Immoderate moderators

Much of the fireworks in last night's debate centered on the media's habit of beclowning itself.  The Democratic-operatives-with-a-byline in charge of moderating the debate were supposed to be conducting a session on "economic issues."  This is apparently what they think economic issues look like:
  • A question about Rubio’s Senate attendance, driven by a newspaper editorial.
  • A question about Jeb’s decline in the polls.
  • A question about Hewlett-Packard’s stock performance while Carly Fiorina was the CEO.
  • A question about Rubio’s family finances and his use of some retirement dollars.
  • A question assuming the veracity of the “women earn 77 percent as much as men” canard. Wow. Just wow.
  • A question to Ben Carson about Costco’s policy on benefits for employees in same-sex relationships.
  • A question to Mike Huckabee about whether Trump has the moral authority to unite America. Wow again.


Ymar Sakar said...

I heard somebody named Ted Cruz turned the tables on these cheating gamblers and riders.

Grim said...

Crowder's got your back, Tex.

In fairness, they tried this in the Democratic debate too. One of the few questions Webb got was whether he'd like to blast Sanders for being a conscientious objector during Vietnam. It was manifestly an attempt by the moderator (who was a part of the Clinton Global Initiative) to damage Sanders, Clinton's closest competition, while getting Webb to paint himself as a relic of Vietnam. The response that both Webb and Sanders gave was pretty classy, and raised the stature of both men.

Cruz did something similar, although typically he sounded a lot angrier doing it. :)

Ymar Sakar said...

But in the zero-sum game of a presidential campaign, to go after Kerry is to give a free pass to Bush, whose actions then and now deserve no prizes. Recent statements defending Bush claim that the National Guard was not a haven for those who wished to avoid Vietnam; but it clearly was. According to the National Guard Association, only some 9,000 Army Guardsmen and 9,343 Air Guardsmen served in Vietnam. Considering that nearly 3 million from the active forces did so, one begins to understand why so many of America's elites headed for the Guard when their draft numbers were called.

Bush used his father's political influence to move past many on the Texas Guard's waiting list. He was not required to attend Officer Candidate School to earn his commission. He lost his flight status after failing to show up for a required annual physical. These facts alone raise the eyebrows of those who took a different path in a war that for the Marine Corps brought more casualties than even World War II.

The Bush campaign now claims that these issues are largely moot and that Bush has proved himself as a competent and daring "war president." And yet his actions in Iraq, and the vicious attacks against anyone who disagrees with his administration's logic, give many veterans serious pause.

Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence.

It's a good thing Webb is part of the Democrat warmonger party, now that he doesn't have to worry about casualties, Marine Corps or not, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If he wasn't, they might require him to continue writing op eds for USA today.

But the entire propaganda front was organized by Democrats to begin with. Later on after 2008, ironically, they stopped caring so much about who died or what country got attacked. Convenient that, although the Democrat warmonger party started up more wars than Bush I and Bush Ii combined, including the casualties and fatalities to the structural system of the US military itself, as well as foreign and domestic alliances, creating what can accurately now be called a Broken Army, rather than the myth they were snorting before after Clinton and Carter's damaged was reversed by Petraeus.

Ymar Sakar said...

People might want to be worried about a country with 300+ million people that will "never fully accept" the presence of traitorous Democrats. They might want to do that before the time tick tocks to midnight.

And the idea that eternal war was present in Christian Middle East before Islam came around is... quaint.

Grim said...

You need to update your records, Ymar. Webb isn't a Democrat any more. He left the party after the debate and the anti-military reaction by leading Democratic figures.

As I've grown tired of saying, political party isn't that important anyway. Zell Miller delivered the election in 2004 to George Bush just because he was a lifelong Democrat -- as a Republican, his insightful and forceful criticism would not have carried as much weight. Zinni's criticism of American propensity to militarily intervene was leveraged against Clinton as well as Bush (and his service is beyond reproach, whatever you think of his arguments about the use of military force). Webb and GWB didn't like each other and made it clear to each other and everyone else, but that happens sometimes with alpha males.

And, per your link, Saxby Chambliss did indeed do wrong in questioning the patriotism of war hero and amputee Max Cleland. He was a Republican, Chambliss, but you won't see much in his record that's been good for the Republic. He's just the kind of Republican nobody should be proud of, and I should know -- he's been my Senator and governor.

You can't always tell the good guys by their uniforms, and definitely not by whether a red or blue square is painted next to their name. You have to look at the man. I liked and supported GWB, as his father and Reagan before him. I didn't like Bill Clinton much, and fought tooth and nail against Kerry's candidacy. But Webb's a good guy, even if I don't agree with him on every issue. He's from the Truman and Jackson tradition -- two more figures the current Democratic Party seems to have no use for, painting them both as genocidal maniacs, though the party owes them both a very great deal.

Ymar Sakar said...

Webb isn't a Democrat any more.

Which means he was a Democrat when they paid favors to have him cover up for Kerry, by using his Vietnam credentials.

Which means he was a Democrat under Hussein's Libya and Afghanistan, intentional casualties.

If anyone thinks they can get away with American blood on their hands because they change the D after their name... why don't you ask the Nazis and SS how well that worked out.

Grim said...

Maybe you should consider a job as a debate moderator. "Do you think you'll get away with the American blood on your hands, you Nazi?" would probably fit right in as a question.

Grim said...

Should you become a journalist, though, you should be careful about trying out that line on Jim Webb. If he happened to take offense, there's just a chance that he's tougher than you.

Unknown said...

I am not a fan of the debate format in terms of grappling with policy differences. I suppose a case could be made in regards to exposing personality quirks and flaws. In the past, when they were conducted by the League of Women Voters, there was some gravitas as opposed to the shock jock mentality of ankle biting, snark, gotcha fests, and deceit.
It must play in Peoria.

Eric Blair said...

Pretty sure it isn't playing in Peoria. They've already made up their minds, so to speak, and don't need one of these media feeding frenzys to figure out who to vote for.

Unknown said...

I hope you're right, but not counting on it.