Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jim-thompson who wrote (16213)	10/6/2007 8:41:35 AM
From: tonto	Respond to of 224729

Cliff has no integrity and will say anything.

To: jim-thompson who wrote (16213)	10/6/2007 10:43:17 AM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224729

A lib puppy who claims neutrality >AN IMMODERATE MODERATOR The New York Post October 6, 2007 -- So, should viewers of Tuesday's Republican presidential debate expect an exchange of views between the candidates - or between the candidates and one of the event's moderators? It's a fair question, given the jaw-dropping comments Thursday evening from MSNBC blowhard - and scheduled debate moderator - Chris Matthews. Matthews was celebrating the 10th anniversary of his "Hardball" program at a Washington event, when he let loose a broadside at the White House. Bush & Co., he declared, had "finally been caught in their criminality." He compared this White House's behavior with another one, saying, "Spiro Agnew was not an American hero." Of the vice president, Matthews said, "God help us if we had Cheney during the Cuban missile crisis. We'd all be under a parking lot." Now, "Hardball" is an opinion show, and Matthews is certainly entitled to his opinions - however offensively he chooses to express them. But why should any Republican candidate expect fairness from Matthews now? More to the point, why should potential voters expect Matthews to treat the candidates' views fairly? By engaging in this sort of intemperate rhetoric, Matthews has effectively disqualified himself as an "honest broker" for this coming debate. NBC needs to replace him as a debate moderator immediately. The job - by definition - requires an attempt to display objectivity going into an event. Yes, the distinction between "objective journalist" and "opinion-maker" in recent years has been blurred to the point where they're nearly indistinguishable. But Matthews' comments obliterated any possible distinction. Earlier this year, the Democratic presidential candidates refused to participate in a debate on Fox News on the grounds that the channel was "biased." That's baloney, of course - certainly the debate wasn't going to be moderated by Fox's prime-time opinion hosts. That is, the Fox network's Chris Matthews analogues. Given Matthews' outrageous rhetoric - and if MSNBC doesn't haul him off the debate forthwith - the GOP candidates would be well within their rights to stay home, too. Otherwise, viewers should just change the channel.<