In the wake of MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews's deplorable comments regarding the Bush administration having "finally been caught in their criminality," many conservatives are wondering if this clearly left-leaning pundit should be allowed to moderate GOP presidential debates including this Tuesday's.
To address the growing controversy, Fox News's "Fox & Friends" invited media members from both sides of the aisle Monday morning to debate the issue. On the left were Ellis Henican of Newsday and Ellen Ratner of FNC; on the right were radio host Herman Cain and Jim Pinkerton of Newsday (video available here courtesy Johnny Dollar).
In the end, I strongly agree with Henican and Cain who felt that candidates should be willing and able to answer anybody's questions regardless of political leaning if they want to attain the highest office in the land.
In fact, I would take this a step further: Let's have debates where exclusively the top liberal pundits in the land are moderating Republican events, and the top conservative pundits in the land are moderating Democrat events.
Think about it: When you go on a job interview, you don't expect to get softballs thrown at you. Instead, you prepare for a veritable inquisition.
Shouldn't our political candidates be so put to the test?
Frankly, I'm tired of debates where everybody's nice and cordial. We're currently at war, and our nation faces some very tough decisions in the next decade.
As such, I'd like to see ALL these candidates mercilessly grilled as if their lives depend on it, because ours certainly do.
JMHO FWIW!
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Only if Ann Coulter is
October 8, 2007 - 12:39 ET by mattmOnly if Ann Coulter is allowed to mederate Democrat debates.
As far as I am concerned,
October 8, 2007 - 12:48 ET by JimboAs far as I am concerned, Chris Matthews moderating the GOP debate = Ann Coulter moderating the DNC debate. Surely most libs will claim it is an unfair comparison, due to their complete blindness of the left wing media.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
And, Uncle Jim, I believe
October 8, 2007 - 12:57 ET by drillanwrAnd, Uncle Jim, I believe Ann has sold more books than Spit Matthews ever hopes to. They would try to derive some sort of
imbalance in moral equivalency in that ...
the War on Ann Coulter?
October 8, 2007 - 13:42 ET by TruthMongerI've always loved this analogy...
When a Democrat pres candidate can stand up to Ann Coulter, or Fox News, then maybe we can think about them standing up to Al-Queda, evil dictators, other US enemies...
A service of the new NB respect police
Zzz... I'm sure Ann would
October 8, 2007 - 13:45 ET by balboaZzz...
I'm sure Ann would love to host a debate, as long as she got to talk 90% of the time.
If she were allowed to talk
October 8, 2007 - 13:49 ET by bigtimerIf she were allowed to talk just a quarter of the time she is on the shows people invite her on without being interrupted constantly maybe some leftist would learn something...
That is a BIG maybe.
'If Democrats had Brains....They'd be Republicans'
Eh. The message gets lost
October 8, 2007 - 13:55 ET by balboaEh. The message gets lost in the medium. And she has good messages sometimes. I know you won't believe this, but I've even laughed at some of her lines.
But bottom line, a debate wouldn't be about her enough for her to be interested.
boa... Glad to know you
October 8, 2007 - 14:02 ET by bigtimerboa...
Glad to know you have a sense of humor after-all...
She has a witty wry sense of humor, that is why she gets the one-liners in, she has too to get her point made, even if everyone jumps on her, she gets asked backed on after she gets bashed for making a one liner and then selling millions of books to explain what she meant by her one liner to the dense leftists who have no sense of humor and do not have the capacity to understand any point she is trying to make..it always goes over their heads...then she comes back on, attempts to explain again, gets interrupted again...
The circle continues, she makes fame and fortune out of it....
My kind of a capitalistic conservative patriotic gal.
Ann may have a wry sense of
October 8, 2007 - 14:20 ET by BruzillaAnn may have a wry sense of humor, but remember that most of the humor in her writings isn't hers. She has two ghost writers who handle the funny stuff, at least according to her statements in some of her books. That's why she's a lot more wittier and funnier in print than when she's giving interviews.
I like her just fine in
October 8, 2007 - 14:24 ET by bigtimerI like her just fine in both area's Bruz.
Thank you very much.
Wow. Couldn't be more
October 8, 2007 - 15:57 ET by fosstenWow. Couldn't be more incorrect. I've seen her on countless interviews, and there isn't a pundit anywhere who thinks as fast on his or her feet as Ann. Sean Hannity is a tortoise by comparison.
Rush Limbaugh, while a fast thinker, has the advantage of a call screener and so gets a sneak preview of the question presented and gets at least a small amount of time to compose his thoughts.
Ann gets blindsided by people like Matthews and comes up glittering.
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.
OK, maybe with Ann it's
October 8, 2007 - 14:03 ET by TruthMongerOK, maybe with Ann it's talking...
But with Al-Queda it's cutting off your head...
You wanna be POTUS? You must learn to walk before you can run...
A service of the new NB respect police
OK, maybe with Ann it's
October 8, 2007 - 14:17 ET by balboaOK, maybe with Ann it's talking...
But with Al-Queda it's cutting off your head...
I don't even know what that means. I thought we were talking about Ann moderating a debate.
You nut, I know you're not
October 8, 2007 - 14:24 ET by TruthMongerYou nut, I know you're not that dense
but just to clarify anyway - we are talking about Ann moderating a debate, yes...
How's that:)?
A service of the new NB respect police
Talk about talking
October 8, 2007 - 14:18 ET by kgTalk about talking, have you paid any attention to any of the
congressional hearings? Or even reporters questions. First you have to sit
through the error ridden speech followed by a few words bashing you or your
position and then if there is still time, you might hear the question. And when
you answer you are cut off. Colmes is great at this. Waxman is even better.
Matthews? He is way out there in Olbermann-land.
"I'm sure Ann would love to
October 8, 2007 - 15:16 ET by Joe 1956"I'm sure Ann would love to host a debate, as long as she got to talk 90% of the time."
And the other ten percent would be wasted by the clicking and chattering of Marxist wind-up dolls.
Seems a fair trade to me.
Perfect moderating panel...
October 8, 2007 - 13:43 ET by Lord ElicaniYes, a panel of Ann Coulter, Michael Savage and Newt Gingrich. A panel with about 18 degrees between them.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?
My perfect panel = Gingrich, Hume, Stossell, Crystal, & Ingram
October 8, 2007 - 13:53 ET by Dee BunkThey are all different types of conservatives and I think this combo would bring all the right questions. Three are respected Journalists and one knowledgeable pundit has court experience and the other has congressional experience. The President has to work with both branches and the media.
Agree
October 8, 2007 - 22:20 ET by pbthinkerI'll second that group!
Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.
Ain't gonna happen
October 8, 2007 - 22:25 ET by sarcasmoThe rest MIGHT be possible moderators, but the antilibertarian media bias out there right now is so virulent that I hereby predict John Stossel will NEVER be allowed to moderate a Presidential debate, either as a part of a panel or (especially...) alone. It's simply not gonna happen, and I guess now I'll have to eat crow if it does, but "I strongly doubt it" to say the least.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
stossel
October 8, 2007 - 22:30 ET by botgwill get there before Laura
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
I sincerely doubt that...
October 8, 2007 - 22:37 ET by sarcasmoAnd Laura already got to introduce Republican candidates once (with all the snark she could muster, in Ron Paul's case) which is more than I've seen from Stossel. Happily, it's The YouTube Election this time, so the talking heads matter less this year than ever-before in my adult lifetime, which I find quite refreshing no matter which of us is right about moderators here.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Hey I can dream can't I?
October 8, 2007 - 22:38 ET by Dee BunkBrit Hume is probably the only one who would have a chance
Well, you are certainly
October 8, 2007 - 12:41 ET by Captain RepusWell, you are certainly getting half of your wish. The Republican candidates will be grilled without mercy by left wing hacks.
So Your Point Is . . . .
October 8, 2007 - 12:54 ET by BourbeauThe Democrats will be signing up for a debate on Fox very, very soon? This is total nonsense. Again, we get into this phoney debate about whether GOP candidates should be queried by the likes of Chris Matthews or a Keith Olbermann with the GOP being expected to bite the bullet (and they will). All the while, the Dems are laughing their backsides off as they collectively stick their fingers to their noses at a Fox News debate without hardly a peep from anyone. So the moral of this story is, be good boys GOPers and let Chrissie blister you and your President, the MSM will think more highly of you than those cry baby Democrats who were scaredy cats. Lord, what a fickle world we live in.
No. Matthews isn't there to
October 8, 2007 - 13:10 ET by Chris NormanNo. Matthews isn't there to elicit positions and differences from the candidates in a fair manner. He's there to put them on the spot, to hopefully (for him) embarass them and make the Dems look better.
Only if he can do it
October 8, 2007 - 12:47 ET by MightyMouthOnly if he can do it without opening his biased pie hole.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Never going to happen
October 8, 2007 - 12:48 ET by taterThe top conservatives will never get to moderate a Democrat debate. I'm willing to bet if that ever happened the candidates would find a way out that the MSM would cordially agree with.
You mean like boycotting the
October 8, 2007 - 12:49 ET by JimboYou mean like boycotting the Fox News Network?
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Yup
October 8, 2007 - 12:51 ET by taterExactly.
As such, I'd like to see
October 8, 2007 - 13:00 ET by bigtimerAs such, I'd like to see ALL these candidates mercilessly grilled as if their lives depend on it, because ours certainly do.
I couldn't agree more with your sentiments here ns.
As for Henican saying it would be ok with him if say someone like Rush were a moderator ...that sounded real good, but I really do not believe him, I believe he would be one of the loudest screaming about the bias.
I enjoyed the back and forth with him and Cain though this morning.
One thing about all of this, Matthews knows by now all of the talk about his bias, he knows he is being criticized ahead of time about the debate tomorrow, so it may be interesting to see if he changes his tone or obvious bias any....
I think not myself.
Can't wait for the debate just because of all the comments on the boob-tube by the msm about Thompson and the fun they have been having with the SNL clip they keep showing on msnbc anyway...Thompson is going into second place all over the areas of this country and it is making the leftists even more paranoid....
I love to watch them when they have fear....
LMAO!
Republican Debate/Chris Matthews
October 8, 2007 - 13:33 ET by merlin61I agree that it would be important that top
conservatives be allowed to grill the Dems.
Ann Coulter or Rush would be great. What's
good for the goose is good for the gander.
Lets have real debates where tough questions are
posed and answered, not the usual b.s. soft
questions on either side.
Debates
October 8, 2007 - 14:13 ET by BigSpoon65BigSpoon65
How about Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Tony Snow would be another good one.
You guys are missing the
October 8, 2007 - 16:05 ET by fosstenYou guys are missing the point. It doesn't matter who moderates the debates. It's the content of the questions that matters.
I'd be perfectly satisfied with Michael freaking Moore asking the questions if he had to stick to this template.
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.
fossten, I agree those
October 8, 2007 - 16:19 ET by bigtimerfossten,
I agree those are some good questions I would like to hear answers to...I agree about the content being the importance of course.
I didn't see (maybe I missed them) any questions about illegal immigration, Sanctuary Cities, Anchor babies ect.
Or any about SC Judges.
Those are two that are very important to me...very important.
Noel - I disagree - I'd rather have conservative moderators
October 8, 2007 - 13:44 ET by Dee Bunkuntil the general election and in the general election there should be a moderator from each side.
Conservatives are the one's who pick their nominee and liberals pick theirs. The debates in primaries should focus on what is important to the party.
Dee
October 8, 2007 - 13:53 ET by Noel SheppardDee,
The debates in primaries should focus on what is important to the party.
Why? Isn't that the problem, that parties come before policy and the people? What do we as conservatives have to worry about? I'd put each GOP candidate's knowledge and command of the issues and the facts WELL ABOVE every Dem candidate's and every Dem pundit's.
Furthermore, I think every Dem candidate would crumble like bleu cheese up against Rush, Boortz, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, Hewitt, et al.
By contrast, there isn't one liberal media pundit who could out-duel Rudy, Mitt, Fred, or John. Not one!
Of course, the folks on the left know this, and that's why they hide from Fox! :-) ns
Noel - I agree that conservatives would do much better
October 8, 2007 - 14:04 ET by Dee Bunkbut I'd rather have good tough questions asked of my party so that we have the best chance of nominating the best person. It's not good enough for me that they just be better than any of the Dems. They need to be the best conservative.
The Focus IS the problem
October 8, 2007 - 14:07 ET by JayTeeThe Parties DO focus on what is Important to the parties..that's the problem....along with the focus on the Lobbyists.
As Noel stated, policy and the people should come first.
Term limits will work, but we can't get the prisoners to vote on building a better prison.
This crop of Democrats is really a strange crop....and a very Weak group of candidates. They are really not the Best the Dems have to offer......, if I was a Democrat I would be embarassed.
What is good for America, is also Good for the Troops, Victory in Iraq.
As long as Congress is delusional, Like Nancy thinking that 150,000 votes from San Fran is a "Mandate", or Harry Reid thinking he Supports the Troops, then Congress will continue to represent their own Delusions.......That "Surrender" will win Wars, and the San Fran Man Date knows what's best for the rest of the 200 million Americans.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
When I say party I mean the people of the party
October 8, 2007 - 14:46 ET by Dee BunkConservative people care about different things than liberal people. I don't want 100 questions on Global Warming asked of our nominees, I'd rather they focus on Terrorism, fiscal issues and what each candidate would do to avoid nominating another Souter for the Supreme Court.
Dee...you're going to be Disappointed
October 8, 2007 - 15:54 ET by JayTeeI don't think Chris will deliver on your Desires....
One has to be an American FIRST, and a party member 2nd. If you get the two confused, you end up with BDS, as your Party focus creates hate for the opposing view.
Bush has done good for Americans.......but Bad for the Democratic Party, and some say Badly for the Republican Party.
But "Safe since 9/11" in America, is good news for Americans.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Jay Tee - I don't want Matthews
October 8, 2007 - 16:40 ET by Dee BunkI listed my ideal panel above. The whole point of the primaries is to come up with a nominee for a party. You get to be an American first in the General election. How does letting a conservative questioner ask questions of my conservative candidates make ME not an American first? It's the primaries that let the people of the party shape the party, not the other way around.
I used to go between parties, but now I wouldn't vote for a Democrat no matter what. Even if they are supposedly a conservative democrat, they will still help their party platform by giving them a majority in the house or senate. If they are President it brings more financial support to all Dems. There isn't a single Dem that would nominate a conservative judge no matter how conservative they are. So I completely disagree. Voting for any Democrat is a vote for Harry Reed or Nancy Pelosi and the far left fringe agenda. It's a vote for unlimited abortion anytime any place any age (as young as 10yrs old w/o parent). It's also a vote for the fairness doctrine; a vote for Kelo vs New London; a vote for letting Foreign courts determine U.S. law; a vote for more government controlled healthcare; and a vote for getting out of Iraq regardless of the consequences. It doesn't matter who their nominee is
No one knows who Chrissy
October 8, 2007 - 14:11 ET by charlietexasNo one knows who Chrissy is, no one watches his show. Not to
mention hes nuts and hes a pervert and he drools when he speaks.
Has anyone seen how much spittle comes out of his mouth when he
talks??? its so nasty....well thats my 2 cents. hope I grossed out
everyone.
Mommy
Debates? What debates?
October 8, 2007 - 14:16 ET by pocomocoCurrently, the ‘debates’ are nothing more than news conferences and beauty contests.
I have suggested that they be changed to a real debate format, sans reporters, where actual debating occurs between candidates.
I would suggest three such formats:
Republicans only
Democrats only
Republicans and Democrats
In the interim, Noel’s suggestion has merit.
You're correct. All these
October 8, 2007 - 15:37 ET by Chris NormanYou're correct. All these debates are just sixty second speeches by candidates, all trying to get their pre-planned message out. Trying to stay "on message", there's not much interplay between them. On the other hand, a good debater is just that. Pithy answers don't necessarily mean that the candidate will make a good president - just a good debater. I don't really know what the answer is.
Grilling
October 8, 2007 - 14:22 ET by Joe ShlabotnikI'd like to see ALL these candidates mercilessly grilled as if their lives depend on it...
I'd be okay with this if the intent of the questioning were to gain knowledge. However, most of the time the goal is to make the candidate (or the entire party) look foolish. What common good does this serve?
Froget Chris Mouthews, the DNC plant.
October 8, 2007 - 14:32 ET by Dave RAnd forget the rest of those so-called "conservative" republican commentators, most of which have sold out to the Republican Party a long time ago.
The only two moderators needed are Neal Boortz and Michael Savage. Neither of them would put up with any evasiveness of any kind from them. Of course, those two would have to be placed at opposite ends of the table, probably with a couple of guards between them, but that would be okay.
Watching those RINOs stand there, squirming and sweating like whores in church, would be great fun to watch.
-Almost as much fun as having them moderate a democrat debate.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Fly swatting
October 8, 2007 - 15:05 ET by Jerry MackAnyone with the capabilities of becoming President should be able to handle Chris with the same ease as swatting a fly!
Libs
October 8, 2007 - 18:57 ET by JDWThe point is libs cannot do the same. Regardless of what goals one places on our party we will never see anything more than a facetime tata from the libs.
How long has this occurred? How could we benefit by forcing them to do the same?
JDW
Sen Clinton: Founder of Media Matters
Matthews leanings
October 8, 2007 - 15:38 ET by mgerardnI'm tired of this guy's political leanings, here are some of the things he's said in the past:
On Mitt: He looks like a million bucks. Everything is perfect. Everything about him is perfect -- his look, his manner, everything
Here's when he's talking to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council: Do you think that the conservative people like yourself, who are not politicians, but are men of the church, who believe in values rather than election results, will break with the pols on this one?
On McCain's campaign problems: let's get into the really worst part of my job, which is to talk about what happens if he does continue to sink.
I'm sick of this guy, let's get someone fair and balanced in there.
Lipstick on a pig. Nice
October 8, 2007 - 15:43 ET by Chris NormanLipstick on a pig. Nice try, though. Not really.
Should Chris Matthews be Allowed to Moderate GOP Debates?
October 8, 2007 - 18:03 ET by Clear thinkerNo, and hell no!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Going to be verrrry
October 8, 2007 - 18:07 ET by bigtimerGoing to be verrrry interesting for me anyway tomorrow evening....
Not just the debates but the talkin' heads on the other stations after the debate most likely for days to come Ct.
Hope I stay laughin' since the msm are all laying eggs already about Thompson.
With Matthews and some of the talking heads I really doubt it though.
bt... If anyone can put
October 8, 2007 - 18:10 ET by Clear thinkerbt...
If anyone can put Chrissy in his place, Thompson would be the one.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Ct... Agree with
October 8, 2007 - 18:23 ET by bigtimerCt...
Agree with you.
What is also funny is the msm said he was waiting to long, didn't know what he was doing...blah blah blah....still doing it...hope they keep it up, just drives his numbers up.
The simple msm doesn't understand that the majority of people do not like them, it helps our side them being so negative IMO.
LOL