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 ...
“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.