Where are the Conservative Presidential Debate Moderators?

We all need to stand up and call each of these TV networks and DEMAND they include conservative moderators!!!! 

THERE IS NO POINT IN A DEBATE WITH ALL LIBERAL OBAMA CONTROLLED MINONS!  ~ Lynn
In just over a month, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will square off in a series of debates. It's a time-honored tradition, and if they are anything like the GOP primary debates, hopefully people will learn more about the candidates and make an informed decision. However, what is blatantly missing from the debate line-up is any moderator from the center-right. Why is it that the so-called "nonpartisan" Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) can only pick left-wing moderators?

As announced by the CPD, the one vice presidential debate and three presidential debates will be moderated by the following people:

First presidential debate:
Jim Lehrer, Executive Editor of the PBS NewsHour
Wednesday, October 3, University of Denver, Denver, CO

Vice presidential debate:
Martha Raddatz, Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent, ABC News
Thursday, October 11, Centre College, Danville, KY

Second presidential debate (town meeting):
Candy Crowley, Chief Political Correspondent, CNN and Anchor, CNN's State of the Union
Tuesday, October 16, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY

Third presidential debate:
Bob Schieffer, Chief Washington Correspondent, CBS News and Moderator, Face the Nation
Monday, October 22, Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry, co-chairmen of the "nonpartisan" CPD, had this to say about their selections: "These journalists bring extensive experience to the job of moderating, and understand the importance of using the expanded time periods to maximum benefit. We are grateful for their willingness to moderate, and confident that the public will learn more about the candidates and the issues as a result."  (BULL HOCKEY!)

CONTINUED:  http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2012/08/15/where-are-the-conservative-presidential-debate-moderators/?subscriber=1

John Hawkins: 15 Questions The Mainstream Media Would Ask Barack Obama If He Were A Republican

During the practically endless series of Republican debates, we have heard almost every question imaginable asked to Republican candidates – if by every question imaginable, you mean horribly slanted, often irrelevant questions designed to make them look bad and help Obama. We've heard questions about contraceptives, religion, Newt's angry ex-wife, Gardasil, etc., etc., etc. So, what would happen if the mainstream media treated Barack Obama the exact same way that they treat Republicans? The questions might sound a little something like this.


http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/01/24/15_questions_the_mainstream_media_would_ask_barack_obama_if_he_were_a_republican

THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: New Common Sense--Applying First Principles to the Issues of Today

Debating America


Tonight, the contenders for the GOP presidential nomination gather in Washington D.C. at the CNN/Heritage/AEI debate on U.S. foreign policy. Here's an exclusive preview.

Currently, there is little logic to America’s international priorities and actions abroad. U.S. troops are leaving Iraq, entering Uganda, and toppling foreign leaders while “leading from behind.” Looming budget cuts risk current operations and preclude much needed military modernization. Fundamentally, there is no consensus about America’s proper role in the world. What America needs—especially from her presidential candidates—is a prudent approach to foreign policy that applies America’s founding principles to today’s international relations.

Despite bitter disagreements over particular foreign policies, the Founders agreed on the broad guiding principles of American grand strategy: Maintaining independence abroad so that America cannot be coerced by other powers; securing national interests such as commercial navigation and advantageous treaties; and promoting the cause of liberty which informed America’s understanding of justice abroad. A better understanding of these principles will enable America to meet the challenges of today.

CONTINUED HERE:
http://links.heritage.org/hostedemail/email.htm?CID=10433611013&ch=3D0BA7E14668DBAE490BD02A3558959F&h=e23fd5772ea0b6f17a2943e837754d33&ei=WQriOeTNJ

LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION: Would They Take A Bullet?

The Iowa Presidential debate included excellent signs of progress, and some very frustrating misconceptions about the Constitution. I was amazed and pleased to hear questions about the 10th Amendment and the role of government. Several times the debate moderators asked about the Constitution in relation to certain policy issues.


Folks, this is FABULOUS NEWS!! Never before in my lifetime has the Constitution been a significant part of a Presidential debate. The media and candidates are finally discussing the proper role of Federal government in the context of Constitutional limitations. I’m grateful for the efforts of the Tea Party movement, and people like you, for getting our so-called leaders to finally start asking the right questions.


Now for the frustrating part: The questions and answers last night revealed how far we have to go. I think we’ve gotten our proverbial ship turned in the right direction, but we’ve been off course for so long that it will take a while for us to get back to where we need to be. Several of the candidates discussed the 10th Amendment, state sovereignty, and Constitutional limits on the Federal government. However, they’re answers often revealed gaps in their understanding of these issues.


Let me pick on two of my favorite people as examples: Michele Bachmann was asked if it mattered whether or not an individual mandate was implemented by the Federal or State government in relation to the 10th Amendment. She answered "No" when actually it does matter. She could have used this question as an opportunity to show her Constitutional "chops". She understands that government at any level can't impose an individual mandate to purchase health insurance, however, her answer made it seem as if she didn’t understand the primary purpose of the 10th Amendment (to limit Federal powers and defend State authority). A more informative answer would have been, “Yes it matters. The 10th Amendment prevents the Federal government from implementing an individual mandate, it does not prevent States from doing so. However, other parts of the Constitution do protect individual Americans from such a mandate, even when it is a State attempting to force Americans to buy insurance.” Again, she may knows this, but she didn’t say it.


This may seem like picking nits, but it’s not. This is a VERY important point. Especially for a candidate like Bachmann. She’s running as a Constitutionalist. Her base voters are watching for signs that she can lead by example. Educating the American people about why and how the Constitution functions is a key job requirement.


Ron Paul answered essentially the same question next. He corrected Michele, by pointing out that States have the right under the Constitution to do “bad things.” He pointed out that the 10th Amendment protects States from Federal intrusion into State matters. However, he forgot the important point that the Constitution still requires the Federal government to protect certain fundamental rights of individual Americans against violation by government, even when it’s State government committing the violation. Again, Dr. Paul may know this, but his answer didn’t reflect such knowledge. Again, this is a VERY important point.


I know that candidate debates are stressful and it’s easy to give less-than-perfect answers. I’ve been a Congressional candidate and I’ve participated in televised candidate debates. I’ve certainly given an occasional answer that could have been better. But I also know that when it came to my core values, my answers were always dead on. They flowed from truths held deeply. I believe Dr. Paul’s and Mrs. Bachmann’s answers reflect understandings of the Constitution that are better than most, but still need some work.


The good news is that both of these answers reflect a quantum leap forward in the respect for the Constitution in our national debates. The fact that these issues were discussed at all is a victory for America. However, several answers in the Iowa debate reflect how far we have to go. Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann are two of the most sincere followers of the Constitution we have in Washington. I believe that they both truly desire to restore our Constitutional Republic. Yet even they apparently have some serious gaps in their understanding of how the Constitution is supposed to work, or have a difficult time articulating that understanding.


These gaps will be corrected, as long as we elect individuals who genuinely desire to follow the Constitution. If given the chance to run the country, either Michele or Ron will apply Constitutional principles to government. In doing so, they will continue to refine their own understanding of the Constitution.


So, the question for us is this: which candidates genuinely want to follow the Constitution? This question focuses on the deepest motives of the candidates. If you know what motivates a person, you can accurately predict what they will do under any circumstances. Pick a candidate that is willing to sacrifice themselves to protect the Constitution and you will find a candidate that will restore America’s greatness. They may make mistakes, but regardless of occasional mistakes, such a candidate would make great strides in the right direction.


Before you decide who to support in the upcoming elections ask yourself: “Would this candidate lay down their life for the country?” "Would they take a bullet?" We must support the candidate that is motivated by a genuine desire to save America, and is willing to give anything to achieve that goal. This is the first qualification that our next President must have. If they are also able to speak eloquently and motivate others, that would be great too, but it’s not as important as their proper motive to lead. All other “qualifications” are secondary to proper, self-sacrificial motives.


Countless soldiers have laid down their lives, often dying terrifying deaths far from home, in order to defend America. America has no chance to survive if we can’t find one Presidential candidate that has the same attitude toward his or her duty the country.


Based on personal knowledge I’m convinced that both Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann have the motives I’ve described here. I could be wrong. I don’t agree with either of them on every subject, and Michele has at least one vote that made me question her commitment to the Constitution. However, based upon what I know about her and Ron, I’m still convinced that their motives are pure.


I don’t know enough about all the other candidates to make the same judgment. I know MANY have proven that they are not motivated to restore the Constitution. Others may be. I simply don’t know yet. Whoever you decide to support, please consider their motives as the most important of qualifications. In Liberty,



Van Irion
Co-Founder, Lead Counsel
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION