In response to:

Say No to Feisty Liberal Moderators

rosalyn3 Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 5:12 PM

I'm just asking. It seems to me that the incumbent ALWAYS has the advantages...and the responsibility in foreign affairs debates. They have received intel for 4 years that the challenger hasn't. How come this is never mentioned? Then on the other hand, the attack in Benghazi, on anniversary of 9 -11 with big guns was to me a suspected terror attack from day one. I never believed the video thing. I didn't need intel.

Join the Debate!

All comments and users are subject to Townhall's new comments policy.

Jimsd55 Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 5:52 PM

Not necessarily, Kennedy could attack on the missile gap in 1960 because Nixon couldn't give away the fact that yes there was one but it was 10-1 in our favor. The same in 1980 when Carter couldn't boast that it was actually a CIA operation that busted out the 6 diplomats trapped in Teheran leaving everyone with the idea that he was completely helpless on Iran.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Read Full Story

Say No to Feisty Liberal Moderators

In the final debate, liberal CBS anchorman Bob Schieffer did it right. He moderated without asserting his own political opinions. Indeed, if this was all you had as a compass, you'd never know where he leaned. It was a welcome change from the Raddatz and Crowley libfests.

On the morning after the debate, CBS invited Fox's Bill O'Reilly to discuss the debate performances. Interestingly enough, he faulted them all, while CBS's Charlie Rose defended them all.

Rose tried to suggest these debates reveal something more than policy differences, they reveal demeanor and temperament. "Well, then let's have Dr. Phil interview...

Related Tags: Media and Culture Liberal Media liberal Debate Bob Schieffer