Part of the backstory in the aftermath of Wednesday night’s GOP YouTube debate has been the potential for ulterior motives among the questioners. For example, you’ve probably heard about the gay retired General who failed to disclose his ties to the Clinton campaign (you can read about it at Politico if you haven’t). Michelle Malkin has also not been shy in pointing out other questioners having previously expressed support for Edwards or Obama.
While I can agree with the idea that it’s bad form for a Clinton staffer to get to pose a question without disclosing his ties (regardless of whether it’s his question or a “plant” from Hillary)…I’m not overly excited about Dem-supporters having their submitted questions aired at a GOP debate.
Yes, I suppose that it is a little disingenuous for folks to pose as Republicans or undecided voters if they hold interests (or appear to hold interests) to the contrary.
However, a fair amount of the (admittedly limited) outrage I’ve seen expressed seems to be of a “how dare they invade our debate”…and that’s something I don’t buy. These folks are ultimately running to be President of the United States…not President of “Us but not Them”.
They’re running in an election that is at least in part being funded by taxpayers’ dollars, regardless of any partisan affiliation of those taxpayers. True, in many states, you have to be a partisan to participate in the taxpayer funded primaries…but that’s a practice I disagree with and therefore don’t accept as justification.