I enjoy home cooking as much the rest of us homesick bookworms, but I like my home cooking slow and drowned in gravy. I don’t particularly care for hand-basted referees, and I am even more wary of marinated moderators.
There is an obvious line of bias within the presidential debate moderators’ political alignments, and it favors the southpaws.
The Commission on Presidential Debates, as stated on its website, was “established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners,” but it has a limp in its giddy-up.
The nonpartisan CPD has apparently chosen moderators according to their expertise in target areas of the election, not their political alignment.
Jim Lehrer of PBS, the first moderator, is the veteran: a household presidential debate moderator who should be allowed to moderate at least one debate per election. There should be a default veteran like him to lead off the debates.
With that being said, Lehrer is a well-established Washington liberal, and he is known for his favoritism of the left in choosing questions for debates.
But why can’t the nation see the debates hosting an established conservative moderator?
I will agree Lehrer’s questioning was drawn fair this election, as he attempted to create more questioning among the candidates themselves — although this 12th round may be Lehrer’s last, after his inability to keep the reins tight on the candidates.
Another issue developed from complaints aimed at a lack of diversity. The National Association of Black Journalists labeled it as “unacceptable” that there is no black moderator. Hispanics complained that there were no bilingual moderators.
I do not place much credibility on the race card these days, but I am surprised to see the absence of a black moderator.
Last week’s vice presidential debate offered diversity by having a woman conduct the moderating.
But she may be characterized as the most President Barack Obama-leaning liberal. Though neutral in her foreign affairs, it’s irrefutable that Martha Raddatz’ domestic policy questions favored anti-Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, and pro-Obama sentiments.
Raddatz’ former husband — the first of three — is Julius Genachowski, a law school peer of Obama and the current chairman of the FCC, a position appointed by Obama.
The Obamas also attended Raddatz and Genachowski’s wedding. Such close relationships should certainly disqualify a moderator.
It is hard to say the liberal tendencies of the past two moderators have played much part in the outcomes of the debates: the first presidential debate has been solidified as a Romney victory, and the vice presidential debate has been attributed as a job well done by both candidates.
But Vice President Joe Biden’s success is mostly being attributed to his demeanor, which Raddatz catered to, while Raddatz cut off Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan frequently as he made sound points.
This topic of discourse will continue with the last two debates, as the next moderators are by no means a relief to the Romney-Ryan efforts. Candy Crowley and Bob Schieffer are no less liberal-minded.
Crowley, a CNN correspondent and anchor, has an impressive tenure as journalist and is considered to be the most fair-minded of the moderators. However, her record insists on a lack of discipline in her objectivity.
Though Schieffer’s 2008 debate was revered as the best of the year, in the 2004 debate between Bush and Kerry, Schieffer’s question were lined with sarcasm toward Bush, and questions directed at Kerry were focused on ostensible errors made by the president.
It’s curious how the choices tilt so left when the CPD is co-chaired by Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., a former RNC Chairman and Michael D. McCurry, former Clinton press secretary.
Besides the lack of nonpartisanship by the CPD in this year’s debate moderators, I question why the GOP would agree to this biased moderation.
The Romney-Ryan camp has done well eating the liberal home cooking with a grain of salt.
