YOUR COMMENTS

I had to be out to dinner last Wednesday and asked my husband to tape the debate for me. What a waste of videotape! After about 10 minutes of pure "goofery", the "debate" started. I asked myself: "Why am I not surprised?" I could only handle about 20 minutes before my suspicions were confirmed: This was no accident. It was a carefully orchestrated stage production by the dim Dems and their stooges at CNN to embarrass and befuddle the Republican candidates and make them look incompetent. The only people who weren't "in on the joke" were the embarrassed and befuddled candidates and the American people who wanted a serious discussion of the issues.

I've been supicious of CNN ever since the Peter Arnett debaucle in the first Gulf War. That assessment was confirmed again and again with stories like: Coming out of a sound sleep in my LazyBoy and hearing CNN "out" a Pacific-Northwest mayor as gay. I thought: Can't be! CNN chastises those who would humiliate a person that way. Then the thought creeps in: He HAS to be a Republican! (Guess what? He was.)


The more control the leftist media loses over the dissemination of information in this country, the more rabid they become. Hence the Wednesday Night Massacre - (my term.)

Why the big fear of FOX? Do they have more power than CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, The New York Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post - all left-leaning outlets? Thank heavens for the Internet, FOX and talk radio! Now we can hear BOTH sides of any issue.
- Katherine Friend, Oak Hills CA

Once again you are protecting the public by keeping us, your readers, informed through honest investigative journalism. Truth is the bedrock of a democracy, and such enlightenment will bode the voters well in the upcoming elections. Keep up the good work.
- J Jenkins, Palm Beach Gardens, FL

I think it is good to have plants in the audience. The questions get asked that would not get asked if the plant was not there. Any question should be able to be asked irrespective of who asks it. Any candidate should be able to answer any question. I would like to see the mudslinging stopped. I am interested in a good truthful answer. If it cannot be answered the say so, don't beat around the bush and give a false answer because it will come back to bite the answering individual then it becomes a lie then all hell breaks out. An honest answer is all that is needed. Be honest and you will feel good and encourage others to be honest.
- Ronald fiskum, Clarksville, MD

Michelle Malkin has also exposed the fact that the "Muslim questioner" was in fact a CAIR intern...as in "unindicted terrorism co-conspirator" CAIR, founded by members of a Hamas-supporting sect overseas. Were they ALL plants?
- Adam F., Merrimack

There was a clear purpose in allowing Kerr to ask a "question", i.e., engage in a political rant, and then to have him in the audience to further browbeat the Republicans. I am not surprised by this, nor should anyone else be. This is clear evidence of CNN's incompetence at best, and partisan dishonesty at worst.
- Tom, Campton

After viewing the debate, I became embarrassed. I am a teacher and I encouraged my students to watch "democracy in action." I too was disappointed in the caliber of questions. I didn't care who did the asking, or whether they were associated with a candidate, but that this forum was supposed to be about the issues. I'm not sure that the choices made by CNN were right, but in a country that has free speech they had the right to make them. I'm just sorry I have to apologize to my students. The next generation deserves better than what CNN gave them!
- C. Borges, Westport, MA

If the writer thinks that CNN has not been impartial by allowing citizens to ask questions, can the writer tell us why he chose to title his/her article "Clinton News Network ... "? In fact, since the writer admits that there were other questioners from the Obama and Edwards' camps, why then is he/she singling out Senator Clinton? The writer is definitely GUILTY of something more than what he/she accuses CNN of. It seems like the writer writer is simply out to mudsling Senator Clinton, and I thought the UnionLeader was a better newspaper than those "hate-mongering" news outlets out there.
- Jim Watm, E Fishkill, NY

Bad journalism? How about this- the 'writer' of this article accuses the General of being a plant because a past affiliation 'suggests' to the writer that the Gen. has 'other leanings'. Where's the writer's proof of the allegations he makes?
He then cites Malkin as 'reporting' there were other dem supporters asking questions. Did the writer check the 'sources' that Malkin used, or is he just going on blind faith here? Again, little factual evidence, only hearsay.

Please, stop the whining. If a candidate from either side can not field a 'hostile' question from the 'enemy' cqmp, and there is still no evidence to back that claim in this case, then they don't deserve to be our president.
- jim Kennedy, salisbury

I thought this debate played out just like CNN wanted it to, an attempt to polarize the GOP presidential nominee to moderate and independent voters by asking questions that clearly are in no way relevant to the undecided, Republican voters, who still dont have their questions answered... and are STILL waiting for them to be answered.
- Blair, Detroit, MI

I was in the debate audience. Prior to going on the air, Anderson Cooper asked the audience if there were any planted questions..then he laughed. Gen Kerr was seated right next to the cameras on the end of the 4th row. Of course Mr. Cooper knew he was a rearranged stooge.
- karen johnston, st. petersburg, florida

Dishonest? What about CNN's Campbell Brown being married to Dan Senor, a bigtime Rep strategist? Do you think she's not biased? They failed to mention that too, didn't they?
I agree with a previous commenter, if I were a Rep I too would be scared of asking any questions I couldn't shout "9-11, 9-11!", "deport everyone!" or "waterboard them!" to. Those are the only kinds of answers their audience wants to hear.
- Bronte, Manchester, NH

The long and short of it, from where I sit as an admittedly right-of-center independent:

1. The Republicans knew that they were likely to encounter an adversarial environment from CNN and Google; they showed up.

2. The Democrats knew that they were likely to encounter an adversarial environment from Fox; they stayed home.

The GOP earned a cookie for this one.
- Mike C., Rockville, MD

Breyer S., at least be honest about your criticism. How many times do you think Bush has faced down those paragons of truth and friendliness, David Gregory and Helen Thomas in White House briefings? I can just hear Ms. Thomas' screeching "Mr. President, will you now admit you made a mistake"?, "Mr. President, will you continue to kill our soldiers"? Has any Democrat faced such disrespect? Republicans are used to answering tough questions.
- dEANE PRADZINSKI, highland, CA

Mike from Denver, I'm willing to bet that around 33% of the Republican base was interested in those questions. It's probably those same people who still give President Bush "excellent" ratings.
- Thomas, Manchester, NH

By the way, for the most part the candidates handled the question perfectly. Many stated that they defer to the current leadership of the military which approves the current policy. A policy that was solidified under the Clinton administration, "Don't Ask Don't Tell". I wonder if the liberals in this forum will have the same revisionist history dance in their heads ala this gay general when it is time for them to cast their vote on Jan 8th...
- Kyle, Bedford

I find it almost as disturbing that people are willing to let CNN get away with such journalistic failings as the actual incompetence itself. Not only was the representations made by the network false, they undermined the very nature of the debate itself—to help undecided Republicans determine who they would like to vote for as their party’s candidate. The questions would have been fine for a general debate between parties, but most did not represent issues or topics that undecided Republicans are interested in (the ones that weren’t simply silly or pedantic).

The debacle gets to the central core of modern day journalism—how much misrepresentation is being played out every day by CNN and other news organizations? So much gets uncovered every day, little and large, that it’s easier to believe there is no integrity at all. If the press covered the press like it does other industries, they would be calling for government oversight. I would just be happy for them to present facts and tell the truth instead of shaping what they want us to believe.
- Lea O., Manchester, NH

The questions were reflections of the biases--against conservatives and Republicans--of the questioners, and, by extension, of CNN.
They reflected the kind of prejudice that's long been abandoned, at least publicly, against minorities and the helpless.
They challenged the candidates not on the issues, but upon what liberals, or just plain non-conservatives, presume about conservatives: that they are only interested in what Jesus would do, in their guns, in punishing gay people, in jailing women for abortions, and in flying Confederate flags.
Persons with the interests of the Republican party and its candidates in mind wouldn't ask these questions, would have challenged their candidates with questions about Iran, taxes, and immigration without amnesty.
That people expect such questions to be asked and answered proves only how unserious about real issues the public may be, and how eaten up with sham issues the media has led us to become.
- S Robbins, Tupelo, MS

Reading most of the comments above, one would expect that it is completely reasonable that Democrats and Republicans be permitted, even encouraged, to to ask penetrating questions of the other party's candidates. However, this process is not as innocuous as it might seem at first glance. The problem lies in the fact that during primary elections, each candidate is forces to lean to the extreme end (far left or far right) in order to garner suffcient votes to become that party's presidential candidate in the general election. Both parties' candidates then veer toward the polical center in order to appeal to the public in the general election. However, if they receive a question from the far ends of the opposite party (as the republicans did in this case), they are forced to publically give an answer that satisfies the extreme fringe (far right in this case), in order to stay competitive in the primary. This extreme fringe public answer is then duly exploited by the other party in the general election to paint the (republican in this case) candidate as being away from the political center or being inconsistent in his answers if he does change his position after the primary to appeal to the broader public.
Such a process is patently unfair if it favors only one party in a supposedly public and non-partisan enquiry unless the affliation of the questioner is publicly disclosed.
- Ed M, Minneapolis

The liberals on this board all say it doesn't matter who asked the questions if the question was interesting and they wanted to hear the answers. That's exactly the point of the complaints against CNN. The questions were NOT interesting to Republicans. Confederate flags? Bible literalism? Of course a liberal wants to hear a conservative slog through nonsensical questions. But they were of no use to conservatives and speak to the caricatures liberals have of conservatives in their own minds, not to what conservatives care about. Put one of your liberal candidates into a format like this where the tables are turned and conservatives ask all the questions they have of liberals, the communist, terrorist-hugging, tree-hugging, business-hating freaks that the caricature of liberals is. Oh, that's right, Democrats won't even go on FOX, but you liberals preach that Republicans should just take that kind of medicine quietly.
- Mike, Denver

Greg nailed it. Put the shoe on the other foot: If the Dems debated on FNC and it turned out that several questioners were affiliated with Republican campaigns or were Republican activists, heads would explode with rage on the left. CNN doesn't get a pass on this -- they were lazy and shoddy and it reinforces the perception that they're essentially in the tank for the Dems.
- Rick M., Portsmouth

It's not about the debate -- though I do agree that the questions selected perpetuated negative stereotypes about the Republican Party. (I am a Republican. I don't, however, throw firearms, hang a Confederate flag in my room, or wave the Holy Bible at anyone.) It's about whether CNN is a fair, impartial news outlet. I certainly don't assert that any questions should have been nonpartisan, but surely out of 5000 options, so many of the ones that were chosen needn't have been Democratic party operatives (or party operatives of any kind). In addition, showcasing Gen. Kerr was a clear attempt to undermine ALL of the GOP responses on that issue, which is absolutely to the benefit of the Clinton campaign. I really wanted to think that CNN was a cut above CBS, but I am beginning to wonder.
- MR, Great Falls VA

The point is that these debates during the primary season are supposed to help Republican voters decide who their candidate should be in the general election. With that in mind, questions should be asked of the candidates that are relevant to the concerns of Republican voters. Democrats tend to see conservatives through the tainted prism of their own prejudices against them, which is fine in the general election where a candidate is vying to represent all Americans, Republicans also tend to view liberals as caricatures and stereotypes. That is why CNN will never allow a conservative to ask Democrat primary candidates, "If you say you are for the children, why do support murdering them in the womb?" This is a clearly inappropriate question in a Democrat primary debate, because clearly it reflects how Republicans view Democrats and not how Democrats view themselves. This being the case, it is not useful to Democrat primary voters to help select their general election candidate. During the general election, I'd like to see Hillary have to answer that question, just as I'm sure you libs out there would like to see the conservative candidate answer a question about gays in the military (some may see how their priorities are slightly off-kilter here, but if that's what their issue is...). To make a long story short, most conservatives are in consensus on the Republican position with regards to the gay issue, therefore the only purpose that is served by answering the question is to provide the democrat campaigns a sound bite to attempt to portray Republicans in a certain light that plays to the prejudices of democrat voters. It has absolutely no usefulness in helping Republican voters choose their candidate.
- Nathan Smith, Lehighton, PA

CNN should do be more accurate with their claims. However, I'm interested in what the candidate's answers to those questions were, not who the person asking the question knows. That's a distraction from the issue. I don't even care if the question came from the candidate's wife. If it's a good question, I want to know their answer. I also don't believe that what lefties did or didn't do on FOX is relevant. That's just another distraction from the candidate's answers to the questions.
- DM, Manchester

Kyle, if the questions are fair and interesting, does it matter who it comes from? Aren't all questions in these debates somewhat impartial? They all have to answer to some tailored, critical questions eventually. Who cares whether the general supports Hillary, I care about how the candidates handle the question. Do we have to disclose every little detail about ourselves before we ask a question nowadays? Does the UL now have to disclaim before every co-sponsored debate question, "Well, we're a conservative newspaper, so here's our right-leaning question..." In the end, it's the substance of the question that wins out; if the questions, however, were hostile against the Repubilcans (which they were not), then I think the outrage would be justified. Greg, I believe that's why the Democrats boycotted FOX. FOX allows those hostile questions to get through.
- Breyer S., Manchester, NH

If I was a Republican, I'd be afraid of questions too.
- William Vining, Raymond, NH

The Right is getting hyper-sensitive? Lefties wont show up on FOX News for no legitimate reason but when the Clintons plant questions everything is good. She has been caught red handed twice now...I wonder what the lefty outrage would be if this were reversed. It would be front page news in the Boston Globe and NY Times.
- Greg L, Hudson NH

Breyer no one is saying that the Republicans are mad about the questions being ask. The point of the editorial is that the questioners are being positioned as impartial. When there is a hidden agenda whether it is from the left or the right, it casts a shadow on the process and influences the electorate. In order to achieve a fair and balanced process, agendas need to be disclosed so people can make an informed decision. The fact that this guy was a gay general and asking a legitimate question based on his experience in the military, I was interested in his situation and his opinion on the subject. Then when I found out he was working for the Clinton and Kerry campaigns and probably lied about being a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, his standing and opinion dropped in my mind as it was obvious he had an alterior motive. It was Bush league, no pun intended.
- Kyle, Bedford

Is there a party-affiliation test now on who can aska question during a presidential debate? i thought the questions were judged by their quality, not by who asked them.
- Jason, Manchester, NH

I don't see why this is a big deal,. Afterall, has Andeson Cooper or any of the media crowd disclosed their biases? Is anyone really under the delusion that the media is unbiased and does not have an agenda? Of course not, so what's new?
- gvw, ny

I don't care if the questions were planted. Who ever wins the nomination will have to answer them sooner or later. What bothers me is the lack of quality questions that were chosen by CNN, not a big surprise I guess. Questions on Capitol Punishment, WWJD question, gays in the military, the rebel flag...Come on, there are more pressing issues in this country, I'm not saying that aren't important, but when you have a 2 hour debate with 10 candidates on the stage thats only about 12 minutes per candidate for questions, replies and rebuttle, not even enough time to seriously talk about one issue. Plus the front runners get more time and that is Bull-crap. What this country needs is a good exchange of ideas and just because candidates like Tancredo and Hunter, Biden(D) don't have the big $$ they all have good ideas on certain topics that are worth hearing, but they are not given the time.
- Bob S, Manchester, NH

Anderson Cooper, as usual, was clearly out of his depth. Beyond the poor vetting that allowed the planting of questions, however, is the obvious attempt, by the selection of question content, to showcase the Republican Party at its worst and reinforce the stereotype of the GOP as the party of the Confederate Flag, religion, guns, and a host of other emotional issues that are (at best) peripherally related to governing and the concerns of the broad electorate. Add the Youtube atmospherics, and It was little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to make us look like a bunch of neanderthals. Compare the CNN/Youtube circus to the FOX News sponsored debates, where real substance prevailed and the candidates were queried on real scenarios likely to confront the next president.
- bill olender, manchester, nh

This is all absurd. If Democrats want to ask Rebulican candidates questions they should and vice-versa. If you remember, the eventual president will serve both Dems and Repbulicans. Should CNN have made more clear that offical capacity that Kerr serves for Clinton - yes. But he is a registered independent and is entitled to ask a questions of any candidate. I have to say the partisan nature of American politics is so absurdly pathetic it makes me want to vomit.
- Mike Williams, Meredith

Are you trying to tell me that Republican questions weren't planted in the Democrat debates? Please. So let me see if I get this striaght. Republicans complain that Hillary Clinton had a Hillary-friendly question planted in one of her own small speeches, but Republicans can also complain if they don't get Republican-friendly questions of their own in a national debate? Was the CNN debate only supposed to loft softballs at the candidates? I watched the debates, and I thought that those questions were legitimate questions to ask. I honestly think the right is getting hyper-sensitve with these things; they were honest, fair questions!!! After all the super-secure George Bush speeches, the right forgot what a legitmite, challenging question is.
- Breyer S., Manchester, NH

How can the writer call what CNN did "bad journalism." It was blatant dishonesty. CNN is a sham an shill for the Democrats. As much as the left rails against FOX for the balance they bring against dishonest broadcasters like CNN or MSNBC, at least FOX is honest and open. Responsible Americans should boycott CNN, the Clinton News Network.
- GR Chase, Exeter, NH