Won'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!

Rush'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.

can'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!

Thanks for the Info Tim G., It just keeps getting worse . . .for Journalistic integrity.
Palin still has the Advantage over the Senator . . . she's an outsider not related to ANY DC votes .
Palin is a Mother, Ifill is a Mutha . . another advantage.

The Republican Revolution will not be Televised

More like gwen aweful, propoganda minister of the future obama regime.

When are the conservative 527s going to start churning out truth ads about obama's past and the true reality of the mortgage mess?

We should call PBS and ask that Ifill recuse herself!

Paula Kerger is the CEO. Her number is 703-739-8619

Newt should have been prepping Palin for this debate!

If the McCain camp had objected to Ifill as moderator, then you know what charges would have been put out by PBS, racism. They were between a rock and a hard place.

Why did McCain agree to Ifill? Because, despite an occasional protest here and there lately, when it comes to the press, Republicans in general and specifically McCain are Pollyannas - always sunny in their outlook that they have gotten and will get a "fair shake" from the "mainstream" media. They just never learn the lesson and apparently don't want to. Either that, or they think that protesting bias and actually doing something about it is somehow unseemly and ungentlemanly. Either way, they all come off as a bunch of suckers. 

McNotObama '08

but there is a racial component here which may not accure to Obama's benefit if Ms. Ifill is not percieved to be scrupulously fair.  Be very nice Gwen, practice masking your own resentments, you have about 26 hours to figure out how, Good Luck, you're going to need it.

Anyone who has ever heard Santayana's famous quote about History repeating itself is condemned to repeat it.

See, things like this, make me question the intellectual soundness of the Republican Leadership. These stupid mind numbed trolls probably think they're showing "courage under fire" or some other misplaced sentiment, by showing up to a debate under these  circumstances, but they're wrong! They're idiots. The demoNcrats wouldn't even attend a debate ON Fox much less one moderated by a partisan with a *%$$#@! book deal against their guy! 

Things like THIS are the reason that I left the Republican party and became an INDEPENDENT, because I AM A WINNER and I never play to lose. I may not win every race or battle but you can bet your bippy that I'm tryin'! When McCain stuck the knife in Bush with the GANG OF FOURTEEN LOSERS, I said "that's it, I'm done it's time to leave these losers to their own devices".  Any political party with the means to defeat their opponents who does not take it, is not worthy of my fellowship. Period. That and Bush trying to put "Grandma" Meyers on the Supreme Court.! Hay caramba! That kind of told me that we aren't really playing on the same team. BUT THIS? This is incompetence pure and simple. How hard would it have been to find out about IFILLS BIAS? Newsbusters and media research have REAMS of statements made by her some of which are in THIS very ARTICLE! So before you found out she had a book deal why would she have been moderating a debate????  Her BIAS has been front and center for years!!!

And after finding out about said book deal, WHY IS THERE STILL A DEBATE SCHEDULED??????

I don't know what's wrong with these people but winning doesn't seem to be on the agenda. 

WHY DON'T THEY EXPOSE THE PRESS' BIAS?????? WHAT THE (expletive) IS WRONG WITH THESE IDIOTS???

And for all the high minded folk that would make some high road argument to you I say "CRAP". There ain't no such thing boyo!  Here's a lesson in media manipulation, pay attention. Bias is not only found in the questions one asks, it is similarly found in the questions one neglects to ask. I know you're aware of this, anyhow, take for example Katie Couric's big "gotcha" for Sarah Palin! Couric asked if a fifteen year old is raped by her father would Palin forbid her from killing the baby, I paraphrase.  Now INSTEAD OF POINTING OUT THE INHERENT BIAS IN THE QUESTION, Palin like a DUMMY falls into the trap of ANSWERING NO and thus looking like some moron extremist. While I agree with Palin's view, this was NOT the way to answer the question. The way to answer the question was to say, "Katie, why would you use an EXTREMELY RARE example like that, is it your wish to make me look like some kind of nutcase? Do you Katie Couric honestly believe that the FORTY MILLION abortions since Roe v Wade were the result of incest? If you don't, why would you use an example that applies to almost NO ONE?"  

AND if she was REALLY on her game she would have said, "Katie it's funny that you ask a question like that which is clearly designed to make me look like an "extremist" for "forcing" a woman to have a baby in an untenable situation. However you seem to have neglected to ask your democratic nominee why he would FORCE BABIES WHO SURVIVED AN ABORTION TO DIE. Which seems more extreme to you Katie, forcing a child to LIVE or forcing one to freakin' DIE?" Or something along those lines. You people need to learn how to do more with your freakin' answers than just answer the question!  Then, in the hearing of John Q Public, which has been insulated by the press from ANY MENTION of the Born Alive Infant Act and Obambi's heinousness, there comes a new thing. "Barack voted to do what?" , they'd say. See, because the press never confronted Obama in any meaningful way over the many lies he's told on the subject, the only extremist John Q can see is Sarah P, not Barry O. Incidentally there are even ways of answering questions that insure that they won't edit out the part they don't like. Make the condemnation the subject of the sentence and they couldn't edit it, all it takes is a GRAMMAR CLASS. 

If you know that the press is unfair, republican leadership, why do you persist in treating them AS IF THEY ARE NOT? Why do you endeavour in servile fearfulness to give them the benefit of the doubt which hasn't been "a doubt" for quite some time? If the press is unfair and if they know they're unfair, doesn't your treatment of them as fair, make you a FOOL? I MEAN FOR GOODNESS SAKE, where was the op research on KATIE COURIC? Only an IDIOT would at this point be treating the Obama press as an uninterested third party!!!  Her pro baby killing statements could be dug up with a mere click of the mouse! How hard would it be to say, "Well, Katie, I know you've always been a big abortion supporting democrat, is that why you didn't ask Obama about this?"  But no, in some interview about the bias of the Couric interviews, Palin actually says that she wouldn't want to pick a fight with someone who "buys their ink by the barrelful". Well, when the old geezer who made that statement made it, there wasn't an ALTERNATIVE MEDIA, there weren't BLOGS AND FOX NEWS where her side could be heard if she chose to take Couric on, there is now!

Which brings up the question as to WHY on earth would you possibly go to a debate moderated by a book writing Obama supporter? It's not like any of you have the slightest ability to combat the bias by turning your answers into barbs with which to attack your interviewer, so WHY??  Unfortunately more and more the answer seems to be, "because they are LOSERS, THAT'S WHY". 

Just saw an article on the ABC website. Here's the first paragraph:
"PBS journalist Gwen Ifill, moderator of the upcoming vice presidential debate, dismissed conservative questions about her impartiality because she is writing a book that includes material on Barack Obama.Ifill said Wednesday that she hasn't even written her chapter on Obama for the book "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," which is to be published by Doubleday on Jan. 20, 2009, the day a new president is inaugurated."

Doesn't it feel good to be "dismissed" by Queen Ifill? And don't you find it kinda hard to believe that she calling her book ".....the age of Obama" but she hasn't written anything about Obama. Come On. Even us stupid conservatives find that hard to swallow.

"The PBS host also pressed Cheney with a Tim Russert-style question on Iran:"

Just pointing out why I didn't jump on the "Russert was fair" bandwagon when he passed. He could be fair, but he followed the liberal meme more and more as time went by. We noticed, but later let it be, out of respect I guess. And he wasn't as bad as many are now, I'll grant that.

But he was getting there. 

"To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." - H. Poincaré

We don't have to worry about Gwen Ifil, we're used to having biased people ask questions, that's one of the things that makes Republicans really good debaters, they don't expect softballs.  Now let's look at the pussy Democrats, who wouldn't even debate on Fox News, can they handle Hugo Chavez? 

We know what's going on, we know the fix is in.  Now, all we have to do is show a majority of the people how this whole campaign has been fixed and they won't buy it.  Most people want a fair election, they'll recognize how unfair this all it.   

Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.

C=COME

H=HELP

A

N=NEGRO

G=GET

E=ELECTED