Tomorrow’s vice presidential debate will be moderated by Martha Raddatz. The Daily Caller has reported that in 1991, Barack Obama attended Raddatz’s wedding to the future president’s law school classmate and fellow Harvard Law Review member Julius Genachowski. If that name sounds familiar, it’s because Obama appointed Genachowski to head the Federal Communications Commission.
Raddatz and Gemachowski divorced in 1997. But they have a son together. So the father of the debate moderator’s child is an Obama administration appointee.
Raddatz works for ABC News, which tapped her for the moderator gig. Apparently, it did so without disclosing that Obama attended her wedding.
I find it disturbing that ABC selected a moderator who has a personal connection to one of the candidates (surprise, surprise; that candidate is a Democrat). And I find it deplorable that ABC failed to disclose Raddatz’s personal connection.
The MSM has rallied to Raddatz’s defense. But this show of support should only make Republicans more nervous, not less so. The MSM has no interest in a fair debate. Its members overwhelmingly want to see Obama win the election and they understand that the debates have become a critical means to that end.
CNN’s Candy Crowley, who will moderate next week’s presidential debate, gave the game away when she accused the Daily Caller of trying to get into Raddatz’s head. Crowley, it would seem, wants Raddatz to feel free to tilt towards Obama-Biden.
“Why don’t we watch Martha and see how she does?” Crowley asked. Because by then it will be too late, just as it will be with Crowley herself.
The Ryan camp expressed confidence in Raddatz. But what can Ryan say at this point? All he realistically can do is hope for the best from Raddatz. ABC News has presented him with a fait accompli.
Politico claims that the “right defends Raddatz’ debate role.” But it is clear from the story that, while some conservatives brush aside any concern over Raddatz as moderator, others are far less sanguine. I can understand MSM types and other liberals who blow off this story, mostly with sarcasm and bad jokes. But I fail to see why conservatives, who understand the pervasiveness of pro-Democrat media bias, should join in the fun.
And it’s not like Raddatz has an unblemished track record as a stellar debate facilitator. Breitbart points out that during a debate between Democratic candidates for governor of Massachusetts in 1990, Raddatz asked John Silber, a conservative (arguably a neo-conservative) Democrat, why he had not campaigned more frequently in poor minority communities. This is just the kind of hack liberal question one would expect from someone who wants to show a conservative candidate in a bad light.
Moreover, Raddatz’s performance in this debate was criticized by the League of Women Voters, no less. It charged her with asking a series of questions that produced “no insight into the programs or policies of the candidates.”
If Raddatz doesn’t hit Paul Ryan with at least one inane, sappy question that attempts to paint the Romney-Ryan ticket as lacking compassion, I’ll be pleasantly surprised. In any event, the debate should be moderated by a qualified journalist with no personal ties to any of the four candidates. Even given the incestuous relationships between MSM types and liberal Democrats, this shouldn’t be too tall of a task.
JOHN adds: One of the enduring mysteries is why Republican candidates agree to debate protocols that are consistently stacked against them. I mean, why is it out of the question, evidently, that a debate moderator could actually be a Republican? In the world inhabited by journalists, the existence of Republicans is only a rumor. But there is no reason why Republican presidential candidates should go along with the journalists’ myopia.