VP Debate Moderator Is Bias

[Ravi]

just once, i'd like the opportunity to vote for the greater of two goods rather than the lesser of two evils.

There are several of us here that think we could do a better job at running the country.

 

[Larkinn]

gee, that's a tough question. <flips coin>

nope.

That would qualify them as stupid then.

 

[del]

That would qualify them as stupid then.

i'll put them on the list, right next to you.

 

[del]

There are several of us here that think we could do a better job at running the country.

and you're probably right...

 

[Larkinn]

Well Gem? Was your outrage proved by the debate?

 

[Otter_Creek]

just once, i'd like the opportunity to vote for the greater of two goods rather than the lesser of two evils.

Ain't that the truth

 

[Gem]

Larkin Wrote:

Well Gem? Was your outrage proved by the debate?

Absolutely, Larkin, absolutely. Please remember, I never stated that I did not believe she could be professional...only that she never should have been placed in the position in the first place due to her professional and financial stake in the outcome of this election.

When you are being chosen for something it is YOUR job to reveal anything that may indicate bias or anything inappropriate that could cause trouble for those who vet you. While it is the job of the vetters, in this case the debate commission, to remember and investigate Ifill's book, it was, first and foremost, IFILL's responsibility to be upfront with the commission about the fact that she was writing a book that some may view as affecting her impartiality.

She did not fully disclose vital information about herself, and therefore, SHOULD have ruled herself an inappropriate choice.

The bottom line is, just because she did an ok job, doesn't mean she should have been there in the first place. What I truly love...is how people want to say that because she didn't come out and fawn all over Biden...it somehow makes it ok. If the shoe had been on the other foot she never would have been there in the first place, and everyone knows that...whether they'll admit it or not.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkin Wrote:

Absolutely, Larkin, absolutely. Please remember, I never stated that I did not believe she could be professional...only that she never should have been placed in the position in the first place due to her professional and financial stake in the outcome of this election.

When you are being chosen for something it is YOUR job to reveal anything that may indicate bias or anything inappropriate that could cause trouble for those who vet you. While it is the job of the vetters, in this case the debate commission, to remember and investigate Ifill's book, it was, first and foremost, IFILL's responsibility to be upfront with the commission about the fact that she was writing a book that some may view as affecting her impartiality.

She did not fully disclose vital information about herself, and therefore, SHOULD have ruled herself an inappropriate choice.

The bottom line is, just because she did an ok job, doesn't mean she should have been there in the first place. What I truly love...is how people want to say that because she didn't come out and fawn all over Biden...it somehow makes it ok. If the shoe had been on the other foot she never would have been there in the first place, and everyone knows that...whether they'll admit it or not.

Well good. She did an "ok job". So all your bullshit outrage was unfounded. Of course if Palin had tanked it would be "all the moderators fault".

And nice job playing the strawman. Its not that she "didn't fawn over Biden, and that makes it ok", its that she treated them equally, and THAT makes it ok.

If the shoe had been on the other foot? Oh, so you think Democrats would have whined and cried, but Republicans just stuck it up and played it cool? Or Democrats would have forced a change, but for some reason Republicans didn't because they are so confident and collected?

Man I remember when you weren't so much of a partisan hack.

 

[Gem]

Larkinn Wrote:

Well good. She did an "ok job". So all your bullshit outrage was unfounded. Of course if Palin had tanked it would be "all the moderators fault".

Actually, youre being an ass...not quite sure why, but I'm sure you'll work it out. If you look back, you'll see that I had little confidence in Palin having a knock-out performance regardless of moderator...actually, I think my exact words were, "even if her husband was her moderator." So you can take the who "bullshit outrage" comment and shove it up your bum.

And nice job playing the strawman. Its not that she "didn't fawn over Biden, and that makes it ok", its that she treated them equally, and THAT makes it ok.

Blah blah blah. She treated them equally. It still doesn't change the fact that she never should have been in the position - we could have put Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore in there and they could have been wonderfully fair...doesn't mean that either of them should be there.

If the shoe had been on the other foot? Oh, so you think Democrats would have whined and cried, but Republicans just stuck it up and played it cool? Or Democrats would have forced a change, but for some reason Republicans didn't because they are so confident and collected?

I think if it had come to light that the chosen moderator was writing a book dealing with the stunning candidacy of our ticket the left would have howled. I think there would have been accusations of fraud, Rove-style tricks, and blatant unfairness. I am quite sure you would have been here screaming about the breakdown of the system and how anyone with a brain knows that the moderator shouldn't be one who stands to make themselves money off of one side winning.

The McCain campaign, as is quite obvious to anyone with a brain, could not come out and complain about this issue, since the media has been having a field day making fun of them anytime they complain about anything having to do with Palin. For them to voice concerns about this would have been more fodder for people like you, Larkinn. Instead, they stated that while they were disappointed with the fact that Ifill hadn't fully disclosed herself, they were sure she would act professionally.

Man I remember when you weren't so much of a partisan hack.

This would be funny if it weren't so sad and stupid. There is nothing partisan about wanting a debate to be moderated by someone who does not stand to gain from the success of one side over the other. In fact, it is the exact opposite of partisan. I am for both sides having a moderator that does not want them to win or lose in order to profit themselves.

Get over yourself, Larkinn. Its not partisan to demand fairness in an election cycle. It is, however, quite partisan to do what you seem to want to do this morning - attack someone for demanding bipartisan fairness...simply because you want the other side to win.

 

[N4mddissent]

If she did not mention it, or the debate commission did not know about the book, it still does not necessarily imply she was being deceitful. I have seen nothing convincing that the debate commission did not know before confirming her. In any case, there is nothing in the title or description of her book to suggest it would be pro-obama in any way other than its historic implications. It is to be released whether Obama is elected or not. As Ifil herself said,

Ifill said that as the daughter of a minister who marched in civil rights demonstrations, she recognized the historic nature of Obama's candidacy. But, Ifill said, "I still don't know if he'll be a good president. I'm still capable of looking at his pros and cons in a political sense."

I'm not sure why everyone assumes it will be a book fawning over Obama. The objective and level-headed statement I quoted is exactly why she should be moderator and McCain said:

"I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional, and I think she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly-respected professional,"

Ifils Book is no Secret

And while I can see the point that perhaps she should have mentioned it (if they didn't know), the complete lack of accountability- just excusing the McCain campaign of any responsibility in making sure they were satisfied with the moderators is too reminiscent of the lack of accountability that has been so prevalent in the White House the last seven years. What happened to the buck stops here?

 

[rayboyusmc]

Hey, where are all those who said she would be unfair.?