Posted on 10/18/2012 8:49:30 PM PDT by Leaning Right
There have been quite a few comments here at Free Republic regarding moderator bias during the two Presidential debates, and also during the Vice-Presidential debate.
Many FR posters have been taking pot-shots at the MSM and the debate moderators. In my humble (and often misguided) opinion, we are shooting at the wrong target.
The real target here should be Romney, and his advisors. They agreed to all of this. What else did they - and we - expect?
After all, if you pick up a scorpion, you can expect to get stung.
Romney and his advisors did not agree to this.
It’s commission that does it, and it has Republicans on it, in equal representation. Unfortunately, they’re of the ‘country club’ faction of the party, and see nothing wrong with the MSM.
But I agree, it is downright maddening that it gets repeated every freaking four years.
The State-Run-Media is CONTROLLED by the Dem's/White Hut, and that doesn't provide alternatives, unless you want the debates on "un-biased" PBS?
Where do you get the idea that we are all, like, surprised and dismayed?
Romney either checkmated the moderator bias or used it to educate the unaware.
There is nothing a moderator can do to save The Disaster. This is a slam dunk.
And next debate is going to be even worse for him.
Yes, Romney and his advisors knew beforehand what to expect from the moderators of these debates. Thus far I’d say they have played the libs brilliantly. You, are misguided, and incorrect. What Romney has pulled off here is killing the libs.
I totally fail to understand why GOP could not insist on the right to appoint two of the moderators.
There will never be genuine debates until they are of equal number of right and left moderators.
If they get to have Candy Crowley, we should be able to have Laura Ingraham.
Of course fantasizing about what will never happen, kind of like Romney being a conservative and not causing more damage to the country than Obama by soiling the message we want to get across.
“But you had a Republican, and this and this happened!” Will we ever learn? Nope.
Can't say that the Romney campaign can be blamed for a process that was underway over a year ago.
The very few GOP journalists are “biased” and “far right.”
Cowley and company are ‘middle of the road’ and ‘respected.’
That’s just how it works.
Romney knew this going in and was prepared to debate both Obama and the moderator. He performed as well as possible given the circumstances. His summary of the poor economy was a home run.
Viewers also can see it’s a set up / biased event and take that into account — except for the Obamabots who were never going to change their mind anyway.
Romney will be getting nightly news stories on...
the high gas prices;
the poor economy;
body count from the wars;
etc. etc.
It’s never going to be a fair game. Conservatives go into business and work for a living. Libtards become professors or journalists.
The schools of journalism now teach there IS NO SUCH THING as “objectivity” .. so they don’t even try. It’s all about perspective and bias. That gives them free license in the post-modern journalist world to say whatever gets their guy elected or re-elected.
It’s a risk to a career to buck the system and there are few places for conservatives to go.
Nevertheless, I’ve seen surprising efforts at journalistic integrity from ABC News’ Jake Tapper and (shockingly as he was the biggest fan boy of all four years ago) CNN’s Anderson Cooper - mostly on the Libya issue.
When you see an actual journalist in the MSM it’s surprising and usually hits places like FR. Shows how rare it is they even attempt balanced stories.
Leaning Right? Looks like you prefer falling FORWARD with four more years of Obama. Blame Romney? The DEBATE COMMISSION sets this up. Romney’s options... rely on the fine job the MSM is doing in presenting him fairly to the electorate, turning down participation in the debates. I’m sure you’ll agree the press would fully back and understand that decision! What a nit-wit.
I would suggest two alternatives. Either the moderators be strictly neutral CSPAN folks, or allow each debate to have two moderators. Each side picks one.
I hear you. I should have included "and the GOP establishment" in my target list. A nominee should not have to surrender debate control to some weak-kneed commission!
Why do we even have moderators.. All we need is a time clock, and a switch that shuts off the camera and mic..
they have played the libs brilliantly
I have no real argument with either statement. But Romney could have advanced the ball much, much further with a neutral moderator.
Just think how badly Obama would have looked had a neutral moderator pressed him on the nonsense he was spouting.
Every four years the lib's force the GOP into unfair debates. But nobody on our side seems to care. Instead we just blame some “commission”, and let it go as that.
Perhaps if someone really pressed the GOP leadership on this, it would stop. On second thought, that would be for “nit-wits”, as you said.
Better to leave things just as they are. /s
>>A nominee should not have to surrender debate control to some weak-kneed commission!
If Romney had boycotted the debates, he would have been crucified in the media. As it was, it was the first time most Americans, especially lefties, got to hear him unfiltered, uncut, undistorted by the media.
True. But as Rumsfeld said “You go to war with the army you have-—not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
Romney has done a great job with the situation he was handed. He has taken a major disadvantage and made it work in his favor. He was not my first choice in the primaries, but he has totally impressed me as the nominee.
Actually, it showed President Romney’s mettle. You really think he’ll have an adoring, loving media to give him backrubs and sweettalk him? No, this showed me that President Romney can stand up to Regressive politicians and media.
The optimist in me says that we’re getting a two-fer.
1. 0bama is going down in November.
2. The media are being exposed for the lying, biased weasels that they are.
If the moderator had been a conservative, the MSM would have discounted the debate from the start. Light shines brightest in the darkness, and Romney looked far better to the people in general because he showed he could hold his own in the face of a pincer movement between his opponent on the chair and his opponent behind the moderator desk.
Can’t think of the exact title but it is something like the Commission
on Political Debates that is the ruling entity. I think the term
“non-partisan” fits in there somewhere. The problem with “non-
partisan” is that sooner or later the libtards take over and do their
dirty business. I think it is way past time for the GOP to
square things up.
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.