... now planted questions.


Hillary Clinton stopped at a bio-diesel plant in Newton, Iowa earlier this week to see alternative fuels in the making and drive home the week's campaign theme of her energy plan. After a tour, the candidate took questions from the crowd.

She called on a young woman. "As a young person," said the well-spoken Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, "I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?"

"Well, you should be worried," Clinton replied. "You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it's usually young people that ask me about global warming."

There's a good reason for that, too. The question was a plant (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/plants.html), totally rigged in advance, like a late-night infomercial. Just before the public forum a Clinton staffer had chosen the young woman, a student at Grinnell College, and asked her to ask that specific question.

Trouble is, the young woman told others and today her account showed up on the Grinnell website, including a mention that the staffer signaled Clinton who to call on.

Tonight, as other campaigns chuckled and hypocritically spread the news far and wide, a Clinton campaign spokesman admitted sheepishly, "On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Senator Clinton's energy plan at a forum. However, Senator Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again.”

But it may not have been the first time. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310417,00.html)


In a telephone interview Saturday, Geoffrey Mitchell, 32, said he was approached by Clinton campaign worker Chris Hayler to ask a question about how she was standing up to President Bush on the question of funding the Iraq war and a troop withdrawal timeline.

The encounter happened before an event hosted by Iowa State Sen. Gene Frais on a farm outside Fort Madison, Iowa.

Clinton's Iowa campaign confirmed that one of its staff discussed questions with Mitchell before her April 2 event, but denied attempting to plant a pro-Clinton question.

Mo Elliethee, spokesman for Clinton's campaign in Iowa, told FOX News that Hayler and Mitchell "had a previous relationship" and that a discussion about Clinton arose out of a normal conversation between two people who knew each other well.

"They had a previous relationship and were talking before the event and the topic of the senator's position on Iraq came up and Geoffrey said he had some questions," Elliethee said. "Chris suggested Geoffrey ask a question."

Mitchell, however, said that he and Hayler did not know each other personally before the event.

"I had no previous relationship with him," said Mitchell. "I knew his name and by name only as someone who worked for Senator Evan Bayh. But we didn't know each other and I had never met him before this event."

Mitchell said the Clinton campaign wanted to contrast Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama who had recently said the president would probably prevail in the Iraq funding battle with Congress.

Mithell said he refused to ask the question.

"I told Chris I had other issues I wanted to raise with Senator Clinton," Mitchell said.

Asked what those were, Mitchell said, "I wanted to ask her why she voted for the Iraq war and why she didn't consider that a mistake."

Mitchell said Hayler, the Clinton campaign worker, was unhappy with his response and moved on to other audience members.

"I know he tried to have others ask that question," Mitchell said.

The LA Times writers say, "virtually every professional presidential campaign plants questions. It's a routine part of preparation for the advance people staging every event."

Do they? Is any of this real?

Sure it's real…I've seen it happen many many times

Sure it’s real…I’ve seen it happen many many times

LOL, let me rephrase, how much of these "professional" campaigns is real and how much is staged? How is the voter supposed to weed through all the nonsense?

Lol remember the flap when Jeff Gannon from Talon was asking softball questions during Bush Press conferences ?

I just assume town hall type media events have plants in them.I see nothing wrong with it. Campaigns are all about the message. Town Halls are like infomericals .

What is amusing is watching her try to claim ignorance . Otherwise I think it worse for her that someone is claiming she stiffed a tip.

I just assume town hall type media events have plants in them.I see nothing wrong with it. Campaigns are all about the message. What is amusing is watching her try to claim ignorance . Otherwise I think it worse for her that someone is claiming she stiffed a tip.

That's just it, the 'sin' is always far worse when it's on the Republican side. If only she were able to script her answer on the drivers license for illegals question :D

Stiffing a tip, now THAT'S a sin against the hard working, low pay American workers she's supposed to be fighting for. Which reminds me, the question from the candidates I'd like answered is do they eat the chili from Wendy's (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/08/03/do0302.xml) or the 5 star dinner on the bus?

Republican and Democratic candidates are getting footage to use in the battle for the Presidency later next year. Hillary and Rudy are scripting some good ones as well as Mitt and some of the others. In fact, Rudy got caught plagerizing last month and was called on it.

Republican and Democratic candidates are getting footage to use in the battle for the Presidency later next year. Hillary and Rudy are scripting some good ones as well as Mitt and some of the others. In fact, Rudy got caught plagerizing last month and was called on it.

I missed charges of Rudy plagiarizing anyone, you'll have to be more specific. His campaign did however stick it to Biden:


“The good Senator is quite correct that there are many differences between Rudy and him,” said Giuliani’s communications director Katie Levinson in a statement. “For starters, Rudy rarely reads prepared speeches and when he does he isn't prone to ripping off the text from others.”

Levinson also took another shot at Biden’s experience and tendency to be long-winded.

“And, Senator Biden certainly falls in to the bucket of those on the stage tonight who have never had executive experience and have never run anything,” she said. “Wait, I take that back, Senator Biden has never run anything but his mouth (http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071031/NEWS/71031041).”

Look it up yourself, it was on the blogs. In fact, it was mentioned along with Joe Biden's plagerism from the 80ies.

Look it up yourself, it was on the blogs. In fact, it was mentioned along with Joe Biden's plagerism from the 80ies.

That ain't how it works Choux, you made the assertion, you furnish the evidence. Otherwise it's just a useless rumor.

They are basically staged. The people asking the questions are not allowed to ask certain questions, etc... I heard Clinton had a reporter put in jail for asking a question he wasn't suppose to ask. They have been catching Hillary off guard lately and she isn't liking it. I can't wait until she actually answers the questions she has been dodging and taking both sides on.
What really kills me is how they demand a timeline on withdraw from Bush, yet Hillary will give the same reply to the question and it is a perfectly acceptable reply when it comes from HER mouth. I love how she says "WHEN she IS President" like it is a DONE DEAL. 0R when she says, "WHEN I am President AGAIN" or "WHEN I ran the White House"

And like Choux said, The Republicans get CALLED on things.


(S0ME of us know Dems get less than a slap on the wrist!)

That's just it, the 'sin' is always far worse when it's on the Republican side. If only she were able to script her answer on the drivers license for illegals question :D

Stiffing a tip, now THAT'S a sin against the hard working, low pay American workers she's supposed to be fighting for. Which reminds me, the question from the candidates I'd like answered is do they eat the chili from Wendy's (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/08/03/do0302.xml) or the 5 star dinner on the bus?
Sins are committed against God, not other people. :D

... well after taser guy, they probably thought a script was best; either that or they just followed FEMA's example :D

About a month ago Rudy and Romney had a spat about taxes ;who ran a conservative government;and about Rudy opposing the line-item veto . Romney accused Rudy of borrowing from ads Romney had run about putting the Republican house in order. Yeah if you stretch it you could spin it to say that Romney was charging Rudy with plagiarism... but that's a stretch . The whole non-incident received a blurb of attention at the Politico web site .Romney camp suggests Rudy singing their tune - Jonathan Martin's Blog - Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1007/Romney_camp_suggests_Rudy_singing_their_tune.html)

No doubt the Kossaks et al picked up on it because Biden is vulnerable due to a couple of charges of plagiarism. Biden left the 1988 race after he was caught plagarizing speeches (lifting whole sentences )by Neil Kinnock and Robert Kennedy. But that alone would not have forced him out. It was revealed during follow up investigation by the press that there were allegations that Biden had also plagiarized in law school.

Honestly ;I think both cases are much ado about nothing. (there ;I plagiarized too)

Sins are committed against God, not other people. :D

sin 1
n.
1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. Theology
a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
b. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

Example: Flavoring coffee is a sin (shameful, deplorable and utterly wrong) :D

There's an old joke about how a dead Liberal goes to heaven and meets G-d at the Pearly gates. When the guy tries to enter heaven, G-d tells him that he has to pass a test first.

"What test?" asks the guy nervously.

"You have to spell the word 'ROSE'", G-d replied.

"Oh, that's easy. R-O-S-E." The man enters heaven.

This goes on two or three more times, with G-d asking potential Liberal heaven-goers to spell the word "ROSE" and each of them entering heaven.

Then a conservative approaches the pearly gates. G-d says "You have to pass a test in order to enter heaven."

"What test?" asks the dead conservative.

"Spell 'chrysanthemum'," replies G-d.

--------------

The point is that it seems to me that libs keep getting softball questions, whereas conservatives are being given real, TOUGH questions. Even if Hillary's questions aren't planted, she (and other lib candidates) is still being treated with kid gloves by the media, whereas conservatives are being given real hardball questions. The treatment in the media is NOT equal. So even if Hillary wasn't planting questions, it's still not a fair environment.

Yes, Hillary is a cheater. But even if she wasn't, would it make a difference?

Elliot

Sins are committed against God, not other people. :D

Judaism see it differently. There are sins that are committed by man against G-d, and there are also sins that are committed by man against his fellow man. In Hebrew they are called "Ben Adam L'Chavero" (between man and his friend) and "Ben Adam Lamakom" (between man and G-d).

Not keeping the Sabbath is a sin against G-d. Punching you neighbor in the face is a sin against you fellow man.

A sin against G-d can only be forgiven by G-d, and thus prayer to G-d for forgiveness is necessary. A sin against your fellow man cannot be forgiven by G-d until you have otained the forgiveness of the person you sinned against. Only after such forgiveness from you fellow man is achieved can you then approach G-d in prayer for His forgiveness.

So there can indeed be sins against man according to Jewish beliefe, not just against G-d.

(BTW, that is, in part, why we reject the idea of "confession" as a method of botaining forgiveness for sins. If I confess a sin of punching my neighbor in the face to a priest or rabbi, have I really done anything to obtain the forgiveness of the individual that I hurt? Forgiveness, in Jewish law requires more than simply confessing the sin to a religious leader. It requires repentance, sorrow and contrition for the act, and humility in asking the one you sinned against for forgiveness, whether that one is G-d or your neighbor.)

Elliot

There's an old joke about how a dead Liberal goes to heaven and meets G-d at the Pearly gates. When the guy tries to enter heaven, G-d tells him that he has to pass a test first.

"What test?" asks the guy nervously.

"You have to spell the word 'ROSE'", G-d replied.

"Oh, that's easy. R-O-S-E." The man enters heaven.

This goes on two or three more times, with G-d asking potential Liberal heaven-goers to spell the word "ROSE" and each of them entering heaven.

Then a conservative approaches the pearly gates. G-d says "You have to pass a test in order to enter heaven."

"What test?" asks the dead conservative.

"Spell 'chrysanthemum'," replies G-d.

I love it, lol. Perhaps an even easier test for libs would be to spell "fascist." :D


The point is that it seems to me that libs keep getting softball questions, whereas conservatives are being given real, TOUGH questions. Even if Hillary's questions aren't planted, she (and other lib candidates) is still being treated with kid gloves by the media, whereas conservatives are being given real hardball questions. The treatment in the media is NOT equal. So even if Hillary wasn't planting questions, it's still not a fair environment.

Yes, Hillary is a cheater. But even if she wasn't, would it make a difference?

After all these years of Bush bashing the media's coverage of Hillary is sickening at times - sickeningly sweet. I've read columns about Hillary that were almost romantic, literally. Today, I read a story in our our paper about The Myth of the Iron Lady (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101204.html?hpid=topnews), which is obviously meant as an effort at breaking down stereotypes and restoring some of Hillary's "trustworthiness and warmth." Did she ever have "trustworthiness and warmth?" I've always seen her more as "shrill and shifty" - and that was long before she was ever a 'leader.'

sin 1
n.
1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. Theology
a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
b. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

Example: Flavoring coffee is a sin (shameful, deplorable and utterly wrong) :D
That’s just like a Liberal; to look up the meaning of a religious term in a dictionary…do you feel yourself sliding left. :p

There's an old joke about how a dead Liberal goes to heaven and meets G-d at the Pearly gates. When the guy tries to enter heaven, G-d tells him that he has to pass a test first.

"What test?" asks the guy nervously.

"You have to spell the word 'ROSE'", G-d replied.

"Oh, that's easy. R-O-S-E." The man enters heaven.

This goes on two or three more times, with G-d asking potential Liberal heaven-goers to spell the word "ROSE" and each of them entering heaven.

Then a conservative approaches the pearly gates. G-d says "You have to pass a test in order to enter heaven."

"What test?" asks the dead conservative.

"Spell 'chrysanthemum'," replies G-d.

--------------

The point is that it seems to me that libs keep getting softball questions, whereas conservatives are being given real, TOUGH questions. Even if Hillary's questions aren't planted, she (and other lib candidates) is still being treated with kid gloves by the media, whereas conservatives are being given real hardball questions. The treatment in the media is NOT equal. So even if Hillary wasn't planting questions, it's still not a fair environment.

Yes, Hillary is a cheater. But even if she wasn't, would it make a difference?

Elliot
That’s a sin; using the name of God in a joke…But that’s just like a Liberal; …do you feel yourself sliding left.:p

This points to the fact that we are getting a more-secular Republican Party. Here is the central paragraph of Robertson's announcement:
To me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists. Our second goal should be the control of massive government waste and crushing federal deficits. Uppermost in the minds of social conservatives is the selection of future Supreme Court justices and lower court judges who will sit in both the federal circuit courts and the district courts.

That is, that political preferences are, and should be, driven primarily by the secular concerns of war and taxes.

That is quite a shift from what he said just after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Where he declared them to be God's punishment of America for our sinful secular ways, in fact that came a little too close to the religious outlook of our enemies.

This points to the fact that we are getting a more-secular Republican Party. Here is the central paragraph of Robertson's announcement:

To me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists. Our second goal should be the control of massive government waste and crushing federal deficits. Uppermost in the minds of social conservatives is the selection of future Supreme Court justices and lower court judges who will sit in both the federal circuit courts and the district courts.

That is, that political preferences are, and should be, driven primarily by the secular concerns of war and taxes.

He did manage to throw "the blood lust of Islamic terrorists" in that opening line which gives him some religious cover along with the Supremes remark.


That is quite a shift from what he said just after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Where he declared them to be God's punishment of America for our sinful secular ways, in fact that came a little too close to the religious outlook of our enemies.

And that's why most of us distance ourselves from Robertson - sounds a little like Fred Phelps.

He did manage to throw "the blood lust of Islamic terrorists" in that opening line which gives him some religious cover along with the Supremes remark.



And that's why most of us distance ourselves from Robertson - sounds a little like Fred Phelps.
Giuliani assumed that he could satisfy conservatives with nothing more than a promise to appoint "strict constructionist" judges to the federal courts. What does that mean…"strict constructionist"…Giuliani has not promised to appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade and the Republicans are not so stupid that they don't realize this; no, they are prepared to slip to the left.

Giuliani assumed that he could satisfy conservatives with nothing more than a promise to appoint "strict constructionist" judges to the federal courts. What does that mean…"strict constructionist"…Giuliani has not promised to appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade and the Republicans are not so stupid that they don’t realize this; no, they are prepared to slip to the left.

If the GOP wants to win the swing voters they're going to have to 'slip to the left' a little. Just like the left moved to the right a little last year - at least until after the election.

There is not much else the President can do to influence the debate but to select the right judges . Oh,he has the bully pulpit but the courts created the controversy and in the courts (or an amendment )will the issue be resolved . Rudy gave specific names of Judges ;and his advisory team is full of people who have an originalist philosophy(I don't like the term "strict constructionist " and neither does Justice Scalia ).

There is not much else the President can do to influence the debate but to select the right judges . Oh,he has the bully pulpit but the courts created the controversy and in the courts (or an amendment )will the issue be resolved . Rudy gave specific names of Judges ;and his advisory team is full of people who have an originalist philosophy(I don't like the term "strict constructionist " and neither does Justice Scalia ).
Which is added weight to my theses that the “Right is slipping left”. The Right argues that originalist philosophy is no more than making the law say what you think it should say, rather than submitting to what it does say; therefore, submitting to originalist philosophy is ‘slipping to the left”.

Please explain :
The Right argues that originalist philosophy is no more than making the law say what you think it should say, rather than submitting to what it does say

That is not how I read originalism at all. originalism is a family of theories which share the starting point that a Constitution (or statute) has a fixed and knowable meaning which is established at the time of passage or ratification.Originalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism)

please explain :

That is not how I read originalism at all. originalism is a family of theories which share the starting point that a Constitution (or statute) has a fixed and knowable meaning which is established at the time of passage or ratification.Originalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism)
Living Constitutionalists often suggest that it is the true originalist philosophy, while originalists generally agree that phrases such as "just compensation" should be applied differently than 200 years ago. It has been suggested that the true difference between these judicial philosophies does not regard "meaning" at all, but rather, the correct application of Constitutional principles.[18] A Living Constitutionalist would not necessarily state, for instance, that the meaning of "liberty" has changed since 1791. It may be what it always has always been: a general principle recognizing individual freedom. The important change then might be in what is recognized as liberty today, that was not fully recognized two centuries ago. This view was enunciated for the Supreme Court by Justice George Sutherland in 1926:

[W]hile the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world it is impossible that it should be otherwise. But although a degree of elasticity is thus imparted, not to the meaning, but to the application of constitutional principles, statutes and ordinances, which, after giving due weight to the new conditions, are found clearly not to conform to the Constitution, of course, must fall.[

[W]hile the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation.

I think that if the Constitution is a "living document " (one that changes with the times) to be reinterpreted by succeeding generations ;the better alternative would be to scrap the whole document and let each generation write it's own.

I think that if the Constitution is a "living document " (one that changes with the times) to be reinterpreted by succeeding generations ;the better alternative would be to scrap the whole document and let each generation write it's own.
Justice Antonin Scalia on the matter living Constituation:

[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things.. . [Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided] not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court.. . They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable.

On the other hand the argument against a living constitution:
The strongest argument against the doctrine of "Living Constitution" comes not from its moderate use, but when the concept has been abused as a method of activism. The term presumes the premise of “that which is written is insufficient in light of what has transpired since”. This more moderate concept is generally not the target of those who are against the "Living Constitution". The concept considered perverse by constructionalists is "making the law say what you think it should say, rather than submitting to what it does say".
Another argument against the concept of a "living Constitution" ironically, is similar to the argument for it; the fact that the Constitution itself is silent on the matter of constitutional interpretation.

The doctrine of the "living Constitution" relies on the concept that the original framers either could not come to a consensus about how to interpret, or they never intended any fixed method of interpretation. This would then allow future generations the freedom to reexamine for themselves how to interpret the Constitution.
This view does not take into account why the original constitution does not allow for judicial interpretation in any form. The Supreme Court's power for constitutional review, and by extension its interpretation, did not come about until Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The concept for a "living constitution" therefore relies on an argument regarding the writing of the constitution that had no validity when the constitution was written.

The views of constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe are often described by conservative critics such as Robert Bork as being characteristic of the “living Constitution paradigm” they condemn. Bork labels Tribe's approach as "protean," meaning that it was whatever Tribe needed it to be to reach a desired policy outcome. (Tribe rejects both the term and the description) Such a construction appears to define “living Constitution” doctrine as being an ends dictate the means anti-law philosophy

Living Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution)

This view does not take into account why the original constitution does not allow for judicial interpretation in any form. The Supreme Court's power for constitutional review, and by extension its interpretation, did not come about until Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The concept for a "living constitution" therefore relies on an argument regarding the writing of the constitution that had no validity when the constitution was written.


I take you back to my comments about Ron Paul


Actually ;I wonder what Ron Paul thinks about Judicial review ? Certainly the Supreme court divined that power unto itself in in Marbury v. Madison... right ?
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/ron-paul-president-what-150948.html

I happen to agree the Marbury V Madison was judicial over reach because of the way it has been interpreted to mean that SCOTUS is the final arbiter. That whole notion is perverse . Anyone who thinks the founders would give the final call to unelected black robed oligarchs completely misreads intent.

My answer to the question about intent is that it is indeed not always evident in the Constitution if the Constitution is your only source of reference . But we should be eternally grateful to Hamilton , Madison ,and John Jay for their essays on the constitution they penned during the ratification phase .Their attempts at persuasion left a lasting guide to the person trying to divine the thought process of the founders.

It also takes an understanding of English common law and the principles of the Enlightenment to understand "original intent ".

It also takes an understanding of the hours of compromise the founders put into the effort 'to form a more perfect Union' .

I agree with Bork . When a decision is made with the preconception of a desired outcome then the justice ;be they liberal ,conservative ,whatever is an activist judge.

I heard about it on Glen Beck today. He said that they handed her a binder and told her she had to pick a question from the student section. She said of course it is going to be asked by a young person when they handed her the binder and pre-picked her for asking a question from that section.