November 28, 2007 9:10 PM
Surprise ending at Republican debate
Last time, the biggest surprise at a CNN/YouTube presidential debate was a talking snowman asking about global warming.
This time, was it a plant?
That's the question -- and a big one -- after CNN allowed retired Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr to ask Republican presidential contenders a sternly-worded question about blocking gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military.
What they didn't mention -- until an on-air mea culpa immediately after the debate -- was that Kerr, who is gay, serves on an advisory panel for Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Even the on-air expression of regret from host Anderson Cooper didn't stop an online backlash following an otherwise lively debate packed with mano-a-mano confrontations among various Republican contenders.
CNN photo via AP
Here at "Back Roads to the White House," where we enjoyed one of the most active live-blogging events of the year, panelist Elizabeth Blackney, host of The Media Lizzy Show on BlogTalkRadio.com speculated that conservatives would use it to call CNN the "Clinton News Network."
"The brouhaha may overshadow the real issue: are Republicans willing to stick to archaic rules, or join our allies -- from Israel to France -- in allowing openly gay men and women to serve?" she asked.
UPDATE: In a morning appearance on CNN, Kerr said the only thing he ever did for Clinton was to lend his name to her campaign because of her longtime support of gay and lesbian issues. He said nobody put him up to making the video question. "Absolutely not. This was a private initiative on my own." Still, CNN issued a statement saying it would not have used his question if it knew beforehand that he had any involvement with a presidential campaign. (It will be interesting to see if this leads to scrutiny of more participants in the two CNN/YouTube debates.)
* * *
But there was lots more action during the unconventional debate, which forced the candidates to answer questions (ostensibly) submitted by average viewers.
Our unconventional panel's conventional wisdom: former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has surged in recent Iowa polls, did well with his humorous style, and Sen. John McCain also got several mentions from folks who thought he did well.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was mentioned most often as someone who appeared to falter, although his frequent clashes with national front-runner former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani also put him in the spotlight more often than most others.
Wednesday night's event generated more discussion here than any other debate this year.
THE FULL TRANSCRIPT can be found in the COMMENTS section HERE. Read from the bottom-up.
All eight candidates got some praise during the debate, which seemed to shift from one candidate's issue "turf" to the next. The viewer questions hit some of the very same topics that the typical journalist-led questioning might have covered anyway: immigration, tax reduction, abortion, values and guns.
Among the more novel questions was one asking candidates "What would Jesus do?" when it comes to applying the death penalty, and another from Denver resident Steven Nielson that asked whether the Republicans would pledge to put a person on Mars by the year 2020.
Both of those put Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, in the spotlight, and members of the panel though he scored points with his folksy attempts at humor.
After defending his support of the death penalty in certain cases, Huckabee was pressed on the "What would Jesus do?" part of the question.
"Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office," Huckabee replied, and that drew laughter and applause -- even from Giuliani.
On Mars, Huckabee didn't exactly promise to accomplish the 2020 goal, but he said if it is possible, "Hillary can be on the first rocket to Mars."
Our panel -- echoed by post-game analysts on CNN -- seemed to think Huckabee scored with his personable style, even if he's likely to face much tougher questions if he continues gaining in the polls beyond Iowa, where one poll now shows him slightly overtaking Romney for the lead.
Allen Fuller, a Republican consultant from www.PolicyMedia.com, called Huckabee "personable, comfortable, the most Reagan-esque on the stage."
"He is now firmly in the first-tier group of candidates," Fuller said. "Now he just needs to go raise some money."
Oh, is that all...
If nothing else, Huckabee wasn't a potted plant in this debate, and he should manage to sneak into some of the morning-after television clips that aren't dominated by the clashes between Giuliani and Romney over immigration, and between Rep. Ron Paul and McCain over foreign policy.
* * *
All of that being said, some panelists were prepared to declare an entirely different winner of the debate.
Said commenter Mike Soraghan: "The real winner was the format. These were real questions that were hard to prep for. But the (mainstream media) fared well too. Without a network like CNN, the YouTube debate doesn't matter."
That was before the questions about plants. But even so, it's hard to say the format didn't produce an entertaining -- if not entirely informative -- result.
If nothing else, these viewer-led debates live up to one part of their promise: they make surprises expected.
WHAT DID YOU THINK?
* * *
THE FULL TRANSCRIPT can be found in the COMMENTS section HERE. Read from the bottom-up.
November 30, 2007
12:17 PM
JT writes:
People need to quit always agreeing with the candidate that says the things they want to hear, that doesn't make it reality, listen to logic and common sense, not fluff, just saying things that make them "seem" good, what most of them say has nothing to do with what they would really do as President.
Ron Paul won with the least amount of time from CNN, that alone should show people the winner, even though he should have had a lot more time available he showed that it's quality not quantity that the American people judge.
November 29, 2007
10:58 AM
Geof writes:
So the questions regarding gays and lesbians wasn't legitimate? I do believe Gen. Kerr is an American who gets to vote. The impression I get is that the GOP's wish he didn't.
As for the Republicans et al - guess what, the war matters. Bush went in saying it was about WMD and terrorists and that Saddam was somehow connected to 9/11. He was wrong, and by association ALL Republicans who still support him or are ignoring the war are wrong. Since there is no issue of greater importance than war, all credibility you may have once had is completely washed away. How can anyone who cares about tomorrow and life in general (I believe this would cover most Americans) put any trust in a Republican again? I'll answer that - they can't.
So while conservatives continue to regress into the burrows of their minds post 9/11 - their every act and every word a lashing out against the unseen demons they can't comprehend - the world moves forward realizing we can't be trusted to lead anymore.
Keep it all white, righties.
Hillary/Obama '08
November 29, 2007
10:32 AM
Louis Nardozi writes:
CNN's bias was overwhelming - just look at the relative times the various candidates got on the microphone. Microphone time should be divided EQUALLY between all candidates. Candidates who won't stay on topic should have their microphones cut the INSTANT they stray from topic - the balance of their time for that topic should be split equally among the remaining candidates. Candidates who mention another candidate during their time should have the microphone immediately cut and the remainder of their time on topic divided equally among the remaining candidates.
November 29, 2007
10:30 AM
Louis Nardozi writes:
CNN's bias was overwhelming - just look at the relative times the various candidates got on the microphone. Microphone time should be divided EQUALLY between all candidates. Candidates who won't stay on topic should have their microphones cut the INSTANT they stray from topic - the balance of their time for that topic should be split equally among the remaining candidates. Candidates who mention another candidate during their time should have the microphone immediately cut and the remainder of their time on topic divided equally among the remaining candidates.
November 29, 2007
9:17 AM
Aaron writes:
Go Huckabee! Everyone sounded good except Ron Paul.
November 29, 2007
7:01 AM
Brad Y. writes:
It was like a virtual Jerry Springer show, a kind of video-game. Non-stop undignified pandering, except Ron Paul, with whom I do not completely agree, but at least he has a set of identifiable political beliefs, rather than the chamelion-like Romney, the squirmy Guliani or the chest-thumping McCain. I tuned out early.
November 29, 2007
7:01 AM
john s flannery writes:
I thought it was most appropriate that tonight their podiums were designed to look like shopping carts from Smiths, Albertsons or Wal-Mart.
After all this Republican administration has spent more than all of the other administrations that have been known in the history of what was once the United States, I was once told. The big spenders of history and the beat goes on. How much a day goes the Iraq way?
November 29, 2007
6:38 AM
genuine ricardo writes:
I couldn't agree more with Pauline! I love the literary references! The YouTube format is pure misery. Doesn't anyone understand the concept of selection bias? How can people honestly think this format is "democratic"?
November 29, 2007
6:17 AM
JR writes:
I just want to say that Ron Paul and Huckabee were the only two candidates on that stage that would respond to the question being asked. I think it is really stupid to allow Youtube fans to ask the questions, but at least it gave some American's the opportuinity to ask something outside of the box. As a lesbian, I did not agree with having that guy stand up in the audience and allow the men on stage to go on and on, that was humiliating. I think Mitt Romney sucks, he does not respond to what he is being asked. I think if we want America to stay the land of the free and the home of the brave, Huckabee or Ron Paul are the men to do it. Even as a liberal member of society, and a registered democrat...I do not agree with all the illegals we are allowing in the USA, and we have to stand up for our country, or in twenty years, we are not going to have much of one. For most of us, that is when our children will be about our age!!!
November 29, 2007
1:18 AM
Kevin writes:
Shame on CNN! That debate was disgusting. CNN chose those questions instead of allowing them to be democratically selected by the YouTube community. Did Ron Paul really only get 7 minutes? SICK!
Their bias is CLEAR!
November 29, 2007
1:15 AM
WakeWashington writes:
What's really making Anderson Cooper look bad is how passionate and emotionally invested he appeared to be in the attack on Romney. He encouraged Kerr to continue his long and rambling speech even after it sounded like producers had tried to bring it to a halt by cutting the Clintonista's microphone. It was almost like Cooper was on some kind of personal crusade.
November 29, 2007
1:12 AM
Jason Nesbitt writes:
I found this debate to be very manipulative of CNN. It seems they gave undue excess time to those candidates they seem to want lead the audience into supporting.
I am trying to learn about these candidates but I really feel that I am being led around a dog and pony show.
The whole thing had the appearance of a game show.
I suppose I will just go and read their websites and make up my own mind.
November 29, 2007
12:59 AM
sam writes:
ya qwite a bias toward mittster and rudolph
November 28, 2007
11:57 PM
Scott from Oregon writes:
The debate was an embarrassment for American citizens. Here we are, the leader in technology and liberty and power and (once upon a time) grace, and we've got several horrendously malevolent things occuring.
The most obvious, was the pro-bias towards two (who shall be unnamed) candidates. Does CNN think it is a decider too? Where does CNN think it gets its mandate from? The debates are supposed to be auditions, by individuals, for the positon of president. I would like to know from CNN directly, if they feel they have a right to grotesquely bias this audition? There were eight men on that stage. CNN was not even remotely fair.
What an ugly exhibition by CNN. Ugly ugly ugly.
I want to go into details about the candidates themselves, but CNN takes the top ugly prize this day...
November 28, 2007
11:31 PM
Pauline writes:
The format of the CNN program was superficial and boring: YouTube questions were vague and unintelligent one-liners (geared to the emotions rather than the intelligence). I thought this was supposed to be a real DEBATE??? Where was the development of political issues juxtaposed with policy? Where the logical structure of thought even though compressed to 30 second sound bites?
Who, for instance, can praise Huckabee for his humor when it amounted in one instance to smearing another candidate (Clinton and Mars) or avoiding the answer to a question (Jesus and politics). Am I supposed to be impressed with Huckebee's Statesmanship? Comedy Corner quippers are not appropriate to the high office of President during a GOP debate in a country where the working and middle classes of America are disintegrating, where few will have retirement, where millions will work themselves to death without any hope of retirement or adequate health care due to the baby boomner drain on medical infrastructure.
This horse and pony show, highlighting Giuliani and Romney was one big boring episode. Dylan Thomas' poem, "Do not go gently into that good-night... rage rage against the burning of the light..." more like TS Eliot's Hollow Men: "Not with a bang, but with a whimper."