Donald Trump: The Republican Party Is My Bitch – Threatens Independent Run

Observers of Donald Trump’s bizarre campaign for the Republican nomination for president have seen in just a few months the ugliness that he can present as he seeks to attract voters by appealing to their fear, hatred, and ignorance. And now they can also see how worthless his word is as he throws a temper tantrum over being attacked by his political rivals.

Donald Trump GOP

When Trump announced his candidacy in June, there was speculation that he would not remain a Republican candidate if he faltered in the campaign or failed to get the nomination. That controversy caused the GOP to insist that all candidates sign a “loyalty pledge” if they wanted to participate in party sanctioned debates or even get on the primary ballot in some states. The pledge required the candidate’s to…

“…affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for President of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee, regardless of who it is. I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination of any other party.”

It’s difficult understand how Trump could endorse other Republicans that he has already disparaged as weak, incompetent, corrupt, ugly losers, but under pressure from the party, Trump signed the pledge and tweeted how proud he was of the commitment. He further stated that “I will be totally pledging my allegiance to the Republican Party and the conservative principles for which it stands,” and that “I see no circumstances under which I would tear up that pledge.”

That was on September 3, just two and a half months ago. Today, however, Trump was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on This Week and was asked whether a new ad by his opponents, characterizing him as dangerously inexperienced, might cause him to change his mind. Stephanopoulos also quoted from a Wall Street Journal article that described the Republican establishment as “increasingly alarmed by the enduring strength of Donald Trump’s presidential bid,” and said that they were “ratcheting up efforts to knock him out of the race.” So when Stephanopoulos asked Trump if he still intended to honor his pledge, he responded:

“I’m going to have to see what happens. I will see what happens. I have to be treated fairly. When I did this, I said I have to be treated fairly. If I’m treated fairly, I’m fine. All I want to do is a level playing field.”

Trump’s idea of fair treatment is when everybody stoops to kiss his wrinkled butt. Consequently, any pledges he makes are subject to cancellation at will. His stance now is to wait and see. That flip-flop demonstrates that he is someone who is not to be trusted, even after he has signed a written commitment. He played Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, for access to the debates that have raised his profile, and now he is threatening to ditch the party to boost his own super-sized ego.

The prospect of Trump mounting a third-party run would be great news for Democrats. But the really interesting part of this is how the GOP will react to Trump’s deceit. Will they bend over with lips puckered and beg him not to torpedo their 2016 presidential hopes? If so, that would make them look pretty impotent going into the general election. But do they have the guts to stand up to him and refuse to be bullied by a painfully stupid trust fund baby whose sense of entitlement could blot out the sun?

Trump has already cowed two titans of the media. He made bitches of both Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes of Fox News, who scampered away in fear of offending The Donald. They let him make asses of them in order to preserve what they believed to be a ratings bonanza, but will prove to be a short-term blip. Will the Republican Party now follow in their baby steps and allow Trump to stomp all over them?

If the GOP/RNC has any guts they will demand that Trump reiterate his promise to endorse the Republican nominee and forswear a third-party run. They should force him to make a public proclamation of loyalty or face being booted from any future debates or, where allowed, access to state ballots as a Republican candidate.

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

The likelihood of that, however, is low. Republicans have not been known for their commitment to principle. And they have already demonstrated that they fear Trump more than they love their party or their country. Why else would they stand with him when he has insulted millions of minority voters, women, and seniors? And his recent fear mongering over refugees literally devolved into fascistic ranting that has no place in a free America. So It’s your move Republicans. What will you do with your treacherous Trump now that he is wiping your face in it?

Stephanopoulos Isn’t The Only Media Donor To The Clinton Foundation (Is He, Fox News?)

The conservative media circus is furiously banging their drums to chastise George Stephanopoulos, host of ABC’s Good Morning America and This Week, for his failure to disclose a donation to the Clinton Foundation. This oversight is being portrayed as an unforgivable offense of partisan bias. As with any matter that can be hyper-dramatized by zealous punditry, Fox News took the lead in running Stephanopoulos through the metaphorical grinder.

Fox News Stephanopoulos

A couple of notes need to be raised in order to fairly assess this situation. First of all, Stephanopoulos donated to a charitable organization, not a political campaign. Thus, it cannot really be regarded as partisan in that the Clinton Foundation does not engage in any political activities. Its mission is purely philanthropic and no fair observer has ever alleged any ideological leanings. Furthermore, unlike a corporate donor or a foreign entity, there isn’t any conceivable benefit that Stephanopoulos might have been seeking in exchange for a donation. Even his critics do not allege that his motives were anything but altruistic.

That said, there are problems with his failure to disclose that impact his reporting when the subject is the Foundation itself. For instance, Stephanopoulos recently interviewed the author of “Clinton Cash,” a book that alleges improprieties on the part of Hillary Clinton in connection to donations to the Foundation. The fact that the book was filled with factual errors and failed to prove its premise does not excuse Stephanopoulos from an ethical duty to reveal that he was also a donor.

Taken in its entirety, this scandalette hardly seems to approach the degree of significance that is being assigned to it by Fox News and other conservative media. There was no effort to extract any personal gain and the ethical lapse did not result in any reportorial distortion. But that hasn’t stopped right-wing muckrakers from attempting to whip it up into a full-blown catastrophe for Stephanopoulos. He has been maligned as hopelessly biased and there have been calls for him to resign or be fired. Fox’s Howard Kurtz described the affair as…

“…such a bombshell that George Stephanopoulos has now had to withdraw as ABC’s moderator in the Republican presidential debate next year.”

What makes the debate moderation move somewhat comical is that last November the chairman of the Republican Party, Reince Priebus, ruled out anyone that he regarded as being unfriendly to the Party’s interests.

Priebus: [the] thing that is ridiculous is allowing moderators, who are not serving the best interests of the candidate and the party, to actually be the people to be deposing our people. And I think that’s totally wrong.

Priebus reinforced that edict yesterday saying that “I’ve been very public about this. George Stephanopoulos was never going to moderate a Republican debate anyway.” Somewhere Priebus got the impression that debate moderators are supposed to serve the interests of the candidates. Certainly the interest of the voters never entered into it. And the last thing that the GOP wants is a debate that is truly spirited and informative. They are looking for something more on the order of an infomercial.

Amidst this tumultuous uproar over the fate of Stephanopoulos and his relatively modest $75,000 gift, what has gone unmentioned is that he is not alone in making donations to the Clinton Foundation. In fact, Fox News has been even more generous than Stephanopoulos. Rupert Murdoch’s son James, the COO of 21st Century Fox (parent company of Fox News), made a donation in the range of $1,000,000-$5,000,000. The News Corporation Foundation contributed between $500,000-$1,000,000. Fox regular Donald Trump forked over between $100,000-$250,000.

There might be more of these types of ethical problems involving media personalities on the right donating to Republican charities like the Bush Foundation. However, we can’t uncover them because the Bush Foundation doesn’t disclose their donors like the Clintons do. Curious, isn’t it?

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

So the question is: How can Fox News criticize George Stephanopoulos for his undisclosed donations to the Clinton Foundation, when they have made far bigger donations without disclosing them? What’s more, the donations from the Fox media empire can be regarded as possible bribes since, unlike Stephanopoulos, they have pending business before the government and its regulatory agencies. If Fox News wants to pretend to be “fair and balanced” they need to immediately come clean. And if Stephanopoulos is denied the opportunity to moderate any GOP debates, then Fox News should be prohibited from airing them.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for Fox to act ethically in this matter. They will neither remove themselves from the debate schedule, nor cease their attacks on Stephanopoulos. That’s just the way Fox does business and it will continue despite the obvious hypocrisy and lack of journalistic principle.

Fox News Is Preparing A Special Report On An Already Debunked Hillary Clinton Book

If you aren’t doing anything this coming Friday, and you have an hour to devote to becoming more ignorant, Fox News is airing special report based on a book that makes wholly unsubstantiated allegations against Hillary Clinton.

Fox News

The book “Clinton Cash” has been getting a great deal of promotion from Fox News and other right-wing media outlets, although it won’t be released for another couple of weeks. The author, Peter Schweizer, is one of the most widely discredited writers working today. His past is replete with criticisms from across the political spectrum and his books have been ridiculed for sloppy investigations and sources who don’t exist.

Schweizer is now the president of the Government Accountability Institute, an organization that is bankrolled by the Koch brothers and was founded by the head of Breitbart News. The GAI has previously embarrassed itself by publishing studies that brazenly misrepresented (or invented) the facts related to their bogus reporting. News Corpse covered one such incident involving an alleged foreign fundraising scandal that supposedly “rocked” the Obama reelection campaign. However, the study didn’t cite a single example of a foreign donation and the authors admitted to Fox’s Steve Doocy that there is no such evidence. Likewise, another GAI study claimed that Obama took more vacation days than average private sector workers. Once again, the study totally distorted the data that actually showed that Obama took far fewer days off.

Now Schweizer has a new book that has been been promoted as a devastating blow to Clinton’s campaign. Rand Paul teased the media by saying that he has “been briefed by Peter Schweizer on this book, and the facts are going to be alarming.” Sean Hannity unleashed a frantic rant saying that “These newest allegations…have the potential in the end to derail this presidential campaign.” These are just two examples of a flood of headlines and hyperbole that say much the thing, that Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations will be over just as soon as the book hits the shelves.

There is only one problem with their prognostications of doom. The book is a fraud that proves nothing. The early reports from people who have actually read it indicate that the author fails to connect any of the dots that the wingnut media is hyping. And according to ThinkProgress, who got a copy of the book, even Schweizer admits that he has no proof of anything untoward:

“Schweizer explains he cannot prove the allegations, leaving that up to investigative journalists and possibly law enforcement. ‘Short of someone involved coming forward to give sworn testimony, we don’t know what might or might not have been said in private conversations, the exact nature of the transition, or why people in power make the decision they do,’ he writes. Later, he concludes, ‘We cannot ultimately know what goes on in their minds and ultimately provide the links between the money they took and the benefits that subsequently accrued to themselves, their friends, and their associates.'”

In other words, he’s got nothing but wild accusations and speculation. But it gets even worse. ThinkProgress also found a segment in the book where Schweizer cites a press release as back-up for his charges. Unfortunately for Schweizer, the press release was revealed to be fake back in 2013, a fact that he had plenty of time to discover and avoid putting forth as corroborating evidence.

This is typical of the sloppiness that has dogged his career. The rebuttals to the book on the basis of his dishonesty and lack of professional ethics have already begun to worry his defenders at Fox News. They are resorting to propping him up by asserting that attacks on his credibility are rooted in partisanship, rather than the abundant evidence of his hackery. Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner rushed to his aid saying that “You talk about tearing Schweizer down because he was formerly with Republicans. What about George Stephanopoulos?”

Isn’t it cute how Faulkner tries to slip in the suggestion that Schweizer was “formerly” with Republicans, as if he is no longer a committed right-wing activist, as evidenced by his leading the Koch-funded GAI? But more to the point, what does Stephanopoulos have to do with this? He hasn’t written a book filled with lies aimed at smearing a Republican presidential candidate. No doubt Clinton backers are just as partisan as any other politicos, but the problem with Schweizer isn’t his party affiliation, it’s his credibility and integrity.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

Which brings us back to the special on tap for Friday. Fox News will broadcast an hour long program titled “The Tangled Clinton Web” that is anchored by Bret Baier and based on Schweizer’s book. However, the book has already been revealed to be a fraud whose author admits that he doesn’t have the goods on Clinton and whose book is rife with errors and uses hoax press releases as proof. And there are still a couple of days before the special airs for more revelations to be uncovered.

This Fox News special is tainted before it has even aired. Will they include any of the info that has come out about the book in their broadcast? Will they try at all to be fair and balanced? Not likely, given the track record for Fox. And even though they’ve got plenty of lead time to include the truth, Fox has demonstrated that truth is not a part of their criteria for reporting what they mistakenly call news.

James O’Keefe May Be Heading Back To Jail

Fox News Investigative TeamAndrew Breitbart’s pet pimp impersonator, James O’Keefe, was just sentenced last week to three years probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $1,500 fine for having trespassed the offices of a United States senator in Lousiana under false pretenses. He pleaded guilty to reduced misdemeanor charges in order to avoid prosecution for a felony. But this experience has apparently failed to moderate his proclivity for criminality.

O’Keefe’s latest adventure in psuedo-journalism was revealed today on Breitbart’s BigGovernment, as well as ABC’s Good Morning America with George Stephanopoulos. The new effort was aimed at alleged waste and/or corruption at the Census Bureau. O’Keefe, armed with a camera, and a smug disregard for ethics, set off to embark on a career in the federal bureaucracy where he says that…

“What I found were census supervisors systematically encouraging employees to falsify information on their time sheets.”

First of all, it’s kind of funny that O’Keefe has been reduced to investigating incorrect time cards (his own). It’s not as if there aren’t other scandals percolating (I heard something about some oil in the gulf). At least he isn’t railing about Census Bureau concentration camps in Idaho.

O’Keefe only worked for the census for two days of training. He never actually performed any census field work. In the new video he says that a census crew leader told him to use a false time sheet as a template for filling out future time sheets. However, it was not a “false” time sheet. It was a practice time sheet used for training. But O’Keefe characterized the crew leader’s instructions during a training session as a directive to falsify the later forms. Never mind that the crew leader in the video said explicitly to use the practice form as a template. So when the crew leader said to fill the form out the same way every day, he simply meant to follow the instructions, not to input the same hours and other data. That would be obvious to most people, but O’Keefe has a blind determination to mislead, which he continues to do as the video proceeds.

In the portion where O’Keefe “confronts” the crew leader at a Dunkin’s Donuts, he asks whether it will be a problem that he quit working at 3:30 or 4:00. The implication is that his time sheet reflected something different. But we can’t see the time sheet that the crew leader is reviewing, so for all we know it said 3:45. A bigger problem is that if you watch the time code on the video, almost a full minute was edited out between the time O’Keefe asked his question (3:59:04) and the time the crew leader responded (4:00:00). So when the crew leader responded saying “No, that’s not a problem,” he could have been responding to a different question entirely. And given O’Keefe’s history of deceptive editing, the last thing he should be given now is the benefit of a doubt.

But there’s another revelation in this video that ought to attract the attention of the authorities. O’Keefe noted that the time sheets contain a warning at the bottom just above where they are signed that says:

Employee’s Certification – Under penalty of fine and/or imprisonment, I certify that the information on this form is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

In the video, O’Keefe sought to portray that as applying to his supervisor. But the actual time sheet shows that this is only applicable to the employee. The supervisor has a somewhat lower standard of certification that relies on representations made by the employee:

Supervisor’s Certification – I certify that I have reviewed the entries made and they appear to be reasonable and accurate.

So what we have here is O’Keefe confessing again to a crime. He knowingly signed the time sheet despite his having lied on it about the hours he worked. He knew that it was unlawful to do so, yet he did it anyway. This couldn’t be a more clear cut case. What’s more, there are laws against interfering with the conduct of the census. Since O’Keefe never intended to provide the services to which he agreed upon on employment, he could be liable for additional charges in that regard. And that’s not all. The Washington Post reports that O’Keefe may also have broken laws relating to surreptitiously recording Commerce Department conversations. Stephen Buckner, a Bureau spokesman told the Post that…

“In his video, Mr. O’Keefe, an admitted criminal, does not disclose that he previously worked for the Census Bureau for nearly two months in 2009 without incident, allegation or complaint.

“That employment with us was well before his indictment and prior to his conviction of a federal crime last week. The Census Bureau obviously does not condone any falsifying of or tampering with time sheets by its employees.”

In his appearance on Good Morning America, Stephanopoulos asked O’Keefe if he regretted having broken the law in the affair at the senator’s office in Louisiana. While fudging on the matter of regret, he did concede that he would be more “careful” in the future. But his actions in this new episode show that he is an incorrigible criminal with no intention of respecting either the law or the standards of ethical journalism. And on top of all of that, he is an arrogant SOB who considers himself a victim. In his article at BigGovernment he whines that…

“The government took our camera, so I bought another. The government put us in jail and deleted our tapes, but we got out and we’ll just make more.”

It’s pathetic that O’Keefe needs to be reminded that the government didn’t put him jail. He put himself there by breaking the law. I’m sure Charles Manson has the same position on his incarceration as O’Keefe does, but it doesn’t make sense for either one of them. O’Keefe belongs in jail for his unrepentant criminal behavior. And the terminally choleric Andrew Breitbart ought to have a nearby cell for his role in facilitating O’Keefe’s crimes. And remember, this latest crime was committed while O’Keefe was on probation. So he is not only liable for the new violations of the law, but he could have violated his probation as well.

Finally, it would be a huge mistake for other media outlets to give these charlatans any additional exposure. Breitbart is already bragging about having been on GMA and is touting that appearance as opening the door to more press. The media was fooled before by these phonies. They were duped into thinking that they had “missed” the ACORN story, but when the whole story was revealed, it was clear that Breitbart’s crew had deceptively altered their video, and the only crimes were those committed by O’Keefe and company.

These people are confessed criminals, exposed liars, and they do not deserve to be treated as legitimate producers of news. Which is why they will probably be all over Fox News for the next couple of weeks. O’Keefe and Breitbart are already promising more videos, and O’Keefe says that he is assembling an “army” of citizen journalists. I guess we’ll have to assemble an army of debunkers. And Jon Stewart’s writing staff is going to have their hands full.

This Week With John McCain

It seems fitting that John McCain sat down with George Stephanopoulos yesterday on a program called “This Week,” because the name itself carries the suggestion that what you hear McCain say will only be operative for a limited time. Next week may be a different matter entirely, and last week has succumbed to history’s dust bin.

The tone of the interview was set early on with McCain answering the second question in a distinctly political dialect:

Stephanopoulos: Congress has to pass a stimulus plan for the middle class, which extends unemployment benefits, adds infrastructure funding, and sends money to the states to shore up their budgets. Are you for that, as well?

McCain: I am for keeping taxes low. I am for whatever steps we think we need to be taking right now.

Wow! So, by extension, he’s against whatever steps he thinks should not be taken. That’s a courageous stance.

It was also noted by several observers that McCain would did not look at Obama at all during the entire debate. Even when they shook hands, McCain quickly turned away. This behavior was somewhat eerie and obviously purposeful. When Stephanopoulos asked him about it he said:

McCain: I was looking at the moderator a great deal of time. I was writing a lot of the time. I in no way know how that in any way would be disdainful […] I’ve been in many, many debates. And a lot of the times I don’t look at my opponents because I’m focusing on the people and the American people that I’m talking to. That’s what the debate’s all about.

Got that? He was looking at the American people. That’s why he was unable to glance at his opponent, to whom he was presumably engaged in discourse, even once in an hour and a half. Did he have a magic mirror that allowed him to see voters in their living rooms as they watched the debate on their TV machines? Would he also decline to look at Putin and other world leaders with whom he meets in order to keep his gaze on Americans that he is imagining?

Next up, Stephanopoulos asked McCain about Sarah Palin’s assertion that she, like Obama, would approve of cross border incursions into Pakistan to target Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. This is contrary to McCain’s own position, though he denies it:

McCain: She would not – she shares my view that we will do whatever is necessary. The problem is, you don’t announce it.

The problem is Palin did announce it, as did McCain in the same sentence that declared that he would not. McCain further argued that, while Palin said what she said, she shouldn’t be held to it because it was said while someone had a microphone picking up what she said, and besides what she said was the same thing that he was saying and that she did “just fine.” Can we hold him to that?

McCain also defended Palin from criticism she’s received, much of it from conservatives, that she is unprepared for the position that McCain has thrust her into.

McCain: Listen, I’m so excited about the reaction that Sarah Palin has gotten across this country, huge turnouts, enthusiasm, excitement. She knows how to communicate directly with people. They respond in a way that I’ve – that I’ve seldom seen. You know, they can complain all they want to. I’ll rely on the American people.

The American people have resoundingly rejected Palin. She has the lowest favorability ratings of anyone on either ticket. And it isn’t because she is getting bad press. In fact, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post is reporting that many journalists are censoring their comments about Palin to avoid looking like they’re piling on.” He also notes that CBS has more embarrassing responses from the Couric interview that they haven’t aired. So if CBS and others in the press were more honest and candid, the public’s view of Palin would be even worse.

That’s what McCain had to say this week on “This Week.” I can’t wait to hear what he’s going to say next week.

Stuttering Karl Rove Won’t Deny Siegelman Allegations

Last week the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Karl Rove, who has refused to appear before the Committee to answer questions regarding the investigation and prosecution of the former Democratic governor of Alabama, Don Siegelman. Rove is alleged to have improperly directed the Justice Department to pursue the Siegelman case for political purposes. Rove, who still appears on Fox News as Senior Political Contributor, despite his position as an “informal” adviser to John McCain (which Fox does not disclose to their viewers), was interviewed today by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week. At the end of the interview, Stephanopoulos asks Rove about the Siegelman case and illicits this guilt-ridden response:

Stephanopoulos: To be clear, you did not contact the Justice department about this case?
Rove: Uh, I read about … I’m going to simply say what I’ve said about this before, which is I found out about Don Siegleman’s investigation and indictment by reading about it in the newspaper.
Stephanopoulos: But that’s not a denial.
Rove: Uh … I … I … I’ve … I’ve … uh … uh … I … you know … heh … I read about it … I’ve heard about it, read about it, learned about it for the first time by reading about it in the newspaper.

Stephanopoulos never actually asked Rove where he heard about the case. He asked if Rove had ever contacted the Justice Department about it. Not only did Rove evade answering the question, he couldn’t even spit out the lies his attorney had obviously coached him on. Watch for yourself:

It remains to seen if Rove will ever be brought to justice. The Congress has not been particularly assertive in these matters. And Rove is famous for squirming out of tough situations like this. In fact, that is how he got the nickname “Turd Blossom” bestowed by none other than George W. Bush.

One More Thing About The Philadelphia Debate

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, the problem with the debate in Philadelphia was not that it was more harsh on one candidate than the other, and it was not whether the questions were too tough. The problem was that the questions were too stupid. The problem was that the moderators behaved like tabloid gomers who just wanted to stir the kettle. The problem was that George Stephanopoulos could ask, without gagging, how much Rev. Wright loves America. Was Obama supposed to hold his hands apart in the air and say, “He loves it this much?”

It has already been reported that Geo-Stef was channeling Sean Hannity for his question selection. Now we also learn that Charlie Gibson mangled journalistic ethics by utilizing a plant:

“I want to do one more question, which goes to the basic issue of electability. And it is a question raised by a voter in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, a woman by the name of Nash McCabe.”

First of all, it was not a question raised by a voter. It was a question raised by Gibson’s choice to air this voter’s video. What’s worse is that it was not even a random Pennsylvania voter at all. Ms. McCabe was sought after for inclusion in the debate.

Secondly, why is a question about “electability” included in a candidates debate anyway? Does Gibson think that when Americans lie awake at night they are pondering a candidate’s electability rather than whether their company will have another round of lay-offs, or how they are going to pay their mortgage?

It’s the stupidity, the irrelevancy, and the deceit. That’s the problem with the debate – and with the Corporate Media as a whole.

More Questions For McCain w/Video

Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films has come into possession of the super-secret, leaked interview of John McCain by George Stephanopoulos. From The Real McCain:

BNF is also asking for contributions of satirical questions that Stephanopoulos might ask McCain. Of course, considering the debate a few days ago, where does reality stop and satire begin? Here are my suggestions:

  1. Considering what “some say” is the undeniable success of the surge, do you think that Clinton and Obama love America as much as you and Gen. Petraeus?
  2. You’ve said that the economy is not your forte and you’ve demonstrated some confusion about Al Qaeda and Iran. Do you think your opponents campaigns will suffer because they don’t bake or can’t bowl?
  3. Your relationship with telecom lobbyist Vicki Iseman was reported by the liberal New York Times. I won’t ask you about that because I know you don’t want to talk about it. But could you tell us why you support retroactive immunity for our patriotic telecom companies and oppose the big government regulations of the Media Ownership Act of 2007?
  4. Sen. Obama has been called an elitist because he was educated at Harvard. After eight years of President Bush, do you think the American people still want to vote for a regular guy like yourself instead of an arrogant know-it-all?

Gibson And Stephanopoulos: The Keystone Flops

The Democratic debate in Philadelphia last night was dominated by a wall of stupid painstakingly constructed by ABC’s moderators, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.

Their obsession with trivia and avoidance of substance submerged this affair from its opening introduction. It’s hard to say it much better than Washington Post critic Tom Shales who leads off by saying that “Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances,” and then proceeds to say what he really thinks.

And he’s not alone…

Tom Shales (Washington Post) – “For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.”

Will Bunch (Philadelphia Daily News) – “By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself.”

Greg Mitchell (Editor and Publisher) – “In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia.”

Andrew Sullivan (The Atlantic) – “The loser was ABC News: one of the worst media performances I can remember – petty, shallow, process-obsessed, trivial where substantive, and utterly divorced from the actual issues that Americans want to talk about.”

Joanne Ostrow (Denver Post) – “Wednesday’s televised candidates’ debate from Philadelphia, tape delayed in Denver, got around to issues eventually. But the first round- devoted to pettiness and word obsession and gaffes- was more revealing.”

Joe Klein (Time) – “The ABC moderators clearly didn’t spend much time thinking about creative substantive gambits. They asked banal, lapidary questions, rather than trying to break new ground.”

Michael Grunwald (Time) – “At a time of foreign wars, economic collapse and environmental peril, the cringe-worthy first half of the debate focused on such crucial matters as Senator Obama’s comments about rural bitterness, his former pastor, an obscure sixties radical with whom he was allegedly “friendly,” and the burning constitutional question of why he doesn’t wear an American flag pin on his lapel.”

Richard Adams (The Guardian) – “A stinker, an absolute car crash – thanks to the host network ABC. It was worse than even those debates last year with 18 candidates on stage, including crazy old Mike Gravel.”

Noam Scheiber (New Republic) – “The first half of the debate felt like a 45-minute negative ad, reprising the most chewed over anti-Obama allegations (bittergate, Jeremiah Wright, patriotism) and even some relatively obscure ones (his vague association with former Weatherman radical Bill Ayers).”

Daniel Rubin (Philadelphia Inquirer) – “We’ve revisted bitter. We’ve gone back to Bosnia. We’ve dragged Rev. Wright back up onto the podium. We’ve mis-spent this debate by allowing Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos to ask questions that skirt what in my mind is what we need to know now. What would they do about the mess they’d inherit? The war. Health care. The economy. Stupid.”

Cathleen Decker and Noam N. Levey (Los Angeles Times) – “With the moderators and Clinton raising assorted questions about Obama’s past for the first half of the debate, issues received relatively short shrift. Not until 50 minutes in was a policy issue — Iraq — asked about by the moderators. More than an hour went by before a question was asked about what Stephanopoulos called “the No. 1 issue on Americans’ minds” — the economy.”

Stephanoupolos defended himself by saying that voters are concerned with

“…experience, character [and] credibility. You can’t find a presidential election where those issues didn’t come into play.”

The problem is that you can’t find a but a trace of questions in this debate where those issues did come into play. The moderators had obviously decided that they were going to chase petty controversy and ratings by focusing on tabloid trivialities. Their cynical smugness and conceit are a sad commentary on the state of journalism and politics.

MoveOn has started a petition to ask the media to “stop hurting the national dialogue in this important election year.”

FAIR is urging citizens to write to ABC: netaudr@abc.com