“shame on Wallace for repeating the dem talking points on this issue.”
After watching Chris Wallace over the last month or so and commenting on this thread with my observations, here are my conclusions about him.
1. He has a set of questions prepared for him and is stuck to the agenda.
2. He tries to emulate his father’s style on follow up challenges but he does not think well on his feet so that politicians can easily slither away. Take today’s exchange with Schumer and Newt. After asking Schumer about Pelosi’s trip, he allowed Schumer to sidestep the question entirely. Rather than let Newt respond, Wallace comes in with a prepared didn’t you do the same thing? I was extremely disappointed with the lack of exchange allowed between the 2 guests (which is the purpose of having them together). I do not believe that your comment that I quoted was Wallace’s motive. I do believe that he is not competent to generate worthwhile discussions. He therefore is married to agenda questions regardless of how the discussion is curtailed. He thinks that the stature of the guests that are on along with his prepared questions is sufficient in itself to elicit meaningful discussions. I have never heard an effective challenge from Wallace.
3. Wallace is way too enamored with the superficial aspects of the Presidential race. He tries to bring almost any guest onto that topic.
4. I do not believe that Wallace attempts to express the democratic line or espouse positions such as Tim Russert on Iraq. I think his questions are generally reasonable. However, he is imprisoned by them because he is unable to effectively deviate from them based upon the emerging discussion.
Bottom line is that Fox should replace Wallace with a more effective host.
1. He has a set of questions prepared for him and is stuck to the agenda.
####
I agree with you and , judging from some of his follow-up (or not) questions, I believe that Wallace has less knowledge of the background of his guests or the historical political points than many Freepers have.