Posted on 11/26/2014 7:30:45 AM PST by Kaslin
On an interview tour for his new book on President Obama, NBC's Chuck Todd told Larry King that his conversations with Obama are "very nourishing." Even after six or seven years of adoration, reporters still sound like then-NBC reporter Lee Cowan admitting in 2008 that being assigned to the Obama campaign made his "knees quake." He wondered if "he could do the campaign justice," since it was "truly historic."
With conservatism on the ascent again and Obama's legacy in tatters, it doesn't take psychic powers to guess the 2016 presidential cycle is going to be another brutal campaign for GOP presidential contenders. Not only will the media transparently wish for Democrats to retain the power to protect Obama's "historic" policies, Republicans will inevitably be tagged as sexist for daring to run against the "truly historic campaign" of Hillary Clinton.
That hint of the aggression to come came when the Republican Governors Association strangely asked Chuck Todd to moderate a panel discussion with five governors on Nov. 19 at its conference in Boca Raton, Florida. The New York Times reported that Todd tilted the whole conversation toward Obama's executive diktats on immigration.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal eventually protested: "We have an hour. We've now spent 30 minutes talking about the president breaking the law tomorrow. ... I'd like to talk about energy, I'd like to talk about education." Todd replied, "This is not an insignificant issue." Jindal tried to change the subject, and Todd kept pushing "path to citizenship" at him. "You don't have to take a long time answering," he insisted. "You've asked it five times," Jindal protested again. "I've answered it five different ways."
Moments later, after Todd ignored him and continued to press on the issue, Texas Gov. Rick Perry remarked: "Here's what I'm thinking: You will probably not be invited to do a moderation for a presidential debate." That prompted laughter and applause from the audience.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich added: "One of my friends said, 'Why would they have Chuck Todd and not George Will? I mean, what's the story with this?'"
This is a promising sound, but the governors did invite Todd to moderate this event, and they should not have been surprised at the one-sided pounding they received. As usual, Republicans think inviting liberal national journalists grants the meeting some kind of instant gravitas, impressing donors and the grass roots. Instead, it only signals their political masochism. And then, on cue, they complain.
Todd is reflecting the Obama-loving media narrative that Republicans have a very damaging racism problem. Under this narrative, the midterm victories mean nothing, since minority voters aren't turning out for the midterms. Todd and his media pals still know in their "objective" bones that the Republicans are doomed to be a losing "white male" party for many elections to come.
So the Republicans should use this Todd event to realize their need to break the addiction. Stop inviting Obama-loving journalists to "moderate" anything when Republicans gather to discuss politics. At the very least, take a break the length of time between Obama visits to Fox News -- six months to a year.
Todd's persistence on immigration is quite similar to moderator George Stephanopoulos asking six questions about contraceptives at a debate in the last election cycle. It's well past time to stop letting the liberal networks directly inflict damage on Republicans from the stage during the primary debates.
Yeah.....it could be a modification of the “juror strike” options lawyers have, except it could happen during the debate. Have three moderators. One candidate calls out “Strike” after any question and that moderator/panelist is gone. Give them ONE strike each.
Unfortunately there are no more Tim Russert's in the MSM any more. They are all liberal whores, working for the punk POTUS.
I refuse to vote for anyone that smears other candidates of the same party. For example in the last election. I did not vote for mayor. Our mayor ran for reelection and she had two opponents who smeared her and each other. She ran a clean campaign and deserved to be reelected, but I did not vote for her because she is a democrat; so were her two opponents, because when she was in the Tennessee State House there was not one tax increase she did not like.
We can all relax when an impartial guy like CBS Bob Scheiffer can moderate.
He even is available to slow down over-eager reporters when the White House asks him to.
“I’m also calling Sharryl”s editor and reaching out to [CBS news correspondent Bob] Scheiffer. She’s out of control.”
Wait a minute. Does that mean Fox News too? And what about the Commie News Network (CNN)?
Well, yes. There are some really sh!tty potential moderators Fox could/might put forth. For example, I definitely would not want Bill O’Reilly, that queer guy on in the afternoons, nor that saboteur that used to work for CNN in the mornings.
Like I said -——three lettered....
Agreed. The "debate" is nothing but a series of pre-fabricated position statements.
Let each campaign submit an equal number of questions to the debate organizer. Each question will be pre-recorded by a radio announcer and loaded into an audio file.
At the start of each question, someone hits a button and a random question is chosen from the remaining pool of questions, and played for the candidates and the audience.
The candidates take turns answering a question, and the other candidates are given time for a rebuttal or their own answer. Each candidate gets 1-2 minutes for their answer.
If the candidate's time expires, their microphone shuts off automatically. If the candidate finishes early, they can press a button on their podium and "bank" their remaining time for their next answer (and carry over the balance as long as they like).
Otherwise, the Republicans should just flat refuse to participate in "debates" that are "moderated" by anyone from the state-run media. They'll take a lot of heat for it, but it will be no worse than the beating they will take from the likes of Candy Crowley or George Stephano-something.
The two sides should alternate at selecting moderators.
Republicans should insist on one thing. The debates will only o to the network with the best ratio of democrat to republican viewers and will accept nothing else.
That forces the MSM to either, 1) lie, 2) protect the democrat and lie or 3) agree to play fair. Republicans need to box in the rats and the media at the same time.
As an aside, I think the 3 moderators for every debate should be Megyn Kelly, Brett Baier and Bill O’Reilly. The only reason I would want O’Reilly is because moderate democrats trust him.
Then Republicans go NEXT....liberaldom has had the choice for decades now.
Good point. Why not Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Sean Hannity as moderators?
You don’t see conservative moderators doing democrat debates.
In fact, by the time the presidential debates occur, most voters have made up their minds already and have divided themselves along partisan lines. So the debates are basically reduced to a sporting contest with people cheering on their guy and hoping the other guy commits a gaffe (kind of like what we do here on Free Republic with those live threads).
So that is my argument for doing away with presidential debates altogether.
Debates were important during an era where they were often the only opportunity a voter had to see and listen to the candidates (i.e. Lincoln/Douglas) but those days are long gone. In our mass-media age, we are already overexposed to the candidates before even the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary.
I agree. Just set ground rules, with two separate mics, that will alternate going live. For example, alternate which candidate can ask a question. Give each of them two minutes and then one minute. Then swap who initiates Q2. It can all be done with a mic that goes dead and switches to the other after the time is up. Put a big countdown clock where both can see it, and give a 10 second “warning buzz” that their mic is about to go dead.
I like that.
Amen.
All you house GOPe lovers: Show us constitutionalists how the GOPe's ultimate goals are different from the Dems, item by item. C'mon. Don't be shy.
It’s a shame that we’ve lost that, mainly because of bad formatting and moderator interference.
They don’t need a “ref” or “ump” standing between them but clearly a “homer” for on candidate.
Just use alternating hot mic format. No moderator. Mic is only hot on one side or other. First Q, 2 minute response, 2 minute reubuttal, then continue at 60 seconds and 31 seconds.
The viewer will get a very good understanding of their minds from that. Do they just stay on script, or are they agile? Can they riposte succinctly, with a countdown mic that will cut them off if they go over? Obama could NOT do this format, for example. His answers would have to be memorized, and the adversary could easily make this appear clumsy and pre-gurgitated.
Just some musings. It’ll never happen. American Pravda ABCNNBCBS love the current circus. And presstitutes like George “Birth Control” S or Candy “Yes he did say it!” Crowley, they would lose their chance to give a tactical ad to their Rat confederates.
The GOPe is just STUPID to go along with it. We are the bulls and the Matadors get to determine the rules? How is that good for us?
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.