A debate “moderator” in the tank for Obama; Update: McCain campaign didn’t know about book; PBS and McCain shrug; Update: Ifill plays the race card
Scroll down for updates…race card-playing Gwen Ifill did not inform the debate panel about her book…
My first syndicated column of the week, filed this afternoon, shines light on PBS anchor Gwen Ifill, who will moderate Thursday’s only vice presidential debate. Try as she might to deflect questions about her impartiality, her biases — and her conflict of interest — are clear. But don’t you dare breathe a word about any of this. You know what will happen if you do…
RACIST!
Sidenote: TVNewser reports that Ifill has broken her ankle, but she’s still going to do the debate. But will she disclose her conflict of interest? Inquiring minds want to know.
Ask the Commission on Presidential Debates if she will acknowledge her conflict of interest: 202-872-1020.
And here’s the e-mail address of Janet H. Brown, Executive Director of the Debates Commission: jb@debates.org
Hopefully, their email system works better than the House.
Tons of readers recommend that Sarah Palin open her debate remarks by congratulating Ifill on her book and asking her to tell everyone the title.
***
A debate “moderator” in the tank for Obama
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008
My dictionary defines “moderator” as “the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting.” On Thursday, PBS anchor Gwen Ifill will serve as moderator for the first and only vice presidential debate. The stakes are high. The Commission on Presidential Debates, with the assent of the two campaigns, decided not to impose any guidelines on her duties or questions.
But there is nothing “moderate” about where Ifill stands on Barack Obama. She’s so far in the tank for the Democrat presidential candidate, her oxygen delivery line is running out.
In an imaginary world where liberal journalists are held to the same standards as everyone else, Ifill would be required to make a full disclosure at the start of the debate. She would be required to turn to the cameras and tell the national audience that she has a book coming out on January 20, 2009 – a date that just happens to coincide with the inauguration of the next president of the United States.
The title of Ifill’s book? “Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.” Nonpartisan my foot.
Ifill’s publisher, Random House, is already busy hyping the book with YouTube clips of Ifill heaping praise on her subjects, including Obama and Obama-endorsing Mass. Governor Deval Patrick. The official promo for the book gushes:
“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…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.”
Ifill and her publisher are banking on an Obama/Biden win to buoy her book sales. The moderator expected to treat both sides fairly has grandiosely declared this the “Age of Obama.” Can you imagine a right-leaning journalist writing a book about the “stunning” McCain campaign and its “bold” path to reform timed for release on Inauguration Day – and then expecting a slot as a moderator for the nation’s sole vice presidential debate?
Yeah, I just registered 6.4 on the Snicker Richter Scale, too.
Despite the protestations of her colleagues that she will be fair, Ifill has appeared on numerous radio and TV talk shows over the past several months to cash in on her access to the Obama campaign. She recently penned a fawning cover story on the Obamas for Essence magazine that earned much buzz. The title? “The Obamas: Portrait of an American Family.” A sample of Ifill’s hard-hitting investigative journalism, illustrated with Kennedyesque photos of the Obamas and children posing at home on the backporch and by the piano:
“Barack Obama is sitting in the back of his rented luxury campaign bus with its granite counters and two flat-screen TVs. The Illinois senator’s arms are wrapped around his wife, Michelle, whom he doesn’t get to see much these days. At this very moment he is, of all things, singing.”
During the Democratic National Convention, Ifill offered her neutral analysis before Michelle Obama’s speech on NBC News: “A lot of people have never seen anything that looks like a Michelle Obama before. She’s educated, she’s beautiful, she’s tall, she tells you what she thinks and they hope that she can tell a story about Barack Obama and about herself…”
During the Republican National Convention, the PBS ombudsman fielded numerous complaints about Ifill’s coverage of Sarah Palin’s speech. Wrote Brian Meyers of Granby, Ct.:
“I was appalled by Gwen Ifill’s commentary directly following Gov. Sarah Palin’s speech. Her attitude was dismissive and the look on her face was one of disgust. Clearly, she was agitated by what most critics view as a well-delivered speech. It is quite obvious that Ms. Ifill supports Obama as she struggled to say anything redemptive about Gov. Palin’s performance. I am disappointed in Ms. Ifill’s complete disregard for journalistic objectivity.”
Like Obama, Ifill, who is black, is quick to play the race card at the first sign of criticism. In an interview with the Washington Post a few weeks ago, she carped: “[N]o one’s ever assumed a white reporter can’t cover a white candidate.”
It’s not the color of your skin, sweetie. It’s the color of your politics. Perhaps Ifill will be able to conceal it this week. But if the “stunning” “Breakthrough” she’s rooting for comes to pass on January 20, 2009, nobody will be fooled.
***
Here’s the video clip of Ifill’s reaction to Palin’s RNC speech:
***
As Instapundit’s newsroom correspondent put it: “The fix is in, and it’s working.”
Bob Unruh adds:
Ifill declined to return a WND telephone message asking for a comment about her book project and whether its success would be expected should Obama lose. But she has faced criticism previously for not treating candidates of both major parties the same.
During a vice-presidential candidate debate she moderated in 2004 – when Democrat John Edwards attacked Republican Dick Cheney’s former employer, Halliburton – the vice president said, “I can respond, Gwen, but it’s going to take more than 30 seconds.”
“Well, that’s all you’ve got,” she told Cheney.
Ifill told the Associated Press Democrats were delighted with her answer, because they “thought I was being snippy to Cheney.” She explained that wasn’t her intent.
Uh-huh.
***
Greta Van Susteren reports that McCain didn’t know about Ifill’s book. “[T]he campaign (actually both) should have been told before the campaign agreed to have her moderate. It simply is not fair – in law, this would create a mistrial.”
***
Update: PBS and McCain agree: No big deal.
Update: Ifill plays the race card. Did I call it or what?
Ifill questions why people assume that her book will be favorable toward Obama.
“Do you think they made the same assumptions about Lou Cannon (who is white) when he wrote his book about Reagan?” said Ifill, who is black. Asked if there were racial motives at play, she said, “I don’t know what it is. I find it curious.”
And note this:
The host of PBS’”Washington Week” and senior correspondent on “The NewsHour” said she did not tell the Commission on Presidential Debates about the book.
Update: Comic relief from Jim Treacher.
Update: Tim Graham at Newsbusters writes…
Gwen Ifill responded to questions about impartiality in an AP interview with David Bauder by suggesting the critics might be racist: “Do you think they made the same assumptions about Lou Cannon (who is white) when he wrote his book about Reagan?” Asked if there were racial motives at play, she said, “I don’t know what it is. I find it curious.”
This is a curious complaint, since (a) Cannon was never the sole moderator or even a questioner in a Ronald Reagan debate in 1980 or 1984 and (b) Lou Cannon wrote at least five books about Reagan. Ifill is probably referring to President Reagan: Role of a Lifetime, released in 1991. An Amazon.com search also suggests the titles Ronald Reagan: A Life in Politics (2004), Governor Reagan (2003), Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio (with Michael Beschloss, 2003), Reagan (1982), and Ronnie & Jesse: A Political Odyssey (1969).
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Nancy Pelosi Explains Why Obama Flip-Flopped on Super PACs
February 9, 2012 10:08 PM by Doug Powers
50 Comments
Report: Solyndra Sold Assets Cheap to Entity with Close Ties to Investors
February 9, 2012 10:08 AM by Doug Powers
49 CommentsFormer Democrat Rep. Regrets Vote for Obamacare Due to Contraceptive Coverage
February 7, 2012 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
How to Make a Liberal Politician Stand Up Against Intrusive Government
February 6, 2012 04:28 PM by Doug Powers
95 Comments
Middle Class Payroll Tax Cut Extension Comes Courtesy of Mortgage Fees on Home Buyers
February 6, 2012 01:36 PM by Doug Powers
35 CommentsHiring Spree in NYC
February 1, 2012 02:47 PM by Doug Powers
43 CommentsMr. and Mrs. Cranky Pants
January 27, 2012 10:35 AM by Michelle Malkin
138 CommentsStimulus-Backed ‘Green’ Bankruptcy of the Week: Ener1
January 26, 2012 03:06 PM by Doug Powers
67 Comments
Obama and Jan Brewer Have Words on Airport Tarmac; Update: Brewer Book Sales Skyrocket
January 25, 2012 09:54 PM by Doug Powers
165 Comments
Categories: Barack Obama,John McCain,Media Bias,Michelle Obama
Patterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidGateway Pundit
» White House Says They Won’t Budge on HHS Birth Control Mandate: “Our Position Is Clear” (Video)Gateway Pundit
» Sarah Palin on HBO Palin Movie: I’ve Created More Impersonators Than Obama’s Created Jobs (Video)Weekly Standard
» ‘No Precedent for the Government Ordering Private Companies to Offer a Product for Free’Riehl World View
» Whitney Houston: If I should stay I would only be in your wayPatterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooks
Hell, yeah. Michelle is not exactly in the pocket of the McCain camp… where the hell have you been over the past two years?
Ms. Ifill is an experienced enough journalist and TV host that I think her questioning will be subtle enough not to provoke much notice from moderates. That’s the biggest worry of all, that only we conservatives will notice.
No surprise that they aren’t answering their phones. I got through to a voicemail system and tried randomly dialing extensions to get a live person. Everything goes to voicemail.
Keep trying everyone! And I did send an email, too.
Hmmm. I wonder if Gwen’s “Non-Biased” self ever wrote about Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Michael Steel, Larry Elder, and more.
In a positive “Black” accomplishment kind of way.
Anyone know?
Ger.
No kidding. But bias can go two ways: either for someone or against someone.
She has made no secret of her disdain for Obama, Biden and Democrats in general. And she has done nothing but heap praises upon Palin (who is the one really at issue here, not McCain) So I ask you again, could someone with such an obvious and strong bias against one party over the other fairly moderate the debate?
It’s not just the book. No one remembered her in the last VP debate? That smart a$$ remark to Cheney. Or her comments at the RNC convention shown here?
They should try Google.
Tim Russert died. There is no one remaining in the MSM who is fair.
Like a NASCAR race, everyone is going to tune in to see a wreck, or two, or three… Between Biden’s penchant for gaffes and Palin’s incapacity for coherent thought, it should be great ENTERTAINMENT.
How sad that the campaign has come to this.
I think she could but I believe she would not — because as a journalist with integrity Michelle proudly acknowledges her conservative bias.
The thing is susieChapstick you’re on crack if you don’t think she would do it fairly.
Go Angels!
It’s Killin em and
I Love it!!!
McCain/Palin 08′
Image: Sox goin down like an obama stutterfest.
The republicans are outsmarted and duped at every turn. I can hardly believe that GW Bush won two terms with the inbelievably corrupt tactics on the left and the voter fraud. Without all that, Bush probably would have won in a landslide. Speaking of voter fraud, if they don’t get this under control, our democracy is toast. Without fair, honest elections, we are no better then Rwanda, or Venezuela.
I hope Palin rips into her like a bag of Fritos.
What atrocious grammar!
chap,
When Michelle writes a fawning book about McCain and the glorious whiteness that follows him then we can talk.
Michelle’s political leanings aren’t a mystery; however, I think she has been more than fair when it comes to exposing the downright egregious behavior on both side of the political spectrum. So, yes, I think she would be fair moderating this debate.
I feel sick after eating too many Fritos.
Absolutely! And I don’t mean the vodka. But it will never happen.
The answer will be that the “deck” has been stacked against “them” for so long, that it’s about time they got their “chance”. This is going to be the theme of this country for the foreseeable future. It’s all about the culture of victims finally taking over and sticking it to “the man”.
Sorry, this is a self-inflicted wound.
This is not acceptable. It appears Robert Mugabe is running for president here as well as Rhodesia.
Oh, sorry; Zimbabwe.
I don’t believe he is throwing the election! He is counting on his campaign manager and workers to do this kind of protesting so he isn’t in the middle of a bias issue. He is above this. Having said that, I think the campaign manager and the workers are not doing their jobs. If anyone is throwing the election, it is his support team. Where are they???
Clarification – I think she could but I believe she would not accept the invitation to do so — because as a journalist with integrity Michelle proudly acknowledges her conservative bias.
Thank you, Jesus, that corruption is being exposed!
Interesting you know the content and tone of the book months before it is published.
“More than fair”? I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that. I agree that MM will take Republicans to task when she disagrees on how they act on some major issues, like immigration or this bailout. But you cannot cannot cannot deny that MM is very pro-Palin and has written many things on this blog to that effect and very anti Biden, and has written many things to that effect. Which is fine. But I just want to know whether you think Malkin could run a fair debate, and if so why is what she does so very different from what Ifill has done?
I would also accept that Ifill/Malkin may very well be capable of running a fair debate, but that the mere hint of impropriety means she should be disqualified, if for nothing else than to take the issue off the table.
It wouldn’t have made a bit of difference if McCain knew; he wouldn’t have done anything about it.
Well all I can say is this is a very very important “debate” Of course it is not a debate and we are not allowed to note that it is not a debate. If they have toned down Sarah, I am back to haveing to get very drunk and having my wife drive me to vote, if I do at all. We are not allowed to even suggest that this election be carried out under United States Election Law. We have to accept all “illegal” votes as legal, We are not allowed to be insulted that the deck is stacked against us in every possible way. If we meekly accept all of this there will be no need to have another election.
Heck, even Rush Limbaugh could be more fair moderating this debate that ifill!!
chapoutier,
Michelle as well as other conservative journalists have not been asked to moderate this precisely because of thier political leanings. The same sould apply to Ifill.
You think you are joking, but remember that Obama and his people are the ideological heirs of Stalin, Castro, Mugabe, and every other socialist dictator who routinely wins “elections”. Watch the TV and see the gasoline lines in the South. We will have all of that plus rationing after Obama is elected. How do you keep power if you plan to ration gasoline, food, medicine, and energy in order to ship a huge percentage of our GDP to Africa (global poverty initiative), plus spend a trillion more on social programs? That’s right. You rig elections, or you use your “civilian security forces” to insure that everyone votes your way.
There is no doubt that Obama will usher in the age of tyranny in America. The only question is, will we fight him or not.
I’m sure the Obama camp knew, and kept it to themselves. Unbelievable. I would demand she be taken OFF and swapped for another moderator. This is unreal.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the Commission on Presidential Debates, who choose the moderators, is bi-partisan.
Wow, nothing suprises me anymore.
And they didn’t know about that horrible photographer either…. another example of old men not knowing how to use Google.
Many “on target” posts above on this travesty of journalism. Why would anyone with a sense of history or experience expect anything else from the 90% (or more) liberal media? The protection of John F. Kennedy’s serial adultery, the “air cover” they flew for “BJ” Clinton, their trashing of both Presidents Bush 41 and 43, the forged “Rathergate” document support a month after bloggers proved they were false come to mind. Then add in the NPR / PBS bias. Saul Alinsky and PRAVDA (truth in Russian) would be proud.
It took 4 years of Jimmy Carter trashing the country and our economy to bring on Ronald Reagan–maybe this “deja vu” will happen after 4 years of Obama / liberal disasters. The “lipstick on the pig” will be obvious then.
Meanwhile–McCain and Palin are probably using the old saw “You can print anything you want about me–just spell my name right!” This is their only hope for any exposure in the liberal media. Thank heavens for talk radio, conservative internet sites, and the Fox News Channel. Ditto Glenn Beck.
The “SaraCuda” should bring her moose gun to the debate–like Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527) did when he went before a French court for sexual crime accusations that would send him to the stake if he was found guilty. He kept showing the gun to the judge and was found innocent! Read his book THE PRINCE for good political advice!
Sarah should hang in the debate as best as possible, and WALK OUT AFTER ANNOUNCING THE BIAS AS THE REASON if the bias gets too bad. The great Black Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas showed how to handle the liberal media and congress–check our his great book MY GRANDFATHER’S SON on how he took care of this political problem.
John Bibb
bedje, I heard Rush say that the DNC prefers “democratic” instead of the shorter version. It bugs them.
I fixed it for ya.
That “crat” ending must sound too close to what it really is.
It’s called using your imagination. Do you honestly think it’ll be anything but?
I said yes to that question already. You may not agree with my reasons for it, but I did answer you.
With respect to Michelle being pro-Palin. Good on her. Palin hasn’t done anything to warrant the negative press she and her family have received. Everything Michelle has said in defense of Palin is correct. Anti-Biden… that’s interesting. Would expect a Republican to give fawning praises of Biden especially considering the things he has said? The press is in the bag for Obama and by extension – Biden. If they couldn’t find someone more neutral than Ifill what does that say about the press?
Ifill’s history speaks for itself. If you don’t think Michelle would be a neutral moderator that’s your deal. We will have to agree to disagree.
You’re always wrong. And you’re wrong on this, because conservatives, overwhelmingly, have principles, and one of those is fair treatment. Leftists have only one principle – the acquisition and maintenance of power, and you will do anything to advance your ends.
Chapoutier,
Oxymoron: Bipartisan journalist.
The whole pool is tainted. None exist.
I submit my original premise. Cancel this and all debates. It’s a pointless exercise. Journalism is DEAD.
Well, then, either the Commission is not ‘bipartisan’, or they are liars, or Ifill lied to them…
Do you care to keep blathering idiocies or support or refute my statement?
Actually, don’t bother because I know I am right about it.
Olympia: I agree totally. And as Triumph The Insult Comic Dog once said to Jennifer Lopez: “For a dog, smelling your butt is like climbing Mount Everest.” She was not amused. But if Gwen Ifil smelled Barak’s butt during the debate, I would be amused.
#230 Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the Commission on Presidential Debates, who choose the moderators, is bi-partisan.
Caroline Kennedy, who has come out in support of Obama and was on Obama’s VP selection committee, sits on the Commission Board.
On October 1st, 2008 at 10:11 am, committed said:
#230 Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the Commission on Presidential Debates, who choose the moderators, is bi-partisan.
Caroline Kennedy, who has come out in support of Obama and was on Obama’s VP selection committee, sits on the Commission Board.
http://www.debates.org/pages/lead.html
Damn! Now that IS good!
If a conservative on the commission were to object to Ifill then the race card would be played — and repeated for days and days in the media.
If by some miracle Michelle Malkin were chosen, however, the liberal media would protest her conservative roots for days and days and the KOS idiots would launch a hissy fit over Michelle’s sell out to her white slave masters.
I emailed Janet H. Brown, Executive Director of the Debates Commission, asking if Gwenn Ifill will announce her bias or be swapped for a more impartial moderator (like maybe Jill Biden)
I’ll let you all know when I get a response….
{snerk!} I knew I couldn’t type that last line with a straight face
The bad press she is getting now has nothing to do with her family or personal issues and everything to do with either her record as a Governor (like trooper-gate) or her embarrassingly bad answers in interviews. I will admit that in the first week or so, some of the coverage and stories surrounding her were really bad. But you can’t keep playing that card until Nov. 4.
No, and not questioning Michelle’s right to rail on anyone she chooses. Just saying that I still can’t pinpoint what you think is the magic elixer that makes a partisan like MM able to fairly moderate as opposed to a partisan on the left, except that MM has sometimes called out Republicans. I have called out Obama on a number of issues, but I doubt anyone here would think I am neutral enough to moderate (N.B. I don’t know enough about Ifill to say whether she is partisan or not, but I will spot you that argument).
Very stupid question, chapoutier. Of course it’s possible. Anything is possible.
That’s not the point. The bias is a conflict of interest. Gwen shouldn’t moderate. Period.
I had a wait and see attitude about the debate until I saw the video clip here. Thanks MM. Forget about Obama, that clip specifically shows Ifill’s bias against Palin. There’s the proof.
From the Truth Squad state of Missouri, GK
Take a look at the commission’s leadership. I assume they make the final decision. Reagan and Ford are dead–but Carter and Clinton are still kicking. Oh, and there is Caroline Kennedy, who helped select Obama’s VP. I don’t have time to research all the others right now–you can get back to us in an hour. Over and out.
My thought exactly. Michelle has an agenda which she is perfectly clear and honest about. She’d want to further it. Unless she agreed to be fair, then she would be pretty fair. Maybe not 100% though. As I wrote before, liberals really are blind to their own biases. Conservatives are realists who better see what’s going on, including in their own biases. Not perfect, but better.
As usual, you’re full of it. She failed to reveal the fact of her book when the selections were being made, so the people making the selection were working without the facts. Much like you do. One doesn’t have to read it to know what it’s about – all you need is the title to understand it’s a puff piece about the Obamessiah. There could have been at least one non-partisan debate, but you leftists are scared witless of Fox News.
Only someone who never watched Ifill when she was a panelist on David Brinkley’s “This Week,” back in the early `90′s, or has limited knowledge on her style of interviewing could have posted something so uncharacteristically naive.
Ifill can be very partisan in her line of questioning, which is often guided to reinforce a Leftist position, plus she has a vested interest in Obama/Biden winning the election; her book release is scheduled to coincide with the inauguration.
I have emailed ms jb of the debate commision and submitted a 2nd email for her to leave Gwen (Obama) Ifill on to help illustrate the loss of journalism here in the USA.
No, it has everything to do with the fact that she doesn’t tote the liberal line. The biggest problem being the abortion issue. That’s why people like Steinem, Gandy, etc., criticize her. Because she chooses life over abortion.
The criticism out there is petty, personal, catty and over the top. She has been set to much higher standards than Biden.
Could you imagine if she said she had been shot at in the green zone, knowing full well that was a lie? Could you imagine the ridicule she’d be under for days on end? No, you couldn’t. Believe it or not, Biden hasn’t come under fire (pun intended) for that either.
Could you imagine if she said FDR went on TV in 1929 and spoke to the public about the stock market crash?
Or, could you imagine if she referred to those who frequented 7-11s would have a slight Indian accent?
Could you??????
Biden has had a free pass, whereas Palin has been criticized from head to toe.
He looks like a pink nightmare! Just for you Bear!
I just don’t understand why everyone is so upset. We are talking PBS. How many of you thought PBS is a liberal stronghold?
That’s what I though.
Yes.
First belly laugh I’ve had in a LONG time. My a-political husband still parrots Laura Ingraham from about 18 months ago when BOR was interviewing her. Quite sarcastically, she said, “Spring is here, time for Factor Gear” at the end of her segment.
I have emphasized the money sentence. The difference between Ifill and Malkin is the admission of a certain bias, whether already suspected or not.
This puts the onus of fairness on the moderator, as everyone will be looking for the bias. In Ifill’s case, she is obscuring her bias, which gives her the false impression of objectivity.
I have no problem with Ifill and her bias, but it needs to be public, so the public can see if she steps into a partisan mode.
Now if we could only get “reporters” to put a D or an R after their names…
Actually Chap – I think you’d at least try to make the questioning balanced and strive for fairness.
I know I often disagree with your position, but you generally at least try to see the other side of the issue.
What’s going on with McCain’s advisers and staff? Did they lose their spine or are turning a blind eye on this one. They should cancel this debate becaue of the foregone conclusion on what side
is Iffy on. Better yet, find a substitute for Iffy from… never mind, MSM are also wearing the Obama poster on their chest.
That is correct: the difference in coverage is demonstrably biased. The news blackout on Edward’s tawdry affair and the relative news explosion regarding the pregnancy issue of Palin’s daughter are telling.
The Instapundit source who confirmed the difference in the way candidates are investigated are damning.
I’ve sent my email and have been trying to call for over an hour. That means two things: they’ve taken the phone off the hook OR outraged Americans are calling!! I not only want them to switch the moderators but also change the debate questions.
Never said she could. Was just curious as to whether or not people think MM could be a fair moderator.
I know the two chairs are one Dem, one Repub. Their executive director, Janet Brown, the one who, by all indications runs the show,is a life long Republican who worked in the Reagan White House. Not sure what having Kennedy on there proves. I am sure there are several staunch McCain supporters.
As usual, you are incapable of reading what I actually wrote. You seemed to take issue with my contention that the board was non-partisan. I said nothing to whether or not they were duped or whether Ifill is an appropriate moderator. Actually, I have said that she should probably not be. So I don’t know what your issue is.
That or you were just being your normal vitriolic, add-nothing-of-substance self.
That quote was in reference to MM, and if you go back, you will see I admitted not knowing Ifill’s body of work but was wiling to concede the point for the sake of argument.
AGAIN PEOPLE. MY QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU THINK MM COULD DO AN UNBIASED JOB BASED UPON HER CLEARLY PARTISAN LEANINGS. I WILL CONCEDE IFILL IS PARTISAN. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHO AMONG YOU ARE HYPOCRITES.
And Biden is a dishonest disaster and your side can’t keep denying that until Nov. 4!
Wow. A lot of about whether Michelle Malkin could moderate this debate fairly. That’s not the point. She’s not the moderator. Gwen Ifill is.
I know I couldn’t moderate fairly because I wouldn’t believe a single thing Joe Biden had to say. If he told me the sky was blue, I’d be sure to look out the window. Can anyone suggest that Gwen Ifill has a better opinion of Sarah Palin than that?
Funny, because I have heard about all of those things many times in the MSM, even MSNBC!
Dishonest?
He has been.
Disaster?
Hardly, especially in comparison.
Trooper-gate. This has been thoroughly debunked. As dakine would say – up your game. Look, I’m not going to play into this. She’s being critiqued… that’s to be expected and I am not so weak-kneed that I think that mistakes are going to change the minds of those who support her. Have Obama’s associations, suppression of free speech activities swayed you not to vote for him? Those are far more egregious than a few missteps in an interview.
Rather difficult to deny.
Can’t keep playing what card? That the press is less than objective and partial to Obama? No, my friend, you don’t get to decide when that is no longer a valid issue. It’s valid until it changes.
Michelle’s ability to conduct herself as a principled human being would be one other reason. If you don’t see that I’m not sure I can convince you. She put up a thread to ask us to put politics aside and say a prayer for Ted Kennedy. She didn’t have to do that.
chapoutier, you are using a typical liberal “change the issue” tactic. The thread is about the debate being moderated by a person with clear bias. You want to talk about a hypothetical and unlikely situation involving Michelle Malkin.
And my answer to you, which you apparently were incapable of understanding, was that as a matter of principle, conservatives try to be fair. They may not make it, but I doubt you can point to many (if any) instances where one of your candidates was questioned unfairly while an opposing candidate was treated favorably. On the other hand, on principle the left, including you, is about the acquisition of power – and fairness is for losers.
Absolutely!! MM is passionate about her belief but uncompromising on her principles and ethics!!
The Alaska legislature would disagree.
Ouch. Just because I believe Michelle would go out of her way to do a good job and ask proper questions DOES NOT make me a hypocrite. We know she is biased. All good and well. We also knows she does not put up with BS of any sort from any side of the aisle
Sorry you just can’t see it.
Easy. That whole stupid flap re: flag lapel pins. Obama was the only one who got the question about what that said about his patriotism when neither the moderator nor Clinton was wearing one.
I too have tried multiple calls in the last hour….always busy. Unfortunately I’m sure the beleaguered staff took the phone off the hook….will keep trying
David…I wasn’t joking. This is too serious an issue. Yes, it can happen here!
Since there really is no such thing as an unbiased journalist (we’re all human, for crying out loud!), it would be most fair if a journalist from each side of the spectrum could take turns asking questions of both candidates. Agreed?
So why do you not give Ifill the same benefit of the doubt, when she is biased and has presumably engaged in the exact same type of behavior?
The one difference I will concede is the direct economic interest that may be present with her book. But the comments here have seemed to focus less on that and more on Ifill’s partisanship in general.
OMG what a farce when will we wake up to the media bias???if ifell doesn’t remove herself sarah should make a statement about the bias of the moderator and refuse to answer the questions!!!
Based on what I know about this, the whole thing reeks of a witch-hunt.
Chappie really has a hate-on for Michelle and Conservatives today!!
That might have to do with Obama’s associations with one Rev. Wright and marriage to Michelle. They set the stage for people to question whether or not this man is a patriotic American.
A witch-hunt initiated in a body dominated by republicans and which started long before any talk of her being a veep, right?
Poor Gwen she can hardly hide her excitement over a wonderful speech by Gov. Palin.
Agree! The debates are pointless. The media hopes for a ‘gotcha’ moment. The public waits to hear what they want to hear.
I learned more about both candidates from the Saddleback Forum and the 9/11 Forum.
As for Ifill, the only resolution, if she does not voluntarily step down, is that she introduces the candidates. Ifill then takes center stage – admits to the book, its planned release date, and bias toward Obama. Now, everyone knows of her bias
If she is able to conduct the debate without bias – she just increased her book sales and her image.
If her bias shows, the media just got their ‘gotcha’ moment, but now it is on the moderator and the commission.
No, MM should not be a moderator of a dem and republican debate. Period.
Reason: we, including MM can see that stacking the deck (or the appearance thereof) in favor of any side doesn’t bring us closer to learning the truth about the candidates. Ethics.
This equivocating is taking us off subject (Ifill) and is just wasting bandwidth.
From the Truth Squad state of Missouri, GK
Chap,
This has nothing to do with Michelle. If you think Michelle cannot be fair – fine. The point I think most people are TRYING to make is that the moderator should not be biased. She is and that is not good for the rules of engagement – PERIOD. This has nada to do with Michelle and her ability to take both sides to task. I do NOT see this in Ifill. Now, tell me it is right that Ifill is moderating and we will see who the real Hypocrite is.
It hadn’t been a campaign issue for anyone else. Clinton, for instance, puts her hand over her heart and sings the National Anthem. He didn’t (but probably does now). I don’t recall all of the circumstances, but it seems to me that the pin was a point of controversy not because he wasn’t wearing one, but the reason he gave for it when asked, which was prior to the debate and therefore a widely discussed news item. I don’t wear one either, but I don’t make a big deal about it one way or the other, and could care less that he didn’t. At any rate, the problem was (as I recall) his obvious lack of patriotism, of which the pin was just one aspect.
We all know “troopergate” is a non issue, so don’t try to pull that one. (Unless, that is, you think it’s totally appropriate to taze children and let individuals that do such keep their jobs.
I might be willing to concede Palin’s “embarrassingly bad answers” to you if the MSM would also report on Biden’s too-many-to-count gaffes and on his plagiarism charges.
Absolutely not. As has been pointed out, not that she is incapable (nor would MM be incapable). But the questions surrounding her, especially with the book, bring up the a not- unreasonable assumption of impropriety.
And actually, I would love to see MM not necessarily moderate a debate but at least interview Obama.
Triumph The Insult Comic Dog still wants to know if Gwen will, in fact, sniff Barry’s butt during the debate. Yes or no?
Chap said:
AGAIN PEOPLE. MY QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU THINK MM COULD DO AN UNBIASED JOB BASED UPON HER CLEARLY PARTISAN LEANINGS. I WILL CONCEDE IFILL IS PARTISAN. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHO AMONG YOU ARE HYPOCRITES.
By the way, since I’m dealing with a lawyer, I should have been clearer in my question. I doubt that you can give an instance where a conservative moderator has treated one of your candidates unfairly as opposed to a conservative/Republican candidate.
Since the only time I have really paid much attention to the moderators or debates has been in this cycle, and since there has only been one debate so far, which I think Leher did an excellent job with (does anyone think he was biased there?), and since admittedly, none of the upcoming mods seem particularly conservative to me, I can’t really answer this question.
Your logic is dizzying.
I WOULD WANT MM TO MODERATE AND TOTALLY DESTROY THE TAXING-BLACK-HOLE. I DON’T WANT THE OBAMASIAH TO WIN AND DON’T CARE HOW THAT IS ACCOMPLISHED. FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE I SAY…
There, I think that clears that hypocrite thing up…
Who the hell told you to appoint Michelle, anyway? She isn’t moderating, you dolt!
I say put Brit Hume up there. He’s the best moderator I’ve seen, and YES, he would be unbiased.
Get the hell off Michelle now.
Geeeez, Louise!
Seriously, is this all you have? Because if we are going to go down this road that completely puts all of Obama’s associations – past and present – on the table.
OK Triumph The Insult Comic Dog apologizes for not realizing that Barry won’t be at the debate but wonders if Gwen will still sniff someone’s butt anyway?
I actually think he would be a fine choice.