Trading Places: It's Time to Trim the Debate Moderators' Role

American Thinker ^ | November 2, 2014 | Clarice Feldman

[jazusamo]

As this campaign season draws to an end, doubtless many will comment on what was right and what went wrong for each party. Let me beat the crowd by stating whatever the outcomes of the Congressional and state races the notion of Republicans continuing to allow Democratic operatives posing as newsmen and women to act as moderators in candidate debates is one of the most inexplicably stupid blunders of all. And yet each election it is repeated. Let this be the last time.

Here are some names and incidents that should be engraved forever on the RNC steps and in each republican officeholder’s quarters: George Stephanopoulos, Gwen Ifill, Charlie Gibson, Candy Crowley, and James Pindell.

George Stephanopoulos

George, a key figure in the Clinton Administration, went on (with no journalistic experience) to become a newsie at ABC. In 2012 during one of the (too many) Republican candidate debates he surprisingly hit the candidates with a question about contraceptives -- certainly an odd issue for a presidential debate. Within weeks the Democrats launched their “War on Women”. Do you suppose this was a coincidence? Or, like me, do you think this was the first shot in a planned campaign, designed to appeal to single women which focus groups had accurately pegged as vulnerable to a campaign organized around emotional, appeals not rational, considerations?

Gwen Ifill

In 2008, this PBS correspondent, moderated the debate between vice presidential candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin without having disclosed that a book she’d authored, The Breakthrough scheduled to come out after the election, was highly complimentary to Obama and would be more saleable if he won. American Thinker’s Lee Cary detailed how biased and often uninformed her questioning was:

Here’s one of my favorite examples Cary gave:

[jazusamo]

Ramirez Bump.

[DoughtyOne]

He deserves it...

Thanks.

[Organic Panic]

I don’t know why republicans bother to do TV debates. The moderator’s sole purpose is to ensure the democrat wins the debate and the republicans look like fools. Come on, Candy Crowley was fair an impartial?

[Cen-Tejas]

Please! The last thing I want to see walking in Walmart my one time per year is that broad!

[terycarl]

she should be a Walmart greeter.

Walmart has standards

[Balding_Eagle]

The problem faced by Conservatives who hold out for a neutral debate moderator is going to be the fact that the Dems won’t participate.

Still, I say hold out.

Have the debate go on without the Dem.

[Wildbill22]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfmKpA30Xeo

What could possibly go wrong by having a liberal “Journalist” moderating a debate for the conservative?

Mitt was gullible to think that he would get any sort of justice or perspective that reflected anything close to the truth.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Why do debate panels always have to be composed of journalists, anyway? Why not a panel composed of a business leader, a retired military officer, a physician, a law enforcement officer, and then maybe throw in a journalist just for old time’s sake? The concerns of journalists hardly outrank those of other Americans.

Fundamentally, the position of “objective journalist” is ideally suited to the demagogue. And when it comes to demagogues, birds of a feather flock together - a politician who will say anything and flatter anyone to get elected will get along just fine, thank you, with a journalist who will say anything and flatter anyone to get money, prestige, and political influence.

But, the question is not why “debate panels” should consist of journalists, but why debates should be moderated with anything other than a chess clock to control the microphone?

If the only consideration were to publicize the candidates’ positions on what issues are important and what should be done about them, there would be no need of a moderator to presume to define the issues at all. George Stephanopolis’ infamous injection of birth control as an issue among a group of candidates none of whom had the slightest interest in debating that issue was entirely gratuitous. It should not be a possibility in the future.

[Chode]

LOLOL!!! tooo funny...

[a fool in paradise]

A rigged debate is a rigged election. The “Twenty-One” gameshow scandal pails in comparison.

NO liberal should be the moderator of a Republican primary debate. They cast the entire tone of the debate through the selected questions/positions. Then add in their personal “favorites” (or false fact attacks on certain candidates).

[GeronL]

bump