CNN will be bringing back the debate program Crossfire, and this time around it will be even faker than some of its past incarnations (link).

The four new hosts are (see each name for our previous coverage):

* Newt Gingrich
* SE Cupp
* Van Jones
* Stephanie Cutter (Stef Cutter)

According to CNN (bolding added):

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who made a bid for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, will host on the right alongside S.E. Cupp, the conservative columnist who currently co-anchors “The Cycle,” a television program on MSNBC.

On the left, President Barack Obama’s former deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter will host next to Van Jones, another former Obama adviser who later founded Rebuild the Dream, a group that fosters innovative economic policy.

..."Few programs in the history of CNN have had the kind of impact on political discourse that Crossfire did - it was a terrific program then, and we believe the time is right to bring it back and do it again," Jeff Zucker, CNN Worldwide’s president, said Wednesday. “We look forward to the opportunity to host passionate conversation from all sides of the political spectrum. Crossfire will be the forum where America holds its great debates."

Obvious to everyone other than Zucker and extreme partisans, there are sides other than the ones represented by the four stooges above. There are major, controversial issues on which all four agree with the establishment, such as immigration and trade. On those two issues, former Crossfire host Pat Buchanan represents the broad American interest, while the four stooges represent only the interests of the elites.

Both Jones and Cutter are more or less Democratic Party operatives; Jones is further left than Cutter and might break ranks a little bit, but he won't stray too far from party orthodoxy. There's almost no chance that either would take anything remotely approaching a pro-American immigration stance.

The same is true with the other "side". Both are GOP partisans, with Cupp being somewhat libertarian (in the cosmotarian sense). Gingrich is bad on immigration, and so too is Cupp [1].

We also already know that SE Cupp has no interest in putting politicians on the spot. In a Twitter debate, she skipped my question about how the DREAM Act would deprive American citizens of college to ask extremely wimpy setup questions like "What role do you think the Tea Party will play in the 2012 elections?"

If you want real debates instead of the fake CNN debates on the new Crossfire, you'll have to do it yourself.

------------------
[1] thesecupp . com/2012/07/mitts-immigration-pickle illustrates the shallowness of her thinking on the issue. A large number of hacks could have written the same wishy-washy pro-amnesty post, it just has her name at the top. It includes this (bolding added):

As to what he would do with the President's policy [note: DACA] if he were elected? He would overturn it, of course, and put in place a long-term immigration plan that would include legal paths to citizenship for those who are already here. There are plenty of Hispanic Americans, here legally, for whom those arguments would ring true.

Seems simple enough.

If he waits any longer, Romney may as well concede the issue to Obama - throwing it away for good. The American people understand the political expedience of vagary, but they still want answers. Vague may buy time, but it doesn’t inspire. And inspiration is something Romney’s got in short supply.