"Is this the same George Stephanopoulos
who enabled fraud before the American public?"
Posted on 01/10/2012 5:14:45 AM PST by Kaslin
We've been dealing with liberal media bias for years, but George Stephanopoulos' performance in the Republican presidential debate Saturday night in New Hampshire was particularly egregious.
In many of these MSM-moderated debates, liberal moderators have tried to stir up personal fights between candidates, which diverts our focus from more important issues and, before national television audiences, shifts attention far away from Barack Obama and his disastrous agenda.
Yes, these are debates among Republicans and designed to bring out distinctions among the candidates, but it should be up to the candidates to initiate and define those distinctions, and it is improper for the moderators to continually steer the debate away from substance and into the personal. With the moderators constantly stirring up catfights, liberal ends are served, both in placing Republican candidates in the worst light and in creating the illusion that their primary differences are with one another rather than Obama.
If you doubt this, then ask yourself how often in Saturday night's debate the candidates were given an opportunity -- instead of showing how corrupt, immoral or inexperienced their GOP rivals are -- to distinguish their policy proposals from the others in the context of the Obama record. The narrative in these debates ought to be how each of the candidates is better-equipped than the others to reverse Obama's agenda.
In addition to misdirecting the debates substantively, the liberal moderators have also, too often, injected themselves into the debates as if they were either driven by their irrepressible egos to make themselves players rather than facilitators or so ideologically revolted by the GOP's policies that they were compelled to argue Obama's side in his absence. The moderators shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways. If they are going to direct the debate solely toward differences among the GOP candidates, they shouldn't present Obama's side for him, giving him and the liberal position a free ride.
As for stirring up personal and nasty issues, ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Rep. Ron Paul whether he would stand by charges in one of his South Carolina ads that former Sen. Rick Santorum is "corrupt -- a corporate lobbyist, a Washington insider with a record of betrayal." As if to ensure Paul wouldn't sidestep the corruptness charge, Stephanopoulos repeated, "You also call him corrupt in that ad."
This kind of baiting would never happen in a Democratic debate, even if Fox News furnished the moderators. After an extensive back-and-forth on this issue, Stephanopoulos tried to keep it going by turning the ball over to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, nudging him to pile on both Santorum and Paul. Why settle for a back-and-forth when you can have a three-way?
Before Stephanopoulos' next turn, for good measure, moderator Josh McElveen, as if trying to perpetuate a gossip chain in a schoolyard, asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich how he would respond to Paul's calling him a "chicken hawk."
But the evening's award performance goes to Stephanopoulos, for his next round of questions to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Completely out of the blue, manufacturing an issue out of whole cloth, Stephanopoulos asked, "Gov. Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?"
To his credit, Romney called him on it: "George, this is an unusual topic that you're raising."
When Romney wouldn't take the bait, Stephanopoulos argued with him, derisively reminding Romney that Romney had attended Harvard Law School and therefore couldn't pretend not to understand the issue -- as if Romney's understanding of the issue, as opposed to its stunning irrelevance, were what Romney was reacting to.
But Stephanopoulos held on to the question like a rabid terrier, petulantly making himself and his asinine line of questioning the issue. Perhaps Stephanopoulos, in a most convoluted way, was trying to get Romney to denounce the Supreme Court's judicial establishment of a Ninth Amendment right to privacy, ultimately culminating in the infamous abortion decision, Roe v. Wade.
More likely, Stephanopoulos was angling, via a pathetic effort at Socratic questioning, to lay a trap for Romney that would expose him as the flip-flopper he's reputed to be and knock him down a peg or three. For Stephanopoulos next said, "But you've given two answers to the question."
Romney obviously didn't even know what Stephanopoulos was talking about. He had invoked an irrelevant issue and tried to trick Romney into answering it the way he wanted him to so he could pounce, and when Romney didn't, he supplied Romney's answer(s) anyway because he was determined to ensnare him, even if the ghost of Socrates wasn't cooperating.
With a half-century of experience as a witness to liberal media bias, I'm not easily shocked or outraged by current displays of it, but George Stephanopoulos deserves special notoriety for his disgraceful performance Saturday night.
"Is this the same George Stephanopoulos
who enabled fraud before the American public?"
bias = Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
partisan = A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
why do repubs keep appearing in front of these commie morons? They should form their own debates with repub questioners.
George Stephanopoulos is classic example of the term-useful idiot.
Saturday nights debate with Diane and George was just awful. They should be barred from moderating anymore debates, now or later this fall.
Wouldn't you just love to see a debate between Obama and Gingrich with moderators Mark Levin, Mark Steyn and Rush Limbaugh?
It is almost as if they want zero to win.
I did love Gingrich’s slapdown, turning the tables on Stephie by declaring the cramdown of homo “rights” as being state sponsored bigotry against Catholics and Christians.
This is why I do not bother to watch the debates... bread and circuses.... my ideal candidate would be the one to tell the people sponsoring the debates to go to hell and just not participate..
Uhm, yeah, George was disgraceful. /s
He is a political operative and works for the collective. He is just doing his job and I thought he did it rather well, for his side.
These debates aren’t designed to allow the candidates to demonstrate their thoughts on what is important to the country and how they would solve the problem.
No, with each debate, the field is being shoe horned into basically imploding, on themselves...on each other.
If any of these guys want’s to break out from the rest, if they are in another debate where the questions are well, purile, they should intelligently exit the so called “debate” and invite the others to another location where they can each hash out the issues and explain why their ideas are more powerful reasons to vote them as POTUS.
Of course, they would need to have an agenda, much like the main stream media and our side is as good at agendas. No, we are more pragmatic in our approach.
I say that has to change. The liberal media has an agenda and we should have one as well. It should be forceful, resolute and obvious.
I don’t play games with people who can colude with each other to win. I did once and it was against some Ivy League “smart guys”. I forget the card game but they essentially ended up cheating.
They felt like they won even though my hand was superior but under their cheating and on the fly “rules”, they insisted they had won.
NO, the rules are one thing and their victory was hollow for it shallowness.
The media is cheating each of these men out of their opportunity to explain themselves.
I vote for Newt to stop the debate, explain to his friends he has set up a different venue where each can explain his ideas and walk off from this stoopid forum.
Of course, there will have to be others in collusion on the deal but what the heck.
It will raise the visibility of everyone and totally diminish media’s anachronistic thoughts to irrelevancy or at least make them fight for why anyone should give a damn what they think.
Let’s see what the next debate holds. Christmas?
Months ago I suggested Levin, Breitbart, Coulter as a possible three. I think Limbaugh would be too dominant of a personality, which is why I shot a bit lower on the totem poll - or is that pole? But I like your thinking.
Republicans need to go on the offense at debates and every chance they get. Nobody wins by playing defense. The same positions that Stephie was making seem wrong with the candidates in the debate are the same as 0bama’s (gay marriage for one). Tell the truth, get away from the social issues and talk about jobs and the economy. Stephie can only control some of the discussion.
The entire effort of lib moderators is to shift the focus of the debate to social matters to show conservatives as bigots who would enforce their “narrow-minded and hateful” social agenda on the rest of the country. Naturally subjects that are of vital importance to all Americans, like defense and the economy, are way down the list of topics for the lib mods. They want to tell the American public: “see, these nasty, bigoted, Republicans want to force you to go to church on Sunday, and they want to put a camera in your bedroom.” Typical lib tactics.
I would have no moderators in a debate between Gingrich and Obama.
There would be a timekeeper, 45 minutes per subject, and broad subject areas: defense policy, foreign policy, economic policy, homeland, and social concerns.
I think Obama does that ON PURPOSE to give the arab world a sound bite
You can bet that Obama’s affirmation that he is a muslim was played all over the arab world
Isn’t all media that we are exposed to, the main-stream media? What serious media isn’t main-stream?
That's a great idea for the General Election. My suggestion was for the still crowded GOP debates.
Stand up,George.”Oh,God love you;you are.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.