Posted on 03/05/2012 4:22:14 AM PST by Acton
WALLACE: Rush Limbaugh has now apologized to the Georgetown law student who said that her student health plan should cover birth control. But your party is still pushing this issue. In the Senate, they offered a Blunt amendment this week which said that any business, any insurance company could decide on moral grounds not to offer birth control coverage as part of the health insurance plan.
Do you really want to be campaigning on contraception in the year 2012?
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I saw the interview, it was hard-hitting, to be sure, but I did not think it was unfair. Santorum could have handled his answers better, but all in all I thought he did a decent job fielding tough questions.
I don’t think that Chris Wallace deserves your criticism as you have stated it regarding Santorum - maybe for going easy on other candidates - but not for this interview.
the “gotcha” from conservative Catholic radio show talk host Bill Cunningham was even more strident and attacking.
Do you really want to be campaigning on contraception in the year 2012?
No. I want the politicians to campaign of the constitution. No government involvement in health care.
then and only then will I consider Wallace "fair and balanced."
All Wallace did was try to nail Santorum to personal beliefs & accuse him of being out of the norm.
If Santorum's personal beliefs are out of the norm then this country is in sad shape, and I suspect it is!
Santorum was quite ill with the flu or something (which Wallace admitted to in a segment an hour later) yet still held his own & answered Wallace's 'gotcha' questions graciously and soundly.
It's early. . . .
If the eventual nominee of any party can not handle Chis Wallace, that party is in deep, deep, trouble
I listened to most of that Cunningham interview last night. I am NOT a Santorum supporter by any means, but what was up with those questions? He kept saying he was praying that Santorum would win but that he didn’t have a chance. His questions were almost attacks. Santorum couldn’t help but sound defensive and argumentative. Then there was some kind of silly dustup where Santorum supposedly hung up on another host. The interview made this Newt supporter actually feel sorry for Rick!
Why the hell does Rick let himself get dragged into these issues that are not the determining issues of this race? He never wins the “debate” in those instances. Why the hell didn’t he say: “Hey Chris, wanna talk about he Economy or Foreign Policy or rising gas prices?” No, he keeps walking right into the media’s trap. Hey Rick, STFU!!! And, as far as Chris Wallace: FOX News has been in the tank for Romney for months.
Christy peddled the Demoarty / media matters talking points word for word and you defend this crap .
The issue is religious freedom not the dem party line !
And not contraception and the entire scan is a Soros media matters lie !
Christina orives once again is she is
another Soros media operative.
Exactly
And this is news precisely why?
Those of us that actually pay attention have known this for years.
Rick opened himself up for this type of crap. He needs to learn when to SHUT UP!!!
Christina attacks are line by line the Media Matters play book .
The fraud is sad Dem party operative .
Fair and Balanced would be Fox's (or any news network's) straight news programs, not commentators.(whether or not they actually accomplish this...as they mostly don't)
not backing Wallace (the spawn of his leftist father, Mike....they seem politically opposed)...not crazy about him...just saying, he is a commentator not an anchor.
Old Chrissy is one of the mist vile leftist snakes on TV and GOP hater from day one .
He track record is Soros talking point moron .
The national socialists and their propagandists are getting a lot of mileage/converts/useful idiots out of the mini-Reichstag moment. Stage the event. Amplify the lie.
“Everything about socialism is sham and affectation.” - 23.11 Ch23 Evil; Economic Harmonies; Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
Whiney crybaby sluts for socialists are very effective.
Sandra Fluke is the white, upscale version of Peggy (”I won’t have to worry about puttin’ gas in my car...”) Joseph...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
Pay for my stuff BUMP!
DEFUND socialism. You can do it. Live large.
DEPOPULATE socialists from the body politic. C’mon November. Live free.
1. Fluke could have started a Mutual Aid Society for female students at Georgetown. A society like that would empower women, not INFANTILIZE them. Here's an example of a mutual aid society2. Fluke could have directed impoverished law school students to Wal-Mart or Target, where they could by birth control for $9 per month.
I used to have respect for Wallace and watched his show every week, but, now, realizing what he really is, I almost never watch.
I watched an interview he did with Santorum some weeks back. All he wanted to talk about was homo “marriage”. It was annoying and creepy.
Then, yesterday, I gave him another shot because I wanted to see Santorum. Wallace made all but one question about birth control. It was sickening.
I was disappointed in Santorum for not changing the subject. The Obamunists want to keep the conversation about birth control and how conservatives are just spoilsports who want to keep everyone from having sex.
It’s a pretty smart strategy, given our culture’s obsession with sex, as it keeps everyone from paying attention to the deliberate Obamite destruction of the economy.
Just like O'Reilly continues to rail...."Why doesn't Rick change the subject when they ask him the social, moral or subjective type questions....why doesn't he talk policy?"--(O'Reilly wants to show Rick how to deflect debate questions & give policy answers)
HOWEVER...O'Reilly,....when he had Rick on his show just last week.... asked the deeply penetrating policy quesion of ....
'Rick what do you think of Obama'.....
And when Rick gave him a gracious answer & started talking policy...
..O'Reilly repeated...'but Rick, I want to know what you think of Obama'....and Rick AGAIN started talking policy...
..and the 3rd time O'Reilly started in the 'but I want to know what you really think of Obama'....
..and Rick finally says...."He's a good husband and father"....and then tried to talk policy.
Yeah, O'Reilly, you really had your chance to ask some great policy questions............BUT YOU DIDN'T
Some of you would rather continue with 'Why didn't he'.....instead of appreciating or expressing support for Santorum's gracious & honest replies.
What Elephant?
≡≡8-O
Do you really want to be campaigning on contraception in the year 2012?
&&&
Of course not. Do you not see that it is the leftists who are trying to make it about birth control? This keeps Santorum from discussing Obama’s deliberate efforts at causing economic collapse.
If you recall, Little Georgie Stephanopoulos (sp?)brought the birth control question seemingly out of nowhere — now, we know better — in one of the earlier GOP debates. Then, a few weeks later, the WH brought the battle to the Catholic church about providing abortion-inducing substances, sterilization, and birth control for its employees.
At first, I was puzzled and wondered why the WH would want to go to war with the Church right now. It soon became crystal clear that this was a brilliant way to 1) direct attention away from the economy and 2) paint Santorum as a killjoy conservative who wants to poke around in everyone’s bedroom.
Wallace is guilty, IMO, of advancing the Obama agenda.
Why the hell does Rick let himself get dragged into these issues that are not the determining issues of this race? He never wins the “debate” in those instances. Why the hell didn’t he say: “Hey Chris, wanna talk about he Economy or Foreign Policy or rising gas prices?” No, he keeps walking right into the media’s trap.
&&
Exactly. His people need to work on this with him.
(Do you really want to be campaigning on contraception in the year 2012?)
On my paying for it for lost people?
Yes, if we are to have any hope of saving our Nation....
Not all of us want to be sluts, whores, pimps, and assclowns destined for Hell Mr Wallace. That may work for you, Mr Wallace but I’ll pass.............
But, but, but, but, but, the FRingrichers say it’s all Santorum’s fault. He should just shut up. Never mind that Wallace only had questions on this one topic. It’s Santorum’s fault.
It’s Santorum’s fault.
It’s Santorum’s fault.
It’s Santorum’s fault.
It’s Santorum’s fault.
It’s Santorum’s fault.
What part of “it’s Santorum’s fault” don’t you understand?
The solution, FRingrichers believe, is for Santorum to refuse all free media. Then he’d not have to answer these gotcha questions.
He’d also lose the one form of media he has to have in order to compete with Gingrich’s Las Vegas billions and Romney’s Bain Billions.
But it’s Santorum’s fault. It’s Santorum’s fault. It’s Santorum’s fault.
Repeat after me: It’s Santorum’s fault.
Must be true if it’s repeated so often.
I
I quit watching fox news.
How is it that its the default of the MSM that its the GOP attacking free birth control??
seriously?
Chris Wallace has finally become MIke Wallace. Time to get him a segment on 60 Minutes.
“I agree with Acton......what kind of fair and balanced interview was that?”
Sorry, I didn’t see anything out of line. It was a tough interview, so what?
I didn’t see any attack on religion, I saw a politician being questioned. I support Santorum by default.
The modus operandi any more around here is to whine when your candidate gets questioned, or when all the other candidates don’t drop out.
When did following politics become like parents watching their 6 year old playing soccer on Saturday morning after junior gets kicked in the shin by another player?
Why are supporters of individual candidates such babies?
(only a semi-rhetorical question.....I really am curious why supporters of every candidate whine so dang much this cycle!)
Politics is supposed to be a contact sport.
Sorry, I don’t see a Soros conspiracy. The tough questioning only works to Santorums advantage.
Even if there was bias in this interview - and I don’t think there was - any politician who isn’t ready to handle the inevitable curveballs from a biased media is out of their league.
“Why not, Wallace is a liberal butt hole.”
I didn’t think Santorum was blindsided. I think he did OK, not great, but he did OK.
You don’t think it was unfair of Wallace to show Obama giving 14% of his income to charity last year while he and his cheap wife gave less than 1% to charity before he hit it rich with his dumb book and government connections? I though that was as dishonest as one could get.
Rick loves to have an audience and he has not learned how to say, " You want to talk about ________, I want to talk about gas prices, Iran and the threat to Israel, the Keystone pipeline, the EPA, the price of electricity and the shutdown of coal plants, so Chris, stop axing me about free rubbers and ax me about everything I've just described. Asshole.
Do not change titles.
“You don’t think it was unfair of Wallace to show Obama giving 14% of his income to charity last year while he and his cheap wife gave less than 1% to charity before he hit it rich with his dumb book and government connections? I though that was as dishonest as one could get.”
Santorum resisted the urge to say “Those guys have more money than me.....” He have a great answer. It worked to Santorums advantage, I think. “Hey, I got 7 kids and one of them needs exceptional care”
He was putting the candidate on the hotseat. I didn’t have a problem with it. It wasn’t unfair, in my opinion. It was an opportunity to knock it out of the park. Santorum got, maybe a double. Not bad - not as good as he could have done.
“Wallace brought up his charitable contributions.”
So? Why is this a problem?
“don’t pretend any part of the media is fair to conservatives.”
I’m not. I just don’t see that the questions were unreasonable. Do you want your candidate to get softball questions on interviews of this sort? Of course not - not if you want your candidate to advance.
Tough questions - even unfair questions - work to a non-front-runners advantage, if they are nimble enough to take the opportunity. Santorum sort of did that, but could have done better.
I just don’t see where whining over this interview is necessary.
So having castigated Santorum on his contributions going back to 2006 which is 6 years prior to his running for POTUS he fails to mention that Obama was a cheap bastard before he ran nationally and you’re just fine and dandy with that? Tell me is that fair, balanced, objective? Which criteria did Wallace meet when he mentioned the one year where Obama actually made substantial donations to charity?
“Tell me is that fair, balanced, objective? Which criteria did Wallace meet when he mentioned the one year where Obama actually made substantial donations to charity?”
He gave Santorum an opportunity to address the difference that will surely be part of a presidential race should Santorum get the convention nod. He’s a politician. Hit him with whatever you got, see what happens. He did ok. Do you object to your candidate getting hit with tough questions? How would it have helped Santorum to pitch softball to him?
LOL, you joking? I’m all for tough questions but I am just as against shilling for Obama. Do you think Wallace gave an objective view of Obama’s charitable giving before anybody was watching? Knowing the answer to that question I’ll simply move on to the next question. Why did Wallace hide the fact from the viewer that Obama and his wife wwere cheap bastards before he ran for national office and had Bill Ayers write him a book to cash in?
The interview was a joke, and was scripted on Democrat talking points — there is no need to be talking about contraception, but we should be talking about the Constitution — BIG TIME. The original hearing that Ms. Fluke was not invited to speak at was about the Constitutional underpinnings of the Obama regulations on the conscience clause as applied, to be sure, to Catholics only. But the Democrats had to hold their own mock “hearing” to make this issue an issue that would give Chris Wallace the cover for his questions. They are undermining the Constitution, guys, little by little, by using ever means at their disposal. And when Rush makes a point by being absurd, the entire Republican “establishment” is ready to throw him under the bus. I will never use a sponsor that drops Rush because of this matter.
“Do you think Wallace gave an objective view of Obama’s charitable giving before anybody was watching?”
No. But he was interviewing Santorum. I didn’t read it as shilling for Obama.
“Why did Wallace hide the fact from the viewer that Obama and his wife wwere cheap bastards before he ran for national office and had Bill Ayers write him a book to cash in?”
You wanted him to state that in a question to Santorum? The interview was of Santorum. Again, I think he did Santorum a favor allowing him to address the difference in charitable giving, however it was analyzed. Santorum did ok.
Santorum could have addressed the difference in Obamas charitable giving - but that wouldn’t have been a good approach. He went with the right approach.
Wallace is a total jerk, but I do wish Santorum had not been so polite. Gingrich would have taken charge of the situation, I suspect.
Santorum is a gentleman, but sometimes it hurts him. But we are seeing him get a little more feisty, so there’s hope....
“You can call it whining to diminish the validity of any claim against them”
I have no interest in defending Fox News. I just didn’t agree that the interview was unfair and I thought it an overall positive for Santorum - so why whine about it?
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.