Last night's debate in New Hampshire was most notable for proving once again that Republicans and especially conservative Republicans should avoid the dinosaur media like the plague.
Last night's debate was hosted by ABC, and moderated by George Stephanopoulos - ex-campaign operative, Senior Advisor on Policy and Strategy and press spin jockey for President Bill Clinton, who walked into his job with ABC as soon as he resigned from the White House.
Stephanopoulos' 'moderating' lacked even a semblance of objectivity or journalistic ethics as he fired over the top broadsides , often hypothetical ones at the GOP candidates to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if he got an early morning call from the White House beforehand. Here's a sample:
“Now, there have been questions about that calculation of 100,000 jobs. So if you could explain it a little more,” Stephanopoulos asked Romney of the former governor’s claims about jobs created by companies he has helmed. “I’ve read some analysts who look at it and say that you’re counting the jobs that were created but not counting the jobs that were taken away. Is that accurate?”
“No, it’s not accurate,” Romney bluntly responded. “It includes the net of both. I’m a good enough numbers guy to make sure I got both sides of that.”
Stephanopoulos did not cite any analysts by name.
In another line of questioning, Stephanopoulos asked Romney if he believes “that states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”
Romney responded by questioning Stephanopoulos’ logic and his choice to raise a hypothetical situation that would never happen.
“You’re asking — given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so — you’re asking could it constitutionally be done?” Romney asked, with a hint of incredulity.
Stephanopoulos, undeterred, pressed Romney again: “I’m asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?”
Amid a chorus of “boos” from the audience, Romney again parried the impossible hypothetical.
“George, I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception,” Romney responded. “No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do, and asking me whether they could do it or not, is kind of a silly thing, I think.”
Stephanopoulos also took shots at the other candidates, notably Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. And he deliberately encouraged the candidates to squabble among themselves rather than actually doing what a moderator is supposed to do, keep things on track and on topic. I'm sure that pleased the Obama campaign no end.
Oh, I hear what you're thinking...'hey,George Stephanopoulos is a human being,he has his views, you can't expect him to shut them off.'
Actually, that's exactly what I expect, from him and anyone else in the media who bills themselves as journalists and news professionals rather than commentators or opinion writers.
Tell me, when you go to work in an office, in a factory, or a business environment do you make a point of trumpeting your politics? Do you let them affect your job performance? Let's say you're Democrat plumber whose boss sends you on a job, you make a point of talking politics with the customer and modify your charges and your performance based on their ideology. How long do you think you'd stay employed?
The same thing is true in most work environments...with the exception of academia,Hollywood and the dinosaur media, where voicing conservative views can impact your employment prospects unless you're too well established and entrenched to touch.
A detached, balanced and non-biased attitude ought to be the standard in broadcast news and journalism, and it used to be, at least on the surface. Not any more. If George Stephanopoulos received any negative feedback from his employers at ABC for his performance, it was for not being more subtle about it.
That's exactly why the stocks, the readers and the audience are plummeting at the dinosaur media papers and the alphabet networks, and why the internet, talk radio and FOX, whose motto 'Fair and Balanced' is exemplified by their having Democrat Chris Wallace as their main anchor are seeing their readership and audiences surge. Since the dinosaur media's whitewash of President Obama, more and more people simply aren't drinking the Kool-ade anymore.
If I were running, I wouldn't even go near a debate like this. I think NewtGingrich had a decent idea of making these things Lincoln -Douglas style, with no moderator but a timekeeper and the candidates forced to think on their feet to counter each other's arguments. At the very least, I wouldn't go near one sponsored by the alphabet networks unless I badly needed exposure.
As for the rest of the debate, it was notable that once again, no one has really been able to lay a glove on Mitt Romney. There were a few attempts, mainly by Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, mainly focusing on Romney's changes in his positions and his time at Bain Capital, but they didn't really seem to do much damage and seemed fairly ineffectual.
The primary is Tuesday, and Romney is expected to win. It will be interesting to see how Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum end up finishing as we proceed on to South Carolina.
ADDENDUM: Hugh Hewitt notes that the execrable David Gregory did exactly the same thing that Stephanopoulos did last night in the NBC debate Gregory 'moderated' this Sunday morning.
No question in my mind now that this was coordinated from the White House. Disgraceful.
5 comments:
Gingrich denies he's rich when he is, believes his father's service exempts him from chickenhawk status. Romney believes,as Pat Lang says "leadership of a largely destructive Wall Street M&A company that specialized in wrecking distressed companies to profit from sale of pieces of the wrecks are claims that he knows how to "run" the US because he was so good at the wrecking."
Santorum and Perry are Israel's more available bitches-and Perry wants to return to wreak havoc against the Iraqis government's will.
Ron Paul or ruin!
I love how so many of you Paultards always return to the same old topic - Israel and the Evil Joos like a dog who constantly needs to pee on the same lamp post.
One thing I've learned is that just because somebody wore a uniform once doesn't make them sacrosanct. Your current idol's speeches remind me a lot of Father Coughglin or Lindbergh back in the 1930's.
It's also obvious you know diddly squat about Bain Capital worked or how capitalism in general works,but that's OK.
I'm sure when Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate, you and people like you will vote for him,therefore vindicating Obama's strategy of paying off Paul to siphon off enough votes from whomever the GOP nominee is to get Obama back in the White House.
Enjoy yourself.
The Arab countries receive more aid from America than Israel does. Also, the aid to Arab nations is unconditional whereas the aid to Israel is highly conditional. The US has never gone to war to benefit Israel and theire is currently no scenario in which it would. The US has gone to war for the beneift of Muslims/Arabs on a number of occasions. Not sure why some people are so obsessed with Israel.
Dr. Paul has stated that he would not run as a third party candidate. Has he stated otherwise or how do you know he changed his mind?
While it is unsurprising that Dr. Paul's and many of Mr. Obama's supporters would feel comfortable around one another and would work together since there's very little difference between each group on foreign policy issues, where is the proof that Mr. Obama or his team are "paying off" Dr. Paul to siphon off votes? If this could be proven, his candidacy could be pretty much destroyed could it not?
Finally, I should point out that Dr. Paul's views on foreign policy are the most in line with the views American people of any candidate currently running in either party. As such, even if Dr. Paul retires or otherwise goes away there will be at least 10 simillar politicians to replace him.
Hi Poster,
I haven't yet seen anything from Ron Paul about him not running as a third party candidate. In fact,just the opposite.
As you may know, one of my usually reliable sources in DC said openly that Paul is receiving money and logistical help from the Obama campaign.
Hearsay,yeah, but it makes sense.It's probably one of the few ways Obama can get back in to the White House, if Paul siphons off enough idiot libertarians, paleocons and the like, people who would normally hold their noses and vote for the GOP nominee against Obama.That's how Clinton got in back in 1992.
Finally,you say that Ron Paul's foreign policy views are more in line with the views of most Americans. I disagree, especially if you actually look at what that entails and ask people whether they favor it. Do you have any actual facts to back up that opinion?
Regards,
Rob
It does make sense that Dr. Paul would be receiving support from members of Mr. Obama's team. There is very little differences between his positions on foreign policy and many of theirs. As such, support would very likely be natural.
I think the Huffington Post interview you refer to is more current that the information I have. This does not really surprise me. For better or worse, men like Dr. Paul have principles and will generally stick to them regardless. Such people view elections as an end to implement which ever polices they support rather than the end goal simply being to get elected for the sake of power. I would not describe libertarians or paleconservatives as idiots. They may be misinformed in cerain areas but to hurl the insult of idiot at them is incorrect.
If we ask most Americans do they want an America first policy, they'd say yes. Do they want our troops all over the world or do they want them defending America, they'd say defending America. Do we foucus on fixing our crumbling infrastrucre or conflicts on the other side of the world, they'd likely say fix our infrastructure. Ask most Americans do they want war with Iran they'd say no. (They don't realize Iran is already at war with us.)
With this said, in fairness, all most Americans are exposed to is how much the military costs. Seldom, if ever, are they provided with the benefits of this spending. For example, if we bring our blue water navy home, this would save alot of money on deployment costs but they would not be defending vital shipping lanes. Should we lose access to this, how much money will we lose in lost trade. Also, we have men defending vital oil supplies. Should we bring them home, it will save money but we are going to lose money if we lose access to these supplies.
It would be interesting to know what the economic benefits to us of the enormous military budget we have. Can you provide a reliable source that discusses this?
Post a Comment