Or, "Don't Russert me, Bro!"
I haven't seen much on this in my blogroll, so I thought I'd present a link to a site that covers the highlights of the latest scandalous debate hosted by a LIBERAL media outlet-- Hat-tip to Russert nonetheless for asking tough questions the last time around. Not every liberal media talking-head is in the tank for Party Affiliation it seems. But after Russert, I guess Dems needed some softballs. Way to go Wolfe!
All six of CNN's "undecided voters" were Democratic operatives
What I find extremely amusing about all this is these candidates abject fear of FOX news. These contenders all want to lead the nation, yet are afraid of being asked tough, honest questions. They want to decide foreign and domestic policy but can't face the criticism they might receive if they appear on a FOX sponsored debate. What a bunch of cowards, these Democrat pretenders!
The accusation is that because one person presumably worked for the Dems, one was an anti-war activist, one was a pro-immigration activist, etc, that somehow their questions were softball questions - is that the gist?
Why would one think that a antiwar activist asking questions about why the Dems haven't worked harder to stop the war is a softball question (I don't know what question he/she asked, I'm just guessing)?
This is not to counter your basic assumption (elected dems are often cowards) but rather just trying to understand what the assertion is here - that the questions were plants? Were softball questions?
Is the implication that if you are a union worker, an antiwar activist, a Muslim activist, etc, that your questions are not valid or don't represent some portion of US citizenry? I'm not getting what the scandal is here. These people ARE average citizens, seems to me.
I mean, if I discovered a pro-lifer asking a question of a candidate (Republican or Dem), I wouldn't make the assumption that they weren't average citizens with legitimate questions.
So, what's the beef here? Just an honest question.