Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
CNN'S VIRTUAL REALITY
By JONAH GOLDBERG
December 2, 2007 -- By now you've probably heard that CNN made such a laughingstock of itself at the recent YouTube debate in Florida that it could only have been worse if host Anderson Cooper conducted it in fluent Klingon.
In what was billed as a glorious exercise in democratic do-goodery and civic seriousness, CNN opened its gates to the American people and, to their surprise, the network's relentlessly touted credibility ran out the door like a dog in heat. Nearly a third of the questioners in the debate proved to be if not outright plants of the Democratic Party or other liberal interests, then at least very far from the "ordinary Americans" this whole circus was supposed to be catering to....
Other questioners included more hacks than a cat coughing up a hairball. Another gay-centric question came from an Obama supporter. A loaded abortion question came from a committed John Edwards partisan. Another on unsafe Chinese toys came from an activist member of the Edwards-endorsing United Steel Workers.
Just as revealing were the questioners who weren't revealed to be plants. For the most part they were a motley crew of conservative caricatures. CNN's typical "ordinary American" (translation: "scary Republican") was a pale, gaunt, twenty-something white dude who looked like he'd spent the last year working in the sunless bunker he'd constructed out of his mom's basement. Several of the videos were reminiscent of the sort of thing investigators discover while searching the home of slain white militiamen after a terrorist attack.
One of these young men was, literally, a bible thumper who demanded to know if the GOP candidates were as committed to "every word in this book" as he was. Another questioner took a brief break from the shooting range to ask about gun control. But he made it clear, as he cocked a shotgun thrown to him from off camera, that the candidates answers didn't much matter because, he implied, they could have his gats when they pried them from his cold dead hands. Another young man asked from the comfortable sovereignty of his dorm room what the Confederate Flag - which hung conspicuously behind him - meant to the men on the stage. Sadly, the guy who played "Psycho" in the movie Stripes was apparently unavailable to record a video. Still, it would have been nice if at least one of the candidates had seized on one of the numerous opportunities to say, "Lighten up, Francis."
So what lessons can we draw from this bonfire of buffoonery? Well, some conclusions are easy. The idea that the Democrats are boycotting debates sponsored by Fox News out of some sort of fidelity to honest journalism is dumber than a box of rocks. At the last Democratic debate hosted by CNN, it was revealed that producers cajoled a young lady to abandon her question about nuclear safety in Nevada and instead ask Hillary Clinton whether she prefers diamonds or pearls. Reach for that Pulitzer, CNN!
Just imagine, for giggles alone, if Fox had run a YouTube debate and it was revealed that Republican activists passed themselves off as, say, a hodge-podge of patchouli-soaked hemptivists, Hugo Chavez-loving limousine liberals and gay interior decorators who asked why we can't give peace a chance and buy the world a Coke. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, Fox would come under some criticism?
....
I have no idea why you would be suprised that people who worship guns, people who think the bible is literally true, and people who have confederate flags would send in questions for the youtube debate. That's the republican base. There are millions of them them like that.
Republican partisans were allowed to ask question via youtube at the democratic debate. Don't tell me you forgot about the guy holding his rifle while asking the question.
Democrats didn't whine and cry when partisan republicans were allowed to ask questions at the democratic debate. You'll need to stop being so sensitive. Get a hanky to dry those tears.
this isn't rocket science:
-Republican partisans were allowed to ask questions of Democratic candidates, at Youtube debate. You saw no whining and crying from democrats.
-Democratic partisans ask questions at the GOP youtube debate. Republicans cry and whine.
Its pathetic.
I don't care who asks the question, if its a legitimate question. If a GOP candidate can't answer a question from a democrat, how on earth are they going to stand up to al qaeda?
this isn't rocket science:
-Republican partisans were allowed to ask questions of Democratic candidates, at Youtube debate. You saw no whining and crying from democrats.
-Democratic partisans ask questions at the GOP youtube debate. Republicans cry and whine.
Its pathetic.
I don't care who asks the question, if its a legitimate question. If a GOP candidate can't answer a question from a democrat, how on earth are they going to stand up to al qaeda?
When the right cleans it's own house, I'll find this type of thing more credible.
I'm also not sure why every term the left uses, for example FauxNews, gets hijcked by the right. Like everything is _____gate.
I mean, I do understand it, I guess... it diminishes the original use of the term. I see the left do it with the word "nazis" and others do it with "holocaust", so I'm not saying it's only a sin of the right. But in terms of the particular things I mentioned, they would be specific to the right of the spectrum.
I saw no Republican plants at the Dim debate....but that particular lie will surface often in the future.....Where were the Republican questions at the Democratic CNN debate? I saw those billed as (D-undecided), that were tied with Democratic candidates, I didn't see any Republican plants.
Mind you, my criticism isn't directed at the DNC or any Democratic candidates, it's at CNN. Still not crying, problem is they are undermining the system.
conservative commentators did not complain when questioners who shared their political ideology had videos aired during the Democratic forum in July.
During that session, one video questioner asked the candidates to choose between raising taxes or cutting benefits in order to save Social Security. Another demanded to know whether taxes would rise "like usually they do when a Democrat comes in office." A third featured a gun-toting Michigan man, who in an interview Thursday said he had voted twice for President Bush, who wanted to know if the Democrats would protect his "baby" -- an assault rifle he cradled in his arms.
Another questioner from that forum who seemed to have clear conservative credentials was John McAlpin, a sailor who asked Clinton: "How do you think you would be taken seriously" by Arab and Muslim nations that treat women as "second-class citizens"?
McAlpin's MySpace page features pictures of Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor and Republican presidential candidate.
It depicts Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly as a friend, while offering a caricature of a bearded, turban-wearing "Borat Hussein Obama" -- a derogatory reference to Obama, the Democratic candidate who as a youth attended a Muslim school.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...,1810098.story?coll=la-news-politics-national
Like I said, republican cry like little girls when democrats ask questions on the GOP youtube debate.
In contrast, Democrats didn't cry and whine when republican partisans were allowed to ask questions at the Dem youtube debate
Stop crying and get a life, ya'll
So you are going back to July, with YOU TUBE, rather than on the 2 debates we were talking about. Slick, wrong, but slick.
This was a youtube debate, too.
And I'm kind of wondering why it's such a big deal. Did the guy lie about his service? Nope. Did he lie about being gay? Nope. Did he embarrass the repubs and make them look ridiculous. Yep.
The people who brought us the swiftboat liars really shouldn't be complaining. Now... if he had lied about, oh, say, one of the candidates having sex with him, then I'd be more sympathetic.
Seriously, though, why all the feigned outrage over somethig that's really nothing.
One guy holding a big gun and you assume he's a Republican. You'll need to do better than that. The folks we are discussing in regards to the last debate have strong ties to Democratic candidates or organizations closely associated with the Democratic party. That's a far cry from what may or may not have been a guy with a gun who votes the Republican ticket.
While I agree that anyone should be allowed to put forth a question or questions to any candidate, during the course of a televised debate one would think that it would be in the best interest of the host todisclose the associations of people asking questions if their ties to certain organizations give them a particular bias.
One guy holding a big gun and you assume he's a Republican. You'll need to do better than that
The gun wielding dude in on record saying he voted for bush twice.
I knew full well that some of the questioners at the Dem youtube debate were probably republican-leaners. My LA times link proves that. Did I cry? Did I whine? Did any democrats break down in tears and post a bunch of false outrage posts here after the Dem youtube debate?
No, we didn't. Its republicans who are crying and pissing their diapers that some democrats got to ask question at the GOP youtube debate. Its just childish.
The question about gays serving in the military was completely legitimate. Should the be able to serve openly or not? What's wrong with that question?
I guess republicans are embarrassed to have to answer it.
Being on record as voting for Bush twice is a little different than being in the employ of a Democratic candidate for president. Being on record as voting for Bush twice is a little different than being in the employ of an organization with close ties to the Democratic party. Look, in the end I have no issue with the questions asked and I have no issue with those who asked them. Do I believe that there should have been some disclosure as to the associations of these people on the part of CNN? Yes. Do I think any damage was done to any of the candidates at the debate? No. Do I think CNN has damaged it's credibility? Yes.
The most salient point made by the article I referenced was this: "According to CNN, its staff culled through 5,000 submissions to select the handful that were put to the candidates. That process essentially puts the lie to the vox populi aura the association with YouTube was meant to create. When producers exercise that level of selectivity, the questions -- whoever initially formulated and recorded them -- actually are theirs." The same is true for the Democratic debate.
The one thing I know for certain, everything we've seen to date are debates in name only. That and I'm not "crying" over this, just commenting.
Of course they select the questions. How do you think they get from 5,000 to the few that are on TV? And, frankly, the questions asked were fair ones. The guy gave 45 years of service to his country. I think it fair to ask "why don't you think our troops are professional enough to work side by side with gays?", particularly since its one of the party's rallying cries.
I agree that the questions were fair and I have no problem with the questions asked by the General and the others associated with various politacal groups. I do, however, think that CNN should have dislcosed their associations at the time the questions were asked.
Ultimately I guess none of it really matters, but it would have been nice. That's all I'm saying.
Personally, I have no problem with gays serving openly. In this day and age it's strikes me as an issue that has outlived the times. On the other hand, having never served myself, I may not have the right perspective.
