Comments on: Palin v. Biden, and the Quayle-ization of Governor Palin (Updated 10/1/08)

By: McCain Landslide | Counting Sheep

McCain Landslide | Counting Sheep — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:34:10 +0000

[...] The loony Left/MSM panic over Palin further reinforced its image as biased and out of touch, and sparked a backlash that drove Palin’s poll numbers through the roof. They have toned things down, while pushing the meme that Palin is stupid, but I don’t think that label will stick. [...]

By: Dave B

Dave B — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 06:53:40 +0000

Both Senator McCain and Gov. Palin must stop playing by the rules the other side sets. That’s why McCain got the nod and why Palin was doing so well. Start talking to the people that will actually vote for them instead of trying to appease those that would never vote for them. Sarah isn’t “likeable” to people that have never met her because she’s courteous to lefty “journalists”, we like her because she’s “like us.” We (please permit me to speak for at least a number of people) would never sit there and answer “gotcha” questions without calling them out on it and we would have said “get someone else to moderate or you won’t have a VP debate.” We would have told Whoopi she was being ridiculous and that if not for the constitution and the way it was set up slavery would have lasted a lot longer. A constitutional republic allows for the minority to be heard and represented. Democracy allows for the minority to be exploited. If you talk the talk then walk the walk and stop taking this crap and your numbers will soar!

By: bdshepherd

bdshepherd — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:10:18 +0000

Ha! Sounds like a plan.

By: Machess

Machess — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:04:03 +0000

I say let them keep her and to be fair allow Limbaugh to moderate the next presidential debate.

By: Surprise! Another unbiased journalist in the tank for Obama « The Right Daily

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:47:22 +0000

[...] Dookie Sister Toldjah Hyscience Jules Crittenden The Daily Conservative Pecanpii’s Weblog Counting Sheep Riehl World View America Needs Me INGunOwners Mcnorman’s Weblog Trust, But Verify What Bias? D.C. [...]

By: Should McCain Have Known About Ifill’s Book? | Counting Sheep

Should McCain Have Known About Ifill’s Book? | Counting Sheep — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:18:18 +0000

[...] edited version of a comment I posted in the Palin v. Biden [...]

By: bdshepherd

bdshepherd — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:16:30 +0000

Not saying they didn’t approve her, but without knowing the alternatives it is hard to judge that decision (e.g., what other moderator might have been chosen, if the Obama camp objected and demanded other concessions, etc.).

As for failure to ‘vet’ moderators — that is completely backwards. A public official (legislator, judge, whatever) that sits in on a decision that directly effects his own interests cannot avoid the consequences merely by saying nobody asked.

Do we really hold our media to such a low standard that it is okay for them to have a conflict of interest and not put the burden on them to be up front about it? In my opinion, it is perfectly reasonable for the campaign not to know about the book until now. There is a presumption, right or wrong, that ‘journalists’ will not have a blatant conflict of interest.

As a practical matter, yes, this election has shown that the media cannot be trusted at even the most basic level. I don’t think it has ever been this bad (the hypocrisy of claiming neutrality, not the partisanship itself), and I don’t think the McCain camp should be criticized for not doing a background check on each moderator.

And I think that it helps: first, Ifill will have to be on her best behavior, and second, the already-low expectations for Palin’s performance get even lower with a known-biased moderator.

By: Jack Bauer

Jack Bauer — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:57:50 +0000

It has been reported that the McCain camp did approve Ifill. It’s not a dictatorship, y’know!

They are saying they didn’t know about the book. But they must have known about Ifill. She’s been fairly vocal in Obama support.

By: bdshepherd

bdshepherd — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:54:04 +0000

It is not clear how much influence the campaigns actually had/have with the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD - the sponsor of the debates). The number and format of the debates was announced almost a year ago, 11/9/07. There have been only minor changes, such as swapping the foreign and domestic policy dates. The moderators were announced 8/5/08. I know that the campaigns work with CPD to iron out all of the details, but it is interesting that the CPD announced the moderators August 5, three days after Obama officially accepted its invitation but a couple weeks before McCain did. Without any details of the negotiations being released, I think that anyone that claims that the McCain camp failed to 'vet' the moderators is the same sort the believes he did not vet Palin simply because that is what they want to believe. Like I mentioned in the article, pretty much anyone that would be named moderator is going to have a definite liberal bias, so why not accept someone whose bias is open enough that it can be used against them?

By: Jack Bauer

Jack Bauer — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:23:48 +0000

“Perhaps because they approved the moderator?”

Huh?? Perhaps I’m thinking they should not have approved the moderator in the first place?

Unless, of course, no one in the McCain campaign had actually heard of Gwen Ifill-In-For-Obama?