« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Martha Raddatz Was Horrible

Journalists are, unsurprisingly, rallying around Martha Raddatz’s awesome performance as a moderator last night.

The general rule is that the side that loses thinks the moderator was terrible. I think Paul Ryan won the debate last night, assisted by Joe Biden’s braying jackass routine, but I think Raddatz was a terrible moderator.

Ben Domenech’s excellent Transom lays out why:

Good moderators can be active or disengaged: Lehrer was the latter, and most of the CNN cast is the former. One type essentially throws out a topic and lets the candidates duke it out according to their whim – the other tries to pry deeper, asking frequent followups to draw out answers as in an interview. But the important thing is to be consistent in your approach with both candidates. Raddatz was not. After her initial tough question about Libya to Biden, she spent the rest of the debate pressing Ryan on point after point without demanding the same specificity of Biden. She would let Biden run, allowing him to interrupt at whim, while interrupting Ryan to shift topics even within subject areas. What’s more, her apparent ignorance of domestic policy (she’s a foreign correspondent for ABC) led to a remarkable tilt toward international topics. The irony was that this ended up being a surprisingly parochial in focus, confined to the Middle East – she asked no questions about the EU, no questions about China, no questions about trade. For his part, Dan Drezner apologized on behalf of the five percent. http://vlt.tc/icp

By my tabulation, Raddatz asked more questions about foreign policy, national security, and the Defense budget than all other subjects combined. She asked one question about Medicare but mushed it together with Social Security, the upshot being that most of the answers were focused on Social Security reforms neither candidate has endorsed or even brought up on the trail. She asked, effectively, just one question about the economy – one! – while asking separate questions on Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Koran burning, DOD and the sequester. And it wasn’t for lack of time: Raddatz also found the time to ask such inane questions as “are you ever embarrassed by the tone” of negative campaign ads, and “what could you both give to this country as a man, as a human being, that no one else could?” (The proper answer, of course, is fire.) Raddatz will never be approved as a moderator again by any intelligent Republican campaign.

You should subscribe to the Transom anyway.

That lays out, better than I could, exactly why she was such an atrocious debate moderator. I think in the history of debate moderators, probably only John Harris of the Politico has done worse.

While her friends and colleagues in the media rally around her, let the record state she was, in reality, atrocious. But she had to feel right at home in the war zone that was Joe Biden’s flashing teeth.

COMMENTS

  • Common_Cents

    There were many at RS and even the campaign itself BEFORE the debate, said there is no problem with Raddatz. WHY WHY WHY would the RNC debate commission even agree to all liberal moderators? Why didn’t they point out Raddatz bias BEFORE????

    Its too late to bitch. WHAT did people expect? Really?

    I’m sorry but this one is on us for being foolish and stupid.

    When you have a duck in front of you, what do you expect it to do? Quack like a dog? Run like a dog? Wag its tail like a dog?

    Seriously? When is the Rep leadership going to wake up to the war the propaganda media has waged on us?

    Why does Rep leadership agree to continually run a 40 yd dash against dems with an anchor around our necks?

    Why do Republicans continue to BAIL out the boat of propaganda media bias, instead of trying to PLUG the damn hole???

  • commonsenseobserver

    Bear it, grit our teeth, and make sure ABC news gets kicked out of the WH Press Pool, as well as any government information, after 1/20.

  • Common_Cents

    Why does anyone think it was tilted towards foreign policy? And even the Presidential debates? It was decided before Libyan debacle because the DEMS and the propaganda media thought obama biden would have a big advantage on FP.

    Why did Raddatz lead with the Libyan massacre? To get it out of the way, then pound Ryan the rest of the night hoping people would forget about it.

    again I ask, why oh why do Republicans agree to this crap? You could see this coming miles and months away when both sides were agreeing to the debates.

    NOW we bitch about Raddatz favoring and her staying on foreign policy???? really???

  • jpkoch

    It is ironic that if Biden would have toned down his inner George Castanza he would have come off much better. But, I do agree with your evaluation of the Moderator. Raddatz was deplorable. Some speculate that she was intimidated by Biden’s lunatic demeanor. I find that hard to believe, as she clearly intended to assist Biden whenever possible.
    Last night was one of the strangest debates in memory. And for me, a complete waste of time. The only positive was Ryan’s refusal to join Biden’s manic episode of hysteria. And humorist Iowa Hawk believes that the Dems haven’t been this fired up since Howard Dean’s Scream or the Paul Wellstone LSD Funeral Party. In that narrow sense, Biden accomplished his mission.

  • Common_Cents

    The definition of insanity? Republicans offering themselves over and over on the sacrificial altar of DEM propaganda media, and expecting different results.

    HOPE is not a plan. HOPING a propagandist will change is futile.

    Even after the terrible agreement on debates/mods, we didn’t use the leverage BEFORE the debate to make an assault on Raddatz bias and obama connection. That would have helped moderate the liberal moderator. She would have been more careful if she was pressured. But we are too afraid of propaganda media backlash, wanting to be nice, putting the anchor around our own necks before the 40 yd dash.

  • texasref

    Don’t you just love how Raddatz would make a half-hearted attempt at fairness by telling Biden “quickly” several times, and then letting Biden drone on and on and on and on and on each time. She was trying to appear fair and yet behaved unfairly, all in the same debate.

  • texasref

    I would have asked each and every single time that I got interrupted (all 113 times between both of them) if I could finish my sentence. It was ridiculous. Of course this kept Ryan from hitting a home run–he wasn’t given enough room to swing his bat anything more than a bunt.

  • cakelady

    It seemed that Ryan had two opponents in this debate! He held his head up and plowed thru. I think I can trust him, over the angry man who looked and sounded at times like Nikita Kruschev pounding his shoe on the table at the UN, to be a dignified representative of me to the world.

  • texasref

    this has nothing to do with the wedding…she just blew it. Letting Biden drone on, interrupting Ryan 31 times, and challenging only Ryan to name a few.

  • texasref

    This is the RNC were talking about, CC, come on now, you know better than to ask. If Romney loses I’m going third party.

  • texasref

    Which, by the way, will become the dominant party soon after it starts (Tea Party), with Republicans being the crazy uncle in the basement party. If the establishment candidate can’t win in this climate then we need to find a new party. But I will hold my fire one more month. It’s still vote Republican for me. For now.

  • bk

    Sorry – thought I had deleted the above but it reappeared under “guest”. Welcome to Disqus I guess.

  • texasref

    I like Candy, surely she won’t be as ridiculous as Martha.

  • Common_Cents

    We have a third party, its called the Tea Party, but it will take over the carcass of the Republican party left behind by weak RINOS. It needs to be all out war in every local Republican precinct, taking it over from the ground up. Everyone needs to get involved.

  • ezman

    WOW–that must have been some wedding gift Michelle and Barry gave her.

  • http://www.baseballcrank.com Dan McLaughlin

    Has Raddatz done the Sunday shows as host? I think you need someone up there who has some experience. She’s clearly a knowledgeable and sharp interrogator on foreign affairs, but she didn’t know much about domestic policy and had no idea how to control the flow of the debate to make sure both sides got to speak.

  • vandalii

    The expectation was to have a moderator at all. The left doesn’t want to let on that there’s is the uncivil side of the discussion. They want to send soft balls toward the Dems, hard balls toward the Repubs hoping to trip up the Repub, all while maintaining decorum of civility, “There, see, we told you, the Repubs are meanies and don’t eve know what they’re talking about.”
    In this case, Biden, the junkyard dog, didn’t have a leash and both lefties came off looking particularly rude. Oops, they let their guard down. Hopefully undecided voters saw Dems intolerant incivility what was briefly exposed.

  • vandalii

    On the other hand, Ryan taking the moral high ground and deferring (properly) to the moderator may appeal to real undecideds who despise what this campaign cycle has become.

  • separatewayz

    My take on it was: (1) Biden over-compensated for the lackluster debate by BHO by being overly aggressive to the point of obnoxiousness; (2) Biden did land some blows on Ryan by challenging comments Ryan made in a passionate way; (3) #1 and #2 more-or-less cancelled each other out for anyone outside the Democratic base; (4) Biden may have energized the Democratic base somewhat and stopped a hard slide in the polls, but it came at a big cost; (5) Ryan did not land as many blow on Biden, but he avoided any gaffes and sounded knowledgeable (especially and somewhat surprisingly on foreign policy), which is itself an accomplishment; (6) Ryan, however, also came across and way too wonkish, but he was steady and avoided any damage to Romney; (7) independents who were undecided going into this debate remained so afterward, with probably many of them tuning out after the first 30 minutes, especially after seeing Biden’s demagoguery. The CNN poll seems to confirm much of this: 48% for Ryan, 41% for Biden. The CBS snap poll suggests that undecideds chose: 50% Biden, 31% Ryan as the winner. But although they have may chosen Biden as the “winner”, I don’t suspect many of those undecideds have moved their votes toward Obama/Biden because of last night. A casual poll of some independents that I know who watched some/all of the debate suggests that Biden’s behavior was extremely off-putting.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    She will probably be less bad, but not good, though it is possible she could stumble into fairness. My preference would be debates with no moderators, but people in jail want out…

  • fightnright

    Just want to add that I don’t disagree that Raddatz should not be approved as a moderator by future Republican candidates. I think both teams’ decisions noted in my first para above were completely misguided.

    I do believe that those who worked with Ryan were completely unprepared for his being from the outset both sandbagged and double teamed. I’m guessing his debate preppers expected the well-prepared, unflappable Ryan to be able to rise above a lib moderator’s customary snookering. Instead the liberal strategy proved to be a joint effort of heckling to make Ryan suffer an onstage meltdown to erode his essential reputation, in which Biden and Raddatz suffered an epic failure .

  • http://conservativemormonmom.blogspot.com ew88

    Her past and bias were sure pointed out at Breitbart. Many times over.

  • http://conservativemormonmom.blogspot.com ew88

    The problem is that “PC” stands for liberalism. Conservatives will never be cool with the PC crowd. Ever.

  • http://poorwilber.blogspot.com poorwilber

    Whenever the moderator becomes the focus of the debate, or enters or participates in the debate, the moderator has failed. The moderator should only introduce the topic, i.e. foriegn policy, taxes, economy, etc and let the candidates go after it. Let the candidates ask the questions. The moderator should only be there to insure each have equal time to respond…. thats it. When moderators shape the question with a preface that “critics say” or is loaded with a conclusion the candidate has to defend (to the moderator), their wrong in my opinion. If the candidates themselves can’t challenge their opponents record, then they shouldn’t be candidates.
    Second, you need a moderator that has the gonads to enforce the rules. Martha was a lightweight.

  • tngal

    I don’t see Candy Crawley or Bob Scheiffer behaving much better. The commission on Presidential Debates announced yesterday the topics he has selected for the third presidential debate. The theme is foreign policy and Schieffer says the topics would be

    America’s role in the world
    Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan
    Red Lines – Israel and Iran
    The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – I
    The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – II
    The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World
    Of course these are subject to change if there’s breaking news on the foreign policy front and they may not be in this order.
    Now, the theory is at the 2nd one, Crawley in her debate (its hers because, well, after all she’ll be debating Romney right?) will sit down with the audience prior to the debate, hear their questions and select which ones SHE thinks the world needs to know the answers to . I guess because she has her finger on the pulse of…..nevermind. They’ll have two minutes to answer but she will be given time to facilitate a follow up. So why does she need a follow up?
    http://www.debates.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=45&cntnt01origid=15&cntnt01detailtemplate=newspage&cntnt01returnid=80

  • csiamerica

    The debate was brilliant and included the moderator which I thought was a nice touch. In the future I would have her moderate all the debates.

  • tngal

    OK lefty, and (I know I’m going to hate myself for asking but…” ) just what reasons do you give for the debate being in your words “brilliant” and what do you mean by “included the moderator which I though was a nice touch”? You see, the site you have fallen into is a conservative site. We don’t mind lefty trolls dropping their opinions provided they are reasoned out. So, it works like this…you tell us how your logic works that it could come up with your ridiculous assessment. And then we can tell you where your logic failed. Its simple really. We are here to help.