An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Quote Of The Day: Kathleen Parker On Angry Partisanship

More Than Fat Cats Responsible for Financial Crisis »

Pre-VP Debate: Let’s Throw In “the Fix” Talk

Posted by TYRONE STEELS II, Site Administrator in Politics.
Oct 1st, 2008 | Comments

When my wife found out that Gwen Ifill will be the moderator for tomorrow’s vice presidential debate between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin, she exclaimed:

The lady that wrote that Essence piece? That’s going to cause a problem with the Right since she’s an Obama girl like me!

My wife was referring to a recent article in Essence magazine in which Gwen Ifill gave the Obamas’ some serious love. Cover below:

1aessence.jpg

I read the article and let’s just say she does a wonderful job and making the Obamas look and sound like “the greatest ever”. Gwen Ifill has also written a book pending release on January 29, 2009 entitled “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama“. Summary from Amazon.com:

In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.

Ifill argues that the Black political structure formed during the Civil Rights movement is giving way to a generation of men and women who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s. She offers incisive, detailed profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, and also covers up-and-coming figures from across the nation. Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the “black enough” conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history.

THE BREAKTHROUGH is a remarkable look at contemporary politics and an essential foundation for understanding the future of American democracy.

My dear ladies and gentlemen, in Election ‘08 where partisanship is as thick as the foundation of the Empire State Building, having a moderator that appears “so friendly” to Senator Obama just doesn’t look right and opens the door to “the fix” talk. Although Ifill isn’t one of those screaming political pundits, I’ve heard her on various radio shows (especially urban radio) where she just gushes about Senator Obama’s historic run for the presidency. And with so much riding on Governor Palin’s performance in this debate, why have someone with an Obama tilt moderate? While I’m hardly a conservative and/or Republican (I do have a smattering of some conservative views), they have every right to not like this situation. And I would say the same if the moderator was a person who gushed about a McCain presidency.

I have a hard time believing that Gwen Ifill will NOT be tougher toward Governor Palin than Senator Biden. She seems to have much vested in an Obama presidency. She is a professional. She may moderate fairly. But with today’s political environment, couldn’t PBS find someone who hasn’t written a book and articles that are clearly positive to ultra-positive towards Senator Obama?

  • DLS
    PBS? The other networks other than perhaps Fox? No.
  • crosspit
    So Charlie Gibson and Stephanopolous were completely unbiased and the best choices? The only moderator, so far, that has seemed uninterested in "gotcha" moments has been Lehrer. And she works with him. She's a serious journalist and will know that her biases are known. If anything, she'll be bending over backwards NOT to be giving Palin harder questions. She's extremely smart and will not give any ammunition to the right for "unfair debate" charges.

    Of course, they (and you) are already trumpeting her bias as grounds for unfairness....
  • hrtshpdbox
    "If anything, she'll be bending over backwards NOT to be giving Palin harder questions."

    Yes, the public should rely on her not letting her clear bias show. That's just as good as getting a moderator without a clear bias, right? Everyone watching the debate should not, repeat NOT, think back on the look of disgust on Ifill's face after Palin's convention speech, and her inability to find a single good thing to say about it (in contrast to her gushing comments about Michelle Obama). Clearly, this woman is a pro, alright!
  • Marlowecan
    T-Steel is right. PBS should have tried to find a moderator whose biases were less well-known.

    Recall when Stephanopolous grilled Obama in the last primary debate with Clinton. Obama partisans howled that was due to the Clinton connection.

    This is worse though. . . as it comes after a political season in which - more than any other - the biases of the media in favor of one candidate have been more obvious, and more talked about, than ever before.

    When media bias becomes the topic of a Saturday Night Live skit . . . you know the issue has gone from Wonkville to Main Street.

    Eventually the political wheel will turn, and conservatives will be dominant again. However, then 2008 will have entered the American Conservative Mythology as the year the MSM (with the notable exception of FOX) openly declared its allegiance to the Democratic Party.

    A healthy press is essential to a healthy body politic. Various organs can be pro-Dem and pro-Repub, with the general understanding that it all comes out fairly balanced in the wash. That is clearly not the case today.
    In this context, the current partisan bent of the media is a poison whose toxicity threatens the viability of the nation itself.
  • crosspit said: "Of course, they (and you) are already trumpeting her bias as grounds for unfairness...."

    It is about PERCEPTIONS! No matter how well she does her job, many conservatives and Republicans views about the VP debate are now set; towards bias. Palin does well, it's a triumph not just over Biden, but over the biased MSM. Palin does poorly, Ifill was biased, set her up, and pitched softballs to Biden. I can't stand when that happens. By picking someone that doesn't lean towards Obama (just use Jim Lehrer again), the moderator wouldn't factor in (just look at how you didn't hear Jim Lehrer's name in the McCain-Obama debate post-analysis).

    It's just that simple.
  • Gwen Ifill moderated the last VP debate, between Cheney and Edwards. She did a fine job and I didn't hear any complaints from either side.
  • JSpencer
    I have much respect for Gwen Ifill. Most of my knowledge of her comes from the Jim Lehrer News hour and Washington Week in Review, where she shows herself to be very professional, capable, and unbiased. It doesn't take very much to tick the right off though, as they are not always, shall we say, well-hinged, so perhaps another choice might have been better. From what I've seen though, I agree with crosspit, if anything she is likely to overcompensate for any personal bias by cutting Palin more slack and being tougher on Obama, which would not set well with me.
  • DLS
    I'm looking forward to Dean-o's participation. May he entertain us all, even if many Palin haters will remain too fact-challenged to recognize and appreciate entertainment.

    "'When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed,' Biden told CBS News anchor Katie Couric. "He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

    http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2008/09/...
  • DLS
  • casualobserver
    "Eventually the political wheel will turn, and conservatives will be dominant again. However, then 2008 will have entered the American Conservative Mythology as the year the MSM (with the notable exception of FOX) openly declared its allegiance to the Democratic Party."

    Alas, I am resigned to this deal of the deck this year. The good news is that I have found a place that sells Castro fatigues at a 25% discount.
  • Marlowecan
    T-Steel is correct. . . this is about perceptions . . . regardless of Ifill's professionalism, her biases are so well-known that you KNOW the GOP has talking points set out in advance. The moderator should, ideally, be "invisible" (as GreenDreams suggests re: Cheney-Edwards, when I can't remember her being in the room at all!). In this particular case, however, that is impossible.

    JSpencer and Crosspit raise an interesting point, about Ifill being forced to overcompensate with softball questions. This is a strong argument in favor of an unbiased media: they can hammer BOTH sides with tough questions, without their fairness ever coming into question or being the subject of complaint.

    DLS . . . you are right. It promises to be good. I am going to enjoy this debate more than the presidential actually. Biden and Palin together - without handlers or editing - presents a potentially delicious evening of entertainment . . . whether it be Palin talking about meeting Russian Communist Eskimoes while out moose hunting . . . or Biden reflecting on the importance of the signing of the Magna Carta at Appomattox Court House.

    I will have my bowl of popcorn handy.
  • DLS
    I'm looking forward to the entertainment, water-treading, or however else to describe it.
  • We have to make sure we make a distinction between trying to make someone look bad and asking tough questions. There simply are tougher questions to be asked of Palin, given her media blackout and laundry list of un-retracted lies.

    So, Palin if asked the questions that need asking, may end up looking worse than Biden, but that's not necessarily indicative of bias.
  • CStanley
    Greendreams, as far as I know Ifill didn't have a conflict of interest in the form of a strong personal bias in the Cheney/Edwards debate, did she?

    It's no different than any other conflict of interest. You wouldn't excuse a researcher who works for a pharmaceutical company with financial interest in the stakes of the research outcome, although if the same researcher participated in a different project without a conflct of interest it would be fine. The fact that he/she could perform that latter in a competent and professional manner doesn't make the former situation acceptable.

    The perception problem is real (on both sides- McCain/Palin supporters will have a built in excuse for any bungled performance, and Obama/Biden supporters will have the excuse that Ifill bent over backwards to be tougher on Biden if he happens to stumble more than she does.) It's not just a perception that we all need to get over, it's a taint that has to be avoided in order for the debate itself to have any real meaning.
  • CStanley
    Chris, I'll concede your point to a degree (though there are definitely some tough questions that need to be asked of Biden as well, and he's been largely ignored by the media so far since he was picked by Obama.) But that's all the more reason that there needs to be as close as possible to complete neutrality in perception as well as reality of the moderator, so that he/she can ask the tough questions without a built in perception of agenda.
  • CStanley,
    I agree 100%. I'm no big fan of Ifill or anything anyways :-)
  • superdestroyer
    Marlowecan,

    When you realize that less than 50% of the children in kindergarten are white, you should forget about a comeback for Republicans or conservatives.

    I wonder in what year the media will first decide that the general election is irrelevant because the Democratic candidate is so far ahead that it is pointless to report on the election (see mayorial general election in most large urban cities). The second question is how will politicis function in the coming one party state where the Democratic primary will be the only important eleciton. How willl people like Ms. Ifill function in the coming one party state and will blacks inside the Democratic party function as a separate political party.
  • sd,
    Seems a little premature to make those predictions at this point. Just 2 weeks ago, McCain was leading in the national polls.
  • DLS
    Super D -- we haven't reached Hell yet, despite seventy-plus years of "progress" to date.
  • superdestroyer
    Chris, everyone knew that they poll numbers would not last for McCain and they have not. I am still waiting for some Repulbicans to be outed as homosexual like as occured in the last two elections.

    No matter how you spend it, the kinds in kindergarten are not going to become more white and thus demographics are destiny.
  • sd,
    As I've said to you countless times, if Republicans want to stay relevant, they have to offer solutions to the problems of Americans.

    Take McCain and Bush's signature issue, tax cuts that predominantly help rich Americans. Is that really an issue that is going to win over any demographic group at this point?
  • superdestroyer
    I agree that the Republicans have done a miserable job and the Bush Administraiton is one of the major causes of the accelerated collapse of the Republican party. The Repubicans refuse to deal with spending.

    However, as long as the Democrats are saying that they will tax rich (read whites) and give the money to minorities, there is no way that the Republicans can ever hope to appeal to minorities.
  • Marlowecan
    SD . . . wasn't McCain's Chief of Staff outed last week or so?
    Nothing quite a colorful as toe-tapping in washrooms, alas :)

    Also, race does not determine political affiliation. Look at the number of Republicans in the NBA! When you have fifty million in the bank, you are white...you join a country club...and you take up golf as your REAL sport, like Michael Jordan.

    Personally, I think McCain lost a lot of credibility in his dealing with the economy. Go to Washington, fine . . . but then he had to do something . . . and he did nada. So it was pointlessly political.

    In tough times people tend to turn to leaders who are at least serious and reassuring. Even though Senator Obama may be a flaming RED BOLSHIE :) he is at least serious. That scores him points in my book.

    But, as Chris says, it could all change.

    BTW: The latest is that Ifill is writing a book on Obama! Hahahaha...the McCain campaign was totally blindsided. What a bunch of maroons. A good campaign manager like Rove would never have allowed this.
  • superdestroyer
    Michael Jordon is a Democrat and has donated exclusively to "Democrats. Blacks are always Democrats no matter their income or education. http://www.newsmeat.com/sports_political_donati...
  • Policies that benefit the rich (a tiny minority) at the expense of the middle and lower (the vast majority) are anti-democratic (small d). If we're honest and honestly support democracy, we would want voters to understand how policies will affect them and vote accordingly. Yes, we are headed for a white minority, but so what? If we're not just being bigots, what difference does that make? The GOP branded itself as the party of rich white men and as Marlow says, rich black men and other rich majority members. Why not? If GOP policies are good for them, their votes are appropriate (you know, leaving out matters of conscience like caring for those less fortunate). If the GOP wants minority votes, women's votes, etc. they need only adopt policies that are not averse to the interests of those voters.

    Now as for Ifill, what difference does it make, other than perception, that she is an Obama supporter? In the current debate format, both candidates get the same question, and it is not Ifill who wrote the questions.
  • well, sd, good point. If the GOP is always seen as anti-minority, then maybe rich members of minorities are being more community minded than you are. You don't appear to give a damn about less fortunate whites. Why criticize Jordan for caring about his own community?
  • Marlowecan
    I must disagree, SD.

    I don't think race determines party affiliation at all. Class does seem to influence it though.

    GreenDreams is correct, I think, in saying that the GOP has unfortunately branded itself as the party of the upper classes. They will welcome anyone with a big bank account, regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.

    I am sure, in my younger impoverished punk days, they would set the hounds upon me the moment their Wallet Sniffing Dogs turned up their noses at me :)
  • superdestroyer
    Marlowecan,

    You would be correct that race does not determine party affliliation is african-Americans were not such a monoculture. It is not like there is a huge amount of diversity in black culture in the U.S. The limited range of sports interest, music interest, and political interest ensures block voting.

    Race is a better determiniation of political leanings for all non-whites in the U.S. In the U.S., whites are basically the only swing voters.
  • PWT
    Perhaps you could list some of the policies that benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. From what I know about policy, the two are mutually exclusive. Some policies may benefit the rich, though they have nothing to with policies that cause the poor to suffer. I am not being purposely obtuse, I just believe that you are incorrect in your statement.

    Take, for example, tax cuts for the rich. Thos benefit the rich to the extent that their tax liability is reduced should their income remain static. However, tax cuts have no effect on those that do not pay taxes, the poor. So, if you could point out an example of what you're writing about, it would be helpful.
  • PWT, the dominant economic theory of the day is variously referred to as Reaganomics, Thatcherism, free-market, laissez-faire, and oddly, neoliberalism. It's guru is (was) Milton Friedman of the Chicago School of Economics. The fundamental policies are 1) privatization, 2) deregulation and 3) deep cuts in social services. I hope you won't disagree that this is the fundamental economic policy of the Republican Party, or I would have to flood you with quotes from Friedman, Thatcher, Rumsfeld, Reagan, Bush, Bush and McCain. The effect of implementing policies based on this philosophy are always the same: an increasing wealth gap, a shift of public wealth to private hands and a shift of private debt to public hands (which we are experiencing now).

    The most obvious policies increasing the suffering of the poor are cuts in social services, and the Republican Party has always been miserly in this regard. One step up from that is the impact on low-wage earners of the Republican aversion to raising the minimum wage, among other pro-business anti-employee policies. The effect on solidly middle-class people is the result of that increasing wealth gap and of unfettered corporatism. The reallocation of wealth upward is by definition anti-democratic, because there are far more people below average income than above it. When Reagan cut the top tax rate, it cost the federal government tax revenue, which either reduces services, raises their costs or increases debt. Actually, tax revenue would have fallen far more except for Reagan's other "innovation" which was to borrow massively from future generations, rather than adhering to the former Republican belief of paying one's own way (a quaint concept).

    Finally, let me note again the crushing impact of the accumulated debt. The "birth tax" is currently $31,000, your personal share of the national debt. The interest on that debt for every taxpayer is about $235 per month (interest divided by taxpayers). Each of us who pays taxes will continue to owe that indefinitely without ever paying off a penny of principal. Obviously, that is a far greater burden for people of middle income and lower than it is for those above average income. However, currently we are still not paying our own way, but rather, borrowing money to pay the interest on money already borrowed and passing the whole stinking pile of debt on to our children.
  • Reply to PWT. Just in case you watch replies to your comments in Discus, see the comment above in answer to your questions.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC