Posted on 11/26/2014 7:30:45 AM PST by Kaslin
On an interview tour for his new book on President Obama, NBC's Chuck Todd told Larry King that his conversations with Obama are "very nourishing." Even after six or seven years of adoration, reporters still sound like then-NBC reporter Lee Cowan admitting in 2008 that being assigned to the Obama campaign made his "knees quake." He wondered if "he could do the campaign justice," since it was "truly historic."
With conservatism on the ascent again and Obama's legacy in tatters, it doesn't take psychic powers to guess the 2016 presidential cycle is going to be another brutal campaign for GOP presidential contenders. Not only will the media transparently wish for Democrats to retain the power to protect Obama's "historic" policies, Republicans will inevitably be tagged as sexist for daring to run against the "truly historic campaign" of Hillary Clinton.
That hint of the aggression to come came when the Republican Governors Association strangely asked Chuck Todd to moderate a panel discussion with five governors on Nov. 19 at its conference in Boca Raton, Florida. The New York Times reported that Todd tilted the whole conversation toward Obama's executive diktats on immigration.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal eventually protested: "We have an hour. We've now spent 30 minutes talking about the president breaking the law tomorrow. ... I'd like to talk about energy, I'd like to talk about education." Todd replied, "This is not an insignificant issue." Jindal tried to change the subject, and Todd kept pushing "path to citizenship" at him. "You don't have to take a long time answering," he insisted. "You've asked it five times," Jindal protested again. "I've answered it five different ways."
Moments later, after Todd ignored him and continued to press on the issue, Texas Gov. Rick Perry remarked: "Here's what I'm thinking: You will probably not be invited to do a moderation for a presidential debate." That prompted laughter and applause from the audience.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich added: "One of my friends said, 'Why would they have Chuck Todd and not George Will? I mean, what's the story with this?'"
This is a promising sound, but the governors did invite Todd to moderate this event, and they should not have been surprised at the one-sided pounding they received. As usual, Republicans think inviting liberal national journalists grants the meeting some kind of instant gravitas, impressing donors and the grass roots. Instead, it only signals their political masochism. And then, on cue, they complain.
Todd is reflecting the Obama-loving media narrative that Republicans have a very damaging racism problem. Under this narrative, the midterm victories mean nothing, since minority voters aren't turning out for the midterms. Todd and his media pals still know in their "objective" bones that the Republicans are doomed to be a losing "white male" party for many elections to come.
So the Republicans should use this Todd event to realize their need to break the addiction. Stop inviting Obama-loving journalists to "moderate" anything when Republicans gather to discuss politics. At the very least, take a break the length of time between Obama visits to Fox News -- six months to a year.
Todd's persistence on immigration is quite similar to moderator George Stephanopoulos asking six questions about contraceptives at a debate in the last election cycle. It's well past time to stop letting the liberal networks directly inflict damage on Republicans from the stage during the primary debates.
get rid of the moderators altogether. no one moderated the lincoln-douglass debates.
Oh if we had someone with a set that refused to do a debate unless one set had Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh as moderators.
I’ve always wondered why the GOP agrees to a debate with liberal moderators who always side with the Rat.
Over the weekend, I was watching RT (Russia Today). I hate to admit it, but occasionally, I need a different prospective on things. So, they had Larry King doing his show on RT (they are the last folks around who care what Larry says or does, and at least they pay him for his show). So, Larry has Chuck Todd on.
It’s like a pub scene at some bar with two Chicago Cubs guys talking over the greatness of Ernie Banks (sorry Ernie, but I have to use someone that fits this story). Chuck and Larry went back and forth....over their admiring of the President....neither understanding why the shine has worn off or why the public won’t buy the message.
It took about twelve minutes for me to finally say enough, and flip back the French news in English network.
In essence, both Chuck and Larry looked like idiots, and lack any journalistic behavior. They are simply some cheerleader squad turned on turbo, and lacking any ability to peer into a situation or fraud. Neither should be on TV....unless it’s noted that they are paid by someone to say something.
1. George S, former Clinton “War Room” boss, followed W.H. orders and planted the “war on women” meme with his off-topic birth control questions to Romney. WHORE PRESSTITUTE
2. Candy Crowley jumped in to save Obama when he lied that he had called Benghazi a terror attack from day one. (He did NOT.)
3. Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes had an interview with Obama the day after Benghazi and tried repeatedly to get Obama to say if he thought it was Benghazi, he would not do so.
Kroft and CBS hid the existence of this blockbuster interview until a day before the election, and only mentioned it in passing because Atkisson and others at CBS who heard insider network rumors, and threatened to report the story outside of CBS if CBS would not do so. After the Crowley “save,” Kroft’s interview would have been a blockbuster scoop....but it would have harmed Dear Leader. So CBS “News” hid it.
I’m sure we can think of other blatant cases of PRESSTITUTION by the “reporters” of ABCNNBCBS “News” aka American Pravda.
I agree. Just set ground rules, with two separate mics, that will alternate going live.
For example, alternate which candidate can ask a question. Give each of them two minutes and then one minute. Then swap who initiates Q2.
It can all be done with a mic that goes dead and switches to the other after the time is up.
Put a big countdown clock where both can see it, and give a 10 second “warning buzz” that their mic is about to go dead.
Earth to the MSM,
Your president is an ignorant little s**t.
Learn it, live it, and eat it.
I believe time is at hand.
In my way of thinking, because those five governors asked Chuck Todd to be the moderator reflects poorly on their planning and decision making skills
Since you are never going to get fair moderators so the whole set up should be changed. Just reqire that the moderator ask a single question and both debators get 5 minutes to and three minutes to respond to the other’s answer. No “follow up” questions to either debator. Then you move to the next question which is done exactly the same. Risne and repeat until time’s up. The moderators would only be allowed to ask questions and are not allowed to comment on answers.
Mark Steyn would be a fun moderator.
Dibs on press in the civil war
I don’t believe there should be any debates between candidates of the same party, all it does is provide fodder for the other....go out and campaign and win on your own merits, without having to tear down the other candidates, all it does is weaken the eventual nominee.
“Damp Leg” syndrome - aka “Chrissified”
So he swallows before getting up off his knees.
Happy Thanksgiving!
I think Republicans should INSIST on a new tack with Presidential debates from now on. NO single moderators from any three letter media. NO moderators that have not been carefully screened and agreed upon beforehand by the GOP.
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.