08 December 2011
486
R. Linda:
Last night was a bizarre few hours in me life. I be sure the same in the life of Mitt Romney, thanks mainly to George Stephanopoulos. At 9 a.m., Meet The Press continued last night's debate, and it was to me, like I never slept. The candidates took to heart the criticisms from the media's review last night that they did not attack Romney enough, so this morning, they sharpened their tongues and did as the media hoped they would.
This surprises me as the savvy Mr. Gingrich is wise to the manipulations of the press and fell in line. I'm not saying they shouldn't question the front-runner, no matter who he is, but to listen to the media is why we are in this mess we are currently sinking in. In my opinion, a focus on the issues is what's needed to distinguish one candidate from another, not how much mud he can sling. I know the mud-slinging makes for better television viewing, but for me as a voter, I want to know what a candidate is going to do once in office. We learned what happens when we don't ask those questions by what we are dealing with in the White House NOW.
I heard all the YES YOU CANS, which was mainly for the man himself; that was his mantra, and he got everyone to say it, and there he is. And he has no idea what he's doing in that most distinguished of offices as a result. We can blame ourselves for not ASKING instead of chanting. Yes, I am being partial now. It rubbed off from Sawyer/Stephanopoulos.
Well, last night was an exciting evening for me, at least. I had me assignment get to St. Anselm and cover the Republican debate. This I did in the "spin room" (I was late getting there), and I must say it was an unusual debate, if ever there was one.
Right off, the two ABC heavyweight anchors (Sawyer and Stephanopoulos) went for Romney. I thought no one else on stage was going to be asked anything because they both started off as if THEY were the other candidates and began to hammer Romney. I looked at the reporter standing next to me, and he raised his eyebrows and whispered, "So much for impartial media."
INDEED.
Soon Stephanopoulos was exhibiting an unfairness towards the front-runner that made everyone watching wonder what bird was up George's arse. I mean, he was relentless with a hypothetical question to Romney that was so inanely stupid that I thought after the first encounter he'd quit, but no, he kept at Romney to where the candidate tried to answer George nicely without embarrassing GEORGE. I gave kudos to Romney for the effort, but George was acting like the question was one of great importance, and we "spectators" were wondering where George was getting his bizarre questions from.
Here's the question: Do you think states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?
SAY WHAT?
Indeed, where did THAT come from, and since no one is thinking of banning contraception, WHY is THIS question even being asked at a presidential candidate debate? We were all stunned and confused. More so by the fact that George wouldn't let it go. He was like a pit bull the way he went at Romney, who, like I said, was trying hard not to embarrass George any more than George was doing to himself! Finally, he said the question was silly, and as George fought on, the audience had enough and booed George. Someone shouted at George in frustration, and when Romney mentioned it was a silly question, the audience applauded HIM.
One of the criticisms last night was that the candidates did not go after the front-runner. Well, with the two anchors there doing it for them, why bother? I will say Josh McElveen (political Director/News Anchor) from WMUR looked a little embarrassed to be sitting with the two very partial mediators, and his questions were the only ones that were forthright, if not a little toned down. I did notice as George sank his teeth into Romney, Sawyer looked like, "WHAT ARE YOU DOING GEORGE?" at him, but said nothing. However, her questions after that were tamer than when she started. She did get the other candidates involved in the question-and-answer process. Thank the gods for small favours!
Could this be why George did not get the anchor desk on ABC News when they were replacing Charlie Gibson? Has ABC known THIS about George and kept it a pretty good secret until last night? George IS biased in his reporting -- who'd a thunk it? But now we know.
Moving on, Ron Paul, at times, got so intensely into his answers I thought he was going to have a stroke. But he accepted the challenges and fired up Santorum to almost the same intensity. I felt like this was mostly a second-place debate between them, with Gingrich weighing in occasionally and Newt on his game last night. Huntsman, for all his aloofness on stage, lost me on the last question, which is put in to relieve the night's tensions, "What would you do if you were home this Saturday night and not here?" Everyone on stage basically said they'd rather be watching football. Still, Huntsman, trying to tug at heartstrings and the proverbial 'higher road' said he'd rather be talking to his two military sons and gave a short spiel on home and family values. He made it sound like the rest of them were frivolous, but THEY don't have sons in the military. And to call a military person out of the blue in that atmosphere might seem like a hunt for a vote!
After all was said and done, ABC News had a wrap-up in which their correspondents got to say something about their thoughts. I noticed no one mentioned George and that when this started, Josh McElveen was not sitting with the ABC anchors. Whether it was to get ready for WMUR's newscast coming up at 11 or he had enough and did not want to be associated with these two, it seemed strange there was no mention of the man when Sawyer and Stephanopoulos came back from break, just an empty space where he had been. Meanwhile, the wrap-up began, and David Muir (Sawyer's loyal toadie), who was covering the Romney campaign, sounded like he was covering another candidate's campaign. He had nothing supportive to say about the former Massachusetts governor, and I wondered why he was even asked. But the pudding on the table was Democratic pundit Donna Brazile, who didn't understand why she was even there. It almost seemed like someone awoke Ms. Brazile and plunked her down at a Republican debate, the last place she'd want to be! She simply didn't know what to make of her presence there. When asked what she thought of Romney being possibly the Republican party's candidate to run against Obama, she said she was delighted because the other candidates not going after him showed he was a weak candidate. Everyone on the panel reacted with a WHAT? They were laughing at her. It was an outright ploy to get voters to think the Dems welcomed that candidacy when you know, in reality, Romney would be the last person THEY want running against Obama because he is the strongest. Do you think Donna, THAT'S why they didn't badger him? Because he is THAT strong? But to put it like she did made her look stupid. She caught herself after the fact and realised by the panel's reaction it was a ridiculous statement on her part, and made some weak joke about being a Democrat at a Republican debate. RIGHT.
I got what I needed and watched the WMUR broadcast come on one of the tellys, and THOSE anchors were a lot more fair-minded to all the candidates. Someone did mention bizarre questions being thrown at the candidates. But that was all. They analysed the night, and like I said, they were impartial and fair. The way a newscast should be.
I am not surprised at the second-rate performance of ABC News anchor Sawyer, though I will say Stephanopoulos made her look good. However, I am rather shocked at George Stephanopoulos because for all his democratic leanings (he was, after all, a senior adviser in the Clinton administration -- should we forget his origins). He's been all these years of newscasting a fair-minded commentator. I had a great deal of respect for him and thought him above the Sawyer/Muir partiality to issues. But the disease has seemingly spread to a man I thought of high ideals, fair play, and honest reporting. No more. Jake Tapper, can you please take over? Mr. Tapper (Senior White House Correspondent for ABC News) is, in me humble opinion, the man we should listen to. He reports with integrity and the other two should watch him when he's "on" and not read their copy while he reports. They might just learn something.
Gabe
Copyright © 2012 All rights reserved
R. Linda:
Last night was a bizarre few hours in me life. I be sure the same in the life of Mitt Romney, thanks mainly to George Stephanopoulos. At 9 a.m., Meet The Press continued last night's debate, and it was to me, like I never slept. The candidates took to heart the criticisms from the media's review last night that they did not attack Romney enough, so this morning, they sharpened their tongues and did as the media hoped they would.
This surprises me as the savvy Mr. Gingrich is wise to the manipulations of the press and fell in line. I'm not saying they shouldn't question the front-runner, no matter who he is, but to listen to the media is why we are in this mess we are currently sinking in. In my opinion, a focus on the issues is what's needed to distinguish one candidate from another, not how much mud he can sling. I know the mud-slinging makes for better television viewing, but for me as a voter, I want to know what a candidate is going to do once in office. We learned what happens when we don't ask those questions by what we are dealing with in the White House NOW.
I heard all the YES YOU CANS, which was mainly for the man himself; that was his mantra, and he got everyone to say it, and there he is. And he has no idea what he's doing in that most distinguished of offices as a result. We can blame ourselves for not ASKING instead of chanting. Yes, I am being partial now. It rubbed off from Sawyer/Stephanopoulos.
Well, last night was an exciting evening for me, at least. I had me assignment get to St. Anselm and cover the Republican debate. This I did in the "spin room" (I was late getting there), and I must say it was an unusual debate, if ever there was one.
Right off, the two ABC heavyweight anchors (Sawyer and Stephanopoulos) went for Romney. I thought no one else on stage was going to be asked anything because they both started off as if THEY were the other candidates and began to hammer Romney. I looked at the reporter standing next to me, and he raised his eyebrows and whispered, "So much for impartial media."
INDEED.
Soon Stephanopoulos was exhibiting an unfairness towards the front-runner that made everyone watching wonder what bird was up George's arse. I mean, he was relentless with a hypothetical question to Romney that was so inanely stupid that I thought after the first encounter he'd quit, but no, he kept at Romney to where the candidate tried to answer George nicely without embarrassing GEORGE. I gave kudos to Romney for the effort, but George was acting like the question was one of great importance, and we "spectators" were wondering where George was getting his bizarre questions from.
Here's the question: Do you think states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?
SAY WHAT?
Indeed, where did THAT come from, and since no one is thinking of banning contraception, WHY is THIS question even being asked at a presidential candidate debate? We were all stunned and confused. More so by the fact that George wouldn't let it go. He was like a pit bull the way he went at Romney, who, like I said, was trying hard not to embarrass George any more than George was doing to himself! Finally, he said the question was silly, and as George fought on, the audience had enough and booed George. Someone shouted at George in frustration, and when Romney mentioned it was a silly question, the audience applauded HIM.
One of the criticisms last night was that the candidates did not go after the front-runner. Well, with the two anchors there doing it for them, why bother? I will say Josh McElveen (political Director/News Anchor) from WMUR looked a little embarrassed to be sitting with the two very partial mediators, and his questions were the only ones that were forthright, if not a little toned down. I did notice as George sank his teeth into Romney, Sawyer looked like, "WHAT ARE YOU DOING GEORGE?" at him, but said nothing. However, her questions after that were tamer than when she started. She did get the other candidates involved in the question-and-answer process. Thank the gods for small favours!
Could this be why George did not get the anchor desk on ABC News when they were replacing Charlie Gibson? Has ABC known THIS about George and kept it a pretty good secret until last night? George IS biased in his reporting -- who'd a thunk it? But now we know.
Moving on, Ron Paul, at times, got so intensely into his answers I thought he was going to have a stroke. But he accepted the challenges and fired up Santorum to almost the same intensity. I felt like this was mostly a second-place debate between them, with Gingrich weighing in occasionally and Newt on his game last night. Huntsman, for all his aloofness on stage, lost me on the last question, which is put in to relieve the night's tensions, "What would you do if you were home this Saturday night and not here?" Everyone on stage basically said they'd rather be watching football. Still, Huntsman, trying to tug at heartstrings and the proverbial 'higher road' said he'd rather be talking to his two military sons and gave a short spiel on home and family values. He made it sound like the rest of them were frivolous, but THEY don't have sons in the military. And to call a military person out of the blue in that atmosphere might seem like a hunt for a vote!
After all was said and done, ABC News had a wrap-up in which their correspondents got to say something about their thoughts. I noticed no one mentioned George and that when this started, Josh McElveen was not sitting with the ABC anchors. Whether it was to get ready for WMUR's newscast coming up at 11 or he had enough and did not want to be associated with these two, it seemed strange there was no mention of the man when Sawyer and Stephanopoulos came back from break, just an empty space where he had been. Meanwhile, the wrap-up began, and David Muir (Sawyer's loyal toadie), who was covering the Romney campaign, sounded like he was covering another candidate's campaign. He had nothing supportive to say about the former Massachusetts governor, and I wondered why he was even asked. But the pudding on the table was Democratic pundit Donna Brazile, who didn't understand why she was even there. It almost seemed like someone awoke Ms. Brazile and plunked her down at a Republican debate, the last place she'd want to be! She simply didn't know what to make of her presence there. When asked what she thought of Romney being possibly the Republican party's candidate to run against Obama, she said she was delighted because the other candidates not going after him showed he was a weak candidate. Everyone on the panel reacted with a WHAT? They were laughing at her. It was an outright ploy to get voters to think the Dems welcomed that candidacy when you know, in reality, Romney would be the last person THEY want running against Obama because he is the strongest. Do you think Donna, THAT'S why they didn't badger him? Because he is THAT strong? But to put it like she did made her look stupid. She caught herself after the fact and realised by the panel's reaction it was a ridiculous statement on her part, and made some weak joke about being a Democrat at a Republican debate. RIGHT.
I got what I needed and watched the WMUR broadcast come on one of the tellys, and THOSE anchors were a lot more fair-minded to all the candidates. Someone did mention bizarre questions being thrown at the candidates. But that was all. They analysed the night, and like I said, they were impartial and fair. The way a newscast should be.
I am not surprised at the second-rate performance of ABC News anchor Sawyer, though I will say Stephanopoulos made her look good. However, I am rather shocked at George Stephanopoulos because for all his democratic leanings (he was, after all, a senior adviser in the Clinton administration -- should we forget his origins). He's been all these years of newscasting a fair-minded commentator. I had a great deal of respect for him and thought him above the Sawyer/Muir partiality to issues. But the disease has seemingly spread to a man I thought of high ideals, fair play, and honest reporting. No more. Jake Tapper, can you please take over? Mr. Tapper (Senior White House Correspondent for ABC News) is, in me humble opinion, the man we should listen to. He reports with integrity and the other two should watch him when he's "on" and not read their copy while he reports. They might just learn something.
Gabe
Copyright © 2012 All rights reserved
