CNN people get paid a lot of money, and no one pays me anything to engage in media politics. Yet I could rig a debate much less crudely than they did. It would be easy - I would simply pick questions, from the thousands of suggestions, that would make the Republicans look bad. I would not pick Democrat activists to ask the questions, on the contrary I would pick Republicans or real independents. There is no need to present Democrats as Republicans or undecided people.For example, on the Log Cabin (i.e. homosexual) Republican question - I would have picked a real Log Cabin Republican, not got an Obama supporter. Nor would I have got two John Edwards supporters in to pretend to be undecideds. And I certainly would not have got a person who is on two of Senator Clinton's committees to ask a "when did you stop beating your wife" question (about why the evil Republican candidates did not think American men and women in uniform "were not professional enough to work with gays") - and then given him a come back after the replies so that he could denounce the Republicans again.
It was just so crude, as were the "we did not know who these people were" lies afterwards. After all the "General" was not a random face on the internet - he had been carefully chosen and had been flown in. Why are the CNN people paid so much money, when then can not even rig a debate with any skill?
He's got a point.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Comments