Ooo!! This is actually kinda fun. How about:
“Governor Palin, Senator Biden: When do you believe life begins, and how does that impact your view on Roe vs Wade”
There’s another way to inject biased questions that don’t look overtly biased: Ask a question that gives your favored candidate an opening to attack a weakness in the other.
For example, Joe Biden voted against the Alaska Pipeline 30 years ago. He claimed it would decimate Caribou herds. It didn’t. It currently supplies a hell of a lot of energy to the lower 48. Palin would dearly love to attack Biden on that (she’s mentioned it before). A moderator who favored Palin could simply ask a question about the need to balance our energy requirements with environmental concerns - it might even sound like a question that might favor Democrats, but it would give her an opening to tee off on Biden.
And I’ll make a prediction: There will be lots of questions on social policy which will play into the perception of Palin as an extremist. I watched the first Alaska Governor’s debate, and it was clear that the moderators were targeting Palin on this. They kept asking question after question on various social/religious topics, until at one point she had to fire back and say, “You know, I’ve never made my religious views a campaign issue, and I have to wonder why you are going on in such detail about it?” Which stopped the flow of questions on the topic.
Again, this is where bias is insidious. If you’re a staunch pro-choice advocate, you honestly see questions like this as being of supreme importance to the American people. If you’re agnostic on the issue, you might think such questions are a distraction at a time when wars are breaking out and the economy is cratering. You can try to be as fair as you can be, but your bias causes you to rank the relative importance of issues differently than someone else would.
How about, “Senator Biden, you claim to be pro-choice. How do you reconcile that with your Catholic religion? Isn’t pro-life the official position of your church? Hasn’t the Pope actually declared that abortion is murder?”
A question like that would cost him votes no matter which way he answered. He’ll either lose Catholic votes if he says the church is wrong, or he’ll lose some votes on the left if he dissembles on being pro-choice.
Sure and I agree. If Ifill asks nothing but energy questions or abortion questions then the bias is apparent.
However, I strongly suspect the questions will cover a range of topics from domestic and foreign policy to the economy and energy. As you said everyone will have a different measure of what counts as important. If the debate is done properly you should see an energy question and an economy question and a domestic issue and a foreign relations issue and so on.
They are running for VPOTUS so should be quizzed on as much as they can fit in.
I’m a registered Democrat. I fully plan on voting Obama-Biden, unless something cataclysmic happens – Obama shoots a puppy on national TV, something like that.
Whether or not the book proves Ifill is biased I’d say is irrelevant. What I would say is that the appearance of bias is definitely there. If Ifill had written a book titled, “Conservative Politics in the Age of John McCain” it would look equally bad.
I think the process would be better served if she stepped down. It’s not like who the moderator is is that huge of a factor in debates. If she stepped down, and someone else took over – “scandal” over. If she stays and asks right down the middle non-biased questions, then every frothing right-winger will dismiss any gains Obama may or may not make on the debate as tainted.
Why would the Democrats want that headache?
Ok, How about experience?
“Experience is a common theme this election? Biden, you were elected at 30 to the US Senate with no experience at all. Palin, you are in your first term as governor. Just how important is experience prior to being elected?”
I won’t drag us off topic here, but there are more than two answers to that question.
Bob Schieffer moderated a debate in 2004 between Bush and Kerry. Schieffer’s younger brother is a friend and former business partner of President George W. Bush, and was appointed by Bush as U.S. Ambassador to Australia and later Ambassador to Japan. Cite.
That seems a much greater conflict of interest than this Ifill book, in my opinion.
He’s already answered that question repeatedly and quite well. I thought you paid better attention than that. His answer is that while he accepts Church teaching on a personal level, he doesn’t feel he has the right to force everyone else to abide by his RELIGIOUS belief. If only they could all understand that distinction. I doubt that Ifill is going to ask him a question he’s already been asked a million times in his tenure and has a perfect answer for, but if she does, that ball’s going out of the park. That’s a practice pitch for Biden, not nearly as unhittable as righties think it is.
Incidentally, Catholics are not as monolithically pro-life as the media makes it sound anyway. Just like they’re not monlithically against birth control or the death penalty.
I disagree, and I think that one is also a non-issue. At least in Ifill’s case, the issue is something she did, not a connection to a family member.
Perhaps. I don’t think that the VP debate is really going to have a massive effect on things. But every little helps, and I think it’s best to set up the best situation possible, even if it will not then be taken advantage of.
And it’s not like elections haven’t been close in the past.
Doh!
Except that it’s the Biden-Palin debate … but my point still stands.
Seriously people…
It is pretty much impossible to have a totally unbiased moderator. They are humans and US citizens who vote and have opinions of their own.
All we can do is rely on their professionalism and these are reporters at the top of their game. They are chosen because they are perceived as even-handed. Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann will never, ever moderate a debate at this level.
I think Scheiffer, Hume, Ifill and so on can be trusted as much as anyone can to offer as much balance as is possible. It is in their own personal interests for their own careers to appear impartial. The incentive is where it should be.
Doubtless someone, somewhere will cry “unfair” about something but I’ll be shocked if any question even remotely approaches overt bias.
Brit Hume? Are you serious? The guy who anchors a show on Fox News and calls himself a conservative Republican? He would provide balance?
He wasn’t always with Fox Noise. His resume is impressive and I think he cares about it. He is an Emmy award winning journalist and used to be ABC’s chief White House correspondent. I think he cares enough about his profession to be a fair moderator if he was asked.
A study out of UCLA found that Brit Hume’s newscast was the least-biased newscast in the country.
And hands up, all those who think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that Ifill will be voting McCain this year.
Anyway, I’ve got a better idea - rather than try to make the debates ‘unbiased’, which usually gets us a bunch of useless questions that both candidates can duck, how about we admit that everyone has bias, and have matching debates, one with a moderator the democratic candidate chooses, and one with a moderator the Republican chooses?
Or better yet, have two moderators - one who the Republicans pick who will ask questions of the Democrat, and one the Democrats pick to ask questions of the Republican.
Then we could have a debate with Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh as moderators, each trying to nail the other’s candidate. It might push them out of their comfort zone and force them to really respond under pressure. And besides, it would be wildly entertaining.
I’m curious- was the decision on VP debate location and moderator agreed to before the choosing of the VP candidates?
Great idea. I’ve noticed our political process is dangerously short on moronic partisan hackery. Political debates definitely need to be dumbed down a couple of shades and include more yelling. Giving the candidates more input on how journalists cover them would be a wonderful idea, and the assumption that the candidates wouldn’t complain about bias if they got to pick the moderators individually is entirely sound and logical.
Yes, the McCain campaign signed off on Ifill on August 6, and her book was reported by AP a couple of weeks before that–from a Washington Times blog post dated July 23:
Since the McCain campaign is now insisting they didn’t know about the book, they’re either lying or incompetent, take your pick.
After doing some googling, I’ve discovered that Greta Van Susteren’s breathless announcement that the McCain campaign didn’t know about Ifill’s book is a lie. The book was publicly announced and known about at least as early as July 22. The McCain campaign agreed to Ifill as the VP debate moderator on August 21. Some might try to protest that the mcCain camp didn’t know about it, but that’s their own fault, isn’t it? The notion that Ifill was keeping this a secret from anybody is hereby completely fucking debunked.
I remain your humble correspondent, Diogenes.
ETA damn. It looks like I was beaten to the scoop by SmartAleq. I should have known it would be impossible to be the first debunker on this board.