In the wake of last night's debate, conservative irritation with CNN is running high, fueled by the network's gratuitous inability to do the most basic fact checking on its selected YouTube questioners. Democratic voters asking questions at a Republican primary debate was not exactly the purpose of the forum.
Moreover, frustration with the narrow and odd range of topics selected for the debate has a regrettably stereotypical cause:
It's easy to see why CNN's producers liked their questions. It's because those questions echoed the partisan prejudices of CNN producers.
For more on that point, see the Fred Barnes analysis I linked to last night. Note also the accusation isn't overt bias; it's bias by omission. Because many MSM outlets - like the CNN newsroom - aren't exactly crawling with conservatives, they often have sparse accurate insight into what conservatives are actually thinking and what conservatives actually care about. Hence questions about the Confederate flag, the literal truth of the Bible, and gays in the military - three total non-issues in either the upcoming primaries or the looming general election.
Looking at the point a little different way, recall the question at the debate from the African-American father and son talking about black-on-black violence. Mitt Romney responded by talking about the importance of loving, stable families in addressing the root cause of such issues and about the tragedy of the high number of out-of-wedlock births in the African-American community. He also praised Bill Cosby's words on that latter point and discussed the need for better education in urban schools, as well as the obvious law enforcement side of the equation as well.
Current NBC Political Director and MSM uber-political analyst Chuck Todd hated Romney's answer, calling it "awful." In contrast, two prominent conservative bloggers without a horse in the race, Jim Geraghty and Mary Katharine Ham, were effusive with praise for it.
Different perspectives. Different reactions. That's the problem. And in a nutshell that's why conservatives don't like all their news filtered through the MSM.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 29, 2007 07:43 PM | Email This"I'm Steve Beren, a Republican from Seattle who ran against Jim McDermott in 2006. This question is for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards: Considering that the last two Democratic presidents - Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton - seriously weakened our military, damaged our foreign policy, and demonstrated weakness in the face of Islamic extremism, why should any American risk putting another Democrat in charge of our national security? And why don't any of the three of you ever call our enemy by its true name - Islamic fascist terrorism? If you're too afraid to properly name our enemy, how can we depend on any of you to properly defend our nation?"
Posted by: Steve Beren on November 29, 2007 08:22 PMIt's all a good sign. Because if there is that much fear of simply letting real Americans ask questions of the GOP candidates, then what does that say about the left's estimation of themselves.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 29, 2007 09:16 PMThey tried to make him look like a conspiracy theorist with the question on the North American Union, but Ron Paul focused on the national sovereignty issue and really came out looking good.
His position on the war drew lots of applause, and he got in the fact that he had more donations from active military members than any other candidate on that stage! I loved the close exchange with McCain. McCain is so wedded to the Iraq war issue, and it looks like he will fall on his sword over this unpopular issue. I hope he isn't nominated, so he can't take the whole Republican Party down with him.
Romney sounded kinda slick, kinda nuanced, kinda like Clinton... THAT would be a terrible race to watch. Both of them would sound as though they had been coached and marketed and nuanced to death...
By the way, Ron Paul won CNN's online poll with about 46%. The next candidate had about 20%, I think. People say the Ron Paul supporters are "stacking the deck" on these on-line polls, but the same strategy is available to Giuliani or Romney supporters. Why don't they take advantage of it? By the way, I only vote once in on-line polls.
Ron Paul's fourth quarter fundraising just passed Thompson's entire third quarter total. I think it is at about $9.9 million right now.
Look for Thompson and Tancredo to bow out soon.
Ron Paul will be in it for the long haul, right up to the convention. And this is where the decision will be made. They will have to ask him to speak at the convention, and who knows what could happen there?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 29, 2007 09:56 PMAgain, I have to admire your support and enthusiasm for Ron Paul. Like the other planted questions, the CFR/NAU question was specifically designed to hurt Ron Paul. Not just an innocent question, but a planted one.
Still though, I can't see how you can take online polls seriously, when it's well known that Ron Paul's base is an online phenomenon. He's raised lots of cash that way, and many Paul supporters are quick to jump on the comment threads of blogs whenever his name arises.
But that's where it ends. The Dad's watching college and high school football in middle America have very little perception of the 2008 contest at all, and even less of Ron Paul. I'd bet many of those folks who will ultimately decide the election, have scarcely heard of anyone beyond Clinton, Obama, Romney and Giuliani, and not that they really care about any of them at this point.
For me it comes down to this: And I think it really needs to be said in a thoughtful, but realistic manner: Ron Paul has many great conservative and constitutional ideas. But he loses ears when he starts talking silly about abolishing the IRS. I doubt there's anyone amongst either Democrats or Republicans that wouldn't like to see the last IRS building razed. But realistically, that's not the way we get from point A to point B. We first have to have a discussion about a flat tax, and how that might be implemented, etc.
I just don't see Ron Paul going anywhere beyond the primary. But I respect him for running, and I'll respect him even more if he stays true to his word of not running as an independent. The last thing we need is another Perot spoiler that puts another, and worse Clinton in the White House.
Ron Paul reminds me of the great American tradition of rooting for the underdog.
But job one for all freedom loving Americans is making sure that we don't head further down the Progressive rat hole. It's a hole that history has shown to be one of abysmal failure, and worse, despair and mediocrity.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 29, 2007 10:24 PM
I enjoyed hearing about illegal immigration at the start, but then it went downhill fast.
The YouTube questions were weak, some were planted, and many were outright disrespectful. Cooper, and whoever picked the questions, should be looking for new careers. Hey Coop - DLTDHYITAOTWO.
Posted by: Seabecker on November 29, 2007 10:30 PMHuckabee can't draw in the fiscal conservatives. Thompson is falling asleep. He's too feeble. Romney also doesn't appeal to the social conservatives.
All we have to do to eliminate the IRS and replace it with NOTHING is to roll spending back to 2000 levels. We can do that by bringing the troops home from Iraq, S. Korea, Germany, etc. and making the foreigners pay for their own defense. We also need to eliminate the departments of energy and education.
To get from point A to point B, it usually makes no sense to go through point C, which is not between A or B. Implementing a brand new federal sales tax is the classic thing the progressives do. The new tax never goes away, and the old tax is still there. Both taxes start to ratchet up... If you want to go West, it almost always makes no sense to start by going East.
Only Ron Paul can unite the fiscal and social conservatives. Only Ron Paul can erode the base of Hillary with regard to the Iraq war issue in November.
You may say I'm, a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.
I'm on your side about avoiding going further down the socialistic rat-hole. But Ron Paul's the man! :) Don't count him out yet. His supporters are strong on-line, but they have joined Meet-up groups in greater numbers than any other candidate, D or R. They are meeting in real space, waving signs and canvassing neighborhoods. They are going to local Republican meetings. Ron Paul is spending his millions on TV and direct mail ads. His mainstream polls are rising exponentially, when the other candidates are pretty flat.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 30, 2007 12:12 AMAs long as the rate was low! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 30, 2007 12:16 AMThe negative views of the Iraq War have been because people could not see that we were WINNING it. But now we ARE winning it, and that will be more apparent as we go through 2008. As I have said before, although the Iraq War may be the number one issue for you and other Ron Paul supporters, it will NOT be the top, or even close to the top, issue in the general election. Immigration is likely to be the top issue, as well as the War against Islamic Extremism--the latter would obviously become even more important if there was a prominent attack between now and the election.
In 90 days, Ron Paul will be a distant memory unless he elects to be a spoiler--he did not answer directly the question asking if he would pledge not to run as an independent candidate. I'm sure Hillary would like to encourage that and follow her husband's playbook (although she may find he takes more votes from Democrats than from Republicans). He may actually be able to be a bigger spoiler against Republicans if Obama gets the nomination than if Hillary does...
Posted by: Bill H on November 30, 2007 07:03 AMBecause they don't need to.
Posted by: Giffy on November 30, 2007 07:14 AMI've been thinking again. I, like millions of others, was outraged at CNN and accepting the plants.
After all, only those undecided, Republicans were supposed to be allowed to ask questions.
That didn't happen, but I could accept the "operatives" asking questions in this lousy debate format cycle is that if several questioners asked the same question (maybe in a different light) and CNN had to choose which one was the better entertainment or better video if you will.
That didn't happen as the questions and topics were totally not what Rs wanted to hear about as they choose their candidate. The socialists at CNN, I do believe, tried their darnest to "divine" what Rs wanted. They just failed miserably.
My previous posts on this subject shows my total scorn at this format and the format of all the debates up to now.
Maybe we will get serious.
Posted by: swatter on November 30, 2007 07:20 AMAgain, CNN is showing their bias.
PC@1 brings up a very good point. If the Dems are afraid to debate on Fox, then what confidence do I have that they will face down the terrorists?
Posted by: Ken on November 30, 2007 07:23 AMFor most of the debates one could simply have the candidates submit prepared statements and then obsess over those to get the same affect. Ooo a question on immigration, cue canned response A. Oh this ones on 9/11, cue response B. Its boring and pointless.
Unfortunately given the candidates tend to avoid debates were difficult questions might get asked, whether dems with fox, or republicans with the Hispanic and black debates, I'm not holding my breath.
I think they should have a few debates where the leadership of the other party submits most of the questions. Now that would be fun!
Posted by: Giffy on November 30, 2007 07:49 AMFox was included- Does Bill OReilly really believe people who care about politics give a damn about these spoiled brats?
Posted by: Andy on November 30, 2007 08:24 AMI appreciate your enthusiasm for your candidate. Obviously, if you care enough to defend the CNN online polls, you're heavily invested. Really, really heavily invested.
I think we can agree that Ron Paul's voter base is fundamentally two things:
1. Energized, probably moreso than the average supporter of any other candidate;
2. And unusually savvy and present in the technology field.
But here it seems our agreement on Ron Paul's viability ends. You cite CNN's online polls as proof that he might be competitive. I disagree. We have myriad national polls showing that Ron Paul's competitiveness in the Republican Primary is hugely overestimated by these online polls. Honestly, pollsters get a bad rap. They're wrong plenty, but if you know how to read the tealives and the internals, they rarely guide you totally wrong.
The polls all indicate one thing: Paul is a huge longshot for the GOP nod, and is performing the worst among General Election candidates. You seem to believe that Paul can unite social and foreign policy libertarians into the GOP fold, while not bleeding anyone for economic policies. Again, I disagree, and the poll results (early as they may be) back me up.
Ron Paul supporters are excited. They are energized. They are out there. They are getting the word out. Good for them. But not unique of them. And, as far as I can tell, not enough.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on November 30, 2007 09:55 AMEvery one of those eight 'gotchas' consumed time that should have gone to an honest enquiry. Those eight planted questions were essentially a form of censorship. No doubt CNN is gloating at its partisan success, but this debacle - not debate - is one more reason for healthy mistrust of our 'news' media.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 30, 2007 10:12 AMHow did she ever get into the position she got anyways? Leading in polls for the POTUS? Unbelievable.
What's wrong with a real debate?
Posted by: swatter on November 30, 2007 10:19 AMAs I said in an earlier post (Walmart Wars), I participate with several polling groups, among them The Zogby Interactive Panel.
As it happens, I received a survey this morning and I thought you might be interested in some of the questions.
This was a particularly long poll with in depth questions running the gamut from "going green" to illegal immigration to SChip to gun laws to local disaster preparedness.
Here are a few:
How willing would you be to pay higher taxes if you knew that all of the added taxes were being spent on each of the following items?
Very willing Somewhat willing Not very willing Not willing at all Not sure
Improving your local school system
Improving local hospitals and healthcare facilities in your city/community
Fighting crime within your city/community
Job creation within your city/community (attracting new business, etc .)
Improving or Creating Public Transportation in your city/community
Improving infrastructure in your city/community (roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, etc . . .)
Services for the poor living within your city/community
Arts programs and other culture events in your city/community
Parks and recreational facilities in your city/community
Making environmentally-friendly improvements and increasing environmental protections in your city/community
Which one of the following statements best describes your opinion of mass transit?
Statement A: I would use mass transit (buses, light rail) if it were easily accessible where I live and work.
Statement B: I would not use mass transit even if it were easily accessible where I live and work. I prefer to drive my own car.
Does the issue of climate change make it more likely or less likely that you would consider using mass transit?
Much more likely
Somewhat more likely
Somewhat less likely
Much less likely
Not sure
Do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
Our local schools provide our children with the education and skills necessary to be competitive later in life.
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Not sure
If you had younger children and could not take care of them during the day, do you feel you have access to a reliable child care alternative?
Yes
No
Not sure
For the following, please consider your local government's infrastructure (including: roads, dams, bridges, sewers, water systems, etc . . .). How confident are you that your local infrastructure is--
Very confident Somewhat confident Not very confident Not at all confident Not sure
Working properly?
Well maintained?
Not overly pollutant?
Cost efficient?
Serves all citizens?
Do you agree or disagree with the following - There is significant pollution in my community from nearby industrial sources (plants, factories, etc . . . ).
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Not Sure
Assume that you live in a different city and in a different state. When considering where to vacation or spend time with family or friends, how likely would you be to consider staying in the city you currently live in now?
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not very likely
Not at all likely
Not sure
Which level of government should be most responsible for guaranteeing an adequate supply of affordable housing?
Local
State
Federal
It is not a government responsibility
Not sure
Do you support or oppose an increase in funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that currently provides health insurance for families with household incomes up to 3 times the current poverty level (between $41,000 and $60,000).
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Not sure
For the next question, please consider the following scenario:
A child of illegal immigrants is born in the United States and is thereby a citizen of the United States. The parents of that child are arrested and charged with being in the U.S. illegally. What should happen to the parents under those circumstances?
The parents should be deported and the child should be placed in foster care here in the U.S.
The parents should be deported and forced to take the child with them
The child should remain in the U.S. and the parents should be allowed to undergo a naturalization process
Not sure
Which one of the following statements best describes your opinion.
Statement A: The government needs to provide job training services for recently released prisoners to help ensure that they reenter the community and the workforce.
Statement B: Once prisoners are released they should be responsible for finding a job on their own and should not receive help from the government to find a job.
Statement A
Statement B
Not sure
How would you rate the return you receive on your local tax dollar-that is, how do you rate the service you receive with respect to the amount of local taxes you pay?
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not sure
What is more important to you in deciding who to support in the race for President - a candidate who stands up for what he believes in no matter what, or a candidate who can win the election?
A candidate who stands up for what he believes in no matter what
A candidate who can win the election
It makes no difference
Not sure
To your knowledge, do you live within 5 miles (or a 5 minute drive) of any of the following? (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY)
Large overhead power lines
A landfill or dump
An industrial or chemical plant
A water treatment or sewage facility
A large manufacturing plant
A power plant
A prison or detention facility
A commercial airport
A river or waterway
Not Sure Refused
These are fun.
They are informative in what you can deduce from the questions.
Often, as today, there are pointed questions about WA State, (and, I assume, other states where folks participate). If you are interested you can apply at http://interactive.zogby.com/. I do not participate under my SP name, so if it asks for a referral, don't bother.
Since the Internet has come along it is easy to get one's message out and the mainstream media no longer are the keepers of the key to every gate through which information can flow.
I have witnessed the same tactics when the topic has been a serious discussion of the merits of Darwinism, particularly when Macroevolution, i.e. trans specie genetic metamorphism, has been on the table.
What the media has consistently done in this debate is to ensure that people whose purpose is to promote another theory regarding the origins of life on Earth populate the side questioning whether or not Darwinism is the final word on the subject of how life began. They are particularly fond of populating the side questioning the premises spontaneous life with young earthers, the marginally educated or the half witted as opposed to those with the wherewithal and credentials to advance a reasoned argument that doubt is where the best science leads and that although Darwinism is one plausible explanation it certainly cannot be considered as the only viable or reasoned explanation available.
We have seen the same tactics used in the Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Warming debate as well and as we have seen over the course of the last year the politically correct view on this subject is now suffering under the scrutiny an open exchange of ideas has fostered.
Posted by: JDH on November 30, 2007 11:23 AMSeen this in the Seattle Times, Pee Eye or the News Buffoon? Ya think that if this involved a Catholic Priest, evangelical pastor or a Boy Scout leader the coverage would be the same? If so, talk to me about buying the Brooklin Bridge.
Posted by: JDH on November 30, 2007 11:52 AMAs long as they keep the current format of audience or pre-selected questioners, I won't trust any of them as being more than plants by the opposition.
Why can't economists & bankers ask the touch questions about the economy, social security, & taxes? Why can't serving generals & privates ask about the military? Why can't consumers & practicing physicians ask about health coverage? Why can't homeowners ask about taxes? Maybe then we'd see some answers that were real & not fabricated.
Posted by: Clean House on November 30, 2007 06:13 PMIt's so obvious and right out of their communist playbook.
Posted by: MV on December 1, 2007 07:11 PMQuestion #1.
Senator Clinton, you have been a practicing attorney for many years now, so I'd like to know, specifically, which Article and/or Section in the Constitution of these United States grants the Federal Government the authority to offer a health care plan of any shape or form.
Question #2.
When will you apologize for ruining the reputation of former White House Travel Office Director Billy Dale?
Question #1.
Senator Clinton, you have been a practicing attorney for many years now, so I'd like to know, specifically, which Article and/or Section in the Constitution of these United States grants the Federal Government the authority to offer a health care plan of any shape or form.
Question #2.
When will you apologize for ruining the reputation of former White House Travel Office Director Billy Dale?