Paul Ryan Should Be Prepared to Debate Tonight's Moderator
Judging from what I'm seeing from our corrupt media overlords today, it's pretty apparent, GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan will be outnumbered by two-to-one in tonight's debate. The media finally figured out that the reason President Obama got manhandled by Mitt Romney last Tuesday night was due to the fact that the referee never tackled his opponent for him.
That night's moderator, Jim Lehrer, did at times try to rescue Obama, but nowhere near enough to even bring the debate to a draw so the corrupt media could declare Obama the winner. Ever since, the pressure's been mounting for future moderators to insert themselves more into the upcoming debates -- and we all know what that means:
When “opaque numbers… random statistics… or declarative claims… take center stage… the moderator MUST step in, put himself or herself between the candidates and the public, and press the participant on the veracity of the claim or puncture the spin with facts,” he argued.
And we all know what THAT means -- it means that a debate moderator with a liberal worldview on political, fiscal, and social issues, will hit the Republican with fact-checks based on a false premise.
Past is prologue, and I'm much less concerned by the fact that Barack Obama was a guest at the wedding of tonight's moderator, than I am with her performance as a questioner in a 1990 debate that dramatically shifted the momentum of a gubernatorial race in Massachusetts. Rather than stay out of the way, she hammered away at a candidate the media did not approve of and apparently did some real damage.
That's not a debate moderator's job. That's the job of the opponent and if the opponent chooses not to raise certain issues, that doesn't mean the referee is supposed to jump in and make the tackle for him. This is a debate between two individuals, not a press conference or television interview.
You see, when our media overlords crybaby over Jim Lehrer's "passivity," what they really mean is, "Why didn't Lehrer ask Romney about the 47-percent."
Obama lost Tuesday night because Lehrer created an environment that allowed for a free-flow exchange of ideas from The Men Who Would Be President. And it was in this perfect and ideal debate environment that we discovered who had the best ideas, who was better prepared to defend those ideas, and something about the mettle of both.
Obama lost because his ideas are indefensible, his record is indefensible, and with very rare exception, the media palace guards for him -- so he's simply not used to being challenged. (A perfect example.)
Obama lost that debate because Jim Lehrer refused to palace guard for him, and now, after a half-century of being held in the highest esteem among his colleagues, Lehrer is now being humiliated and mocked as a message to the other three moderators: "Palace guard, or else…"
So Ryan had better be prepared tonight because Raddatz has been given the clear choice of either holding her place in the warm esteem of her colleagues or getting a taste of the scorn heaped on 78 year-old Jim Lehrer.
This of course is just as true for CNN's Candy Crowley and CBS News' Bob Schieffer, the moderators of the final two presidential debates.
The media's absolutely ruthless in getting what it wants. Raddatz knows this. Crowley knows this. Schieffer knows this.
Let's just hope Romney and Ryan are prepared for it.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC