So, CNN hooked up with YouTube to blindside the Republican candidates with a truckload of biased, juvenile drivel. Gosh, who would have seen that coming?
By now we all know about the gay general who trotted out a question from the 1992 primaries and was "outed" as a Clinton staffer. CNN apparently employed "don't ask, don't tell" when vetting the questioners. Michelle Malkin unearths more suspicious questioners today because, unlike the MSM, she smelled a rat as soon as Brig. Gen. Undecided was revealed. The MSM, for the most part, ignored the story altogether or were satisfied with believing the retired general to be an aberration. Gee golly, if you can't trust CNN who can you...
Anyway...
The Republicans walked right into this one. Why? Because they collectively possess some male anatomy associated with risk taking that the Democrats don't. A CNN/YouTube pairing had far more potential ticking bombs for the GOP candidates than did the Fox News debate that the Democrats gathered up their skirts and ran away from.
Madame Clinton spent the days leading up to the Democrat debate on CNN teaching Wolf Blitzer how to fetch and heel. Only when she was sure that he was under control and wouldn't embarrass her did she relax and proceed. CNN's biggest error of omission that night was having James Carville doing post debate analysis for them. The nutroots over at The Daily Kos were on suicide watch for the next few days because Carville didn't state up front that he was a Clinton staffer (Ms. Clinton is a bit conservative for the Kosmonauts). Is there anyone in America with an IQ over fourteen who doesn't know Carville works for the Clintons? As secrets go, this ranks right up there with OJ being a murderer. Face it, every CNN employee is a de facto Clinton staffer.
I am only surprised because others are surprised by this. It's sort of like going to a Jackie Chan movie and being disappointed by the acting. The powers that be at CNN wouldn't pass an objectivity test even if we graded them on a public school curve. The only reason it even calls itself CNN any more is because "American Al-Jazeera" takes up too much space on the graphics at the bottom of the screen.
The Republicans aren't going to get a fair shake from CNN, The New York Times or Hollywood. It's that simple. I was actually shocked at the relative softball nature of the biased questions. I fully expected this one to start with a video of some of the children weeping and asking how many puppies each candidate planned to kill with his big carbon footprint if elected. Instead, they attempted to highlight the difficulties that gays in the military face using a gay man who made it all the way to Brigadier General. That just made the policy seem like "Don't ask, don't tell, give me a helluva pension!"
The bias will continue unabated. A debate recap in the New York Times bemoaned "the lack of diversity on the stage..." and whined that "Most of the videos were from white men..." See how it works kids? The Democrats are suddenly representative of America because they have one African-American and four boobs (Hillary's two plus Kucinich and Dodd) running.
The fault lies more with us rolling over and allowing these sham debates that have more audience plants than a TV evangelist trying to raise money for a new Learjet. Each format revision seems to suck more than the last. Serious followers of politics on both sides should get angry and protest (we could call ourselves "youths") until some candidates agree to air it out for real.
Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)
|