CNN/YouTube Questioner Kicked Romney 'off my property'

It was bad enough that CNN handed the microphone over to an official, Gen. Kerr of a Hillary Clinton campaign committee to conduct an extended rebuttal of Republican candidates.

But bloggers are continuing to dig in to and are exposing some pretty damning evidence that CNN slanted the questioning via activist proxies. A setting that was supposed to be about undecided Republicans (a primary debate) getting to know the candidates turned out to be a litany of gotcha videos from liberal activists.

Some problems were apparent at the start. For instance, CNN declared that it had selected twenty-four "undecided Republican voters" at the University of Tampa. That was an eye-roller. I went to the University of Tampa, and I think you would be hard pressed to even find twenty-four Republicans there, unless you brought in the ROTC department.

My suspicions were quickly confirmed. One of those "Republicans" was not pleased with any of the candidates but found common ground with that great conservative thinker John Edwards. I think this is where John Stossel might cry "give me a break". She was one of the folks whom CNN also used for that gee-wiz happiness meter shown after the debate to demonstrate what Republican voters thought of the candidates [cough].

Another questioner named Mark Strauss of Iowa asked Ron Paul to run as an Independent. Wasn't it a little bit of a tip off to CNN producers that Strauss is not interested in Republican issues when his question was nothing more than an encouragement for a candidate to leave the party?

But clearly, CNN likes the idea of a Republican candidate taking Republican voters to the Independent block for the general election. In case you missed it, Nader did this to Gore and Gore lost. Perot did it to Bush, Sr. and Bush lost. Wonder what CNN might have had in mind by promoting this idea at the debate and selecting it out of thousands of questions that actually would have mattered to Republicans?

Strauss was not randomly chosen as CNN presented a previous video of his at the Democrats' debate. There is a history between him and CNN. So the "we did not know" defense shouldn't play here any more than it does in the case of Gen. Kerr who had been on CNN previously.

Strauss's website is easy enough to find. He writes there:

In October 2006, Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts came to my door in Iowa, yes, at my house. He was there walking up and down the street with Robby Smith campaigning with him. Man, did he pick the wrong door. What is the Governor of MA doing in IA, with a young rookie running for state house? He is a Republican first-American second...hopefully not our next "decider".
Strauss uses the term "decider" as a pejorative against Republican President George Bush and other Republicans throughout his website.

Mitt asked me what I woud [sic] do in Iraq. I proceeded to explain how we need to get not only the effected nations in the region involved, but strike meaningful discussion and secure true resilution [sic] with the world thru the U.N.. Mitt laughed and called the U.N. a joke. This is the man that wants to be President. Don't we already have a decider in office that considers the other world leaders a joke? I then said "I have no use for you, get off my property", and I closed the door. This guy cannot be elected into office in 08.
Wow! His fair minded openness to Republican candidates is just oozing off the page.

As mentioned previously, Strauss had a question for the Democrats at their debate. He asked a reasonable straight forward question about healthcare for seniors.

To the Republicans, he brags about kicking one off his lawn and asked another to leave the Party. And in doing so is encouraging a situation that would take Republican votes in the general election.

I cannot imagine a much more unfair venue than the debate-hoodwink that CNN launched on the Republican Party. Every Republican candidate should make sure it is the last time CNN gets a shot at such cheap tactics.

Ray Robison is proprietor of Ray Robison: Pointing out the Obvious to the Oblivious.
It was bad enough that CNN handed the microphone over to an official, Gen. Kerr of a Hillary Clinton campaign committee to conduct an extended rebuttal of Republican candidates.

But bloggers are continuing to dig in to and are exposing some pretty damning evidence that CNN slanted the questioning via activist proxies. A setting that was supposed to be about undecided Republicans (a primary debate) getting to know the candidates turned out to be a litany of gotcha videos from liberal activists.

Some problems were apparent at the start. For instance, CNN declared that it had selected twenty-four "undecided Republican voters" at the University of Tampa. That was an eye-roller. I went to the University of Tampa, and I think you would be hard pressed to even find twenty-four Republicans there, unless you brought in the ROTC department.

My suspicions were quickly confirmed. One of those "Republicans" was not pleased with any of the candidates but found common ground with that great conservative thinker John Edwards. I think this is where John Stossel might cry "give me a break". She was one of the folks whom CNN also used for that gee-wiz happiness meter shown after the debate to demonstrate what Republican voters thought of the candidates [cough].

Another questioner named Mark Strauss of Iowa asked Ron Paul to run as an Independent. Wasn't it a little bit of a tip off to CNN producers that Strauss is not interested in Republican issues when his question was nothing more than an encouragement for a candidate to leave the party?

But clearly, CNN likes the idea of a Republican candidate taking Republican voters to the Independent block for the general election. In case you missed it, Nader did this to Gore and Gore lost. Perot did it to Bush, Sr. and Bush lost. Wonder what CNN might have had in mind by promoting this idea at the debate and selecting it out of thousands of questions that actually would have mattered to Republicans?

Strauss was not randomly chosen as CNN presented a previous video of his at the Democrats' debate. There is a history between him and CNN. So the "we did not know" defense shouldn't play here any more than it does in the case of Gen. Kerr who had been on CNN previously.

Strauss's website is easy enough to find. He writes there:

In October 2006, Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts came to my door in Iowa, yes, at my house. He was there walking up and down the street with Robby Smith campaigning with him. Man, did he pick the wrong door. What is the Governor of MA doing in IA, with a young rookie running for state house? He is a Republican first-American second...hopefully not our next "decider".
Strauss uses the term "decider" as a pejorative against Republican President George Bush and other Republicans throughout his website.

Mitt asked me what I woud [sic] do in Iraq. I proceeded to explain how we need to get not only the effected nations in the region involved, but strike meaningful discussion and secure true resilution [sic] with the world thru the U.N.. Mitt laughed and called the U.N. a joke. This is the man that wants to be President. Don't we already have a decider in office that considers the other world leaders a joke? I then said "I have no use for you, get off my property", and I closed the door. This guy cannot be elected into office in 08.
Wow! His fair minded openness to Republican candidates is just oozing off the page.

As mentioned previously, Strauss had a question for the Democrats at their debate. He asked a reasonable straight forward question about healthcare for seniors.

To the Republicans, he brags about kicking one off his lawn and asked another to leave the Party. And in doing so is encouraging a situation that would take Republican votes in the general election.

I cannot imagine a much more unfair venue than the debate-hoodwink that CNN launched on the Republican Party. Every Republican candidate should make sure it is the last time CNN gets a shot at such cheap tactics.

Ray Robison is proprietor of Ray Robison: Pointing out the Obvious to the Oblivious.