You think Raddatz was bad as moderator, [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : You think Raddatz was bad as moderator,


Rooster Rugburn
10-15-2012, 10:07
wait until you see Crowley. She gets to pick the questions, has already slammed the Romney\Ryan ticket, and has stated the intent to play a big role.

If Romney pulls it off, he looks really good. If he doesn't, well it was "2 against 1".

I can't help but wonder why a republican campaign would allow these types of moderators.

DonGlock26
10-15-2012, 10:37
Obama aggressiveness and overt media bias only helps Romney. Hopefully, Crowley throws a shoe. We aren't worried Rooster. Obama sucks that badly. He's done.

LASTRESORT20
10-15-2012, 10:42
Obama aggressiveness and overt media bias only helps Romney. Hopefully, Crowley throws a shoe. We aren't worried Rooster. Obama sucks that badly. He's done.



Copy That Don! ....It is Obvious now...

IvanVic
10-15-2012, 10:53
Who would be a completely neutral moderator that neither side would take issue with?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Goaltender66
10-15-2012, 10:56
I can't help but wonder why a republican campaign would allow these types of moderators.

Because who would the Democrats agree to? Believe it or not, too often in the negotiations it comes down to choosing between a Candy Crowley or a Rachel Maddow.

Barcroft
10-15-2012, 11:02
Who would be a completely neutral moderator that neither side would take issue with?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Jake Tapper?

Rooster Rugburn
10-15-2012, 11:24
Because who would the Democrats agree to? Believe it or not, too often in the negotiations it comes down to choosing between a Candy Crowley or a Rachel Maddow.


If it came down to that, they should have refused to participate. The presidential debate commission would lose credibility if they cannot get debates scheduled.

I think someone like Bret Baier would be fair to both sides. FNC uses "fair and balanced" as a slogan, and Baier would know that if he didn't conduct himself as such, it would hurt FNC and his reputation. Baier is a serious journalist who takes his credibility seriously, and wouldn't want to come across like Hannity. In this situation, they need someone who values their reputation as being non partisan, and there are a few of them out there. But Crowley has no such compunction.

If the repubicans had negotiated better, they could at least get a 1 of 3 to be neutral. Democrats think their guy is a god, and when these debates were agreed to, they had no idea how bad he would be in the first debate. If they had to agree to at least one neutral moderator to get the debates, I think they would. The repubicans should have held out for better.

But then, maybe part of the strategy is to go against the odds and even a draw becomes a win. Even CNN was calling Raddatz the third debater, and that probably played in Ryan's favor.

countrygun
10-15-2012, 11:44
Who would be a completely neutral moderator that neither side would take issue with?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

It doesn't have to be a media talking head.

An unknown College prof, and elected judge in a non-partisan office, etc. If a mod WAS doing the job correctly they wouldn't HAVE to be a "Popular Face"

GAFinch
10-15-2012, 12:38
Flashback: Candy Crowley pushes 'Racist TEA Party' Myth

CNN: Are there racist elements in Tea Party?

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/15/Candy-Crowley-On-Racist-Elements-in-Tea-Party

IvanVic
10-15-2012, 13:03
I think it depends on how you perceive the role of the moderator, in terms of coming up with a "good" moderator. If it's merely to read a question from a piece of paper, than than expands the list of acceptable moderators. If it's to understand each issue with great depth and can challenge candidates, that severely limits of the pool of people, especially when you're looking for a person that both sides would consider to be truly in the middle.

DOC44
10-15-2012, 13:12
You think Raddatz was bad as moderator?

YES

Doc44

countrygun
10-15-2012, 13:18
I think it depends on how you perceive the role of the moderator, in terms of coming up with a "good" moderator. If it's merely to read a question from a piece of paper, than than expands the list of acceptable moderators. If it's to understand each issue with great depth and can challenge candidates, that severely limits of the pool of people, especially when you're looking for a person that both sides would consider to be truly in the middle.

A "moderator" allows the opponent to do the cross X. The moderator should confine themselves to understanding the questions (in this case posed by the audience) and redirecting a candidate going off track.

PawDog
10-15-2012, 13:30
Who would be a completely neutral moderator that neither side would take issue with?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I'd recommend a foreign, maybe Canadian, moderator, one who has no skin in the game and is a non-US citizen, unable to cast a vote for either candidate.

Who? Dunno...........:dunno:

fx77
10-15-2012, 14:01
She interrupted Ryan many times too

snerd
10-15-2012, 15:14
Flashback: Candy Crowley pushes 'Racist TEA Party' Myth

CNN: Are there racist elements in Tea Party? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0ZfA0iKK-w)

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/15/Candy-Crowley-On-Racist-Elements-in-Tea-Party
"....... Addison Mitchell "Mitch" McConnell, Jr. is the senior United States Senator from Kentucky. A member of the Republican Party, he is the Minority Leader of the Senate. He is the longest serving U.S. Senator in Kentucky history........."

Thanks for all you've done, Mitch.


/sarcasm

QNman
10-15-2012, 18:30
Who would be a completely neutral moderator that neither side would take issue with?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

AC? (Yes, I said it...) I've seen him play "middle" before. I think he genuinely believes he is neutral. Crowley does not - she's a shill.

DonGlock26
10-15-2012, 18:37
Romney just has two punching bags, if Crowley enters the ring. If she's smart she'll stay out of the second arse whooping that Obama is about to get from Romney. Right Rooster?

aircarver
10-15-2012, 18:47
...... If she's smart she'll stay out of .....
:rofl:

We're talking about a major media water-carrier here ....

:supergrin:

.

rgregoryb
10-15-2012, 19:54
Who would be a completely neutral moderator that neither side would take issue with?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

an Australian

Diesel McBadass
10-15-2012, 20:20
i think its part of romneys strategy, looks tougher dominating two attackers than one, comes out even better

P99er
10-17-2012, 09:12
This ended up being a quite prophetic.

JFrame
10-17-2012, 09:15
This ended up being a quite prophetic.


Indeed...You called it, Rooster!


.

IvanVic
10-17-2012, 09:19
AC? (Yes, I said it...) I've seen him play "middle" before. I think he genuinely believes he is neutral. Crowley does not - she's a shill.

I'd be alright with that. He is a good journalist, that is for sure.

JFrame
10-17-2012, 09:23
Just to be clear -- are we talking about Anderson Cooper?

If so, I agree that though he views everything from the prism of the left, he would at least make an effort to be neutral.


.

Diesel McBadass
10-17-2012, 10:40
hows this shieffer guy who's getting the next one?

P99er
10-17-2012, 10:51
hows this shieffer guy who's getting the next one?

He's a liberal, but with a pretense of being unbiased. Whatever he does for Obama, will be very suttle. I think Schieffer will try to appear unbiased to protect his reputation.

Diesel McBadass
10-17-2012, 10:53
good. Dont need a lib yelling down to help obobo.

I cant wait to see how bad obama bombs on foreign policy

QNman
10-17-2012, 14:29
Just to be clear -- are we talking about Anderson Cooper?

If so, I agree that though he views everything from the prism of the left, he would at least make an effort to be neutral.


.

Yes sir. AC. Anderson Cooper.

countrygun
10-17-2012, 14:35
From what I hear around, A lot of Americans (particularly undecides, goodie goodie) are seeing, without room for dispute, how badly the media has been stacked against Republicans. These debates have put it in a showcase right in the spotlight. They are also seeing that Romney is not living down to the distortions of the media. This may be a turning point in more things than just one election

series1811
10-17-2012, 14:53
So who is going to be the unbiased moderator for the next debate? Chris Matthews, maybe?

DOC44
10-17-2012, 15:03
So who is going to be the unbiased moderator for the next debate? Chris Matthews, maybe?

Bob Schieffer

Doc44

JFrame
10-17-2012, 15:14
Yes sir. AC. Anderson Cooper.


Thanks -- and again, I agree with you. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/drinks.gif


.

JFrame
10-17-2012, 15:16
So who is going to be the unbiased moderator for the next debate? Chris Matthews, maybe?

:rofl:

They may even opt for a "real" journalist -- like Joy Behar! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/icq/biggrin.gif


.

countrygun
10-17-2012, 15:22
Why don't they just come clean about it and have Chewbaca do it?

P99er
10-17-2012, 15:31
So who is going to be the unbiased moderator for the next debate? Chris Matthews, maybe?

Matthews was pushing for David Axelrod or Rahm Emanuel to moderate. I'm surprised they're not.

happyguy
10-17-2012, 15:46
wait until you see Crowley. She gets to pick the questions, has already slammed the Romney\Ryan ticket, and has stated the intent to play a big role.

If Romney pulls it off, he looks really good. If he doesn't, well it was "2 against 1".

I can't help but wonder why a republican campaign would allow these types of moderators.

You certainly called that one on the money!:supergrin:

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Rooster Rugburn
10-17-2012, 17:13
i think its part of romneys strategy, looks tougher dominating two attackers than one, comes out even better

It would be interesting to find out if the Romney camp went in thinking just that, and knowing he could pull it off. If that's so, he is one tough minded guy. I'm more inclined to think they took it because as the challenger, they needed to debate to avoid being called scared and having his abilities called into question, and Obama was NOT going to go with an Fox News moderator.

With regard to Bob Schieffer in the next debate:

Schieffer is more of an "old school" journalist. He came up under the umbrella of Walter Cronkite, back when journalists took pride in being unbiased. There is no doubt Bob Schieffer is a liberal, but being an old school journalist, he might be more interested in protecting his integrity and reputation.

He has seen 3 debates, and has seen the criticism of all three liberal moderators. He knows the scrutiny and criticism he will face if he makes it an even four.

I think Schieffer will be the best of the four, with regard to being unbiased. I believe he'll at least attempt to look impartial and unbiased. Time will tell.

Rooster Rugburn
10-17-2012, 17:16
You certainly called that one on the money!:supergrin:

Regards,
Happyguy :)


It wasn't hard to figure.

maxsnafu
10-17-2012, 17:57
I can't help but wonder why a republican campaign would allow these types of moderators.

Now you know why the GOP is called the Stupid Party.

QNman
10-17-2012, 17:58
Now you know why the GOP is called the Stupid Party.

Because leftist a lack imagination? Or because they lack vocabulary?

maxsnafu
10-17-2012, 17:59
hows this shieffer guy who's getting the next one?

He's to the left of Stalin.

countrygun
10-17-2012, 18:00
Now you know why the GOP is called the Stupid Party.
\

From the poll results following each debate so far, I think making the media bias appear so blatant may just be pretty crafty.

Rooster Rugburn
10-17-2012, 18:16
From the poll results following each debate so far, I think making the media bias appear so blatant may just be pretty crafty.

If they went into planning to expose the bias knowing they would prevail, then it was not crafty, it was freaking INGENIOUS. I'd like to think Romney is that sharp.

I suspect they went into it with the best deal the could, confident they could prevail. No way Obama was going in front of anyone from Fox News, or anyone who isn't a known liberal. Romney needed the debates more than Obama. They took the gamble, and it worked better than they could probably ever imagine. GUTSY move.

But I think it was confident instead of crafty.

O'Reilly just cut Crowley up on his show, and a lot of independents watch O'Reilly.

countrygun
10-17-2012, 18:26
If they went into planning to expose the bias knowing they would prevail, then it was not crafty, it was freaking INGENIOUS. I'd like to think Romney is that sharp.

I suspect they went into it with the best deal the could, confident they could prevail. No way Obama was going in front of anyone from Fox News, or anyone who isn't a known liberal. Romney needed the debates more than Obama. They took the gamble, and it worked better than they could probably ever imagine. GUTSY move.

But I think it was confident instead of crafty.

O'Reilly just cut Crowley up on his show, and a lot of independents watch O'Reilly.

I can't help but think that they knew (as did everyone) that Obama couldn't defend his record, so it was going to fall to a lib moderator to try and help him over the hump and that would show. This isn't your local campaign for County Commisioner. I don't think they had any idea the libs would fall for it as badly as they did however.

The GOP thought it would probably be a bit of a help among undecideds if the moderators did it subtly but the liberal moderators turned it into a huge GOP advantage

maxsnafu
10-18-2012, 07:01
\

From the poll results following each debate so far, I think making the media bias appear so blatant may just be pretty crafty.

It would be crafty if the voters picked up on it. Trouble is, an awfully lot of people accept at face value whatever they see on the tube. They actually think news people are honest!

DOC44
10-18-2012, 07:08
It would be crafty if the voters picked up on it. Trouble is, an awfully lot of people accept at face value whatever they see on the tube. They actually think news people are honest!

you think many people actually think????

Doc44

JFrame
10-18-2012, 07:11
It would be crafty if the voters picked up on it. Trouble is, an awfully lot of people accept at face value whatever they see on the tube. They actually think news people are honest!

Fortunately, the numbers of those people seem to be diminishing on a daily basis.


.