Skip to comments.The bias of Bob Schieffer: Top 7 moments
Posted on 10/22/2012 10:53:13 AM PDT by george76
In August, I blasted the Commission on Presidential Debates choices of three Beltway lib journo-tools CNNs Candy Crowley, PBSs Jim Lehrer and CBSs Bob Schieffer. So far, theyve acted just as expected and predicted. As I noted:
While the debate panel trumpeted the gender diversity of its picks, the chromosomal diversity is far outweighed by the political uniformity, class conformity and geographical homogeneity of the group.
The presidential debates are the last bastion of mainstream media self-delusion in the 21st century. They are a ritual laughingstock for tens of millions of American viewers who have put up with leading, softball questions for Democratic candidates and combative, fili-blustery lectures for Republican candidates campaign cycle after cycle.
(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...
Earlier I read this from MM’s site. Good stuff bump.
In arbitration hearings, one of the biggest negotiating points for attorneys is the obvious - the arbitrator. Union attorneys don't want business sympathizers and corporate counsel doesn't want a Jimmy Hoffa clone.
Raddatz? Crowley? Schieffer? Are you nuts?
I don’t watch the debates on purpose because they just make me mad.
From all accounts tho, Crowley must have set a record for obvious bias. I guess the Republicans are just plain used to being screwed and just go along.
Bob Skeletor will be his imperious harrumphy now-see-here-Governor-Romney worst at tonight’s Obama Revivalation.
Mitt needs to smile, keep his cool, and just refuse to acknowledge the moral superiority double-teaming that has been planned.
I never really have understood why Republicans put up with the moderator choices. During the debates for the general, the choices should at least be neutral, and in the Republican primaries, when everyone watching is to the right of the LSM, they should be downright conservative. I can’t see why Republicans think they have to accept whatever agenda-driven socialist is offered up, certainly in the general but especially in the primaries.
I thik moderators are unnecessary—just have open mikes rigged to timers: time’s up, mike goes off.
This is one of my pet peeves.....the GOP are pussies.
Why agree to be bound by Marquess of Queensberry rules for yourself and your opponent gets to fight under UFC rules.
And Hofstra University, located in the "swing state" of New York being a hosting site for two consecutive election cycles? Why?
Republicans, especially Republican challengers, have no chance of reaching low information voters who only watch MSM outlets, in any other way. A Republican has to have the skill set to get through this bullsh*t smokescreen and reach these voters directly. Ronald Reagan definitely had that skill set. Mitt Romney? We shall see.
But he only begin to make this a real horserace after the first debate.
I DETEST Schieffer ... and Obama. As much as I want to hear how Romney handles things, I don’t think I can bear to watch tonight. I know a couple of other people (will vote Romney) who are bailing on this last debate .... same reasons - don’t want to hear Obama lie and Schieffer enable/support/spin Left for Obama and watch Romney cut off, shorted on time, sabotaged, etc. It’s all just quite disgusting.
Whoever agreed to him as a moderator in the GOP, should be held responsible. I’m sick of these idiots.
Debates generally favor the incumbent. If there were no debates, Romney would lose because he would have little chance to speak to Americans in his own voice, and the DNC/MSM combine would have almost complete freedom to define him.
So the incumbent (Obama) would have preferred NOT to debate, but not debating makes him look like a chicken, so the Dems submitted to it even though there is little upside potential, unless the challenger makes a fool of himself.
So the incumbent has the upper hand in any debate negotiations.
That's bad, but not as bad as Gwen Ifill in 2008, who had a book in the works on Obama to be released after the election, which amounted to a $500,000 bet on his victory.
From what I understand, both parties are given a list of names they can chose from: Here is the list:
1. Hugo Chavez
2. Chris Matthews
3. Martha Radditz
4. Bill Mahrer
5. Fidel Castro
6. Van Jones
7. Candy Crowley
8. Bob Shiefer
9. Walter Cronkite
10. Peter Jennings
LOL, you are probably right. The GOP just needs to say no and start raising Cain for a fair debate venue for a change. They can go an election w/o a presidental debate if need be. The Left media is unprofessional and should be taken out.
Yeah, and that was just the republicans choices, here are the dems:
1. Rush Limbaugh
2. Andrew Brietbart
3. Candy Crowley
4. Mark Levin
5. Sean Hannity
6. Martha Raddatz
7. Nancy Reagan
8. Bob Shiefer
9. Ann Coulter
10. Laura Inghram
So you see, this is how they all agreed to the chosen moderators.
These events are always coordinated between the media and the RAT campaign. Let the RATS submit 50 questions and the Pubbies submit 50 questions, with 10 from each picks at random from the cookie jar. they can agree to opening and closing, followup procedures ahead of time—again, when the time is up, the microphone goes dead. Doesn’t matter if you are a slow speaker—too bad. ;((
No, I don’t “get’ it. No one says liberals get to be the bosses over the GOP. Tell liberals to screw off and demand what you want.
Always remember his ethics when he drove a distressed and distraught Lee Harvey Oswald's mother to Dallas. Her son accused of murdering the then president. He later has stated "I always wore a snap brim hat to look like a detective". He posed as one, to get the jump on the competition.
He could consider this interview as his "masterpiece" and then retire. Time will tell.
I wonder if David held similar views on his peers in the media like Bob for instance...
lol, sounds like Michelle Malkin has someone in mind for a "more diverse" moderator -- her.
I'd suggest Brit Hume, Laura Ingraham, Tom Sowell, and Star Parker.
I'd say old David Brinkley, whom my late, sainted dad thought the world of and trusted far more than the pompous Cronkite (Dad's bullshit detector always worked just fine!), pretty well nailed Slick Willie, except that he was overoptimistic about the next four years, LOL!
God, I'm so glad my poor old dad -- an assistant prosecutor's son -- didn't live to see Slick and Beast in the White House. He had radar for trashy, self-referential, basically criminal adventurers like them, and he hated people like that.
s And a narcissistic, bottom-feeding deviant like Barky? OMG ....
For the very reasons you’ve described, that is also why I have not watched any of the debates. I would be grossly irritated by watching the “moderators” slant the playing field in favor of Obama.
Worse yet, I would be even more incensed by Obama’s non-sensical bloviating answers to almost any question asked of him.
I “cheated” .... I had the TV on behind me and was watching the Power Line open thread (would rather have been on FR) & Dick Morris. Initially, I was pretty depressed because I expected a “stronger” Mitt, especially when Libya came up. It took me 20 - 30 minutes to ‘figure it out’ and then I started laughing. As awful as it was to hear Obama blah blah blah, every word just made him sound/look worse and worse. Romney got in his punches and there were a couple of good ones ... really good ones. For a good roundup of the punches, you can read them here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/the-knock-out-punches.php
On Benghazi, I think the episode with Candy Crowley showed Romney which way the wind was going to blow if he tried to tangle with Obama directly. Of course, I am outraged beyond words with what happened as are many Americans; however, Obama was going to be impossible to pin down on that subject ... a friend of mine uses the term “slicker than eel snot” and I think that is a great description. I’m sure as Romney and his advisors tried to figure out a debate strategy, it became more and more obvious that they were not going to “win” on that issue and in fact, with Obama being the incumbent President, they would probably not even get to a draw. Romney is still a private citizen ... and Obama has a distinct advantage as the incumbent .
I think Romney played it perfectly - rope-a-doped Obama big time. Obama was staring at Romney, I think trying to figure out what was going on! I’m sure 3/4 of Obama’s time at Camp David was spent trying to figure out if MR says ‘this’ on Benghazi, we’ll say ‘that’ and if he says ‘that’, we’ll say ‘this’. Wasted time, big time. As the debate went on, Obama got snarkier, more petty and very diminished. Most folks agree Romney was calm, cool, collected, knowledgeable and Presidential. Chris Wallace and a few others said it looked like Romney was the president & Obama the challenger. I’m glad I listened .... glanced at the TV a few times (seeing Obama blah blah is almost unbearable). Schieffer, to my surprise, was VERY even-handed .... he tried a ‘gotcha’ once at least, maybe twice, and Romney handled it perfectly - made him look even more suited to be President. It was a GREAT evening for Romney overall - if Obama “won” (marginally) the debate, he lost the war.
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.