Unbelieveable: Debate Moderator Smears Republicans

Des Moines Register Editor Carolyn Washburn takes a shot at Republicans with an obviously false statement in her piece summarizing the recent Iowa debates which she moderated:

By and large, the Republicans say they can get us to smaller government and lower taxes with economic growth and government efficiency. They don't ask Americans to make terrible sacrifices. About half wanted to tackle global warming and about half chose not to talk about it. They want local control and choice in education.

Chose not to talk about it!?! Not only did one Republican ask to talk about it, as opposed to raising his hand, Washburn wouldn't let them talk about anything other than what she had pre-scripted in her mind. From the transcript: see rest of pertinent part below the fold. Everyone there that was permitted to, talked about it until she changed the subject. She also defends inviting Keyes and not Kucinich using criteria that's been pretty much debunked.

I want to take on a new issue. I would like to see a show of hands. How many of you believe global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity?

THOMPSON: You want to give me a minute to answer that?

WASHBURN: No, I don't.

THOMPSON: Well, then I'm not going to answer it.

(LAUGHTER)

WASHBURN: OK.

(APPLAUSE)

THOMPSON: You want a show of hands. I'm not giving it to you.

WASHBURN: We're going to follow up on that, but what I need to know is: Who believes global climate change is serious and caused by human activity? And then we'll talk in more detail about it.

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAIN: I think that climate change is real and I...

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

WASHBURN: I'm going to start with Senator McCain and come back to Mayor Giuliani.

MCCAIN: I've been involved in this issue since the year 2000. I have had hearings. I've traveled the world. I know that climate change is real.

But let me put it to you this way: Suppose that climate change is not real and all we do is adopt green technologies, which our economy and our technology is perfectly capable of. Then all we've done is given our kids a cleaner world.

But suppose they are wrong. Suppose they are wrong and climate change is real and we've done nothing. What kind of a planet are we going to pass on to the next generation of Americans?

It's real, we've got to address it, we can do it with technology, with cap and trade, with capitalist and free enterprise motivation. And I'm confident that we can pass on to our children and grandchildren a cleaner, better world.

WASHBURN: Mayor Giuliani?

GIULIANI: I agree with John. Climate change is real. It's happening. I believe human beings are contributing to it.

I think the best way to deal with it is through energy independence. And I...

WASHBURN: Who doesn't...

GIULIANI: And I think energy independence is...

WASHBURN: Who doesn't agree?

HUNTER: He said contributing, but not totally.

GIULIANI: Yes. Yes.

HUNTER: OK.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: And I think that all parties should embrace this as an issue for us and our...

WASHBURN: Let me come at it this way. Let me come at it this way.

What impact on the economy would be acceptable in order to reverse global warming and greenhouse gas emissions?

Governor Romney?

ROMNEY: Well, it's going to help our economy because we're going to invest in new technologies to get ourselves off of foreign oil. And as we get ourselves off of foreign oil, we also dramatically reduce our CO2 emissions.

That's good for the environment. It's also good for our economy. Because buying $300 billion or $400 billion worth of oil a year from other people who use it against us, that's bad for our economy. It's also bad for the environment.

We can do these things in a way that help both the environment and the economy and national security. That's the beauty of what we're talking about here.

Is global warming an issue for the world? Absolutely.

Is it something we can deal with by becoming energy independent and energy secure? We sure can.

But at the same time, we call it global warming, not America warming. So let's not put a burden on us alone and have the rest of the world skate by without having to participate in this effort. It's a global effort.

But our independence is something we can do unilaterally.

WASHBURN: Mr. Keyes, what do you think about this?

KEYES: Well, what I think is that a lot of folks out there ought to understand that what you're watching represents the situation in our country. Ask yourself who represents the people they don't let you hear from. And you'll know who you should vote for in the Iowa Caucuses.

Who represents the voice that they're absolutely determined to overlook in the discussion of our sovereignty and the betrayal of this people's sovereignty, on the border, on our moral principles, on the major export overseas -- which is our jobs?

These folks represent the very elite who year, after year, after year, have destroyed our Constitution, betrayed our rights and undermined our strength created by our people in the world.

WASHBURN: Ambassador?

KEYES: And yet the one person willing to talk about that is overlooked, time and time again. That person...

THOMPSON: I agree with Alan Keyes' position on global warming.

(LAUGHTER)

WASHBURN: Let me come to...

KEYES: I'm in favor of reducing global warming, because I think the most important emission we need to control is the hot air emission of politicians who pretend one thing and don't deliver.

(CROSSTALK)

WASHBURN: Let me come back -- let me come to a question that Iowans may not let you out of answering.

Governor Huckabee, you've said you support increasing government mandates, requiring motorists to use 36 million gallons of biofuel by 2022, which is six times what we're producing this year.

Comments

[Annie]

That woman was a pitiful debate moderator, certainly the worst I've seen yet and I've watched a lot of the debates.

[Fred Beloit]

Hey, Sparky, you have laid out the entire platform of the Democraticic Party for them. Hope they appreciate it.

[paul a'barge]

What a nasty old c*nt.

[Sparky]

Vote for a Democrat.....

That way you will be taken care of from cradle to grave. Uncle Sam will tell you what to eat as a child growing up. Uncle Sam will instruct parents on what to say and do for their children. You will learn to pray and worship Uncle Sam, not some silly religion. Uncle Sam will teach you that it's not nice to mention Christmas in December, or any other month. Uncle Sam will teach you that Morals of any kind, are offensive to others, keep your mouth shut. Uncle Sam will tell you what doctor you will go to. Uncle Sam will keep you from drinking, smoking, or anything that might harm you. Uncle Sam will tell you how to live, eat, excercise, and THINK every moment of the day. Uncle Sam knows best for you. You are much to stupid to think for yourself. You don't know any better.

[Tyson]

Hey you oughtta try living in New York all your life like I have. Get blamd for, and laws imposed over things like acid rain... then years later find out tt DUHHHH the wind blows from west to east and acid rain wasn't OUR fault, but midwest states like Ohio, Illinois, etc. And yet we (my parents generation) let the politicians pass their BS.

[Alan K. Henderson]

So when do we get a moderator who'll pose the questions conservatives want asked? I want someone to ask the Dem candidates how they'll rein in domestic spending, for starters.

I believe that outfits like Heritage and Cato and Brookings should sponsor debates, and that networks should report them instead of being active participants.

[foxforce91]

I could have told you the second I laid eyes on that moderator that she was a liberal. She has the mousy look combined with the classic pear-shaped secretary's spread that is usually associated with the ladies whose big night is popping "non fat" chocolate covered cookies and watching Jon Stewart with her cats, (that is when there's no new Harry Potter book/movie coming out.)

[Froggy Level blogger]

Man, you fellows can't understand plain English. My shorts aren't in a bunch, I'm not mad, thin-skinned or upset in any way, form or fashion. But you're starting to make Arkansawyers look smart, and I'll not have any of that. Now quit showing your ignorance and let us keep the patent on that.

[JorgXMcKie]

Hey! My favorite parts of Illinois aren't very important, either, and we're (well not me so much since I don't live there any more, but my family and friends for sure) up to our keisters in crappy politicians, crooked politicians, stupid politicians, ignorant politicians, US troop smearing politicians and so on, and I don't get all defensive about it. In fact, I hail from a very hillbilly part of Illinois (they do exist, you know) and the folks there couldn't care less what idiots from Chicago, NYC, LA, or even Little Rock think about them. We've also got a fair number of rednecks and good ol' boys.

So, why you getting your shorts in such a bunch? Parts of Arkansas (at least people usually don't pronounce the 's' at the end of your state name the way they do with Illinois) are quite beautiful (although maybe not the parts where my hillbilly relatives raise fryers in huge factory farm buildings and dump the waste in big ponds) and many of the people are quite nice (although maybe not the crooked and/or sanctimonious political types [just how big was that Bible that Bill toted around
so blatantly when he was trying to dodge the Lewinski scandal, anyway?] and the thin-skinned types).

What I remember mostly about Arkansas (other than my chicken-raising hillbilly cousins) was being forced to give up my drink on flights over the state in the 60s because it was a 'dry' state and they evidently claimed authority clear to outer space.

[Froggy Level blogger]

It's ok, Dave, I'm not mad about it or anything, I just like the fact that you did give the state a good knock. I'm originally from Texas, and got sick...sick of all the imports pouring into what was a wonderful state and ruining it. I would hate to see the same thing happen here in No. Central Arkansas. The best thing Arkansas has going for it is people like you. And I in no way mean that as an insult.

[Dave P.]

Thin skinned much?
All I said was that it wasn't very important--- which it isn't. Not every state is.
Everything else in your post came out of your own imagination.

[Froggy Level blogger]

I love how you people continue to slander the state of Arkansas, and many commenters on this blog have, both on the Left and the Right. Keep it up, please. I never, ever want this little gem of a state to become cursed with the types of people who have ruined states like California, Arizona, New York, Oregon, Washington, Connecticutt, Delaware and a host of others.

I love my 5-minute commute to work every day, I love the outdoors and scenary, the fishing, the hiking, the canoeing, the hunting, the rock-climbing and the clean water and air I have within 20 minutes of my house.

Oh, yeah, I'm lying about all those things. Arkansas is a nest of viperous creeps, ugly women, hillbillies, rednecks, polluted air and water, and every other bad thing you can think of. So never, ever come here. Ever. Thank you.

[Dave P.]

Thanks, Fred. Taking it away...

And Feinstein, war-profiteering for her husband.
And Gerry Studds, who made a lot of money off of young men- in his Congressional offices.
And Patty Murray, who thinks that Al Quaeda builds daycare ceners.
And Clinton, who never saw those files before (among other Greatest Hits).
And Bob Torricelli, the Wig Himself; the strong, pulsing heart of DNC party ethics.
And Al Gore, who claimed he had No Controlling Legal Authority over those monks and their $15,000 checks and he really did believe that was THEIR money.

Wow... the list goes on, don't it?

So yeah, Bob. I'll gladly trade one loonytunes governor of a not-very-important state... for your current management and leadership team.

[Fred Beloit]

DaveP, don't forget:

And Levin
And Byrd
And Schumer
And Frank
And Kerry
And Markey
And...

[A. Truman North]

Every time I try to introduce my liberal or structurally-ignorant friends and family to the concept of liberal bias in the press by showing them one of these travesties, they actually can't see it. They have no problem with the wheedling, the coaching, the prodding, and the political agenda-setting of the MSM. The answer I got in my political science class was, the debates WERE boring, and Fred ought to just play along... and that was from the professors.

I'm nearly resigned to just knowing the press is hopelessly biased, and not trying to evangelize about it.

As far as Huckabee goes, G-d help us if this bigoted bumpkin ever wins the nod. Worse than a real Democrat.

[DaveP.]

Yes, Bob. And you ELEVEN per-centers deserve Pelosi.
And Gravel.
And Murtha.
And Kennedy.
And Kuchinich.
And Stark.
And McDermott.
And McKinney.
And...

[Buzz]

Hey Bob - Huckleberry agrees with YOU on Global Warming. Feel better now?

[Betsy]

Actually, I thought Thompson's answer, to the extent it can interpreted as "I will not participate in this stupid charade" was spot on.

[BobInStamford]

Fascinating analysis. You 28%ers deserve Huckleberry.

[Fred Beloit]

Yes, ajack, you are, sadly, right on the money. This Big Global Warming Lie (that the optimal temperature for the earth was reach in 1990 and we are now putting ourselves on high heat, this never happened before, it is irreversible unless we go back to the halcyon life style days of 1904 or before, the government will find a way to cool us, we need to turn over a hunk of our sovereignty to the UN, and all the rest of that utter crap) has invaded the political brains of most of our own candidates like a cancer. All we can do is give them a piece of our minds and try to console ourselves with the thought that the Democratics are already dying of that same cancer.

[ajacksonian]

So, not only is Washburn giving us a false view of what she did, we also get to see the economic cluelessness of this field. Amazing that none of these guys has ever heard of a 'cost/benefit analysis' taking contingent risk factors into account. By not being able to define a 'worse case scenario' (which, I would take it, is the planet shrivelling up into a prune unfit for life) and being able to put a probability on it (which I would say for that is 0.00000001%) and then being able to scale back from that all the way to the other end (nothing mankind can do will change this) and then applying costs and expected benefits can any of them make a reasoned approach to this.

The cost isn't only on the risk side - it is doing *something* and finding out that it didn't work or, indeed, was the *wrong thing* which actually makes matters worse. A small 1/10 of a percentage change in economic stature now leading to serious economic consequences that could cause long term economic effects and loss of growth must be balanced against the impact of doing nothing and current known and expected economic growth. I should think that Romney, Giuliani and McCain can each do those assessments or at least have that in their mental toolbox... that they don't put that forth really indicates the paucity of understanding the basics of economic analysis by this field. And as the data gets mushier, by removing the 'hockey stick' due to bad data analysis, removing a good portion of weather stations that have been encroached upon by urban sprawl and thus changing local readings, and by not coming forward and putting out that sea level rise was mainly measured in areas of subsidence, the entire thing starts to move out as an *issue*. A bit more *study* might be in order...

You know, the 'conservative' approach to understand something and then address it in a measured way?

Got any of those left in the Republican party? Because they certainly aren't in this bunch.