With CNN's help the latest primary debate bore some resemblance to a back-alley mugging committed by circus performers.
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.…
Article comments
26 - RJ
And how about all the criticism Tim Russert took about the debate he moderated a month ago
"All the criticism" he received was from Clinton partisans, who are not used to seeing Hillary asked direct questions from a moderator who expects an actual answer. I don't think anybody outside the Clinton camp was complaining about Russert, who is just about the most credible (and fair) political journalist in the country.
in which he [Russert] lied at least twice - about Bill Clinton's presidential archives letter and Senator Clinton's stance on Social Security reform
Just because well-known liar Bill Clinton accused Russert of lying doesn't mean he actually lied. I'm calling bullshit, unless you provide a cite. (And sources that are shills for the Clinton campaign, like Media Matters for America, don't count.)
27 - Charlie
From the Oct. 30, 2007 debate exchange:
"RUSSERT: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?
CLINTON: Well, that's not my decision to make. And I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has. But certainly we'll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits."
The italics is where he lied, ok RJ?
Here's the TRUTH, from a Nov. 2nd MYDD post: "Bill Clinton has not blocked the release of a single document from his Library." According to the blog post, [Bruce] Lindsey also said: "The Archives is in the process of making records available as quickly as they can -- over 1 million pages of the Clinton Administration records have already been released, including Health Care Task Force records," adding, "Contrary to recent reports [and Russert], Bill Clinton has not asked that records related to communications with Senator Clinton be withheld."
Also, from a Nov. 2nd Politico article: "Both Clintons and their aides say they're releasing documents as quickly as the archives make them available, and that the real hold up is the volume of paper.
Most documents became publicly available, by law, after five years, and the schedules do not appear to fall within any of several categories of papers that Clinton has reserved the right to withhold until 2012."
Is that good enough for ya? (I thought so)
28 - Charlie
And don't forget that President Bush gets to review Clinton's records (certain ones relating to national security, I would guess) before they are released as well. Do you think he would hold anything back that would potentially embarass the Clintons? (Hint: No). Releasing millions of presidential documents isn't as easy as the anti-Clintonians think. It takes a long time and most of the rest of what hasn't been released will be public by late January/early February 2008.
Russert also mislead Oct. 30 debate viewers in saying Hillary had contradictory stances on Social Security reform - one public, one private. That wasn't true at all because she has avoided any real answers to this issue by saying we need to think about "fiscal responsibility" first before delving into potential solutions. Nothing is on or off the table, apparently.
But heck, I'm an undecided (but leaning towards Biden or Dodd) voter anyway, I've done enough Hillary-related writing for one night. I just had to set the record straight and point out that debate viewers on both (or rather, all) political sides have reason to complain about this year's debate formats.
29 - Baronius
Charlie, thanks for explaining why Berger stole all copies of the Millenium national security notes from the National Archives.
30 - Charlie
Charlie, thanks for explaining why Berger stole all copies of the Millenium national security notes from the National Archives.
LOL! But didn't he do that before the 2004 election?
31 - RJ
"Here's the TRUTH, from a Nov. 2nd MYDD post"
(I lol'd. Seriously.)
So, your "objective" evidence that Tim Russert lied is:
1 - A quote from Bruce Lindsey, who is currently the Chief Executive Officer of the William J. Clinton Foundation, and was an Assistant to the President, Deputy White House Counsel, and Senior Advisor during the Clinton administration
and
2 - Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and unnamed Clinton aides
You can't be serious.
Meanwhile, here are reports from the LA Times and NEWSWEEK, which are rather more credible than quotes from either of the Clintons or their assorted cronies:
LA TIMES
Hillary Clinton White House records still locked up
Archivists say former first lady's documents can't be released until after the '08 election despite promises of transparency. A conservative group has sued.
NEWSWEEK
Papers? I Don’t See Any Papers.
He says he's 'pro-disclosure,' but Bill has kept Hillary's White House files under wraps.
32 - RJ Elliott
"Russert also mislead Oct. 30 debate viewers in saying Hillary had contradictory stances on Social Security reform - one public, one private. That wasn't true at all ..."
Wrong again:
At last night's debate, Sen. Clinton responded to an audience question about Social Security with her stock answer -- fiscal discipline and a study commission -- but refused to join Obama's call for lifting the wage cap so higher earners pay more payroll tax, even accusing him of supporting a $1 trillion tax hike. Obama called that Republican demagoguery.
The other problem: That's the same idea Clinton, in a private exchange at a rally overheard by an AP reporter, told Iowa teacher Tod Bowman she actually would support. So today, Bowman has sent Hillary a letter, which the Obama camp is releasing. (Full text after the jump)
It says: "Senator Obama gave the same straightforward answer last night on Social Security that he gave to me last month. But I was confused about something you said â€" because you criticized Senator Obama for supporting something you told me you’d consider supporting yourself."
Also: "I just don’t understand how you can like an idea one day and then turn around and criticize it the next. It just gives the impression that you’re not being straight with people about where you stand."
So..how exactly was Russert's question a "lie" ???
33 - Pete Mackin
I worked for many years under now retired, Kronkite-era journalists, most of whom are now broadcast hall of fame members. Not until their retirement did I know the political leanings of these men.
They trained me to be non-bias, left or right. The real sin of both the Fox and CNN debates is that they are motivated by the interest, perspective and goals of the networks and their moderators. Mr. Lehrer is still the best moderator in my opinion, but he's not "sexy" enough for these new formats.
The real problem here is that true journalism is no longer being taught in many colleges. New reporters are taught more about their image, presentation skills and career strategies than how to actually research and report things that are both useful and necessary for the public to understand.
My motive in every interview was not to direct the outcome of my story, but to best represent the ideas of those I was interviewing. When I uncovered something misleading or innaccurate, I called them back for a clarification, presented the facts by experts on the subject and equally represented differing points of view with an aim at allowing the reader, viewer or listener to use their own bias to interpret what was being presented.
When I went to leave politics, I was called in for job interviews with both Sen. Carl Levin and Dick DeVos (Republican gubernatorial candidate) and decided rather to run for state senate. Many were shocked that I ran as a Ron Paul Republican, but what can I say, I believe in a representative form of government which follows a rule of law.
To the point: media today are more about entertainment and corporate profits than actually serving the interests of accurately informing the American public. That is why the internet is so attractive, as well as Dr. Paul's campaign for the truth.
34 - Charlie
[I swear I thought I was done defending slick Willy, but here I go again]
LOL RJ! The Isikoff piece? That was what Russert was likely referring to in the debate because it was one of the first articles written about this exact subject and was in print right before the debate. He and the LA Times article you cited were misleading at best on what the letter said, which is why I did not cite them as sources. I love Newsweek, but it ain't the Gospel.
[See Clinton's actual letter below and judge it for yourself]
Also, he (Russert) asked Hillary about Bill's National Archives letter as if she had the power as former first lady to waive her husband's restrictions on the release of his documents. No such former first lady has that power.
Anyway, do you really think it's a lie that Bill Clinton never asked his designated Archiver reviewer Bruce Lindsey to BAN any Clinton-era document, even ones relating to Hillary as First Lady from coming out until 2012? Go ahead and prove it. [If it was a lie, don't you think that would have been refuted by the NARA or media sources quoting their spokespeople by now?]
Ah, here is why I like Newsweek so much: It's got Bill's actual National Archives Letter in full! (2 pages) As you might notice, Bill's wording on restriction-easing is ambiguous at worst but like I said in earlier posts, not one Clinton-era document has actually been banned on Bill's orders from the public since he left office, just "considered for withholding" upon further review, like any responsible former president would have done.
Still not buying it after all this? Check out this "objective" analysis of Russert vs. the Clintons from this Salon.com article. That should do it.
35 - Charlie
And RJ, I am NOT wrong on Russert's lie about Senator Clinton having both a private and public position on Social Security either.
From your ::smirk:: favorite site Media Matters, which proves me right, and your sources wrong.
One last thing: Through these back-and-forth exchanges, I probably come off as hating Russert. Far from it, I'm only disappointed in him lately. He's been accused by the left of being "unfair," harsher towards democrats than republicans, etc., but regarding the specific issues I brought up, Russert just didn't do his homework correctly, sort of like you.
36 - Eric Dondero
The worst of the CNN posers was the Gay guy. He publicly and explicitly called himself a "Republican." I don't remember the General or the others saying that. But this guy blatantly lied.
Yeah, the General was a plant. But to me the bigger story was this liar who called himself a Republican, when we now find out he's a Democrat operative Obama supporters.
If I was a Log Cabin Club member, and the LCC are good guys and very loyal Republicans, I'd be outraged at this dude. They should consider a lawsuit.
37 - Zedd
Dave,
The candidates are hoping to be Americas candidates. It doesn't matter what party the person who poses the question is from. Its a question from an American and the candidates response reflects THAT candidates views.
If we want to know what the candidates think, we shouldn't ask Republican questions or Democrat questions. Thats asinine. Ask questions and what the candidate answers is his opinion. One would think that people want to see how the candidate responds to apposing views.
Lets see now:
- What do you feel about the debate on the environment?
Is that a Republican question?
-What about social security?
Red or Blue question?
-What about the war?
Red or Blue?
-Gasoline prices?
Red or Blue concern?
-Prayer in school?
Do only Dems want to know the answer to that?
Every lucid question that a Democrat would have for a Republican is telling of what that Republicans stance is. It is stupid to think that only Republicans can ask questions that would illuminate who the candidate really is.
You see the issue is not only about the question and how its answered, it's what the VOTER feels about the answer. The voter's perception of the answer is what makes the difference. With that in mind, how is CNN sabotaging anyone?
If the questions had been leading, and leading to a misleading conclusion, that would have been sabotage.
38 - Charlie
It is stupid to think that only Republicans can ask questions that would illuminate who the candidate really is.
Well said, Zedd, well said (just about your whole post, actually).
What really gets me is this unbelievable attempt by right-wingers (especially on the blogs) to steal the narrative away from what should have been the story of the CNN/YouTube debate: Huckabee stole the show; Romney and Rudy had an arguably poor showing; Fred Thompson had little to say; Ron Paul was his usual feisty, mostly truth-telling self; and finally, there were lots of BOOS and mixed reactions from a rather diversified audience at the debate (probably due to Ron Paul supporters).
McCain had his moments as well, though he was wrong to call Ron Paul an "isolationist" (which Paul himself did a good job rebutting). That and his - talking to Ron Paul - "Let's Us Win" statement he claimed was from troops he visited in Iraq was controversial and emblematic of this whole debate on the war.
It's one thing to get the support and quote from retired troops to make your point about war, but McCain should not be playing politics with statements from our troops currently serving in Iraq. His implication was that anyone, Ron Paul or otherwise who has turned against or always been against our involvement in the middle of Iraqi sectarian warfare, doesn't support our troops. That is out of line, IMO.
People should be talking about, debating, and evaluating statements like this and other issues that were actually brought up in the debate. Not crying about who asked what and making up shit about CNN planting or sabotaging the debate.
A few non-Republicans got picked to ask some questions. And CNN didn't do their job I'ding them. Get over it! They were legitimate topics, just about all of them, except the softball to Rudy at the end about the Red Sox (echoes of the "Diamonds and Pearls" question to Hillary from the last Democratic debate, doesn't it?).
The Jesus-as-politician question wasn't that helpful a question for prospective voters either but did provide the most entertaining answer - he was smart than to run for office - of the night, courtesy of Huckabee.
39 - handyguy
It's rare that I get someone riled enough for them to indulge in delete-worthy personal attacks. A few factual clarifications, since these are rarely RJ's strong points:
Characterizations of his economic stance are way off base, asserts Dobbs, who describes himself as a lifelong Republican who remains moderate in his views. - Associated Press profile of Lou Dobbs, April 2004
He donated to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000.
He has since [meaning later than 2004] said he is now "unaffiliated," according to an unsourced quote on Wikipedia.
The bigotry I was accusing him of is against immigrants. Just watch his show, if you can without gagging. At any rate, a liberal he ain't, and he's one of allegedly leftist CNN's better ratings achievers.
As for Glenn Beck, if your unexplained irony-meter eruption means you think he's great, I think that's self-explanatory. Anyone who can sit through his despicable show deserves him.
I did not say Media Matters is an objective site. I said they report inaccuracies and bias in the media from a left point of view; that's by definition not objective. There are many other sites that do so from the right; both groups are performing valuable services.
RJ reacts to all news coverage through an ideological filter composed of his own willful tunnel vision. If it's not from the right, it's biased. Then he lets loose in a wisecracking, insulting tone, and finds himself utterly hilarious. [He may be alone in this.]
Baronius apparently feels similarly, but expresses it less obnoxiously. You can keep saying this in perpetuity, fellas, but it doesn't make it one bit truer: there are plenty of distortions worth talking about in the media, but they don't all come from one side.
As the brilliant [and no, not objective] commentator Eric Alterman titled his book: What Liberal Media?
I don't expect to convince you guys, but I'm not going to let you get away with cheap shots either. Again, do you actually ever read Media Matters [a fairly calm, non-fire-breathing sort of site]? Probably not...more fun to just call it [and me?] names.
40 - handyguy
And to actually discuss the alleged subject of the article:
What harm did the question do? Were any of the Republican candidates damaged by it?
Liberal Dems like me already find every one of them opportunistic bigots on the "Don't ask, don't tell" issue. Republican primary voters, however, are not likely to be shocked, shocked at having this hypocritical stance questioned.
In other words, did the question, whatever its origin and reason for being included, actually add to or take from anybody's vote totals in Iowa or New Hampshire? I doubt it.
It's just something for Limbaughites to yell about for a few days. Fun fun fun.
41 - Chris Arndt
'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."'
Well, they did fly the Gay General in, so believing that the mistake is innocent and innocuous is somewhat naive, I think.
42 - bliffle
So, the dems used Dirty Tricks!?
What did people think? That the reps had a patent on it, or something?
43 - Dave Nalle
Zedd, did you just not read the last half of the article and respond to only the first half?
Dave
44 - Baronius
Charlie and Zedd - Of course, issues are issues for both parties. I would expect a candidate to be able to answer a variety of questions. But it only seems fair for a party's debate to focus on a party's concerns. The proof is in the fact that someone bothered to track down the plants. If the questions were neutral, why would bloggers have investigated the questioners? For that matter, why would Democratic campaigns have bothered planting questions, if they weren't designed to embarrass candidates?
Handy and Bliffle - You say that both parties do it, that different media are biased in different directions. Fine. Look at this case. The Democrats had a YouTube debate without planted questions; the Republicans had a YouTube debate with planted questions. No amount of moral relativism or finger-pointing can change the fact that in this case, CNN failed to provide one of the parties with a neutral forum.
45 - Dave Nalle
In other words, did the question, whatever its origin and reason for being included, actually add to or take from anybody's vote totals in Iowa or New Hampshire? I doubt it.
Handy, the legitimate complaint most often raised about the questions is that because they were not more specifically tailored for a Repbulican audience they were basically a waste of time. Why did we need to hear all the candidates telling us they had the same position on an issue that most Republicans don't care about? Asking questions like the DADT question may have helped make the candidates look bad to independents and democrats, but they did nothing to help differentiate the candidates, which is what these primary debates are all about.
Dave
46 - Lumpy
The real problem with the debates is CNN not the questions. Who submitted what and what party they're from is irrelevant when the CNN staff have thousands to choose from. It creates the appearance of public questions while giving CNN enough to work with to ask any questions they want.
47 - Zedd
Baronius,
What are party concerns? I thought people voted as individuals and supported people who most closely spoke to their concerns.
The party does not have concerns. People do. Again, the answer to whatever question will highlight the candidates stance.
Perhaps I'm missing something. What is a party concern?
48 - Zedd
Dave,
My point is, how is a question to a candidate for President, not particularly odd or severely controversial ones, no secret personal outings or swift boat like distortions, how are those questions loaded?
49 - Baronius
Zedd, are you familiar with the Turing Test? The idea of it is that a computer cannot be considered intelligent if it can't mimic human intelligence. If you can spot the difference between a computer and a human, it's not intelligent.
Whether or not you believe that there are party issues, the fact is that the issues raised in this debate stood out from the issues that would be raised by Republicans. Otherwise, no one would have noticed.
If that's too abstract for your taste, let's try this: political parties have different priorities. For example, the Republicans stupidly put a low priority on the issue of education. The Democrats keep this issue as a high priority, and have stupid policy recommendations for it. Or, for an example from this debate, Republicans oppose gays in the military, but wish the issue would go away. Democrats favor gay marriage, but wish the issue would go away. There are differences in both priority and policy. That's all I mean.
50 - Zedd
Baronius,
I disagree with you.
There are variations within parties. Some Dems are tree hugging hippies and others are civil rights oriented folks who think tree huggers are nuts. There are Republicans who think that Christian Cons are wacko and CC who think that all who are not are evil. There are Democrats that are Christians (believe it or not) or socially conservative Democrats.
I think that spin doctors on either side tend to promote certain issues in order to define their candidates.
I don't think that Republican parents care LESS than Democrat parents about education.
While Democrats may be more concerned about the environment, Republicans would more likely be annoyed with the hoopla about the environment and would want to know their candidate's level commitment to the issue.