Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread V

blatham wrote:

Here's a good piece on the manipulation of townhall type meetings...
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/14/town_hall/

There are at least two separate issues in play here, blatham. One is the planting of questions by opponents, often as members of groups that make a career of pushing their political agendas, which I think is what your article mostly talks about. It is difficult to deal with this problem because so many people have made a career of this by traveling around following the campaigns, and they sometimes become disruptive and hinder actual citizens trying to ask honest questions. People complained about it when Bush's handlers have apparently tried to keep disruptive people out of the way. The problem of Hillary planting questions by her chosen minions is entirely a different problem however.

Another Salon.com piece? And you comment on Fox?

McGentrix wrote:

Another Salon.com piece? And you comment on Fox?

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." Stephen Colbert

okie wrote:

blatham wrote:

Here's a good piece on the manipulation of townhall type meetings...
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/14/town_hall/

There are at least two separate issues in play here, blatham. One is the planting of questions by opponents, often as members of groups that make a career of pushing their political agendas, which I think is what your article mostly talks about. It is difficult to deal with this problem because so many people have made a career of this by traveling around following the campaigns, and they sometimes become disruptive and hinder actual citizens trying to ask honest questions. People complained about it when Bush's handlers have apparently tried to keep disruptive people out of the way. The problem of Hillary planting questions by her chosen minions is entirely a different problem however.

Different than Jeff Gannon?

The claim in the piece (and others who have been covering campaigns and speeches for decades support this) is that everyone utilizes both sorts of plants.

Yes, wasn't Jeff Gannon part of the press corp that participated in press conferences, where the president took questions from various reporters.

Gannon first attended a White House press conference on February 28, 2003, and there asked a question of then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. At this time Gannon had never had an article published, and was not associated with any kind of news organization (Talon News had not been created yet[5]). However, Gannon states that he was editor of his high school student newspaper, as proof of having some journalistic experience. [8]

Quote:

Gannon first attended a White House press conference on February 28, 2003, and there asked a question of then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. At this time Gannon had never had an article published, and was not associated with any kind of news organization (Talon News had not been created yet[5]). However, Gannon states that he was editor of his high school student newspaper, as proof of having some journalistic experience. [8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon

blatham wrote:

okie wrote:

blatham wrote:

Here's a good piece on the manipulation of townhall type meetings...
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/14/town_hall/

There are at least two separate issues in play here, blatham. One is the planting of questions by opponents, often as members of groups that make a career of pushing their political agendas, which I think is what your article mostly talks about. It is difficult to deal with this problem because so many people have made a career of this by traveling around following the campaigns, and they sometimes become disruptive and hinder actual citizens trying to ask honest questions. People complained about it when Bush's handlers have apparently tried to keep disruptive people out of the way. The problem of Hillary planting questions by her chosen minions is entirely a different problem however.

Different than Jeff Gannon?

The claim in the piece (and others who have been covering campaigns and speeches for decades support this) is that everyone utilizes both sorts of plants.

Yes, wasn't Jeff Gannon part of the press corp that participated in press conferences, where the president took questions from various reporters. Gannon generally would deliver more friendly questions, right? This is totally differrent than town meetings where citizens are supposed to have access to a politician.

As far as Gannon is concerned, I fail to see the big deal, as every president knows the reporters in the press corp that will either be friendly or more antagonistic to them, and it is typical of any president to prefer more friendly questions. When a liberal president picks questions from liberal reporters, I suppose that is not an issue then, but only was it an issue when Gannon gave friendly questions?

Bottom line, a Whitehouse press briefing or press conference is far different from a campaign town hall meeting.

Whether Gannon was "qualified" or not was not the subject here. It was comparing him at a press briefing to planted questions at a town meeting for candidates.

I think some of Gannon's questions were more intelligent than some asked by the "elite" reporters, in fact I have no experience but I could ask better ones than many of them.

Hey, I thought libs loved gay reporters? Since when is his lifestyle a negative to whether he can be a competent reporter? After all, we still have a gay congressmen that had a prostitution ring running out of his residence.

I am not a Gannon supporter necessarily, just pointing out that comparison of Hillary to Bush in regard to planted questions is not even comparable.

After all, we still have a gay congressmen that had a prostitution ring running out of his residence.

But, contrary to Blakeman's assertion, the House ethics committee absolved Frank of allegations that he was aware that Gobie was allegedly using Frank's D.C. apartment for prostitution. As the July 20, 1990, CSOC report concluded (Page 18):

Based upon information obtained under subpoena and sworn testimony, the Committee concludes that the weight of the evidence indicates that Representative Frank did not have either prior or concomitant knowledge of prostitution activities involving third parties alleged to have taken place in his apartment. ... Representative Frank's landlords ... submitted sworn testimony contradicting Mr. Gobie's assertion. ... The Committee, therefore, further concludes that no further action is warranted.

In fact, the report did not conclusively determine whether Gobie was even using Frank's apartment for "prostitution activities." The report repeatedly notes that Gobie's purported evidence that he had been conducting a prostitution ring collapsed under scrutiny. The committee noted that several of Gobie's claims were "repudiated by sworn testimony" from other individuals (Page 18). For example:

Not only have Representative Frank's landlords, Colonel and Mrs. James Daugherty, submitted sworn testimony contradicting Mr. Gobie's assertion, Mr. Gobie's assertion has also been rendered questionable by the fact that his claims of call-forwarding service were contradicted by the telephone company.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610050002

okie

Have you seen anyone here who you consider a liberal excuse this planted question? I've said it was dumb and that I don't like it. I've also pointed out that this administration is not free of guilt on the same thing.

You need to acknowledge when your side gets it wrong. Otherwise, you just look like a jerk or stupid.

okie wrote:

After all, we still have a gay congressmen that had a prostitution ring running out of his residence.

You're a serial prevaricator, a weaver of extraordinary tall tales and no one, not even the members of your own family, should trust you as far as they can throw you!

Where did I say it was proven that Frank knew the details of the operation? Get your facts straight. I find it hard to believe he didn't know, but that is why I said simply that there was a prostitution ring running out of his residence, not that he was personally operating it. I don't think it makes alot of difference whether he knew it or not, as it shows what kind of people he had living there and should have known it if he didn't. I think most people would know it if that was happening in their residence, don't you think?

In fact, the report did not conclusively determine whether Gobie was even using Frank's apartment for "prostitution activities." The report repeatedly notes that Gobie's purported evidence that he had been conducting a prostitution ring collapsed under scrutiny. The committee noted that several of Gobie's claims were "repudiated by sworn testimony" from other individuals (Page 18). For example:

Not only have Representative Frank's landlords, Colonel and Mrs. James Daugherty, submitted sworn testimony contradicting Mr. Gobie's assertion, Mr. Gobie's assertion has also been rendered questionable by the fact that his claims of call-forwarding service were contradicted by the telephone company.

Gobie had claimed that Frank allowed him to forward calls from his "escort service" to Frank's apartment.

Also, members of the committee repeatedly asked Gobie if he had "any knowledge whether any of the clients that you arranged to engage your escort service in fact were involved or participated in any sexual activity at the Congressman's residence" or whether Gobie himself engaged in such activities at Frank's apartment. In each instance, Gobie answered, "Not that I can recall at this time" (Page 7).

The ethics committee concluded "with Respect to the Credibility of Stephen L. Gobie" that:

While much has been said, written, and speculated with respect to Representative Barney Frank's relationship with Stephen L. Gobie, it is clear that most, if not all, of such media attention has been the product of assertions made by Mr. Gobie.

As has been discussed in detail in prior sections of this Report, the Committee went to great lengths in seeking testimony or other information relevant to the assertions. In numerous instances where an assertion made by Mr. Gobie (either publicly or during his Committee deposition) was investigated for accuracy, the assertion was contradicted by third-party sworn testimony or other evidence of Mr. Gobie himself.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610050002

okie

Have you seen anyone here who you consider a liberal excuse this planted question? I've said it was dumb and that I don't like it. I've also pointed out that this administration is not free of guilt on the same thing.

You need to acknowledge when your side gets it wrong. Otherwise, you just look like a jerk or stupid.

I want to see proof of ...

JTT wrote:

okie wrote:

After all, we still have a gay congressmen that had a prostitution ring running out of his residence.

You're a serial prevaricator, a weaver of extraordinary tall tales and no one, not even the members of your own family, should trust you as far as they can throw you!

Where did I say it was proven that Frank knew the details of the operation? Get your facts straight. I find it hard to believe he didn't know, but that is why I said simply that there was a prostitution ring running out of his residence, not that he was personally operating it. I don't think it makes alot of difference whether he knew it or not, as it shows what kind of people he had living there and should have known it if he didn't. I think most people would know it if that was happening in their residence, don't you think?

But forget Frank and Gannon. What Gannon was doing is totally different than a random citizen at a townhall meeting.