Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ScottinVA
Of course it's a conflict of interest. It looks really bad, it calls the objectivity of debate preparation into question.

It's manageable, of course, if the relationships are disclosed in advance and voluntarily. In this case that wasn't done, which means it's safe to assume the worst. It was a big deal when George Will didn't disclose his wife worked for Scott Walker.

With full disclosure, the viewer can make an informed judgment.

102 posted on 01/28/2016 7:40:09 AM PST by gogeo (If you are Tea Party, the GOPee does not want you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: gogeo
With full disclosure, the viewer can make an informed judgment.

And I maintain if indeed that disclosure was a requirement, it should have been followed... but at this point, that's unknown. The fact that Brooke made her connection to Rubio's campaign public very early on blunts the whole notion that there was an intent to "hide" something.

And.. the idea that Rubio can sharply respond to questions at debates is attributable to somehow having been "fed" the questions is laughable. He performs equally well on the debate stage at other venues (CNN's, for instance). I would find it rather difficult to believe Candy Crowley gave Rubio such an advantage.

Conspiracy theories are fun, because they're participative... everyone gets to play. But this is much ado about nothing.

107 posted on 01/28/2016 7:50:12 AM PST by ScottinVA (If you're not enraged...why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson