Hillary co-chair allowed to ask questions at CNN Republican debate

[motivez]

Your entire premise relies on two ideas:

1) That the political primary process shouldn't be open to anyone but those who've already made up their mind..

2) That like-minded people lobbing softballs at their candidates somehow benefits the rest of the party by helping them select the best nominee.

Both are false.

[RMNIXON]

"The Most Trusted Name in News"

So is this honesty while being rather stupid?

Deliberate bias and thought nobody would notice?

Or they just liked the questions and did not bother like CBS with Bush documents?


Even liberal Jane Hall said CNN really blew it!

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Your entire premise relies on two ideas:

1) That the political primary process shouldn't be open to anyone but those who've already made up their mind..

2) That like-minded people lobbing softballs at their candidates somehow benefits the rest of the party by helping them select the best nominee.

Both are false.

Not quite. The premise relies on these two ideals:
1) CNN has not done this in the past and if they're going to hold two like-minded debates they should be fair to both parties and treat them both equally if they want to be devoid of bias.

2) Softballs don't necessarily assist in weeding out candidates, but if they're going to follow the status quo for the Democrats they should also follow the status quo for the Republicans, or they will be called out for bias.

I think we all agree hard-hitting questions during the debates help everyone. But targeting one political party in such a way as this is not what's beneficial for the nation or the debating process. While I agree with giving hard-hitting questions, I beleive both parties need to be treated fairly during the presidential debates. I will not defend a station or political ideology that suggests it's acceptable behavior for a media outlet to use their instutitional bias to be harder on one political group/candidate than the other.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

1) That the political primary process shouldn't be open to anyone but those who've already made up their mind..

What does that have to do with loading a debate with people who are already openly supporting Democrat candidates? Even a guy who consults for a specific campaign? How does that help a party chose who "they" want to represent them? I have no problem if a Democrat wants to ask a question of a Republican in a Primary Debate as long as they are identified as such. Not people claiming undecided, ect..

[RMNIXON]

And one more point. Regardless of what CNN did, all these people knew who they were and what politics they represented. Obviously the were less than honest with CNN. A simple, "I work with the Clinton Campaign" would have been enough before you are flown to a debate. What does that tell you about these people?

I just hope the face of dishonesty only involves a small number of Democrats, not a "win at all costs" party?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by dydx

BTW...haven't you been ignoring the charge of CNN bias? My God the hypocrisy. Or is it projection? Answer the question!

CNN is biased!

There. It's not ignored. Now lets talk about how horribly they answered the loaded question, not just about the people who asked it.


Oh wait.....that may make them look bad. Lets just keep complaining about CNN.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

And one more point. Regardless of what CNN did, all these people knew who they were and what politics they represented. Obviously the were less than honest with CNN. A simple, "I work with the Clinton Campaign" would have been enough before you are flown to a debate. What does that tell you about these people?

I just hope the face of dishonesty only involves a small number of Democrats, not a "win at all costs" party?

It's interesting that at the last debate people were annoyed that they allowed Clinton supportors to ask questions and followed up the debate with Clinton campaigners to discuss the debate. The liberal blogosphere was furious that they would do such a thing and not be honest with people.

But, as soon as they do essentially the same thing at the Republican debate it's supported.

[dydx]

Originally Posted by motivez

Your entire premise relies on two ideas:

1) That the political primary process shouldn't be open to anyone but those who've already made up their mind..

2) That like-minded people lobbing softballs at their candidates somehow benefits the rest of the party by helping them select the best nominee.

Both are false.

Uh....this is too funny.....you can't make this stuff up. Ironically, methinks you have to look at your premise.

Your entire premise relies on two ideas:

1) That the political primary process shouldn't be open to anyone but those who've already made up their mind..

No, no, no....and no. The political primary process should be, in part, used to help undecides in the party make up their mind, without interference from the opposing party. I never said what you've attributed to me.

Would it be fair to have Mexico interfere the the selection and election of the Los Angeles City Counsel? Or have The New England Patriots have a direct and internal influence on who The Cowboys start when they meet in the Superbowl?

2) That like-minded people lobbing softballs at their candidates somehow benefits the rest of the party by helping them select the best nominee.

Who said anything about softballs, and like mindedness? We have fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, national-security conservative, religous conservatives, gay conservatives....etc.... We have Ron Paul, Mitt, Rudy, Huck, Movie Star...etc.... Disparate party members and disparate candidates.

There were questions on illegals, etc... that the candiates disagreed vehemontly on....who said I wanted softballs? Repuke primaries should be mostly about Repuke candidates answering questions that Repukes want to ask. Who said anything about those questions being easy?

I (and others) resented the fact that precious time was taken by slanted and planted questions and questioners that did not belong to the party. The questions were asked did not serve me, a repuke constituent, nor many other repuke constituents.

Mitt Romney said in the debate that if you have a limited resource (in his case funding for scholarships) you have to choose who gets it....in state children of illegals or children of out-of-state military families. In this case we have limited questions and limited time to answer...why should it be squandered on your tough questions when I rather it be squandered on tough questions that I or my other Repukes would like answered?

Arresting women who abort their babies? Question I don't care to spend time on. Addressing late term abortions where as long as any part of the baby is still in the birth canal it's considered okay to murder...something I care about. Gays in the military...don't care about. Gay marriage...care about. Lead paint on childrens toys? An issue...but how about the american firms that commission or distrubute those toys? Clamping down on them helps clamp down on China. Get it?

My God some of you have zero sense of fairness...and aren't mature enough to admit that when your team commits a foul and gets called, you man up to it and not cry about it or start attacking the refs.

Now motivez...I really appreciate the link about the truce between two warlords / factions / whatever in Iraq...it will be helpful to me and something I will keep an eye on to gauge it's revelancy...but really,...hate to say this but...

...the lens from which you read my posts here should be returned and re-tuned for astigmatism.

"cnn, fox new sucks, bushilter, chimp, benedict murtha, projection"...one tag for all the threads!!!

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by dydx

No, no, no....and no. The political primary process should be, in part, used to help undecides in the party make up their mind, without interference from the opposing party. I never said what you've attributed to me.

Would it be fair to have Mexico interfere the the selection and election of the Los Angeles City Counsel? Or have The New England Patriots have a direct and internal influence on who The Cowboys start when they meet in the Superbowl?

I think CNN recognizes this which is why they made such a huge deal out of their claims that the audience and the questioners were undecided.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by dydx

Would it be fair to have Mexico interfere the the selection and election of the Los Angeles City Counsel?

There's a huge difference between another country and another American political party. Your comparison is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by dydx

There were questions on illegals, etc... that the candiates disagreed vehemontly on....who said I wanted softballs? Repuke primaries should be mostly about Repuke candidates answering questions that Repukes want to ask. Who said anything about those questions being easy?

That's the impression I got.

And the idea that no Republicans or conservative minded people want to hear questions about fairness for gays in various facets of American life is wrong..

Originally Posted by dydx

I (and others) resented the fact that precious time was taken by slanted and planted questions and questioners that did not belong to the party. The questions were asked did not serve me, a repuke constituent, nor many other repuke constituents.

So they should only serve you and your ilk, instead of a broader swath of the population? Doesn't sound much like you support the idea of a "big tent party" to me

And I've also said I don't agree with the lack of full disclosure if CNN knew, they should have disclosed it if they knew, and if they didn't know it was irresponsible on their part not to do some basic background work on people they were giving a prominent position to ask questions in this debate (the general)..

CNN shouldn't have used people who were officially involved in another campaign, but that doesn't negate the importance of the question asked, nor does it prove they were somehow complicit in placing someone on the staff of another campaign in that position.. if you have some evidence that doesn't use your gut feeling as a source I'm open to reading it.

The questions were fair and not loaded, and were completely different from some of the examples you've given of what a loaded question looks like: "Do you still beat your wife?"

Even the question about punishment for abortion wasn't loaded, if you want to make them illegal, the next logical question is what's the punishment for those involved who break the law.

Anyone who thinks abortion (of any type) should be against the law should be ready to answer that question.

Originally Posted by dydx

"cnn, fox new sucks, bushilter, chimp, benedict murtha, projection"...one tag for all the threads!!!

If you don't like the forum, you're welcome to leave.. continuous bashing isn't going to win you any points.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's interesting that at the last debate people were annoyed that they allowed Clinton supportors to ask questions and followed up the debate with Clinton campaigners to discuss the debate. The liberal blogosphere was furious that they would do such a thing and not be honest with people.

But, as soon as they do essentially the same thing at the Republican debate it's supported.

Who's supporting it?

If CNN knew it was just as irresponsible as it was during the Democratic debate, when it's been proven that they did know and actively worked to conceal that fact, unlike in this situation, where it's been nothing but conjecture.. who's said differently?

The difference is whether or not the questions are valid to ask, I don't think they were especially unfair or loaded and I think for people who are undecided, it's important to ask those types of questions..

Like I said, people can bitch about the fact that CNN didn't disclose it or do enough research on the people who's videos they selected, and those are completely valid criticisms of CNN.. They screwed up big time in that respect

But going after the questions is just trying to make it a bigger deal than needs to be.. No Republicans are concerned about unsafe imports for China? No Republicans want to know about potential penalties for people who have abortion's if they're made illegal? The Log Cabin Republicans aren't Republicans and don't deserve to ask questions because they're gay?

Give me a break.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I have no problem if a Democrat wants to ask a question of a Republican in a Primary Debate as long as they are identified as such. Not people claiming undecided, ect..

And they should have been identified, I don't think anyone has posted otherwise on either side of the isle..

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by dydx

My God some of you have zero sense of fairness...and aren't mature enough to admit that when your team commits a foul and gets called.....

There's the problem right there with politics today. People see it as "us against them".

This isn't 2 teams fighting it out for a championship. The President will be President of the whole country, not just the people who vote for their political party.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by Scrum

There's the problem right there with politics today. People see it as "us against them".

This isn't 2 teams fighting it out for a championship. The President will be President of the whole country, not just the people who vote for their political party.

Exactly!!!

[Donkey®]

What I don't get is that people on here are screaming "let the undecided figure out who they want from their party" but it's a complete bullshit premise. Why do all the undecided have to already have a party picked out? Why can't an undecided be neither Republican or Democrat and would like to see the BEST Republican be nominated and the BEST Democrat be nominated so they can choose between the two? You guys act like that ONLY Republicans can ask questions to Republicans and vice versa. It shouldn't matter one fucking bit who asks a question of a candidate.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

What I don't get is that people on here are screaming "let the undecided figure out who they want from their party" but it's a complete bullshit premise. Why do all the undecided have to already have a party picked out? Why can't an undecided be neither Republican or Democrat and would like to see the BEST Republican be nominated and the BEST Democrat be nominated so they can choose between the two? You guys act like that ONLY Republicans can ask questions to Republicans and vice versa. It shouldn't matter one fucking bit who asks a question of a candidate.

I understand what you're saying. I accept your opinion of how it *should* be for both Democrats and Republicans. But an outlet doesn't hold one party to those standards they shouldn't do it to the other. It needs to be balanced, even, fair, and off the same game plan.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I understand what you're saying. I accept your opinion of how it *should* be for both Democrats and Republicans. But an outlet doesn't hold one party to those standards they shouldn't do it to the other. It needs to be balanced, even, fair, and off the same game plan.

So why are any of the debates televised if they are just meant for whatever party is in the debate?

[dydx]

Originally Posted by Scrum

CNN is biased!

There. It's not ignored. Now lets talk about how horribly they answered the loaded question, not just about the people who asked it.


Oh wait.....that may make them look bad. Lets just keep complaining about CNN.

Wow, thanks...now wasn't that cathartic? Took five pages...but hey, baby steps...the first step.

Now on to the second step...which is this:

You have to realize that most likely to the vast majority of us Repukes....we really don't care what the answer to that question is....it's not what will help us choose our candidates. As long as no candidate says "Dammit, keep dem' friggin' fags and queers on the streets and not in our foxholes" I really don't care.

You care...which is why you think that we ought to care. It may be a deciding factor for you in deciding whom to vote for (hah!! as if you would ever vote for a Repuke). But...you have to realize that's what's truly going on here. Your projecting your concerns onto us. Your concerns have to...no MUST...be the Repukes concern for some reason. It would be nice for you to have it so...but really silly to expect it.

Now I served in the military...and trained with someone who I heavily suspected was gay...so it's not like I'm a stranger to this issue. I didn't ask him if he were gay nor would I have reported him if he were. To me, don't ask don't tell is fine...it's not perfect...but it's fine with me. But it's not a deciding issue for me. Not even remotely. It's also not a deciding issue with any fellow Repuke with whom I've mentioned this to, now or in the past. And I've been talk