Our tech team is getting it back up. Stand by…

Michelle on November 29, 2007 at 8:44 AM

There seem to be a few obvious solutions to the whole “planting” thang:

1) Eliminate the stupid questions from the audience bit altogether. We already know the issues we want to hear about. There is no need for Bob from Des Moines to pose the question.

2) Eliminate the moderators – except a time keeper/referee. Just wind up the candidates and let them go. A real debate – let THEM ask each other the questions. The only need for moderation is to keep it civil and orderly. No questions needed.

3) If you can’t handle either of those – then just INVITE the plants. Let members of enemy camps show up and ask questions. Let Hillary stick her own people out there. Just tell the audience ahead of time that it may and will be happening. They’ll see the obviously hostile questions and the obvious softballs for exactly what they are.

Professor Blather on November 29, 2007 at 8:48 AM

The selection of the question, and inclusion of the General by CNN was entirely legitimate. Sure, maybe they screwed up by not mentioning his affiliation with Clinton’s campaign while he was asking his question. However, maybe they decided that including such information would give the candidates an excuse to avoid answering a serious policy-related question.

Big S on November 29, 2007 at 8:49 AM

Ron Paul wants to legalize plants.

(And fishsticks.)

profitsbeard on November 29, 2007 at 8:49 AM

I’ll admit, I don’t watch these shams. But the idea of logic escapes those who are ‘trying to change the world,’ especially since the questions that Republicans would ask, taxes, the military, immigration, education, the economy, might present the candidates an opportunity to actually make some sense. Besides, the audience for CNN probably isn’t right leaning, anyway, so gotta get some Neilsens. I doubt CNN really cares what their non-target audience thinks.

TinMan13 on November 29, 2007 at 8:50 AM

Well well. Now does everyone understand why Mitt initially didn’t even want to participate in this farce?

Brat on November 29, 2007 at 8:51 AM

Well well. Now does everyone understand why Mitt initially didn’t even want to participate in this farce?

Brat on November 29, 2007 at 8:51 AM

Because he might have to answer some uncomfortable questions?

Big S on November 29, 2007 at 8:52 AM

This time, the debate was for Republicans…but the plants were still all Democrats.

As if the CNN even knows any Republicans. They don’t call it the Clinton News Network for nothing! CNN is part and parcel an outlet for Hillary’s media machine.

highhopes on November 29, 2007 at 8:53 AM

yeah, I can’t get onto Michelle’s site…Nice to have a Drudge link tho!

Great job live blogging the event, and exposing CNN for what it is. Imagine if FOX News did something like this…there would be a deluge of lefty bloggers burning the building down.

JetBoy on November 29, 2007 at 8:54 AM

Told you so,Liberal media is going to do what ever it takes
the ends jusify the means,they went from planting to stacking,and now their getting desperate,it’s the media that are trying to get the Democrats elected,and not the
Democrats themselves!

Oh and it looks like there getting Liberal’s to
impersonate Republican’s,like an undecided Republican is going to vote for Hillary!

This undecided Republican wanting to vote Liberal,
this must be a Twilight episode,what’s next!

canopfor on November 29, 2007 at 8:55 AM

Professor Blather on November 29, 2007 at 8:48 AM

In the spirit of affirmative action and to make up for past wrongs, all questions at the next Dem debate should be from Republican activists – but this time the audience will know in advance what their affiliations are.

Let’s see how the Dems stand up to withering questions from our side of the aisle for a change.

Buy Danish on November 29, 2007 at 8:56 AM

Big S on November 29, 2007 at 8:52 AM

No, because CNN presented it (and all of their debates) as a flashy, cheap, American Idol-Who Wants To Be The President-Dancing With the Politicians farce.

All of the candidates had pained looks on their faces at one time or another as they attempted to answer ridiculous questions with some grain of intelligence.

What’s next? We vote in the general election via text message on our government issued iphones?

Brat on November 29, 2007 at 8:57 AM

Our tech team is getting it back up. Stand by…

Michelle on November 29, 2007 at 8:44 AM

Standing by. At least I know it wasn’t my fault :-)

steveegg on November 29, 2007 at 9:00 AM

Brat on November 29, 2007 at 8:57 AM

Flashy presentation may be silly and in some cases inappropriate, but the question from about gays in the military was a perfectly reasonable one. It was also perfectly reasonable for CNN to select the video submitted by the General to ask it. The previous issue with the CNN questioners, in the Democratic debate, was that they may have been a little too close to the candidates, making it difficult to discern whether any coordination might have happened. Here, the question was posed as a challenge to all of the candidates from an individual with an opposing viewpoint, and sufficient standing to ask it on a national stage. Those are two very different situations.

Big S on November 29, 2007 at 9:05 AM

Where is Lynne Cheney when you need her?

Spirit of 1776 on November 29, 2007 at 9:05 AM

CNN, you are disgusting.

Valiant on November 29, 2007 at 9:08 AM

Big S on November 29, 2007 at 9:05 AM

The question was perfectly legitimate. The questioner used to ask it was not, like having a hugely obese person ask a question about making fat people pay double for plane tickets.

Further, the question was of no interest to Republicans.

That said, I liked the first half of the debate and thought it was pretty good. The illegal issue was given the importance it deserved and the candidates were allowed some back and forth with each other.

I don’t know why the candidates don’t just organize their own debates. I liked Fred’s challenge afterwards and I hope they take him up on it – though he conspicuously left Hunter and Tancredo out, and they are the most important candidates in the race.

progressoverpeace on November 29, 2007 at 9:14 AM

Good news/bad news:

Good – mm.com is back up
Bad – They had to kill comments temporarily thanks to the Instalanche/Drudge Crush double-team.

steveegg on November 29, 2007 at 9:14 AM

OK, now I’ve heard that CNN is omitting the Gay General portion of the debate in reruns.

So now they’re trying to cover up now that they’ve been busted.

Anderson didn’t know – my arse.

stenwin77 on November 29, 2007 at 9:20 AM

CNN has some ’splaining to do.

No they don’t. What did you expect?

TheBigOldDog on November 29, 2007 at 9:21 AM

MM needs a cash settlement from her host. This is a big morning for her with lots of lost revenue.

Valiant on November 29, 2007 at 9:21 AM

MM needs a cash settlement from her host. This is a big morning for her with lots of lost revenue.

Scratch that- the link from Drudge probably crashed her,

Valiant on November 29, 2007 at 9:24 AM

OK, now I’ve heard that CNN is omitting the Gay General portion of the debate in reruns.

So now they’re trying to cover up now that they’ve been busted.

stenwin77 on November 29, 2007 at 9:20 AM

Don’t they know the cover-up never works? Oh, and if you’re depending on YouTube/Google Video to preserve your work, I suggest another server; after all, they’re partners with CNN in this fertilizer-rich endeavor.

steveegg on November 29, 2007 at 9:28 AM

CNN is obviously biased. It couldn’t be more biased unless thay had a little old lady going “Ssshhhhhh, this is CNN.” I don’t expect a legitimate debate on CNN, and I doubt the Republican candidates do.

What is happening is the Republicans are reaching a lot more constituants by debating on CNN, and also appearing on Fox. The Democrats cannot stand up to legitimate questioning, and are terrified of Fox News, and other less then activist liberal/progressive/Marxist medias.

Rode Werk on November 29, 2007 at 9:31 AM

No they don’t. What did you expect?

Heh, it might be what I expect, but it’s not what I’d hope for.

I don’t mind CNN asking the tough questions, though asking Dem operative questions may not touch on Rep concerns. I’d like CNN not to:
1 – Not have the questioner give mini-lectures
2 – Not editorialize or reframe the question ala C.Brown
3 – Not to seed the audience.

Outside of that though, tough questions are fair game if with disclosure.

Spirit of 1776 on November 29, 2007 at 9:32 AM

The question was perfectly legitimate. The questioner used to ask it was not, like having a hugely obese person ask a question about making fat people pay double for plane tickets.

Further, the question was of no interest to Republicans.

progressoverpeace on November 29, 2007 at 9:14 AM

I see no reason why the identity of a questioner is important as long as the question is legitimate, posed fairly, and could not have been coordinated with one of the candidates towards whom it is directed. Also, the question is obviously of interest to Republicans, given the polarization I see on this issue and the comments it has generated in the political blogosphere. It may not be comfortable for Republicans, but it is likely that they’ll have to answer it again in the general election. Like I said, maybe CNN should have disclosed the political alignments of the questioner, but otherwise, I don’t see any problem with it.

Big S on November 29, 2007 at 9:34 AM

It’s amazing a site as big as MM with her traffic volume can still be disabled by Drudgalanche.

I’m up to six plants over at The Autopsy.

Nethicus on November 29, 2007 at 9:38 AM

It’s amazing a site as big as MM with her traffic volume can still be disabled by Drudgalanche.

I’m back up! It’s a bit slow, but it’s loading.

Michelle on November 29, 2007 at 9:38 AM

Bryan,

I hope ya’ll don’t gloss over this one and this one.

Were there any questions from actual republicans other than Grover Norquist and Buzz Brockway?

–Jason

Jason Coleman on November 29, 2007 at 9:42 AM

CNN can make up for this, just let an audience full of Hot Air commenters ask questions at the next Democrat debate.

I volunteer, who else is in?

conservnut on November 29, 2007 at 9:43 AM

JohnnyU suggests prison for the plants.

I don’t agree.

The way to deal with weeds is to defoliate them. In all future Republican debates, all questions and questioners must be vetted by the RNC before the show goes on. Questions from plants will not be asked.

Suzanne Malveaux should be permanently barred from participating in any future Republican debates. Not only did she know about the plants, she aided and abetted them by not identifiying them as such.

Next year, in the debates between the actual nominees, the Republicans should refuse to attend debate put on by CNN, unless the Democrats agree to debate on the FNC, first.

georgej on November 29, 2007 at 9:44 AM

I see no reason why the identity of a questioner is important as long as the question is legitimate, posed fairly, and could not have been coordinated with one of the candidates towards whom it is directed.

I explained the unfairness of using that questioner with an example. If you don’t understand that then … I don’t even know what to say.

Also, the question is obviously of interest to Republicans, given the polarization I see on this issue and the comments it has generated in the political blogosphere.

“Polarization”? I don’t see it. Republicans don’t really care about the gays in the military issue. that doesn’t mean that Republicans agree on it, just that it isn’t important.

It may not be comfortable for Republicans, but it is likely that they’ll have to answer it again in the general election.

Maybe, but this is not the general election and that was not a debate for the general election, or the general election audience. This is called a “primary”. It is for Republicans.

Like I said, maybe CNN should have disclosed the political alignments of the questioner, but otherwise, I don’t see any problem with it.

You just don’t get it. The fact that he was a GAY GENERAL was the real problem, not that he was connected to Clinton.

Big S on November 29, 2007 at 9:34 AM

progressoverpeace on November 29, 2007 at 9:45 AM

Spirit of 1776 on November 29, 2007 at 9:32 AM

Is anybody here really surprised by this at all? Didn’t we all expect this? Doesn’t that explain why it was exposed before the debate was even over? Everybody knew what was coming. It was as predictable as the sun rising.

TheBigOldDog on November 29, 2007 at 9:46 AM

TheBigOldDog on November 29, 2007 at 9:46 AM

I don’t think most of us, myself included, believed that CNN would use plants that were so easy to expose. I expected plants, but how hard would it have been to find relatives of these activists or third parties to post the questions for them? This is just too easy!

conservnut on November 29, 2007 at 9:49 AM

In the spirit of affirmative action and to make up for past wrongs, all questions at the next Dem debate should be from Republican activists – but this time the audience will know in advance what their affiliations are.

Let’s see how the Dems stand up to withering questions from our side of the aisle for a change.

Buy Danish on November 29, 2007 at 8:56 AM

That’s actually a grand idea, if you ask me.

From now on, pack the freakin’ room with people from the opposing party. Let Democrats grill the Republicans and vice versa.

We’ll get to see how each side deals with tough questions.

Personally, though, I’d rather just get rid of the questions altogether. Just give them an issue. “Mr. Giuliani – immigration – go!”

Then let them ask each other follow ups.

The whole question-from-the-audience shtick is a phony attempt to create some superficial illusion of pure democracy.

Professor Blather on November 29, 2007 at 9:49 AM

And by the way, that is what will cause heads to roll at CNN. Just like Rather-gate, it won’t be because of what they did, just that they did it so poorly.

conservnut on November 29, 2007 at 9:51 AM

TheBigOldDog on November 29, 2007 at 9:46 AM

You’re right. That’s the operating baseline – you know it going in.

Spirit of 1776 on November 29, 2007 at 9:52 AM

conservnut on November 29, 2007 at 9:49 AM

Welcome to Web 2.0 where everybody has their 5 pages of fame and Google makes them easy to find.

TheBigOldDog on November 29, 2007 at 9:54 AM

Update (MM): We’re told the rebroadcast of the debate was edited and cut out the retired gay Brig Gen. Keith Kerr’s question. Looks like they’ll have to go in and do more weeding, huh?

The debate is going to be pared down to about 30 minutes soon. I guess these debates are just too long anyway. /sarc

forest on November 29, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Were there any questions from actual republicans other than Grover Norquist and Buzz Brockway?

–Jason

Jason Coleman on November 29, 2007 at 9:42 AM

Doubtful. I’ll even take a guess that the plants and the PaulNuts outnumbered the card-carrying Pubbies and the truly-random ‘undecided’.

steveegg on November 29, 2007 at 9:57 AM

Is it true we are up to 6 now?

conservnut on November 29, 2007 at 9:57 AM

I just heard MM is going to be on Glenn Beck after the break.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 9:58 AM

I know something about bad ideas. And this is a bad idea.

The way to deal with weeds is to defoliate them. In all future Republican debates, all questions and questioners must be vetted by the RNC before the show goes on. Questions from plants will not be asked.

I think it perfectly legitimate to ask questioners to verify their Republican credentials. It is after all a debate FOR REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS.

CNN screwed big time. This is precisely the worry of many candidates when they initially were cold to the idea of a CNN/YOUTUBE debate. The fact that questions were asked by open, declared supporters OF DEMOCRATS in their primary is just inexcusable.

The RNC needs to take action here. They have to freeze out CNN. The RNC needs to encourage members to decline all invitations to appear on CNN until the network issues a public, written apology for this colossal failure.

gabriel sutherland on November 29, 2007 at 9:58 AM

Update (MM): We’re told the rebroadcast of the debate was edited and cut out the retired gay Brig Gen. Keith Kerr’s question. Looks like they’ll have to go in and do more weeding, huh?

We’ll get it down to under an hour yet.

Say, why haven’t we and TownHall managed to set up a better alternative to the sham that happened last night?

steveegg on November 29, 2007 at 9:58 AM

So who won the Crown and the Scholarship?

ronsfi on November 29, 2007 at 9:59 AM

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there is to hear it, does it make a sound? If a Clinton plant asks a question about gays in the military, and CNN later cuts it out of the rebroadcast, did it really happen? Hmmm…the paradox!

reppac122 on November 29, 2007 at 9:59 AM

More

The guy who asked the question about corn subsidies, Ted Faturos, is a former intern for Democrat Congresswoman Jane Harman.?

amerpundit on November 29, 2007 at 9:59 AM

I just heard MM is going to be on Glenn Beck after the break.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 9:58 AM

Got a live link?

steveegg on November 29, 2007 at 9:59 AM

If only we had some kind of fairness legislation to prevent this sort of thing. /sarcasm

shick on November 29, 2007 at 10:00 AM

Got a live link?

Unfortunately, no. He’s subscription only.

And I’m not sure when she’s going to be on.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 10:04 AM

I tried to warn them.

Here’s one …..

You knew this debate was moderated by CNN, yet you showed up anyway.

Do you like being publicly humiliated?

fogw on November 26, 2007 at 3:31 PM

.
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to find Bill Clinton in the audience at the next CNN circus debate wearing a Groucho mask complete with heavy brows and a thick mustache. He wouldn’t have any trouble getting through CNN’s screening process, contrarily he would be escorted to the front row and identified as a concerned voter from the Empire State.

fogw on November 29, 2007 at 10:04 AM

If only we had some kind of fairness legislation to prevent this sort of thing. /sarcasm

shick on November 29, 2007 at 10:00 AM

Yeah, I agree. Surely the identities of the questioners are more important than the actual questions they ask. We live in a black and white world, and you’re either with us or against us. Only Republicans should be allowed to ask questions at Republican debates.

Big S on November 29, 2007 at 10:05 AM

When anybody with Google could figure out in 5 seconds that Keith Kerr was a Hillary operative, how could CNN possibly call this a “mistake.”

It’s like Tojo saying on Dec. 8, “Our aircraft carriers did what? It’s a mistake! We apologize for the error!”

Ali-Bubba on November 29, 2007 at 10:06 AM

Okay…for those with access to a radio, MM is going to be on in the next few minutes.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 10:06 AM

I should add…on Glenn Beck.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 10:06 AM

Live Link.

amerpundit on November 29, 2007 at 10:07 AM

The general’s question (and that of the other weeds) is still online at CNN’s web site. And there is no indicator that these questions were asked by committed Democrat activists, either.

You can express your disgust with CNN at their IReport feedback form.

CNN: “Name them and shame them.”

georgej on November 29, 2007 at 10:07 AM

Here are some links to News/Talk Radio Stations. I don’t know if they are prior day shows or are streaming current shows.

Scroll down and look for Glenn Beck…

Nineball on November 29, 2007 at 10:08 AM

After the debate they had a room full of “undecided republican” voters. When they asked them if anyone had made up their mind, a woman said she had narrowed it down to 3 but would vote for John Edwards if he was nominated.

I remember thinking, CNN you idiots, you let a Edwards supporter in there. Now I know CNN was part of all the plants or worse, the stupidest people on earth.

sunny on November 29, 2007 at 10:08 AM

amerpundit on November 29, 2007 at 10:07 AM

Graci.

steveegg on November 29, 2007 at 10:08 AM

Hmmm… link didn’t work

Nineball on November 29, 2007 at 10:09 AM

That’s right, Glen had AC on Weds to talk about how they get the questions, or choose them. Also how they weed out the plants…

doh!

sunny on November 29, 2007 at 10:10 AM

or go here:

http://www.klif.com/

click on listen live… MM is on now.

Nineball on November 29, 2007 at 10:11 AM

CNN has edited this for re-broadcanst? How Nixonian!

But have the edited all the plants, including the ones that Jason Coleman found?

/rhetorical

Professor Blather on November 29, 2007 at 9:49 AM

Since were are at the Primary stage of the election, the questions (if we must have them) really should come from the Party members of the debatees; once the candidates are chosen, hearing questions from the opposing side would make sense, but disclosure is key.

Buy Danish on November 29, 2007 at 10:11 AM

Fox news is getting into the act today. Looks like Garrett is on the case.

forest on November 29, 2007 at 10:14 AM

But what did you expect from a YOUTUBE debate? If you look at the political videos on Youtube there mostly liberal rants from young people. Most of the popular video bloggers (not just on Youtube) are unabashedly liberal. So CNN should have known that the pool they were gathering from were trying to ask “gotcha” questions and they should have been more careful. It’s obvious.

CNN wanted to team up with the netroots to appear young and hip to technology. And surprise, surprise! The netroots hate everything conservative.

But at least Republicans can they were willing to go where they weren’t welcomed. You can’t say that about the Dems. They didn’t want to go on FNC.

terryannonline on November 29, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Can anyone check out JAY FOX, the “lifetime” member of the NRA from Boulevard, CA.

Something smelled not right on this one.

stenwin77 on November 29, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Yikes. I think I need new glasses. Even with the preview feature I missed no less than 3 typos.

CNN has edited for “re-broadcast”; Have “they” edited all the plants, and “we’re” at the Primary stage.

Buy Danish on November 29, 2007 at 10:16 AM

Fox news is getting into the act today. Looks like Garrett is on the case.

forest on November 29, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Yes, but so far it’s all about the General and whether Hillary’s camp knew in advance (which is really a side story since this story is really about CNN’s incompetence or the possibility of them being willfully complicit). Nothing about the rest of the plants in the garden yet.

This will probably be on BO’R, who loves to go after the competition, and/or H&C tonight. It’s a shoe-in that Rush will cover it.

Buy Danish on November 29, 2007 at 10:22 AM

In addition to Kerr, I’ll agree with the first two plants that Michelle found. Congratulations on your great work!

However, the 3rd one…the Pittsburgh Mom…I’d have to learn more about that one. If she’s affiliated with a Union that endorses Edwards, I don’t have a problem with that, because I don’t think that all people in that Union are going to vote for Edwards, and perhaps won’t even vote Democratic. I don’t believe in “guilt by association” in this context.

But if she’s more involved in the Edwards campaign than has been revealed, then of course that’s a problem.

asc85 on November 29, 2007 at 10:26 AM

upside down world, the GOP should boycott CNN and MSNBC yet don’t. While the Dems boycott Fox

jp on November 29, 2007 at 10:28 AM

Excellent work, Michelle.

steveegg on November 29, 2007 at 10:31 AM

Can anyone check out JAY FOX, the “lifetime” member of the NRA from Boulevard, CA.

I think they’re legitimately conservative. They have a decent documentary (“Invasion”) on illegal immigration available at their site. It details the effects of illegal immigration on landowners near the border.

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 10:31 AM

We’ve seen many times the depths to which liberals will stoop to gain advantage or do damage to Republicans.

What the hell exactly are they up to? Its time to find out.

Speakup on November 29, 2007 at 10:32 AM

CNN can make up for this, just let an audience full of Hot Air commenters ask questions at the next Democrat debate.

conservnut on November 29, 2007 at 9:43 AM

They couldn’t allow that. We’d do stuff like call socialism socialism, and Her Majesty doesn’t like that at all.

aero on November 29, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Can anyone check out JAY FOX, the “lifetime” member of the NRA from Boulevard, CA.

Something smelled not right on this one.

stenwin77 on November 29, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Check out his videos.

forest on November 29, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Big S on November 29, 2007 at 9:05 AM

I don’t have a problem with the questions or even the questioners. Yes, there should be some disclosure if they, like the General, are conclusively and closely affiliated with another candidate. If they merely are “declared supporters” of another candidate, so what.

I just have a problem with the degraded, dumbed-down, youtubeboobing of the debates. It’s undignified. It’s just more of what I call the Decay of Decorum in all things public in this country. And I think Mitt knew it. That’s why I called out that he intially didn’t want to participate.

Brat on November 29, 2007 at 10:45 AM

American Idol-Who Wants To Be The President-Dancing With the Politicians farce.

Good one, Brat!

mikeyboss on November 29, 2007 at 10:50 AM

If they merely are “declared supporters” of another candidate, so what.

I have a problem with that – to the extent that apparently (full disclosure – I didn’t watch the “debate” because I knew exactly what kind of train-wreck it’d be, and apparently I was right) none of the declared supporters disclosed that little fact, and instead, in some cases, presented themselves as “undecided.”

False advertising is illegal in the dreaded private sector, it should be in this case as well.

I just have a problem with the degraded, dumbed-down, youtubeboobing of the debates. It’s undignified.

I agree with you 1,000% on that.

crazy_legs on November 29, 2007 at 11:00 AM

I don’t have a problem with the questions or even the questioners.

I do.

This was a concerted attempt by the Democrats to sabotage the Republican primary. That is what you call it when one party attempts interject itself into the primary election/nomination process of the other.

It is unethical, if it is not a violation of the campaign financing laws.

CNN was part and parcel and a knowing participant in this.

CNN should be boycotted by the Republican Party until it formally apologizes and agrees to allow the RNC to vet all questions/questioners in any future debate scenario, including the one between the nominees next year.

georgej on November 29, 2007 at 11:02 AM

CNN would never allow Republican activists to appear and ask questions at a Democratic party debate. But for CNN, there is nothing wrong with planting Democrat activists at a Republican debate. To CNN, the people that they planted were not partisans. To CNN, the liberal Democratic viewpoint is not anything other than objective truth. That is why Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper saw nothing wrong with allowing James Carville to appear on a postdebate program last week without being identified as a Clinton campaign donor, a Clinton fundraiser and a Clinton advisor. To Mssrs. Blitzer and Cooper and Jon Klein, being a Clinton supporter is the equivalent of being a guy reporting on a weather storm. To them Mr. Carville was just stating the objective truth. For CNN, the Clinton viewpoint is the truth while a more conservative viewpoint is just that, a viewpoint only.

Larraby on November 29, 2007 at 11:04 AM

I don’t think most of us, myself included, believed that CNN would use plants that were so easy to expose. I expected plants, but how hard would it have been to find relatives of these activists or third parties to post the questions for them? This is just too easy!

conservnut on November 29, 2007 at 9:49 AM

I think the lure of the limelight is what brings the plants directly out rather than friends or relatives.

shick on November 29, 2007 at 11:04 AM

I think the lure of the limelight is what brings the plants directly out rather than friends or relatives.

shick on November 29, 2007 at 11:04 AM

I think that’s called phototropism.

mikeyboss on November 29, 2007 at 11:07 AM

Comment pages: 1 2