I missed the youtube debate because I was working on a project at church with my beautiful wife. By the time we got home, I would have missed most of it (and by that time I had forgotten about it anyway).
In any case, there seems to be a bunch of hubbub about “plants” asking questions of the candidates. Michelle Malkin has the most on it (that I’ve found).
The gist of the story is that several of the questioners are leftists who publicly support democrats for President. One of them even seems to be on Hilliary Clinton’s staff in a minor capacity.
The implication is that CNN must have allowed those questions in intentionally…I mean, what are the odds of selecting that high a percentage of non-Republicans to ask questions at the Republican debate among the thousands of potential questions submitted?
I’m not dismissing the possibility out of hand…there is no doubt in my mind that they would love nothing more than to discredit whoever ends up being the Republican nominee in order to ensure a Democrat victory in November 08. But, in the age of bloggers and non-traditional media, would they really be so obtuse as to believe they wouldn’t be found out?
With that in mind, the possibility exists that it was much less sinister than intentional sabotage:
CNN (as with most of the MSM…FOX News included) is rife with leftists. Leftists were selecting questions that, in their opinion, were the most pertinent to the nation. Who better to ask questions that leftists would consider pertinent than other leftists? What questions would be more likely to seem like excellent, reasonable questions to the CNN editors than ones that they would have asked themselves?
Of course, this was the Republican primary so the questions that leftists would ask are irrelevant, but to CNN, they would seem like perfectly legitimate, pithy questions to present to the candidates.
In that light, it is entirely possible that the editors at CNN weren’t intentionally being diabolical…just egregiously incompetent in not making even a cursory check of the backgrounds of the questioners.
I’d say the chances are about 50/50 between the two possibilities. Intentional duplicity versus gross incompetence.
Either way, no surprises here.