Posted on 09/28/2016 6:46:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
Washington Post reporter Callum Borchers should win some kind of award for the worst pre-debate spin. He tried to defend NBC anchor and presidential debate host Lester Holt: "It turns out Holt is actually a registered Republican. Trump still might find things to complain about Monday night, but a case for partisan bias against him will be tough to make."
Right after the debate, despite all evidence, the Post's Chris Cillizza doubled down, saying: "Want a testament to how well Holt did? I guarantee you no one is talking about him tomorrow. That's a win."
That is precisely as the press would want this. But that's not what America saw. Holt's performance was a partisan disgrace. Holt asked Donald Trump about his taxes, and then challenged him on his answer. He asked Trump about stop-and-frisk policies, and then challenged him, stating it was ruled unconstitutional, which it wasn't, thus conjuring visions of the Candy Crowley Ghost of Flubbing Debate Moderators Past. He asked Trump about the birther issue, and then challenged him on his answer. He asked him about Iraq, and then interrupted and challenged him five different times.
What about Hillary Clinton? There was not one single challenge to anything she said, not one tough question about any policy or any controversy, be it Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, her medical records or her emails -- unless you want to count when Holt politely suggested: "(Trump) also raised the issue of your emails. Do you want to respond to that?"
The Rasmussen Reports poll that came out just before the debate showed that based on the historical record, 46 percent of Americans believe most moderators will tilt the debates in favor of Clinton. Only 6 percent think they will try to help Trump. That's an 8-to-1 landslide.
Holt confirmed the wisdom of the American people.
It became obvious that Holt internalized all the howls of outrage from the liberal media against Matt Lauer for being even-handed with the candidates at the commander-in-chief forum earlier in the month. Editorials were written by anguished staff of both The New York Times and the Washington Post. He might have even heard Jimmy Kimmel rant at "The Apprentice" creator Mark Burnett while hosting the Emmy Awards. He said, "Thanks to Mark Burnett, we don't have to watch reality shows anymore because we're living in one."
Holt's colleagues -- and Clinton's campaign -- said very publicly that he must go after Trump as a clear and present danger to America. That's exactly what he did.
On the morning after this one-sided assault, Holt's colleagues in the liberal media projected an image of him as mellow and reserved, and therefore nonpartisan. The New York Times headline was "Lester Holt Opted for Restraint." Reporter Michael Grynbaum began the column saying, "Call him the minimalist moderator." He described how Holt "opted to lie low" and "was silent for minutes at a time," and then reported that The New Yorker had published a liberal parody called "CNN Launches Manhunt After Lester Holt Vanishes From Debate."
To stick to its "minimalist moderator" spin, the Times chose to ignore most of the debate. Weeks before, Grynbaum wrote an anguished piece after the Lauer forum called "Matt Lauer Fields Storm of Criticism Over Clinton-Trump Forum." He even quoted tweets that mangled the facts, such as one from political commentator Norman Ornstein, which said: "Lauer interrupted Clinton's answers repeatedly to move on. Not once for Trump." In fact, Lauer interrupted Trump 13 times and Clinton seven times.
The only similarity in the stories is that Grynbaum failed to locate an actual conservative or Republican critique of either NBC journalist. That's because the liberal media can't help but slant everything in favor of the left. It's no wonder most Americans no longer trust them.
Well, I have won 10 of 12 in a Democrat stronghold so it does matter. He reached the people he wanted to reach with detailed answers. He loses that and he loses the race.
Excellent.
How do we get this to the committee that handles the debates?
Good luck.......
But,he’s clean and articulate and wears smart glasses!
Looks are deceiving aren’t they?
Agreed but he can prep the things he can predict. Controlling his temper. Articulating facts concisely. His posture. Maybe prep some zingers of his own that would ring with the libs that are not enthralled to hillary. He doesn’t have to appeal to his own base. We are committed.
Hence, a loose but very alert Donald Trump--not trying to remember a canned response-- could have hit Mrs. Clinton's confiscatory tax policy, from any of that vast array of contextual factors such as:
1. My tax plan is not giving anyone anything. It has to do with letting people keep more of the fruits of their own labor, to spend in building the economy; or
2. Mrs. Clinton has forgotten that we won the Cold War. We do not confiscate the fruits of other people's labor; or
3. What is "fair," about imposing punitive tax rates on people who achieve? The high income tax payers will pay much more taxes even with a flat tax rate, applicable to all. Confiscatory taxes are just plain theft; or
4. Your war on success is a glorification of envy & resentment. You encourage a form of covetousness; a self-defeating grievance mentality rather than a constructive desire to emulate what has been the key to success for others--the exploitation of prospective voters by the demagoguery that destroyed Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, and which is now destroying Venezuela: or
5. Mrs. Clinton does not understand how big businessmen pass on high taxes to the small investors & consuming public. If you look at the rising trajectory of enormous Corporate pay packages, you will see that they took off in the pre-Reagan era of confiscatory tax rates--in effect putting the pay packages at a level, where after taxes they would still exceed the buying power of the pay packages before the era of excessive graduation in the marginal rates. Thus the taxes ultimately come out of the pockets of the small stockholders & the consumers of Corporate products.
I could go on, suggesting dragging in the Clinton Foundation; the Totalitarian massacres of people targeted in the upper 1% of certain countries, etc., or a wide variety of other contextual possibilities; but this should illustrate the point.
Exactly. Ignore the bozos who think zero prep is the way to go. Zero prep is a great way to get creamed. He had a mulligan on this one and to think he won because he didn’t lose votes is childish thinking. Beware the fools who confuse luck for prowess.
We all know Hillary had the questions in advance and her scripted answers made her look like the consciousless robot she is. That fact helped Trump in a huge way and prevented the fallout that would have hammered any other candidate that showed up to a debate as unprepared as Trump was.
Trump missed so many baked potatoes in the center of the plate that he could play DH for the Twins. He'd better be prepared to pound her on those lost opportunities next time. Yeah, it's going to be 2 against 1 every time, but he missed golden opportunities and was far too inarticulate for anyone to believe he really spent much time preparing for the most watched debate in history. Opportunity lost.
Agreed, etabeta.
You’re right... Holt took the liberal playbook and used it as if it was the only ‘take’ on what’s happening in the world.
I felt sorry for Holt at times... he’s as tarnished as Candy Crowley now... In future textbooks he’ll be a classic case of bias in the press.
He won the undecideds Monday night, mission accomplished
I am the opposite polarity when pollsters questions do reach me. Grinning hillary looks like the joker on Batman why not be one too.
Being 'unfair' has been a choice made intentionally so their side (liberal elite) has an advantage. You give them too much credit - they are not decent, fair, or honorable.
Holt was sitting next to Ashleigh Banfield on MSNBC the night they called Florida for Gore.
The next debate is a TOWN HALL. The moderators might be set, but the trick with these idiotic Town Halls is that Team Evil will pack the hall with supporters of the diseased witch. These supporters will get to ask questions (not even pretending to be spontaneous). While even libtard moderators need to maintain some pretense of civility (Holt barely managed it, in my opinion) no such constraints exist for the Town Hall attendees. For many it's their dream "15 Minutes of Fame".
Expect a number of hostile "People of Color" in the role of 'seminar callers' asking blatantly hostile questions.
Mr. Trump, you have been called a bigot, homophobe, racist, islamophobe and sexist prick. How can Americans possibly support you for President?"
Did he win the undecideds? Or were they put off by Hillary’s performance and some of them went to him despite his stumbles. It is a mistake to assume he did a great job, in my opinion. Yes, I am happy he picked up a few but if Hillary had been slicker he might not have. Look all of us here are hoping for a Trump win. We just have some different views on how to get there.
I will say, however, that the Matt Lauer format allowed a Navy Vet to ask a question that was devastating to Hillary. I don't expect them to make that same mistake.
Lester Holt, also known as Lester the lip, wore an earpiece through which he was fed specific data which he used to attack Trump and Trumps responses. There is no way the lip has the memory cells to remember the detailed data he spittled out for his mistress of evil. When will this illicit behavior by the lip be addressed publicly, and the filthy leftist Holt shamed for it. ... Yeah, I know, medium whoredom will never let that TRUTH be discussed openly.
Zero prep is the way to go for an unpolished, unrehearsed, unaided & scripted performance.
Thornton Mellon did just fine without using widgets.
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.