Digging out more CNN/YouTube plants: (at least four plants exposed so far)

[Eldon]

Digging out more CNN/YouTube plants: (at least four plants exposed so far)


Abortion questioner is declared Edwards supporter (and a slobbering Anderson Cooper fan); Log Cabin Republican questioner is declared Obama supporter; lead toy questioner is a prominent union activist for the Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers



more....

1.Concerned Undecided Gay Military Retiree Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr = Hillary/Kerry supporter and anti-”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” activist Keith H. Kerr
2.Concerned Undecided Mom LeeAnn Anderson = Activist for the John Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers union LeeAnn Anderson
3.Concerned Undecided Log Cabin Republican supporter David Cercone = Obama supporter David Cercone
4.Concerned Young Undecided Person “Journey” = John Edwards supporter “Journey”

[Eldon]

We may be up to SIX..............

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

Really now. . . would it have killed CNN to google some of these people?

watch :

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2q7MycdqfV0

then read :

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/847/520



and then another....


Yet ANOTHER Democrat Plant at the CNN/YouTube Republican Debate. . .


Ok, this is getting ridiculous, yet another Democrat posing as a Republican for the CNN/YouTube debate.

This one is David McMillan, an aspiring TV writer in California, AND, a Bush and Rove hatin', John Edwards fan, who asked why the Republican party doesn't attract more African-Americans to it's side.

I'm beginning to wonder, did CNN try to Vet these questions at all? I mean, come on people, all you had to do was look at his YouTube page which features multiple videos about John Edwards, more than a couple of VERY tasteless and discriminatory videos featuring the "Blind Black Republican" (of course the "it's just satire" excuse would probably be put in play here by defenders, but I'm sure that a satirical video featuring the Deaf Dominican Democrat would be villified by libs far and wide). Not satisfied with David's video collection as proof of his liberal/democrat bona fides? Ok, then check out his blog, which is light on links but does feature as it's sole blogger on his blogroll, that most famous of sock-puppeteers, Glen Greenwald.

The more names I check, the more convinced I am that not only did CNN not take the time to examine the appropriateness of the questions and questioners, but rather they must have actually gone out of their way to select a majority of liberal questioners asking asinine "gotcha" questions.

So far, every name I've checked has either been a democrat supporter, a democrat operative, or a Paulite/pseudo-dem (see: Emily Ekins, Joseph Dearing).

Exit question for CNN (although I'll never get an answer): Did you endeavor to select ANY questions from real Republicans other than Grover's?


http://youtube.com/profile_videos?user=NewsInColor

then read :

http://mrdavidmcmillan.com/



kinda funny thatt out of over 5000 entires on youtube, that CNN picked al of these ..................

[240 is Back]

Really now. . . would it have killed CNN to google some of these people?

CNN should have listed the political affiliation, yes.  And of course they had to have known.  Maybe they wanted hardball style questions instead of softballs designed to turn the debate into an RNC ad. 

Ok, this is getting ridiculous, yet another Democrat posing as a Republican for the CNN/YouTube debate.

Wait a minute - that's wrong.  These people are all OUTSPOKEN democrats who didn't deny anything about their affiliation - CNN simply didn't tell us.  They had 8 seconds to ask a question, that's it.  You say "another Dem POSING as a repub".  They didn't pose.  THey didn't say "I'm a republican and..."

You're wrong here.  Please list which dems CLAIMED to be repubs, or POSED as repubs, as you say.  Sounds like you have hatred for the dem party and are blaming them for CNN's actions.

[headhuntersix]

240..this was not how the debate was supposed to be run...these people had an agenda going in....its bullshit.

[240 is Back]

240..this was not how the debate was supposed to be run...these people had an agenda going in....its bullshit.

As I asked another member here -  please show me where it's written how a debate is SUPPOSED to be run.

[240 is Back]

these people had an agenda going in....its bullshit.

Yes, they had an agenda.

Ask tough questions.

In the 5 or 6 repub debates I've watched on FOX, I haven't seen many tough questions.  It's all hypotheticals, they rarely expose past flaws, and they don't allow the men to become rattled.

HH6, you more than anyone, must want a leader who can keep his cool when debating a former American of very similar mindset, dont you?

It means that we see which men will fall to pieces when another country gives us major problems.  I mean, Mitt was stammering and sweating when Rudy brought up his maid.  Me?  I want a cooool motherfvcker running this place when shit gets hectic.  I dont want Mitt stammering and sweating and pouting in the white house when shit hits fan.  Do you?

[Dos Equis]

Not surprised. 

[Hedgehog]

Wasn't the Youtube debate supposed to be a forum where EVERYONE were allowed to ask questions?

No offence, but as long as the questions in themselves are ok, I don't see any problem.

Look back 40 years, in those debates, the candidates wouldn't go on the debates without having all the questions before the debate, being able to prepare the answer.

So there is a big difference.

And in this instance, it is actually for the better.

It's good that the journalists investigates who got their questions in, but it is also important to keep the focus on the issues, and NOT on the political game itself.

[240 is Back]

Wasn't the Youtube debate supposed to be a forum where EVERYONE were allowed to ask questions?

a few people have said that it was 'supposed' to be republicans only asking questions.

i canot find anything remotely saying that from the cnn youtube website.

when i ask them for their proof of who was supposed to be asking the questions, they have none.

I think they're pissed that the hosts used this time, 4 weeks before the first primary, to really play hardball, and CHALLENGE the politicians, not just give them a platform to give their canned speeches.

[Hedgehog]

a few people have said that it was 'supposed' to be republicans only asking questions.

i canot find anything remotely saying that from the cnn youtube website.

when i ask them for their proof of who was supposed to be asking the questions, they have none.

I think they're pissed that the hosts used this time, 4 weeks before the first primary, to really play hardball, and CHALLENGE the politicians, not just give them a platform to give their canned speeches.

I think the answer time was too short, but I agree that it is very good that hard issues are being dealt with.

Nothing is perfect I guess, and the format will get better.

[Eldon]

240,

Even you should agree that people either in the audience or asking a question  ( not the Moderator) should be a person who is at the very least considering one of the candidates at that particular debate . say at least .00000001%

And not someone who is 100 % SURE NOT VOING FOR ANYONE IN THIS DEBATE ( NOT A CHANCE IN HELL )


So if you want to argue over the fact about whether they were planted,  thats fine, lets debate it,  but at least agree that they had no business being their  in person in the in the AUDIENCE,  taking away a seat  from someone who really is someone considering one of the candidates in that particular debate. And same goes for the people chosen to ask a question, it should at the very least, be from someone who is at least considering one of those candates on the stage.

[240 is Back]

240,

Even you should agree that people either in the audience or asking a question  ( not the Moderator) should be a person who is at least considering one of the candidates at the particular debate .

And not someone who is 100 % SURE NOT VOING FOR ANYONE IN THIS DEBATE ( NOT A CHANCE IN HELL )


So if you want to argue over the fact about whether they were planted,  thats fine, lets debate it,  but at least agree that they had no business being their  in person in the in the AUDIENCE,  taking away a seat that from someone who really is someone considering one of the candidates in that particular debate. And same goes for the people chosen to ask a question, it should at the very least, be from someone who is at least considering one of those candates on the stage.

But the goal of it was that anyone - from cyberspace - would be able to submit a Q.  They selected the most thought provoking questions, then flew those folks in.

If republicans would have come up with some awesome (and tough!) questions, i'm sure they would have been flown in.

The Qs last night were terrific.  DO you believe every word of the bible?  Why can illegals get state tuition, and military families cannot (to huck)?  List the guns you own.  Why can't openly gay men serve their country? 

These were good Qs, and you didnt get tough Qs like this in the FOX debates.  They were "how can we better do this" or "what is your opinion on this".  Softball questions designed to improve overall party rating with voters. 

[Eldon]

240,

you don't get it, and i think you never will

The people who asked those questions ( the ones who have now been shown to be Planted, or at the least, Democratic voters) were not trying to ask tough questions, but were trying to make the republicans look bad.  that was their only purpose, and nothing more..

[Hugo Chavez]

I'm not sure this matters much either.  The bible question guy was a clear retard... "this booook,... thiss boooook rigghht heeeARRR  heeeARRR... "

[headhuntersix]

I scanned some of the answers but here's my take and I think that of Eldon....they should be fence sitters...asking questions to get information so they can decide who to vote for...not so they can hammer a candidate. They had a democrate agenda. Sure ask tough questions all u want...but these guys were plants....its bullshit. But to me..not a big deal...we're a ways away from the election and as things shake out from Iraq and the economy, a better picture of who should be the Repub front runner will emerge.

[Hugo Chavez]

I scanned some of the answers but here's my take and I think that of Eldon....they should be fence sitters...asking questions to get information so they can decide who to vote for...not so they can hammer a candidate. They had a democrate agenda. Sure ask tough questions all u want...but these guys were plants....its bullshit. But to me..not a big deal...we're a ways away from the election and as things shake out from Iraq and the economy, a better picture of who should be the Repub front runner will emerge.

what were the hard questions?  Shit both Obama and Hilary have been nailed with hard questions to have it broadcast all day in the news... These people were NOT supporters...  seemed like all issues that were on youtube are common questions by the right and not once I haven't heard similar asked of a candidate one time or another.  Plus who's to know they're not thinking about changing their vote?  Here I am thinking I would never not vote for a dem and now considering voting for a republican... blaaaaaaa

[kh300]

good.. i'd love to see a republican go onto oberman, or mahr's shows.. i'd love to see a dem go on o'reilly, or hannity..

i wish there was a candidate that had some balls, and had the confidence in their beliefs and ideas to answer any question

[Hugo Chavez]

good.. i'd love to see a republican go onto oberman, or mahr's shows.. i'd love to see a dem go on o'reilly, or hannity..

i wish there was a candidate that had some balls, and had the confidence in their beliefs and ideas to answer any question

good post KH.  I agree, would like to see more of it from both angles without a doubt.

[240 is Back]

good.. i'd love to see a republican go onto oberman, or mahr's shows.. i'd love to see a dem go on o'reilly, or hannity..

i wish there was a candidate that had some balls, and had the confidence in their beliefs and ideas to answer any question

I agree!!!

These guys should go on Olbermann and dare him to ask tough questions.

problem is
1) they dont want to piss off any groups by answering questions which might offend some
2) they dont want to tlak about all their past mistakes.

it'd be great exposure.  But they prefer FOX interviews, where they know what the Qs will be, and they never reflect the party in a bad light.

[Eldon]

good.. i'd love to see a republican go onto oberman, or mahr's shows.. i'd love to see a dem go on o'reilly, or hannity..

i wish there was a candidate that had some balls, and had the confidence in their beliefs and ideas to answer any question

Once again,

Fact: The majority of the questions asked and aired were from people who are staunch Democratic backers and supporters, (a few even being on a election committee for for one of the Democrats running.) with not a chance in hell of voting for a republican. 

Their purpose was not to ask a hard question, their sole purpose in asking the question was in hopes of making a republican look bad.
Their is a difference.  A HUGE DIFFERENCE ! ! ! ! ! !
and especially if they were planted, which it seems  that is the case.

Anyone who cant see this is so full of hate for the Republicans , that nothing matters to them anymore.

This is not Russia folks,  and this sort of thing should not be tolerated by the public.



Please just watch this short Video :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trxZAN1W-ms

[Eldon]

I agree!!!

These guys should go on Olbermann and dare him to ask tough questions.

problem is
1) they dont want to piss off any groups by answering questions which might offend some
2) they dont want to tlak about all their past mistakes.

it'd be great exposure.  But they prefer FOX interviews, where they know what the Qs will be, and they never reflect the party in a bad light.

240 & Kh

You mean like how the all Republicans went on all Debates hosted by CNN and MSNBC,   

BUT the Democrats all backed out of the FOX News Debate ??   just 2 weeks before it was to air   


             

[Dos Equis]

Once again,


Fact : The majority of the questions asked and aired were from people who are staunch Democratic backers and supporters, (a few even being on  a election committee for for one of the Democrats running.) with not a chance in hell of voting for a republican. 




Their purpose was not to ask a hard question, their sole purpose in asking the question was in hopes of making a republican look bad.
Their is a difference.  A HUGE DIFFERENCE ! ! ! ! ! !
and especially if they were planted, which it seems  that is the case.

Anyone who cant see this is so full of hate for the Republicans , that nothing matters to them anymore.

This is not Russia folks,  and this sort of thing should not be tolerated by the public.

just watch this :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trxZAN1W-ms

A 3:38 clip?  Now that's something I can watch.    

I agree this guy was probably planted.  Unacceptable. 

[Ozark]

Why would people already decided for Democratic candidates in Democratic primaries need to ask questions of Republican candidates in Republican primaries?

[240 is Back]

the dems DID back out.

and they shouldn't have.

It was a bitch move.