That's a good wolfy. Good boy. Now roll over. Beg. Play dead. Good boy.
I have a full write up of this as well. Please link to me- I'll link to you.
THANKS for being a GREAT AMERICAN, by not letting this go!!!!!!!!!!
http://pcexposed.blogspot.com
The MeCha eagle isn't holding a 'machete-like weapon', it (he?) is holding an Aztec weapon: a wooden club studded with obsidian (i.e., razor-sharp) flakes.
Perhaps by "undecided voter" what CNN meant was, they hadn't decided if they were going to vote by absentee ballot or by sauntering down to the polling place.
Or perhaps they just hadn't decided how many times they were going to vote yet.
So... people involved in the Democratic Party go to Democratic Party debates?
Shocking. Great job with the investigative journalism, genius.
"So... people involved in the Democratic Party go to Democratic Party debates? Shocking. Great job with the investigative journalism, genius."
You missed the point. You need to read the fine print because the point is, there's NOTHING "ordinary" or "undecided" about them! If they are those things, then I'm a Pinko Libertarian.
Before you go too far, the Harry Reid monkey protest was pro-war.
the point is, there's NOTHING "ordinary" or "undecided" about them! If they are those things, then I'm a Pinko Libertarian.
It's a Democratic Party debate, you moron. They have already "decided" to vote for a "Democrat." They are trying to pick "which one" to vote for.
This is the stupidest post ever.
It's a Democratic Party debate, you moron. They have already "decided" to vote for a "Democrat."
Wolf Blitzer announced them as "undecided voters" dipshit. CNN lied and got caught. If Fox News had done that for a Republican debate, you'd be going on and on about "faux news/fox noise/whatever the latest idiotic term is" misleading the American people.
I would have thought that dems would be the most upset by these revelations. It's THEIR candidates getting screwed by CNN. They are letting THEIR candidates slide right through the primaries facing only softball questions. Is that what you guys really want from your candidates?
sad.
Blitzer IDd them as voters likely to vote in the Nevada caucus. That makes them Democrats. Undecided Democrats. And yes, Democrats can be ordinary people. There are millions of them all over the place.
And the Kos quote you provided a link to related to CNN's failure to identify Carville as a Clinton supporter, a different issue altogether.
You're just wrong to make any fuss about this.
You're just wrong to make any fuss about this.
So you're cool with the Jeff Gannon/Talon News thing softball questions then right?
Does anyone believe these are Joe Average Democrats? Seriously.
They are all part of the "System" the Democrats have constructed. They would never, accidental or deliberately, embarrass Hillary with a tough question on National TV, even though they may prefer to vote for someone else.
This wasn't about making Hillary look good, but making sure no one let her make herself look bad, again.
Someone brought up Gannon. I find that funny.
Assume for the moment Gannon was what the Lefties claimed. The scale of what Gannon supposedly did pales in comparison to this. And the right hasn't even gotten close to level of outrage the Left worked themselves into over Gannon.
But somehow we're not entitled to be outraged over this at all. How does that work? Oh, yeah. The ever flexible Lefty rulebook.
They loved to run the Jeff Gannon thing into the ground, as if it were something actually important or eventful.
Jeff Gannon, CNN, Jeff Gannon, CNN.
The comparison is just a little bit lopsided. Yet it was a source of huge liberal orgasm for years.
Blitzer announced they were undecided voters.
They weren't.
I kind of figured this would go over the flat heads of most liberals.
They can't see when they're being propagadized to save their lives. I mean, Time, Newsweek? Olbermann?
They drink up the lies like Ted Kennedy drinks Glenlivet.
>Before you go too far, the Harry Reid monkey protest was pro-war.
W.C. Varones
Correct. Suzanne Jackson was there protesting the folks protesting with the monkey.
How is it a scandal that people asking questions of candidates who are competing to _represent the Democratic party_ in the general election, all happen to align with or be associated with that party?
>Blitzer announced they were undecided voters.
>
>
Ff this was misleading and they were not undecided - which of the Dem candidates had each of the questioners decided to vote for in the primary?
It isn't that they are Democrats.
It's that their careers are either with the Democratic Party or need a good Relationship with the Democratic Party.
They basically could be counted upon to softball Hillary because their careers depended on it.
Just a note to keep the facts straight. This statement about the UNLV student needs to be corrected if you care about accuracy ... "In other words, she's not even eligible to vote, unless the Democrats changed the rules when I wasn't looking."
Maria Parra-Sandoval was sworn in as U.S. a citizen in Las Vegas by Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt in March 2006.
The deception is the label "undecided voter". There is no disclaimer that all present in the audience were democrats. That the questions were pre-cleared and that activists were asking questions. What are the democrats hoping to gain with these dog and pony infomercials? They are deluding themselves instead of toughening themselves and their arguments.
The republicans won't be so accommodating. This may well turn out like 1972 all over again. An unpopular war, an unpopular president and a media acting as the house organ of the democratic party, an unbeatable convergence of events on their side. Giddy with anticipated victory....sorry I must have been asleep throughout the McGovern Administration. And more amazing none of the democrats running hold a candle to George McGovern.
They were undecided democratic voters. Undecided which democratic candidate they were going to vote for in the primary.
you're fishing here.
WJB: post updated accordingly.
You are surprised that you go to a democratic primary debate and find DEMOCRATS in the audience? God forbid that the democrats would want to choose their candidate. I wonder if we look at the republican debates if there will be republican voters in the audience. As it is required in many states that voters in a primary be of that particular primary, it makes SENSE that democrats would care more about choosing their nominee for president, duh. Secondly, your analysis is totally based on correlation. Correlation does not prove causation (logical fallacy, look it up if it's unfamiliar). There is not any direct evidence that people were purposefully planted.
I'm sure Democratic pundits would have no problem with Fox News announcing random questioners as "ordinary folks" who later turned out to be:
* A politically-connected evangelical minister who is later revealed as a major fundraiser for Fred Thompson
* An investment banker whose income for 2006 exceeded $25 million
* A U.S. Marine, just returned from Iraq, who believes that the fight against Islamofascism can and must be won
* A "small businessman" who also happens to be a full-time public relations director for the state GOP
* A district attorney who is also an official with the Heritage Foundation
* A conservative blogger and former speech-writer for Ronald Reagan
Now that we know there were some "plants" in the audience at Thursday's disastrous Las Vegas debate, we need to know just WHO it was who planted the "jeering" crowd there. This was totally unprecedented for a debate, and, if I had done such a thing at a candidate event, much less a debate, I'd have been escorted outside, even arrested if I protested.
THAT'S the story reporters should be on.
The odds of all 6 being randomly chosen and happening to be Dem Party Insiders is pretty unlikely. I've done the math. Even if half the audience Worked for or Directly With the Democrats, the odds would have been 1 in 64. If 1 in 10 were party Insiders, the odds go to 1 in a million.
Although, its not impossible the entire audience were Democratic Party Insiders. In which case CNN didn't deal Hillary are good hand, but instead someone stacked the entire deck.
What would be more telling is the comparison of the other Democratic candidates questioners. As well as a comparison to Republican debates with similar formats that CNN hosted.
Wish I had the time/skills to check that myself.
There were two people named Jackson who asked questions: Catherine and Jeannie.
Catherine is the one from the LVRJ article.
Jeannie is the one who left the comments on the sites.
I just made a video about this, but I'll have to update it with the information on Bagley and Ambriz.
A Democratic Party bigwig
An antiwar activist
A Union official
An Islamic leader
A Harry Reid staffer
A radical Chicano separatist
In other words... a representative sample of the (D)emocrat party.
OK
On the Jackson issue. There are indeed to Jacksons at the debate.
Catherine Jackson is the son of the 3 tour marine who was part of the anti-war/pro Reid counter protest per the LVRJ
------
Down the block, a similarly sized group of counter-demonstrators gathered. The local anti-war activists and veterans said they supported Reid.
"My son was in Iraq three times," said Catherine Jackson of Las Vegas. "I thank God he's home now. Enough is enough. We need to bring our troops home."
==========
The main group were the war supporters protesting Mr Reid's position the war was lost.
Jeannie Jackson also has a son in Iraq and she talked about the military/contractor pay disparity issue.
Suzanne Jackson some have referred to did not exist and is a mashup of putting together the names of Suzanne Malveaux with the Jackson name, a simple error.
Thers
The point being expressed is that in multiple cases audience participants were described in manners to obscure their level of involvement to draw a fair conclusion of their potential agendas.
In particular Ms Spencer is confirmed as being a State Party level staffer. Now granted she is not on the list of the current State Party staff positions.
In her case the fact she may or may not be current is moot. In all likely hood it is probably prohibited by the ground rules of the debate to have current or former state level staffers participate ethically in the debate without being so identified. The same would apply for staff members of the campaigns.
Wolf gets his talking points faxed from Howard, at the same time Sulzberger does..
Thanks for exposing this sham "Debate."
Now we know why the Democratic candidates refused a debate that would have been televised on Fox - they wouldn't have had control over who the moderator would be or what questions the moderator asked, nor control over who in the audience would get to ask questions, nor over what questions they would ask. They were afraid of having to answer a potentially tough question from a real undecided voter! Nothing like controlling the entire debate down to every little detail in order to avoid having the mask slip from any of their candidates' faces and having someone be embarrassed. But now that they've been caught...
Standard Red-Rulebook lesson #1 is control the media and you control the proletariat.
My assumption, having watched the debate, was that by "undecided" they meant "hillary or obama", not "republican or democrat".
As for the softballs, I agree. But you spineless, unamerican fucks have no right to talk, since they were damned tough questions compared to anything anybody from Fox has ever said to a prominent Republican.
Your hypocrisies are overwhelming.
Now please go kill yourselves, you awful, un-American wimps. (And I know for a fact that the people on this blog are a bunch of fat, loser keyboard warriors, afraid to go to Afghanistan because in your heart you know you are all full of shit.)
Ron Paul '08.
Fuck you all.
this is a scandal like I'm the king of Norway. Nice try though! LOL!
Kevin sez: "you spineless, unamerican fucks have no right to talk, since they were damned tough questions"
"Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?"
Yeah, that's one SERIOUSLY tough question. I'm quaking in my bunny slippers.
Kevin,
You said, "since they were damned tough questions compared to anything anybody from Fox has ever said to a prominent Republican."
I would like to point out to you the obvious hypocrisy you seem to emmerse yourself with joy in.
The lying low life scum sucking cowards that represent the Democrat party refused to appear on the FOX News network. The cowards know that they would have to face an actual question that would make sense, and not one that the candidates themselves cherry picked like Hilliery does, diamonds or pearls.
All Republicans have dared face the lieberal biased networks.. CNN MSNBC et al.... Brave men all of them. All 1,000 more qualified than the cowards the lieberals put up.
Now, go join al Qaeda, you know you want to.
Its CNN what do you expect
This is a great site. Thank you for your information. I THANK YOU I SALUTE YOU IT,S A AMZING SITE.
Sorry Spider, no fishing going on here. I specifically remember this Black lady acting like she was undecided, and me saying to myself "yeah right". Then at the end, she said "I think I've made up my mind, I like Obama". No surprise. But the joke is on her, Obama is a mulatto.
Commenting by HaloScan
