Skip to comments.CNN/YouTube Questioner Kicked Romney 'off my property' [CNN LIBERAL PLANT]
Posted on 12/01/2007 2:34:00 AM PST by Enchante
It was bad enough that CNN handed the microphone over to an official, Gen. Kerr of a Hillary Clinton campaign committee to conduct an extended rebuttal of Republican candidates.
But bloggers are continuing to dig in to and are exposing some pretty damning evidence that CNN slanted the questioning via activist proxies. A setting that was supposed to be about undecided Republicans (a primary debate) getting to know the candidates turned out to be a litany of gotcha videos from liberal activists.
Some problems were apparent at the start. For instance, CNN declared that it had selected twenty-four "undecided Republican voters" at the University of Tampa. That was an eye-roller. I went to the University of Tampa, and I think you would be hard pressed to even find twenty-four Republicans there, unless you brought in the ROTC department.
My suspicions were quickly confirmed. One of those "Republicans" was not pleased with any of the candidates but found common ground with that great conservative thinker John Edwards. I think this is where John Stossel might cry "give me a break". She was one of the folks whom CNN also used for that gee-wiz happiness meter shown after the debate to demonstrate what Republican voters thought of the candidates [cough].
Another questioner named Mark Strauss of Iowa asked Ron Paul to run as an Independent. Wasn't it a little bit of a tip off to CNN producers that Strauss is not interested in Republican issues when his question was nothing more than an encouragement for a candidate to leave the party?
But clearly, CNN likes the idea of a Republican candidate taking Republican voters to the Independent block for the general election. In case you missed it, Nader did this to Gore and Gore lost. Perot did it to Bush, Sr. and Bush lost. Wonder what CNN might have had in mind by promoting this idea at the debate and selecting it out of thousands of questions that actually would have mattered to Republicans?
Strauss was not randomly chosen as CNN presented a previous video of his at the Democrats' debate. There is a history between him and CNN. So the "we did not know" defense shouldn't play here any more than it does in the case of Gen. Kerr who had been on CNN previously.
Strauss's website is easy enough to find. He writes there:
In October 2006, Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts came to my door in Iowa, yes, at my house. He was there walking up and down the street with Robby Smith campaigning with him. Man, did he pick the wrong door. What is the Governor of MA doing in IA, with a young rookie running for state house? He is a Republican first-American second...hopefully not our next "decider".
Strauss uses the term "decider" as a pejorative against Republican President George Bush and other Republicans throughout his website.
Mitt asked me what I woud [sic] do in Iraq. I proceeded to explain how we need to get not only the effected nations in the region involved, but strike meaningful discussion and secure true resilution [sic] with the world thru the U.N.. Mitt laughed and called the U.N. a joke. This is the man that wants to be President. Don't we already have a decider in office that considers the other world leaders a joke? I then said "I have no use for you, get off my property", and I closed the door. This guy cannot be elected into office in 08.
Wow! His fair minded openness to Republican candidates is just oozing off the page.
As mentioned previously, Strauss had a question for the Democrats at their debate. He asked a reasonable straight forward question about healthcare for seniors.
To the Republicans, he brags about kicking one off his lawn and asked another to leave the Party. And in doing so is encouraging a situation that would take Republican votes in the general election.
I cannot imagine a much more unfair venue than the debate-hoodwink that CNN launched on the Republican Party. Every Republican candidate should make sure it is the last time CNN gets a shot at such cheap tactics.
Ray Robison is proprietor of Ray Robison: Pointing out the Obvious to the Oblivious.
Another CNN fraud exposed. The point is that while the “debates” (which are a pretty pathetic excuse for debate) SHOULD ask all candidates tough questions, what is being exposed is the grotesque and dishonest double-standards of CN and the MSM as they play patty-cake with the Demagogues while subjecting the Republican candidates to hostile, loaded questions and diatribes from supposedly “undecided” voters who in many cases are raving leftist activists and moles.
BTTT... good article info here...
Romney's stock just went up a tick or two.
We went to a Republican debate and had a Clinton rally.
Gee, how’d that happen?
It’s bad enough that journalism is a constant left-wing hackfest, but now they have to provide a supposed “Republican” debate in which so many of the questioners are Demagogue moles. A lot of these questions have an obvious political agenda, which is not about enabling REPUBLICANS to choose their best candidate but about distorting and degrading the process in favor of the Demagogues’ issues and candidates.
Yes, that clown is illiterate and CNN would be embarrassed to give him such prominence in a national forum if they were not already beyond embarrassment.
I didn’t watch the entire debate, but the few questioners I did see were obviously NOT undecided Republicans. They bore a strong resemblance to a 32 yr old Socialist that I work with who is constantly peppering me with similar contemptuous questions .
The debate was a plus on two counts. It exposed CNN for the dishonest network that it is and it proved that many of the candidates could combat the propaganda from the LEFT. It was good preparation for the Presidential debate with Hilary..cause you know that won’t be an honest debate either.
Below is a link to a hilarious video from Mark Strauss, the very same drooling moonbat who was allowed by CNN to distort the Republican debate with a nice little push for a Ron Paul candidacy as an Independent. Strauss is greatly offended that Romney could refer to the UN as “a joke” — the best thing I’ve heard about Romney yet:
I blame the victims. What the hell did they expect? Anderson Cooper to come up and give them all a big hug? They should have known when the demorats bailed on the Fox debate that no one on the rat side intended for these to be anything like fair. I’m proud of the bloggers in outing this fraud so fast, but where were the candidates on this? Why didn’t they ask for and receive assurances from CNN?
Exactly... they were like Thank you sir... may I have another?!
I think it was a useful process because (1) most of the Republican candidates acquitted themselves well in the face of obvious moonbat questions with an agenda, and (2) CNN proved (yet again) its biased incompetence for all who will pay attention. We can be sure that Shrillery and her pals will never subject themselves to any probing questions from “the other side”..... what I object to is the chicanery and dishonesty of CNN in pretending that they were presenting a forum for a REPUBLICAN primary debate, when in reality it was an ambush by drooling UN-worshipping leftist hacks such as Mark Strauss, the gay colonel working for Shrillery, and the Muslim moonbat who thinks a US President should be subject to the whims of CAIR propaganda.
This guy is simply delusional. The UN is some place where any nation (except Israel) is treated fairly according to this guy. The UN is a joke that has been laughing at the US since it was founded, sadly. Romney went up a couple of clicks in my book too.
By the way CNN - the pervert is a retired Colonel, not a General. But nice try.
It is absolutely pathetic that the pubbies allow CNN to have a role in their debates. What a bunch of spineless nematodes.
"And now we would like to introduce our 'Undecided Republicans'
who want to ask you some questions."
“Why didnt they ask for and receive assurances from CNN?”
Whatever would be the point in that?
Makes one wonder how he ever graduated from college and wrangled a commission, much less rose in command. Political payoffs? Influence? Had the dirt on someone in the high command?
If the Democrats win in 2008 and they get to pick a Supreme Court Justice or two, there will be NO First or Second Amendment rights recognized. It will be a "hate crime against nature" to question global warming. It will be "hate speech against the poor" to question taxes or illegal immigration. Churches will be forced to perform gay "weddings" and criticizing other lifestyles or religions will be a serious "hate crime." Pastors who question government policy will be arrested for "violating the separation of church and state." True, there will be some First Amendment "rights" remaining. Islamofascists will be able to freely recruit. Perverts will be able to go to the public library and view child porn on the Internet. People who want to harm us will have almost unlimited "rights" while the the average citizen will only have the "right" to remain silent and think only approved thoughts.
Mitt laughed and called the U.N. a joke.
Romney’s stock just went up a tick or two.
The RAT party is screaming “we’re communists”. How come so few are listening?
If the candidates go back there for more of that nonsense again they don't deserve to be CIC.
They should all agree to go anywhere but CNN.
According to every source I have gone to he is indeed a general.
Scary thing is that CNN is probably more fair than NBC. The RNC should have regulated these debates to assure fairness or refused the venue. Losing television coverage on CNN or CNBC wouldn’t miss but a handful of potential GOP voters anyway.
But, the sound bites from these debates are a whole other matter. They live on and on and on. Fortunately, the candidates did not make too much of a mess of this.
He was probably really good at kissing butt (oops, did I say that out loud?)
re: General vs. Colonel
He certainly represented himself as a “retired Brigadier General” BUT according to the item in Human Events below that may be extremely misleading at best (can any Freepers who know enough about both US Army and California National Guard ranks run down whether he is representing himself accurately??) — at the very least, saying you are a “retired brigadier general with 43 years of service” is meant to give the impression that you retired from the US ARMY as a Brigadier General??? According to the article linked below, he retired from the US Army as a Colonel and only received an honorific retirement certificate in Calif. giving him an honorary retirement rank in their own political system as a Brigadier General. Sounds like he may be a “Brigadier General” only to California liberal politicians and not in any actual service, but can anyone get to the bottom of this for us? Why would Calif. be allowed to make the “General” rank up on its own? (ok do we even have to ask???)
“Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr (Ret.): My name’s Keith Kerr, from Santa Rosa, California. I’m a retired brigadier general with 43 years of service. And I’m a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Commanding General Staff Course and the Army War College. And I’m an openly gay man. I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.”
But theres more. According to Col. Bill Campenni (USAF, ret), one of President Bushs squadron mates in the Texas Air National Guard, there is no such thing as the California National Reserve of which Kerr claimed to be a former member.
Campenni told HUMAN EVENTS that Kerr is not even a retired Army General.
He retired as a California Army National Guard colonel, said Campenni. It is common at Guard retirement ceremonies to give an honorary promotion to colonels to the STATE rank of Brigadier General [but] it has no meaning other than a fancy certificate for the wall and use of the title at local Guard functions.
Campenni said the rank of general is not federally recognized and the title can not be used or the rank worn outside the state.
Thanks for the info. Once again I was duped by the MSM.
Now we're talking.
If Romney thinks the UN is a joke, and is willing to say so, he goes up greatly in my estimation.
I lost respect for each and every candidate after that CNN “debate”. Not one of them was man enough to tell CNN to shove it and walk off the stage. In fact, all of them should have walked off when some of those questions were asked. If none of them can stand up to CNN how will they ever stand up to terrorists or foreign powers such as Chavez. Right now I’m leaning toward voting for “none of the above”.
I think you may be over reacting a little here. Support for none the above in actuality is support for the Dummycrats.
I’m voting for the one Republican candidate who was excluded from the CNN debate, Alan Keyes.
Dr. Keyes is on the ballot in Florida, where this so-called debate was held, by the way, and is polling ahead of Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo there.
There’s no doubt that had he been there, he would not have accepted any of the premises of the questioners, or of CNN. Before answering, he would have pointed out the falseness and the silliness of the questions.
Which is why they excluded him, of course.
Isn’t little Andy Cooper the son of the poor little rich girl, Gloria Vanderbilt? Andy is a snotty little leftist with an attitude of “me,me and only me”. He carries the same virus as Hillary, the “I am not to be questioned” disease and it seems to be infiltrating all the Demo candidates thinking.
What’s amusing is that Strauss must not realize that Ron Paul has repeatedly called for termination of American funding of the United Nations.
Creepy CNN and their teacher's pets - the dems - get the softballs from kiss-up dems.
We get the gotchas from dem liars and CNN fools. Yeah, we're charmed...NOT.
When you choose to play on enemy turf by their rules and let them be the referees, what do you expect?
I’m sick to death of the spineless Pubbies allowing themselves to be defined/defiled by the Leftist MSM over and over again.
We need to impress on each candidate that they are running for OUR approval, NOT the approval of the MSM. The first candidate who comes out swinging against the MSM and openly runs against not only the Dems/Libs but their henchmen in the MSM (Because it is the reality) gets my vote.
Playing footsie with the MSM to try and get favorable (or at least less unfavorable) press is a fools errand.
I would call Straus a liar on two counts: pretending to be a republican, and secondly, I don’t believe Mitt Romney going door to door would throw his arms up in the air and say “This conversation’s over.” Politicians are to smooth for that. Straus is a liar.