The debate that killed CNN

From The Washington Times:

CNN intended for political sparks to fly during Wednesday"s Republican presidential debate, but outrage and accusations of partisanship were directed at the network instead.

The backlash started after it turned out that a homosexual retired soldier asking about "don"t ask, don"t tell" has an affiliation with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton"s campaign. The network was forced to apologize and scrubbed the exchange from its repeat of the two-hour debate, even though the Clinton campaign says retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr was not acting on behalf of the Democratic presidential front-runner.

But things spiraled downward for CNN yesterday as bloggers — a more natural audience for a debate co-hosted by YouTube — held each questioner under a magnifying glass and found anti-Republican links ranging from the Council on American-Islamic Relations to a pro-Democratic labor union. The network defended its choice of questioners and noted that it drew 5 million viewers — the most-watched primary debate ever.

Reports flew on the Internet that at least nine of the 34 questions posed via YouTube videos — on topics ranging from corn subsidies to Social Security reform — came from voters who have ties to Democrats or a vested interest in asking the Republicans to go on record.

"Would it have killed CNN to Google some of these people?" conservative blogger Jason Coleman asked.

On the personal Web page of David McMillan of Los Angeles, who asked the candidates why many black voters choose Democrats over Republicans, are many political videos, including one with a Politico.com video blogger asking which presidential candidate was most "gangsta." In the video, he called Sen. John McCain of Arizona "Insane McCain." There are also photos of him attending a fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and laudatory videos of former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, both Democrats.

Adam Florzak, who asked about Social Security, has an entire Web site devoted to the subject (www.pactamerica.com) and a 2005 article describes him as "hell-bent on reforming Social Security and the pension system" and working with someone from Democratic Whip Sen. Richard J. Durbin's staff.

At his site, Mr. Florzak describes his efforts to get a personal meeting to put his Social Security plan into the hands of Mr. Obama and has posted a video of himself asking the Illinois Democrat about the issue during a town-hall meeting.

David Cercone asked why "Log Cabin Republicans [should] support" the candidates, leaving the impression that he is a member of the group. But bloggers uncovered an online profile in which he endorses Mr. Obama and praises him as "a leader who inspires me with his sincerity."

The woman in Islamic dress identified as Yasmin from Huntsville, Ala., who asked a question about the U.S. image among Muslims, is a former intern at CAIR, the Muslim lobby group said yesterday evening on its Web site (http://www.cair.com/).

Ted Faturos of Manhattan Beach, Calif., asked the candidates about their support for farm subsidies, taking a bite from an ear of corn to punctuate his point. Bloggers pretty quickly determined he once worked for Rep. Jane Harman, California Democrat. Her office said he was a "high school intern" in a district office in 2004 and has had no contact with the office since.

After the debate, CNN apologized once it confirmed that Gen. Kerr is on the steering committee for LGBT Americans for Hillary.

The Clinton campaign insists that Gen. Kerr was acting on his own behalf, which he also asserted yesterday morning in a CNN interview, saying that "I have not done any work" for Mrs. Clinton and that the question was not posed to him by any campaign or group.

"This was a private initiative on my own," he said.

But the general's question provoked both praise and angry reaction on his YouTube page, which also links to a film being made about the don't ask, don't tell policy. One person applauded the general for his "bravery in bringing up this point." Another called his question "inspired."

But "dantheman8282" complained that "with CNN at the helm," the chances of having an "open and fair debate ... are close to nil."

"I have no idea how you, above almost all other YouTubers, should get press time and be given the floor at the CNN debate above all others," dantheman8282 wrote. "The fact that you spoke longer than Duncan Hunter (who incidentally is a presidential candidate) is so bizarre and crazy."

Questioner LeeAnn Anderson asked the candidates about lead paint in toys while holding her children. It was widely noted yesterday that Mrs. Anderson is an assistant to Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers of America. The union has endorsed former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. Another questioner who asked about abortion reacted on her YouTube page while wearing an Edwards T-shirt.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg Public Policy Center said the YouTube format, puts an additional screening burden on organizers: "I'm always concerned when I don't know how to judge the person asking the question, and it's not someone who asks questions for a living."

In a statement, CNN defended its question choices, saying "the whole point" is to open the questions to "a wider range of Americans all around the country. CNN cared about what you asked, not who you were."

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee didn't seem to mind and said he felt CNN chose a "pretty good balance" of questions. He said it was "refreshing ... the questions came from people who weren't being paid to ask them."

But Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, complained to CNN yesterday, saying: "I think that should have been made public ... [so candidates could] have a better way of judging the quality of the question."

The debate was supposed to be undecided REPUBLICANS asking the Republican candidates questions. Instead CNN (which well earned the nickname the Clinton News Network) deliberately selected Democrat plants (which it knew were Democrat plants) or questions from kooks which were designed to make the party look as bad as possible.

This does not surprise me since CNN is not even remotely a legitimate journalistic organization (instead being a propaganda arm of the socialist wing of the Democrat Party).

Here is the question. Does anyone believe that if the Democrats had displayed the courage to have a debate on the FOX News Channel (where they would have been asked legitmate questions) that they would have been treated this way?