The whole "village" ( and others ), proclaimed a job well-done by Martha Raddatz after the vice-presidential squabble last week. I guess anyone would seem great after Jim Leher, but I just couldn't understand what the hell they were talking about. I thought some of her questions were really sappy and didn't belong in a presedntial campaign....i.e. "You are both Catholic, how will that effect your approach to governing?" Gosh, ever heard of separation of church and state, Martha?? Or , "What is it in your character that will make you a good vice presidnet blah, blah, blah,.....These questions belong on Oprah , not in a presidential campaign....I thought I was alone in my thinking until I read Glen Greenwald today....He friggin nailed it....see ya after the orangey....
He actually went beyond the sappy questions and went to the heart of what is wrong with all moderators from the village, and I am ashamed that I didn't catch it myself. Greenwald says Raddatz and others bring a preconceived bias to their questions....
Raddatz: Let's move to Iran, because there really is no bigger national security
Ryan: Absolutely
Raddatz: This country is facing..
Ryan's interruption made it difficult to hear whether Raddatz said there is " no bigger national security threat the country is facing or national security issue. Either way, the very idea that Iran poses some natonal security crisis for the U.S.-let alone that there is no greater national security issue " this country is facing"- is absurd. At the very least, highly debatable
Greenwald's point is well taken, it's all about framing. We are only going to discuss this issue within the framework of Iran being the most dangerous threat the U.S. is facing. Not discussing whether that is true or not...The next question Greenwald cites is even more disturbing..
Raddatz: Let's talk about medicare and entitlements. Both medicare and social security are going broke and taking a larger share of the budget in the process. Will benefits for Americans under these programs have to change in order for these programs to survive?
That social security is going broke-a core premise of her question-is to put it as generously as possible, a claim that is dubious in the extreme. "Factually false" is more apt.
Many apoligies for not having a link...the article is on the guardian web page, and for some reason I can't link it.....but do try and go read the whole article it is well worth it...
So Raddatz was a great moderator for the "village" for the rest of us....not so much...