That question was "Would you be willing to stop all negative attack ads?"
Why is that a loaded question? For the benefit of those who are not aware - especially those voters in California - there are two types of negative ads. One is good, the other is not. Acceptable and necessary negative ads revolve around a candidates political record, such as "Joe voted for Cap & Trade which would cost you "X" dollars". "Mary voted 96% of the time with Pelosi." Those are negative attacks ads, and they are necessary for making voters aware of issues.
The second type of attack ads are those that include personal smears and insults - personal attacks. An example would be, "George cheats on his wife," or "Louise wears falsies, or "She is a whore."And such ads are bad for everyone.
Matt Lauer has been in the business a long time. He knows the difference, so he KNEW his question was loaded, and designed to make Whitman look bad no matter what she answered. If she answered "no, I will not stop", people would accuse her of running smear campaigns, and she would effectively be admitting to running such ads, even though she has not run any personal smear ads. It's like the question, "When did you stop cheating on your wife."
If she responded, "Yes, I would stop", again she would be admitting to running smears, which she has not done, but she would also be swearing not to run the necessary attack ads on the other candidates political record. And if she stopped doing that, she would be ineffective.
Lauer, you are a rat of the lowest order. You knew you were setting Whitman up with a trap question, just like other liberal media people set up Palin, like "What do you think of the Bush Doctrine?" There WAS no "Bush Doctrine." What is that, anyway? It's not something that is published anywhere. It was a hitman question, made up by Charles Gibson, specifically to make Palin look foolish. He KNEW most people in the audience would not know there was no such thing, and would think Palin "dumb". Just like this question Lauer shot at Whitman.
To the voters of California, I suggest you first understand the two types of negative ads. Then I would suggest you try to find even one Whitman ad that entered the realm of personal smears. I cannot find any. But you will find many instances of such smear ads coming from the Brown campaign, but Lauer did not pidgeon-hole Brown on that, as he did Whitman.
Had she known that hit question was coming, she could have responded quickly with, "I don't have to make a promise not to use ads with personal attacks because I don't use them in the first place."
Today, the liberal media are making hay out of the fact that Whitman would not answer that question, trying to paint her as something she is not - a smear artist. But Whitman did the right thing - she refused to answer a question that was dishonest to begin with, and was, itself, a build-up to the media's own "smear campaign" against anyone conservative.
Californians, think about that when you go to the polls. And in the future, do not allow wiley, sneaky liberal "journalists" to manufacture phony issues in order to do harm, not only to candidates, but to the voters by being disingenuous and giving them false impressions.
People of California, when you go to the polls ask yourself two questions: Who has the proven ability and experience to CREATE JOBS as CEO of a multi-billion dollar business? Who has the proven ability and experience to EARN MORE THAN THEY SPEND?
Then ask yourself who should be your governor.
Lauer and his ilk are expert wordsmith's. They know how to use words, phrased in a specific way, to either build up or assassinate a candidate. It's time we make them to stop.