Planting political questions

Remove all ads!

The recent revelation that Hillary's campaign has been planting questions in public forums has got me thinking. The right wing half of the blogosphere is hoping mad about it. Myself, while being a Hillary despiser, I'm not sure I really care. I'm sure things like this have been going on since elections were created. Isn't the answer to the question more important than who asked the question? Sure the question is bound to be a softball and the answer will be well rehearsed, but if I agree with the answer (or think it is crap) I fail to see the outrage.

Now if anything I'm more concerned about

The part I don't like about this is the screening and tickets being issued. I believe we have a right to hear the answers to questions the candidates don't want to talk about. As I think about it, I think it should be mandatory that a candidate faces a panel full of questions written by his/her opponent. I think that would tell us a hell of a lot more about both candidates than the puffery we currently get. Of course, that is why it will never happen.

 

The right wing had Jeff Gannon who did just that, and more. It's American political show business 101 it seems.

I don't even think the right wing blogosphere is hypocritical about it. Rather, they probably don't give a damn at all, as long as the right team wins and the other team looks bad. It's no holds barred competitive - like professional football of basketball. I even heard they have provocation coaches in the NBA. And that highly competitive mentality probably is just American and not limited to the right at all. It's about winning and that's about it. Coupled with coupled with real ideological partisanship it leads to these sorts of stunts, and more.

As for screening, who could forget of The Daily Show's Samantha Bee and her immoral yoda ...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/18738/1/The_Daily_Show_Luntz.wmv

 

Yes. It is an American only phenomenon. I has never been done anywhere else. Ever. Especially not in Germany. Really.

Now to answer the question, the screening and planting is unfortunate. I too would like to have a "public" forum really be public and have an authentic question and answer period with an unfiltered audience. As for the questions coming from the opponents, that is fine, as long as it is not limited to this. The public should have an honest say.

Finally, I agree that it is not a Clinton only (or Dem only) thing. The right wing blogosphere can go crazy about it all they want. They are kidding themselves if they think that Mrs. Bill is the only one doing it.

 

Jack,

Well, it's what my malicious mind suggests to me I observe, so taking into account my renowned bias that point may well be utterly false bordering to lying. We have our share of spin and polemics. But what I can say with great certainty based on my own experiences is that we don't have that here to that extent, not even close, which is by the way the only point I had to make

Maybe it's best put with the phrase 'general tempo'. Where German election campaigns are hectic, America's are frenetic, super sized. We have less flags, too.

 

Well, I haven't seen that many "town hall meeting" debates in European politics to begin with - to the degree that there are debates, they are usually moderated by a media figure. The standard is that parties just get some a fixed amount of time for a videoclip in which their speaker says what they want to do and, for the less popular ones, who they are, and then the bigger ones go to a debate or two. I'd agree with Rags on two things - one, that politics in most European countries (including Germany, from what I've seen of it) are a bit less, well, frenzied than what I hear about the US.

The second is that they do have less flags. Practically the only time I've seen the black, red & gold en masse was around the 2006 football cup. It could have been a Bremen-only thing, but I didn't see that many flags even when I was elsewhere.

However, I like the idea of town hall meetings and I wish there was more of it. The idea of screening the audience or planting "trippers" in the opponent's meeting are antithetical to the idea and I can not support them. I want the candidates to have to answer tough questions, sure - but I do not appreciate some political shill deciding the waste everyone's time and energy grilling the candidate on some overblown issue or trying to slime him/her in front of everyone.

 

I agree with Snook on both counts.

Planted questions - big deal. As long as it's a legitimate question, what does it matter who asked it (or whether there were hidden motives for doing so).

Come to think of it, I have exactly the same comment regarding answers toi questions the candidates don't want to talk about.

 

Heretics!

 

What?

 

Yumm, (faux) self-depreciation with a whiff of sarcasm.

 

I for one fully understand the outrage. Isn't it wasting everybody's time if you make sure you are only asked the question you want to answer? Not that politicians are prone to giving a direct answer to questions they don't like, but still.

Then there's only the problem with he vast amount of questions both sides don't really want to discuss .

We've just finished our election here in Denmark, and IMHO it was just one big farce. None of the candidates really wanted to discuss anything...

If anything I think a panel of "independent" experts on fields such as environment, economics, etc. would be far better.

 

I stand with that it apparently seems to be a professional PR SOP (yes, most popular in the US, as the US are the wizards of that game), if this is any indication:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003677593

It's about message control. The Spinmeisters are just getting more professional. Get used to it. It won't go away because they will put it on their 'lesson's learned' sheets, and then on their checklists, and the next generation of now junior Spinmeisters will then do it by 'the book'.

 

Similarly, we have this.

 

I know many readers think Michelle Malkin is evil, but she has a great post today.

Basically I got my wish. Last night the Republican's had a debate sponsored by CNN and YouTube. Of course CNN and YouTube didn't do any due diligence to make sure the video makers were who they said they were and it is now turning out that there were Democrat supporters that were selected to ask the questions.

Now, I wish I had watched the debate. It must have been great

 

typical for cnn. they have one show i can watch, glen beck, everything else leans way to far to the left.

some may think michelle malkin is evil but none can deny she is HOT!!

 

I've never heard of the chick before, but after Googling it... yeah, I'd slip it quick one.

Still not got a clue who she is though.

On topic though.. I can't be arsed to read all the posts as this doesn't particularly interest me.. planted questions will happen ALL the time. It just ensures that parties get their policies across through using the right questions.

 

While it stinks from the perspective of "conflict of interest" regarding those asking the questions, if the questions themselves are valid for the debate, then I don't really have a problem with them being asked. Unfortunately, the "conflict of interest" seems to have invalidated the debate in the news.

Now to the questions (paraphrasing):
1. Will you let gays serve openly in the military?
2. Will you prosecute abortionists and abortionees if abortion is made illegal?

I don't think either of these questions merited being in the debate in the first place. CNN picked these knowing that they are somewhat incendiary and would likely cast the republican candidates in a bad (or worse, waffling) light.

Why do I not think they merited being included in the debate:

Question 1 involves a small (microscopic) portion of the population. The questions asked in the debate should have some relevance to the general population, so a larger number of people can get a feeling for the positions of the candidates. To ask questions that cater to an incredibly small (and generally anti-Republican) portion of the population is a waste.

Question 2 is pointless because how likely is it that abortion will be made illegal? Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it would merely mean that the states would then legislate the legality of abortion. If it was found to be illegal in a state, then that state would determine if abortionists and those that use there services would be prosecuted. The president has no power over the ability of individual states to legislate and enforce their laws.

So the process stunk, because now no one is talking about the debate, only the plants. The questions stunk because neither of them has much relevance to the presidential election.

 

She's nothing more than another right-wing operative, just as James Carvell is for the left. The difference is that the right tends to worship their media operatives and turn them into celebraties, while the left uses them as targets and examples of right-wing "hate mongering," while ignoring their own operatives. See, the right gets an empty-headed babe and the left gets a guy who looks like the face on an Alienware computer. So who wins?

 

chandos, quit falling into the left wing trap of calling anyone who disagrees with you brain dead or emptyheaded. have you ever perused her commentaries or books or watched her on tv? she is a very well spoken & obviously intelligent woman. just because she doesnt endorse your leftist views doesnt make her a "empty headed babe" as you called her.

 

I read the postings that TGS was so taken with, and it was the same old ranting, empty-headed, nonsense that can be heard on a lot of talk AM radio. Sorry, if my "left-wing" leanings offend you so much, but it's still a free country -- at this point.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but it's not so "obvious" to me.

 

Jack Funk,

I agree that the second question was pointless, but I strongly disagree with Question 1 being pointless.

First, depending on the source you reference, gays represent between 3% and 5% of the population. While that is certainly a minority, I'd hardly call it "microscopic" as you do. If we go by those percentages, there are between 9 million and 15 million gay people in the US.

Secondly, the arguement of whether or not gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military was (ironically) not really about the gays. It was about the 97% of straight guys in the military who might suffer from a decrease in morale knowing that there were gays in the unit. To put it another way, it wasn't the 3%-5% of gays who had an issue with gays in the military, it was the 95%-97% of straight people - so it's not a microscopic portion of the population, but rather the overwhelming majority that this question effects.