Posted on 01/11/2012 4:10:20 AM PST by tobyhill
Sitting through the Republican debate on Saturday night with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos was just painful, from beginning to end. Some of it was just political Ambien. But when it was finally over, there was just one question. Who in the GOP in his/her right mind invites a historically shameless Democratic spin controller like Stephanopoulos to “moderate” a primary debate like this – ever?
The only thing that can be said in defense of that horrible decision was turning to NBC the next morning and seeing “moderator” David Gregory be even more slanted in his questioning. ABC slanted the ideological questions in their debate by a ratio of six questions from the left to each one from the right. The NBC ratio was eight to one.
Why must the Republicans keep handing over their debate stage in the primary season to the people who desperately want them all to bumble, stumble, and fall on their face on national TV?
In the ABC debate – an event held for Republican voters presumably to decide who is reliably conservative enough to win the nomination – ABC asked three questions from the conservative perspective, and twenty from the left (25 were ideologically neutral). Twelve of the 48 questions, or 25 percent of the night’s total, were devoted to promoting contraception and gay marriage, so trite and repetitive that finally the audience booed them down.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
They don’t call them the Stupid Party for nothing.
Many Freepers had the same exact reaction Saturday night and the same observations.
Maybe Brent was reading the live thread.
“Things are in the saddle, and ride mankind” - Emerson.
This whole process is a show, contrived to produce a Romney-Obama matchup and to make sure, whoever wins, that nothing changes.
Is it the RNC?
Anybody know?
The only thing that can be said in defense of the decision to accept those moderators is that they are the ones who are moderators.
Why didn’t Brent Bozell invite the candidates to a debate? Why didn’t Rush? Why didn’t Mark Levin, or Sean Hannity, or Hugh Hewitt or Dennis Prager, or Glenn Reynolds? Or even Michael Medved?
The candidates had no choice because out side never stepped up.
When these ridiculous questions are asked, I would love it if a candidate said “that is not an appropriate question for this debate, but here is a question that we will answer....” And if the moderators continue with the slanted questions, keep ignoring them.
Haldfway through that idiocy I found myself thinking I will guarantee my vote for the first person to say they had enough of this crap and walk off the stage
WHY ARE OUR DEBATES MODERATED BY “THE ENEMY”???
(yes, I DO consider The Media ‘the enemy’ of the USA)
“Who in the GOP in his/her right mind invites a historically shameless Democratic spin controller like Stephanopoulos to “moderate” a primary debate like this – ever?”
Indeed. Whoever is making these decisions should be fired.
And IF it was the RNC was it done while mikey steele was in charge???
One of the candidates needs to take a stand.
They need to refuse to attend any debate where one of these MSM hacks is moderator.
Then they need to hold a counter-event elsewhere at the same time.
They need to pledge to do that in the general election as well.
Lack of courage in the primary campaign guarantees lack of courage in the general election and if elected, in the White House.
The speech: “These ‘moderators’ do not have the interests of the American people at heart. The primary issues of this campaign are ..... I refuse to be side-tracked by stupid gotcha questions or irrelevant major media agendas.”
I’d much rather see all candidates attend the debate and directly address the biased moderators each time they ask their left-leaning questions. It isn’t fair to ask candidates to skip the debate. Besides, this is a matter that needs to be tackled head-on, before the country on the offending moderators’ own turf. Most questions could be responded to initially along these lines: “Now [moderator], why, when there are so many pressing issues that the country is truly concerned about, would you ask a question about [gay marriage, abortion, etc]? The Constitution provides for freedom of the press, but isn’t there a counterbalancing duty on the part of the press to act responsibly, and maybe even, if I dare say it, fairly? Why, then, would you choose to ask such a question?
Others here can frame responses much better than I, but there’s a start.
Sun Tzu “The Art of War” is relevant here.
You do not fight a war on a battlefield controlled by your enemies—unless you like to lose.
It benefits both sides at some level or they wouldn’t do it time after time??? I think it has something to do with the left obsesive need to make sociall issues ( gay marrige and contraceptives and soaking the rich)
The candidates would rather answeer stupid questions than difficult questions?
This is how we end up with a rino Romney as the frontrunner. He is the best at answering stupid questions.
As we all know its far more important that a President look and sound good,even if he is a radical marxist, rather than actually lead a country with real substance.
obsessive need that is
I agree
EDIT:
It benefits both sides at some level or they wouldn’t do it time after time??? I think it has to do with the left’s obsessive need to make social issues ( gay marrige and contraceptives and soaking the rich) and avoid the real issues.
The candidates would rather answeer stupid questions than difficult questions?
This is how we end up with a rino Romney as the frontrunner. He is the best at answering stupid questions.
As we all know its far more important that a President look and sound good,even if he is a radical marxist or a fake conservative, rather than actually lead a country with real substance.
I am not sure Sun Tzu is apt here. I stand by my comments.
I thought Stephys questions were good because it showed that Mitt can brush off an imbecile with grace and humor. Poor Stephy was looking like a moron after pushing his dumb questions. /p>
Putting that liberal commy jackass in as moderator was a good idea. Any Pub worth his salt should be able to stick it to him, as Mitt did.
They go to the alphabets because the alphabets have the audience share.
I would package the debate as if it were a football game and put it out for bid based on a contract written by myself. In that contract, I’d spell out neutral, non-media moderators from business, academia, agriculture, medicine, science, etc. The only media moderator would be the one who ran the program saying things like: “Now a question from former ambassador John Bolton”.
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.