DEBATE MODERATORS ANNOUNCED:That last link might seem less apt, a bit off topic. But think about it. It's not. Drudge knows what he's doing. This is about media bias.
PBS Jim Lehrer, first Pres debate, Oct 3 Denver...
CNN Candy Crowley, town hall, Oct 16, Hempstead NY...
CBS Bob Schieffer, third Pres debate, Oct. 22, Boca Raton...
ABC Martha Raddatz, VP debate, Oct 11, Danville KY...
FLASHBACK: CROWLEY: Some Think Ryan Pick 'Some Sort of Ticket Death Wish'...
60 MINS edits out Ryan talking about Medicare mom in Florida...
So all the moderators will be liberals. Can't help that — you say? — all the big media people are liberal. Couldn't we get one Fox News person — Chris Wallace, for example? But Fox News is somehow known to be biased in a way that those other networks are not. Ironically, the reason that factoid is known is that we learned it through all those other media outlets. Their voices corroborate the view that Fox News is biased. Perception of bias is a numbers games.
ADDED: Why Crowley? They needed a woman... and it was the best they could do?
Posts
116 comments:
So all the moderators will be liberals. Can't help that — you say? — all the big media people are liberal
No shit.
The American people are so gullible that they can't bring themselves to demand a fair moderator.
Jake Tapper from ABC is the only Big network journalist that can play it own the middle and doesn't leave a White House press briefing headed for the bathroom like the others to apply more Preparation H.
Man how our public education system has colllude with the Mian Stream Media and destroyed the ability to reason and think intelligently in our nation's citizens. Obama even with Romney? Seriously? There is that much stupid in America?
Obviously.
Boo frickin' Hoo, let the Althouse whining begin ...
Oh wait!
So all the moderators will be liberals.
As it is always, so shall it ever be. Candy Crowley is awful. I wish the republican candidates would insist on having at least one or two debates moderated by the someone at least moderately conservative.
I was watching CNN at the gym the other day, and they had a panel talking about the VP pick and everyone was a liberal. I know people joke about Fox having a token liberal, but CNN doesn't even bother.
Why not Jake Tapper?
Oh, plenty of so-called "independents" are convinced Fox is biased, too. They just can't conceive of why a network might use a different narrative from the others. Different stories - different issues - different spin - ?
The nerve!
Everything is about media bias. The media are so in the tank for Obama and the democrats, the stench is impossible to ignore.
Objective reporting. What a joke. We must suffer the hacks.
The democrats and media are like Plato's cave--they're watching the shadows on the wall. They could turn around and see what's casting the shadows, but that's too much like work.
Naturally shiloh thinks rampant left-wing MSM bias is A-OK and conservatives are just whiners for pointing it out.
Why the FUCK can't the Republicans chose their own moderators or at least have some say in who they are?? Why do they always let themselves get roped a doped into these moronic debates that aren't debates?? The non-debates are an opportunity for the biased media talking heads to frame slanted and loaded questions that benefit the Democrats. Have you stopped beating your wife questions. The MSM talking head makes a biased statement and the Republican has to start by defending him/herself.
At least Gingrich was wise to the tactic and told them to stuff it. One of the main reasons for Gingrich's surge in the primaries was his refusal to put up with this total bullshit. It would be great to see Romney and Ryan take a page from that playbook.
You might as well be in a tag team wrestling match with only one member of YOUR team in the ring. Out numbered and with one hand tied behind your back.
Come on Republicans. Grow some balls and tell the MSM to eff off until you have a truly impartial moderator. What a bunch of morons. It is like they WANT to lose.
I think that pretty much everyone could have gotten behind Tapper. But I don't see the President agreeing to him after the way he has made Carney dance. That's the problem; Republicans will suffer a biased moderator. They're used to hostile media; Democrats see no reason to sit down with people who speak truth to their power.
Romney had no choice. There's no way Zero would agree to a debate with a fair moderator.
And yet, conservative candidates almost always win the debates. Having liberal monitors makes it even better.
By the way: Until the 2008 primary YouTube debate where the Republicans questions almost universally came from plants, shills and Democrat operatives, I wasn't convinced of media bias. After that though, and the following 2008 debates, I was convinced.
Romney had no choice. There's no way Zero would agree to a debate with a fair moderator.
Bingo.
Our pussy president would never ever agree to a fair debate. He must have his wefty pal their to make life easy.
One has to wonder how Dutch and the Bushes ever got elected. ok, ok, the Supreme Court helped w/baby Bush! And "we" are all grateful for their help!
Or how about we ditch the "journalists" and go with a set of subject-matter experts? How about Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson for the first debate, Colin Powell and James M. Lindsay for the second, and then Eugene Volokh and Alan Dershowitz for the third.
Shiloh: Remember, Bush had a wire up his back during the debate!
Remember how bad Obama looked after the interview with Rick Warren in 2008?
That's what will happen if the chicken agreed to a debate moderated by someone not afraid to ask him a real question.
Coward.
The mods will be like the refs in "Victory"
Oh, plenty of so-called "independents" are convinced Fox is biased, too.
Yes, Fox is biased to the right to about the same degree that CNN and NPR are to the left (but nowhere near as much as MSNBC). For news without political bias, turn to...ESPN.
As for moderators -- why not a debate with no moderator at all?
For this independent, though, I don't really care -- I doubt I'll watch the debates. At this point I've seen more than enough of Obama to prefer what's behind door #2 (although if my state isn't closely contested, Gary Johnson will probably get my vote).
One has to wonder how Dutch and the Bushes ever got elected.
Forgot history, did ya?
Imagine how close the race would not have been in 2000 if there had been a fair moderator, and not someone covering for Gore's unbelievably insipid answers.
@Brent
You forgot shiloh. You said--"wake up the intellectually lazy (Democrats, socialist Democrats, poorly eductaed Democrats"
Oh! I stand corrected. You didn't forget Shiloh
Or how about we ditch the "journalists" and go with a set of subject-matter experts? How about Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson for the first debate, Colin Powell and James M. Lindsay for the second, and then Eugene Volokh and Alan Dershowitz for the third.
That might actually be very interesting.
I've been out-of-the-loop since Friday morning. Has Ryan taken the usual hate attacks that any Republican VP would?
I wonder if Obama and/or Biden will get tough questions on the timebomb that Big Entitlement is.
Debates just reinforce what the few undecided already think. Kerry "won" all (3) debates and still lost to a wartime incumbent. Shocking!
We now return you to Althouse cons incessant whining ...
Again, presidential politics is not all that complicated ie train wreck mittens won the Rep primary by default by runnin' against bigger train wrecks! lol
"Get a real moderator like Chris Wallace or Jake Tapper. Raise a stink about the biased media. American's will revere you for it and it will wake up the intellectually lazy (Democrats, socialist Democrats, poorly eductaed Democrats - i repeat myself)."
Obama would not agree and the debates do offer an opportunity to show the candidates to a large audience. Reagan turned the opportunity to his advantage. He, of course, was a pro in media. Ryan is agile enough to do something similar.
Jiu Jitsu is a method of using the opponent's strength to defeat him. It can be done. Gingrich showed one way although it is important not to look angry at the time. Gingrich looks angry all the time. Ryan doesn't. Romney doesn't either. He's not as agile as Ryan but he just needs to keep remembering, "There you go again, Mr President."
For news without political bias, turn to...ESPN.
If only that were true. Ever watched their NCAA basketball bracket coverage?
Regarding 60 Minutes editing out Ryan's comments about his mother on Medicare; the last cycle Instapundit suggested that Republicans do these interviews only if they can also bring their own camera crews. I'd love to see Romney/Ryan insist on making their own recording as a precondition for doing interviews.
Matthew Sablan said...
Shiloh: Remember, Bush had a wire up his back during the debate!
Actually, remember when Gore walked all in Bush's personal space and liberals (including Jake Tapper) though he got "Gored"???
"Kerry "won" all (3) debates and still lost to a wartime incumbent. Shocking!"
Kerry lost the moment he saluted at the Dem convention and said "Reporting for duty." He looked a fool and just spent the rest of the campaign proving it.
The swift boat vets just reminded everybody why.
Why the republicans would agree to this inquisition is beyond me.
I honestly don't remember the Gore/Bush debates. Except there was heavy sighing and looking at a watch and some eye rolling. I thought the accusations of a wire were from the Bush/Kerry debates.
Or more accurately, con unlikable train wrecks Santo/Newt/Perry/Cain/Paul cancelled each other out, so RINO, flip/flopping, unlikable train wreck mittens could win early primaries w/less than 30%.
Plus he had a humongous $$$ advantage running 95% negative ads against his lame opposition.
Will that strategy work in the general against a likable incumbent? Stay tuned ...
This usually means that 50-75% of the debate questions will be related to stuff like free contraception.
Maybe there will be a question about the budget and the debt.
In a way I'm surprised, though. I'd always assumed Zero actually believed the hype that he was sooo brilliant.
This proves O (or someone in his orbit) knows he's not smart enough to go up against Mittens one-on-one.
That's sort of encouraging, in a twisted way.
Why would anyone watch the debates? To see the moderators nodding sagaciously and prattling praise at presidential lies? Disgusting.
MarkW
ESPN has no bias? Let's take a poll... How many stories has ESPN done on the African-American Studies scandal to hit UNC? Who has a BIG contract to show ACC games? and, Who is big in the ACC?
Now compare that to What team located in Kentucky, with the initials UK, won the last NCAA Championship, has had the #1 recruiting class for 3 years straight, is the winningest program of all time, but hasn't had a Gameday visit in 5 years?
My point is that all media is biased. Just don't be overt in it.(keep it in your pants, so to speak) Try for some semblence of impartiality. You won't succeed but it's better than out and out cheerleading that passes as journlistocism today.
This is an abomination again.
Repubs should demand the moderators be chosen at random from from the phonebook and let those random Americans ask the questions.
So Romney who wants to be our leader lets this get rammed down his throat?
" I'd love to see Romney/Ryan insist on making their own recording as a precondition for doing interviews."
Anybody being interviewed on 60 Minutes should do this. A friend of mine was in a 60 Minutes segment. It was the Sullivan vs Sullivan case where his ex-wife tried to claim half his income for life because she worked while he was a resident physician. She lost. He brought his own video team and they just appeared. The CBS crew had the choice to stay or leave and they stayed.
Another guy I know (He was the first black chief resident in surgery at a big east coast medical center) was lied to by CBS on what the story was. It was supposed to be about him but they edited all the stuff about him out and changed the story to an alleged "ghost surgery" story.
Anybody who has surgery in a big teaching hospital knows, or should know, that part of the surgery is done by residents in training.
CBS lies but that should be no surprise. Even shiloh could understand that.
How do you know that the Fox people weren't asked and refused to do it.
Vicki from Pasadena
Bias, bias, blah blah
Grow up and get over yourselves.
James....recall when Dan Rather tried to ambush Bush 41 in 1988. Rather wanted to tape the interview.....Bush said he would only do a live interview (so it couldn't be edited). Rather made an ass of himself as he tried to take Bush down.
Bias, bias, blah blah
Grow up and get over yourselves.
Fuck you and the pedestal you came on.
"So Romney who wants to be our leader lets this get rammed down his throat?"
Conservative radio host pressures Romney, then mocks him for caving
Indeed, quite shocking lol.
"How do you know that the Fox people weren't asked and refused to do it."
-- It's possible. However, I doubt a journalist would turn down a career making moment for no good reason. It's like asking why an author would decline to let the NYT review his or her book; of course you do that. It's going to be reviewed sooner or latter anyway, saying yes just means you earn brownie points and can exert some influence. There's no reason for a journalist to turn down the offer to moderate a presidential debate; except, maybe, scheduling conflicts. Like getting a heart transplant. That day.
"Likeable incumbent?"
Tell me, shiloh, is it physically painful to be so gullible?
The media is as the media does.
One big difference this time: Romney / Ryan are a much more seasoned ticket than McCain / Palin plus R & R have the benefit of seeing what didn't work in 2008.
Another big difference: Obama / Biden can't hide behind the Hope & Change shuck. They have a record and it's mostly one of failure. Obama is overexposed as a speaker. Having played so much gutter politics, he can't go for the high-minded rhetoric of a uniter.
I'm not worried about the debates even with biased moderators. In fact the moderators may want to be careful. This election is not just a referendum on Obama, but the whole Blue model including the media.
Saw part of Obama's stump speech in Iowa.
He specifically took some shots at Ryan.
Somehow, having the sitting President "punch down" at the opposing VP nominee doesn't seem very, ummm, presidential.
Bias bias blah blah. Grow up and get over yourselves.
Grow up? That's rich, coming from the clowns who screamed selected not elected! for eight straight years.
Go get your fucking shinebox.
The moderators are overwhelmingly white.
Media bias indeed.
Though, honestly, was it Blitzer who Gingrich blasted repeatedly for asking off topic questions? I think the moderators are going to be smart enough not to be as blatantly antagonistic, since Romney has recently shown he was willing to pick up the gauntlet that he was slapped with.
Chris in MA
Is it physically painful to have a clueless, moderate, flip/flopping RINO train wreck and a non legislative neophyte v-p on the Rep ticket? Rhetorical.
ADDED: Why Crowley? They needed a woman... and it was the best they could do?
There are half a dozen female newsreaders at Fox that out out perform Crowley.
Hell, how about Sharyl Attkisson from CBS? She has done great work covering Fast and Durious when the other networks avoided it.
Now compare that to What team located in Kentucky, with the initials UK, won the last NCAA Championship, [etc], but hasn't had a Gameday visit in 5 years?
Really? That is surprising. (I was going to say they're too busy coming to Arkansas - go hogs - but I can't actually remember if they've been here in the last 5 years).
Man I'm ready for football season. Politics is no fun at all in comparison.
Media bias is simply part of the terrain in which the GOP must play.
It's been pretty well exposed because it is so easy to do that now and it diminishes the MSM every time they engage in it.
It also keeps good GOP politicians smart and on point. Successful campaigns learn to deal with it, unsuccessful one's blame it for their shortcomings.
Shiloh: Ryan's plan was praised by Bowles as a serious plan. You can't lie about Ryan being a neophyte. The left shouldn't have been able to lie about Palin being inexperienced either, but somehow did. I think Ryan will do a better job defending it. And, I think, sadly, part of it is that the left is more willing to smear a woman than a man.
Campbell Brown.
She is a liberal but she i pissing liberals off lately with her opinion editorials in the New York Times asking why liberals are all talk and bullshit on doing the right things for education.
SHE would scare the _________ out of Obama at a real debate.
Mark W said: "Fox is biased to the right to about the same degree that CNN and NPR are to the left..."
Beg to disagree.
Fox has some strongly opinionated folks - with some strange opinions - in their "opinion" slots. Bill O'Reilley comes to mind. But OK, it's opinion and not "news".
What's disappointing about Fox' "news" is:
..if Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, etc. says the world is flat or the sky is green, then Fox feels obliged to hold a "fair and balanced debate" on the assertion.
..these debates more often than not are allowed - or encouraged - to degenerate into yelling matches with everyone talking at the same time. (Krauthammer is allowed to finish his sentences, but not because he is the only sane guy in the room; rather out of deference that it's unfair to brow-beat a quadrapalegic)
..the major national "news" for the last three years has been who will be elected President in 2012. This is not "news"; it is speculation and opinion.
..international news - what is happening in the whole of the planet outside our portion of North America - is covered in 80 seconds during the hour.
We're on the border here, and to get real news of the world we watch Mexican TV - not your US Spanish language stations, real Mexican TV.
Sad, sad, sad.
Sad, sad, sad.
I've seen Mexican Newscasts. I agree. They are sad, sad, sad.
Do you believe them?
Gee, were Chris Matthews and Al Sharpton unavailable?
Will that strategy work in the general against a likable incumbent?
Shiloh asks, as do many on the left, e.g. Maureen Dowd's latest column.
Likability is good. Likability is nice. Likability is an asset in a presidential race. However, is likability enough?
I find the liberal focus on likability curious. Do they really think Americans choose their President the way they chose their Prom King in high school? Speaking as a voter, I find that insulting.
Never mind that Obama is not that likable a guy compared to real pros in that department like JFK, Reagan and Clinton. Admittedly Romney is kind of stiff -- though that may be changing -- but is he really any worse than Al Gore?
Don't forget that Nixon, one of the most unlikable presidential candidates in the modern era, won two out of three elections, the last by a landslide.
Couldn't they get Andrea Mitchell?
Could we please stop calling these debates? They are press conferences.
Yeah, let the other team's cheerleaders referee the game. Great idea! Same as it ever was.
This election is about pleasant untruths versus unpleasant truths. People would rather hear Obama's lies and will listen more willingly to the people who spread them. So maybe giving those people center stage at every debate is not such a hot idea, RNC!
If you are a conservative, get over to the RNC's website and tell them off.
Not that I don't think Ryan and Romney can't handle these idiots (the mods and the oppoing team) easily. It's the impression that gets left behind, though. Sarah Palin won the VP debate on points but Gwen Ifill's (author of a glowing Obama bio) appallingly biased questioning left a different impression on those willing to favor Biden.
Lastly, nitwits have been attacking FOX for years in order to single it out as "biased." This is ludicrous but it is what happens when fantasy wish fulfillment runs amok. It becomes a reality for the majority of the population.
Maybe they need a really big woman.
Nixon was an incumbent wartime president w/no discernible opposition when he won his landslide.
And received ((( 43.4% ))) in '68 after the voters really got to know him ie (8) years ie after he got 49.5% in '60.
btw, Nixon had a clue and was quite astute politically, whereas mittens is just plain clueless ... on a good day!
Problem is, if you want a Conservative, whom do you get besides Hannity?
Rush (love to see it)?
Mark Levin (that would be fun)?
shiloh said...
One has to wonder how Dutch and the Bushes ever got elected.
Well, lessee,
Bucketmouth told us he got his foreign policy advice from little Amy and Ducockamimi sat like a bump on a log when asked to imagine his wife had just been raped and murdered.
Debates just reinforce what the few undecided already think. Kerry "won" all (3) debates and still lost to a wartime incumbent
Suuuure, only proving the little animal lives on his own planet.
Dubya was a little restrained in the first debate, but, when Lurch started talking about our foreign policy passing "the global test" and nonsense like that, Dubya took the last two easily.
Apparently, the little animal thinks a "wartime incumbent" has a lock.
He never heard of LBJ.
PS Sounds like the little animal is already working up his excuses why the "likable" incumbent lost.
"Yet voters see something genuine, and that is why Mr. Obama seems to be surviving the stalled economy and his chuckleheaded remark: "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Maureen is more clueless than usual. New York City may be the problem. November is coming.
There is only one way to handle this situation.
Talk past them. Don't bother berating as Gingrich did.
Right past. Ignore the question and say whatever you wish to propound. Every single question. This isn't even not my idea, it's their own idea.
Don't even say the subject is changing, just change it.
Q: If elected president, what do you intend to do to counter the threat of global climate change?
A: Thank you for asking this important question, Candy, and allowing me the opportunity to respond. You see, Obama stole, 7 billion dollars to fund his own Obamacare that was passed to find out what is in it to affect all of Obama's 57 states. My plan corrects that theft and restores the funds to its proper spread sheet column under it's proper heading. Candy, it's important to remember debt does not disappear by calling it another name and taxes are still taxes no matter what else that Obama says they are called.
But you didn't answer my question. Global climate change is the greatest threat to humanity, how do you intend to address it?
My plan would affect only those under the age of 55. Those above will be able to keep the arrangements they've built around the system that is in place. That will be preserved. However newcomers, will be given broader range of choices through vouchers.
MS, you might not want to compare Ryan w/mama grizzly as McCain already did lol.
Oops!
Damned w/faint praise!
shiloh said...
Nixon was an incumbent wartime president w/no discernible opposition when he won his landslide.
No, moron, he was lucky enough to run against McGovern.
Now he was a train wreck.
Choom, OTOH, is turning into a cataclysm. Consider the half-full Chi-Town fundraiser.
Is it physically painful to have a clueless, moderate, flip/flopping RINO train wreck and a non legislative neophyte v-p on the Rep ticket?
Ryan is a non legislative neophyte?
Guess the budgets he got passed don't count.
The little animal thinks if he says it enough, it's going to scare somebody. The clueless flip/flopping small c communist and the brain-dead v-p are in fact all his.
Republicans always whine about this to the media because they want to make the people think everything is so unfair for them. However, last I checked the debates are set up by the Republicans as well as the Democrats, who both run the Commission on Presidential Debates.
They set these debates up with all kinds of rules to ensure that everything is very controlled. They also lock out third party candidates by saying you have to be at 15% in the polls.
This usually means that 50-75% of the debate questions will be related to stuff like free contraception.
The Republicans and Democrats control what topics will be discussed and what topics won't be. Even in the so-called town hall debate -- the audience must submit questions beforehand. The candidates will pretty much know what they're gonna be asked.
Can't wait to hear Oaf tell us how much he likes Fox News and talk radio for covering Conservative issues so fairly.
The candidates will pretty much know what they're going to be asked.
Which is not only embarassing, it's a piss-poor way to gauge the calibre of a presidential candidate. Are they quick on the fly? Do they have details at their fingertips, accurate rebuttals to distortions or lies and the humility to admit they don't know everything? Can they state their positions clearly and articulate the underlying philosophy?
I'd pay good money to see Mitt debate the crackhead in chief one-on-one, no moderator, no audience, no preselected questions. Not that I expect Mitt to be the second coming of Lincoln-Douglas, but watching Obama try to bullshit his way past him would be worth the price of admission.
Oaf: Yeah, the party has so much control over the questions they were routinely sandbagged during the 2008 primary by questions from the opposition during their primary debate and Blitzer embarrassed himself during the Republican primary debate this year.
Go back and watch the Republican primary debates this year. If the media would be so blatantly antagonistic then, what makes you think they'll be any different? Don't blame Republicans for realizing the deck is stacked against them. Gwen Ifil, for God's sake, wrote a book about how great Obama would be as president, and she got to moderate a debate.
I'd like to see the guy who wrote The Amateur get to moderate a debate.
I was watching CNN at the gym the other day
That is a statement Candy Crowley has never made.
That is a statement Candy Crowley has never made.
Fat jokes are terribly insensitive and totally awesome.
Journalist bias can be effectively countered through rhetorical jujutsu. Perhaps Gingrich can offer to teach our presumptive Republican nominee and his running mate.
Nixon was an incumbent wartime president w/no discernible opposition when he won his landslide.
Shiloh: But now you're special pleading. If likability is that big a deal, Nixon should not have been elected in any of those races.
Otherwise, likability is just one piece of how a candidate gets elected and perhaps not all that important compared to other factors.
You seem to forget that McGovern ran a white-hot race in the Dem primaries, comparable to Obama's run in 2008. McGovern only collapsed after the Eagleton fiasco. In retrospect I'd say he was too radical to win in 1972, but it would have been closer without that decisive stumble right out of the gate.
And that's a stumble that Romney didn't make with Ryan. You can be sure that Ryan is thoroughly vetted.
Jake Tapper from ABC is the only Big network journalist that can play it own the middle and doesn't leave a White House press briefing headed for the bathroom like the others to apply more Preparation H.
Sheryl Atkisson (sp?) of CBS has been willing to gore sacred cows in pursuit of F & F.
Is it physically painful to have a clueless, moderate, flip/flopping RINO train wreck and a non legislative neophyte v-p on the Rep ticket? Rhetorical.
Well, 2008 was rough. What does it feel like to have an incompetent jackass and an empty suit as your standard bearer NOW?
That is a statement Candy Crowley has never made.
Fat jokes are terribly insensitive and totally awesome.
Alternately, he just meant that nobody actually watches CNN?
Back when I was a CNN reporter (late 90's to early 2000's), I had this conversation with my boss, as we watched a Candy Crowley piece on our air:
ME: "How is it that the rest of us have to be objective, but Candy Crowley can say whatever she likes--stuff that is CLEARLY not fact, but her opinion-and we still run it as though it is news coverage?
BOSS: "I dunno."
ME: "Doesn't it seem to you that when a piece is nothing but a bundle of opinions, it should be labeled as commentary and run in a segment that is clearly described as such?
BOSS: "I guess so."
ME: "Do you GET that this is a horrible double standard, which any smart viewer would find insulting, and which I find insulting, too, because it cheapens what I do?"
BOSS: "Why are you picking a fight over this? I'm not the one who grandfathered her in."
My guess is the copy editors we all went through (known internally as "The "Row) didn't want to fight with her, because she was notoriously pit-bull stubborn, or they felt her longevity had earned her the viewers' trust. But the former doesn't guarantee the latter. See also Ross, Brian.
This group [Lehrer, etc] have not demonstrated they can ask tough, meaningful, pertinent questions to liberals. I just gave Romney a bit of my hard-earned money yesterday and I am going to ask his campaign to return it.
Alternately, he just meant that nobody actually watches CNN?
I wasn't watching voluntarily, but sometimes you have to go with what's on. I just noticed the utter lack of diversity on their panel. They don't even pretend to try.
creeley23 said...
You seem to forget that McGovern ran a white-hot race in the Dem primaries, comparable to Obama's run in 2008.
You must be joking. McGovern went around proposing stuff like clothing stamps, like food stamps, but intended - and these are his words - so poor people could dress up and fell good.
He couldn't win with Watergate and an economy going sour.
Shanna said:
"I wasn't watching voluntarily, but sometimes you have to go with what's on. I just noticed the utter lack of diversity on their panel. They don't even pretend to try."
That gives me a great idea. During the debates when Romney / Ryan get asked about the whiteness of the Repub party, they should whip out pictures of the very white MSNBC lineup, the AP Board of Directors, the ABC, NBC, CBS top anchors and news division staff, and Obama's Cabinet.
I think EVERYONE needs to look up the definition of what constitutes a DEBATE.
None of these moronic dog and pony shows that we are inflicted with are debates. Having a 'moderator' asking random and loaded questions is NOT a debate. It is a gotcha news conference, which will be heavy on the stupid social issues, like birth control etc and light on the things that really matter like going FUCKING BROKE and how are we going to fix it.
A debate would be something like this.
Topic number 1: FISCAL POLICY Side R goes first and explains for 3 to 5 minutes. Side D gets 2 minutes to rebut the concepts presented. THEN Side D gets their 5 minutes to present and side R gets their 2 minutes of rebuttal.
Topic number 2: FOREIGN POLICY Side D goes first, R rebuts. Side R presents, side D rebuts.....
Topic number 3: ENERGY POLICY
and so on until the last segment where there is no set topic and each side gets 5 minutes to present and rebut any previous topics.
Topics are set ahead of time by agreement so each candidate has some time to prepare. They actually are given enough time to form a complete and coherent statement/argument. We might actually learn something in this format and the only purpose of the 'moderator' is to keep time.
THIS IS DEBATING.
You're welcome.
edutcher: Like it or not and clothing stamps or not, I stand by my statement: "McGovern ran a white-hot race in the Dem primaries."
McGovern started as a long-shot progressive guy running against much better known Democrats: Muskie, McCarthy, Humphrey, and "Scoop" Jackson and pulled off a remarkable upset at the 1972 convention.
Look it up.
Topic number 1: FISCAL POLICY Side R goes first and explains for 3 to 5 minutes. Side D gets 2 minutes to rebut the concepts presented. THEN Side D gets their 5 minutes to present and side R gets their 2 minutes of rebuttal.
And they MUST stay on topic. If not, then the moderator will call them for being off the assigned subject. They will have time at the end to meander and wander through other topics.
It is a DEBATE....not a campaign speech.
Words have meanings....God Damn it.
"and pulled off a remarkable upset at the 1972 convention.
Look it up."
The 1968 Dem convention determined who was going to be the nominee in 1972.
Look it up.
It's not our fault, or Nixon's, that the Democratic Party lost its mind. Too much LSD.
Someone must have promised Ms Crowley a box of krispy kremes for her moderator duties.
I think the debates are, as suggested above, nothing more than press conferences where the candidates repeat their stump speeches irrespective of the question.
A real debate, a la Lincoln-Douglas, would have the candidates ask each other questions--the only role for a "moderator" would be to keep time.
So, will Paul Ryan share his workout routine with Candy Crawley?
If it weren't fixed in favor of the Usurper they would refuse these "moderators".
Michael K: I was old enough to pay attention to the 1972 race. It was not a foregone conclusion that McGovern would win that nomination, whatever happened in 1968.
McGovern was not a big name and he had Eugene McCarthy and Chisholm to contend with on the progressive side, and Humphrey and Muskie on the established moderate side. However, through blitzkrieg campaigning McGovern dispatched all his opponents.
He went to the convention with a strong lead but it wasn't clear that he would hold onto his delegates in the face of credential challenges from the ABM (Anybody but McGovern) forces. It looked as though it might become a brokered convention, but through some razzle-dazzle parliamentary maneuvering, the McGovern campaign won on the first ballot
It's an interesting story.
Look it up.
Shiloh @2:22 ok, ok, the Supreme Court helped w/baby Bush!
Sigh.
Why not Dionne Warwick? Her cutting-edge mike-work on 'Psychic Friends Network' is equal to anything the tenured drones of PBCBSNBCNN have on tape.
Re MSM bias, this little tidbit-- a little thing, but so revealing-- struck me today. Re the difficulties the media will have "Palinizing" Ryan (though we can be sure they'll give it the old college try), Jonathan Tobin notes this in today NYT's profile:
Part of the problem is that the Times can’t seem to find anyone who knows the likable congressman to dish any non-existent dirt on him. For example, in describing Ryan as an ambitious and accomplished teenager with numerous activities to his credit, the Times stoops to describe him as a “politically astute suck up.” No, that’s not a quote from some teenage rival but an editorial comment inserted into the article by the authors without quotes or even an attempt to attribute this opinion to anyone who knew him.
Are you serious, NYT? A NYT front-page article (we're not talking an editorial by Maureen Dowd here or a Bill Maher quip) describes an intelligent, ambitious, hard-working teenage Ryan as a "politically astute suck up"? Suck up? Who wrote this, a teenage douchebag?
I mean, I know the NYT has become a joke in the age of Obama, yet they still find ways to surprise me.
One has to wonder how Dutch and the Bushes ever got elected.
[..]
Bucketmouth told us he got his foreign policy advice from little Amy and Ducockamimi sat like a bump on a log when asked to imagine his wife had just been raped and murdered.
Not to mention the tank rides, airbrushed-in packages, and bunnysuits
Jeebus, what dorks.
creeley23 said...
edutcher: Like it or not and clothing stamps or not, I stand by my statement: "McGovern ran a white-hot race in the Dem primaries."
McGovern started as a long-shot progressive guy running against much better known Democrats: Muskie, McCarthy, Humphrey, and "Scoop" Jackson and pulled off a remarkable upset at the 1972 convention.
Look it up.
I remember those times well and I think you're mixing '68 with '72. McGovern had the youth movement and the Kennedys behind him. Muskie blew out in NH, and Jackson and was seen as an old fogey; Hump was the nominee in '68 and Clean Gene was its Obama.
...the difficulties the media will have "Palinizing" Ryan...
Hey, if Cong. Ryan can get past Katie Couric without freezing like a refugee in a minefield, he's halfway there.
Is Candy Crowley related to Aleister Crowley?
Poor Alex. Didn't anyone ever hug you?
Lots of vitriol and little substance.
Vicki from Pasadena
Hot Air had a post on this and the gist of it was that both sides had to agree...that means no one from msnbc and no one from Fox. So,liberal as these people are, they are the compromise moderators. Imagine what Obama and Biden would have gotten if there had not been any kind of veto.
edutcher: You seem to be mixing up '68 and '72.
McCarthy was the upset candidate of 1968, though not an Obama. McCarthy ran well enough to persuade LBJ not to run for another term (though there is some new thinking on that score -- that LBJ believed he would die within a few years like his father did at his age) and to persuade RFK that an anti-war candidacy was possible.
So RFK jumped belatedly into the race, roared past McCarthy, then was assassinated in the early morning hours after he won the California primary.
Humbert Humphrey was the last Democrat standing at the disastrous Chicago convention. He lost narrowly to Nixon.
McGovern ran in 1972. He was the Obama of that race, coming from nowhere, powered by an idealistic base, and upsetting the powers-that-be of the Democratic party of that time, then crushing them at the convention, only to lose hugely to Nixon.
OK?
Fox Business Channel has some actual Republicans, I think, but the Fox News commentators that I have seen, or heard, are all basically Democrats, just not NYT/WaPo Democrats.
Van Susteren is a mom; O'Reilly is a Boston-Irish Catholic, born and raised a Democrat; and Chris Wallacee is his father's son - nice guy and intelligent and he tries his best to understand where these conservatives are coming from, but he never quite gets it. Manhattan penthouse and Long Island estate liberal Democrat is his natural habitat.
And the news announcers are just doing their jobs - now they even have John Roberts who spent his previous 20 years at CBS!
The moderators only have the power that the candidates give them. If Romney, in a polite and moderate way (which is his style) listens to the loaded question and then says what he thinks about the subject matter, that's what the national audience will hear. He doesn't have to play the moderator's game.
I represented a lot of expert witnesses in my legal career, and why they were ask some "Isn't it true ...?" loaded questions, I counseled them to say, "No, it isn't, and I'd like to tell you why." Romney and Ryan don't have to accept the questioners' premises. They just have to be polite, and not appear to be evasive.
Hagar,
Greta is NOT a mom, O'Reilly is as right as they come and, possibly, Wallace is the only one that could be considered "fair and balanced" and he still leans so right that he can fall over.
Vicki from Pasadena
As if being a mom automatically makes you a liberal. Hello, Sarah Palin and Bachmann
Vicki from Pasadena
When Crowley asks the first question, Ryan's response should be: "Before I answer your question, I would like to ask you why you said some think that my pick would be 'some sort of ticket death wish' "?
And don't quit asking until she answered it.
I would rather see a debate with no moderator at all, other than the sound guy* and a clock guy*. Decide on the timeslices ahead of time, then: Microphone A is turned on for the designated time, a very visible clock counts down the time remaining. At the end of the timeslice, Mic A is turned off and Mic B is turned on, and the clock restarted. If someone finishes their point before the timeslice is up, the techs swap the mic setting and the clock early.
-------------------------------
*these are technical terms, saying nothing about the gender of the person.
Godfather, you're right that loaded questions can be parried and even turned to one's advantage.
The more insidious issue is the apportionment of topics themselves. E.g. more time spent on contraception and gay marriage means less time for fiscal and economic issues.
" O'Reilly is as right as they come ". Sigh. He thinks of himself as a populist. Not a big fan of the second amendment. He leans right. Which is far from being as right as they come. Make one wonder about what else someone who could make such a silly statement might be wrong about.
Palin and Bachmann are mothers, not moms.
What's the difference between mothers and moms?
To the commenter who said that the American people demand an unbiased debate moderator I would say that the American people had nothing to say about it. This was undoubtedly decided in negotiation between the Obama campaign and the Romney campaign. It probably went something like this: Team Obama: “if you want debates you will accept the left wingers we pick or no debates.” Team Romney: “OK.”
Crowley a woman? I would say the Packers could use her in the D Line this fall.
Small minded behemoth may be a more apt description.
Post a Comment