Yesterday, while doing my cardio at the gym, I looked up to see the Obama re-election campaign’s top political strategist David Axelrod on his John King’s program where the Democrat offered his “assessment of the GOP presidential contenders“. I followed the conversation briefly, but Axelrod’s insights seemed so banal, more bromides than analysis, that I returned to my book which was (far) more more engaging.
I wondered if anyone on CNN had ever invited Karl Rove onto their program in 2003 to offer his assessment of the Democratic presidential contenders in that cycle’s contest. (When I read the transcript today, Axelrod’s words confirmed my initial analysis, more bromidic than insightful.)
Commenting on the debate in this morning’s WSJ.com’s Political Diary (available by subscription), Paul A. Gigot wonders why the candidates agreed “WSJ.com’s Political Diary “to those terrible, demeaning ground rules”. They had only 30 seconds to respond to the questions, with the “formate” thus making them, in Gigot’s words, “all look smaller and less informed than most of them are.” Given CNN’s bias, perhaps that was the goal.
I don’t expect we’ll ever seen a Democratic candidates’ debate on FoxNews which offers far less slanted coverage than does CNN.
Jazz Shaw called “John King and CNN . . . the real losers in last night’s affair“:
In their eagerness to prove that they are in touch with the cool kids and social media they cranked out a debate format which was heavy on technical razzle dazzle but restricted the candidates to clipped, canned sound bites which mostly wouldn’t be long enough for a quick attack ad during campaign season. This format should be abandoned immediately and never rear its ugly head again.
——
*In the interview, Axelrod did deliver this whopper, “This president was scrutinized, more perhaps than any candidate ever had been.” (More on this anon, especially as it relates to the recent media frenzy upon the release of Governor Palin’s e-mails.)
Axlerod did a brilliant job promoting an image in 2008. Let’s see how well he does selling promises, promises, promises after four years of blaming Bush for being unable to deliver, deliver, deliver.
Naturally, the mouth breathers will go for the chum and and take any bait that floats their way, but whole lot of the former suckers have spit the hook and are clearly not taking the bait.
Excellent point, Daniel, and no I don’t believe they did. In fact, it was Obama who for a long time would not go on Fox News.
The hypocrisy of the liberals on this subject is breathtaking. Here the liberals have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and heaven knows PBS, and one solitary media outlet leans right; Fox News, and that is too much for them to take. Not only will they not watch it, they regard it as illegitimate and some want it taken off the air. And this from the people who in the next breath will tell you how it is conservatives who are intolerant.
Yes, the people who call themselves open-minded are in fact the most closed minded of all.
For that matter, why has there never been a presidential debate moderated by a conservative?
Most enjoyable post. What blew my mind is that CNN hosted the “first” 2012 presidential debate in the first place.
I can’t really grasp the reasons as to why any of the Republican candidates even showed up. First, you have the overbearing rules of the debate. Second, the moderators didn’t allow everyone who declared candidacy (i.e. the guy from New Mexico) the opportunity to participate. Third, it may have given the perception that the mainstream media is working with Obama to control the 2012 election to ensure Obama’s reelection.
Given the conservative values of liberty, equal opportunity for all, and participation in the political process, I would have hoped all of them had stayed home.
Now that you mention it, V the K, that’s a great point. I’d love to see the Dems in a debate moderated by Britt Hume