GOP whimpering about media already

[Flopper]

I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media. As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.

The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire

Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments. However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators. Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.

I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are. However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.

Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight. This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.

I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody. Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.

Fox News sees mainstream media as liberal biased and thus tries to counter act by offering programming that is slanted toward a conservative point of the view to provide balance. Every political newscaster or commentator harbors some bias, however most Fox news people like Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly use bias as part of their public persona. The goal of the commission is not to balance their selection of moderators, selecting a conservative for one debate and a liberal for another but rather to select for each debate the most impartial moderator.

In my opinion the commission has done a pretty good job of selecting moderators that were fair to both sides. The major complains has not been their bias but mistakes in controlling the debate.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Fox News sees mainstream media as liberal biased and thus tries to counter act by offering programming that is slanted toward a conservative point of the view to provide balance. Every political newscaster or commentator harbors some bias, however most Fox news people use bias as part of their public persona. The goal of the commission is not to balance their selection of moderators, selecting a conservative for one debate and a liberal for another but rather to select for each debate the most impartial moderator.

In my opinion the commission has done a pretty good job of selecting moderators that were fair to both sides. The major complains has not been their bias but mistakes in controlling the debate.

Yeah, what could be more fair than Candy Crowley interjecting herself into the debate and openly lying on behalf of Obama?

No bias there....

 

[Seawytch]

Fox News sees mainstream media as liberal biased and thus tries to counter act by offering programming that is slanted toward a conservative point of the view to provide balance. Every political newscaster or commentator harbors some bias, however most Fox news people use bias as part of their public persona. The goal of the commission is not to balance their selection of moderators, selecting a conservative for one debate and a liberal for another but rather to select for each debate the most impartial moderator.

In my opinion the commission has done a pretty good job of selecting moderators that were fair to both sides. The major complains has not been their bias but mistakes in controlling the debate.

Yeah, what could be more fair than Candy Crowley interjecting herself into the debate and openly lying on behalf of Obama?

No bias there....

She wasn't lying.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments. However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators. Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.

I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are. However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.

Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight. This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.

I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody. Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.

Fox News sees mainstream media as liberal biased and thus tries to counter act by offering programming that is slanted toward a conservative point of the view to provide balance. Every political newscaster or commentator harbors some bias, however most Fox news people like Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly use bias as part of their public persona. The goal of the commission is not to balance their selection of moderators, selecting a conservative for one debate and a liberal for another but rather to select for each debate the most impartial moderator.

In my opinion the commission has done a pretty good job of selecting moderators that were fair to both sides. The major complains has not been their bias but mistakes in controlling the debate.

I'm going to disagree with you again. The major complaints have not been about moderators controlling the debate but their obvious bias. I remember during the democratic presidential nomination debates, even Saturday Night Live was making fun of the moderators bias when they asked softball questions to Obama and hard questions to Hillary. The fix was in, the bias displayed and the deck stacked. This happens of course when the presidential debates occur and a liberal press moderates. I don't think O'Reilly and Hannity would be good moderators just like I don't think Mathews and Maddow would be good moderators. However, Fox has a large pool of great journalist who could moderate more professionally than the left wing journalists of presidential debates past. Plus, Fox News, being the most popular cable news site, would probably draw in more viewers. I would certainly understand why the candidates on the left would despise Fox News reporters/anchorpersons asking them questions. What politician wouldn't prefer softballs over real questions? I just don't really give a damn. The liberal minded monopoly on moderators is getting a bit old. Time to shake the tree and add a little diversity to the mix.

 

[Zona]

We have Hillary, they had Palin. We win.

 

[Uncensored2008]

She wasn't lying.

Even she admitted she was lying.

{ Crowley knew exactly what she'd done: validate a lie. Time for damage control. Within minutes of leaving the journalistic crime scene, Crowley was back on CNN admitting that Romney was right "in the main" -- whatever that means -- but he chose "the wrong word" by focusing on Obama's cursory use of the term "these acts of terror." If Romney was correct, why not just say it?

Again, Crowley rallied behind Obama -- even repeating her verdict when the president egged her on to "say it a little louder."}

Candy Crowley Self-Destructs - Brent Bozell - Page full

 

[JohnL.Burke]

We have Hillary, they had Palin. We win.

You can have Hillary. Like Bill Cinton, we don't want her.

 

[Flopper]

I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody. Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.

Fox News sees mainstream media as liberal biased and thus tries to counter act by offering programming that is slanted toward a conservative point of the view to provide balance. Every political newscaster or commentator harbors some bias, however most Fox news people like Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly use bias as part of their public persona. The goal of the commission is not to balance their selection of moderators, selecting a conservative for one debate and a liberal for another but rather to select for each debate the most impartial moderator.

In my opinion the commission has done a pretty good job of selecting moderators that were fair to both sides. The major complains has not been their bias but mistakes in controlling the debate.

I'm going to disagree with you again. The major complaints have not been about moderators controlling the debate but their obvious bias. I remember during the democratic presidential nomination debates, even Saturday Night Live was making fun of the moderators bias when they asked softball questions to Obama and hard questions to Hillary. The fix was in, the bias displayed and the deck stacked. This happens of course when the presidential debates occur and a liberal press moderates. I don't think O'Reilly and Hannity would be good moderators just like I don't think Mathews and Maddow would be good moderators. However, Fox has a large pool of great journalist who could moderate more professionally than the left wing journalists of presidential debates past. Plus, Fox News, being the most popular cable news site, would probably draw in more viewers. I would certainly understand why the candidates on the left would despise Fox News reporters/anchorpersons asking them questions. What politician wouldn't prefer softballs over real questions? I just don't really give a damn. The liberal minded monopoly on moderators is getting a bit old. Time to shake the tree and add a little diversity to the mix.

Do you really consider Hannity, Beck, or O'Reilly, less biased than Schieffer, Lehrer, or Brokaw?

 

[Trajan]

I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public. I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator. A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.

Like oh, gwenn ifill? and no, bob never made derogatory comments ala bush et al....my god dude, check yourself into rehab, seriously.


I am still waiting on that information Oh, and the committee is packed, jesus christ you cannot even keep track of your own machine who sets the rules? the gop is always at a disadvantage and takes what they can get because the nets are the nets, they don't have choice, they are offered the roll and have to select someone, for gods sake

Bob Schieffer is a long-time personal friend of George Bush. Schieffer used to play golf with Bush. He used to go to ball games with Bush. The two men even went to spring training together - And Schieffer’s brother, Tom Schieffer, is a long-time, close business associate of Bush. I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

and? so what are you saying now? that Schieffer let his personal affinities cloud his journalistic integrity and not call bush out on issues etc.? how many ways do you want to slice the bologna? You realize what you just said here, right?

How can you say the commission is packed? The two major political parties control the presidential debates through the Commission on Presidential Debates. The commission has been headed since its inception by former chairs of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee. All the debate issues including selection of the moderator are approved by both sides.

if you walk onto a car lot and buy a car, its going to be one of the brands they have on the lot, hello, if the only folks considered or have a shot for moderator positions are abc cbs cnn pbs nbc guess who you are going to wind up with? I have already answered this, twice and you have not posted the links I have asked you for btw, an assertion you made, you want to take a shot at that?

do you even think before you post? seriously?

You're so far to the Right that the Center is too liberal for you.

yea I was waiting for that. yes that must be it.....


......look dude, you live in such a bubble and are so arrogant you really beleive that everyone but fox and media sources you approve ( that is what you think is honest reportage etc.) of have a lock on ethics or journalistic integrity that warrants they and they alone possess the ability to perform in that forum. You have a lock on the franchise, so why the hell should you open your eyes, you obviously have not thought for yourself in years.

But I could be wrong, lets see; so tell me, whats he benchmark? what could fox or that is its personalities do that would suit you, what would allow you to believe they deserve to moderate a pres. debate?

 

[Trajan]

Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments. However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators. Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.

I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are. However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.

Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight. This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.

I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody. Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.

Fox News sees mainstream media as liberal biased and thus tries to counter act by offering programming that is slanted toward a conservative point of the view to provide balance. Every political newscaster or commentator harbors some bias, however most Fox news people like Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly use bias as part of their public persona.

who the hell brought up beck?

so I see, 'public persona' as crafted by who? you and the rest of the media

how about britt hume? or shep smith or neil cavuto? and hey you obviously don't watch o'reilly, hes all over the 'being in the middle' meme on everything, I think he keeps a chalk board in his head where in he takes one side then the other equally....

The goal of the commission is not to balance their selection of moderators, selecting a conservative for one debate and a liberal for another but rather to select for each debate the most impartial moderator.

so they simply defer to the nets and the left leaning cable outlets etc. ....

funny how that works eh?

​
bzxh11

In my opinion the commission has done a pretty good job of selecting moderators that were fair to both sides. The major complains has not been their bias but mistakes in controlling the debate.

according to who? cbs abc nbc cnn pbs et al? how do you know britt hume wouldn't perform just as well? or some of the others I mentioned?

you're problem is you apparently believe any critique whats so ever made by fox commentators vis a vis the dems, obama etc. etc. is unfair or what, to concentrated? and the nets and the rest didn't do that? getdafugoutta here....you must be joking.

 

[Trajan]

Fox News sees mainstream media as liberal biased and thus tries to counter act by offering programming that is slanted toward a conservative point of the view to provide balance. Every political newscaster or commentator harbors some bias, however most Fox news people use bias as part of their public persona. The goal of the commission is not to balance their selection of moderators, selecting a conservative for one debate and a liberal for another but rather to select for each debate the most impartial moderator.

In my opinion the commission has done a pretty good job of selecting moderators that were fair to both sides. The major complains has not been their bias but mistakes in controlling the debate.

Yeah, what could be more fair than Candy Crowley interjecting herself into the debate and openly lying on behalf of Obama?

No bias there....

She wasn't lying.

IF thats true ( see below) , so what?

and-



CANDY CROWLEY: Well, you know, I heard the president speak at the time. I, sort of, reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question so I kind of wanted to be up on it. So I knew that the president had, had, said, you know, these acts of terror won’t stand or, whatever the whole quote was.

And I think actually, you know because, right after that I did turn around and say, but you’re totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that that there was a, you know, this riot outside the Benghazi consulate which there wasn’t.

So he was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word. And I, you know, they’re going to parse and we all know about what the definition of is is, but, I, uh, you know, in the end, I think John [King]’s probably right. I think this has a lot more to with jobs and the debt crisis and all of that kind of stuff.

I just think that probably it was one of those moments and I could even feel that here, you know, when you say something you’re not expecting. It’s just that was the natural thing coming out of me going, ‘Actually he did, you know, call it an act of terror.’ Uh, when, you know, half the crowd clapped for that and the other half clapped for ‘But they kept telling us this was a tape, this was caused by a tape’ so, you know, in the main, the thrust of what Governor Romney was saying, which is why I went back and said that, um, but I just think he picked the wrong kind of way to go about talking about it if that makes sense.


Read more: Video: Candy Crowley Admits Romney Was Correct About Libya Attack But Simply Couldn?t Stop Herself | NewsBusters


how about the cbs kroft 60 minutes interview sept 12 where in cbs withheld via editing, obama refusing to use the word term terrorism after being pressed several times on that very point? CBS home of the 'even handed' who deserve their lock on debate moderation.... unreal..

 

[MarcATL]

they've been in hillary's tank since the 90's

stating facts is not whimpering, well, maybe to you because you and facts are like oil and water

Are you some kinda fool or what? What fact did Pribeus state? Prove it.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Fox News sees mainstream media as liberal biased and thus tries to counter act by offering programming that is slanted toward a conservative point of the view to provide balance. Every political newscaster or commentator harbors some bias, however most Fox news people like Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly use bias as part of their public persona. The goal of the commission is not to balance their selection of moderators, selecting a conservative for one debate and a liberal for another but rather to select for each debate the most impartial moderator.

In my opinion the commission has done a pretty good job of selecting moderators that were fair to both sides. The major complains has not been their bias but mistakes in controlling the debate.

I'm going to disagree with you again. The major complaints have not been about moderators controlling the debate but their obvious bias. I remember during the democratic presidential nomination debates, even Saturday Night Live was making fun of the moderators bias when they asked softball questions to Obama and hard questions to Hillary. The fix was in, the bias displayed and the deck stacked. This happens of course when the presidential debates occur and a liberal press moderates. I don't think O'Reilly and Hannity would be good moderators just like I don't think Mathews and Maddow would be good moderators. However, Fox has a large pool of great journalist who could moderate more professionally than the left wing journalists of presidential debates past. Plus, Fox News, being the most popular cable news site, would probably draw in more viewers. I would certainly understand why the candidates on the left would despise Fox News reporters/anchorpersons asking them questions. What politician wouldn't prefer softballs over real questions? I just don't really give a damn. The liberal minded monopoly on moderators is getting a bit old. Time to shake the tree and add a little diversity to the mix.

Do you really consider Hannity, Beck, or O'Reilly, less biased than Schieffer, Lehrer, or Brokaw?

Oh my God no! I think they have the SAME amount of bias. Again, I would not want Hannity, Beck (who is not on Fox anymore so I have no idea why you bring up his name) and O'Reilly to be part of a presidential debate. The question for me is not who is biased (certainly, Schieffer, Leher or Brokaw (especially Brokaw) are biased), my question is who will be professional while being a moderator. I think the left and right people associated with the press can be professional. This idea you seem to have though that only the left can be professional (I'm assuming we're pretending Candy Crowley never existed) is simply wrong. Brit Hume can just be as professional as Schieffer even though they both (I suspect) vote for different candidates. Again, I simply ask, why do you think people from ABC,NBC,CBS,PBS and folks from liberal leaning news organizations would be more professional that folks on a right leaning network. Your argument is curious at best.

 

[American_Jihad]

WOAH! Media Matters joins RNC Chair in calling for CNN, NBC to cancel Clinton films​

8/7/13

Stunning. I feel like this story came out of some alternate universe:

NEWSMAX – A liberal watchdog group has joined the Republican call for NBC and CNN to cancel planned film projects on Hillary Clinton, increasing pressure on the networks to avoid the appearance of promoting the former secretary of state as a possible 2016 presidential contender.

Media Matters of America founder and longtime Clinton ally David Brock sent out letters to NBC and CNN on Tuesday backing Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus’ demand that the networks cancel a film and documentary on Clinton.

…

WOAH! Media Matters joins RNC Chair in calling for CNN, NBC to cancel Clinton films » The Right Scoop -

 

[FA_Q2]

WOAH! Media Matters joins RNC Chair in calling for CNN, NBC to cancel Clinton films​

8/7/13

Stunning. I feel like this story came out of some alternate universe:

NEWSMAX – A liberal watchdog group has joined the Republican call for NBC and CNN to cancel planned film projects on Hillary Clinton, increasing pressure on the networks to avoid the appearance of promoting the former secretary of state as a possible 2016 presidential contender.

Media Matters of America founder and longtime Clinton ally David Brock sent out letters to NBC and CNN on Tuesday backing Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus’ demand that the networks cancel a film and documentary on Clinton.

…

WOAH! Media Matters joins RNC Chair in calling for CNN, NBC to cancel Clinton films » The Right Scoop -

Perhaps they also do not want the obvious bias ruining the lefts media reputation.

I find this rather hilarious.

 

[Flopper]

I'm going to disagree with you again. The major complaints have not been about moderators controlling the debate but their obvious bias. I remember during the democratic presidential nomination debates, even Saturday Night Live was making fun of the moderators bias when they asked softball questions to Obama and hard questions to Hillary. The fix was in, the bias displayed and the deck stacked. This happens of course when the presidential debates occur and a liberal press moderates. I don't think O'Reilly and Hannity would be good moderators just like I don't think Mathews and Maddow would be good moderators. However, Fox has a large pool of great journalist who could moderate more professionally than the left wing journalists of presidential debates past. Plus, Fox News, being the most popular cable news site, would probably draw in more viewers. I would certainly understand why the candidates on the left would despise Fox News reporters/anchorpersons asking them questions. What politician wouldn't prefer softballs over real questions? I just don't really give a damn. The liberal minded monopoly on moderators is getting a bit old. Time to shake the tree and add a little diversity to the mix.

Do you really consider Hannity, Beck, or O'Reilly, less biased than Schieffer, Lehrer, or Brokaw?

Oh my God no! I think they have the SAME amount of bias. Again, I would not want Hannity, Beck (who is not on Fox anymore so I have no idea why you bring up his name) and O'Reilly to be part of a presidential debate. The question for me is not who is biased (certainly, Schieffer, Leher or Brokaw (especially Brokaw) are biased), my question is who will be professional while being a moderator. I think the left and right people associated with the press can be professional. This idea you seem to have though that only the left can be professional (I'm assuming we're pretending Candy Crowley never existed) is simply wrong. Brit Hume can just be as professional as Schieffer even though they both (I suspect) vote for different candidates. Again, I simply ask, why do you think people from ABC,NBC,CBS,PBS and folks from liberal leaning news organizations would be more professional that folks on a right leaning network. Your argument is curious at best.

As I said, all newscasters and commentators are biased to some extent. However, Fox News has built the network around bias programming favoring the political right and the Republican Party. Looking to Fox for a moderator would be as absurd as looking to MSNBC or talk radio. ABC,NBC,CBS,PBS may a times lean to the left but not to extent that Fox does goes to right.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Do you really consider Hannity, Beck, or O'Reilly, less biased than Schieffer, Lehrer, or Brokaw?

Oh my God no! I think they have the SAME amount of bias. Again, I would not want Hannity, Beck (who is not on Fox anymore so I have no idea why you bring up his name) and O'Reilly to be part of a presidential debate. The question for me is not who is biased (certainly, Schieffer, Leher or Brokaw (especially Brokaw) are biased), my question is who will be professional while being a moderator. I think the left and right people associated with the press can be professional. This idea you seem to have though that only the left can be professional (I'm assuming we're pretending Candy Crowley never existed) is simply wrong. Brit Hume can just be as professional as Schieffer even though they both (I suspect) vote for different candidates. Again, I simply ask, why do you think people from ABC,NBC,CBS,PBS and folks from liberal leaning news organizations would be more professional that folks on a right leaning network. Your argument is curious at best.

As I said, all newscasters and commentators are biased to some extent. However, Fox News has built the network around bias programming favoring the political right and the Republican Party. Looking to Fox for a moderator would be as absurd as looking to MSNBC or talk radio. ABC,NBC,CBS,PBS may a times lean to the left but not to extent that Fox does goes to right.

Again, gonna disagree with ya. ABC,NBC,CBS,PBS are just as biased and MSNBC. I actually have more respect for MSNBC for not pretending to be unbiased while presenting biased news. Also, you left out CNN which was really a repugnant race baiting manipulator during the Zimmerman trial. Since Fox News is far more highly respected and watched than CNN I don't think most people would mind a Fox News moderator.

 

[Synthaholic]

how many fox news personnel have moderated presidential debates?

....a rough number will do......

To my knowledge none. Both sides have to agree on the moderator and for obvious reasons the GOP doesn't want a FOX news commentator moderating. It would do them more harm that good.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think the GOP would give their left nut to have a FOX news commentator moderating. Especially if they replaced people like Candy Crowly and George Stephanopoulos. I don't think O'Reilly or Hannity would be in the running for moderator but certainly Bill Chrystal, Brit Hume, Megan Kelly, Charles Krauthammer, Greta Van Sustern might be.

Bill Kristol is a hyper-partisan Neo-Con who runs the Weekly Standard.
Kelly would be the only one from your list who could be acceptable, but Shepard Smith is the most even-handed of that FOX bunch.

Van Susteren doesn't come across as a hyper-partisan, but she and her husband are extremely close to Poor Sarah Palin, and they are also whacko Scientologists - big time! I mean total devotees.

 

[Synthaholic]

Ahh, so you're saying that the gop has scotched fox moderators

Uhm and what do you call it when obama hillary and edwards all boycott a fox debate?

WTF are you talking about?


The debate was moderated by Fox News anchor Bret Baier of Special Report with Bret Baier and several other Fox News contributors, including Juan Williams, Shannon Bream, and Chris Wallace.[3]


and:



The third Republican debate was held at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, sponsored by the Republican Party of Iowa, Fox News Channel, and The Washington Examiner. It was moderated by Bret Baier with questions from Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace and the Washington Examiner's Byron York and Susan Ferrechio. Baier and Wallace were praised for their moderation of the debate.[9]


and:


The fifth Republican debate was held at Florida State Fair Grounds in Tampa, Florida, sponsored by CNN and Tea Party Express.


and:


The sixth Republican debate was held at the Orange County Convention Center in Orlando, Florida, and was sponsored by Fox News Channel and Google. It was moderated by Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, and Megyn Kelly.


and:


The thirteenth Republican debate was hosted by Fox News and held in Sioux City, Iowa. It was moderated by Bret Baier.


and:


The sixteenth Republican debate was hosted by Fox News and The Wall Street Journal, and was held in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. It was moderated by Bret Baier. Juan Williams also asked questions of the candidates.




Now go lick your wounds.

your such a maroon...I said "presidential debates" asshat.....

No one from MSNBC has ever moderated, either. Does that make you sad, too? They haven't invited Drudge to moderate - are you upset? Glenn Beck, either!

 

[Synthaholic]

And if Christie starts leading Hillary in the polls, she will be happy to suck his dick once again.

Hillary has never taken a dick in any orifice. The fact that you've taken many in all your orifices, doesn't change that.

4. Stupid and vulgar.

As usual, which is why he's on ignore.