Hillary plants question in Republican debate !

[Eldon]

   



It turns out that Keith Kerr, retired Colonel., U.S. Army; retired Brigadier General, California National Reserve, who submitted a YouTube question about gays in the military, is actually a member of Hillary Clinton's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Americans For Hillary Steering Committee. He's also part of a film production crew trying overturn the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

UPDATE: In the final seconds of the post-debate coverage, Anderson Cooper acknowledges that CNN messed this up and states that CNN did not know that Kerr has a position within the Clinton campaign and that had they known, they would have disclosed the association. 


http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/d91f3cba-6a87-4686-92ce-70a16edc311b

[240 is Back]

Do you have evidence that Hilary planted him?

Or is it because he works for Hilary, and happens to be concerned about gay rights, that you just make the connection?

Suppose I work for Ford, but I have a side job of killing puppies on the weekends.  When I go to trial for puppy abuse, can I say "Ford sent me"?

[Eldon]

240, you are wrong........
You used to be a open minded guy on here, now it seems you just look for people to argue with..

The questions were supposed to be from undecided voters...  not Democratic voters.

Watch this video from MSNBC

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/11/29/scarborough-total-crap-cnn-didnt-know-gay-questioner-hillary-campa

[Eldon]

And even Anderson Cooper said this .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28CCf4cEDpI

[240 is Back]

The questions were supposed to be from undecided voters...  not Democratic voters.

Please show me where the CNN youtube rules list this.

Or is this just your opinion of who should ask the questions?

[240 is Back]

and dude, i'm not saying CNN didn't screw the pooch here.

I just think it's wrong to say the dems "posed" as republicans, when many of them have lifetime records of working with the dems, speaking for dem causes, and have already endorsed dems. 

They didn't "pose", as that would have been a silly exercise in futility.



IMO, they were there not as political party reps, but as ISSUE reps.  Who will give a better Q on gay military rights - a republican, or a man who spent his life fighting for gay military rights?   

WIthout these tough Qs from issue-based individuals (regardless of party), the demate would have turned into a FOX debate, where the Qs are "Would you say you're more 'awesome', or more 'terrific' when it comes to being amazing, Mayor Rudy?"

[Eldon]

OK 240, you win,

It really is o.k that out of over 5000 questions submitted.....  that most of the questions that CNN picked were from Democratic supporters, and  with one, Keith Kerr, a known Clinton Committee member, was flown in at CNN's expense to ask his question in person.

later

[240 is Back]

OK 240, you win,

It really is o.k that out of over 5000 questions submitted.....  that most of the questions that CNN picked were from Democratic supporters, and  with one, Keith Kerr, a known Clinton Committee member, was flown in at CNN's expense to ask his question in person.

later

sorry, i dont mean to come off as a dick...

I just mean that the goal of the debate is to MAKE the candidates answers Qs they don't want to.  And that makes the party look bad.  Most repubs wont do that.

Any established Repub will lose status in his party by making Mitt or Rudy look like a jackass in front of the nation by asking a Q which exposes him flaws, mistakes.


CNN did a good job in the fact they got Mitt and RUdy to tear each other up on immigration (exposing their immature nature, plus history of fckups), and abortion.

In the FOX debates, this just didn't happen.  The mods didn't many Qs at all which made them look bad.  It was one big "You guys are so awesome!" show.

[headhuntersix]

Here's a link..they were all plants and or just shit stirrers....its got pics as well.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/digging-out-the-cnnyoutube-plants-abortion-questioner-is-edwards-supporter/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7085.html

They need to go back to the old way..its too hard to vet these people before the event.

[240 is Back]

It's not hard - google.com is a nice tool that would have revealed who these folks were in about 30 seconds. 

CNN had to have known.

Was it intentional to get their debate so much coverage?

Or was it some junior producer praying no one would check?

THey have egg on their face, but I'm glad.  The debate was a brawl between Rudy and Mitt, and for the first time we got to see what both men do when they are stressed in a situation they cannot control - they sweat, they raise their voices, they get emotional, and they look less than Presidential.   In the FOX debates, the Qs was easy and let the respondants give their 30 second stump speeches.  Not here.  WHich is good for voters to see.  What will Mitt do when China or Russia gets froggy and puts a base next to california?  We know how flustered he gets when Rudy brings up his maid.  I can imagine he'd fall apart a tad worse under REAL pressure.

[Dos Equis]

This would be consistent with Hillary recently manipulating questions in a couple of her recent appearances.  Wouldn't surprise me at all if she put this guy up to it.

[240 is Back]

This would be consistent with Hillary recently manipulating questions in a couple of her recent appearances.  Wouldn't surprise me at all if she put this guy up to it.

Wouldnt surprise me if you slept with goats on the sunny hawaiian beach.

But until I have evidence of it, it's all just guessing.

[Eldon]

Wouldnt surprise me if you slept with goats on the sunny hawaiian beach.

But until I have evidence of it, it's all just guessing.

ah yes,  when it looks like you side of the argument isn't going over that well,   
then start in with personal and character attacks.

 

[Hedgehog]

THey have egg on their face, but I'm glad.  The debate was a brawl between Rudy and Mitt, and for the first time we got to see what both men do when they are stressed in a situation they cannot control - they sweat, they raise their voices, they get emotional, and they look less than Presidential.   

You may be glad.

I think the most important thing is to be able to get the political views of the candidates, not to see whether they handle themselves Presidential in a stressed situation.

I'd like to see what the next four years will look like in the world. Not whether the president will be distinguished or not.

[240 is Back]

You may be glad.

I think the most important thing is to be able to get the political views of the candidates, not to see whether they handle themselves Presidential in a stressed situation.

I'd like to see what the next four years will look like in the world. Not whether the president will be distinguished or not.

even with the unfriendly format, most STILL didn't answer questions.  They dodged them as they always do.  Mitt wouldn't talk about waterboarding, Rudy wouldn't talk about guns, and they all gave doublespeak about the bible to avoid the 'yes or no' question if thye believe every word literally.

They just don't answer.

And IMO, the way a person reacts in a debate with people of similar mindset (rudy and mitt are about 99.99% similar), is VERY telling.  What happens when one of them has to sit down with Putin, when rus is putting the screws to us, we have little bargaining power, and suddenly Prez Mitt has to negotiate with someone he DOESNT have a lot in common with?

I'll tell you what will happen.  He'll fck something up. 

I want a cool cat in there, composed under the easy pressure of a debate.  When nuclear conflict or a 3rd war in mid east is imminent, I want a calm, rational person running thing.  Not some drama queen who stammers and pouts when his gardener is questioned.

[Hedgehog]

I want a cool cat in there, composed under the easy pressure of a debate.  When nuclear conflict or a 3rd war in mid east is imminent, I want a calm, rational person running thing.  Not some drama queen who stammers and pouts when his gardener is questioned.

Are you trying to sell us the Clinton-Iron Bitch/Thatcher angle here?

[Tre]

Rudy's answer to the Bible question was as hilarious as Mitt's response on overturning Roe v. Wade.

"Do you believe every word of the Bible?"

"No."

"Would you sign a bill overturning Roe v. Wade."

"Yes."

How hard is that?

[Cap]

&feature=related ...Watch this first

&feature=related ....and see how it plays out here

And here....

&feature=related

[Ozark]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBmake0akGw&feature=related ...Watch this first

&feature=related ....and see how it plays out here

And here....

&feature=related

I don't understand how anyone could vote for her. She truly is as low as it gets.

[Decker]

These debates are next to worthless for gauging the political ideas or acumen of any candidate.  Just look at Bush's pathetic performances--a mixture of non-sequiturs and wrongly stated concepts that trailed of into soft-spoken nonsense.  That is, when he decided to make an appearance at a debate at all.  http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/22/ariz.debate.01/index.html

It still comes down to the money.