Comments on: CNN: American Public Can’t Be Trusted To Vote On Debate Questions

By: 1nomore

1nomore — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:09:00 +0000

I can relate to most of these posts. My recommend finger is active. I really resented the question to Kucinich regarding UFO’s, not because I don’t believe in such, but CNN knows that others don’t and were trying to paint Kucinich as a kook. And this after he had called for the impeachment of Cheney three times during the debate. That was their last question–to marginalize Kucinich and to control the subsequent coverage. Was anything mentioned about Kucinich’s call for impeachment? Not. Was anything mentioned about UFO’s? You know.

I like Ron Paul’s arguments regarding the war and the world bank and federal reserve, but his social programs would not be good for this country. Of course, Dennis would be president, and unlike today’s administration, Dennis would be boss. It might help get republican cross-overs. I’m not sure being an outsider is a bad thing in this political climate. I think the voters may be searching for “outsiders” in this next election. We may have many new outsiders in congress in 2009.

By: gencoimports

gencoimports — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:22:24 +0000

Well, if the Public can’t be trusted to choose intelligent questions, then neither can the clowns who work for CNN.

Let’s see during the debate we saw no questions about Health Care, no questions about Peak Oil/Alternative Energy and no questions about Iran. … But we did get a question about The Boston Red Sox and the Confederate Flag. What a joke.

By: katy

katy — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:38:44 +0000

Merlin @ 7:42 pm and 7:55 pm
pete @ 8:06 pm

i’m in agreement… with most others also…

pete’s point is especially important… and one i’ve been stressing:

OVERWHELMING DEMOCRATIC VOTER TURNOUT.

THEY CAN’T STEAL IT IF IT’S NOT CLOSE.
.

By: J

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:11:25 +0000

Paul/Kucinich

I brought it up because I think, with their views being so different from the status quo and from each other, they could balance out in a healthy manner and a greater number of people would ultimately feel and be represented by our government. That would surely be a breath of fresh air.

I do fear that pete is correct. As fragile as our democracy currently is, now may not be the time to make such a drastic change. Ironically, the time to attempt to implement policies that Kucinich and Paul advocate is when things are somewhat stable. The paradox is that that’s the time no one wants to change anything because they’re going so “well”.

One can still hope, though.

By: Gregor Samsa

Gregor Samsa — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:47:25 +0000

CNN senior vice president David Bohrman defended CNNâ€™s methods, arguing that the public canâ€™t be trusted to choose intelligent questions

Of course, CNN’s role -along with the rest the media- in bringing down the level of the national political discourse is ignored.

It’s much easier to place the blame on the “ignorant” public to distract from the celebrity-centered culture American media have created.

By: Sabyen91

Sabyen91 — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:06:03 +0000

What???? Paul/Kucinich??? Are you stoned?? Wait, never mind, you are a libertarian, of course you are.

By: had enough

had enough — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:35:02 +0000

re: Kucinich/Paul
But on the other hand, if this was the only way Kucinich could win, having Paul as a running mate, then I would support this only if Paul was VP. How much harm can a libertarian VP do with such a strong pro democracy type as Kucinich?

By: Paulv

Paulv — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:18:10 +0000

Here’s a question for all the candidates: If you could adopt a whale, what would you name him?

a) Kaimana b) Shanti c) Mr. Splashy Pants

By: had enough

had enough — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:13:32 +0000

KUCINICH / PAUL ticket i read about at C&Lâ€¦

intriguingâ€¦
Comment by katy

I like Ron Paul’s view on the Iraq war, but because he is a libertarian, I am hesitant to support him. I would think his domestic views would clash with Kucinich’s, therefore I am starting to wonder about Kucinich as to why he would possibly consider Paul.

By: Marie

Marie — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:06:03 +0000

These debates have become a circus. Once the primaries have passed, I will look forward to one on one debates.
Meanwhile, I agree that the moderators have been known to ask totally irrelevant, partisan, insignificant and unworthy questions of these candidates, so questions from the public are not much of a change.
I DO object, however, to the live audience with their applause, cheers and boos — they subtract from the time allotted and add nothing to the debate.

By: jmayo

jmayo — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:37:58 +0000

Part of the problem is the fact that technology is replacing our connection to the community. The Internet is a powerful tool, but it has contributed to a growing sense of individualism. Everyone sits at home, watching the debate on their computer screen and never even seeing the thousands of other people doing so. This Saturday, on the other hand, there will be 5,000 people at the Heartland Presidential Forum in Des Moines. There will be real people talking about real issues with the candidates. It will be a dialog, instead of the same old stump speeches we’ve all heard dozens of times. And the focus will be on community, the politics of connection instead of division, on standing up and standing together. To find out more and join the debate, visit http://www.movementvisionlab.org.

By: Mr.Bungle

Mr.Bungle — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:30:45 +0000

Listen to TP. They constantly censor posters on here but then get all up in arms over CNN Moderating their debate. I’m a supporter of TP and and a staunch Lib, but this is a little bit of a pot calling the kettle black.

By: pete

pete — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:06:45 +0000

Comment by katy â€” November 28, 2007 @ 7:31 pm

Personally, I think domestic issues are nearly irrelevant. If we wish to, at least, pay lip-service to sweeping changes in foreign policy; I don’t see anything short of a Democratic “super majority” getting the message across. I don’t see anything else doing much to restore us to an honorable place among the world’s nations.

Both Paul and Kucinich are “outsiders” and I don’t think the time is right for “outsiders”. Neither one can use the existing political machine to effect change. Though it pains me to say it, we need someone who will get partisan support. Paul and Kucinich don’t fit the bill.

By: Merlin

Merlin — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:55:54 +0000

On Kucinich for President
Kucinich, on the other hand, represents most of my positions. Sadly, he hasn’t a ghost of a chance of winning even the primary.

By: Merlin

Merlin — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:42:35 +0000

#40 Comment by katy â€” November 28, 2007 @ 7:31 pm

i was wondering what the folks here think about the KUCINICH / PAUL ticket i read about at C&Lâ€¦
intriguingâ€¦

Personally, I don’t want Paul as a Vice president (or President as “J” suggests at #27). He is right on the occupation of Iraq, but not much else in my book. His Libertarion positions on domestic issues are opposite from mine.

By: Merlin

Merlin — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:35:44 +0000

#37 Comment by Lefty Patriot â€” November 28, 2007 @ 6:36 pm

at best, we hate Bush because he hates America, and the war sucks because a deserter is trying to run it to prove heâ€™s a man to his daddy, whoâ€™s just another wimp.

Although these reasons are true they are not “best” in my view. We should “hate” BushCo because they are morally and ethically bankrupt. When your base philosophy and psychology is criminal, nothing you do is free from taint. Even those things that appear good, are in all probability, bad for some hidden reason.

The illegal, pre-emptive invasion, and current occupation of Iraq is the best example of this total moral and ethical bankruptcy. We simply have no right to be there. The waterboarding that BushCo approves of, is yet another glaring example of a soul less group of people who believe that the “their ends justifies their means” and the rest of the world be damned.

By: katy

katy — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:31:51 +0000

haven’t read any comments…

i perceive a bit of underhandedness by TP with the showing of that
kucinich video – a “subtle” way to get in the dig – with only a mention
of hillary’s planted question – an attempt to make it seem balanced?

i thought kucinich did a great job handling what was an obvious attempt
to try and make a fool of him… i’d be disappointed if TP would try also…
…

i’ll check back in on the answer(s), but i was wondering what the folks here think about the KUCINICH / PAUL ticket i read about at C&L…

intriguing…

By: wijg

wijg — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:22:23 +0000

cnn, give me a break, they have as much credibility as fox. It’s too bad, they used to be the best.

By: danielkells

danielkells — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:04:49 +0000

I feel like Maria Luisa has continually gotten a pass. Yes, CNN was foolish to have her ask the diamonds/pearls question, but it was her question to begin with, and I think that shouldn’t be glossed over simply to make a point about stupid questions stronger. To Ms. Luisa, and others attending debates in the future, keep the stupid questions to yourself. (And for the record, I don’t think a question about UFOs is stupid, but diamonds/pearls, boxers/briefs, etc. certainly are.)

By: Lefty Patriot

Lefty Patriot — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:36:49 +0000

At worst, we simply hate Bush because we know that its cool to and because the war sucks.

Comment by J â€” November 28, 2007 @ 6:18 pm

at best, we hate Bush because he hates America, and the war sucks because a deserter is trying to run it to prove he’s a man to his daddy, who’s just another wimp.