A story is sweeping the blogosphere and even breaking into the mainstream media. It's all about Wednesday night's Republican debate which aired on CNN and featured questions from what were presented as likely Republican primary voters who submitted questions through YouTube.
Right after the debate complaints began to be heard that the selection of questions was peculiar and seemed to be selected by criteria which weren't particularly relevant to the issues of the Republican primary. As the discussion expanded, people began speculating that CNN had deliberately picked questions to sabotage the debate. Then questions began to be raised suggesting that a few of the questions may have come not from the Republican voters from whom they had been solicited, but from Democrats or left-leaning independents.
Attention first focused on a question asked by gay Retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. I actually rather liked the question, but it did seem sort of pointless since all of the candidates are on record with the same basic position supporting the policy. Before the debate was even over, controversy began to arise over Kerr's participation when it became known that not only is Kerr a registered Democrat, but he's actually working for the Hillary Clinton campaign as Co-Chairman of the Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary committee.
It was very clear that Kerr was essentially a Democrat plant who CNN made little or no effort to vet - since he's a known public figure and could easily have been identified. This raised questions about other questions and very quickly questioners began to be identified as Democrats, independents, socialists, and just about anything but actual Republicans. First four were identified and quickly the numbers grew, until at last count the indications are that the majority of the 40 questions actually let through from YouTube and approved by CNN came from non-Republicans, many of them known activists for specific Democrat groups or candidates.
By today it has become clear that CNN either deliberately colluded with the Democrats in a planned sandbagging of the GOP candidates or made virtually no effort to identify the legitimacy of the people asking the questions. CNN has tried to brush the questions off as "funny and poignant", but their stated role in the debate as formulated by Washington Bureau Chief David Bohrman was to "let Republican voters pick from among their eight candidates" while "trying to focus mostly on questions where there are differences among these candidates." Yet somehow the questions focused primarily on issues of interest to the left and more appropriate for the general election than in a debate between Republicans during their party primary. In a supposedly "laborious process" CNN editors went through 3500 submissions to pick 40 questions. With so many questions to pick from it seems inherently suspicious that they could only find questions mostly from Democrats or from outright professional shills for special interest groups.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Andy
Abortion doctors should be thrown in jail. The fundamental right of protection should be extended to the unborn.
The American empire should end, not America. Understnad the difference.
States have more power than the Federal government.
Paper money should be backed by something substantial.
How stupid are you?
2 - Dave Nalle
Abortion doctors are providing a valuable public service.
There is no American Empire.
It doesn't matter that powers are reserved to the states, rights are reserved for the people and the federal government should protect their rights.
Paper money is backed by the US economy and it's pretty damned substantial.
All I know is that I'm not stupid enough to hold your naive and ridiculous beliefs.
Dave
3 - Baritone
Andy,
No.
B-tone
4 - El Bicho
Dave, very good piece. While I can certainly understand Republicans being upset that at the very least some producers of the debate rigged the questions, they were only questions. Are they questions on the minds or Republican primary voters, probably not, but they did seem like questions on the minds of some general election voters.
As I watched the turmoil on the cable stations, I thought back to 2004 when his opponents said, "if Kerry can't handle the Swift-boaters, how can he handle Al Queda?" leading me to wonder if the candidates can't answer a question from a Democrat, how can they handle Al Queda?
I think it's good to see the candidates in an uncontrolled environment. They can't script their presidency. I am bored by staged campaigning. I thought it was lame and disingenuous when Bush did it, and I still think so when Hillary does it. And who cares about the political conventions that they have now become infomercials? I prefer to see the process work.
I also am cynical enough to wonder if some of the anger misdirects so there's no talk about who won the debate. I thought McCain and Huckabee came off well, even when I didn't agree with them. I wasn't too impressed with the front runners, Mitt especially looked weak.
PS, Sorry, if I confuse some of the commentors by staying on topic, so let me say it looks from your recent picture, like you've lost some weight.
5 - Dr Dreadful
Dave, my compliments on your new profile photo. You're looking healthier every day.
6 - Dave Nalle
Are they questions on the minds or Republican primary voters, probably not, but they did seem like questions on the minds of some general election voters.
Some of them were certainly questions on my mind which hadn't been asked before and I think that's a good thing.
I also am cynical enough to wonder if some of the anger misdirects so there's no talk about who won the debate. I thought McCain and Huckabee came off well, even when I didn't agree with them. I wasn't too impressed with the front runners, Mitt especially looked weak.
McCain is the one who has overeacted the most after the fact. I think Hunter came off a lot better than expected in the debate and I think Thompson is doing better. His easygoing style is appealing once you get used to it.
PS, Sorry, if I confuse some of the commentors by staying on topic, so let me say it looks from your recent picture, like you've lost some weight.
It's all from chainsmoking cigars and living on an all lye diet.
Dave
7 - Rational Ed
If keeping abortion legal in every state is the most important issue to you, you probably shouldn't vote for Ron Paul.
If you feel there are others things more important, please vote for Ron Paul.
You will not regret it.
8 - Alex
The most amazing thing about CNN's handling of the debate was its sandbagging of Ron Paul. He got the fewest questions and the least airtime and his few questions were more like muggings: 1) are you a conspiracy nut?; 2) how would you punish a woman who got an abortion?; 3) does your campaign even have a point? Ron Paul has the most dramatic differences on the issues with other Republican candidates, so if highlighting differences on issues is the goal, engaging Ron Paul in the questions makes sense. Also, even if you just allocated airtime based on poll numbers (an unfair strategy in which the press strengthens the strong instead of educating the public), Ron Paul should have gotten much more airtime than Tancredo and Hunter and similar amounts to Thompson, but he didn't. Finally, since Ron Paul is the most popular Presidential candidate on YouTube by a huge factor, and since his grassroots supporters submitted more video questions for this debate than all the other candidates combined, CNN's decision to edit out all of those questions and select many more questions for other candidates makes you wonder. On what basis did CNN think they should try to minimize Ron Paul's speaking time? Why? Honestly I just don't get it. I don't think the media is corrupt--rather lazy. If Giuliani and Clinton tell the media that Ron Paul only has a few supporters, then the media believes it and reports it. Too bad it's not true. CNN was onto something by teaming up with YouTube. But by inexplicably trying to marginalize Ron Paul, they showed that their "editing" makes them less credible than YouTube itself as a measure of candidates' support
9 - handyguy
While some on the right froth about CNN's handling of the debate questions, Media Matters points out that CNN anchor Campbell Brown, married to Republican strategist Dan Senor, has indulged in some on-air word choices that could certainly be construed as inappropriate editorializing:
- Describing MoveOn as "American insurgents"
- Referring to John Edwards's supporters as "the angry, far-left anti-war vote."
CNN also rather overdid the apologies for the gay general's question, and edited it out of subsequent broadcasts.
And, Media Matters points out, the Democratic YouTube debate on CNN included an equally out-of-place, what-do-you-expect-them-to-say-anyway, question:
"I'd like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like usually they do when a Democrat gets into office?"
CNN is the home of bloviating Republican bigot Lou Dobbs and irritating, idiotic slanderer Glenn Beck, and features Pat Buchanan as a commentator. Referring to the network as partisan is an inaccurate cheap shot.
10 - kevin m
Kerr is a retired Colonel!! He was only a general in the California national guard. big difference.
And CNN let him rant from the floor longer than Paul got to speak total.
The debate was nothing more than a circus for the amusement of the Dems.
11 - Dave Nalle
While some on the right froth about CNN's handling of the debate questions, Media Matters points out that CNN anchor Campbell Brown, married to Republican strategist Dan Senor, has indulged in some on-air word choices that could certainly be construed as inappropriate editorializing:
- Describing MoveOn as "American insurgents"
- Referring to John Edwards's supporters as "the angry, far-left anti-war vote."
Handy, even you know that Media Matters is utterly full of shit. They're a Soros created partisan attack engine. On this issue they may have a point, but it says nothing about CNN overall and they lack any credibility whatsoever.
CNN also rather overdid the apologies for the gay general's question, and edited it out of subsequent broadcasts.
I almost mentioned that in the article. It was a transparent ploy to distract attention from the large number of plants. By focusing on Kerr so heavily as if he was the entire problem they hoped to be able to ignore the fact that he was one of about 24 questionable participants.
And, Media Matters points out, the Democratic YouTube debate on CNN included an equally out-of-place, what-do-you-expect-them-to-say-anyway, question:
"I'd like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like usually they do when a Democrat gets into office?"
Yeah, ONE out of place question. Not half the total questions.
CNN is the home of bloviating Republican bigot Lou Dobbs
Dobbs isn't a Republican by any normal definition, even if he self-identifies as one. He's a reactionary protectionist conspiracy nut, anti-capitalist, nativist loonbag. He's the definition of all the worst elements of the old left exiles who have tried to infest the GOP and who normal republicans are damned sick of.
and irritating, idiotic slanderer Glenn Beck,
Obviously put on as a sop to the right so they have someone they can point to and say they carry a conservative. They just found the least impressive candidate and put him on.
and features Pat Buchanan as a commentator.
Buchanan is like Dobbs light. Again, he's an old left populist masquerading as a Republican.
Referring to the network as partisan is an inaccurate cheap shot.
That's not something I did in the article, of course.
Dave
12 - lono
Good to hear the CNN debates were rigged. They controlled the outcome by selecting the questions instead of choosing random ones. Thought the format was not very good. Should have given each one of them 15 seconds to answer the same question so we could really make comparisons.
I take issue with this statement in your article about Ron Paul. If he honestly believes that the feds have no business in regulating this then you are just spinning "They seem to have caught on to Ron Paul's strategy of avoiding topics like abortion by passing them off as states rights issues". I don't think he is avoiding the subject, I think that he thinks just that. The states should decide. Quit bad mouthing the next president of the of the USA, you're starting to sound like CNN.
13 - Charlie Doherty
Dave Nalle, Malkin and company, stop your crocodile tears.
First of all, righty blogs say Keith Kerr IS a registered Democrat, lefty blogs say Kerr WAS a registered Republican. So I don't know who is telling the truth. Second of all, CNN's vetting process is pathetic, but it doesn't mean Kerr was a democratic "plant." But you can't convince the righties on the blogosphere of that because it doesn't fit their narrative of a "liberal" media.
How liberally biased is this media when in past democratic debates for example, republican-types asked the Democrats a loaded question that wrongly accused them of raising taxes? And how about all the criticism Tim Russert took about the debate he moderated a month ago, in which he lied at least twice - about Bill Clinton's presidential archives letter and Senator Clinton's stance on Social Security reform - and asked "gotcha" questions, the type that CNN swore they would stay away from during this past Republican debate.
It's just plain hypocrisy by Republicans to complain about the format of Republican debates when they are silent on the criticism of democratic debates (unless it has to do with Senator Clinton, of course).
14 - Charlie
There goes Dave again, slamming Media Matters (on another part of the thread).
Hey Dave, name five items that Media Matters has been inaccurate about in the past six months? I can name a few, but that's about it. They are an important MSM/conservative watchdog group, whether you like it or not.
Do they miss the point in their narrow, anecdotal criticisms of the media sometimes? Yes, and that's where they can be rightfully accused of spinning an issue: For example, Senator Clinton's stance on Spitzer's now defunct illegal immigrant driver's licenses in the Russert-moderated debate was questionable and on the negative side, but at the time didn't rise to the level of flip-flopping. Media Matters was right to point that out, but the next day, they were silent when she endorsed plans "like" Spitzer's and completed the flip-flopping. Of course, she flipped again in November when she personally was one of many people cited as finally talking Spitzer out of his highly unpopular license plan.
And please, spare me the Soros BS. A friend of Soros gave money to Media Matters. That's different than writing the check yourself and having control over its content (Murdoch anyone?). The smear just doesn't hold up. So if yo're still trying to write off MMFA using that shit, try again. You'd have better luck pointing out that a confidant of Hillary's gave MMFA some money when they started up in 2004.
But the overall point is, just like any other watchdog organization, the true value of MMFA lies in reading it every day or week. Sites like them, politifact.com, factcheck.org and the Washington Post's Michael Dobb's factcheck page are all valuable towards dissecting the daily BS the media, pundits and politicians themselves give us.
15 - Vincent G
Hmmm
Seems to me the question that asked Ron Paul to run as an independent was a loaded question.
As I remember I believe he said first that the Republican Party will never let you win.
That was a pro Ron Paul Question as I see it.
The art of subliminal messages can be quite effective.
16 - handyguy
Media Matters reports media bias. They report it from a left point of view and the bias they point out is toward the right.
There are numerous other web sites that do it from the right's POV, pointing out leftward bias.
Nothing wrong with either. Media Matters is extremely accurate, but they are rarely likely to agree with Dave Nalle. This actually does not make them 'full of shit,' however.
And [your utterly unproven allegation] "Soros-financed" is not a dirty word -- although you throw it around in this article and in your Ron Paul article as if it were. There are plenty of rich guys on the right financing political action and commentary - probably, in fact, a lot more than on the left. This is part of living in a democracy, no?
And if you find serious inaccuracies on Media Matters, let us know. I doubt you even read it, actually. I think David Brock is a great American, and I think the site does an immense public service. It battles the mythical notion [ludicrous, actually] that all American media is leftward-biased.
You may pretend to be fair, but every time you say stuff like this you prove otherwise.
17 - Chris Stevens
Most Startling Admission in the CNN YouTube Presidential Debates.
30 seconds says it all.
18 - Baronius
Interesting points, Dave. My feeling on the media is that we've got to call them on every stunt they pull. But to be honest, I'm not sure that this debate was a setup. I think that the average CNN staffer sees gun control and socialized medicine as obvious, pressing needs. They could look through 3500 submissions and find a dozen plants from the Dem campaign staffs to be the most reasonable. They view the issues with blinders on.
I saw a recent ad for some Bill Moyers thing. They showed him interviewing Dan Rather, Garrison Keillor, and Chris Matthews (if I remember correctly). To PBS, that probably seems like a wide variety of views. To Republicans, that seems like the same person.
But the right-of-center has overwhelming evidence that the press is biased. We need to keep our watchdog groups active, and not lose confidence just because the left has their own watchdog groups. The Media Research Center sometimes loses the big picture, but they've compiled more examples of bias than Media Matters has.
Anyway, Dave, solid article. Well reported, with specific examples, and interesting opinion.
19 - Westmiller
Good column, but I suspect that the questions selected were "the best" (ie: most interesting) to the producer (who probably had some liberal inclinations). Of course, they were contentious and slanted questions (stimulating controversial responses), but they did generate more enthusiasm than prior concurrent-press-conference "debates".
The more interesting (to me) "sandbagging" was the allocation of time to each of the candidates. CNN seemed to follow the Fox/ABC inclination, which was to distribute the time for answers on the basis of each candidate's most recent standing in national polls. That meant that Ron Paul, for example, got 6% of the debate time, rather than 2% in previous debates.
I suppose it's "objective", but there's something invidious about the premise that "where they are is where they should be" in the discussion.
20 - RJ
I predicted this CNN/YouTube left-wing smear job back in July:
[T]here is a better reason for the GOP to dodge this debate than mere inanity. This debate is to be hosted by CNN, a lib-left cable news network. And CNN gets to hand-pick just which YouTube questions will be asked. So, it's quite possible that many/most of the questions they pick will be little more than personal and/or ideological attacks, with a question mark at the end. (Kinda like push-polling.)
And CNN will be able to get away with stacking the deck in this manner by saying "Hey, they weren't our questions. If the Republican candidates have a problem with the questions, they need to take that up with the average American citizens who asked those questions."
Such a defense by CNN would be highly disingenuous, but it would be difficult-to-impossible for the candidates to rebut that argument without seeming hostile to the electorate. So, lib-left CNN gets to use YouTube loons to humiliate (and therefore politically damage) Republican Presidential candidates without taking any of the blame for their partisanship.
So, yeah, I can definitely see why the GOP candidates would dodge this debate. (Just like the Dems recently dodged a debate that was to be hosted by FoxNews...)
21 - RJ
"Abortion doctors are providing a valuable public service."
What some consider a "valuable public service" others would call mass-infanticide. FWIW.
22 - RJ
As I watched the turmoil on the cable stations, I thought back to 2004 when his opponents said, "if Kerry can't handle the Swift-boaters, how can he handle Al Queda[sic]?" leading me to wonder if the candidates can't answer a question from a Democrat, how can they handle Al Queda[sic]?
And if Democrats won't even appear on a FOXNews debate for fear of being asked "loaded questions," how can they handle Al Qaeda?
23 - Baronius
RJ, if you can't tell CNN to bugger off, will you be able to tell Iran?
24 - RJ
handyguy [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] laughably cites Media Matters for America as an objective news source to support his equally-laughable contention that CNN is an objective news source.
Then, after calling Lou Dobbs a Republican (hint: he's not) and a bigot (despite the fact that he's a supporter of "gay rights"), and accusing "the right" of "froth[ing]" over this issue, handyguy caused my irony meter to explode with this line:
"irritating, idiotic slanderer Glenn Beck"
Psychological projection at work? I report, you decide... ;-)
25 - RJ
First of all, righty blogs say Keith Kerr IS a registered Democrat, lefty blogs say Kerr WAS a registered Republican. So I don't know who is telling the truth. Second of all, CNN's vetting process is pathetic, but it doesn't mean Kerr was a democratic "plant."
#1 - The man was a vocal supporter of Kerry in 2004, and works for the Clinton campaign this election cycle. If that doesn't help you understand which side is "telling the truth," I'm afraid you're beyond my help.
#2 - All it would have taken is for someone at CNN to do a 15-second Google search on this guy's name, and they would have known he wasn't an "undecided Republican primary voter."
#3 - This guy was not the only partisan Democrat plant who got to ask a question at the sham CNN/YouTube debate. As Dave's article points out, an actual majority of the questioners were leftists and/or Democrats. Out of the thousands of submitted questions, the staff at CNN just so happened to choose mostly questions from partisan left-wingers. You know, by accident. Sure. Right. And I've got a bridge in Minneapolis to sell ya.