I was going to write about last evening’s YOUTUBE/CNN GOP Presidential candidates’ debate, as hosted (that’d be, as manipulated) by host network, CNN, but then I read Michelle Malkin’s earlier post (“DIGGING OUT MORE CNN/YOUTUBE PLANTS“) from this morning and she’s already covered the specific and problematic issues (complete with a lot o’ references and useful links) about the grit that was Liberals-On-Parade, Pretending-To-Be-Invisible and about which I readily noticed and was going to write (so read Malkin’s post, my suggestion).
I wasn’t initially keen on the format concept of YouTube/CNN “questioners with questions” submitted to the candidates rather than moderators posing questions directly. However, after viewing last night how the GOP candidates managed the quirky format (some managed well, a few others managed very well), my opinion changed to one of interest and I viewed the whole CNN Pretensively formatted production with interest, first on MSNBC’s Glenn Beck hour and then, after that limited broadcast concluded, I turned to CNN itself and viewed the Pretense in full, what with a full Pretense rebroadcast to follow last night.
The MSNBC coverage was much more interesting, with the exception of a few interruptions here and there: this network ran a graph screen-over of the candidates’ “live” interactive responses to the posed videos, a graph in which audience “live” or in-time responses were tracked and displayed on-screen by gender (males and females’ responses marked separately as both in a response audience of ten each responded “live” to the “live” event, their reactions marked by numerical grade — 1 being very poorly received, 10 being very favorably received and then ranges in between accordingly).
The ability to read by graph the responses of this test audience added value and interest to the broadcast but it was a mere hour of a several hour long event, and much was omitted to view accordingly. In the one hour with this format that I viewed, however, MSNBC provided a far better broadcast than did the later viewed CNN rebroadcast of the same hour (combined with CNN’s broadcast of the full event).
Guiliani scored far higher favorables — reaching into the consistent “9’s,” which was demonstratively higher than usual in the overall hour viewed on MSNBC — among males, and in the areas specifically of national security and his positions on the enemies that have a history of attacks upon our nation and our society, among other objectives. Thompson scored briefly into the “9’s” also when he initially spoke about illegal aliens and against amnesty for illegal aliens (which all the candidates also stated; Thompson’s initial high favorability peak was certainly due to the fact that he was questioned first about this issue from among all the candidates present, and, therefore, he made the impact with his response, which was also quite highly favored later when the other candidates present repeated his position as their own — thus, the issue and the response are favorable, not so much is Thompson specifically).
THEN, there’s the abuse displayed by both CNN (later viewing) and the foolish abuse of the event by “Retired General…Keith Kerr” who declared himself “openly gay” and complained about the U.S military code of conduct that requires homosexuals in the military to maintain a “don’t ask, don’t tell” course of behavior while in service).
Not only did Kerr appear strange, to put it mildly, but the entire audience took noticable pause at him being both featured in the production (by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, when Cooper turned away from the candidates and their responses, ensured auidence member Kerr was handed an open microphone and then questioned Kerr, while Kerr then performed his elaborate and drawn-out opinionating as “an openly gay man” — Kerr’s microphone went dead, which was a relief, Kerr looked betrayed, someone gave him yet another microphone, he resumed his elaborations, CNN eventually got the message and cut away but the Kerr performance was one of those interruptions that was clearly a production, planned, arranged and enabled and it was among CNN’s most embarrassing moments, cementing their network as vehicle for performance art).
In the light of truth, afterward, Kerr has been uncovered as being a member of an advisor group to the Hillary Clinton campaign, an Edwards and past Kerry supporter and obviously, not favorable to the GOP. He was provided with an elaborate amount of screen and microphone time to list his military affiliations, and yet he “conveniently” omitted these salient poltiical affiliations of his when engaged in his performance last night. I strongly doubt his omissions were accidental. And yet his chief complaint last night was as to “don’t ask, don’t tell” while he specifically didn’t ask and didn’t tell. What a doozy dolt.
Later, when the question was posed as to possible “torture” of captive enemy combatants, and Romney attempted to respond, the network cut to a commercial, unusually and abruptly, in obvious attempt to prevent coverage to what Romney was saying. Romney’s comments included his statements — which I support and understand and value — that interrogation techniques of enemy combatants should not be publicly discussed for obvious security reasons. Romney then referred to the notorious statement by enemy combatant Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, when he declared that he’d “see you in New York with my attorneys,” Romney then interjected that he’d “probably have attorneys from the ACLU…” the screen cut abruptly mid-word to commercial.
No explanation on return afterward to the broadcast.
Next offensive to the Kerr melodramatic performance was YouTube questioner “Joe from Dallas” (who is now known as “Bible Boy,” a Ron Paul supporter) in his declarations (not a quetion, mostly a denigration by way of a challenge) about the Bible was ridiculously insulting and intended to be so, yet the candidates, each and all who responded, provided very reasonable and reasoned responses. Huckabee, being a Baptist minister, obviously is the most skilled at responding to rhetorical denigrations of Christian theology of this sort (as per “Joe’s” video) as is also Huckabee’s very skilled and kindly public speaking abilities, in comparison with the other candidates.
But I valued what the other candidates said in their responses. Romney, a Mormon, accepts and “believes in” the Holy Bible as “the Word of God” and yet today I found CNN deriding Romney in their immature, vain critic of him as “he’s a Mormon” (implying that he can’t and doesn’t, then, believe that the Holy Bible is the Word or God, nor that he could sincerely be saying it was, which both untrue and inaccurate, and, that critic of him defames Romney’s principles of faith and is untoward and disrespectful by CNN of a severe sort)..
Go read Michelle Malkin’s post for more.
It’s somewhat amusing but predictably dishonest to hear today that the Obama, Clinton and Edwards campaigns all state that they had no control over their supporters saying, appearing, doing whatever, and yet, CNN would not have had to do much to any research to discover the bias involved by those they selected to pose video questions to the GOP candidates. No, in my view, CNN did the research and made the selections accordingly.