Thursday, November 29, 2007
The Choice is Getting Obvious
And they were treated shabbily. Several of the questioners were lying about their affiliation, called Republicans or undecided, when they are clearly on the record as promoting or working on the team of Democrat hopefuls. Michelle Malkin slices and dices CNN on that front.
But the best analysis on the bias in the selection of the questions I've read so far is by Fred Barnes here. His best paragraphs:
But it was chiefly the questions and who asked them that made the debate so appalling. By my recollection, there were no questions on health care, the economy, trade, the S-chip children's health care issue, the "surge" in Iraq, the spending showdown between President Bush and Congress, terrorist surveillance, or the performance of the Democratic Congress.
Instead there were questions--ones moderator Anderson Cooper kept insisting had required a lot of time and effort by the questioners--on the Confederate flag, Mars, Giuliani's rooting for the Boston Red Sox in the World Series, whether Ron Paul might run as an independent for president, and the Bible. The best response to these questions was Romney's refusal to discuss what the Confederate flag represents. Fred Thompson discussed it.
By my count, of the 30-plus questions, there were 6 on immigration, 3 on guns, 2 on abortion, 2 on gays, and one on whether the candidates believe every word in the Bible. These are exactly the issues, in the view of liberals and many in the media, on which Republicans look particularly unattractive. And there were two questions by African Americans premised loosely on the notion that blacks get nothing from Republicans and have no reason to vote for them.
I hate the very format of these so called debates, and the fact that people like loopy Ron Paul (who really came off as a crazy old man) are included, but at least the Republicans have the fortitude to face an actual hostile and biased format. The Democrats run from the mere (and probably false) preception of bias.
Of course, Democrats generally don't think we are even at war. Alternative reality indeed.
Labels: CNN; YouTube Debate
Duk, how is it in your separate reality? Propoganda machine? You mean G. Rivera, Alan Colmes, Mara Liasson, Juan Williams, Mort Kondrake, and Greta Van Susteren? Those hateful propagandists? You have proved an example of the Left's the brave choice of non-confrontation. QED
Is that what you are saying Roger?
Pete, that's three. I getting you blocked. If you can't argue nice (and by argue in your context, I mean going to wikipedia and copying away) you can't argue here. Go defame people, on whose ass you would not make a pimple, somewhere else.
Roger can't handle it when someone actually makes a statement and cites something to support it.
Roger, have you thought about the fact that if you ban me you're banning about 25% of your readers.
Come on Roger, you can do better than that.
And I wasn't arguing, I was asking for clarification. Show some intellectual integrity and take the position: are you saying CNN is biased and Fox is not?
It is a yes or no question.