…ladies and gentlemen, I give you the moderator of Thursday night’s Vice Presidential debates: Gwen Ifill.
You’re not familiar with Ms. Ifill? Neither was I. Evidently, neither was the Commission on Presidential Debates (a supposedly neutral organization), nor was the McCain camp. Ifill is a senior correspondent for the PBS show, The News Hour, with Jim Lehrer. (Any association with PBS woulda done it for me – PBS being far from neutral in it’s news shows. But I digress.) More importantly, on January 20, 2009, Ifill’s new book will be released. The title? The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. If you harbor any illusions that her book is a critical look at the Democrat’s standard-bearer, take a look at this abstract from Amazon.com:
In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.
Ifill argues that the Black political structure formed during the Civil Rights movement is giving way to a generation of men and women who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s. She offers incisive, detailed profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, and also covers up-and-coming figures from across the nation. Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the “black enough” conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history.
THE BREAKTHROUGH is a remarkable look at contemporary politics and an essential foundation for understanding the future of American democracy.
You cannot possibly tell me that Ifill’s gonna be neutral as the moderator. No way. No how. This stinks to high heaven, and the media (not to mention the liberals) are standing there, hand in cookie jar, brazenly saying, “What? Me? No bias here!”
Remember when journalists maintained a veneer of neutrality? I do. I remember that I was surprised when, years after his retirement, Walter Cronkite revealed that he was, in fact, quite liberal. Who knew? You wouldn’t have known it from his reporting…he took great pains to keep his personal opinions and bias out of his newscasts. Good for him. Good for us. Today, that whole “reporter’s ethics” and neutrality thing has gone right out the window.
Reporters are supposed to be neutral. Commentators, on the other hand, can say whatever they want. In newspapers, they have a page – the opinion page – to which they ostensibly limit the broadcast of opinion pieces. On TV, they call it “commentary.” For instance, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity all have shows that offer political commentary on CNN (Beck) and Fox News (all the rest). They do not pretend to be news shows. They come right out and call what they do “opinion” or “commentary.” Beck and Hannity in particular, make no bones about representing the conservative point of view. From the other side of the political spectrum, however, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and anybody on NBC or MSNBC calls their commentary shows “News.”
Here’s the deal: our political future is way too important to allow the media to tip the scales over to whatever side they prefer to win. Period. Just as churches and religious leaders are – by law – supposed to maintain their neutrality in the pulpit, Reporters are bound by their own ethical cannons to do so in their work. Commentators are not reporters. Reporters are not (supposed to be) commentators.
So what are we to do? The events of the past seven days have proven that the American public is willing to get vocal about an issue they care about. Calls to Senators and Representatives in D.C. numbered in the millions, regarding the bailout bill. I was one of those concerned citizens calling my elected officials. Calls ran about 80% against – and the bill went down to defeat. If We the People were to flood the Commission on Presidential Debates with emails and phone calls, perhaps we could get someone who is a little more neutral than Ms. Ifill to moderate Thursday’s VP debate. If you want to speak up, email Janet H. Brown, Executive Director of the Debates Commission at jb@debates.org. Apparently, calling is a non-starter – those that have actually found a phone number for the Commission (contact information is nowhere to be found on the Commission’s website) you get a message that the mailbox is full.
So, let’s get motivated, and see if we can influence the commission to replace someone who is obviously biased, and have fair and neutral moderator for the debates.
Then again, they’ll probably pick Tina Fey as her replacement.
Both parties will get to answer the same question… Each candidate will have an opportunity to speak. The moderator does not “award points” for answers given. Now this thing is about the moderator? Who cares who is doing the question asking. I personally wouldn't care if George Bush himself was asking the questions. Sounds to me that excuses are already being made for Palin… Who knows, maybe she can hold her own and and answer honest questions with full sentences, she is “training” for this at the McCain Ranch. Maybe she will remember the canned responses that her own campaign staff is injecting her with.
You're obviously not aware of how much sway a moderator has in these things.
And you've pre-judged Palin. Everybody preps for debates. EVERYbody. If you
think that Biden hasn't been prepping (even with all his experience) then
you're pretty naive. Palin has a lot of debate experience – remember she
beat the sitting Governor and a very popular Democrat in several debates in
Alaska.
Moderators pick the questions themselves. There's nothing stopping her from
asking Palin tougher questions than she will ask Biden. Even more insidious,
she can ask Palin “gotcha” questions, designed to make her look bad, and
simply avoid that with Biden. Not cool. Anybody can stump a candidate – are
you going to be able to answer who the leader of every country in the world
is? Why would you need to? But that's the kind of thing they've done to
Palin. Has anybody asked Biden about Obama's record? (Of course not – Obama
doesn't really HAVE a record. The media doesn't want to expose Obama's habit
of voting “present” or the fact that he's a lightweight in the area of
writing and shepherding legislation through Congress.) Wouldn't you rather
have someone moderating that is going to be FAIR about things? Everyone has
an opinion. Journalists are supposed to be able to put their's aside in
their professional capacity. Ifill has expressed her bias. Not good. If
Palin should get a fair shake – if she loses, it should be because Biden
won, not because they stacked the deck against her, with a moderator who
favors one candidate over the other.
Turn this around. How would you feel if Sean Hannity was the moderator? Stop
drinking the mainstream media's Kool-Aid and start thinking for yourself.
– Brad
True, True that everyone preps for debates. I'm sure Biden is prepping for the debate just the same. He better be, cause I wouldn't underestimate any candidate. I also know that moderators pick the questions themselves and are to disclose them to no one. I think it will be obvious to everyone if that sort of thing is to happen with the questioning, I don't think it will. If anything, it's an opportunity to show how you can think on your feet by either A. stating the truth… or B. (what many do) is dodge the question with lengthy responses that direct attention elsewhere. If she can't answer questions I think she should know the answers to, like name one other Supreme Court Case besides Roe vs. Wade, or name a publication you read… Come on, Gotcha journalism? Another question came from a VOTER, she couldn't answer. Those aren't tough questions- Those are questions you would expect a candidate for the Vice President to be able to answer. I agree that, that kind of journalism exists, but that has not been the case lately.
It's not like they asked her who the President of Scandinavia was?
Do you know? I don't… I also think that anyone can be stumped at any time by any one, but I at least think she should be on the same page as McCain with statements regarding their policies. And you too are pre-judging Obama, just because he doesn't have the experience that McCain has.
No Kool-Aid drinking going on here, just observations on facts I see and what I think.
Back in the bad ol' days of Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein were told
“follow the money.” Good advice, as money tends to unduly influence many
things. Here's a question for you…Ifill's book is scheduled to be released
on January 20th – a.k.a. the day the next President gets sworn-in. I heard
that if Obama is elected, she stands to make a MINIMUM of $3 Million from
her book royalties. If Obama loses, she's likely to make…nothing. Is $3
Million enough of a motivator to get someone to skew the questions? I think
so. In fact, I can't imagine that this WOULDN'T affect her questioning, even
if she doesn't realize it.
Regarding the experience thing – nobody, and I mean NObody comes into that
office with all the experience needed (unless they've just been re-elected).
However, much of what a President does is to act as the CEO of the Federal
Government. As such, the position of State Governor is the closest thing to
being President. If you look back, most of our recent Presidents have been
Governors – Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, & Carter – all served as Governors of
a state. Nothing wrong with moving from the Senate, but it's just not the
same thing. In that respect, Palin's experience outweighs not only Obama's,
but Biden's and McCain's as well. The lack of any executive experience
worries me about Obama, but it pales in comparison with my concerns over his
Socialist agenda, and his lack of a willingness to vote, in either the
Senate or the Illinois legislature.
Obama is a gifted orator, and a master at being cool, calm, and laid back. I
don't see those qualities as enough to get the country through 4 to 8 years
of his rule. The kinds of things he advocates (tax increases, socialized
medicine, end the war at any cost) scare the daylights out of me. You may
argue that “Obama only wants to tax the rich…everyone else's taxes will go
down.” Bull. First of all, the “rich” pay a MUCH higher percentage of their
incomes in taxes NOW. How much more of a disincentive do they need to earn
money? Keep in mind, when the 'rich' make money – they spend it – on things
made by the middle class, and their companies create jobs – for the middle
class, and therefore create wealth – for the middle class. Oh, and Obama is
on record as stating that he favors allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.
I'd bet you your next year's salary that those tax cuts expiring will have a
direct effect on the amount of tax YOU pay.
The bottom line on taxes is that unless you look at the WHOLE picture, you
have no idea what kind of razzle-dazzle, hocus-pocus the government is doing
to your bottom line. The entire system is designed to keep us all in the
dark. Where we get into trouble is when some clever politician like Obama
tells us you can get something for nothing – all those social programs he's
promoting cost money. Your money. And mine. It's a simple fact of life that
there is NO free lunch…somebody always pays. Unless Obama is willing to
cut spending in one area, increasing it in another means higher taxes.
Period. To think otherwise is to be really, really naive.
What I suspect is that Obama plans to pay for much of his social programs by
getting us out of Iraq. That is a SCREAMINGLY BAD IDEA. Say what you will
about the wisdom – or folly – of the War in Iraq, but we must live with the
consequences of today – not second guess what we should or shouldn't have
done. Pulling troops from Iraq on an arbitrary schedule WILL result in
turning that country into a hotbed for terrorist activities, and will force
us to go back in – at a MUCH higher cost. Anything else is just wishful
thinking.
I don't think McCain has all the answers. Frankly, I've never been a fan.
But of the two candidates, McCain is, without a doubt, an honorable man, and
he has the courage of his convictions. The people Obama surrounds himself
with lead me to believe that he is NOT honorable, and I'm afraid, he will
take the country into a really bad place, simply to adhere to his own
socialist agenda.
Back in the bad ol' days of Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein were told
“follow the money.” Good advice, as money tends to unduly influence many
things. Here's a question for you…Ifill's book is scheduled to be released
on January 20th – a.k.a. the day the next President gets sworn-in. I heard
that if Obama is elected, she stands to make a MINIMUM of $3 Million from
her book royalties. If Obama loses, she's likely to make…nothing. Is $3
Million enough of a motivator to get someone to skew the questions? I think
so. In fact, I can't imagine that this WOULDN'T affect her questioning, even
if she doesn't realize it.
Regarding the experience thing – nobody, and I mean NObody comes into that
office with all the experience needed (unless they've just been re-elected).
However, much of what a President does is to act as the CEO of the Federal
Government. As such, the position of State Governor is the closest thing to
being President. If you look back, most of our recent Presidents have been
Governors – Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, & Carter – all served as Governors of
a state. Nothing wrong with moving from the Senate, but it's just not the
same thing. In that respect, Palin's experience outweighs not only Obama's,
but Biden's and McCain's as well. The lack of any executive experience
worries me about Obama, but it pales in comparison with my concerns over his
Socialist agenda, and his lack of a willingness to vote, in either the
Senate or the Illinois legislature.
Obama is a gifted orator, and a master at being cool, calm, and laid back. I
don't see those qualities as enough to get the country through 4 to 8 years
of his rule. The kinds of things he advocates (tax increases, socialized
medicine, end the war at any cost) scare the daylights out of me. You may
argue that “Obama only wants to tax the rich…everyone else's taxes will go
down.” Bull. First of all, the “rich” pay a MUCH higher percentage of their
incomes in taxes NOW. How much more of a disincentive do they need to earn
money? Keep in mind, when the 'rich' make money – they spend it – on things
made by the middle class, and their companies create jobs – for the middle
class, and therefore create wealth – for the middle class. Oh, and Obama is
on record as stating that he favors allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.
I'd bet you your next year's salary that those tax cuts expiring will have a
direct effect on the amount of tax YOU pay.
The bottom line on taxes is that unless you look at the WHOLE picture, you
have no idea what kind of razzle-dazzle, hocus-pocus the government is doing
to your bottom line. The entire system is designed to keep us all in the
dark. Where we get into trouble is when some clever politician like Obama
tells us you can get something for nothing – all those social programs he's
promoting cost money. Your money. And mine. It's a simple fact of life that
there is NO free lunch…somebody always pays. Unless Obama is willing to
cut spending in one area, increasing it in another means higher taxes.
Period. To think otherwise is to be really, really naive.
What I suspect is that Obama plans to pay for much of his social programs by
getting us out of Iraq. That is a SCREAMINGLY BAD IDEA. Say what you will
about the wisdom – or folly – of the War in Iraq, but we must live with the
consequences of today – not second guess what we should or shouldn't have
done. Pulling troops from Iraq on an arbitrary schedule WILL result in
turning that country into a hotbed for terrorist activities, and will force
us to go back in – at a MUCH higher cost. Anything else is just wishful
thinking.
I don't think McCain has all the answers. Frankly, I've never been a fan.
But of the two candidates, McCain is, without a doubt, an honorable man, and
he has the courage of his convictions. The people Obama surrounds himself
with lead me to believe that he is NOT honorable, and I'm afraid, he will
take the country into a really bad place, simply to adhere to his own
socialist agenda.