Friday’s Washington Post carried an ad from PBS touting their two TV debate moderators: "Objective. Impartial. Independent. The NewsHour’s Jim Lehrer and Washington Week’s Gwen Ifill bring PBS’s tradition of integrity to the most important conversations in America – so you can make up your own mind."
Sadly, that ad is not accurate. Even before addressing whether "independence" is demonstrated by Ifill writing a new book celebrating Barack Obama’s bold "Breakthrough," Ifill’s questions in the vice presidential debate in 2004 displayed an undeniable bias against Vice President Cheney.
For example, she pressed Cheney to attack Democratic nominee John Edwards personally: "President Bush has derided John Kerry for putting a trial lawyer on the ticket. You yourself have said that lawsuits are partly to blame for higher medical costs. Are you willing to say that John Edwards, sitting here, has been part of the problem?"
Ifill then turned around and asked the Democrat if he was feeling pained at the attack she had just requested: "Senator Edwards, new question to you, same topic. Do you feel personally attacked when Vice President Cheney talks about liability reform and tort reform and the president talks about having a trial lawyer on the ticket?"
The PBS host also pressed Cheney with a Tim Russert-style question on Iran: "Mr. Vice President, in June of 2000 when you were still CEO of Halliburton, you said that U.S. businesses should be allowed to do business with Iran because, quote, ‘Unilateral sanctions almost never work.’ After four years as Vice President now, and with Iran having been declared by your administration as part of the ‘Axis of Evil,’ do you still believe that we should lift sanctions on Iran?" Cheney said no, and that in 2000, he was talking about unilateral sanctions, not universal sanctions. Some viewers were put off after the Edwards counterattack, when Cheney said "I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds," and she said "Well, that's all you've got." She said Democrats loved it ("they thought I was being snippy"), but she said that wasn’t her intent.
When Ifill turned to Edwards for a question on Israel policy, there wasn’t an equally tough question for him. She said the U.S. seemed sadly "absent" under Bush: "Today, a senior member of Islamic Jihad was killed in Gaza. There have been suicide bombings, targeted assassinations, mortar attacks, all of this continuing at a time when the United States seems absent in the peace-making process. What would your administration do?"
Ifill’s toughest question to Edwards underlined that he had the least governmental experience of any vice-presidential nominee since 1976. She also pressed Edwards from the left on Kerry’s promise not to raise taxes and their opposition to gay marriage. But her last question seemed designed to aid Kerry: "Senator Kerry changed his mind about whether to vote to authorize the President to go to war. President Bush changed his mind about whether a Homeland Security department was a good idea or a 9/11 Commission was a good idea. What's wrong with a little flip-flop every now and then?"
When Palin was picked, Ifill announced on the August 29 Washington Week that the idea of Palin attracting Hillary Clinton voters was strange: "I want to question that whole theory, why Hillary Clinton voters would actually vote for someone who is so famously anti-abortion, for instance and other issues."
On the September 5 Washington Week, Ifill defined the party's bases as the Clintonites vs. the evangelical far right who were Palin's natural supporters: “I also was struck this week and last week that both parties – and maybe this is what happens after a party convention – but they both came away having played to and sealed down their base. Barack Obama had to take care of his Clinton problem. And John McCain had to take care of his evangelical, far right problem.”
There’s seemingly no end in sight for biased PBS moderators, since Republican debate negotiators keep accepting them, allowing PBS to suggest that decision endorses the false notion of their objectivity and impartiality.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Comments Policy
This Book Will Fail - Along With Obama!
October 1, 2008 - 14:01 ET by ChasvsWon't it be wonderful when this book get's published on the day John McCain is sworn into office?
Let's hope Americans rise up against the Marxist/Socialist agenda of this empty black suit and his Democrat morons!
Stop the madness--Stop Obama NOW!
I hope so
October 1, 2008 - 14:12 ET by Mindwerkzthough I must admit I am growing more and more concerned that we just might elect a communist... and we all know how well that worked out for chile, 500% inflation.
Our evil plan is all coming together!
October 1, 2008 - 14:58 ET by Mr_PriestBwaaaahahaha... Our evil plan is all coming together!
Rigged pole numbers - Check
Rigged Debate moderators - Check
Manufactured Hit pieces on Palin - Check
NYT's hit pieces on McCain - Check
Ohio Voter fraud ramping up - Check
Bwahahahaha
The latest pole says that 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
Mr. Priest:
October 1, 2008 - 15:27 ET by j. frank wilsonWould you please provide a link to verify your final statement?
Meanwhile, I think you are confusing the Democrats with Ole BlunderRush's "Operation Chaos." Wasn't he in charge of the Denver Convention, and responsible for the party's candidate?
frankie,
October 1, 2008 - 18:01 ET by Indiana JoeYou really need a link to verify that "3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population?"
Try a calculator. ;^D
As far as proving charges, you should hold your side to the same criteria. You don't, you won't, so don't bother claiming you do.
Look it up, as you're so fond of saying. Prove it wrong, otherwise, it's true. Isn't it a bitch when your own tactics bite you back?
"To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." - H. Poincaré
Indiana Joe:
October 1, 2008 - 19:02 ET by j. frank wilsonWent right over your head, didn't it?
Meanwhile, I do link sources. For example, regarding the CRA sub-prime lending conversation, I listed numerous sources.
Regarding Ms. Ifill - what sources would you like? That Sen. McCain can't run a presidential campaign? That his side agreed to her as a moderator and now the rightwingnutz are up in arms over it - with the debate to take place tomorrow?
So obvious. Sen. McCain tried to delay his debate until tomorrow - that balloon didn't fly so now Gov. Palin has to go forward with it. So the new plan is to plan the referee - always the last resort of a very poor team...
Rush's idea was for Palin
October 1, 2008 - 14:05 ET by mattmRush's idea was for Palin to make conflict of interest the theme of her debate responses and point out Ifil's conflict of interest as a preface to every one of her responses, which would go on to point out the myriad of Democrat conflicts of interest on every issue.
I agree
October 1, 2008 - 14:25 ET by 10ksnookerBut, wouldn't go that far. I would suggest she mention it in her opening and closing speech. Otherwise, the drive by media will attack her for 'hiding from the questions'.
I Agree
October 1, 2008 - 15:35 ET by livingfreeHello 10k
In my humble opinion, I think Sarah Palin should tell them all to take that bias moderator and bias debate and stick it where the sun don't shine. If my fellow Americans don't see through the bias garbage then so be it. Maybe they can get a discount on brown shirts for their kids.
Livefree or die trying
I can't believe that they
October 1, 2008 - 16:19 ET by mjgI can't believe that they would even consider someone who is pro-Obama to moderate a debate. Just when I think it can't get any worse it does. I think this debate will be anything but fair.
I'd go that far!!!
October 1, 2008 - 16:49 ET by AtillaKahuna"...wouldn't go that far"?
From the Commission on Presidential Debates website (http://www.debates.o...) (bolding added by me):
Check out the list of moderators:
They're not even pretending to find non-partisan moderators any more. If there's anyone in politics today who will call shenanegans on this bogus organization and call a spade a spade (sorry, couldn't resist), it's Sarah Palin. She should come out swinging at the outset, and hit both Ifill and Biden with both barrels (just to throw a mixed metaphor at you all).
I'm tire of being fed crap and told that it's a cheeesburger (http://www.imao.us/i...).
Kahuna
Rush is Correct
October 1, 2008 - 15:19 ET by Gat New YorkAbout halfway through the debate and after the questions clearly favor Biden, Palin should take two minutes and ask Ifill when she will get some softball questions - and of course raise the conflict of interest so that the debate becomes a win-win for her.
mattm:
October 1, 2008 - 19:04 ET by j. frank wilsonThere is no "conflict of interest" because everyone knows Ms. Ifill is writing a book. Actually, anyone seriously interested in her could have learned this weeks and weeks ago. Unfortunately for the Republicans, they are a bit slow on the uptake...
frank, you got me laughin". Again.
October 2, 2008 - 08:39 ET by KarmaNo "conflict of interest" as long as everyone knows Mr. Cheney had financial ties with Haliburton. Right?
Karma:
October 2, 2008 - 09:25 ET by j. frank wilson"Conflict on interest" is one of the those terms people throw around without really understanding ("irony" is another but that's another story).
Everyone knew Mr. Cheney had financial ties to Haliburton (and that he did a fairly crappy job of running it). Is it a good idea? Of course not. Is it a "conflict of interest?" Not when people know about it.
Laughing. Harder. Now.
October 2, 2008 - 09:52 ET by KarmaHave at it, frank.
Show me where any of them require the "interested party" to wear a mask and go incognito to fill the bill.
So, once again, your beloved current VP could stand on the street corner and rail for endless war and shout, "I'm pushing for war because it fills my pockets!", and no one could accuse him of conflict of interest because he is out in the open about it? Who teached you?
»→ Hey Frank
October 2, 2008 - 10:02 ET by Cool ArrowSuppose you're not gay, (not that there's anything wrong with it, if you are not gay) and you get raped. Suppose your rapist's wife is a criminal courts Judge.
Are you OK with your rapist's wife presiding over her husband's trial? Certainly there is that pressure on her to be fair considering her relationship to the Defendant, but wouldn't you have just a little problem with her not recusing herself.
Kill Bill II - Stop the bailout
Thanks, CA
October 2, 2008 - 10:36 ET by KarmaYou're a much better writey type person than I, and maybe he can understand your scenario better. I just didn't think it would be this difficult to convey the meaning to him.
Cool Arrow:
October 2, 2008 - 11:16 ET by j. frank wilsonAre you saying gay folks can't be raped? Is that like prostitutes can't be raped? How about wives by their husbands?
»→ No Frank
October 2, 2008 - 11:26 ET by Cool ArrowYou're going to have to point out where even the hint of such a silly implication was made.
I didn't realized I'd hit upon a subject so close to home with you that your comprehension would flee.
Do you still suffer from PTSD?
Kill Bill II - Stop the bailout
Cool Arrow:
October 2, 2008 - 12:28 ET by j. frank wilsonI can certainly understand other people ignoring your comments. But don't you, yourself, know what you write?
It's right there in your first sentence:
"Suppose you're not gay, (not that there's anything wrong with it, if you are not gay) and you get raped." [emphasis in the original]
Why do you say "Suppose you're not gay" before writing "and you get raped?" What difference does it make if one is gay or not if one is raped?
Amazing that I must explain your own comment to you. Reminds of Sir Charles claiming to be misquoted. In his autobiography...
»→ None at all, Frank
October 2, 2008 - 12:41 ET by Cool ArrowOK, Suppose you are gay, and you get raped?
Is the concern of "conflict of interest" any different?
I was just supposing, for the sake of my argument, that you're not gay.
Sorry such a supposition offends you. You're entirely too easy to lead off topic. But that also means it's extremely difficult to keep you focused.
When you veered off course into this blind alley, it was obvious you had surrendered on the original topic.
Try again sometime, and get some help with that PTSD.
Kill Bill II - Stop the bailout
Cool Arrow:
October 2, 2008 - 13:17 ET by j. frank wilsonYou're attempting an epigonious copy of the rape question famously asked Michael Dukasis. Seeking to make your point via shock value because otherwise you would be ignored.I'll give you the same answer Mr. Dukasis should have given those many years ago: You question is offensive and I have not interest in answering it.
frank,...
October 2, 2008 - 13:25 ET by Karma...you're supposed to duck before he lands the knockout blow. Alright now, dust yourself off and learn from your mistakes.
»→ There's Frank
October 2, 2008 - 18:18 ET by Cool ArrowProblems getting back onto NB after outage.
May I suggest you resemble a line from "Howl"
And who is Michael Dukasis? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt if you misspelled Dukakis twice.
And finally, it's toatlly predictable that you would scratch away at your now sealed crypt, finally falling back on feigned appall (damn I'm good, doncha think?) that I suggested a scenario so near to your heart.
It's not that you're all that incensed, you're just grabbing for a life preserver that isn't there. glub glub glub
Kill Bill II - Stop the bailout
Cool Arrow:
October 4, 2008 - 14:33 ET by j. frank wilsonYou're not attempting to actually say anything, are you?
But, at least, apparently you are amusing yourself. Doubtless youv'e had plenty of successful experience at that...
Your so bright, NOT.
October 2, 2008 - 10:00 ET by MaximusBraveheartEveryone knew? The board that picked her said she did not disclose it nor did she or the board inform the candidates or give an option to reject their choice of moderator.
MB:
October 2, 2008 - 11:18 ET by j. frank wilsonPlease be so kind as to provide a link to proof that (1.) The board didn't know; and (2.) The campaigns had no say in the debate moderators. I would appreciate that very much.
If the McCain Campaign
October 1, 2008 - 14:07 ET by j. frank wilsoncan't property vet a vice presidential candidate, how can they be expected to do their homework on a debate moderator?
It's been public knowledge for weeks (months) that Ms. Ifill is writing a book. Just because World Net Daily, Sludge and Michelle Malkin just learned about it now it's news?
Whata buncha whiners!
Not the issue
October 1, 2008 - 14:11 ET by MeanderingI don't think McCain vetting a vp has anything to do with the fact that Ifill is a Obama supporter and shown her colors in past debates, the book is just icing on the cake and she should be replaced as moderator. Nice try of bringing up an issue not involved with this story. Why not tie the "failed Bush policies" to McCain's inability to know Ifill was in the tank for Obama. No relevance whatsoever.
Meandering (indeed!):
October 1, 2008 - 14:56 ET by j. frank wilsonIf Ms. Ifill is so one-sided, why did Sen. McCain's handlers agree to her as the debate monitor?
If one accepts the proposition that Ms. Ifill can not be fair - and that's a stretch, to say the least - then it's obvious the very poorly managed McCain campaign made another mistake. How many times has the senior senator from Arizona had to overhaul his campaign? Three? If he can't run this, how can he expect to run the country?
Why defend her if she's unbiased?
October 1, 2008 - 15:35 ET by MeanderingSo if Ifill is so unbiased, why is she writing a book lauding Obama's unprecedented campaign? See I can do it too. I can ask questions irrelevant to the subject. There are any number of reasons to why McCain group ok’ed Ifill’s placement as moderator. Maybe the other options were Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. Maybe McCain’s so busy working on his campaign and fixing the economy while Obama sits back and reads what his groups hands him. There are any number of scenarios which aren’t the topic here. The topic is can Ifill be unbiased when she is an Obama supporter and financially intertwined in his possible presidency? I don’t think she will be impartial, but now that this has come out about her desires for Obama to become president she’ll be even more scrutinized, so the pressure is on her.
On another topic, you’re also saying Obama hasn’t overhauled his campaign? Please, Obama is synonymous with flip-flopping! He’s against off shore drilling; now he’s for it. Against the FISA bill, now he’s for it. Others are public financing, DC gun-ban, Death penalty for child rape and the list goes on. So let’s not compare overhauls with their campaigns as Obama would lose. What other issues you want to talk about? I bet you think Palin wants to ban books and McCain is going to bring slavery back (as Whoopi asked on the View)? Nice critical thinking.
Obama campaign same now as then
October 1, 2008 - 15:55 ET by SickofLibsFrankie may have a point there. In essence, Obama's campaign has remained true to it's initial themes: cult development/idolatry, obfuscation of all records/relationships, gestapo tactics, and playing every 'card' in the book.
All the flip flops are just 'readjustments.'
SickofLibs:
October 1, 2008 - 16:23 ET by j. frank wilson"Gestapo tactics?"
You lose!
Great thinking Frank. Don't
October 1, 2008 - 20:15 ET by cocodrieGreat thinking Frank. Don't ever let the truth or reality cloud your mind. Enjoy your universe while you can.
meandering (yes, you are!):
October 1, 2008 - 16:07 ET by j. frank wilsonMaybe Sen. McCain can't run a presidential campaign. Your excuses are just that - excuses. Sen. McCain is fixing the economy? He couldn't bring his own party to the table. Did you notice how many Republicans spoke up for him after his White House summit blew up in his face?
Sen. McCain's handlers agreed to Ms. Ifill - now live with it and stop complaining about it.
When I referred to "overhauling" it was in reference to structure, not positions. Positions such as Sen. McCain's support for immigration reform - the bill that Candidate McCain said he'd veto. Sen. McCain was against torture - until Sen. McCain voted for a law that permitted it. Candidate McCain was going to participate in the public funding of presidential campaigns. Before he wrote a letter opting out. And then he's back in because he used the opportunity to collect those funds as collateral for a bank loan - no matter how he did in the primary voting. And to avoid collecting nominating signatures, of course. Candidate McCain said the economy was basically sound - until Candidate McCain said we were facing a financial crisis. Candidate McCain said he was suspended his campaign - until Candidate McCain kept it going.
"Maverick" Sen. McCain wears the Lazy B - the Bush Brand (voting for President Bush 89+% of the time in 2007). He'd better keep his pants pulled up...
More of this crap j?
October 1, 2008 - 16:26 ET by MeanderingWow I really feel like Glenn Beck in a segment of Arguments Against Idiots here. Yes, McCain is WORKING on fixing the economy. I'm glad the first bailout failed. The REAL FAILURE was the OBAMA and PELOSI couldn't get their party behind that horrid bailout plan. I thought all you libs stuck together? I guess some of you were blessed with some intelligence.
I'm not complaining about her selection. All I'm saying is I don't think she can impartially handle this debate when she hasn't failed to do so in the past. I'm not whining, I'm pointing out a common MSM fallacy that "journalists" working for or with Obama can remain impartial.
So its ok to overhaul your campaign as long as you overhaul your positions? So by your logic its ok for someone to change their mind, why is Obama's mind changing ok, but McCain's isn't? One thing he didn't change was supporting the bridge to nowhere even after Palin used her reasoning skills to realize it was crap, he and Biden still supported it. This is more of the liberal talking points that don't make sense. "Look McCain changed his campaign" while congradulated Obama for the same thing. Just more political games mastered by a child of the always reputable Chicago politcial machine.
When it comes down to it, who do you trust, a crook with crooked and anti-American friends or a National Hero. Its your choice.
Obama never voted with Bush on anything did he? Oh wait he did. Roughly 40% of the time, while he only voted 4% of the time against his own party. Is that reaching across the isle? McCain voted against his party 19% of the time. Meaning if legislation is out there from either party McCain shows the stones to veto it or accept it not due to what his party wants, unlike Obama. Who's better at working across the isle on important issues and not what their party wants them to do.
Game. Set. Match!
Meandering:
October 1, 2008 - 19:10 ET by j. frank wilsonYou are so quick to award victory to yourself. What's the matter - afraid no one else will do it for you?
Meanwhile, your comments are filled with error. Sen. Obama is not, for example, a product of the Chicago political machine. He's a Hyde Park Democrat, not a Daley one. Congress took the earmark off The Bridge to Nowhere before Gov. Palin was elected. She was very willing to spend the money, of course. Perhaps that's why the bridge has vanished from her stump speech. Along with the airplane lie.
What precisely has Sen. McCain actually accomplished? That he still supports?
Winning is Fun
October 2, 2008 - 11:17 ET by MeanderingIts fun stumping you on every topic YOU bring up, but I actually have work to do. So try you debating skills with kindergarteners and eventually you'll work you way up to grown up level. Besides, this entire pointless rabble from you does not support your theory that Ifill will be impartial in the debate tonight. All you had to say was that she will be under even more scrutiny and every eye in America watching her tonight so any slip up in bias will be seen and thrashed, so she has an even greater need for impartiality. But instead of talking about the issue, you ramble on about McCain overhauling him campaign and other issues I (and others on this thread) have crushed you on. So keep spurting out liberal talking points without researching the facts for yourself. Besides, Daley has worked with Obama on many projects (redesigning public housing and Daley’s brought Obama in on numerous occasions to “talk, but no I’m sure Obama and Daley aren’t linked at all). Also, what did Palin lie about? She said she put the airplane on ebay, not that it sold on ebay. Lying is something Obama does just depending on who he’s talking to. So Enjoy the debate and I’m sure we’ll talk about it tomorrow. PEACE~
Winning is Fun
October 2, 2008 - 11:18 ET by MeanderingIts fun stumping you on every topic YOU bring up, but I actually have work to do. So try you debating skills with kindergarteners and eventually you'll work you way up to grown up level. Besides, this entire pointless rabble from you does not support your theory that Ifill will be impartial in the debate tonight. All you had to say was that she will be under even more scrutiny and every eye in America watching her tonight so any slip up in bias will be seen and thrashed, so she has an even greater need for impartiality. But instead of talking about the issue, you ramble on about McCain overhauling him campaign and other issues I (and others on this thread) have crushed you on. So keep spurting out liberal talking points without researching the facts for yourself. Besides, Daley has worked with Obama on many projects (redesigning public housing and Daley’s brought Obama in on numerous occasions to “talk, but no I’m sure Obama and Daley aren’t linked at all). Also, what did Palin lie about? She said she put the airplane on ebay, not that it sold on ebay. Lying is something Obama does just depending on who he’s talking to. So Enjoy the debate and I’m sure we’ll talk about it tomorrow. PEACE~
Meandering:
October 2, 2008 - 11:22 ET by j. frank wilsonIt would be helpful if your comments actually addressed what I wrote. Yours clearly don't. I have no theory about Ms. Ifill's impartiality.
I always do enjoy the long comments about how people don't have to....well, do anything except rant.
In your copious free time, I would suggest you look up "rabble."
Speaking of non-answers...
October 2, 2008 - 11:45 ET by Karma...how would you classify this? Or were you just rabble-rousing?
Prooves my point!
October 2, 2008 - 11:49 ET by MeanderingI have no theory about Ms. Ifill's impartiality.
Thanks for honesty. This started with the question, Can Ifill be impartial in this debate since she is financially involved with Obama's success. So since you have no thoughts about this our conversation is done. I even gave you what you should have said to end the conversation, but you obviously are just poking a bear with a stick.
I've read about you from other posters here and I don't believe you are 40 and live in your mom's garage. This is obviously fun for you so I will leave you at that. Enjoy your trolling!
PS~Try working on your critical thinking skills instead of memorizing what the liberal media tells you.
Meandering:
October 2, 2008 - 12:33 ET by j. frank wilsonSince you are the expert in these matters: You state as a fact that Ms. Ifill has a financial interest in Sen. Obama's success. How do you know that? Is she being paid an advance for her book? Is her advance vs. royalties? How many first time authors (particularly these days, with hardcover print runs often being just 5,000 or fewer) cover their advances with royalty payments?
If Ms. Ifill is so
October 1, 2008 - 15:37 ET by general companyIf Ms. Ifill is so one-sided, why did Sen. McCain's handlers agree to her as the debate monitor?
Probably because Obama refused an unbiased monitor. Isnt that why they are not on FOX. Is it not true that Obama refuses to do any interviews with honest and tough reporters. He gave BOR 40 min, and practicly ran away from that interview without answering squat. Ever occured to you, that McCain doesnt have the ethical problems of the Dems, so all the bias questions in the world cant uncover what isnt there.
Ever occure to you that honest people dont have anything to hide, and dont care if your wrong
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
truth is frank.....
October 1, 2008 - 15:55 ET by porpoiseboythat you libs are soooo used to having everything "media" tilted on your direction, that you don't see anything wrong with it. i understand. it's been that way for so long that you would be freaked out if it wasn't. in fact you would cry foul if you didn't have the media advantage. we may call b.s. on it...we do...but we don't really cry about it, we just look for "work arounds".
If Brit Hume were the
October 1, 2008 - 14:40 ET by NewsbusterbrownIf Brit Hume were the moderator and wrote a "John McCain is Great!" book, Mr. "Last Kiss," you would be crying 10 times more than any of us are about Ifill.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Same ol Frank
October 1, 2008 - 14:47 ET by NeoConfirmedSo you've
October 1, 2008 - 14:52 ET by j. frank wilsonalready read a book that has yet to be published?
Liberal "Debating" Tactic
October 1, 2008 - 15:07 ET by HockeyKidLiberal "Debating" Tactic 37: Set up a straw man.
Who said anything about having read any book? Only you. Put your straw man back in the closet.
The point is, Ifill has a financial interest in Obama's success in November.
I thought you libs were supposed to be the thinkers...
HockeyKid:
October 1, 2008 - 15:29 ET by j. frank wilsonThat's quite a stretch (most first time authors make little or no money from their books) - but if it were true, why did the senior senator from Arizona's handlers agree to her role in this debate?
I agree Frank
October 1, 2008 - 15:42 ET by general companyThat's quite a stretch (most first time authors make little or no money from their books)
Yea your right, not like she is Malkin, Coulter, or Ingram. Not to mention the topic blows too.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Frank can't help it
October 1, 2008 - 15:47 ET by NeoConfirmedHockey Kid,
Nevermind Frank, facts always get in his way. He has no problem with Ifill's obvious conflict of interest so let's forget him. Anyway, the commision on presidential debates is run by Janet H Brown, who's e-mail address is jb@debates.org, i suggest we all let her know how we feel about this. By the way, just to give you an indication of what's to come, the Oct 7 presidential debate with be "moderated" by NBC longtime liberal hack Tom Brokaw and then on Oct 15, we get CBS snoozer Bob Schiffer.
I emailed Janet
October 1, 2008 - 16:09 ET by MeanderingAs of now I haven't heard anything back from her. I simply posed the question, can she asure me an America citizen that Ifill will be unbaised and impartial since she is financially envolved with the success of Obama. I would like to receive some verification that she will assure me of a fair and balanced debate.
no frank you idiot,
October 1, 2008 - 16:03 ET by porpoiseboyhe was alluding to the fact that it would not be general knowledge that the BIT#&! had written a book that has not even been released yet. a fact that you alluded to when you said everyone should have know this in advance. your argument would valid if we were talking about a book that was on the shelves, in fact, there is no way ifill would be moderating this debate if the book was already on the shelves. and since that is FACT, there is no way she should be moderating now. and the responsibility rests on the FEC and they should be strongly challenged on this decision.
porpoiseboy:
October 1, 2008 - 16:25 ET by j. frank wilsonDidn't take you long to go all racist, did it? Well, at least you're being honest. Keep those sheets in your closet instead of on our bed.
If the handlers for the senior senator from Arizona can't do their research, it's too late to complain about it now. Perhaps they should read the newspaper - AP ran a story in late July that discussed Ms. Ifill's book.
We know Gov. Palin has trouble naming a newspaper or magazine she regularly reads - is that Sen. McCain's problem too? Or was Rich Davis too busy counting his lobbying money to actually run this campaign?
Hey MORON!
October 1, 2008 - 18:28 ET by Indiana JoePoint to the "racist" remark in the above post. Point to it, and QUOTE IT, you slimey POS, or shut the F#CK UP!
Mods, this is over the line. How much longer do we have to put up with this lying, stupid, abusive, hateful piece of human refuse? He contributes nothing, he knows nothing, he is interested in learning nothing. He's been given more than enough rope, and I, for one, am tired of watching him hang himself. He's now flinging obviously groundless charges of racism. How much lower does one have to go to get the boot here?
<edit: I am SO PO'd by this! And a little disappointed. This has been up for 2 hours, and no one called him on this? I can't find a racist remark in porpoiseboy's post, am I missing something? Giving him a pass for that is just beyond belief to me.>
"To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." - H. Poincaré
I agree Joe
October 1, 2008 - 18:32 ET by NeoConfirmedNeo,
October 1, 2008 - 18:40 ET by Indiana JoeEver read this mutton-head's bio? In it's entirety:
"It's hard to make a living doing water colors and collage;
I'm forty years old and living in my Mom's garage."
Where does he get the nerve to criticize anyone? Moronic, worthless, non-contributing POS, thinking he's exercising some right that he has no friggin' clue about.
Waste of f*cking oxygen. STFU and get a job, you LOSER!
"To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." - H. Poincaré
Indiana Joe:
October 1, 2008 - 19:12 ET by j. frank wilsonWhat do you have against collage? It's a major art form. Did you know water colour was once an Olympic event?
Shut the F#CK UP, you sub-human POS
October 1, 2008 - 19:47 ET by Indiana JoeGet a job. Move out of the f#ckin garage. Act like a man. After 40 years, admit you're a failure and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, you PARASITE! I knew you were stupid, I just didn't realize how completely bereft of any human decency you actually are! No wonder you can't make it as an "artist," an artist needs a soul!
I'm going to do everything in my power, limited though it is, to get you booted from this site. You're like a disease, infecting everything you touch. We don't need you, we don't want you! You sure don't belong here!You fling around charges like that, and expect to get any respect around here? Not from ME you don't, a$$hole!
I've scraped things off my shoe I have more respect for than you. I've flushed things down my toilet that had more brains. I've cooked and eaten things I had more compassion for. You are completely worthless to yourself and everyone around you, I'm sure.
And if you ever dare try to speak to me again, I'll really get nasty!
"To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." - H. Poincaré
IJ, it appears the trolls now hold sway here at NB.
October 1, 2008 - 20:12 ET by R D HelmGiven my encounter with J Freeze last night, I had thought that, just maybe, the admins here would take notice.
It appears I was wrong.
I mean, when you PM an editor here and are ignored, as I was, you really have to wonder.
Dave
Fear makes people do weird things....it makes their brains stop working. - Dave Ramsey
My troll fuse length today: 0.000mm
Dave,
October 1, 2008 - 20:13 ET by Indiana JoeWell, then we'll just have to take care of it ourselves. And I intend to. If they want to keep coming here and taking the kind of abuse I'm prepared to dish out, that's up to them. No pardon. No quarter. No prisoners. All's fair in love and war.
And this is WAR. Lock 'n load.
"To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." - H. Poincaré
IJ, well, Matthew did say that trolls were open season.
October 1, 2008 - 20:28 ET by R D Helm:-)
Just be carefull, as speaking from personal experience, there are those here in positions of authority that apparently fear trolls.
Be carefull.:-)
-Dave
Fear makes people do weird things....it makes their brains stop working. - Dave Ramsey
My troll fuse length today: 0.000mm
Dave,
October 1, 2008 - 20:42 ET by Indiana JoeHuh? "Just be carefull, as speaking from personal experience, there are those here in positions of authority that apparently fear trolls."
If you're not just kidding, I'd appreciate some enlightenment.
But really, I don't care. If the mods would rather have Piece Of Wilson here than me, that's their loss. And my awakening. ;^)
"To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." - H. Poincaré
IJ, I'll be PM'ing you shortly.
October 1, 2008 - 20:50 ET by R D Helm-Dave
Fear makes people do weird things....it makes their brains stop working. - Dave Ramsey
My troll fuse length today: 0.000mm
Indiana Joe:
October 1, 2008 - 20:15 ET by j. frank wilsonAre you brushing your teeth or do you always froth at the mouth?
PS: I hate to explain a joke, but I'll make an exception in your case. Apparently you've never heard of The Austin Lounge Lizards. The collage/garage lines are from one of their songs...
I don't care
October 1, 2008 - 20:50 ET by Indiana JoeYou crossed the line, Piece Of Wilson. I froth at the mouth for good damn reason! I don't just argue this stuff "philosophically," I actually have beliefs and values! You wouldn't know anything about that, you weak little sponge.
You are a racist, and a race-baiting, unprincipled lying scumbag. Nothing matters to you but scoring "points" with stupid, insensitive, hateful remarks. No principles, no beliefs, no core. You're empty. There are things in this world worth frothing about, and you exemplify several of them. You're not smart, you're not clever, you're not informed and you're not even self-aware, let alone aware of the reality around you. The arrogance that you need to explain anything to me is so undeserved that it's only topped by the stupidity of your stating it.
It's on, motherf*cker. Keep bringing it. I got tons of this left to go.
"To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." - H. Poincaré
Indiana Joe:
October 1, 2008 - 19:15 ET by j. frank wilsonYou want the racist remark?
"BIT#&!" directed to a Black woman is racist. You really couldn't find that in the comment? Wow!
Wilson... Where the heck
October 1, 2008 - 19:20 ET by Clear thinkerWilson...
Where the heck do you live? In all the places I have lived, not once has Bitch been considered racist! Or do you not know what the word 'racist' means?
Palin Is Caught And Her Career Is Over!
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Frankie....is that all you got?????
October 1, 2008 - 19:27 ET by BEGRUNTWEAK........Since when is "bitch", no matter who it is directed to racist? Please explain.
There are only two
October 1, 2008 - 19:33 ET by Clear thinkerThere are only two known meanings for the word "bitch".
1. A female dog.
2. Hillary Clinton.
Palin Is Caught And Her Career Is Over!
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/