Like That Could Happen

I will never forget that breathtaking moment when, in the CNN/YouTube debate earlier this fall, the woman from Ohio held up a picture and said, "Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, this is a human fetus. Given a few more months, it will be a baby you could hold in your arms. You all say you're 'for the children.' I would ask you to look America in the eye and tell us how you can support laws to end this life. Thank you."

They were momentarily nonplussed, then awkwardly struggled to answer, to regain lost high ground. One of them, John Edwards I think, finally criticizing the woman for being "manipulative," using "hot images" and indulging in "the politics of personal destruction." The woman then stood in the audience for her follow up. "I beg your pardon, but the literal politics of personal destruction--of destroying a person--is what you stand for."

Oh, I wish I weren't about to say, "Wait, that didn't happen." For of course it did not. Who of our media masters would allow a question so piercing on such a painful and politically incorrect subject?

I thought of this the other night when citizens who turned out to be partisans for Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards asked the Republicans, in debate, would Jesus support the death penalty, do you believe every word of the Bible, and what does the Confederate flag mean to you?

Republicans, myself included, are outraged by what happened at the debate the other night. To us, this reaches close to the level of Rathergate. I'm not quite sure what the fallout will be. RedState is trying to organize some kind of civil action against CNN, but I don't see how that works.

I know there are those out there who say, "Well look at the immigration question that caused Hillary so many problems?" But to us, that's like the old saw the newspapers use when being accused of bias. The whole right side of the political spectrum considers them in the hole for the Democrats, and a few radical leftist activists complain because the MSM doesn't call Bush "the genocidal maniac that we all know he is". Journalists claim this is evidence that both sides are treated equally.

During the last election cycle CBS tried to pass forged documents by Democrat activists off as "evidence" that Bush didn't meet his military reserve commitment during Vietnam. Yet their candidate, John Kerry, to this day has not released his military records that would show he was given an "Other Than Honorable" discharge from the military in the 1970's. Other examples abound of the media bringing their natural left of center bias to political reporting.

This time around, apparently, it will only get worse. There have been three, four, or five examples of corruption in the Clinton fund raising effort. Enough corruption, I contend, to end any Republican's campaign. Yet Hillary remains the front runner. It looks like 1996 all over again, when Clinton was selling state secrets to the Chinese in exchange for campaign contributions. As Bob Dole then asked plaintively, "Where is the outrage?"

Apparently when in concerns the MSM and Democrats, there can't be any.

Update: And it just keeps on coming! Jeez...

Update 2: So let me get this straight... in the Democrat YouTube debates, the "undecided questioners" are Democratic activists and in the Republican YouTube debates, the "undecided questioners" are Democratic activists.

Well, at least they're consistent.

Update 3: John Fund adds (in an email to Glenn Reynolds):

It seems more examples are being uprooted with each passing day. Almost a third of the questioners seem to have some ties to Democratic causes or candidates. Another questioner worked with Democratic Senator Dick Durbin's staff. A former intern with Democratic Rep. Jane Harman asked a question about farm subsidies. A questioner who purported to be a Ron Paul supporter turns out to be a Bill Richardson volunteer. David McMillan, a TV writer from Los Angeles, turns out to have several paens to John Edwards on his YouTube page and has attended Barack Obama fundraisers.

Given CNN's professed goal to have "ordinary Americans" ask questions at their GOP debate, how likely is that it was purely by accident that so many of the videos CNN selected for use were not just from partisans, but people actively hostile to the GOP's messages and candidates?