Limbaugh Moderator of Debate

[EasyEd]

Sorry for the misleading thread subject but imagine if it were true. Well tomorrow's VP debate is being moderated by Gwen Ifill who has just written a book the partial title of which is "..the Age of Obama".

www.amazon.com/Breakthrough-Politics-Race-Age-Obama/dp/038552501X

The book is scheduled to be released around the time of the November vote.

I am not suggesting she will openly be in the tank for Obama/Biden in moderating the VP debate but there certainly will be the appearance of a bias. It is recalled that, during the last VP debate between St. John Edwards and VP Richard Cheney, Cheney replied to a question by saying he would answer the question but needed more than 30 seconds but Ifill replied that's all the time you have. "Some" might characterize Ifill's reply as "snarky".

Since Ifill will have complete control over the questions to be asked and of moderating the entire debate, in view of her upcoming book and some past appearances of bias, I believe she should recuse herself from this debate. Sorry, you can't have your cake/book and eat it too.

[TC]

Will you at least let the debate happen before crying "bias"? There's twenty similar diaries on Kos right now about how Ifill was in the tank for Cheney in 2004.

[Filo]

Now I am not personally worried about bias here (other than the title, based on the description of the book, it seems like a total non-issue). But isn't the point that if someone is concerned about bias, they don't want to wait and see if it actually happens. If it does happen, it's too late to do anything about it once the debate is over.

[kchoya]

Oct 1, 2008 9:45:04 GMT -5 Filo said:

Now I am not personally worried about bias here (other than the title, based on the description of the book, it seems like a total non-issue). But isn't the point that if someone is concerned about bias, they don't want to wait and see if it actually happens. If it does happen, it's too late to do anything about it once the debate is over.

I agree to a point. However, if Limbaugh (or Sean Hannity or even Joe Scarborogh or Brit Hume) were moderating, do you think those on the left would take the same "let's wait and see" approach?

[TC]

I think both sides would be fine with throwing out Ifill for Lehrer.

[strummer8526]

I would take Joe Scarborough in a heartbeat.

[SirSaxa]

So let's get this straight.
Gwen Ifill moderated the VP debate four years ago and we never heard a single complaint about bias.
Two months ago, the non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates and both campaigns agreed on all the moderators.

And now, the day before the debate, when Palin has been exposed as a dingbat who is utterly unable to answer the most obvious questions, suddenly the McCain campaign comes up with a whole new distraction to take the heat off Palin and the responsibility for a lousy job in the yet-to-happen debate off Palin and to try to intimidate the moderator prior to the event.

That's the McCain Campaign's strategy for dealing with the VP debate?

Well, at least it is consistent with all the other totally extranelous drama McCain keeps throwing into the pot every time he dips in the polls or faces another crisis.

[Boz]

Neither the McCain campaign or John McCain or Sarah Palin have said anything about a potential bias from Ifill. In fact, the campaign said they were unaware of the issue.

I point that out only to remind you that the campaigns are not responsible for what the commentators who support them say. Again, I will be happy to hold Barack Obama & his campaign accountable for everything that comes out of Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow's mouth if you want that.

This has very little to do with Palin herself. In fact, I think the outrage by conservative commentators -- feigned or genuine -- would only be HEIGHTENED if Ifill was doing a debate with Obama himself involved.

Do I deny that some of the attacks on the media have been to deflect attention away from Sarah Palin? Of course not. But this has been a lingering, smoldering issue with conservatives for a very long time and to say that this all comes down to defending what you believe to be an incompetent candidate is to ignore a very long standing gripe (a legitimate one in my opinion, but I know we will all differ on that).

[SirSaxa]

Oct 1, 2008 10:59:33 GMT -5 Boz said:

Neither the McCain campaign or John McCain or Sarah Palin have said anything about a potential bias from Ifill. In fact, the campaign said they were unaware of the issue.

I point that out only to remind you that the campaigns are not responsible for what the commentators who support them say. Again, I will be happy to hold Barack Obama & his campaign accountable for everything that comes out of Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow's mouth if you want that.

This has very little to do with Palin herself. In fact, I think the outrage by conservative commentators -- feigned or genuine -- would only be HEIGHTENED if Ifill was doing a debate with Obama himself involved.

Do I deny that some of the attacks on the media have been to deflect attention away from Sarah Palin? Of course not. But this has been a lingering, smoldering issue with conservatives for a very long time and to say that this all comes down to defending what you believe to be an incompetent candidate is to ignore a very long standing gripe (a legitimate one in my opinion, but I know we will all differ on that).

Boz, let's stick to the issue at hand. I don't believe you are suggesting the "smoldering issue".. "for a long time" is the Ifill as moderator issue are you? Let's leave the general complaints about media bias for another day and focus on subject of the this thread -- Ifill as the moderator of the VP debate.

Suggesting the McCain campaign wasn't behind the story? Are you also going to ask us to believe the Swift Boat team in 2004 had nothing whatsoever to do with the Bush Campaign?

Clearly McCain/Palin do not want to look like crybabies... so of course they will work behind the scenes with others to put the distractions out there.

[TBird41]

Wouldn't Obama supporters want Ifill replaced now to remove any perception of bias? Why would you want to give McCain/Palin an easy way to spin a poor performance?

[Boz]

Tell you what. You show me one shred of legitimate evidence that the McCain campaign is behind the gripes today about Ifill and I will admit that you are 100% right on this issue.

With all due respect, you are employing some pretty ridiculous logic here.

And I will stand by the point that conservatives would have been even MORE outraged (if that's possible; that Michelle Malkin can be pretty outraged all the time), if Ifill were involved in a debate that featured the candidate himself, and not his #2.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Oct 1, 2008 11:25:37 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Wouldn't Obama supporters want Ifill replaced now to remove any perception of bias? Why would you want to give McCain/Palin an easy way to spin a poor performance?

I don't think they care. This is a total non-story on any in the left echo chamber - they're more concerned with the bailout and patting themselves on the back for Obama's recent performance in the Quinnipiac (sp?) polls.

I think that this is line one of the McCain talking points regardless of how the debate turns out. Either the media engaged in gotcha journalism with a biased moderator, or she did well despite all of that.

However, the real question is - does this story matter past Thursday night? - No. Process stories have a very short life in the news cycle and they really won't matter if the bail out and the economy are still the issue that the public cares about.

[hifigator]

I haven't heard any complaints or even concerns from either of the candidates or their campaign personel. I do think that there is an obvious conflict of interests here. In all honesty, there is a journalist who is releasing a book in a little over a month entitled
in part with "... the age of Obama." Someone said the "Coming age of Obama," I haven't seen the exact title, but it is very clear that she has a dog in the fight. It just screams of conflict of interests, not because of her political leanings, just because of the obvious financial benefits she will reap if, in fact, Obama wins the election. Yes, I think she should step down. Personally, I think that Lehrer does as good of a job as you could ask for. He is right down the middle. If anything, he cut both candidates a bit too much slack, but he did let them speak, pretty much uninterupted. Even when he followed up by trying to get the candidates back to actually answering the asked question, he still let each of them redirect their answers to the questions they preferred to answer. I'm not sure just how "good" a job that is on the larger scale, but he was very fair about it. It would be hard for anyone to be that unbiased with an acual interest in the outcome of the election.

[SirSaxa]

Oct 1, 2008 11:27:37 GMT -5 Boz said:

With all due respect, you are employing some pretty ridiculous logic here.

Boz,

I do appreciate your gesture of respect.
However, I guess I am too dense to see why the logic is pretty ridiculous.
Would you do me the favor of showing me, step by step, just how my logic is so ridiculous? It would be very helpful to me. Thank you.

[hifigator]

Sir, I can't speak for Boz, but to suggest that concerns over a moderator of a debate who "just happens" to have a book coming out promoting and detailing the rise of one of the candidates, is just political posturing and further that such concerns must be coming from the opposing candidate is ridiculous logic. There is no other way to interpret what you wrote in the context of this thread. If you mean to imply that she can and will be unbiased, then that can be your opinion and there's nothing inherently wrong with that thought. If you want to say that the McCain-Palin campaings is concerned about potential subjectivity of Ifil, then that too would be a reasonable thought. But to suggest that any of these concerns must be coming from the McCain campaign is ridiculous. This is a very obvious conflict of interests. Using ed's title as an illustration, suppose that Limbaugh had a book coming out ridiculing Al Gore for everything from his "inventing" of the internet to his tree-hugging persona. Now suppose that Limbaugh was selected to moderate a debate between Gore and GWB. Would you not see the obvious concerns, aside from the obvious bias that Limbaugh would likely have anyway. In other words, the bias in one concern, but in this case, I don't think it would be a "deal breaker." But the conflict of interests concerning an impending book deal is a horse of a different color.

[Deleted]

hifi - click on the link ed provided to actually get the title of the book and a description. While Obama's featured, it's not exclusively a book about him. There's more to it than you want to see.

Does this change anything for Republicans, really? She's in the mainstream media, and the mainstream media hates Republicans. Therefore, she hates Republicans - book or no book.

[TC]

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-ifill-attac.html

[EasyEd]

My sense of amazement at the apparent bias of those who have posted on this thread is unbounded. You Democrats would not even agree to have a forum of any kind on Fox News but you see no problem with a person who is to release a book apparently extolling the virtues of Obama serving as moderator in a Vice Presidential debate. Can't you even admit it has the appearance of a conflict of interest?

[Deleted]

If Sarah Palin had any chops, no one would give a crap if the debate were held on the moon and moderated by King Neptune.

Republicans probably all thought Ifill was in the tank for Obama anyway. How does the book change that?

As for her financial stake: she'll will probably pre-sell more books today than she would've upon its release in January, regardless of who wins the election - mostly because of the fact that you Republicans are stirring it up.

[hifigator]

Oct 1, 2008 13:34:42 GMT -5 @cam said:

hifi - click on the link ed provided to actually get the title of the book and a description. While Obama's featured, it's not exclusively a book about him. There's more to it than you want to see.

Does this change anything for Republicans, really? She's in the mainstream media, and the mainstream media hates Republicans. Therefore, she hates Republicans - book or no book.

I obviously haven't read the book yet, but I have heard several groups talking about it, one in particular concerning her being a moderator at such a conspicuous time. The gentleman who was describing the book said basically the same thing that the thumbnail sketch review said -- that it really is more of a coming of age for the african-American, moreso than a sort of biography of Obama. Still, he is painted in a very positive light and there's no denying that an Obama victory will be rewarded tremendously in greater revenues from the sale of the book. That is my point --not that she won't be unbiased. As you mention, that is a major obstacle all republicans have given the ideology of the vast majority of the mainstream media. In fairness, the guy in the interview -- I forget his name, black guy that is balding on top and is a moderate voice that does work for both Fox and CNN from time to time -- in any case, he spoke very highly of her as a journalist and said that he really enjoys her work, but still expressed obvious reservations about such a conflict. I can't overemphasize that this issue isn't just a political partyline daily complaint.

Getting back to my analogy, can you imagine the fervor that would result if Limbaugh had been announced to moderate a Gore-GWB debate? Now add to that the ire and criticisms that would follow if he had a book about Gore coming out shortly after the debate. I think it's pretty much of a no-brainer.