Pajamas Media

GOP YouTube Debate: CNN Hillary Plant

VodkaPundit's Stephen Green watched tonight's debate with (several) cocktails in hand and came away with more than a slight headache after seeing how shamelessly the CNN agenda controlled the event - and that was before he found out Hillary Clinton's campaign had planted a question.

November 28, 2007 - by Stephen Green

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

Most everyone is going to focus on the early fireworks between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani concerning immigration, so I can’t ignore it completely. If you missed it, Rudy tried to hang Romney with the You Hired Illegal Help Rope, also known as the Kimba Woods Gambit. Considering the boos that Giuliani got tonight, I’d say the gambit failed.

Now let’s get on with what really happened-or didn’t happen-tonight.

What didn’t happen was a real debate, although what we saw was certainly, if only occasionally, entertaining. What we saw tonight was the usual for a presidential “debate.” In other words, it was a joint press conference, the only real difference being that, this time, it was punctuated by cute videos made by “real Americans” “just like you.” That’s the hype, anyway.

What we really saw tonight was CNN playing out its own agenda in front of a couple million viewers and seven or eight candidates, without anyone calling them on it. To see what I mean, let’s take a look at some of the 30-odd questions CNN’s editors culled from the more than 5,000 submitted to YouTube by all those average Americans.

On of the best questions of the night came towards the end, and concerned the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. The questioner, was a retired Army general who served, in the closet, for 42 years before he could reveal himself as a gay man. Did CNN owe its viewers the courtesy of letting them know that that the general now serves on Hillary Clinton’s “Gay Steering Committee?”

Another question came from a very self-important sounding YouTuber, who wanted to know which of the candidates believed “every word” of “this book,” with his camcorder floating ominously above a copy of the Bible. Now, I’m no Christian, but even I was offended. The question wasn’t an honest inquiry-it was a set-up to see which candidate would step up and make himself look the most like a fundamentalist Christian bigot.

Two different YouTubers asked questions about gun control. Both were, like most of the candidates and probably the entire live audience, against it. But the questioners were not the most wholesome-seeming guys. One demonstrated how his pump action shotgun worked while explaining that, “In small towns we like our big guns.” The second guy was just plain creepy. Both men-obviously well-armed-pretty much dared the candidates to say something positive about gun control.

Mostly what I noticed wasn’t the bulge of their holsters, but the obviousness of CNN’s agenda.

Other questions were just plain silly. Asking a roomful of Republicans to come out against tax increases, for example. Or asking a roomful of Republicans exactly how against abortion they are. Or asking a roomful of Republicans if there are three Federal programs where they’d like to cut spending. Or… well, you get the point. Some questions aren’t supposed to provoke debate, but instead to give each candidate the chance to act as his own cheerleader. Again, there’s no debate going on at these things, just fancy press conferencing.

The final type of question is the kind designed to do nothing more than set the candidates against one another. One question, which I drunkenly paraphrased as “Nothing says delicious like cheap corn subsidized by the American taxpayer-so which of you hypocrites looking for votes in Iowa would stop this nonsense?” Who benefits from a question like that? I’d say: Nobody other than anybody looking for some ratings. Like, oh, the good folks at CNN. But is it a debate question? No-it’s nothing more than what George W Bush used to call “Gotcha journalism,” committed tonight by civilians instead of our Professional Guardians of the Public Trust.

For the future, I’d like to propose what I call the Algonquin Round Table Debate. No moderator, no stopwatches, no buzzers or red lights, no YouTube, and, please, no Anderson Cooper or Chris Matthews. Instead, put all the candidates around a big table, ply them with first-rate food and liquor, and just let them talk and argue with one another until-or beyond-last call. Now that, for Democrats or Republicans, would be an event worth watching.

17 Comments

Travis Pahl:

I am amazed at what little time was given to Paul compared to the support and money he has raised.

Nov 28, 2007 - 9:19 pm Wiseacre:

Especially from people whose last names are hominyms!

Nov 28, 2007 - 9:38 pm dwlawson:

Good point about the gun control videos. There was at least one good video question about gun control there that many of us in the gun blogging community emailed CNN in support of having it asked. We didn’t want another “baby” representative…ah well.

Nov 28, 2007 - 9:40 pm Wiseacre II:

It’s just ap-pauling!

Nov 28, 2007 - 9:41 pm Non Pol:

Paulitics is a dirty business.

Nov 28, 2007 - 9:48 pm Kim Zigfeld:

The New York Times has a major story on what it calls the “testy” debate and doesn’t mention Hillary’s planted question, which now establishes a pattern. Instead, in the first half of the piece it mentions how the candidates didn’t mention Hillary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/us/politics/29debate.html?hp

Their “Caucus” blog mentions the plant, but buried and only after first complimenting CNN (and of course failing to point out that the paper itself was silent) and only in the form of a question with no commentary.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/debate-wrap-up-tough-talk/

Nov 29, 2007 - 3:47 am Smarty:

These guys are fools for even showing up. They gave CNN credability, and they set themselves up so that CNN could manipulate them in ways that CNN thinks will help Hillary.

I agree, this was a press conference with stupid questions, and an honest debate has yet to happen. The only fit moderator would be socrates.

Nov 29, 2007 - 3:53 am Looking Glass:

Instapundit points out “HORTICULTURE JOURNALISM 101 — a gallery of CNN/YouTube plants. ‘Abortion questioner is declared Edwards supporter . . . Log Cabin Republican questioner is declared Obama supporter; lead toy questioner is a prominent union activist for the Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers.’

Other than that, they were just ‘ordinary Americans.’”

CNN doesn’t think there are rules anymore.

Nov 29, 2007 - 5:11 am Charlie:

I was surprised at the potential of the format… no more arrogant Russert/Matthews-type interrogating.

But you are right. With 5000 clips submitted these were the best 30? Atrocious moderation on the part of CNN.

There’s a story out there somewhere as some lefty blog or group had to have put out instructions how to frame liberal talking points to sound like Republican questions. The Dixie flag, the Bible, Jesus, punishing women for abortion and at least one of the gun questions were all cut from the same cloth. The result was a lefty caricature-of-Republicans clown carnival.

Nov 29, 2007 - 5:14 am Qwinn:

“I am amazed at what little time was given to Paul compared to the support and money he has raised.”

Are you kidding? Seemed to me Paul got more speaking time than Fred Thompson. I guess I could be wrong though. Would be interesting to see a tally of how many minutes each candidate was given to speak.

Qwinn

Nov 29, 2007 - 5:21 am steveegg:

The Algonquin Round Table Debate sounds like a good idea. I wouldn’t be the only one swearing. Besides, we could hold bets on the first candidate knived by another (I’ve got dibs on the Kucinich/Paul ticket).

Nov 29, 2007 - 5:54 am southdakotaboy:

If there are anymore CNN debates the Republican candidates or nomine can always fall back on this as a way to not answer a question and not suffer for it. If they do decide to answer a biased question they can address it as such. This could really turn out to be a positive for Republicans. Republican candidates can from now until election beat Hillary and CNN over the head with this. Just imagine at the next debate if Rudy or Mitt comes out on stage and in his opening statement says ” And by the way how many in here are working for Hillary”. It would bring the house down.

Nov 29, 2007 - 6:56 am Lisa:

Ron Paul was mainly ignored and when given a question it was a set-up question. It was disgusting how this debate was handled. Could the media be anymore obvious of their bias.

Nov 29, 2007 - 6:57 am Roy:

I like the agriculture subsidies question - it is hypocrisy on the part of the candidates, and why not expose it?

Nov 29, 2007 - 7:13 am Pygmies:

“Hilary plant”? What are you talking about? The guy was interviewed afterwards, he’s a member of Log Cabin Republicans, and asked the question for himself. No wonder you people earn the tinfoil stereotype.

I’m sorry, but that “debate” was very enlightening and hopefully introduced the world to your crazy crop of candidates. I especially like the first 20 minutes spent where everyone was one-upping each other on who could be the biggest racist bigot and hate brown people the most. Classy.

Nov 29, 2007 - 7:20 am Pygmies:

Just imagine at the next debate if Rudy or Mitt comes out on stage and in his opening statement says ” And by the way how many in here are working for Hillary”. It would bring the house down.

Ah hahahahaha! Ah ha ha hahahahah! Oh my g*d, that is SO funny! Did you think of that all by yourself?! Ahahhahahaha!!!111

Bring the house down… in silence.

Nov 29, 2007 - 7:23 am Edmund Jenks (MAXINE):

Great post!

Hugh Hewitt called it (what the people at CNN were going to do) two days before the debate. He interviewed Steve Grove, director of news and politics for YouTube and was able to expose the pre-debate bias.

Link Here:
http://maxine-log.blogspot.com/2007/11/hugh-hewitt-gets-it-right-cnn-youtube.html

“CNN - The Most Trusted Name In News” — Yaaa, Right!

Nov 30, 2007 - 3:37 pm