It’s not too strong of a word, it’s flat-out incorrect. (I think “assinine” would be appropriate.) The guy, as a citizen, is allowed to make up whatever voting criteria he wants. His question does not come close to violating any kind of law.
As others have said, there is nothing remotely unconstitutional about it. The “no religious test” rule is a restraint on the government, not on the people. You can’t be required by the government to pass some type of religious test in order to hold office. The people can vote for whomever they want, for whatever reason.
It was more than 1 person. Many of them were declared Democratic supporters who mis-represented themselves in a Republican primary. It was a poorly sponsored event on the part of CNN.
Not only is CNN taking heat for allowing so many Democratic partisans field questions, but also there are accusations that they skewed the questioning to favor issues that would help their ratings. In particular, Lou Dobbs is hauling in big ratings as a populist, protectionist fanatic, and he led into the debate with a long rant about immigration and trade tariffs - and then they proceeded to ask a half-hour’s worth of questions of the candidates on immigration, despite it being quite far down the list of issues Republican voters claim to care about.
And as one newspaper article pointed out, the whole premise of YouTube providing questions that average people want to hear is completely bogus, since over 5,000 questions were submitted, then CNN staffers went through them and picked the ones THEY wanted. With that large a sample set, if you allow CNN to filter them what youre really getting is a debate made up of questions CNN wants to air.
It’s just a lousy format all around.
With all due respect, can you give a cite a few notches more credible than Michele Malkin? She’s a die hard partisan whose bias is so thick it can be cut with a knife.
n.b.: I’m not saying you don’t know what you’re talking about, but that cite doesn’t support it. She’s not a reporter, she’s an editorialist.
I thought it was pretty important to them. Cite?
If she’s not a reporter what the hell does that make CNN? As Sam Stone has already pointed out, it was a crappy format to begin with. CNN chose the questions from a list of 5000 posters without vetting the people making the posts. You’re free to point out the bias of the blog but you’re equally welcome to cite anything refuting it. As would be the people in the debate who would be maligned if the information is incorrect.
If she writes editorials for CNN, they’re editorials. If she writes editorials for Fox News, they’re still editorials. All it means is, since they’re editorials, they shouldn’t be taken at face value as fact - because they’re opinion.
LilShieste
And we’ve seen the last of it.
I can’t imagine that CNN or any other organization will want to stick their neck out again with that format.
I think it would be amusing to watch Democrats questioned by Republicans and vice versa. Drop all pretense and softballs.
I’m happy with the format. We’ve never had a truly open forum presidential debate, and this is no exception. What in particular is worse about CNN picking the questions than any other host organization picking the questions?
Yeah, I want to see Democrats answer some tough questions, myself.
I don’t know about that. “Protecting our borders” seems to be right at the front of the debate. If letters to the editor are any indication, it is something Republicans are stirred up about right now.
And it was the GOP establishment who did the stirring. It was a minor issue in the 2004 election, but when the GOP realized they probably couldn’t go to the gay well again anytime soon and they needed a new wedge issue, they started playing it up.
But all that aside, of course CNN is going to structure the debate so that it improves their ratings. That’s what happens when you let CNN (or the like) sponsor a debate instead of just airing it. If it were Campbell’s Soup sponsoring the debate, we’d expect them to do whatever it took to sell more soup; why wouldn’t CNN do the same?
Can’t disagree with that. The question from the retired gay officer was a good one, and it’s nice to put a human face on it, but it also allows the story to be about the questioner instead of the question or the answer.
I only watched bits and pieces of this debate, but it sounds like Huckabee had a good night. That means it’s a bad night for the Dems, since I think he’s the only one that could potentially win.
You don’t really understand the constitution, do you?
Fourth on the list amongst Republican Iowa cacus goers, and the second most important domestic issue, according to this poll.
Well, I don’t think many viewers are under the impression that these questions were selected out of a hat or anything. I’ll grant its a little gimmicky, but I imagine CNN figures it’ll keep viewers interest, especially given that this is one out of a dozen or so primary debates. And it was more interesting to watch then just having Wolf Blitzer ask everything, so I’d say it was a successful gimmick, IMHO.
Why caveat that 'second most important domestic issue? To make it sound more important than it is.
The fact is, it was cited fourth by Republican caucus goers, after terrorism, Iraq, and the economy. Yet it had an entire half-hour devoted to it at the start of the debate when ratings are highest. On a network which led into the debate with Lou Dobbs and his anti-trade populism.
How do those kvetching about a “political operative” getting to ask a question reconcile their outrage with the fact that Grover Norquist, not a “normal guy” by any stretch of logic, got to ask a question?
My biggest gripe was that the “best” line of the night, judged by the post-debate chatter, was a flat-out giant dodge. When Anderson pushed Huckabee if he thought Jesus would support the death penalty, the ole Pastor answered, “I think Jesus would be smart enough to stay out of politics.” Ummm… OK. Would Jesus the Private Citizen support the death penalty or not, Governor?
And Romney was terrible. Terrible, terrible, terrible. When he was answering a question he’d prepped for, it was nothing but buzzwords. When he was caught by surprise, he stammered and tried to dodge the question. The only real answer he gave was about the Confederate flag, and that was after a 30 second speech that initially sounded like a dodge.
Whatever his status, the question General Kerr asked was damned good and wasn’t answered at all. He made the men on the stage look like chastized children, and rightly so.
Meh, it’s one of the top issues of importance to GOP primary voters, hardly “way down the list”. If they devoted a half-hour to something really obscure, like flag-burning or some such, I’d agree with you, but I hardly think CNN is morally required to devote time in the debate precisely in order of voter interest. If they choose topics that are also of interest to their viewers, that’s hardly surprising.
None of the sponsoring networks are hosting these debates as a public service. They’re using them as a chance to showcase their stable of commentators and personalities. I’m sure the candidates realize this when they sign up.
You can’t have your lapdogs yip about immigration constantly on their radio shows and cable news networks and then be suprised when you are expected to answer questions about it.
I listen to a lot of talk radio, and I would be hard pressed to think of a focus other than success in Iraq, the scourge of immigration, and Hillary.
Edit to add-
Hollywood. There is hollywood too.
I’ll take that as a “no”, you don’t have a better cite. Look, you don’t get to make assertions around here and demand that other people disprove them. If you want to move the goalposts and claim that CNN’s sifting thru 5000 questions is likely to lead to bias, that’s another thing.
Senator McCain, what is your position on whether one should crumble crackers onto Clam Chowder, and do you prefer New England style to Manhattan style?