The Liberty Professor: Taking the Heat

The heat is on.

I knew last night after the debate that I’d receive some criticism for my assertion that at some level a deal had been reached to help Barack Obama look good in his arguments against Mitt Romney.  So far, it has brought me reproach as someone who must be a delusional conspiracy theorist.

Only in politics do we see people ignoring the plain facts right in front of them.  It’s easier to help someone who has their head in the sand than to help someone who won’t see reality.

In my blog post last night, I stated the following:  “Somehow, in a hidden corner of the media world, a deal was struck.”  The only name mentioned was Candy Crowley, which seems logical given that she was the actual moderator who inserted herself into the debate.  She called down Mitt Romney when he made his assertion concerning Obama’s lack of truthfulness in the wake of the Libya consulate attack.

Let’s review facts.  First, a debate is to be participated in only by those who are agreed in advance.  The participants last night were supposed to be Romney and Obama.  Second, a debate is a forum for participants to argue their points while arguing against the points of their opponent.  Third, a moderator is there to enforce the rules that have been agreed upon in advance.  Admittedly, this is a tough job when the fur starts to fly in a political forum.  In some ways I actually admire Candy for the times when she attempted to hold the candidates to the rules.

But that’s not all she did.  Her own bias came through in at least two ways:  her deference to Obama when he insisted on continuing to speak (though she had overruled Romney) and her butting in to offer what she claimed was a correction to Romney.  The first failure, in my opinion, is forgiveable.  The second is not.  She ceased to be a moderator at the moment she took Obama’s side and she showed her cards.

In response I suggested that she and others agreed in advance that she would help Obama as much as she could.  Is that unreasonble?  I suppose it is — but only if you’ve been sleeping under a rock for the past six months.

My theory isn’t proposing some far-reaching, mysterious conspiracy controlled by a distant hand in the darkness.  I simply suggested that someone in the media who works with Crowley agreed that she had to help Obama look better and get his message out more effectively last night.  Given the evidence from Crowley’s own mouth, how is that delusional?

If you doubt that such things can happen, let me take you back to a press conference on September 12th.  As Romney was preparing to speak, several reporters were recorded on mic, engaged in setting a trap for him.  It’s clear from their plans that they didn’t want to understand Romney’s points about the Libya consulate attack.  They simply wanted to take the side of the administration and make Romney look bad.

Is that a conspiracy?  Yes, of course.  It’s a little one, to be sure, but it remains a group of “professional” journalists who are conspiring to accomplish something that is outside the bounds of their job description.  It’s simple, you see?  They’re selling their souls.

I’ll keep mine, thank you.  And to do so I’m going to continue pointing out the facts as best I can see them.  And I’ll be honest about my bias.  I’m pro-Constitution, pro-liberty, and pro-America.  I won’t pretend to be objective and then conspire behind the scenes to lay snares.  I don’t need to.  All I have to do is point to the events as they unfold and then call them for what they are while proposing reasonable theories for their cause.

Feel free to disagree, but don’t tell me that the sky is green and the grass is blue.  Don’t tell me Obama is helping the economy, because he’s not.  The economy is weaker since he took office.  Don’t tell me he is making us energy independent.  He is not.  The cost of gas is 100% higher since he took office.  Don’t tell me our foreign policy is protecting us.  It’s not.  Don’t tell me the the media is unbiased.  It leans left.  More than one academic study has pointed this out, as did UCLA in 2005.

Finally, don’t tell me that Candy Crowley was fair and objective.  She was just the opposite.  She defended Obama, and later had to admit that Romney was right.  It doesn’t matter if she was right or wrong, her opinion didn’t belong in the debate.  Such an egregious interruption by a moderator could only have been possible if she knew she had the backing of the people who hired her or the other so-called “journalists” with whom she works.

Funny, isn’t it?  When a person refuses to follow the Pied Piper, that person is the one who is painted as out of touch.  As the majority rushes headlong toward a cliff, reasonable people who point out the danger become the threat.

Where have we seen this before?  Nazi Germany, for one.  But there is a source much closer to home.  It’s found in the playbook of left-leaning politics:  Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinksy.


5 thoughts on “The Liberty Professor: Taking the Heat

  1. Candy assisted Obama in lying to the American people. Fortunately, the next debate is on foreign policy and so Mitt needs to set the record straight. As we’ve seen in all the debates, there needs to be some balance in who moderates these. Why couldn’t Sean Hannity moderate one, since super libs are moderating the others? Obviously, the bias has shown in all these, and it’s been 2 on 1 in each debate. Mitt and Paul have been ganged up on. I am just praying that Mitt wins the next one handily, again.

    • Peter, thanks for your comment. I really like the idea of Sean Hannity serving as moderator. He’s no less partisan than Candy Crowley. Another terrific moderator would be Prof. Walter Williams, the economist from George Mason University–especially if the topic is economics and finance! Another possibility is two moderators at each debate: one from the left and one from the right.

      • I’ve seen a forum where there was no moderator, only a traffic light for each candidate. Green meant go, yellow meant 30 seconds left red meant time up. After a few seconds of red light the microphone was killed. Candidates should be smart enough to answer questions without a moderator steering them.

  2. MSConservative, the MSM says the President needs more time because he talks slower… I guess it takes longer to talk when your brain has to concoct lies. Then again, Chris Matthews says it’s “unconstitutional” to tell the Pres to wait his turn!
    ANYONE who questions the bias of the MSM is simply out of touch or so biased themselves that they can’t see objectively. John, you have absolutely nothing to defend in your position. There is not a conservative who has watched these debates who hasn’t pondered the same questions you posed in your article.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s